Churches Need Each Other for Missions

For much of modern history, indigenous churches have been one of the great aims of cross-cultural church planting. The accepted strategy for reaching this goal has been what’s called the “three-self formula”: self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating local churches. More recently, contemporary missiologists have added a fourth principle: self-theologizing. 

The three-self formula was a response to common missionary practices in the 19th century that discouraged local authority and autonomy among indigenous churches. In some cases, Westerners harbored narrow and demeaning views of non-Westerners. Cultural colonialism fed into missiological paternalism. The result was long-term dependence on foreign leaders and funding that stifled growth and misrepresented grace. 

But while the three-self formula addressed an unhealthy dependence, it can also idealize an unhealthy independence in missions. 

The “self”-oriented nature of these principles is tilted toward Western individualism. Taken to their extreme, they can even foster a kind of ecclesial and theological isolationism.

So instead of running from the danger of dependence into an opposite error, I’m convinced we should appreciate the value and beauty of interdependence in missions. 

A STORY OF MUTUAL DEPENDENCE

The story of missions in the New Testament is one of mutual dependence. Barnabas asked for Paul’s help in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26). Apollos benefited from Priscilla and Aquila’s instruction in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–28). Paul relied on Titus’s leadership in Crete (Titus 1:5). And Phoebe was a patron of many gospel workers from Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1–2). 

In the first century, believers crisscrossed the Mediterranean to preach the gospel and deliver personal letters, to share encouragement and provide financial support, to visit fellow workers and establish the church. 

But missions is not merely a story of mutual dependence among coworkers. It also extends to partner churches. Together, Paul and Barnabas relied on and reported to their sending church (Acts 13:1–3; 14:24–28). They depended on the support and prayers of the churches they later established. Paul pleaded for the Corinthians’ prayers (2 Cor. 1:11) and expected their financial gifts (1 Cor. 16:1–2), as he did with other churches. The Philippians were exemplary in this kind of mutuality, partnering with Paul in a shared relationship of “giving and receiving” (Phil. 4:15). 

In the New Testament, churches themselves were interrelated and interdependent. The church in Jerusalem responded to the needs of the believers in Antioch by sending Barnabas (Acts 11:19–22). That church then sent out Paul and Barnabas, leading the way in starting and strengthening other churches throughout Asia and Europe. 

Eventually, the churches of Paul’s mission joined forces to care financially for the struggling believers in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25–28). Churches cooperated with one another and contributed to each other’s spiritual and material needs. 

One practical way early churches worked together was to provide letters commending those they appointed and sent (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:18–19). Paul also made sure the churches he started were theologically interrelated. He passed on a shared tradition based in the apostolic teaching (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17), and shared practices based on the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). 

In the historical record available to us, we can see the churches of the New Testament consistently knew each other, worked together, and even relied on one another. They were interdependent.

A BIBLICAL FORMULA?

A good test for any contemporary missiological model is to ask if it would pass muster in the early church. In the case of the three-self formula, it’s worth asking: Was the church in Ephesus self-governing so long as Paul was there? Was the church in Jerusalem self-supporting when they received an offering from Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia? Was the church in Antioch self-propagating as the beneficiaries of outside teaching from other churches? 

Of course, Paul worked to equip and establish qualified local leaders as soon as possible. But Paul could also take leadership responsibility in those churches or send in “cultural outsiders” like Timothy or Titus to provide necessary oversight for a time. In the case of Ephesus, it’s interesting to observe that Timothy was still providing significant leadership approximately 15 years after the church’s founding. Does that mean Paul didn’t value indigeneity? 

When it comes to outside support, Paul clearly didn’t face the danger of dependency like we do today. There wasn’t a prevailing assumption that Western money would provide buildings, fund pastors, or support churches indefinitely. However, Paul also didn’t have any trouble with the idea of a church receiving financial aid long after it had been established. He also seemed to expect the financial and theological “haves” to care for the “have nots.” Today, surely those of us in the global church who are more affluent and resource-rich are responsible to steward God’s gifts in a way that contributes responsibly to churches in less-prosperous areas.  

As for the values of self-propagating and self-theologizing, clearly the churches of Paul’s mission would embody these principles—to a point. The church in Antioch quickly took responsibility to send and support their own missionaries, as did other churches. But those churches did not operate independently. Nor were they theological islands. They maintained a deep continuity with the apostolic tradition as they worked in broad partnership with existing congregations. 

SOMETHING TO CELEBRATE

I’m convinced interdependence isn’t just a principle to identify or a formula to follow in missions, it’s something to celebrate because it’s something beautiful. Mutuality is woven into the fabric of creation and new creation. This is how God made us, as relational and interdependent creatures. And this is how God has recreated us in Christ, as those who need one another to grow and flourish.

Rather than celebrate individual accomplishment or even ecclesial independence in missions, Paul seems most excited to boast in mutual partnership and collective fruitfulness (2 Cor. 1:14; 4:14–15; Phil 4:1, 17). Because when Christians, churches, and missionaries know each other, work together, and even depend on one another, they all participate in a shared joy and reward—all to the glory of God.