I'm not sure all churches that may be casually open to having a missionary wholly as their staff truly realize what it should entail in responsibility. There is a great responsibility or boards would not "employ" full-time directors to personally oversee their missionaries. Could I be wrong to assume that the same pastoring which God charges His shepherds toward the "enclosed" flock (the "at home" local church membership), He also charges for any member which the Lord sets in that church?
The Bible doesn't seem to hold missionaries the same as pastors, but are church planters under an "apostolic-like" charge? Are we not "very right" in questioning the scriptural example to follow in pastoring missionaries? Wouldn't the shepherd's function over the flock God sets him over, provide this example? Could "taking the oversight" (I Peter 5:2) not show the pastor's responsibility beyond just the "at home" flock? Could we use the following verse too - Proverbs 27:23? Should the pastor "know the state of his whole flock"? And shouldn't he also "look well to his herd"? I'm open, and certainly await any thoughts. I'm not yet "set in concrete" on this, there is room for flex. But, it is a developing position.
Could it be that if pastors would truly poll any missionaries in their church they would find the missionary would respond very favorable to having their pastor visit them in their ministry? Are we so busy at home that our missionary arm is relegated to "root hog, or die" status? Could it be that it's easier to elevate missionaries to "equal with the pastor" status so we may then side step being pastor to them fully? Correspondence in today's world certainly makes instant or immediate access to each other a great asset. However, it does not give eyes-on nor does it tell the missionary we love them enough for the expenses and time out of our "home ministry" to spend listening to and sharing their heart, letting them show us their spiritual "children", our spiritual "grandchildren".
In a scriptural example, are we to look at the doctrine of pastoring or shepherding? Would it not be right to apply this doctrine to the missionary issue? There are things in the New Testament which are left unsaid. For instance, it's only implied that Philip had church authority to baptize the Eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8. Baptists believe that he did, due to the declared "doctrine of baptism and the local church" in the New Testament. Also, pastoring missionaries would seem a similar issue because of the doctrine on shepherding, even without specific examples.
Many pastors are wrestling with this concept of missions. Could the "doctrine of pastoring" be a practical pattern to give us direction on how to "minister" to our missionaries? Also, could it be wrong to feel that a church has a charge to a field and God has chosen a man to fulfill that charge? Should we believe that God chooses the man and the church, the two becoming joined together? The church and it's pastor need to know it is the Lord's will that they assume responsibility for a family, any family, as a spiritual relationship, and more, (1Cor. 12:18) ÖGod set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. That goes for a missionary family also. When we teach that Elders (Bishop/Pastor) are charged with overseeing the work of the "home" church (flock, property, and ministry) - why does that not include the ministry through extended arms (missionaries)? Are they not of the flock too? And their ministry reflective of their church and under it's supervision (oversight) and teaching (feed the flock) in a more powerful way than even Sunday school staff, jail minister, secretary, assistant pastor, etc.? These are questions I ask myself.
As to the church mission finances, some planning is in order. Perhaps our churches should budget some of the missions monies toward pastoral encouragement (oversight) trips? (If we could only see how a trip increases the missions spirit in the pastor and hence the church when he returns.) Perhaps the missionary should budget some of his money toward a pastoral fellowship trip too. Perhaps in 3-5 years enough could be set aside to go. And a pastoral missions visit trip should not be a "sightseeing" tourist trip, nor should the missionary be expected to become a tour-guide to show the pastor tourist views. Oh how it should be going where the missionary usually goes and doing what he usually does, seeing who and what he usually sees. It should be to catch a Pastor's share of the missionary's field vision, to understand his tribulations in part; in order that, as the pastor, he might bear that to the church family when he returns home.
Just a thought.