This is the third 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.

 A biblical mandate for proclaiming the gospel to the nations is frequently identified as the primary motivator for churches to send and support missionaries. Churches are frequently encouraged to confront a lack of ‘mission-focus’ through biblical injunction. The process of sending church members cross-culturally is teased out for the aspiring, or yet to be inspired, church. Churches and (prospective) missionaries share a common motivation and purpose in reaching the world with the gospel.  

A danger exists in understanding this base motivation as the only motivation present. Sending church/missionary relationships are in fact subject to contingency, an area which remains largely unexplored. Nehrbass and Dunaetz (2018) state that, “little academic work has been done to study what motivates churches to enter, maintain and dissolve their relationships with specific missionaries”.  Using grounded theory, Nehrbass and Dunaetz conducted a series of semi-structured interviews. As a result, they developed a multiple motives theory of church and missionary relationships. Relationship-focused motives emerged as did task-focussed motives; the latter being further demarcated as goal-centred or process-centred.  These three categories are likened to the metaphors of family, business or charity, respectively. How churches relate to missionaries are all significantly impacted by a churches motivational footing. This further determines the expectations they have of the missionary.    

This builds, in part, on Dunaetz’ (2017) earlier work on communal and exchange dimensions of sending church/missionary relationships. Dunaetz cites Cropanzano and Mitchell’s (2015) social exchange theory and examines its application to the missiological context. Dunaetz argues that churches’ finite resources prevent them from providing for missionaries needs “non-contingently”. This necessitates prioritisation (e.g. in framing the church budget) and thus an exchange (or contingent) relationship is unavoidable. The factors used in prioritisation subsequently produce expectations for the missionary. How effectively expectations are met affect the overall satisfaction of the relationship. Satisfaction in turn affects overall commitment to the relationship. If Dunaetz is correct, it is crucial that missionaries understand the contingent aspects of their relationship with their sending church. Such knowledge permits opportunity to contribute to a strengthening of a church’s ongoing level of commitment. Conversely, lacking this knowledge may be detrimental.  

Given the limited academic exploration of what motivates these relationships, a clear rationale exists for study in a range of cultural and ecclesiastical contexts. It gives rise to many questions. Assumptions made as to whether a sending church/missionary (SCM) relationship is contingent or non-contingent, relationship or task motivated could manifest in significant ambiguity, lack of commitment and even conflict. If parties identify a singular underlying motive (e.g., gospel proclamation to the nations), are other expectations also identified and communicated?   

It is again unsurprising to find churches referring to obedience to the biblical mandate as a primary motivator. This is in keeping with the dominant theology of mission expressed earlier (see Part One). Much of what has been said regarding this understanding may be replicated here. My research found that churches who expressed a broader sense of call to the nations, were further motivated by the desire to see life change and encourage others into cross-cultural mission. A minority specifically wanted to see church planting emerge from their missionary’s efforts. 

Dunaetz’ work on exchange relationships suggests that where motivations and expectations aren’t specific contingent relationships (or at least contingent components) may be misunderstood as non-contingent. A hallmark of the sample SCM relationships I studied was that they were characterised by church representatives as highly relational. The word trust was often used, and ministry expectations were mostly non-specific. In this environment, expectations may be understated and minimised. Where expectations are not communicated, satisfaction is difficult to achieve and church commitment may wane. 

With respect to ministry direction and goals, none of the participants asked for metrics or concrete reporting from missionaries. A high level of ministry direction and trust was directed to the mission agency; “(there is a) high value on the organisation taking a significant role in helping interpret, translate and contextualise what they are doing in their context”. Churches expect missionaries to “do the job (they) were sent for”, “{the agency} knows better than us”.  

Yet churches did have high expectations of missionaries communicating their general activity and especially their needs. Sending churches have a desire to pray and provide aid when required. MIssionaries should “keep us updated with newsletters in (an) agreed timeframe”. They should “be communicative…about changes to ministry”. “Share prayer points, successes, struggles”. Another stated “we want to know what they are doing all the time”.  

Churches expect (and actually assume) good stewardship of finances and the communication of how this is being conducted would strengthen the trust already present. Framed negatively by one respondent, “If they demonstrated they weren’t using funding well then that would (have the) effect (of) quenching good will”. When on furlough, churches expect their presence at the church and in services, while frequenting their supporter base. Churches do not normally explicitly state this, but failure to engage sufficiently with the sending church would be detrimental to the churches sense of involvement and likely to their engagement. This speaks to Dunaetz’ assertion that SCM relationships are never purely non-contingent and assumptions otherwise can be dangerous.  

The lack of metrics requested, and the acceptance of the oversight of mission agencies could lead missionaries to underestimate the importance of communicating their needs and activities. Churches have expectations of newsletters, though supplementing them with social media, short informal (but intentional) messages and emails is also welcome and beneficial. This creates a sense of presence, of immediacy and congregational involvement. Currently, this supplemental communication tends to be contained to the most invested individuals (normally close friends and family). Despite this, a key benefit is that it generates discussion and prayer that keeps the missionary “in front of the church”. In whatever form it may take, communication that is frequent and honest may be the single biggest investment missionaries can make to their relationship with their sending church.  

According to Dunaetz (2017, 320-321), these investments should not be taken for granted. Churches have finite resources and non-contingent relationships should not be assumed. Investments are necessary to “maintain a relationship with churches even during the difficult times where the benefits provided by the missionary are low”. Churches experience their own hardships and may, for example, consider budget cuts. Dunaetz assumes that sufficient investment by missionaries will see churches prioritise their needs. Over time, the relationships may even “take on characteristics of a communal relationship”. 

That said, most churches interviewed could be best characterised by Dunaetz and Nehrbass’ ‘family’ metaphor (Dunaetz and Nehrbass 2018, 392). Indeed, some churches used that imagery precisely. But that is not to ignore certain caveats, that are distinctly task-focussed (either goal or process centred). Inherent in the motivation of the Great Commission is the representation of the church by the missionary in the mission field. Where churches seek life change, the charity work imagery is at play. Where church plants are expected, the business model is at play. None of these expectations are conditional for support, but a failure to understand the necessity of progress towards these tasks may again negatively impact the relationship over time.  

As expected, the findings shed some preliminary, contextualised light on Dunaetz work and his later efforts with Nehrbass. Motivations are layered and often not well communicated. Expectations are largely tacit, with their weight underestimated. Both churches and missionaries stress relationship and may do so at the expense of recognising the task-focussed and contingent elements of their relationships. Missionaries should view investment in their sending church as a vital part of their ministry. Failure to do so, may hinder or end their ability to minister in their respective fields. Conversely, many benefits may be derived from intentional investment.  

Where expectations can be reasonably met, goodwill may lead to expanded reciprocal investment in the misionaries and their ministries. To this end, mission agencies should seek to assist sending churches to identify and communicate their expectations, helping them adjust or reframe those that are unachievable or cannot reasonably be met. Identifying motivators and clarifying expectations removes ambiguity and opens the lines of communication. Just as pre-marriage counselling serves the future of a marriage relationship, so too striving for a solid platform should bear sustained fruitfulness.   

References

Dunaetz, David. 2017. “A missionary’s relationship to sending churches: Communal and exchange dimensions”. In G. Hartt, C. R. Little, & J. Wang (Eds.), Churches on mission: God’s grace abounding to the nations. (pp. 303-323). Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Dunaetz, David and Kenneth Nehrbass. 2018.” A Multiple Motives Theory of Church and
Missionary Relationships”. Missiology: An International Review. Vol 46(4):388-406

Horner, David. 2011. When Missions Shapes the Mission: You and Your Church can Reach the
World. Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group.

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.