Do You Know What Your Missionary Is Doing?

Dec 23

PDF EBOOK

STATEMENT

Churches should support biblically qualified missionaries by understanding the missionary’s ministry goals and philosophy and by partnering with them in the ongoing challenges and joys of the work.

Introduction

Let’s say you are the owner of a company that made widgets. If you wanted to open a new widget manufacturing facility in a different country, how would you decide who to send to lead the efforts to build and run your new facility? Your ideal leader would need to know the business thoroughly, understand how to build and direct the new plant and be willing to stay in close touch with headquarters about their progress and results.

Now, think of a task of much greater importance than building widgets in foreign countries. Think of the evangelization of unreached people in the world and the establishment of self-sustaining churches throughout the nations. Who should a church send and support in these efforts of eternal value? Only the most qualified and with the best ongoing care and support.

Churches are the anchor point in the “sending chain” of missions. Let me explain. Churches win people to Christ and disciple their flock into maturity (Eph 4:12-16). Likely candidates for missions work are identified (Acts 13:1-3) and are often, eventually, connected with a missions agency. The agency will pair them with a missions team on the field, and soon, the newly minted missionary begins the ministry. That’s the “sending chain.” Each serves a vital role in carrying out God’s command for the church to make disciples of all nations. But the church’s role in deciding who they send and how they’ll continue supporting the work is critical, and it’s often where the most significant mistakes are made.

I met a good friend who was a missionary in the Middle East for years. He had just spoken at a missions conference for a large church in the US, and I asked him how it had gone. He furrowed his brow and said,

“You know it’s a wonderful church. The people there love Jesus. The church staff are on point when teaching the Word of God faithfully. Many have come to Christ in that church because they proclaim a clear gospel message.”

“That sounds wonderful,” I said, “But you seem to have some reservations?”

“Well,” he said, “the missionaries they support are fine people; some live sacrificial lives in hard places. I suspect that they are the type of people who would be elder-qualified, according to the Scriptures, but, Brian, they are locked into bad methods of missions. Some missionaries are producing translations of the Scriptures that twist the meaning of God’s Word to satisfy local culture; others are encouraging converts to stay and worship in the mosque as a witness to other Muslim people, and one missionary claimed to have seen fantastic numbers of converts, but that missionary seemed to have a weak view of genuine biblical conversion. All the missionaries seemed good-hearted, but frankly, I came away depressed; I don’t know how to speak to churches about the bad practices they’re supporting on the field.”

I understand his frustration. I've encountered many such missionaries in my 21 years of mission work in the Middle East. I’m eager to give someone the benefit of the doubt; after all, they’ve picked up and moved their family overseas at a significant cost for the sake of the gospel. Yet, unless churches make sure the missionaries they support are clear on the gospel, understand a biblical definition of conversion, and can biblically define a church, especially if they call themselves a “church planter,” they are in danger of supporting mission work with unbiblical philosophies of ministry. Being a Christian and having good intentions is not enough. Unqualified missionaries do far more harm than good for the cause of Christ and the gospel.

This can be avoided if the local church understands its crucial role in deciding who to send as a missionary, clearly understands a biblical philosophy of ministry, and provides ongoing support for the workers.

What Can Be Done

So, what can local churches do to make the best decisions about who to send to the mission field and how to support them once they’re there? When evaluating who should be sent, we suggest starting with three essential categories: character, convictions, and competencies.

1. Character

The first missionaries the early church sent out were two experienced elders of the church at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3). So, the character qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 and the qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 are good places to start. Missionaries should be mature in their faith (Ephesians 4:13) and evidence the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-24) in abundance. All missionaries need not be elders in a church before they leave for the field, but elder-qualified men should lead mission teams. Though we suggest using the passages about elder and deacon qualifications, we know the mission field also needs qualified women. Women working in the missions field should have the character qualifications of an elder or deacon. Churches should ask, “Would we want this missionary candidate taking a leadership position in our church?” If the answer is “probably not,” then it begs the question, “Why are you sending them to the mission field?”. With the stresses and strains of cross-cultural ministry, we need people of greater character in missions rather than those of less mature character.

2. Convictions

A second category for assessing potential mission candidates is how well they know Scripture, sound theology, and grasp a biblical philosophy of ministry (2 Timothy 2:15). Here, we should start with the basics. Is the candidate able to explain the gospel clearly from Scripture and refute distortions of the gospel? Do they have a biblical understanding of conversion and the church? Does the candidate know where to go in the Bible to address the myriad issues believers and non-believers will likely ask about them? A missionary without sound doctrine and theological understanding is like a warrior without weapons and armor! And the best theology won’t lead to gospel fruitfulness if it’s not employed using an orthodox philosophy of ministry.

3. Competencies

A third area to assess a potential missionary is to ask whether candidates have the necessary ministry skills (Colossians 1:10; 1 Timothy 2:8-10; 2 Timothy 2:22-26) to carry out the philosophy of ministry for their particular missionary work. Has this person been fruitful in a similar kind of ministry in their culture? Have they led people to Christ and discipled them toward maturity? Do they eagerly involve themselves in cross-cultural ministry where they live now? A missionary candidate who doesn’t have a track record of fruitful ministry in their own culture is unlikely to miraculously become fruitful simply by being commissioned and taking a long plane flight to distant lands.

Of course, specific training might be needed before a missionary candidate is qualified to go to a particular mission field. I knew a young woman in one church who shared with me that she had a calling to go and minister to the people of North Korea, one of the most closed countries in the world. But she didn’t know Korean and hadn’t ever tried to learn. She’d never been to northeast China and didn’t know the first thing about the region's culture. It was wonderful that this young woman had a heart and desire to see the gospel spread in North Korea, but she would have needed lots of specific training before it would have been prudent to go.

Is the Mission Strategy Biblical?

There is one critical component of a competent missionary, and perhaps the least understood. Missionaries that churches send must have biblical discernment about the variety of unsound philosophies of ministry currently employed in missions. These are likely issues that ordinary church members or even church elders might not be knowledgeable about without significant reading and help from experienced missionaries. Mission strategies like the “insider movement,” rapid “church planting movements,” and philosophies of ministry employed to reach “oral cultures” are examples of philosophies and strategies that are controversial. A church and a missionary candidate need to know and have some convictions about these before they choose an agency and leave for the mission field. These convictions are best established in consultation with the elders of a church and missiologists the church trusts. Churches and candidates will want to avoid partnering with mission agencies and teams using strategies and philosophies they feel are not biblically grounded.

For example, I once attended a regional conference for missionaries where a paper was presented. The researcher interviewed Muslim converts about what was most crucial in their coming to faith. The top two survey answers were reading the Bible with a Christian and having a personal relationship with a Christian. Yet, the leaders of the conference persisted in saying that the most important thing for workers in the region to focus on was to pray for Muslims to have more dreams and visions of Jesus. I was dumbfounded. The philosophies of ministry that most of those workers were employing were deficient and unbiblical. Meanwhile, our ministry was seeing much fruit born with Muslims month after month by simply engaging people in Bible study in the context of a relationship with a Christian.

Staying Informed and Involved

So, once a qualified candidate has been commissioned and sent, the work of the sending church is just beginning. Regular communication from the missionary about the challenges and joys of the work, along with specific prayer requests, is essential to help the church stay informed and involved. Transparent and timely communication also keeps the missionary accountable for working in the ministry “as unto the Lord” (Colossians 3:17). Often, a missionary’s team (and, if possible, local church) on the field becomes their primary source of pastoral care, but the sending church should never abdicate their responsibility to help give ongoing care for the missionaries they’ve sent. Periodic calls or personal emails with questions about the missionary’s devotional life and emotional/spiritual health should be the norm. When either the missionary or the church becomes complacent and negligent in communication, the lifeline of support and prayer that flows in both directions becomes strained and weak. The Apostle Paul regularly returned to Antioch and other supporting churches to report about the ministry and a faithful missionary in our day will want to do the same. Missionaries and their sending church should keep the communication flowing for the maximum benefit of both.

Often, churches are unsure of what is most helpful and unhelpful in carrying out their God-given responsibility to support missionaries well. We’ll start by sharing some of the most unhelpful practices:

Visits by church members during busy ministry times
Underestimating the value of simply giving financially and praying
Requiring in-person visits at the supporting church too frequently
Not helping to guard missionary vacation time or time with family stateside
Communicating in unsecure ways when the missionary works in a closed country and has strict communication protocol to protect the work from hostile governments

Some of the most helpful practices that churches can employ are:

Carefully planned visits from pastors or qualified lay leaders to observe and encourage the missionaries while on the field
Educating church members on how to be in touch with and care for missionaries well
Employing creative ways to let missionaries tell ministry stories for the church with minimal ministry disruption (Zoom and recorded video can be a big help here)
Working hard to understand the missionary’s life, challenges, and joys
Periodic messages and emails letting your missionary know you are praying for them
Carefully choosing how many different missionaries the church supports so that the church is maximally invested in fewer ministries rather than small amounts given to many ministries

Missions is often a long, slow work that requires patience, prayer, and long-term faithfulness. Missionaries can succumb to the fear that only “breakthroughs” and “good news” will be welcomed by our partners. Honest, transparent, pastorally driven relationships between the supporting church back home and the missionary on the field will lead to congregations with realistic ideas about mission work and missionaries who are cared for well.

The goal of missions is to make disciples of all nations. It is the great entrustment of eternal value that Christ has given to his Church (Matthew 28:18-20). If leaders in the local church should be biblically qualified, surely those who take the gospel to the nations should be as well. And once they’re there, churches and their missionaries should partner well enough that both can share in the challenges and joys of taking the good news to the world.

Resources:

On Sending and Serving Well: