Five Trends Changing the Future of Missions

Finances is also a trend that is affecting missions today. Europe and America are are experiencing unprecedented financial decline.

[Pastor Joe Roof] Finances is also a trend that is affecting missions today. Europe and America are are experiencing unprecedented financial decline.

In my view there is enough money but it is not being used efficiently

• The whole deputation trail is a giant time and money waster (travel, gasoline, etc)
• Solve deputation and finances for missions will be fixed
  

My problems with deputation

1. The mission agencies that take a percentage of a candidates support (or a fixed amount per month) are not financially motivated to pre-weed out the candidates that aren’t going to make it through the process (complete deputation and get to the field)
2. There is financial waste (or inefficiency) in three cases
   
   
   1. The case where the candidate spends say 3 years in deputation …. gets to 50% … the trend line is such that the parties agree that the trajectory is not a successful deputation. The candidate resigns and does something else. This happens more than one thinks. In these cases mucho buckos have been wasted
   2. In the case where the candidate gets very close … we might call it “successful” … but then at the ends decides to take a pastorate. I’ve seen this happen as well (once that I am personally aware of this year). That is wasted money
   3. Cases # 1 and # 2 crowd out (competes) for the same candidate who makes it to the field
      If you look at recent (and by recent I mean pre-WWII) there were missionaries who just went to the field and trusted Christ. A hard way to go? Yes. But it happened
      
      After the ABWE Bangladesh-Doctor/Missionary-pedophile fiasco, I’ve lost a lot of confidence in mission boards. I think the whole “do we really need mission boards?’ question needs to be revisited. They suck resources, work less with the local church than they should, and in some cases countermand the local church.
      
      We may need less but more effective missionaries!
      
      Some regions should be considered “evangelized”. The Philippines and Brazil, in my view are candidates for less missionaries.
      
      When Paul an Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch (some regard them as the first missionaries), they were already established leader-teachers (Acts 13). Perhaps we should look more to men who are already serving as Pastors and send them instead of 25-35 year old untested-in-the-pastorate candidates
      
      Short term “vacation-style” youth missions trips should be evaluated. There are black kids in the inner city that are as lost as kids in Europe. Want to give kids a taste of missions .. do back yard Bible clubs in one’s own Jerusalem (or the city next door). Save the jet fuel for the career missionaries
      
      Missions in our own back yard:
      
      • No one wants to go to Somalia (and I don’t blame them!)
      • There are Somalians in our own back yard (speaking now of Minneapolis)
      • This goes for many other people groups ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamtramck,_Michigan#Demographics] Hamtramck, Michigan for example )
        
      The college campuses: Fundamentalists largely abandoned the secular campuses with our own Bible colleges. There are Chinese, Korean, etc etc etc students there who will get trained and go back to their home countries. It will be much less expensive to reach Muslims in America on the college campuses here.

To; Jim Peet

Appears you have given a great deal of thought and study to the missions subject. I would have to agree with most of what you said. My personal observation is that some candidates from North America have so little life experience, and then in a culture of ease, that they offer little for the other people in other harder situations to respect. Also, I wonder what happened to all the indigenous churches they wanted to plant. This was all you heard in the sixties and seventies. But we are still sending missionaries to countries that should have been left on their own long ago. It is interesting that when the missionaries were forced to leave China that tremendous growth eventually came. Perhaps mission agencies can’t let go and are too self perpetuating. I especially wonder about student short term missions. Are these often just church supported overseas student vacations and not worth the expense?

I also find it interesting that some missionaries have agencies that demand a certain support level that will include excellent health, disability, life, and retirement benefits and are supported by churches that offer none or little such benefits to their home missionary called Pastor.

[Jim Peet] In my view there is enough money but it is not being used efficiently

Probably true.

[Jim Peet] The whole deputation trail is a giant time and money waster (travel, gasoline, etc)

Partly true. Benefit — it weeds out a lot of quitters. If you think it costs a lot of money to have someone spend three years at 50% and then quit, imagine the cost of actually sending someone to the field and supporting them for 3-4 years and then they quit. Another benefit — a lot of missionaries really learn to trust the Lord for finances in ways they never had to before, and in ways that will prepare them to trust the Lord in lots of other things on the field.

I strongly dislike the current system, I agree that there is significant waste, but I do see some benefits in the current system. You’ve overstated it, IMO.

[Jim Peet] The mission agencies that take a percentage of a candidates support (or a fixed amount per month) are not financially motivated to pre-weed out the candidates that aren’t going to make it through the process (complete deputation and get to the field)

Agreed. Hopefully they are ethically motivated to do that….

[Jim Peet] In the case where the candidate gets very close … we might call it “successful” … but then at the ends decides to take a pastorate. I’ve seen this happen as well (once that I am personally aware of this year). That is wasted money

Why doesn’t a candidate like that return his support? Why do churches call a man like that? Did he believe God was calling him to the field? If he got something as important as that wrong, how can you trust his leadership in the church?

Colour me unimpressed….

[Jim Peet] If you look at recent (and by recent I mean pre-WWII) there were missionaries who just went to the field and trusted Christ. A hard way to go? Yes. But it happened

This is probably not legally an option in most cases. The world has changed. Most countries don’t want you and won’t let you in unless you have some way to prove that you are going to be able to support yourself and not be a drain on the country.

[Jim Peet] After the ABWE Bangladesh-Doctor/Missionary-pedophile fiasco, I’ve lost a lot of confidence in mission boards. I think the whole “do we really need mission boards?’ question needs to be revisited.

Maybe something good will come out of that mess.

I’m not opposed to an outside group providing services to aid a church in sending their missionaries. If that’s all a mission board really is, it’s fine. Too often, it becomes more than that.

If someone thinks that a mission board is providing Biblical accountability for their missionaries, in most cases, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. If you are lucky, a mission representative visits for a week every couple of years. No one from the board knows what goes on the rest of the time. If there is another missionary from the board working nearby, they may know what is going on, but they may not be quick to open their mouth and cause trouble, especially if a transgressing missionary has more seniority. No missionary from another board is likely to say anything about any problems in another missionary’s ministry, and even less likely to be believed by the transgressing missionary’s board if they do say something. Just about the only thing to get a missionary off the field would be financial fraud or adultery, usually. Other stuff, the board won’t even know about.

[Jim Peet] We may need less but more effective missionaries!

You can never have too many labourers in the harvest. We certainly could use lots of effective missionaries.

[Jim Peet] Some regions should be considered “evangelized”. The Philippines and Brazil, in my view are candidates for less missionaries.

I couldn’t comment intelligently on this.

[Jim Peet] When Paul an Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch (some regard them as the first missionaries), they were already established leader-teachers (Acts 13). Perhaps we should look more to men who are already serving as Pastors and send them instead of 25-35 year old untested-in-the-pastorate candidates

I could rant on this topic for a while. If you have a 25 year old with little experience, and he goes into an established church in the U.S., with mature believers all around him, he’s going to make mistakes, and they are going to help him. If he falls into sin, they will hold him accountable. If you send the same man to the mission field, his mistakes come when he’s possibly the only person around who really knows the Word. If he starts to stumble, he’s going to fall a lot harder and faster. And don’t count on the mission board to be on top of this and protect him and hold him accountable. Please, please, please don’t send ministry novices to the mission field! They make a mess of the ministry on the field and of themselves. Don’t support novices. Just don’t. Tell them they need some experience first. I don’t care how good a speaker he is, how fancy his presentation is, how cute his little kids are, or how well he sings. He doesn’t have to have been a pastor, but he needs some real experience.

[Jim Peet] Short term “vacation-style” youth missions trips should be evaluated.

Yes. I’ve seen good and bad on these. I’ll take an MTT team if they come back. Otherwise, I’m highly dubious, and likely to just say no.

Dear Brother Pittman,

A simple question: Where in the NT do you see our current model of deputation?

Admittedly Paul wrote to the Philippians rejoicing and commending them for their support and welcoming more (Philippians 4:10-18):

But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at last your care for me has flourished again; though you surely did care, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. 14 Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress. 15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. 16 For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. 18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.

I cited the example of the church of Antioch where they, lead by the Holy Spirit, sent out two veteran leaders to the field. I would suppose that some financial support accompanied that sending!

It’s pure pragmatism to cite the “many benefits and advantages” of the current deputation system!

Re: “are you on the outside looking in or have you done this?” Answer: Well I haven’t been a missionary. I did serve as a Pastor for 16 years and did raise my own support for a campus ministry after college. So I am not exactly “on the outside looking in”

You cited this benefit, among others, of deputation:

it is a boot camp that weeds out those who are unsuitable, not committed, or lack the right stuff for mission work

Where is the Biblical support for that!

[Jim Peet] You cited this benefit, among others, of deputation:

it is a boot camp that weeds out those who are unsuitable, not committed, or lack the right stuff for mission work

Where is the Biblical support for that!

Of deacons, I Tim. 3:10:

And let these also first be proved;

The “also” implies that which only makes sense, that an elder/bishop must be first tested/proved. If you are sending a man to plant churches overseas, he’s going to be in the role of pastor/bishop, so he should first be tested/proved. It is obvious that the testing is in the eyes of the church. Deputation is one way of testing/proving a man.

It tests his commitment/faith/etc.

It also tests him by another measure, in my opinion. Do God’s people, led by the Holy Spirit, find him to measure up to what is needed, as far as Biblical standards of qualifications, faithfulness, commitment, etc? Of course, too often it’s by whether he, his wife, and his kids put on a nice presentation and are charming enough, but that’s a failure of the church, not of the “system”.

For clarity, I’m NOT in favor of the current system. But this kind of “weeding out”, this testing, is Biblical and appropriate. If we want to talk about whether it is the best and most appropriate way Biblically to accomplish the task, that’s a far different question. Jim suggested looking for more experience as a way of “weeding out”, Roland suggests using deputation. Both accomplish that purpose, and it is a Biblical purpose.

The current “system” is not centred enough around the local church. If the local church took sending a missionary as seriously as they take calling a pastor, you’d have a lot more “weeding out” take place. And the local church ought to take their missionary’s ministry as their own, rather than dumping it off on a mission board. That would include helping him in the support/deputation problem.

If I were a pastor in the States, and I got a letter from a missionary, it would be one of a thousand. A letter from his mission board would mean nothing to me. If I got a letter from a pastor with several pages of information of how they had tested a man in doctrine, Biblical qualifications, and ministry, and asking us to consider him for support, THAT would catch my attention. That would especially be the case if I knew the pastor, if we knew the church and knew they were likeminded.

[RPittman]

Prepares the missionary for the field by

Experience in dealing with people of many different social, economic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds

Forms bonds between missionaries and the local assemblies

Experience in preaching, teaching, and speaking in different venues with different audiences

I appreciate your pointing out how missionaries might benefit from the current deputation system. I don’t know that visiting churches and staying with families for at most a week really helps them learn to deal with different backgrounds or form bonds. It may expose them to differences, but does it really train them in dealing with people day in and day out for months and years as is needed on the mission field?

Further, prospective missionaries really only need to have 5-10 messages prepared which they repeat as they travel around on deputation. I don’t know that this prepares them for the mission field where they may have to — or at least should — prepare several different messages or lessons each week.

Encourages young people to consider the call to missions

I fear that for every young person called to missions from hearing a presentation at least one other is turned off because of the long, drawn-out process of getting to the field.

About the only benefit I see is to keep the local congregation informed and inspired to give. This might could be accomplished using Hudson Taylor’s model: he went to the field but left a representative — who lived by faith for his own support — to visit churches and raise money for the China Inland Mission.

I’m on the missions committee at our church so these discussions are very helpful. :)

the need is to support indigenous workers. Most of such support would be in the form of educating the pulpit. There are many fields where in order for the local churches to mature further, they need men in the pulpit with more than a Bible institute education.

[Michelle] I don’t know that visiting churches and staying with families for at most a week really helps them learn to deal with different backgrounds or form bonds. It may expose them to differences, but does it really train them in dealing with people day in and day out for months and years as is needed on the mission field?

It’s probably good exposure, but preparation in one field of ministry is often completely different from another field.

We had a pastoral intern at our church for a while before he got a permanent position. Prior to interning with us, he had been on the Steve Pettit Evangelistic team for about 5 years. In one of our pastor/deacon’s meetings, he commented how dealing with the same people weekly seemed much more difficult for him, with harder problems to solve, than being with different people for a week and then moving on. A church-planting missionary, for at least a few years (depending on the length of time it takes to get a work to self-supporting status under a local leader) will be much more like pastoring, dealing with the same people all the time, even if the experience (at first) is going to be different from what it is in his home country.

as a missionary …

I pretty much agree with what Jim Peet wrote.

We are here with pretty much half the support level of what normal american missionaries have—we can do it b/c Vitaliy is ukrainian and his mom gives us food from her garden, he also keeps some of our spending low, and recently God’s helped he and I both to have income-producing work here. no, we dont save for retirement, and i’m not quite sure how we’ll ever pay for our kids education (our first child starts school this fall), but … God provides. He really does.

I dont’ know if deputation weeds out people. It’s a lot about marketing and sales stuff—prayer card, presentation, making calls, etc., I have often struggled with that. It’s a little about getting to know pepole; it’s more about temporarily adapting yourself (or hiding things) from them that they may not accept about you, so you keep quiet b/c they are all pretty much strangers to you, but they help you financially. Why do you think I post here? b/c no one here supports us :)

I dont know, I have more thoughts, but I have to go.

Actually, I’m looking at the works of P.D. Cherian and the late Jacob Chelli in India. Cherian at South India Baptist Bible College and Chelli at Berean BBC. India has been closed to foreign missionaries for at least the last 40+ years. That includes teachers for their colleges and Bible institutes. So, these men raised support here in the States and built these works. There is also the work being done in Ghana for Anglo-phone West Africa. In both locations, Biblical Christianity has been there for over 150 years and in India’s case over 200. The thinking goes, it’s about time for these areas to train their own leadership instead of looking overseas.

[RPittman]

[Rob Fall] the need is to support indigenous workers.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this. It sounds like a really great idea but it has its problems of producing “rice Christians.”

Most of such support would be in the form of educating the pulpit.

Well, this seems to be the trend in some circles unfortunately. Although natives, your indigenous workers, are an important part of evangelization and mission work, they are not usually able to carry the burden of evangelization alone. It is not academic but economic for the most part.

There are many fields where in order for the local churches to mature further, they need men in the pulpit with more than a Bible institute education.

This is based on a false assumption of the role of education in the ministry. Here, I think you are speaking theoretically based on your own American view of ministry and your own presuppositions about ministry. It is possible through education to break the connection to the common people. Education is NOT a prerequisite for Christianity to flourish. Look at the Apostles who were called “ignorant and unlearned” men. Even the learned Paul emphatically argued that his gospel came with persuasive words or the wisdom of men.

This post is a needed wake up call. The next step is to put content into how churches should respond to the trends. Yes, one generation is waning, the next is waxing and new technology is changing the way they live. This is not new. What outlook are we giving them on missions?

Western culture is losing dominance. What role does that suggest for American churches in evangelism? Reformed theology is rising. Are we using Sunday “School” time to truly train? Is it enough to advocate feeding people more religious information? Are we training ourselves to give effective answers to common challenges to the Gospel?

Are we using God-given opportunities in the most fruitful way possible? Why is it that about 90% of our missions spending goes to the places and peoples who already have the greatest access to the Gospel, while less than 10% goes to those with the least access? Is this Biblical missions? Do we really want to continue enabling a process that forces missions candidates to spend months or even years raising support from 30 or 40 widely scattered churches, the majority of whose members can’t even remember what country those missionaries minister in?

Do we know why we carry out missions the way we do? The answers to these and other questions can be effectively answered if churches took the time and effort to think and pray through a Biblically-driven missions philosophy. I am involved in such an effort at my church. We are asking respected, effective veteran missionaries to tell us what they have learned. It has been a healthy process.

I encourage other churches to do the same. When we do, perhaps we will be better prepared to meet the challenges in the future of missions.

I agree such operations must be carefully planned and overseen. However, in many cases, they are viable alternatives to sending a church planting American missionary overseas. There are many ways contrary to popular belief to skin a cat.

[RPittman]

[Rob Fall] Actually, I’m looking at the works of P.D. Cherian and the late Jacob Chelli in India. Cherian at South India Baptist Bible College and Chelli at Berean BBC. India has been closed to foreign missionaries for at least the last 40+ years. That includes teachers for their colleges and Bible institutes. So, these men raised support here in the States and built these works. There is also the work being done in Ghana for Anglo-phone West Africa. In both locations, Biblical Christianity has been there for over 150 years and in India’s case over 200. The thinking goes, it’s about time for these areas to train their own leadership instead of looking overseas.

These are good works. I been associated with organizations that support such works including those mentioned. Also, I have a good friend, Eric Franks, who has done a similar thing in Bangalore, India. His burden is to train pastors to go into the hills where the people still live in poverty and ignorance. His boys have established a good number of churches in the rural areas. Then, there was Hosea Lara, now deceased, of Mount Horeb Bible Institute in Mexico. So, I’m not opposed to this type of mission work. However, I do know of such efforts that have gone awry. For example, some programs brought nationals to America for training and they stayed on to enjoy the good life. Others have taken American support to live the good life in their own country. So, we must be discerning. I don’t think this is the panacea for all mission difficulties. Our efforts must be on a variety of fronts.

Why should missionaries be fund raisers in churches in which they have never served or will never serve? Is this Scriptural? One message one presentation is not much commitment to that local church and the local church does not hold these missionaries very accountable if they do support them during their future ministry.

The deputation system is not biblical. It should not be a proving ground unless selling yourself and your field is the ultimate goal. Are we training salesmen through this process?

Promotion of tent-making, BIVO missions model is more biblical for church planting. All men should be exposed to this model rather than default to the deputation mess. BIVO is scriptural. Most missionaries don’t really have a good handle on faith and finances. They have been taught a pragmatic model not a biblical one.

that the argument that deputation is a weeding-out process is perhaps a false claim, or a superfluous claim… . It could be said of going to university or seminary, for example. Did the missionary go through a bachelors and masters program? In accomplishing that, he certainly did a lot that shows us he has the gumption to stick it through …

And I’ve known not only one missionary who’s done deputation, then headed back in a few months. It doesn’t follow.

[RPittman] What gives us the right to tell them how to carry out their ministries?

I didn’t actually notice anyone claiming any authority to dictate how to carry out their ministries.

It is entirely appropriate for people to discuss whether current models best reflect Biblical principles. It is entirely appropriate for people to discuss whether current models are the best way to do things as society changes, since as you acknowledge, the current deputation model is extra-Biblical.

Several people on this thread do have some pretty extensive missions-related experience. This is not just a pooling of ignorance.

I’ve heard several missionaries say they use a limited number of sermons on deputation and furlough. They sometimes have to, because they spend so much time in travel or as guests in people’s homes, when there is no opportunity to study and prepare. I experienced that, though only for a few months at a time, thankfully. I used the same sermons more than once, and never pretended I didn’t.

A lot of the “boot camp” of deputation has nothing to do with what a missionary will face on the field. I do see value in the process, but I’m not sure why you are so determined to defend it. Just because there is value in it does not even begin to suggest it is the best way to go about things. There are more and more missionaries who think it isn’t, that something needs to change. The problem is coming up with a better way, and then getting enough people to agree to adopt it. Inertia is powerful.

Brother Jung, you suggested tentmaking. As a tentmaker, I’ll just say that it is very, very difficult to make that happen. We had much difficulty even though I was taking my job with me. If the authorities think you might actually be taking a job that one of their citizens could have had, they simply won’t let you in the country. They want to know where the money is coming from to support you before they will let you in, and if you say you are going to look for a job, they will tell you to go back home and look for one.

[RPittman] Anne, I’m not really sure of the exact thrust of your point on universities and seminaries. I may have repeated the point you made. But, I did want to add that we cannot successfully argue that college or deputation is NOT a weeding out process because there subsequent failures. There will always be failures because of human weakness and people who endure great testing may fail at a later point. Failures are due to many different causes. However, later failures do not necessarily indicate that earlier potential failures were weeded out. The reasoning is that if they quit during deputation, then it is more likely that they would have quit later without deputation under the rigor of the mission field. We don’t know this and cannot test it but it is a reasonable inference.

My point is that viewing deputation as a weeding out process is not necessarily logical. It is quite possible that there are missionaries who quit deputation who would’ve stayed many yrs on the field if they had gotten there in the first place (without having to do yrs of deputation).

There are no special, magical elements of deputation that prepare a missionary for living on the field. And if we just do deputation to go through the experience of doing something long, hard, and with many rather meaningless elements, I’m saying that earning a university degree is the same kind of “weeding out test” then.

[RPittman] In any field, there is a higher failure rate at entry level.

maybe it’s not entry level. maybe it’s just bizzare?

:)

It used to be that entry level was going with no support promised. Maybe that was a better weeding out process?

I just want to thank Mr. Roland Pittman for standing up for us missionaries who had to go through deputation. When I think about the 6 years that my wife and I experienced on deputation it was a life changing experience.

For 3 years as a single man, I traveled up and down the east coast of America. Then in 2007, my wife and I traveled for 3 years on deputation. On many occasions we heard pastors say many things to us about things.

For us, deputation was a “boot camp” experience. We experienced our ups and downs. As we are now on the field here in Australia, I think back to the words of our pastor that exhorted us to “be strong in the power of His might.”

I think I understand what you are saying, Anne. If deputation is being viewed as a ‘boot camp’ of sorts, it makes me wonder why people don’t get credit, so to speak, if they have already accomplished some hard challenges in their lives, like earning a university degree with high marks, or owning/managing a successful business, or operating a large farm. I mean, I grew up on a farm with no indoor plumbing, so would I get ‘credit’ for already knowing how to live in an impoverished area? How would deputation teach me more character than I already have? And why isn’t the home and the church enough of a boot camp to prepare young people for ministry? Exactly what aspects of deputation provide character training and testing that hasn’t already taken place and couldn’t be accomplished another way? To whom are these missionaries ‘accountable’ during this supposed training period, since they are in essence on their own, and there are few if any ‘witnesses’ to their methodologies or particular struggles?

Lots of interesting questions being tossed around. I agree http://sharperiron.org/comment/33239#comment-33239] with JG , that we shouldn’t be so focused on creating a ‘system’ that ‘works’, but rather as to whether or not the status quo is truly consistent with Scripture and actually accomplishing that which it purports to set out to do.

[wpittman] I just want to thank Mr. Roland Pittman for standing up for us missionaries who had to go through deputation. When I think about the 6 years that my wife and I experienced on deputation it was a life changing experience.

It’s OK to call him “Dad”. ;)

Unless he requires you to call him Mr. Roland Pittman! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing003.gif

As an urban missionary that has raised support throu gh a deputation process, I actually agree with most of Roland’s assertions, except the first and last one.

Prepares the missionary for the field by:

Experience in dealing with people of many different social, economic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds

Teaching faith and dependence upon God

Experience in preaching, teaching, and speaking in different venues with different audiences

Prepares the missionary in dealing with different foods, accommodations, etc.

Keeps the urgent need for missions before the local church and their hearts warm to the cause of missions

Encourages young people to consider the call to missions

Forms bonds between missionaries and the local assemblies

Missionaries often have a fruitful ministry to the local churches by encouraging the struggling pastors, challenging the members, etc.

Keeps the people’s hearts warm to missions giving

Informs local congregations of specific fields and needs

Finally, it is a boot camp that weeds out those who are unsuitable, not committed, or lack the right stuff for mission work

Out of the 30 or so churches to whom I presented our ministry, all but one happened to be white, middle-class, suburban or rural in its culture. Now that may be because of my contacts, but as we see even here at Sharper Iron, most of fundamentalism happens to be monocultural.

As for deputation as a boot camp or a weeding out process for their mission field, it did not prepare me for what I experience in the inner-city. What deputation prepared me for was fundraising! Through deputation, I learned to develop relationships with people, share our ministry in a way that connects to people, and then ask for money.

In fact, I have had multiple friends that demonstrated endurance and commitment and the right stuff for deputation under the umbrella of a reputable missions agency, yet couldn’t cut it overseas on the mission field in a cross-cultural environment. They had a relatively easy time adjusting to connecting with churches that were very much like themselves (which were all the churches that they presented their ministry to on deputation), but when it came to living in a completely different culture, where they had to deal with open sewage in the streets, buying food in the marketplace (which took a day to do, rather than an hour), and working through the language barriers while they learned the language as well as other communications barriers, they realized that cross-cultural missions wasn’t where God had them……

I think a better boot camp would be a 6 month to a 2 year missionary internship where the aspiring missionary lives among the people that he will be ministering the gospel to under the mentorship of a godly, experienced missionary who then can determine whether they have the right stuff to become missionaries.

Yet the other reasons that Roland gives for doing deputation are essential for keeping missions on the front burner in the church. So actually I am for aspiring missionaries to do deputation before they go out onto the field……..

[RPittman] Yet, the Apostle Paul eloquently defends the right of the minister/missionary to be supported and to live of the ministry. Do you contradict this?

Does not time spent in working for one’s own livelihood take away from time and energy spent in evangelizing and church planting on the mission field? It makes perfect sense to me that we in America give of our abundance to support the workers on the mission field. We see no problem with paying pastors full-time salaries in America; why not on the mission field? And Paul characterizes this as the abounding of our love and faithfulness, which is to our spiritual benefit. But, greed and selfism causes men to rationalize many specious arguments against what is plainly taught in Scripture.

You can probably guess that I’m not against missionaries being supported. I would say that making retirement, education, team trips, vacation, etc. a part of that meaning, while not unbiblibcal, is going beyond what the Bible specifies and creates a salary standard based upon pretty much the wealthiest nation on earth.

I don’t know, it’s probably a choice between imperfections, and I guess I am glad my misison agency lets me choose the imperfections I want to deal with to a great extent. I know the stress of being”undersupported,” but I know the helpfulness of it, too.

That’s just silly, Mr. Pittman, to suggest that I would prefer a system that doesn’t work- the point is that we tend to be obsessed with creating ‘systems’, rather than responding to individual situations with spiritual discernment, creativity, and intelligence. Too often the answer to everything is “That’s just the way we do it, and that’s the way we’ve always done it”.

The ‘proving’ aspect of deputation is problematic IMO because before a person commits to ministry, they should no longer be considered a novice. It seems to me that the deputation system assumes the person is a novice in need of a ‘boot camp’. Spiritual training should take place in the home and in the church. If it isn’t taking place in the home, and a person is gifted and called to ministry, then the church needs to step up and mentor them until they are fit. Sending novices out to stumble around for 3-5 years groveling for a paycheck doesn’t sound like a solid proving ground or an ‘efficient’ system.

[Joel Shaffer] I think a better boot camp would be a 6 month to a 2 year missionary internship where the aspiring missionary lives among the people that he will be ministering the gospel to under the mentorship of a godly, experienced missionary who then can determine whether they have the right stuff to become missionaries.

What he said.

As for ‘ignoring’ your reasons-

Prepares the missionary for the field by:

Experience in dealing with people of many different social, economic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds

Do you have any evidence that this is true? Or is it just an assumption?

Teaching faith and dependence upon God

This isn’t learned in any other way?

Experience in preaching, teaching, and speaking in different venues with different audiences

This can’t be accomplished during a mentoring/training process under the supervision of a local church?

Prepares the missionary in dealing with different foods, accommodations, etc.

Let’s see- there’s an Olive Garden, an Abuelo’s, and a China Buffet just down the street. Do you need 3 years of deputation to learn to eat weird stuff?

Keeps the urgent need for missions before the local church and their hearts warm to the cause of missions

Is that what happens? ‘Cause it looks to me that half the church is snoozing, until someone starts singing “People Need the Lord” and everyone wakes up and looks properly moved.

Encourages young people to consider the call to missions

This can’t happen any other way?

Forms bonds between missionaries and the local assemblies

How is this accomplished when the missionary shows up, shows slides, and is out the door in about 2 hours?

Missionaries often have a fruitful ministry to the local churches by encouraging the struggling pastors, challenging the members, etc.

So do evangelists.

Keeps the people’s hearts warm to missions giving

Why are their hearts cold in the first place? Is that spiritual freezer going to truly be thawed by pictures of cute kids and and a stirring rendition of “Thank You for Giving to the Lord”?

Informs local congregations of specific fields and needs

OK. But this can also be done via other means of communication.

Finally, it is a boot camp that weeds out those who are unsuitable, not committed, or lack the right stuff for mission work

The bulk of the weeding out process needs to take place before deputation, not during.

[from the OP] Christian political pundit Chuck Colson made this observation: “If we want to see revival in the church, we need to be at least as serious as the Marines are about preparing men and women for battle. Perhaps we ought to rethink Sunday school, dust off the catechisms, and start teaching the Bible and theology to our young people again. If the theologically attuned young Reformed crowd is any indication, they can handle it. But it’s not just for Calvinists. Every successful Christian movement has embraced ways to effectively pass on the faith entrusted to the saints once for all” (“Doctrinal Boot Camp: Conforming to the Truth of the Faith Is Necessary for Survival,” Christianity Today).

Yeah- that too.

[RPittman] So, I am righteously irritated when affluent and comfortable Christians try to denigrate the means of supporting our workers on the mission field. One doesn’t have to support missionaries with their own money but please don’t try to be pious or self-justifying about it.

I’m not sure I see “righteous irritation” in the Bible anywhere, but I think I see illogical irritation on SI. :) I say that with all due respect to someone whose contributions are often challenging and valuable.

1. This is not about denigrating missionaries (your son or anyone else).

2. This is not about denigrating those who give to support missionaries.

3. The deputation discussion IS about the means of connecting missionaries with those who give.

4. This is not about denigrating the faithfulness of those who have worked within the current “deputation” system. It was the system in place, and they worked within it to get to where they could serve in the place to which God called them. Praise the Lord for their faithfulness.

5. This IS about questioning whether the current extra-biblical system of “matching” missionaries with givers is the wisest and most in keeping with Biblical principles, or whether it should be tweaked, or whether a vastly different extra-biblical system should take its place.

So my recommendation is that you shelve your irritation, and ask your son if he, having gone through the process, can think of any ways it could possibly be improved. And then put your mind to the task of thinking of other ideas, whether modifying current processes or going completely outside the box, to improve the way we get missionaries to the field.

But don’t say, “My son did it this way, and he was faithful even though it took a long time and a lot of hardship, so everyone else should just suck in their gut, get to work, and do it that way, too. And besides, it has benefits doing it that way.”

The fact that deputation has benefits doesn’t prove anything. Running a marathon in army boots has benefits, too, but that doesn’t mean it is the best or wisest way to do it.

And by the way, Derek Jung is indeed a tent-maker, in answer to your earlier question.

The Scriptures clearly teach that both supported and tentmaking ministries are appropriate. The Scriptures give no clear direction on how to “connect” potential supported missionaries with potential supporters, and as Jim Peet suggested and more and more missionaries are concluding, in a rapidly changing world the old models need to be reevaluated. There ARE multiple Scriptural principles that should apply to that evaluation.

[RPittman] Yes, Anne, even serving with a mission board goes “beyond what the Bible specifies.” Knowing “the stress of being ‘undersupported,’ can you not rejoice that some are well-supported? We ought to rejoice with our brothers and sisters in their blessings.

And yes, it was my Son, as Susan indicated, who posted a thank you to me earlier. He had a long, hard deputation experience with setbacks (e.g. USA dollar fell around 40% against the Australian dollar, etc.) And he with his wife went to the field undersupported because his mission board, a local church board, allows the missionary to make these decisions. Also, one of his major problems is that the Australian salary standard is higher than the comparable American standard. In this case (Australia), your “salary standard based upon pretty much the wealthiest nation on earth” is not an accurate representation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index). Wesley and Erin work to supplement their lack of support. So, I am righteously irritated when affluent and comfortable Christians try to denigrate the means of supporting our workers on the mission field. One doesn’t have to support missionaries with their own money but please don’t try to be pious or self-justifying about it.

If it makes you feel any better, i don’t mind how other missionaries are supported—who am I to do that? I have honestly had to struggle with not comparing my lifestyle to theirs, and I am happy for my american sisters that they can have some financial padding that makes the brink-of-insanity feeling maybe a little easier, although I think that they struggle with those moments just as much as I do. I think the initial brunt of the culture changes is padded by having more money to maintain a lifestyle they are more used to and get help/resources to make the stresses more bearable. I have some of that, too, and I’m very thankful for it—i have a vehicle to drive and I can afford cappuchinos :D

Also, about tentmaking, it’s a question in the sense that, in Australia, for example, someone could work decent hours and make a comparatively decent income. Here, if V or I worked Ukrainian jobs, we’d get maybe $100-$200/month working full time or more. It’s just not worth it. Working for foreign-supported companies would have to be alternative in underdeveloped countries or choosing to live on that type of income with so little time for ministry.

We do personally support other missionaries, and I don’t begrudge them their support, and I’m thankful for some of my american missionary friends who’ve helped fund our post-abortion seminars and summer camps.

And I agree with you too.

[RPittman]

[Rob Fall] I agree such operations must be carefully planned and overseen. However, in many cases, they are viable alternatives to sending a church planting American missionary overseas. There are many ways contrary to popular belief to skin a cat.

Rob, I’m not arguing against other methods. One size doesn’t fit all. My points have been directed toward a plurality of means including tent-making, associational support, training and supporting nationals, and DEPUTATION. We agree, I think. All these approaches have strengths and weaknesses. We should recognize the relative strengths and weaknesses of each. Then churches, mission agencies, and missionaries have to make their choices. However, what bothered me is some have tried to assume a superior position by claiming Biblical support that they didn’t have. It seemed to me that this thread was on a roll against deputation without recognizing its advantages as well as it shortcomings. So, I pitched into the fray to balance the arguments.

[RPittman] I seemed to have irritated you, friend, and you are intent on setting me straight. :)

Impossible. I said there’s no such thing as righteous irritation, and I’m too self-righteous to let it happen to me. :p

Serious point:

There were kind of vibes that tent-making was the more spiritual means with missionaries who were more committed and dedicated than the deputation types who have steady support begged from hard-working folks in American churches.

As far as I know, there was one post (from a tentmaker) who asserted that tentmaking was more Biblical. I hope (as a tentmaker myself) if I had seen posts asserting that we were more committed and dedicated that I’d have been more active than you in refuting it. I don’t think I saw any kind of negativity towards supported missionaries coming through.

The only thing that even verged on that was regarding the question of whether deputation was good preparation/weeding out, and some have asserted that some missionaries weren’t prepared. That was an illogical response to your argument, because no “weeding out” process is going to be perfect (see Demas, etc). But even that wasn’t an attack against supported missionaries, it was simply arguing that deputation “weeding out” isn’t working.

This is not a tentmaking vs. support discussion, generally. It certainly isn’t a “supported missionaries aren’t as spiritual or committed” discussion. It’s a “support raised one way” vs. “can we find a better way to raise it” discussion. Your response has appeared to suggest that there is no better way and we shouldn’t even be looking for a better one.

No one suggested you have less credibility because your son is a supported missionary. Presumably, you have more knowledge of the process than a lot of people. But statements like this are detrimental to discussion:

Throughout the history of the Church, there have been naysayers opposing missions.

That falsely impugns motives. No one on this thread has remotely opposed missions.

Finally:

IMHO, rather than arguing about methods and other things to no profit, I would like to hear ideas of how we can increase our giving and send more missionaries. If we expect faith, sacrifice, and effort on the part of missionaries, can we expect any less of ourselves?

I agree with this. I praise the Lord that we serve a God who gives His people all things richly to enjoy, but while they are enjoying, it would perhaps be better if they didn’t also say, “It’s too bad we don’t have the money to send out more missionaries.”

Some supported missionaries often feel hesitant to talk about it, but it can be really hard for them when they go back to the States and see the way people live, while on the field for them, any car breakdown or appliance failure is an immediate crisis. Since I’m a tentmaker, I don’t have to feel so shy in talking about it. :) When a mission board sets support levels low so they can tell supporters, “Our missionaries sacrifice,” I cringe. It probably means their missionaries can’t afford hospitality, or tracts, or something else.

But it’s not an “either/or” discussion. We can talk about a renewed commitment to giving and sacrifice AND talk about which methods provide the best stewardship of the resources God provides.

Is there anything at all that you see could be improved in the deputation process, or do you think it is the best it could be?

Brother Pittman,

I fear you are more ” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tilting-at-windmills.html tilting at windmills ” than defending turf

Brief and final responses:

[RPittman] There were kind of vibes that tent-making was the more spiritual means with missionaries who were more committed and dedicated than the deputation types who have steady support begged from hard-working folks in American churches. They are sort of missionary fat-cats.

Response: Haven’t seen these vibes! Unclear who the “fat-cats” are!

[RPittman] Throughout the history of the Church, there have been naysayers opposing missions.

Response: Probably so but where on this thread have you seen such “naysayers “?

[RPittman] Such a one was Diotrephes

Response: Are you saying that comments on this thread represent the spirit of Diotrephes?

[RPittman] William Carey faced exactly this sort of thing but he preserved

Response: And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_%28missionary%29] how did Carey support himself ?

During the first year in Calcutta, the missionaries sought means to support themselves and a place to establish their mission. They also began to learn the Bengali language to communicate with the natives. A friend of Thomas owned two indigo factories and needed managers, so Carey moved with his family north to Midnapore. During the six years that Carey managed the indigo plant, he completed the first revision of his Bengali New Testament and began formulating the principles upon which his missionary community would be formed, including communal living, financial self-reliance, and the training of indigenous ministers