The topic of mission boards and their biblical basis is an important one for Christians to understand. At its core, this issue centers around how the church should carry out the Great Commission that Jesus gave his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Are mission boards a legitimate and effective way to organize and facilitate this work? Or do they introduce extra-biblical structures and practices that inadvertently undermine biblical principles? There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue.
Those who support mission boards point to the need for strategy, coordination, and accountability in the work of missions. Sending missionaries and establishing churches in other cultures is complex work that requires wisdom, resources, and cooperation. Mission boards allow churches to pool their efforts and expertise under one organizational structure dedicated to missions. This enables mission efforts to be more strategic, avoiding duplication or overlooking key areas of need. Mission boards also provide accountability – missionaries sent out under a board are responsible to that organization. This helps avoid issues like lone-ranger missionary efforts accountable to no one. So in short, mission boards can be viewed as a practical way for churches to work together in fulfilling the Great Commission that doesn’t necessarily undermine biblical principles.
On the other hand, some argue that mission boards are extra-biblical structures, neither commanded nor modeled in the New Testament. In the NT, churches seemed to send missionaries directly through the leading of the Holy Spirit, without an intermediary mission board structure. Some point out that mission boards can accumulate significant power over churches and missionaries, which could lead to abuse or centralized control not in keeping with the decentralized nature of NT Christianity. Rather than organizational structures driving missions, some argue that missions should flow more organically from Spirit-led local churches. So in this view, mission boards may introduce unhelpful extra-biblical constraints on what should be a grassroots, church-driven effort.
In assessing the biblical legitimacy of mission boards, there are a few key considerations:
- The Bible does not explicitly command or condemn mission boards. So this issue requires wisdom in applying broader biblical principles.
- The New Testament emphasizes the role of local churches in sending out laborers. Mission boards should empower churches in their mission efforts, not control or supplant them.
- There is a place for organization and accountability in the complex task of cross-cultural missions. The question is what structure best facilitates this – informal networks of cooperating churches or formal mission boards?
- Extra-biblical structures are not necessarily wrong, but should be evaluated in light of Scripture. Do mission boards uphold or undermine biblical principles?
- The Bible emphasizes the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of ministry, including missions. Structure should not quench or replace Spirit-led initiative.
Examining a few key passages may help provide biblical perspective on this issue:
Acts 13 – The Jerusalem Church Sending Out Paul and Barnabas
Acts 13 records the Jerusalem church directly sending out Paul and Barnabas for missionary work after prayer and fasting. This occurred through the leading of the Holy Spirit, without any formal mission board coordinating it. Some see this as the ideal biblical model of church-driven missions directed by the Holy Spirit.
However, others point out that this was still an organized sending effort by the broader church leadership, even if not under a formal “mission board” structure. So it provides an example of Spirit-led cooperation in missions by local churches, but does not rule out more formal organization in principle.
Acts 11:19-26 – The Spontaneous Scattering of Believers After Persecution
In Acts 11, believers spontaneously scattered after persecution and began evangelizing new areas. No formal mission structure coordinated this. Some see this organic, informal spreading of the gospel as the ideal model of missions led by the Spirit, without constraining organization.
However, it could also be argued that this was descriptive of what happened, not necessarily prescriptive of how missions must always happen. Unique circumstances of persecution and a fledgling early church may have required this spontaneous approach. It shows the Spirit working despite lack of organization, not that organization is inherently unbiblical.
3 John 5-8 – Providing Support for Itinerant Missionaries
In 3 John, the writer commends those who send missionaries on their way in a manner worthy of God. This shows local churches directly supporting specific missionaries in NT times. Some argue this indicates that churches should send missionaries directly rather than outsourcing this role to mission agencies.
However, it could also be argued that mission agencies are just a way for churches to cooperate together in providing this kind of support more systematically. So this passage does not rule out a coordinating mission structure in principle.
1 Corinthians 16:3-4 – Churches Supporting Paul’s Mission
Paul’s request for churches to give funds to support his mission work indicates that local churches did directly support apostolic ministry in a grassroots way. This lends support to the idea of church-driven missions.
However, even this involved coordination between churches and missionaries. And a structure like a mission board could help facilitate this kind of partnership and support. So again, it does not fundamentally invalidate the concept of an organizing missions structure.
Romans 10:13-15 – The Sending of Preachers and Missionaries
In Romans 10, Paul describes how preachers and missionaries must be “sent” for people to hear the gospel. Some see this as biblical validation for the formal sending process that mission boards facilitate.
However, the context seems to focus more on the divine sending or leading of God, rather than a formal human sending structure. So this passage does not directly support the concept of mission boards.
In summary, while the New Testament provides examples of local churches directly sending missionaries through the Holy Spirit’s leading, there is no definitive command against having a more formal structure to facilitate cooperation between churches. The key is keeping the proper biblical priorities – maintaining the primacy of the local church and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, while allowing space for organization that empowers (rather than supplants) Spirit-led ministry.
With this balanced biblical perspective in mind, here are some principles that could help evaluate a specific mission board:
- Does it maintain a robust Biblical basis and theology of missions?
- Does it prioritize prayer, Spirit-led initiative, and local church partnership?
- Does it have appropriate accountability and governance structures?
- Does it have a track record of empowering national churches and leaders?
- Does it have reasonable policies and structures or unnecessary bureaucracy?
- Is it transparent about finances and decision-making processes?
- Does it facilitate cooperation between churches while allowing flexibility?
No specific structures are mandated in Scripture regarding mission boards. But if structured thoughtfully, they can facilitate strategic cooperation between churches according to biblical principles. The key is maintaining the primacy of biblical foundations, the local church, the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and the empowerment of national churches – while allowing space for practical organization that serves these higher purposes. With wisdom and the right priorities, mission boards can be structured in a way that upholds biblical values for missions.
In conclusion, the Bible does not explicitly command or prohibit mission boards. Whether a mission board upholds biblical principles depends largely on the specifics of its theology, values, and practices. Churches today can prayerfully seek the Spirit’s wisdom about how best to cooperate in fulfilling the Great Commission. Formal mission boards may have a legitimate place in this process when structured in a way that empowers (rather than supplants) the local church and Spirit-led ministry. But mission boards should be continually evaluated in light of Scripture to ensure they are facilitating – not undermining – biblical mission principles in practice.