Should All Missionaries Be Elders?

Phil Remmers has recently published an article - Biblical Eldership and Global Missions A Vital and Necessary Union - on the 9Marks website, on the selection, training, and funding of missionaries, and especially on the relationship between missionaries and their sending church.

Remmers has had extensive experience of ministry in Asia and now is involved in publishing reformed literature in many Asian languages.

He writes many good things in the course of the article, for which I am thankful. The comments on funding are especially helpful, though hardly groundbreaking - people have been saying stuff like this for decades. But it is worth banging on about the broken system that has been developed and continues to be pursued. In fact, in my opinion he could have gone much further. Why, for instance, is a family needing $8000 a month for their salary? I can imagine some situations - ministry in Singapore or Tokyo, for instance, where this level of support is necessary. But if, as I have observed myself many times among certain mission organisations, the family is living in a posh compound with a brand new imported jeep, in a community in which even well off locals can only dream of that lifestyle, further questions need to be asked.

He says that at least half of the missionaries he encountered in his ministry location (unspecified for security reasons) should not have been there at all because they were unqualified for the ministry and in any case tended only to stay for 2-3 years and leave without bearing fruit. And that is not counting 'short-term missionaries'.

Although I can see how he can come to such a judgment, I am uneasy about this. He affirms, in a footnote, that God is sovereign in salvation. But he nevertheless is happy to sit in judgment on the fruitfulness of others in ministry. How can he have sufficient knowledge about the relationships these folk had developed in their short time? And even if he did have that sort of data, real spiritual fruit is often unseen. I hope he is not ashamed on the Last Day for having written that.

The main burden of the paper, though, is to argue that all missionaries should first of all be elders of the local church back home before they are appointed to their ministry overseas. I get the sentiment. After all, as the argument goes, why would we send out people for ministry in hard places overseas if we wouldn't have them be involved in ministry at home? Fair question. He has diagnosed a serious missionary malady.

But Remmers' remedy is unbiblical, naive, and worldly.

Unbiblical

In Acts 13 the Antioch church sent out two of their 'prophets and teachers' - Barnabas and Saul. There does seem to be something of a paradigmatic character to this story, situated as it is in the unfolding story of the expansion of the gospel to the ends of the earth. And yet Paul was happy to have all sorts on his apostolic team: Luke the doctor, for example; Timothy, who, we are told, was a 'disciple' when he was taken on by Paul as a travelling companion (Acts 16:1-3); Erastus, who along with Timothy is called Paul's 'helper' (Acts 19:22).

When Paul left Corinth he was accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18). Now I suspect (since this is on 9Marks) that Remmers would not be happy with female elders. So what does he do with Priscilla? Is she not a missionary?

Naive

This leads on to the training of missionaries. The best missionaries the author has encountered tended to have been trained at Master's Seminary, where the training is explicitly for elders. Now, as I have said, much that he says here is valuable. Better, he says, to have fewer, better trained, and proven missionaries, than the mess that he has seen.

But he overstates his case. And the reason he does that is this: he has not diagnosed the malady correctly. The disease is much more serious than he realises. It is not just the two- to three-year, untrained, unqualified missionaries who are caught up in the problem. It is a whole lot more, including, perhaps Remmers himself.

Worldly

Remmers is operating out of a paradigm for cross-cultural ministry that has been weighed in the balances and been found wanting.

It comes out in numerous ways and is exemplified in the uncritical use of the term 'missionary'. As I have explained here before, this term, and the notion it represents is seriously problematic. It is not a biblical word and continues to have much baggage that seriously compromises a healthy approach to cross-cultural ministry, including the financial aspect mentioned earlier.

Remmers observes that Master's Seminary has no missions professors but that their graduates are "both biblically qualified ​and​ are able to use their gifts in a foreign language and culture" - without any training in intercultural communication, or in understanding how other cultures operate, or in appreciating anything about how other workers have fared in previous generations, or in examining the state of churches in the nations to which they are sent. (This is an issue I have addressed frequently, such as here.)

Remmers' seems to have no appreciation of how culture-bound his view of cross-cultural ministry is. This lack of self-awareness is the chief weakness of the article and why I do not commend it.

Training

The great need is for men and women who are devoted to the Lord, growing in grace, and seeking to live their lives as communities of true disciples before a watching world.

But we must also recognise that we need men and women who are able to give a coherent account of the teaching of the Bible and the gospel message. And for that to happen they have to be recognised and taught. 

The shape of that teaching must emerge out of a dialogue between the text of Scripture and the ministry context for which the learner is being prepared. It should be informed by historical models of ministry formation but not constrained by them.

Our concepts of ministry underlie the way we approach this issue. When we consider the task of training people for ministry it is the way we conceive of that ministry that has a great influence on the form of training that emerges. What are the elements that characterize our traditional Western concept of ‘the ministry’? Let me explore one area of tension.

Harvie Conn, who taught missiology at Westminster Theological Seminary until his death in 1999 asserts that the model of the minister as pedagogue is deeply influenced by Greek culture with its over-emphasis on the intellect (Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue [Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984], 273). This emphasis, says Conn, came into the church through the Alexandrian theologians of the second and third centuries, replacing the Bible’s emphasis on edification as a God-centred call to build up others through love (Rom 15:2; 1 Cor 8:1).

Conn was not condemning the training of the mind. He was arguing that, at least in some circles, the mind was being overemphasised in relation to the life of obedience and faith. So he called for the development of a model for training for ministry that is formed in “doing the will of God” (Matt 6:10, 7:21), in “living by the truth” (1 John 1:6), and in being “transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2). The “sound doctrine” of the minister (Titus 1:9) is to be exercised in the context of a godly life (Titus 1:6-9, 2:1ff.). I think he was right.

So, I want to plead for a diverse approach to ministry training. Let’s not exclude godly people from leadership because they don’t have A-levels. 

And let us not slip into excluding men from the pastoral ministry because they haven’t got a theological degree. Our accredited institutions are expensive to run. They need to spend tens of thousands of pounds each year just to keep their accreditation. And that in the context of too many such institutions for the size of the constituency, that in spite of a number of closures in recent years. The knock-on effect of this is they need to fill spaces in order to stay afloat. They may be tempted to widen the criteria of entry to make that happen. And gifted individuals may be led to believe that they really need a degree in order to be fruitful. The advantages of an accredited programme are that there is a rigorous check on academic quality and the student is forced to discipline themselves to fulfil the learning outcomes. 

But there are also dangers. Let me list five of them:

1.     Danger One: the professionalization of the ministry. When that happens, anyone without a theological degree considers themselves unqualified to make a contribution. The gap between the pulpit and the pew grows. Church members come to see the minister as the one who must do the work of ministry. The biblical view of every-member ministry is dropped in favour of clericalism to the detriment of the church (Eph 4:11-16).

2.     Danger Two: Satan uses good training to puff up the one who is trained. 

3.     Danger Three: those who are thus trained are put into an invidious position – if they admit they are weak and that there are some things they don’t understand they think their people will lose respect for them, which, given the expectation created by the system, is a very real fear. And so, the fear of man proves to be a snare (Prov 29:25).

4.     Danger Four: pastors and evangelists are well equipped to interact with conceptual thinkers but poorly equipped to interact with concrete thinkers. Those going into the system as concrete thinkers are socialized out of their native cognitive style into one not suited to their background and so become less able to communicate with their own people.

5.     Danger Five: church life moves from the life of faith to the life of sight (Prov 29:25; 2 Cor 5:7). The minister, with his professional qualification, takes on the role of the CEO, whose basic criterion for success is the ability to balance the budget. We may not see this much in Wales, but it is a big issue in other countries. There is no inherent reason why it should not become so here.

That means that we must develop a healthy scepticism towards accreditation. How much of the Lord’s money is simply handed over to secular academic institutions for the kudos of offering a degree? 

Furthermore, we need to develop curricula that are flexible in pace and place. These need to fit the needs and abilities of those who are identified as being called to service, whatever their academic background. Though some accredited institutions have innovated in this way, the demands of the accrediting body can prevent the flexibility that is desired.

I am not arguing that nobody should get an accredited degree: we all benefit greatly from commentaries and other scholarly works that would not have been produced had not the author been put through an academically rigorous programme. My argument is merely that we must be creative, flexible, and pluralistic, not beholden to academia. A nimble approach that is well-grounded in the context will be better able to respond to changing situations and be a better use of limited resources.

I have mostly been addressing the preparation of men for the pastoral and evangelistic ministry. But we also need to take a long look at how we are training men and women more generally. How many of us are consciously looking out for how we can release men and women in our churches into ministry and thinking how they can get the training they need to do that well?

In this connection it would be good to look at how parachurch ministries such as student ministry and camp ministry can synergise better with the local church. At camp, for example, are we consciously looking to upgrade the skills of camp officers, not only so they can lead camps but also so they can lead groups in their home churches? My impression is that this could be done better.

How to Prioritize Your Church's Mission Funding

I received an email from a pastor today: 

Reason for emailing: our church recently agreed to focus our missions support by reducing down from 13 organisations and individuals down to 6 (2 individuals and 4 organisations). We have for a long time given 10% of our income which is something we're intending to keep going.

My question is what principles you use to decide how you divide that 10% up, particularly with the individuals we're supporting? Have you got any advice you'd be able to offer?

This was my answer: 

I think that your prioritizing should be along the following lines:

1. Biblical theological factors: your priorities should reflect the centrality of gospel ministry that is in line with the Great Commission – pioneer evangelistic ministry especially among peoples who otherwise would have little or no witness plus those who support that and ministries that complete that (‘teaching them to obey’).
2. Historical factors: you will have relationships with people perhaps going back a long time. These should be honoured, though if people you have been supporting are simply giving out teddy bears in children’s homes I think you should look for ways to redeploy them in more suitable ministry rather than feel under compulsion to continue their support simply on the basis of relationship. Relationships are very important. But they are not absolute.
3. Global realities: mission is now from everywhere to everywhere. Are there folk from other places, including from previously ‘receiving’ countries, who are not connected with you, share your vision and priorities but don’t have sufficient support?
4. Missions mobilization: some money should go into growing the mission vision and wisdom of the church. That may include sending people for short trips to visit situations for that purpose.
5. Training: God willing, the result of missions mobilization will be people coming forward to be assessed for their personal long-term involvement. That should include training, which can be costly.

I trust you will be seeking to grow the vision and commitment of the church so that you can increase your giving in the future. At least one church in Wales I know gives 50% to mission. 

Hunger for the Word

During my travels over the last few months I preached at a church of maybe 200 people who really appreciated my ministry. I was happy of course. It is always heartening when people come up to you afterwards and share how much they learned from the message. But what I learned afterwards shocked me. I had a hint of it beforehand when I was told that the people would appreciate a message from the Bible. Afterwards I was informed that the pastor hardly uses the Bible at all! He gets his material from the internet. Things had got so bad that the church committee (in effect, the deacons) had even approached the pastor to ask him to ‘refer to the Bible more’. Now if the regular church members are having to ask the pastor to refer to the Bible more things have got pretty bad. Of course, it would be worse, wouldn’t it, if no one noticed how bad things had got, if nobody cared about the weekly ministry from the pulpit? But this is a church of committed believers who desire to meet together for worship and edification. So how does it get like this?

How can we stop this sort of thing from happening? Firstly, churches, you need to make your expectations clear from the outset. A prospective pastor may be a wonderful chap, a great people person and a wise counsellor, but what is his preaching like when he visits? If he really wants to be the man who is called to your church he will do his best to preach well on his visits. He will use his well-worn illustrations that are guaranteed to get a laugh or a tear. The message may be carefully crafted according to some trusted homiletic method. But how much are you fed by the ministry? Is the Bible being explained and applied to your conscience? Is it the Bible that moves your affections or an anecdote of the Chicken Soup for the Soul variety? Do you feel that you are better equipped to read the Bible for yourself? If not, think again. He may be a really nice guy, but he shouldn’t be called to your church. Hang in there and don’t settle for second best.

Secondly, Bible colleges, seminaries, and schools of theology, you need to check your curriculum. Are your students getting equipped for a lifetime of ministry? Does what they learn at the seminary merely give them the ability to teach the same books of the Bible that they learn in class? Or, even worse, does it equip them merely to be great communicators with nothing to communicate? In some countries the turnover of pastors is ridiculous. But it is no wonder is it if they rely on a stock of sermons for their pulpit ministry? They have not been equipped for lifetime of learning and teaching.

Thirdly, preachers, you must read, read, read. Listening to a dynamic preacher on the internet may be a real blessing. But how much will that enable you to mine the Scriptures yourself? Isn’t it just a little too easy to copy down the points he makes and the illustrations he uses and refashion them for your people? I once heard a shocking statistic that suggested that a large percentage of preachers never read a book once they leave seminary. If that is you, then repent. You need to be feeding your own soul. That means that you must be a voracious reader. Only then can you feed others. And it is not enough to read the easy books, the best sellers that everyone is reading. You need to be stretching yourself, reading the challenging books that will broaden your mind, open up new vistas onto the Word and enable you to dig out of that Word the truth that your people desperately want.

I have been heartened on my travels to experience a real hunger for the Word, especially among young people. Let’s not let them down with the spiritual equivalent of Happy Meals.