Should We Drop the Term ‘Missionary’?

by Samuel F. Rowen

Has anybody here seen a missionary? It is much easier to spot one than it is to define one. They have been engaged in a variety of tasks from auto maintenance to evangelism, from school teaching to administration, from medical work to translating the Scriptures. But still the question remains: What is a missionary?

Has anybody here seen a missionary? It is much easier to spot one than it is to define one. They have been engaged in a variety of tasks from auto maintenance to evangelism, from school teaching to administration, from medical work to translating the Scriptures. But still the question remains: What is a missionary?

The expression that every Christian is a missionary is not useful. It is like saying every Christian is a witness (which is true). This means ‘that being a Christian is to be a witness. It tells us what a Christian does. But if the term encompasses all members of a set then it is not useful to distinguish a part of the set. Therefore, to say every Christian is a missionary makes the term useless to describe certain Christians who have a distinct function which we call missionary.

There are at least three basic answers which have been given. In all of our attempts we buttress our arguments with Scripture texts, or at least have a biblical backdrop to give an air of authority to our positions. The definitions used here are: the organizational definition; the cultural definition; the theological or biblical definition.

ORGANIZATIONAL DEFINITION
This is the most common and comprehensive definition of a missionary. In effect, it says that anyone who is identified with a "mission board or agency" is a missionary.

The general mood characterizing this definition of a missionary is that we are all one family. Since we recognize the inherent value of the individual and the "priesthood of all believers", then all must be missionaries (with all the rights, images, and authority that pertain thereto).

Also, in connection with this definition is the fact that home staff are also missionaries. Who would deny that the general director of a mission agency is a missionary, even though his primary function is administrative and fund-raising in North America? It would raise the dilemma for the executive head and chief strategy planner for missionaries not to be a missionary himself. So to avoid this dilemma there is an unconscious acquiescence to the idea that a missionary is defined by organizational identity. To some this may sound like a poor or inaccurate characterization. But note the prominent Bible institute whose student body recently voted the staff of the school-cooks, maintenance men, etc.-as "the forgotten missionaries." The school used this as a promotional basis for gifts to the salary fund. The organizational definition is very prevalent in evangelical circles.

CULTURAL DEFINITION
This definition states that a missionary is a person who crosses a cultural boundary in order to communicate the gospel, whether the boundary is international or the inner city.

The immediate value of this definition is that it breaks down the artificial dichotomy between home and foreign missions. However, this definition is arbitrary and is not a biblical definition. In a strict sense it is not a definition, but a description. The functional definition does not tell us what a missionary is, but only what a missionary does. It also comes short of telling us how much needs to be done to qualify as a missionary. Is a full-time secretary who teaches Sunday school in Africa a missionary?

This definition rules out the home staff who are not involved in crossing cultural boundaries to communicate the gospel. Even the executive who crosses cultural boundaries does so in a supportive role and not in a declarative role. At best we could admit to (under this definition) a missionary dimension to the executive’s trips to the field, but not a missionary intention. In the light of a cultural definition an old cliché comes under judgment. We have been told that crossing an ocean doesn’t make a missionary. But on this definition it does. If a person crosses a cultural boundary with the intent of proclaiming the gospel, then he is a missionary.

THEOLOGICAL OR BIBLICAL DEFINITION
The real crux of the matter rests in whether or not there can be established a biblical definition for a missionary. We are not so much concerned with whether we can arbitrarily define a missionary, but rather with the nature of biblical authority a missionary has in the function of his ministry.

Christ has given to his church both gifts and offices (e.g., there is the gift of teaching and the office of elder). So the question arises as to the biblical warrant for the missionary office. Stephen Neill says:

Separation between Church and mission was carried to the extreme possible limits in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland. In most cases the missionary had been trained in a special institution where the studies were not on the same level of academic excellence as the universities and the examinations of which were not recognized by the Church. He was then ordained not by the Church but by the missionary society, to the office not of minister of word and sacraments in the Church but of "missionary ", a theological concept unknown to the New Testament (italics mine).¹

The question is whether or not this observation is valid. The attempt to find a biblical basis for the missionary office is found in an appeal to Ephesians 4:1 1. Here we find that some in the church are appointed apostles and it is noted that missionary is the Latin word for apostles (i.e., "sent ones"). So the question is whether there is a continuing apostolic office in the church today, or whether the apostolic office was foundational, limited and temporary in the New Testament church. Leon Morris says:

We should bear in mind that "apostle" is etymologically the equivalent of "missionary." While it would be altogether too facile to reason from this etymological agreement to identity of meaning, yet there have not been wanting scholars who have thought that our word "missionary" does in fact give us the best equivalent of the New Testament "apostle" (e.g., R. Bultman, "Paul calls all missionaries `apostles’"). The idea is that the essential thing about being "sent" is being sent to preach the Gospel and that therefore all who are sent with the gospel may be called "apostles." I do not think that this is the New Testament usage. But the fact that such views can be seriously held shows that there is no clear evidence for confining the application of the word too narrowly.²

The purpose of this article is to state the issue and not attempt a biblical defense for the apostolic office. A further study to determine the biblical validity of the uniqueness of the apostolic stewardship is necessary to undergird the implications of such a conclusion.³ However, the basic arguments that would see the apostolate as a restricted and temporary office are as follows.

(1) It was required than an apostle be an eye-witness of the Lord.

(2) This is the only office directly instituted by our Lord and a direct commission from the Lord was required.

(3) Their representation and function on earth was unique.

They were possessors of the Keys of the Kingdom in a unique sense as master-builders of the Church.

(4) There were certain visible signs which were attached to the apostolic commission.

Douglas Bannerman comments on the application of the term apostle to other than the twelve and Paul.

The wider use of the term "apostle" occurs in four or five cases in the New Testament, in all of which the nature of the special and temporary commission which gave rise to the expression is obvious from the context.⁴

In the search for the definition of a missionary we may conclude that authority cannot be derived from either the organizational or cultural definitions. The office and authority we desire is one rooted in the biblical revelation. Therefore, unless we can honestly conclude the continuation of the apostolate, it appears that there is no such biblical evidence for the missionary office. This means that, in a biblical sense, the word missionary cannot be used as a noun, but only as an adjective.

The question this conclusion raises is, to what functions should the adjective "missionary" be applied? Should it be restricted only to those continuing offices which Christ has given to his church? As an adjective it would be arbitrary in its application. Unless, of course, we wanted to apply it to all pastors whether or not they crossed any cultural boundaries. In this case its force as an adjective would be diminished, because it would not distinguish any within the set (i.e., all pastors are "missionary" pastors). But if it is to be used to discriminate within the set and the application is to be restricted to the special offices of the church, then it should not be applied indiscriminately to all Christians who cross cultural boundaries. We could speak of a missionary pastor, but not of a missionary secretary; a missionary teacher, but not of a missionary doctor. Another possibility is to identify the biblical office of evangelist as that being the missionary office. The Presbyterian Church in the U.S. includes its description of the evangelist under the heading of the Minister of the Word. The person who fills this office is given different names which describe his various duties (e.g., minister, elder, bishop, pastor, ambassador, etc.). "As he bears the glad tidings of salvation to the ignorant and perishing, he is termed Evangelist."⁵ A man because of his gifts may be called specifically as an evangelist. The evangelist may be called to preach the word and administer the sacraments in other countries or in other parts of the church. This means that there are both "missionary" evangelists and "ordinary" evangelists.

If the evangelist is the missionary, then the term missionary again becomes superfluous, unless it is used to refer only to those evangelists who cross cultural boundaries. This again is arbitrary, unless one concludes that all evangelists are meant to cross cultural boundaries in order to fulfill the demands of the office. It is common practice to ordain men to the office of minister of the Word and commission them to serve as missionary pastor, teacher, evangelists, etc. But the restriction of the missionary commission only to evangelists has little historical precedence. Such a restricted usage would instantly make non-missionaries out of all present day non-ordained "missionaries" and many ordained "missionaries."

But is it adequate to restrict the application to the special offices of the church, or even more particularly the office of evangelist? It seems that the basic question relates to an understanding of the goal of missions. For then all who are involved in a specific calling to that mission would be missionaries. J.H. Bavinck says:

A careful consideration of what the Scripture has to say concerning missions thus discloses that the earnest invitation and the bold witness are not entrusted solely to the lawfully chosen office bearers but each member of the congregation is also involved.⁶

The ultimate aim or goal of mission is nothing less than the glory of God which includes the conversion of the lost, the growth of Christ’s church, and the coming of the Kingdom of God.⁷ It is not adequate to exhaust the goal of missions simply in terms of the church. But the more comprehensive perspective of the Kingdom of God allows us to see the breadth of God’s redemptive purposes. The Kingdom of God is broader than the visible church . . . "because it aims at nothing less than the complete control of all of the manifestations of life. It represents the dominion of God in every sphere of human endeavor."⁸ The Kingdom of God is his rule or reign-God’s rule in the heart of man; God’s rule in the church; God’s rule in the world. The mission is the proclamation of God’s rule over the world for the purpose of men recognizing it.

The calling of the Kingdom is a calling to God by his power that brings us out of darkness into light and sets us as lights in the darkness. As a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, we declare the praises of God and his sovereign rule over men in all spheres of life. E.P. Clowney says:

Kingdom service may include agriculture, industry, or art; but only as such labor is done with a view to the purposes of the kingdom…Kingdom service, then, includes cultural development in Christ’s name, but always in the perspective of the kingdom….The Lordship of Christ over all things means that every calling that serves men’s needs can be Christ’s calling.⁹

In conclusion, we can say that every Kingdom calling, not only those related to the special offices of the church, can be designated as a missionary calling. Possibly because of the history of the meaning and usage of the word "missionary," it may be appropriate that the term should properly tie applied only to those called to kingdom service who are led to minister across cultural boundaries. (On the other hand, it may be time to reverse history and drop the term completely.) We could then properly speak of a missionary pastor, a missionary doctor, a missionary teacher. Authority is derived not from the adjective (missionary), but from the noun which reflects the actual function or office involved in the mission. Authority rests in the nature of the calling and not in the fact that a person ministers across cultural lines. A Christian doctor serving overseas is a Christian doctor serving overseas. He does not obtain additional authority by crossing a cultural boundary.

A recent conversation with a leading lay leader in Spain brought forth this comment. "We don’t need missionaries in Spain, but we do need evangelists." It was a reaction to the abuse of authority in the name of missionary authority. Many church/mission tensions are related to the abuse of authority. We have authority to minister and serve in the name of Christ; not some nebulous concept of missionary authority, but as servants of the Kingdom. But we only have the right to exercise that authority which is given to us by God. Without a continuing apostolic office there is no biblical necessity for the term "missionary." The term may no longer be useful because of misuse and possibly should be dropped. It may be difficult to relinquish the emotive value of the term missionary. But to continue laboring in a sub-biblical concept for the sake of personal gain is to prostitute one’s birthright.

Endnotes
1. Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Baltimore: Penguin Banks. Inc.), p. 512.
2. Leon Morris, Ministers of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press), p. 45. Cf. J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, p.xvi for a discussion on the use of the term "Apostolics."
3. A brief statement on the unique nature of the Apostles’ stewardship is made by Edmund P. Clowney, Called to the Ministry (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press), pp. 44,45.
4. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 260.
5. The Book of Church Order, "Doctrine of Church Officers" 10:1-6 (Richmond, Virginia: The Board of Christian Education, PCUS), pp. 33, 34. Cf. Calvin who says "these three functions (apostle, prophet, evangelist) were not established in the church as permanent ones . . . Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV:III:4). If Calvin is correct then to identify the missionary office with the office of evangelist, this would mean that the missionary is not an ordinary function of the church. To reject Calvin’s idea still leaves the problem of identifying the missionary office with the office of evangelist.
6. J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House), p. 67. However, it is interesting to note that while Bavinck recognizes that missions is broader than merely sending out missionaries, he feels it necessary to make a distinction. "Such considerations warrant a distinction between official missionary service, as manifest in sending out of missionaries and the spontaneous proclamation of the gospel by believers . . ." (page 68). It seems that Bavinck wants to maintain the term "missionary" for a specific set of people. What makes it "official" if there is no office? There is no biblical necessity for maintaining it, much less for official missionaries when there is no office.
7. Many missiologists, both conservative and liberal, have identified the glory of God as the goal of missions. Cf. G. Voetius, Politica Ecclesiastica; J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions; R.B. Kuiper, God-centered Evangelism; W.E. Hocking, Re-thinking Missions. In Ephesians we see the involvement of the triune God in the purposes of redemption as being "for the praise of His glory" (1:11;1:14; 3:20, 21).
8. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), p. 570. See also G. Vos, The Kingdom and the Church (Eerdmans).
9. Clowney, op. cit., pp. 20, 21.

Copyright © 1971 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.