Missionary sending is the culmination of a long, careful process, not an isolated symbolic gesture celebrated in a single emotional farewell service. Before departure, five areas are typically evaluated with care: biblical, health, institutional, relational, and motivational, each revealing a different dimension of the candidate's actual readiness for the service they are about to take up. Jesus warned that no one builds a tower without first calculating the cost and checking whether he has the means to finish it (Luke 14:28), a principle of practical wisdom that applies with equal force to planning a serious missionary sending.
Joint approval by the local church and, where applicable, a partnering agency is an act of collective discernment, grounded in real relationship and close knowledge of the person, not in cold reports filled out from a distance. This approval protects the candidate, providing genuine pastoral covering, not merely bureaucratic authorization that formally clears the departure. Delaying an approval, when some identified weakness makes it necessary, is a responsible act of care. It never diminishes the real value of the call the person has already received from God; it simply recognizes that the right moment has not yet arrived.
After the evaluation, well-defined agreements turn general convictions into a practical, shared direction between the church and the one being sent. Realistic goals, timelines, and indicators for follow-up guard against both dangerous vagueness and the excessive rigidity that stifles any needed adaptation on the field. Habakkuk was instructed to write the vision and inscribe it on tablets, so that it could be read easily and clearly (Hab 2:2), a principle that applies equally to the practical agreements between church and missionary before sending.
The sending service, at the end of this process, publicly confirms and celebrates what has already been built over months or years of preparation, it does not replace, in any way, the whole prior process of discernment and formation. The support commitment the church makes carries spiritual and financial dimensions that need equal clarity, with neither one left vague or simply assumed to be understood by both sides. Support, in this sense, is built jointly, church on one side, missionary on the other, never in isolation by either party involved.
Review, with real honesty, whether you have actually “counted the cost” of a possible missionary sending, or whether you have only felt the initial desire without examining its deeper practical implications. Ask a leader in your church how they would assess your readiness today in the five areas mentioned, biblical, health, institutional, relational, and motivational, asking for an honest answer, not merely an encouraging one. And reflect sincerely on how you would react if the answer, today, were “not yet”, because a well-built agreement protects both the missionary on the field and the church at home, without either side left guessing what the other truly expects.
Want to know more about the work of Projeto Didasko in Portugal?