Essentials of Partnership Between the Local Church and Mission Agency in Missionary Care

Field Day was always an exciting day as an elementary student—from the water balloon toss to the three-legged sack race. However, the one event I never desired nor had the strength to participate well in was tug-of-war. As we consider missionary care, often the relationship between church and agency can feel more like pulling on the rope from either end, with no clear expectations clearly defined. Instead, these two entities, along with the sent one, should function like a three-legged stool as the rope is held for healthy missionary retention.

Both the local church and the mission agency have distinct roles in caring for missionaries. Both entities must carry out their unique responsibilities to ensure that adequate care is established and maintained. Ultimately, the church and agency exist to serve the missionary. Thomas Hale and Gene Daniels write, “There is no reason for a divorce between church and mission agency; let them carry on their respective tasks, administratively separate, but in close harmony and cooperation.”[1] This kind of cooperation is ideal, but, unfortunately, it has not been the norm.

Kelly O’Donnell highlights that much of the responsibility in preparation and ongoing care has been placed in the hands of the agency, leaving the church in a narrowed role of praying and paying with only occasional opportunity to meet tangible needs. This limiting of the local church’s role in sending has resulted in a competitive spirit between the two entities. In light of this, O’Donnell states, “It is imperative that the local church play a larger role in world missions, particularly in the care of the missionaries they send out.”[2] Sending churches and mission agencies must make an effort and create a plan for working together as they establish trust and partnership. This kind of relationship requires understanding where there are both gaps in care and opportunities to partner.

Although they each have different roles, the local church and mission agency need to find a way forward for supporting one another and working together to care for the missionaries they have sent out. Neal Pirolo insists that “The church cannot—must not—leave the responsibilities of missions to the care of mission agencies. There must be a cooperative relationship—the church doing the things it can do best and the agency doing its part.” [3]

Steve Beirn and George Murray highlight that if the church sends and the agency serves as a facilitator, then “It makes sense to bring these parties together for productive ministry. It is important to know that ‘going it alone’ often results in the duplication of efforts and a lack of expertise.” [4] As each party puts forth effort to cooperate, all can excel in the areas in which they are best equipped to shepherd sent ones.

So how can the church and agency not be tugging the rope at either end, but working partnership to hold the rope for sent ones?

Here are four marks of meaningful partnership between church and mission agency:

1. Clear Communication

One essential to a meaningful partnership between sending church and agency is maintaining clear communication. Rob Hay explains, “Ideally, there should be free flowing communication between staff, missionaries, and leadership as well as structured processes for input into the agency leadership and direction.” [5] Local churches need to inquire about agency leadership and resources to know where they need to take the lead and fill gaps. Areas to assess could include health, safety, security, and educational needs. [6]

Wilson writes, “The church needs to understand its role of caring for the individual while at the same time understanding that the agency has much larger issues on the field to consider . . . [both] can pair together and share resources without dividing up roles and responsibilities.” [7] As the church and agency communicate and work collaboratively, a customized care plan can be developed for each missionary they send.

As church and agency communicate throughout the sending process, some disagreements will likely arise. However, “when both parties are humble and honest, a plan for effective and sustainable vitality in the missionary is possible. In general, the agency has the final say on matters of acceptance, training, and legal ramifications.” [8] As the agency serves the church in overseeing these larger facets of care, a more biblical picture of unity results. [9]

2. What Kind of Church Are You?

A second important mark of a strong partnership between church and agency is the church knowing what kind of church it is and what role it will play in caring for its missionaries. Wilson distinguishes between a “sending church” and a “supporting church.” We define a “sending church” as the one which takes full responsibility of a missionary on behalf of the agency for the purposes of commissioning, missionary care, and overall development in partnership with the agency. “Supporting Church” is a church that may provide funding, but does not “co-sign” for the missionary with the agency. [10]

Keeping these kinds of distinctions in mind will help the church and agency build and maintain greater accountability. Deborah Ford outlines some areas where the church and agency are held accountable to one another. For example, the agency should keep the local church informed when they make changes in assignment or shifts in status, and the local church should communicate with the agency about the personal touchpoints of advocacy they are making with their missionaries on the field. [11] By communicating transparently and defining roles clearly, the church and agency can hold each other accountable to their areas of responsibility.

3. Advocacy

A third important mark of a strong partnership pertains to advocacy. As Kelly O’Donnell emphasizes, “Preventative pastoral care of field missionaries is one way in which [mission agencies] are addressing the increasingly complex spiritual, emotional, and psychological needs of their missionaries.” [12] Local churches can also provide pastoral care by assigning church leadership or key members to care for their missionaries. Wilson remarks that “having a care team of people who won’t over interpret their struggles will increase a missionary’s openness . . . but having a clear [agreement established] will keep things confidential, making it even more likely that this type of communication will take place.” [13] Pirolo highlights four levels at which both the church and agency can come alongside the missionary. First, the church can help “the missionary [solicit] a team of caregivers, thus building ownership in the process. Second, the mission agency can provide developmental training in advocacy. Third, the church and her leadership determine what areas of care are needed. Finally, this team is released to fulfill their missionary care role.” [14] Partnership through advocacy has the benefit of closing potential gaps in care in these areas. [15]

4. Re-Entry Care

A fourth and final essential for partnership comes during the reentry stage. As Pirolo states, “The reentry time in the life of the missionary remains shrouded in ignorance. I believe the mission agency is more aware of the problems of reentry [than the church], but [often they] do not have the staff to deal with the issues.”16 He further points out that the church often has the relationship but not the knowledge, hence the need for church and agency to work together. 17 If churches can communicate with their missionaries and seek to understand their needs prior to their return stateside, then it would help ease the reentry process. This might include helping them in the areas of debriefing, counseling, conflict resolution, marriage evaluation, or even simply providing opportunities for rest and physical provisions (housing, transportation, etc.).

Recognizing gaps in care and looking for onramps to partnership must occur to establish healthy levels of communication, accountability, advocacy, and retention between the missionary, church, and agency. This type of partnership will not only win one ‘field day,’ but will set missionaries up for a long tenure of many days, months, and hopefully years on the mission field.

This is adapted from my published book ‘Holding the Rope: How the Local Church Can Care for Its Sent Ones’ published by The Upstream Collective. Let me encourage you to pick up a copy and use it as a resource within your church to care well for your sent ones.