# We don't send North Americans - we just support indigenous Third World pastors



## Pergamum

I know of solid (and reformed) North American missionaries that cannot get support, and yet many churches are sending money to Third World pastors who are practically strangers overseas and who are ministering to established congregations (which should be responsible enough to support him).

I've talked to two churches these past 2 years that have totally gone over to a policy of solely supporting indigenous pastors and not supporting any missionaries sent out from the West (it's more "cost-effective" they claim).

-
So, below I'd like to list some possible pitfalls with supporting indigenous workers: 

• By making local evangelists trust us, instead of the Lord, as the source and fuel for their efforts.

• Poor indigenous churches may neglect to support their own pastors if they are supported fully by “rich” foreigners. We may impede the instilling of sound principles of stewardship and sacrificial giving. 

• We may unduly encourage a sense of pity for poor Christians, who must also learn to give sacrificially. Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, described them giving generously even out of their “extreme poverty” –so let’s not feel sorry for Third World Churches nor encourage their own sense of self-pity or retard their growth in grace by saying, “We’ll handle this issue of tithing for you since you contribute so little anyway and it really just isn’t worth your effort.”. 

• Jealousy often arises between indigenous co-workers when the “Have-Nots” who have no source of outside funding work beside the “Haves” who are supported totally by American churches. 

• Paid workers often stop doing the voluntary work which they once did for free (why do it, if there’s no money in it?). We may encourage a mercenary spirit.

• Many Western Christians have never truly learned to “freely give.” Many desire to control nationals by the purse-strings. Many falsely use the term “accountability” to dictate specific local strategies and specific local priorities, rather than merely insuring the general trustworthy use of funds. Some American churches will see nothing at all amiss in preaching against hirelings in one breath and then demanding obedience from indigenous evangelists in very specific local decision-making processes, something better left to the people knowing the cultural milieu of ministry on-site. 

Also, finally, without eyes on the ground American churches often do not know the QUALITY of what they are supporting - only that they are supporting SOMETHING. I know horror stories of terrible ministries that would have otherwise died, but still live on due to US dollars (sent without knowing what is being supported) or churches of 100 that have split into 2 churches of 50 in order to claim a new church plant and new subsidies (given per each church plant). Or, groups of 10-20 family members buying a banner and writing "Baptist fellowship of X City" and sending it to the US searching for support money for this "new church plant" or charismatics and false teachers and other who adjust their theology depending on the audience in order to maximize their Western support.





(P.S. NOTE: These critiques above do not mean we should never support any indigenous works. On the contrary, I believe highly in supporting indigenous folks as well, especially when they are not pastoring established congregations but are, themselves, crossing ethno-linguistic boundaries with the Gospel and planting new churches and are in effect doing mission work, such as Raj here on the PB among the very, very unreached Jaun-Sari people.)


----------



## Unoriginalname

I am always intrigued by your posts on missions and thankful of the nonsense that you occasionally point out. I cannot begin to comprehend how frustrating some of these things have to be to someone trying to serve overseas. I will continue to keep you in my prayers.


----------



## thbslawson

Pergamum have you read Corbett and Fikkert's "When Helping Hurts." Both are reformed guys (PCA) that discuss this this very issue. Essentially, he states that support indigenous workers needs to be temporary and well-defined. Combined with this, those in the body of Christ skilled in business and finance may use their gifts to help believers in economically depressed areas develop projects that will help support the gospel ministry locally. 

Our organization has done this and there have been some successes.


----------



## AThornquist

Good thoughts. Thanks, brother.


----------



## Pergamum

thbslawson said:


> Pergamum have you read Corbett and Fikkert's "When Helping Hurts." Both are reformed guys (PCA) that discuss this this very issue. Essentially, he states that support indigenous workers needs to be temporary and well-defined. Combined with this, those in the body of Christ skilled in business and finance may use their gifts to help believers in economically depressed areas develop projects that will help support the gospel ministry locally.
> 
> Our organization has done this and there have been some successes.



Thomas:

Yes, I have the fine book, "When Helping Hurts" but am troubled that that very title frames the debate/discussion in a negative way. Maybe a better title would have been, "Helping in Helpful Ways" or something to not scare people off from vigorously donating for fear of hurting. 

An even better book is, "To Give or Not to Give" by John Rowell. Here is a book review of both books: Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: Generosity and Dependency in Missions



> Here are some further suggestions drawn from the two books above for avoiding dependency, even while exercising generosity:
> 
> • Christians are giving people. And there are appropriate pathways to channel this generosity. In our efforts to reduce the risk of dependency, we ought never to limit generosity. Given the great needs in the world, better channels of giving, rather than reduced giving, is the better pursuit.
> 
> • We will distinguish between relief and development. Those who are experiencing disaster may need an immediate outpouring of monetary and material aid. This can come from the outside and come with little local initiative or ownership. However, for long-term development, sustainable strategies that increase local initiative and ownership ought to be encouraged (giving a hand-up rather than a hand-out).
> 
> In general, we are to avoid doing anything for the people which they can do for themselves and any monetary or material aid merely ought to be used as a catalyst to encourage or sustain existing locally-initiated efforts or as a bridge enabling local communities to work towards the eventual goal of self-support.
> 
> • Money ought never to be used as a tool to dominate. We ought to avoid any giving that reduces local leadership, initiative or ownership. We should not give to enforce our wills on others, but to make possible what is agreed upon by both the mission and its indigenous partners.
> 
> • Works of compassion are not to be treated merely as a means to an end. We help because we love. Humanitarian work is not to be used as a bait-and-switch technique to lure people to Jesus through material gain, but naturally springs forth from Christian compassion.
> 
> • Those who will not work should not eat (II Thessalonians 2:10). We ought to ensure that our generosity does enable locals to depend on us or feign greater levels of poverty or self-pity in order to increase their dole. If someone is, in fact, working but their work is inefficient, it is permissible to give a hand to the industrious, remove barriers from the inefficiencies of work, or to help remove hindrances or even oppressive power structures which contribute to inequities and deprive the poor of the fruit of their labors.



We need to be MORE generous, not less. So, if someone did not read the book carefully, they may be discouraged from supporting the indigenous altogether.


*On the terms "temporary" and "well-defined":*

I do not believe that the support of the indigenous always needs to be "temporary and well-defined." 

While I also vigorously engage/encourage/finance several micro-business enterprises here (quilts, croc farming) I also know that there are some people out there that are 24/7 focused on evangelism and it is much better to 100% fund these crazy-for-evangelism-folks and turn them loose than to demand that they spend part of their time at a business.


About the term "temporary":
Example: Raj on the PB here does not have his own established congregation he is working in, but is constantly breaking new ground among an unreached group, the Jaun-Sari, in northern India. Thus, if his calling is, as an Indian from further south, to cross ethno-linguistic boundaries to the north and continue the initial pioneering work of missions, then this is a life-time calling and I would view him just as I would myself (a western missionary living on monthly support with no plan for self-support in the future) and would not see a problem with him gaining recurring monthly support into the foreseeable future without any change to this. 

No church in the US tells me or other white, US-sent missionaries that they will only support me "temporarily" and that within 10 years I need to transition to earning my own keep. And I would say that Raj and other missionaries (as opposed to Third World pastors ministering to established local congregations) also fit into this same category. As long as they are engaging the unreached full-time and breaking new ground and training others to take over the established congregations, please continue their (our) support. 

However, much of what passes for "indigenous support of missions" involves churches sending money to fund Third World pastors who minister to already-established congregations of locals (sometimes consisting of hundreds of congregants) who should be encouraged, instead of letting others fund their pastor, to support their own pastor themselves and, additionally, gather extra funds to send out their own evangelists/missionaries.

About the term "Well-defined": This term often is an excuse for First World Donors to tightly control the calling of the Spirit upon Third World missionaries. It is much better to have a closer relationship such that on-the-ground decisions over the best use of funds can be locally controlled and every project need not be passed through Western donor's hands for approval, lest we steal the initiative and authority away from those who have boots on the ground. Many times, emergency medical situations may come up, or local evangelists may know something about the culture that we don't and we donors (if we trust those who we support) ought to bow to local knowledge and give them freedom to "define" strategies and ministry objectives for themselves, lest we merely turn local pastors into paid employees fulfilling our own Western churches' agendas.

Does that make sense?

The best policy is to do what Hearcry Missionary is doing on the ground in Indonesia, where a Heartcry Missionary is living in-country and can more frequently interact and get to know the evangelists that are being supported and see their daily lives. This will give the donors trust that the supported indigenous workers is being wise and working hard for the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum

Here are several more points to think about:



> • Many indigenous believers, even those (and perhaps especially those) receiving our funding may actually come to resent our money and resent us for the feelings of inferiority and subservience arising from our relationship. If our relationship departs from a partnership relationship, or even a patron-client relationship and, instead, becomes an employer-employee arrangement, resentment is a certainty.
> 
> • Many indigenous evangelists feel pressed into implementing imported Western programs that they know will not work, but they do not want to protest too loudly lest they disappoint donors. Instead of being able to critique and objectively discuss strategies of evangelization, indigenous paid evangelists become the implementers of the decisions made by ill-informed Westerners. Or they feel forced into situations that they know are not ideal, but they “go with the flow” in order to humor their Western counter-parts. One Indonesian evangelist that I know admitted to laboring for 2-3 years on a Western-led evangelistic program that he knew would not be effective. He was not given a voice nor was he asked about how he thought his own kinsmen would receive the teachings, he was just paid to carry out the program. He justified the situation by saying, “Oh well, I do my own evangelism at night and on weekends and I treat this other effort as merely a job, even though I don’t use its methods in my own witnessing. Hey, I need to feed my children and pay their school bills.”
> 
> • Local converts, paid by Western churches, are often seen by local communities as paid agents of Western powers and this breeds distrust. These local converts can be seen as “sell-outs” and some are even asked, “How much did they pay you to convert?”
> 
> • Paid workers sometimes become puffed up and arrogant.
> 
> • Others, seeing locals being paid for church service, often begin to join themselves to the church for false motives (“rice Christians”).
> 
> • Paid local indigenous workers often do not feel free to personally develop their own theology. As the Gospel penetrates every new culture, there are major issues of self-theologizing that indigenous workers must settle. Non-Western theologians are needed in order to settle vital issues of how the Gospel intersects with their own local cultural practices. A local evangelist may desire to try to better fit God’s unchanging universal Word into his own particular human culture, but expectations or pressures from Western donors (many of whom mix their own cultural trappings with the Gospel and read the Bible through very Western lenses) may discourage this process. Instead, many local believers, getting no encouragement from Western donors who are not present locally and who are ignorant of the local culture, feel stymied in their attempts to answer the longing in their hearts for a locally-relevant theology and these locals then fall prey to the errors of syncretism and liberation theology, which allow greater freedom of local expression.
> 
> • Many missiologists assert that everything that Western missionaries teach and model for new believers overseas should be replicable on a local level. The model of supporting indigenous evangelists very rarely can be. Locals, seeing us model this system might think, “Well, we cannot really do evangelism because we cannot do it like the Westerners.”
> 
> • Without eyes on the ground and people to see the indigenous work that is being supported and to interact with some degree of cultural knowledge with the indigenous evangelists being supported, there is much potential for abuse. Abuse does take place. I have heard and read accounts of larger churches branching into two smaller groups because two small groups (i.e., two churches) got paid twice instead of once. I have heard of Indian evangelists gathering relatives and buying a banner for a photo opportunity in order to "plant” a new church and receive Western funds.
> 
> Also, local evangelists are, indeed, spreading a message, but what message? Without boots on the ground in the form of culturally-informed Western missionaries, how do we check to see if their message is actually the Gospel or a counterfeit? I have met Third World evangelists whom themselves did not know the Gospel and who, as far as I could tell, were not saved. Yet, these unsaved evangelists were travelling far and wide and making “converts.” In fact, the largest evangelistic successes I have had so far in my own mission work have been among the already churched!


----------



## Scott1

You raise some important considerations.

One of the practical considerations each believer faces is stewardship- of his own resources, including money and time.

Prioritizing giving amongst many worth causes is an important task, and no one answer fits all.

On one hand, I would like to see more missionaries self support to eliminate this issue. Self support by saving themselves toward that goal, "tent-making," etc.

It would be encouraging to see more missionaries exercise better stewardship of their own lives, plans, and finances also.

On the other, growing local covenant communities (discipling local churches) is a primary (but not the only) goal of "missions," and the local people are called to competently support those who feed them. And there is a principle that the Pastor ought live at about the level of the people he serves (not greatly above or below them).

And while dependency on "outsiders" can violate basic scriptural principle, (and tend toward sloth and careless handling of the things of God) I have long found myself supporting indigenous missions, feeling led to do it, and having joy in it.

One of the keys is that the first priority of every believer is to competently support their own covenant community before dispersing resources elsewhere, to discipline their life to do so.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Pergamum, thank you for your thoughts. I am also far away from home, and seeing how missions works here is very interesting. I attend a church that is fully supported by an American church, has an American pastor, and is largely run by missionaries. And some of your critiques work equally well for that situation. It is sometimes depressing how much we talk about the home church when there are major needs right here. Missions is an tough subject, and one that we need to wrestle with often.


----------



## Pergamum

> It would be encouraging to see more missionaries exercise better stewardship of their own lives, plans, and finances also.



I'd like to see more US church-goers do the same. I know of very, very few missionaries here that waste anywhere near what is wasted in the US.

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 AM ----------




Reformed Philosopher said:


> Pergamum, thank you for your thoughts. I am also far away from home, and seeing how missions works here is very interesting. I attend a church that is fully supported by an American church, has an American pastor, and is largely run by missionaries. And some of your critiques work equally well for that situation. It is sometimes depressing how much we talk about the home church when there are major needs right here. Missions is an tough subject, and one that we need to wrestle with often.



I would love to hear more about the good and the bad parts of how the mission and the church interact and how the local peoples feel about it all, and especially the local pastors (and the missionaries, too).

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------




Scott1 said:


> You raise some important considerations.
> 
> One of the practical considerations each believer faces is stewardship- of his own resources, including money and time.
> 
> Prioritizing giving amongst many worth causes is an important task, and no one answer fits all.
> 
> On one hand, I would like to see more missionaries self support to eliminate this issue. Self support by saving themselves toward that goal, "tent-making," etc.
> 
> It would be encouraging to see more missionaries exercise better stewardship of their own lives, plans, and finances also.
> 
> On the other, growing local covenant communities (discipling local churches) is a primary (but not the only) goal of "missions," and the local people are called to competently support those who feed them. And there is a principle that the Pastor ought live at about the level of the people he serves (not greatly above or below them).
> 
> And while dependency on "outsiders" can violate basic scriptural principle, (and tend toward sloth and careless handling of the things of God) I have long found myself supporting indigenous missions, feeling led to do it, and having joy in it.
> 
> One of the keys is that the first priority of every believer is to competently support their own covenant community before dispersing resources elsewhere, to discipline their life to do so.



Scott,

Would you also like to see more pastors self-support as well? Why or why not?


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Pergamum said:


> I would love to hear more about the good and the bad parts of how the mission and the church interact and how the local peoples feel about it all, and especially the local pastors (and the missionaries, too).



The church is heavily evangelical and runs a massive program that feeds and does after-school care for about 6,000 children each weekday. The program is quite impressive, but it saddens me that it's so American-heavy at the top. And because of its model, it will never be sustainable and isn't particularly good for the local economy (when you're giving away 6,000 meals per day, local farmers lose their market).

One thing that I've been surprised by is the culture clash that no one seems to see. Swaziland is one of the few places in the world where polygamy flourishes. I think Americans coming in are great for helping Swazis think critically about their own culture, but often the Americans just present their views as indistinguishable from Christianity. For example, the Bible is nearly silent on polygamy, and at best it's ambiguous. But in church, we hear that polygamy is not permitted.

Most of the local people are quite supportive of both the church and the mission. They love the Americans. But there is a significant dependency culture here, and that's somewhat of a problem. There is little local ownership of either program. There is a Swazi pastor, who is very good at pastoring the congregation, but the only one in front of the congregation on Sundays is the American.

I feel like I'm pointing out all the bad things, so I do want to make it clear that great things are happening. A couple hundred people worship on Sundays, thousands of kids all over the country get better education, Christian teaching, and food every day, and I think there is a lot of love throughout the church and mission (1 Peter 4:8).


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks for the info.

Yes, I, too, want to nurture local leadership and yet, often when I try merely to attend a local church on the coast and support their leaders and just sit in the pew, I get called up to preach or pray or talk, etc, often on short notice. I suppose that is why some missionary families here almost exclusively worship with other Westerners every Sunday (less hassle and surprises).


----------



## Tripel

Perg,

Thanks for the posts. I've only been involved in missions for about a year, but I have realized what a burden finances can be for many missionaries. Thankfully the Lord has provided for our financial needs, but I could list several other missionaries who are ready and eager to serve but are struggling to raise the money.


----------



## Pergamum

Tripel said:


> Perg,
> 
> Thanks for the posts. I've only been involved in missions for about a year, but I have realized what a burden finances can be for many missionaries. Thankfully the Lord has provided for our financial needs, but I could list several other missionaries who are ready and eager to serve but are struggling to raise the money.



Yes, if we are truly praying for God to raise up workers for the Harvest, it makes little sense why - once God does in fact raise them up - that they would not find sufficient numbers of enthusiastic supporters to send them out to serve.


----------



## Curt

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I, too, want to nurture local leadership and yet, often when I try merely to attend a local church on the coast and support their leaders and just sit in the pew, I get called up to preach or pray or talk, etc, often on short notice. I suppose that is why some missionary families here almost exclusively worship with other Westerners every Sunday (less hassle and surprises).



I know of an entire group of pastors in a "foreign" region who after more than a decade are still on support from America. They've become dependent and do little to encourage giving and growth.


----------



## Mushroom

The word 'missiologist' catches in my craw. A lot of manipulation and application of business marketing/management methodolgy thrown on top of an implicit cultural superiority doesn't seem to fit anything I see in scripture regarding missions. IF these folks are our brothers in Christ, where do we come off dictating to them how money gifts are to be distributed? Don't we trust fellow Christians? Is the fact that they are brown or speak a different language or come from a corrupted culture (Gasp! As though ours isn't?) mean that wiser white bwana needs to run things for them?

I'm sorry, but Paul said not many wise, powerful, or of noble birth would be among us, that the foolish are chosen to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong. If these things are true, then our less materially or educationally blessed brethren are probably walking closer to the truth than we 'wiser', richer western Christians are. I don't see in scripture where Paul brought money from one Church to another and demanded oversight of its distribution based on the spiritual or cultural inferiority of the recipients. After establishing a Church in a new area, he appointed Elders. One would assume, based on what the ninth commandment implies, that trust was placed in those men to honorably see to distribution and to carry out further evangelization of their area. This whole 'bwana' vs. 'restless native' motif permeates the western Church's view of missions, and it is shameful. Thus the ridiculously expensive 'slumming vacations' for overfed spoiled American children to go be shocked at how the 'other half' lives so they might be more grateful for their I-pods and Nikes, and maybe even one or two decide to take to the mission field.

These are our brothers. They don't need a big daddy western mission Pastor in a pith helmet directing their labors while fanning himself on the porch. If they need financial help, either give it or don't, but let these Church's Elders and Deacons determine how it is best spent. It may be that our preconceptions of superiority affect how these brothers see themselves and their responsibilities to the Church. Why can't we just trust the Lord to ordain godly leaders for His Churches even in non-western settings, and accordingly trust those men to do right? Let them 'quit themselves like men' rather than intern as lackies and coolies.

In my view, missionaries to foreign countries should 'work themselves out of a job' as soon as possible and get out of the way of native Christians to go about the work of building the kingdom in their own neck of the woods, helping financially as needed. Preach the Gospel. It is plenty powerful to accomplish God's purpose without any assistance from MBA's.


----------



## Rufus

In some cases it's probably better to support the indigenous Church body. For instance the Japanese are generally weary of outsiders, perhaps not Americans but they don't like Koreans, they don't like the Chinese, and they have an extremely strict immigration policy.


----------



## Pergamum

Brad said:


> The word 'missiologist' catches in my craw. A lot of manipulation and application of business marketing/management methodolgy thrown on top of an implicit cultural superiority doesn't seem to fit anything I see in scripture regarding missions. IF these folks are our brothers in Christ, where do we come off dictating to them how money gifts are to be distributed? Don't we trust fellow Christians? Is the fact that they are brown or speak a different language or come from a corrupted culture (Gasp! As though ours isn't?) mean that wiser white bwana needs to run things for them?
> 
> I'm sorry, but Paul said not many wise, powerful, or of noble birth would be among us, that the foolish are chosen to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong. If these things are true, then our less materially or educationally blessed brethren are probably walking closer to the truth than we 'wiser', richer western Christians are. I don't see in scripture where Paul brought money from one Church to another and demanded oversight of its distribution based on the spiritual or cultural inferiority of the recipients. After establishing a Church in a new area, he appointed Elders. One would assume, based on what the ninth commandment implies, that trust was placed in those men to honorably see to distribution and to carry out further evangelization of their area. This whole 'bwana' vs. 'restless native' motif permeates the western Church's view of missions, and it is shameful. Thus the ridiculously expensive 'slumming vacations' for overfed spoiled American children to go be shocked at how the 'other half' lives so they might be more grateful for their I-pods and Nikes, and maybe even one or two decide to take to the mission field.
> 
> These are our brothers. They don't need a big daddy western mission Pastor in a pith helmet directing their labors while fanning himself on the porch. If they need financial help, either give it or don't, but let these Church's Elders and Deacons determine how it is best spent. It may be that our preconceptions of superiority affect how these brothers see themselves and their responsibilities to the Church. Why can't we just trust the Lord to ordain godly leaders for His Churches even in non-western settings, and accordingly trust those men to do right? Let them 'quit themselves like men' rather than intern as lackies and coolies.
> 
> In my view, missionaries to foreign countries should 'work themselves out of a job' as soon as possible and get out of the way of native Christians to go about the work of building the kingdom in their own neck of the woods, helping financially as needed. Preach the Gospel. It is plenty powerful to accomplish God's purpose without any assistance from MBA's.



Brad,

I agree with most of what you say. Here are some comments below:



> The word 'missiologist' catches in my craw. A lot of manipulation and application of business marketing/management methodolgy thrown on top of an implicit cultural superiority doesn't seem to fit anything I see in scripture regarding missions.



I think it is fine to have a concentrated focus like "missiology" - just as it is okay for the church to have church historians who have that specialty as well.

The problem with the current batch of leading missiologists is not their sense of superiority, but rather the other extreme right now. Postmodernism has impacted missions such that many missiologists want to do away with aggressive styles of evangelism that show the inferiority of other religions and replace it with "dialogue" or approaches which minimize our differences with other religions instead of calling them the devilish counterfeits that they are and calling souls to repent. This can be seen most visibly in what passes for muslim missions in our day in the form of compromise-documents such as A Common Word, and in hyper-contextualizing approaches which almost seem ashamed to pronounce our theological superiority over Islam.




> I'm sorry, but Paul said not many wise, powerful, or of noble birth would be among us, that the foolish are chosen to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong. If these things are true, then our less materially or educationally blessed brethren are probably walking closer to the truth than we 'wiser', richer western Christians are.



I have not seen this to be the case. The average US church-goer is much, much more solid both in doctrine and in life than the average Third World believer I have met here. Friends I know who work in Africa say the same thing. Maybe it is different in China or other places.

African churches are generally weak and the churches in Melanesia often are as well. The West has enjoyed the Reformation and there are so many solid churches and resources in the West that others do not have. When I get disgusted with the Western church I sometimes think along the lines of your statement above, but then - if I hang around local indigenous church-goers enough - I am shocked back into an awareness that poor indigenous christians, too, are also very full of sin just as we are.



> These are our brothers. They don't need a big daddy western mission Pastor in a pith helmet directing their labors while fanning himself on the porch.



Fanning is often necessary to keep the flies off  

While agreeing with you, there is a sense in which the Church is global and believers in some areas can be seen as "baby believers" at least during their initial shift towards Christianity, such as in some tribes. Christianity took 1,000 years and a reformation in Europe and some regions here in this province are, this very month, celebrating the first entrance of the Gospel - even into some coastal areas - from just 50 years ago.

What do you do when you meet a culture that has 100% illiteracy, infanticide, tribal war, offers pig fat to the spirits and are still nomadic and the very idea of one God who created all things but is all-good is a novel approach? There is a sense in which missionaries are the midwives and the Church in a new region must be weaned for awhile or cared for while it learns to walk.

In fact, evangelical missions often stress the point so much that we ought to be "working ourselves out of a job" that I have seen dreadful examples of what I would call "premature disengagement" - where immature tribals are declared to be a "missions victory" and left without sufficient oversight and are now almost wholly pagan again after one generation, like is happening in Papua, Indonesia, the scene of many tribal "missionary success stories." What is worse is that these pagans now have a Christian identity and think they are safe even though they are killing themselves over minor political quarrels (remember that Rwanda was declared an evangelical success story and missiological statistics showed a Christian population of over 90% when the killings started and a million died).



> In my view, missionaries to foreign countries should 'work themselves out of a job' as soon as possible and get out of the way of native Christians to go about the work of building the kingdom in their own neck of the woods, helping financially as needed.



I generally agree, but I sigh deeply and say, "If only Third World denominations WERE building God's kingdom and not their own little kingdoms." 

Take a look at the AIC churches in Africa. They are plenty indigenous, but there are millions who call themselves Christians who believe in Christo-paganism. The church is global and sometimes indigenous church structures (i.e. new denominations cropping up in Africa, Melanesia) need Western help, just as the West also needs the Rest of the world. Each culture has its blind-spots and that is why I believe that only when the faith truly becomes global will the Body of Christ truly be complete, not only because the Elect from all nations need to be called out first, but because Western and Eastern Christians need each other and need to learn some things from one another.


----------



## Scott1

> Scott1
> It would be encouraging to see more missionaries exercise better stewardship of their own lives, plans, and finances also.





Pergamum said:


> I'd like to see more US church-goers do the same. I know of very, very few missionaries here that waste anywhere near what is wasted in the US.



Yes, good stewardship is for all of God's people, in the pew, on the mission field, in the pulpit, etc.

But remember, stewardship involves resources, including stewardship of time, which also involves planning.

Some who would go out on the mission field could plan in advance for that (as a life goal) and self-fund or partially fund, or self fund and do tent making and not be a burden on the church.

Why not save up after earning a living for six years and go out on a mission service for one year sabbatical?

Understand, I'm NOT saying this is the only biblical way, not even the majority way, but it is one way that seems underutilized. 

There often is an automatic assumption that someone with little or no assets saved, with little or no advance planning or preparation must be 100% supported by others if they are to go on the mission field. Kind of like going to college with no advance planning or savings, etc.

Why is this so often presumed?

We have one (not the only, but one) pattern of self supporting evidenced in Scripture by the Apostle Paul's "tent making."


----------



## jambo

I think it is quite clear that support can be given to both missionaries sent out from a local church and an indigenous worker. It costs our church £18 a month to support a worker in India who already knows the language, culture, climate etc whereas to train up a local church member here and send them out would take a lot of time and money. (Although I am all for cross cultural missionaries)

Whilst it is true that indigenous workers supported from western churches can cause problems locally but it would also be true to say that cross cultural missionaries can create a different set of problems.The aim in any work should always be that eventually it becomes self supporting. Outside support is required in the early days, but as the work develops and the planted church grows then in time it is free of outside aid. Of course this can take years but this should be the goal whether it is from a cross cultural missionary or indigenous worker.

Outside support should be just that: support and not interference or influence


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> Scott,
> 
> Would you also like to see more pastors self-support as well? Why or why not?



I think, in general, a Pastor has the "right" to be supported by the people he feeds.

For example, in the PCA, a congregation "calls" a Pastor, and part of that is making a vow that it (the covenant community) will "competently support" him.

Another way to put this is that there is a responsibility of believers to support the one who feeds them spiritually. Their stewardship involves responsibility to prioritize tithing, beginning with their local church.

Now, a Pastor, if he had means of some self support, what a blessing he would have to not only serve (receive from the church he ministers to) but perhaps donate back to its work. Support its other ministries.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> I know of very, very few missionaries here that waste anywhere near what is wasted in the US.


I understand what you are saying- less waste by missionaries out in the circumstances of the mission field than what many here in the U.S. waste.

But, what about the other aspect- what did the missionary waste in terms of their ability to earn and save and plan before they went out on the field?

I'm not saying this is always or even mostly required, only putting the question in a greater context that is often ignored. 

(And many of us know of missionary candidates who are running from creditors, or who have failed to develop work disciplines to earn their own living and seek to avoid that by being supported by someone else).

That's why it's important for Christian organizations to qualify missionaries before supporting them financially.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott1 said:


> Scott1
> It would be encouraging to see more missionaries exercise better stewardship of their own lives, plans, and finances also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see more US church-goers do the same. I know of very, very few missionaries here that waste anywhere near what is wasted in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, good stewardship is for all of God's people, in the pew, on the mission field, in the pulpit, etc.
> 
> But remember, stewardship involves resources, including stewardship of time, which also involves planning.
> 
> Some who would go out on the mission field could plan in advance for that (as a life goal) and self-fund or partially fund, or self fund and do tent making and not be a burden on the church.
> 
> Why not save up after earning a living for six years and go out on a mission service for one year sabbatical?
> 
> Understand, I'm NOT saying this is the only biblical way, not even the majority way, but it is one way that seems underutilized.
> 
> There often is an automatic assumption that someone with little or no assets saved, with little or no advance planning or preparation must be 100% supported by others if they are to go on the mission field. Kind of like going to college with no advance planning or savings, etc.
> 
> Why is this so often presumed?
> 
> We have one (not the only, but one) pattern of self supporting evidenced in Scripture by the Apostle Paul's "tent making."
Click to expand...


Scott:

You wrote:


> Why not save up after earning a living for six years and go out on a mission service for one year sabbatical?



The first year on the field is usually dedicated to learning the language and culture of a country. Trying only to minister in English severely limits your fields to serve and the depth in which you can serve. Most long-term missionaries I know, after looking back at 20 or 30 years of service, mostly say that it takes at least 1 full term (4 or 5 years) to get your feet on the ground and begin to become effective. 

I again question back to you; why don't US pastors work for 6 years and then pastor every 7th year?

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

p.s. yes, I believe tent-making is one option. But of the tent-makers I have met, many struggle to do well in both work and ministry and it is hard to be even successful at one, much less both (plus family, etc). I would prefer to see long-term, supported and trained people sent out for life whose sole calling is missions. Fruit seems so rare on some mission fields, after so many years of work, it is hard for me to think of trying to work 40 hours, plus find time to minister. Many US pastors often work less hard in easier conditions and have quite attractive salaries.


----------



## Scott1

"Missions" is often used to describe everything from a one week trip to help with Sunday School at an indigenous church to long term church planting as the Pastor.

The example of working six years and planning and saving to go on one year's mission (self supported as a goal) is one example.


You ask about Pastors working six years and then only Pastor one.

Consistent with what I said above, Pastors generally ought be supported by the congregation they shepherd and feed. Ordinarily, one year is not a long enough term to provide stability or continuity for a church anyway.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott: 
Yes, I, too, would like to narrow the definition of missions. Many groups have historically separated "missionaries" from "fraternal brothers" or "support ministries" and such a distinction might help to avoid confusion.


----------



## Scott1

Pergamum said:


> I would prefer to see long-term, supported and trained people sent out for life whose sole calling is missions.



Yes, and long term church planting by a man called to be Pastor ought be a priority purpose of "missions."


----------



## Pergamum

Scott:

Pastors usually minister to already-established congregations whereas the work of missions is often planting/organizing new congregations where believers do not yet exist. 

There is much we agree with. Can we find another name or somehow distinguish roles so that the missionary task is not equated wholly with pastoring? Evangelist? Missionary? Sent-Out elder? 

I do agree that the great lack in missions today is long-term ordained and elder qualified men called full-time for life to take the Gospel where it is not yet planted and sent out to make disciples of Jesus and plant churches where no churches yet exist. 

However, once a congregation is organized and established I would much prefer that this man train locals and keep pushing forward into new territory (though, admittedly, this may not be possible for years, if at all, in some regions of the world).

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

If I become a long-term pastor of an already-established congregation here for years, instead of trying to form new congregations or make new disciples, or train local pastors so that they (not me) could lead the churches here, I feel like I would be disobeying the purpose for which my home church sent me out.


----------



## Scott1

To clarify, see comments below.



Pergamum said:


> Scott:
> 
> Pastors usually minister to already-established congregations whereas the work of missions is often planting/organizing new congregations where believers do not yet exist.
> 
> We could use the term in that way. I'm thinking of a church planted under church authority by a man qualified to be Pastor.
> 
> There is much we agree with. Can we find another name or somehow distinguish roles so that the missionary task is not equated wholly with pastoring? Evangelist? Missionary? Sent-Out elder?
> 
> I do agree that the great lack in missions today is long-term ordained and elder qualified men called full-time for life to take the Gospel where it is not yet planted and sent out to make disciples of Jesus and plant churches where no churches yet exist.
> 
> However, once a congregation is organized and established I would much prefer that this man train locals and keep pushing forward into new territory (though, admittedly, this may not be possible for years, if at all, in some regions of the world).
> 
> There are certainly different ways of doing this, and within biblical parameters.
> 
> As a Presbyterian, I don't have a problem with a congregation "calling" a Pastor (teaching elder) of their choosing, whether he is a foreign national or not, but would especially be looking to the congregation to choose elders from among their number, a plurality of elders who would administer the church. The "plurality" of those elders is where the power really is in the local church, in that form of government.
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------
> 
> If I become a long-term pastor of an already-established congregation here for years, instead of trying to form new congregations or make new disciples, or train local pastors so that they (not me) could lead the churches here, I feel like I would be disobeying the purpose for which my home church sent me out.
> 
> I appreciate what you are doing. Without knowing all the details of your situation, I know it is dangerous, you are leading with your family in it.
> 
> God bless you for it.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Scott, I think we are agreed on almost all things. God bless, brother.


----------



## Tripel

Pergamum said:


> I do agree that the great lack in missions today is long-term ordained and elder qualified men called full-time...



This is interesting. When I first started looking into missions, most of the teams/locations I considered were specifically in need of pastors. Not being an ordained pastor myself, my options were somewhat limited to more urban sites.


----------



## Pergamum

Daniel,

What org did you look into?


----------



## Tripel

MTW, of the PCA


----------



## Edward

I am not convinced that the 19th century model for missions is the best approach in most circumstances, particularly given the widespread anti-American sentiment abroad. It might be necessary for a limited time for an American to proclaim the gospel in a dry area until locals can be identified and trained, but the program should be started with an exit strategy already in place. As quickly as possible, the Americans should transition to a training/mentoring role. 

As to specific problems identified above, I would note two things - any mission agency should have a program for audit and internal review - 'trust but verify'. And if you dug deep enough, one could probably find examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in American led programs as well as the indigenous programs. Any missions program should always be concerned about the cost of auditing versus the cost of not auditing.

---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------




Tripel said:


> This is interesting. When I first started looking into missions, most of the teams/locations I considered were specifically in need of pastors. Not being an ordained pastor myself, my options were somewhat limited to more urban sites.



Have you looked at Mission Aviation Fellowship - they are more support oriented.


----------



## Tripel

Edward said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. When I first started looking into missions, most of the teams/locations I considered were specifically in need of pastors. Not being an ordained pastor myself, my options were somewhat limited to more urban sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you looked at Mission Aviation Fellowship - they are more support oriented.
Click to expand...


I should probably clarify that I was not intending to be critical with that statement. Rather, it was an agreement with Pergamum that there really is a need for more ordained ministers going into long-term missions. I've just found it interesting how specific a particular team's needs are. A team in Latin America may need pastors to help plant new rural churches, but then there are other teams that already have a pastor or two and make it known that they are particularly _not_ wanting any more pastors. 

I'm blessed to be joining an urban-based team that has needs I can help meet.


----------



## Pergamum

Edward said:


> I am not convinced that the 19th century model for missions is the best approach in most circumstances, particularly given the widespread anti-American sentiment abroad. It might be necessary for a limited time for an American to proclaim the gospel in a dry area until locals can be identified and trained, but the program should be started with an exit strategy already in place. As quickly as possible, the Americans should transition to a training/mentoring role.
> 
> As to specific problems identified above, I would note two things - any mission agency should have a program for audit and internal review - 'trust but verify'. And if you dug deep enough, one could probably find examples of waste, fraud, and abuse in American led programs as well as the indigenous programs. Any missions program should always be concerned about the cost of auditing versus the cost of not auditing.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. When I first started looking into missions, most of the teams/locations I considered were specifically in need of pastors. Not being an ordained pastor myself, my options were somewhat limited to more urban sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you looked at Mission Aviation Fellowship - they are more support oriented.
Click to expand...


Yes, agreed.

In most places, the Westerner is already in the training/mentoring role, facilitating from behind instead of always being the "Face" of the effort. Leadership-training or Leadership-Development seems to be the watchword in missions today, especially in areas where there is anti-Americanism at work. Tom Steffen wrote a decent book on this, entitled, "The Facilitator Era" and his previous book "Passing the Baton" is also a good summary of the approach which you outlined above, of trying to equip locals asap to do the work (The Workers are in the Harvest); we want to make disciples who can make disciples, like II Tim. 2:2 explains, teaching others who can teach others in a self-replicating manner and making our work multiplicational.


Most evangelical missions have pretty good auditing mechanisms at work. My complaint with my own org is that they are too careful and I cannot spend money like I would want to without proving the worth of a project. For instance, I designated funds for a prosthetic leg for a guy last year who was forced to have an amputation, but given other more dire emergency sicknesses, I never spend the money designated for the prostheses on the leg but instead medivac'd an evangelist that got attacked by a wild pig instead and used the funds to pay for surgeries for him. So, every penny of that money must still be accounted for and taken out of my personal funds unless I can prove it was spent for other worthy ministry-type expanses. And receipts are sometimes hard to get in some Third World areas. So, their level of scrutiny is quite detailed and I think my org can honestly say to donors that they are using funds well and according to stated purposes. They keep me accountable because I am less of a details-oriented person. My org belongs to the ECFA or whatever that group is called (Evangelical Counsel of Financial Accountability I think is the name) and their scores can be rsearched online every year I believe. In general, mission orgs are much more accountable than your average local church.

As far as waste, fraud and abuse in missions and the church, I am sure we could start another thread on that. Compared with US churches, I see relatively little waste or fraud among my missionary peers here, most are under-supported while their congregations back home enjoy big buildings and TIVO and fresh food. I do see falsely positive reports from missionaries, however, perhaps becuase they are so hungry for success that they sometimes report results over-optimistically.


----------

