Local churches may not have the finance or the all-powerful publicity machine that the agencies can bring to bear, but they must not be treated as passive actors who should just stand around and watch while the experts from overseas get on and do their stuff.
Some thoughts on my doctoral studies including one or two interesting (controversial?) conclusions and a few personal revelations.
Some thoughts and further information about John Chau and his mission to the Sentinelese and a good story about Bible translation.
The moral of the story seems to be that if you are interested in reaching people who haven't heard about Jesus, you might do better to get in touch with one of the "old fashioned" mission agencies.
If a church feels that the Lord is guiding them to support mission work in Heckmondwike, no-one from the outside should tell them that they shouldn't do this because Heckmondwike is "reached"
How should churches respond to the needs of the world at Christmastime?
How will we remind the church that it is more dangerous to be cautious than to be daring?
The bottom line is that we need each other and the church would be far healthier if we confessed our need of others rather than declaring that others need us.
I believe that the British church now concentrates on sending missionaries to places which have been reached by the Gospel, rather than to places where there are very few Christians.
If we concentrate our funds and our mission effort on places where people become Christians relatively quickly, we will be concentrating on places where, by definition, there are lots of Christians.