Receptivity

So I’ve been noticing a lack of comments on this blog lately. That means one of two things –

1. Nobody really reads these anymore – the blog reading days have passed. Or…
2. Our content is not interesting enough and unworthy of comment.

I can understand this…I have read many blogs and thought, “I really have nothing to say to that”. To see what the problem is, I thought I would throw out an issue that’s worthy of discussion and ask for your thoughts, O faithful blog readers. What do you think about this…

“These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11

I think it’s a proven biblical fact that there are some cultures in the world that are more receptive to the gospel than others. The Bereans were obviously more receptive to the gospel than the Thessalonicans. I don’t think it was just that Paul ran into some people in Berea who happened to be open. I think that the culture in Berea was more receptive to the truth of the gospel and lined up Paul’s teachings against the Old Testament to see if his teachings were true.

Now that my best friend is giving his life in the service of poor and dying people in Uganda and having incredible success, I’ve often had this thought…

Is our time as evangelists (Christians who are obeying the great commission) best spent in the regions of the world that are most receptive to the gospel?

Should receptivity be a factor in choosing where we take our missions trips and plant our churches?

I’ll never forget a conversation that I had with missionary Richard Michalski on a mission trip to the Ukraine. He was pouring out his convictions on this subject in between spoonfuls of pasta. He told me that if you added up all the dollars spent on evangelism in a certain nation and divided that by the number of souls that were coming to Christ you would have a “cost per soul” ratio.

He told me that the cost per soul in the USA was around $10,000. So for every 10,000 dollars that we spend on evangelism in our country, 1 person comes to Christ. The shocking part was still to come. He said that in the Ukraine, the cost per soul was around $1. In Africa? A mere 10 cents. So if we sent our 10,000 dollars to Africa instead of reaping 1 soul in America, we would see 100,000 people come to Christ. He talked about how there are regions of the world that are under a “grace for harvest”.

Now I’m not sure where he got those figures and if they’re exactly accurate. But he does bring up an interesting point. Should we be focusing our money and man power endeavoring to reach a culture that is mostly closed to the gospel (like much of the western world) when there are millions of people in other parts of the world who have never heard the gospel and are very receptive to the message?

Or to make it even more personal – Why am I living in an area that is statistically unreceptive to the gospel when I could be living in a region and helping reap a massive harvest?

Should receptivity be a factor? Or should we be specifically commanded by the Spirit of God in every mission trip, church plant and choice of residence? Obviously he wants a witness in the hard mission fields of France, Germany, Spain, Japan and the like. Did Paul have the direct command of Christ to go to each city? Or did he just preach wherever he went? Sometimes that seems clear…sometimes not.

It’s clear that God’s plan is to redeem every tribe, tongue and nation. But does it make more sense to start with the receptive regions of the earth so they can be part of the army of missionaries that flood the unreceptive areas?

I know that I’m living in direct response to the call of God to live in Nampa, ID. But as FLC continues to grow in number and influence, I’m realizing that God is calling our church to have global impact. The question is…where do we begin?

I’d love your thoughts on this one...