Tag Archives: Missions

5 Ways To Improve Our Support Of Native Preachers

1 Reply

nativeYesterday’s post may have sounded like I was against funding local preachers in other countries. Actually, there was a time when I felt that way. I was also against purchasing church buildings in other countries; no way, no time. I’ve learned that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Nor should there be across-the-board prohibitions. Each situation needs to be analyzed on its own merit.

I’ve mentioned Tony Fernández before. He’s a great example, to me, of the kind of person who should be supported. Tony has been on support for about 17 of the last 18 years. That one year that he didn’t receive support, Tony continued to work with the church as much as he could. The time he could give to the church went down some because he had to work to support himself. But he didn’t stop being a minister. In fact, he’s told me: “I’m always disappointed when I see a preacher who loses his support and stops preaching because of it. I have to ask myself if they had a ministry or they had a job.”

There are hundreds of good men out there like Tony. So how do we find them? I’ll offer a few suggestions, then I’m interested in hearing yours:

  1. We start by empowering the local church. We let Christians in other countries choose the men that they think should be supported.
  2. We fund through the local church. The local church should know what the minister is receiving. He should answer to them, not to the money people in the States.
  3. We look for men who are already ministers. Same philosophy I have for choosing elders: an elder shouldn’t begin to shepherd because he received a title. We should give the title to those who are shepherds. In the same way, you don’t look for a man that you hope will become a minister when you start paying him. You look for people who are ministers and support them in order to free them to do more of what they are already doing.
  4. We ask for regular reports, read and endorsed by the local church. (Are you noticing a trend?)
  5. We treat our workers as people, not tools. Most churches should support fewer preachers and do it better. I don’t mean increasing their monthly salary. I do mean investigating things like health care, insurance, etc. The church should provide for its workers at least as well as local businesses do.
    I’ve heard church leaders discuss whether or not a certain preacher is still “useful to us.” Doesn’t seem like the right way of approaching it. Better to ask if we’re still useful to them.
    I mentioned Tony Fernández. Tony’s dad passed away a few years ago. Tony’s mom still receives $50 every month from the people that supported his dad. In Cuba, that’s enough to be a huge help. I think that’s the sort of thing we need to think about. People, not tools.

Those are some of my thoughts. What would you add or change?

photo from MorgueFile.com

6 Potential Problems With Supporting Native Preachers

8 Replies

nativeThere are several growing trends in missions today. One is the short-term missions trip, which I’ve written about on several occasions.

Another trend of note is the rejection of using American missionaries in favor of supporting local Christians. It’s a trend with much to offer: locals don’t need language and culture training and locals often require less funding. Done correctly, this can be a highly effective use of limited church funds.

Problem is, it’s much easier to do it wrong than it is to do it right. Here are some of the dangers that I think churches need to be aware of:

  1. People in many nations have learned that churches are a source of funds, a way to get money from the States. Even when we choose men who are resistant to the pull of money, the people they are working with may not have the same resistance. When one young man in Argentina was converted, the first thing his friends asked was, “Is there money there?”
  2. In the same way, locals who are supported are often seen as mercenaries in service to foreign agencies. We may think that we are removing the “foreign” air to the church by not sending missionaries, yet we may be emphasizing that very appearance.
  3. Those who receive funding from the States feel a need to replicate U.S. Christianity. Missionaries are taught to avoid this very thing; locals often feel that it is expected of them. “Send us the songbooks, communion trays and pulpit; we’re ready to start a church!”
  4. Those who receive funding from the States can feel a pressure to conform doctrinally. If they leave their livelihood to enter church work, the prospects of them returning to their previous work may be dim. They will protect their jobs and their funding. American missionaries can return home and move on to something else; locals rarely have that luxury.
  5. U.S-supported preachers are often uninterested in developing other leaders in the church. Other leaders are perceived as a threat to their income (and their power). I was told this directly by a preacher in Honduras. He said, “I don’t want elders. They’ll start asking about how much I make and how I use it.”
  6. American churches are often unaware of the social expectations of having an “employee.” We have had a “use them and lose them” attitude toward our preachers here in the States; once they are no longer useful to the local church, we let them go their own way. Churches often fail to provide basic benefits like health insurance, retirement, etc. for ministers.
    In other countries, this is often a basic expectation; labor laws tend to be stricter than ours. Even if U.S. churches don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the foreign country, society will see them as failing morally if they don’t live up to the norms followed by secular groups. That $50 per month may include an obligation for health care, life insurance and retirement. Have we educated ourselves in these areas before “contracting” local workers?

There are other things to consider, both positive and negative. I’m not against the support of local preachers. I am against it being done without proper caution, study and, above all, prayer.

What are your thoughts?

photo from MorgueFile.com

I’m going on a short-term mission trip

2 Replies

I’m going on a short-term mission trip to Costa Rica. That fact still surprises me, given my ambivalent feelings toward such trips. There’s a lot to like about this trip. On a personal level, I’m getting to go with my wife and kids. This is the first time that we’ll do something like this together.

On an organizational level, I like the way the trip is set up. There’s a service aspect and an evangelistic aspect. Though not set up this way intentionally, almost all of those going speak Spanish, which will allow us to do some things other groups may not. The bulk of the group is made up by family units, parents traveling with their adolescent (and up) children. Three couples on our time have worked as long-term missionaries in the past. And our activities are being planned by the local church, rather than us imposing a plan on them.

Still, I can see how easy it is to get caught up in “doing good” and not think about some of the effects your actions might have. Dan Bouchelle wrote an excellent article about this yesterday. It’s easy to overwhelm the local church with an infusion of “foreign things,” be that money, supplies, or even the ways of carrying out church activities.

I’ve seen a lot of good done by individuals on short-term trips. I’ve seen a lot of waste. I’ve even seen some harm done. I don’t have all the answers as to what’s right and what’s wrong.

I do know that if we ever allow short-term missions to replace long-term missions, the end result will be a weakening of the church, both here and abroad.

On that happy note, I need to go pack for Costa Rica!

photo by Penywise on morguefile.com

Projecting poverty

2 Replies

Yesterday I referred to some articles on short-term missions. One of those articles pointed to an outstanding article by Steve Saint (whose story is told in The End of the Spear; he’s also the developer of a successful flying car).

The article is titled “Projecting Poverty Where It Doesn’t Exist.” Saint expresses his frustration at the way people describe the “poverty” of the tribe he lives with in Ecuador. He states:

When people visit the Waodani, they look around and think, “Wow, these people have nothing!” People from the outside think the Waodani are poor because they don’t have three-bedroom ramblers with wall-to-wall carpeting, double garages so full of stuff the cars never fit and, I guess, because they never take vacations to exotic places like Disney World.

So, on speaking tours I began describing these jungle dwellers as “People who all have water front property, multiple houses and spend most of their time hunting and fishing.” The most common response I have gotten when describing the Waodani this way is, “Wow, would I ever like to live like that!” I agree completely.

Saint says that as the standard of living in the U.S. has risen, our perception of poverty has changed. We take our standards and apply them to the rest of the world. The article goes on to say

Consider how our definition of an orphan is different from most other cultures. In the U.S., you are an orphan if your mother and father have died. In South America (where I grew up), as in other contexts where extended family structures are intact, you are not really considered an orphan as long as you have a living grandparent, uncle, aunt or older brother or sister who is capable of helping take care of you. So when North Americans build an orphanage in South America, we “create” orphans by tempting family members to take advantage of our well-intentioned largess. This is seldom in the best interest of those children who are “orphaned” by our desire to meet what we perceive as their need.

Saint concludes his article with words that I find powerful:

Giving handouts creates more problems than it solves. It is like casting out demons with long leases. Break the lease or they will come back and bring more roommates (Lk 11:24–26). Where the Church is being established among people that perceive themselves as powerless, there is a great need for deep discipleship, wrestling with the roots of poverty at the community level rather than concentrating on the individual.

Financial help that does not develop sustainable, local, financial self-sufficiency is much more likely to create poverty than it is to meet real needs. Until we realize that we can’t overcome poverty with handouts, we will never be much help in completing Christ’s Great Commission.

As followers of Christ we must fight poverty through discipleship rather than covering it with spiritual frosting. Either we do God’s will God’s way or we aren’t doing His will at all. Discipleship means teaching others what we have learned so they can teach others to care for their community’s physical, economic, emotional and spiritual needs on a sustainable basis! (2 Tim 2:2, Mt 28:19–20)

Providing the kind of help that really helps isn’t easy. Especially for someone coming from outside. It takes much more time, effort and planning than merely giving in a way that salves our conscience. But I think it important that we be good stewards of what God has given us. Let’s be generous, in a way that really helps.

A missionary rants on short-term missions

5 Replies

I have a love-hate relationship with short-term missions. My wife’s family was converted through a campaign which utilized college students on a short trip. I came to know Argentina and missions on a similar trip. I’ve seen groups effectively reach out in limited efforts.

I’ve also seen people go to other countries to do what they never do at home. I’ve seen people spend thousands to deliver hundreds of dollars of relief. I’ve heard nationals talk about “mission” groups that insisted working in the areas that would give them the best photo ops. (“They want to ride canoes and wear feathers on their heads”)

Apparently I’m not the only one with mixed feelings. On the site “Jamie the very worst missionary,” the author stirred up quite a lot of comments by sharing her feelings. She started with a column called “Are we calling this a win-win?” which addressed so-called poverty tourism. She eventually had to shut of comments on that post because of the heat generated.

Later she looked at the four principal defenses given for short term missions and began analyzing those defenses. She’s addressed the first one (Sorry poor people, it’s not about you), the second one (Mmm… no, it’s not “all good”) and the third (Using your poor kid to teach my rich kid a lesson).

It’s interesting stuff. I hope you’ll take the time to read it. I may spend some time analyzing her arguments and others on this issue. Does Jamie have any valid points? Should we just accept that good is being done and leave it at that? Or is it time we took a hard look at short-term missions?