;)
Maybe It's Time to Stop Blaming the Economy
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Baptist Life, Church & Missions, News & Culture
The economy is getting credit for everything these days … everything bad, that is. This past month we saw yet another discouraging event for which our current economy received copious credit. The Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for international missions trailed significantly behind its goal for 2008, and significantly behind the previous year’s totals. Investments over the past year have failed to yield profits because of a plummeting stock market. (That cannot be denied, as all of us with retirement accounts can testify.) To top it all off, Cooperative Program giving is dropping steadily. As a result, the trustees of the International Mission Board suspended International Service Corps (ISC) and Masters Program missionary appointments indefinitely. They also capped career missionary appointments at 300 for this year. Since 220 have already been appointed, that means that a mere eighty positions remain.
Of course, there have been various suggestions for cost-savings and the recovery of funds. IMB Trustee chairman Paul Chitwood has admonished Southern Baptists to change the Cooperative Program formula. And that’s a splendid idea! Few people would argue with him (outside of Baptist state conventions, anyhow). And such change could be made in a rather simple, straightforward manner. But the problem lies not in the “how to,” but in the “want to.” There are far too many sacred cows that would be slain in a straightforward re-tooling of the Cooperative Program, and few people seem eager to experience that much time-seasoned bovine blood.
The predictable hay that’s being made out of this drop in CP and Lottie giving is that the Great Commission will suffer, and Southern Baptists must not care about the Great Commission anymore, and we must be in need of a “Great Commission Resurgence.” In response to such proclamations, Alan Cross wrote (what I believe is) a brilliant commentary on the fact that the Great Commission is in no way affected by any drops in Cooperative Program giving. His suggestion to remedy the shortfall in funds is to challenge our megachurches (which seem to be notoriously low percentage givers to the CP) to fund missionary units (individuals, couples, families) waiting to be deployed to the mission field. An interesting concept, indeed.
But here’s my proposal. Maybe it’s time to stop blaming the economy for our drop in Cooperative Program and associated methods of funding. Frankly, I haven’t seen it in my local church. We surpassed our budget for the first time in 2008, and we are on a steady pace to do the same in 2009. Our giving totals haven’t changed (except for the better, in my congregation). Perhaps it’s just time to realize that generations, attitudes, and giving patterns have changed. Great Commission money is being spent, just in different places. Perhaps it is time to search our hearts and our churches and discover that perhaps a paradigm shift in missions funding and involvement has occurred under our very noses.
My church is case-in-point. We planted Crossroads Fellowship in 2002. We decided in the first year that we would dedicated 10% of our budget to missions giving, but we would remain fluid in the avenues of expenditure. In those first years, while we were a new church plant, we were passionate about planting other churches. We directly funded two other church plants while giving a small percentage to the Cooperative Program. Over the past two years we elected to invest heavily in funding and supporting our ongoing work with an unreached people group in Peru (in a place where there are no full-time missionary units), still contributing a small amount to the CP. Throughout the years we have promoted the LMCO, showing the videos, putting up signs, and hanging our goal banner on the wall. But we have struggled to get our young church to participate. Most of our enthusiastic Lottie givers are Southern Baptist born and bred … but 70% of our church is not.
Of course, I have been blamed by some fellow pastors and bloggers for the lack of support … with accusations that I have not educated my people enough. But there’s nothing left for us to do short of hypnosis or calling in Mr. Spock to do a few mind melds. The problem, I submit, is not education. It is worldview and mindset. The issue is that the CP is about organization, but the generation that I minister to not only dislikes organization, it fundamentally distrusts it. They can barely fathom mailing money to a “general fund” for missions managed by people they do not know. They are much more concerned about personal relationships. And that is, I believe the crux of the issue of declining CP giving, Lottie Moon, missions support, etc … It’s a matter of organization -vs- relationship.
Economist Dr. Rachelle Disbennett-Lee, a specialist in small business, explains this basic principle of relational networking in an article entitled, “People Do Business with People They Know, Like, and Trust.” She states:
It is vitally important that we build relationships with the people in our network so that we can obtain good tips and advice. If you neglect your network you might find yourself without resources or references when you most need them. Networks are important to your success. To have a useful network you must build and nurture the relationships and focus on how you can help your network before you consider taking from it.
Wise words, indeed. And this, I submit, is the problem that will lead to a steady decline in CP and other large-fund giving in the coming years. Just like people buy from people they know, like, and trust … people give to people they actually know, like, and trust.
For years our church has struggled to raise a mere $1500 or so for Lottie Moon each year, even with a whole month of promotion and education. Then, this past Sunday, we hosted a missionary family. Their names are Jim and Lisa Carlson. Their young sons (both adopted in Russia) are named Levi and Benjamin. The Carlsons are not Southern Baptist missionaries, though they are Baptist missionaries. Their home church is Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis (can you say, “John Piper?”) and they serve with Bethany International Ministries among the Tat people in Azerbaijan. Lisa grew up here in Cadiz, and two of her sisters are faithful members at Crossroads (can you say, “hometown family connection?”).
The Carlsons are back in the U.S. for six months raising funds for support (they are privately funded “faith” missionaries and have to raise their support) … primarily to purchase a 4-wheel-drive vehicle for Jim to use in his work. He just entered into a 3-year agreement with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) to begin work on New Testament translation in eleven spoken (but not written) dialects within Azerbaijan. This family spent the entire week with us in Vacation Bible School, teaching the missions segment of our camp. Then I turned the mic over to them in both of our Sunday services to share their lives, their ministries, and their images from their mission home. Our people soaked it up. They already knew the lingo … people groups, SIL, Bible translating. They caught the vision. They sensed the relationship. And they wanted to participate. When all was said and done, and our VBS offering paint buckets (we’ll need another post for that one) were passed, Crossroads blessed this family with a gift of $4,030 (plus all the change the kids dropped in the buckets). Enough to buy that Russian 4WD vehicle. And this happened in a church that averages $2,700 a week in general fund giving.
People buy from give to people they know, like, and trust.
And the Great Commission goes rolling on. We just have to somehow realize that we Southern Baptists don’t have a corner on it. And I submit to you that the success of our traditional funding mechanism (CP) can no longer be used as an accurate barometer of the level of Great Commission activity or success that is being accomplished, even within the SBC.
Alan Cross stated it this way:
If we are talking about missions involvement, funding, and sending, as well as supporting the work of indigenous believers, then there are many funding approaches. If we are talking about control (we often think that if we hold the funds then we have control), then I can see where the CP is the preferred route for those in charge. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Denominational entities can serve the local church through direction and expertise while the local church can provide funding and support in many ways.
I concur with Alan. I sincerely believe that there is an enormous level of Great Commission passion and activity in our churches, perhaps more than ever before. However, more and more and more of them are choosing to take ownership of the Great Commission. In the midst of all of these calls for a Great Commission “resurgence,” it seems to me that one has, quite likely, been occuring right under our noses.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Very good. I may well be that the GCRD task force really ought to be named the GCPR committee .. after the Great Cooperative Program Resurgence. At least that’ll make clear what it is they don’t accomplish.
Brother Geoff,
In the spirit of baptist blogging I have gone through your post a couple of times and tried really hard to find something to argue with you about… but couldn’t find anything at all I disagree with. Great post!!
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Geoff,
Your ideas are very relevant to the church today, and in more ways than just giving. People have become distrustful of large organizations and bureaucracies. (I could continue this line of thought with a conversation about our US congress, but I’ll save that argument for another opportunity.) This may also explain why so many people do not trust the church and the message we preach. We can speak a consistent message of truth and love, but, as the timeless adage says, “People don’t care about how much [we] know until they know how much [we] care.” I would add that people also need to know that we can be trusted. Jim and Lisa Carlson understand this concept. They took the time to get to know and gain the trust of the people they were asking for support; and the people generously gave it. The bottom line is it all comes down to relationships. It is the same whether we are discussing the giving of our money, our time, or our lives.
Bob & FTME – Thanks for the 10-4′s.
Jim – Good insights. It is all about relationships. Perhaps the fundamental disconnect on this issue with SBC leaderships lies in the fact that most of those leaders are mega-church pastors, with a limited inner circle of confidants … unlike small church pastors, who have to know and keep up with upwards of 200+ people at a time?? The CEO model being translated from mega-church and SBC entity models just doesn’t compute or connect with the vast array of small and small community churches in the SBC (which have always been the “bread and butter” givers to the CP).
Geoff,
Your post is right on track. I think, however, there may be one (or two) aspectS you neglected to mention in your post. It is not just that churches are giving to those programs they personally know, like, and trust, but they are becoming more involved in missions themselves.
The church where I serve sent out its first-ever missions team back in 2003 to Lima, Peru. I hear of other churches in the area all the time that are sending out teams from their own congregations. It seems that even redirecting how some of the CP funds are divided up would bring some confidence back to it. For example, if when our funds are forwarded to the state convention they took a portion that was desisgnated to help churches who are sending out missions teams (to help cover costs like airfare, etc.).
There is one other reason I think people don’t jump at the oppurtunity to give to the CP. They never see any results. A church can faithfully give to the CP for decades and never truly know if that money made a difference for the kingdom. Results make us confident that we are being good stewards with the money God gives us; if there were some way for churches to see results from IMB missionaries, I think there would be a much greater willingness to contribute.
Totally agree with the paradigm shift and in the midst of flowing with it here. Our folks raised over $2000 in one week of eating rice and beans to try to understand what Ugandan orphans go through. It’s personal because we made it personal. If the CP is to move forward to where the people are, direct missions support instead of throwing everything in the bucket will have to grow.
Geoff,
If you are right, and you may be partially right in what you wrote, then we are heading back to a societal way of funding missionaries; and the results of that will not be good. Many missionaries will not be able to go to the field. The more “charismatic,” outgoing missionaries, who are going to more “exciting” fields, will collect more money; while the quiet, meek, introverted types will do without…even though they may do the most good in the long run. Also, a lot of time will taken off the field for the missionaries will have to return home often to raise support.
Geoff, I really hope that your post doesnt happen. It will set the Great Commission back greatly.
Geoff, my Church gives 20% to the CP. We give 3% to Assoc. missions. Our WMU constantly keeps missions before our people. My Church averages about 170 people on Sunday mornings. We gave $53,000 plus to Lottie and $33,000 to Annie. We also gave big offerings to the state offering, and we gave $30,000 to the TN Baptist Children’s Homes. We also had people involved in mission trips to Honduras and W. VA. We have shown the IMB videos, and the NAMB videos…we have had SB missionaries on furlough and some back from Journeymen stints to share with our Church about the work of SB missions. This has connected our Church with SB missions. It has put faces to our CP giving and Lottie and Annie giving.
Maybe it would work in your Church as well…if you gave it a chance.
If we go back to the societal method of supporting missionaries, which is what I’m seeing you saying in this post, then it will be devastating to the Great Commission, IMHO.
SB’s have done more in reaching out to the world since it’s conception, than any other Church or denomination in the history of Christianity. SB’s have sent more missionaries, and have gotten into more countries, and have engaged more people groups than any other Christian Church or denomination that the world has ever seen. Why destroy something that works? that works so well?
David
David,
It all boils down to pragmatism -vs- relationships.
As far as the personal support method of funding missions goes, it seems like that was basically the only way it was done before the 20th century.
You think that personal funding will set back the Great Commission. I just don’t see it. Indeed, it may very well be unleashing the Great Commission as people in the pews become more personally connected with missions and missionaries as opposed to fundraisers for missions corporations.
No one is talking about destroying anything. But the simple reality of life and life cycles is that things change. Paradigms change. People change. Worldviews change. Either we change with them, or we lose relevance and die out.
I’m a former ISC missionary, so this is really sad for me to hear.
Has the SBC ever considered the Gospel for Asia model?
Kevin – Which is the sad part for you?
Bill – Please describe the model.
Cross-cultural missions is complex. Even career missionaries who have been on the field for many years wrestle with the complexities involved. When every individual congregation thinks they can, on their own, do just as good of a job at engaging these issues as the collective wisdom of those who have dedicated their lives and ministries specifically to cross-cultural ministry, we run the risk of bad stewardship.
As David Worley points out, “splashy” ministries tend to grab the most attention, and funding, from typical American church-goers, but are not always (nor even often) the most effective ministries on a long-term basis cross-culturally. For example, many short-term efforts are deemed successful on the basis of numbers of professions of faith, rather than actual disciples made. It is very hard to measure progress toward actual disciples made through short-term efforts.
At the same time, I agree that IMB, and other mission agencies, need to do everything possible to “personalize” missions, and help those who are funding missions efforts to understand and connect personally with what they are funding. I would also highly recommend that all churches (and especially missions pastors, missions committee members, etc.) who want to do hands-on cross-cultural missions become conversant with basic missiological issues, read missions journals, etc., and bounce ideas and strategy off of people with long-term cross-cultural experience before launching out on their own.
Geoff,
I don’t really read your post as being overly pleased by these changes in missions, but simply accepting that these changes are occurring. Like any new paradigm, it will have strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are the ones you mention: a more streamlined approach to giving, stronger relationships built with individual missionaries, and the opportunity for hands on work with the missionaries themselves.
The Davids highlight concerns about this new paradigm: proportionate giving in different fields, missionaries being taken off the field to raise funds, and concerns about potential cultural/missiological ignorance by the individual church which is planning a trip.
Do we have a shot at splitting the baby and taking the best of each paradigm? I do think that we could get more creative as a convention with how we connect our missionaries to our individual churches to build the sort of relationships you are talking about. (Do missionaries even need to leave the field as often or for as long to raise funds in this age of digital communication, blogs, and Twitter?) It also seems that the IMB could serve as an important resource for training churches and providing a database of needs around the world to individual churches.
But I am in absolute agreement with your basic point. We are moving past the age of people giving to organizations. The economy is not to blame, there are larger cultural forces at work.
Geoff,
Has anyone from the REAP North or South teams come for a visit at your church the way the Bethlehem folks did?
No. But I’ve never asked them to, and I’ve never known when they were going to be in the states. I’m sure they would, if invited.
Is there actually a system for seeking and inviting IMB missionaries to churches? An information clearinghouse or database? That would be nice to know.
Gospel for Asia is focused on developing indigenous missionaries. Indigenous missionaries are already acculturated and obviously know the language. They tend to be more trusted and able to work amongst the populace a little more easily. They can also usually be supported at a fraction of what Western missionaries require. This isn’t to suggest our missionaries are greedy or aren’t working hard. I’m just thinking out loud if there might be a way to work smarter.
I went with a group on a short term mission trip to Mexico. While it was rewarding in many ways, one question kept recurring in my mind: “What the heck am I doing here?”
It cost thousands of dollars of my own money for me, my wife, and daughter to go for a week. When we got there, we preached and taught in various churches and villages. Here’s the thing. There isn’t anything we did that couldn’t have done better and wasn’t already being done better by local Mexican pastors. They were faithful, Godly servants. They knew the language, and the people. Our group had to be ferried around and required translators.
We had a wonderful time and I don’t begrudge the money, but I wonder what that 10-15 thousand dollars could have accomplished for the Gospel if placed into the hands of those pastors, instead of buying airfare, lodging, and meals for a bunch of non-spanish speaking westerners.
Now, short term mission trips aren’t quite the topic, but I just used it to raise a point. It’s not apples and oranges, but maybe big apples vs little apples.
Geoff,
Yes, just call Richmond on the phone, and let them know you are interested. Furloughing missionaries get a lot of their speaking assignments that way.
Bill – Like all things, short term missions can be done well or done very badly. I suggest you check out the Strategy Coordinator Church / REAP model that is growing through the IMB.
David – Maybe this is where the IMB has sort of “dropped the ball.” It should be easier than that. There needs to be a web site, with a map and contact info, for furloughing missionaries, so that tech-savvy churches can find and select missionaries to invite.
To all – What is the monumental difference between visiting churches in search of personal missionary support and visiting churches to promote a (cooperative) program?
Brother Geoff,
It is interesting that some 80 – 90 years later, SBCer’s have found creative ways to move out in evangelism beyond the CP. One thing that you have brought forward, and I agree with in the article is that the amount of giving is not necessarily the problem, it is determining the best stewardship of those funds.
Austin Crouch has many of these same concerns as he helped the fledgling CP move forward from the days of the depression out of the 1925 convention. He taught in 1937 that “a work supported by the Cooperative Program may be classified under three heads: missions, teaching, and benevolence …. The Cooperative Program is scriptural in its objectives and methods. The plan is, of course, through cooperative of individuals and churches. Paul gave a fine example of cooperative effort. He had urged the churches in different sections to make contributions for the poor at Jerusalem, and the method for raising this money was according to his instruction to the church in Corinth: ‘Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come’ (I Cor. 16:2). The appeal of Paul and the Cooperative Program is to individuals.”
Austin seems to be of the same mind as most in the SBC even today,…it is just that we have caused the CP to take on the perception of big business. That simply can and does need to change. In Tennessee, the TBC has got the message and is working back toward the original thoughts of Crouch and his predecessors. The intent though is not much different than what you are calling for…involvement and passion in the pew with respect to going with the gospel. There are advantages in many of the suggested initiatives you mention….we should use the best of all.
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,
Furloughing missionaries are resting, and they are willing to come and speak in your Church if you want them to come. Societal type missionaries come home more often, and when they do come home, it’s to raise support.
Big difference.
David
Geoff,
You should check out this page on the IMB website, that gives helpful information about how to connect your church with IMB missionaries:
http://www.imb.org/main/lead/page.asp?StoryID=4513&LanguageID=1709
They used to have an IMB Personnel Directory on-line, but had to stop that back a few years ago, due to security concerns.
Bill,
Your question about supporting indigenous missionaries (a la Gospel for Asia) is a good one, and one I believe we need to keep re-visiting, if we are serious about good stewardship.
One of the big problems with this model is the danger of creating unhealthy dependency on the part of national churches overseas. Many studies have shown how this can end up being a long-term detriment rather than a benefit to the work.
Also, if we sent all of our money to national workers, that would take away the element of each congregation’s and each believer’s responsibility to be obedient in fulfilling the Great Commission.
However, I think there is much more we could do and should do as far as forming partnerships with organizations that fund national workers, especially church planters and missionaries (not so much pastors of local churches).
There are many pitfalls to avoid though. It is easy to get taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals who see American churches and believers as keys to financial subsidy. Americans without extensive cross-cultural experience are often sitting ducks for this type of thing. There need to be good lines of accountability, and efficient structures for distributing and administering funds. But we must also avoid paternalistic controls, that fails to allow national churches and ministries to take responsibility for their own decision-making.
David W – The support-raising missionaries I know come home every 3-4 years, basically the same as our IMB missionaries. Modern technology has done away with the frequent trips home for most…
This may be off-topic… but in my eyes, I see the IMB/NAMB as a security check. We’ve voted people into an office who we trusted to select other people to make policies and checks to approve certain individuals to the mission field. There is no real Biblical precedent for this, just makes it easier on us. We don’t need to worry about where our money is going (as much)… we just send it to this large fund where other people are accountable for it. Our missionaries don’t need to worry as much about raising support, there is a big fund that they get money from.
But what if we did it completely differently? What if instead of sending money to a large pool, we supported individuals that we actually knew and trusted? What if as missionaries we followed Paul’s example of working whenever possible? It seems like a lot of these issues would pass.
I think it would be a great testimony if Missionaries provided a worldly service as well as a spiritual service to possible disciples.
Anywho, when I survey the NT, I don’t really see people supporting strangers on the mission field. Some people supported Paul – who they knew and trusted… and sometimes Paul would ask for monies for other causes or other groups (but they still knew and trusted Paul).
Just my thoughts on the subject.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
If we are looking for biblical precedent for what we do, I think that a careful study of the NT (primarily Acts and Paul’s epistles) show that among the main principles that guided early Christian missionary efforts were adaptability to circumstances and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
It is true that there is good accountability with folks we know personally. But I believe it is also true that there are certain projects (cross-cultural missionary ministry being among the most notable) that are accomplished with better stewardship by synergistically combining efforts across congregations.
Some Landmarkists placed (and place) such an emphasis on local church autonomy that they were (and are) opposed to trans-congregational cooperative missions.
Personally, I believe the Great Commission is given to the Church (with a capital C), and not just to individual local congregations. This implies local congregations, ministries, and believers, cooperating together.
Yes, as in the case of many things, this inherently brings along with it, the risk of bureaucratic hierarchicalism, and of encouraging individuals and local congregations to shirk on their personal responsibility. But I am concerned the cure could be worse than the sickness, leading to isolationism, and a haphazard, poorly planned approach to missions.
“Tentmaking” is a viable option that I believe should, in many cases, be explored. But it is not always practical. Once again, I believe that a careful study of the NT shows that Paul resorted to tentmaking in those instances when it was necessary to maintain himself and his team; but, whenever he had the opportunity to dedicate himself full-time to church planting, thanks to the gifts of others, he generally took advantage of it.
David,
Regarding your last paragraph… I just want to clarify, I’m not against supporting missionaries. That’s why I was specifically careful to add “whenever possible” to that follow Paul’s example sentence
.
Now, the first part; I don’t think I disagree with what you wrote. In my idea of supporting people we know on the mission field, I’m not thinking with the mindset of denominations… I’m in the mindset of people you know in the Church (big C). I don’t really think in “denominations” anymore, at least not intentionally. So yes, we can work with people who don’t always agree with us in every way. We can support people who don’t always agree with us in every way.
God Speed,
Lew
This is going to be a very unpopular thing to say, but only about half of the 10 missionary couples I know ever even lead a single person to Christ. When I asked by best friend (who is a current IMB missionary) about it, he admitted that much of their time is spent “supporting” the local churches. He admitted that of the 10 missionaries in his group, half did logistical and support jobs that we wouldn;t even consider being “on mission” except that they usually attend an indigenous church. Even he, who is a frontline missionary, spends most of his time “working” (meeting with, preaching for, praying with) with local church leaders. Additionally the practice of reporting statistics is really mostly claiming the baptism statistics of the local church(es) with which they are affiliated. I know that personally leading someone to Christ is only part of what we do in the whole enterprise of missions evangelism, but if the REAL statistics of career missionaries were told, giving would plumet.
Of the 5,000 IMB missionaries, I suspect that only a portion of them personally lead a single person to Christ per year. Our American ideas of what missionaries do is NOT what career missionaries do everyday. I don;t say these things to disrespect the work of missions or the IMB, but to say that we might not actually accomplishing as much as we think we are under the current methodologies (funding mechanisms notwithstanding).
Brad
Geoff,
By George, I think I’ve got it.
See, only the first sentence is formatted. Now I can fit in!
Andrew – Good points. But I tend to think that, since the IMB is seeking the funding and support from its “client” churches, then the greater measure of responsibility for networking and relationship development falls upon the IMB. They are the entity that is soliciting the funds. They have to, need to “work it” a lot better. Reality … by sending out more full-color promotions on the CP and impersonal letters encouraging more giving, one runs the risk of further alienating a relationship-hungry clientele.
You know, as well as I, that a church will have no trouble securing a missions speaker if they need one. Accessibility is the key. There needs to be greater accessibility.
Brad,
I’m reading my Mid America Baptist Seminary newsletter. If you want to know about some missionaries that are personally leading people to Christ, you ought to get a copy. It’s full of stories about missionaries that are Mid America grads leading people to Christ in foreign lands.
David
Brother Geoff,
Your right about the communication stream, the IMB should take advantage of technology and work hard to communicate to the fullest. Phil Nelson just sent me his newsletter from the IMB, and it contained a lot of good info. But your right,..it will take a lot of hard work, and it should.
Blessings,
Chris
In the past 6 months, our kids have: bought stainless steel bowls for Haitian kids, baby formula for Honduran orphans, VBS materials for Ukrainian kids, and food for Ugandan orphans. Our adults have become sponsors for 14 World Vision and Compassion kids. They have purchased property to expand an orphanage in Uganda.
Finding the projects was simple. Sponsorships can be done with just a few clicks.
Not the case with either the NAMB or IMB.
I love what we can do together, but sending the money to the big bucket isn’t motivating action like the parachurch ministries are. It’s not drawing people into missions activity all throughout an Acts 1:8 effort like these are.
My hope is that someone, somewhere will return the SBC missions agencies to lean and hungry organizations that are passionate about connecting with, inspiring, encouraging, and enabling the local congregation to both ongoing support and targeted projects. There are too many layers. People are disconnected, but want to do more. This is a feature, not a bug.
I guess I’m just a little confused. What would you like the IMB to do? The IMB has the “Pray,” “Go,” and “Give” tabs each with a plethora of information. Since a lot of the conversation has revolved around giving to a pool, there are other, more specific ways of giving listed right on the “Give” tab that links to the world regions with specific needs such as Russian Sign Language Bible Translation, Radios for Missionaries in the Arfican bush, and Translating the Jesus Film into South American languages to name a few. Under the “Lead Your Church” tab there are articles and links devoted to the topic of connecting with missionaries. It is there. Aside from going on an “Adopt a Missionary” campaign, what do we need from them to get started?
I just don’t understand what we need from them. There’s the commissionstories website that has awesome videos and articles and the IMB website. I just keep thinking that we’re taking the attitude of, “you have to make the first move,” which spells disaster in marriages. Will the end result of that thinking pay off in the end when it comes to missions?
To clarify, I am not against working with non-SBC entities or funding them. I just think it’s unfair to say, “the IMB doesn’t have a list of all their missionaries on the internet so I’ll work with ABWE instead.”
Brad,
There is a certain degree of truth in what you say here.
However, you must take into account general receptivity to the gospel in different parts of the world. I am almost sure you will find widely divergent statistics on professions of faith through the personal evangelism efforts of missionaries in “harvest fields” as opposed to more “gospel-resistant” fields. Also, in many, if not all, places, the most effective personal evangelists will be the national believers. While the missionary should take on the responsibility for being a good example, the best results, evangelistically speaking, are not usually going to be in response to the personal evangelistic ministry of missionaries.
In any case, financial and prayer supporters of missionaries should indeed expect that those missionaries are doing the best they can, given the particular circumstances in each setting, to see strategic advance made toward the making of disciples and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. No doubt, there are occasions when administration and support tasks get in the way of “making the main thing the main thing.” But, in the overall scheme, many of these administrative and support tasks are also necessary, and may well be (according to the individual case) the most strategic use of Great Commission resources.
Andrew, everything you mentioned is oriented to the big, not the normal sized church. Every “tab” you pointed to directs money into the hopper but designated toward, not directly to. It helps us tremendously when we get back a picture of a Haitian kid holding one of the stainless bowls we bought, or get a video back from Uganda with the orphanage head in a sea of faces saying thanks to us personally. It’s inspirational. It’s PERSONAL.
We have adopted a missionary couple (before I came). He’s an admin guy and she teaches in a school for rich kids. Thrilling stuff. Not. Great, great people, and yes, what they are doing matters. But the people I’m serving with want connections with the least of these – personal connections. And we want to do things that help people holistically – water, food, education, training, microloans – not just support traditional missionary work.
New generations coming along want more than checking squares and getting the pat on the back from the denom.
David
I know it’s possible with the SBC, but it is way too hard. Too removed.
David Wilson,
Practically speaking (as I think you recognize) there is no way the IMB as an organization can offer you something quite so personalized as that. In order to get that, you have to get it directly from the actual missionaries (or national workers) on the field.
That doesn’t mean, however, that you cannot set up relationships with actual IMB missionaries, who will be able to provide the more personal interaction you are talking about.
The only thing is that “faith missionaries,” who depend on “satisfied customers” for their financial support, will likely be more motivated, because of that, to keep you posted on personal information than those who already have their support guaranteed.
The IMB does everything it can to encourage individual missionaries to take more initiative and be more consistent with this type of thing. But it is hard to force people to do it. Some do a much better job at this than others. And some, who do a good job at communicating with the folks back home, are so busy communicating with the folks back home that they don’t have much time left over for actual on-field ministry.
As in just about everything, the key is finding the proper balance.
I agree with Andrew. It’s not difficult to connect with an IMB missionary if one really wants to do it. Relationships are generally two-way streets. Maybe some aren’t as aggressive to court a particular church because they don’t need the monthly support check, but I’ve not encountered them.
David Rogers wrote: “Practically speaking (as I think you recognize) there is no way the IMB as an organization can offer you something quite so personalized as that. In order to get that, you have to get it directly from the actual missionaries (or national workers) on the field.”
Then the IMB isn’t who we’ll work with because that’s what we need. We’ve tried to drill down through the red tape to do targeted ministry with our “adopted” couple, and they just aren’t able to make it work without a whole lot of aggravating twists and turns.
The IMB needs to go talk to World Vision, Compassion, etc. and see if they can’t streamline their processes quickly to make “personalized” support happen.
Look guys, we and bunches of other churches are going around the rock in the road. Study the rock for a year and you’ve lost a year, but you’ve also lost our attention because we’re going to look less and less in that direction.
No one has offered a specific, viable step that they would like the IMB to take to become more personalized. The IMB offers promotional material (some of it free) and information about specific people groups, specific missionaries, and specific projects online. Maybe the question is not ‘what should the IMB do?’ but ‘what can my church and I do to get more personal contact?’ Also, we must remember that the point of missions is not to connect churches and missionaries or to make givers feel good about their contributions, as noble as those causes may be. The purpose is to glorify God by making disciples and we must look at the most effective way to do so. Although individual missionaries on the field can have a tremendous impact, there are drawbacks.
I was a part of a SBC church that supported a variety of missionaries based on who solicited us, presented a conservative image, and who was connected in some way to a church member. Some of the missionaries were simply retirees who were not able to save up enough for retirement on the little they received from individual churches. Our church was their life line. When the church struggled to meet the budget, they had to decide between cutting vital church ministries or missionary support. It was not easy for the missionaries to rely on such variable support. One our missionaries lost support from individual churches due to the economy and had to return from Indonesia. Their furloughs consisted of moving around from church to church looking for support, which was difficult for their children. Ultimately, they had to stay in the US because they could not get enough support. IMB missionaries can focus on ministry instead of begging for support.
David Wilson,
When I wrote that, I meant to say, “there is no way the IMB (or any organization as large as the IMB), as an organization can offer you something quite so personalized as that.
I think you may be missing my point. My point is that the type of PERSONalization you are looking for must come from individual PERSONS and not organizations. Within the IMB, there are undoubtedly PERSONS who can offer this to you. You just need to make the right connections.
I would be interested to hear specifically how you think World Vision and Compassion are doing a better job at personalizing support. Perhaps you are referring to adopting individual children. I like that concept, and have adopted children through Compassion in the past. I have also regularly given through the SBC Hunger and Relief fund. By no means do I wish here to criticize the efforts of either one.
However, I think it is important to ask if the overhead expenses involved in the adopt-a-child programs are a better stewardship than the SBC Hunger and Relief fund. I haven’t seen any concrete evidence to contrast the two. However, common wisdom tells you that to do all of the individualized adopt-a-child promotion that groups like World Vision and Compassion do involves a lot of overhead expense.
I’m not missing your point, David. You are confirming my evaluation of the IMBs structure being the problem. If they want support, then let them structure in a way that makes it natural for church to missionary interaction to occur instead of being a rare event.
The onus is not on the individual church or people within it. It rests with the mission organization. And to get back to the initial thrust of this post, those NGOs that make their case well to the supporter will get the bulk of the support.
The SBC is like Sears. It had a great model that worked as long as people had no other choices. In the field, it still does great things.
But a generation has arisen that wants to do something they can put a face to, have a relationship with, and the SBC is still saying “give to the bucket and we will do it for you.”
Not any more.
David Wilson,
I don’t want to get in an argument about this. And I don’t think, from what I hear you saying, that you do either. But, in order to understand you better, could you tell me:
1. How specifically do you think groups like World Vision and Compassion may be doing a better job at personalization than the IMB?
2. Do you think it is possible to overspend on overhead expenses involved in promoting ministries in order to “personalize” our message to supporters?
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, where do you think we should draw the line?
David, my background is in marketing with companies like Procter & Gamble, Sarah Lee, and Quaker Oats. The difference between what Compassion and World Vision do is obvious to me, and again it comes back to structure. Every day on Facebook I see Compassion posting videos of a particular area, need, or worker. They do a better job and yes, because they have to and have focused their attention on it.
They seem to be continually looking for ways to do better at it, and using the expanding means as early adopters and as a result benefiting from it.
Your second question is posed to get a positive answer, but I’d have to work back from the results obtained rather than begin with concern about how much was spent. If we involve more people, if we do more, if more people are helped physically and spiritually, and the results are published over a wider group of people – both believers and the lost… that’s the metric I’d use. The good thing is that social media can be more cost effective than traditional means and more personal.
The SBC is shrinking. Its impact is shrinking. Same old same old isn’t going to cut it. Trotting out Lottie and Annie in an internet age – FAIL. Begging for dollars to prop up “Sears” – FAIL
If the missionaries won’t spend any time spreading the news about what they are doing and seeing God do, someone needs to do it for them short term, and long term that needs to be required (within security guidelines of course) of every missionary.
Many of the organizations making a difference outside the SBC use advocates that aren’t connected by organizational chart lines, but by their hearts for the mission. Maybe the SBC could identify advocates stateside who will jump start their efforts.
Some radical changes are needed, but the last time the SBC did anything radical was…
David Wilson,
It sounds like World Vision and Compassion are doing a pretty good job with Facebook, internet technology, etc. Personally, I haven’t seen their Facebook stuff yet. But I’ll take your word for it that it is good. I’d like to see it.
The IMB is doing some innovative stuff as well, such as commissionstories.com.
In any organization, there is always room for improvement. Perhaps the IMB’s “marketing” and “tech” people could learn a thing or two from the the “marketing” and “tech” people at World Vision and Compassion. Personally, I love the whole idea of sharing resources, including creative resources, within the Body of Christ.
Back about 10 years ago or so, when “New Directions” was first introduced in the IMB, all the rage was for on-field people group teams to design their own promotional materials. Just about every team had their own brochure describing the needs of the particular people group with which they were working.
Some of this is still going on. But, I think a lot of it has run its course, mostly because some people realized that all of the time and resources that were being poured in to developing slick, individualized, promotional materials were taking away from time and resources dedicated to actual ministry on the field.
Once again, I think there is a balance in all of this. As a big organization with a lot of tradition, we need people who are not afraid to think outside of the box and challenge the status quo. But we also need to keep each other accountable in regard to wise stewardship of the resources God entrusts into our hands. Hopefully, as we all work together, and seek God’s help, and listen to good suggetions, we can continue to make progress.
Again, it’s easy enough to connect with an IMB missionary if one really wants to. Emphasis on the final conditional clause.
And again,the onus to gain support is on those supported,not those who would support. The world has changed. It’s not enough to say “I’m SBC, send your money.”
To paraphrase Ed Stezer, “We’re not impressed with the SBC.”
Emphasis where you choose to put it. Here it’s trending more toward the unconditional.
David Wilson,
I would say that the onus is on all of us, whether supported or supported, to strive to be the best stewards possible of the resources–economic, personnel, creative, and spiritual–that God entrusts us with.
That should read: “whether supported or supporter”
David W,
I’m not defending the sbc or the imb, so the relevance of the Stetzer quote, which I tend to identify with,
is lost on me. (unconditional clause or otherwise!)
My church supports missionaries through Crusade, Wycliffe, and World Venture
in addition to CP and Lottie. My point of contention simply is with the notion that those systems
somehow inherently lead to better or stronger relationships, or that imb
personnel are somehow less accessible or that they desire less to have
relationships with churches.
I suppose if Im defending anyone, it’s my missionary friends, and not their sending body,
who are mischaracterized in hyperbolic statements like yours above.
Stuart, it’s a leadership/structure issue as I have said from the beginning. But as a result at present I’m not going to spend my time navigating the layers when I can spend it getting things done. We’re very pleased with the relationships we are building and the results taking place.
David,
And so are we.
Apparently we’re both building the relationships that we truly desire to build with the peole we truly desire to build them with.
I guess we’ll leave it here, then, and move on to much less circular discussions elsewhere.
Sorry I missed this great conversation. I will add however, that a great colleague of mine working with another agency just lost his support from his church. It seems that there was no ‘fruit’ for his work. After all, he had been in an unreached valley, of an unreached Muslim country for a year now and no church had started yet. He and his team are some of the hardest working, most innovative people I know. They have shared the Gospel with hundreds. They have provided fresh water canals to whole villages, seed potatoes and training to several hundred farmers, skin tanning training to hundreds of villagers to promote micro-business, and health education. They are being mightily used by God to do much but their home Church does not see it. So, they have lost their support and short of a miracle will not be able to return. If this is the direction you guys want to go then as David Worley said, this is very sad indeed and a huge set back for the GC.
As for World Vision if you are happy for those guys to take your money, fund their offices and big salaries so they can send you a feel good picture then you do that. We are on mission for the Kingdom.
Didn’t your example just show what happens when missionaries don’t communicate effectively?
And weren’t your last words an indication of just how out of sync with a Kingdom mindset some within the SBC have arrived at?
With all due respect, whose Kingdom?
This guy was in constant touch with his home church. The problem was that they were only interested in big numbers which made them feel good. As far as ‘which Kingdom’ I am talking about proclaiming the truth that sets captives free. I do a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in humanitarian aid but only the Gospel has the power to transform lives. Your IMB M’s are doing both. My friend was doing both. But when it is all about you and how good you feel instead of what God is about then guys like my friend get cut. That is the point I am making.
An educational system isn’t worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn’t teach them how to make a life.