Churches may see their role in sending members to the ends of the earth as the finish line instead of the beginning of a partnership. Some churches even lose their identity as the lead role in the sending process along the way. Steve Beirn, author of Well Sent, affirms, “The local church has not remained at the center of sending. Often, the individual considering global ministry is at the center of the process, partly due to the fact that the church has not assumed ownership.” [1] He notes that agencies often end up being the ones in charge of the sending process.
David Wilson, missions pastor and author, highlights in Mind the Gaps: Engaging Your Church in Member Care that mission agencies have a role to play, but that “the church is uniquely equipped to minister to its missionaries, especially when it sees gaps in care that the agencies, for whatever reason, do not or cannot provide . . . it would be completely negligent to simply delegate or outsource the responsibility of missionary care completely to agencies.”[2]
Wilson describes the investment churches provide as giving birth, nurturing, and equipping its members to serve on the field. They have a unique role and responsibility to care for those with whom they already have a mutual relationship.[3] The church should take ownership in the supporting and sustaining care for missionaries, even when those missionaries are in partnership with a sending agency.