Missions Lives Downstream from the Church

Changes in the church has a delayed impact on global missions

Photo by Jachan DeVol on Unsplash

I am reviewing a pre-release edition of an excellent new book titled, The Great Dechurching, and I have been reminded that missions lives downstream from the church. Let me explain.

There is a lot of dumb stuff written about the Great Commission and the church. On the one hand, there is the tome, “The Great Commission belongs to the church.” Fine. Let’s say it does. Please define how you are using the word “church” in this sentence. If you mean to say, “The Great Commission belongs to the local church,” then say it that way. That is what I think most people mean when they claim ownership of the Great Commission on behalf of “the church.” I am sorry to say so, but that is a meaningless claim.

Let’s start with the text of the Bible in considering this. Where do we find in the scriptures any indication that the Great Commission is anybody’s but God’s? We do not find this. The only way one gets away with making this claim is to be sloppy about the word “church.” This word is used at times to refer to local churches as in, “the church in your house” (Philemon 2). It also refers to all such as “and he is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). In fact, I often mentally slip in the adjective “local” before the word “church” when I am reading the Bible to really understand its meaning in that specific context. Other uses include the church in a region or a city. It is more likely these are multiple congregations meeting in a geographic area than a specific local church.

When people say that the Great Commission somehow belongs to the church, most often they are trying to make the point that local congregations need to be more empowered in their pursuit of global mission. It is a reaction to being sidelined in the overall eccliosystem that sends and supports missionaries. This is a fine emphasis, but it is not a matter of ownership. The Great Commission is Christ’s commission. The missionary team in the New Testament cannot be seen as a team belonging to any single congregation. The commission is given to the body of Christ.

However, the missionary enterprise is fully dependent on the health of local churches. Local churches produce the raw materials that make missionary teams. From conversion to discipleship, churches play a key role in the Kingdom. Further, one end of missions is the creation of local churches. The Missio Nexus statement of faith includes the clause:

We believe that Christ commanded the church to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptizing and teaching those who believe and that the natural outcome of such activity leads to the establishment of local congregations.

So, both on the front end of missions, and on the back end, local congregations are key to fulfilling the command of Christ.

Thus, as I read this new book on how church attendance is under mass decline, I am very aware that missions in the US will be under stress in the years ahead if local churches are in mass decline. This dechurching has been going on for some years. Yet, missions have been mostly shielded from this reality. As culture shifts, ministries tend to get the results of the shift at different times.

Student ministries (including Christian colleges) are on the “bleeding edge” of culture shift. The younger cohorts that fill their ranks are more likely to bring these cultural shifts with them. Later, local congregations will feel these changes as students graduate and fill pews (or, more and more, never fill a pew). Missionary agencies are even further down in the sequence. They are hoping to recruit healthy disciples from the local church.

Some ministries are “vertically integrated” when it comes to how they develop staff. Campus ministries are often vertically integrated. A person may come to Christ via a student ministry and then be discipled in it and then recruited to join its staff. The “production line” is internal. It is also one reason why campus ministries are often described by local church leaders as “church averse.” Because they work with younger people, they feel the culture shift before traditional missionary agencies do.

Most of the traditional missionary agencies are “horizontally integrated.” They are relying on churches, Bible schools, and families to produce healthy disciples that they can recruit. This is why I say that missions lives downstream from the church. The changes in the church brought on by culture shift are somewhat delayed but inevitable. Some agencies are responding to this by making discipleship a part of their recruitment, training, and deployment processes. The rise of resident missionary training schools (of which there are many now) is one outcome.

Can missions recruitment and deployment from the US grow as dechurching continues? That is a question which seems to have an obvious answer but time will tell.

---