Mission Societies: Are They Biblical?

by Frank M. Severn

Are mission societies really necessary? Or are they, at best, “an historical accommodation for accomplishing missions due to the negligence of the church to carry out its mission,” as some assert?

In recent years some large local churches have decided to send their missionaries out directly under the leadership and control of their churches. They claim this is the biblical pattern.

Are mission societies really necessary? Or are they, at best, “an historical accommodation for accomplishing missions due to the negligence of the church to carry out its mission,” as some assert?

I believe Scripture supports the organization of “missionary teams” that have a vital and dynamic partnership with local churches. God led the early church to form the apostolic band (missionary team) to enable the church to launch church-planting missionary thrusts into unreached areas.

AFFIRMATIONS
I would like to make some affirmations. First, I am a church man. My passion is to see churches established among all the peoples of the earth. It is impossible to make disciples apart from fellowships or communities that demonstrate by life and deed their “called out” nature, and who then become the primary means through whom the peoples of the world are reached and impacted by the gospel of God’s grace. I believe in the centrality of Christ, and the call of the church to proclaim him by word and deed while becoming like him in holiness and practice (Matt. 28:18-20; Col. 1:28-29).

Second, I affirm with Emil Brunner that “church exists for missions like fire exists by burning.” The church is both the goal and the agent of world evangelization. Mission disengaged from the church is a biblical oxymoron.

Third, mission is not the church’s possession, but that which the church is part of and to which it gives itself. Mission is God’s work in the world.

Fourth, the church local should participate in mission in partnership and fellowship with other local churches. Mission is the task of every local church. While occasionally it may be possible for a local church to fully support and send its missionary, in most cases it takes more than one church. Churches should demonstrate their oneness with other local churches, both in sending and in linking with churches that grow out of mission or are partners in mission in frontier areas (i.e., Phil. 1; Rom. 15).

Fifth, God has provided a New Testament model of apostolic (missionary) teams that enables local churches to accomplish cross-cultural mission beyond their geographical and cultural areas. These teams allow missionaries to be sent while linking new churches with sending churches.

When the church creates a mission agency for itself (i.e., denominational mission boards) or supports agencies focused on mission, it releases those specifically called and gifted for the missionary task, while freeing the local church to focus on internal and outreach ministry in its Jerusalem.

Others, notably Ralph Winter in his article “The Two Structures in God’s Redemptive Mission”¹ have demonstrated the historical reality of missionary orders/societies in the worldwide advance of the gospel. Winter correctly notes that the advance of the gospel among the unreached often was hindered where these sodalities did not exist.² However, when the church allowed or created mission orders or societies, the thrust of the gospel to the unreached proceeded.

THE ANTIOCH MODEL
Mission societies are neither, as critics say, “cultural accommodations” nor “a less than ideal methodology which arises out of the church’s disobedience.” Instead, they grew out of the biblical model of the missionary teams of the New Testament.

Critics of mission societies sometimes use the Antioch model to argue that the local sending church is really the mission agency, with authority over its missionaries. However, I believe Antioch demonstrates how the local church facilitated the formation and sending of the missionary team. It is important to note that the “Antioch church” was most likely made up of many house “churches.” (Note Paul’s words to the Roman church in Romans 16.)

The Book of Acts provides two models for mission. The first was spontaneous and predominates from Chapters 2 to 13. In this model God led individuals to cities (Philip to Samaria) and to other individuals (Ethiopian eunuch, Saul). God also forced the church to witness beyond its borders by persecution (Acts 8:1). This is forced spontaneity. Ordinary believers took the gospel and shared it wherever they went.

These movements of believers were neither planned nor controlled by the church in Jerusalem. Yes, the Jerusalem church verified the legitimacy of what was happening and, following Christ’s order, sent Peter to be the instrument through which the door of faith was opened to the Gentiles. The Jerusalem church also sent a delegation to Antioch to encourage the new church. Barnabas remained in Antioch to help and encourage this new work. There was order in spontaneity.

Acts 13 introduces intentional mission. Here the Holy Spirit directs the church to send laborers into the harvest. The church at Antioch was the ideal sending church. It was multi-cultural. It had gifted leaders, two of whom came from outside the church. Barnabas had been sent by Jerusalem to help establish the church; Paul was recruited by Barnabas. Paul was uniquely called of God to be the “apostle to the Gentiles.”

The Holy Spirit led the leadership of the church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the ministry before sending them to the regions beyond. Paul actually received his call on the road to Damascus, while Barnabas had been already set apart for ministry by the Jerusalem church. God used both men to establish the Antioch church; however, their giftedness was “supra-local.” They were gifts to the wider church. (I believe the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, “apostles, evangelists, pastors-teachers,” are intended for use among more than one congregation and are particularly important in the expansion and establishment of churches.) Even John Mark was from the Jerusalem church, having been recruited by Barnabas and Saul when they delivered the gift from Antioch to Jerusalem (Acts 12:25).

The sending of the missionaries by the Antioch church (Acts 13) could best be described as “releasing.” The church released those whom the Holy Spirit sent out. The church in Antioch displayed a sacrificial obedience in sending out its most gifted leadership. Control and accountability were not issues.

Barnabas, Saul, and John Mark sailed for Crete. Most likely the church in Antioch knew and approved of their plans to go to Crete and then on to Asia Minor. That is only an assumption. While ministering in Crete it became apparent that Paul was really the team leader (Acts 13:2; cf. 13:13). This leadership change came naturally within the team. During the first missionary journey the team experienced attrition. John Mark returned to Antioch. The decision to send him home (allow him to leave) was made by the team.

After passing through Crete and southern Asia Minor, establishing churches, the team returned to Antioch, home base, to report what God was doing. This act of accountability was also a great act of linkage. The missionary team linked the new churches to the sending church. This was not formal organizational linkage but a linkage of mutuality and brotherhood.

Because the missionary team was working on the frontiers of faith, questions arose in Jerusalem about this new movement of God among Gentiles and Jews. What was necessary for Gentiles to be part of “the way”? The Jerusalem church called the first church council, which consisted of apostles and elders from the churches. Paul and Barnabas were sent to appear before the council to explain their ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 15). This is the one area where control was established. The purity of the Good News was at stake. It was not the Antioch church which made the decision but the mother church in Jerusalem. Antioch was submissive to Jerusalem.

After the historic council, Paul once again was ready to resume his missionary activity. Barnabas and Paul had a severe disagreement over whether or not to take John Mark on this journey (Acts 15:36-41). The disagreement resulted in Paul forming a new team and going his way without Barnabas. Apparently the Antioch church did not decide whether this was good or bad.

During his second missionary journey Paul encouraged the churches already planted and added new members to his missionary team. These new members came from the churches he started (Acts 16:1-3). It should be observed that neither Antioch nor Jerusalem determined who should join the Pauline team. Paul and his fellow workers decided. Accountabilities became diverse as new team members were added. Paul and his team now reported back to the sending churches. The apostolic role was one of evangelism, instruction (missionary teaching and letter), discipline (missionary letter and teaching), encouragement, and mutual accountability (e.g., meeting with the elders from Asia Minor at Ephesus).

In all likelihood, Paul told the churches in Lystra and Derbe that he and his team intended to go throughout Asia Minor before launching out anywhere else. However, they were hindered by the Spirit and clearly led to Macedonia (Acts 16). This crucial decision in church history was made by the missionary team. Team members did not consult with the sending church (Antioch) or churches (Lystra and Derbe). They obeyed the clear leading of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout Paul’s missionary career, he developed lines of relationship between the older churches and the new churches. He always felt a strong accountability to Jerusalem and wanted the new churches to understand the Jerusalem church’s unique place in mission history (2 Cor. 8, 9). At the same time Paul was anxious to involve the new churches in the work of frontier mission. Not only did he receive co-workers from the churches he started (cf. Acts 20), he also planned to spend time with the church at Rome in order to encourage them to join him in reaching Spain for Christ (Rom. 1:11; cf. Rom. 15:24,28). He was not only a pioneer but a catalyst for local church missions.

OBSERVATIONS
Allow me to make some observations from Dr. Luke’s record.

1. The Holy Spirit is the initiator of mission. The local church obediently released its people. The Spirit sent out and the church released.

2. The missionary team, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, made most of the critical decisions without the input of the leadership in Antioch. The apostolic team decided where to minister, how long to stay, whom to invite on the team, whom to send back to strengthen the churches started, and how to support themselves. In other words, team members were able to make the necessary decisions for the furtherance of the gospel under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

3. The big doctrinal-theological issue was not settled by the church in Antioch. It was settled by the Jerusalem council which included apostles and leaders of churches, with the leadership of the Jerusalem church being predominant.

I submit that the Antioch model is the strongest biblical case for the formation of mission structures to spread the gospel to the regions beyond. It is a weak case for mission flowing out of and accountable to the sending church. It is especially weak regarding control and decision making.

OBJECTIONS
Someone is bound to argue that the Pauline missionary team should not be used as a model because of the uniqueness of Paul as an apostle. He had unique authority and therefore did not need accountability.

First, I agree that Paul carried unique authority in establishing Gentile churches. However, his authority was often questioned. We have a better view of his authority than the church at Antioch did.

Second, I believe God placed Luke as part of the Pauline team to record how the gospel moved out of Jerusalem to the uttermost. The other apostles were also missionaries. God chose to focus on Paul and his team to demonstrate how the church must allow and encourage “supra-local” ministries that extend the boundaries of the faith.

Third, if you say the Pauline model does not apply today, you must also dismiss the Antioch model as an argument for local church control of mission. If we use the Antioch model we must follow it through and not simply use Acts 13:1-4 to justify local church control.

Some have argued that Acts is history, not theology. My answer is simple. First, Acts is the inspired word of God. It is more than a simple recounting of history (2 Tim 3:16). Acts gives us a good picture of the apostolic kerygma. It shows us the bare outlines of church polity. It provides us with great insight into the church’s encounter with paganism. It is a great textbook of mission (keeping in mind that it must be looked at in light of the Gospels and the Epistles).

Second, the Pauline missionary team was part of the church. They were never nonchurch entities. They emanated from the church, planted the church, provided the linkage between churches, and were accountable to many churches in regard to their stewardship and doctrine.

The New Testament says little about the specific organization of missionary teams apart from the nature and qualification of leaders. We know that the church developed missionary structures to reach beyond its borders. History has subsequently demonstrated that when the church recognizes and develops missionary structures its mission is enhanced. When the church does not allow these structures to develop, mission is hindered. Is this just an accident of history—or evidence that God has revealed a model of what he wants for his church in the Book of Acts?

CONCLUSIONS
1. I believe the New Testament demonstrates that cross-cultural evangelism beyond the borders of the existing church is enhanced by missionary structures that have a great deal of autonomy and authority to enable the church to be planted in the regions beyond.

2. These structures are not an accommodation to the disobedience of the church. Rather they are the means through which many local churches can work together.

3. Both local churches and missionary structures are accountable to God and must obey the Holy Spirit’s leading. The Holy Spirit is the one who sends missionaries. Local churches nurture and commission missionaries and missionary teams.

4. Missionary structures have many levels of accountability. They must faithfully and accurately report back to the sending churches regarding the ministry. They must be good stewards of money (2 Corinthians 8). They must faithfully facilitate missionary ministry, and, if necessary, discipline the missionary (Acts 13). They must provide the linkage between the older and newer churches and be accountable to both. They must be accountable to their sending churches with regard to the gospel they proclaim. Mission structures (societies) are truly the arm of the church in mission.

In Acts the local church emerges as the means and the goal of mission. Disciples were made in the context of gathered assemblies who performed the divine functions of worship, instruction, fellowship, and outreach. They emerged along the pattern of the Jewish synagogue but also became more “gentile” in their structure as they grew in the gentile communities. Their functions and the nature and quality of leadership were carefully and biblically defined; however, their structures were not clearly defined.

Acts introduces a model which enables the church to go beyond its area. The “missionary team” became the means described in Acts and initiated by the Spirit of God whereby the church was able to expand beyond its cultural and geographic boundaries. History gives ample proof of the necessity of both structures, the one (the church) intended to include all believers, and the other (mission) a special structure for those especially called to carry the gospel to the uttermost. There should be mutuality, synergism, and fellowship between the church and its mission structures. The issue should not be one of control but of mutual help.

Local churches and mission structures are vital in fulfilling the redemptive purposes of God. While the church is both the “agent” and “goal” of mission, there is also good biblical and historical support for the development of “missionary team” structures that facilitate and enable the expansion of the gospel to the regions beyond. Mission is greatly enhanced when there is strong partnership between the church and its missionary structures.

I believe that there is solid biblical ground for the existence of mission societies. Even though the exact nature of such societies is not spelled out explicitly in the New Testament, there is sufficient evidence to indicate the existence of missionary bands which had a “supra-local” ministry. In the history of the church, God has often raised up mission structures in order to expand and complement the biblical mission of the church. As long as vast segments of the population of our world remain unevangel-ized or unchurched, we feel obligated, both to the sending and to the receiving church, to continue our missionary role in its biblical and historical tradition.

The Pauline “apostolic team,” although unique (i.e., Paul’s apostle-ship), provides a biblical model of a missionary band.

Subsequent mission history has demonstrated that the church’s worldwide mission is most effective when both the church (modality) and the missionary movement (sodality) exist in strategic partnership.

Endnotes
1. Winter, Ralph, ed. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1983.

2. Winter, p. 186.

…

Frank M. Severn is general director of SEND International (Farmington, Mich.).

Copyright © 2000 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.