I think it's safe to say that as Christians we are called to make disciples. I can say this after various studies into the actual meaning of Jesus' vague command: "Go and make disciples…" (OK, so I'm a little slow). Having been involved in foreign missions to one degree or another for over 20 years, and a full time missionary for the past twelve, I find it embarrassing that only recently have I begun to wrestle with the how of fulfilling this command. Christian history is ripe with amazing stories of God's grace flowing through mission movements and courageous individuals, but sadly our history also shows how misguided efforts can result in “inoculating” hearers against the Gospel message rather than making true disciples. The how of missions is vitally important.
My personal road to foreign missions was part of an established pattern within my local church, and common to many (if not most) U.S. churches today, and I am VERY thankful for how God worked in my life through many individuals and my home church body in general. In no way do I disparage the hearts and intentions of those who assisted me over the years, but for many reasons, including my own lack of disciplined study at that time, I launched into summer and later full time missions with very little understanding of missions history, practice or theology.
That said, I have always believed in the weighty importance of local church involvement on the sending side as well as the mission field itself (whenever possible). When we go to a Gospel tolerant country (as opposed to a closed country) to work as missionaries, be that doing social work for the purpose of sharing the Gospel or actually planting/developing a church or ministry, we are more often than not setting up shop in the back yards of local believers and leaders. We may not necessarily agree with their theology or practice, but the fact is that we are the newcomers despite the differences. This is one of the main reasons that Claudia and I chose our current mission agency which places their missionaries under local Latin leadership, respecting their experience, authority and insight into the needs of the local Body as opposed to dictating a direction from a foreign office, and mindset. At times this results in some very difficult situations and conflicts, but more often than not provides the missionary with a solid foundation (cultural, relational, historical, etc) from which they can fellowship with and minister to those who are very different from themselves in many ways. In addressing the “how” of missions, there is a lot to consider in terms of the local, indigenous receiving church partnership with missionaries, but I first want examine my own missiological roots as well as that of other missionaries.
As I mentioned, my missionary journey began at the church I grew up in, a body with a rich history of sending, supporting and assisting missionaries serving internationally. Prior to my first youth mission experience (age 16), every student that hoped to serve in the Yucatan Peninsula over the summer was required to interview with one of the serving elders and become a full fledged member of the church. Without completing these steps, we were simply not allowed to be part of the team. I found this more than reasonable considering we were being sent out as representatives of Christ and His Gospel, as well as our specific local church body.
So even from the very beginning I believed (practically if not Biblically) in the importance of being linked to a sending church body, and I find that many of the principals I learned still carry over to my work today in concepts like authority, accountability and spiritual care. As missionaries venture into the field and acclimatize to the culture, language, food, new experiences (both blessings as well as temptations) that come with an entire society different from their own; who is it that provides the necessary preparation and ongoing care they will inevitably need? Over the past few decades this responsibility has been relegated more and more to parachurch “Missions Agencies” and not the sending Church. Many practical reasons can be sighted for this such as the cost of maintaining a missionary (or an entire family) in another country with needs such as air travel, visas, and what has lately proven to be the trump card…insurance.
In theory, a mission agency will have greater familiarity with the foreign terrain than any specific North American Church, especially if that church is supporting missionaries in numerous countries around the globe. I emphasize the word “supporting” in that I believe it is very different from the concept of “sending”. I have come to understand that a Biblical sending presupposes a calling by God into a specific aspect of ministry, and then a confirming of that calling by that person’s spiritual authority such as the leadership of the church that he or she is a member of. Consider the calling, preparing and then sending of Jesus own disciples in the Gospels (see Mk 6 and Mt 10 for example as well as Paul’s calling and initial sending in Acts 13).
Unfortunately as the concept of spiritual authority and guidance decreases in the US, it becomes simpler (not to mention more convenient) for individuals to solely rely on their own “conviction” rather than seek the counsel of those who know (or should know) their strengths and weaknesses best. I have spoken to numerous individuals who believed they were “called” to missions, yet were obviously lacking the gifting or abilities necessary to minister in an unfamiliar, cross cultural setting. At the risk of sounding trite, it’s the job of the Church to warn these “contestants” that they simply can’t sing before they embarrass themselves on American Idol. Obviously the guidance and perspective in evaluating a ministerial calling needs to be done with greater discernment and compassion than the Idol judges, but then that’s why not everyone is gifted and “called” to be a pastor…right? Still, we have to realize that with any ministry position, be that pastoral or in this case a missionary, the stakes are much higher than mere public embarrassment before a worldwide audience, and making disciples is more than simply introducing someone to Jesus, it’s helping them understand how God has equipped them for His work in His kingdom.
Getting back to the idea of sending verses supporting, even though a missionary may have ten or more churches supporting them by providing for their financial needs, the concept of being “sent” takes on a representative role, or the responsibility of an ambassador, in this case for God’s kingdom and the sending church body or denomination. As we expect a mission agency should know the target terrain inside out, the sending church should know their missionary inside out as well, and have no reservations before confirming a calling and sending them out. The missionary answers to the sender as his or her spiritual authority, something that isn’t possible if every supporting church, is equivalent to that missionarie's sending church. What I see becoming more common is that missionaries may have a wealth of supporting churches (many of which claim them as “our missionary to country X”) yet are impoverished when it comes to a specific spiritual and practical Church relationship that can exercise spiritual authority over them should that be necessary, counsel them in decisions and care for them in times of need. This in no way diminishes the importance, worth and partnership of supporting churches, but helps in understanding and defining the missionary – church relationship roles and potential pitfalls.
Regarding sending Churches, the converse often holds true. It’s not uncommon for large churches to take on numerous missionaries at relatively low levels of support which places these Churches in the difficult situation of how (or even if) it is possible to further care for these missionaries beyond the issue of finances. In the business world, if aspects of a company can be better or more cost efficiently managed elsewhere, that company will “outsource” those particular aspects of their work. Similarly it makes business sense for sending Churches to rely on parachurch mission agencies to manage many of the details of missionary life and “business”, but my question (or rather one of many) is: If a mission agency/organization does not profess to be a “Church” but a “Parachurch”, how can it ultimately give the necessary guidance, shepherding (literally “pastoring”) and exercise spiritual authority in ways that are commonly, or rather Biblically assigned to the Church? That asked, I suppose a more foundational question would be: What are the specific responsibilities of each of these entities, and who oversees who, or what are the partnership responsibilities with regards to fulfilling the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries? Is the parachurch responsible to make sure that the multiple supporting churches fulfill their financial commitment to the missionaries of that agency? Does the church relegate all ministerial authority and direction to the mission agency and only give guidance through varying levels of ministerial financing?
I found an interesting blog entry on a similar subject (student ministry and the church):
“…To use the methods that work best, namely, community driven evangelism, the parachurch must establish communities on campus that are not churches. But the church is a community. So students are forced to choose which community they will show greater allegiance to. The church always has the trump card here, because the church is the biblical community, whereas the parachurch is an evangelistic enterprise. For students who are in the parachurch primarily, to whom will they be accountable? Elders? No, they don’t exist. Pastors? None there, either. They are forced to go outside their primary community where their relationships are to a secondary community where the person they are most accountable to may be their Bible study leader who is a 2 year old Christian. Is there a better way? And if the church can do this just as effectively as the parachurch, why would we resist it?”
(Church vs. Parachurch part II on blog: Everything is Backwards by Michael Clary)
With the business outsourcing example, quality and ethics control should obviously remain in the hands of the parent company, but lead painted toys and tainted pharmaceuticals prove otherwise. Is it solely the responsibility of the parachurch to evaluate the effectiveness of missionaries sent out by the local church in their fulfilling the Great Commission? To what degree can the parachurch model of missions exemplify or teach healthy Ecclesiastical practices to churches that may be weak in this area themselves?
All of this begs the question of what marks distinguish the Church from any other organization that falls under the umbrella of the “Church Universal”, or the world wide body of believers. I find then that before I can form a solid understanding of Biblical Missiology, I have to wrestle with my Ecclesiology in order to understand the responsibilities of the institutional traditional Church and the Church Universal in fulfilling the Great Commission. A few marks stand out such as the sacraments of baptism and communion but also include concepts such as discipline and even commissioning for ministry, but this could be a long thought process to peruse.
At this point I think I will save the Ecclesiology discussion in relation to Missions for another entry. My temptation is to continue, but the whole reasoning behind a Blog format is to get others’ thoughts and considerations on the topic, so let me invite you to do just that.
I want to close in repeating the reasoning mentioned at the top of this blog. I want to learn. I NEED to learn. I have much to learn. Please know that I highly value the partnerships and relationships God has granted us with individuals, church bodies and parachurch/missions organizations. I am regularly filled with joy and amazement at the way the Lord works through both Church and parachurch missions movements, and want to seek His hand as I further explore my own families place in the Great Commission. You are all treasured and respected partners in the Gospel, and I value your prayerful considerations on this topic. I look forward to seeing where this goes and to learning from the wisdom the Lord has provided each of you. Thank you and may the Lord guide and bless your own efforts to bring glory to His name and extend His kingdom.
My personal road to foreign missions was part of an established pattern within my local church, and common to many (if not most) U.S. churches today, and I am VERY thankful for how God worked in my life through many individuals and my home church body in general. In no way do I disparage the hearts and intentions of those who assisted me over the years, but for many reasons, including my own lack of disciplined study at that time, I launched into summer and later full time missions with very little understanding of missions history, practice or theology.
That said, I have always believed in the weighty importance of local church involvement on the sending side as well as the mission field itself (whenever possible). When we go to a Gospel tolerant country (as opposed to a closed country) to work as missionaries, be that doing social work for the purpose of sharing the Gospel or actually planting/developing a church or ministry, we are more often than not setting up shop in the back yards of local believers and leaders. We may not necessarily agree with their theology or practice, but the fact is that we are the newcomers despite the differences. This is one of the main reasons that Claudia and I chose our current mission agency which places their missionaries under local Latin leadership, respecting their experience, authority and insight into the needs of the local Body as opposed to dictating a direction from a foreign office, and mindset. At times this results in some very difficult situations and conflicts, but more often than not provides the missionary with a solid foundation (cultural, relational, historical, etc) from which they can fellowship with and minister to those who are very different from themselves in many ways. In addressing the “how” of missions, there is a lot to consider in terms of the local, indigenous receiving church partnership with missionaries, but I first want examine my own missiological roots as well as that of other missionaries.
As I mentioned, my missionary journey began at the church I grew up in, a body with a rich history of sending, supporting and assisting missionaries serving internationally. Prior to my first youth mission experience (age 16), every student that hoped to serve in the Yucatan Peninsula over the summer was required to interview with one of the serving elders and become a full fledged member of the church. Without completing these steps, we were simply not allowed to be part of the team. I found this more than reasonable considering we were being sent out as representatives of Christ and His Gospel, as well as our specific local church body.
So even from the very beginning I believed (practically if not Biblically) in the importance of being linked to a sending church body, and I find that many of the principals I learned still carry over to my work today in concepts like authority, accountability and spiritual care. As missionaries venture into the field and acclimatize to the culture, language, food, new experiences (both blessings as well as temptations) that come with an entire society different from their own; who is it that provides the necessary preparation and ongoing care they will inevitably need? Over the past few decades this responsibility has been relegated more and more to parachurch “Missions Agencies” and not the sending Church. Many practical reasons can be sighted for this such as the cost of maintaining a missionary (or an entire family) in another country with needs such as air travel, visas, and what has lately proven to be the trump card…insurance.
In theory, a mission agency will have greater familiarity with the foreign terrain than any specific North American Church, especially if that church is supporting missionaries in numerous countries around the globe. I emphasize the word “supporting” in that I believe it is very different from the concept of “sending”. I have come to understand that a Biblical sending presupposes a calling by God into a specific aspect of ministry, and then a confirming of that calling by that person’s spiritual authority such as the leadership of the church that he or she is a member of. Consider the calling, preparing and then sending of Jesus own disciples in the Gospels (see Mk 6 and Mt 10 for example as well as Paul’s calling and initial sending in Acts 13).
Unfortunately as the concept of spiritual authority and guidance decreases in the US, it becomes simpler (not to mention more convenient) for individuals to solely rely on their own “conviction” rather than seek the counsel of those who know (or should know) their strengths and weaknesses best. I have spoken to numerous individuals who believed they were “called” to missions, yet were obviously lacking the gifting or abilities necessary to minister in an unfamiliar, cross cultural setting. At the risk of sounding trite, it’s the job of the Church to warn these “contestants” that they simply can’t sing before they embarrass themselves on American Idol. Obviously the guidance and perspective in evaluating a ministerial calling needs to be done with greater discernment and compassion than the Idol judges, but then that’s why not everyone is gifted and “called” to be a pastor…right? Still, we have to realize that with any ministry position, be that pastoral or in this case a missionary, the stakes are much higher than mere public embarrassment before a worldwide audience, and making disciples is more than simply introducing someone to Jesus, it’s helping them understand how God has equipped them for His work in His kingdom.
Getting back to the idea of sending verses supporting, even though a missionary may have ten or more churches supporting them by providing for their financial needs, the concept of being “sent” takes on a representative role, or the responsibility of an ambassador, in this case for God’s kingdom and the sending church body or denomination. As we expect a mission agency should know the target terrain inside out, the sending church should know their missionary inside out as well, and have no reservations before confirming a calling and sending them out. The missionary answers to the sender as his or her spiritual authority, something that isn’t possible if every supporting church, is equivalent to that missionarie's sending church. What I see becoming more common is that missionaries may have a wealth of supporting churches (many of which claim them as “our missionary to country X”) yet are impoverished when it comes to a specific spiritual and practical Church relationship that can exercise spiritual authority over them should that be necessary, counsel them in decisions and care for them in times of need. This in no way diminishes the importance, worth and partnership of supporting churches, but helps in understanding and defining the missionary – church relationship roles and potential pitfalls.
Regarding sending Churches, the converse often holds true. It’s not uncommon for large churches to take on numerous missionaries at relatively low levels of support which places these Churches in the difficult situation of how (or even if) it is possible to further care for these missionaries beyond the issue of finances. In the business world, if aspects of a company can be better or more cost efficiently managed elsewhere, that company will “outsource” those particular aspects of their work. Similarly it makes business sense for sending Churches to rely on parachurch mission agencies to manage many of the details of missionary life and “business”, but my question (or rather one of many) is: If a mission agency/organization does not profess to be a “Church” but a “Parachurch”, how can it ultimately give the necessary guidance, shepherding (literally “pastoring”) and exercise spiritual authority in ways that are commonly, or rather Biblically assigned to the Church? That asked, I suppose a more foundational question would be: What are the specific responsibilities of each of these entities, and who oversees who, or what are the partnership responsibilities with regards to fulfilling the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries? Is the parachurch responsible to make sure that the multiple supporting churches fulfill their financial commitment to the missionaries of that agency? Does the church relegate all ministerial authority and direction to the mission agency and only give guidance through varying levels of ministerial financing?
I found an interesting blog entry on a similar subject (student ministry and the church):
“…To use the methods that work best, namely, community driven evangelism, the parachurch must establish communities on campus that are not churches. But the church is a community. So students are forced to choose which community they will show greater allegiance to. The church always has the trump card here, because the church is the biblical community, whereas the parachurch is an evangelistic enterprise. For students who are in the parachurch primarily, to whom will they be accountable? Elders? No, they don’t exist. Pastors? None there, either. They are forced to go outside their primary community where their relationships are to a secondary community where the person they are most accountable to may be their Bible study leader who is a 2 year old Christian. Is there a better way? And if the church can do this just as effectively as the parachurch, why would we resist it?”
(Church vs. Parachurch part II on blog: Everything is Backwards by Michael Clary)
With the business outsourcing example, quality and ethics control should obviously remain in the hands of the parent company, but lead painted toys and tainted pharmaceuticals prove otherwise. Is it solely the responsibility of the parachurch to evaluate the effectiveness of missionaries sent out by the local church in their fulfilling the Great Commission? To what degree can the parachurch model of missions exemplify or teach healthy Ecclesiastical practices to churches that may be weak in this area themselves?
All of this begs the question of what marks distinguish the Church from any other organization that falls under the umbrella of the “Church Universal”, or the world wide body of believers. I find then that before I can form a solid understanding of Biblical Missiology, I have to wrestle with my Ecclesiology in order to understand the responsibilities of the institutional traditional Church and the Church Universal in fulfilling the Great Commission. A few marks stand out such as the sacraments of baptism and communion but also include concepts such as discipline and even commissioning for ministry, but this could be a long thought process to peruse.
At this point I think I will save the Ecclesiology discussion in relation to Missions for another entry. My temptation is to continue, but the whole reasoning behind a Blog format is to get others’ thoughts and considerations on the topic, so let me invite you to do just that.
I want to close in repeating the reasoning mentioned at the top of this blog. I want to learn. I NEED to learn. I have much to learn. Please know that I highly value the partnerships and relationships God has granted us with individuals, church bodies and parachurch/missions organizations. I am regularly filled with joy and amazement at the way the Lord works through both Church and parachurch missions movements, and want to seek His hand as I further explore my own families place in the Great Commission. You are all treasured and respected partners in the Gospel, and I value your prayerful considerations on this topic. I look forward to seeing where this goes and to learning from the wisdom the Lord has provided each of you. Thank you and may the Lord guide and bless your own efforts to bring glory to His name and extend His kingdom.
