HOW TO CHOOSE AN AGENCY
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. WorkmanIntroduction
I hadn’t expected my new pastors to react the way that they did. Rather than being excited that I had been offered the mobilizer role with the missions 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 by the seriousness of their posture. While still affirming my desire to serve in missions, they went so far as to set up a meeting with me and an agency representative to discuss why they couldn’t support this kind of move for me. I had never seen pastors who were so informed and involved in the details of missions. Most had seemed happy to leave missionary methods to the missionaries and the missiologists–to the experts. But here, 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 even willing to make a potentially awkward intervention over it.
I was disappointed. I hoped to work as a mobilizer while finishing my undergrad studies. It seemed like a good fit after a life-changing year in the Middle East. And I wanted 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. They wanted me to work for a mission organization that would better align with biblical methodology and the church that would one day send me out. I opted to trust them and turned down the role.
I’m so glad I did.
Prior to this 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 common posture among those hoping to be missionaries. More often than not, choosing an agency is left up to the individual prospective missionary, with very little involvement from their sending church’s pastors. And even if the church is involved, few have thought about what to look for in a potential agency. This is not the way it should be.
The aim of this article is to lay out a practical framework for how a missionary–along with their sending church–should choose a missions agency.
Definitions
In order for the statement above about choosing an agency to be most helpful, we need to flesh out some of its key terms.
First, what is a missions agency? Simply put, a missions 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 more critical areas like convictions and vision. While there will never be perfect alignment, the greater the like-mindedness that exists, the more effective the partnership tends to be.
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 of 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 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.
And 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.
Biblical Principles
What principles from the Bible speak to this kind of alignment between a missionary and their sending church and a potential agency?
First, we should recognize the central role that the elders in the church at Antioch played in the sending out of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3). This was no individualistic decision but one made in conjunction with the local church after concerted prayer.
The Bible also recognizes that some matters are more important than others. Paul calls certain doctrines those of “first importance.” These carry greater weight than issues of conscience or culture (1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 14:1-22). This precedent shows us that it is right to count issues of doctrinal conviction, for example, as weightier than others when choosing an agency.
The wisdom of God’s word also teaches us that agreement in vision is important (Philippians 2:2, 4:2-3). In its theology of spiritual gifts, the Bible affirms that God gifts believers differently (1 Corinthians 12-14); therefore, wisdom would have us consider these different gifts and their corresponding practical needs when considering alignment.
Finally, Paul’s pattern of ministry in Acts shows us just how highly he valued working along the lines of relational trust. Paul was constantly calling his friends and partners in ministry to come and join him in a given city, going to join them somewhere, sending them off to help messy church plants, or speaking to how a particular believer’s or church’s reputation caused him to thank God. Paul’s ministry was utterly dependent on not just doctrinal alignment but also relational alignment.
Why Is This Statement Needed?
Mission agencies were first started as a way to help groups of like-minded churches send and support missionaries. The task of sending qualified believers to the nations was rightly understood as needing an entity that would come alongside local churches, serving them by facilitating much of the practical work required for missionary funding and other kinds of support while on the field. Yet, over time, the individualistic bent of Western culture meant that believers and mission agencies came to pursue 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 among many that needed checking off.
In light of this context, this statement is essential because there is a pressing need for a course correction that brings the local church back into the process of choosing an agency. This alone will lead to the much wiser pairing of a prospective missionary with an agency.
However, once the local church leadership is included in the process, there is still a need for a wise and practical framework by which they and the missionary can navigate the myriad options for mission agencies. The four categories of convictions, vision, relationships, and practical needs provide this framework.
When It’s Done Well
When missionaries and their sending church pastors take these four categories (convictions, vision, relationships, practical needs) seriously in choosing an agency, the missionary is freed up to do the work of the ministry and not encumbered by the conflict and frustration that emerges from poor alignment.
The result of being on the same page in so many areas, and especially in the most important ones, is trust. Suppose I know a new family is interested in joining us on the field from our sending church or the network of churches associated with it. In that case, I can assume that we will approach things from a similar set of convictions and philosophy of ministry. I should still do my homework to make sure that we are a good fit in other areas as well (so often, it’s the practical fit piece that can cause unwelcome surprises among believers who are otherwise very well-aligned). However, when alignment exists in the four areas of this framework, a generous foundation of trust can also exist.
This kind of trust means we will save time defining our unity, allowing us to focus on doing good work together.
Assessing mission agencies in this way is not only helpful on the front end but can also be beneficial when a missionary already on the field needs to reassess whether they are serving with the right organization. How should they think about this? In general, 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.
One family in the Middle East chose to leave the organization they had served with for 29 years. They did so because they recognized that changes in leadership had led to the platforming of unhealthy methods and to the gospel no longer being central. When their alignment with their organization in these core areas no longer existed, they took counsel and decided to separate from an organization that had earlier been such a good fit.
When It’s Not Done Well
When missionaries and their sending church pastors ignore or downplay these four categories in choosing an agency, the missionary is on a collision course with their agency, leadership, and teammates. Conflict is bound to ensue - a conflict which otherwise may have been avoidable.
When convictional alignment does not exist, missionaries and their churches discover they do not share the same beliefs as an agency or a team on the field when it comes to issues of crucial and even primary importance, such as theology, ecclesiology, methodology, philosophy of ministry, conflict resolution, and understanding of authority on the field. This misalignment can be the most difficult to navigate since disagreements in these areas often hinge on deeply held beliefs about what the Bible teaches and how it should be faithfully applied.
Missionaries, churches, and agencies often assume that agreement with a doctrinal statement is enough. It is not. Some of the most controversial issues in missions today, such as mission methodology, 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. I remember realizing at some point in the conflict that everyone on both sides of the conflict was theologically reformed and baptistic. Everyone had John Piper books on their shelves. Yet differences in convictions about ecclesiology and methodology practically meant that these missionaries could not 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 their work’s purpose and goal. 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, whose expectation of the team was that they only introduce locals to indigenous churches. Or, families may find themselves at odds with their team or agency regarding the role of the wife and mother and her freedom to focus on these primary roles versus doing full-time ministry. These kinds of clashing expectations can take quite a toll.
The absence of relational alignment might seem less serious. However, it can also prove costly since missionaries who are unknown don’t receive the same level of trust. This means they must spend a long time building the trust that might have come much sooner had previous shared relationships existed.
What about the costs of not being aligned in practical needs? Again, this final part of the framework means the missionary and agency/team 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. Poor compatibility here means the day-to-day requirements of the missionaries don’t fit with their gifts, desires, wiring, or seasons of life. This can be utterly discouraging for any missionary who finds themselves in this kind of situation.
I have served with organizations that are team-led, bottom-up, and policy-light. I have also served with hierarchical, top-down, and policy-heavy organizations. 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 be deeply frustrating if the way God has wired a missionary causes them to constantly clash with the culture and structure of their agency or team.
Conclusion
Looking back, I continue to be so thankful for my pastors’ intervention all those years ago. Because they were so proactive and entered into the conversation I was having with a missions agency, I was stopped from joining an organization my sending church could not support due to differing convictions. Then, years later, these pastors were again involved as my family decided to change organizations for practical compatibility reasons. I experienced firsthand the wisdom that comes from a multitude of counselors–especially when those counselors are your pastors.
Choosing a mission agency is no small decision. Instead, it can have massive ramifications on the life of a missionary and their work. Prospective missionaries and their churches need to make such a weighty decision together and with a framework that helps them discern where an alignment leads to freedom, trust, and unity on the field. After all, this is the kind of alignment that will lead to good mission work getting done.
