PDF EBOOK

STATEMENT

Churches should lead global missions by adequately assessing and equipping prospective missionaries instead of deferring this responsibility solely to mission agencies. In this task, churches should emphasize a candidate’s qualification, vision, and preparation over and above subjective call.

A young couple, fairly new to the church and largely unknown, asked to meet with the elders. Much to the elders’ surprise, the couple informed them that they were going to be missionaries. They had applied to a mission agency and were assessed and approved by that agency to leave for the field pending the agreement of their home church to be designated as their sending church. With a simple sign-off from the elders, the church could send some of their own to labor for the gospel among the nations. Sounds exciting!

Wisely, the elders pushed pause. They could sense that this couple loved Jesus and cared deeply for the nations. Yet, the elders had no reason to believe the couple was gifted for ministry. The elders had seen no evidence of them sharing the gospel with a non-believer, and they certainly couldn’t identify any fruit from such labors. The elders also couldn’t identify anyone in a discipleship relationship with either of them. Though they didn’t seem disqualified, there was nothing the elders had seen that would indicate this couple was called to the missionary task and equipped for it. The elders reasoned that in a year or so, they could reassess the couple for missionary service.

Who Sends Missionaries? Churches vs. Agencies

The sad reality is that the most unusual thing about the story above is the elders’ questioning the process. It is not uncommon for prospective missionaries to pursue international ministry largely outside their local church’s context and counsel. It makes some logical sense. Aren’t mission agencies the experts in missions? Shouldn’t they know what it takes to be a missionary? Aren’t they the proper entities to assess, approve, and send a missionary? It might seem logical, but it isn’t what the Bible teaches. The Bible gives no responsibility to a mission agency in sending missionaries. Mission agencies are not in the Bible. The local church is. And the local church is responsible for sending missionaries.

Mission agencies can be a beneficial resource and partner in a church’s efforts to obey the Great Commission. We should celebrate good mission agencies and seek partnerships with them. But we should not allow those mission agencies, as extra-biblical entities, to usurp the authority and responsibility of the local church in sending missionaries. 

Paul, an apostle called very explicitly by Christ himself to be a missionary to the Gentiles, was sent out by the local church. In Acts 13, we see Paul gathered with the church in Antioch. The Holy Spirit set apart Paul and Barnabas for mission work, and the local church “laid their hands on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:3). The laying on of hands communicates a sense of blessing for them and a commending. It displays the church’s authoritative recognition of the Holy Spirit’s call upon someone. We see something similar with the recognition of elders by the laying on hands in 1 Timothy 5:22. Laying hands on a missionary is the church’s symbolic affirmation of a missionary’s qualification and preparedness.    

Assessing Prospective Missionaries 

If it is the church that is responsible for sending missionaries, it is also the church that is responsible for assessing missionaries. Determining someone’s readiness for mission work requires more than what applications and interviews can reveal. Their readiness should be shown in the lives they lead in their community and local church. The best agency assessors will not have as clear of a view into the prospective missionaries’ lives as the men and women who are in their lives day in and day out: their church.

A young family was living overseas for the adventure and experience. While there, they developed a heart for the nations and the task of preaching the gospel to those who haven’t heard the truth of Christ. They returned to the US to find an agency and be sent out intentionally. In the process, their local church noticed some concerns with their marriage. Their elders convinced them to slow down and work on their marriage before launching out. The “slow down” delayed their launch date by over two years but likely saved them from certain conflict amidst the difficulty of cross-cultural work; an unquantifiable blessing. 

This family had all the missionary zeal you would hope to see, but they were not properly ready to be sent. So, how do we determine who is ready? A person is ready for the mission field when they are qualified in character, have a clear vision for biblical ministry, and are adequately prepared to accomplish the task.

1. Qualified in Character

Stories of moral failure among missionaries are, sadly, not unusual. Like all Christians, missionaries continue to battle the flesh wherever they go. Because the mission field is an incredibly stressful environment—a spiritual pressure cooker—weaknesses and idols of the heart are quickly exposed. Therefore, before considering prospective missionaries’ competency, we must consider their character.

Scripture provides good tests for prospective missionaries in 1 Timothy 3. Would we send a man to plant a church who would not have the character to qualify as an elder of that church once it is planted? Here’s a good rule of thumb: if a person is not qualified to serve on staff in your church, do not send them overseas.

Not all missionaries are men who plant churches and serve in elder roles. Praise God for the many single women who have laid down their lives to serve Christ and His gospel globally! These women, and women who serve alongside their husbands, serve with the same principles as elders apart from teaching in the assembly and leading the church. As Don Carson says, the list of requirements for elders is “remarkable for being unremarkable,” merely the characteristics you would hope for any Christian.

The bottom line is that they are serving the church and its mission, and we should expect all missionaries to reflect the character of Christ. 

Unqualified missionaries can wreak havoc on the field. A thin assessment process by a sending church and mission agency let a woman known for divisiveness make it overseas and onto a team in East Asia. She brought her divisiveness with her, and soon began creating conflict within the team. As a result, significant amounts of time and energy had to be diverted from gospel work to internal team matters.

A missionary’s character assessment must be done by the sending church. Character is more likely to be seen in years of a relationship than even the most thorough application. Agencies can be beneficial in the assessment process, but they are not replacements for the intentional examination and evaluation of a prospective missionary’s character done by the sending church. 

2.  Clear Vision of Biblical Ministry

A woman told me she was going to move to the Middle East on mission. I asked what she was planning to do there. She wasn’t sure; the Lord would show her when she arrived. I asked who was sending her—a mission agency. I asked about her church’s involvement. She told me she goes to three churches, but they are minimally involved in her plans. Yikes, red flags were everywhere!

How can we know that someone is qualified and prepared for the missionary work we are sending them to do if they don’t have a clear vision for the work they will be doing? The church should not be in the business of sending people on Christian adventures. “They will figure it out when they get there” is bad stewardship of a church’s God-given resources.

A clear vision is more than just knowing the goal; it is also knowing how it will be done. For example, a missionary who desires to plant churches needs to know what strategy they will use. Is the strategy biblical? There are great mission agencies with solid theology and clear missiology, but some take an “anything goes” approach. Some of their missionaries might be doing faithful biblical missions, while others under the same banner advocate for whatever pragmatic strategy seems to be working, regardless of biblical fidelity. A sending church needs to assess the agency, too.

Sending missionaries without a clear and solid biblical vision is a gamble. Those sent into these agencies without that vision can easily fall into a pragmatic, “whatever works” mindset. And we can certainly agree that gambling is not good stewardship. 

3.  Prepared for Missions

It is quite possible that a prospective missionary could have the necessary character and biblical vision for missions and still shouldn’t be sent. Not everyone is prepared for the work. Some people aren’t gifted at it. Some people aren’t equipped for it. Remember our couple from the opening story. It wasn’t their character or vision that was missing. They seemed to their elders to be ill-prepared. 

A good rule of thumb is if a person is not making disciples in their home culture, they won’t make disciples in a foreign culture. There is nothing about taking on the title of missionary that magically makes one fruitful in ministry. We set up young missionaries to fail when we expect them to be effective on the field in ways we’ve never seen them be effective in our church. 

Sometimes, this is a gifting issue. If so, we should have the courage to have the hard but loving conversation that discourages them from pursuing mission work. Often, the person needs more discipleship and an opportunity to mature. This maturity isn’t going to happen in a mission agency’s orientation month.

We are all eager to see people sent to the nations from our churches, but we shouldn’t let eagerness eclipse prudence. Prudence will often say, “Slow down!” to do the hard work of thoroughly preparing a prospective missionary for their task. This preparation might include working on practical skills, theological equipping, or character matters. Regardless, it will take intentionality and effort. This effort is something churches must be willing to give if we want to send prepared missionaries.

The Danger of “Calling”

What about the evangelical trump card? “God is calling me to…” Who wants to disagree with God? Churches are often afraid to question this kind of statement, and a person’s subjective call becomes the primary factor in whether they should be sent to the mission field. But the reality is that when a person is unqualified in character, unclear on biblical mission, and unprepared for the mission task, we can be confident that God is not calling them–at least not yet. 

While preparing to go overseas, I was frequently asked about my “calling” during fundraising events. People were surprised when I told them I understood my calling to missions when my local church elders affirmed me and laid hands on me. Through this, I was confident that God was calling me.

This doesn’t mean my desire to go was not an important factor in the process. It would be foolish to send someone who didn’t have a zeal for the nations. The zeal, though, cannot be the predominant factor in our going and sending. Our character, qualifications, vision, and preparation should be the principal factors. Yes, churches should foster zeal, not squash it. Yet, I would claim it is better to subdue an untethered zeal than send a zealous but unqualified missionary to the nations. Sending someone to the mission field prematurely is dangerous to their soul and the witness of Christ.