The Future Of Independent Baptist Missions: 10 Predictions

Mission boards have failed the local church:

• ABWE and EBM are poster children for that failure.
• Re EBM … huge financial mismanagement and intermingling of missionary funds with general funds. I’m actually surprised someone wasn’t indicted.
• Re ABWE … Where to start?! Too big … unresponsive …

Our church has been following most of these “trends” for many, many years.

Our congregation is excited about missions. In 2012, 40% of our total spending went to missions and benevolence. We do not have close ties with any mission board, but love our personal relationship with a good number of missionaries. We began increasing support, and reducing total number of missionaries years ago. We still support quite a few, but treasure a close relationship with a smaller number of those we support. We look for new like-minded missionaries to support, but have no problem if we increase missionaries presently supported rather than add new missionaries when a missionary in our budget retires or discontinues missionary labors. Fewer missionaries with more significant involvement is a plus for our church, as well as for the missionary.

I appreciate Jeremy’s ingenuity, but I have to quibble with some of his predictions.

Some of them (no. 2, 5, 6 & 7) are not very bold “predictions,” and thus the concepts will likely continue to solidify into trends.

On the other hand, the premise behind no. 1, 3, 9 & 10 of the disappearance of mission board home offices is not likely to happen anytime soon – at least not in a world where missionaries continue to thrive.

“Larger churches will take care of their own missionaries”: In the future, the majority of faithful churches will actually be smaller, not larger, and few if any will be able to handle this type of operation legitimately in light of expanding IRS regulations here at home and growing governmental regulations in general that will be imposed by all countries involved.

This idea is also incongruous with no. 4, 8 & 9.

Perhaps Jeremy desires for mission boards and/or their home offices to disappear; personally I am not among those cheering for it.

Jim observes the problems of large boards- and admittedly, there are concerns in those scenarios. The independent alternative has its potential downside, too, though.

I would have general agreement with what Paul Scharf observes above. The system we have has flaws- both for churches and missionaries. But agencies still have a role. Not every church can verify- and digital communication can make it very easy for a missionary to communicate only what he wants his supporters to see. Boards don’t always catch everything (obviously), but working in a larger team effort can help filter things like personal and doctrinal variances- not to mention helping missionaries plan for the future better than many did in the past.

I would add another one to Jeremy’s list —

11. More churches will work directly with National Pastors and National Leadership from foreign countries.

When I was lead pastor, we began moving this direction and it allowed our mission funds to go further — much further, it involved more of our people actually going to mission fields personally, there was more of a connection and it just made good sense. Now, nearly 20 years later….80% of what I do with missions remains directly with my international friends who are native, national, familiar with the customs, fluid in the language, permanent residents and who live just like the culture. I don’t see it as either/or, but both/and — but I will say it is becoming heavier tilted toward nationals for the above reasons and more.

My two cents as a former cross-cultural missionary and never having been under a board. I did my major DMin in missiology project at TEDS on independent Baptist mission agencies and missionaries almost 10 years ago. I was not greatly impressed by the boards I surveyed and, sad to say, detected that many missionaries were not well-prepared for cross-cultural ministry, had little experience or training before receiving their “call” that actually would prepare them for planting churches, and more often than not wound up as “missionary-pastors.”

Actually ABWE and BMM were at the top of my list at that time as far as agencies that seemed to have better requirement criteria for prospective missionaries, better on-field support (like actually verifying language acquisition) and better oversight. I was least impressed with agencies like BWM where the majority of directors had no cross-cultural experience and some no church planting experience at all. It seemed like some boards were intent on replicating American IFBism overseas with little regard for what others were already doing in places and of course with virtually no cooperation with anyone else. Many of the churches I visited around the world were virtual clones of US churches with little chance of reproducing in foreign soil.

Most missionaries, whenever possible, should partner with nationals and never be the lead pastor. Once you are it’s hard to get out.

One more observation. I have grown weary of hearing from seminary grads who, although sensing a call to overseas ministry, and while within driving distance of urban areas with significant populations from the target countries, remained in suburban churches during their studies and rarely if ever ventured into cities to meet or minister to ethnic groups from countries they were targeting. Yes I’ve heard from men going to Spanish-speaking countries, to China, to you name it, and never had or exercised a burden for Hispanics or Asians while in school who were within reach.

And a word of advice to pastors. Be sure that prospective missionaries engage in some language instruction or language acquisition training before they ship out. It’s no guarantee they will learn a language well enough to ever use it where people want to listen to them. But it might give some indication of the challenges they will face.

Good points. Appreciate it.

“Most missionaries, whenever possible, should partner with nationals and never be the lead pastor.”

Steve,

Any thoughts on American churches supporting nationals in their home country?

Dan,

Thoughts on national missionaries coming to the US and hitting the deputation trail?

Many of these things are already taking place. For example, missionaries are telling me that up to half of their support is coming from individuals. When it comes to boards, many of them are operating on lean budgets but red tape seems to be more of a problem. Just last week, I received an email from a missionary from one Fundamental mission board accusing a missionary from another Fundamental mission board of being “liberal.” I am not sure I buy the point about support coming from more Southern Baptist Churches. Many Southern Baptists give to their general fund and missionaries are supported through this. Also, Southern Baptist Churches are facing decline.

I would think that would be more of the regional perspective of the author- he is a Tennesee Temple grad ministering in the south. Perhaps his point could be stated more broadly that support bases will need to target churches other than IFB…

With individual support, I am curious- how many of those are individuals the missionary knew previously, versus new contacts made in churches on the deputation trail? If the latter is true, I would think that the deputation process continues to be crucial. It may also be a commentary on the state of churches in this country- I know of at least one situation involving a family (conservative, homeschool type) who left their IFB church for various disagreements over methods and philosophy, but continued to support some missionaries they had made acquaintance with there prior to their departure. If missionaries are to rely on individuals more than churches, it’s not clear to me how they would go about establishing those contacts.

[Greg Linscott]

“Most missionaries, whenever possible, should partner with nationals and never be the lead pastor.”

Steve,

Any thoughts on American churches supporting nationals in their home country?

Greg:

Support can come in different ways but generally speaking I don’t think it wise in most cases to support nationals with a salary. I’m sure it’s been done well in some places but in my experience it often leads to dependence on western churches and stifles the need for national churches to give to support ministry. Church planting and church multiplication cannot be sustained from outside. There may be times when limited support is given as is done in the US to help churches get off the ground. However, many nationals who are supported by American churches live way above the standard of those to whom they minister made possible by American $$ and often have little accountability for the funds. Money easily becomes power and influence. I’ve seen it too often in several countries. And how often have I seen nationals want to become “missionaries” to their people in order to raise funds in the US rather than pastor a church which can’t provide much salary or that requires bi-vocational ministry.

Like I said I’m sure it’s been done well but have rarely seen it. I know that you can often support several nationals for what it costs for one American missionary. So economically it might make sense at times but there are many dangers including a “call” to ministry in order to have steady foreign income. I remember when we were living in Eastern Europe a national pastor warned me that when people see Americans coming they often see “green.” And I remember well a national pastor who I knew come to the States to raise money. At one church he was given a new suit and shoes because he was dressed shabbily. Guess what clothes he wore to the next church? It wasn’t the new ones. I don’t want to give the impression that all nationals have no integrity or less integrity than Americans in ministry. But money can do strange things to us all. How many churches have I seen built in other countries that the nationals couldn’t afford to keep up once they were built (and often those churches were more elaborate than the churches would’ve been if not for foreign money)?

So I would say that when/if nationals are supported to exercise caution, know the person, require accountability, and avoid dependence on outside funding to sustain ministry (although one time gifts might be used for projects). Don’t do for others what they can and should be doing for themselves. Seed money may often be more appropriate than ongoing giving. It’s easy for appreciation to become expectation and even entitlement. I’ll never forget one church mission trip to do construction in another country. One of the projects was painting seminary buildings WHILE STUDENTS WATCHED! I hate to sound cynical but I’ve seen so much abuse that comes from foreign money flowing into other countries. Genuine partnership with nationals is needed and it can’t be based on money.

Steve

p.s. I also find it ironic that many churches will support foreign national missionary/pastors for years on end but show little interest in supporting domestic church planters long-term who labor in economically challenging areas. There is often an expectation, not unreasonable in itself that domestic church planters at some point become bi-vocational but nationals are considered “missionaries’ with ongoing support. Missions then becomes a matter of geography. Anyone over there somewhere is a real missionary.

Interesting predictions … but based on what? 5 years of senior pastoral experience? Hummmmmmm.

Take bi-vocationalism … good idea for some, but bad for others and impossible for many.

Support from SBC churches? Well sure if you are a SBC missionary.

Partnering with nationals? Like no one has thought of this before. I wonder how much missiology our brother has read?

Interesting comments. I guess everyone is entitled to opinions. I am just not sure how constructive these are to the missions movement of today.

[Jeff Straub]

Interesting predictions … but based on what? 5 years of senior pastoral experience? Hummmmmmm.

I appreciate Pastor Wallace. He’s asking tough questions and taking a stab at some answers.

Now on novices: Where are the missions leaders who are leading in this area. It seems like their direction is status quo, nothing’s broken, more of the same! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a white paper written by a leader of a mission board.

It doesn’t take a seasoned pastor to know something is wrong with missions. As Dylan said “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”

In my view the Christian Day School movement has sucked the gas out of missions.

Now some weird computer predictions with my favorite: “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home” (1977). And below … a Wankel in the trunk.

You can’t just lay this little gem on the sidewalk and not offer us some context for your conclusion: “In my view the Christian Day School movement has sucked the gas out of missions.” Can you please unpack that a bit?

Greg….could question…I’ll come back when I’ve got more than a few secs and reply.

Dan

Bi-vocational church planting is a topic that is beginning to generate a lot of attention as the future of church planting. For instance, this article on 9 marks has generated a lot of discussion http://www.9marks.org/journal/math-doesnt-work-why-future-church-planting-bi-vocational