Should church-planting missionaries be ordained? And by whom?

[Pergamum]

Should a missionary who is sent to plant churches (and administer the ordinances) be ordained before being sent?

And if so, by whom? The sending church or should he wait to be ordained by the recipients (the indigenous church, if there is one)?


In evangelical missions there are many church-planting men who are baptizing and church-planting and who are non-ordained. Is commissioning enough, or would you advise ordination as well?

 

[Herald]

Ordination would seem like the proper step. The elders of the church are recognizing a call to missions in the life of the person being ordained. As such they not only go with the commission of the local church but also with validation of their call.

 

[Notthemama1984]

If the goal is to plant churches, then the person should be ordained. He should be ordained by the sending church or denomination.

 

[Pergamum]

But what if this reply is given:

-Commissioning already is the stamp of approval on the missionary as they are sent. Thus, ordination is not needed.

-And then, what about the commissioning of women missionaries (for purposes such as women's ministries, teaching kids, nursing, etc)? If commissioning is done in place of ordination, how does this impact the practice of many churches to commission women before sending them into missions?

Also, just what is commissioning anyway and why is this done for missionaries and when did it begin (Acts13)?

-Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US? What would be the downside of ordaining someone into Gospel service? How would a church as a legal entity in the US suffer or be inconvenienced due to ordaining a missionary before sending him out? Liability? Benefits? Salaries or W-2? If they go with a missions agency, that agency takes on legal responsibility, even issuing a W-2 for the missionary and providing healthcare and life insurance in most cases.

-Finally, what if the church sends out a missionary and desires the indigenous people to ordain him (many of the unreached have no indigenous church, by the way and this equates into the practice of being ordained by a national denomination in the country of service). Should missionaries become members of the churches to which they are ministering? Should missionaries go "underneath" the denominations they are trying to serve/reform/minister among?

 

[Notthemama1984]

I can't imagine anyone sending a woman with the sole purpose of planting churches. Thus women missionaries do not fit your original question.

I do believe that church can send people to help work with other missionary efforts and am open to the idea that ordination would not be a requirement for them (this would be where women missionaries fit in), but if the church is sending a missionary for the purpose of planting churches then ordination is necessary.

 

[jwithnell]

Some of your answer may come in how you answer this question: why are missionaries sent? When you look at the great commission, Jesus' disciples were sent out to disciple, baptize, and teach. Should our missionaries do anything less? And aren't these the general tasks of the church under her ordained leadership? Certainly a mission work in a particular location may need the skills of others to support the work, but it should be done under the leadership of a missionary from the sending denomination.

When missions work started to be disconnected from the church in the 1800s (various missions societies, etc.), the purpose degenerated into good deeds rather than the explicit purpose of planting churches to Christ's glory.

 

[Pergamum]

Bolivar:

It is the regular practice of some evangelical groups such as New Tribes Missions to send teams, often unordained, to plant tribal churches.

These teams consist largely of unordained younger couples who have undergone intensive training to live in remote places and to learn local languages. Many of these teams do a wonderful job.

What should be done to reform this practice and what should be done when advising who are of this background? Is commissioning enough?

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------

Some of your answer may come in how you answer this question: why are missionaries sent? When you look at the great commission, Jesus' disciples were sent out to disciple, baptize, and teach. Should our missionaries do anything less? And aren't these the general tasks of the church under her ordained leadership? Certainly a mission work in a particular location may need the skills of others to support the work, but it should be done under the leadership of a missionary from the sending denomination.

When missions work started to be disconnected from the church in the 1800s (various missions societies, etc.), the purpose degenerated into good deeds rather than the explicit purpose of planting churches to Christ's glory.

JWithnell:

An alternate perspective is this: When missions became more inter-denominational (from the influence of Carey, et al), the Modern Missions Movement began - a great sweeping movement that sent missionaries all over the world and carrying the banner of Christ rather than merely a denominational flag.

 

[Notthemama1984]

What should be done to reform this practice and what should be done when advising who are of this background?

Teach proper ecclesiology.

 

[Herald]

Pergy,

First, let's delineate between how missionaries are sent within broad evangelicalism and how they should be sent within good ecclesiology.

But what if this reply is given:

-Commissioning already is the stamp of approval on the missionary as they are sent. Thus, ordination is not needed.

If a missionary is ordained and called to their work, then commissioning is implied in the ordination.

-And then, what about the commissioning of women missionaries (for purposes such as women's ministries, teaching kids, nursing, etc)? If commissioning is done in place of ordination, how does this impact the practice of many churches to commission women before sending them into missions?

Should women be ordained to teach and exercise spiritual oversight? I believe scripture speaks against this. Is there ever a time when a woman can teach under the authority of the church? I believe so. Women's ministries, teaching kids, and vacation bible schools create opportunities for women when done with oversight. How about the wife of a missionary? Is she able to minister to women and children of a tribe? Certainly. She is under the headship and authority of her husband. Should a woman be sent out alone? No.

Also, just what is commissioning anyway and why is this done for missionaries and when did it begin (Acts13)?

As was written earlier, "If a missionary is ordained and called to their work, then commissioning is implied in the ordination."

-Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US? What would be the downside of ordaining someone into Gospel service? How would a church as a legal entity in the US suffer or be inconvenienced due to ordaining a missionary before sending him out? Liability? Benefits? Salaries or W-2? If they go with a missions agency, that agency takes on legal responsibility, even issuing a W-2 for the missionary and providing healthcare and life insurance in most cases.

Maybe one of the attorneys on this board can answer these questions.

-Finally, what if the church sends out a missionary and desires the indigenous people to ordain him (many of the unreached have no indigenous church, by the way and this equates into the practice of being ordained by a national denomination in the country of service). Should missionaries become members of the churches to which they are ministering? Should missionaries go "underneath" the denominations they are trying to serve/reform/minister among?

This can be a sticky wicket. Missionaries are often defacto pastors of fledgling mission churches. Many mission boards are non-denominational. It would be difficult to pick one denomination for an indigenous church. However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier. I don't think the missionary should become a member of an indigenous church in the way we define church membership. Missionaries are usually members of their home church, although they certainly are part of the local body of believers while in the field. Speaking only for myself, best practices would be for a missionary to remain a member of his home church while laboring to see qualified elders appointed in the indigenous church(es) he is working with.

 

[Philip]

However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier.

And if that denomination does not operate in that geographic area?

Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US?

Ordination is a matter of canon law, not civil law. No civil requirements except such as are required by the bylaws of the denomination.

 

[Pergamum]

Pergy,

First, let's delineate between how missionaries are sent within broad evangelicalism and how they should be sent within good ecclesiology.

But what if this reply is given:

-Commissioning already is the stamp of approval on the missionary as they are sent. Thus, ordination is not needed.

If a missionary is ordained and called to their work, then commissioning is implied in the ordination.

-And then, what about the commissioning of women missionaries (for purposes such as women's ministries, teaching kids, nursing, etc)? If commissioning is done in place of ordination, how does this impact the practice of many churches to commission women before sending them into missions?

Should women be ordained to teach and exercise spiritual oversight? I believe scripture speaks against this. Is there ever a time when a woman can teach under the authority of the church? I believe so. Women's ministries, teaching kids, and vacation bible schools create opportunities for women when done with oversight. How about the wife of a missionary? Is she able to minister to women and children of a tribe? Certainly. She is under the headship and authority of her husband. Should a woman be sent out alone? No.

Also, just what is commissioning anyway and why is this done for missionaries and when did it begin (Acts13)?

As was written earlier, "If a missionary is ordained and called to their work, then commissioning is implied in the ordination."

-Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US? What would be the downside of ordaining someone into Gospel service? How would a church as a legal entity in the US suffer or be inconvenienced due to ordaining a missionary before sending him out? Liability? Benefits? Salaries or W-2? If they go with a missions agency, that agency takes on legal responsibility, even issuing a W-2 for the missionary and providing healthcare and life insurance in most cases.

Maybe one of the attorneys on this board can answer these questions.

-Finally, what if the church sends out a missionary and desires the indigenous people to ordain him (many of the unreached have no indigenous church, by the way and this equates into the practice of being ordained by a national denomination in the country of service). Should missionaries become members of the churches to which they are ministering? Should missionaries go "underneath" the denominations they are trying to serve/reform/minister among?

This can be a sticky wicket. Missionaries are often defacto pastors of fledgling mission churches. Many mission boards are non-denominational. It would be difficult to pick one denomination for an indigenous church. However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier. I don't think the missionary should become a member of an indigenous church in the way we define church membership. Missionaries are usually members of their home church, although they certainly are part of the local body of believers while in the field. Speaking only for myself, best practices would be for a missionary to remain a member of his home church while laboring to see qualified elders appointed in the indigenous church(es) he is working with.

Bill,

You said:

If a missionary is ordained and called to their work, then commissioning is implied in the ordination

But all ordained men are not specially commissioned to be sent out as missionaries. In Acts, there seemed to be a laying on of hands even for short-term missions of the Church. Thus, it appears that both ordination (to become an elder-qualified recognized man) and then a special commissioning for their particular mission is proper.

Should women be ordained to teach and exercise spiritual oversight? I believe scripture speaks against this

Please re-read my post. I made no mention of ordination of women, but many churches (baptist churches who are also against women church officers) still commission their women (though not ordaining them) when they send them to the mission field. This commisssioning is the stamp of approval that the church recognizes their call and sends them forth with the blessings and prayers of the church for their special mission.

This can be a sticky wicket. Missionaries are often defacto pastors of fledgling mission churches. Many mission boards are non-denominational. It would be difficult to pick one denomination for an indigenous church. However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier. I don't think the missionary should become a member of an indigenous church in the way we define church membership. Missionaries are usually members of their home church, although they certainly are part of the local body of believers while in the field. Speaking only for myself, best practices would be for a missionary to remain a member of his home church while laboring to see qualified elders appointed in the indigenous church(es) he is working with.

Yes, that, too, is my belief.



THANKS!

 

[Jack K]

My dad served as both an unordained missionary and then later as an ordained one. As a good Reformed guy, he refrained from performing baptisms and administering the Lord's Supper while he was not ordained. Becoming ordained certainly helped his missionary work. Baptizing (and administering the Supper too, if possible) simply must go along with the task of church planting. To make converts and start churches but not be able to keep Christ's instructions to baptize them just isn't right.

So a church planting missionary should go with the authority to do these things. Whether you call it ordination or commissioning doesn't matter, but he must have authority from a sending church/denomination to baptize. This means non-denominational missions agencies need to insist that their church planting missionaries are also connected with a church and properly credentialed.

One issue is that many churches, Reformed ones in particular, have for good reason limited authority to baptize to ordained ministers. And they've required a high level of training for all ordained ministers. This would tend to restrict the pool of qualified church planting missionaries. I think it would be a good practice for such churches to ordain or commission evangelists in such a way that they are vested with the authority to baptize, at least for the period of their missionary assignment, even if they don't otherwise qualify for ordination as a minister by having completed seminary, etc.

We also need more seminary grads to be eager to become missionaries. But that's a more difficult chore involving much change in our church culture and vast spiritual renewal.

Missionaries who aren't church planters don't need authority to baptize. What we're doing now is fine for them.

 

[Herald]

But all ordained men are not specially commissioned to be sent out as missionaries.

Pergy, I understand. I was making that point that a missionary calling should fall under the pervue of the elders. A man who has been ordained, and his missionary calling confirmed by the elders of the church, is likewise commissioned by the church for that task. At least is should be like that.

Please re-read my post. I made no mention of ordination of women, but many churches (baptist churches who are also against women church officers) still commission their women (though not ordaining them) when they send them to the mission field. This commisssioning is the stamp of approval that the church recognizes their call and sends them forth with the blessings and prayers of the church for their special mission.

I understand your point here also. Again, I am stating what would be proper ecclesiological orthopraxy.

 

[Pergamum]

My dad served as both an unordained missionary and then later as an ordained one. As a good Reformed guy, he refrained from performing baptisms and administering the Lord's Supper while he was not ordained. Becoming ordained certainly helped his missionary work. Baptizing (and administering the Supper too, if possible) simply must go along with the task of church planting. To make converts and start churches but not be able to keep Christ's instructions to baptize them just isn't right.

So a church planting missionary should go with the authority to do these things. Whether you call it ordination or commissioning doesn't matter, but he must have authority from a sending church/denomination to baptize. This means non-denominational missions agencies need to insist that their church planting missionaries are also connected with a church and properly credentialed.

One issue is that many churches, Reformed ones in particular, have for good reason limited authority to baptize to ordained ministers. And they've required a high level of training for all ordained ministers. This would tend to restrict the pool of qualified church planting missionaries. I think it would be a good practice for such churches to ordain or commission evangelists in such a way that they are vested with the authority to baptize, at least for the period of their missionary assignment, even if they don't otherwise qualify for ordination as a minister by having completed seminary, etc.

We also need more seminary grads to be eager to become missionaries. But that's a more difficult chore involving much change in our church culture and vast spiritual renewal.

Missionaries who aren't church planters don't need authority to baptize. What we're doing now is fine for them.

Jack:

We also need more seminary grads to be eager to become missionaries. But that's a more difficult chore involving much change in our church culture and vast spiritual renewal.

That sentence could be its own very full thread. As well as the deficiencies in the Western seminary model for equipping servants for practical hands-on cross-cultural service.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 AM ----------

But all ordained men are not specially commissioned to be sent out as missionaries.

Pergy, I understand. I was making that point that a missionary calling should fall under the pervue of the elders. A man who has been ordained, and his missionary calling confirmed by the elders of the church, is likewise commissioned by the church for that task. At least is should be like that.

Please re-read my post. I made no mention of ordination of women, but many churches (baptist churches who are also against women church officers) still commission their women (though not ordaining them) when they send them to the mission field. This commisssioning is the stamp of approval that the church recognizes their call and sends them forth with the blessings and prayers of the church for their special mission.

I understand your point here also. Again, I am stating what would be proper ecclesiological orthopraxy.

Can you state what "proper ecclesiological orthopraxy" entails in more detail?

My current belief is that all missionary should not merely run forward, but be sent...and sent in a formal fashion from a local church. This local church confirms the missionary's call in some fashion, giving them the authority/legitimacy to actually go (i.e. going in the name of not merely themselves but with the Larger Body of Christ confirming their missionary call).

In most cases this formal declaration of the church's wishes to send someone is done through commissioning a person to go forth and engage somehow in missions (whether this person be male or female). Thus, a church may properly commission both men and women. Though of course, women would not be getting commissioned to baptize or administer the ordinances.

My further belief is that missions needs more elder-qualified ordained men as church-planters who can baptize and administer the Lord's Supper. Being tolerant of those who are non-ordained and yet planting churches overseas, I see ordination as an additional stamp of approval and authority that an elder-qualified man has as he represents Christ and the voice of His Church in his efforts to expand the Church across the world.


Bill, you also stated:

Pergy, I understand. I was making that point that a missionary calling should fall under the pervue of the elders. A man who has been ordained, and his missionary calling confirmed by the elders of the church, is likewise commissioned by the church for that task. At least is should be like that.

I think I agree. Although I would say that a missionary should either be recognized formally as qualified for their task by the larger Church (done in some manner to formally legitimize their calling and to show that their calling is more than a mere private whim or desire but that the larger body of Christ is behind them...in most cases this is done by commisssioning) or, if their task is church-planting, that the larger church sees that they are fit for church officership, whether at home or abroad.

Therefore, a missionary should be recognized by the larger church (usually in the form of local church sending) and this recognition is led by the elders. In one sense a missionary might be said to fall underneath the elders of their sending church, but in another sense, if they themselves are also an elder who is sent out, then they don't rightly fall "under" the elders, but he falls "among" them and with the same authority as the sending elders, just in a different locale and with a different focus.

 

[Notthemama1984]

However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier.

And if that denomination does not operate in that geographic area?

Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US?

Ordination is a matter of canon law, not civil law. No civil requirements except such as are required by the bylaws of the denomination.

If a denom sent the missionary, they are now operating in that geographic area

 

[Scott1]

Good discussion, all.

 

[Pergamum]

Any further thoughts?

 

[BertMulder]

Any further thoughts?

I believe Scripture speak to this, and this has not been referenced in this thread, Rom 10:


[SUP]13[/SUP]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[SUP]14[/SUP]How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [SUP]15[/SUP]And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

So, must definitely, a missionary must be ordained. He must be an official ambassador of Christ, so that when he brings the gospel, he may bring it with the effectual power of the gospel for the salvation of the people.

---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

However, if the missionary is sent by a denomination the task becomes a bit easier.

And if that denomination does not operate in that geographic area?

Also, what legal requirements are there for ordination in the US?

Ordination is a matter of canon law, not civil law. No civil requirements except such as are required by the bylaws of the denomination.

Rather, ordination is a requirement of God's law. It is Christ that calls and sends preachers through the work of the church institute.

 

[Pergamum]

Bert,

Wouldn't commissioning do the same thing to ensure the "sent-ness" of a missionary, whether that person is ordained or not?

 

[BertMulder]

Bert,

Wouldn't commissioning do the same thing to ensure the "sent-ness" of a missionary, whether that person is ordained or not?

Is this man then commissioned to preach, ie. to bring the official proclamation of the King of the church, in other words, so that His dispersed sheep can hear the voice of the Shepherd through the voice of the missionary? In that case, we are getting bogged down by terminology, and ordained equals commissioned.

 

[Pergamum]

Bert,

But not all missionaries are ordained men.

Churches regularly commission and send unordained men and women as missionaries for roles such as teaching, youth-focused ministries, medical missions, etc.

 

[BertMulder]

Bert,

But not all missionaries are ordained men.

Churches regularly commission and send unordained men and women as missionaries for roles such as teaching, youth-focused ministries, medical missions, etc.

That may be fine in supporting roles, but the official proclamation of God's Word takes an officially called and ordained preacher, according to Scripture....

 

[Pergamum]

Bert,

Does a man teaching youth or translating the bible fit under "the official proclamation of God's Word" and what does that phrase actually mean? Do you mean holding ecclesiastical office?

 

[BertMulder]

Bert,

Does a man teaching youth or translating the bible fit under "the official proclamation of God's Word" and what does that phrase actually mean? Do you mean holding ecclesiastical office?

Cathechising the youth normally is included in the job description of a preacher. Translation work is not normally included in such. And yes, I mean holding ecclesiastical office. Anything in Scripture that makes you think that missionaries should not necessarily be ordained?

 

[Pergamum]

Bert,

Do all bible translators and literacy workers and youth workers need to be ordained, or can we call these people by the term "missionary" even though they are not ordained? If a woman goes to a muslim country and diisciples muslim women and children, does she need to be ordained to do that missionary work?

 

[BertMulder]

Bert,

Do all bible translators and literacy workers and youth workers need to be ordained, or can we call these people by the term "missionary" even though they are not ordained? If a woman goes to a muslim country and diisciples muslim women and children, does she need to be ordained to do that missionary work?

I answered that question already. Will you answer mine?

 

[Pergamum]

Bert,

Where was your question? You appear to be restricting missionaries to only ordained, elder qualified men and restricting missions only to formal preaching rather than many other modes of discipleship, evangelism, witnessing, literacy, translation, and health works, and many other works of service which do not require ordination.

 

[BertMulder]

Anything in Scripture that makes you think that missionaries should not necessarily be ordained?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/should-church-planting-missionaries-ordained-whom-68598/#post884276


There is nowhere that I have ever posted that there cannot be 'medical missions', nor have I ever anywhere stated that missionaries cannot have supporting personnel.

What I have stated, is those that bring the Word, should do so officially, ie, should be ordained. As it pleases God to bring the Word, and as such, salvation, throught the effectual preaching of the Word, officially. And those men! should be lawfully called and sent through the church institute, because it is the church institute whom God charged with the task to proclaim the gospel.

Again, anything you see in Scripture that leads you to believe otherwise? As Scripture is our sole rule in life, especially the life in the church and missions.

 

[Brian Kooshian]

Would it be fair to say that much of this discussion hinges on how one defines the term "missionary"?

What I mean is that if one views the term "missionary" as being essentially synonymous with "church-planter" then I can see how one would reach the conclusion that all missionaries need to be ordained, since all missionaries would have as their goal to plant and pastor (at least for a time) new churches.

However, if one takes a broader definition of the term "missionary", then there may be various kinds of missionaries that do not require ordination, such as Bible translators, orphanage administrators, etc.

I tend to take the broader view (though admittedly not so broad as much of evangelicalism). It would seem to me that if a man is sent out with the goal of planting churches, then he needs to be ordained. If that is not his goal, then perhaps ordination is not necessary.

 

[jogri17]

By a presbytery or classis of course