This is the fourth 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.

 The topic of missionary support and care overwhelmingly receives the most attention in any consideration of the sending church/missionary (SCM) relationship. The three pillars of member care, finances, and prayer are typically discussed. Many scholarly and popular works consider all three aspects (e.g. Dipple 2011; Pirolo 2015). Others emphasise the member care aspect specifically (Camp et al. 2014; Postings 2014). A large degree of ‘in principle’ consensus exists in the practices of support raising and prayer. Member care (frequently depicted as moral support) is more disputed with regards to best practice, assumption of responsibility and even the biblical basis. (N.B. Moral support does not imply an ethical dimension but rather the act of encouraging spiritual, emotional and psychological well-being. Pirolo (2015) regards it as the “foundation of the sending process”).   

In the document cited earlier, (see Part Two) Missions Interlink (2015) makes the case that missionaries remain part of the sending church. The implication being that the oversight of care should be maintained by the church. MI recognises the responsibility for mission agencies to supply member care, but in a secondary or supplemental capacity to the sending church. Noble (2019) argues that church responsibilities extend far beyond prayer and financial support and calls for relational and direct involvement. Pirolo (2015) in his seminal work, ‘Serving as Senders’ also argues for high church involvement delineating six areas of support and care. The additional three include logistics, communication and re-entry. In many writings, communication and re-entry are subsumed into moral support. Livingood (2008) seeks to assist churches by offering guidelines for establishing successful sending/support teams within congregations.  

The question must be raised as to whether sending churches align with MI’s view that they maintain the primary responsibility of care. What type and extent of support do they currently provide? Do they consider the broader network to be adequate in caring for their overseas members?  

In my role as a mission agency representative, conversationally a range of views were expressed by churches over time regarding missionary care and support. If agencies, missionaries, and churches have differing views on this priority, there is a danger that a gap in support and care could exist. This important area had not previously been studied in the Australian context.    

A key element in understanding the SCM relationships lies in how churches view their role in care and support. I discovered a disconnect exists between the view of Missions Interlink (2015) and sending churches. Namely, Queensland-based sending churches (70%) do not recognise themselves as bearing the primary responsibility of care for their missionary. While all churches evidence a genuine concern for missionary welfare, most see their role as secondary or supplemental to the mission agency (or a local overseas church). Yet, in practice churches do typically assume the primary responsibility of prayer and financial support. That this does not extend to moral support is a significant finding with several implications.   

Churches who assume priority of care, see that priority as overarching. While much daily oversight and professional care is outsourced, “when the buck stops, we have primary care. We sent them.” Other participants expressed the view, that it was not possible for them to adequately care for missionaries when they are not present nor able to sufficiently understand their context or unique stressors. Churches holding either view lamented that they could do more to support workers. One participant voiced an opinion that mission agencies should be more active in supporting and holding individuals to account. That said, it was noted that churches are predominately satisfied with missionaries’ overall support and care. While there is a recognition that this can be improved, it is mostly deemed adequate. A further investigation into the missionaries’ views on this matter would shed light on the true adequacy of this situation, especially given the overall attrition rates of missionaries.  

Moral support is undoubtedly the area most in dispute. This is reflected in a variety of, mostly ad hoc, efforts. A minority of churches have structured, ongoing communications through a Mission Committee member or other appointed person. Normally, zoom calls, instant messaging and emails are initiated by close friends and family and only occasionally by pastors or church leaders. Churches who assume a priority of care tend to have higher levels of involvement and proactivity in speaking into the missionary’s life and ministry. These churches were more likely to have sent short term teams to visit the missionary, but not exclusively.  

For Pirolo (2015, 40), moral support “is as much an attitude that your cross-cultural worker will sense as it is an action you can do”.  Christ is the “Chief Cornerstone” whose life and teachings are the basis of care. Senders cannot simply “do His deeds” but must be “intimate disciple(s) of Jesus Christ”. This would argue that missionaries should ideally sense an abundance of care from all parties in their support network regardless of assumed priority. As this is seldom the case, agencies should consider clarifying their own role in provision of care for sending churches. Churches are motivated to meet needs and should be encouraged to implement (semi-) structured care that benefits missionaries and their own congregations. This scenario suggests a broader clarification of roles and responsibilities between agencies and sending churches may well be in order. 

In the area of finance, churches take significant responsibility. Churches display a strong desire to learn of needs and ways they can meet them financially. If a church provides materially for the missionary or their ministry, this sense of involvement and the opportunity to contribute are important to them. Where missionaries do not function in ‘traditional’ roles but are involved in administrative tasks for example, congregations with an older demographic find it more difficult to rationalise their contributions with outcomes.  

As earlier noted, churches fund missionaries in different ways. Some use a percentage of budget (often 10 per cent distributed between various missionaries and causes). Others use a faith-promise pledge, whereby congregants give to a pool of funds as they feel led by the Lord. Yet others do not give as a church per se, as much as separate individuals contribute to support. In this, some participants recognise the need to promote a greater awareness among their congregations for the security of ongoing support. Of some concern is the extent to which support may wane where churches do not formally support but rely on individuals. Congregational churn, a lack of advocacy on behalf of the missionary or failure to communicate by the missionary themselves all leave ongoing financial support vulnerable. This precise concern was frequently noted by those who do not formally support as a church. 

However, churches are likely to remain committed to financing missionaries who have family in the sending church or who have been past members and who retain pre-existing relationships. One respondent described a strong aversion to supporting any missionaries who are not sent out from their own congregation.  

Missionaries can be encouraged that churches are diligent in praying for them. Churches tend not to be proactive in seeking out prayer needs, relying on the missionary. Prayer requests are often included in newsletters, church services and messaging groups. This provides opportunity for missionaries to grow awareness and understanding of cross-cultural mission in their sending churches. It also requires a vulnerability on the part of the missionary in acknowledging struggles and weaknesses that are encountered. Missionaries may be reluctant to do so if they consider it may hinder ongoing support. It would seem that the missionary’s discerning disclosure and the church’s trusted leader/s may be required to work mutually in allaying this concern by facilitating communication of need in a healthy manner.    

It would appear that greater role clarification is required by mission agencies in equipping sending churches to support and care for missionaries. Missionaries require clarity regarding the proper functioning of their own support networks. Churches should be encouraged into greater involvement with their missionaries as a means of sustaining the worker but also growing a global perspective amongst the congregation. Opportunities exist for church members to minister to missionaries remotely. This enables the church to be more fully integrated into God’s mission in the world. It also enables the missionary to sense the attitude of care and retain a sense of belonging in their sending church. Of most concern is a potential gap in care between agencies and those churches who see their care role as secondary or supplemental. If this is identified the tools and motivation are available to address the issue.  

 

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-On-the-Job.pdf 

“Missionary Care: Where Does a Church Begin?”. 2014. Postings. Vol. 9, No.3 

Camp, Claire A. et al. 2014. “Missionary Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Current Member Care Practices.” Journal of Psychology and Theology, Vol 42. No. 4:35-368 

Clark, Christopher T. 2017. “Strengthening Missionary Families through Member Care by the Sending Church”. D.Miss, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

Frith, Michael. 2006. “Supporting Mission: The Relationship between missionary, sending organisation, sending church and individual supporters”, Encounters Mission Ezine, Issue 15, December 2006. Oscar. The UK Information Service for World Mission.  

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.

Livingood, Ellen. 2008. “Revisiting Advocate Teams”. 2008. Interchange Postings: The Missions Mobilizers’ E-Newsletter, Vol 3, Issue 7:1-5 

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

Pirolo, Neil. 2015. Serving as Senders – Today. Emmaus Road International. Kindle edition.