A few months ago, a friend of mine handed me the biography of R.C. Sproul by Stephen Nichols. I greatly enjoyed the read and was encouraged by a man who during his earthly pilgrimage was at the forefront of so many critical issues in the Christian world. I praise God for the Chicago Statement on the inerrancy of scripture, which Sproul was a primary contributor, the way he didn’t try and skirt the serious issues that Evangelicals and Catholics together presented (a whole Radius report could be written on the disaster that document and its signers caused in the missions world), and his wonderful revisitation of the Holiness of God and its implications for Christ followers.

One point though that particularly caught my attention was a phrase that R.C. coined regarding those who would intentionally speak and write in a way as to veil or muddle the doctrine or view they were communicating. He termed it Studied Ambiguity.[1] Sproul spoke of that concept and it’s cure in this way; “The answer to studied ambiguity, that is, being purposely vague so as to allow for an elastic interpretation or to allow for latitude on a particular doctrine or view, is precision”

When I think of the missions world today the phrase “Studied Ambiguity” comes to mind. Some of that ambiguity is not “studied” but more naivete, or unquestioned routine, so “General Ambiguity” may be more relevant, but ambiguity nonetheless.

There is a gray mushiness that has captured the missions discussion and missions policies that at times feels impenetrable. It seems that everything possibly done outside the house with a non-family member is labeled as missions. Every possible variation of people that have gospel need is christened with the label “Unreached People Group,” even to the point where entire states in North America are being labeled as an UPG. It is no wonder that most are walking away from the concept of unreached people groups simply because…everyone somehow fits under the label of unreached people group. Ambiguity reigns when elastic interpretations dominate, and the result is that coherent strategy is lost.

Let me propose four categories of missions that are more measured and precise. These categories would encompass most good missions today, keep the church at the center, and good, objective, Biblical metrics at the core.

1. Training of National Pastors – (National pastors are those pastoring outside the English-speaking world who speak a national and/or minority language and understand English at an intermediate-high level.[2]) Never in the history of the world have so many good biblical resources been gathered into one language, the English language. The line from an English-speaking pastor/teacher[3] to getting the gospel and the church out to a people/language group is more squiggly than the other three categories but is nonetheless an effective category. Strengthening pastors and good churches around the world is clearly “Timothaine.”[4] This type of missions can greatly strengthen impoverished pastors and help them recognize good doctrine and reject bad.

I get nervous when people speak of the “Global South” and how it will be the future of Christianity in the coming years. If someone’s idea of Christianity is a heavy dose of the prosperity gospel, mile-wide adherence to the name Christian while at the same time rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture, then much of what is rampant in the Global South will suit them.[5] However, well-taught churches will reject this sickly version of the faith. The great hope for the Global South is the continued pumping of a biblical Christianity into its veins by teaching and training the pastors and leaders in that area a gospel that pushes away from health and wealth and embraces a robust historic gospel that does not falter at lesser substitutes.

There are a variety of factors that boost and diminish the value of these training programs that work national pastors. Depth of teaching, length, regularity, who teaches, goals, cultural awareness, and the network of pastors associated in and out of the country are the big factors. Again, this is not direct church planting, but it is nonetheless a critical area for the development of healthy churches and merits its own category in good missions.

2. English-Speaking Churches in Cross-Cultural Contexts –This church-planting category is more recent historically, but no less valid in crossing geographic, and often cultural barriers, to see healthy churches planted.[6] These congregations, when done well, are in strategic cities around the world and are bastions of good ecclesiology for those expats/English speakers that are in these cities. The instances of bad English-speaking churches overseas (where theological mushiness is prevalent) far outweigh the good ones. But when these types of churches are done well, they can be powerfully effective and cause gospel ripples far past their geographic contexts and past the English language.

3. The Planting of Churches in National or Majority Languages – Language is one of the clearest most objective metrics that we have for breaking down the remaining task of the Great Commission. It also has good biblical backing for being a primary indicator as well.[7] Thus, by looking at the remaining missionary task through the lens of language you can get a clearer idea of where the church around the world is strong, weak, or non-existent.

Planting churches among National or Majority languages would be the planting of more churches in countries and languages where there are not nearly enough. India would be chief on the list as the most populous country in the world but with far too few churches in its national languages (Hindi, Telugu, Kashmiri, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarati) for sufficient gospel light. Many other countries and majority languages (Bahasa, Tajik, Arabic, Mandarin, Urdu, Swahili, etc.) would have this clear need among them and merit much attention in the missions world. 

4. The Planting of Churches in Minority Contexts/Languages – This category is aimed at planting churches among minority language groups that have minimal or no access to gospel truth and consequently have no churches among them. This would be distinctly “Pauline” missions[8] as it aims to go where no foundation has been laid.

Church-planting work done in this category is usually slower and more difficult due to a lack of translated materials, difficult languages that must be learned, harsh living circumstances, and governments that are hostile to Christianity. It is still a strange irony that this area of missions, with its clear need and Biblical mandate, receives the least financial resourcing (most say less than 2% of all missions money), and the least missionaries working in it. But without this clear Pauline category the Great Commission will languish and ultimately remain unaccomplished.[9]

There are other areas of missions (aviation ministry, teachers, medical missions, mercy ministries, Bible and literature distribution, etc.) that we should all be encouraged by and most have some direct or indirect tie to church planting. However, these four categories would encompass the primary thrust of church planting efforts across geographic, cultural, and linguistic boundaries. Using them will greatly alleviate the ambiguity that exists today.

[1] Stephen Nichols, R.C. Sproul, A Life, (Crossway Publishing, Wheaton, IL. 2021), pg. 75

[2] The ACTFL levels of language acquisition are a good resource for churches to evaluate if their missionaries are fluent. Advanced-High is what a missionary should be at to translate or teach, but Intermediate-high is enough to listen and understand mid-level content.

[3] There are undoubtedly good Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc… speaking pastors and teachers that conduct good overseas training as well. But, with the wealth of resources and teachers in the English-speak world, they generally lead the way in this category.

[4] John Piper does us a service in Chapter 5 of Let the Nations be Glad in distinguishing between Timothaine missions and Pauline missions. Timothy and Titus went to places where churches were established, though they weren’t their home context, and continued to strengthen and build up the church in those strategic cities of Ephesus and Crete. Timothaine missions helps establish more churches in needy areas and build up churches that are faltering or in need in poorly reached areas.

[5] This comes from nearly a dozen trips to the Global South over the last couple of years and numerous contacts with those who were raised, live, and work in that area.

[6] A short but tight definition for missions is; “Missions is church planting across significant barriers–especially linguistic, but also geographic or cultural ones”.

[7] This subject could consume an entire article but the quick version is: Genesis 11 shows how God separated the world, by language, Genesis 12—all families (families is not nuclear like we think of today, more like a clan or tribe…separated by language) of the earth will be blessed through Abrahams seed (singular), Acts 2—the mark that the King has come and the beginnings of the reversal of Babel—men from all gathered nations hear the glory of God being expressed…in their own language. Who will the represented Bride be in Rev 7:9 and 5:9, every tribe, language, people, and nation. Is language the only metric of the Great Commission, no. Is it a primary and often forgotten metric in our day, yes.

[8] Paul loved all churches and worked to strengthen those he planted. But Paul pressed on to places where no church existed, where no foundation had been laid. Paul’s particular ambition was to go beyond existing healthy churches, though they may be few, to those places that had never been told of Christ. Pauline missions presses on to those places that the gospel and the church has yet to go.

[9] This is not meant to be read in Matt 24:14 eschatologically over-stretched manner. No man, missions agency, or tool of this world will bring about the King’s return. But, the King will return someday…and missions will be over. We long for that day that the Father alone knows.