The present crisis in foreign missions in The Orthodox Presbyterian Church prompts this report. We do not say "financial crisis," for we believe the financial situation is just a symptom of the real crisis: missions consciousness. It has been said that the OPC does not function as an organism which shares in the task of missions. Such critics claim that instead it functions solely as a corporate body which sponsors the work of others doing missions. (Presently, individuals in our churches are involved in missions – not the churches themselves.) The question has also been raised, "Why are OP missionaries and money going outside the OPC?" We believe the answers to these serious concerns lie in developing a more biblically-based approach to missions.

The biblical testimony to missionary strategy and methods is not massive. But what we found in our search of Scripture seems to point one way, and it is not the way of denominational committees! Briefly, we argue that in the New Testament, mission is a natural, inherent function of the local church, supported by the presbytery. We believe that the methods of the church in Acts at its maturity are the pattern left for us to follow.

Jesus Christ has a plan and strategy for world missions (Matthew 28:18-28; Acts 1:8) which the giving of the Holy Spirit to the church inaugurated. The biblical record shows that mission work was local church-based. By Acts 11, local churches had been established in at least nine locations. Scriptural evidence indicates that these churches were planted by the believers in general, not apostles (note Acts 8:1-4). Paul explicitly commends the church-planting efforts of the Thessalonian church. Moreover, the churches simply planted churches without erecting any additional administrative structures.

The Book of Acts focuses on how the risen Christ used Paul as the spearhead to reach all nations. But it stresses that the whole church was in the background doing the work of missions. Paul trained them to be involved and then commended them for their involvement.

In Acts there were no appeals to the general church, or from outside the local church, for "volunteers" for missions; churches sent out their own people. We read of the sending out of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13. Even though elsewhere they are termed "apostles," the principles involved in their commissioning are relevant since they faced the same task as our missionaries. The church and its leaders acknowledged the divine call of Paul and Barnabas, then prayed and fasted for them. Finally, the local church officers laid hands on them and sent them out. Scripture also terms this commissioning process as "the sending out by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 13:4).

From this it may be seen that under the leadership of its church officers, the Antioch church acted as a body qualified to send out from its own midst those whom it believed to be called by the Holy Spirit. In Acts 14:26-28 and 18:22-23, Paul returned to this local base (Antioch, not Jerusalem), to bring the church up to date on his ministry, much as would a modern missionary on furlough.

Acts also records that the local churches acted cooperatively (i.e. presbyterially). The early churches were organized in terms of the Roman provinces. Provincial, ecclesiastical gatherings led to assemblies for discussing matters of common interest. Paul referred to such groups collectively as "the churches of Macedonia" (2 Corinthians 8:1) and "the churches of Achaia" (Romans 15:26). The spiritual unity of the churches in Christ found visible expression in geographical cooperative efforts. Acts implies that they developed ecclesiastical policies and joint diaconal and evangelism strategies.

What we have, therefore, is neither congregational independency nor the passing of responsibility on to an outside agency (i.e. the Jerusalem church), but presbyterial cooperation. Interdependency of members is theologically true not only within a local church but also between local churches.

Another important principle we glean from Acts is that missions was financed directly by the local churches. There were no appeals from Funds for Missions. Apart from the Jerusalem collection (for diaconal, not missionary purposes), the churches were expected to be financially self-supporting. Paul taught in Galatians 6:6 that each church should support its own ministry.

Whereas the Philippian church took it upon itself out of love to support Paul in Thessalonica, there is no evidence whatever for anything like finance committees being set up to operate mission work outside of the local church. Paul's appeals to accountability are based on the churches' financial control and responsibility.

An understanding of the Greek term propempsein is highly significant for the issue of how missions should be funded. Such commentators as Fee and Ridderbos explain that the term, often translated "help me on my journey," is a technical one meaning "to provide a person with provisions, money, and traveling companions." The frequent use of this term in Scripture shows that missionary work in the early church was not financed by standardized, centralized control. Rather, local churches provided for (not merely "supported") all the needs of their missionary/evangelist. For instance, 3 John 5-8 is particularly clear in this regard.

Does Scripture give any hints as to what the role of our modern-day general assembly should be concerning missions? Presbyterians usually regard the Jerusalem assembly in Acts 15 as the precursor of our general assemblies. In relation to missions it is remarkable what the Jerusalem assembly did not do. Although the occasion of that assembly was the need to deal with an issue that arose out of a mission situation, the Jerusalem assembly addressed itself only to the divisive doctrinal matter, and then sent its decision back to the local churches.

It is also important to realize that this "first general assembly" took place almost twenty years into the church's existence, and that the next general assembly after Acts 15 occurred in 325 A.D.! This tells us that no general assembly was responsible for ongoing administrative functions. Therefore, from Acts, especially chapters 13 and 16, we deduce that the main strategy for missions lies with local churches dependent upon the Holy Spirit.

Accordingly, churches today (assisted where necessary by presbyteries) must in faith prayerfully discern the divine strategy for missions. Just as worship, discipline, diaconal ministry and proclamation in the New Testament are the responsibilities of the universal church carried out by the local church, so too is missions.

In Acts, mission work is part of ministry; missionaries are ministers. The term "missionary" is, of course, extra-biblical. What do we mean by it? We use the term to apply to workers sent by a church or churches from this field to a field abroad, in order to evangelize, plant churches or minister to existing churches. But there is no distinction in the New Testament between local ministry, home missions, and foreign missions. Geography is not the distinguishing feature in missions in the New Testament. Rather, the distinction is in terms of cultural and ethnic barriers.

What applications do we make to the state of missions in our denomination?

• First, the weight of New Testament evidence argues that the local church is the responsible agent of missions. Failure of ordinary church members to respond to appeals for funds suggests our lack of real understanding of this principle.

• Second, the biblical pattern of church-planting and mission work being carried on by local churches needs to be followed. It may be that presbyterial support is required until a local church is strong enough to support all its own ministries. Our presbyteries already function in this way, particularly in home missions situations, so we argue against the establishment of another administrative structure for foreign missions purposes.

The scriptural pattern shows that missionaries were called, not by external bodies like missions committees but from within the local church. This principle reinforces the idea that we treat missions as a part of the ministry of the local church. Churches should actively recognize the proven gifts of persons in their midst’s and then send them out for mission tasks.

Accordingly, we suggest that Mission Work follow this Pattern:⤒🔗

• A local church would recognize the calling and gifts of a person to evangelize/plant churches, either at home or abroad.

• A presbytery would examine this candidate to assess his or her suitability/calling to the mission field. We recommend a program of internship in a home church before a person is sent abroad.

• After necessary special training, the local church would commission this person.

• In churches with smaller memberships, several churches within a region would join together to maintain a missionary abroad, assisted where necessary by their presbytery.

• The sending church(es) would formally commit themselves to support the missionary by prayer, finances, active supervision and every other appropriate means, just as they would their own pastor(s).

• The missionary would be accountable to the sending church(es) and under the discipline of the session and/or presbytery. A foreign missionary on furlough would stay with and minister to his sending church(es) for about 10/12ths of his stay and be further strengthened by them.

• It would be helpful to the broader church for missionaries to send letters as Paul did to inform it of the progress of God's kingdom on the field.

• On the field the aim of missionaries should be to plant churches. They should become financially independent of the sending church(es) as soon as possible.

• Missionaries should also aim to form the churches they plant into self-governing presbyteries. At this point the missionary may elect to become a member and servant of that indigenous church, or ask his home church to assign him to another field.

• We recommend, therefore, that teams of missionaries should work together on the field. It is better to have ten missionaries in one field, than to have one each in ten unconnected fields where they have no local leadership or support.

• To further assist the work, local churches should, when feasible, send out short-term laborers from among their appropriately-gifted members.

While this proposal is a bold shift from how the OPC has historically conducted foreign missions, we believe God will greatly bless our adoption of this pattern. There is an old mission slogan: God's work, done in God's ways, will not lack God's provision.