FIELD CHURCHES: The Missing Link In Missions
STATEMENT
A field church is nothing less than a true church, a biblical assembly of believers bought by the blood of Jesus Christ. The field church possesses God-given privilege, authority, and responsibility to hold the missionary accountable as a follower of Christ and a church member and to send and support missionaries of its own. We use the term ‘field’ from a missionary’s perspective to refer to a local church on the mission field to which the missionary is committed and accountable. Together, they labor in the cause of the Great Commission.
Article Written by Tom RobertsWhat role should a church on the field play in a missionary’s life? Joe and Sally had two toddlers in a small apartment; they were surrounded by sweltering heat outside. When Sally found out she was pregnant with her third child, she descended into depression. Joe spoke to an older woman in their field church. The older woman counseled Sally and arranged for her to trade babysitting with another woman in the church so she could go grocery shopping on her own. The church arranged meals and play times for the older children when Sally had the baby. Sally gradually improved as her church family came around her, and she realized she didn’t have to parent alone.
Philip’s experience was different. He was a single missionary who moved to a city with few churches and one of the greatest concentrations of lostness. He joined a team with members from a wide variety of church backgrounds. He learned the language, shared the gospel boldly, and built many relationships with locals. Nevertheless, he went from church to church on Sundays and never committed to any of them. After two years, he returned from the field after seeing little significant fruit, discouraged and uncertain about his future.
Many missionaries are schooled in contextualization and church planting but often have not learned or experienced the value of a healthy church. Membership in a field church is frequently a pragmatic decision for such missionaries. “Will it help me in my mission?” they ask. Moreover, individualism affects us as Westerners. While missionaries care about contextualization, we are often blind to how our own culture has led us to devalue accountability in a local church on the field. Finally, the whole idea of authority can be confusing on the mission field. If I am supposed to submit to my field church, then what about my sending church? Or my missions organization?[1]
Figuring out church membership on the field can be complicated. However, church membership is biblical and necessary for all Christians—including missionaries. God commands that Christians commit and submit to a church where we live.[2] Since missionaries are Christians, they are no less accountable to a local body of believers where they live than any other Christian. We must see the necessity and beauty of a church on the mission field—a “field” church—holding missionaries accountable as disciples of the Lord Jesus as they make disciples of all nations together.
The Field Church
The most important thing we can say about a field church is that it is a true church, full stop, with no commas and no qualifications. The Son of God became man to die for his church, “which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Therefore, every true church in every culture has been purchased by the most valuable blood in the universe: the blood of the incarnate Son of God. This reality is foundational in upholding the value of every local body of believers. It comes with the necessary implication that we must always treat a church that preaches the gospel and obeys Christ’s commands with the utmost honor and care. When a field church assembles, the Lord Jesus Christ is present in all of his authority—even if the church is small and apparently insignificant to us (Matthew 18:15-20).
We add “field” to a church on the mission field simply to distinguish it from a “sending” church, and to describe the church to which missionaries are committed and accountable on the field. In fact, missionaries should have greater spiritual accountability to their field church than their sending church. Why? Because the New Testament paints a portrait of local churches as the places where Christians grow as disciples and out of which they make disciples. Nearly every time the term “church” is used in the New Testament, it refers to local churches (e.g., all the greetings in the Epistles). If we want to obey the “one another” commands, we must be near one another.
Moreover, we are called to “not neglect to meet together” (Heb. 10:25). While we maintain a close relationship with our sending churches, we can no longer meet with them. Therefore, the most local church in a missionary’s life is not their sending church but their field church. The field church carries the responsibility and authority to hold a missionary accountable in their Christian faith and life.
To clarify, a field church can take many shapes and sizes. It can initially be as small as one’s team, though we would want it to grow beyond the team. It can be indigenous or international. It can be big or small. Every context will require oversight from different kinds of churches. The point of zooming in on field churches is not to pit one context against another but to stress their importance and authority.
Missionary Authority?
The relationship between missionaries and a field church naturally raises the question of who has the authority to hold a missionary accountable. One potential objection to a missionary submitting to a field church is the example of the apostle Paul. Paul was sent by a church and was in some sense under its authority (Acts 13:3), but we don’t read a lot about his role as a member of a local church in his missionary voyages. He planted churches and discipled them (1 Corinthians 3:5-10). He was deeply invested relationally and emotionally in all the churches he served (read any letter to see that he was not a stoic!). He spent longer in some places than others (e.g., Corinth and Ephesus). He even called for the discipline of members of churches in other cities (1 Corinthians 5). Does this mean that missionaries have an exception to membership because of their mission? In other words, do they have a special authority like Paul over a field church, so they do not need to submit to its authority?
In answering this question, we must understand the similarities and differences between the apostle Paul and missionaries today. In some sense, Paul is the prototype of the missionary. Every missionary that I know wants to be like Paul in some way. And rightly so! Paul desired that every Christian follow his example (1 Corinthians 11:1). Therefore, it is biblical and proper to consider Paul an example for missions today. Church planting was in Paul’s DNA and is in the DNA of missions. In that sense, in missions, we continue the work of the apostles in spreading the gospel message. Missionaries are either leading a church plant, raising up church planters, a part of a church plant team, or a part of an existing church that is called to plant churches. We should be like Paul when planting churches.
Nevertheless, we must embrace the unstated and assumed (I hope!) reality that we are different than Paul. Even if a missionary states that he is a “small-a” apostle, defining that position as a “sent one” (a translation for the Greek noun apostolos), how will that missionary distinguish himself from a “big-A” Apostle, like those who wrote much of the NT? What are the boundary lines? Calling anyone today an apostle can confuse our authority with the original apostles. In post-apostolic missions, we have the same goal and message as Paul. We have the same Lord who commissioned us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:16-20). We have the same message that we are called to preach (Galatians 1:6-9). In that sense, we are “sent ones” for the sake of the gospel. But we do not have the same position and authority as Paul.
Paul and the apostles had unique authority; they had a foundational role in revealing the gospel and establishing the universal Church (Ephesians 2:20, 3:5). They were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, specifically and verbally commissioned by him. They wrote much of the New Testament. We cannot stake the claim of authority over multiple churches in the way they did. We may be used to plant many churches. I pray that we are! However, we must also obey the commands given to every believer in Jesus Christ to come under the authority of a local church.
Our role is to plant churches across cultures. If a missionary leads a plant, he ought to be qualified to lead the congregation (Titus 1:5-9; 1 Timothy 3:1-7). If there is no one else qualified, he ought to be considered an elder/pastor in a church, at least in the initial stages. However, just because a person plants a church, he is no less a member. He is under the congregation's authority (Matthew 18:15-20) just like every other pastor. If a missionary is training church planters, he still needs accountability from a local church so that, like Paul, he can point to his example and say, “Follow me” as he commits to and serves the church. If a missionary is part of a church plant team or a member of an existing field church, they are no less commanded to obey Christ’s commands than the people they seek to reach. A missionary’s authority in a field church varies according to their role in the church. Some may have the role of an elder/pastor. Others may be teachers or evangelists. Nevertheless, all are members and therefore under the final authority of that congregation.
Practical Implications for Missions Today
The challenges of figuring out church membership on the field are real. For instance, what about missionaries seeking to reach the unreached and unengaged?[3] How can missionaries submit to a church that doesn’t exist? Second, think of missionaries going to an area where there are Christians but no gospel-preaching churches. Would you advise a Christian to attend a church where the gospel is not preached? Third, consider the missionary who goes to a place where there are gospel-preaching indigenous churches, which would come under threat due to the presence of a foreigner. While we never want to run away from persecution, would it be wise for foreigners to join an indigenous church where they may invite deep suspicion and possible persecution? These are all common scenarios on the field that make the water a bit murkier.
How should we respond to unique challenges like these? First, we must clear the haze in our missiology by rooting it in the Bible. In short, the Bible should be our guide not only for our theology but also for our missiology and the way we do church (our ecclesiology). Since Jesus created local churches and calls us to submit to them, our missiology must work out what that submission should look like on the field instead of forming exceptions for missionaries.[4] As the statement above says, “The field church possesses God-given privilege, authority, and responsibility to hold the missionary accountable as a follower of Christ and a church member.” When missionaries do not submit to a field church's authority, they withdraw from local field churches' privilege, authority, and responsibility to keep them going as Christians and church members.
Second, we must allow for a variety of field churches in the different contexts above:
Field Church in an unreached and unengaged area. Here, a team can function as a church, at least initially. That team ought to have at least one biblically qualified member to be a pastor/elder who will shepherd his teammate church members through preaching and teaching. Moreover, in their church gatherings, they should practice the biblical commands for worship (including baptism and the Lord’s Supper) instead of having another team business meeting.[5] Finally, their church should be open to growing beyond their team. The church is collectively called to make disciples.
Field Church where there are existing unhealthy churches. In this case, we should consider (a) planting a church of our own as a team or (b) joining a church, if we can submit to its authority, to help it grow in health.[6]
Field Church where we draw negative attention as foreigners. Here again, there are still several options. First, we can plant a church as a team and seek to help local believers grow discreetly. Second, we can join a church that is growing in health and open to foreigners. Third, we can join an international church growing in health while we seek to reach locals in their native language.
The point is that there is always a way for a field church to oversee missionaries if we are willing to work toward it. Not every situation is easy. Not every field church is healthy. Not every field church will give the kind of accountability that Scripture teaches them to provide. However, we must not give up on obeying God’s Word just because our context makes it difficult. After all, we are missionaries! Who said it would be easy?
The Beauty of Doing Missions Together
Consider these real situations from the mission field. They illustrate how a field church can help rather than hinder missionaries both as disciples and in making disciples:
A missionary falls into disqualifying sin, and his marriage is failing. This scenario is all too common. It is mainly due to a lack of accountability. Who should be watching the missionaries’ lives? Who should disciple them on the field? Who should assess the health of their marriage? In part, responsibility goes to the sending church, but they are involved from a distance and don’t see the marriage up close. In part, fellow workers should hold them accountable, but if they have not covenanted together, they do not have responsibility or authority in the couple’s life. The local field church is responsible for nurturing holiness through God’s Word; the fellowship of the saints can watch their marriage for warning signs. A field church cares for its members.
A missionary team tries to plant churches without committing to a local church. How will this team plant local churches without modeling a commitment to a local church of their own (no matter how small)? What does their lack of commitment to a local church teach new converts? What will their disciples do when they leave? The team members may very well feel committed to their sending church, but their mission suffers without a formal commitment to a field church. They have no model to hold out, no new family to offer. They’ll spin off lone-ranger Christians. And there is no such thing as a lone-ranger Christian because disciples of Christ don’t struggle through life alone. A field church exemplifies the Christian life.
A missionary seeks her identity in her business while avoiding a local church. She thinks she could get “caught” or bring challenges to local believers, and staying in-country has become her ultimate goal. So she avoids other believers altogether! In this case, how can anyone distinguish her as a Christian? Perhaps they know she is good at her work. But in what way has her success in creating an identity as a businesswoman overtaken her call to make disciples? A field church enables her to join with believers for her edification as she seeks to figure out how to boldly and wisely make disciples in her context. A field church promotes mission.
These examples illustrate the need for a field church. I understand that joining a field church is also a sacrifice. My family and I are the only Westerners in our church. We joyfully serve at the elders’ direction as church members. But recently, as local opposition toward Christians grew, our presence in the church increased the potential to bring persecution. While on home assignment, the elders encouraged us to remain in our home country longer than anticipated. We didn’t know if we would be able to return. But we chose to stay in limbo for the church's sake and to honor its leadership. After several months of waiting, by God’s grace, we were able to return. They welcomed us with open arms, and it has been a joy to be together again. However, local opposition has continued to grow. And now, more than ever, we’ve learned that it is not only a sacrifice for us to join a field church. It is also a sacrifice for them. They have served us and welcomed us to partner in mission together. It is humbling. And it is beautiful.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see missionaries across the world laboring hand-in-hand with field churches that they also gladly submit to? Wouldn’t this help the cause of the Great Commission? Picture missionaries who labor, serve, love, and suffer with their local field churches to display Christ to the world. Imagine missionaries coming off the field knowing that all the blood, sweat, and tears were not in vain because they invested in a field church that would outlast their visas.
Whether big or small, a field church will keep the mission going long after our service ends. Moreover, the fruit in our lives will last for years to come because of their investment in us. Field churches may need our help. We may need their help even more. Joining hands displays the beauty of doing missions together in submission to our Lord Jesus Christ. All glory be to him and his design for missionaries and the church on mission together!
Resources
Church Membership by Jonathan Leeman
Should Missionaries Join a Local Church? | Desiring God by John Folmar
Why Is It Essential for Missionaries to Join a Church Where They Live? - 9Marks by Scott Logsdon
footnotes
[1] For more on the topic of the authority of agencies, sending churches, and field churches, see the article “Who Decides? Issues of Authority on the Field” by David Lawrence.
[2] See Jonathan Leeman, Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012).
[3] For more on Unreached People Groups, see the GCC article, “Unreached People Groups or Unreached Language Groups”
[4] Two excellent articles on why missionaries should join a local church are Should Missionaries Join a Local Church? | Desiring God by John Folmar and Why Is It Essential for Missionaries to Join a Church Where They Live? - 9Marks by Scott Logsdon.
[5] I further consider what churches should do when they gather in the article “How Should the Church Look in This Culture?”
[6] I have written more on this topic in the article “Missionary Membership in a Field Church.”
