Do missionaries mooch?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ----------

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).

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 ----------

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.

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 ----------

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.

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 ----------

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?

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 ----------

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 ----------

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 ----------

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.

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 ----------

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."

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]

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...

 

[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]

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.