Tag Archives: missions funding

The one-to-one rule in missions funding

1 Reply

short-term-fundingOne of the great controversies regarding short-term missions is the impact they have on the funding of long-term works. As the amount of money given to short-term missions grows, that given to long-term works shrinks. But coincidence doesn’t mean causality; just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t mean one causes the other.

Churches that do short-term missions need to make a special effort to make certain those funds aren’t taken from support that would go to long-term works. In her famous article “Short Term Missions: Are they worth the cost?“, Jo Ann Van Engen suggests:

One good rule of thumb for short-term missions is to spend at least as much money supporting the projects you visit as you spend on your trip. Invest your money people and organizations working on long-term solutions. If you are interested in evangelism, support nationals who want to share the gospel. If you are concerned about the health issues, support programs that are seeking to address those problems. Better yet, find programs that minister to people wholistically by meeting their spiritual, physical, social, emotional, and economic needs.

I think the one-to-one rule is great. I’d put it this way: spend as much money on the long-term work in the place you’re going as you do on sending short-term workers. If you are spending $20,000 to take a team to Buenos Aires, give $20,000 to the long-term workers there.

“But that makes short-term missions too expensive!” Well, that’s kind of the point. Not to make those trips more expensive, but to make sure that the funding for those trips isn’t coming from funds that would be available to long-term workers. If your mission trip is that important, take the funds from your building maintenance funds, from your Sunday doughnut budget, or some other part of the budget.

Let’s make sure that short-term works and long-term works aren’t competing with one another for funding. The one-to-one rule will do just that.

Do we treat foreign preachers as well as we treat local preachers?

3 Replies

3quarter_globeSo, you (or your church) has decided to support a native preacher in another country. How much do you know about employer/employer expectations in that country?

“Well, he’s not an employee. He’s more like contract labor.”

Great. Does that concept exist in that country? Are their laws the same on that issue?

“We’re not in that country. We aren’t under their jurisdiction.”

But the church is. Are you setting up the local church for a future law suit? Are you sowing seeds of discord between brothers in the coming years? Are you discrediting the church in the eyes of the local community?

What about health care? No, I don’t mean Obamacare. I mean, what are the basic expectations as far as employer-provided health care in the country you’re wanting to help? While you may not see yourself as an employer, many others may see you that way.

What about retirement? The church has a long history of preachers struggling through their later years in this country; are we exporting that problem? In many countries, retirement is employment-based, much like Social Security. We support someone for twenty or thirty years, never making contributions toward their retirement, then leave them to fend for themselves when they are no longer “useful.”

What about survivor benefits? How many churches do you know that support the widows of native preachers?

I’m not against supporting preachers in other countries. It’s a very good thing in many cases. We just need to remember that it’s not always the bargain that it’s presented to be. We become outraged when we hear of large corporations exploiting foreign workers, outsourcing things because they can pay lower salaries and offer few benefits. Let the church not be guilty of the same sin.

If you’re not willing to treat your foreign ministers as well as your local ones, then you aren’t ready to support foreign preachers. You may not pay them on the same scale, due to differences in cost of living, but you should at least aim for the same proportion. Benefits included.

Or am I off base?