Why We Should Support Non-American Missionaries

I find it interesting that yes, the apostles were sent forth from Jerusalem, but when churches had been founded overseas, they were exhorted to “remember the poor” in Jerusalem and collections were made—not in Jerusalem for the churches in Asia Minor and Greece but—in those church plants for the saints in the “parent” church.

Wouldn’t it be great if churches in Seoul and Singapore started sending support to the needy brethren in Anytown, USA?

Comparatively speaking, can we really call people in the U. S. needy.

My reasons here: http://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-wise-to-use-foreign-money-to-support-…

I have asked all the missionaries we support about supporting nationals; none think it is good idea if the commitment is open-ended. Maybe support his education, maybe support the getting a piece of property or the building of a building, but none I have asked thus far think it is good for the national pastor or for his church to be dependent on American funding in the long-term. On the other-hand what I’ve heard from ministries that channel money to nationals is that their churches are too poor to support a pastor, or that the pastor has to be bi-vocational, thus limiting his time dedicated to the ministry. Do poor countries need to learn stewardship? Is it ok for a pastor to be bi-vocational?

[Jonathan Charles] Is it ok for a pastor to be bi-vocational?

If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul it is OK with me!

• 2 Thessalonians 3:8
  
• Acts 18:1-3
  
• Acts 20:33-35
  
• 1 Corinthians 9:12
  

You could for example have 4 tentmaker elders …. each sharing the ministry

There are two things I think need to be stressed about my post. First, it is a short-term commitment. The concern about basing a foreign ministry on American dollars is valid. I would not be a proponent of a national pastor building his entire ministry on American money. But, if there is an upfront commitment for a strategic period of time to help get the national on his feet, I think that is a good partnership that will reap great results.

Second, this kind of partnership has the potential to have a greater impact on the American church than it does on the national church-planter. I think missions will come alive for our church. For too long missions has been about nothing more than throwing a few dollars in the plate so that we can send missionaries to another country. I think doing something like this will help our people gain a greater understanding of world-wide missions. They will see that there are people all around the world that have the same desire that we do; to make disciples. I think the benefits for our church (and any church that tries this) will be significant.

There is something to be said for finding a way to provide support for nationals to do effective ministry in their countries who speak the language, understand the culture, and plant contextualized churches. And there may be some cases/places where this would be wise with proper candidate evaluation and accountability.

However I have rarely seen that happen, partly because we lack the competency to evaluate a man’s giftedness, partly because we lack the mechanisms to provide accountability. More often than not it seems that short-term commitments actually lead to dependence (after passing through stages of appreciation, anticipation, expectation, and entitlement).

Most national “missionaries” that I have known are in fact pastors with their salary provided by American churches. Most national “missionaries” I have known live way above the standard of those around them because they have dollars. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen national pastors “called to missions” in their own country because it worked out better for them in so many ways.

More often than not it would be best for nationals to be bi-vocational (just as many are here) and look to the Lord to supply their needs rather than looking to the USA. I’m sure there are exceptions where American funds make a difference. Yet most of the time it may make little difference in actual ministry getting done.

What’s really ironic is how difficult it is for church planters in the US to raise support because they’re not really missionaries. Many churches will support something exotic overseas but won’t support church planting efforts here because its not really mission.

Steve’s response hit the nail on the head!

[Jeremy Wallace] There are two things I think need to be stressed about my post. First, it is a short-term commitment.

The problem is that a short-term commitment becomes a long-term commitment. Take Haiti, for example. The country is very, very poor. Now, you support pastor X with the understanding that this is a five-year commitment until he gets a church “on its feet.” Five years from now, I guarantee you that whatever mission he is working through in the states, they will tell you that he still needs your support. Then you feel like a heel for pulling support from him. Steve is right about “national missionaries.” One national pastor ministry in Hanover, PA calls them “national church planters,” but they are, in fact, just pastors like you and me. And if you’ve ever been to Haiti, it doesn’t need anymore church planting, there are churches EVERYWHERE. It needs training for men called into ministry, good college-level stuff. I prefer to support educational ministries because the help given to each man will be limited to the time it takes for him to get his education, and once he is educated, having been called and gifted for ministry, he will go on and do what you and I do, even if he has to be bi-vocational.

[Jonathan Charles] The country is very, very poor. Now, you support pastor X with the understanding that this is a five-year commitment until he gets a church “on its feet.” Five years from now, I guarantee you that whatever mission he is working through in the states, they will tell you that he still needs your support.

I know I just suggested overseas churches supporting American pastors, but just to reflect on this Haiti scenario, would it have been a problem if it had involved supporting an American missionary past five years, past language school, past deputation, who’s still not on his feet?

To hark back on the first century, and you can call me naive, but I don’t see any exit strategy or limitation on setting money aside and remembering the poor saints in Jerusalem, no?

[Chip Van Emmerik] Comparatively speaking, can we really call people in the U. S. needy.

Depends. I’m not sure where Fundamentalist pastors stand, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita] per capita GDP (PPP) of USA is 6th and 9th worldwide , ranging between $47,000 - $48,000 per year. I have a hunch it might be a little below that number.

In Asia, Qatar, Singapore, Macau, Brunei, and Hong Kong are in the neighborhood, with S. Korea and Japan a few rungs beneath. Qatar and Brunei, being Islamic countries, are unlikely to have substantial numbers of churches or Christians, and Macau is tiny in terms of an evangelical presence, which leaves Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea, and perhaps a few churches in Japan.

At least anecdotally, I understand that ministers and ministries are comparatively well-supported by churches in Singapore and South Korea. No indictment on them at all, and thank God for touching the hearts of their supporting churches, but I remember some of those pastors studying for the ministry being endowed with IBM PS/2s (that was back in the 1980s!), a decent car, and a townhouse, while the rest of us were on manual typewriters and living in trailer homes.

Would it make sense perhaps for some of the more financially blessed churches overseas to share their wealth with those American pastors who might be bivocational and struggling with home schooling and stuff? Or maybe I’m mistaken about how well Fundamentalist pastors in North America are doing.

===Follow-up ========

O never mind … my bad.

The http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/janfeb_09_20-…] “average compensation in a Baptist church” has the following annual salaries:

• Full-time Senior Pastor $79,855
  
• Full-time Solo Pastor $54,456
  
• Full-time Youth Pastor$52,043
  

All of whom, and most of the others listed, well above the GDP (PPP) per capita figures!

Is it hypocritical and short sighted to be sending money overseas, when our next door neighbors are without jobs and unable to support their families? Might our money not be better used to create jobs for these men, and to feed the homeless in our own communities?

What better way than this to demonstrate the love of God, than to help out our neighbors in their time of need.

I would suggest that if churches are neglecting the needs you mentioned and sending all available resources overseas, then they are missing the point. However, we are attempting to build our missions/outreach program around Acts 1:8 which requires a focus in 4 key areas; local being one and foreign being one. We are striving to equally focus on all four areas.

[Jeremy Wallace] I would suggest that if churches are neglecting the needs you mentioned and sending all available resources overseas, then they are missing the point. However, we are attempting to build our missions/outreach program around Acts 1:8 which requires a focus in 4 key areas; local being one and foreign being one. We are striving to equally focus on all four areas.

In the New Testament, gift giving is always seen as something organic and voluntary. It took place as a result of needs that arose at the time. I don’t have a problem with raising a collection to give a gift to another believer or a church in need. But we must be careful not to create a situation of dependence- where they are expecting money on a regular basis. It is better to help them to find ways to support themselves.

With probably hundreds of thousands of pastors in the third world, it is unrealistic to think that an effective missionary strategy is to give those pastors financial support, even on a short-term basis. American churches will never scratch the surface of the “need.” Nevertheless, I’m sure that those that never get financial support will go on preaching and teaching anyway. I’m not suggesting not helping in other ways, mainly in supporting educational institututions that train pastors, but the idea of a “national missionary” is a misnomer, and the idea of supporting what is, in fact, a national pastor on a short-term basis is misguided since his financial situation will be no better off X years down the road than what it is right now-especially in the third world.

We support American missionaries in the third world. They all evangelized communities, started churches, found nationals called to ministry who they have or are training to take over the church when they leave. What’s wrong with that???

i agree with jonathan. there is always a big risk when sending money overseas, to men that we are not personally acquainted with. there would seem to be better accountability in sending the money with an American missionary. And i believe that is the biblical model. when the NT churches send gifts to another church in need, they would send it with Paul or one of the other apostles, or someone of good reputation, to manage the distribution of the money.