HOW TO CHOOSE AN AGENCY

Jan 1

STATEMENT

A mission agency should be chosen that is as closely aligned as possible with a missionary and their sending church in the areas of theological and methodological convictions, vision for the work, ministry relationships, and practical needs. The leadership of the sending church should be closely involved in choosing an agency and missionary team rather than a missionary candidate making a unilateral decision. Missionaries should consider changing agencies when it’s clear to them and their field and sending churches that the earlier alignment in any of these four categories no longer exists.

Article Written by A.W. Workman

I hadn’t expected my new pastors to react the way they did. Rather than being excited that I had been offered the role of mobilizer by the mission agency I’d served with overseas, they were visibly concerned. As it turned out, their deeply held convictions clashed with a methodology that this agency publicly supported: the Insider Movement.

For my part, I was taken aback. While still affirming my desire to serve in missions, they went so far as to set up a meeting with me and a representative from the agency to talk through why they couldn’t support this kind of move. I simply had never seen pastors who were so informed and involved in the details of missions. Most had seemed happy to leave the missionary methods to the missionaries and the missiologists—“the experts.” But the pastors of my new church were not only down in the weeds, informed about the biblical merits or lack thereof of Insider Movement methodology, but were willing to make a potentially awkward and disappointing intervention over it.

I was, in fact, disappointed. I had really been hoping to work as a mobilizer while I finished up my undergrad studies. After a life-changing year in the Middle East, it seemed like such a good fit. I had been hoping to keep working with the same organization that had been so supportive of me. Yet I was also intrigued. I could tell that my pastors strongly counseled me against taking the role because they cared for me. They cared for my soul. And they wanted me to work for a missions organization that would better align with biblical methodology. I opted to trust them and to turn down the role.

To this day, I’m glad I did.

Prior to that conversation, my assumptions had been that I would work things out with a mission agency on my own, and then my pastors would simply support me. As it turns out, this is a very common posture among prospective missionaries. More often than not, choosing a mission agency is left up to the individual; pastors rarely get involved. This is not the way it should be.

The aim of this article is to lay out a practical framework for how a missionary and sending church should choose a mission agency.

Definitions

Let’s begin by fleshing out some key terms.

First, what is a mission agency? Simply put, a mission agency is an organization that facilitates the local church’s calling to send and support missionaries to make disciples and plant churches among the nations.

What do we mean by being closely aligned? Here, the idea is that there is a robust and joyful agreement, especially when it comes to the important areas like convictions and vision. While there will never be perfect alignment, the greater the like-mindedness, the more effective the partnership.

What is convictional alignment? This first part of the framework means a close agreement in crucial areas such as theology, ecclesiology, methodology, philosophy of ministry, conflict resolution, and understanding authority on the field.

What is alignment in vision? This second part of the framework entails agreement about the purpose and goal of the missionary work, as well as ministry expectations of the individual missionary.

What is relational alignment? This is the third part of the framework, which builds on the friendships and trust that have already been established with teams, agency leaders, and other sending churches. When a church sends its people to work with missionaries it already knows and trusts, this often leads to more unified work on the field.

Finally, what is alignment in practical needs? This final part of the framework simply means the missionary and agency are a good fit in areas such as the day-to-day role of the missionary, language study, family needs, funding, healthcare, area of service, and even the gifts and personality of the missionary. In this case, the agency is well-qualified to extend the church’s care for the missionary by providing practical support in areas outside the church’s call and competency.

Biblical Principles

What principles from the Bible speak to this kind of alignment?

First, we should recognize the central role that the elders in the church at Antioch played in sending out Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1–3). This was no individualistic decision, but one made in conjunction with the local church after concerted prayer. By this, we learn that local church leaders bear responsibility for if and how missionaries are sent out, a process which now includes choosing an agency.

The Bible also recognizes that some matters are more important than others. Paul calls certain doctrines those of “first importance.” Theological issues central to the gospel are more essential for agreement than issues of conscience or culture, such as food, drink, and patterns of life (1 Cor 15:3-5, Rom 14:1-22). This precedent shows us that it is right to count certain issues as weightier than others when choosing an agency.

The wisdom of God’s word also teaches us that agreement in vision and purpose is important (Phil 2:2, 4:2-3). In choosing a mission agency, such agreement should extend to specific ministry goals and strategies, especially to the extent that the agency will have authority in those issues. For example, whether a church should be led by one or multiple elders may be a secondary issue, but it represents a point of essential agreement in vision for a church-planting team.

Further, Paul’s pattern of ministry in Acts shows us just how highly he valued working along lines of relational trust. Paul was constantly calling his friends and partners in ministry to come and join him in a given city, or going to join them somewhere, or sending them off to help messy church plants. He often spoke of how a certain believer’s or church’s reputation caused him to thank God, or commended their proven character as he introduced them to others, expanding the network of cooperating churches and believers. Paul’s ministry was utterly dependent not just on doctrinal alignment, but also relational alignment.

Finally, in its theology of spiritual gifts, the Bible affirms that God gifts believers differently (1 Cor 12-14); therefore, wisdom would have us consider the alignment of the particular missionary’s gifts and the corresponding needs of the role the agency expects him or her to fill.

Why Is This Statement Needed?

Missions agencies were started to help groups of like-minded churches pool their resources to send and support missionaries. The task of sending qualified believers to the nations was rightly understood to benefit from the support of an entity that would come alongside local churches and serve them by facilitating cooperation and resourcing the practical work required for missionary work from funding to logistics. Yet over time, missionaries and mission agencies came to engage one another without the involvement of local churches. If the local church was involved, it was often as an afterthought, or merely as one box to be checked off among many.

In light of this context, there is a pressing need for a course correction. However, once local church leadership has been brought back into the sending process, they still need guidance to navigate the myriad options that exist among mission agencies. The four categories—convictions, vision, relationships, and practical needs—provide a helpful framework for this.

When It’s Done Well

When missionaries and their sending church pastors choose an agency carefully, the missionary is freed to do the work of ministry.

One result of a healthy cooperation in sending is trust. If I know that a new family is interested in joining us on the field from our sending church or from the network of churches associated with it, then I assume we will approach ministry with a very similar set of convictions and philosophy of ministry. I should still do my homework to make sure that we are a good fit. Often, unwelcome surprises occur even among believers who are otherwise very well-aligned. But when alignment exists in the four areas of this framework, a stable foundation of trust is laid, which frees us up to do good work.

Assessing mission agencies before a missionary heads to the field is crucial, but the importance of alignment continues. This framework can be equally useful when a missionary is already on the field and needs to reassess whether they are serving with the right organization. How should they think through this? In general, missionaries should consider changing agencies when it’s clear to them and their field and sending churches that earlier alignment in any of these four categories no longer exists.

One family in the Middle East chose to leave the organization they had served with for 29 years because they recognized that new leadership wanted to platform unhealthy methods that decentralized the gospel in the agency’s strategy and work. Once their alignment dissolved, they took counsel and decided to leave an organization that had earlier been a good fit.

When It’s Not Done Well

When missionaries and their sending church pastors downplay these four categories in choosing an agency, the missionary may be set on a collision course with their agency, their leaders, or their teammates. Such conflict may have been avoidable.

Convictional alignment can be the most difficult to navigate, since disagreements in these areas so often hinge on deeply held beliefs about what the Bible teaches and how it should be faithfully applied.

Too often, missionaries, churches, and agencies assume that agreement with a doctrinal statement is enough. It is not. Some of the most controversial issues in missions today divide missionaries who otherwise ascribe to sound doctrine.

I once served in a city where deep division had taken place over ecclesiology and church planting in a context of persecution. At some point, I realized that everyone on both sides was Reformed and Baptistic. Everyone had John Piper books on their shelves. Yet differences persisted, so much so that these missionaries were unable to plant a church together and needed to focus on separate works.

When there isn’t alignment in vision, missionaries and their agencies can find themselves at odds about what the goal of their work should be. For example, missionaries might expect to be able to invite local college students to the international church they attend, only to find themselves in trouble with their organization, who expects the team to introduce locals only to indigenous churches. Or, families may find themselves at odds with their team or their agency when it comes to the role of the wife and mom. How engaged does she need to be in the ministry, or can she devote herself more-or-less full-time to being a wife and mom? Clashing expectations take a toll on already taxed missionaries and families.

The absence of relational alignment might not seem as serious. But it can also prove costly since missionaries who are not known are not extended the same level of trust. So they must spend a long time building trust that might have come much sooner had previous relationships existed.

What about the costs of not being aligned in practical needs? Poor compatibility here means the day-to-day requirements of the missionary don’t fit with their gifts, desires, unique temperament, or season of life. Such misalignment can be utterly discouraging, and over the long term, has caused many missionaries to leave the field or doubt their call to ministry.

I have served with organizations that are team-led, bottom-up, and policy-light. I have also served with organizations that are hierarchical, top-down, and policy-heavy. These organizations functioned in radically different ways. It would be foolish to downplay the significance of such organizational cultures when it comes to the “fit” of an individual missionary. Some will thrive with greater structure. Some will thrive with greater freedom. Both can be good depending on the needs and gifts of a given missionary. Yet both can also be deeply frustrating if the way God has wired a missionary causes them to clash with the culture and structure of their agency or team.

Conclusion

Looking back, I continue to be thankful for my pastors’ intervention all those years ago. Because they were proactive and engaged, my family avoided committing to a relationship that would likely have led to conflict and disruption. Years later, these same pastors were involved again as my family decided to change organizations for reasons of practical compatibility. I experienced firsthand the wisdom that comes from a multitude of counselors, and uniquely from the pastors entrusted to care for a missionary’s spiritual life and ministry.

Choosing a mission agency is no small decision. It can have massive ramifications for a missionary’s life and work. However, churches can serve and protect prospective missionaries and their work by meaningful engagement in agency decisions. They should seek alignment on convictions, vision, relationships, and practical needs. Such alignment provides a framework for discerning a partnership. A good fit with an agency serves both the missionary and the ministry, which paves the way for healthy, durable, and fruitful work.