DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR MISSIONARY IS DOING?

STATEMENT

Churches should support biblically qualified missionaries by understanding the missionary’s ministry goals and philosophy and by partnering with them in the ongoing challenges and joys of the work.

Let’s say you are the owner of a company that makes widgets. If you wanted to open a new widget manufacturing facility in a different country, how would you decide who to send to run your new facility? Your ideal leader would need to know the business thoroughly, understand how to build and direct the new plant, and be willing to stay in close touch with headquarters about their progress and results.

Now, think of a task that’s much more important than building widgets in foreign countries: evangelizing and planting self-sustaining churches among the world’s least-reached peoples. Who should a church send and support in these efforts? Only the most qualified, spurred on by the best ongoing care and support.

Churches are the anchor point in the “sending chain” of missions. Let me explain. Churches win people to Christ and disciple their flock into maturity (Eph. 4:12–16). Likely candidates for missions work are identified (Acts 13:1–3) and are eventually connected with a missions agency. The agency then usually pairs them with a team on the field and the newly minted missionary begins ministry. That’s the “sending chain.” Each serves a vital role. But the church’s role in deciding who they send and how they’ll support the work is critical, and it’s often where the most significant mistakes are made.

I met a good friend who was a missionary in the Middle East for years. He had just spoken at a missions conference for a large church in the US. I asked him how it had gone. He furrowed his brow and said, “You know, it’s a wonderful church. The people there love Jesus. The church staff are on point when teaching the Word of God. Many have come to Christ because they proclaim a clear gospel message.” 

“That sounds wonderful,” I said, “But you seem to have some reservations?”

“Well,” he said, “The missionaries they support are fine people; some live sacrificial lives in hard places. I suspect that they are the type of people who would be elder-qualified, according to the Scriptures. But Brian, they are locked into bad methods of missions. Some are producing translations of the Scriptures that twist the meaning of God’s Word to satisfy local culture; others are encouraging converts to stay and worship in the mosque as a witness to other Muslims and one missionary claimed to have seen fantastic numbers of converts, but that missionary seemed to have a weak understanding of conversion. All the missionaries seemed good-hearted. But frankly, I came away depressed. I don’t know how to speak to churches about the bad practices they’re supporting on the field.”

I understand his frustration. I've encountered many such missionaries in my 21 years in the Middle East. I’m eager to give these people the benefit of the doubt; after all, they’ve picked up and moved their family overseas at a significant cost for the sake of the gospel. And yet, unless churches make sure their missionaries are clear on the gospel, understand a biblical definition of conversion, and can define a church, then they are in danger of supporting work that celebrates and advances unbiblical philosophies of ministry. Being a Christian and having good intentions is not enough. Misguided missionaries do far more harm than good.

This can be avoided if the sending understands its own philosophy of ministry, which will help them to send the right workers and provide the right kind of ongoing support.

What Can Be Done?

When evaluating who should be sent, we suggest starting with three essential categories: character, convictions, and competencies. Previous chapters in this volume discuss all of these in detail. The burden of this chapter is to explain how sending churches can discern their missionaries strategies and then provide good care once they’re on the field.

Is the Mission Strategy Biblical?

This is perhaps the least understood component of a competent missionary. Churches must send men and women who can reject the unsound philosophies of ministry that are currently employed in missions. Ordinary church members or even church elders might not know about without significant reading and help from experienced missionaries. Mission strategies like the insider movement, church planting movements, and various philosophies of ministry that get employed to reach “oral cultures.” Both a sending church and a missionary candidate need to have some convictions about these practices before they choose an agency and certainly before they leave for the field. These convictions should be formed alongside elders and trustworthy missiologists. Churches and candidates should avoid mission agencies and teams that use the strategies and philosophies they believe unsound. This seems obvious, but it’s followed less often than you think.

I once attended a regional conference for missionaries. A researcher presented a paper in which he interviewed Muslim converts about what was most crucial in their coming to faith. The top two survey answers were reading the Bible with a Christian and having a personal relationship with a Christian. And yet, the leaders of the conference persisted in saying that the most important thing for workers in the region to focus on was to pray for Muslims to have more dreams and visions of Jesus. I was dumbfounded. These workers were being taught to chase deficient and unbiblical strategies. Meanwhile, our ministry was seeing much fruit because,  month after month, Christians were simply engaging people in Bible study in the context of a relationship.

Staying Informed and Involved

This might surprise a sending church to hear but it’s true: once a qualified candidate has been commissioned and sent, the sending church’s work is just beginning. They need to pursue regular communication with the missionary so that they can hear about the challenges and joys of the work, specific prayer requests, and  the  ministry work.  Timely, transparent, communication is essential to help the church stay informed and involved. It also keeps the missionary accountable for working in the ministry “as unto the Lord” (Colossians 3:17). Often, a missionary’s team and, if possible, local church on the field becomes their primary source of pastoral care and oversight. That’s good and right! But the sending church should never abdicate their responsibility of ongoing care and concern. When either the missionary or the church becomes complacent in communication, the lifeline of support and prayer that flows in both directions becomes strained and weak. The Apostle Paul regularly returned to Antioch and other supporting churches to report about the ministry; a faithful missionary in our day will want to do the same.

That being said, sending churches are often unsure of how to help from so far away. In the worst cases, churches persist in unhelpful practices like:

• Visits during busy ministry times 

• Underestimating the value of simply giving financially and praying

• Requiring in-person visits too frequently

• Not helping to guard missionary vacation time or time with family stateside

• Communicating in unsecure ways, despite strict communication protocols

• Not communicating often enough

• Undiscerning about mission practices and philosopies

Here are some helpful practices that sending churches can employ:

• Carefully planned visits from pastors or qualified lay leaders to observe and encourage the missionaries while on the field

• Working to understand various issues in mission strategies

• Educating church members on how to be in touch with and care for missionaries well

• Employing creative ways to let missionaries tell ministry stories for the church with minimal ministry disruption (Zoom and recorded video can be a big help here)

• Working hard to understand the missionary’s life, challenges, and ministry

• Periodic messages and emails letting your missionary know you are praying for them

• Carefully choosing how many different missionaries the church supports so that the church is maximally invested in fewer ministries rather than minimally spread out among many

Missions often requires patience and long-term faithfulness. Missionaries can succumb to the fear that their partners will only want to hear about the “breakthroughs” and the “good news.” But transparent, pastorally driven relationships between the supporting church back home and the missionary on the field will teach congregations to have realistic ideas about missionaries and their work.

The goal of missions is to make disciples of all nations. Jesus has entrusted this eternally valuable task to his church (Matthew 28:18-20). If church leaders are biblically qualified, then surely those who take the gospel to the nations should be as well. And once they arrive on the field, churches and their missionaries should partner well enough to share in the challenges and joys of taking the good news to the world.