Higher Support, Fewer Missionaries

THE PROBLEM

What is the primary problem within the current model of missionary support among Independent Fundamental Baptists (deputation with off-site church support)? I have tried to deal with various complimentary sulutions to the current missionary support crisis in previous posts, but most of them work outside of the support structure itself. The central crisis, as I see it, is the continued lengthening of the deputation process. This is the primary support problem that needs solved.

THE STORY

1. Dollar loses value


2. Total missionary support needed increases


3. Average local church support remains relatively unmoved


4. Churches needed for support increase


5. Deputation lengths increase, delaying the sending of missionaries to their fields


6. Side-effects multiply


7. Furlough productivity decreases

(Read the first post of this series where I elaborated on the current situation.)

SOLUTION?

The vicious process above is continuing today relatively unabated. Some are willing to suggest the best logical change, while others either remain ignorant to this process or choose to ignore it. Some who have choosen to make the suggestion include Paul Chappel & Dwight Tomlison. In "Sending Forth Laborers" (p. 71-72) they suggest that local churches raise their current levels of support to $200 per missionary, supporting fewer missionaries per church. In light of the current support situation, I think this to be a good idea.

So, here is my recommendation:

RECCOMENDATION: Churches should pray about an immediate increase to $200-300 for all new missionaries they decide to support. This should be followed by a continual gradual increase in the amount for future missionaries as the dollar devalues. The support of missionaries currently on the field who lose support due to inflation should be supplemented through planned gradual increases, so that they don't have to continually return from the field just to raise more support. This is the only way to combat perpetual inflation and keep deputation lengths 'reasonable' within our current system.

BENEFITS:

• It would take only 16-25 churches to support the average missionary instead of 60-75.


• Deputation lengths, I believe, would decrease from 2-3 years to 1 year or less.


• Churches, with fewer missionaries being supported, would be able to make greater personal investments in those they do support, resulting (I believe) in greater local church Mission mobilization and better missionary care.


• Furlough times would be more productive as the missionary is able to invest more significantly into supporting churches, especially his sending church.

OBJECTIONS:

• Narrower Support Base: "If missionaries have fewer churches giving higher levels of support, then it would devastate them more to lose a supporting church." True, churches cease to exist, they split, they suffer economic hardships, etc. True, it 'hurts' more to lose $200 than it does $65, but something is being forgotten with this objection. The $50 average missionary support of 1965 is the $350 of today (a level we are not likely to reach soon). Our objection doesn't hold water when given in light of our history.

• Fewer Available Supporting Churches: "If churches supported fewer missionaries at higher support levels, wouldn't that mean missionaries would have a harder time finding supporting churches?" It wouldn't be as bad as you think. The same amount of support money would be available among the same churches. It would only be distributed differently. While there may be a little more difficulty finding meetings (though I doubt this), it would yet take many fewer meetings to gain full support. In the end, this would still result in much shorter deputation lengths.

DIFFICULTIES: There is no doubt in my mind that this is all do-able. This doesn't mean that it will be easy for all though. For some churches, especially small or new ones, the transition could be more difficult. Churches may have to take on fewer missionaries at a time in order to give at the higher levels. (Remember, the same amount of missions money is still available in the same churches, just distributed differently.) It may be best for smaller churches to work their way into it, though they still ought to be aggressive in their approach to the problem.

PHILOSOPY ALTERATION: This change in support would require a change in philosophy. No longer could the local church be concerned about supporting as many missionaries as possible. Rather, the church must concern itself with giving the best support to the missionaries it does support. It becomes an issue of quality over quantity, bringing them forward on their journey "after a godly sort" (3 John 6). This gives the church an opportunity to get more personally and practically involved in the work of the foreign missionaries. Surely increased practical and personal Mission involvement would lead to increased Mission passion and increased Mission giving, solving some of the aforementioned difficulties.

Just a few churches applying this solution and philosophy would affect deputation lengths. However, for the problem to be solved, it must be applied on a much larger scale. This is only likely to happen as more pastors with more influence than I have begin to openly encourage such an approach in light of the current crisis facts. I pray these men will be raised up soon.

How serious are we about the sending and supporting of missionaries? Are we concerned about what is best for the Mission and for missionaries? If so, are we willing to take the necessary steps to stem the tide of the coming missionary support crisis?