Meditate on these statements. We want to call everyone a missionary but is that wise?

There are those who advocate that we drop the word altogether. Others insist that it should be applied to all committed Christians. Stephen Neill has warned that if everybody is a missionary, nobody is a missionary. The Chinese have a proverb: “If two men feed a horse, it will lose weight; if two men keep a boat, it will soon leak.” What is everybody’s job is nobody’s job. If every Christian is a missionary, missionary work is bound to suffer. It is correct to say that every Christian is, or should be, a witness. It is not correct to say that every Christian is a missionary.

An illustration may help at this point. During World War II there was in this country total mobilization. No sector of the economy, private or public, was exempt from the war effort. Whether a person was driving a truck, or digging ditches, or filing vouchers, he was part of the total war effort. But none of these persons was in the same category as the men in uniform, who were known as “soldiers.” This term was not applied to everyone, not even to the workers in the munitions factories. It was reserved for the twelve million men under arms in the various branches of the Armed Services. Many of them never saw combat; some never even went overseas. The fact remains that by government statute they were in a class by themselves they played a unique role in the conduct of the war. No one suggested that “everybody” was a soldier. Soldiers were soldiers and civilians were civilians, even though both were totally involved in the war effort and, win or lose, shared the same fate.

The same kind of distinction should be made in the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged. The total resources of the Christian church should be thrown into the battle for the souls of men on a global scale, and every member of that church should regard himself as being involved in the total mobilization required by such an operation. But not every church member is a missionary. That term should be reserved for those who, like the soldiers in Uncle Sam’s army, necessarily fill a unique role in the overall operation. In this sense it is helpful to retain the term missionary and to invest it with full and proper significance.

When we say that the missionary fills a unique role we do not imply that he is better than others, simply that he is different. He is not necessarily more spiritual than the pastor, or even the layman, who remains at home. Nor will his reward at the judgment seat of Christ be any greater. He is the servant of Christ and will be asked the same questions and judged on the same basis as anyone else. Did he seek to promote his own glory or was he concerned solely for the glory of God (1 Co 10:31)? Was he motivated by some personal considerations or was he constrained by the love of Christ (1 Co 13:13)? Did he do his work in the energy of the flesh or in the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8)? If he can answer all three questions correctly he will have his reward; otherwise his work will be judged to be wood, hay, and stubble to be consumed in the fire (1 Co 3:1215). The missionary is not better than his fellow workers, just different.

To this end the King has given orders to His ambassadors. They are to go into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature, and make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19). All men everywhere are required to repent and believe the gospel (Acts 17:30). Only by so doing can they be delivered from the dominion of darkness and be transferred to the kingdom of light (Co 1:13). Nothing short of world conquest is the ultimate goal, and the King has given assurance that one day the kingdoms of this world are to become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ (Re 11:15). There is no ambiguity about the plan, no uncertainty about the outcome.

 J. Herbert Kane, Understanding Christian Missions,