This is the fifth 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. Read Part One. Read Part Two. Read Part Three. Read Part Four.

 A seldom explored dynamic in a missionary’s transition from local church to mission field is that of authority and accountability. The terms are frequently used interchangeably and through necessity are herein. However, as it pertains to missionaries, accountability is usually foremost in consideration. Merriam-Webster’s (2020) definition is helpful. Accountability is the “obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions”.  

Few resources speak to this important issue. Ken Caruthers (2016) is one writer and former missionary who questions how sending churches should perceive the oversight they have over their sent members. “Church membership is a covenant of love and union that includes a Christian community’s ongoing assessment of a Christian’s way of life”. However, such an ongoing assessment requires a church to observe and be involved in the daily life of the church member. Only a local church with frequent oversight could assume this role. To this end the sending church should encourage missionaries to become accountable to a local church based in the field of service. Caruthers does not dismiss the sending church’s role entirely. Instead, he affirms the church’s “authority” that comes with their financial support, as well as that stemming from “wisdom, providence and love” rather than “membership”.   

For Webb (2005), accountability for performance to the sending church has its basis in Acts 14:27. As Paul and Barnabas reported back to the church, so should the missionary worker today. Going out and reporting back is a “recurring pattern”. With Antioch established in Webb’s writings as a blueprint for the sending church, it appears unlikely that authority would be ceded to another field-based local church.  

Given the alarmingly high rate of burnout and moral failure among Christian leaders, the issue of accountability is extremely important.  Sears (2020) multi-agency report considers the attrition rates and factors of missionaries. Strikingly, the area of accountability featured prominently. Sears described a delicate balance whereby missionaries can be adversely affected by too much or too little accountability. The type and extent are affected by many factors which include, marital status, age and whether they are functioning in a leadership role. This data indicates that sending churches cannot assume that their members are receiving the right measure of accountability.  

Minimal information begs several questions. Do churches currently consider this issue and if so, what conclusions do they draw? How do churches view channels of accountability? Is this communicated to the sent member? A lack of scholarly focus may pre-empt a lack of church focus making it another prime candidate for relational ambiguity.   

 My own findings relating to authority and accountability confirmed the suspicion raised. Namely, that the issue is not frequently considered by sending churches with respect to their missionaries.  This undoubtedly constitutes an ambiguous facet of sending church/missionary (SCM) relationships. Some key insights can be gleaned.    

It is clear that some churches who have given little consideration to this topic have not previously been motivated to do so. None had encountered issues with missionaries that required their intervention. This has undoubtedly contributed to a reactive posture which is generally accepted as appropriate. These sending churches exhibited high levels of trust in the missionary’s character and the mission agency as a reliable overseer.

Trust in missionaries has often been established through prior relationship and a vetting process. One participant stated clearly that the process ensured no need existed to revisit the issue of trust in the future. Another respondent described their church’s broader approach to authority; the church does not “exercise an authoritarian influence over any of its members”.  Another expressed uncertainty as to what their role should be. A general expectation was voiced that any matters arising would be handled mutually with the mission agency.

All churches that consider their authority retained, also see it as now shared with the mission agency. How this is weighted is not always clear with churches identifying a variety of factors that impact their ability to oversee their members. Churches in this category tend to be more proactive and see an ongoing duty of care to their members. Although churches have no daily oversight of their lives, they consider their overriding responsibility is to ensure this is happening. One participant said “(our) sense of authority is that they are responsible…and serving a role that meets the missional aspirations of the congregation and within the framework with what we see God doing globally”. Others saw this ongoing responsibility including ministry input (esp. gift alignment), their members’ leadership development (ensuring it was taking place) and major decision-making (e.g. removing from the field in case of danger). Most churches in this category had protocols to deal with any indiscretion which may see missionaries potentially return from the field.  

What is most evident from both categories is the expectation that the mission agency be front and centre in ensuring accountability and exercising discipline. No church considered their authority to be solely retained. Rather, all churches look to agencies to oversee their members and to dialogue with them when required. Thus, none can be seen to be offering the kind of unhelpful, overbearing authority identified by Caruthers. In fact, in operation, it is more consistent with Caruthers view of Acts 13:1-4, in which he sees Paul and Barnabas “set apart”, “sent away” and “commend(ed)…into the grace of God”.   This reflects Caruthers suspicion that “the Christian community in Antioch knew it could not fulfill its authoritative duty of oversight while the apostles were away”. To this end, overseas field leaders are expected to have strong accountability structures to safeguard the missionary’s spiritual life. 

Missionaries frequently function in high-stress environments removed from established, physically present support networks. For many, it can be the first experience of full-time Christian ministry and the spiritual, physical and emotional pressures that come with it. Given the attrition rates in mission and Christian leadership more generally, trusting a worker’s character is fraught with danger. For example, Sears (2020) identified the pressures that stress and isolation often have on missionaries’ marriages. Emotional issues can manifest in sexual temptation and infidelity. Belatedly, this “is where the mission agency, sending church or overseeing body tends to get involved in the situation, when the couple actually needed support and counsel long before things came to this point”. Earlier intervention relies on eliciting awareness of their well-being. 

It is clear that the issue of authority and how that is divested is not straightforward. Numerous factors are involved. This ensures that any assumptions made are likely tenuous. It is encouraging that sending churches have had mostly positive experiences with missionaries in the field. It is also encouraging that a positive view of shared responsibility pervades and that a few churches take a proactive posture. However, international, multi-agency attrition data flags the need for proactivity in this area from all parties. Reactive efforts typically arrive too late for the missionary. It is important that sending churches and agencies routinely enquire as to the levels and adequacy of accountability that is present in overseas fields.  

There are implications for all parties here. Agencies must take their obligations seriously in this area and recognise the trust it engenders. They have a responsibility to raise awareness of these issues with sending churches and to articulate their own position. Agencies would do well to facilitate a three-way dialogue that clarifies these important matters. Churches need to understand the benefits of being proactive and have freedom to operate within their clarified role. Missionaries also need to be made aware of the pressures they will face and their own need for accountability. They may reasonably expect this oversight from the teams in which they serve. If their sending church is to take on an overarching, proactive role this would need to be communicated clearly to the missionary. Consideration should be given to implementing such actions as they may make the difference between missionaries continuing in the field or joining the ranks of those who leave.  

References

“Accountability.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.             https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.  

Caruthers, Ken. 2016. “Sending Overseas Missionaries in Community”. 9 Marks Journal: Authority, God’s good and Dangerous Gift”, Sept 30, 2016.                                https://www.9marks.org/article/on-the-authority-of-a-sending-church/ 

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

Sears, Andrea. 2020. “Cultural Factors”. Accessed September 11, 2020.  https://themissionsexperience.weebly.com/blog 

Webb, Allan. 2005. Your Church Can Make a World of Difference. Hudson Press (an imprint of OMF International): Australia.