Missions Philosophy...

“On Why Churches Should Consider and Assume a Personal-Extensive Missions Support Policy”

Thesis:

It is the aim of this article to raise awareness regarding the missions-support policy to which conservative churches (quite nearly) unilaterally adhere. The current policy, namely to support a surfeit of missionaries laboring on equally numerous and diverse fields, has several significant flaws which advocate that the policy as a whole be quickly abandoned, and which (if not addressed) threatens to undermine the holistic work of missions. The proposed remedy (i.e. thesis) simply stated is this: the Church, for reasons subsequently enumerated, should consider and readily assume a “Personal-Extensive” (as opposed to a broad-and-diluted) missions-support policy that the ultimate causation of and impetus for missions—the glory of God—might not be stifled/thwarted.

Reasons for the Shift in Missional Philosophy:

1. Argument 1: Adopting a personal-extensive policy aides the missionary’s deputation process.

While certainly the most elementary result, the above statement is by no means parochial. Without lapsing into an emotionally-based argument, the manifold evidence demonstrating both the length and rigor of deputation can be seen within Colonial’s own missionary family. Consider, for example, the Kirsteatters. After actively pursuing support for 2 years, they yet languish at the 38% benchmark. This isn’t a math lesson, but calculations reveal the simple fact that this taxing enterprise will not conclude in the foreseeable future. Not only has this placed tremendous strain on the Kirsteatters, but the family with whom they are partnering (and who is already serving in Kenya) recently sent an email pleading for immediate aid. While scores of opportunities for men’s, women’s, and children’s ministries exist, this family cannot independently bear the heavy ministerial demands. In short, the Kirsteatters should not still be in the United States. God called them to Kenya; they should, then, be in Kenya. Adopting a personal-extensive ministry would eradicate such ‘disfortunate’ (but far from uncommon) occurrences and would enable the catholic Church to fulfill Jesus’ commissioning (Mt 28).

2. Argument 2: Adopting a personal-extensive philosophy permits extended ministry of the supportee within the local assembly.

Permit me, by way of allegorical illustration, to relate the following Tale. Once upon a time, a prestigious country contracted a gruesome, potentially deadly, and seemingly irremediable infection. Upon hearing of their plight, a brilliant physician named Aysendeton, from a land ‘far far away’, set himself diligently to work on finding and developing the desperately-needed cure. After weeks of tireless labor, he perchance came upon a potion which seemed to stymie the aggressive illness. Hastily, for he knew he hadn’t a moment to lose, Aysendeton set sail for that noble land. After a particularly harrowing and tiring journey, Aysendeton, limited both by time constraints and his own physical weakness, stepped on shore of the disease-ridden country. Considering these limitations, rational persons would have undoubtedly proposed that rather than carting the skilled artisan ‘around the world’, as it were, it would be best to keep him localized that he might devote his full energies (or what little energies he had remaining) to instructing others both how to create and how to dispense the curative serum. Tossing good logic to the wind (whether the result of the sickness itself or merely too much sun no one knows to this day), however, the country’s fiduciaries did quite the opposite. Consequently, by the end of Aysendeton’s stay no one had received appropriate treatment and (even more tragically) no one was completely sure how to recreate the medication.

The above story’s (‘thinly veiled piece of propaganda’ might actually be a more appropriate genre description) correlation is plain. But, for sake of clarity, I’ll pen the key. The ‘prestigious country’ with the interminable illness is the American Church. As will be noted subsequently, the Western Church is drowning in its own luxury, completely unaware to the working of God or the demands of his Son’s gospel. We need Aysendetons (i.e. missionaries) to tell us that the here-and-now isn’t eternal. Rather than logically/strategically optimalizing a missionary’s involvement within one local assembly, we unnecessarily carve up their time between innumerable congregations. The end result (as the allegory makes plain) is that little to nothing comes of missionaries’ furloughs. We spread them so thin that no assembly receives ‘appropriate treatment’ and no one is ‘completely sure’ how to address the lethargy threatening to overtake, strangle, and damn ‘American Christianity’. Adopting a personal-extensive mission-support philosophy would permit missionaries to be ‘localized’ throughout their furlough, which might prove to awaken the church and thus fit the Church to accomplish that for which it was intended.

3. Argument 3: Shifting towards significant monetary support enhances the rest/recuperation of the missionary’s furlough.

Proof of the proposed argument is bound up in the previous allegory. Furloughs, by design, are meant to provide the missionary a reprieve from the taxing demands of cross-cultural ministry. Seldom is this aim met. In reality, missionaries spend a great majority of their ‘days of respite’ as nomads, traveling around the country to visit supporting churches and to garner additional support due dually to a constantly inflating global market and to the degenerating value of the US dollar. In short, adopting a personal-extensive policy proffers these servants much-needed rest.

4. Argument 3: Shifting towards significant monetary support heightens the cause of and passion for missions within the supporting local assembly.

As introduced in point 2, the 20^th century witnessed a tragic, cataclysmic downgrade of missional interest—and, correspondingly, missional involvement—within the United States. Furthermore, America was at that time the unquestionable primadonna spokesman of all Christendom. Even a relatively un-detailed perusal of Evangelicalism reveals a shocking disinterest in the things of Jesus. The weight of sin, reality of eternity, reverence for and submission to the King, fascination with and delight in the gospel and the Author of that gospel—these once foundational elements have come to be regarded as antiquated ‘relics’, optional truths to which one must not necessarily concede in order to retain the title: ‘follower of Christ’. Not that we should expect anything less, I guess. Jesus never intended his message to prosper and flourish in the midst of opulence; it is a religion of suffering. Stripped of that pivotal element and it morphs into religious theatrics. Missionaries—those having experienced the pain of opposition but the insurmountable joy of knowing their Redeemer in the face of that opposition—are needed in our churches now more (but are wanted by our churches less) than ever. Adopting a personal-extensive missions policy affords missionaries the opportunity to reawaken local assemblies to the authentic Jesus and to that Jesus’ purposes (missions in particular).

5. Argument 5: Shifting towards significant monetary support generates relational intimacy between the assembly and the missionary, establishing stricter accountability for the supportee and a more direct impact for the Body.

An entrepreneur investing $100 in a fledgling company might only casually follow his stock. The interest with which an entrepreneur investing $50,000 might take in that same company, by contrast, is an altogether different scenario. Hourly internet searches/updates, frequent calls, steady correspondence with the company’s promotional manager—none of these would be out of the question or considered excessive. The same principle would be true for a church with a heavily-supported missionary. As suggested in the above statement, relational intimacy would be the resultant milieu of an extended financing program, ending ultimately in rigorous accountability (for the missionary) and specific impact (for the Congregation). Consider this, Church.

Countering Possible Objections:

1. “Adopting such a policy would prove limiting to our church’s involvement in worldwide missions” or “A personal-extensive program would hinder our aim of supporting missionaries in every part of the world.”

In answer to the first: we too often (and have for too long) mistaken missional breadth for missional depth—an error (for the above reasons) which the Church can no longer afford to make. To the second: consider impetus for supporting missions at all; namely, is it for the sake of His or your name?

2. “Adopting such a policy could prove hazardous to the missionary if a rupture occurs in the home church (i.e. change of pastors, church split, etc.).”

While a formidable rebuttal I would ask: is such a rupture any less perilous for the home church itself and the stateside operations in which it is engaged? Should we shrink in fear and away from faith due merely to potentialities? If that is the case, Christianity might as well fold up shop, pick up its ball, and head home. (Understandably, this is a very general response. Particularities safeguarding against the potentialities should be discussed and ironed out between the missionary and the supporting church).

3. “Adopting such a policy could prove perilous to the cause of missions since deputation plays a significant role in preparing one for the severity of missionary life.”

I’ve heard this stated before…and think it would be too flattering even to comment on such a foolish postulation...so I won't.