I Believe in Us

I believe in Independent Fundamental Baptist churches. I believe that we have greater potential to significantly impact the remaining world missionary task than any other denomination or movement. I have many reasons to believe this.

1. We believe in the local church. We believe that it alone is called and is able to fulfill the Mission of God in our generation. We believe in its ability, through its Head, to do a miraculous work in the world. This conviction has, can, and should be used to mobilize a new generation of Baptist churches to change the course of Mission history.
2. True Baptists have a heritage unlike any other denomination or movement. Its principles and doctrines go all the way back to its Founder. We have been an independent people, cast out and persecuted, for 2,000 years. Nothing has stopped us, though much has slowed us down (especially prosperity and lack of trials). The gates of Hell cannot prevail against us!
3. I see the hearts of many Baptists and Baptist churches being submitted to, broken and softened by, the Spirit, moving them toward a greater view of and involvement in the Mission. I see passion stirring and mobilization beginning anew.
4. I see a greater potential and willingness to serve and sacrifice among us than I have seen in any other movement I have been a part of in the past.
5. I perceive that our current minor economic setbacks will bring a new era of sacrifice that will only do us and the Mission good.
6. and on and on. . . .

While there are many improvements that I believe need to be made to our approach to the Mission, I am overwhelmingly optimistic. These are just a few reasons why.

Are you optomistic about us? I hope so. What are some of the things that make you optomistic about us fulfilling the Mission? What are some areas of growth that you perceive? What are you willing to do?

Missionary Support in the Bible (Part 1): Secular Jobs

A short time ago I posted a "This Week" article that included some blogosphere discussion about missionaries working secular jobs for at least part of their support as a solution to the current crisis. I promised to talk more about it at a later time. Having established that there is in fact a coming missionary support crisis among Independent Fundamental Baptists (as well as others), and having hinted at some possible solutions, I think it is now time to delve deeper into some of the solutions. Let's begin with one of the more controversial suggestions.

There is no doubt that we (Independent Baptists) have an aversion to the thought of pastors or church planters working secular jobs to (at least) supplement their income. This aversion turns to horror when we think of missionaries sent to foreign fields doing this. Oh, it is true that we somewhat accept the need for pastors and 'home' church planters to work in this way when the churches they are caring for cannot fully support them. But this is expected to be very temporary. We grow very uncomfortable when this extends itself too long. We also accept that missionaries on foreign fields may work in this way. However, this is only well accepted if it is absolutely necessary for the missionary to work in order to remain in a creative access country. And it is not expected or accepted that this should be done to actually supplement his income.

How do these feelings line up with what we see practiced and encouraged in Scripture? While there are good, and even Biblical, reasons for some to seek full support from churches, there is no Biblical justification for our aversion toward working to support oneself. Let's examine what we see taught and practiced by Paul (a missionary and trainer of pastors).

There is no doubt that one of Paul's primary sources of income while on the field was working a secular job. In fact, this may have been the source of most of his income (Note: henceforth when I mention that Paul 'worked' a 'job' I am referring his practice of working a secular job. We all know that fully supported missionaries work a job in its own right. So I am not trying to diminish what they are doing, but am only making the language simpler here.). Here's the proof:

• Paul worked in Corinth: Acts 18:3

• Paul worked in Thessalonica: 1 Thess 2:9-10; 2 Thess 3:7-10

• Paul worked in Ephesus: Acts 20:33-35

• Paul made it his general practice to work: 1 Cor 4:11-12

The interesting thing about Paul working was that he didn't have to. Jesus had already made command and set precedent when He sent out the 12 and the 70 (Matt 10:9-13; Luke 10:4-9). While He seems to have made some alteration to this later (Luke 22:35-36), Paul taught that ministers like himself had a right to receive support from those they were ministering to at the time. Likewise, these churches had an obligation to provide them support (1 Cor 9:1-19). Paul even references the teaching of Christ to defend his teaching (1 Cor 9:14 with Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7). With his frequent reference to a principle stated in the OT, he makes it clear that he is applying an abiding Scriptural principle to the issue of minister support (1 Cor 9:9, 13; 1 Tim 5:18; Deut 25:4, 18:1).

If Paul had the "power" or right to receive his support from those he was immediately ministering to, why did he rarely use it? Why did he "work with his own hands" when he didn't have to, Biblically? There are several reasons he gave for his unusual practice:

• Sometimes using his right would have hindered the spread of the gospel of Christ. (1 Cor 9:12)
• He did not want to make his "glorying void" by seeming to "abuse his power in the gospel" by receiving support from those he was ministering to. Instead he "made the gospel of Christ without charge." (1 Cor 9:15, 18; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:6-10)
• He suppressed his rights that he "might gain" or "save" more souls. (1 Cor 9:19, 22)
• He worked and received support from outside churches to "cut off occasion from them which desire occasion" to accuse him of mixed motives. (2 Cor 11:12)

Not only did he verbalize these justifications, but he also had other reasons for working with his own hands to supplement his support:

• It was a means of teaching up-and-coming pastors how they ought to work with their own hands to support the weak, to be in a position to give always, and to avoid the appearance of covetousness. Doubtless it also gave him a right to request such a thing from them, having done the same himself. (Acts 20:32-35)
• It allowed him to be a full example to the believers who were to follow him. He was able to show the believers how they were also to work with their own hands, and not to be lazy or busybodies. (2 Thess 3:7-12; 1 Cor 4:12a, 15-16)

Do missionaries and pastors have a Scriptural right to receive support from those they are immediately ministering to (Note that I am not referring to support received from 'supporting churches' as in our current model of support, but to the churches planted on the field)? Absolutely. Is it always right or wise for a missionary or pastor to use this right? Not always. Paul continually died to himself, to his rights, that the Gospel and his ministry might be unshackled, that he might always be the giver rather than the receiver (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Are there perhaps many cases where we also ought to die in the same manner as Paul? Yes, in our current model of missionary support we don't burden those that a missionary ministers to. We provide the Gospel "free of charge." In fact, this is a primary Scriptural motive behind our model. It is a good and noble motive. However, could we actually be hindering the ministry of our foreign missionaries by refusing them the ability to work on the field? In light of Paul's ministry, I think so.

Well, this has been a long post already. I will save the modern application of all the above for the next major post. What are the pro's and con's to working on the field today? How might this affect the current missionary support crisis? What are some of the practical considerations, especially in light of Paul's ministry? In what situations could this be used, and when could it not?

These are all things we will get into soon, before exploring other methods of missionary support found in the Bible. Please feel free to comment below.

Solutions for the Coming Missionary Support Crisis

In the last post we attempted to communicate some of the details of the coming missionary support crisis.

The trends are not positive. Deputation lengths are increasing. The dollar is losing value much faster than monthly support levels are increasing. There is an urgent need for solutions to the impending missionary support crisis. The good news is that some are already suggesting solutions, and there are even more that aren't being suggested yet. Note that there are various related problems that solutions can be applied to. Some will deal with deputation lengths, others with monthly support levels, still other with the support needed by missionaries, etc. Some solutions will attack several problems at once.

Let's slow down now and settle something right up front. We must affirm that the deputation process is not a Bible doctrine, and therefore can be changed if needed. There are some who would assert that the process is unbiblical, and should be discarded wholly. I disagree, partly. (First, an argument from silence is weak. Second, the New Testament offers more description of support models than it offers prescription.) Are deputation and our current support structure
found in the Bible? No. However, they are loosely based upon some Biblical principles (such as providing the Gospel free of charge). Mostly, they are based upon pragmatic concerns, not Biblical teaching. I neither see cause to discard them totally nor to hold them as if they were doctrine. Instead, deputation is merely one practical way (not the only way) in which local churches can cooperate to get missionaries to the field.

Unless we see missionary support in this way, we will never be flexible enough to fix its problems. Further, we will not free ourselves to apply clearly biblical precidents and principles to our current problem. It is OK to make changes as needed. That being said, we will constrain ourselves to dealing primarily within the confines of our current deputation and support model.

So, what are some possible solutions? Here's one that we cannot consider: Decrease the number of missionaries sent and supported, in order to increase the amount given to those who do go.

Since this solution is off the table (thankfully), what is left? Plenty.

1. Give More: This is an obvious one. No pastor or dedicated church member would doubt that we could and should be giving and sacrificing more for the Mission. There are many ways that I believe this could be realized, as a church is educated and mobilized for the Mission, but that is a discussion for another day. For now know that even if giving increased in the churches, this still wouldn't necessarily fix the support problem. The issue of how the money is distributed is the more basic concern.
2. Support Fewer Missionaries at Larger Amounts: If we are to continue the deputation model of support, this is indispensable. Paul Chappel & Dwight Tomlison have made this suggestion in the book "Sending Forth Laborers" (p. 71-72). Noting the current problem, they suggest that local churches raise their current levels of support to $200 per missionary. This would mean a local church would support fewer missionaries, but those missionaries would not need nearly as many churches for their support (thus reducing deputation lengths). I suggest that an immediate increase in support levels (to $200-300 per missionary), followed by a continual gradual increase in the average for new missionaries, is the only way to combat never ending loss of dollar value and keep deputation lengths 'reasonable'. There are many objections that some have raised to this solution, but I perceive a multitude of potential benefits. They will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent post.
3. Only Invite Missionaries You Will Support: I hadn't thought about this solution until it was suggested to me by the director of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Mission agency. He was concerned that missionaries must visit 2-3 times the number of churches than they actually need for their support. This is the result of over half of the churches they visit not supporting them financially (an issue that Tomlison and Chappell also allude to en passing, p. 72). If we could convince all of our churches to only invite those missionaries whom they will support, it would cut deputation lengths in half (or more). A great solution, I believe. However, by itself, it doesn't decrease the number of churches needed for support (a number that is constantly increasing), and so it doesn't solve the more basic problem on its own.
4. Income-Producing Missionaries: This solution is perhaps both one of the best, and one of the most controversial. Nobody likes to talk about this option, and it is strongly discouraged by most. However, it has a tremendous amount of biblical precedent in Paul. It also has much practical value. It wouldn't be possible for missionaries in every situation to work in a secular job to produce supplamental income, but it may be possible for more than you might think.
5. Changing Ministry and Lifestyle Approach: A willingness to live a simpler life than many do on the field, and a simpler (more strictly biblical) approach to church planting can drastically decrease the amount of money a missionary must raise (thus decreasing deputation lengths).
6. Send More Single Men: This is another taboo subject. It is highly discouraged by many, for reasons of moral accountability. Some churches and agencies will have nothing to do with single male missionaries. They have their reasons for this (which are legitimate cautions). On the other hand, the Bible again provides an enormous amount of precedent to support the practice. It is a fact that a single male missionary can live cheaper and do a more Pauline-type ministry than a married man can. Sending teams of single men should still be cheaper, more effective than current models, more accountable, and very biblical.

These are just a few of the possible solutions to the coming missionary support crisis among Independent Baptist churches. We may bring up more later. I would suggest than many, or all, of them be applied together. In the end, it is up to each local church to discern the Lord's will for it and to decide what constitutes the best stewardship of its resources. Over the next few weeks I will dive in to some of these solutions more deeply, hopefully providing all with the information they need to make informed, prayerful decisions. Together, the problem can be solved and God's worldwide Mission can move forward as never before!

Please comment. What do you think of these solutions? Do you have other suggestions? We want to hear from you!

Urgent Need: Solutions for the Coming Missionary Support Crisis

It is 1965. An Independent Baptist missionary family has just been commissioned by a local church and they are heading out on the deputation trail. It's going to be a hard road. In fact, it is not meant to be easy. They say that this pre-field process is meant to 'weed out' bad missionaries, to encourage living by faith, etc. But . . . it's do-able.

They minister in many churches during this arduous process. With each church promising $25-$50 of monthly support, it took 15 churches. But finally, 6 months later, it's over and they're off to the field God has called them to.

Fast-forward to 2006.

Things haven't changed much. The process of support raising is practically identical. In fact, average support levels haven't changed too much either. But there have been several things that have changed . . . drastically. The value of the dollar that each church promises has plummeted. As a result, the amount of money that each missionary family must raise has risen exponentially. As a result, the number of churches needed for support has risen dramatically, resulting in a drastic lengthening of the process, resulting in a more draining (and less productive) furlough time. You can see how this is going.

I am certainly no economist or mathematician. Nor have I done extensive research to get 'solid' numbers ('solid' numbers are difficult to come by among such independent churches). However, if you are involved in the missions program of a local Independent Baptist church, I believe you will see truth in what I am about to report. The numbers below come from several sources: an article on a website called Missions Mandate, Measuring Worth, the US Census Bureau, email conversations with several missionaries and a missions professor, and two Independent Fundamental Baptist mission agencies.

Here are the numbers:

In 1965:

• average household income = $7,000 (missionaries generally have to raise more than the US average, but we are going to use these census numbers because they are 'solid' and the percentage change between years should be about the same for the average income and the amount of support raised.)
  
• local church missionary support level = $25-$50 per missionary per month
  
• % of total support provided by each church = 4-9%
  
• # of churches needed to get a missionary to the field = 12-20 (This doesn't take into account the sending church's higher level of support. I imagine that very few would have needed 20 churches)
  
• length of deputation = 6-9 months (rough numbers from several anecdotal reports)

In 2006:

• average household income = $58,500 (The average missionary family must raise significantly more than this, averaging by one agency's record over $70,000, but again we'll work with the census number.)
  
• local church support level = $65 (This is a 'solid', though surprising, number from a mission agency in 'my circles.' This number can be expected to fluctuate among the various 'circles' of Independent Baptist churches and in various regions.)
  
• % of support provided by each church = 1%
  
• # of churches needed = up to 75 or more
  
• length of deputation = 2-3 years (A missionary often must visit 2-3 times the number churches needed to raise full support, due to many of the visited churches not financially supporting them.)

Percentage change between 1965 and 2006:

• average household income = 735% increase


• local church support level = 30% increase

Here's another way to look at it: $320 in 2006 has the same 'purchasing power' as $50 in 1965. So, if we merely want to support at a comparable level with churches in 1965 we would have to give $320 per month per missionary!

Are these numbers surprising? They were to me.

Here are the hard truths: local church missionary support levels have not kept up with inflation at all; the situation is only going to get worse (perhaps rapidly); these changes are going to have severe detrimental effects upon our missionary efforts in the near future (In fact, they already are). Some (not all) predict impending hyperinflation (loss of Dollar value). With support levels already not keeping up with inflation, we can perhaps expect the % of support provided by each church to drop to .5%. Just this small of a drop could mean that 100-200 churches would be needed to send a single missionary family to the field. This would mean drastically longer deputation times (perhaps 4-6 years?), with the increased burden on the churches increasing the time even more. The result would be fewer missionaries getting to the field (a choice the Southern Baptist Convention is now having to make) and a diminished ability to reach the unreached in our generation (which is our responsibility).

Imagine this scenario happening in the near future: our missionary family has been commissioned by a local church to reach the unreached on the other side of the globe. They are now heading out on the deputation trail. It's going to be a hard road and they pray that their faith is strong enough to survive it. Two years into full-time deputation has only put them at around half of their support. They hope now to be done in 2 or 3 more years. It looks like they'll need 120 churches supporting them.

7 years later: They weren't sure they were going to make it, but they did. Now, after 4 years on the field, they are back home on furlough. It should be a time of restoration to their homeland, family and friends, and a time of profitable ministry. However, they have 120 supporting churches to report to, leaving little time for these things. Instead, they spend their time traveling around the country more furiously than missionaries in the past had to do.

1.5 years later: Exhausted, they arrive back on the field for another term. They are the fortunate ones though. Missionary attrition rates are much higher now. So many don't make it through the grueling deputation process. Even more don't make it back to the field for a second term.

The above scenario (or even worse) is likely to be reality soon if nothing is done to correct the trend. But what can be done? It seems so hopeless. God is faithful though. It is still His will that all peoples become His disciples, through the work of His churches. There are answers. What are they? That is a question for next week.

Please comment below! What are your suggestions? Do you have more 'solid' numbers? I will post revisions, clarifications, etc. as needed.

Resource: FirstBible International

Dedicated Mission resources are rarely provided by Independent Fundamental Baptists. Instead, an IFB must wade through faulty views of the church, missions, and Scripture to benefit from the available resources. There are several reasons why this is our situation, but it ought not to be so.

Thankfully, I can report at least one IFB local church-based organization that is attempting to reverse this dilemma. It is FirstBible International.

Charles Keen is the former pastor of 1st Baptist Church of Milford, OH and co-founder of Bearing Precious Seed, a Scripture printing ministry. His growing vision for the unreached combined with his background in Scripture printing eventually birthed FirstBible International, a ministry of Franklin Road Baptist Church, Murfreesboro, TN

FirstBible exists to promote the training of nationals and church planting among unreached people groups by translating the Bible into their languages. This is an impressive endeavor for IFB's, as anyone with a knowledge of Bible translation history knows. While I differ with a few of their teachings (e.g. - the idea of 'closure', and of diversity of the saved taking priority over numbers saved in the Mission of God and the churches), I am in hearty agreement with the bulk of what they teach and do.

There are several resources provided by FirstBible that I would like to draw your attention to.

1. The Unpublished Word Journal - "A quarterly publication designed to inform, inspire and revive the church for missions." The journal is only printed in bulk for churches and colleges. However, any individual can view it for free online in pdf format. This is a great resource for Mission minded IFB's (as I hope all are). I would recommend starting with the journal on unreached people groups.
2. Videos - On their multimedia page I would recommend watching all three videos. "What is First Bible" and "Emergency" are short videos that give a 'feel' for their ministry and the state of the Gospel in the world. "The Mongolia Project" is a 30 min video which provides a 'close-up' of what FirstBible does.
3. Resource Page - This page has a good number of valuable downloadable resources. There are a few that I would especially suggest you take a look at:

• Missionary Statistics - This is a large table representing where various Independent Baptist mission agencies had missionaries in 2004 (does not include workers not affiliated with any agency). Not all of the agencies are TR-Only. Some also accept a Universal Church view, though usually having a very local church philosophy of missions. Take special notice of page 2 and of the last column of the tables which indicates how many millions of people a nation had for every Independent Baptist missionary. The situation in some of the most unreached nations has only gotten worse since 2004.
• Missionary or World Christian - This is a thought-provoking, and perhaps convicting, comparison between missionaries and world Christians (all of us are supposed to be at least one of them).

I hope that you will utilize this Independent Fundamental Baptist Mission resource, because they are scarce. Learn of missions to unreached people groups, of Bible translation, and of becoming a World Christian. Get involved in the Mission!