Over the next few days, I’m going to interact with an excellent blog post by Neil Brighton, provocatively entitled, Mission Agencies: Do We Need Them. Please take a few minutes to read it (and then come back here). At the start of post Neil raises three nagging worries:
The first is theological. Mission is about us (the church) joining in with the mission of God. Going and sending so that others might become disciples of Jesus and be gathered in church communities. There are many dimensions to this but ecclesiology matters and is an integral part of this. My concern is that pan evangelical agencies downplay ecclesiology (because it divides evangelicals) which ultimately harms the mission of God.
The second is the viability of organisations with decreasing numbers of long (5 years plus) and mid-term (1-5 years) term missionaries, an ageing supporter base and a financial reliance on legacies.
The third is whether mission agencies are able to help us face the challenges of tomorrow rather than give us the solutions of yesterday.
I have a bit of a problem interacting with what Neil says here because I agree with it all.
Let’s take them one by one:
Neil is dead right, many (most?) mission agencies do downplay ecclesiology. The very notion of a separate structure for mission apart from the local church is difficult to justify from Scripture (see Early Christian Mission, Volume Two: Paul & the Early Church which comprehensively debunks the idea). This is not to say that there is not a pragmatic role for agencies; but it does mean that the purpose of agencies is to serve the local church in mission. I would highlight two areas in particular in which this low ecclesiology is manifest. Firstly, some agencies insist that they are going to do evangelism in their way, to meet targets which they have defined whether the local church wants them to or not. No doubt this sort of attitude is well intentioned, but it shows both cultural arrogance and a lack of respect for the local church. Our attitude to mission is right!
The second issue is arises in the ‘home country’, I wrote this a while ago:
- Relationships and accountability become complex. When a missionary is supported by a multitude of people and churches, the notion of a “sending church” to whom they are accountable becomes blurred. As someone with a strong belief in the role of the sending or commissioning church, I find this very problematic.
The issue of church-agency relationships was a recurring theme at this year’s Global Connections’ Conference.
Neil’s point about the viability of agencies is well made. I have similar points in the past, notably in this post, which contains this startling graph.
Neil’s last point about whether agencies are equipped to help us solve yesterday’s problems rather than today’s is also an important one. There is no doubt that, to some extent, he is highlighting a real problem. I illustrated one aspect of this problem in a recent post. However, that isn’t the whole story:
- There are some agencies which are adapting to the changing world and who are getting to grips with the problems of tomorrow. Change comes slowly, but it is coming in some places.
- As the graph above illustrates, there are new mission structures being created all of the time. Some of these are little more than modern incarnations of traditional agency models, but others are new and innovative, reflecting the world of today. I wrote about this here.
- However, we still have a problem. The current situation is unsustainable; there are too many agencies competing for people, finance and prayer support. Over the next ten years or so, it is likely that we will see some agencies fold. The problem is that there is no guarantees that the forward looking agencies will be the ones that survive.
None of these issues are new. People have been writing these things for years. However, adapting to these changes will take significant leadership and a change in direction which will need to be driven by agency trustees – and here we have a problem. Volunteer trustees are absolutely key to the work of any charity and they are to be admired and thanked for the time that they put into ensuring that mission agencies can continue to function. However, there are some issues:
- The day-to-day regulatory burden on British charities is huge; trustees have to spend a massive amount of time ensuring that the organisation that they govern is operating in a legal and ethical manner. This means that they have limited time for looking at the future. Martin Lee unpacks this issue in some detail here.
- Because of this, boards prioritise recruiting members with legal, financial, administrative and fund-raising experience. These are all important, but people with this sort of background do not necessarily come with an understanding of current issues in missiology – much less an understanding of the future. Agencies boards need to value mission and development work experience as professional skills alongside accountancy and legal expertise.
This has been a bit of a ramble around a number of issues; I apologise for that. But it has given me the opportunity to draw a number of threads together. I may be a bit more organised in my next post (or I may not).
41 replies on “Mission Agencies: Questions”
RT @kouya: Some rambling thoughts on mission agencies and churches inspired by @NeilBrighton (but don’t blame him) … https://t.co/BCJv3xJ…
Uncomfortable but true.
John Baxter-Brown liked this on Facebook.
Paul Bailie liked this on Facebook.
This is probably one reaction to the increasing complexity in kingdom work, as there is in the world in genera
Christian Missiology liked this on Facebook.
Hmmm. I beg to differ here. I think a lot of these arguments are based on an inadequate ecclesiology that privileges the ‘local church’ above all. The mission community (not ‘agency’) I lead is a legitimate expression of, and an integral part of, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I had exactly that conversation with one of your staff over lunch. But I thought your group was a community, not an agency.
How encouraging!
I just posted this on the webpage:
The question here is “what is church?” Is it the world wide body of Christ? Is it a denominational body? Is it a local body of people who meet and identify as a worshipping/missional family community?
For example, imagine someone going from Malaysia to Egypt, supported financially by 3 churches (of 2 different denominations), working to see a local body of believers from a Muslim background (which isn’t either Coptic nor of the denomination of the Malaysian churches) grow and develop in a local city . Where do they fit into this set of questions?
So in this I agree with Philip that ecclesiology needs to encompass the broad sense of church
In reply to both Colin & Philip; yes you are right, but you need to read my post in context.
I was addressing concerns raised about western mission agencies, only one of which is ecclesiology. The original post did not reference agencies such as Philip’s which do not have the share the ecclesiological challenges faced by what Fiedler calls the ‘Faith Missions’. Consequently, neither neither did I. I thought about making a remark to highlight this, but my post was already too long. I’ve also discovered that if I try and add a clause to meet the specifics of one agency, then I have to keep going for another ten of them. It’s one reason that I rarely mention agencies by name.
On the case of the worker going from Malaysia to Egypt; I would simply say that western mission structures are not an appropriate model. I would not expect to find a way to plug such a person into my article because I was writing about issues facing western mission agencies.
I’m not dismissing your comments. You both raise extremely important issues, it’s just a little unfair to expect them to be treated in a blog post that was dealing with a different issue. However, if either of you has the time or energy to write a post expanding on what you have said, I’d be delighted. It’s outside of my area of competence and I’d gladly hand the reins over to an expert.
Two comments, Eddie. First I was reacting more to the quotes you cited rather than what you said per se. Second I’m not sure though my comments are tangential to the argument as much of the latter was posited on the basis of a particular ecclesiology.
Philip Mounstephen I don’t disagree with you Philip. I think that these issues reveal some of the weaknesses of Congregational church government. However, we are where we are and we have to deal with the situation as we find it.
“On the case of the worker going from Malaysia to Egypt; I would simply say that western mission structures are not an appropriate model.” Our international mission (which is both Western and not) has just this sort of scenario. And would it change if I said a New Zealand person going with the support of 3 churches? Its the same thing.
I made a comment on this situation in the original piece (and in one I linked to) and don’t really have anything else to add to that. However, since you insist…. I believe that it is important that a missionary is accountable to a church structure beyond the mission agency. If that is worked out between the three churches either through denominational structures, or some sort of agreement, then I see no problem. Where the problem occurs (and it does) is when the competing priorities and claims of the supporting churches makes it impossible to either appropriate pastoral support, or (in extremis) discipline.
The two cautions that I come back to time and time again are (1) some of these blog posts are written as if they refer to all mission agencies/structures globally, when they do not – this one, for instance, is largely talking about UK mission structures and context; (2) I still believe there is an argument to be made that an agency IS essentially a church, or as much a church as any given congregation is, because an ekklesia is a body of believers gathered. I’m not saying an agency is a very good church, any more than a typical church is a very good church; I’m just saying that the “you’re not the church” argument leveled at an agency may not necessarily be true!
If you reduce the meaning of church (or ekklesia) to simply ‘a body of believers gathered’ then the term becomes historically and theologically meaningless. I know that a description like that appeals to our individualistic society, but I don’t think you can make it stand up from Scripture or tradition (whether in English or Greek).
It’s true that I don’t always clarify that I’m talking about the UK, though I often do. Then again, try reading US missiology from any other context!
Wellllllllll…. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV
Strong’s: ἐκκλησία ekklēsía, ek-klay-see’-ah; from a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):—assembly, church.
Thayer’s “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly” etc
Outline of Biblical usage:
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
the assembly of the Israelites
any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
in a Christian sense:
an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Now, I grant that agencies don’t necessarily have or function as “legal churches” (in some sense) in that they don’t marry, bury, etc. But then again many of our members are “ordained” in some sense recognized by some legal authorities as having the ability to do so… (but that’s a side thread, of course.)
You cannot argue for the meaning of a word from etymology; that is linguistics 101.
The quote you gave, though not very detailed, indicates that there is more to a church than just being in assembled in a locality. A more complete, theological unpacking of the theme would indicate more. Sorry, it’s late on a Friday night, so I’m not going to type out pages from the Fathers, Calvin et al.
As my discussions with Philip earlier in this thread might have indicated, I’m not much of a one for the notion of ‘legal church’.
I appreciate that. But what I’m pondering is what makes a house church in China and a megachurch in the US and a cathedral in England (I realize I’m bordering on places) “churches” – and how a group in an agency is less a church. Here I’m thinking less of the overall agency – which I suppose is more analogous to a denomination, perhaps – and thinking more about the individual instances – e.g. our international headquarters, or any single team/base and the people in that base – how are these less a “church”? I mean, we gather regularly. We pray together. We fellowship together. We worship together. We don’t have communion EVERY time, but we do at every major meeting. We study the Word together. We hold each other accountable.
I’m not saying I’m right. I’m just saying, I’m pondering it.
I’m going to have to back out of this; sorry. Need to wind down before bed. Will you be at Missio Nexus next week? Would be great to catch up and maybe chat this through face to face, which is always better and more fun.
Unfortunately, no. 🙁 September is mostly spent close to the office; october is my busy travel month right now
(although we will have Beyonders at MissioNexus)
That’s a shame; but tell your guys to say hi to the eccentric Englishman.
I will! cc Jeff Kwon
RT @kouya: Some rambling thoughts on mission agencies and churches inspired by @NeilBrighton (but don’t blame him) … https://t.co/BCJv3xJ…
I don’t think there’s actually a difference between a mission agency and a church, and neither does David Bosch.
This isn’t the only place where I think Bosch is wrong.
Agencies often explicitly plant denominations in their own image on the field, and function – for better or worse – as archbishops and councils of those denominations. To say that they’re not churches because they have a “home end” too is the doctrine of salt water.
Some agencies, in some ways function like churches; you can choose to extrapolate from this that all agencies are churches, but I am far from convinced that this is valid, no matter how many missiological trump cards you throw in.
Well, even for those which don’t plant churches, you can make a case. It depends what your definition of church is, which is I guess what Justin was getting at. In the CP course I ask the students if they think the college is a church. The point being that it’s hard to find a definition by which it isn’t.
Yes, I agree you can make a case, and plenty of people do, just as others make the case the other way.
Equally, you can approach the question from the point of view of ecclesiology, New Testament studies, missiology or church history and potentially arrive at different questions with different solutions.
For what it’s worth, I think that in their different ways, the Anglican Church and some of the newer Charismatic streams in the UK have the best solution; with episcopal/apostolic oversight of their mission work/communities. Though, for other reasons, I remain a good congregationalist.
I cannot comprehend a God that has a “mission” at all. This reduces God to a functionary within a largely Western, modernistic ideal, where life can be segmented into phases of a larger project, each with a timescale and a set of measurable success criteria. If this is what God means, its pretty uninspiring and therefore inaccurate. God, after all, is inspirational above all else.
God is not constrained by the laws of the space-time continuum that he has created. We time-bound creatures can’t get our heads around a God for whom time is entirely irrelevant. From our perspective a mission is a time-related activity with change happening between a beginning and an end. God expresses himself to us in time-related concepts such as “patience” and “mission” because they start to give us an inkling of what He’s like. We quickly end up on thin ice, however, if we assume that these helpful-to-humans concepts give us a complete understanding.
Larry Robbins liked this on Facebook.