This is the first in a five-part series that considers the important relationships between cross-cultural missionaries and the churches that send them. The discussion is born out of the findings of a post-graduate research project I undertook while working for a global mission agency. I found that some key areas of these relationships contained an unhelpful degree of ambiguity which needed clarification for the benefit of both parties.

There is no doubting the essential command of Matthew 28:16-20 to “make disciples of all nations”. However, there is much about sending that is not stated in this passage. A broader evaluation of scripture makes clear that it is God who is the original sender. As Wright (2010, 202-222) accurately points out, the Old Testament tells of God sending deliverers (e.g. Gen 45:4-8; Ex 3:10-15; Judges 2:16) and prophets to speak on his behalf (e.g. Isa 6:8-9; Jer 1:6-8; Jonah 1:1-2). These sent ones not only carry a God-given authority but also frequently experience hardship. Of course, the New Testament reveals Jesus as the much anticipated sent one (e.g. John 17:18) who is the deliverer and suffering servant. We see Jesus replicate the pattern as he commends God’s ongoing mission to his apostles, albeit with the empowering of the Holy Spirit. The act of sending continues to be initiated by God (the ultimate sender) whose church now participates in the act of both sending and being sent (Acts 13:1-3). The Great Commission, while highly significant, can be seen as merely one component of a greater sending narrative as Jesus alludes to in Luke 24:44-49. The broader counsel of scripture orientates the church community’s role in sending and helps it to understand its identity as a missional body.

Significantly, Acts 1:8 records that Jesus’ final words (prior to his ascension) anticipate the church’s global participation in gospel witness. The ministry of the apostle Paul (and Barnabas) most profoundly displays this centrifugal dimension. As the first ‘sending’ church, Antioch is readily identified as the model sending church. Yet, there is no singular, clear pattern for a sending church/missionary (SCM) relationship. This lack of a clear biblical pattern is likely the largest contributor to the ambiguity that surrounds the rationale for church’s sending cross-cultural workers. The modern inclusion of the mission agency in the process also muddies the application of scriptural commands for churches.

Debate surrounds the extent to which Antioch may be accepted as the model sending church. Yet, despite this a few principles for sending can be identified. The church at Antioch recognises the calling upon Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3). They fast They pray. They lay hands on the pair and send them off. Beyond this though, little can be known of what provision they supplied in the first instance or in an ongoing capacity. Care should be taken in expanding the text to include more instruction than it does. That said, later interactions record the missionaries on ‘furlough’ and reporting back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28). Antioch clearly formed a primary role, although complemented by others (most notably Philippi). The sending church bears responsibility, but assistance also comes from other parts of the body (Eph 4:16). Today, this may be in the form of other supporting churches or the mission agency that lends specialist expertise to the sending process. Significantly, there is no biblical warrant for churches to abdicate their primary role, nor for mission agencies to assume it.

Obedience to Christ’s commands for global mission is necessary and commendable. However, John 14:15 is an important reminder that the underlying motivation for keeping His commands must be agape love for Christ. Indeed, Paul’s greatest support does not come through solicitation but through the earnest desire of relationship (Phil 4:10,14-19). This “fragrant offering” (Phil 4:18) is viewed by Paul as primarily a means of blessing to the sender. As such it remains a channel of untapped blessing for some sending churches.

Philippians 4:10 speaks of a church that is longing to share in Paul’s troubles. This is a helpful reminder that while the structuring of care is important, proactivity must ultimately be driven by strong relationship. Strong relationship comes through active engagement of both church and missionary. Again, Paul informs churches of his activity, his prayer needs and his general wellbeing (Col 4:3, 8). Paul seeks knowledge of the church’s activity (Phil 2:19) and is greatly encouraged (1 Thess 3:6-10). What is evident is that a biblical warrant exists for active bilateral discourse that builds up both church and missionary. Missionaries have a biblical responsibility to communicate and meet the churches desire for information.

3 John 5-8 draws attention to the church’s responsibility to love and support those who go “out for the sake of the name” (v7). Although John refers here to itinerant “brothers” (v5), sending workers “in a manner worthy of the gospel” (v6) reflects the high calling of both sent and sender. John signals to the church both obligation and privilege, while acknowledging the interwovenness of this partnership before and with God (v8).

Revelation 7:9-10 provides the culmination of this activity. Those called to send, those sent and those who receive the message from the sent ones, worship God together. This eschatological vision should motivate the church to be effective senders who partner well with those they send, for the salvation of the nations and the glory of God.

Old and New Testaments provide examples and principles for sending churches that inform their roles and responsibilities. A concern for strong relationship should result in the provision of support, care and accountability. The church should see missionary function as distinct but not separate from its own. As the main disruptor, mission agencies need to affirm their role as secondary to the church. Some missionary agencies possess a biblical core value of esteeming the church. The church may be best esteemed by being helped to reclaim their biblical centrality in sending and the blessing that attends it.

Obedience to the Biblical Mandate

Unsurprisingly, when representatives of sending churches were interviewed* most referred to Matthew 28:16-20 and more generally to the Book of Acts in expressing their understanding of the biblical basis for the SCM relationship. Dipple (2011, 23) describes a scenario he encountered where ten bible study groups all offered the Great Commission as their scriptural basis for mission. In that case, not one group mentioned the Old Testament, which was also true of my findings. Dipple’s frustration seems evident as he presents a biblical theology of mission which omits both Matthew 28:16-20 and the entirety of Acts. For example, Dipple draws on Exodus 9:15-16 and Deuteronomy 4:5-6 to demonstrate that God’s people have always been intended by God to be a missional community, not mere senders of a chosen few. The implication being that too narrow a focus of mission is problematic as churches seek to embrace their role in God’s mission. The whole biblical narrative must be understood to proclaim a missional God (and hence, a missional church) if the church is to see cross-cultural ministry as more than simply one of its many church ministries. It is not a responsibility to be discharged to those who go, but an activity of the entire body.

It was evident that some churches reflect more deeply on biblical foundations for sending than others. It is noteworthy that churches that evidence deeper reflection on sending can be correlated with higher levels of involvement with the cross-cultural workers they support.

This involvement tends also to be more structured and intentional. The SCM relationship should reflect biblical principles and patterns of sending. Yet, some respondents were unable to describe a biblical sending model. Those who did pointed predominately to the sending and support of Paul (and Barnabas) in the New Testament. Principles of prayer and financial support are gleaned from the interactions of Paul with the church in Antioch and churches Paul planted (esp. Philippians).

The church representatives interviewed displayed little awareness of the Acts 13:1-3 ‘sending church model’ debate. They were content with principles of support being evidenced in Acts and the Pauline epistles as a whole. It appears likely that assumptions exist around Antioch’s support of Paul and Barnabas that are nowhere explicitly stated in the text; Acts 13:3 simply states, “they laid their hands on them and sent them off” (ESV). Further investigation would be required to clarify the extent of these assumptions. Regardless, the gleaning of general principles allows for a multitude of specific interpretations and applications. This is evidenced elsewhere but most prominently as it relates to the priority of support and care.

The overall lack of focus on the biblical basis for the SCM relationship may be explained in part by churches’ reliance on mission agencies. Churches can more readily identify biblical motivation/s for sending than a biblical process. Agencies take care of many practical elements of sending. These include preparation, training, administration, and processing of finances. Some elements are handled exclusively of the church. It is entirely feasible that this modern ‘tradition’ has removed the impetus for churches to explore these issues.

Furthermore, smaller churches express their heavy reliance on the mission agency. A biblical centrality of the local church may prove difficult to reconcile given their lack of resources and expertise. Liew (2016, 2) seeks to resolve this tension with a trinitarian view that sees church and agency in “mutual deference and glad submission”. Practically this means that churches take the leading role but cede authority in areas where expertise of agencies is required. The agency serves the church. The church retains its centrality.

Much criticism has been levelled at both churches and mission agencies for their conduct over the past decades. Hall (2018, 56) criticises mission agencies for dominating the sending process and churches for having “neglected or abdicated their leadership responsibilities”. Hall’s criticism of churches lies in their misunderstanding of their “biblical role”. Whether or not this criticism is fair, it should give pause to both churches, missionaries, and agencies. With many voices, including Hall’s arguing for a renewed centrality of the church in sending, a (re)examination of the biblical texts would seem in order. Dipple’s biblical theology, Bradley’s sending church definition and texts previously referenced would provide useful tools for such an endeavour. Even if consensus is not reached, removing ambiguity by delineating understanding would benefit all parties as they can develop a relationship on agreed terms and with clear expectations.

References

Dipple, Bruce. 2011. Becoming Global. Integrating Global Mission and Your Local Church: A
practical Approach. Sydney, Australia: Sydney Missionary and Bible College.

Hall, Donald. 2018. “Evaluating Missionary-Care Responsibilities: A Guide for Sending and
Supporting Churches”. M.A. thesis. Liberty University School of Divinity.

Kercher, Warren. 2020. “Sending Churches: How they Understand the Nature of their Relationships with those they send”. (Unpublished Thesis). Malyon Theological College. Qld: Australia.

Liew, Ivan et al. 2016. “Churches and Missions Agencies Together: Practical Missiology and Good Practices for Partnership”. Global Missiology. Jan 2016.

Wright, Christopher J. H. 2010. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s
Mission. United States: Zondervan.

• This Qualitative Study conducted in 2020 focussed on church representatives of sending churches based in Queensland, Australia.