Deputation/Furlough:
An Indictment
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary:
Deputation: 1. a deputing or being deputed 2. a group of persons, or a single person, appointed to represent others; a delegation.
Furlough: a leave of absence; esp. a leave granted to military personnel for a specified period. vt. 1. to grant a furlough to 2. to lay off (employees) esp. temporarily
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:
Deputation: no reference
Furlough: no reference
I lack the source materials with which to track the development and
usage of these terms as they now pertain to mission work. The only connection
that occurs to me is that a missionary is one deputed as a representative
of a particular mission field, making others aware of its need of preachers
of the Gospel. As there is no Biblical precedent for the existing phenomena
of deputation and furlough, I suspect that these customs have gradually developed
through mission societies and boards as they have attempted to maintain and
supervise their respective projects. This leads quickly to the conclusion
that such customs cannot be binding upon anyone except those who have chosen
to submit themselves to the authority of one of these organizations.
It is time for an objective evaluation. Should we allow ourselves to go with the flow without Scriptural justification for our actions? How dare we to perpetuate what amounts to just so much religious custom in the one area that is vital to the life of the church? Missions is the reason for our existence. Just because we are not doing it the wrong way (the board system is an anathema among us) does not imply that we are presently doing it the right way or the best way.
Perhaps a missionary's point of view would be profitable to you. If I err in my observations, it will be due to my limited experience and lack of historical background. Please give consideration to the following thoughts with the same objectivity and sincerity with which I hope to express them. My purpose is not to lash out and sound radical. Nor do I expect dramatic change where the present system has already been entrenched for years. Hopefully, young churches and pastors would take a fresh look at their missionary obligations before they unthinkingly slide into the present way of doing things.
I would not want this essay to be construed as an attack on any individual
nor as an indirect solicitation of funds. It is meant to be an indictment
against a system which has long needed to be exposed and reevaluated. So,
please take it at face value. My desire is to see more churches truly committed
by faith to the effective propagation of the Gospel through their worldwide
mission endeavors. I do not expect to be agreed with on every point.
It works nicely for smaller churches that are looking for a way to have a part in world missions. However, the same system leaves room for abuse by pastors and churches that get to be called "missions-minded" without having more than a nominal commitment to any particular missionary or to the cause in general. It would be nice to see chapter and verse to substantiate the following formula:
50 projects x $25/month = fulfilling the Great Commission
It is certainly a practical and safe formula to follow. You see, if
the church gets in a crunch and has to cut back or suspend the missionary's
support, it should not affect him enough to force him off the field. If the
missionary bombs out, the church won't notice too much. There will be a minimum
of grieving over the abandoned field. The failure will not reflect directly
on any particular church. No one will have to say, "Our brother had
to come back because we dropped his support." All the way around,
no one will have to feel too burdened, or sad, or responsible for what happened.
The way the present system is used
reflects a dangerous attitude: missions is something tacked on, extra-curricular,
an exciting hobby, of secondary importance. Rather than what it really is:
the heartbeat, survival and prosperity of the Lord's work in general and of
his churches in particular.
In such a system, passing the buck
is endemic. Just as we can talk about the church in a generic sense, we can
talk about missions in the same way. We are committed to the cause, but not
to any particular cause. "I love missionaries", but "I
don't love any particular missionary enough to go out on a limb for him."
