by Stephen Bond
What are the implications when a local church becomes a missionary sending agency? That’s what a number of missions-minded megachurches, and scores of independent churches, are doing.
What are the implications when a local church becomes a missionary sending agency? That’s what a number of missions-minded megachurches, and scores of independent churches, are doing.
Of course, as Ralph Winter first reminded us in his address at the All-Asia Mission Consultation in Seoul, Korea, 20 years ago, God has used both the churches (congregational structures, which Winter called modalities) and the parachurch, or mission structures (sodalities). Winter stated:
The first structure in the New Testament scene is thus what is often called the New Testament church….(which)…is a prototype of all subsequent Christian fellowships. On the other hand, Paul’s missionary band can be considered a prototype of all subsequent missionary endeavors.
Fresh out of seminary in 1981,I understood the local church to be God’s primary vehicle for sending missionaries. So, a decade ago we embarked on an experiment of establishing a team of missionaries in Chile sent out by one church in Fullerton, Calif. By 1991, we had five families from Eastside Christian Church serving in Chile. In 10 years 16 Chilean churches had been established with more than 1,600 members.
Four prime factors have to be considered when a church considers functioning as a mission board: finances, relationships, accountability, and organizational values.
FINANCES
C. Peter Wagner has observed that churches generally have greater access to financial resources than mission agencies do. Certainly this has been true of our experience. Our mission has been perceived as a vital program by our sending church. We have enjoyed ample funding, something that few mission boards have.
As our missionary team has grown, so has the church’s investment in Chile. The chart on page 154 gives a summary of the growth of the church’s resources allocated to our work in Chile.
Beyond providing our salaries, housing, and benefits, our sending church has enabled us to purchase 10 properties, build several churches, build a leadership training facility on 27 acres, and carry out many other activities. Since we were considered a vital part of the church’s missions program, our monthly budgets have been met consistently. Knowing month-by-month what our income would be, we gained security in budgeting and planning.
However, being well funded has had its drawbacks. Because our missionaries saw such abundant support coming in, our expectations for support rose dramatically. It has been difficult at times to be satisfied with our generous portion, particularly when our sending church was installing new carpet in the sanctuary, and so on.
Having abundant funding has also led to a slightly cavalier attitude toward money. We haven’t been as careful as we would have been if we had raised the funds ourselves. In addition, I suspect we haven’t prayed for funds nearly as much as some of our missionary colleagues in other agencies do.
Another concern is that local church resources usually reach a limit. The mission board established within one local church faces a finite potential for growth in finances and personnel. As the effects of these constraints have grown, we have begun to realize our need to encourage other churches to participate financially in our efforts. In some cases, this has proven difficult because a broad-based network was not established during the formative years of our mission. Further, the ownership of the effort has been so closely identified with one church that other churches have been reluctant to add us to their missions budgets.
RELATIONSHIPS
Our missionaries in Chile have been loved and cared for better than any other missionary team I have known. One of our greatest blessings of being the Chilean extension of a California church has been the intimacy and warmth we have enjoyed with our home church family. We are known to the people, prayed for, and thought about. Take Raisin Bran for example, unavailable for many years in Chile. Over the years I’ve received more than 200 boxes of Raisin Bran from our friends and family in our sending church.
Because they are the sending agency, our home church has been vitally involved in Chile. The strength of that bond can be seen in the fact that more than 60 people have visited us on the field in the past 10 years.
Our team has had the unique privilege of being rooted in the same church. We share the history and relationships that existed before we went to Chile. The four families that followed my wife and me to Chile joined partially because of our prior relationships with each of them.
Our sending church has established warm relationships with many of our Chilean leaders. This has blessed both churches.
ACCOUNTABILITY
We created a special board within our church to oversee our mission, Chilean Impact Ministries. It includes respected men and women from the congregation. The board meets regularly according to situations that arise. The chairman is the minister of missions of our sending church and serves as our primary advocate before the church’s mission board, the elders, and the people.
Working with our board has been a reasonably good experience. The team and the board of CIM have interacted within the context of the personal relationships mentioned above.
However, three structural limitations have surfaced that appear to be inherent when a modality (local church) functions as a sodality (mission organization):
1. Having untrained volunteers on our board has deprived us of the experience, insight, and context that an established sodality might have provided. On the other hand, the fact that none of us were experts freed us to be very creative in methods and strategies. We have not known what we could not do, so often we have gone ahead and tried the impossible.
2. As a result of our team being "family," it’s been hard for our board to be objective in its evaluations and assessments. The family spirit has also led to our missionaries’ having unrealistic expectations about the board members’ personal contact and investment of their time. Moreover, our families at home have also had inflated expectations about what our board should do for their children.
3. It’s been difficult for our board to keep up with the growing needs and structural complexities of a five-family team. The time required to administer properly our program has been enormous. We have battled through the thorny process of developing our mission policies. We have tried to address unforeseen issues in a flexible, yet consistent way.
ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Paul Pierson, among others, has noted the significant contrast in organizational values between a modality and a sodality We can summarize these differences as follows:
Modalities (congregational structure):
– People oriented
– Government by Consensus
– Basic level commitment
Sodalities (mission structures)
– Task oriented
– Government by vision
– 2nd level commitment
Modalities are pastoral in thrust, while sodalities focus on the task at hand. Wagner develops this further by pointing out three essential qualities of good sodality leaders: they believe their task is the most important in the world; they think they are doing the task better than anyone else; and they have a low need for people.
In our attempt to function as a sodality within a modality, we have experienced tension in organizational values. The essential values for the proper functioning of a church do not mesh smoothly in all cases with the values needed for a well-running mission board. People will be the priority within the church; task will dominate the board. Neither one is more right than the other; both fit their appropriate structures.
CONCLUSION
There is no perfect vehicle for sending missionaries. I have found the modality-sodality scheme helpful in evaluating the efforts of a local church to become a missions sending agency. Much fruit has been harvested in Chile through out efforts. Overall, the effort has been worthwhile from the perspective of the local church.
For those churches thinking about becoming their own sending agency, it is crucial to weigh the costs in terms of finances, personnel, administration, and the investment in focus required by local church leaders. This approach may not be appropriate for all churches.
We have learned many things in our experience. Mission structures do affect our work. God’s grace does overrule. What is most important is the intention of our hearts.
—–
Copyright © 1993 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.
