Who Decides? Issues of Authority on the Field

Dec 23

Written by David Lawrence

STATEMENT

The need exists for partnership in authority between sending churches, mission agencies, and the field church. Where a field church exists, however, it should provide the primary spiritual and doctrinal authority for missionaries.

Introduction

An international news agency reported bombs exploding in a country where agencies had placed a newly formed team of missionaries. The US State Department raised that country’s security grade to level four.

Soon after, their sending church’s pastor contacted one of the missionaries.

“Is it a good idea for you to stay?” he asked.

A good conversation followed in which the missionary explained he felt no immediate danger for himself and his family. He had sought wisdom from the elders of his field church and was awaiting their response. Reassured, the sending church pastor promised that his church would be ready to help should the missionary families decide to leave.

The field church elders, where the missionary was a member, concluded that pulling him out would hurt the missionary team’s strategic and fragile work among the unreached. They felt it would be a bad witness to those who could not leave. The elders counseled him to stay. Besides, the bombs were not near the sites where they worked. The missionaries were happy to stay.

However, the HR department of a respected mission agency demanded that the missionaries stop their strategic work and move to a city in a nearby country. Out of obedience, that’s what the missionaries did, but it left them with an uneasy feeling.

What are missionaries to do when conflicts of authority like this arise on the field?

Issues of authority touch many areas of the missionary life: safety and security, spiritual authority (guidance, counseling, discipline), Biblical doctrine (conversion, baptism, readiness of new leaders), and employment and ministry decisions.

Who holds the final authority in a missionary's life and work? Is it the field church where they are members? Their mission agency? Their sending church? Is it up to their own independent decision?

These questions are not new. For example, at the beginning of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, SBC missionaries in China objected that the mission board had no legitimate right “to usurp the authority that rightly belonged to field churches.” [1] One of the main points of contention among the SBC mission board, its missionaries, and SBC churches at that time was how much control and authority the mission board should have over missionaries.

Differing contexts, personnel, and other issues certainly will make each missionaries’ experience a unique situation. For instance, in a country with no indigenous churches, our team of three families spent years helping a large, established international field church grow in biblical health, which has since planted several other churches. Some missionaries will plant a new field church or get involved in local indigenous churches.

Whatever the specific context, missionaries need to be ready to engage with a field church.

Defining Each Base of Authority

When the authority categories are unclear, confusion increases, so it’s essential to consider the types of authority best used in the three entities.

A sending church must assess, affirm, prepare, send, support, and hold a missionary accountable to the mission's task. A mission agency may affirm the technical skills of a missionary, facilitate employment, and hold accountable to the job requirements. A field church must (ordinarily) affirm and hold a missionary accountable in their faith and walk, including matters of membership and church discipline, when necessary (cf Matthew 18:15-20)

Need for Overlapping Communication

Since sending churches, mission agencies, and field churches all have a role in a missionary’s life, communication and coordinated efforts are vital to avoid confusion and conflict.

We believe that where a field church exists, missionaries should join as members, placing themselves under the authority of those local elders. The field church has the closest connection with the missionary context. Its elders have the most significant access to the missionary and, therefore, should provide the missionary's primary spiritual and doctrinal authority.

Where a field church does not exist or is not in biblical health, the missionary should consider the wisest course of action in prayer and consultation with their sending church. In this case, the sending church may have the primary spiritual responsibility in the missionary’s life.

The need for sending agencies has risen to facilitate many logistical and administrative burdens of sending missionaries to the field. Churches (sending and field) can cooperate with agencies or para-church ministries for equipping and training. However, they should not abdicate their overall spiritual and doctrinal authority to the mission agency because the agency is not the Church.

Why This Is Important

Each base of authority in the missionary’s life brings something important and valuable (see diagram). Each plays a vital role in the success of the mission. When there is coordinated communication between these authorities, many benefits ensue:

Peace and a sense of balance in the missionary’s life [2]
Longevity for the missionary on the field
Greater witness to the local community, and where a church exists, a visible effect of the gospel’s influence in the missionary’s web of relationships.
A model of what missionaries would ask those they have seen come to faith to do.
Enhanced ability to address in a timely and effective way the needs or concerns that arise in the missionary’s life and work.
The ability for greater resourcing that is more uniquely addressed to the actual needs on the field.

Problems When Authorities Clash

Confusion abounds when there is no communication between agencies and churches for missionaries who decide to join a field church. This has fueled animosity between organizations and established field churches in some countries. It also creates confusion in the broader communities (e.g., “Why do the Christians not get along?”) and for the missionaries themselves.

For example, agency teams may implement strategies that conflict with members’ commitments to their field church. Teams have been known to schedule meetings during regular church gatherings.

Another concern is that agencies sometimes make decisions without consulting the missionary, field church, or sending church. For example, a missionary who began experiencing periodic bouts of depression and anxiety after more than a decade on the field was told by the mission agency to return to their home country indefinitely to receive counseling. They also suggested they return to their sending church community. They decided to consult with their sending church and the field church where they had become members. The elders of both churches felt a shorter visit to the home country for assessment may be helpful. But they agreed the missionary would have better spiritual and emotional care in the field church community they had cultivated over the last decade, rather than uprooting deep friendships at such a critical time. Thankfully, the mission agency agreed with the churches that the missionary could stay. Through the healing process, the missionary was able to minister to many on the field, albeit in a different capacity. They also became a testimony to many in their sending church and mission agency.

Benefits When Authorities Partner Together

Partnering between sending church, mission agency, and field church is not only possible but where it has happened; it has bolstered gospel mission effectiveness.

In one Middle Eastern country, missionaries worked to establish a university student ministry. The missionaries saw students come to faith. They understood that an effective para-church ministry needed a healthy field church with which to partner. However, in the early days of that student ministry, the international church on the field was not healthy.

The mission agency allocated time from these missionaries' workloads on campuses to supporting the international church’s growth in applying biblical principles to worship gatherings. The sending churches of these missionaries also gave strategic help through consultation, resources, and recruiting a pastor. The field church began offering a place where students could gather and be encouraged each week in services and members’ homes.

As a result, both the university student ministry and the field church grew significantly. Students saw the value of ongoing church attendance as integral to their faith well beyond their years in university, and the students' evangelistic zeal challenged the church. Over the next couple of decades, nearly a dozen churches would be planted through the influence of this one church. The university student ministry continues to thrive, with many staff funded primarily through these field churches in the country.

A second example comes from my work as pastor of a field church with a ministry partner, Kim. She came to our region seeking a long-term placement, having finished her language training in a nearby country. Kim spoke to me about what it would be like to minister to the local population and be a member of our church.

Later, she asked, “Would it be ok if two of the elders from my sending church could come to help me assess the region, the ministry opportunities, and the field church situation?” As a long-term missionary and pastor, I rarely saw such collaboration, so I readily agreed.

These elders from her sending church saw the region as suitable for the ministry she had prepared for and for which they had sent her. We saw that Kim would be an excellent asset to the church and the direction of ministry we desired. Kim found a mission agency willing to partner with sending churches and our field church. Because of Kim's ministry, our church’s outreach has advanced in that language. She has been a vital component of the church’s membership. The sending church has visited several times, not only to see their “sent one” but also to build up our church.

Conclusion

Jesus is building his church (Matt 16:18) with all the authority that has been given to him (Matt 28:18). He is the cornerstone; His word is the foundation on which it is built (Ephesians 2:11-22, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15). We must beware that our exercise of authority doesn’t interfere with His goals.

When a partnership, coupled with strong communication, exists between sending churches, mission agencies, and field churches, there is greater peace and longevity for the missionaries and greater effectiveness in the mission.

Footnotes:

[1] Eitel, Keith, Paradigm Wars: The Southern Baptist International Mission Board Faces the Third Millennium, p. 40

[2] Scott Logsdon has an excellent article on this: https://www.9marks.org/article/why-is-it-essential-for-missionaries-to-join-a-church-where-they-live/