Lovingly Leading Your Churches, Agencies, and Missionaries Back to Biblical Missions

Seasoned missions mentor David Meade shares his observations about the state of global missions after many years working with sending churches and organizations. In question-and-answer format, he articulates key problems that hinder biblical missions in sincere churches and missions organizations and he elucidates his hope that they return to the biblical paradigm of selecting, sending, and supporting workers who are equipped to glorify God among the nations.

Lovingly Recognize Problems at Home

Question: How are some sending agencies and churches misunderstanding their responsibilities when it comes to missions and what’s a starting place for developing a sound philosophy of missions?

Some missions agencies and sending churches fail to understand what they are responsible for building. Understanding how to act upon the Great Commission in practice will help missions leadership not default to the “lowest common denominator.” The disconnect between theory and practice can be particularly acute––it is not uncommon to hear that even theologically sound churches seem either unable or unwilling to craft a philosophy of world missions.

Yet, they have the toolkit to do so. The solution for practicing biblical missions is a lot easier than they might think. For starters, consider the decisions a biblically grounded church would make in selecting new elders. Neither the leaders nor the congregation would ever approve or endorse an elder or a pastoral staff member for whom they knew relatively nothing about their doctrine in the ordination process. Why would they not have a similar discovery process concerning the doctrinal convictions and distinctions of their missionaries? It ought to be natural for church leaders to understand the beliefs of their missionaries, especially when those beliefs will inform their field practices. Churches and organizations can also consider the expectation that their own leaders preach and teach the Bible as a foundational ministry of the Body. A sound church would never allow the Word of God to be silent from the pulpit. Why would they allow it on the mission field? So, another way to ensure biblical missions practices in the churches and organizations is to think about how they would want these servants to serve them at home and then expect the same abroad.

Question: How have churches historically struggled to understand their role in missions and what are today’s consequences?

The Church has a history of being ill informed about ecclesiology, that is God’s design for the church in the world. In layman’s terms, the church seems to struggle to understand what the church is and does. This lack of understanding has led to a palpable vacancy in teaching about biblical missions.

Many people in Western churches play into pragmatism by focusing all their "missions" efforts on local programs, believing "after we fix our own Jerusalem, then we'll go to Judea, Samaria, the uttermost parts." Others would rather farm out all responsibility to missions agencies, choosing to finance world missions passively rather than attempt to fulfill the Great Commission through personal effort. One can then see the defects this problem has created.

Do not misunderstand; mission agencies and para-church organizations are vital in ensuring biblical fidelity on the mission field. The local church needs expertise outside of itself, places that establish solid theological and biblical training, culture, language acquisition, and help with strategic thinking. Agencies play an essential role in tandem with the local church, but they are not the organization God has put in charge of the Great Commission. The church alone is commissioned to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, because disciples are only made in the context of the local church.

Another critical aspect of the church is that it enables equipping and growing under the teaching of God's Word. When a local church acts responsibly, you get the regular meeting of believers under the Word of God and mutual commitment to one another, practicing the “one another” commands. A fellowshipping environment will grow all Christians, including those God has set apart for the work of missions. Biblically faithful missionaries are made in their sending church and then build a biblically faithful local church wherever they are sent. Therefore, with clear certainty, if the local church at home understands its central role in gospel proclamation and disciple-making, then it will naturally raise up missionaries from within the congregation and will work wisely in the training and sending process, so that their missionaries reproduce healthy congregations that perpetuate the selecting and sending cycle among indigenous people.

Lovingly Raise Up a Candidate

Question: What are some threats to the biblical training of missionary candidates today?

The West seems to be offering less biblical training in formal ministry training programs. Fifty years ago, the requirement for one year at a Bible College would have included at least a survey of the entire Bible and at least a few expositional courses on some major sections of the New Testament. Today, the degree appears to be watered down, at least in Western institutions. It is not uncommon to observe contemporary Bible college degrees or missions degrees only shallowly covering the bare minimum of biblical and theological studies.       

Another threat comes from the broader world in which the church exists. Secularism is international and has been so influential––except in the most primitive locations––that unless the candidate has been trained with a solid biblical and theological framework, he will face challenges trying to discern what is and is not acceptable for his own practice when he gets to the field. If a Western missionary struggles to live a righteous life in today's culture in the West, how will he do so cross-culturally?

The most direct way to ensure biblical fidelity on the mission field is to implant wisdom and understanding directly through comprehensive biblical and theological training. The missionary candidate should not leave his shores until he has deeply studied the Bible and considered how to apply it first to his own life. Keeping the candidate faithful to the Bible requires active discipleship by wise trainers, especially in the local church.

Question: What role does patience play in training and preparing missionary candidates?

It cannot be overstated that leading a missionary candidate to the field takes great patience on the part of both the trainers and the candidate. Most future missionaries have an eagerness to serve the Lord's work, which is why they desire a foreign assignment in the first place––they hunger to serve the Lord in creative ways. Encouraging them to be patient is not easy but worthwhile. Help them realize that they must be well-equipped to be a strong missionary producing glorifying fruit in the long term. Ensuring lasting fruit means they must work hard in ministry on the home side. They need to become spiritually mature and educationally enriched. They need adequate time to work through any problems in their personal lives. Such maturing does not happen simply with a degree from an institution; it comes primarily from life experience.

The Apostle Paul is a helpful example of patience in missionary training. Almost immediately upon his conversion by special revelation from Christ, Paul knew he was going to be a missionary: "He [Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel (Acts 9:15)." Paul was essentially a Jewish seminary graduate from the most preeminent Hebrew program before he became a Christian, having trained as a zealous Pharisee under the eminent scholar Gamaliel (Acts 22:3; cf. 5:34; Gal 1:13–14).

Paul was on track to be a Pharisee of Pharisees until he became a Christian. He received the gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12), “so that [Paul] might proclaim Him as good news among the Gentiles” (1:16). Nevertheless, for the next three years, he did not “go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before [him]” (1:17). Instead, after three years, he conferred with Peter and James in Jerusalem as an apostle and equal (1:18–19). Yet, even after his recognition, for which the churches were glorifying God (1:24), Paul wasn't sent to the mission field. He went to Tarsus (Acts 9:30) and Antioch (Acts 11:24–26). Only after years of training and ministering locally was Paul sent to the missions field (Acts 13:1–3).

Not every missionary candidate needs to wait so many years. However, in today's world, it is reasonable––and biblically warranted––to be patient, work diligently, and seek qualification in every way necessary from the local church. Even if the process of entering the field takes a couple more years than expected, it is worthwhile to have the confirmation and commissioning of the local church. Whatever it takes to confirm the missionary knows his Bible and won't abandon God's Word when challenges arise is worth the investment and the time.

Lovingly Strengthen a Missionary

Question: What can churches do to promote the continued spiritual growth of missionaries?

Church and missions leaders want missionaries to continue to grow spiritually while on the field, particularly in their understanding and application of theology. Yet, many missionaries, who have already received pre-field training of some kind, are tempted to say they know the answers they need to know already, so their training is sufficient for the duration of their ministry. Those missionaries who have graduated from a biblical and theological degree program might say to themselves, "I still have my notes from class to use when the time comes." Such a position is a plateau of sorts. Missionaries who are content with their previous training will experience that their theological curiosity wanes and their disciplined study of Scripture falls off. So, once they are entrenched in their ministry contexts, they likely need help to further develop the skills of studying and searching the Scriptures.

There are at least two ways to lovingly strengthen a missionary by advancing their training while on the field: teach them to apply biblical ecclesiology and ensure that they master the key doctrines of Scripture.

First, just as the church congregation needs to understand what the local church is called to be and to do, the missionary needs to understand his role on the field. Do not just assume they have a functional ecclesiology because they are from your home church. Talk with them about matters of church polity and practice. Still, every culture is different, so applying some truths might look different for them than they do for their sending church. But the basics, such as elder qualifications, a plurality of elders, the importance of the exposition of God's Word, and church discipline, must be taught and discussed repeatedly, from their candidating days to their seasoned career on the field. Their sending church should act as their partner in every phase of their service, strengthening and standing with them to embrace and maintain a biblical understanding of God’s design for the church.

Second, as to the missionary’s theological preparation, all branches of study are beneficial for Christian service, but missionaries need clarity and conviction on key doctrines and on the gospel above all else. Soteriology, the doctrines concerning salvation, are at once simple and profound––no one can achieve any smidgen of salvation on their own, apart from regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Believers need to understand how to apply themselves in their sanctification, through the means of grace that God provides, such as Bible study, prayer, and fellowship in the local church setting. They must also know biblical anthropology to help people hear the Bible’s answers to the fundamental questions of their existence and ethics.  Of course, they also need to understand the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, because everywhere they turn on the field, nonbelievers attack the Bible as being a man-made, obsolete, even harmful book, but it is through the Word of God that the missionary finds God’s comfort and help for the fight.

Many other core doctrines could be cited but the reality is that church and missions leaders want their missionaries to continue growing spiritually, especially in their understanding and application of theology. Yet, many missionaries either somehow shortcut the path to the field and receive insufficient pre-field biblical and theological training, or they receive spiritually oriented degrees that seem to them adequate for what will come. But facing the problems ahead require reinforcing the truths they know through continuing education. The sending church is best suited to determine how to promote the spiritual development of their missionary.

Question: What can churches do to ensure missionaries stay focused on biblical missions?

Sending churches need to make sure missionaries are doing what they were sent to do. Presumably, they were sent to do something directly related to biblical missions, so if they are focused on church planting, preaching, and teaching in some capacity, hopefully they understand the importance of their tasks and will not become sidetracked. Over time, however, having a reputation for biblical faithfulness and clarity will open doors for them to minister to other churches on the field or to help with administrative projects and other leadership roles beyond the scope of their ministry action plans. By keeping them focused on their priority of accomplishing the work for which they were originally sent, sending church leadership can keep them devoted to biblical tasks.

Question: What wrong attitudes can churches develop towards missionaries that should be avoided?

As a church becomes more committed to biblical missions, a danger sometimes arises. A mission-minded church can often develop a self-centered approach to missions. It’s a subtle problem, but sometimes sending church leaders and members can treat mission fields as vacation destinations, visiting workers in locations they would like to visit. Sometimes short-term ministry trips can be treated as opportunities for self-advancement, like when pastors think, "If I travel to the field, I can preach, teach, get my name on the program, and add to my résumé." Self-focused missions goals can derail sending churches from spending their efforts to shepherd their missionaries and partner with them to advance the gospel on the field.

One tool for correcting self-centeredness from sending churches is simple: send your pastor to the field as an observer, not to do ministry. Send him to shadow the missionary that he has helped to send to the field. Require him to observe what's going on, ask many questions, listen well, and learn the best he can what life is like. Once pastors see the people, sense the language differences, eat the food, and take in the smells, they will begin to realize what this missionary is doing on behalf of the sending church. In a tangible way they will begin to see their missionaries as an extension of their local church. Having the pastors of sending churches live as a missionary for a moment, seeing what their sent ones have to deal with concerning housing, the children and family issues, health and safety––they come home and smell like missions; it oozes out of their blood when they preach, with a newfound empathy that radiates throughout the congregation and further mobilizes missions.

Lovingly Direct the Defiant Missionary

Question: What happens when a missionary develops different doctrinal beliefs and convictions from the sending church or organization?

 This happens often enough. Every missionary grows spiritually on the field and might find themselves in a different place theologically than when they started. One's eschatology might shift or some other doctrinal matter might come up that affects their philosophy of ministry. Similarly, a sending church might adopt a new position that a missionary who is grandfathered in rejects. There are any number of differences that might lead to division between the missionary and his sending church leadership team.

There are also cases where missionaries sign doctrinal statements for their parachurch organizations out of a desire to work through them, even though they don’t agree with everything the organizations espouse. They affirm most of the doctrines or practices but then disaster strikes: differences of conviction lead to disunity and dysfunction on the ministry team and within the organization. A divided team won’t last long and certainly won’t be effective in ministry. Yet, if there is hope of resolving conflict, it will begin with open communication. The missionary should feel safe enough to come and say to those with whom he disagrees, "I'm wrestling with X; I’m struggling to participate in Y." The biblically minded missionary needs to sit down and talk through the perceived problems in depth.

Nevertheless, sometimes a missionary can become divisive. It may become that the missionary himself is actively causing division at the church on the field or the church back at home. When dealing with a potentially factious missionary, the sending church missions leadership must deal with them decisively (Titus 3:10–11). Protecting the sanctity of the church at home and abroad is the responsibility of those who oversee the missionary. Yet, humility in the matter is essential. No matter the issue, never stop being alert and willing to learn. Look to Scripture to evaluate how to apply the authority of God’s Word in the church, so that what is emphasized and enforced among God’s people is only that which is biblically essential, rather than opinions foisted autonomously on the congregation.

Conclusion

When it comes to sending missionaries, David Meade states that the goal is “no preventable attrition.” To ensure mission success, the above guidance has focused on loving leading missionaries and those who send them back to the core principles of biblical missions. He has highlighted key pitfalls that undermine Great Commission work today, especially a lack of doctrinal oversight, impatience in preparation, and self-focused approaches with those on the field. Avoiding these dangers requires humility, wisdom, and a relentless commitment to God's Word as the authority for each aspect of the missions enterprise.

Home churches and sending agencies that stick to biblical principles and sound doctrine will raise up and send faithful servants who endure longer in the face of great pressure. Without a doubt, biblical missions requires great intentionality and care for missionary candidates and practitioners from home, from the very beginning. They must thoughtfully select them, thoroughly train them, and selflessly support them over the long haul. As sending bodies embrace their role of guiding missionaries with care, patience, and biblical conviction, the light of the gospel will shine brighter in the darkest places.