A Pink Slip for an Apostle

Sadly, this article does reflect the market-minded approach many churches take to missions. I know of a church near my home that stopped supporting a missionary because he was not seeing anyone saved. He was in a hard European field in which one can work for years and see nobody come to Christ. What if he saw nobody saved, yet planted seeds for future work? Sad when the church reduces missions to seeing visible results and numbers, trying to support the people who have the best "target ministry."

Would it be too self-serving to give this article 5 stars?

My wife read this and reminded me of two situations where our support was summarily dropped by two different churches: one in which the church didn't like it that we had left our field of service, Liberia, and gone to the Ivory Coast to work with Liberian refugees (Liberia was in the throes of a brutal civil war at the time); and a second church which dropped us because a pastor was called who was KJVOx: while we were in the midst of some very difficult times in refugee work we received a letter from this church quizzing us on Bible versions - but never asking how we were doing or assuring us of their prayers for us.

He was with a mission board that was not in harmony with our church's position. Our church was a self-described fundamentalist Bible church and the missionary and the board were squarely NOT with us.

The church leadership (deacons and elders) felt that because we had supported him for so long .... and because one of his relatives was in our church that it would not be prudent to drop him.

Missionary gets a letter from supporting church saying said church will no longer be supporting them but will continue to pray for their ministry. No reason is given for the decision.

Missionary understands times are tough in the US and is grateful that said church will still be praying.

A couple weeks later Missionary gets an e-mail from said church requesting to be removed from mailing list. Missionary has serious doubts about church's promise to continue to pray.

I certainly understand the points of view shared by members of missionary committees here, and appreciate their heart for the work of God. And let me be quick to point out that my family is privileged to be supported by many churches with outstanding, dedicated missionary committees.

That being said, I wish every member of every missionary committee (or pastor in charge of missions) would take the following to heart: your knowledge of the challenges of the mission field is very limited. Even if you were once a missionary yourself, your field was different, and things have changed since then. Someone who retired from the field of Brazil in the '80s needs to understand that the place where I work is radically different from the place he worked--even though geographically it is the same.

All that to say that before a committee (or pastor) drops a missionary based on a preconceived notion (even commonly accepted ones like "nationalization" or "change of field"), they should really sit back and ask themselves if they have considered every factor before discontinuing support.

Also, I would like to comment on Jim Peet's observation:

This is true, and I am a firm believer in frequent communication with supporting churches and individuals through a variety of means. My experience is that in many cases it is the churches that forget this is not the first century--or at least the 19th century. The only other church that dropped me did so because of failure to communicate. Apparently the bi-weekly e-mail, the almost daily blog entries, the constant Facebook and Twitter updates were not enough. I also had to use the US Postal Service.

We thank God every day for the wonderful supporters who make what we do possible. We make every effort to faithfully represent them and show our gratitude to them. Yet, when we get letters like the ones I mentioned above, and read of people in churches talking about "more bang for their buck" and "return on investment", we cannot help but feel a little bit like the brave soldiers stranded in Bataan at the outset of WWII--"No Mama, no Papa, no Uncle Sam".

Perhaps this is why the satirical letter posted above has struck such a chord with the missionaries who have commented here.

i use vertical response (it's like constant contact) b/c they give nonprofits free service. I just registered the 501c3 info and they checked it and now I have professional free e-mail service. i really have enjoyed it.

I find it interesting that while many churches demand communication from missionaries ("it's the 21st century; there's no reason for you not to communicate"), they rarely communicate personally with the missionary at the same level or frequency that they are demanding from him/her. Some do, and I'm glad; they're the exception.

I would also suggest that when a church is forced to consider who to support because finances are low and it is impossible to continue supporting everyone at the same level, the church should do its best to start with missionaries who are already in the States and have the opportunity to try to raise more support. To drop support without notice for a missionary who is out on the field, who will have little opportunity to seek to replace the income, is not the best approach (although, I understand, could be inevitable in some situations).

And I have to say that there is way more going on here than mere church autonomy. I know too many sad stories of missionaries who lost support from churches for little or no reason. In one case, a missionary noticed that support from a particular church had not arrived that month. Not wanting to make an issue out of nothing and realizing that sometimes finances are limited, he decided to wait until his upcoming furlough (just a couple months away) to meet with the pastor personally and see how the church was doing. He knew there was a new pastor and was concerned about how the transition was going. Once in the States, he drove out of his way to meet with the pastor and seek to encourage him. The missionary was more than a little surprised to discover that the church was actually growing; and the pastor had decided that, as there were new people in the church, they should drop all their missionaries and start over again in their selection of missionaries to support. Church autonomy? I suppose so. Right? Hardly.

You're right about churches not always communicating well, and I think that's a sign of how much they really care about missions. On the other hand, the communication requirement is known up front (as part of the covenant between the missionary and the church upon receiving support), so it should not seem onerous. If it is (pardon me if this sounds harsh), then there are probably other churches to which you can appeal for that money. I don't think I've ever heard a missionary say that as part of the agreement, they require the church to communicate with them regularly or they will "drop" the church and give up the support from that church. I'd actually find that refreshing. However, your point stands -- churches (and specifically, the members) should make it a point to really care about the missionaries they support, and that includes getting to know them and communicating with them regularly.

The point was made above that churches should understand that they have no idea about the challenges facing the missionary on the field, and take that into account before making any precipitous decisions. Exactly! There's no way we can understand the challenges any of you face on the field unless you let us know. And by the way, our church takes communication in pretty much any form. E-mail, web updates, blog, snail-mail, phone calls -- all are acceptable with us. We prefer electronic, but we take anything. There is one church planter we support who is over 80 and still going, who recently got an email address. If we send him an email, he types (on a typewriter) a nice response to us and mails it to us! I'm sure some churches are not so accomodating, but just as we expect communication, we try to do everything we can to make it easier or convenient for the missionary. After all, they're the ones on the front lines.

Even though it sounds too much like "business," a church does need reports on how the money spent is being used, just as stockholders need reports from the company in which they own stock. In fact, we need it even more so -- we are going to give account to God for how we use the resources he has given us as a church, and that means what we spend needs close tracking. And lest you as missionaries feel singled out, we expect the same from anyone (pastors included) spending church money. The missionary requirement is actually less intrusive, as it does not require receipts, etc., just a general report of what is happening on the field.

I agree with this completely. This is exactly how we try to do things when we can.

You're right. Words fail on this one.

Thanks, Dave, for you interaction. I think we're saying much the same thing about communication between church and missionary. Yes, the agreement is understood up front--the missionary has an obligation to communicate regularly with his/her supporting churches and individuals and should make every effort to do so. The church could argue that they do not owe the missionary the same kind of accountability, because they don't answer to the missionary in the same way the missionary answers to them. Perhaps--although if missionaries & churches are Gospel partners (as opposed to employer & employee) than one could make the case for a mutual accountability. My observation is that, while many churches are quick (and probably right) to make an issue out of insufficient or inconsistent communication (which, granted, the missionary was already told would be expected), very few churches do anything to communicate with the missionaries even semi-regularly.

We have been in Mexico City for 9 years now after serving for thirteen years as an associate pastor. I think that I can usually understand both the concerns of pastors and missionaries. I thoroughly appreciated the article and the many comments. They were great reminders that I have the best supporting churches any missionary could have. Many care deeply and pray faithfully. Hosting pastors and groups has increased our bonds as colaborers and those visits have always been mutually edifying and purposeful. (Partly because I have such great supporting pastors and churches). I could share horror stories from missionary and pastoral colaborers. BTW, I think that the attitude behind the word "colaborers" is often forgotten. Yes, some added paperwork of questionnaires is time consuming, but churches invest heavily in what God is doing here. One great choice we made 10 years ago was to only seek support in like-minded churches. Whew, that sure has saved me a lot of heartaches and headaches!