In Part 11, Mark begins with three important points —
Too few new hopeful missionaries are willing to become full-time, church-supported, church-overseen missionaries.
Many new and current missionaries are replacing church oversight/support with funds from individuals and private foundations to sidestep the current church/oversight model.
Many churches are moving to mission efforts that are more “controllable”—which means they are either exclusively short-term missions, or much closer to home where local leaders can oversee more actively, or they are some form of humanitarian aid rather than missionary-centered evangelism .
I wasn’t aware of the second point, but I’m not surprised. Very few churches have the expertise to oversee missions in today’s complex world, but more and more churches are investing the time and money necessary to get trained on how to do it.
I think the third point is true but not necessarily for the reasons stated. It’s not so much about control, in my experience, as the sheer popularity of short-term missions. Teens and adults enjoy and profit from the trips — even though the costs tend to cut into the support for long-term mission efforts. And when the members go into the mission field, they become very attached to the work — which is good but means that missions that are too far away or in dangerous fields are harder to fund. They just don’t have the benefit of the personal relationships built through short-term missions.
And, of course, the movement toward a more missional form of Christianity — which is entirely healthy — sometimes moves funds from missionary efforts to well-drilling and house-painting works.
Therefore, I find that one of the hardest tasks of church leadership is striking a balance between all the worthy efforts that compete for limited funds. On the other hand, I firmly believe that if a church will work hard and invest time and money to be trained in missions oversight, the congregation will see the improvement and commit more funds to the effort. People appreciate skillful oversight and will support well-managed works.
My suggestion for a new oversight/support model is based on the following primary characteristics:
- Division of power
- Division of responsibility
- Gift-oriented tasking
- Covenanted relationships
I couldn’t agree more strongly with all four bullets.
Mark then proposes a third element of his three-element proposal: The Missionary, the Co-Mission Group (friends and family who support the missionary), and the Mission Service Organization —
This organization would receive funds on behalf of the missionary and disperses funds to the missionary as instructed. I can also imagine that this organization could be extraordinarily helpful to Overseers and Missionaries by offering financial information like:
- Cost of living information resources for specific countries
- Best practices for banking in specific countries
- Information of health insurance
- U.S. tax information for missionaries
- Foreign tax information
- Best practices for accounting/reporting for contributions to missionaries
In no way is the missionary service organization involved in oversight or raising support, so there is no authority or control issue as with a missionary society. On the contrary, because of its neutral position in this triad, it is in a great position to serve those who oversee, those who support, and the Missionary equally well.
The Missionary Service Organization would be kind of like Missions Resource Network and several similar organizations within the Churches of Christ. However, these organizations do not handle the money! After all, that would make them appear much like a missionary society to many, and the Churches of Christ split from the independent Christian Churches in 1906 over that very issue (along with instrumental music, of course).
Moreover, MRN and like organizations offer far more than tax and financial advice. They also offer coaching and advice both to the missionary and to the supporting congregation. They have no authority at all, but they have experience and expertise that very few churches could offer in house.
Finally, Mark suggests that the structure be formalized in a written “covenant.” And I agree. We do that. We actually have two key documents —
1. We have a “Framework,” which is a policy statement that guides the missions team. It sets targets for foreign vs. domestic, short-term vs. long-term missions, policies for how we support missionaries financially, the terms and duration of the commitment we make, etc.
2. We have a formal mutual covenant with the individual missionary. When a long-term missionary is first sent by our congregation, the church reads its commitments to the missionary in unison and the missionary responds with his or her commitments to the church.
The covenant serves the ceremonial function of having the entire church commit to the missionary and having the missionary commit to the entire church. I think our missionaries find it very encouraging. And it serves as a reminder to everyone that we owe certain obligations to one another. It’s a great practice.
Some preliminary conclusions
Mark has done a great service to the Churches of Christ by pointing out a number of serious problems in our missionary efforts. We are using old models for missionary recruiting and support that no longer are up to the task. Times have changed. Moreover, in the last few decades, serious research has been done to find out which methods work well and which do not. We need to catch up with the research.
I agree with Mark as to the problems and as to many of the solutions. Where we differ is that Mark rejects the old missions team model while I want to restructure it from the ground up. And I’m a big, big fan of organizations like MRN, which do not appear to figure into Mark’s proposal.
I think we agree on some critical points —
* The congregation’s model, whatever it is, must be based on talents and passions, not who gives the money or what deacon needs something to do. Whoever serves on a mission team or other support structure of any kind should be deeply spiritual, unselfish, and committed to missions both in principle and in fact.
* Missionaries need far more than money for support. They need money, but they also need prayer, encouragement, and counsel. They need coaching and accountability.
* While missionaries should be held accountable, they should be held accountable by people who understand and believe in missions in general as well as in their particular mission.
* Churches that sponsor missionaries need to be entirely on the same page. If the leadership is divided over whether to support mission efforts, someone needs to resign from leadership. It’s horribly unfair to send a missionary to some foreign land based on commitments that could change when one of five elders retires or one disgruntled member complains. If you’re going to support a missionary, support him or her with all your heart.
* Churches should seek out missionaries from within their midst (but not only from within their midst). All churches should think of themselves as missionary recruiters. The idea of going into missions should be a part of the teen and adult curricula. We should pray in church that God will raise up missionaries from among us.
* We need to provide more expertise as sponsors of missionaries. This is no job for hacks. We need to take the trouble to learn how to do it right.
I would add that there are lots of resources available. Let me suggest a few —
— Train. Pay Missions Resource Network or a similar organization to come to your church and train your elders and missions committee on how to oversee mission efforts. It’s not that costly, and you could invite other churches in the area to participate and share the cost. There’s nothing like having a true expert spend a Saturday with your members helping them hone their skills.
— Attend. Send your elders and missions team to such lectureships as the ones at Pepperdine or ACU in years when training on missions oversight is offered. The lectureships are free except for travel costs — and a whole lot cheaper than a poorly managed mission effort.
— Visit. Find a church that does this well and pay them a visit. They’ll be flattered and doubtlessly thrilled to spend a day with your leadership sharing their experiences and ideas.
