23 July 2024

Missionary – What’s in a Word? A Critical Discussion of a Disputed Term

Abstract

This article discusses the meaning of the word “missionary” and its use in today’s church. It looks at the biblical, historical and contemporary understandings of a phrase which triggers a variety of responses even among Christians. Some insist that “missionary” has become a discredited term and others hold that it no longer reflects their broader understanding of mission. However, those who still use it find support both in the Scriptures and mission history. Given the similarity of the phrase “missionary” and the biblical term “apostle” one can argue that missionaries are followers of Christ who are sent to continue with the apostolic task without claiming the same authority as the Twelve or the Apostle Paul. Therefore, the preaching of the gospel, the planting of churches and the training of church leaders lie at the heart of their mission. This work might be accompanied by other activities, such as social, educational or medical programmes, but, as demonstrated by the early representatives of the Protestant mission movement, it should always be carried out with sensitivity, respect and humility.

I.   Introduction

When one mentions the word missionary in an African country like Namibia one usually gets a mixed response. While some people are quick to talk about an unholy collaboration between missionaries and colonisers in the past, others spontaneously express their gratefulness for the men and women who first brought the gospel to their ancestors almost 200 years ago. Whatever their response, most Namibians have a view on the nature and work of missionaries, past and present. Further north on the African continent, in countries like Ghana, Nigeria or Zimbabwe, the word is increasingly used for African believers in Christ who see Europe and North America as their mission fields. In the Bible Belt of the Southern United States, the word missionary conjures up in the minds of many Christians the positive image of cross-cultural workers serving in Africa, Latin America or elsewhere overseas. Others argue that the church in North America and Europe should support indigenous missionaries who work in their own countries rather than sending Western Christians.  In Scotland, one of the fastest secularising countries in Europe, however, the picture is a very different one. In the country that was once called the land of the Book and from whose shores large numbers of missionaries went out into all the world, most people today would struggle to make sense of the term missionary. The most common response is neither criticism nor praise but a shrug of the shoulders. This prompts the question: What shall we make of a phrase that triggers such diverse reactions?

II.   A Biblical Understanding

If we turn to our English Bibles to find the word missionary our efforts will be in vain, and this should not really surprise us. The English word missionary is neither of Greek nor Hebrew origin but derives from a Latin word, i.e., the verb mittere, which means to send. However, what we find in the New Testament is the term apostle (or apostolos in Greek). The noun apostolos is related to the Greek verb apostellein, which basically conveys the same idea of sending or dispatching.[1] The general meaning and use of apostolos varied greatly in the Greek-speaking world. Thus, it was used to describe ambassadors, delegates or messengers but it could also refer to a naval expedition or even a passport.[2] In the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word apostolos occurs only once in 1 Kings 14:6. That being said, the Septuagint makes frequent use of the verb apostellein to translate the Hebrew word salah.[3] “Only this latter usage”, as Christopher Bryan writes, “prepares us at all for the weight that the word comes to bear in the New Testament generally, and Paul in particular.”[4] Thus, the Hebrew salah does not simply express the act of sending but also carries the idea of commissioning with a particular task and authorisation. Having said that, the emphasis is on the authority of the sender who is represented by the one sent. Accordingly, Everett Harrison defines apostles as those who “are sent on a definite mission in which they act with full authority on behalf of the sender and are accountable to the sender.”[5]      

Altogether, the noun apostolos appears 79 times in the New Testament and applies to a variety of persons. In Hebrews 3:1 it is used to refer to Jesus as the one sent by God, while in John 13:16 apostolos (here translated messenger) seems to apply to every individual Christian. Most often, it refers to Paul and to the Twelve, i.e., the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, whose formal qualifications were twofold: They had been chosen by Jesus himself (Acts 1:8) and been witnesses to his resurrection (Acts 1:22). Included in this group, whose members seem to claim the title apostles of Jesus Christ for themselves,[6] is Matthias who replaced Judas. In addition, there are those church leaders and workers, who are distinct from Paul and the Twelve but are also called apostles. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul speaks of this group as the apostles of the churches. Among them are James, the brother of Jesus and one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:19), and Barnabas, one of Paul’s co-workers (Acts 14:14), who together with Paul was commissioned for their work and sent out by the church in Antioch (Acts 13:2-3), as well as Silas (1 Thess 2:6), Timothy (1 Thess 2:6) and Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9). The meaning of the term apostle, as it appears in the New Testament, is helpfully summarised by William Taylor when he writes:

The core New Testament meaning clusters around ideas related to sending and or crossing lines, to those being sent, the sent ones – whether messengers or the Twelve, or the others who serve with some kind of apostolic authority or function. The New Testament affirms that the apostolic messenger (the missionary) becomes the person authoritatively sent out by God and the church on a special mission with a special message, with particular focus on the Gentiles/nations.[7]

The message that the Twelve and the Apostle Paul as well as their co-workers had been given to spread was the gospel of Jesus Christ. From the moment of his conversion Paul, for example, understood the proclamation of the life-changing good news to be at the heart of his mission. Luke tells us in Acts 9:20 that at once Paul “began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the son of God.” To his spiritual son Timothy, Paul later wrote:

So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life – not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher (2 Tim 1:8–11).

But for all that, Paul and his co-workers were more than a group of evangelists who travelled from one city to another. They did not work to gain large numbers of converts but to present each person mature in Christ. In his letter to the Christians in Colossae, Paul put it this way: “We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me” (Col 1:28–29). Such a maturity, the apostle believed, could only be attained within a church where believers exercised their various gifts to the edification of the whole.[8] In other words, he aimed to see Christians grow in their faith and to help them to establish self-governing local churches of mature followers of Christ. Paul, his fellow apostles and co-workers were both disciple-makers and church-planters, or as Roger Greenway puts it: “The apostolic strategy throughout the Book of Acts involved evangelizing and winning converts and forming believers into organized communities under spiritual leadership.”[9] Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert helpfully summarise the mission of the apostle as follows:

A careful study of his life and teaching shows that Paul’s mission was threefold: (1) initial evangelism, (2) the nurture of existing churches by guarding them against error and grounding them in faith, and (3) their firm establishment as healthy congregations through the full exposition of the gospel and the appointing of local leadership.[10]

Given the similarity of the two phrases missionary and apostle one can surely argue that missionaries are sent to continue somehow with the apostolic task described above.[11] That said, we must not confuse today’s missionaries with the Twelve and the Apostle Paul. While the two terms have similar etymological roots (“sent one”), the meaning of a word, as Peter Cottrell points us, “must be determined by its usage and not by its etymology.”[12] Thus, the New Testament apostles of Christ had a unique calling and a unique place in the history of the church. The church, as Paul puts it in his letter to the Ephesians, is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20). Like the Old Testament prophets, they could speak and write words of God. In that sense, missionaries, past and present, are not apostles. At the same time, they are different from local pastors or teachers.[13] This raises the question, how should we define missionaries?

III.    Contemporary Understandings

To find a definition, many scholars and practitioners, especially those of theologically conservative or evangelical persuasions, have traditionally turned to the ministries of the apostles and their co-workers who sought to fulfil the instructions given to them by Jesus towards the end of his time on earth. The Apostle Paul, in particular, is seen as a role model for any missionary today.  Bryan Estelle calls Paul “our supreme example”, who “embodies the primary mission of the church in his own ministry to the Gentiles”.[14] Similarly,  DeYoung and Gilbert write: “We believe his mission models for us what we ought to be doing in the world insofar as Paul’s ambition ought to be our ambition (1 Corinthians 10:33-11:1), and we should be partners in the same work he undertook (see Philippians 1:15, 14, 27, 30; 2:16).”[15] Bearing in mind the uniqueness of Paul and the Twelve, George Peters defines a missionary as “a messenger with a message from God sent forth by divine authority for the definite purpose of evangelism, church-founding and church edification.”[16] Similarly, Eric Wright maintains that missionaries are “unique individuals sent out by the Spirit with both the vision and gifts to plant churches among unreached peoples.”[17] Another author who considers the apostles in general and Paul in particular as missionary role models par excellence is Eckhard Schnabel. Schnabel describes the task of missionaries as follows:

Thus, missionaries establish contact with non-Christians, they proclaim the news of Jesus the Messiah and Savior (proclamation, preaching, teaching, instruction), they lead people to faith in Jesus Christ (conversion, baptism), and they integrate the new believers into the local community of the followers of Jesus (Lord’s Supper, transformation of social and moral behavior, charity).[18]

Kenneth Fleming, who agrees with this understanding of missionary work, points out that missionaries might still be involved in other activities that in one way or another express “the Christian response to a needy world, either to show the compassion of Christ or to assist the missionary to become more efficient in his presentation of the gospel.”[19] According to Fleming, such activities, which have been described as a “handmaid to the gospel”, include medical work, education, child care or agricultural help.[20] He stresses that the early missionaries who were involved in these kinds of ministry seldom lost their focus.[21] Fleming notes: “They used them as tools to promote their clearly established goal which was a strong indigenous church in every area. They were careful never to wander from the centrality of the gospel.”[22]

In a similar vein, the Zambian Baptist theologian Conrad Mbewe encourages Christians “to consider coming alongside gospel-preaching missionaries as teachers, doctors, builders, printers, etc., in the mission field.”[23] Missionaries, he continues, work best in teams in which individuals complement each other. However, like Fleming, Mbewe expects missionaries to keep the proclamation of the gospel at the heart of their work:

Let us keep first things first. Yes, there is always going to be a lot of auxiliary work in the mission field. We may need to establish hospitals and schools. We may need to supply food, clothing and shelter. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we do not begin to see these as an end in themselves. Our primary work in missions is evangelism and the planting of churches after the New Testament pattern – churches that will continue this same work long after we are gone.[24]

For Mbewe, the ultimate goal of any missionary activity is the salvation of people who do not know the triune God. Whatever missionaries do, they must not lose sight of their task of helping people find their way back to God through faith in Jesus Christ. Mbewe states:

Gospel work must aim at winning individuals to personal faith in Christ or it is not gospel work at all (…) In missions, we must refuse to comfort ourselves with anything less than souls turning from sin and putting their trust in the Lord Jesus, because that is what the work is all about.[25]   

Michael Raiter, an Anglican theologian and mission practitioner, who supports the traditional view of the missionary task, reminds us that the ministries of those Christians who seek to alleviate human suffering in needy and poorly developed contexts should never be frowned upon.[26] While works of compassion on their own do not constitute mission in the New Testament sense, they are nonetheless important.[27] Raiter’s self-critical explanation is worth quoting in full:

One criticism that can be levelled at we who define mission narrowly is that, in our zeal to see the gospel spread, we can appear disparaging of those who minister to people’s physical needs. This criticism is often warranted. Too often we are heard to be saying that the only work of real value or eternal value is the work of gospelling. Other works, while laudable, are expendable; indeed, given our limited resources we ought to be concentrating on the work of proclamation. I believe that such a sentiment is uncharitable and unbiblical. Works of compassion done in the name of Christ are intrinsically good. We are to do good to all people, although the household of faith has the priority. The parable of the Good Samaritan stands as a perpetual reminder to us of the approval God gives to those who see a neighbour in physical need and reach out to meet that need.[28]

Stephen Gaukroger, a British Baptist theologian, draws attention to another aspect of missionary work. He emphasises that cross-cultural missionaries are not self-appointed, independent workers, but boundary crossers who are always commissioned and sent out by their local church.[29] As part of their ministry, they intentionally seek “to introduce those who come to Christ to join with others in the fellowship of a church.”[30] Writing from a confessional Lutheran perspective, Klaus Detlev Schulz goes a step further. Schulz speaks of the missionary office which, as a rite vocatus, is in principle not different from the office of the pastor.[31] It is therefore the church’s responsibility to appoint missionaries through whom God will work. The church is obliged to get involved in mission through an ordered, structured missionary ministry, i.e., an ordained ministry, “that cannot be replaced but only complemented by the services of the laity.”[32]

In contrast to Schulz, some authors, like James Garret, have argued that every Christian is a missionary.[33] The so-called Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, Garret holds, calls every believer to be involved in the work of making disciples of all nations. He bases this view on the nature of the priesthood of all believers.[34] Referring to the Great Commission, as we find it recorded in Acts 1:8, Thomas Hale notes: “Jesus told us to “go” … This means that all Christians are to go and be witnesses – to their families, to their neighbourhoods, to their cities. In other words, all Christians are called to be “missionaries” in the broad sense of the word.”[35] Cottrell, who seems to share this broader understanding, also refers to the New Testament command of being Christ’s witnesses. He writes:

As to the requirement that the missionary is one who is sent on a specific task, the New Testament makes it clear that there is one task, to be Christ’s witnesses. Mission is biblically still mission whether it involves being Christ’s witnesses in my home or being Christ’s witness five thousand miles away from my home. There is no geographical category which turns a martyrs (witness) into an apostolos (missionary) (…) A martyrs is a missionary. A kēryx is a missionary.[36] 

Others have responded to this position by pointing out “that if everybody is a missionary, nobody is a missionary”.[37] Put differently, if every Christian can be called a missionary, the word missionary becomes just another term to describe Christians, albeit with a focus on their calling or task. David Hesselgrave argues that such a general call for missionary volunteers cannot be found in the New Testament.[38] He goes on to say that “although all followers of Christ are called to be witnesses, it is not true that all are called to be missionaries, any more than all are called to be pastors.”[39] Stephen Davis speaks of an overuse of the term which has led to the point of dilution.[40] Like the word “mission” it has become a catchall word.[41] “As a result”, he argues, “there are “missionaries” who bear little resemblance to their New Testament counterparts.”[42] Davis suggests that there needs to be a better understanding of the function of missionaries in our day.[43]

Contrary to Davis, who wants to keep the term missionary, though its usage in mission circles is problematic,[44] there are those who have decided to drop it completely. For various reasons, they would rather speak of mission partners, mission companions, international workers, global workers, message bearers, apostolic messengers or simply apostles. While some of them want to stress the partnership aspect in mission or mission’s cross-cultural dimension,[45] others use a term like apostle to emphasise the special gifting, experience and spiritual authority of those involved in missionary work.[46] Having said that, there are also churches, mission organisations and authors that have stopped using the phrase missionary because it has become a term with negative connotations.[47] If, in some parts of the world, missionaries past and present are increasingly portrayed as intolerant zealots who impose their views on other people, it is better to replace that designation, so their thinking goes.[48] Ryan Shaw explains:

The traditional term missionary carries a number of unhelpful negative stereotypes. During a ministry tour among several African and Asian nations, about a decade ago, I used missionary regularly as I spoke to campus ministry fellowships, churches and Bible schools. But I quickly realized it was not communicating what I was intending. I met with several small groups and asked them what they thought a missionary was. None was able to capture the biblical essence. And several responses were reactions to the negative influences of colonialism. It became clear that a more effective term was needed. I asked for suggestions, and the term “message bearer” emerged.[49]

Finally, many evangelical Christians today understand mission in much broader terms than their 19th-century predecessors, “whose primary objective was”, as Keith Ferdinando notes, “the making of disciples but who responded to the needs and suffering which existed among those to whom they carried the gospel.”[50] In some of these circles evangelism, church planting and leadership training are no longer seen as the central activities of mission but rather as some of many missional dimensions which are all equally important. Over a decade ago, Christopher Little spoke about “a trend in the horizontalization in mission” which could be noticed among evangelicals.[51] He described it as follows:

First, evangelical theologians of mission are currently advocating that the missionary task involves securing justice for the poor, overcoming violence and building peace, caring for the environment, and sharing in partnership (Kirk 1999). Second, evangelicals are now being told that mission entails launching businesses which bring in the kingdom of God.[52]

Today, some younger evangelicals have become so “passionate about living in community, demonstrating justice, serving others, and caring for creation”, as Dean Flemming observes, that they neglect evangelism and verbal proclamation of the gospel.[53] Since the traditional understanding of the term missionary does not reflect that paradigm shift it is felt by some evangelicals that the term cannot be used anymore or needs to be redefined.[54]

However, not every missiological paradigm shift has such far-reaching consequences for the use of the term missionary. Thus, today mission is no longer understood as an exclusively Western enterprise, but as the global task of a global church. This new understanding of mission means, as Israel Oluwole Olofinjana writes, “that anyone, including Africans, can be involved in God’s mission and can be called by the missionary God to serve as a missionary in the West.”[55] A phrase that Olofinjana and others use to describe such missionaries from Africa, Asia and Latin America is reverse missionaries. Although reverse missionaries tend to focus on their own diaspora communities, there is also a desire to reach out beyond the diaspora. Olofinjana explains the concepts of reverse mission and reverse missionaries as follows:   

Reverse Mission is one aspect of mission and mission studies. It stems from a sense of humility and gratitude, acknowledging that those of us from former mission fields are directly or indirectly the spiritual fruit of European mission. It recognizes that mission is no longer the privilege of the Western church, but is now carried out from anywhere to everywhere; and that is why those of us from the Majority World have something to contribute to mission theology and practice, and are therefore intentionally sent, or through migratory factors (economic, educational and social) come, to reach out through holistic mission (evangelism and social action) to the different people  (indigenes as well as other nationalities) in the Western world.[56]

Anderson Moyo, who also uses the term, points to the universality of Christ as a key missiological concept.[57] He argues that reverse missionaries have an obligation to share the Christian message beyond the boundaries of their diasporic communities. To focus exclusively on their on their own people group is not an option. Moyo writes:

Every believer has a mandate to share the good news to whoever willingly listens, regardless of gender, colour, background, caste, status or ethnicity. African reverse missionaries have a biblical responsibility to preach the good news to the community in which God has planted them in any part of the world. The Bible does not set any limitations to this universal mandate to share the good news.[58]  

Similarly, Samuel Escobar speaks of less affluent missionaries from the two-thirds world as “missionaries from below”.[59] These missionaries from below have access to mission fields that are often closed to full-time Western missionaries. Escobar gives the example of Christian women from the Philippines who serve as domestic workers in rich oil-producing Arab countries.[60] These women seize the opportunities they have to share their faith in difficult circumstances. Escobar writes: “[…] in the midst of daily chores, they sing Christian songs and tell Bible stories to the children they babysit. As in biblical times, these women see themselves as witnesses for Christ in a foreign land.”[61] 

Finally, like Olofinjana and Escobar, Tim Chester points out that anyone can become a missionary.[62] Just as the first missionaries came from a variety of backgrounds, including fishermen, tax collectors and political activists, missionary service today is not limited to those with a university degree. Chester describes the basic missionary qualifications as follows:

You don’t need to be some kind of super-Christian. You should already be serving God in your current situation. But you don’t need to enjoy an hour-long quiet time every day, have perfect children and be leading five young people to Christ every week. Mission is for ordinary people. Here’s what you need though – you need to know Jesus … You need to have a passion for Jesus.[63]

IV.   A Historical Understanding

When the first Protestant mission societies were established in England in the last decade of the 18th century, many of them, like the Baptist Missionary Society or the London Missionary Society, had the word missionary in their names. The Society for Missions to Africa and the East, founded in 1799, even changed its name to Church Missionary Society in 1812.[64] The word missionary certainly did not carry any negative undertone at that time. The Anglo-Saxon fathers of the Protestant mission movement, men like William Carey or Robert Morrison, had adopted it from German and Moravian pietists.[65]

In 1705, the first two German missionaries left the city of Halle, the centre of Lutheran Pietism, at the request of the Danish King, Frederick IV.[66] After their ordination in Copenhagen, Heinrich Plütschau and Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg went to the Danish colony of Tranquebar in India.[67] They arrived there a year later, eighty-seven years before William Carey would set foot on Indian soil.[68] In the following years, Ziegenbalg learned Tamil and started preaching in that language.[69] In addition, he founded not only schools and orphanages but also a theological seminary for the training of Tamil Christians, translated the New Testament and wrote a Tamil grammar.[70]

Daniel Jeyarja notes that at the beginning of the 18th century the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 did not play any role as a motivating factor for overseas missionary work.[71] However, with Ziegenbalg and Plütschau this changed. Just before they left for India, Plütschau declared: “We will go in the name of the Lord. If God would save a single person, our journey would be rewarded adequately.”[72] Plütschau and Ziegenbalg clearly saw it as their central task as missionaries to help people to come to faith in Christ. Yet, their approach, Ziegenbalg was convinced, had to be respectful and culturally sensitive. This is how the German missionary once addressed his Tamil listeners:

If you wish to become Christian, we will not require you to imitate us Europeans in wearing clothes, eating, drinking, and other external things. You will have the freedom to do the things that your country requires. We don’t want to change the external appearance of your body, but to look for the transformation of your heart and mind which alone means real conversion.[73]

Ziegenbalg and his fellow missionary did not see it as their charge to westernise Indian culture or support any Danish colonial aspirations.[74] Instead, they wanted to demonstrate, as Jeyarja notes, “God’s love in action to positively benefit their fellow human beings.”[75] Ziegenbalg served in Tranquebar until his death in 1719.[76] With his understanding of what it means to be a missionary, Ziegenbalg became the role model for generations of Protestant missionaries who came after him. Like Ziegenbalg, these missionaries saw themselves first and foremost as ambassadors of Christ who worked for the benefit of people who needed to hear and accept the Christian gospel. They demonstrated what we can call a holistic approach to mission, however, without embracing the missiological holism that is promoted and practiced by so many today.[77] J. Mark Terry writes:

The early missionaries preached the gospel, but they also started schools, hospitals, leprosariums, orphanages, and agricultural stations – all with the intent of winning the lost to Christ and ministering to their social and physical needs. Some of the institutions were established as means of converting local people, while the missionaries established other institutions because of the Christian compassion they felt for the suffering they encountered.[78] 

We find this view of mission, for example, expressed in a letter dated 18^th February 1842 which was addressed to the Scottish missionary David Livingstone by two leaders of the London Missionary Society, Arthur Tidman and J.J. Freeman. They wrote: 

We rejoice to think you are now amongst the people to whose welfare your life is devoted, and have begun to put forth those efforts which, by the blessing of the Most High, will promote at once their social and spiritual interest. We indulge a grateful persuasion that your labors will in various ways produce a large amount of good amongst the Native tribes, and at no distant day become, through Divine grace, instrumental to the salvation of many. We entreat you to give your close and constant attention to the Native language until you acquire that knowledge of it, both for literary and colloquial purposes, which is so essential to your efficiency and success as a Missionary of the Cross.[79] 

Similarly, in his famous book An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, first published in 1792, William Carey argued that missionaries had to be highly motivated and willing to make sacrifices. Missionaries, he declared, “must enter with all their hearts into the spirit of their mission” and “must be willing to leave all the comforts of life behind them, and to encounter all the hardships of a torrid, or frigid climate”.[80] Furthermore, Carey expected missionaries to learn indigenous languages and make friends with the people they sought to introduce to the Christian faith.[81] He stressed the importance of sensitivity and explicitly warned missionaries against any form of superiority as this would be counterproductive to their mission. Carey wrote:

They must endeavour to convince them that it was their good alone, which induced them to forsake their friends, and all the comforts of their native country. They must be very careful not to resent injuries which may be offered to them, nor to think highly of themselves, so as to despise the poor heathens, and by those means lay a foundation for their resentment, or rejection of the gospel. They must take every opportunity of doing them good…[82]

The motivation, sensitivity and humility that Carey and Ziegenbalg demonstrated and promoted indicate that they possessed a substantial degree of cross-cultural competence, which was and still is an absolute must for all who regard themselves as missionaries.

V.   Conclusion

Today the phrase missionary triggers a variety of responses and even in Christian circles its use is disputed. While some people hold that it has become a discredited term others argue that it no longer reflects their broader understanding of mission. Those who use it find support both in the Scriptures and mission history. Given the similarity of the phrase missionary and the biblical term apostle one can surely argue that missionaries are sent to continue with the apostolic task without claiming the same authority as the Twelve or the Apostle Paul. Put another way, at the heart of the missionary task lies the preaching of the gospel, the planting of churches and the training of church leaders. This work might be accompanied by other activities, such as institutional social or medical programmes, but it is always carried out with sensitivity, respect and humility.

Footnotes:

[1] C. Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 64.

[2] Ibid.

[3] R.D. Rightmire, “Apostle,” in W.A. Elwell (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 33.

[4] Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 64.

[5] E.F. Harrison, “Apostle, Apostleship,” in W.A. Elwell (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 85.

[6] For example, 1Tim 1:1 and 1 Pet 1:1.

[7] W.D. Taylor, “Missionary,” in A.S. Moreau (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 644.

[8] See, for example, Eph 4:11–16 and 1 Cor 12:4–11.

[9] R.S. Greenway, “Success in the City: Paul’s Urban Mission Strategy,” in R.L. Gallagher and P. Hertig (eds), Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2004), 192.

[10] K. DeYoung and G. Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 62.

[11] Cf. D. Herm, “Die Person des Missionars: biblische Theologie der Berufung und praktische Konsequenzen,” in K.W. Müller (ed), Die Person des Missionars: Berufung – Sendung – Dienst (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 1997), 12.

[12] P. Cottrell, The Eleventh Commandment: Church and Mission Today (Leicester: IVP, 1980), 72.

[13] Cf. C.G. Olson, What in the World Is God Doing? The Essentials of Global Missions: An Introductory Guide (Cedar Knolls: Global Gospel Publishers), 9–10.

[14] B.D. Estelle, The Primary Mission of the Church: Engaging or Transforming the World? (Fearn: Mentor, 2022), 396.

[15] DeYoung and Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, 62.

[16] G.W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 248.

[17] E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions: Dispelling the Mystery; Recovering the Passion (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2010), 168.

[18] E. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove: IVP, 2010), 29.

[19] K.C. Fleming, Essentials of Missionary Service (Carlisle: OM Publishing, 2000), 13.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 14.

[22] Ibid.

[23] C. Mbewe, Foundations of the Flock: Truths About the Church for All the Saints (Hannibal: Granted Ministries Press, 2011), 290.

[24] Ibid., 299.

[25] Ibid., 297.

[26] M. Raiter, “Sent for his Purpose: ‘Mission’ and ‘Missiology’ and their Search for Meaning,” in R.J. Gibson (ed), Ripe for Harvest: Christian Mission in the New Testament and in Our World (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 131–32.

[27] Ibid., 132.

[28] Ibid.

[29] S. Gaukroger, Why Bother with Mission (Leicester: IVP, 1996), 51.

[30] Ibid.

[31] K.D. Schulz, Mission from the Cross: The Lutheran Theology of Mission (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009), 273.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Cf. P.L. Tie, Restore Unity, Recover Identity, and Refine Orthopraxy: The Believer’s Priesthood in the Ecclesiology of James Leo Garrett Jr. (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2012), 22.

[34] Tie, Restore Unity, Recover Identity, and Refine Orthopraxy, 22.

[35] T. Hale, On Being a Missionary (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995), 6.

[36] Cottrell, The Eleventh Commandment, 72–73.

[37] Taylor, “Missionary,” 644.

[38] D.J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 215.

[39] Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict, 215.

[40] S.M. Davis, Crossing Cultures: Preparing Strangers for Ministry in Strange Places (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019), 8.

[41] Ibid., 11.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid., 9.

[44] Ibid., 8.

[45]See for example, J. Price, World-Shaped Mission: Exploring New Frameworks for the Church of England in World Mission (London: Church Publishing House, 2012), 61–62.

[46] See for example, B. Robinson, Leaving All to Follow God’s Call: What Happens When We say Yes to God (Tampa: Robin House Publishing, 2010), 55–56.

[47] See for example, R. Love, “Identity with Integrity: Apostolic Ministry in the 21^st Century,” in R.D. Winter and S.C. Hawthorne (eds), Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2009), 477.

[48] Davis, Crossing Cultures, 9.

[49] R. Shaw, Spiritual Equipping for Mission: Thriving as God’s Message Bearers (Downers Grove: IVP, 2014), 18–19.

[50] K. Ferdinando, “Mission: A Problem of Definition,” Themelios 33, 1 (2008), 55.

[51] C. Little, “Christian Mission Today? Are We on A Slippery Slope? What Makes Mission Christian?,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology 25, 2 (2008), 67.

[52] Little, “Christian Mission Today?,” 66.

[53] D. Flemming, Recovering the Full Mission of God: A Biblical Perspective on Being Doing and Telling (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 13.

[54] Cf. A.S. Moreau, G.R. Corwin and G.B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical and Practical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 17.

[55] I.O. Olofinjana, “Missio Dei and African Mission: Towards Reverse Missiology,” in I.O. Olofinjana (ed), African Voices: Towards African British Theologies (Carlisle: Langham Global Library, 2017), 34.

[56] Olofinjana, “Missio Dei and African Mission,” 34.

[57] A. Moyo, “Church-Planting Considerations for African Reverse Missionaries in Britain in the Postmodern Era,” in I.O. Olofinjana (ed), African Voices: Towards African British Theologies (Carlisle: Langham Global Library, 2017), 67. 

[58] Ibid.

[59] S. Escobar, A Time for Mission: The Challenge for Global Christianity (Leicester: IVP, 2003), 16.

[60] Ibid., 15–16.

[61] Ibid., 16.

[62]  T. Chester, Mission Matters: Love Says Go (Nottingham: IVP, 2015), 77–78.

[63] Ibid., 78.

[64] J. Baker, “The Church Mission Society Story,” in Community Welcome: Community Handbook 2017 (Oxford: Church Mission Society, 2017), 6.

[65] Taylor, “Missionary,” 644.

[66] R.E. Olson and C.T.C. Winn, Reclaiming Pietism: Retrieving an Evangelical Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 56.

[67] R. Hille, “Ziegenbalg, Bartholomaeus,” in A.S. Moreau (ed), Evangelical Dictionary of Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 1043.

[68] Olson and Winn, Reclaiming Pietism, 56.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.; Hille, “Ziegenbalg, Bartholomaeus,” 1043.

[71] D. Jeyarja, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg: The Father of Modern Protestant Mission: An Indian Assessment (New Delhi: The Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2006), 59.

[72] Quoted by Jeyarja, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, 59.

[73] Olson and Winn, Reclaiming Pietism, 57.

[74] Jeyarja, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, 59.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Hille, “Ziegenbalg, Bartholomaeus,” 1044.

[77] Cf. J.M. Terry, “In Response to Ralph Winter’s ‘The Future of Evangelicals in Mission’,” in D.J. Hesselgrave and E. Stetzer, Missionshift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010), 234.

[78] Ibid.  

[79] Quoted in I. Schapera (ed), Livingstone’s Missionary Correspondence 1841-1856 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961), 13.

[80] W. Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens (Frankfurt: Outlook Verlag, 2018), 39.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Ibid., 39–40.