SERIOUS PRE-FIELD TRAINING FOR THE UNREACHED
The last remaining language groups that have no gospel witness, disciples, or church are not random.[1] Historically speaking, they are last to be reached because of particular challenges. Before the church’s ambassadors go to such places, they need some unique equipping geared to those locations and people groups. This is not the same as missionaries working in gateway languages (e.g., Mandarin, Bahasa, Turkish, Arabic), using translators, or doing work other than planting churches. For planting churches among the last unreached language groups in the world there must be a higher standard of preparation.
To recognize a distinction in missions types and in the pre-field training to be expected of them should not be offensive; it is analogous to other areas of life. For example, in much of the world today, one can purchase and fly a certain class of aircraft with no license whatsoever. Such aircraft are called “ultralights,” being small, lightweight, and easy to operate. But to fly in a nation’s military it will take several years before one is authorized to fly a fighter jet. The responsibility and consequences are much higher, and consequently, the training is mandatory, stringent, and serious.
I worry that the evangelical church is sending ultralight pilots into battle, into the most challenging places on the face of the earth, and cannot understand why the results are so bad. It comes down to preparation. Allow me to put forward three reasons why serious pre-field training is responsible and necessary for churches and for aspiring cross-cultural church planters.
Not Everyone Is Cut Out for the Job
National militaries do not accept into their flight schools all applicants who are simply willing or excited about aviation. Unsurprisingly, there are upper and lower age limits, education benchmarks, health standards, and competencies that must be mastered. One would expect nothing less of those entrusted with such a grave responsibility.
In a similar way, those with willing hearts who love the Lord Jesus sometimes should not go into missions.[2] Many who are burdened for the unreached are lacking in some critical area that would hinder their efforts later in ministry. Only through serious pre-field training and vetting does one find those things out. It is far better for the home church, for the teammates on the field, and, most of all, for the under-qualified individual to find out before they head overseas that the job is not the best fit for their gifts. The service done to the cause of Christ when someone is saved from exiting the field prematurely—this is easily worth the extra months of training.[3] In the church’s zeal to see the Great Commission accomplished, let her make sure that she sends those who are trained, vetted, and equipped for the unique challenges that they will face.
On-field Training Is Quite Different
“They will pick it up over there,” is an error I often hear regarding the training of missionaries. That is, a missionary will learn what is needed for effective cultural engagement when he or she gets to the field. Whether training in language acquisition or discerning missions methodologies, a lot is pushed onto the plate of “over there.” The problem is that once the missionary is on the field, the stress level immediately multiplies, hands-on ministry training becomes less available, and the pressure to produce results from supporters increases.
A negative outcome of delaying (or denying) specialized pre-field missions training is that many missionaries from doctrinally sound churches, Bible schools, and seminaries can get sucked into pragmatic, speed-based multiplication methodologies in their field contexts. Some prevalent examples include Disciple-Making Movements (DMMs), Church Planting Movements (CPMs), Four Fields (4F), and Insider Movements (IMs).[4] Terms that sound harmless or even good—like obedience-based discipleship (OBDs), Discovery Bible studies (DBSs), prayer walks, shema statements, oikos, person of peace, and many uses of the term contextualization—often hold little biblical warrant and cannot be explicated biblically.
A critique of these methods, terms, and concepts is outside the scope of this article but it is useful to recognize that when assessing missionaries who have succumbed to such pragmatic strategies, I have found that they often share two critical weaknesses. First, before the missionaries left home, they had not explicitly been taught about the methodologies they would likely encounter on the field, either good or bad, so they had neither a practical nor theological framework for evaluating on-field methods. Secondly, the training they did receive about these strategies was conducted by missionaries who had more experience than them and convinced them that “this is simply the way it is done over here.” Thus, the new missionary was unable to identify the theological errors in the pragmatic methodologies. In the second, the more-experienced missionary’s drive toward such pragmatic strategy was overwhelming and, not wanting to be a problem as the “dramatic minority,” the new missionary acquiesced.
It is clear that not all that occurs overseas in the name of Christ is good––some of it is weak, some of it is neutral, and some of it is simply bad and should be discarded. The church’s emissaries should know the categories, terms, and biblical arguments for each before they enter that world. J. C. Ryle, in his masterful book Holiness, says of those looking to the past as a guide to the future, “He that is forewarned is forearmed.”[5] Good pre-field training needs to involve some type of inoculation for our frontline church planters if they are to recognize errors and pitfalls that have tripped up many who have gone before.
Special Skills Require Specialized Training
One encouraging development in the world of missions today is that more and more churches are taking back responsibility for their members in missions. Parachurch organizations like Radius International[6] and The Master’s Academy International (TMAI)[7] have their place. Yet, may it never be said that they take the place of the local church. The command of the Great Commission is given to the church and to none other.
That being said, I have yet to find a local church that has the experience or the skills to teach the kind of advanced skills that will prove necessary in an increasing amount of church planting situations worldwide, such as linguistics, phonetics, applied anthropology, cross-cultural pre-evangelism, a theology of suffering, high-stress marriage and parenting, the transitioning of missionary kids back home, or doing business through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in a closed-access country. Special skills require specialized training to gain access and to conduct ministry among the last unreached language groups of the world.
Beyond the above difficult skills, several intangibles need to be observed and measured. Pre-field missionary training needs to be set up to judge a candidate’s work ethic, collaboration with a team, health in marriage or singleness, spiritual and practical discipline level, and overall ability to endure. The point is not for the training program to give a decisive “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to the trainee, but to provide this assessment information to the sending church so they can make an informed decision about their member’s suitability for the field. By placing the decision in the hands of the local church leadership, the training program does not usurp the local church’s God-given role to shepherd and steward the missionary candidate but rather aids in unique ways that the church is not normally equipped to do.
Only by God’s grace will the Great Commission be accomplished. Nevertheless, local churches can multiply their effectiveness in reaching the last places on earth by utilizing missionary training programs that aid in specialized training and rigorous assessment for those seeking to be sent out. The stakes of the task are too high for this common refrain to continue ringing from the field: “I did not know what I did not know.” True, no one should blame the untrained missionary, but neither should their church leaders neglect to provide avenues for training their emissaries for the work that awaits them. May local church leaders everywhere rise up and help their candidates move further down the path of biblical missions before they step foot on the field.
[1] This essay is adapted with permission from the previously published article “Why Pre-field Missionary Training Is Vital for Reaching Unreached People Groups,” Radius International blog, October 28, 2020, accessed October 14, 2025, https://radiusinternational.org/why-pre-field-missionary-training-is-vital-for-reaching-unreached-people-group/.
[2] See the following excellent article on why everyone is not a missionary: E. D. Burns, “I Disagree with Spurgeon!” Founders Ministry article, n. d., accessed May 28, 2025, https://founders.org/2020/08/11/i-disagree-with-spurgeon/.
[3] Ten months is the timeframe developed by Radius International for pre-field training. “The RADIUS Curriculum,” Radius International, n. d., accessed May 28, 2025, https://radiusinternational.org/curriculum/.
[4] See the booklet by Chad Vegas, A Brief Guide to DMM, Radius Materials (Phoenix, AZ: Radius International, 2016), accessed September 30, 2023, https://radiusinternational.org/a-brief-guide-to-dmm/.
[5] J. C. Ryle, Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties and Roots (1877; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2014), 207.
[6] See their website, Radius International, https://radiusinternational.org
[7] See their website, The Master’s Academy International, https://tmai.org. Also see their recent publication, Mark Tatlock and Chris Burnett, eds., Biblical Missions: Principles, Priorities, and Practices (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2025) and Biblical Missions Workbook: Principles, Priorities, and Practices (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2025).