by Rev. Scott Seaton
THE UNTRADITIONAL BECOMES TRADITION
Shortly after the publication of his “Enquiry Into the Obligation of Christians” in 1792, William Carey addressed ministers of the Baptist Association at a meeting in Nottingham, England. After encouraging them from Isaiah 54:2-3 to commit themselves to world evangelization, he exhorted them to demonstrate faith: “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.” The next day, at great financial sacrifice to themselves, the Baptist ministers formed a missions board, the Baptist Missionary Society. With this commitment, the modern missions movement was born. While the current of missions runs all the way back to Eden, so influential were Carey’s writings, model, and methods that a truly new channel had been opened.
Much has changed since Carey’s day. The increased emphasis on indigenous leadership, the evolving role of the missionary, and the concept of unreached people groups are some of the many ways missions has matured in the last two hundred years. Yet the basic method for sending and supporting missionaries remains largely untouched. Simply stated, churches that share a passion for missions entrust their members and resources to a mission agency, which oversees all aspects of field ministry. The Baptist Missionary Society served not only as the means to support these early missionaries to India, it became a model for all subsequent efforts. It remains the dominant model today.
This approach tends to be very linear and one-directional, with the church laying the foundation for missions in education, prayer, and support, but then essentially turning over all further responsibility to the sending agency. In turn, the agency would hopefully provide a well-developed system of oversight and support, a breadth of ministry opportunities and experience, a coherent philosophy of ministry, and a mechanism to pool resources. As a model, it was straightforward, uncomplicated, and directly responsible for the expansion of world missions to this day.
The following diagram portrays that relationship: 
For all that was gained in this approach, two significant weaknesses emerged. First, the local church largely delegated its ownership of missions to the agency—and along with it a significant amount of passion and vision for the work in the field. The local church was rarely involved in field ministry, except through praying for the work and hearing from the missionaries. The actual ministry became the province of the agency. The downside of this approach is that the local church was effectively relegated to the role of patron, rarely questioning its ownership of actual missions work. Both the church and the agency accepted this relationship as unassailable.
Second, this passivity inevitably led to churches having little direction for their missions ministry—a purposelessness rarely shared by other ministries of the church. The church rightfully expects its children’s ministry to have a philosophy and structure. Same for adult education or worship. But in many churches, the missions ministry has no such focus. The primary role of the missions committee is sadly reduced to that of a foundation distributing grant money to applicants. It’s simply assumed that this is all that missions committees do. No wonder there’s not much passion for world missions in many of our churches.
As a missions pastor for 14 years, I would often receive calls from both missionaries and agencies, seeking support for their ministry. The conversation always went something like this: “Here’s what we’re doing in missions. God is opening a strategic door for ministry, and we’d like you to be part of it—by giving us your money and your people.” I often felt like I was being sold something, with no concern whether we had a prior interest in the “product.” Until we began to be intentional about our involvement, we would passively receive many such requests, making decisions on little more than the quality of the presentation and the availability of funds. We were not much more than patrons.
A DEMAND FOR MORE OWNERSHIP
Today, however, people expect more involvement. Younger generations are less willing to entrust others with their resources and loyalty, instead demanding hands-on experience and ownership. Further, in a day of rapid travel and instant communication, church missions leaders and members are now able to participate directly in cross-cultural missions with little inconvenience or sacrifice. Short-term projects and instant connection to the field via email are common examples of this trend. When coupled with greater resources to sustain that interest, it’s no surprise that the traditional model is being rejected in many churches. Rather than passively responding to a variety of requests and strategies, these churches are thoughtfully developing a missions emphasis that uniquely suits their congregations. Based on its philosophical commitments and personal relationships, for example, a church may want to focus on church planting among a certain people group. Such a focus invariably means concentrating on a few places, in order to have greater impact and involvement. Depth rather than breadth becomes the overriding consideration. This commitment often involves taking the initiative in helping to develop the ministry, and thus more ownership in its success or failure. In this way, churches begin to assume more of the responsibilities traditionally reserved for the sending agency. From the recruitment of missionaries to the development of strategy, some churches are becoming, in theory and sometimes in practice, their own mission agencies.
This approach is one of the most significant trends in missions today, and many churches in the PCA have taken steps in this direction. Some of this momentum stems from the churches’ perception of sending agencies as bureaucratic and staid, unable or unwilling to involve the local church and its missions priorities—even unaware it might have any. In that climate, the church feels it has no choice but to go it alone. The dominant message in this model is the church saying, in effect, “We don’t want to delegate all the exciting stuff to an agency. We can do it ourselves.”
The following diagram portrays that relationship, where the missions agency is bypassed altogether: 
But as with the traditional model, there are downsides, for with all that the local church gains, much is lost as well. By not availing itself of the agency’s expertise and experience, a church may plunge into a work blind to the issues and pitfalls at every turn. Field ministry may suffer when churches fail to develop a coherent philosophy—or even know what to consider in devising a strategy. Most detrimental is the difficulty of producing a sustainable ministry without the broader resources of numerous churches, thereby leaving national partners in the cold when the ministry falters. Certainly the missions agency is not perfect in these regards, but there is every danger the local church will repeat the mistakes it has sought to avoid. One final caution: the churches most likely to attempt this direction are the larger, better-resourced congregations. The unfortunate implication, then, is that direct field involvement is not for the smaller church, which must continue in the traditional role of missions patron.
My own experience as a missions pastor reflects these problems. Convinced that greater focus leads to greater participation, our church adopted a people group in the Balkans, in part because an agency was planning to send missionaries to this newly opened country. When that placement fell through, our church teamed up with another PCA church to serve as our own sending agency. We recruited and selected candidates, provided pre-field training, helped the missionaries settle into the country, and worked with them closely as they developed a strategy. Our congregations enthusiastically supported them through their prayers, giving, and several short-term projects. Our missions leaders visited them two to three times a year and regularly communicated with them via email and phone. The actual ministry was busy and robust, providing a significant contribution to training emerging church planters. Based on the commitment from our churches and the vision on the field, everything seemed to be going great.
Over time, however, we saw that it was difficult to sustain the work. Policies and philosophy were created on the fly and in reaction to ever-changing circumstances. We made strategic mistakes that could easily have been avoided had we more experience. The administration of funds and resources seemed a common distraction from “the real work.” We didn’t know what level of care and oversight was appropriate, including support for re-entry into the U.S. And with a limited pool of candidates, we ultimately could not provide successors to our missionaries. The work was essentially turned over to another mission agency and our current involvement remains relatively insignificant.
A NEW APPROACH
There is, however, a third way. The unavoidable trend in missions today is for churches to connect directly to the field; this direction should be accepted and affirmed. The agency brings experience and facilitation for long-term ministry; this role should likewise be accepted and affirmed. A model for the future, then, is one that builds on the strengths of the two models mentioned above, while attempting to minimize the weaknesses. This new approach involves the creation of a partnership of all interested churches, the sending agency, and field workers to develop and coordinate ministry related to a specific field.
The dominant message here simply is: “We all need each other, so let’s work together,” as suggested by the following diagram: 
In this model, MTW becomes a facilitator of missions involvement, rather than the traditional “here’s what we’re doing” agency. In this facilitating role, MTW’s first question to churches changes from “Will you join us?” to “Where has God called you to serve? And if you don’t know, can we help you discover it?” A group of churches with a common focus would then partner together with MTW and missionaries to initiate and/or develop a work.
We are currently in the early stages of several such partnerships. After a formation period of defining how the various partners will work together, they are beginning to cooperate in ministry. One partnership is establishing an English lending library in Central Asia, collecting, cataloguing, and shipping the books, then sending interns to teach English and establish relationships. Another partnership is focusing on church planter training, helping to develop the curriculum and materials. The essential difference in this model is the level of communication and interaction among the various partners.
Although each partner may contribute to any aspect of the partnership, it has been helpful to clarify which partners will take the lead in various responsibilities, as follows. 
The field workers (missionaries and national leaders) determine ministry vision and strategy, carry out the ministry, and equip partners to effectively serve alongside. Churches provide input to field strategy, initiate projects with field approval, and participate in ministry. Further, they educate, equip, and send members in missions, help provide financial support, and can assist in candidate assessment and training.
MTW continues its responsibilities to administrate financial accounts, assess and train candidates, and supervise the missionaries. It will also facilitate the partnership by fostering communication and coordination, and keeping the partnership on track by preventing both irrelevance (not being engaged) and micro-management (dictating to the field). All the partners—field, church, and agency—are responsible to promote the ministry, expand and organize the partnership, and recruit and care for team members.
A GREAT ATTEMPT
Partnership in some expression is nothing new. What is different in this emerging model, however, is the combination of two elements: the high degree of interaction and coordination among the various partners, and the concentration of ministry on a particular work. It is premature and even hubristic to term this direction the “future of missions,” but those involved to date have great hope that something truly significant is taking shape. They like being more connected to the field and to each other, and they see the potential to invigorate the missions ministry of both the local church and the overseas field. The ability of these first partners to see over the horizon recalls the faith that William Carey called his brothers to demonstrate.
The passage from Isaiah that Carey spoke from at the Nottingham conference challenges us to “enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide.” The surprise in this passage is not that we need to make room for the expansion of God’s kingdom, but that we are to do so before the growth actually occurs. That requires faith, a deep conviction that God is going to work, and we need to get ready for it. These partnerships are a waste of time and energy if God has no place for us in the Great Commission. But if He does, partnering with others demonstrates faith by expanding our capacity to serve—even prior to seeing the fruit He will bring. May we too “expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.”
Rev. Scott Seaton has served as a missionary to Japan with MTW, as missions pastor at Intown Community Church, PCA, as the Intrnational Director of Enterprise for Christian-Muslim Relations at MTW, and now as a PCA church planter in Arlington, VA of Emmanuel Presbyterian Church.
This article is available for easy reading and printing in .pdf format by clicking here.
