My definition of Missions

I have recently decided to change my use of the word missions and missionaries. My use will be something like this:

Missions is the work of building local Churches throughout the world. Missionaries are those who are sent out to participate in this work.

I'll probably continue to be inconsistent in my use, but if it was up to me, that's how I'd define missions. Here are a few reasons for my change:

1. I think we should keep the word, despite the confusion over its meaning
It's such a common word that I think we should keep it. On the other side, it's such a confused term, that I think we should redefine it.

People will say things like "every Christian is a missionary" and "she's doing missions work building wells" and "he's not really a missionary, he's only there for six months". That's annoying. Let's just redefine it.

2. I think we should link the word, missions, with the Great Commission. This demands the inclusion of the local Church in a useful definition.
If you get the Great Commission from Matthew 28, then you've got to include "baptizing" and "teaching all that I have commanded you" into that definition. I've worked for a parachurch organization. They don't intent to teach all that Christ commanded. That's fine, just don't call yourself missionaries.

If you get the Great Commission from Acts, then it's even more clear - being Christ's witnesses means participating in the expansion of local Churches*.

3. The term, Church planter, doesn't quite capture the concept I'm trying to suggest.
The term Church planter is being used quite regularly nowadays. People tend to understand it. That's not what I mean when I say missionary. A missionary could be an evangelist, a Bible translator, a children's worker, an itinerant preacher, an interim pastor, or someone sent to bring reform to existing Churches, as long as it advances the expansion of local Churches. Church planter seems to mean people who go and set up new Churches, either to stay there and be the Pastor or move on.

4. It's convenient.
Nowadays, the word, mission, is a synonym for purpose or goal. If that's the case, we might as well say:

The Church has a mission. We call the work of fulfilling that mission, missions. We call the people who are sent out to participate in that work, missionaries.

5. Other uses of the word are captured in other terms or are useless
Some people mean evangelists when they say missionaries. There is already a word for that: evangelists.

Some people mean frontier missions when they say missions. There is already a term for that: frontier missions.

Some people mean cross-cultural ministry when they say missions. You get the idea.

Some people mean "anytime you need to consider any difference in language, cultural norms, or presuppositions when sharing the Gospel". In my opinion, that's a useless definition.

I'm not zealous about spreading my definition, it's just more meaningful and helpful to me than competing definitions.

*See my first blog post for an explanation of my approach to the Book of Acts.

Essentials in Missions: Conclusion

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order... 
- Titus 1:5 (ESV)*

Just to give some concluding thoughts on the past few posts: I realize that my points would seem rather pedestrian to some and they may well be. However, I must stress that I was not presenting four steps to becoming an effective Church nor am I identifying four marks of a missions-focused Church. What I'm saying is that if you don't have these essentials in the DNA of your Church, you're not an established Church by Paul's, or God's, definition. Paul would not report to Antioch that your Church was a work that he had "fulfilled" (Acts 14:26). He might not have stayed. He may have sent a Titus or a Timothy to finish the job*. But the point is that if your Church doesn't have the essentials down, he would not have considered her to be a complete work of a Church planter/missionary**

The last few posts have presented my views (as I see from Scripture) in more or less uncontroversial ways. Here are, perhaps, more frank articulations of my position. Please keep in mind many of them apply to the Church I am currently a member and lay leader at:

If no body outside your local Church has a formal platform from which to speak truth to your Church, hold you accountable, and formally break fellowship with you, you're not at an established Church***.

If Evangelism would cease should your Pastor leave because no one knows how to do it, you're not at an established Church.

If your "essentialist" statement of faith is the only doctrinal statement that your Church has to call Church members to doctrinal maturity, you're not at an established Church.

If your Church has no agreed upon understanding of what a mature Christian life looks like, or if it does, it has more to do with tradition or pragmatism than the values of the New Testament Church, you're not at an established Church.

And if you have lots of brethren, but none of them aspire to leadership or ministry, so your only choice is to put out job postings and hire staff, and you're not sending anyone to the world, you are probably not at an established Church.

What to do? Ditch these Churches? All situations are different - I think the default should be staying and being an agent of reform - but this exercise has helped me identify what areas I want to emphasize when I think about the Great Commission. Whether or not I am right on every point, I pray that our Churches would desire to have the Bible define our approach to engaging in the Great Commission.


*I realize the specific issue for Titus in Crete was appointing elders (explained in the rest of the sentence). However, I see this as only confirming what I believe: Paul had an idea of what an established Church looked like. Many, if not most of our North American Evangelical Churches wouldn't fit the bill.
**I'll address the terminology at a later date.
***Note my use of the word "established". This is not an exercise to identify the marks of a true Church.

Essentials in Missions: Commissioning Church Leaders

[Adapted from a paper I wrote]
 In Acts 13-14, we see Antioch in Syria as a Church that has leaders with identified spiritual gifts. We also see Paul and Barnabus commit the Churches they have planted to local leadership. Therefore, an established Church looks to equips and identify saints to be either local Church leaders or missionaries.

This does not remove the roles of seminaries or missions agencies. Rather, it puts the primary responsibility for raising up the next generation of leaders in the hands of the local Church.

Two important questions to consider:

1. Does your Church actively identify and commission local leaders?

2. Does your Church actively identify and set apart missionaries/Church planters?