THE BIBLICAL PATTERN

After His resurrection, our Lord met with His disciples only a few times in Jerusalem. He, as well as some angels which appeared, told them to go to a mountain which He had appointed in Galilee. There He came and met with them, “speaking of things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” His words are summarized in what we call the great commission, "All authority is given unto me in the heavens and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…”

But where did He say they should go?

Back to Jerusalem. That’s where they would find “all nations.” In fact, He led them back there Himself for His final meeting with them at the time of His ascension. And told them to stay there until He baptized them with His Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:5 we are told how “devout men from every nation” were visiting in Jerusalem. From this fact it is obvious what our Lord meant when He said they should go tell all nations of His death and resurrection. “All nations” had come to them.

The great Hebrew historian Josephus wrote that during the first century nearly a million pilgrims would gather in Jerusalem for the festivities from Passover to Pentecost. So Jerusalem was the place where the apostles would find men from all the nations of the Roman empire: Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers of Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Crete, Arabia, etc. (Acts 2:9-11).

It seems implied in the New Testament record that all of the converts on the Day of Pentecost were foreign visitors. They were convinced by hearing the Galilean apostles miraculously speak to them in their native languages (Acts 2:6-8), which was a reversal of the Tower of Babel where God originally created the nations (Genesis 11:7-9). That’s why Paul would later write: “Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe but to them that believe not” (I Corinthians 14:22). The nations of mankind began from Babel when God scattered them all over the world by languages. He gave them up temporarily and limited His witness on earth to one nation, the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the one nation was temporary. All the while it was God’s purpose to regather the nations through His only Son, as is explained in Isaiah 54 and quoted in Galations 4:27. That’s why when God called Abraham He told him how he would be the spiritual father of many nations because through one of his descendents “all nations” would be blessed.

Following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the ingathering of new disciples at Pentecost, those 3000 converts entered immediately into a fellowship of believers where they shared in teaching, breaking of bread and prayers (Acts 2:42).

How long this lasted we are not told, but my guess is that it was only for a few months. After Stephen was stoned there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad except the apostles (Acts 8:1).

This is crucial to the strategy. Many traditionalists quote Acts 1:8 as evidence that we should go “to the uttermost part of the earth.” But if we compare Acts 8:1 we discover that the original apostles themselves stayed in Jerusalem. They did not go to foreign countries. Rather, the foreign visitors went back to their homelands as ambassadors for Christ. That’s how the witness of the Apostles extended to the “uttermost parts.” And thus was fulfilled our Lord’s prayer in John 17:20: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word.”

Most of the 11 original apostles (missionaries) apparently stayed on in Jerusalem for many years. In later chapters of Acts, at least 20 years afterwards, they were still there.

Some traditional missionaries of our day have tried to impose 19^th century colonial traditions onto the New Testament record by saying that the original apostles were disobedient. That’s pure nonsense. Our concept of going to work in foreign countries is simply not to be found anywhere in the New Testament.

When God would have a witness for Himself in Ethiopia, He did not send Philip there as a resident missionary. He sent Philip (Acts 8:26) to reach a prominent Ethiopian who was away from home, and then sent that Ethiopian back to his own people with the gospel message.

Only twice in the New Testament is there any reference to one of the 11 original apostles going outside of Palestine.

One is in Galatians where Paul tells about Peter visiting the church in Antioch several years after it was established. But what happened? He brought along his Old Testament Hebrew custom of segregation and split the church. You can bet those dear brothers sent old Peter back to Jerusalem on the next available chariot (or merchant ship, perhaps).

Some say Peter also went to Babylon because in his first epistle he sent greetings from others in “Babylon.” But I disagree with the idea that he went to Mesopotamia. "Babylon" was a code word for Jerusalem, the center from which most of the persecution and terrorism against Hebrew believers was being directed at that time. Jerusalem is also called, in a spiritual sense, “Sodom and Egypt” in Revelation 11:8. True Hebrew believers in the New Testament are collectively called “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). Hebrews still outside of Christ, and thus not reconciled to God, had been "broken off the olive tree" of God's family and were in bondage under the control of legalistic, hypocritical Pharisees, twice referred to as “the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Their bondage was equated with the 70 years of Babylonian captivity in the Old Testament. So it was only natural that believers in the Messiah would refer to “Jerusalem which . . . is in bondage with her children” (Galatians 4:25) as "Babylon."

The other mention of an original apostle being outside of Palestine is in Revelation where John was on the island of Patmos. From what he wrote we can deduce that rather than doing apostolic work he was probably visiting numerous churches in that area, especially the seven that are named in chapters 2 and 3. He did not go as a pioneer missionary to plant new churches in unevangelized areas. He went as a brother to visit his fellow (native) believers who had been there for several years. There are also references about other Judaeans going abroad to visit churches already established. But only Agabus went to bless them. Others that are mentioned went to cause sectarian divisions.

So how did the gospel spread to every area of the Roman empire in one generation? It seems impossible to us if there were no mission boards. No Bible schools. And no “cross cultural missionaries” being sent out in the colonial sense of the 19th century.

We tend to overlook the strategy because of its simplicity. It leaves no room for what I heard my friend Ralph Winter of the U. S. Center for World Mission in Pasadena call “the missionary industry.” In other words, “big business.”

In Acts 11:19 we are told that those who were scattered abroad (Acts 8:1-4) traveled as far as Phenice, a possible reference to the chief port city on the island Crete. Acts 2:11 mentions Cretes being in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. They went home and started churches.

The record continues: they traveled to Cyprus (from whence came Barnabas and his nephew, John Mark) and presumably started churches. As others did in Antioch.

In his epistle to the believers in Rome, Paul sends greetings to the church in this house and the church in that house and the churches in other houses. Who started these churches? No "professional missionary" had ever been to Rome.

The key is in Acts 2:10. Strangers (pilgrims) from Rome were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Paul mentions two of them in Romans 16:7. He says Andronicus and Junius were in Christ before he was, which means they turned to Christ at Pentecost and were driven out of Jerusalem in the wave of persecution that followed the stoning of Stephen. With no Bible school or seminary training, no mission board or sending agency, they went home and started churches. Paul says they “are of note among the apostles” (missionaries). I believe he meant that these two pioneers were noteworthy missionaries. But by 19^th Century colonial standards they wouldn’t qualify as missionaries because they didn’t work “cross culturally.” They went home to Rome and worked among their own people.

Now let’s go back to Antioch. Apparently that was the first place where non-Hebrews were taken into the fellowship of believers. The 3000 who turned to Christ at Pentecost included both “Judaeans and proselytes.” When some of these new believers returned to Antioch they preached the Word at first to none but Judaeans only. But Greek speaking men of Cyprus and Cyrene (on their way home), when they came to Antioch, began to speak to the Greeks (probably their own relatives), preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number of Greeks believed and turned to Christ (Acts 11:21). But they had not become Hebrew proselytes, so a new title was needed. Hence the first use of the word "Christian." This probably happened before Peter went to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10) because chapter 11 beginning at verse 19 is a continuation of chapter 8:1-4.

When tidings of these things came to the original apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 11:22) they decided to send someone to evaluate the situation. But who could they send? None of the Galileans knew Greek. Answer: send Barnabas, a native of Cyprus. Although a foreigner in Palestine, he had escaped being driven out of Jerusalem during the earlier persecution because he owned property and had roots there (Acts 4:36-37). His sister, Mary, mother of John Mark, owned a house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Greek was his mother tongue, so he could communicate well in Antioch.

It’s interesting that the Jerusalem apostles told Barnabas to go “as far as Antioch.” There was no thought of sending him out as a pioneer missionary in the colonial sense. His commission was to go visit an established church and bring a report back to the apostles in Jerusalem.

But when Barnabas came to Antioch his life turned around. He discovered what the Christian experience was all about. Instead of going back to Jerusalem he went on to Tarsus to find Saul and brought him back to Antioch. Three years (Galatians 1:18) after God had called Saul, the Jerusalem church sent him home to Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts 9:30). He and Barnabas had been close friends in Jerusalem, so it was natural for them to get together again in Antioch.

Traditionalists like to speak of the church at Antioch as a "sending" church. But they fail to see what actually happened. Antioch was a crossroads gathering place of Greek speaking people from many areas. The church there was a diverse Greek congregation. The five Antioch leaders mentioned in Acts 13:1 all came from other places. There must have been dozens more. When the Holy Spirit spoke, it was not to send out missionaries “cross culturally.” Rather, He sent His servants back to their own people.

The time had come for Barnabas to go home to his native Cyprus where Greek was the local language. And Saul (Paul) went with him. Later they would travel up into the environs of Cilicia, homeland of Paul. Paul and Barnabas would be right at home in all these Greek speaking cultures.

Eventually, Barnabas settled permanently in Cyprus. Paul’s life work was within the area where his native Greek tongue was the principal language. Once when he thought of going to Asia and Bithinia (Acts 16:6-7) he was restrained by the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Lord called him to go over into the Greek language areas of Macedonia and Achaia. But one of the first souls he won after he landed at Philippi was Lydia, a business woman from Thyratira in Asia. It is quite likely that she planted the first church there after her return. God’s way for Paul to plant churches in Asia was to reach Asians who were away from home. While in Corinth he won Aquila, who was born in Pontus, then took him and his wife Priscilla back to Asia and left them there to plant new churches (Acts 18:18-19).

Never did Paul exhort his disciples to go work in foreign countries where they would not know the languages. Nor did he encourage any church he fathered to “send out missionaries.” That whole 19^th Century concept is totally foreign to the New Testament.

I do not say these things to put down our modern way of doing things. As I said at the beginning, the evangelical missionary movement of past 200 years has been the most redemptive force in human history. God has used and blessed colonial mission boards just as He has used other present day institutions that have no precedent in Scripture. Church buildings. Sunday schools. Bible colleges. Theological seminaries. Christian day schools. Radio broadcasts. The servants of our Saviour have found many unique and ingenious ways to serve Him on this earth, and we should pray for and support all that appear to be fruitful.

I have but one purpose for pointing out the Biblical pattern for Christian expansion and church growth. It is to defend my thesis against those who try to use the authority of Scripture to condemn this book, and to further perpetuate colonialism.

For the past 50 years I have preached the need for reform in the way we do missionary work. And inevitably I have met with opposition from leaders of traditional missions. Their chief weapon has been to accuse me of heresy. Not knowing what the Scriptures actually teach on this subject, they have used isolated verses to give divine sanction to the way they operate. Anyone who suggests an alternative to the colonial approach is likely to be charged with transgression of the Word of God. The organization with which I served Christ 40 years ago (International Students, Inc.) was called "a cult denying the great commission" by Dale Crowley, a radio preacher in Washington.

When our Lord was similarly accused, His reply was, “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold to the traditions of men. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions.”

What prompted Dr. Crowley's opposition was an article I wrote about the need to phase out colonialism in foreign missions. I recommended withdrawing all American missionaries from poorer countries and using our financial resources instead to help indigenous missions which are usually ten times more effective than we are within the context of their own cultures. What we spend sending an American family overseas to go to language school for three years (then come home on furlough and forget most of it) would support 50 to 100 native missionaries who already know the local languages. Apparently, Dr. Crowley looked upon this teaching as a threat to traditional missions. As have many others. But I have continued to repeat it over and over again.

Granted, indigenous missions weren't there when pioneer European missionaries first went out 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago in some countries. But today (2004) no less than 6000 indigenous missions have more than 300,000 missionaries on the fields of the world, many with no regular financial support. Tens of thousands more would go out if financial support were available to provide for their families while they are gone. The best thing we can do for the cause of Christ in "mission field" countries is to get behind these indigenous ministries by providing the financial support they need, and then they will finish the job.

But our traditions hold us back. Tradition dictates that we keep on sending out "our missionaries." We published the article that upset Dr. Crowley in 1960. Vehement responses also came to us from several other evangelical leaders in the U.S. and Canada. Clyde Taylor, head of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association at that time, told me quite frankly that EFMA leaders had "gone through it with a fine tooth comb" looking for statements they could condemn as contrary to the traditional approach. A former missionary to China, Dr. Nelson Bell (father of Billy Graham's wife Ruth), wrote me a very strong letter saying, in summary, "Christian works on the field can't possibly get along without us being there to guide them."

However, let it be said that the number of favorable responses we received to that editorial far outnumbered those who disagreed. The opponents were all involved with traditional colonial missions. Most of the ones who approved were citizens of “mission field” countries whose work had been made difficult by competition from “the rich foreigners.” As the word spread around the world that an American mission leader had dared to speak out boldly to present their point of view, a chorus of encouragement swelled among the ranks of indigenous ministries, and my heart was cheered. Even some traditional American missionaries expressed agreement, like one with the African Inland Mission who said he had come to exactly the same conclusions soon after he arrived in Africa.

The traditional way of doing missionary work is not only without Biblical precedent but is also out of focus for our time. Having established that it has no basis in Scripture, I want to tell you why we need to phase out the old and find new, more Biblical ways to work in the future. But first let me tell you a bit about where I am coming from.