jeremywallace.net

Last week I suggested that churches needed to consider supporting non-American missionaries.  I have received a great deal of feedback on this topic, and while I still believe that somehow American churches should look into creative ways to support nationals, there are some valid concerns which must be addressed.  The problem is not in supporting the nationals; the problem is in doing it in an effective, accountable, and truly beneficial way to the national pastor, the national church, and the American church.

Here are some dangers and pitfalls of supporting non-American missionaries that must be avoided.

1- There are rumored to be organizations that take advantage of the sympathy and generosity that Americans tend to demonstrate to nationals.  Some organizations do nothing but raise funds for nationals from American churches and individuals.  They bring nationals to the states as the emotional ‘trump’ card.  Some organizations keep as much as 20% of the funds raised.

2- Non-American pastors who come to the states can become spoiled by the comparative luxury we enjoy.  Many times they never want to return home.  When they do return, their perception and attitude can be negatively affected.

3- National churches can become dependent on American funds, failing to ever operate as a self-supporting church.  (This happens in all areas of missions, not just in supporting nationals.)

4- There can be lack of connection to the American church due to communication barriers.  When there is no communication, there is also limited, or no, accountability in areas of finances and doctrinal teaching.

5- How can we know if the national pastor has actually been called by God to do what he is doing?  I realize the same question can be posed for American missionaries, but at least we can contact sending churches and sending pastors to inquire about the missionary’s testimony and calling.  This is difficult, if not impossible, to do when supporting nationals.

While I think it would be beneficial for American churches to support a national church-planter, there are definite dangers that must be considered.

A Little More About What We Are Doing

I think our situation in supporting a national church-planter is as ideal as it can be.  I think we are avoiding as many of the dangers mentioned above as possible.  We are going to be supporting a national who trained with an American missionary for a number of years.  The national is moving to a different area to start a church but maintains his relationship with the American missionary. They have weekly contact about the new ministry. This provides the needed accountability.

We are supporting him for a period of 3-5 years to help in the initial expenses of getting the church started.  We are not interested in maintaining this ministry, just helping in the initial expense of establishing a church in a difficult area.  The national understands our position and is in agreement with it.

The church-planter is not asking for American help — he has no real way to do so, but he is in desperate need of it.  We are offering it to him as a way to encourage the advancement of the Gospel in a difficult area, to expose our church to missions in a unique way, and to partner with someone in a different culture for the purpose of making disciples.

I believe this is a situation that will yield benefits for both our church as well as the church-planter in Argentina.

One of the failures of American, Independent Baptist missions is that we have been terrible stewards with the resources God has given us.  We not only have a responsibility to do everything in way that brings glory to God and in a way that is completely in line with Scripture, we also have to be as effective as possible.  In one word this is stewardship.  Here is an idea on how we can improve missions stewardship.

I have heard many missionaries say that they have the goal of starting churches and then training nationals to carry on the ministry.  Their rationale is that the nationals will be better equipped to reach their own people than an American missionary.  This makes perfect sense.  But let’s carry that thought process a step further.  If nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people, why do American, Independent Baptist churches not support non-American missionaries/ministries?

Let’s back up one more step.  What is the purpose of missions?  Would you not agree that it is to spread the gospel to the ends of the world for the purpose of making disciples of all peoples?  If that is the goal of missions, we have a responsibility to do that in the most effective way possible.  And if nationals can do a better job of reaching their own people than American missionaries can, why not support them in addition to American missionaries?

The question is this,  “What makes it possible for nationals to do a better job of reaching their own people?”  Here a few reasons off the top of my head:

• They already know the language. Time and money does not have to be spent on this, again allowing us to be better stewards.
• They already know the culture.  They don’t have to go and study the difference between contextualization and syncretism.   They know how to contextualize the gospel.
• They already know the city in which they live. Time does not have to be spent on learning the area.
• They already understand the spiritual climate.  They were raised in it.
• They already have relationships built.

In addition to this, there are a couple of other benefits.  First, you don’t have to worry about the all-to-common problem of the American missionary starting an American church in a non-American location, thus limiting his effectiveness.  The national is starting the church, which makes transitioning that ministry to another national much easier.  Second,  many nationals do not have to spend three years and $250,000 raising support.  They are working in ministry as a ‘tent-maker’, so to speak.  American churches would simply be coming along side of them with more assistance.

I understand the challenges that are associated with a concept like this. But why not put effort into finding non-American missionaries or church planters who have doctrinal and financial accountability to partner with for short periods of time?

Let me state very clearly that I am not all suggesting that God cannot use American missionaries on the foreign field or that they are wasting their time.  I have many very good friends who are missionaries and who are doing a great job.  There will always be the need for American missionaries to go to the foreign field.  I am not suggesting that we no longer support American missionaries or that we should put all of our resources into supporting nationals.

However, I am suggesting that if we are going to improve Independent Baptist missions, we must begin to think outside the box.  We need to be open to supporting non-American, national, church planters.  This will allow us to see a greater effectiveness and be better stewards with our resources.

In October we plan to support our first non-American missionary for a period of 3-5 years.  I am excited about this opportunity.  We will be bringing a church-planter from Argentina to our church to share his burden for HIS people with whom he has lived for almost his entire life.  He speaks no English and does not look like an American…but perhaps that is what will make him effective in Argentina.

It has been a couple of months since I first started writing about missions.  Those initial articles received close to 10,000 hits.  Since then I have spent many hours thinking about the current Independent Baptist Missions model.  I have read many books, and interacted with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals on this topic.  I must say that my previous conclusions are still valid (You can read those conclusions here: part 1, part 2, part 3).  The current Independent Baptist missions model is in need of an overhaul.

 As I have been thinking about this topic there have been some other issues that presented themselves as problems.  They are mindsets that many hold to that need to change in order for the current missions model to have a chance of changing.  Let me briefly mention them.

1- Many wrongfully think that sending missionaries means only sending American missionaries.  What if churches in the States had a specific strategy to send non-American missionaries from other countries to other countries?  I believe this would yield many more benefits than our current model.

2- Many wrongfully think that missions is what we do for our missionaries instead of what we do through our missionaries.

3- Many wrongfully think that missions in our churches is simply supporting missionaries.  There is rarely any other connection than this.

4- Many wrongfully think that missions is simply a foreign objective.  While many reference Acts 1:8, most fail to build their missions model around it.

5- Many wrongfully understand the role of the sending church as well as the mission board.  These misunderstandings prove to be a hindrance to the missionary’s effectiveness on the field.

6- Many wrongfully think that a 4-7 day missions conference is the only and best way to keep missions as a focus of the church.  I know it is not the only way, and am convinced that it is not the best way.

Over the next several weeks I will be addressing each of these misconceptions and then I will propose a new model or two.  Be sure to SHARE these articles to help spread the word.  As always, I welcome your comments and thoughts.  What are some other wrong mindsets in missions?

WOW! What a response to my two posts on Independent Baptist Missions. My goal in these articles was to get the conversation about independent Baptist missions started, and based on the feedback I have received, it is started. I appreciate all the comments both positive and negative.

Let me acknowledge up front that I overstated some of my concerns. As has been pointed out, by both those who agree with my thoughts as well as those who disagree, stating that “Independent Baptist Missions is a colossal failure” is an overstatement. I agree. It was a hyperbolic satement that was an obvious and intentional exaggeration; a figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. Most readers understood this, but I thought I would clarify it for those who did not. I do not believe that the current process is not getting missionaries to the field. I am not saying that souls are not being saved. I am not saying that churches are not concerned with missions.

However, I do believe that the current process needs to be changed/tweaked/adjusted/rethought/discussed/ improved…however you want to say it.

I thought it would be beneficial to briefly recap and summarize both the response that I have received as well as my thoughts on this issue.

Some Of The Responses (Both Positive And Negative)

“Thank you for saying publicly what so many have been thinking privately.” ~ Independent Baptist missions Director

“I would rather be doing missions our way than all the others ways that others are not.”

“Thank you for starting this conversation. The next step is to talk about what can be done.” ~ Independent Baptist Pastor

“Your concerns are seriously over-stated.” ~ Baptist Professor

“The problems you brought out need to be addressed.” ~ Anonymous BIMI missionary

“Son, you don’t have the experience to know what you are talking about.”

“It is about time someone pointed out the elephant in the room” ~ Christian counselor

“You brought out some good points. Now, let’s get to work fixing it.”

“Great article.” ~ BIMI missionary

The vast majority of comments have been positive.

Final Remarks

I may not have the experience of some, but that does not mean my concerns are not valid. My point, and the concerns of many, is that while the specific numbers may vary from region to region and missions board to missions board, the process of getting missionaries to the field is not as efficient as it could be. We can either deny that there is a problem, ignore the problem, or work together to fix the problem. I propose that we work together to fix the problem.

To do this I believe that we need to recognize the following:

• Sending missionaries to the field is of vital importance.
• Sending churches need to take more of a responsibility in the ministry of those called from their church.
• Independent Baptist pastors need to intentionally work together to get missionaries to the field sooner. This requires that we not be isolated, that we focus on building God’s kingdom, and that we stop competing with other churches.

The conversation from this point forward needs to be directed at what can be done to get missionaries to the field sooner so that less time and money is spent in an attempt to get them to the place to begin their field ministry.

Okay! Let’s just say it. Independent Baptist pastors are afraid of the word ‘cooperate.’ We run from anything that might even look like cooperation. And we justify this response by stating that all cooperation is compromise. Really? Not only is this unwise, it is unbiblical.

In a comment on a previous post on “Why Independent Baptist Missions Is Failing,” Greg Wilson said:

it seems in reaction to our distrust of the SBC Cooperative Program that we instituted an uncooperative one.

What a true statement. The effects of this lack of cooperation are more apparent in the area of evangelism and missions than in any other area of ministry. This lack of missions cooperation stems from a few problems. May I state them bluntly?

• Too many Independent Baptist Churches are isolated, not independent.
• Too many Independent Baptist pastors are more concerned with building their own kingdoms instead of God’s Kingdom. Pastors, we are shepherds of a flock, not kings of our own kingdoms. When we focus only on our local ministries to the neglect of God’s Kingdom, cooperation with other doctrinally sound churches is non-existent.
• Too many Independent Baptist Churches break fellowship and refuse to cooperate over non-doctrinal, extra-biblical issues. Should there be discernment? Absolutely! Are there times when it may be wise to not work with another church? Sure! But I am afraid that working together in the area of missions is currently not even considered as an option.

As long as this is the mentality in our churches missions will continue to suffer, missionaries will spend far too long on deputation, and millions of dollars will be wasted, all because of our ego.

Here are a few ways that we can begin moving toward this missions cooperation with churches of like faith who take a strong stand on the Gospel.

1) Pastors, stop criticizing other doctrinally sound churches for something they do that you do not prefer. The only reason to call out another church or another pastor is if they are teaching a false doctrine that is affecting your church. Even then, be careful.

2) Understand that it is the truth that should cause division, not our attitude about it. Enough said!

3) Realize that doctrinally sound churches are not in competition with each other. Before you can work with another doctrinally solid church you have to stop competing with them.

I am not yet completely sure what this cooperation among Independent Baptist Churches should look like, but I am convinced that it MUST exist if Independent Baptist Missions is to have a future.

Something must change with how we do Independent Baptist Missions. The current process is a colossal failure. This has not always been the case, but as the church climate has changed, the process of getting missionaries to the field has not adapted. Currently, the average missionary makes about 150 phone calls to schedule one meeting at a church. They have to schedule about 4 meetings in order to gain one supporting church. The average monthly support by a church is only $50 per month. Let’s say that the average support a missionary family needs is $5,000 per month. If these numbers represent the average, here is what they mean:

• Each missionary family needs 100 supporting churches.
• They have to visit several hundred churches to get the needed support.
• They end up making thousands and thousands of phone calls to get enough meetings to result in enough support.

There are some other concerning points.

• It takes a missionary family close to three years to get to the foreign field.
• The process of deputation can cost over $100,000 (some estimate the cost to be $250,000).
• The number of Independent Baptist Churches is declining. Our movement is decaying away to nothing (‘why’ is a topic for another day).
• Many of the Independent Baptist Churches that are left are stagnant and instead of the missions program growing, it is declining.
• If this trend continues (and, at this point, there is no reason to think it will not) the pool of Independent Baptist churches will be even smaller and the process will take even longer.
• It would not surprise me if in 10 years the average length of deputation is over 5 years and if the average cost is $250,000 – $500,000.

This is all in an effort to get the missionary family to the place to begin their missions ministry on the field. If we are called to be good stewards of the time and resources that God has given us, and we are,we must be good stewards in the area of missions. Currently, we are not.

The process of deputation is simply too long and too costly. I have heard some say that deputation doesn’t need to be changed because it was the time when God taught them so much and grew their faith. I don’t doubt that at all. But let’s not put God in a box and say that He can’t teach people and grow their faith in a more effective and beneficial deputation process. It’s like a member in a church standing up and giving a testimony as to how God has taught them about finances and grown their faith through their bankruptcy, and then the church designing a program to usher people through bankruptcy. After all, God uses that to strengthen people’s faith and teach them about finances. Just because God uses something that does not mean that it is the most beneficial, logical, and prudent process to reach the goal.

We cannot wait for the problem to get worse; change needs to be made now. So what needs to change? Honestly, I don’t have all the answers, but it is something to which I am giving a lot of thought. Here are a few things that would help immediately.

(1) Pastors, only bring missionaries to your church if you have the ability and intent to take them on for monthly support. It is foolish to ask missionaries to drive all over the country to attend the beauty contest that we call a mission conference. Do your research up front. Meet with the missionary family up front. Determine up front if you can and want to support this family. If you can only support two families, then only bring two families to your conference. You don’t have to have a big missions conference (many missionary families) to have an effective missions conference.

(2) Pastors, focus on quality, not on quantity. If you could either support 100 missionaries at $25 per month or 25 missionaries at $100 per month, you should pick the fewer missionaries at the higher amount every time. Too many pastors are more concerned with being able to brag about how many missionaries they support rather than doing what is best for the missionary and the church. Supporting a lot of missionaries at a small amount benefits no one.

(3) Pastors, sometimes you can be too independent for your own good. Let’s be willing to work together to get missionaries to the field. Every pastor has friends who are pastors. If you have a missionary family that you would like to see get to the field, call your pastor friends. Help the missionaries schedule some meetings. Independent does not mean isolated. Our over-emphasis of being independent is truly detrimental to the work of Christ in many areas, that includes missions.

There are some other more drastic changes that may need to be considered, but let’s start with these simple adjustments. If we were willing to make these simple changes we could cut the cost of and time of deputation in half, missionaries could get to the field sooner, and ultimately there would be more souls saved. Isn’t that the goal?