I’m interviewing a missionary in Slovakia with the International Mission Board.

Why don’t you start out by telling us a little of where you’re from and what you’re currently doing?
I graduated from NC State University with a B.S. in Applied Math. Currently I am enrolled in the 2+2 International Church Planting degree program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.

2+2 is not an example of the kind of Applied Math you did at NC State is it?You are currently serving with the IMB with the Southern Baptist Convention in Slovakia. What is it that led you to minister in Slovakia?
Well my first ever mission trip was to Eastern Europe and to the Ukraine. God later used this experience, as well as some other things, to call me into full time ministry. In the process I returned to Eastern Europe, but this time to Slovakia, on a short term trip where I saw an opportunity to for me to return to Slovakia for a year long commitment. During this year in Slovakia I saw a disconnect between much of the ministry we were doing and actual church planting and multiplication. Thus, after my return to America I enrolled in seminary with a desire to return to Slovakia to work towards seeing churches planted and strengthened. God opened many doors to allow my family the opportunity to return to work for his glory in Slovakia.

What do you see as the missionary’s task?
I think that the missionary’s task is to be obedient to the Lord to go and make disciples of all nations. I also believe that this ministry of making disciples can be done in many forms, but ultimately I think that the Bible clearly shows that God’s vessel for spreading his fame is through his church. Thus, any missionary ministry should have an end focus of starting churches that will multiply and start other churches.

Why should be people go overseas when there is so much work to be done here in the United States?
Sure, this is a great question. There is also a rather simple answer in my opinion. I firmly believe that Jesus clearly says to “Go… into all nations.” To me this is a mandate that we should be going and sharing the Gospel to the nations. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be sharing the Gospel to those where we are, namely, at home in the States. And it is obvious that not all will go, and that not all can go, but that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said to “go”.

What have been your greatest challenges thus far on the mission field?
There are many challenges to being on the mission field. Most of them are directly tied to being a new culture. We respond and react according to our instincts which are culturally biased to our western, and more specifically American, culture. This can cause many misunderstandings and conflicts in the new culture as they interpret our words and actions based on their cultural filter, not ours. Another challenge has been the adjustment to the missionary life. In America, I always experienced a clear division between my school work, my job, and my family. If I was at home with my family, I was not focused on my job or on my school work. I would get out of the house to do my school work and my job was always away from home. Since being on the field, my entire life is part of my ministry as a missionary. I have found that being a missionary doesn’t mean leaving the home to go to a place to do the “job” of a missionary. My job requires me to be at home with my family, modeling a Christian family to our neighbors. It requires me to be at home all day studying language, including taking breaks to change a diaper or feed our daughter without feeling like my “task” is going unfulfilled. This has been a major challenge for me as a task oriented person. I have found out very quickly that my life now is not about completing tasks (i.e. planting churches, holding Bible studies, witnessing to “x” number of people), but it is about living out my faith in practical ways and building relationships with non-believers all the while working to accomplish the task of seeing people come to faith and group together with our believers.

How do you see the church’s relationship to sending missionaries?
I see the church as the major sending mechanism for worldwide missions. This is the model of the early church in the book of Acts. The church convened at the moving of the Spirit in Acts 13 to send out Paul and Barnabas, who then returned to the church in the end of Acts 14 to report what God had done through their obedience and faith. Thus, I think it is the church’s responsibility to teach Jesus’ command to “go” and then to support those who God does raise up to be sent out. The church should support missions financially, through prayer, through encouragement and through accountability. I think one of these that gets left out the most is accountability. The church should stay in contact with its members who are on the mission field on a regular basis. The accountability should help the missionary remain strong spiritually and to have specific goals that he is working towards in his ministry. In my context, a lot of this accountability is done from the IMB as the sending agency and arm of the SBC, but I still think there should be a stronger focus of the local churches to keep consistent contact with their own that are on the field. Even with the strong accountability I have from my fellow missionaries and leadership, it can never compare to those who know me well and intimately keeping me in line spiritually and helping me maintain my focus on my ministry.

Previous ArticleNext Article

This post has 2 Comments

  1. Is he still serving in Slovakia?
    can I get some contact info? email address, etc, etc?
    My wife and I are considering some type of mission trip with our two young daughters and Slovakia has been on our hearts. My wife was born in Slovakia, but her family escaped when she was 14….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

What Is Sunday Worship?

I’m gonna keep this simple, but hopefully not simplistic. As you consider your corporate gathering of believers (typically on the first day of the week), there are three ways to think about it. You can think of it as an event, a participation, or a transformation.

The Event Model can take on two modes: emotionally-driven or cognitively-driven. The emotionally-driven mindset, of course, could baldly mean that you show up to hear some great music and hear a message. You go to watch and experience something. The cognitively-driven mindset could mean that you highlight the sermon so much that it becomes the point of your showing up. You hear this a lot in evangelical churches that the sermon is the most important aspect of the worship experience. The problem with such thinking, though, betrays an onlooker mentality. That is, I go to church to observe and consider and think and have my thinking changed.

In this model, there is an I-Thou expectation of the worship service. I go to that. I consider that. I am separate from and participate in that. In other words, this kind of approach to the corporate gathering is apart from who I am. I go to there. I leave from there. Sure, we talk about taking the message home with us…but come on! You and I both know we forget what was said within 10 minutes of leaving the building. When we are confronted with traffic on the way to the buffet. And then, we get bored. Bored with our lives. Bored with our faith. We find greater joy in our team winning the game than in our eternal salvation won at the cost of the Son of God.

The Participation Model is a little bit better than the event model. This puts the onus on the believer to come to the service seeking to be engaged in other people at church. For all the talk about this being a need in churches, and people nodding their heads in agreement…this does not happen in reality. People cognitively ascend to this truth, but they don’t fully grasp this truth.

If they do grasp a hold of this participation model, it often devolves into judgmentalism (others aren’t as serious about their faith as you are) or complacency (I asked someone how their walk with God is going and they gave me the cold shoulder). So what’s the problem with this model? Write simply it remains in the realm of I-Thou. That is, I bring something to you. I come to serve you. I am apart from and wholly different from you. At its root, it is simply another (albeit more spiritual rendition) of the event model. 

The third, and I believe more biblical model (of course!), is the Tranformational Model. This way of approaching the Sunday morning gathering sheds itself of the event. It doesn’t come in judgment of the service–I didn’t like that song. I liked the sermon. I really engaged with God this morning. Wow, what a wonderful time. Instead, it views Sunday morning as another step in my being conformed into the image of Jesus. It does see it as an event you come to. It is something we participate in. But preeminently it embraces the fact that over time we are being changed by the service itself. 

What does this look like? Well, it understands that every time we attend an event or participate in a service, we are slowly changing. You are much more different from the fifth football game you attended, than the first. You understand the language, the traditions, the cheers. 

So it is with a church service…and this is where it gets a bit thorny. With the typical evangelical liturgy (and it is a liturgy) of two fast songs, two slow songs, a sermon, and dismissal, we are slowly becoming consumers. Or better put, our already-ingrained consumer mentality is reinforced as we observe (and maybe participate). We watch the stage. We critique the songs–or what the song leader was wearing. We sit down and hear someone wax eloquently–or not. 

I fear that much of the problems we see in modern evangelicalism stem from us offering goods and services to people and not inviting them into be transformed. This fact is betrayed in much of the assumptions underlying decisions made on how the liturgy ought to roll. For example, since we need to be engaging and winsome in our communication of the Gospel, we need to play this popular radio song and do a Jesus juke to talk about how real love is only found in Jesus. Of course I’m not saying messages and songs ought to be fuddy-duddy and boring! Stop putting baby in the corner. 

What I am saying is that churches ought to be very clear in what they are shaping their people into becoming. We ought to understand that we are in the business of transformation–from one degree of glory to another. Not filling seats. Not being entertaining and relevant at the cost of depth. 

This is why at Christ the Redeemer, we have been intentional in our liturgy. We believe that the primary purpose of the Sunday morning gathering is the transformation of people. We have an explicit order to our service that follows the biblical storyline of Creation>Fall>Redemption>Consummation. Over time, people’s being is changed. It unwittingly becomes easier to say “I’m sorry, please forgive me” because you are trained to confess your sin every week. You more readily accept forgiveness because you are trained to hear God’s Word of Forgiveness to you after confessing. You more readily come to fellowship with God in spite of and because of your sin because you are trained that at the Lord’s Table you find satisfaction and rest for your souls.

Yes, Sunday morning is an event. But not merely so. It is something we participate in. But not merely so. It is preeminently another step in our being transformed into the likeness of Jesus. The primary goal of Sunday morning is our transformation through intentional liturgies.

Brief Thoughts on Church Membership (altogether incomplete)

I have been reflecting on the subject of church membership for the last few weeks. This stems from planting a church and having folks join who are members of existing churches. This also stems from folks who joined our church plant and have moved their membership–both issues had to do with distance to our new location and a desire to be involved in a more specific way to those who attend another church for purposes of ministry (both great reasons!).

My thoughts haven’t just been a result of circumstances. Rather, they come from a desire to think theologically about this issue.

First, I want to make clear that membership in a local church is the primary means of discipleship in the Christian journey. We make commitments to others to love and serve and be loved and be served by others. It is a beautiful and necessary commitment that we take way too lightly.

BUT too often pastors and church leaders speak about church membership in very unhelpful terms. We speak about it being like a marriage. It most certainly is not. It is not a covenant either. Scripture speaks about our membership in the Body of Christ. The local congregation is a physical manifestation of that reality. Everything we do is in the context of local–geographically and temporally. My fear is that church bodies can begin to assume that members of a local congregation cannot leave. Much like the Hotel California, people are often guilted in staying. People are made to think they are being less committed to the mission of the Church (yes, that’s a large C, signifying the Church Universal).

We have a membership class coming up for Redeemer in a few weeks. I take great pains to help people see that our congregation is one among many faithful churches in time and space. We do not have a corner on the market of faithfulness. We are one very small player on the great stage of history. The more we recite this truth, the more humble and grateful we will become. Every time we say this, we are reminded that God’s purposes are much larger than us. We are reminded that we have certain proclivities and characteristics that may set us apart by way of trends and passions. We are reminded that there are many other brothers and sisters seeking to do the same thing as us–take up our crosses daily and follow Jesus (individually and corporately).

One of the things I make sure to tell people is that if they want to make a commitment to be a member of Redeemer, it ought to be based on it mission and vision. We try to keep it very simple, as you’ll see from our website. How we go about accomplishing these things are called our Core Values. That’s how we seek to accomplish the vision right now in 2018.

But the Church is an organization, but it is also a living organism. As with all organisms, change is inevitable. Indeed, it is desired. As human beings we necessarily grow and change if we are alive. It is inherent to the very definition of life. Change is beautiful. Inevitably, our church will grow as people are added to our congregation. This is beautiful because it enables and empowers people to contribute their gifts and passions to the whole, and for the whole to shape the particular person.

Over time, there may be people who have changes of convictions for how “to do” church. That is, they may disagree with our emphasis on church planting, mission, and mercy. They may disagree with our commitment to simplicity. At the end of the day, as a pastor I want people to be freed to serve and be served by others. If they are staying at Redeemer just because they made a commitment in 2018, that is not healthy. Rather, my desire is that they be involved. Intimately involved in the growth and development of our church. If they cannot do so, it is healthier that they find a congregation where they can faithfully live out their convictions.

This doesn’t have to be an ugly thing. Rather, it can be a very beautiful thing where we are again reminded and remind each other that we do no have a corner on the market of biblical fidelity. Jesus promised to build his Church. I get to be a small observer in that construction project–stone upon stone.

We want people to be a part of Redeemer who believe in the vision and mission and who want to play an integral part in seeing that vision become a reality in our small corner of the universe. So when folks leave, we don’t need to guilt them. Sure, we will miss folks as they leave, but may we depart to meet again.

Less Hype. More Humility.

Please. Embedded in our consumeristic culture, there is the assumption that newer is better than older–though I prefer aged beef and cheddar to new. There is the assumption that grand and renovated and powerful is preferable to meek and lowly and weak.

The church often adopts this form of communicating in an effort to gather people into its doors. “God is doing awesome things here at Church _______.” The fact is that God is doing awesome things everyday and everywhere. He’s sustained your life. He’s given you sight and hearing and legs. And if you have none or only one of these, he’s still given you life and a mind to engage the world around you. Truly miraculous. What is more, is God not also doing something in the old, decrepit church that meets faithfully every Sunday? Is God not at work in the mundane? Is the changing of laundry and washing of dishes and working through an argument devoid of God’s presence?

I see so many churches trying to drum up excitement about the latest outreach or project, when what our culture needs is the staying power and sobriety of faithfulness in the ho-hum drudgery of going to a job you hate or a marriage that is contentious. What we need is not more hype, but more humility. More service and less heavy-handedness. We need more gentleness and less power grabs.

If we don’t, what then becomes of the senior citizen who is tired? What becomes of the baby who is sleeping? What becomes of the unemployed and outcast and burdened? They are forgotten. They are seen as less valuable because they aren’t producing the kind of energy requisite for assumed faithfulness to the disciples’ call.

In reality, we need less loud voices and red faces and sweaty brows and more silence and calmness and a deep well of contentment.