How do we define 'missionary'?

[Von]

This question popped up during a conversation with some fellow believers. The question relates to the fact that we are encouraged to support missionaries.

Now in the common meaning, as well as my own understanding, I am not a missionary, but I do endeavour to evangelise people at work, etc. Our pastor would not be considered a missionary, but he is full-time in the ministry and busy with the work of the Lord. Every person that calls himself a missionary could obviously not be worthy of our support. What about someone that goes to the Californian beach mission-field?

How do we define a missionary and more pertinent - one that is worthy of our support?

 

[Gforce9]

How a missions scheme (for lack of a better term) will largely be determined by ones ecclesiology. For example, in confessional Presbyterianism, a "missionary" is a seminary graduate, a member of a presbytery (with its oversight), a thoroughly vetted man and ordained minister of the gospel who subscribes to the WCF. While there may be and often are helpers on the field, the "missionary" is an ordained minister. In addition to his belonging to a presbytery, he is accountable to a mission board (at least in the OPC). In a non-denominational situation, there (obviously) would be no denominational oversight and one would have to 1) go to an outside mission agency or 2) send yourself. The level of vetting and oversight will vary as will the quality of the person and the theology they teach.

My niece is a recent college grad and was hired and is going back to the university as a "missionary". I love her, but I won't support her as her doctrine is questionable. She has been far too influenced by SJWism , she is not a minister nor vetted properly and has no ecclesiastical oversight. Who knows what she would teach?

Also a factor is the regular/irregular aspect. A special situation may arise and be "irregular", but deemed important (hopefully deemed so by a group of vetted men). There are too many possible situations to speculate here, but all should strive for the "regular".

 

[Dachaser]

This question popped up during a conversation with some fellow believers. The question relates to the fact that we are encouraged to support missionaries.

Now in the common meaning, as well as my own understanding, I am not a missionary, but I do endeavour to evangelise people at work, etc. Our pastor would not be considered a missionary, but he is full-time in the ministry and busy with the work of the Lord. Every person that calls himself a missionary could obviously not be worthy of our support. What about someone that goes to the Californian beach mission-field?

How do we define a missionary and more pertinent - one that is worthy of our support?

The Missionary would be one that God has appointed and set forth unto a new area/region/land, to witness for Jesus, and to help set the local church in that area. One sent as spokesman for God to an area that until now has had little or new proclamation of the Gospel message.
Requirements for the position will vary rom group to group, as normally Baptist churches tend to have one trained and equipped to take on such a calling, and to be recognized as being called to the mission field.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Technically, or terminologically, the OPC regards as "missionaries" (who do we call missionaries?) anyone commissioned by the church to go out--someplace--first, for the spread of the gospel, i.e. the task of the Evangelist, an ordained minister; and second anyone sent on the same errand but in a supporting role.

Just by way of comparison, we might argue that anyone who was sent (or taken along with) Paul on his missionary journeys was, for that reason, a "missionary." So, Paul was a missionary, and so was his support staff, which could include ordained ministers or maybe a physician like Luke. In our parlance, Luke would have been one of the missionaries at some point in Paul's trips.

Paul also says, "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife as so the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)?" (1Cor.9:5). In that case, the wife is also a missionary, because she is present as a necessary support to her husband, the principal missionary-bearer of the Main gospel message.

The children of the missionary family may/may not be properly called "missionaries," though if you ask an MK (I was one once), he's likely to say "We are missionaries in _______" (name of place). Short-term staff are sometimes called missionary-associates, especially if they come on or partly on their own dime/support. The OPC also has missionary-deacons, a role that is especially helpful on fields that are quite rustic or perhaps diseased (might benefit from a doctor-Luke figure for such conditions).

"Missionary" is not a biblical-technical term. It is a description. Different churches or groups may employ it as they like, no one has a trademark on the term. The vital thing is to have a proper theology of missions, and organize the church's activity for an approved purpose, with the proper personnel.

 

[Gforce9]

Technically, or terminologically, the OPC regards as "missionaries" (who do we call missionaries?) anyone commissioned by the church to go out--someplace--first, for the spread of the gospel, i.e. the task of the Evangelist, an ordained minister; and second anyone sent on the same errand but in a supporting role.

Just by way of comparison, we might argue that anyone who was sent (or taken along with) Paul on his missionary journeys was, for that reason, a "missionary." So, Paul was a missionary, and so was his support staff, which could include ordained ministers or maybe a physician like Luke. In our parlance, Luke would have been one of the missionaries at some point in Paul's trips.

Paul also says, "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife as so the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)?" (1Cor.9:5). In that case, the wife is also a missionary, because she is present as a necessary support to her husband, the principal missionary-bearer of the Main gospel message.

The children of the missionary family may/may not be properly called "missionaries," though if you ask an MK (I was one once), he's likely to say "We are missionaries in _______" (name of place). Short-term staff are sometimes called missionary-associates, especially if they come on or partly on their own dime/support. The OPC also has missionary-deacons, a role that is especially helpful on fields that are quite rustic or perhaps diseased (might benefit from a doctor-Luke figure for such conditions).

"Missionary" is not a biblical-technical term. It is a description. Different churches or groups may employ it as they like, no one has a trademark on the term. The vital thing is to have a proper theology of missions, and organize the church's activity for an approved purpose, with the proper personnel.

Thanks for the important clarification, Rev. Buchanan.

 

[Jack K]

I include support staff, spouses, and those whose primary function is other than to evangelize.

While there may be and often are helpers on the field, the "missionary" is an ordained minister.

But if this is the rule, it makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers. Poke around on this board, and you will find claims that:
- Only ordained ministers may be called "pastors."
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "ministry."
- Only ordained ministers may be called "teachers" in the church.
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "evangelism."
- And now... only ordained ministers may be called "missionaries."

Well, I agree with some of those statements. But when we keep adding to them we end up suggesting that everyone else is nothing much, and does nothing much. We discount the considerable contributions and sacrifices made by non-ordained missionaries.

When I was a kid on the mission field, my dad was licensed to preach. But his interpreter, who was not, was still very much a co-missionary. And at times we received valuable assistance from missionary doctors and facility/maintenance guys who shared our overall purpose and commitment. It was their special mission in life, recognized as such by the churches that sent them. In those cases, I think expanded labels like "missionary doctor," "missionary teacher," or "missionary engineer" can help avoid misunderstandings. But there's no need to bar those people from using the word "missionary" in describing what they do. It appropriately describes and honors their commitment and their sending.

For much the same reason, I don't like the popular claim that all believers should think of themselves as missionaries. This too discounts the work of those the church sends out with a defined and supported missionary purpose.

 

[Dachaser]

I include support staff, spouses, and those whose primary function is other than to evangelize.



But if this is the rule, it makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers. Poke around on this board, and you will find claims that:
- Only ordained ministers may be called "pastors."
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "ministry."
- Only ordained ministers may be called "teachers" in the church.
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "evangelism."
- And now... only ordained ministers may be called "missionaries."

Well, I agree with some of those statements. But when we keep adding to them we end up suggesting that everyone else is nothing much, and does nothing much. We discount the considerable contributions and sacrifices made by non-ordained missionaries.

When I was a kid on the mission field, my dad was licensed to preach. But his interpreter, who was not, was still very much a co-missionary. And at times we received valuable assistance from missionary doctors and facility/maintenance guys who shared our overall purpose and commitment. It was their special mission in life, recognized as such by the churches that sent them. In those cases, I think expanded labels like "missionary doctor," "missionary teacher," or "missionary engineer" can help avoid misunderstandings. But there's no need to bar those people from using the word "missionary" in describing what they do. It appropriately describes and honors their commitment and their sending.

For much the same reason, I don't like the popular claim that all believers should think of themselves as missionaries. This too discounts the work of those the church sends out with a defined and supported missionary purpose.

Some of the finest missionary efforts were done in the field by those who were neither ordained, not seminary trained, but had the call of the Lord unto them to go forth in his name.

 

[Gforce9]

I include support staff, spouses, and those whose primary function is other than to evangelize.



But if this is the rule, it makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers. Poke around on this board, and you will find claims that:
- Only ordained ministers may be called "pastors."
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "ministry."
- Only ordained ministers may be called "teachers" in the church.
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "evangelism."
- And now... only ordained ministers may be called "missionaries."

Well, I agree with some of those statements. But when we keep adding to them we end up suggesting that everyone else is nothing much, and does nothing much. We discount the considerable contributions and sacrifices made by non-ordained missionaries.

When I was a kid on the mission field, my dad was licensed to preach. But his interpreter, who was not, was still very much a co-missionary. And at times we received valuable assistance from missionary doctors and facility/maintenance guys who shared our overall purpose and commitment. It was their special mission in life, recognized as such by the churches that sent them. In those cases, I think expanded labels like "missionary doctor," "missionary teacher," or "missionary engineer" can help avoid misunderstandings. But there's no need to bar those people from using the word "missionary" in describing what they do. It appropriately describes and honors their commitment and their sending.

For much the same reason, I don't like the popular claim that all believers should think of themselves as missionaries. This too discounts the work of those the church sends out with a defined and supported missionary purpose.

Jack,
I don't wish to be combative with you. I will answer the individual statements:
↑

But if this is the rule, it makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers. Poke around on this board, and you will find claims that:
- Only ordained ministers may be called "pastors."
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "ministry."
- Only ordained ministers may be called "teachers" in the church.
- Only ordained ministers may be referred to as doing "evangelism."
- And now... only ordained ministers may be called "missionaries."

Is whether something "makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers" the test of whether something is wrong or right, proper or improper, regular or irregular?

Well, I agree with some of those statements. But when we keep adding to them we end up suggesting that everyone else is nothing much, and does nothing much. We discount the considerable contributions and sacrifices made by non-ordained missionaries.

I don't suggest at all that people are "nothing". Our session would disagree knowing that they are prayed for, helped, monetarily upheld (pastor) by little old laity. This would be a false conclusion. Keep in mind, I am decidedly Presbyterian and not heirarchical. This boy is old school (dad was born in 1921) and don't think everyone should get a trophy for participation. I'm not threatened that my pastor is seminary degree'd and I'm not. The fruit is manifest every Lord's Day and makes me and many others very glad.

When I was a kid on the mission field, my dad was licensed to preach. But his interpreter, who was not, was still very much a co-missionary. And at times we received valuable assistance from missionary doctors and facility/maintenance guys who shared our overall purpose and commitment. It was their special missionin life, recognized as such by the churches that sent them. In those cases, I think expanded labels like "missionary doctor," "missionary teacher," or "missionary engineer" can help avoid misunderstandings. But there's no need to bar those people from using the word "missionary" in describing what they do. It appropriately describes and honors their commitment and their sending.

Fair enough and Rev. Buchanan corrected me on OPC polity. My real point was that a vetted minister was on station and that not just anyone could be a self-ordained, "God called me to missions (even though I'm under zero oversight)"? I don't think it proper at all that Johnny Whomever is attempting to preside over the means of grace. I don't mind calling someone's wife, a ruling elder, or doctor "a missionary" for all the work they do....thank God for them (I think of Perg's family whom have given up much in the some 7 or so years I've watched their trials.

For much the same reason, I don't like the popular claim that all believers should think of themselves as missionaries. This too discounts the work of those the church sends out with a defined and supported missionary purpose.

I totally agree! That was the thrust of my point, albeit "Greg" unclear, that having an ordained, vetted minister is the Presbyterian way and what I have come to believe is the "regular" way...

 

[Von]

But if this is the rule, it makes yet another label that may be applied only to ordained ministers, etc, etc...

My heart agrees with you, but this is exactly where my head is tied up in the "support"-knot. If the definition of a missionary is that wide, then whom are we to support? Obviously we should support the guy that was sent out by our church, and that's why Rev Buchanan made the golden statement:

The vital thing is to have a proper theology of missions, and organize the church's activity for an approved purpose, with the proper personnel.

How far should we then go to support the support team? Should the church at home decide whom of the fringe-staff is worthy to support, or is that at the sole discretion of the missionary in the field?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How far should we then go to support the support team? Should the church at home decide whom of the fringe-staff is worthy to support, or is that at the sole discretion of the missionary in the field?

He's "your missionary" if you support him. If he's just someone who decided to go out wherever on his own, he can call himself a missionary but you don't have to.

Did your church send your missionary out with the authority to form his own team members? Does he expect you to support whoever he, or the team you approved to send, hires on? That sounds like something your theology of missions should account for, and not wait until the questions "pop up" needing ad hoc decisions. Missionary planning is not a seat-of-the-pants endeavor.

 

[Jack K]

fringe-staff

As an aside... I can tell you from personal experience that when you have several dozen missionary families spread out over a region, and one guy on the team is the fellow assigned to set up, dig, lay, and then maintain your sewers, he most certainly is not "fringe-staff."

 

[Pergamum]

From the New Testament it appears that different women also had vital tasks they were sent-out for to such a degree that Paul does not shrink to call them "fellow-workers" - we also should not shrink from this either.

I have sadly found among many Reformed that they are too restrictive with the title of missionary and do not send and support many qualified personnel that could assist in support services. Historically about 63% of all people sent to the mission field have been women but some High Churchers only want to send and support ordained elder-qualified men. And then they wonder why their missionaries are so few.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think some good thoughts have been shared. I'll only add that it is important that however "missionary" or "missions" is defined, that it is uniquely and specifically limited to Kingdom building, not just "doing good."

For instance, my church gives to the local crisis pregnancy center. The Gospel isn't shared in any way shape or form, but keeping babies alive is a good thing. My church has historically included that in its "missions" category. There's also an organization my church supports that gives lunches to poor kids during the summer, and that's it. Feeding poor kids is the end goal of this organization. Ok... these, and other things, are fine and good: but it is important to note that this isn't missions. It's benevolence.

 

[Dachaser]

I think some good thoughts have been shared. I'll only add that it is important that however "missionary" or "missions" is defined, that it is uniquely and specifically limited to Kingdom building, not just "doing good."

For instance, my church gives to the local crisis pregnancy center. The Gospel isn't shared in any way shape or form, but keeping babies alive is a good thing. My church has historically included that in its "missions" category. There's also an organization my church supports that gives lunches to poor kids during the summer, and that's it. Feeding poor kids is the end goal of this organization. Ok... these, and other things, are fine and good: but it is important to note that this isn't missions. It's benevolence.

Many have seem missionaries as being in a sense modern Apostles, not that they have inspiration or sign gifts as Apostles of Christ exhibited, but in the sense of having God delegated authority to move the Gospel into new areas, advancing the kingdom, and to have authority to set up local churches among the converted there.

 

[Dachaser]

From the New Testament it appears that different women also had vital tasks they were sent-out for to such a degree that Paul does not shrink to call them "fellow-workers" - we also should not shrink from this either.

I have sadly found among many Reformed that they are too restrictive with the title of missionary and do not send and support many qualified personnel that could assist in support services. Historically about 63% of all people sent to the mission field have been women but some High Churchers only want to send and support ordained elder-qualified men. And then they wonder why their missionaries are so few.

There have been many Missionaries in the field that were and have been used by God who were women, and not ordained Elders. Sometimes I wonder if the Lord used them for His work because of some Elder men not willing to go where God wanted to send them?

 

[Jack K]

I think some good thoughts have been shared. I'll only add that it is important that however "missionary" or "missions" is defined, that it is uniquely and specifically limited to Kingdom building, not just "doing good."

For instance, my church gives to the local crisis pregnancy center. The Gospel isn't shared in any way shape or form, but keeping babies alive is a good thing. My church has historically included that in its "missions" category. There's also an organization my church supports that gives lunches to poor kids during the summer, and that's it. Feeding poor kids is the end goal of this organization. Ok... these, and other things, are fine and good: but it is important to note that this isn't missions. It's benevolence.

Yes, I too like distinguishing between missions and benevolence. Do you think that gets tricky on occasion? Let's say the food-distribution program is part of a larger effort the church is undertaking to proclaim the gospel in some remote and hungry corner of the world. Along with sending evangelists to preach, the church also sends people to help with hunger because the gospel should go out with compassion for the whole person.

In those cases, I tend to categorize the entire effort under "missions," while assistance to the local food bank gets called "benevolence." There are surely more important matters than how one assigns these categories, but does this sound right?

 

[Jack K]

There have been many Missionaries in the field that were and have been used by God who were women, and not ordained Elders. Sometimes I wonder if the Lord used them for His work because of some Elder men not willing to go where God wanted to send them?

That's a fair thing to wonder. No doubt, the Western church should be able to send a greater number of its ordained men than it seems to manage to do. But we also need to be careful not to "guilt" anyone into going. The work is hard, and those who don't have a true passion for it are it the wrong place. In addition, I would not want to give an impression that women who go are there as a second choice because we couldn't recruit enough men.

I have had close involvement with work in London, which has become one of the great mission fields of the world. A million or so people from otherwise closed or restricted nations are living in London. The teams I know there do preaching and street evangelism in several settings, but the trust-building and personal contact that often makes people receptive largely comes through women on the team connecting with other women—in tea shops, at the launderette, etc. The women have their role, and it isn't just because men have somehow shirked their duty.

I imagine Priscilla doing similar work in the agora at ancient Corinth. I also think of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Suzanna, and the many other women who accompanied Jesus and the disciples in their outreach to the towns and villages (Luke 8:1-3). There is no hint it might have been better if, instead, more men were part of the team.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes, I too like distinguishing between missions and benevolence. Do you think that gets tricky on occasion? Let's say the food-distribution program is part of a larger effort the church is undertaking to proclaim the gospel in some remote and hungry corner of the world. Along with sending evangelists to preach, the church also sends people to help with hunger because the gospel should go out with compassion for the whole person.

In those cases, I tend to categorize the entire effort under "missions," while assistance to the local food bank gets called "benevolence." There are surely more important matters than how one assigns these categories, but does this sound right?

In my opinion, if the *primary aim* is to build the Kingdom, and "doing good" is a method or means to getting a proverbial "foot in the door" and "gaining a hearing," then fine... but I know of many organizations (one started by my wife's now long-dead UMC pastor grandfather) who primarily just want to do good and they'll tell someone about Jesus. Maybe. If it comes up. But it isn't in any way essential or central to what their social welfare activities. Those are, in my mind, benevolence organizations. Further, there are organizations that do good but they aren't in any way shape or form a Christian ministry... those too are benevolence organizations.

 

[Jack K]

In my opinion, if the *primary aim* is to build the Kingdom, and "doing good" is a method or means to getting a proverbial "foot in the door" and "gaining a hearing," then fine... but I know of many organizations (one started by my wife's now long-dead UMC pastor grandfather) who primarily just want to do good and they'll tell someone about Jesus. Maybe. If it comes up. But it isn't in any way essential or central to what their social welfare activities. Those are, in my mind, benevolence organizations. Further, there are organizations that do good but they aren't in any way shape or form a Christian ministry... those too are benevolence organizations.

I think compassion makes a more robust motive than "foot in the door" for having benevolence accompany gospel proclamation. But if we have a correct view of compassion, we will still emphasize telling the gospel. So the overall effort will look about the same.

When Matthew 9:35-38 summarizes Jesus' ministry, it gives compassion as his motive for tending to both spiritual and physical needs. Yet the spiritual needs—the teaching and proclaiming of the gospel to people who lacked a shepherd—seem to take prominence. They not only come first in Jesus' work, they also seem to be the main reason he feels compassion in the first place. Still, his compassion is full, and not limited to just this most critical need.

So if we have compassion for the lost, we will first of all be eager to tell them the gospel. But if we are taking the gospel to a place that, for example, has a critical need for doctors, we might also put a doctor on the team because of our overall compassion and not merely as a way to gain a hearing. True compassion looks and says, "See, they need doctors too. Let's send them one of ours!"

Of course, this often will help us gain a hearing for our first priority. But it's more than just a means to that end.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think compassion makes a more robust motive than "foot in the door" for having benevolence accompany gospel proclamation. But if we have a correct view of compassion, we will still emphasize telling the gospel. So the overall effort will look about the same.

When Matthew 9:35-38 summarizes Jesus' ministry, it gives compassion as his motive for tending to both spiritual and physical needs. Yet the spiritual needs—the teaching and proclaiming of the gospel to people who lacked a shepherd—seem to take prominence. They not only come first in Jesus' work, they also seem to be the main reason he feels compassion in the first place. Still, his compassion is full, and not limited to just this most critical need.

So if we have compassion for the lost, we will first of all be eager to tell them the gospel. But if we are taking the gospel to a place that, for example, has a critical need for doctors, we might also put a doctor on the team because of our overall compassion and not merely as a way to gain a hearing. True compassion looks and says, "See, they need doctors too. Let's send them one of ours!"

Of course, this often will help us gain a hearing for our first priority. But it's more than just a means to that end.

Please here me: I do think "doing good" (a la Peter's summary of Jesus' ministry in Acts 10:38) is something we should be doing, and that as more than a means to an end. BUT... since there are an abundance of social welfare organizations, and so many mainline ministries who equate helping the poor with the Gospel... it is important that in regards to our terms, that yes, we limit our understanding of "missions" to kingdom building. And that, in turn, focuses on the proclamation of the Gospel, the establishment and building of the church, and those activities that are a means to those ends (and this would include various crowd-gathering activities). I don't think it is wrong to think of social programs in terms of a means to an end - this life and the problems of it, are not ultimate. So addressing non-ultimate matters as a way to get to ultimate ones seems right and good to me.

So, for me: Missions is narrowly focused on Kingdom building. Benevolence ministries are focused on promoting good, and easing human suffering. We do benevolence stuff, but we focus on missions.

 

[Myson]

As someone who has been a part of both Soma Communities and Acts29 churches and have since left and thought through mission and evangelism and the relation of the church and the Kingdom quite a bit, the best resource I found on this was When Everything is Missions by Denny Spitters. His thrust is that everyone is called to do evangelism, but "missions" is best described in a global perspective, taking the gospel to unreached parts of the world, similar to the common definition of apostle (that is, not one of authority but one "sent out"). He does not suggest that apostles are for today, but that their missionary function is analogous to missionaries today and are different from the evangelism we do in our own local contexts. It's a short book and I highly highly highly recommend it.

 

[Pergamum]

One of my pet peeves: People saying that we should help the poor or the sick IN ORDER to get a hearing to preach to them.

No. We help people in need because they are people in need.

 

[SolaScriptura]

One of my pet peeves: People saying that we should help the poor or the sick IN ORDER to get a hearing to preach to them.

No. We help people in need because they are people in need.

That's fine, you can have your pet peeve. As I've said, we are to help the poor - but that's benevolence. Yet there is also and simultaneously a reality that caring for felt needs should be done with an eye to a bigger vision than simply because they have a physical need, that our primary concern is the kingdom of God, and addressing felt needs should be capitalized upon to point to the Kingdom - otherwise we've failed.

So, as an example, if you "do good" over there and help people live a few months longer and pat them on the back and say "thanks for coming, have a great life!" and send them on their way without ever talking about eternal matters - you're no missionary.

 

[Jack K]

So, as an example, if you "do good" over there and help people live a few months longer and pat them on the back and say "thanks for coming, have a great life!" and send them on their way without ever talking about eternal matters - you're no missionary.

To be clear, though, no one on this thread has suggested such a pattern for a missionary team's work. Or did I miss it?

 

[SolaScriptura]

To be clear, though, no one on this thread has suggested such a pattern for a missionary team's work. Or did I miss it?

That's right. The "you" was illustrative. Perhaps I should have used the word "one" to better show that I'm speaking in hypothetical.

I agree in doing benevolence - where the good we do is simply to alleviate suffering. But let's make sure to keep that categorically separate from missions, which is focused primarily on building the kingdom (so that in light of this Kingdom building focus, the support activities are an intentional means to that end).