Biblical Basis of a Missionary's Love for the Church

This resource explores the biblical attitude of missionaries toward the local church, highlighting the mutual love and responsibility shared between them. Church leaders can use it to assess and disciple missionary candidates in developing a healthy ecclesiology, while aspiring and current missionaries can use it to strengthen their own commitment to valuing and investing in their sending churches. Together, it encourages both senders and missionaries to reflect Christ’s love for his bride.

If we love Christ, then we will love his bride. This is the legacy of the man of whom Jesus himself said there was none greater: John the Baptist. Nestled in John 3, this man’s love was put to the test when Jesus began to out-trend him. As John watched his hard-earned disciples depart to follow Jesus, this is what he said:

The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. (John 3:27–29)

John’s joy was grounded in the joy of Jesus. It was the result of seeing Jesus get his glory, come into his kingdom, and receive his bride. With an attitude only possible by the Spirit upon him, John concluded humbly, “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30). 

Simply put, a healthy attitude loves what Christ loves. And what does Christ love more in all creation than “the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28)?

An Unhealthy Attitude Toward the Local Church

Nevertheless, I have seen an unhealthy attitude toward the church in my day. Honestly, I’ve had it myself. I have been a missionary who didn’t love the church very much. Particularly when she seemed inwardly focused and slow to change, I found her to be a burden to either reform or escape. 

There were many good reasons why I initially desired to serve as a missionary. But I am sad to say that it was, in part, disillusionment with the church that began to turn my eyes toward foreign fields. Furthermore, I often found common ground among fellow missionaries. It lurked not so much in our words, though we often verbalized our disappointment with pastors and church members who “just don’t care” and “don’t get it.” The real proof, however, was in our actions: we were willing to try the work of global missions without deep, abiding relationships with local churches.

Imagine the irony years later when I returned from the mission field and began pastoring. 

Humbled, I’m thrilled by the changes I see today. With God’s help, I’ve come a long way, and so have many churches. We’ve begun to recognize in a fresh way that the Great Commission was given not simply to individuals, but to local churches. 

During the writing of The Sending Church Defined, I was amazed by the clear message of Scripture and of missions scholarship: local churches are responsible as the sender of their people into the neighborhoods and on to the nations. They’re to be full participants in God's mission, not merely outsourcing their missionaries to agencies, nor simply donating money to their cause. They are to take the primary responsibility in shepherding their missionaries before, during, and after their service overseas.

What troubles me now, however, is what I didn’t find during that project. Though there is much written about the posture of the church toward the missionary, I have found very little writing about the missionary’s posture toward the church. 

Of course, there is one notable exception: the Bible. It portrays so much regarding the missionary’s love for the church. There, we see an affection as zealous as that which burns in the missionary for unreached people.

A Healthy Attitude Toward the Local Church

Take Paul, for instance. We look to him as the prime example of a pioneer missionary. Yet his life is actually a helix of ministry to both the church and the nations. 

As he is converted and affirmed in fellowship with churches (Damascus, Jerusalem, and Tarsus), he is called and formed into an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9). As he co-pastors the church at Antioch (Acts 11), he is commissioned to be sent on his first missionary journey (Acts 13). After planting new churches on that first journey (Acts 13-14), he settles back into his sending church for a while (Acts 14:24-28). Then fast forward in his life. As he writes a letter to the church in Rome while spending time with the church in Corinth, he expresses his need for support in getting to where Christ was not yet known—Spain (Romans 15). 

The church and the nations are so intertwined in Paul’s life and ministry that it’s almost unhelpful to distinguish between the two.

Even a cursory glimpse into his life begins giving proof to this statement: Just as the church continually sends love (Philippians 4:10), prayer (Ephesians 6:18-19), and resources (Romans 15:24) to the missionary, the missionary continually sends love (Philippians 1:4), prayer (Ephesians 1:16), and resources (Colossians 4:7-9) to the church. And yet it’s still not quite strong enough to capture their New Testament relationship. Take out “sends” and add “initiates,” and you get this:

Just as the church continually initiates love, prayer, and resources to the missionary, the missionary continually initiates love, prayer, and resources to the church.

Paul’s relationships with churches is rarely one of mere reciprocity; rather, his initiating affection for those churches is written all over his missionary identity. We find him writing heart-felt letters to them (2 Corinthians 2:4), agonizing over their growth (Galatians 4:19-20), praying for them constantly (1 Thessalonians 1:2), being delighted to spend time with them (Romans 15:23-24), wooing them to join in the mission (Philippians 1:27-30), avoiding being a financial burden to them (2 Thessalonians 3:7-8), rejoicing over them (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20), and weeping with them (Acts 20:36-38).

So, why is the missionary-church relationship often different today? Why do many missionaries look to the leadership of their missions agency more than their sending church? Why is there sometimes bitterness toward imperfect churches rather than patience, encouragement, and exhortation? Why are missionary candidates’ attitudes toward the local church not a significant part of their assessment? Why is a deep, abiding relationship with a sending church something so easily laid aside?

Why Missionaries Struggle to Relate to Sending Churches

Let’s be realistic. There are some legitimate reasons that missionaries struggle to have deep, abiding relationships with local churches. Here are a few:

Missionaries haven’t always been sent by local churches in the first place.

Throughout much of recent missions history, some churches (not all) have chosen to “support” rather than “send” missionaries. By “support” I mean they committed to things like finances, prayer, and affirmation, but ultimately outsourced the central role of sending to missions agencies. Missionaries discerned calling, endured assessment, pursued development, experienced commissioning, and forged community more in the relationships with the agency leaders and teammates than in the homes of their pastors and church members. Thus churches turned over their right and responsibility to be ongoing under-shepherds of the missionary candidates (1 Peter 5:1–4). It’s no wonder, then, that the local church has taken a less significant place in the missionary’s heart and mind once they reach the foreign field.

Missionaries are easily neglected by local churches.

One of my fears in addressing this topic is that I’ll appear to be ignoring the deep hurts of some missionaries who have been forgotten and forsaken by churches. It only takes a few conversations with missionaries to hear a horror story or two: a church who cut their support without reason or warning; a church who made lots of promises they didn’t keep; a church who split or dissolved while the missionary was overseas; a church who sent a missions team that culturally sabotaged the work; a church who over-publicized the missionary and got them kicked out of their country; a church who gave the missionary no time or place to report back; a church who wasn’t a safe place for the missionary to be honest because they were put on too high a pedestal. In biblical terms, many churches have fallen far short of sending their people in “a manner worthy of God” (3 John 1:6).

Missionaries often feel too overwhelmed with the mission to devote time and energy to staying connected to local churches. 

Asking missionaries to invest back into their sending churches is a great idea. But anyone who’s served overseas may wisely rebut, “Who’s got time for that?” Missionaries are people relentless enough to push through all the reasons not to go, so it can be uniquely difficult for them to root deeply in a church for a prolonged season instead of launching quickly. When they do finally arrive on the field, they then face the pythonic squeeze of learning a new culture and language. And all this is on top of maintaining their marriage, children, health, and sanity during an identity flush sometimes as startling as an airplane’s toilet. Investing their limited time and energy back into churches—and more than that, initiating it all—seems too much of a distraction from life and ministry’s demands. 

I have sat with missionaries who essentially challenge me to convince them why it’s important to keep reaching out—writing newsletters that go unanswered, sharing struggles to which people can’t relate, pursuing friendships when others have moved on, asking for help when no one comes through, receiving short-term trips despite the risk and exhaustion, mentoring mid-term volunteers even if the investment may not give much return. It makes sense that missionaries hesitate to add this weight to the great burdens they already bear.

Missionaries may recognize it shouldn’t be their job to lead in relationships with local churches.

If indeed the church is the means by which God will fulfill his mission, and if local churches are his hubs from which Christians are sent into the neighborhoods and on to the nations, then local churches should joyfully and jealously initiate in relationships with their sent ones. Though the task is daunting, they should allow themselves to be compelled by the Word and Spirit to send and to shepherd those who “have gone out for the sake of the name” (3 John 1:7). 

Missionaries may not have been given a deep sense of sentness, but many do have a nagging sense that churches ought to be more on board with the mission. Knowing this helps explain missionaries’ disappointment with churches, ranging from hopeful longing to bitterness. In some ways they might justifiably say, “It's not my fault,” and carry on without giving the church much thought.

In light of all these reasons and more, expecting missionaries to initiate toward local churches may feel audacious. Yet the appeal I’m making comes not from new trends, but old truths.

Loving the Bride of Christ

For all that Paul embodies as one changed by God and obedient in mission, he also showcases appropriate missionary attitude toward the church in word and deed. Was he so driven in his relationship with local churches because he was a highly gifted apostle? Was it merely his responsibility as one who established many of those churches? Did he initiate only because he had the authority to do so? 

Theologian George W. Peters says no:

Paul did not exercise such authority in missionary partnership. Here he was a humble brother and energetic leader among fellow laborers, and a dynamic and exemplary force in the churches in evangelism and church expansion. (A Biblical Theology of Missions, 236)

No doubt Paul’s frontier dreams were “slowed down” so to speak due to his devotion to local churches. He too experienced neglect and discouragement from churches (Acts 21:13; 2 Corinthians 2:1–4; Galatians 1:4; Philippians 4:10–15). He too carried an overwhelming ministry load (2 Corinthians 11:28). He too could have chosen to operate exclusively within a mobile missionary team.

But he didn’t.

Despite every failure and hindrance, Paul loved the church (Philippians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:8). He knew that abandoning the bride meant insulting the groom. He knew the church, with all her warts, was not a hindrance nor a side note to the mission of God, so he never left her behind.

Though there are many honest reasons missionaries might not pursue deep, abiding relationships with local churches, I think these old truths invite them to a better way.

A Display Among All Nations

Missionaries are not called to love the nations in isolation from the church but to love the nations through the church. Just as Christ treasures his bride, missionaries honor him by cultivating deep, abiding relationships with their sending churches, initiating love, prayer, and encouragement even amid the pressures of cross-cultural ministry. 

• For church leaders, this means leveraging the sending process in ways that disciple missionary candidates in their love for the local church. It means assessing their attitude and developing their ecclesiology. Aim to see them following in the biblical examples of loving and serving the churches they may one day plant and/or strengthen. 

• For missionaries, it means choosing to give the sending church a place at the table in all of life and ministry, perhaps even when the church doesn’t always show up. It includes the desire to have a fruitful ministry not only cross-culturally, but also in the culture of origin by investing relationally back into the church. 

At its heart, this relationship is about embracing the privilege of being both sent by and bound to the church so that, together, missionaries and churches display the fullness of Christ’s love to all nations.

Next Steps

The journey toward sending and being sent well happens one step at a time. Here are three ways you can continue moving upstream:

1. For the aspiring missionary: Meet with the missions leader at your church and share about your interest in being sent by the church. If helpful, share this resource with them. 

2. For the current missionary: Take time to reflect on how you’re relating to your sending church. Identify one practical way to reinitiate connection, whether through prayer updates, a personal note, or an intentional request for partnership. If you do not have a sending church, consider a partner church that could be developed to begin a sending relationship. 

3. For the church missions leader: Consider a missionary you know who has a Christlike attitude toward the local church. Ask this person what helped them come to love and serve the church. Take note of how you may be able to help your own missionary candidates grow in their affection for the church.