Missionary Support in the Bible (Part 3): Who is Supposed to Support Them?

Who is supposed to support missionaries? This is an issue that we often presume we have the right answer for. However, we may be surprised with the Bible's answer.

Our Independent Baptist answer to this question would be, local churches. This is absolutely right! But which churches? Do any churches have an obligation to provide support? Again, we would say, "Sure, all of the churches that missionaries go to on deputation. The churches back home have that obligation." Then we proceed to the Bible and show how the Macedonian churches and others provided some support for Paul. And we go to 'support passages' and point out that Paul 'raised' support from local churches. However, we are usually committing an error of anachronism. That is, we are forcing our modern methods onto the ancient text. We are assuming that things were the same then. I propose that if we deal with the Biblical Text honestly, we will come to some surprising conclusions (at least for some).

Jesus and Missionary Support

Jesus Himself gave us the first missionary support model. When Jesus sent out the 12 and then the 70 He gave very clear commands concerning their support. He gives the same orders on both occasions.

Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house, And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. (Luke 10:4-8, emphasis mine; compare Matt. 10:9-13)

Christ sent these first missionaries out with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They were to rely upon those God provided (sons of peace), whom they would minister to, to provide them their necessities. They were specifically directed not to bring any other preparations in the way of clothes, money, etc.

Jesus gives us at least two reasons why He made such commands.

First, they were based upon an abiding principle: "the labourer is worthy of his hire." As we saw in a previous post, this is an abiding Scriptural principle which was stated in the OT (Deut 25:4, 18:1), affirmed by Christ here, and continued in teaching by Paul (1 Cor 9:9, 13; 1 Tim 5:18). Those who minister spiritual things have a right to receive 'carnal' or physical necessities from those for whom they minister (1 Cor 9:11).

Second, Jesus was trying to teach them a lesson on faith and the faithful provision of God, as we see by His later statements (Luke 22:35).

This is the most strictly Biblical model of missionary support. It is an obligation upon those being ministered to (I know, I know, I'm ending sentences with prepositions!). It is a right of those doing the ministering. Strictly working by this principle (law?), missionaries would not primarily be supported by churches 'back home,' by other outside churches on the field, or by working a secular job, but only by those to whom they are currently ministering! This is a sobering thought, considering that those we usually minister to on the mission field are significantly poorer than we are before coming to the field. But remember the 'deep poverty' of the Macedonian churches who were the most faithful supporters of Paul, even when he wasn't currently ministering to them (2 Cor 8:2, 11:8-9; Phil 4:10)?

Paul on Christ's Model

"But Debtor," you say, "Paul's practice didn't line up with this principle." Again, this was dealt with a bit in an earlier post. But, as already mentioned, Paul did teach it consistently as an abiding principle (See particularly 1 Cor 9:1-19). He taught it as a right he had, and an obligation that they had. Also note that Paul yet practiced the principles laid out by Christ to the 12 and 70. It is obvious to me that he sought and God provided persons of peace in nearly every city that he entered into for ministry (e.g. Lydia, the Philippian jailor, Jason, and other fulfill this role. All of them provided him shelter and certainly some food. Already established Christians provided necessities as well, such as Aquila and Priscilla, the disciples at Tyre, the brethren at Ptolemais, Philip the evangelist, Mnason of Cyprus, the Jerusalem brethren, etc.). He also followed the command to wipe off the dust of the city against those who did not receive him or the Word (Acts 13:51). More significantly, he implies that he did, at times, take upon himself the right of support from those he was ministering to at the time (2 Cor 12:13). (For reasons why Paul died to this right sometimes, see the post that I am continually referencing.) So, we can see that the missionary principles and methods taught by Christ were applicable to the later ministry of the churches. Are they not today?

"Hold on Debtor! Jesus changed His orders in Luke 22:35-37 just before His crucifixion. These rights and obligations are no longer binding! Christ's methods can now be discarded for whatever 'works'." Wrong. As we already saw, Jesus' original commands were continued in teaching and/or practice by Paul and the early churches. Further, this is a difficult text (at least for me), which the disciples themselves seem to have slightly misunderstood when it was spoken (v. 38). Further, He was expanding His original support allowances only in light of specific circumstances that were about to arise (v. 37). He was not overruling the principle that was the foundation for the original command, as Paul makes clear when he references Him (1 Cor 9:14). He also told them to carry swords, but the NT doesn't reveal that they ever defended themselves in this way. I would suggest (not dogmatically) that Jesus wasn't telling them to actually make these changes, but was impressing upon them the difficult times that were coming, though I do believe they often began taking purse and scrip with them, while yet maintaining the original principles.

Which churches have a Scriptural obligation to provide support for the missionary? Those churches who are currently receiving the missionary's ministry, no matter where they are or what condition they are in. They alone have this Scriptural obligation. Other churches, as with Paul, may be moved by the Holy Ghost to send to his necessity, but they have not Scriptural obligation to do so.

How should this be applied today? I believe, it should be applied just as Paul applied it.

1. Teach It: This obligation should always be taught to new churches, no matter how poor they are. We have no right to withhold this command from them.
2. Practice It: This right should, in many cases, be taken by the missionary, as he receives support from those new churches he has planted and is ministering to on the field. This will not be popular with many, but it is Scriptural. I don't know of anyone practicing it now, but it should be.
3. Sometimes Die to It: This missionary right should be died to by some missionaries. Some should receive support from elsewhere (sending and supporting churches, a secular job, other Christians on the field, etc.). Principles that guided Paul in making this decision were discussed in that other post.

Remember, the deputation process is not found in the Bible. While churches would send missionaries on their way to their next destination with certain necessities, missionaries did not go church to church to raise support, and regular support was not usually provided. Instead, missionaries relied upon those they were currently ministering to, their own jobs, and the sporadic support of outside churches.

This does not mean that deputation and State-side support is wrong. It should be seen as one way in which more prosperous churches die to themselves to provide the Gospel freely to others (for these supporting churches aren't under obligation). I don't know that this is how it is usually viewed, but it should be.

Let us seek to apply Scriptural principles and commands before we begin relying upon other methods and models.

Thank you for reading this series. I know that it seems very academic (like a textbook, yuck!), but it is not. It is very practical and important to modern ministry methods if we seek to be guided by Scripture. Please continue to read and comment!

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 2): Secular Work

The last post may have introduced some Biblical facts that surprised you. Mind you, working in a secular job for a missionary is not a doctrine. However, it is something that should be considered as an option for every Independent Baptist missionary. It should be considered by all and sought by many, seeing that it has such significant Biblical precedent in Paul, our primary missionary model. There is no Biblical or practical reason to maintain our extreme aversion to it.

That being said, just because it was a viable option for Paul doesn't automatically make it a viable option for us today. Having explored its Biblical implementation in the last post, it is still necessary to explore the possible modern implementation.

Like with Paul, there are many reasons why we should consider working on the field:

• There are some instances where living on full support would hinder the spread of the Gospel. Perhaps it would bring accusations of laziness, covetousness, or mixed motives from the locals (though these accusations would most likely be false, as they were when directed at Paul). This could especially be true in nations where native ministers are already seen as greedy and corrupt. These nations are not few in number. In some of these countries it is said that, "Full-time ministry is not the highest calling, but the last resort." It is only a money-making scheme in the eyes of the natives (sometimes a just accusation!).


• It provides an opportunity to be an example to new pastors you are mentoring. Without this opportunity new pastors may seek to receive more than to give. How else could Paul have given the exhortation that he did to the Ephesian elders with any legitimacy (Acts 20:32-35)? Could you?


• It provides an opportunity to model work ethic and a normal Christian life to all new converts. How else could Paul have given the admonition that he did to the Thessalonian believers (2 Thess 3:7-12)? Could you?


• Having a job or business can provide a legitimate means of remaining in a creative access ('closed') country.


• Doing so can relieve some of the current missionary crisis by decreasing the amount of money you need to raise.


• Doing so is a means of dying to ourselves and our rights, which is good for all of us.

These and other factors make it desirable to consider secular work on the field. However, there are several unique characteristics of Paul's trade that should be considered when making a decision about working on the field.

Think of Paul. Paul was very mobile. He had no family to care for. His trade (tentmaking) was mobile and laws did not restrict him from practicing it. He could set up shop about anywhere he went. Not only that, but his product was surely always in demand. Further, it was something that he could stop and start without much difficulty. Not only did it provide a large portion of his income, but it allowed him to avoid criticism and to be an example to the believer, all while allowing him enough mobility and flexibility to continue ministering as he needed to.

This brief picture of Paul's work reveals some good guidlines to use when deciding whether or not to work on the field.

1. Is it legal for a foreigner to work for income in the country/state?
2. Would being an employee make your schedule so unflexible that your ability to care for new believers and churches is rendered nearly impossible?
3. If so, would having your own income-producing business be a better way to go, giving you more control over your schedule?
4. Would the job significantly detract from or contribute to your overall purposes?
5. Would the type of employment or business make your position in the country more or less fragile, socially and legally?

These questions should help you to weigh your options when considering working.

Now, I have heard plenty of objections to working on the field. Here are some of the more significant objections:

Objection 1: The missionary's time must be totally dedicated to the work at hand. If he is working, his effectiveness in the ministry will be significantly diminished.

• Answer: Paul worked nearly everywhere he went, yet he was perhaps the most effective church planter the world has ever known. In fact, his willingness to work while planting probably increased his overall effectiveness. The new believers, leaders, and churches not only heard his teaching concerning the totality of the Christian life, but they saw his teaching as he lived out his doctrine before them in ways they could relate to. However, in order to maintain Pauline effectiveness while working, the missionary must have a job or business which is both mobile and flexible. High mobility is often less of a concern today though, since most missionaries (due to having families) move around much less on the field than Paul did. Fortunately, the modern world market along with communication and internet technologies allow the creative missionary many options that are both mobile and flexible.

Objection 2: The missionary working on a foreign field may be 'stealing' a job from the often impoverished locals, making for a bad testimony.

• Answer: This doesn't have to be the case. In fact, his business may provide jobs for the locals, or it may do nothing to change local unemployment one way or the other. Again, the internet and modern communications could allow creative modern missionaries business opportunities that have little to no affect upon the local economy. However, it may be best if his job/business contributed to the local economy and workforce.

Objection 3: If the missionary lost his job or business it would devastate his income, whereas he could tolerate losing the support of one or two churches.

• This is a risk that every employee and businessman takes, no matter where he is or what he does. While there needs to be extra care taken when a foreign missionary enters into the marketplace, I believe many stable options could be found. In the end, he could always trust God to be faithful!

Let's review: In light of the multiple benefits and significant Biblical precedent every missionary and prospective missionary should consider working on the field to provide for his own needs and the needs of his team. He should do this:

1. To teach native pastors to work with their own hands in order to be in a position to give to those in need, rather than just receive, and to avoid the appearance of covetousness.
2. To be an example to the believers.
3. To not be burdensome to the new believers who are yet obligated to support you.
4. To be able to provide the Gospel 'free of charge' in a way that the natives can see (rather than providing it free merely through the agency of 'unseen' churches).
5. To avoid the appearance of greed or mixed motives which often comes upon workers in underdeveloped foreign fields.
6. When it is feasible to do so in the location you are in (considering geo-political-cultural factors).
7. When doing so will not endanger your ministry legally, hinder your ability to minister to the needs of new believers in terms of flexibility, or hinder the spread and reception of the Gospel in the long term (it may seem to in the short-term, but the long-term results may prove the wisdom of working).

This has just been a brief and scattered look at an important issue in missionary support. Sadly, it has yet to receive serious consideration by Independent Baptists. May this discussion prompt more thinking concerning the benefits and viability of missionaries working secular jobs on the field.

Leave your comments below.

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.

The Coming Missionary Support Crisis: Coming Very Soon!

I've been advertising this one for quite some time now. I just got some numbers in from an Independent Fundamental Baptist mission agency. They are more shocking than I initially suspected they would be! I am hoping to get numbers from a second agency soon to be able to verify these, but I will post the findings next week no matter what.

Stay Tuned!

This Week in the Mission Blogosphere

Here's the line-up for this week in the Mission Blogosphere:

• "Simple Church", not so simple?: The MissioMishmash had a couple of good posts about "Simple Church". This is often a similar concept as organic and house church. There is quite a movement developing around the attempted return to a more New Testament model of church life. This blogger's first post contained a brief description and off-the-cuff analysis of their ideas. The second post was a great simplification of what we often complicate. I encourage you to read them both. I have done quite a bit of reading about house and organic churches. Like this blogger, I see a great amount of New Testament merit to many of their ideas. However, in the process of throwing out the bathwater, they sometimes throw out the baby. They throw out pastors (practically) altogether. They (practically) throw out preaching altogether in church life. However, all must admit, that we have moved to a more business-like model of church life (though we constantly deny this verbally, we affirm it in practice). We often function more like an organization (constantly adding programs and committees) rather than an organism (with the Spirit freely leading through the gifted members). Does there need to be change? Definitely. In my estimation, this blogger offers a good rough evaluation of the Simple Church approach, read it.
• 5 Common Great Commission Myths: The Network for Strategic Missions hosted an article by another writer about some myths. Here are the 4 myths I thought were most significant: 1. The myth of accidental discipleship (no, it is intentional) 2. Jesus wants converts (wrong, He wants disciples) 3. When I am ready and able, I will start making disciples (do it now, for He is able) 4. Making disciples is great advice (no, it's a command). Oh, if we all (me included) could overcome this type of thinking! Please read this article, and ponder what myths you have held. Are you willing to be obedient to the command today?

Be Back Soon!

I usually post 3-4 times a week. I am not stopping that, but it may be a little slower for the next week. We are planning a move. That process, as you all know, takes up much free time. Don't fret though! In about a week, I should be up and running on my more usual schedule again. Check back frequently.

Here's some of what is planned for the near future:

• Where, how many, and who are the unreached people groups? What are we doing to reach them? What can we do better?
• The coming missionary support crisis among Independent Fundamental Baptists (I know I've been talking about this one for a while, but I want accurate numbers to report to you, and I'm still waiting for those to come in.)
• And much, much more.

Resource: World Map

Need help visualizing the remaining World Mission task? Statistics and words sometimes do not help us to realize the condition of the world as they should. Sometimes pictures can provide a needed supplement to statistics. This is where resources like World Map come in.

The World Mission Atlas Project (MAP) has turned statistical missions data into maps, allowing us to visualize the status of global evangelization. There are several things here that I would like to draw your attention to:

• Getting Started - On the home page you will find an interactive globe. Just spin it around and click on a region that you want to know more about. Another way to get started exploring their site it to choose a country or region in the drop down bloxes labeled "explore a country. . ." and "explore a region. . ."
• The World - On this page you will find a valuable map. Under the heading "Downloads" and sub-heading "Global Status of Evangelical Christianity" there are two downloads. They are the same map in different forms (.jpg and .pdf). The .pdf download is large, but allows you to view the document in greater detail. Notice where the least unreached peoples are on the map. Where are we doing the most work? Is there any discrepancy?
• Nations and Regions - I pointed out under "Getting Started" a couple of ways to find the information you want. Here is an example. Click on Central Asia, either in the "explore a region" drop down box or by clicking (twice) on that region in the interactive map. This will take you to a map of the region. Below the map are three .pdf map downloads. Download these to see how we are doing in the region with evangelization and translation. Now click on Iran back on the Central Asia page. You will see a map of Iran with several relavent .pdf map downloads below it. How can we get the Gospel to this needy nation? Now you can go to the region/country of your choosing.

Any of the maps on this site can be used freely, just be kind enought to credit them as the source ("Map Source: www.worldmap.org"). Use this resource to better your understanding of what is going on in the world, and what remains to be done. Seek to spread the Gospel where it has yet to be heard!

This Week in the Mission Blogosphere

OK. Here's the line-up for this week in the Mission Blogosphere:

• Why are we so afraid of NT house churches? On the blog of an IMB missionary, The M Blog, there was some discussion of house churches. His first post provided a description of a house church meeting on his field. This was done in response to some objections to house churches he had seen elsewhere. The second post contained a lengthy email response. Here's my two cents: Some of the objections are legitimate. But the main objection I usually here is that they just won't work in our (U.S.) culture. So we act as though we must have a building before we can have a church. In fact, church planters often say that he "found a church" when he only found a building (I read this recently in the prayer letter of an Asian missionary). In my estimation, our obsession with buildings often strangles new (and old) churches. Think about it, in so many areas we make a concerted effort not to give into cultural trends. But in this area and others we have totally caved to a materialistic, corporate-minded, culture. We say we do this because we believe it is the only way people will come in our culture, though we won't (and shouldn't) put a rock band on the platform for the same reason. I do not think that house churches are the only biblical churches (for there's no command given for it). However, I will say that our discomfort with simple house churches here, opposed with Paul's comfort with them, may be an indication of deeper differences we have with Paul (concerning things like "what is a church, essentially?"). In the U.S. we may be comfortable with churches beginning in homes, but we are not comfortable with them staying in homes. Why? Your answer to that question may reveal a great deal about what you believe a church is.

• Advise For All Who Want to Make and Impact - Two Mission bloggers gave a few pieces of good advice to all who want to reach others for Christ. One focused on new church planters, while the other was more general. They basically boil down to "focus on the people." Don't be distracted from the people. Study them, not through books as much as getting out among them. Spend time among them. They are more important than your website, a building, etc. Find ways to engage people in your community. Don't shelter yourself from them as we often do: in our cars, in the self checkout at Walmart, on the internet, etc. If you expect to win people to Christ, you must first be where they are. This is an area that I struggle with, but it can be overcome.

• World News - Are you praying for the world? Do you know what is happening? Iran is in an uproar, which is only being heard through Facebook, Twitter, and other internet means. The elections are being called a farse and many of the people are demanding change, for just a sliver of freedom. Christians in India are also rejoicing over the election of their more secular party and the ousting of the Hindu nationalist party. These regions are strongholds of Satan. Let us remember that there is a world outside our borders, a world where Christians suffer because of their faith. Let us pray according to 1 Tim 2:1-2, that their governments would give them peace, that the Gospel could spread as it ought to.

Until next time.

Bringing Our Strategies in Line with God's Goals (Part 1)

The Missionary Goal of God is this: His glory expressed in the worship of a maximum number of people from every people group. The question was asked in the last major post, "Will we align our strategy and resource deployment with God's goal?" Another question is immediately begged,

"How do we know exactly who the groups are that God wants reached, so that we can reach them?"

Are they political nations, divided only by geography? Are they smaller and more specific than that? Who are they? Are we ignoring any of them?

It may be (and I believe it is) that we have ignored many people in our Mission work. We have ignored them because we often hold to a faulty understanding of the biblical people groups that God is targeting. This has left thousands of groups, and millions of people, without any real Gospel witness.

Biblically, who are the 'people groups' God is trying to reach, some of whom are being ignored today?

The Language of the Commission

Looking at the 'Commission' first given to Abram (Gen 12:1-3) and then to the church (Matt 28:19-20), God primarily used two (English) words to describe the objects of His Mission: ‘Families’ (Gen 12:3) and ‘Nations’ (Gen 22:18, Matt 28:19). Other corporate terms He used in relation to the division at Babel until the consummation of the Mission include Tongues, Lands, Kindreds, and Peoples (Gen 10:31-32; Rev 5:9, 7:9).

Without going to the original languages (which is not needed in this case), what do these words tell us? The words in isolation do not give us a complete missionary strategy (as some would press us to believe). However, they do point to a reality that impacts God's view of the world and His Mission, and should impact our view of the world and Mission strategy.

There are at least two realities involved.

Reality #1 = God’s Goal: restore the divided

God seeks to reconcile all things to Himself (Col 1:20). This reconciliation is aimed at every individual who is separated from God (2 Pet 3:9). However, at the beginning of the separation in the Garden, the Mission was much ‘simpler’: just one family/people/nation/tongue to reconcile to Himself.

Reality #2 = Man’s Situation: division of peoples

Things didn’t stay that ‘simple’ though, did they? The Mission of God was ‘complicated’ when mankind was divided at Babel by language, ethnicity, and geography. This reality impacted the object of God's Mission. God’s acknowledgment of the new reality is reflected in how He speaks of the objects of His Mission from that time forward (e.g. - as divided peoples).

God desires all to receive the Gospel and worship Him (Reality #1), but these new realities (language, ethnicity, geography, etc.) produced new barriers to the spread of His Good News through His servants. Together, these two realities necessitated a different view of the world and of the Mission.

God overcame the language barrier briefly on the Day of Pentecost. But He usually chooses to overcome the barriers through the less spectacular Spirit-empowered toil and sacrifice of His people. He overcomes geographical division as we traverse great distances at great cost to reach the “scattered” peoples. He overcomes the division of languages as we strive untiringly to learn new tongues. He overcomes the division of ethnicity and culture as we demonstrate Christ-like humility, being sensitive to the ways of a people.

These divisions are realities that have affected the way God deals with the world in His Mission. He now deals with them in their division according to their language, ethnicity, and geography (tongues, nations, lands).

The Answer (finally)

I still haven’t really answered the initial question have I? "How do we know exactly who the groups are that God wants reached, so that we can reach them?"

The answer isn’t found in a complicated study of the Greek and Hebrew words God uses to describe the people groups. The key is in the various forms of division (Which was very important to God after Babel). A biblical people group is any group divided from God because of sin and from others because of language, ethnicity, geography, culture, etc. These all pose significant practical barriers to the spread of God’s Gospel. Because of His passion for people and His glory, He is driven to overcome these.

God wants to be worshipped by all of these groups in their distinctness (Rev 5:9, 7:9), but how can we know a biblical people group when we see one? The answer: any group of people divided from others due to a combination of the above barriers is a distinct biblical people group that God desires for us to target. Let’s call those that have little or no access to the Gospel, Unreached People Groups.

There was a time when we could look at people simply in terms of the country they were from, for there were many entire countries that had no Gospel access and few had been truly penetrated. So, we were called and sent to France, Haiti, China, etc. Eventually, most countries had some significant or growing Gospel witness. However, little attention had been paid to the many distinct people groups within these countries. Today this has resulted in multitudes of unreached people groups, though we have had missionaries in their countries for years. The time for our former country-oriented thinking has largely passed. It is time that we think in smaller units, as God thinks, in people groups. Think in terms of His division of language, ethnicity, geography, etc. Sometimes there are thousands of these distinct people groups in a single country, waiting to be reached for Christ.

Fortunately, we are in a better position than ever to reach these unreached people groups. As there are now few countries which have no significant witness, God has provided the knowledge we need to penetrate the biblical people groups which have not been reached within these countries. This knowledge is now coming through research done by Joshua Project, PeopleGroups.org, and others. We can now align our Mission strategy with the final Missionary Goal of God. We can reach every unreached people group of our generation.

Within the next couple weeks we will see who, where, and how many these people groups are. We will also begin to entertain some strategies to reach them.

Resource: Skype and Its Potential for Missions

I love Skype. We use it for all of our calling (in and outbound). It saves us money and has allowed us to do things we wouldn't normally have been able to do (like letting grandma see her grandson regularly via a free video conference). So, I have regularly promoted personal use of Skype.

What excites me even more about Skype is its potential for missions.

What is Skype? I am no expert, but here is my explanation. It is a VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) platform. This allows you to make 'phone' calls over the internet. All you need is an internet connection and the program (which is free to download).

What's the cost? Skype-to-Skype voice and video calls are free anywhere in the world. On top of this, you can purchase a local number and an unlimited calling plan. At the time we purchased all of this (about a year ago) it cost us around $60 . . . . for a year!

On a recent trip to an Asian country, we were able to log on to our Skype account and make and receive U.S. calls as if we were making local calls.

What is the potential benefit to Independent Baptist missions?

Many of our missionaries are already using it. It allows them to call home very affordably (even for free). It also allows home to call them with the same benefits.

That is how it is already being used. This is awesome! However, let's take it to the next level.

It is my experience that neither Independent Baptist missionaries nor IB laypeople are completely satisfied concerning their connection with each other. It isn't uncommon for missionaries to feel disconnected from the ministry of their sending and supporting churches. They can feel as though they are all alone. In some isolated fields, this can bring unnecessary stress and pressure. On the home front, pew-setters often feel they are disconnected from the work their missionaries are doing on the field. It is my conviction that connecting members with their missionaries is a key factor in mobilizing a church for missions. I believe it increases passion, sending, going, giving, caring, and much more. There are many ways in which this connection can be fostered.

Here is one of them:

Imagine a missionary on an isolated field. There aren't any working close by who are of like faith and practice. If it weren't for the connection he is able to maintain with his sending church, he would feel the isolation much more, reducing his overall effectiveness. But his sending church has taken many active steps to avoid this. One of the steps involves the use of Skype. The pastor voice and (when possible) video conferences with the missionary weekly. This allows him a way to affordably and very personally care for the member of his church that is working overseas. In addition to this, once a month the missionary joins the church for a Wednesday service. Part of these special services includes a video interview conducted by the pastor. During this time, the church can see and hear the missionary and vice-versa. There is also time given for some members of the church to ask questions or make comments. This part of the service is closed as the missionary hears and sees the church praying for him. The rest of the service is seen by the missionary on the other side of the planet.

This is a scenario that can be a reality in almost any church. Many already have the equipment they would need to make it possible. The rest could make the worth-while investment. Video conferencing would be possible for any missionary on a field that has high-speed internet access (which includes many fields that you wouldn't normally think of). Voice conferencing usually just requires dial-up access. There are many possibilities. It is not too difficult logistically Be creative.

There are some Evangelical churches that have already begun using it in the above manner.

Disclaimer: Skype to Skype calls are encrypted, and should be perfectly secure. However, Skype is 'closed source', and many have raised concerns over how secure it actually is. It seems to me that it is secure enough to use comfortably even in restricted-access countries (China being a possible exception). Because of Skype's 'closed' nature, it is difficult to be certain though. Right now third-party encryption platforms (such as PGP) are not able to be used with Skype. Again, I do not think it is anything to worry about. Certainly, there are less worries with Skype security than there are with typical emails and even phone calls.

Summary: Is Your Theology of Mission the Same as God's?

You have a ‘theology of Mission’ whether you know it or not. All of your missionary strategies reflect this theology. In fact, much of your life may be a reflection of this theology. It drives your passion (or lack thereof), your motives, strategies, methods, use of money and resources, time usage, etc.

Bob goes to church every time the doors are open. He hears about missions frequently, but doesn’t feel motivated to get involved. In fact, it isn’t any more exciting than the “Feed the Children” type commercials that are always played while he tries to eat.

What’s his problem? A bad theology of Mission. You see, as far as Bob can tell, missions is carried out for man, not God.

Carl would like to be more involved in missions, but it seems much too difficult. Lost people are so hard. The work is too complicated. He doesn’t feel equipped for such a task.

What’s wrong? His theology of Mission is off. He sees the Mission as something he must carry out. It is his Mission instead of God’s. But God is doing the work. He wants to do it through Carl.

Dean is a supporter of missions. One day he goes on the Joshua Project website and is shocked to see that there are still 6,500 people groups that are unreached, with little or no access to the Gospel.

He can’t figure out why, since we’ve been doing this ‘missions thing’ so long. The answer is this: we have been using a defective theology of Mission. Our theology ignored a major goal of God’s Mission: reaching every people group. He wants to obtain worshippers from every group of people, not just a random bunch of people.

These are just a few examples of how our theology of Mission can affect us. Look at your own life now. What kind of theology of Mission does it reflect?

Over the past month I have attempted to lay a theological foundation for our involvement in God’s Mission. I wanted to summarize them here.

Who’s Mission Is It?

The Mission is God’s. It is bigger than individuals and churches. Missions is the movement of God through churches. The church is not reaching out to the nations, as much as God is reaching out through her. What does this do for us? It replaces our passion with His, our resources with His, our vision with His, our power with His, our agenda with His. We are tools. He is the actor.

The Purpose of the Mission of God

Our focus in missions is usually on the people being reached. As important as that is, it is secondary. Our Mission should be the same as God’s. The Mission of God is to get glory to Himself by redeeming to Himself a people out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation who will worship Him in loving obedience throughout eternity. Is seeing God glorified among the nations our primary purpose? If not, our Mission motives are skewed, and our passion will be lacking.

The Object of Mission

Who is God trying to reach? It is more than just a random bunch of people. It is people from every people group. He is trying to reach (through His churches) every person and every people. If we are ignoring whole people groups (as we are) in the pursuit of a random bunch of people, we are forsaking one of the primary objects of God’s Mission (and failing to reach a maximum number of people in the process).

The Mission is God’s, we are mere tools. His Mission is to get glory to Himself by redeeming the maximum number of people from every group of people on the planet. That is God’s theology of Mission. What is yours?

Much of the future of this blog will be an application of these truths.

This Week in the Mission Blogosphere

Three posts and a poem. That is our theme for this week in the Mission blogosphere.

• How NOT to Drop a Missionary's Support - An Evangelical foreign missionary made some good comments concerning missionary support ethics. It is inevitable that missionaries will lose some support while on the field. This is accepted. However, unacceptable is the way in which support is often dropped. No notice, no call, no explanation, just no more support. The blogger gave 3 reasons why support is sometimes dropped in this manner: Cowardice, Cruelty, and/or Incompetence. What are some rules that should be followed when support has to be dropped? Follow the Golden Rule, give as much advance notice as possible, try to do it when they are back home, give an explanation, investigate to make sure it is a legitimate reason, tell if it is temporary or permanent, continue partnering with them in prayer. Overall it is a helpful post, and worthy of a read.

• Ten Little Missionaries - The same missionary posted a poem about the missionary call. Its rythm and ryme aren't the greatest, but it is a good poem nevertheless. I am sure that almost all of us know people who match the description of each of the 10 little missionaries.
  

• Lay Mission - We all know that today we have developed a 'professionalized' ministry, where only the 'highly trained' and ordained do the work. This is obviously not Christ's plan for His churches. Instead, the plan is for the whole church to be involved in the work of the Mission, the 'professionals' being there to help them in that direction. This week a couple bloggers commented on this theme. One suggested that the work of Mission should be carried out by the whole church (particularly the 'lay members'), with fewer 'professionals' needed. The other posted a quote from Martin Lloyd-Jones. Lloyd Jones asked "Do we manifest the freedom of the New Testament church" with the giftings of all her members mobilized for ministry. "The notion," he said, "of people belonging to the church in order to come to sit down and fold their arms and listen, with just two or three doing everything, is quite foreign to the New Testament, and it seems to me it is foreign to what has always been the characteristic of the church in times of revival and of reawakening." While we certainly would not adhere to all that these two bloggers would suggest of us, there is no doubt that every 'lay' member, the whole church, should be fully engaged in the Mission. The suggestion is toward a reorganization of the way 'professionals' (in churches and mission boards) are used in missions, toward a mobilizing role, rather than doing most of the work.

Posting Here Soon:

Urgent Need: Solutions for the Coming Missionary Support Crisis (I am waiting on some numbers to get in before I post this. It will be a must read for all concerned about our world Mission.)

Mission Resource: Skype (How can it be used to mobilize churches in the Mission? How can it be used to improve local church missionary care and reduce missionary attrition?)

Building a Biblical Mission Strategy (Considering a biblical [i.e. God's] theology of Mission, what should our overall Mission endeavors look like? Where can improvement be made?)

Just click on the 'follow' or 'subscribe' links to the right to be notified when new posts are up.