This is the second 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.

Missions Interlink (or MI, the Australian network for global mission) (2015) views the sending of missionaries into cross-cultural contexts as an act of extending the church’s ministry. Members do not “cease to belong to the sending church”. Some agencies readily state that they conduct ministry under their own agency banners. Church members officially function as part of these ministry teams under these same banners. While all ministry is under the headship of Christ, humanly speaking who ‘owns’ the ministry? Is it an extension of the church as MI states? Can it instead be ascribed to the mission organisation or even a church in the field? Does the missionary worker have ownership of the ministry they are involved in? A scarcity of literature and contextualised studies address these questions. The assumption made in MI’s document is that ownership of ministry is important to future church engagement. The importance of this question may be revealed in whether a correlation can be found between a church’s level of involvement and their view of “their” missionary’s ministry. 

The Sending Church/Missionary (SCM) relationship is impacted by the degree of ownership a sending church has of their cross-cultural worker’s ministry. Importantly, my own research discovered that sending churches often appear uncertain as to how this ministry should be viewed. Much of the literature that affirms the centrality of the sending church, assumes this ministry is an extension of the church’s ministry. While churches may affirm this in part, the complexities and physical detachment of cross-cultural mission make this unclear for them. As does the fact that they are not solely responsible for the worker or their ministry. Where ownership is strong, involvement follows. Therefore, the implications of how churches view this ministry are significant.

I discovered that most churches have some sense of ownership (albeit shared). When asked if their congregations felt actively involved in the worker’s ministry or considered themselves a body that supports, churches almost unanimously affirmed the latter. Naturally, some members feel more involved than others. Congregants have “different levels of engagement”. Some participants emphasised that, although shared the missionary’s ministry is very much an extension of their own. This was reflected in a highly invested relationship, as well as a high level of knowledge of the missionary and their ministry. Some larger church representatives also reflected on how they could leverage involvement with missionaries for mobilising their church members for mission.

Noble (2019, Chapter 1) suggests that ownership is not so much related to accessibility, but rather whether a church views mission as another church ministry or as a lifestyle. One church with strong ownership of their missionary’s ministry stated, “our church is an outwardly looking church. Not insular. If we didn’t have mission involvement our church would be totally different”. Others openly expressed that cross-cultural mission was not weighted heavily over other ministry focuses. Some participants believed their churches struggled to comprehend twenty-first century models of mission lessening their sense of ownership.

The level of ownership a church feels is partly dependent on the type of ministry the missionary is involved in. Churches can feel less connected if they have fewer tangible ways to contribute. One respondent mentioned that in past years they could provide gifts for children in poverty, but no longer have that outlet with the missionary’s changed context (i.e. they are now operating in a more administrative role).

What is telling is that true ownership should result in churches seeing themselves as more than a support body. There are inklings of this (e.g. the use of the term partnership), but seldom a fully-fledged sense of ownership. There are several factors that affect this. A church’s theological understanding of mission and their role in it plays a significant part. Where the Great Commission is singularly attested to (at times with allusions to Acts), churches appear to lack a biblical picture that incorporates and legitimises a heightened involvement (e.g. Acts 13:1-3, 14:26-28).

Other factors include whether churches have visited the mission field and how active the missionary is in involving their church. Educating the sending church regarding the missionary’s ministry and finding fresh ways to engage them are steps missionaries might consider. Churches can also seek to be proactive in this. Additionally, agency expertise in this area could provide churches and missionaries with options to increase connectedness and ownership.

It raises the question as to whether agencies (i.e., depending on their current models) could cede facets of ministry and care to the sending church. Agencies have long been accused of assuming church responsibilities. Has the time arrived for agencies to healthily divest some of these responsibilities to the church to increase involvement and ownership? For example, could agencies maintain professional specialist care, administrative functioning and daily oversight, while churches through visitation, mentoring and pastorally caring offer higher levels of engagement? This can be seen not only as a heightened investment in the missionary themselves but in the church’s own formation and participation in cross-cultural mission.

Clearly there is also scope for sending churches to encourage the sharing of communication received by the highly engaged few in their congregation (where this situation exists). Conducting live zoom interviews during a service, inviting missionaries into online prayer meetings or facilitating a short-term trip are all examples of how churches can increase engagement and ownership. Churches and missionaries themselves, need to ensure workers are not faceless names (or voiceless support raising brochures) but people who are personally engaged in some shape or form by their congregation. Smaller congregations may find this easier to accomplish. This is positive, as it appears it is also these smaller congregations that are most concerned about ongoing support for their missionaries.

It is encouraging that most churches have a sense of ownership of missionary ministry. A more concrete understanding could unlock potential for healthier relationships, more intentional investment and a growing sense of participation for churches in the Great Commission. 

References

“Guide for Caring for Local Churches: Caring for Missionaries On-the-job”. 2015. Missions Interlink Australia. https://missionsinterlink.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Guide-7-Caring-for-Missionaries-Onthe-Job.pdf

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

Noble, Richard. 2019. On Mission Together: Integrating Missions into the Local Church. Pittsburgh: Falls City Press. Kindle edition.