This paper considers the challenge of defining the term missionary in a way that is useful--- neither excessively broad nor narrow in scope. It is suggested that rather than focusing on a definition for determining who is a missionary, which ultimately places attention on the boundaries of the term, a better choice is to focus on exemplars of missionaries. In an attempt to do this, the paper suggests that the pattern of apostles and evangelists of the first three centuries of church history provides such an exemplar. More specifically, since Paul and Barnabas are the most well-known and well-described of this group of ministers, they can serve as the exemplars for this group, and ultimately for modern missionaries. The purpose of this paper is not to determine who is a missionary and who is not, but rather utilize these exemplars to critique modern definitions of the term missionary. Through this, the author believes that a better understanding of the center, rather than the boundaries, of Christian missionaries and missions can be better understood.

1. Apostles/Evangelists of the First Three Centuries as Exemplars
for Modern Missionaries
by Robert H. Munson
Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary
2021
Abstract
This paper considers the challenge of defining the term missionary in a way that is useful---
neither excessively broad nor narrow in scope. It is suggested that rather than focusing on a
definition for determining who is a missionary, which ultimately places attention on the
boundaries of the term, a better choice is to focus on exemplars of missionaries. In an attempt
to do this, the paper suggests that the pattern of apostles and evangelists of the first three
centuries of church history provides such an exemplar. More specifically, since Paul and
Barnabas are the most well-known and well-described of this group of ministers, they can
serve as the exemplars for this group, and ultimately for modern missionaries. The purpose of
this paper is not to determine who is a missionary and who is not, but rather utilize these
exemplars to critique modern definitions of the term missionary. Through this, the author
believes that a better understanding of the center, rather than the boundaries, of Christian
missionaries and missions can be better understood.
Key Words
apostle, missionary, evangelist
-------------------------------
Defining a Missionary
Who is a missionary? One might think that this term should be well-defined by now. In truth,
the term has been defined many times. In some cases the term has been defined
descriptively, A perusal of definitions from various dictionaries identifies what the public
pictures when they hear the word 'missionary' used. Such definitions are often too broad.
Broader still is usage in some Christian settings where the term is used to include all
Christians. (“Each one of you is a missionary and as soon as you leave this church, you are
entering the mission field.”) Such usage can certainly be motivational, but is not helpful in
defining missionary work as a special vocation or calling. On the other hand, many definitions
1

2. can be more prescriptive--- seeking to narrow the term to a much smaller group by limiting the
setting, goals, or activities of missionaries.
Ideally, the lack of a good definition shouldn't matter, but in practice definitions have
ramifications. If “everyone is a missionary” it is not a giant leap to “no one is, uniquely, a
missionary.” In fact, a charge made against the missional church movement, fairly or unfairly,
is that it is “anti-missions.” In their support of every member being a missionary, vocational
international missionaries are replaced by local church-based mission work and short-term
missionary (STM) teams.[1] Additionally, attempts to apply narrow definitions for missions and
missionaries have resulted in some cross-cultural ministers being defunded by their
respective supporters. The author has seen missionaries cut-off financially because their
supporting churches or mission agency had a change of leadership and embraced a narrower
definition of missions that now excluded them.[2]
Definitions create closed sets, a locus of meanings that determines who fits the label (who is
in) and who doesn't (who is out). As such, closed sets are boundary-focused.[3] Ralph Winter
referred to an important decision made at the 1963 Congress on World Missions and
Evangelism (Mexico City) where there was a move to limit the term 'missionary' to planters of
churches in areas where there are no churches. Others who serve where there were existing
churches would be called 'fraternal workers.'[4] This effort failed. Winter suggests that the
broad definition of missionary adopted has led to a place where the work in the 'mission field'
is seen as indistinguishable from work in the home churches. This perspective when it was
expressed in 1997 was near the start of the Missional Church movement and appeared to
predict some problems that have, unfortunately crept into a movement that in other ways can
be quite commendable. In the end, the term “Pioneer Missions” became popularized to
describe the more narrow form of missions that Winter was promoting. Winter's perspective
does have points in its favor. For example, it would ensure that budgets for missions would go
to what is most commonly understood in churches to be missions. Additionally, it is in line with
a great deal of mission work over the last 2000 years of church history. It certainly does not
solve everything however. The vast majority of missionaries are not pioneer missionaries.
This is compounded by the fact that many who are viewed as pioneers are simply
evangelizing and church-planting in regions where there are actually indigenous churches,
but of a different denomination or faith traditions (the argument being that those churches are
not “real churches” and those church members are not “real Christians.”) Many missionary
duties are critical to support evangelism and church-planting (bible translation, logistic
support, trainers, etc.) but who may not be, strictly speaking on the “pointy end of the spear.”
It would probably be a challenge to draw a line in where (pioneer) missionaries end and
“fraternal workers” or “cross-cultural ministers” begins.
An alternative approach is to use benchmarks or exemplars. An exemplar is an ideal or
excellent example for something. These embrace more of a centered set approach.[5] As
opposed to closed sets that focus on boundaries--- what is inside (minimally acceptable)
versus what is outside (not quite good enough)--- centered sets focus on an ideal without
well-defined boundary. It is not clear exactly who is in and who is out, but there are examples
that are seen as models in which to compare to. This does not solve all problems, of course.
Roland Allen's classic work, “Missionary Methods. Paul's Way or Ours” looks at Paul as an
exemplar for missions, and so his methods (or, perhaps more accurately, the methods of
Barnabas) could serve as valuable principles for us.[6] It is, nevertheless, certainly possible to
2

3. accept Allen's critique and then argue that those who do not do things the way Paul did are
not missionaries, or that alternative methods are invalid. That being said, exemplars are less
prone to this problem than definitions. After all, the only one who matches exactly a human
exemplar is the exemplar himself or herself. Thus, using a person as an example almost
forces a certain latitude. This paper will not seek to define a closed set, but look towards
examples of missionaries that provide a strong support in our understanding of missions and
missionaries.
The Apostle/Evangelist
The early church recognized a role called “Apostle.” This term has a parallel in the term
“Missionary,” both in terms of activity and etymology. Apostle is the Anglicization of the noun
form of the Greek word meaning “to send.” The term “Missionary” is the Anglicization of the
noun form of the Latin word meaning “to send.” The Latin Vulgate (for example in Luke 6:13)
simply borrowed, or transliterated, the Greek term “apostolos” rather than translating it. From
the 2nd
century and onward, the term apostle had moved away from a function to a title limited
to the first century.[7] However, the term apostolic continued as a description of function.
In the first century church, however, it seems as if the term “apostle” served both as a
title/office and as a function. As will be seen later, many of the offices and functions were used
quite flexibly in the early church. To a large extent, one was an apostle (office) if one worked
as an apostle (function). Initially, however, the use appeared to be more limited. Luke 6:13
speaks of Jesus selecting out of His disciples twelve who would be viewed as Apostles.
Presumably, the twelve related to the twelve tribes of Israel--- the “New Israel.” When Judas
Iscariot left the group, the remaining eleven felt that the number was important enough that
they chose to add one more to this group, Matthias. He was most likely one of the disciples of
Christ described in Luke 6:13 who was not at that time designated one of the Twelve.
Perhaps he was one of the Seventy. This understanding of apostle has endured. In the
second century, there were many competing views of Christianity, and so different groups
sought not only to identify which views are supported in the words and writings of Jesus and
the Apostles, but also who were the ones that the original apostles considered to be reliable
to take on the mantle of faith after their passing. Paul was added to this select group of
founding apostles, although not part of the Twelve. As such, the key importance of the original
apostles became their perceived authority.[8]
The next generation of writers today are known as the Apostolic Fathers, but this term was a
late invention (6th
century AD) indicating their connection to the the original Twelve. None of
these individuals identified themselves as apostles. Polycarp was described as an “apostolic
and prophetic teacher,”[9] but this seems to be more of an honorary term, not that he self-
identified as an apostle. In the 3rd
century and beyond, the term apostle got lost in the church
leadership.[10] The term gradually moved towards a title of authority and from a role outside
of the church and into the church hierarchy.
On the other hand, the term apostle also had a usage that has a more clear continuity with
missionary. The New Testament had many people who were called apostles that go beyond
the Twelve and Paul.[11] The early church also had those who Paul called 'false apostles' (II
Corinthians 11:13) as well as people sarcastically described as 'super-apostles,' also in II
Corinthians 11. False apostles acted like apostles but promoted heresy, rather than the gospel
3

4. message. Perhaps someone like first century heretic Cerinthus or Menander would be such
an example.[12] Presumably, Paul wasn't specifically speaking of the Twelve as the 'super-
apostles' since one area specifically noted separating himself from the 'super-apostles' was
his own lack of training as a speaker. Since probably none of the Twelve had formal training in
speaking, Paul was speaking of other apostles such as Apollos, known for his eloquence.
Clearly, there were not only many more people who were known as apostles in that day than
those who would commonly be recognized as such today, but there were also disagreements
as to who should be considered an apostle and how apostles should be ranked.
Paul's Epistles The Didache Shepherd of Hermas
Apostle (Eph. 4:11 and I Cor. 12:28) Apostle (ch. 11) Apostle (Vis. 3. 5:1)
Prophet (Eph. 4:11 and I Cor. 12:28) Prophet (ch. 11, 15)
Evangelist (Eph. 4:11)
Pastor (Eph. 4:11) Overseer (I Tim. 3) Bishop (ch. 15) Bishop (Vis. 3. 5:1)
Teacher (Eph. 4:11 and I Cor. 12:28) Teacher (ch. 11, 15) Teacher (Vis.3. 5:1)
Deacon (I Tim. 3) Deacon (ch. 15) Deacon (Vis. 3. 5:1)
Table 1[13]
The roles shown in Table 1 are shown as they appear in the writings of Paul, as well as the
Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. It is, of course, not that simple. The term teacher is
often linked with other roles. The Shepherd of Hermas commonly links Teacher with Apostle,
for example. Origen described those who took on a missionary role in his time as teachers. In
several places Bishops and Prophets are described as teachers. However, in other places,
teachers are described as a separate role and in the early church fathers are even sub-
divided with separate terms for those training the fundamentals of the faith, and those
teaching a deeper understanding of the faith.[14] Earlier it was noted that Polycarp, a pastor
(bishop) in the second century was described as apostolic and prophetic teacher, showing the
functions and titles used rather freely.
Of greater relevance to this paper is the question of what to make of the term 'evangelist' in
Ephesians 4. In that list, it appears to be a separate role. However, it does not seem to be
identified as such elsewhere. The term essentially means 'one who shares the good news.'
Philip was an evangelist in the Book of Acts, but appeared to do the same work that Christ
gave to the apostles. Most likely, the use of the term evangelist rather than apostle was due to
there already being a Philip the apostle--- in fact, one of the Twelve. Eusebius used the term
'evangelist' repeatedly for the first century Apostles, and especially for the Gospel writers. He
also described the apostles as going out into the world serving in the office of evangelist.[15]
Further, Eusebius described individuals in the second century, Pantaenus especially singled
out, who worked in the same manner as the apostles of the first century (and the 'teachers of
Christianity' described by Origin for the third century) as evangelists. Although Eusebius
claimed that Pantaenus served as an evangelist/missionary to India, he is more well-known
4

5. as a teacher at the catechetical school in Alexandria. Clearly, Eusebius saw apostles and
evangelists as terms that describe a similar function. Eusebius however, used the term
apostle only for those of the first century--- particularly the Twelve and Paul.
Another couple of possible second century evangelists/missionaries are Addai and Mari
working in Syria and Mesopotamia respectively. [16] It is interesting that in the hagiographic
writings on the two, they were both described as apostles. However, Addai was described as
one of the seventy-two disciples of Jesus, and Mari as a disciple of Addai. As such the
writer(s) of their stories believed them to be from the first century. Even though Addai was
almost certainly second century, the fact that the early church (including Eusebius) believed
that he was from the first century explains why he and Mari were called apostles, rather than
evangelists or something else.[17] It could be suggested (and some have) that an apostle is
essentially an evangelist with higher honor, much the way more recently a prominent
missionary to an unreached field may be called the Apostle to the Goths or Burma or India or
some other place. The term apostle may then simply suggest a missionary-with-honors.
Perhaps Addai and Mari provides insight. They were honored in the Church of the East since
they were seen as their founders, but instead of simply giving them the title “apostle,” they
were relocated chronologically to the first century, and then called apostles.
It is not clear that apostles were honored evangelists, or that evangelists were apostles
without the honorific title. Although Paul mentions it as a separate role from pastor and
apostle, the only specific uses of the term in the New Testament were those who fit into
another role. As noted previously, Philip was described as an evangelist, but his activity
appears to have been identical to that of an apostle, at least until he settled into Caesarea.
Paul instructed Timothy to do the work of an evangelist even though he was serving in a
pastor/overseer in the church. Additionally, in I Thessalonians 2:6 it is implied that Paul
considered Timothy, at least in that particular stage of his life, to be an apostle.
Perhaps it is best not to see the early church as having well-separated and consistent roles
and titles. Rather, there were some general patterns. There were apostles who traveled, and
served as evangelists, teaching the Christian faith to non-Christians, and forming church
assemblies. There were prophets who traveled and taught God's message, primarily to
believers in churches. There were spiritual leaders--- overseers, pastors--- within the church.
Also within the church were deacons who served as ministerial leaders, and there were
people who were uniquely designated as teachers.
Returning to Table 1,the Didache speaks of five categories of ministers --- apostles, prophets,
bishops, teachers, and deacons. This document is viewed as a very early work since,
among other things, the term apostle was used for more than simply the Twelve and Paul.
Bishops, Teachers, and Deacons served inside of the church, and Apostles and Prophets
outside. These latter two were travelers. One interesting aspect of an apostle, as well as a
prophet, was in the attempt of the Didache to guide the local churches in determining when
one was genuine and when one was false. Paul made it clear in II Corinthians 11 that a key
identifier of false apostles is that they teach heresy. The Didache adds a couple of more
guides-- how long an apostle or prophet would visit a pre-existing church (long visits are
suspect), and whether they would ask for love gifts. It seems to have been fine to accept help,
but if the person pressured churches to support him or her or to give specific things, this was
a concern. Another interesting aspect is on what to do if a prophet sought to 'settle down' into
a church setting. A prophet could 'retire' from being a prophet. A prophet could ask to join a
5

6. church as a presbyter. There does not appear to be anything suggesting that these same
rules could not apply to apostles as well.[18]
There appears to be a thin but continuous thread in the first three centuries. The apostles of
the first century served as evangelizers and teachers to create disciples and local church
assemblies. They did not embrace the role of church leader, but instead developed local
leaders. This role is seen also in the second century but was called by Eusebius evangelists,
a term he also used for first century apostles. This role is seen further in the third century but
was called by Origen teachers of Christianity. By the fourth century it seems as if this role is
not identified. For example, Ulfilas worked as a missionary among the Goths in that century,
but the church identified him as being ordained as a bishop serving in a missionary capacity.
While his duties may have been essentially the same as a missionary, especially in the early
stages, the ordination as a bishop perhaps reinforces the ecclesiastical ties and authority of
the sending church.
Paul and Barnabas as Exemplars of Missionaries
Rather than coming up with definitions for today's missionary, one could consider looking
back to the tradition of apostle/evangelist as an exemplar of a missionary. . For those within
the apostle/evangelist tradition we know the most of Paul and Barnabas. We know only brief
moments in the life of Philip the Evangelist. We know some of the travels of Peter or John
Mark. For most of the rest we rely on rather speculative and sometimes fanciful constructions
of their lives and activities. Paul, however, we know a considerable amount about him
because of the focus put on him by Luke. We have considerable information on three
missionary journeys of his, as well as his trip to Rome. With Barnabas we know mostly
regarding the shared mission trip with Paul, but we also know a fair amount about him and his
travels before that journey, and a small bit about his second journey to Cyprus. Also, Paul has
given us his writings that reveal a considerable amount regarding himself. With Barnabas, we
are not sure that we have access to any of his writings,[19] but we do know more about his
personality than most of the other candidates. Additionally, since Barnabas appears to have
been the leader of their joint missionary journey at least at the start, it is quite likely that the
mission strategy used was his.[20] All in all, we know enough about the two of them to give a
pretty solid model to compare to.
Applying the “Paul and Barnabas Test”
When discussing Paul and Barnabas as exemplars for missionaries, the aim is not to see
whether a person IS or IS NOT a missionary based on the example of Paul and Barnabas,
but rather, how near is this person to the example. In practice, then, an exemplar may serve
as a test of sorts for a person, but it is probably a better test for definitions. That is, if a
definition of missionary excludes Paul and/or Barnabas or puts them near the boundary of
what it is considered a missionary, the definition must be considered suspect. Taking a
somewhat trivial example, some dictionary definitions for missionary state to the effect that a
missionary is an individual who does religious work in or especially in a foreign country.[21]
Since Paul and Barnabas served, as far as we are aware, only within the confines of the
Roman Empire, a definition that requires the worker to be serving in a foreign country would
exclude them. A definition that states that the worker serves especially in a foreign country
6

7. would include Paul and Barnabas, but would place them on the boundary of the definition.
Such a definition should rightfully be challenged. Using Paul and Barnabas as a test for
definitions can hold merit, or at least give impetus to fruitful dialogue.
Case #1. Harnack's Guidelines
Adolf Harnack looked at the early records of apostles and evangelists in the first three
centuries of Christianity. He believed that there were two primary things that characterized an
apostle/evangelist. The first is religious mendicancy. That is, the evangelist is essentially
penniless, funded by his or her own labor and/or donations from others. Generally, these
people had few worldly possessions and little if any wealth. The second, related, quality is
being itinerant. They are on the move, and do not settle down in one place.[22]
How does Paul and Barnabas do in terms of Harnack's guidelines? Fairly well. They were
travelers with little wealth. Their funding did come on occasion from supporting churches, but
much of their funding came from their work in making tents. (See II Corinthians 11:7-8 and
Acts 18:3). They did collect funds to help Christians in Judea, but this was not used for their
own sustenance.
That being said, there are differences. Paul and Barnabas were not consistent in being
itinerant. The Didache, very much in line with Harnack, stated that 'real apostles' would not
stay in an established church (one they are not involved in planting) for more than 2 or 3
days. They were supposed to be outside of the established church leading people to Christ
and establishing churches. Paul and Barnabas do not strictly follow this standard. The
proposed second missionary trip of Paul and Barnabas was not primarily to be evangelistic or
oriented to church-planting. They were planning to check on the churches they started. That
trip did not happen, but Barnabas did go back to Cyprus and Paul went to Asia Minor, the two
areas covered on their first trip. Later, Paul also spent a considerable time in Ephesus, as well
as his sending church of Antioch. It seems likely that the Didache is addressing abuses by
people who embraced the role of apostle. Paul in II Corinthians 11 speaks of false apostles in
terms of teaching heresy. In the Didache, however, the 'falseness' is seen more in terms
those who are greedy or lazy. Paul and Barnabas served as apostles in a period before some
patterns were established. In this, they are much like the Twelve who, although according to
church tradition were active travelers, stayed in Jerusalem in the early years. Philip the
Evangelist, is almost the opposite of the Twelve. At the start of his role as an evangelist he
was itinerant, but then took up residence in Caesarea.
Despite modest differences, it is evident that Paul and Barnabas are key figures in the
ministerial vocation of apostle/evangelist that existed from the start of the primitive church into
the 3rd
century. Harnack's guidelines describe a form of evangelist that developed in the
period after the initial push outward from Jerusalem but before mission work became most
clearly under the hierarchy of the church.
Case #2. McGavran's Definition
For a very different example, consider a definition given by Donald McGavran (although he
ascribed it to Jack Shepherd) for (modern-day) missionaries. A missionary is “a Christian of
any culture or nation who is sent, across cultural and linguistic frontiers (where there is no
7

8. church), to win men to Christ and incorporate them in Christian churches.”[23] McGavran
goes on to say, “Missionaries are carrying out E-2 and E-3 evangelism. That is their basic
function.” [24] Clearly this is a prescriptive definition rather than descriptive, since the vast
majority of those who are full-time missionaries do not fit this definition. They do not serve
where there is no church, and many are not involved primarily in evangelism and planting
churches. In fact, many also do not serve in settings that involve crossing cultural or linguistic
frontiers. Applying the “Paul and Barnabas Test' to the definition may open up valuable
dialogue regarding what it means, or should mean, to be called a missionary.
The definition, with McGavran's commentary, can be turned into a table, Table 2, with Paul
and Barnabas tested.
Standard Paul and Barnabas
Christian of any culture or nation Yes
Sent Yes (by the Church of Antioch and
the Holy Spirit)
Serving across cultural and linguistic frontiers (E-2 or
E-3 settings)
No
Where there is no church Yes*
Win people to Christ (as their basic function) Yes*
Incorporate them in Christian Churches Yes*
Table 2
Paul and Barnabas do pretty well in terms of this definition, or perhaps it would be better to
say that this definition does pretty well in aligning itself with the example of Paul and
Barnabas. There are, however, concerns. Most critically, Paul and Barnabas did not really
serve across cultural and linguistic frontiers. Some might see this as controversial, seeing the
two of them as the first cross-cultural mission team in church history. Paul and Barnabas,
however, were Greek-speaking Jews living in Hellenized parts of the Roman Empire. Paul
and Barnabas not only focused on Greek-speaking Hellenized parts of the Roman Empire for
their ministry, they even did their first trip to areas near where they were brought up (in
Cyprus the home of Barnabas, and two adjoining provinces to Paul's home province of
Cilicia). Their primary target was Jews in these Hellenized regions. This is Diaspora Missions
for them. As such, their primary mission work was E-1 missions. Their secondary target was
Gentiles in the same regions. In terms of the Evangelism Scale, this might be considered E-2,
but perhaps not even that. They were reaching out as Hellenized members of the Roman
Empire to Hellenized members of the Roman Empire utilizing the language they were brought
up and immersed in. Saying that missionaries by necessity cross cultural and linguistic
frontiers must be questioned in light of the example of Paul and Barnabas. And yet, they did
bridge a religio-cultural gap of a sort that most Jewish Christians did not wish to cross--- Peter
8

9. doing so with Cornelius only after considerable preparation by God on both sides of the
dialogue. A modification to McGavran's definition might be in order--- something like “...sent
out of the church to where there is no church...' would be a better fit.
Each of the final three items in the table have an asterisk next to the Yes. The reason is that
the definition does not clarify if it describes the priority of the work or if that is the only work
deemed acceptable. With Paul and Barnabas, evangelizing and church-planting were
certainly priorities in their work, and especially in their joint mission trip, it dominates their
time. They were, however, also involved in compassion ministry, in terms of doing healing
ministry and raising funds for those struggling in Jerusalem [25]. Paul and Barnabas also
joined the Council at Jerusalem for important work in contextual theology, and then sought to
focus on revisiting their formerly established churches on their second trip together. Even
though that trip did not occur, Barnabas did return to Cyprus which was where their first
church-planting efforts happened, and Paul went through Cilicia to the churches in which he
had worked to establish until redirected by God to Macedonia and Achaia. Paul and Barnabas
may have prioritized evangelism and church-planting, but they clearly did not see it as limiting
their ministry.
Of course one may wonder whether McGavran was truly seeking to limit. Perhaps the last
part of the definition is describing what is normative, rather than what is absolute. McGavran
did, in fact, support social ministry. However, where there is no local church, he saw
evangelism in the form of proclamation as what is needed. Since McGavran limited his
definition of missionary to where there is no local church, it does appear to suggest that other
ministries, outside of evangelism and church-planting, are not part of his understanding of
Christian missions.[26] It is far beyond the scope of this paper to explore McGavran's total
understanding of missions. This paper is only addressing his definition of missionary. That
being said, McGavran's definition as written is quite restrictive and the restrictions appear to
have been there by intention.
Paul and Barnabas would struggle to fit under the umbrella of McGavran's definition in more
than one way. If McGavran's definition does not places Paul and Barnabas well within the
boundaries of the definition, the definition certainly has issues. Paul and Barnabas did work
that today would be called Diaspora missions as apostles/evangelists/missionaries. They
were, culturally, reaching out to their own people in new areas where there was no church. It
seems artificial to say that Paul and Barnabas were missionaries when they were reaching
Gentiles in different places, but not doing missions when they were reaching out to Jews in
these same places with many similar hurdles. Working in the home province of Barnabas
(Cyprus) and then provinces adjoining Paul's home province should not be seen as outside
the realm of missions. Paul did note (Romans 15:20) that he avoided working where someone
has already worked, but not all apostles felt that way. In Corinth, Apollos, recognized by Paul
as being an apostle, did do ministry there. Even with Paul, he was not strict in his own rule
with Rome being an obvious exception, which the broader context of Romans 15:20 makes
clear.
Identifying the Center
If one cannot use the exemplars of Paul and Barnabas (and to a lesser extent others of the
apostle/evangelist tradition of the first three centuries) to define who is a missionary, then
9

10. perhaps it can at least help find the center of what makes a missionary a missionary. A few
things may be identified.
• Missionaries are sent out by the church to serve outside of the church. While there
may be crossing of national, ethnic, cultural, or linguistic boundaries, a central
characteristic is that missionaries are sent out from the established church to work in a
setting without an established church. Does this mean that missionaries serve only in
regions with no existing churches? Not necessarily, but the closer a person comes to
that situation, the closer one comes to being in the center.
• Missionaries focus on evangelizing and establishing new churches that are locally led.
They are supposed to be itinerant, not to settle in to one location. This does not
necessarily mean that other activities are outside of the work that a missionary would
do, but other activities are not part of that center. Additionally, there are many
activities, such as Bible translation, training of local evangelists, logistical support, and
others that are truly important in evangelizing and church-planting. In fact, since local
evangelists local church-planters are almost always more capable than outside
missionaries, supporting roles may be even more important in the process of
developing indigenous churches. Still, the further one is away from the 'point of the
spear' of direct evangelism and church-planting, the more one is away from the center.
[27]
• Missionaries work outside of the established church hierarchy. Apostles founded
churches and were honored for doing this. They, however, did not serve as leaders of
churches, except in the initial stages until local leaders could be established. They
were sent out by churches, but did not serve as leaders in those churches. They are
transient. At times, missionaries have been looked at with suspicion because of their
independence from the normal church hierarchy. However, this characteristic
seemingly goes back to the time of the early church.
• Missionaries pack light. It is sad to hear stories of missionaries struggling financially, or
are forced to be bi-vocational. Still, this is very much in line with the tradition of the
apostles.
Moving forward
There are distinct, although limited, uses of exemplars for understanding what it means to be
a missionary, especially those examples who are part of the missionary tradition of the first
three centuries as found in those described as apostles or evangelists. It is not, however, the
goal to use them as exemplars because we are trying to recreate the primitive church in our
time. Our goal is not to reproduce the 1st
century church and 1st
century missions, but to
develop the 21st
century church and 21st
century missions. Still, recognizing the Word of God
(in terms of both Christ and the Bible) as our highest authority in terms of faith and practice,
there is great value in ensuring that there is continuity and grounding of the modern
missionary movement with the initial missionary movement. There is a long history of anti-
missions sentiment in the church and this has often been fueled by the belief that Christian
missions is not Biblical and (relatedly) not ordained by God.
A clear remedy for this is not simply to use the apostles/evangelists as the origin of the
10

11. Christian missions movement. Many in recent decades, sincerely dedicated to missions and
driven to expand the kingdom of God, have developed models and definitions with little
connection to its Biblical foundation beyond proof-texting. While acknowledging their positive
contributions, this paper suggests, cautiously, a somewhat different path. From the Biblical
record, and early church history we can draw data from which can be developed a missions
theology from which missions practices can be drawn. Will these practices be more effective?
It is hard to say. Perhaps the best solution does not involve an “either/or” scenario, but rather
“both/and.” This author has seen certain mission activities scuttled because they did not fit the
“flavor of the day.” Often decisions are based on dubious assumptions such as big is better
than small, or fast is better than slow.
Tradition of the apostle/evangelist is not a box to constrain what missions is. Rather it is a box
that identifies key features of God's mission. There may be times to “think outside of the box,”
but we first must have a firm sense of what the box is.
----------------------------------
Endnotes
[1] A useful article on the challenges of misusing definitions, and particularly 'mission' and 'missional' is
by Ed Stetzer, “Missional and Missions: Getting Our Language Right (Part ),” Mission Group Blog.
Available at https://edstetzer.com/blog/missional-and-missions-getting-our-language-right.
[2] In way of an example, a missionary friend I know was 100% supported by a single church in the
United States. When a new pastor came in, my friend soon found out that the support was being
reduced to zero. The new pastor believed that founding and running an orphanage in the developing
world was not evangelistic enough to be supported as part of Christian missions.
[3] Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1994), Chapter 6.
[4] Ralph Winter, ”The Meaning of Mission Understanding this Term is Crucial to the Completion of the
Missionary Task.” Mission Frontiers, March - April 1998, Available online at
https://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/archive/laying-a-firm-foundation-for-mission-in-the-next-
millennium.
[5] Paul G. Hiebert, Chapter 6.
[6] Roland Allen. Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours; A Study of the Church in the Four Provinces.
(Yuma, CO: Jawbone Digital, 2018). Note, Roland Allen's book was first published in 1912.
[7] Luke 6:13 “ Et cum dies factus esset, vocavit discipulos suos: et elegit duodecim ex ipsis (quos et
apostolos nominavit):” in the Vulgate, as found in https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/l uk006.htm#013
[8] It is interesting that while Jesus would commonly speak based on his own authority, this is not
common at all with the apostles. Generally, they are not found in the New Testament giving imposing
their authority, but arguing their case, pointing to Scripture, or simply calling on people to be led by the
Spirit. It seems to this writer that the apostles took seriously the words of Jesus against focusing on
authority or power over others (Matthew 20:20-28 as an example).
11

12. [9] Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated
and edited by James Moffatt (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 204-205, 217.
Available at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/mission.html. This section quotes The Maryrdom of
Polycarp Chapter 16 Verse 2.
[10] Harnack, 217. speaks of how starting from around the time of Cyrprian and more so beyond, church
bishops became thought of as the “apostles, prophets, teachers, and high-priests of the church” (page
217). Note that in the cases of Polycarp and Cyprian, The early understanding of apostle appeared to be
a very separate role--- serving outside of the church. As the roles in the church gained prominence,
roles outside of the church lost prominence.
[11] Apostles mentioned in the New Testament.
• The 12 disciples Luke 6:13
• Matthias Acts 1:24-26
• Paul I Corinthians 9:1
• Barnabas and Paul Acts 14:3-4
• Andronicus Romans 16:7
• Junias Romans 16:7
• Epaphroditus Philippians 2 :25
• Unnamed brethren II Corinthians 8 :23-24
• Silas and Timothy (and Paul) II Thessalonians 2:6
• Apollos (by implication in I Corinthians 4)
Note also that Jesus was described as an apostle in Hebrews 3:1. Since Jesus described His disciples
as ones sent out in the same manner in which He was sent out by the Father, the linking of Jesus to the
apostolic role is certainly as appropriate as other terms used such as priest, prophet, king, shepherd,
and teacher.
[12] Everett Ferguson, Church History (Volume 1): From Christ to Pre-Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2005), 94-97.[13] Didache chapter 11 and 15. Note that the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 3,
Chapter 5) speaks of four roles--- Apostle, Bishop, Teacher, Deacon. The context suggests, though not
conclusively, that apostles were still active (with the title still being used) when the Shepherd of Hermas
was written. The lists of roles are the same if one assumes that Prophets in the Didache and Teachers in
the Shepherd are the same. Actually, Apostles and Prophets both appear to be viewed as two types of
visiting teachers based on Didache 11. Apostles teach unbelievers about the faith, while Prophets teach
believers as traveling ministers. Later in this paper it is noted that evangelists were described by Origen
as teachers of Christianity (Origen, “Contra Celsus” Book 3, Chapter 9).
[14] Since this article is not primarily about the role of teachers in the early church, please refer to
Michael Markowski,“Teachers in Early Christianity.” Journal of Research on Christian Education, Volume
17, Issue 2. July 2008 , pages 136 – 152.
[15] Speaking of the late 2nd
century, Eusebius wrote, “For indeed there were still many evangelists of
the Word who sought earnestly to use their inspired zeal after the examples of the apostles, for the
increase and building up of the Divine Word.“ (Eusebius, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 10). Eusebius
does not identify these evangelists as apostles, a a term that Eusebius reserved to those in the first
century, but described them as following the example of the apostles. Throughout his book, Eusebius,
however, would call the apostles evangelists. He used them often as dual titles. In one place Eusebius
speaks of the Apostles serving in the office of Evangelist. “For indeed most of the disciples of that time,
animated by the divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy, had already fulfilled the command
12

13. of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods to the needy. Then starting out upon long journeys they
performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet
heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the divine Gospels” (Book 3, Chapter 37). Church History
is available online at, among other places, https://www.newadvent.org.
[16] Everett Ferguson, 234-236.
[17]”The Doctrine of Addai,” 1876 Translation, is available online at
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm. Also consider “The Acts of Mar Mari, the Apostle,”
another early biographical work.
[18] In a somewhat related matter, Eusebius in Church History saw John the Presbyter of Ephesus as a
different person from John the Apostle. Of course, Eusebius could be correct. However, the Didache at
least opens the door to the possibility that John, in his later years, retired from his role as a traveling
church-planter--- apostle--- and became an elder in the Church of Ephesus. In that case, John the
Apostle and John the Presbyter are the same person, just at different points in his life. On the other
hand, John the Presbyter may indeed be a different person, whose prominence in the early church was
so great that he was called Presbyter to separate him from John the Apostle. Both scenarios appear
quite possible.
[19] A good case can be made that Barnabas was a likely candidate as author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Some have also tried to make the argument that the Epistle of Barnabas could have have
been written by Barnabas.
[20] Luke described the pair as Barnabas and Paul, rather than the reverse from before the joint mission
journey until the second half of that journey. Additionally, the people in Lystra identified Paul as the god
Hermes because he served as the primary speaker in the group, while they identified Barnabas as
Zeus. This supports the idea that Barnabas was the leader of the team, or at least was the older of the
two.
[21] For example, if one on this date (December 6, 2021) types in “missionary definition” on
google.com, one receives a snippet from Oxford Languages that states the definition as, “A person sent
on a religious mission, especially one sent to promote Christianity in a foreign country.”
[22] Adolph Harnack, 218-219. Harnack is drawing this from the character and tests of apostles in the
Didache, but then notes that being penniless and itinerant is consistent with the Bible, Origen, and
Eusebius.
[23] Donald McGavran, “The Dimensions of World Evangelization” in Let the Earth Hear His Voice:
International Congress in World Evangelization, Lausanne, Switzerland, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis,
MN: World Wide Publications, 1975), 105.
[24] Ibid.
[25] The argument could be made that their healing ministry was simply a sign of the authenticity of
themselves and their message (a “power encounter” just done for evangelistic ends). While that could
be valid, that also leaves open the door that any activity that is morally and sociologically good could be
seen as evangelistic. In that case even missional “presence,” of late 60s conciliar missions that saw
evangelism and missions as antithetical, could be seen as evangelistic. Instead of going that route, a
better solution is probably to look at healing as it is shown in the Gospels. There, healing is seen as a
sign (of the authenticity of Jesus, as well as the breaking in of the Kingdom of God) as well as an act of
Christ's compassion for the suffering. As such, healing can be justified in terms of missiological strategy,
but also has no need for pragmatic justification. It is probably worth noting again that the healing work
done in Lystra was so misinterpreted by the locals that the two were identified as Zeus and Hermes
This failure in contextualization may suggest that the two missionaries were not as culturally in tune with
the people as this writer alleges.
[26] Jeffrey Kirk Walters, Sr. 'Effective Evangelism' in the City: Donald McGavran's Missiology and
13

14. Urban Contexts. Dissertation. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011. p. 184. The dissertation
references an article by Donald McGavran, “Social Justice and Evangelism,” World Vision 9, no. 6
(June 1965), 9. Also note that Bassham's book (Mission Theology: 1948-1978 Years of Worldwide
Creative Tension: Ecumenical, Evangelical and Roman Catholic (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library,
1980)) puts a considerable amount of space discussing the efforts made by McGavran's group of church
growth proponents to move missions conversations away from social ministry in the Evangelical mission
conferences of the 1960s. There seems reason enough to believe that McGavran's definition for
missionary placed a fairly strong limitation on what missionaries could do and be considered
missionaries.
[27] One way to think of it is that a missionary serves where the local church (a) IS NOT, (b) HAS NOT,
or (c) CANNOT. The first case is the classic one. Where the church is not, the primary role is to
evangelize and establish churches with trained local leaders. The second case where the church has
not the role is to act in a temporary capacity to empower existing churches to do what they should be
doing but up to this point have not. The third case would normally be rare. Where the local church
cannot (perhaps such things as operate a Christian hospital, radio broadcasting, book publishing and
such), a missionary may need to serve in one location for a long period of time. However, presuming
that the local church will never be able to take on this sort of work may, in fact, become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
14