September 01, 1986 by

USCWM Unfair to Amsterdam '86

I must say that I was most disappointed at the very negative lone of the articles on Amsterdam '86 appearing in the July issue of Mission Frontiers. The differences between missionaries and evangelists are quite clear in the minds of most of your readers, I am sure, but it seemed to me that that point was particularly belabored.

Instead of rejoicing in the positive aspects of this very special gathering of believers and in all that was accomplished for eternity during those ten days together (nut to speak of what the Lord is doing and will continue to do in the days ahead as a result), what came through was nothing but negatives, as ICIE apparently did not accomplish the goals or aspirations that USCWM set for it.

We are all part of one body and Let us rejoice in our diversity and die fact that the cause of Christ is being advanced through many different channels. Surely the Holy Spirit will move "wherever He pleases" and not along the specific channels we set for Him.

The work of die USCWM is vital mid to be commended, but it does not lessen the scope and effectiveness of oilier endeavors done in the name of Christ and for the extension of His kingdom.

R. Love
Winnipeg, MB

I have been concerned and prayerful about the Cover Story on Amsterdam '86. I appreciate the tremendous need for actual missionaries who will go to reach out cross culturally. But I wonder if it would not have been better to find out before casting a note of "sadness" in a publication about the Amsterdam Conference.

I wonder how many of those in attendance are working cross culturally. I know that our co¬translator of the Quechua New Testament in Bolivia is definitely working in a culture not his own even though the people group he is giving his life for speaks the same language in which he was born. He was there.

I don't know how others have reacted to the article. My own reaction was a fear lest the "arm" was saying to the "foot": "You didn't do it right."

Grace Sherman
San Jose, CA

Ed.: You are not the only one who did us the favor of writing in to help as see ourselves as we "come through" to readers. Thank you for the time you took and for your kindly, thoughtful letter. We actually thought we had been very appreciative, giving even a "glowing' report. Looking back over the material of our three different writers on the Amsterdam assembly (two who had been there). I can see exactly what you say.

Please note, however, that our negatives were not against the conference, but, curiously, against the implied negatives of the conference against the mission enterprise. Much was said about the need for evangelistic organizations we heartily agree with all of that find no fault with such concern, said nothing against evangelists and their work.

But the strong implication (especially in the two media reports cited) was that the growth of national churches overseas gloriously ow modes the need for missionaries or mission organizations.

At no time in the last 200 years has the public, secular reputation of mission agencies and missionaries been lower.

Even many traditionally "mission minded" congregations are wondering if national evangelists aren't cheaper and better This month we take issue with unduly rosy implications of a newer, easier way to get the job done through "native missionaries," We try tactfully to deplore the (widespread) tearing down of the traditional (and yet very up to date) agencies in favor of this new approach, which though good is not all that is needed. We don't think we're just defending butter against margarine. We are trying to make sure our readers do understand the fairly subtle contradiction in terms which we feel is inherent in the very phrase "native missionary."

Having just come through a week-long conference (ending last night. Oct 12) which for the first time in history brought Third World mission leaders together from over 40 countries, l am amazed and pleased that not just evangelists but missionaries and mission organizations are growing like never before in the former mission lands. I think we would be equally critical if someone claimed missionaries are better than nationals at evangelistic work just as we question whether evangelists working among their own people can take the place of people - Asians or Americans - who will go where they will no longer be "native," and where there are not yet even any native evangelists.

We are not mad at anyone. If we belabor the distinctions inherent in frontier missions, we think we are simply carrying out our mandate, the mandate of a bulletin designed to focus on Mission Frontiers. We certainly apologize for leaving negative impressions about other kinds of gracious, blessed, Gospel ministry. That was surely not our intent.

Ralph D. Winter

For the Record.

Page 24 of Vol. 8 (4), April 1986 of Mission Frontiers has the heading "Church Assembly Declares Mission to Hindus a 'Preposterous Idea" That is in itself a conflation of two unrelated items in the text one refers to the Church of Scotland General Assembly in 17%. the other to someone speaking in the Rouse of Commons at an unspecified date.

However, the quote from Oswald Smith is itself very seriously in error. One speaker in the debate at the 1795 Assembly said, "To spread abroad the knowledge of the Gospel among barbarous and heathen nations seems to me highly preposterous giving as his reason that in his view "Men must be polished and refined in their manners before they can be properly enlightened in religious truths."

No doubt this is 'good copy" and has long been a source of evangelical indignation in Scotland and elsewhere. However, this was not the motion of the Church which, passed by 58 votes to 44, was that the time was not right for the Assembly to authorize a special collection for missions. This was not unrelated to a series of bad harvests and Britain's being at war with revolutionary France.

The successful motion also resolved that the Church would "embrace with zeal and thankfulness any future opportunity to contributing, by their exertionsm to the propagation of the Gospel of Christ, which Divine Providence may hereafter open." In 1824 the Church of Scotland did agree to establishing its own overseas mission.

I would be grateful if you would put the record straight. Smith's statement is a slander on the Church of Scotland.

Rev, Dr. W.J.
Roxbough Seminar Theoloji Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Lyall's Book Misrepresented

I read your review of China.' The Church's Long March in (ME, June 1986). I read that book partly. I read thoroughly Lawrence's The Church in China and Lyall's God Reigns in China.

I totally disagree with you concerning these two books:

Lawrence's book is more an emotional book, there is not that depth, not that insight in the spiritual battle in China. I would never give it to my friends who are interested in China.

Lyall's book is totally different. have been giving that book to many of my friends, also to missionaries in Africa, Papua New Guinea,. . —  and they share that book with their fellow missionaries, It is widely read. I agree with James Hudson Taylor III: "The reader who wants to know what God has been doing in China these past thirty years, especially about the unbelievable growth of the Church, will find in the second half of God Reigns in China a clear and reliable account."

The insights Lyati gives into the nature of the Church and Marxist society, into the development of the house church movement, into the Three Self Patriotic Movement are very great contributions to us concerned Christians in our understanding of the Church in China today.

Bertha Liu Bradenton, FL

(Ed: God Reigns in China is available through Mission Frontiers' Book Service inside back cover.)

Speak Up!

I read your news item about the Christians arrested in Egypt (Mission Frontiers, July 1986, p. 16). I've written a letter to the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington on their behalf. For anyone who would write him, his address is:

The Arab Republic of Egypt Office of the Embassy 2310 Decatur Place Washington, DC 208.

Letters from abroad have proven historically to be of definite influence in favor of Gods people under persecution (e.g.. Russia).

Lee Gilchriest Ventora, CA

Mr. Gilchriesr attached a teller addressed to the Egyptian ambassador:

I am writing as a concerned citizen regarding the plight of several Christians arrested in your country for their religious beliefs. In particular, these are: (and here he quotes information contained in the July article).

As freedom loving citizen and human being I find the above actions taken by your Government to be abhorrent and unjustified. I request that you exert your influence as the Egyptian Ambassador so that the above persons will be released and that the draft law will not come into effect. Thank you, Your Excellency, for your time and influence in these matters.

Respectfully yours.     

Ed: See related news item, p. 10.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to:

Editor. Mission Frontiers C/o USCWM 1605 Elizabeth Street Pasadena. CA 91104.