# Do missionaries mooch?



## Pergamum

Are missionaries mooches?


How? and when? 

How should they curb this? What habits/actions need to change?


----------



## Rich Koster

Do you desire to limit this to stories from the Reformed community?


----------



## Pergamum

Any and all stories will help, as well as tips to missionaries to save them from even the appearance of moochericty.


----------



## smhbbag

I guess a 'no' still warrants participation in this thread, as it might attract more who will say 'yes.'

I've never seen or felt mooching from a missionary, in my opinion or that of my church regarding those we support.

The missionary's job is to care for his family, preach the gospel, and build disciples and churches. Our job is to pray for them, love them, and take as many of the earthly, financial pressures off of them as we can, so they can be free to do those things. Our missionaries fulfill their calling, and we do ours, though we are both subject to human failings and imperfections in them.

So, no, I can't think of any missionary in my personal awareness where mooching as been any concern at all. Our church sends far more missionaries than our body is able to support (denominational funds help the rest), although our giving is quite strong.We have one family in Western China that has worked for two years, with no real converts. But they are preaching and testifying, and that is what they are there to do. Not once has anyone questioned our continued support for them. The only concern I hear is to add more prayer.


----------



## Weston Stoler

If the missionary isn't doing his job by proclaiming the gospel in a clear and credible way then i can say yes. All other cases (with few exceptions) I would say no they are not a mooch.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergy,

Most missionaries have to raise their financial support by going out and _asking_ for money. One cannot do that for long before one gets over our cultural hangup about asking for things. Over the years I've talked to some missionaries who claim to not "enjoy" asking for money and other things (but they are nonetheless all pretty good at asking anyway). I've talked to others who openly profess to have absolutely no qualms with asking for things. One expressed shock at my surprise and said - I'll never forget - "I ask for everything. I'm doing the Lord's work and when I ask I'm enabling them to be a blessing. And to be a blessing is to receive a blessing." Isn't that the logic of Swaggart or Baker or a faith healer?

While I have experienced a few things that I definitely think cross the line into mooching, I believe that the seeming appearance of being a mooch stems from the missionary having a lifestyle and livelihood based in large part upon the generosity and giving of others and as such they are comfortable with receiving and being willing to allow others to pay for them, etc. Whereas the predominant cultural norm in our society is that there should be some degree of reciprocity and/or standing on one's own feet, i.e, continually or merely repeatedly allowing someone to pay for one's own way is a surefire strategy for becoming known as a mooch.

Some things I've seen that really irked me:

1. Most recently, a couple came to stay in our house overnight as they were en route to another city to raise support. They asked if they could do "a little" laundry, we said "sure," and at that point they brought in 5 stuffed kitchen-sized garbage bags filled with laundry. 

2. About 6 months ago, another couple on furlough was at our place giving us their "sales pitch" replete with stories and pictures of the extreme poverty in their area of service. I asked how much money they needed monthly support - it's just the 2 of them, no kids - and I was cited a dollar amount a mere few hundred a month less than I make in one of this nation's most expensive cities, a monthly income almost 21x the average in that area. Don't tell me sob stories of all the poverty in your area and then tell me that you need over 100k per year for 2 people to live in that poor place. Don't tell me that you're just heartsick and desperate to do the Lord's work, but oh, we need almost 21x the average income in order to do it. How many pastors in this country make even 2x the average, much less 21x! Gimme a break.

3. A missionary I support is regularly - about once a quarter - sending out an email asking for extra gifts ("I could really use a new chain saw to help cut firewood, would you consider giving?" "My truck is acting up and it is proving to be a burden on time and resources to fix, would you consider donating so that I can purchase a new 4x4 with towing package?" "The tuition at the private school we send our son to has gone up unexpectedly, would you please send money?" "We want to do an add-on to our home to be able to host larger Bible studies, would you consider donating to the project?" My favorite was last summer: "Due to some unexpected expenses this year we don't have money to take a vacation, would you consider a one-time donation to help us enjoy a much needed trip home?". 

4. A number of years ago I agreed to meet over lunch with a missionary candidate who was raising support. He wanted to give me his "pitch" and I agreed to listen and consider. We had lunch and THEN when the bills came he said he was low on money and needed to buy gas to get to the church he was visiting that night and he asked if I would pay for his lunch. 

Anyway, perhaps there is no genuine mooching going on, but sometimes it seems that way.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> 2. About 6 months ago, another couple on furlough was at our place giving us their "sales pitch" replete with stories and pictures of the extreme poverty in their area of service. I asked how much money they needed monthly support - it's just the 2 of them, no kids - and I was cited a dollar amount a mere few hundred a month less than I make in one of this nation's most expensive cities. Don't tell me sob stories of all the poverty in your area and then tell me that you need over 100k per year for 2 people to live in that poor place.



Sometimes missions agencies set absurd amounts. For instance, one mission says that a couple in Mexico City needs about $36,000 a year in support; it's certainly possible to spend that much, but it's also possible for a family of six to live decently on that amount, so a couple would probably be able to do it for less.


----------



## Rich Koster

I once was supporting a missionary who started out good and went off track. He got married and naturally, that required he raise a little bit more support. However, the update letters were becoming more like post cards from every place they were going on vacation. When they bragged about how they were doing a no cost to participate bingo, to attract people to fill out contact cards, I wrote them a letter informing them I was dropping my support and why. I considered them to be a mooch because they were using support money for things I considered excessive and not true to the original mission that was presented to us.


----------



## a mere housewife

The other side of this is that missionaries often do without so much that many of us take for granted. My mom told me that when they went to Korea as missionaries when I was little -- 3 children and a 4th on the way -- the mission board at first supported them at the same rate as a single, elderly lady, who had been there long enough that she had many private gifts. We spent our first winter in South Korea without hot water, in a mostly unheated house, my mom unable to take language classes because there was not enough money for her bus fare, eating noodles and tomato sauce. I wasn't aware of this (for my mom rarely speaks of her own hardships) until a few years ago when those years came up somehow in conversation, and she mentioned to me how hard that time was for her. I gather that eventually someone inquired and the data was adjusted.

This would make me think that perhaps mission boards/churches should be careful to inquire regularly to make sure the missionary is adequately provided for and weight their suspicions on this end of the scale. Presumably sending churches/denominations have some confidence in a man's character and dedication, so thinking of him as a moocher without evidence of his attempting to use the ministry as a means to a life of ease would seem unwarranted (especially when he is are working in places where 'a life of ease' would be a ridiculous characterisation -- exposed to illnesses and hardships and risks which most people would not wish for themselves or their families).


----------



## SolaScriptura

a mere housewife said:


> The other side of this is that missionaries often do without so much that many of us take for granted. My mom told me that when they went to Korea as missionaries when I was little -- 3 children and a 4th on the way -- the mission board at first supported them at the same rate as a single, elderly lady, who had been there long enough that she had many private gifts. We spent our first winter in South Korea without hot water, in a mostly unheated house, my mom unable to take language classes because there was not enough money for her bus fare, eating noodles and tomato sauce. I wasn't aware of this (for my mom rarely speaks of her own hardships) until a few years ago when those years came up somehow in conversation, and she mentioned to me how hard that time was for her. I gather that eventually someone inquired and the data was adjusted.
> 
> This would make me think that perhaps mission boards/churches should be careful to inquire regularly to make sure the missionary is adequately provided for and weight their suspicions on this end of the scale. Presumably sending churches/denominations have some confidence in a man's character and dedication, so thinking of him as a moocher without evidence of his attempting to use the ministry as a means to a life of ease would seem unwarranted (especially when he is are working in places where 'a life of ease' would be a ridiculous characterisation -- exposed to illnesses and hardships and risks which most people would not wish for themselves or their families).



SO... since this was a thread about whether or not missionaries mooch and not about whether or not some missionaries have difficult field assignments, what I'm taking away from your post is that we need to bear in mind the horrible burden of being a missionary and remember that they therefore deserve to be treated to this that and the other whenever they have the chance. Am I right or wrong?


----------



## a mere housewife

Ben, I think that probably the 'treats' they get are as well deserved as the treats many of us have more regularly or more as a matter of course. However I was just posting some of my own firsthand experience of missionaries, because I think there is an 'inside' of hardship and doing without, to the external appearance of 'mooching' which many don't have a lot of contact with, and so may not be taking into consideration (and I think it ought to be considered in such a discussion).


----------



## smhbbag

I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it. 

If they are sent by their individual church or denomination, their individual church or denomination should support them, with no need for any regular (or irregular) sales pitches. The sending institution, of course, has every right to receive general accounting of the money, or to insist on paying directly for the non-personal expenses themselves. 

The task of planting or pastoring a foreign church is essentially the duty of an elder, and good elders are worthy of double honor. Double expectation, double responsibility, double honor and support. 

I cannot imagine feeling mooched upon by any missionary, unless I had doubts about their dedication or discipline in their calling. If your'e convinced of the necessity of their work, and they are doing it, mooching doesn't enter the question. And I don't care one bit if they are able to live on much less than I am in their location, while they make more than I do (now that I think about it, all of our missionaries live in cheaper places than me, and make more than me). If I felt the need to lower the support of a missionary, whatever reason gave me that feeling would likely make me question their call itself.


----------



## Pilgrim

smhbbag said:


> I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it.



There may be others, but the only denominational missionaries I know of who are fully funded by the denomination are those sent by the SBC and OPC.


----------



## smhbbag

But what is the rationale for other denominations and churches not doing the same?


----------



## Pilgrim

A problem that may be as big or bigger is alleged waste on the mission field with spending a lot of money on things like building unnecessary buildings, etc. I think Pergy has talked about this and I have heard it from a brother who was asked to work with the International Mission Board of the SBC but who later became an independent missionary (i.e. not sent by a denomination.) In at least some cases this is not the fault of the missionary but it's seen as the way to do it, etc. by the sending agencies themselves.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

smhbbag said:


> I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it.
> 
> If they are sent by their individual church or denomination, their individual church or denomination should support them, with no need for any regular (or irregular) sales pitches. The sending institution, of course, has every right to receive general accounting of the money, or to insist on paying directly for the non-personal expenses themselves.
> 
> The task of planting or pastoring a foreign church is essentially the duty of an elder, and good elders are worthy of double honor. Double expectation, double responsibility, double honor and support.
> 
> I cannot imagine feeling mooched upon by any missionary, unless I had doubts about their dedication or discipline in their calling. If your'e convinced of the necessity of their work, and they are doing it, mooching doesn't enter the question. And I don't care one bit if they are able to live on much less than I am in their location, while they make more than I do (now that I think about it, all of our missionaries live in cheaper places than me, and make more than me). If I felt the need to lower the support of a missionary, whatever reason gave me that feeling would likely make me question their call itself.



It is true that the IMB fully funds their missionaries, but so many who want to serve are not approved by the IMB because of some violation of one of their thousands of rules. A couple who lived next to us in seminary were denied because their son has a lazy eye and there were no optometrists in the area that they wanted to serve. Really? Because of a lazy eye? This is the reason that many choose to go it on their own. I get a little tired of IMB types always talking about how the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. The truth is that there are many who are qualified and would love to be missionaries but organizations like the IMB turn them down for silly reasons and then they are reduced to being "moochers"


----------



## smhbbag

> A problem that may be as big or bigger is alleged waste on the mission field with spending a lot of money on things like building unnecessary buildings, etc. I think Pergy has talked about this and I have heard it from a brother who was asked to work with the International Mission Board of the SBC but who later became an independent missionary (i.e. not sent by a denomination.)



I'm down with that, big-time. This is why many of the missionaries from our church are directly supported by our church. We do give to the IMB and have some missionaries sent by them. The waste is a big problem. That doesn't seem to be a problem with the model of missions - it's a theological problem of believing a steeple, organ, more committees than church members, and a bad chain restaurant next-door are necessary to do church properly. The model, I think, is self-evidently superior to missionaries doing door-to-door begging rather than evangelism.

And Bill, that's an even bigger issue for us than the waste.


----------



## elnwood

Pilgrim said:


> There may be others, but the only denominational missionaries I know of who are fully funded by the denomination are those sent by the SBC and OPC.



FYI, the Christian and Missionary Alliance also fully supports their missionaries.

Some churches (Park Street Church in Boston, for example) fully support their missionaries, as if they are a full-time employee of the church. There are additional restrictions in that. Park Street Church disallows their missionaries to seek support from others, and expect that the missionaries will spend their furloughs working at their church.

Some at my home church favor the full support model, but as of now the philosophy of the missions committee is that, as the sending church, we want to be the primary sender in terms of financial support, but we also want to give the missionaries an opportunity to partner with individuals and other churches and give them the privilege of supporting and partnering with them.

I believe the epistles support the idea that Paul received financial support from a number of churches and individuals.

One of the major concerns is that missionaries often lose the support of their home church. They leave the country for a number of years, people forget about them, and when the leadership changes and finances get tight, the new pastor or elder board decides, hey, we need to cut something. If a missionary's eggs are all in one basket, then if that church fails to meet its obligations, then the missionary could be left high and dry.


----------



## Edward

When the PCA started, there were few churches that could support full time missionaries, and there was no denominational funding available. If the denomination had adopted a model that called for the denomination (or individual congregations) to fully support a missionary, the impact would have been far different. 

One of the large churches did propose a different administrative model, and the partnering with other agencies has also been shown to have drawbacks, but neither would have changed the need for multiple funding sources.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> Are missionaries mooches?



And since Joshua hasn't joined in this thread, let me say to the original question, I'm sure that some missionaries, somewhere, at some time, have been mooches.


----------



## Keith Tacey

Allow me to share my personal experience as someone who does the Lord's work here in Vietnam.

First let me say that (while many will not agree with this) I was not sent by a denomination or church. Friends and family have been praying for me since birth to go overseas, and after much personal prayer and seeking of wisdom, I knew that it was exactly what the Lord wanted. So, I may not be your traditional M, but that is who I am.

I praise the Lord that I am using my degree in education here and I have a teaching job that pays the bills for me, my wife, and our baby who will be arriving in February. Most of the time I make enough money to provide for our family.

I have only had to ask for money a handful of times. Most of the time when I have asked for money, it was for the locals. We payed for a life-saving heart surgery in which Truth was proclaimed to the family that we supported, we paid for a brain surgery for an infant and the entire family put their faith in Christ, and have helped others with basic needs.

I have only asked for money personally 3 times. The first time was to send me here. My friends, family, and supporters paid for my ticket, my passport, my visa, and 2 months living expenses. The second time was because I needed an emergency surgery on my pacemaker and didn't have the money to fly home. I paid for the long haul flight out of my own pocket, and friends and family picked up local expenses and a local flight. The third time is just recently as my wife and I will be going back to America for 3 years so she can get US citizenship. As soon as she gets it, we are heading back home to Hanoi. We are doing this to be more "one" then we already are. Currently for my wife to leave the country and go to the US she needs to get a tourist visa which is not guaranteed. We will be covering a lot of the expenses to get back to America on our own, but we have also asked for help to lighten the burden on us. I don't consider any of this to be mooching.

With all of that being said, I have seen Ms who live lavish lifestyles in 3rd world countries asking for support all the time, and the most they are doing in country is giving someone a drink of clean water. They go home multiple times a year on other people's dimes, and they spend way too much where they are working.

Do Ms mooch? Many do, there is no doubt of that. How can we stop it? If an M is a member of a local church, that local church should get behind them fully spiritually and financially. If an M is not part of a local church, like myself, then I think it's ok to periodically ask for money, but don't expect it and don't guilt people for it. If you listen to God's call and you GO, then you should be ready to provide for your family even if you don't receive a dime in support. Another way for an M to avoid mooching, is to not join an organization that charges an arm and a leg in membership fees. I am not totally against M agencies, but many charge $10,000/year just to be a part of it.

That's my experience; take it for what it's worth.

Blessings,

~Keith Tacey


----------



## Pergamum

SolaScriptura said:


> Pergy,
> 
> Most missionaries have to raise their financial support by going out and _asking_ for money. One cannot do that for long before one gets over our cultural hangup about asking for things. Over the years I've talked to some missionaries who claim to not "enjoy" asking for money and other things (but they are nonetheless all pretty good at asking anyway). I've talked to others who openly profess to have absolutely no qualms with asking for things. One expressed shock at my surprise and said - I'll never forget - "I ask for everything. I'm doing the Lord's work and when I ask I'm enabling them to be a blessing. And to be a blessing is to receive a blessing." Isn't that the logic of Swaggart or Baker or a faith healer?
> 
> While I have experienced a few things that I definitely think cross the line into mooching, I believe that the seeming appearance of being a mooch stems from the missionary having a lifestyle and livelihood based in large part upon the generosity and giving of others and as such they are comfortable with receiving and being willing to allow others to pay for them, etc. Whereas the predominant cultural norm in our society is that there should be some degree of reciprocity and/or standing on one's own feet, i.e, continually or merely repeatedly allowing someone to pay for one's own way is a surefire strategy for becoming known as a mooch.
> 
> Some things I've seen that really irked me:
> 
> 1. Most recently, a couple came to stay in our house overnight as they were en route to another city to raise support. They asked if they could do "a little" laundry, we said "sure," and at that point they brought in 5 stuffed kitchen-sized garbage bags filled with laundry.
> 
> 2. About 6 months ago, another couple on furlough was at our place giving us their "sales pitch" replete with stories and pictures of the extreme poverty in their area of service. I asked how much money they needed monthly support - it's just the 2 of them, no kids - and I was cited a dollar amount a mere few hundred a month less than I make in one of this nation's most expensive cities, a monthly income almost 21x the average in that area. Don't tell me sob stories of all the poverty in your area and then tell me that you need over 100k per year for 2 people to live in that poor place. Don't tell me that you're just heartsick and desperate to do the Lord's work, but oh, we need almost 21x the average income in order to do it. How many pastors in this country make even 2x the average, much less 21x! Gimme a break.
> 
> 3. A missionary I support is regularly - about once a quarter - sending out an email asking for extra gifts ("I could really use a new chain saw to help cut firewood, would you consider giving?" "My truck is acting up and it is proving to be a burden on time and resources to fix, would you consider donating so that I can purchase a new 4x4 with towing package?" "The tuition at the private school we send our son to has gone up unexpectedly, would you please send money?" "We want to do an add-on to our home to be able to host larger Bible studies, would you consider donating to the project?" My favorite was last summer: "Due to some unexpected expenses this year we don't have money to take a vacation, would you consider a one-time donation to help us enjoy a much needed trip home?".
> 
> 4. A number of years ago I agreed to meet over lunch with a missionary candidate who was raising support. He wanted to give me his "pitch" and I agreed to listen and consider. We had lunch and THEN when the bills came he said he was low on money and needed to buy gas to get to the church he was visiting that night and he asked if I would pay for his lunch.
> 
> Anyway, perhaps there is no genuine mooching going on, but sometimes it seems that way.



Thanks, your candor is appreciated.

---------- Post added at 01:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. About 6 months ago, another couple on furlough was at our place giving us their "sales pitch" replete with stories and pictures of the extreme poverty in their area of service. I asked how much money they needed monthly support - it's just the 2 of them, no kids - and I was cited a dollar amount a mere few hundred a month less than I make in one of this nation's most expensive cities. Don't tell me sob stories of all the poverty in your area and then tell me that you need over 100k per year for 2 people to live in that poor place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes missions agencies set absurd amounts. For instance, one mission says that a couple in Mexico City needs about $36,000 a year in support; it's certainly possible to spend that much, but it's also possible for a family of six to live decently on that amount, so a couple would probably be able to do it for less.
Click to expand...


My own amount that I gather is divided into two; (1) personal funds and (2) ministry funds. 

The minimum amount set by me and the agency together totals more than 4k per month. This would seem like an absurd amount were it all spent on personal funds. However, half of the raised funds are used for ministry needs (eg., I think I spent over 10,000 USD on medicines, surgeries, medivac flights for sick evangelists, bibles and ministry materials for poor evangelists). 

In one year's time I gathered about 80,000 USD, but my own personal funds still remained the same (W-2 has read 27.5k, 28k and we might break the 30k mark this year with baby, who let's us raise our amount a bit. However, supporters send me free books, gifts, etc, that - if their real value were counted - would be worth another thousand or so per year).

So, this all gets a little embarrassing when supporters ask how much I have gathered in the last 12 months, etc.

---------- Post added at 01:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------




Rich Koster said:


> I once was supporting a missionary who started out good and went off track. He got married and naturally, that required he raise a little bit more support. However, the update letters were becoming more like post cards from every place they were going on vacation. When they bragged about how they were doing a no cost to participate bingo, to attract people to fill out contact cards, I wrote them a letter informing them I was dropping my support and why. I considered them to be a mooch because they were using support money for things I considered excessive and not true to the original mission that was presented to us.



Before dropping this missionary did you ask about the details of these trips?

In the last 3 years I went to Manila for Asia-wide discussions on mobilization, and then twice to Bali for agency-directed meetings, Australia to accompany a medivac patient, and then the western part of our country 4 or 5 times to meet guests, receive new people, etc. Generally, when we take these ministry-related trips, we try to take family and incorporate something fun into the mix, too. And when we take photographs, it is not usually of these long meetings, but are usually of the restaurants or pool or beach with the kids afterwards.

---------- Post added at 01:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 AM ----------




Rich Koster said:


> I once was supporting a missionary who started out good and went off track. He got married and naturally, that required he raise a little bit more support. However, the update letters were becoming more like post cards from every place they were going on vacation. When they bragged about how they were doing a no cost to participate bingo, to attract people to fill out contact cards, I wrote them a letter informing them I was dropping my support and why. I considered them to be a mooch because they were using support money for things I considered excessive and not true to the original mission that was presented to us.



p.s. I see you are from Covenant Baptist Church in NJ. When Nate came over here, he met us first in Bali, which was a lot of fun, and then we travelled to several different areas within the country and we travelled much. It took me three months to pay off all the expenses from those travels.

---------- Post added at 01:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 AM ----------




a mere housewife said:


> The other side of this is that missionaries often do without so much that many of us take for granted. My mom told me that when they went to Korea as missionaries when I was little -- 3 children and a 4th on the way -- the mission board at first supported them at the same rate as a single, elderly lady, who had been there long enough that she had many private gifts. We spent our first winter in South Korea without hot water, in a mostly unheated house, my mom unable to take language classes because there was not enough money for her bus fare, eating noodles and tomato sauce. I wasn't aware of this (for my mom rarely speaks of her own hardships) until a few years ago when those years came up somehow in conversation, and she mentioned to me how hard that time was for her. I gather that eventually someone inquired and the data was adjusted.
> 
> This would make me think that perhaps mission boards/churches should be careful to inquire regularly to make sure the missionary is adequately provided for and weight their suspicions on this end of the scale. Presumably sending churches/denominations have some confidence in a man's character and dedication, so thinking of him as a moocher without evidence of his attempting to use the ministry as a means to a life of ease would seem unwarranted (especially when he is are working in places where 'a life of ease' would be a ridiculous characterisation -- exposed to illnesses and hardships and risks which most people would not wish for themselves or their families).



Wow, thanks for the story. We have never personally lacked, but I know several couples here who are chronically under-supported and sometimes they live very, very plainly during those stretches.

---------- Post added at 01:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other side of this is that missionaries often do without so much that many of us take for granted. My mom told me that when they went to Korea as missionaries when I was little -- 3 children and a 4th on the way -- the mission board at first supported them at the same rate as a single, elderly lady, who had been there long enough that she had many private gifts. We spent our first winter in South Korea without hot water, in a mostly unheated house, my mom unable to take language classes because there was not enough money for her bus fare, eating noodles and tomato sauce. I wasn't aware of this (for my mom rarely speaks of her own hardships) until a few years ago when those years came up somehow in conversation, and she mentioned to me how hard that time was for her. I gather that eventually someone inquired and the data was adjusted.
> 
> This would make me think that perhaps mission boards/churches should be careful to inquire regularly to make sure the missionary is adequately provided for and weight their suspicions on this end of the scale. Presumably sending churches/denominations have some confidence in a man's character and dedication, so thinking of him as a moocher without evidence of his attempting to use the ministry as a means to a life of ease would seem unwarranted (especially when he is are working in places where 'a life of ease' would be a ridiculous characterisation -- exposed to illnesses and hardships and risks which most people would not wish for themselves or their families).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO... since this was a thread about whether or not missionaries mooch and not about whether or not some missionaries have difficult field assignments, what I'm taking away from your post is that we need to bear in mind the horrible burden of being a missionary and remember that they therefore deserve to be treated to this that and the other whenever they have the chance. Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...


The religious version of secular "hardship duty" pay?

---------- Post added at 02:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 AM ----------




smhbbag said:


> I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it.
> 
> If they are sent by their individual church or denomination, their individual church or denomination should support them, with no need for any regular (or irregular) sales pitches. The sending institution, of course, has every right to receive general accounting of the money, or to insist on paying directly for the non-personal expenses themselves.
> 
> The task of planting or pastoring a foreign church is essentially the duty of an elder, and good elders are worthy of double honor. Double expectation, double responsibility, double honor and support.
> 
> I cannot imagine feeling mooched upon by any missionary, unless I had doubts about their dedication or discipline in their calling. If your'e convinced of the necessity of their work, and they are doing it, mooching doesn't enter the question. And I don't care one bit if they are able to live on much less than I am in their location, while they make more than I do (now that I think about it, all of our missionaries live in cheaper places than me, and make more than me). If I felt the need to lower the support of a missionary, whatever reason gave me that feeling would likely make me question their call itself.



Maybe this is a subject for another OP (the advantages/disadvantages of denominational support from the denominational agency versus each missionary weaving his or her own network of support). I prefer modes of support raising which maximize the face-time between missionaries and congregations...even if this means more missionary travel on furlough.

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 AM ----------




Pilgrim said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be others, but the only denominational missionaries I know of who are fully funded by the denomination are those sent by the SBC and OPC.
Click to expand...


I am supported by several SBC churches. The common complaint I hear is that they want closer interaction with their missionaries ("we don't know any of our missionaries, nor can we choose which one to support if we just put funds into the pot"). 

Therefore, rather than even the possibility of supporting an Arminian, and due to the increased face-to-face (and email) interaction gained by supporting a missionary who travels to raise support, several SBC churches support me and seem to like the fact that they know me, can ask me questions, etc. 

People support efforts and people they know, a faceless entity has a harder tim of gaining support. 

Also, the question of control comes into play. Centrally-funded missionaries usually find that these central headquarters also set policies from the center, also, which sometimes disallows varying fields to vary a bit. If the SBC sets your income, this shows a certain tendency to set other policies from the agency headquarters, leaving less room for a missionary and his local church to vary a bit from other missionaries on other fields, even within the same org (my own org allows quite a bit of freedom and I would not characterize them as authoritarian at all).

---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------




smhbbag said:


> But what is the rationale for other denominations and churches not doing the same?



Many baptists cannot cooperate to the level needed. 

Others don't like the idea of throwing money into a facelss pot and trusting a board to support the most worthy missionaries. 

Others want to see and talk to their missionaries and know their names and more personally have a connection with them (hard to do when support comes from a pot).

---------- Post added at 02:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------




Bill The Baptist said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why so many missionaries have to seek their own support. I hear tales of that often, but I've never seen it.
> 
> If they are sent by their individual church or denomination, their individual church or denomination should support them, with no need for any regular (or irregular) sales pitches. The sending institution, of course, has every right to receive general accounting of the money, or to insist on paying directly for the non-personal expenses themselves.
> 
> The task of planting or pastoring a foreign church is essentially the duty of an elder, and good elders are worthy of double honor. Double expectation, double responsibility, double honor and support.
> 
> I cannot imagine feeling mooched upon by any missionary, unless I had doubts about their dedication or discipline in their calling. If your'e convinced of the necessity of their work, and they are doing it, mooching doesn't enter the question. And I don't care one bit if they are able to live on much less than I am in their location, while they make more than I do (now that I think about it, all of our missionaries live in cheaper places than me, and make more than me). If I felt the need to lower the support of a missionary, whatever reason gave me that feeling would likely make me question their call itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the IMB fully funds their missionaries, but so many who want to serve are not approved by the IMB because of some violation of one of their thousands of rules. A couple who lived next to us in seminary were denied because their son has a lazy eye and there were no optometrists in the area that they wanted to serve. Really? Because of a lazy eye? This is the reason that many choose to go it on their own. I get a little tired of IMB types always talking about how the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. The truth is that there are many who are qualified and would love to be missionaries but organizations like the IMB turn them down for silly reasons and then they are reduced to being "moochers"
Click to expand...


Yes, some orgs are too strict. Often, this is not due to "spiritual reasons" but due to a desire to insure missionaries on a group life plan or to minimize the health problems of those once on the field. 

Mission orgs are, shamefully, often very risk-averse.

Here is a link to a snippet about Elinor Young, a women I admire greatly, who - despite polio helped minister to remote peoples:

Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective: Elinor Young - missionary hero




> PSALM 147:
> 
> He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy.
> 
> 
> Elinor Young was born in Spokane, Washington, USA, on November 5, 1946. Her parents were Alfred Earl and Rosetta Young. Al (sometimes called Earl) was a “range manager” there in Washington state, helping farmers with many aspects of their raising of cattle.
> 
> In December, 1951, Elinor contracted polio. She was in a hospital in Spokane, Washington, for seven months, then spent two years in out-patient therapy. Between the ages of 9 and 14, she was hospitalized in Shriner’s Hospital in Spokane, Washington, several times.
> 
> Elinor had committed herself to finding and following the Lord’s will from the age of 9! And as Elinor’s physical situation improved, she eventually became interested in working as a missionary overseas. After being accepted by RBMU (Regions Beyond Missionary Union – now called World Team), and raising her ministry support, at the age of 27, Elinor was able to begin her work in the Korupun (or Kimyal) tribe in Irian Jaya, Indonesia.
> 
> She spent 17 years in Irian Jaya. In that remote interior mountain tribe, she did linguistic and translation work. She analyzed and learned the Kimyal language and began Bible translation, but, of necessity in such a mission setting, did various types of medical work (including tube feeding some babies), used the SSB radio to communicate with friends and mission leaders, as well as for air traffic with MAF (Missionary Aviation Fellowship), the link through small Cessna aircraft with the outside world for supplies, etc. (There were not – and still are not – any roads in that rugged mountainous area.) These formerly Stone Age people were transitioning from a barter economy to using currency, so Elinor was inevitably an economic consultant as well!
> 
> In 1991, with her translation work far from completed, Elinor had a major PPS (Post Polio Syndrome) attack, and had to return to the States for major medical treatment. Her condition deteriorated for some time, precluding any hope of returning to minister in Irian Jaya. By late 1996 she could walk only a few feet, needed a respirator 18 hours out of 24. with no more than four consecutive hours free from it, struggled through thick chronic brain fatigue, and needed prescription pain relievers and sleep aids. Every few months measured new decline.
> 
> Then, near the end of 1996, she did receive help through treatment by Futures Unlimited, Inc., and improved to the point that she began a ministry to other polio victims, primarily through writing and the internet. She was so thankful to the Lord for allowing her this new freedom and ability to minister! In May, 1998, she wrote: “Yes, I am enjoying to the hilt my new greater level of strength and health. I relish the ability it gives me to be involved in the kinds of things I was made for. I thrill at the prospect of fulfilled dreams.”
> 
> In time, Elinor became more involved in various state-side ministries with her mission, World Team. Though officially retired due to disability, she remains as active as her limited energy will allow. She loves mentoring future missionaries, editing the Great Commission Kids magazine, speaking about missions, and trying to help God's people catch the passion of God's heart for the world.
> 
> Now, in March, 2010, she has made a return trip to Irian Jaya (now called Papua, Indonesia), to attend the dedication of the Korupun New Testament, which her colleague, Rosa Kidd, and a team of Korupun nationals, have finished translating.
> 
> Based on what we have seen of her life so far, we believe that Elinor will continue to serve the Lord with all the energy and strength He gives her, though far less than most other people enjoy. She will continue to be an inspiration to many! She will continue to be delighted whenever she hears that her life, and her trust in the Lord to use her despite her stringent limitations, has, in some small or great way, had an impact on others! She wants to encourage more involvement in every way possible, to get God’s Word to needy people at the very ends of the earth!




http://www.worldteam.org/wp-content/resources/publications/gckids/GCKids.24.pdf

---------- Post added at 02:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 AM ----------




elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be others, but the only denominational missionaries I know of who are fully funded by the denomination are those sent by the SBC and OPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, the Christian and Missionary Alliance also fully supports their missionaries.
> 
> Some churches (Park Street Church in Boston, for example) fully support their missionaries, as if they are a full-time employee of the church. There are additional restrictions in that. Park Street Church disallows their missionaries to seek support from others, and expect that the missionaries will spend their furloughs working at their church.
> 
> Some at my home church favor the full support model, but as of now the philosophy of the missions committee is that, as the sending church, we want to be the primary sender in terms of financial support, but we also want to give the missionaries an opportunity to partner with individuals and other churches and give them the privilege of supporting and partnering with them.
> 
> I believe the epistles support the idea that Paul received financial support from a number of churches and individuals.
> 
> One of the major concerns is that missionaries often lose the support of their home church. They leave the country for a number of years, people forget about them, and when the leadership changes and finances get tight, the new pastor or elder board decides, hey, we need to cut something. If a missionary's eggs are all in one basket, then if that church fails to meet its obligations, then the missionary could be left high and dry.
Click to expand...


Yes, I now know (or know of) 2 or 3 missionaries whose support (85% or so) came from one solitary church.....which then split or had internal troubles. Each time, this resulted in a loss or drop of support for the missionary because their eggs were all in one basket.

I read that the average pastor's pulpit time in the same church is less than 3 years. This means that most mission orgs are more stable in policies and philosophies of ministry than local chrches in these days. Therefore, having a broad base of support is better insurance against drastic changes in missionary policies by local churches (which often do not even give 6-month's warning to the missionaries that they drop or reduce).


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> I know several couples here who are chronically under-supported and sometimes they live very, very plainly during those stretches.



Yes, that is what I was thinking of, along with extra hardships, which should be considered in any discussion of missionaries mooching.


----------



## Pergamum

Keith Tacey said:


> Allow me to share my personal experience as someone who does the Lord's work here in Vietnam.
> 
> First let me say that (while many will not agree with this) I was not sent by a denomination or church. Friends and family have been praying for me since birth to go overseas, and after much personal prayer and seeking of wisdom, I knew that it was exactly what the Lord wanted. So, I may not be your traditional M, but that is who I am.
> 
> I praise the Lord that I am using my degree in education here and I have a teaching job that pays the bills for me, my wife, and our baby who will be arriving in February. Most of the time I make enough money to provide for our family.
> 
> I have only had to ask for money a handful of times. Most of the time when I have asked for money, it was for the locals. We payed for a life-saving heart surgery in which Truth was proclaimed to the family that we supported, we paid for a brain surgery for an infant and the entire family put their faith in Christ, and have helped others with basic needs.
> 
> I have only asked for money personally 3 times. The first time was to send me here. My friends, family, and supporters paid for my ticket, my passport, my visa, and 2 months living expenses. The second time was because I needed an emergency surgery on my pacemaker and didn't have the money to fly home. I paid for the long haul flight out of my own pocket, and friends and family picked up local expenses and a local flight. The third time is just recently as my wife and I will be going back to America for 3 years so she can get US citizenship. As soon as she gets it, we are heading back home to Hanoi. We are doing this to be more "one" then we already are. Currently for my wife to leave the country and go to the US she needs to get a tourist visa which is not guaranteed. We will be covering a lot of the expenses to get back to America on our own, but we have also asked for help to lighten the burden on us. I don't consider any of this to be mooching.
> 
> With all of that being said, I have seen Ms who live lavish lifestyles in 3rd world countries asking for support all the time, and the most they are doing in country is giving someone a drink of clean water. They go home multiple times a year on other people's dimes, and they spend way too much where they are working.
> 
> Do Ms mooch? Many do, there is no doubt of that. How can we stop it? If an M is a member of a local church, that local church should get behind them fully spiritually and financially. If an M is not part of a local church, like myself, then I think it's ok to periodically ask for money, but don't expect it and don't guilt people for it. If you listen to God's call and you GO, then you should be ready to provide for your family even if you don't receive a dime in support. Another way for an M to avoid mooching, is to not join an organization that charges an arm and a leg in membership fees. I am not totally against M agencies, but many charge $10,000/year just to be a part of it.
> 
> That's my experience; take it for what it's worth.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> ~Keith Tacey



Thanks for the story.

A clarification on "membership fees" - I know of no missionary orgs that charge a "membership fee" but what is being charged is an admin fee which pays for the org's accountant and for advertizements and publications and the smooth running of a home office (which is, hopefully, very simple). Most of the time, these expenses are well worth it (especially the accountants, since I would not want to file all that paperwork with the IRS myself and know very little of accounting). Also, health and life insurance benefits are often part of this admin fee, which usually ranges from 10-20% of a missionary's gathered funds.

There are times when I have resented this fee, but I also profit from my org's publications and their insurance saved our bacons two years ago when Teresa had to be medivac'd twice in a 8-month period due to severe tropical fever and then miscarriage requiring emergency surgery. 

I have also seen varying levels of work-ethic among missionaries on the field. I have found in some cases, later, that much of their work was low-key discipling or literature-production for locals (easily done at home behind doors). 

About lavish lifestyles: In some parts of the world even having a shower and a toilet is lavish. I live a lavish lifestyle by comparison to the locals here.

Finally, you are not part of a local church? How does that work? I am sure many churches would want a connection with your work.


p.s. I would love to hear more of your work there. I have friends in Cambodia who are trying to reach out to displaced Vietnamese populations on the coast.


----------



## Rich Koster

To follow up on my post, Pergamum, I was in contact with him. I explained my concern about his methods. This was at a time when I was in a 5 point non-confessional congregation. I didn't like the methodology and his enthusiasm about getting people to say the sinners prayer either. I was becoming more Reformed and he was leaning more towards operating like an Arminian Baptist.


----------



## Zach

elnwood said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be others, but the only denominational missionaries I know of who are fully funded by the denomination are those sent by the SBC and OPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, the Christian and Missionary Alliance also fully supports their missionaries.
Click to expand...


As someone who has a considerable amount of interaction with the CMA through my Campus Ministry, it has its advantages and disadvantages. The CMA is very good at putting missionaries in the field, but is very broad theologically. The missionaries also will take time out of the field every few years to come home and "do the rounds" to encourage people to give to the Great Commission Fund. The "one big pot" approach allows for a considerable amount of missionaries to be sent out, but I really only know the missionaries that I (or people I am close with) have done short term trips with in the past. But, many are doing wonderful work on behalf of the gospel and as long as the gospel is being preached it doesn't matter if I know who is preaching it.


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know several couples here who are chronically under-supported and sometimes they live very, very plainly during those stretches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I was thinking of, along with extra hardships, which should be considered in any discussion of missionaries mooching.
Click to expand...


I think that in support-raising something like this already sort of happens. I find that though I am younger and less knowledgeable than some, by virtue of the remoteness of my area (it makes for good pictures) I have an easier time raising suppport, whereas some urban missionaries discipling key leaders in a nice office often have more strategic but less photogenic duties and thus have a harder time raising support.


----------



## Keith Tacey

"Finally, you are not part of a local church? How does that work? I am sure many churches would want a connection with your work."

Thanks for asking. I will try to make a long story somewhat short.

I put my faith in Christ 6 years ago while in university. At that time, I was not attending any church, but I was involved in a Christian organization that had a program every Tuesday night on campus.

Being a young Christian, I simply attended my girlfriend's church for 2 years, but they never mentioned the need to become a member, so I was just a regular attender that was only starting to get heavily involved in the church. I left this church as it was Pentecostal and I was seeing opposing truths in the Word of God.

After continuing to attend a bible study on campus, and attending a local seeker sensitive church (which I would learn later was a complete waste of time), I realized that God was calling me to missions. I immediately got connected with a friend of a friend who had a school in Vietnam, and I moved there 3 weeks after graduating from university to work as a teacher and as an M. As far as the M work, I teach a Free English class every week where we pray and the Truth is boldly and frequently proclaimed.

I have been here since early 2009 and I got married in April 2011. My wife (from Hanoi) is a nurse. She goes to the highlands to do medical trips, and also holistic development, with an emphasis on Evangelism, Discipleship, and training.

Through personal study and discussion on sites like "Puritanboard" and Facebook groups, I have come to the understanding that what I now believe, by the grace of God, can best be categorized as "Reformed Baptist."

That's my story and I'm sticking to it...


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> My own amount that I gather is divided into two; (1) personal funds and (2) ministry funds.
> 
> The minimum amount set by me and the agency together totals more than 4k per month. This would seem like an absurd amount were it all spent on personal funds. However, half of the raised funds are used for ministry needs (eg., I think I spent over 10,000 USD on medicines, surgeries, medivac flights for sick evangelists, bibles and ministry materials for poor evangelists).
> 
> In one year's time I gathered about 80,000 USD, but my own personal funds still remained the same (W-2 has read 27.5k, 28k and we might break the 30k mark this year with baby, who let's us raise our amount a bit. However, supporters send me free books, gifts, etc, that - if their real value were counted - would be worth another thousand or so per year).
> 
> So, this all gets a little embarrassing when supporters ask how much I have gathered in the last 12 months, etc.



First, if anyone thinks you are a moocher I am happy to talk to them and tell them that you are very disciplined and generous. 
In remote areas where you are compensating for a lack of infrastructure, of course there is a need for an expense account. A missionary to Liechtenstein probably doesn’t have to do very much at all in the way of diaconal assistance. Given the kind of work you’re engaged in, I’m glad you have a relatively healthy expense account.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know several couples here who are chronically under-supported and sometimes they live very, very plainly during those stretches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I was thinking of, along with extra hardships, which should be considered in any discussion of missionaries mooching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that in support-raising something like this already sort of happens. I find that though I am younger and less knowledgeable than some, by virtue of the remoteness of my area (it makes for good pictures) I have an easier time raising suppport, whereas some urban missionaries discipling key leaders in a nice office often have more strategic but less photogenic duties and thus have a harder time raising support.
Click to expand...


Pergs, I am glad to hear that the hardships get extra consideration and that people facing those do not often have to face the undersupportedness as well. However, to take an example of a missionary who faces a lot of hardships and yet still does not seem to have the same financial ease as the rest of us -- recently while on a sort of 'break' in a place that should have been more restful, the family had to stay in a place with a leaky roof and other water supply issues while the wife was recovering from giving birth and adjusting to the new little one. Many of us would have simply found a better hotel.

Also, I wonder what happens in a situation of undersupportedness where one does not have spectacular images -- does the missionary simply pray and wait (as my parents did) until someone inquires, while watching their family go without things that may be critical to their well being? Or do they ask, at the risk of seeming like 'moochers'?

I've had occasion to think a lot about this.  I used to wonder why missionaries will often have nicer homes and vehicles than many people they are working with, and at times, than many people I know in the states. After being around more missionaries I understand that in general their homes and cars are used with so much more hospitality, or in more critical conditions, and simply *so much more*, than many American homes/vehicles. Again I used to wonder at high amounts of support requested for poverty stricken areas until I realised that logistics in such areas require more expensive equipment and services; and that much more is being given charitably. I wondered why missionaries on furlough would eat out so much, or get more convenient and slightly higher priced items -- until I had some insight into what it is to try to live with small children out of a suitcase (my mom told me about her experiences, and I've lived in hotels myself for a bit). So it's hard for me to know where to offer points of criticism. I think a man is usually trying to balance being willing to suffer for the sake of gospel with trying to be a good provider for his wife and family -- how much does he ask of _them_? And it is often the wife and family, at least in circles where wife and family are not directly involved in ministry themselves -- who give up most in the way of being isolated and just enduring whatever there is to endure. While they don't carry the major strain or stress of the labor, there is often a lot of added labor to a wife's calling; and she doesn't have the 'rewardingness' of the man's vocation, nor the normal enjoyments or comforts the man's vocation would provide for her and her children at home. So many things we see as unnecessary indulgences for a missionary are probably something a man is trying to do to offset the impact of this on his family, so that they can stay on the field for a longer term.

The two criticisms I have (and they may be of ignorance still) are 1) I think the idea of trying to lead an essentially American life in another country is an unwise use of funds. I think missionaries should be well enough supplied that their children are able to enjoy advantages of the places where they are; but trying to give them all the same experiences and the same home atmosphere as kids in the states is probably only going to make life on the field more frustrating and needlessly expensive. And 2) I think missionaries who have significantly easier lifestyles than those around them should be careful of resentment in being called on to use/share that niceness with those they are ministering to. I well understand that to some degree things like toilets etc in poverty stricken places are just to facilitate things being more manageable for a homemaker who is coping with much more daily inconvenience than she would at home. But where things are sometimes nicer than what many supporters have in the states as well, it seems like hospitality -- and not just to mission teams but to local people -- should be the end in view. Happily, the most hospitable and generous people I have known have generally been missionaries.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> My own amount that I gather is divided into two; (1) personal funds and (2) ministry funds.
> 
> The minimum amount set by me and the agency together totals more than 4k per month. This would seem like an absurd amount were it all spent on personal funds. However, half of the raised funds are used for ministry needs (eg., I think I spent over 10,000 USD on medicines, surgeries, medivac flights for sick evangelists, bibles and ministry materials for poor evangelists).
> 
> In one year's time I gathered about 80,000 USD, but my own personal funds still remained the same (W-2 has read 27.5k, 28k and we might break the 30k mark this year with baby, who let's us raise our amount a bit. However, supporters send me free books, gifts, etc, that - if their real value were counted - would be worth another thousand or so per year).
> 
> So, this all gets a little embarrassing when supporters ask how much I have gathered in the last 12 months, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, if anyone thinks you are a moocher I am happy to talk to them and tell them that you are very disciplined and generous.
> In remote areas where you are compensating for a lack of infrastructure, of course there is a need for an expense account. A missionary to Liechtenstein probably doesn’t have to do very much at all in the way of diaconal assistance. Given the kind of work you’re engaged in, I’m glad you have a relatively healthy expense account.
Click to expand...


A missionary to Liechtenstein......hmmm......a wine, cheese and chocolate fund is necessary me thinks (to fit in with the locals of course).....

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------




a mere housewife said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know several couples here who are chronically under-supported and sometimes they live very, very plainly during those stretches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I was thinking of, along with extra hardships, which should be considered in any discussion of missionaries mooching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that in support-raising something like this already sort of happens. I find that though I am younger and less knowledgeable than some, by virtue of the remoteness of my area (it makes for good pictures) I have an easier time raising suppport, whereas some urban missionaries discipling key leaders in a nice office often have more strategic but less photogenic duties and thus have a harder time raising support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pergs, I am glad to hear that the hardships get extra consideration and that people facing those do not often have to face the undersupportedness as well. However, to take an example of a missionary who faces a lot of hardships and yet still does not seem to have the same financial ease as the rest of us -- recently while on a sort of 'break' in a place that should have been more restful, the family had to stay in a place with a leaky roof and other water supply issues while the wife was recovering from giving birth and adjusting to the new little one. Many of us would have simply found a better hotel.
> 
> Also, I wonder what happens in a situation of undersupportedness where one does not have spectacular images -- does the missionary simply pray and wait (as my parents did) until someone inquires, while watching their family go without things that may be critical to their well being? Or do they ask, at the risk of seeming like 'moochers'?
> 
> I've had occasion to think a lot about this.  I used to wonder why missionaries will often have nicer homes and vehicles than many people they are working with, and at times, than many people I know in the states. After being around more missionaries I understand that in general their homes and cars are used with so much more hospitality, or in more critical conditions, and simply *so much more*, than many American homes/vehicles. Again I used to wonder at high amounts of support requested for poverty stricken areas until I realised that logistics in such areas require more expensive equipment and services; and that much more is being given charitably. I wondered why missionaries on furlough would eat out so much, or get more convenient and slightly higher priced items -- until I had some insight into what it is to try to live with small children out of a suitcase (my mom told me about her experiences, and I've lived in hotels myself for a bit). So it's hard for me to know where to offer points of criticism. I think a man is usually trying to balance being willing to suffer for the sake of gospel with trying to be a good provider for his wife and family -- how much does he ask of _them_? And it is often the wife and family, at least in circles where wife and family are not directly involved in ministry themselves -- who give up most in the way of being isolated and just enduring whatever there is to endure. While they don't carry the major strain or stress of the labor, there is often a lot of added labor to a wife's calling; and she doesn't have the 'rewardingness' of the man's vocation, nor the normal enjoyments or comforts the man's vocation would provide for her and her children at home. So many things we see as unnecessary indulgences for a missionary are probably something a man is trying to do to offset the impact of this on his family, so that they can stay on the field for a longer term.
> 
> The two criticisms I have (and they may be of ignorance still) are 1) I think the idea of trying to lead an essentially American life in another country is an unwise use of funds. I think missionaries should be well enough supplied that their children are able to enjoy advantages of the places where they are; but trying to give them all the same experiences and the same home atmosphere as kids in the states is probably only going to make life on the field more frustrating and needlessly expensive. And 2) I think missionaries who have significantly easier lifestyles than those around them should be careful of resentment in being called on to use/share that niceness with those they are ministering to. I well understand that to some degree things like toilets etc in poverty stricken places are just to facilitate things being more manageable for a homemaker who is coping with much more daily inconvenience than she would at home. But where things are sometimes nicer than what many supporters have in the states as well, it seems like hospitality -- and not just to mission teams but to local people -- should be the end in view. Happily, the most hospitable and generous people I have known have generally been missionaries.
Click to expand...



You asked, 


> Also, I wonder what happens in a situation of undersupportedness where one does not have spectacular images -- does the missionary simply pray and wait (as my parents did) until someone inquires, while watching their family go without things that may be critical to their well being? Or do they ask, at the risk of seeming like 'moochers'?



Yes, all of the above and also (D) they get stressed and eventually go home due to the cumulative effect of this stress. Chronic under-support leads ot many family problems and marital conflict. It is one of the main reasons for missionaries going home ("Too Valuable to Lose' and "Worth Keeping" are two studies of missionary attrition done on 23,000 people in order to gather the reasons missionaries leave the field).

Money cannot buy happiness, but it can buy comfort and an ease of stress many times. I believe like any other muscle we have a "comfort muscle" and a stress and hospitality muscle, too. We can slowly build it, but sometimes we clean and jerk too much and need some rest, or we get flabby and hurt ourselves. The definition of "normal" (and also "clean and hygienic") can change after a while but many misionaries struggle for YEARS with certain aspects of the culture. A little cushion can buy a burned-out family a weekend away or somethign Western to eat or something nice reminding them of home.


You also commented:



> I wondered why missionaries on furlough would eat out so much, or get more convenient and slightly higher priced items



I once bought a box of Fruity Pebbles for 7 USD during an intense time of stress. I broke it out at night and WOW, it was worth every penny. Also, just a few weeks ago I was on another island and has access to better goods and we actually mailed a little bit of that here.



You also said of many missionaries that they were:



> ...trying to lead an essentially American life in another country is an unwise use of funds



I would claim that most are not "trying" to do this; but, rather, they are living a Western life simply because they are western and these things are hard to change. 

We carry our culture around with us. We speak English most of the time in our hom unless we are eating with local guests (which, is a common feature in our home, such that our children have picked up the language pretty good). 

We *try* to fit in, but we often need breaks from this. During pig roasts I often try not to eat much so I can go home and eat something that I really like instead of slimy pig cooked in a burnt hole in the ground (with a real smoky taste and lots of hair still on it). I never want to see another pig in my life.

Every couple has a different capacity to stretch and adapt. This is why I think it is essential that missionaries get cross-cultural training pre-field. Good theology is essential, but not enough. There needs to be a good pre-field program and on-field mentorin so that this "cross-cultural muscle" can build without straining. Several very astute theologians I know did very poorly adapting to local cultures due to a certain rigidity they had in them that inhibited their ability to exchange some of their western ways for local ways. I have done better than some, but have regressed of late due to burn-out, which brings out negativity in thinking towards the local culture and brings out a desire NOT to adapt but to reject and criticize the local culture. Here lately I can find 10 bad things about the local people to every 1 admirable trait here and I have been repenting of this.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergy, I should make it quite clear that I wasn't thinking at all of you when I said that about living as Americans (in fact, I should probably clarify that my comments on this thread haven't been directed to anything but the original question: because Ruben and I were both mk's, and because Ruben served as an interim missionary after we were married, I have thought about this a lot). I think of you and your wife as one of the better examples of not expecting your kids to lead normal American lives (I still remember a lot of things your wife said to me when you were here). I understand that we can't alter the way we were formed. But there are those things we simply can't change, those things we might be able to but they are a matter of trying to preserve some sanity and enough basic comfort to last as long as possible in a difficult place; and things that are *designed* to make us and our children feel like we/they are leading normal American lives (such as, all the kids in our home church in the states are wearing uniforms to school; my child will wear uniforms to homeschool), and it is the latter I still have doubts about. It probably exists more in a number of small than large expenses, but the net result may be someone who isn't for instance, as content as your wife is for your son to be out catching reptilian creatures instead of attending a summer sports camp; and that seems like making things harder for oneself in several ways (the financial aspect of which may be the least). Again, I've never had kids on the mission field, or tried to make that adaptation, hence I am unwilling to be too hard and fast in that opinion. 

I do understand that one of the terribly difficult things missionaries face is from those at home -- who have no idea what the impact of a number of daily hardships/sacrifices may be - making snap judgments only on the basis of what is visible to them. Feeling 'judged' by Christians at home on top of the difficulties of the field itself is crushing (perhaps only because I am a woman and can only speak as one, I think it must be especially so for a woman); and is one reason why I qualify things I wonder about in various circumstances, not simply 'out loud' but in my heart, with my own ignorance.


----------



## Pergamum

Heidi,

No probs. I am just trying to check myself, check my motives, check how I come across to others, check how I communicate, and make sure I am not being a total doofus when it comes to interacting with those that often work 50-hour weeks at less-than-rewarding jobs at a time of decline in the US economy so that I can do what I love here.

-
Yes, being a travelling missionary on furlough can be stressful: I remember being on the road for weeks. For the sake of "hospitality" we have had US families put us up on their couches in the middle of their home (no privacy at all....and host family members you just met get up and rummage through the fridge for a midnight snack in their pajamas while I am sleeping on the floor..or pretending too anyway), have been sick with colds travelling when families have insisted on having us stay over (when we craved solitude), have driven 8 hours between churches and unloaded our kids into a night church service where the kids were expected to sit still (they believed in even small children sitting through all services, no exception) after all day in a car after a morning church service in a town 300 miles away (I opted to let Noah go climb the oak tree out back while I preached....I think I offended a little blue haired lady by this). We have had our share of laundry pile up, too, and have had families "insist" that they help (not knowing what they were getting into...note well, Ben). We have also been very blessed, and helped as well. But, it can be wearing and many folks in the US truly do not understand the toll (especially the toting of the children around). Most missionaries I know truly want to bless and maximize their time with both the local people on the field and also with their supporters back home.

....What I am trying to say is that there is often a WIDE GAP between the missionaries' perception and the perceptions of their supporters or those that host them. Many things are done which could - if not done smoothly - needlessly offend or cause needless discomfort or prevent the missionary from doing what he feels is best and/or most restful for his family, etc. Since "beggers can't be choosers" the travelling missionary especially is put in some ackward positions. 

Concerning missionary mooches, I have seen examples where the missionary seemed a little too eager to ask things of others. I have also seen some exhausted missionaries feel so relieved at offers of help that they readily accept in an over-eager fashion (and are too tired to repeatedly gush thanks). During the first 3 weeks we were back on our last furlough, we felt like this, since Teresa was having some health problems. It was like we were living in a fog and was greatly aided by others guiding us and helping us.


----------



## a mere housewife

My mom speaks of those things, too.

I can't imagine feeling anything other than blessed by that memory of being able to see you and the kids, and to be able to talk with your wife (who is just one of the most amazing women I have ever known). I'm always grateful for further insights into what it's like for exhausted/recuperating missionaries to whom we supporters at home wish to be helpful and hospitable. Those things are very good for supporting churches to have more awareness of.


----------



## Pergamum

Wow, thank you, Heidi. Your words are too kind. We were blessed to see you as well, sorry we were sort of out of it then.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Well by definition they are all mooches because they borrow without repaying you back, however, they are investing in the kingdom of God. So take your pick I guess. Most missionaries are very giving and we are to support those families. For instance I work full time in a secular job, and I should donate to missions in support of their ministries, along with opening up my home when needed. I think people are ultimately selfish with their time and not so much their money, which makes me have a deep respect for most missionaries over seas. They endure horrible & dangerous conditions and leave the comforts of the United States to reach out to the lost in other parts of the world. 

However, I say most because I know a missionary family that is in Kenya and they have gotten to meet other Christian missionaries over the years. One very common thing that occurs with missionaries, that they told me, is that some will pocket money in excess for their retirement and 401k, since they do not have those types of benefits. I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God. For the working man retirement should mean moving into a full time position with the church, not sitting on a beach soaking up the sun. It reminds me of a quote from John Piper's book, "Dont Waste your Life". 

It says, "_I will tell you what a tragedy is. I will show you how to waste your life. Consider a story from the February 1998 edition of Reader’s Digest, which tells about a couple who “took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their 30 foot trawler, play softball and collect shells.”

At first, when I read it I thought it might be a joke. A spoof on the American Dream. But it wasn’t. Tragically, this was the dream: Come to the end of your life—your one and only precious, God-given life—and let the last great work of your life, before you give an account to your Creator, be this: playing softball and collecting shells.

Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: ‘Look, Lord. See my shells.’ That is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. Over against that, I put my protest: Don’t buy it. Don’t waste your life.”"_


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> One very common thing that occurs with missionaries, that they told me, is that some will pocket money in excess for their retirement and 401k, since they do not have those types of benefits. I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.



Yet missionaries are as likely as anyone physically and mentally to decline to the point of being unable to engage in active work of any kind. Some provision must be made for their maintenance and expenses during the decline of their life: a decline that in our times is likely to be quite lengthy and staggeringly expensive. It’s all very well to say people shouldn’t retire, but when you can no longer preach, teach, or write, or at least can do so only at a very reduced rate, what exactly are you supposed to do?


----------



## RobertPGH1981

py3ak said:


> Yet missionaries are as likely as anyone physically and mentally to decline to the point of being unable to engage in active work of any kind. Some provision must be made for their maintenance and expenses during the decline of their life: a decline that in our times is likely to be quite lengthy and staggeringly expensive. It’s all very well to say people shouldn’t retire, but when you can no longer preach, teach, or write, or at least can do so only at a very reduced rate, what exactly are you supposed to do?



I agree with what you just said, but they are taking money donated for their ministry and pocketing it. Technically speaking, the church should provide for them when they can no longer serve. My point was they were taking money that was intended for their ministry and putting some aside for themselves (even though it was not intended for that purpose).


----------



## smhbbag

> However, I say most because I know a missionary family that is in Kenya and they have gotten to meet other Christian missionaries over the years. One very common thing that occurs with missionaries, that they told me, is that some will pocket money in excess for their retirement and 401k, since they do not have those types of benefits. I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God. For the working man retirement should mean moving into a full time position with the church, not sitting on a beach soaking up the sun. It reminds me of a quote from John Piper's book, "Dont Waste your Life".



You do know that a 401k has more purposes beyond funding a secular retirement, right? 

The 401k is simply a tax-deferred account to draw from when you are older. There is nothing in the law requiring it to be used for collecting shells on the beach.



> My point was they were taking money that was intended for their ministry and putting some aside for themselves (even though it was not intended for that purpose).



When I give to a missionary, that's precisely my purpose. He's spending it on himself if he uses it to buy food now, or saves it to buy food when he's 75. Either way, he's using my money wisely.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

smhbbag said:


> The 401k is simply a tax-deferred account to draw from when you are older. There is nothing in the law requiring it to be used for collecting shells on the beach.



When people think of retirement that's typically what comes to mind. Taking away funds for personal necessity is one thing (food, clothes & shelter), but its something else when you are socking away money in a 401k for retirement when you are in a country full of people that are starving. I'm not just picking on the missionaries because we are all guilty of that. Think about the distribution of wealth in the United States compared to the world. Here is a quick example:

World distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you don't want to look, according to Wikipedia the United States holds 32.65% of the wealth of the world. The average income of a family in the United States is around 30k a year. The average family income in the world is around 10k. However, this number is very misleading since the majority of the worlds population lives on dollars a day. So I ask, how can a family struggling to even eat in a different country retire? Is there such a thing as retirement for the majority of the worlds population? Are we showing lack of trust in God since he promises to provide for his children? Wouldn't these verses listed below also apply to retirement?

Mat 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 
Mat 6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 
Mat 6:29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 
Mat 6:30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 
Mat 6:31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 
Mat 6:32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 
Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 
Mat 6:34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I agree with what you just said, but they are taking money donated for their ministry and pocketing it. Technically speaking, the church should provide for them when they can no longer serve. My point was they were taking money that was intended for their ministry and putting some aside for themselves (even though it was not intended for that purpose).



So you’re saying the church should have a pension plan. That’s not a bad idea. 
I would suggest that if you don’t trust a missionary to make their own judgments about saving, that you simply support another with whom you feel more comfortable. But please don’t accuse them of misappropriating funds, or of raising funds under false pretenses. Most people understand that spending, saving, and giving, are all things that will happen to donated money.


----------



## Edward

RobertPGH1981 said:


> I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.



So how many elderly and infirm (unable to work) missionaries are you supporting?


----------



## Pergamum

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Well by definition they are all mooches because they borrow without repaying you back, however, they are investing in the kingdom of God. So take your pick I guess. Most missionaries are very giving and we are to support those families. For instance I work full time in a secular job, and I should donate to missions in support of their ministries, along with opening up my home when needed. I think people are ultimately selfish with their time and not so much their money, which makes me have a deep respect for most missionaries over seas. They endure horrible & dangerous conditions and leave the comforts of the United States to reach out to the lost in other parts of the world.
> 
> However, I say most because I know a missionary family that is in Kenya and they have gotten to meet other Christian missionaries over the years. One very common thing that occurs with missionaries, that they told me, is that some will pocket money in excess for their retirement and 401k, since they do not have those types of benefits. I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God. For the working man retirement should mean moving into a full time position with the church, not sitting on a beach soaking up the sun. It reminds me of a quote from John Piper's book, "Dont Waste your Life".
> 
> It says, "_I will tell you what a tragedy is. I will show you how to waste your life. Consider a story from the February 1998 edition of Reader’s Digest, which tells about a couple who “took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their 30 foot trawler, play softball and collect shells.”
> 
> At first, when I read it I thought it might be a joke. A spoof on the American Dream. But it wasn’t. Tragically, this was the dream: Come to the end of your life—your one and only precious, God-given life—and let the last great work of your life, before you give an account to your Creator, be this: playing softball and collecting shells.
> 
> Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: ‘Look, Lord. See my shells.’ That is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. Over against that, I put my protest: Don’t buy it. Don’t waste your life.”"_





> that some will pocket money in excess for their retirement and 401k, since they do not have those types of benefits. I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.



Do you make a distinction between a missionary's "personal funds" and "ministry funds" and if so, isn't this a commendable trait of planning and foresight for a missionary to use personal funds for kid's college or for when they get older?

The majority of the missionaries I know are trying NOT to retire and only do so when they get too sick or enfeebled to serve overseas and need better facilities. 

My org made me contribute to a plan, since they know the mindset of many missionaries - and I am very thankful to them for this forced policy of having a minimum taken out each month for "retirement" or "savings" since many otherwise would leave the field with nothing to their name.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------




RobertPGH1981 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet missionaries are as likely as anyone physically and mentally to decline to the point of being unable to engage in active work of any kind. Some provision must be made for their maintenance and expenses during the decline of their life: a decline that in our times is likely to be quite lengthy and staggeringly expensive. It’s all very well to say people shouldn’t retire, but when you can no longer preach, teach, or write, or at least can do so only at a very reduced rate, what exactly are you supposed to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with what you just said, but they are taking money donated for their ministry and pocketing it. Technically speaking, the church should provide for them when they can no longer serve. My point was they were taking money that was intended for their ministry and putting some aside for themselves (even though it was not intended for that purpose).
Click to expand...


You wrote,



> .
> 
> the church should provide for them when they can no longer serve.




But the church IS providing for them when they can no longer serve if they allow freedom in a missionary's use of funds and/or sets up a retirement or savings fund for them.


Sad to say, but most churches forget about a "non-producing" missionary once they return Stateside. I know several missionaries who even had to go into debt to buy their plane tickets back home and not even 6 months' notice was given to give the family a smoother transition. I have one supporting church of this mindset right now and they left a hurting couple nearly stranded overseas...all because the wife got stressed out and "couldn't hack it" and they were forced to return home (and will never be salvaged again for later service because of the scars inflicted).

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------




RobertPGH1981 said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 401k is simply a tax-deferred account to draw from when you are older. There is nothing in the law requiring it to be used for collecting shells on the beach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people think of retirement that's typically what comes to mind. Taking away funds for personal necessity is one thing (food, clothes & shelter), but its something else when you are socking away money in a 401k for retirement when you are in a country full of people that are starving. I'm not just picking on the missionaries because we are all guilty of that. Think about the distribution of wealth in the United States compared to the world. Here is a quick example:
> 
> World distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> If you don't want to look, according to Wikipedia the United States holds 32.65% of the wealth of the world. The average income of a family in the United States is around 30k a year. The average family income in the world is around 10k. However, this number is very misleading since the majority of the worlds population lives on dollars a day. So I ask, how can a family struggling to even eat in a different country retire? Is there such a thing as retirement for the majority of the worlds population? Are we showing lack of trust in God since he promises to provide for his children? Wouldn't these verses listed below also apply to retirement?
> 
> Mat 6:27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?
> Mat 6:28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin,
> Mat 6:29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
> Mat 6:30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
> Mat 6:31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'
> Mat 6:32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
> Mat 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
> Mat 6:34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
Click to expand...



Robert, 

If these are your views, you should apply this more broadly and strive to make sure your pastor also is not taking out retirement either and has no plans to retire. Then work towards reforming the entire congregation of your church. Then, make sure that you yourself work up until your dying day or die before you become un-productive. If you fall ill or become frail, I would also expect you to reject any government-subsidized healthcare so that you can maintain a purity of principle.


-
Yes. I agree with you that there is a wealth disparity in the world. 

There is only so much each of us can do, however. Us missionaries are willing to suffer hardship. Most of us, also, don't feel entitled to any retirement and most people I know don't even have an expectation of retiring unless their health fails (a very real possibility). But....it is a real, nice thought when one's missionary org or church makes such a provision and encourages us to store money away for a later time.

Our W-2 reads about 30k per year. The CIA Factbook lists my country's yearly average income at 660 USD per year. That's quite a humbling disparity and we live daily with a very real awareness of this. My org provides a plan for me and I have several thousand dollars saved up now after 6 years. I live with a daily humbling knowing that I am one of the richest folks around me.

-
A final observation, in many non-western cultures, there are tighter expectations of how we treat our old people and there are fewer old folk's homes in many areas overseas and more frequent living arrangements which include extended family.

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

p.s. it is a false dichotomy to say one is being anxious for tomorrow due to saving. Heeding Matthew 6 does not necessitate a lack of fiscal foresight.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> RobertPGH1981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with what you just said, but they are taking money donated for their ministry and pocketing it. Technically speaking, the church should provide for them when they can no longer serve. My point was they were taking money that was intended for their ministry and putting some aside for themselves (even though it was not intended for that purpose).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you’re saying the church should have a pension plan. That’s not a bad idea.
> I would suggest that if you don’t trust a missionary to make their own judgments about saving, that you simply support another with whom you feel more comfortable. But please don’t accuse them of misappropriating funds, or of raising funds under false pretenses. Most people understand that spending, saving, and giving, are all things that will happen to donated money.
Click to expand...


Ruben,

You mentioned ...



> raising funds under false pretenses.



This is a HUGE area in missions. And many missionaries are guilty of this, at least occasionally and mostly due to lack of clear communication or not thinking through things enough.

Donor intent:

The phrase "donor intent" is very important when dealing with the relationship betweeen missionaries and their supporters. Was this check mailed to me for "me" for "ministry" for "the local ministry [meaning not other ministries or not my ministries in other areas]" ...or is it ear-marked for a special project. If so, does this include transportation to and from the place of the special project, food eaten while doing the special project? If given money for a trip where "business" and pleasure are mixed, can I take my wife out to eat, buy a toy for my kids, pay a little extra for a room with A/c, etc, when done on a supporter's dime?

So "donor intent" (what the donor desires to be done with his money) is often very fuzzy and the missionary can be wracked by quilt sometimes. Especially if they get tricked out of 200 USD, like I did 2 months ago. Also, determining donor intent is essential for IRS purposes as well, especially for orgs such as mine that strive to have good ECFA ratings every year.

Some donors have (God bless these folks) given some funds and have disallowed the funds to be used for ministry, stating that the funds may only be used for toys or a date night with my wife, etc...and this allows us to free our minds from the constant calculations done whereby we rate our effectiveness versus our monthly expenditure...etc.

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------




Edward said:


> RobertPGH1981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many elderly and infirm (unable to work) missionaries are you supporting?
Click to expand...


I know one or two churches that, commendably, look after their infirm ex-missionaries.

I have also talked to far more churches that see these older missionaries as a burden. Some even wish to be rid of the burden so as to support younger workers. Some inherited the support of these older missionaries when they took the pastorate; sometimes the church has even changed somewhat in doctrine but just didn't feel right to drop someone after 20 years of support... many calvinistic baptist churches are using their mission dollars to support sometimes up to 30% semi-Arminian missionaries over the age of 55, waiting for them to retire in order to take on a younger crowd. And sadly, younger missionaries are not really replacing the older crowd - who went out in a wave after WWII. 


Local churches are incredibly fickle and unreliable. Most pulpits in the US change at least every 3-5 years. I could not advise any missionary to trust their local church back home to be there 20 years from now for them. Most churches are only the same church in name only after 2 decades and you almost might as well say it is nearly a different church than the one which began the support of the missionary in the first place.

---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------




Edward said:


> RobertPGH1981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many elderly and infirm (unable to work) missionaries are you supporting?
Click to expand...


I know one or two churches that, commendably, look after their infirm ex-missionaries.

I have also talked to far more churches that see these older missionaries as a burden. Some even wish to be rid of the burden so as to support younger workers. Some inherited the support of these older missionaries when they took the pastorate; sometimes the church has even changed somewhat in doctrine but just didn't feel right to drop someone after 20 years of support... many calvinistic baptist churches are using their mission dollars to support sometimes up to 30% semi-Arminian missionaries over the age of 55, waiting for them to retire in order to take on a younger crowd. And sadly, younger missionaries are not really replacing the older crowd - who went out in a wave after WWII. 


Local churches are incredibly fickle and unreliable. Most pulpits in the US change at least every 3-5 years. I could not advise any missionary to trust their local church back home to be there 20 years from now for them. Most churches are only the same church in name only after 2 decades and you almost might as well say it is nearly a different church than the one which began the support of the missionary in the first place.


----------



## satz

Elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double honor (1 Tim 5:17). If an ordinary church member is allowed to save (and they should be saving - Pr 30:25) why in the world shouldn't missionaries, who are serving God's kingdom, be allowed to save for the future?


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> Ruben,
> 
> You mentioned ...
> 
> 
> raising funds under false pretenses.
> This is a HUGE area in missions. And many missionaries are guilty of this, at least occasionally and mostly due to lack of clear communication or not thinking through things enough.
> 
> Donor intent:
> 
> The phrase "donor intent" is very important when dealing with the relationship betweeen missionaries and their supporters. Was this check mailed to me for "me" for "ministry" for "the local ministry [meaning not other ministries or not my ministries in other areas]" ...or is it ear-marked for a special project. If so, does this include transportation to and from the place of the special project, food eaten while doing the special project? If given money for a trip where "business" and pleasure are mixed, can I take my wife out to eat, buy a toy for my kids, pay a little extra for a room with A/c, etc, when done on a supporter's dime?
> 
> So "donor intent" (what the donor desires to be done with his money) is often very fuzzy and the missionary can be wracked by quilt sometimes. Especially if they get tricked out of 200 USD, like I did 2 months ago. Also, determining donor intent is essential for IRS purposes as well, especially for orgs such as mine that strive to have good ECFA ratings every year.
> 
> Some donors have (God bless these folks) given some funds and have disallowed the funds to be used for ministry, stating that the funds may only be used for toys or a date night with my wife, etc...and this allows us to free our minds from the constant calculations done whereby we rate our effectiveness versus our monthly expenditure...etc.



I wouldn't consider your examples raising funds under false pretenses, though. You are not pretending that the funds will be used in a certain way, beyond your basic commitment to be a good steward of what you are given and diligent in the work you've been called to. Unless you have an intent to deceive, or are just Byzantine in what you say, I don't see what pretense has been given.


----------



## Pergamum

Ruben:

I have no idea what it means to speak like a person from the eastern roman empire, but I do know that donor expectations may vary. And some ackward situations may arise. Here are a few situations I have experienced where donors might have been disapointed had they not been more understanding:

1). I raised funds for a project growing coffee in a poor village to support evangelists. At the last minute, the gov't refused to grant the permission and so different crops were grown (fish farm, cow, cabbage, and perfume from a local flower). I informed the church and they were okay with the change, but a year later I had an individual supporter (who either forgot of the change or didn't get the memo of the change from his own home church that supported the project) emailed and asked how the coffee was doing.

2). Double-dipping: I raised funds for a surgery for a local man and too much came in. So, I had to track down supporters and see if it was okay to divert their funds. All was okay, but something similar happened to an acquaintance I know of, and it hurt trust when that supporter of this other missionary found out that he was giving to an already fully-supported project (his giving was predicated on the need.....so, no need=no need to give).

3). Writing off "fun" things as ministry: Donor trust is sometimes eroded if you maximize fun in ministry meetings and use ministry funds for meetings in nice places. Last year my org gathered all the Asia missionaries to a central place in Bali (a nice touristy place that is still affordable - about 70 USD per night for a nice place with a pool). We were able to use ministry expenses for this since we gathered to pray and discuss issues together, but the pics coming out of that week were all of me and Noah swimming in the pool (after usually 8 hours of meetins a day, mind you). That may be hard to stomach for a factory worker making 10 bucks an hour and working 50 hour-weeks who has a large car and house payment to pay, let alone trying to give to his church. I spent the night in the homes of several families like this, who - despite long work hours and low wages for the quality of work they did - still insisted that I stay with them as I travelled and made it a point to cook me a special meal. Wow. Very, very humbling.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Edward said:


> I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.
> So how many elderly and infirm (unable to work) missionaries are you supporting?



None at the moment, but I don't know any to support. However, I donate to the church and the church and/or missionary organizations should be taking care of them. I think you are missing the point here. Some active missionaries are monitored and others are not monitored. The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should. I'm also arguing an ideal that we should live up to but would be unlikely to live up to.


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should.



Unless you have evidence of this, it seems like a notable instance of evil surmising. Because your statement doesn’t merely reflect that it’s a possibility: it makes it sound as though every missionary who isn’t watched like a hawk will dip his hands in the kitty and help himself to something he’s not entitled to. No doubt some missionaries have done, but to generalize in this way is quite a slur on the character of missionaries generally.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Hey Perganum, 

I am not arguing the retirement of missionaries here. 

I am arguing abuses that I have heard about with missionaries who were not monitored by missionary organizations. Most Missionary Organizations monitor funds coming in and going out so the missionaries are more accountable with the money in hand. The Missionary Family that I talked to told me about a man they met that was taking more than he should have and placing it into his retirement. He was able to do this because he was not monitored. I was Appalled by this because the money intended wasn't for his retirement in this circumstance. In most cases it was intended to provide food, shelter and other necessities for the ministry. I realize there is a gray area like you said before, but based on my discussion the gray area did not exist.




Pergamum said:


> If these are your views, you should apply this more broadly and strive to make sure your pastor also is not taking out retirement either and has no plans to retire. Then work towards reforming the entire congregation of your church. Then, make sure that you yourself work up until your dying day or die before you become un-productive. If you fall ill or become frail, I would also expect you to reject any government-subsidized healthcare so that you can maintain a purity of principle.



I was pointing out an ideal and wasn't arguing against retirement as a whole. What I had in mind when I was writing about the Distribution of Wealth was focusing on are those who retire and are able to work but choose to not work. I was also arguing against the missionaries that may be taking more than they should. 

How does an argument for Healthcare and Social Security from Taxpayers coincide with a personal contributions into a retirement fund? For example how can you compare SSI to a 401k? I pay taxes and taxes support the elderly citizens of today and the elderly citizens of tomorrow (me & you).

---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Quote Originally Posted by RobertPGH1981 View Post
> The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should.
> Unless you have evidence of this, it seems like a notable instance of evil surmising. Because your statement doesn’t merely reflect that it’s a possibility: it makes it sound as though every missionary who isn’t watched like a hawk will dip his hands in the kitty and help himself to something he’s not entitled to. No doubt some missionaries have done, but to generalize in this way is quite a slur on the character of missionaries generally.



That wasn't my intention but based on what I have heard it would appear that monitoring would be best. By not monitoring it makes it easy to fall into those temptations with a large flow of money being handled. So what I should have wrote was, "The missionaries that are not monitored may be more tempted to abuse their situations and take more than they technically should."


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> So what I should have wrote was, "The missionaries that are not monitored may be more tempted to abuse their situations and take more than they technically should."



That would indeed have been a better statement. At least some agencies that provide such oversight positively insist that the missionary set aside funds against the future.


Pergamum said:


> I have no idea what it means to speak like a person from the eastern roman empire, but I do know that donor expectations may vary.


By Byzantine I meant elaborate to the point of obscurity. I can understand why your three examples would make some hesitate, though it sounds like you dealt with them well. But they do not constitute any genuine abuse, and if there were an antecedent trust for the missionary would probably not disturb my skeptical eyebrow's sweet repose. It is helpful to bear in mind that trust does have a lot to do not only with what things are but also how they appear, and take care to provide things honest in the sight of all men. But donors should also realize that they are not present on site and that they are necessarily in the position of accepting the judgment of others about what is best and how situations have changed.


----------



## Pergamum

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find this very appalling since that we do not retire from working for God.
> So how many elderly and infirm (unable to work) missionaries are you supporting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None at the moment, but I don't know any to support. However, I donate to the church and the church and/or missionary organizations should be taking care of them. I think you are missing the point here. Some active missionaries are monitored and others are not monitored. The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should. I'm also arguing an ideal that we should live up to but would be unlikely to live up to.
Click to expand...


Wow



> Some active missionaries are monitored and others are not monitored. The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should.



I would feel much more comfortable with this statement if you added "some" or, even better, "a few" abuse their privileges. Are missionaries so untrustworthy that close scrutiny is the only way that they can be kept from corruption?

---------- Post added 12-30-2011 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 12-29-2011 at 11:58 PM ----------

-
Missionaries and missionary orgs are "monitored" much more closely than most small local (especially rural) churches that I know. The financial practices in place in my org are ECFA approved and they are checked yearly to ensure they are above-the-board. I would argue strongly that the rate of financial mismanagement could be proven to be much lower within the evangelical missionary orgs than your average church in the US. In fact, this paperwork and accounting and the saving of receipts is one of my most frequent aggravations with my org since it is hard to get receipts in some areas of the world (but - later - I am thankful that they require such careful accounting).

---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------




RobertPGH1981 said:


> Hey Perganum,
> 
> I am not arguing the retirement of missionaries here.
> 
> I am arguing abuses that I have heard about with missionaries who were not monitored by missionary organizations. Most Missionary Organizations monitor funds coming in and going out so the missionaries are more accountable with the money in hand. The Missionary Family that I talked to told me about a man they met that was taking more than he should have and placing it into his retirement. He was able to do this because he was not monitored. I was Appalled by this because the money intended wasn't for his retirement in this circumstance. In most cases it was intended to provide food, shelter and other necessities for the ministry. I realize there is a gray area like you said before, but based on my discussion the gray area did not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If these are your views, you should apply this more broadly and strive to make sure your pastor also is not taking out retirement either and has no plans to retire. Then work towards reforming the entire congregation of your church. Then, make sure that you yourself work up until your dying day or die before you become un-productive. If you fall ill or become frail, I would also expect you to reject any government-subsidized healthcare so that you can maintain a purity of principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out an ideal and wasn't arguing against retirement as a whole. What I had in mind when I was writing about the Distribution of Wealth was focusing on are those who retire and are able to work but choose to not work. I was also arguing against the missionaries that may be taking more than they should.
> 
> How does an argument for Healthcare and Social Security from Taxpayers coincide with a personal contributions into a retirement fund? For example how can you compare SSI to a 401k? I pay taxes and taxes support the elderly citizens of today and the elderly citizens of tomorrow (me & you).
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by RobertPGH1981 View Post
> The ones that are not monitored abuse their privileges and take more than they technically should.
> Unless you have evidence of this, it seems like a notable instance of evil surmising. Because your statement doesn’t merely reflect that it’s a possibility: it makes it sound as though every missionary who isn’t watched like a hawk will dip his hands in the kitty and help himself to something he’s not entitled to. No doubt some missionaries have done, but to generalize in this way is quite a slur on the character of missionaries generally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't my intention but based on what I have heard it would appear that monitoring would be best. By not monitoring it makes it easy to fall into those temptations with a large flow of money being handled. So what I should have wrote was, "The missionaries that are not monitored may be more tempted to abuse their situations and take more than they technically should."
Click to expand...


Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I agree with you if you are arguing that we ought to insure close accountability. I would also agree if you were to state that we are to be held to a much higher standard than other Christians as well. And, in most cases, this is being done. I believe that the occasions of monetary mismanagement by missionaries are noteworthy due to their rarity. Of the folks I know here, almost all of them are stricter and more careful in record-keeping than I am (I have lost a few receipts these last few months....a couple receipts were destroyed due to house leaks, aargh)... and where I am at now I trust the other missionaries to a high degree. 

In fact, the reputation of the missionary community is such that last year my friend was passing through the highlands and was approached by a total tribal stranger with an envelope full of money (a fortune by local standards). This man was trying to deliver thsi small fortune to his relatives on the coast (medical emergency probably). Rather than pay part of that fortune to buy plane ticekts to the coast and back to hand deliver the sum himself, this man saw the western missionary and asked my friend to hand carry the envelope to his relative waiting at the airport on the coast. Such was the trust of the expat missionary community among this particular tribal people that they were more ready to entrust their life savings to my friend than their own family. 



I have met several fundamentalist baptist missionaries who operate with large budgets. The reason for the large budget need was due to the fact that these missionaries had about a half-dozen local pastors on their payroll and were paying them, in essence, a monthly wage. The western pastor had, in effect, an entourage. With this strategy in a poor country, one is sure to have "converts" - at least while you are physically present. The local congregations were wealthy enough to pay for the pastor themselves, but these western expat missionaries were fueling religious activities through the monthly infusion of large sums of missionary money and several local Christians changed local church affiliation to become part of this new group (they were poor and gained financially by attending this fundamentalist church). The church buildings were (80-90%) constructed through the use of western funds and missionary funds paid for food after after Sunday service. 

Also, I have heard that in the Philippines also (especially in the slums of Manila) Korean missionaries hand out sacks of rice to poor communities as an enticement for them to gather at their new church plant...and thus are able to report good church planting numbers due to this policy of missionary fund usage. However, church members switch quickly when a new missionary offers a sack and a half of rice. 

But even these examples are (perhaps) not outright financial dishonesty, but merely bad church-planting methodology which stunts the indigenous growth of the church and hinders them from stepping up to the plate and owning the ministry themselves. I myself have given unwisely in the name of generosity when true Christian love may have better entailed that I, instead, push local communities of Christians to own up to their own responsibilities and not rely upon an outsider for help. But refraining from giving is somtimes hard when you are the richest person around for miles.


----------



## thbslawson

I suppose as a "Missionary" I can weigh in here. 

Can a missionary be a mooch? Of course. Are all of them? No. Most missionaries are required to raise their own support in order to go to the field. They are constantly faced with the fact that support is coming and going, sometimes without warning, and no apparent reason. Therefore, it can sometimes be very hard to budget on a month-to-month basis when one doesn't know exactly what's coming in. I recognize there's the principle of "do not worry about tomorrow" but we still live in a world where we have to make plans and such, and that's always going to be the case. 

In an effort to be transparent, I'll be happy to share how our support works for our mission. We lived in St. Petersburg, Russia, and we were required to raise $5250 per month. Now, Google living expenses in St. Petersburg for the average Russian and you might say "that's an awesome salary!" and ask "Why so high?" But there's more to it than what you might see in the numbers. Here's how it worked out for us.

Starting Amount: $5250 (That's IF it all comes in).

-Ten Percent Mission Assessment: $525 (All mission boards to do this to cover operational expenses, and I totally see it as valid)

$4,725

-Medical FSA: $175 (We don't have medical insurance, but rather use a co-op called "Christian Care Medishare) This helps cover our deductible. By the way, we are required to have some form of medical coverage just to live in Russia by the Russian government. Having the FSA helps partially fulfill those requirements.

$4,550

-Withholdings (Federal, SS, Medicare, State): $512

$4,038

-Ministry Expenses: $500 (These are the costs that accumulate over the year to cover our annual visa invitations, processing, and registration of said visas which gets mighty costly for a family of four, as well as our plane tickets round-trip to the States, which is necessary because Russia requires you apply for your visa in your home country, and all medical tests that must accompany said visas. In addition, there are other ministry projects throughout the year as well as expenses required by our mission for all missionaries, such as having high-speed internet, travel for ministry and travel to visit supporters while in the US, etc.) 

$3,538 - So this is what gets deposited into our bank account. Doing well eh?

-Tithe: $360 (We sent some back to our home church and divided the rest among some churches we worked with in St. Petersburg. 

$3,178

-Rent: $1,100 (Average cost of rent. We lived in a modest, older apartment, 45 minutes outside of town. It was a bargain).

$2,078

-Medical Co-Op: $500 (This is the Christian Care Medi-share I mentioned earlier

$1,578

-Food: $850 - (This is not eating out money, this is groceries, eating at the store. Food is much more expensive in Russia. We didn't eat lavishly, but I'll be honest, we did eat healthier than the average Russian and did include more vegetables and fruits in our diets. We also used this money to host families and Bible studies at our apartment where we shared such foods.

$728

-Public Transportation: $75

$653

-Utilities: $100

$553

-College Savings for Kids: $60

$493

-Household & Miscellaneous: $100 (Cleaning, supplies, unexpected expenses)

$393

-Personal Savings: $100 

$293

-Entertainment: $50 (Yes, believe it or not, missionaries do need to relax. Living in a foreign culture, speaking a foreign language does weigh upon a person. So we visited museums, got ice cream, and occasionally bought Christmas gifts and birthday presents for our kids.

$243

-Stateside Expenses: $150 (We kept a P.O. Box in the States, as well as car insurance, in addition to several other recurring bills that we had to pay in order to keep our MS residence.)

$93

So there's our margin for error each month, $93. Now, if the dollar decided to take a nosedive to the ruble (which it did numerous times), a lot of those numbers get changed. This is not a "woe is me" pity party I'm looking for. We are blessed with good supporters. So why is our support so much higher than the average wages for a Russian? There are many reasons. First, health insurance. They don't have to pay for health insurance because they can use the socialized citizen, an advantage not available to foreigners without cost. Secondly, most people live in apartments that they inherited from the government when the USSR collapsed. Thus they also avoid the $1100 rent. People don't have other insurance costs, and are not required by law to process living permits and visas each year.

In short, there's a lot more that goes into the cost of living in a foreign country than what the local average is. 

Now, we strive to be careful with every penny we receive, and firmly believe that when the support runs dry, it's time to hang it up. But that doesn't mean we don't let our supporters know of our needs when support drops. There's a difference between being a begging mooch, and partnering with churches and other believers to carry out Kingdom work. 

It's funny, when a pastor gets a salary from the tithe and offering money at a church, no one accuses him of being a mooch, yet when I missionary must raise his own salary from multiple sources, this can be the accusation against him. When we travel in the States, we don't expect for people to pay for our meals, and we don't try to impose upon people unnecessarily. It's strange how so many people delight in hearing what the Lord is doing in foreign lands, but when it comes time to talk about how much it costs to do it, people can clam up.

I suppose another question to throw out here is what are the expectations for a missionary's lifestyle? Many pastors in the PCA live in modest, but nice houses. They don't live extravagantly, but they feed their families well and also seem to enjoy some of the pleasures of life (i.e. vacations, TV's, computers, decent vehicles, date nights with the wife, outings with children, etc.). Are these things off limits for missionaries?


----------



## J. Dean

Is a missionary a mooch? No more so than a pastor is, and so long as he is doing his job, the answer is "no".


----------



## he beholds

I just think that the bottom line is, once you give, it's theirs. Sure it's a temptation to judge missionaries or pastors or anyone else who earns money via donation, or begrudge them their money, but if you are bitter you are probably the problem. (And when I'm bitter, I'm the problem.) 

The people in my neighborhood would never question my family regarding how we spend the money my husband earns as a public school teacher, even though he is paid via tax payer funds. They clearly see that the money he earns, even though it comes from their pocketbooks, is his. But when it's a pastor or a missionary, we suddenly feel like our giving comes with strings attached. Which is odd, since we voluntarily give to missionaries and pastors because we believe in their work and trust them, but my husband's salary comes from people's monies being coerced out of them, and yet that they can let go of more freely. I think that's a strange irony.


----------



## Pergamum

Jessica,

Giving to missionaries comes with a higher expectation and a missionary or pastor is not really a private person but becomes subject to much more public scrutiny (and rightly so). Therefore, we cannot claim privacy or total freedom in the monies given to us, especially since there is a financial relationship predicated on a certain way of life and a certain manner of spending those funds.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

Just a quick qualification. Some organizations, individuals or even ministry paradigms can give a legitimate Christian vocation a bad reputations. When I read your title, I thought, "I have some in mind." To that end, I share this: I read a couple articles once that really put "short term" untrained missionary work in focus. I distance myself from the authors and many of their views, so I won't bring up their names here. But some of the thoughts they shared were very compelling. Here are a few samples:

"You know the scam because you have been guilt-tripped into giving money to some friend, or some friend’s kids, so that they could spend two or three weeks in some third world nation doing “missions’ work.” [This is] rather a waste of time, money and energy that is inherently deceptive, manipulative and self-serving. Now don’t get me wrong; I have every respect for REAL missionaries;...The scam starts with someone wanting to “motivate” young people about “missions.” Then, a program is developed wherein high-schoolers are encouraged to go to some third world nation for a couple of weeks to do “short-term mission’s work.” That “work” usually consists of doing some light construction or something...Well, do you really think it is cost effective to send a bunch of untrained American teenagers to Central America for three weeks to do light construction work? Are third world nations really THAT short-handed in labor that it makes sense to import at great expense American unskilled labor? Couldn’t you do the SAME construction work for a FRACTION of the cost by hiring local workers? So, the first “benefit” of short term missions is to deprive local people of some desperately needed work and wages;...And what about this “work” constitutes “missions;” do these kids have any training in sharing the Gospel in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Xhosa, Zulu, Swahili or whatever? What, that would take years to master and we cannot expect our kids to actually SPEAK the language of the people to whom they are supposed to be “ministering” to? And these kids have NO theological training, NO evangelism training and in fact will likely never actually TALK with foreign nationals anyway? So other than playing “ping-pong” in the Recreation center, or doing some “grunt” work that could be hired out much more cost effectively, just what DO these kids do?...Something like half of American missionaries in Africa end up in Kenya; yet every year, the plea comes down to support our “missions” work there. Why so many missionaries to ONE nation that has been evangelized for over a century and has an over 70% Christian population? Why do most “missionaries” NEVER lead ANYONE to Christ? Why must missionaries raise incredible amounts of money BEFORE they can “go to the field;” significant amounts of which STAYS in America at the national headquarters?...I have a hard time taking food out of my kid’s mouths to pay for someone else’s kids to have a three week religious vacation in Mexico or South America

"...Yet for some obscure reason many Christians seem to think that any churchgoer can be a missionary! The flood of untrained, ill disciplined and unaccountable lone ranger supposed “missionaries” into Third World countries is disastrous. Many don't even know enough of the local culture, to realize how much damage they are doing to the Christian cause...
I have seen many female missionaries in trousers, or even shorts, ministering in rural Africa. They seem oblivious to the fact that all the local Christian women only wear dresses...Once a team of 6 American medical missionaries flew out to work with us in Mozambique. As they arrived in Malawi, the two women were detained by Police for wearing trousers!...We had to go into town to buy some dresses for the ladies before the police would release them!...in Africa, it is generally considered a disgrace for a man to have long hair...Yet you will see many long haired and pony tailed men heading out “to evangelize the pagans in Africa”...One “mission team”...complained about being given physical work. “We came here to minister...Physical work is part of our ministry,” answered the mission leader. Before the whole congregation the young team leader stood up on Sunday morning and protested the way his team of volunteers had been forced to help with the building extension of the mission station. “We came here to preach the Gospel, not to lay bricks....” he pleaded...A pastor was relating to me the bizarre story of 89 Californian Christians who had flown in to “minister” in Romania! Naturally, none of them spoke Romanian. Neither did they have transport. They were totally dependent upon their local hosts, whom they presumed they were coming to help. On Sunday morning they all wanted to speak at the main service. Each was given two minutes to bring greetings! So began a seemingly never-ending procession of 89 religious tourists delivering their greetings through an interpreter – with successive camera flashes accompanying! These visitors never seemed to consider just how much their large tour group had imposed upon their Romanian hosts for transport, accommodation, food and interpreters. “We never saw these people in the dark days of persecution.” declared one pastor. “They're not missionaries – they're religious tourists!”

These are indeed mooches, or at least zealously misguided.


----------



## he beholds

Pergamum said:


> Jessica,
> 
> Giving to missionaries comes with a higher expectation and a missionary or pastor is not really a private person but becomes subject to much more public scrutiny (and rightly so). Therefore, we cannot claim privacy or total freedom in the monies given to us, especially since there is a financial relationship predicated on a certain way of life and a certain manner of spending those funds.



I would say that regarding their morality, teachers will be judged harsher. But the money given to them as salary is theirs. Sure, if they ask for money for a new roof to a building and instead go on a cruise, something is up. But if we allow any Christian to squander money going on cruises (and we do) then I think the missionary should also be allowed to use *his own* money in ways that also don't support the spread of the Gospel. It's a hard line to draw, since givers give to spread the Gospel, but I also feel that the missionary should be afforded the same level of freedom as a Pastor, and then I also think as the same as any Christian. If the missionary is wasteful and spends money he doesn't have to go on a cruise, something is up. But I think, ultimately, a missionary or a Pastor should be as wise as any other Christian should be. As we all should be. ALL of us in the US, at least, live in a country where there are starving people--yet a lot of us still go on vacations. Why should a missionary be expected to give all of his extra when we aren't? 

But yes, of course some missionaries may be mooches. Just like some doctors may be. I think that is a personality trait and not a vocational trait.


----------



## thbslawson

It seems like we could go around and around with this question and argue it in many different directions. The bottom line is that, yes, a missionary CAN be a mooch, and there are some that indeed are, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule if there is a Biblical structure of accountability in place. In the same way, anyone in any profession, whether it be in the church or in the world, can be a mooch if he or she is not acceptable to someone. 

As most missionaries have to raise their own support, it puts them in a different category from most other vocational ministers in the church in that they must keep asking for their salary, finding sources for it, and if it doesn't come in, they don't get paid. In most churches the pastor's salary is set an is derived from tithes and offerings. I can dare think of a church that doesn't pay its pastor when offerings are down. Yet, when people either suddenly drop a missionary from support, or when people (and it happens very very frequently) forget to send in their donations one month, a missionary may suddenly notice his monthly salary down $1k. It happens all of the time. And in the case of forgetting to send in support, our experience is that 9 times out of 10, when the donation picks up again, the lost time is not made up for. The next time a missionary asks to wash five loads of clothes at your house, or doesn't have enough money to pay for little Johnny's braces it may be because he or she didn't get paid that month for work he or she already accomplished. I've never heard of this happening to a pastor. 

The primary issue here is accountability; whether or not the missionary is being held accountable and whether or not the broad base of supporters is willing to be content with the accountability structure that is setup. The bottom line is, if you're supporting a missionary, does he or she have accountability to someone? If so, are you willing to be content with that and not raise a stink if you see him at Best Buy while on furlough buying an iPod? 

We have multiple churches and individuals that support us. There is no way we can be equally accountable to every supporter, and it would be ludicrous to try as we would spend the vast majority of our time communicating with supporters and getting nothing done. As we see it, we have two primary (earthly) accountability structures setup for our mission work. The first is the local session of our sending church. They hold us accountable personally, spiritually, and maintain a basic oversight in our financial dealings, but I would say no more than they do for the church's pastor. It's fairly obvious to all that we do not live lavishly. The second is the mission agency we work for. As an "employee" I am accountable to them for my work and legal responsibilities. They receipt donations, pay us a salary, withhold taxes, help us setup our annual budgets, etc. Both our sending church and the mission agency understand this relationship and work well together. Now what of the other 5 churches and numerous individuals that support us? I would say that the vast majority of them understand that we are primarily accountable to these two other entities, our home church and our mission agency, and trust that they are giving us oversight. We still report to them about what we're doing, because we want to share with them the goodness of God's blessings and the encouraging truth that the gates of hell are not prevailing! At any time anyone of these other supporters can call the home office of our mission and inquire about our support status. 

So in conclusion, I would say if you don't trust a particular missionary, and you don't trust the accountability structure under which he or she is ministering, then you shouldn't be supporting him or her. But if you're convinced that others are handling those aspects well, then you need to be content with that.


----------



## Pergamum

Here is a link to an interesting discussion on another forum:

Are You Supporting A Missionary or a Moochionary? - The Fighting Fundamental Forums


Some quotes:



> We had one come through a few weeks ago who was also a Jew (American Jew) who had a "ministry" in Tel Aviv. He presented his "work" and upon further questioning, it turns out that even though he and his wife had been there 14 years, they had no "church" per se, but had a "coffe house" ministry where they sat and had coffe with folks and "witnessed" to them about Christ. They also lived in one of the upper scale condos (the very one they lived in was previously owned by the mayor!).
> 
> Needless to say, this guy was "dismissed" from our church soon enough.







> But one of my pet peeves is "missionaries" who spend a bunch of time in the States preaching missions conferences/revivals, or teaching at a college somwhere. I don't mind if they do either of those, but then live off the love offerings or salary you get, and don't ask my church for money.


There are many that call themselves missionaries that just need to admit they are trying to get money because they are too lazy to work



> I was acquainted with a polish missionary family that was deputizing for years and when they finally reached the right percentage they had a calling to do something else...
Click to expand...


----------



## thbslawson

Pergamum,

I have no doubt that there are those out there that have no business calling themselves "missionaries" and who, in reality, are not ministering, but is a missionary only a church planter or are there other ministries that support the work of missions, and are necessary to it that require support in order to be able to fulfill?

In our mission we have an accountant who raises his own support. Perhaps he's not a "missionary" per se, but without him our organization would be shut down. And we have a guy that spends the vast majority of his time communicating with overall supporters of the mission and partners of the mission, and this sometimes involves speaking at conferences. Through his communication money is raised to support ministry projects such as printing Bibles, translating theological resources, and other ministries that are going on in other countries. He also communicates back to these donors the work that is going on for the edification of the body of Christ. 

And let's take the coffee house example (I won't comment on the living arrangements), in some countries, Israel included, proselytizing is illegal. A foreigner cannot simply go in and start up a church. These are called "creative access countries." That's why there are "missionaries" who serve as english teachers, businessmen and, yes, even coffee house owners in some countries. 

There are many different arms that support the work of church planting when one goes to a foreign country to do so. Those arms are equally worthy of support.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Well by definition they are all mooches because *they borrow* without repaying you back, however, they are investing in the kingdom of God.



Well that is poorly misguided thought. First off there is a difference between borrowing and asking for donations to support a life and ministry. I don't think I have ever seen a missionary or Pastor asking for donations to support their work with the intent of repaying anything. So the borrowing aspect of your indictment is totally out there. LOL.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well that is poorly misguided thought. First off there is a difference between borrowing and asking for donations to support a life and ministry. I don't think I have ever seen a missionary or Pastor asking for donations to support their work with the intent of repaying anything. So the borrowing aspect of your indictment is totally out there. LOL.



That's what dictionary.com defines it as... 

Mooch | Define Mooch at Dictionary.com

Mooch
1. to borrow (a small item or amount) without intending to return or repay it. 

Merriam-Webster Defines it as 
Mooch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Mooch
1. to wander aimlessly : amble; also : sneak
2. beg, sponge 

beg 
1. To ask for as charity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg

I would say asking money for a charity is different than a person on the street. But unfortunately it is still within the definition. Take it up with them


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]
Robert, words not only have a denotation; they have a connotation. The connotation of "mooch" is negative. The definition from dictionary.com is inapplicable to missionaries; the first definition would apply only to those missionaries who should be fired. "Sponging" also has a negative connotation, as does begging. The use of these words of a negative connotation would seem to suggest that it is your intention to paint missionaries as though they were the scum of the earth. If that's your goal, you can find another venue to do that in: such attacks are not welcome here But please realize that many of us know honorable missionaries, who are worthy of their hire, and we consider it a privilege to be able to participate in their labor by our donations. [/Moderator]


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Please excuse my ignorance here as English class was never one of my strong points. 

I was basing my definition solely off of what dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com provided. If these definitions are inaccurate then my responses are inaccurate. I do not think they are the same as a person asking for money on the street, but the definitions provided by those sites would lean more towards that they are mooches, rather than hey are not mooches. Thinking about this more they do provide us a service in that they Spread the gospel to the unreached, which we expect. That is something that a beggar on the street will not do. 

I hold a high regard for missionaries, so please do not interpret this as me trying to missionary bash. I was trying to take a simple approach to the question, "Do missionaries mooch?"


----------



## py3ak

Thanks for clarifying, Robert. In the first post, "mooching" is clearly a bad thing which missionaries should try not to do. So either some fundraising must be excepted (for they are laboring, and we are happy to send them to that labor), or we must lay down a requirement (unsupported by Scripture) that all missionaries must be tentmakers.


----------



## Pergamum

thbslawson said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> I have no doubt that there are those out there that have no business calling themselves "missionaries" and who, in reality, are not ministering, but is a missionary only a church planter or are there other ministries that support the work of missions, and are necessary to it that require support in order to be able to fulfill?
> 
> In our mission we have an accountant who raises his own support. Perhaps he's not a "missionary" per se, but without him our organization would be shut down. And we have a guy that spends the vast majority of his time communicating with overall supporters of the mission and partners of the mission, and this sometimes involves speaking at conferences. Through his communication money is raised to support ministry projects such as printing Bibles, translating theological resources, and other ministries that are going on in other countries. He also communicates back to these donors the work that is going on for the edification of the body of Christ.
> 
> And let's take the coffee house example (I won't comment on the living arrangements), in some countries, Israel included, proselytizing is illegal. A foreigner cannot simply go in and start up a church. These are called "creative access countries." That's why there are "missionaries" who serve as english teachers, businessmen and, yes, even coffee house owners in some countries.
> 
> There are many different arms that support the work of church planting when one goes to a foreign country to do so. Those arms are equally worthy of support.



Thomas,

You said:


> Those arms are equally worthy of support



Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority? 

One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.

I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?

---------- Post added at 02:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 AM ----------

-
-

To all,

What are some things that you have seen that appear "moochy" by missionaries?

(a possible example: If I have guests come over to visit me, I usually fill them up with packages from home to save mailing costs....maximize that opportunity and use every kilogram the airlines give....ha ha, even if it breaks your guests' backs to get you new theology books).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Robert you seem to not be listening on a certain level. You used the term borrow. No one is borrowing. The simple fact that you used that word borrow signifies you are misclassifying what is going on. I have never heard anyone that was asking for support for missions or ministry use the word borrow as if they intended to pay it back. Someone can be a mooch and not even signify that they want to borrow money. Someone can still be a mooch without asking to borrow. That is what Pergy is asking about I believe. The concept of borrowing is not even a factor in this. 



RobertPGH1981 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is poorly misguided thought. First off there is a difference between borrowing and asking for donations to support a life and ministry. I don't think I have ever seen a missionary or Pastor asking for donations to support their work with the intent of repaying anything. So the borrowing aspect of your indictment is totally out there. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what dictionary.com defines it as...
> 
> Mooch | Define Mooch at Dictionary.com
> 
> Mooch
> 1. to borrow (a small item or amount) without intending to return or repay it.
> 
> Merriam-Webster Defines it as
> Mooch - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Mooch
> 1. to wander aimlessly : amble; also : sneak
> 2. beg, sponge
> 
> beg
> 1. To ask for as charity
> 
> Beg - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> I would say asking money for a charity is different than a person on the street. But unfortunately it is still within the definition. Take it up with them
Click to expand...


----------



## thbslawson

Pergamum,

You asked...



> Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority?
> 
> One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.
> 
> I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?



The question seems to imply that every church is obligated to support the same things equally, which I do not believe is the case. The church is called to be a witness to the gospel, and I believe that obligation begins in a church's back yard, but it should not end there. One church may focus on home missions and then partner for ministries in South America, while another Asia, and another secretive work in closed muslim countries. The ultimate priority is the gospel, of course, but the fulfilling of that priority depends on a lot of circumstances that will vary from church to church and mission field to mission field. I do think there should be a general balance of home and foreign missions. I get frustrated with churches that give tens of thousands of dollars to foreign missions but ignore their own backyards, and vice-versa.


----------



## Pergamum

thbslawson said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> You asked...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support any sort of prioritization? If a church desired to increase their missions budget by 1,000 USD per month, what sort of criteria would you use, and would all efforts get the same priority?
> 
> One problem I see is that many churches lump home missions and foreign missions in the same pot and the canned food drive and the money to the local pro-life clinic competes for new pioneering activities towards Muslims in unreached people-groups.
> 
> I believe that a priority of support is good to ensure that the unreached are really being targetted. What are your thoughts on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question seems to imply that every church is obligated to support the same things equally, which I do not believe is the case. The church is called to be a witness to the gospel, and I believe that obligation begins in a church's back yard, but it should not end there. One church may focus on home missions and then partner for ministries in South America, while another Asia, and another secretive work in closed muslim countries. The ultimate priority is the gospel, of course, but the fulfilling of that priority depends on a lot of circumstances that will vary from church to church and mission field to mission field. I do think there should be a general balance of home and foreign missions. I get frustrated with churches that give tens of thousands of dollars to foreign missions but ignore their own backyards, and vice-versa.
Click to expand...


Thanks.


----------

