MISSIONARY METHODS: Speed vs. Sovereignty
STATEMENT
We think biblically rather than pragmatically about our ministry methodology by aiming to be chiefly motivated by the glory of God among the nations. God-centered motivation leads to methods that rely on God’s sovereign power rather than innovative practice. Therefore, we rely on the sufficiency of Scripture–rightly interpreted–to form and judge our ministry practice. As we set our confidence in God and His Word, we begin with “What does Scripture teach?” rather than “What will work?” By this, we mean clear gospel proclamation that leads to the formation of robustly biblical local churches that evangelize the world.
Article Written by Clyde DavidsonI’d like you to meet two friends of mine, Victor and Vijaya. They are similar in many ways—they both love the Lord deeply, love the lost, and want to see the gospel advance to the ends of the earth. However, they sometimes struggle to find common ground despite these foundational similarities. While they value many of the same things, their differences in motive, means, metrics, and methodologies mean they feel worlds apart, even as they seek to engage in the same task.
Introduction
Victor was a regular at worship gatherings for students on campus during university. One semester, they had a series of missionaries and other speakers come and present on the state of world evangelism. The sheer number of people living in dire need and without access to the gospel overwhelmed Victor. He took summer mission trips, spent a semester overseas, and made it his goal to go to the unreached to preach the gospel. His studies in seminary were focused, and he sought to be well-equipped to go where the need was urgent and get there as soon as possible. He went to bed each night thinking about the plight of those who did not know Jesus and had many restless and sleepless nights thinking about it. As he considered how he ought to engage the work ahead of him, the urgency of the task at hand left no question in his mind; the goal of his work was speed so that as many people could hear it as quickly as possible.
Much like Victor, Vijaya sees and cares about the needs of the lost. She feels deep compassion for those who are spiritually dead, enslaved to darkness. However, as she considers the teaching of the Bible and the example of the apostle Paul in places like 2 Corinthians 4-5, she is spurred on more by a desire for the glory of God. As she studies scripture, she sees that the biggest problem in the world is that God does not receive the glory due to him. Lostness and eternity in hell, apart from God, is humanity’s biggest problem, but it is not the core problem. The core problem is that God is not worshiped as he should be. She sees the task’s urgency for the sake of the lost, but as she considers that the work belongs to the Lord, she does not see any conflict with pursuing biblical faithfulness while recognizing the urgent need. In other words, it seems to Vijaya that she is not so important that God can’t complete the task without her.
Means
As Vijaya works out her faith and convictions motivated by the glory of God, she prioritizes being a part of work that uses straightforward means, namely a reliance on God working by his Spirit as the word is faithfully proclaimed. Vijaya believes that the power of conversion is in the Holy Spirit, so her job, and any other missionary, is to make the meaning of scripture plain and pray fervently, trusting the Spirit to act. She believes that undergirding anything she does or says, there should be a foundation of sound hermeneutics and faithful biblical interpretation. This leads her to see passages like Matthew 18:20 not as merely referring to any time Christians may gather but particularly in its context to the local church as they exercise the keys of the kingdom through membership and church discipline. This commitment to sound hermeneutics gives her a high view of the local church. Even as she goes to distant places for the sake of the gospel, Vijaya shapes her life and ministry around the local church, submitting to godly leaders wherever she goes and even considering how she can support the work of church planting in a biblically faithful way in places where that may be needed.
Meanwhile, as Victor is motivated by the needs he sees around him and the world, his main question is how the goal of world evangelism can be achieved the fastest. Whenever he hears of a new tool or method to accomplish the Great Commission, he jumps at the opportunity. He is constantly searching for creative and innovative ideas to maximize his impact for the gospel. As a Christian, he cares about the Bible, but he finds Vijaya’s efforts to find the Bible’s prescription for missions and ministry as simple, ineffectual, and slow. He wants to take advantage of the new media available and any means possible to quickly complete the task of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.
Metrics
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 their 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 the apostles 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. However, we do not have the same position and authority 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.
Nevertheless, Paul and the apostles had unique authority as 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. Their position in the church was different than ours. 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 elder/pastor-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 church 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. The 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 are 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 a people who are unreached and unengaged? 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 mission field that make the water a bit murkier for understanding the role of a field church in the missionary’s life.
How should we respond to the unique challenges of living under the authority of a field church in missions today? 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 (i.e., ecclesiology). Since Jesus created local churches and calls us to submit to local churches, our missiology must work out what that submission should look like on the mission field instead of forming exceptions for missionaries. 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. 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.
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 and how a field church aids rather than hinders 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 on the mission field. It is mainly due to a lack of accountability. Who should be watching the missionaries’ lives? Who should disciple them on the field? Who assesses 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 and the fellowship of the saints and 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 those being discipled by them? And 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 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. Therefore, 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. However, 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 towards 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.
Would it not be wonderful to see missionaries across the world laboring both in submission to and hand-in-hand with field churches in 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!
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.
