In Part 3 of his series, Mark takes a very skeptical view of the ability of the local church to manage a missions program —
Local churches Are ill-equipped to truly oversee foreign mission work.
Typically, churches who agree to provide oversight of a foreign mission effort have very little idea of what they are really agreeing to. For most congregations, total oversight means they have hired another employee (the missionary) and that they have ultimate responsibility for the missionary’s
- complete job performance,
- all monies given by them, both personal and work-related funds,
- all work-related decisions, including those made by the mission congregation.
- all doctrinal issues and/or congregational practices
- growth strategies, including types of facilities
Any serious differences in opinion in any area or dissatisfaction within the overseeing church results in loss of financial support, the premature return of the missionary family, and often the complete termination of the missionary efforts at that site.
The most common variation on the total oversight model above is financial oversight, which usually means the overseeing church simply provides regular financial support to the missionary and as long as no criminal or moral irregularities occur, they are satisfied and continue this relationship of benevolent neglect until one of the following occurs
- the missionary chooses to return to the States,
- the overseeing church loses interest in the missionary—often because of excitement about a new missionary, or
- the mission site is not seen as one that excites the overseeing congregation any longer, often because a new site seems more appealing now.
Dan Bouchelle, who heads the Missions Resource Network, responded in whimsical tones in an article entitled “Blog Smackdown (or Why Mark Woodword Would Look Good in Sackcloth or Maybe Spandex).” He writes,
Do churches get stuck in old ways of thinking and behaving and resist change? Of course. But with proper leadership, there is no reason why churches cannot learn about missions just like they can learn about grace, giving, or justice and mercy. Churches can be taught and can change both their perspectives and practices. It just isn’t quick, easy, or a one-and-done event. It requires an ongoing process of re-visioning, retraining, and repetition.
I say this because I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen churches make radical changes in vision and retool completely to accomplish amazing things both locally and internationally. The key is leadership. At MRN, we are committed to helping churches who want to excel in missions by provided them the resources they need.
Now, I can speak with a measure of knowledge here. A few years ago, my congregation began to build a relationship with MRN. We’ve worked with them to relearn how to oversee missions, and as a result we’ve radically re-envisioned our mission program. And good things are happening.
We’re a big church, but I see no reason why a much smaller congregation couldn’t learn the same lessons and make the same changes. In fact, a while back, I published what was then our version of the Framework for the congregation’s missions team.
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Introduction and Doctrine
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Choice of Missions to Support
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Short-term Missions; Support; Heart
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Commitment Term; Communications; Finances
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Finances; Taxes
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Termination; Pay
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Benefits; Time Off
Church Plants and Missions: A Framework: Mission Sunday; Evaluation; Vision
The key is to recognize, as Mark points out, that —
(a) The sponsoring church is responsible for much more than handling donations from other churches and disbursing funds. A bank could do that. The “overseeing” congregation has responsibility for actual oversight.
(b) Oversight does not entail micromanagement. The missionary must be given freedom to be a missionary. It’s unlikely that the overseeing congregation knows more about the local context or the work of a missionary than the missionary.
Now, finding the sweet spot between these extremes is where an organization such as MRN comes in. It’s a nonprofit filled with former missionaries who keep up with the latest learning on how best to do missions, who help train and coach missionaries in the field, and train congregations on how to best support and oversee the missionaries.
You don’t have to be a church of 650 to do it. You do have to have a passion for missions and be willing to take advice. That’s it.
And yet, we still need to consider Mark’s conclusions —
Conclusions:
Exceptions exist to every statement I have made, but [my wife] Sherrylee and I have been involved intimately in missions in Churches of Christ for over forty years. If you will accept the general truth of what I have stated, then these are the necessary conclusions!
- Most missionaries self-select and quality of preparation/training varies widely!
- The number of missionaries that Churches of Christ can send to the field is limited to those that large churches can and will both oversee and financially support.
- The number of Christians directly involved in sending missionaries is virtually limited to the number on mission committees in large churches.
- The oversight of missionaries is done primarily through financial control, usually by people with even less training or experience than the missionaries themselves.
- Spiritual oversight is grossly neglected.
- The number of missionaries in Churches of Christ is limited to those who either have good large church connections, and/or good fund raising personalities—neither of which are essential qualities for doing good mission work.
Now, this is no longer true of my home congregation, but it was at one time largely true. Do you agree with Mark? Are these statements true of the Churches of Christ generally — excluding a few, large congregations?
It would be wrong of me to disagree with Mark's general conclusion, based on the material he presented.
However, he failed to address the equally basic question of what are the characteristics and skill sets of am effective missionary.
Desire may be important, but it is far from sufficient. Perhaps an equal part of the problem is that we often send the wrong people into the mission field, because we think they are the only ones we can find who will go. And both the missionary and the supporters are disappointed in the outcomes — however you measure them.
Paul and Barnabas were sent out by a local congregation.
Maybe local congrehgations today have a different outlook on missions than te church of Christ in Antioch.
And maybe missionaries today have a different approach to missions than Paul and Barnabas.
And maybe there are no maybes here …
Alexander
(I say that as one who has been a meber of a plymouth-brethren congregation that sent out and supported three families. The church numbered 40 baptized members)
I don't think "ill-equipped" is the right term, but I think Mark has a good grasp of the problem.
I understand "ill-equipped" to be not trained and/or supported enough. But I think it is more about the approach. I know a missionray in Belgium, Richard Haverkamp (also of plymouth brethren background), who planted 12 congregations in 20 years. He once said: "I actually don't even unpack my suitcases when I come to a new place. But as soon as I have planted a small congregation, I leave them to go somewhere else." Oh, and I forgot to mention something else what he said:"You think the ground is especially hard where you live. I tell you, the ground is especially hard everywhere, but we trust God's promise."
My impression of many missionaries (also of CoC background) is that they even plan to stay for decades, build up a church and become their pulpit minister. In fact many churches got so used and dependent on that sort of missionary/minister that when he left they were hardly able to proceed.
Paul stayed in a place between three weeks (Thessalonica) and (at maximum) three years. But in these three years in Ephesus he not only worked in this city, but also in all of Asia. Whereever he worked he built up a local leaership so that the congregations would soon become independent of the missionary.
Being a missionary, like being an apostle, is a travelling ministry, not a local ministry. An apostle lived out of his suitcase. Missionaries today settle without the intention to move on.
Alexander
I have to agree with this totally. My husband and I have only recently joined the long-term missions field and we had no idea what it meant to have a supporting congregation. Our congregation at that time agreed to “Support” us by handling our bank account and any funds that came to us. That support was not seen in any other way for over a year. The second year they tried and succeeded in raising about 1/3 of the funds needed for us to return home for a visit after 2 years in the mission field, yet we still don’t have enough.
I wish I had known then what I know now. With out full active support the work is next to impossible. People are being saved here, but at the cost of our family happiness and well-being. We are struggling to stay excited about doing the Lord’s work because we feel unwanted, unloved, and forgotten about. To make it worse, we live in one of those persecuted areas where it’s not so easy to share the good news of what’s happening here and we have to be careful. This makes it very difficult to find any other supporters. And what about the spiritual health of our children? What are they learning from this situation? Will they even have a desire to go into the foreign field when they are older?
Now we are at a crossroads. Do we continue in this mission field where we are slowly being drained of all our resources? Or do we give up and walk away from foreign missions? We’ve lost faith in our family as a whole and it’s not good. It’s ONLY thanks to the Father that our work here is being successful and benefiting others. The folks here tell us all the time how much they need us and want us to stay, but in our hearts we’re just hurting.
How many others out there are just like us? I know a few. How many will give up and return home?
In fact, we think the work here is complete and are happy to move on because we know the work will continue with the natives here. Even now we can often take a backseat while they run everything and there are some very dynamic leaders here now. We have no doubts in our minds that the work will continue.
We want to move on to another country, but with the lack of support we have now, can we really trust that in a less developed country the support will be any better? No.
As to not sending the right people, how can that possibly be? With all the psychological profiles, background checks, religious experience and conversion questions, how can you not think that you’re sending the right person? Maybe folks out there are looking for the wrong type of people to send. I don’t know. No one would even give us a chance to have a try at these tests and things because we didn’t have a team and 2 years experience living in a certain country.
So how do you judge if someone has the right skills? the right mental capacity or spiritual roots? We see this same thing in the congregations in America when the application process takes longer than it does in secular jobs and they still choose the wrong man and end up looking for someone new in a matter of months.
Is there an answer to these problems? We can all admit that they exist. I think there’s some good stuff in this article. I wholeheartedly agree with everything mentioned here. Even in the comments. It’s all true.
KP,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience.