INTRODUCTION
Tensions between mission agencies and local churches have grown over the past few decades. Some zealous for the church contend that the local church is the only true vehicle for mission, for others mission agencies are the best way to further the cause of global mission because they facilitate those with a specialised missionary call. This blog seeks to provide theological and practical clarity for non-denominational mission agencies and legitimacy for local churches for the purpose of effective partnerships with mission agencies for global mission. It also seeks to provide some help for mission agencies on how to better serve and partner with local churches in today’s world.
It is essential for non–denominational mission agencies to be sound in their approach to mission; if they do not have a theological basis for their existence then they should not exist, but if they are legitimate then local churches need to find ways to settle disputes and partner with them.[1]
As we will see God has always used groups like mission agencies, He has also always used different structures to accomplish his purposes. With the needs of worldwide evangelization growing it is essential that ways to partner for the glory of God’s name among the nations are found. This blog will begin with theological reflections on these issues and then look at some of the practical concerns.
TWO STREAMS OF THE CHURCHES GLOBAL MISSION
The question that this section seeks to answer is: What are the universal church’s differing functions in cross-cultural missions and how do mission agencies fit into it? In Mathew 28:18-20, Jesus told his apostles to: ‘Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations.’ In John 20:21, He said: “As the Father has sent me so I send you.” Many missiologists eager to find affirmation for the whole church’s global mission look to these passages and other commission passages as confirmation of their call.[2] But is this use of the commission passages warranted? Mark Vanderwerf in his article: “The two structures of Gods mission,” argues persuasively against the majority of interpreters contending that the commission passages are primarily applicable to called apostolic type individuals and not the whole church.[3] He says:
In the great commission accounts in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus commissions the Twelve. The Twelve were specially chosen (“to be with him that he might send them out”) and specially prepared by Jesus. Throughout the gospels, the Twelve were given a unique status and a unique responsibility. At the end of each gospel, these were the ones Jesus commissioned. This distinction between the commissioned apostles and the rest of the followers of Jesus is carried over into the early chapters of Acts (Acts 1:1-8, also 4:32-36, 5:12-21, etc.)[4]”
One implication of Vanderwerf’s study is that: Individuals and missionary groups who do the work of pioneer “apostolic type” missions should be considered the true successors to the great commission and not the whole church. His basis for this is his exegesis’s of the commission passages.[5] From his study he comes to the conclusion that the commission passages apply to the whole Church only in a broad sense: Meaning that all Christians who are part of the redeemed community have a general responsibility towards world mission and should participate (see Ex 19:5, cf 1 Peter 2:5, 9) but his study also concludes that in this more narrow sense the commission passages apply to a select group of gifted people, called by God to work alongside the larger group for focused proclamation and cross-cultural mission.[6] This select group is sent out by the Holy Spirit for the specific task of reaching the nations beyond the local context. Vanderwerf argues against missional church advocates who claim that the church is the only vehicle of missions and that there is no biblical justification for mission agencies.[7] He asks a pointed question:
If the Great Commission was automatically transferred to the “Church” after Pentecost why did Jesus make such a point of selecting the Twelve? Why did Jesus focus so much of his time and energy training those he designated “apostles?[8]”
We should not ignore his question. In Acts do we see the whole church involved in cross-cultural mission to the nations as some have argued?[9] Or do we see primarily the twelve, Paul and select, Holy Spirit moved individuals and groups who fulfil the task of reaching the nations cross-culturally? It seems more consistent with the biblical data to argue that what we see is the latter.[10] Glasser argues that from Act 13 what we see is not the whole church but a group of anointed individuals carrying on the missionary task.[11] The strength of this view is that it takes into account the biblical doctrine of calling and of diversity in the body. It also helps to answer the lack of direct commands in the epistles for the whole church to fulfil the great commission.
The contention of this article is that God has in a general sense called the whole church to paricipate in his global mission, but that he has also chosen a select group to work alongside the other members. This group is made up of gifted ministers are called to go to the nations cross-culturally in the tradition of the apostles. This group is modelled on the apostle Paul and the apostolic band (see below). Glasser speaking of this apostolic band says: “The team itself was a voluntary association of Spirit-gifted and like-minded persons and was directly commissioned by the Holy Spirit.”[12]
One of the main goals of this blog is to demonstrate that these called individuals can and should gather together into societies and agencies to fulfil the great commission. Why is this necessary? Because the legitimacy of non-denominational mission agencies has come under attack. A further truth we affirm is that these individuals are not primarily authorised by the local church nor the mission agency but are called by God and gather together to fulfil their call. Anderson reminds us that missionaries do not receive their call from the church or from the mission agency but from God.
It is a fundamental principle that the missionary goes on his mission in the discharge of his own personal duty; not as a servant of the churches, and not as a servant of the missionary society.[13]
Even though all Christians are called to participate in the church’s mission, not all disciples being part of the body have the same role in the great commission (1 Cor 12:4-7). This is why some scholars have felt the need to distinguish between those who have an apostolic/missionary call and those who do not.[14] Those who have an apostolic/missionary call are people like Paul who are involved in apostolic/mission teams alongside the local Church. They have been called by God to go to unreached nations. The rest of the church aids that proclamation and mission by prayer, financial support and serving as the local body of maturing and witnessing believers in their particular context. In short, not everyone is called to be a pioneer apostolic missionary to the nations, but some are and those that are should partner with each other to fulfil this task. If this contention is correct we should see a biblical and historical pattern that supports the role of mission societies/agencies. This role is to facilitate the call of these “apostolic type” individuals for their role in world mission.
THE TWO STRUCTURES OF REDEMPTION
Two Structures in Scripture
This section seeks to answer the question: Does this diversified function/structure fit with the Bible and appear in church history? Winter in his article: “The two structures of God Redemptive mission” highlights the fact that throughout the centuries God has always used two structures for his redemptive mission.[15] These two structures are the local congregations (modalities) and the missionary band (sodalities). He argues that wherever the church will go or has gone, God has had and will always have these two structures. The form that these two structures take varies depending on the contexts but the two functions will be essentially the same. He notes how the scriptures do not give us a fixed structure of the church but principles which to draw on for all ages. [16]
To substantiate this claim Winter explains how Paul most likely borrowed his organisational model of modalities (local churches) from the synagogue and took his model of the missionary band (sodality) from the “pre-Pauline Jewish proselytisers (Matt 25:11).” He notes how Paul’s missionary band although connected to the Antioch church was: “Something more than an extended outreach of the Antioch church.”[17] Is the missionary band an analogous paradigm for the mission agency? We think so, Winter explains that:
The little team he [Paul] formed was economically self-sufficient when occasion demanded. It was also dependent from time to time, not alone on the Antioch church, but upon other churches that had risen as a result of evangelistic labours. Paul’s team may certainly be considered a structure.[18]
Winter highlights that even if we are not sure of the exact details of what Paul’s missionary band was or how it functioned that it is still a legitimate
“prototype for all subsequent missionary endeavours organised out of committed experienced workers who affiliated themselves as a second decision beyond membership in the first structure.[19]”
Is Winter’s model convincing? Many scholars think so. Swanidoss in his defence of Para-Church movements argues persuasively from scripture showing how independent missionaries in the early church had the authority to preach, baptise and even administer and share in the Lords Supper apart from the official sanction of the established Church.[20] He also points out that historically the Church even in the Old Testament had two structures that co-existed.[21]
Despite Winter’s presentation, some like Bruce Camp do not agree. Camp argues that sodalities are not part of the universal church and that they cannot be considered biblical.[22] His main points of contention are firstly that: “Paul and his travelling companions are never called a Church.[23]” But camps argument does not logically follow. Firstly it cannot be denied that Paul and his companions were Christians and thus part of the universal Church. The reality is that they spent their time loosely connected to the many different Churches they served. If Paul and his companions are not part of the universal Church then what was their position? They were not primarily linked to particular Churches but formed a separate group an ecclesiolae in ecclesia with a different function.[24] Some scholars have argued that Paul was not independent but was part of the Church at Antioch and sent out by them.[25] But that is not what Acts says; it says clearly that Paul and Barnabus were sent out by the Holy Spirit and their inward apostolic call was only confirmed by the Church (Acts 13:1-4).[26]
Furthermore, the idea of ‘a Church’ in regard to structure is not as settled as camp might have us think. In Matt 18:19-20 Jesus makes it clear that when two or three are gathered in his name he is there in the midst. The most vital part of a Church is the presence of the risen Christ in the midst. If a Church ceases to have Christ, it seems fair to say that group of people is not a Church. But yet if a group of people who are gathered together in the name of Jesus for a common cause to fulfil and divine commission why is it wrong to call them some sort of Church even if they do not suit our present models. Swamidoss commenting on this passage is correct when he says:
The implication is very clear. Jesus is present even in small congregations or prayer meetings or Bible study groups. Conversely, any company, be it two or three, gathered in the name of Christ constitutes the church. This body is an expression of the church universal. For all practical purposes, this becomes the local church. Thus para-church which is primarily a fellowship of believers united together by virtue of common cause is another form of the local church.[27]
Camps second objection to Winter’s models is that the sodality restricts certain people from its membership; He argues that if sodalities are part of the universal church then they cannot restrict membership.[28]But the reality is that people are restricted in the church from positions in certain groups and leadership roles all the time. If we make this rule valid for the local church them anyone could take any role they wish. Also as Synder points out special groups in the wider context of the local Church are beneficial for many reasons. (1) They recognise and provide for differing gifts and calls in the Church.[29] (2) Mission groups recognise priority and the need for focused tasks in the body[30] (3) Mission groups help the church to recognise unity and diversity, homogenous and heterogeneous fellowship.[31]
Another criticism of the two structure model is that mission agencies and the like subvert the responsibility of the local church which is God’s primary vehicle of mission. Roland Allen says:
If we compare our modern missionary work with the missionary work of the early church, this is what differentiates them: With us missions are a special work of a special organisation; in the early church missions were not the work of a special organisation.[32]
Is Allen correct? Only if one were to argue that the mission agency is the only vehicle of mission. But as we have said the whole Church has a general responsibility towards mission in their local context, but that the missionary band or agency is a group of called out people who have gathered together for focused cross- cultural mission.
Newbigin who is against a separation of the Church from mission is an example of missional advocates who argue against the idea of mission agencies and the Church being separated. He says: An unchurchly mission is as much a monstrosity as an unmissionary church.[33]” This objection as we have shown (and will below) is simply not true from scripture; there were times when groups separated themselves to work alongside the Church. Newbigin’s objection is more about agencies who do not partner with the local Churches. Furthermore, God has always had two structures and the Sodality has been brought into existence by the sovereign God and has been more effective historically, it has worked with the church to renew, protect and equip it.[34]
Two Structures in World History
Some have argued against the need for such sodalities, Peters argues that the rise of the mission agency although beneficial is an anomaly of history. They are: “Accidents of history, called into being by Churches or individuals to serve an urgent, divine mission in this world.”[35]
The story of how modern mission agencies arose cannot be discussed in detail here. But as Walls has pointed out the arrival of the mission agency was a fortunate subversion of the Church without which the cause of global missions would have not got off the ground.[36] The theological infighting about ecclesiastical structures in the 18th century Churches had all but disabled any kind of missionary enterprise.
In the 18th century, Protestants had begun to form societies for all sorts of social issues.[37] When William Carey called for a group of people to “come together to provide means for the conversion of the heathen” he was just building on the spirit of the day. The idea of a separate structure to focus on a particular area of Christian vocation was not a new concept in the Church, the fact that it arose locality also has precedents in the early monastic movements. Christians who were not happy with the ecclesiastical structure under the rule of the “Christian emperors” formed themselves into separate societies of devoted persons for the task of purity and devotion. This extra commitment is a particular mark of the voluntary society and the missionary band.[38]
As others have noted the Methodist movement that resulted from the great awakening were originally a separate structure from the Anglican Church that also worked as a renewal movement in the Church.[39]
Lastly as Bosch has pointed out, during the time when missions arose local Churches did not differ much from mission agencies as they were structured on a volunteer basis, people became members based on mutual conviction and eventually, these groups became the denominations.[40] This basic outline of mission history gives us undeniable proof of the sovereign God providing means for himself to fulfil his mission when his established Church were not available. These structures are not an anomaly but a fact of history.
LOCAL CHURCHES, MISSION AGENCIES AND GLOBAL MISSION
What then is the mission agencies relationship and responsibility towards the local Church? Throughout the history of missions various answers have been given to this question. The majority position has been that the mission agency/board is under the authority of the local Church and only derives its existence from it. Ott and Strauss put it this way: “Mission agencies retain their theological justification only to the extent that they serve the Church in the fulfilment of its missionary calling.[41]” They add that the only authority that the mission agency has is “delegated authority[42]”
This view is based on arguments like Camps that the mission agency is not its own valid expression of the universal Church. But as we have argued above and shown; mission agencies are biblical and that they form part of the universal body of Christ. The mission agency itself gets authority not from the Church but from its connection with the head, Jesus Christ. Therefore we argue that the only relationship that there can be is a partnership.[43] The reality is that local Churches need mission agencies and mission agencies need Churches.
Reasons why the Church needs sodalities: Firstly because not all local Churches have the knowledge to do missions nor the breadth of resources to be involved.[44] Agencies who partner with Churches can help churches deal with the logistics of cross-cultural work that they would be uninformed about.[45]Para- church agencies give layman who are called to mission the opportunity to be involved in ministry where they might not get a chance in their local Church.[46] Throughout history, sodalities have provided specialised ministries that have renewed the Church’s particular focus. In this way the sodality works as a renewal agent.
We argue that mission agencies today are to work as renewal agents for the Church’s global mission. That mission agencies should use their knowledge to equip the Church for not only cross- cultural mission but use its insights gained from the two-thirds world to help local Churches do evangelism in the post- Christian west.[47]Many of the insights gained in missions for example like: How to present the Gospel to those of another worldview, the study of culture and the emphasis on indigenity would serve the local Church in our culture. Furthermore, Sodalities need local Churches because the local Church provides support, training, human resources and the most important fact, that the Bible calls us to be unified. The problem is that there are many tensions between the two groups, how can we resolve them?
RESOLVING TENSIONS
As many have noted mission agencies need to be ready to change their function and adapt to modern times,[48] many mission agencies are stuck in the 18-19th century. Metcalf notes how many of the problems between the agencies and the local Churches have been caused by the agencies themselves.[49] A survey of some of the major criticisms of agencies are: A lack of accountability and clearly defined goals, lack of effective partnership with the local Churches,[50] competition between groups,[51] they drain funds and people from the local Church.[52] Mission agencies, if they want to win back the trust of local Churches, need to sort out these issues, it is not possible to give a detailed description of that here, but the reality is that if we could first remove the theological objections to mission agencies then it would help mission–church relations dramatically.[53] When mission agencies are no longer seen as illegitimate anomalies local churches will be more willing to form healthy partnerships and resolve differences. The biggest problem is the unspoken tensions, especially among Church leaders. Mission agencies are here to stay so it is vital for the cause of world missions that we work together.[54)
[1] Jerry E White, The Church & the Parachurch: An Uneasy Marriage (Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1983) 11-34. White is his survey of this subject has shown that it is generally the local church leaders who have problems with parachurch groups then the other way around.
[2] Andreas J Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: a Biblical Theology of Mission (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos ; InterVarsity Press, 2001), 108-109; George W Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 218-221.
[3] See Mark Vanderwerf, “The ‘Two Structures ’ of God’s Mission,” http://www.GlobalMissiology.org, April 2011, http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/589/1492. He says: “What is striking in the Great Commission accounts in the Synoptic gospels is the emphasis on the twelve apostles. In these gospels, there were other “disciples” who followed Jesus, not just the Twelve. At one point Jesus sent out “seventy” disciples to do missionary work. But in the Great Commission accounts in the Synoptic gospels, Jesus commissions the Twelve. The Twelve were specially chosen (“to be with him that he might send them out”) and specially prepared by Jesus. Throughout the gospels the Twelve were given a unique status and a unique responsibility. At the end of each gospel, these were the ones Jesus commissioned. This distinction between the commissioned apostles and the rest of the followers of Jesus is carried over into the early chapters on Acts (Acts 1:1-8, also 4:32-36, 5:12-21, etc.),” 4-5.
[4] Ibid.
[5] See Ibid, 4-8.
[6] Ibid, 3.
[7] Charles Edward van Engen, God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991), 25-45.
[8] Vanderwerf, “The ‘Two Structures’ of God’s Mission, 12.”
[9] George W Peters, “Pauline Patterns of Church-mission Relationships,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 9, no. 2 (winter 1973) 114-116. Peters argues that the whole church were involved in mission by appealing to Acts 13:49; 19:10, 20, 26. But these passages do not negate the argument, these people were not commissioned by the church nor sent out by them but did the work by the holy Spirits leading.
[10] See A.W Swamidoss, “The Biblical Basis of the Para-Church Movements,” Evangelical Review of Theology 7, no. 2 (1983): 192–206. And Vanderwerf, “The two Stuctures of Gods mission. Whole article
[11] Arthur F Glasser and Charles Edward van Engen, Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003). 303
[12] Ibid, 303.
[13] Rufus Anderson, To Advance the Gospel; Selections from the Writings of Rufus Anderson ( Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1967), 197.
[14] Vanderwerf, “The ‘Two Structures ’ of God’s Mission,”3-4; Howard A Snyder, The Community of the King (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 148-149.
[15]R. Winter “The two Stuctures of God’s Redemptive Mission” Taken From Crucial Dimensions in World Evangelization, ed. Arthur F Glasser, (South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1976).226-227
[16] Ibid. 328-239
[17] Ibid, 327.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Swamidoss, “The Biblical Basis of the Para-Church Movements.” For an opposite view that specifically argue that mission societies are not valid expressions of the church specifically because they do not have the reformation notae see John S Hammett, “How Church and Parachurch Should Relate: Arguments for as Servant-Partnership Model,” Missiology: An International Review 28, no. 2 (April 2000) 202..
[21] Swamidoss, “The Biblical Basis of the Para-Church Movements.” In his defence of Para-church movements, building on the work of Winter he highlights how Israel’s prophetic tradition is also a paradigm for the modern Para-Church organisation. He notes how the prophetic tradition worked as a renewal movement alongside the established priestly movement.
[22] Bruce K. Camp, “A Theological Examination of the Two- Structure Theory,” Missiology: An International Review 23, no. 2 (April 1995) 201.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Howard Synder, Signs of the Spirit: How God Reshapes the church. (Grand Rapids: MI: Academie Books, 1989), 277. Quoted in John S Hammett, “How Church and Parachurch Should Relate: Arguments for as Servant-Partnership Model,” Missiology: An Inernational Review 28, no. 2 (April 2000), 203.
[25] Paul A Beals, A People for His Name: a Church Based Missions Strategy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985), 114; Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, 218-221.
[26] Glasser and Engen, Announcing the Kingdom, 303.
[27] Swamidoss, “The Biblical Basis of the Para-Church Movements, 200.”
[28] Camp, “A Theological Examination of the Two- Structure Theory, 203-206.”
[29] Snyder, The Community of the King, 155. “Mission groups provide structure compatible with spiritual gifts.” he notes how everyone does not have the same gifts in the church and separate ministries utilise the particular gifts of each member”
[30] Ibid. “The mission group arrangement recognises that certain tasks are so urgent and of such a high priority as to demand the total commitment of a few dedicated people. Thus this structure provides for a proper recognition of priorities and a practical way of responding significantly to priority needs.”
[31] Ibid, 156. “The mission group arrangement meets the needs for both homogeneous and heterogeneous fellowship and worship. The church must be a reconciling fellowship which cuts across barriers of sex, social status, age, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and economic standing. Nevertheless, some tasks are best carried out by groups which are one respect or another homogeneous. Such an arrangement holds together unity and diversity, homogeneity and heterogeneity, in a way that allows the body of Christ to be what God intended it to be.”
[32] Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, 132.
[33] Leslie Newbigin, The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1953), 148.
[34]Glenn Kendall, “Mission Headquarters” Taken from Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, eds A. Scott Moreau, Engen, and David Burnett, (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books ; Paternoster Press, 2000), 639.Other arguments against the legitimacy of the mission agency are based on leadership issues. Biblically authorised structures and the unnecessary financial strain of the mission agency on the church.
[35] George W Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 229.
[36] A Walls, “ Mission Societies and the fortunate subversion of the church” Taken From Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader, 3rd eds. Ralph D Winter and Steven C Hawthorne, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999) 231-239.
[37] Brian Stanley, “Where Have Our Mission Structures Come From ?,” Transformation 20, no. 1 (January 2003) 1-9..
[38] For an in depth look at this idea see Charles J Mellis, Commited Communities, Fresh Streams For World Missions (Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 1976) . Chs 1-5
[39] Ralph D Winter, “Churches Need Missions Because Modalities Need Sodalities,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Summer 1971), 199.
[40] David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991), 328-329.
[41] Craig Ott and Tennent, Encountering Theology of Mission Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010), 211.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Peter, “Pauline Patterns of Church-mission Relationships.” Peters explains that the Pauline pattern was one of partnership not of control.
[44] Paul A Beals, A People for His Name: a Church Based Missions Strategy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985), 111.
[45] Ibid. Ch 14.
[46] Jerry E White, The Church & the Parachurch: An Uneasy Marriage (Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1983), 106.
[47]George, Hunsberger “Evangelical conversion to a Missional Ecclesiology” Taken From “Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?” ed John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 126.
[48] See James F Engel and William A Dyrness, Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 143-172. Also see Ray Porter, “Global Mission and Local Church” 25 (Spring 2005) 1-5.
[49] Samual F Metcalf, “When Local Churches Act Like Agencies,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 29, no. 2 (April 1993) 145-146.
[50] Paul Borthwick, “What Local Churches Are Saying to Mission Agencies,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 35, no. 3 (July 1999) 325-328.
[51] Jim Reapsome, “What’s Holding up World Evangelization ? Part 2: The Mission Agencies,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 24, no. 3 (July 1988) 212.
[52] White, The Church & the Parachurch, 25-26.
[53] Ibid, 118.
[54] Ibid 110-111. See white statistics on the growth of Mission agencies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Roland. The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church: And the Causes Which Hinder It. 2nd ed. London: World Dominion Press, 1949.
Anderson, Rufus. To Advance the Gospel; Selections from the Writings of Rufus Anderson. Eerdmans, 1967.
Beals, Paul A. A People for His Name: A Church Based Missions Strategy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985.
Borthwick, Paul. “What Local Churches Are Saying to Mission Agencies.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 35, no. 3 (July 1999).
Bosch, David Jacobus. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.
Camp, Bruce K. “A Theological Examination of the Two- Structure Theory.” Missiology: An Inernational Review 23, no. 2 (April 1995).
Engel, James F, and William A Dyrness. Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Engen, Charles Edward van. God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991.
Glasser, Arthur F, and Charles Edward van Engen. Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003.
Glasser, Arthur F, Paul G Hiebert, C. Peter Wagner, and Ralph D Winter. Crucial Dimensions in World Evangelization. South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1976.
Hammett, John S. “How Church and Parachurch Should Relate: Arguments for as Servant-Partnership Model.” Missiology: An International Review 28, no. 2 (April 2000).
Köstenberger, Andreas J, and O’Brien. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: a Biblical Theology of Mission. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: Apollos ; InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Mellis, Charles J. Commited Communities, Fresh Streams for World Missions. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library, 1976.
Metcalf, Samual F. “When Local Churches Act Like Agencies.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 29, no. 2 (April 1993).
Moreau, A. Scott, Engen, and David Burnett. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books ; Paternoster Press, 2000.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 1953.
Ott, Craig, and Tennent. Encountering Theology of Mission Biblical Foundations, HistoricalDevelopments, and Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010.
Peters, George W. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
———. “Pauline Patterns of Church-mission Relationships.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly vol 9, no. 2 (winter 1973).
Porter, Ray. “Global Mission and Local Church,” Global Connections occasional paper, 25 (Spring 2005).
Reapsome, Jim. “What’s Holding up World Evangelization ? Part 2: The Mission Agencies.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 24, no. 3 (July 1988).
John, G Stackhouse. “Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?” Baker Academic, 2003.
Snyder, Howard A. The Community of the King. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Stanley, Brian. “Where Have Our Mission Structures Come From ?” Transformation 20, no. 1 (January 2003).
Swamidoss, A.W. “The Biblical Basis of the Para-Church Movements.” Evangelical Review of Theology 7, no. 2, 1983
Vanderwerf, Mark. “The ‘Two Structures ’ of God’s Mission.” http://www.GlobalMissiology.org, April 2011. http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/viewFile/589/1492.
White, Jerry E. The Church & the Parachurch: An Uneasy Marriage. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1983.
Winter, Ralph D. “Churches Need Missions Because Modalities Need Sodalities.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Summer 1971): 193–200.
Winter, Ralph D, and Steven C Hawthorne, eds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader. 3rd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.
THE INSIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN 