A Pink Slip for an Apostle
From: Rev. Alexander Demas
New Ekklesia Church, Thessalonica
To: Missionary Saul Paulus (The Apostle Paul)
C/c: Church at Antioch
Dear Brother Paul,
Greetings, from your former disciple, Alexander Demas. You will be excited and encouraged to hear that I have recently been called as pastor of the church at Thessalonica that has faithfully supported your ministry for many years. Our church has recently heard of your health issues and your incarceration in Rome. Please know that we have been faithfully praying for you. (I have especially been concerned for you, because I still fondly remember the short time that we served together in missions work before the Lord led me elsewhere).
New Ekklesia Church is so grateful for your years of service to our Lord. I know that you have had many long time friends in our church. (Unfortunately, many of these friends have recently left our church for various reasons.)
Since becoming pastor of this church, I have done my best to attempt to reorganize the church in such a way that it can function more effectively and efficiently. One of the first things that I have done is to establish a missions Committee in our church that I encouraged to make a detailed study concerning current missions techniques and practices and how we can most effectively reach this modern world for Christ.
After this intense study, our Committee concluded that we need to concentrate on certain specific areas of world missions outreach at our church. Our greatest desire is to find the neediest people of this world so that we can concentrate on taking the gospel to them through modern business principles and current technology. missions scholars and our own meticulous research have made it clear to us who these persons are and how we can best reach them. Of course, we know that souls need to be saved around the world, but we have come to the conclusion that New Ekklesia Church must concentrate upon the area of the “20-25 Window” for our missions outreach.
We have further concluded that in our modern world, it will be best to concentrate on supporting short term projects, rather than lifelong ministries since short term projects yield the most visible results in the shortest possible time period. The missions experts that we consulted have confirmed that this will be the best way to reach the world in our generation.
We also feel that such short term projects are the most efficient way to get the members of New Ekklesia Church to be involved consistently in giving to missions since they will be continually excited by the ever changing missions opportunities that are presented to them. We will support condensed, pithy missions projects, not time-consuming, long term investments.
Brother Paul, please know that we love you with all of our hearts. (This is especially the case with me, because of our past history since you were such an incredible blessing in my life; I know you feel the same way toward me). So, you can imagine how difficult it is for me to inform you that, after compiling our report, our missions Committee has come to the conclusion that we can no longer financially support your ministry. I know that this is a great disappointment to you and I apologize for that, but we know that you have many other supporters who can stand in the gap for you.
Let me outline some of the factors that have led us to this difficult decision:
1. Your age
Our Committee is afraid that because of your advanced age, you are no longer able to identify with the current generation. You have had a significant ministry, especially when you served in Asia Minor, but we, as a Committee, do not believe that you will be able to make the difficult transition necessary to minister in Europe. We feel that you are too tied to Oriental culture and so, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for you to adapt to ministry in Europe.
Our research has led us to believe that the greatest hope for world outreach is to use young missionaries who can identify with the current generation. You have had your chance, now it is time for us to go in a “different direction” with our financial support, and give someone younger a chance. I know that you, who have discipled so many young preachers yourself (myself included), will surely understand our decision.
2. Your health
Our Committee is so thankful for your many sacrifices, but as a result, you have had too many life threatening situations which have caused too much wear and tear on your body. To be completely honest, we on the missions Committee, feel that, in your current health situation, you would not be a good investment of our missions denarii because your health will prohibit you from expending the energy that is necessary to do the ministries that our church envisions. Again, we are thankful for your sacrifices, we know that the Lord will honor them, but we must think about the future of our missions program. There are so many projects that we desire to accomplish in the harvest fields of the world and this will require healthy bodies. We cannot waste our hard earned denarii! We know that you will understand and that the Lord will surely continue to provide for you from other sources. (Besides, I am sure that you have an adequate retirement plan in place).
3. Your field
You have left a fruitful ministry in Asia Minor, especially in Ephesus, where you proactively influenced a whole culture. Our Committee does not feel that this move to Europe can possibly bear the same results. Your talents were perfectly matched to the Asian mission field. We believe that you will be a “duck out of water” in Europe. Now, we have learned of your incarceration in Rome. This development will definitely further reduce your effectiveness. How will you ever be able to have an effective ministry while being chained to those licentious Roman soldiers? We are sorry for your situation, but we must think about getting the most “bang for our denarii.” A missionary whose freedom of movement has been so curtailed just cannot get the job done that we have envisioned. We feel that we would not be good stewards of God’s money if we continued to pour our resources into your ministry, since you are now incapable of free movement.
New Ekklesia Church agreed to support you in Asia Minor, but since you chose to change your field of service to Europe, our contract with you can legitimately be canceled. This is not a judgment upon you or your future ministry. We will continue to pray for you and for your release, but we must move on to fields that we think are more deserving of the gospel than Rome. (Please do not take this personally; we have had to take the same step with other missionaries who left a very successful ministry in Samaria to move on to Ethiopia). After our research, we have determined at New Ekklesia Church that our target field must be Asia. So we are concentrating on Asian ministry, not European or African ministry.
4. Your status
Our Committee also believes that you have probably been out in field service too long. Many of the people of our church no longer even know you or your ministry. It has been such a long time since you last visited us. We just cannot pump our people up for missions without regular personal contact. So, we feel we must concentrate our efforts on new missionaries and partner with them to reach our targeted fields. We even plan to send teams from our church out to instruct these new missionaries in what our research has indicated is the best way to reach these targeted people for Christ. I am sure that with your vast missions background you can understand, accept, and appreciate this fact.
5. Your contact
Our Committee must also point out that you have been inconsistent with your reports from the field lately. We realize that you have been in some awkward situations, but it is still absolutely essential that we receive regular reports from you in order to keep missions before our people. This is a very vital way for us to know whether our investment in your project is consistently bearing fruit. Regular “prayer letters” are a “must” and their neglect for any reason whatsoever must result in missionary termination. I might also say, as a word to the wise, that when we do receive your letters, they are good, but our Committee feels that they are much too long and wordy. We feel that the best letters are those that are short and pithy; our people will never read them otherwise. Furthermore, our people need to hear of exciting results from their missionaries, not to be preached to!! You can see where I am coming from, I am sure.
I hope that we can part ways as friends. Your termination is only a business decision that is in the best interests of our church. It is not personal. We still love you in the Lord and will continue to be praying for you. We do love you, my brother! You are still important to us. We apologize to you that we could not speak with you about this in person, but you understand that, due to your situation in Rome, this was impossible. Also, our exciting and growing church does not have anyone that we can spare, at this moment, to come and visit you in your Roman prison. When you are released, if you get back to Thessalonica, I would be happy to meet you over a cup of coffee.
May the Lord continue to bless you, as He is blessing us.
Yours in Christ’s service,
Rev. Alexander Demas
New Ekklesia Church, Thessalonica
[Editor’s note: thanks to Doug Kutilek of As I See It for making us aware of this piece.]
Rick Moeller is a graduate of Baptist Bible College in Springfield, MO. He and his wife served as missionaries for 18 years in South Africa, mostly to the Zulu tribe. Rick later served as Associate Director of Baptist Bible Fellowship International, then returned to South Africa for several more years. He and his wife are now seeking to plant churches in Scotland.
- 1 view
New Ekklesia Church agreed to support you in Asia Minor, but since you chose to change your field of service to Europe, our contract with you can legitimately be canceled. This is not a judgment upon you or your future ministry. We will continue to pray for you and for your release, but we must move on to fields that we think are more deserving of the gospel than Rome. (Please do not take this personally; we have had to take the same step with other missionaries who left a very successful ministry in Samaria to move on to Ethiopia). After our research, we have determined at New Ekklesia Church that our target field must be Asia. So we are concentrating on Asian ministry, not European or African ministry.Reminds me of another article I saw on Sharper Iron once…
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
My blog: http://www.thinkingrandom.com
I enjoyed the article and the satirical look at missions, but it strikes me there are legitimate reasons to drop a missionary.
Legitimate reasons
- A change in doctrinal position. (eg. the supporting church is pre-mill / pre-trib. The supporting church has a missions policy that states that missionaries must concur with the church’s doctrinal position. And the missionary has a change of heart and now is post-trib)
- Unreasonable doctrinal entrenchment. (This is close to the above). I know a church who supports a KJVO guy in Europe. The church is not KJVO but the missionary has become this!
- Lack of communications. This isn’t the first century. Missionaries should report regularly: have a blog, send out a regular communication (use [URL=http://www.mailchimp.com/ MailChimp] or [URL=http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp] Constant Contact] or something similar!). Obviously the church leadership should communicate with the missionary as well!
- Unresolved conflict on the field. If a missionary cannot get along with peers, there is something wrong!
- Unilateral change of fields without a consult with the sending church
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
God was good and through it all He taught us to trust Him and then to praise Him as we saw the lost support get made up by other churches, but those were some heartbreaking times as well. I grieved over the market driven, “ownership entitlement”, “more bang for the buck”, and missions “trendiness” philosophies that led these churches to these decisions.
I agree…this ought to be required reading for every church’s missions committee.
Shawn Haynie
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[SDHaynie] When my family and I were on the mission field we got two letters which were, for all intents and purposes, almost exactly like this letter. Though not in the aspects of changed fields or status…we hadn’t done that. This brought back some real memories and heartache over the decisions that were made. Of course, I honor the autonomy of the local church and will uphold their right to make such decisions, but I still believe that these decisions were wrong.As a long-term member of the missions committee at my church, let me assure you that I have read this. However, let me also try to present the other side of this equation.
God was good and through it all He taught us to trust Him and then to praise Him as we saw the lost support get made up by other churches, but those were some heartbreaking times as well. I grieved over the market driven, “ownership entitlement”, “more bang for the buck”, and missions “trendiness” philosophies that led these churches to these decisions.
I agree…this ought to be required reading for every church’s missions committee.
We endeavor to never summarily drop anyone, except in cases of extreme, obvious sin or doctrinal error that would require a need to leave the field, etc. I can only remember this happening once as long as I’ve been a member, and even then, we sent an additional month’s support while taking action, so that we did the “right thing” by them personally. We also don’t base decisions on hearsay, so we make sure we have as much information as we can before we make such a drastic decision, and we try to give as much time as is possible for explanation, repentance, etc.
We do ask that if a field change is made, that the missionary come and re-present his/her work. We don’t require they make a special trip to do so, but we do ask they do so on their first return to the U.S. After all, we signed up to partner with them based on not just them as Christians, but what they would be doing on the field. It’s not unreasonable to ask that for continued long-term support, they show us why we still want to partner with them. Sometimes field changes are not just a change in location but a change in focus, and that must be taken into consideration as we try to wisely spend a limited amount of money for missions support. No missionary should be given “carte blanche” to do as they wish. That would not be good stewardship on our part.
We do ask for regular communication, but we do take into account missionaries we have that are “in the bush” and can’t communicate as regularly. However, we don’t believe it’s too much trouble for those in industrialized countries with phone, internet access, and email to regularly let us know what is going on in the ministry. We also divide up all our missionaries into “care groups” among our committee. The committee members are responsible for communicating regularly with them, offering encouragement, etc. As Jim mentioned, this is not the first century, and it shouldn’t take years (or even months in most cases) to hear back from those we support.
Like you, I don’t believe that because a church supports a missionary through prayer, money, time, etc., that it gives the church the right to tell the missionary what he must do each day, on the field, etc., but at the same time, since the missionary is using money we have dedicated to serving the Lord, he does need to demonstrate that the money is being used for what it was intended. We don’t ask for certain results, a particular amount of “souls saved,” etc. However, changes in doctrine or practice that indicate to us that a missionary is going in a different direction from what we understood the mission to be cause us to have to do some evaluation, and yes, that may mean an eventual drop in support. Again, that just represents due diligence on our part. I think missionaries should actually be grateful that some churches care enough about their ministry to keep up with what is going on. We don’t ask for absolute accountability for every minute, but some accountability should be expected.
It amazes me that many missionaries will accept money from a church, knowing that they do not completely support everything that church believes in, but when a church decides it doesn’t support what the missionary is doing, and decides to drop support, they don’t believe it is the right decision by the church. It’s almost like a “Christian” version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We never used to have a policy that a prospective missionary would have to sign that they are in agreement with our doctrinal statement (which is not an 87-page document or anything) before we would consider supporting them, but we do now. There’s really no reason to consider supporting a missionary that would not be in fellowship/partnership with us were they here with us. I would think that most missionaries truly wanting to do what God wants them to do would not want support from a church not substantially in agreement with them. To me, it would be like taking money under false pretenses.
I understand the frustration that many missionaries feel with churches that can seem fickle. However, they should also understand that those same churches have to do the best they can with what funds God has provided for missions, and as a result, that means that sometimes changes can and must be made, no matter how painful. Believe me, it makes me feel bad when changing finances mean we have to make some reductions in support, let along dropping any missionary. However, we should remember that none of us, not any single missionary or member of our church, or even our particular church is non-expendable in the service of Christ. It is God’s mission that must go on (and He will see to that), not any of us in particular.
Dave Barnhart
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.
[dcbii] I would think that most missionaries truly wanting to do what God wants them to do would not want support from a church not substantially in agreement with them. To me, it would be like taking money under false pretenses.Very well said. Thank you for presenting the other side of this. I started to write a reply to the OP twice and gave up. This is what I was thinking. Let me also add, that when a church does get a new pastor, sometimes there is a legitimate change in philosophy that should be addressed. For example, I am strong believer that missionaries should have have a goal to train the nationals to lead the church. This goal should be right from the beginning of their ministry. I have a real hard time supporting a missionary who has set himself up as the irreplaceable pastor in the ministry without any plans to train others to be the leaders of the church. They are not a missionary at that point, instead they are a pastor who should be supported by the church where they are ministering. We have had to stop support for two missionaries who have been pastoring their church plant for 20 years. Their ministry is larger than ours, and it really does not make sense for our church to support their’s. In my opinion, this is a real problem in IFB missions. I do agree that it is a real challenge to go through the process of dropping support of a missionary. One missionary got so upset with me, that when I said we would continue to support him until he returned on his next furlough, he said forget it - I don’t want your support any more. On the other hand, the other missionary agreed with my position, but said he did not know how to fix the situation he had gotten himself into. My point: it is hard for the church leadership to make sure they are being responsible with the dollars given for mission’s work, and it is also hard for a missionary to lose support.
I understand the frustration that many missionaries feel with churches that can seem fickle. However, they should also understand that those same churches have to do the best they can with what funds God has provided for missions, and as a result, that means that sometimes changes can and must be made, no matter how painful. Believe me, it makes me feel bad when changing finances mean we have to make some reductions in support, let along dropping any missionary. However, we should remember that none of us, not any single missionary or member of our church, or even our particular church is non-expendable in the service of Christ. It is God’s mission that must go on (and He will see to that), not any of us in particular.
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:
Lack of communications. This isn’t the first century. Missionaries should report regularly: have a blog, send out a regular communication (use MailChimp or Constant Contact or something similar!). Obviously the church leadership should communicate with the missionary as well!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.
Missionary in Brazil, author of "The Astonishing Adventures of Missionary Max" Online at: http://www.comingstobrazil.com http://cadernoteologico.wordpress.com
Jeremy Van Delinder Church Planter, Pastor North Hills Baptist Church Round Rock (Austin), TX
[JVanDelinder] OK, was that an intentional swipe at local church autonomy, or was that simply an unfortunate byproduct of your intent to be creative in your format?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
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.
Another protection is for churches to support fewer missionaries at higher levels of support. We have a limited capacity to relate to people. The church I grew up in supported some 40-50 missionaries. I can name 5 of them. That is because they were the ones who were from our church and had real solid relationships with our body and we really cared about them. We cared about the others too but it is kind of like the difference between your FaceBook friend and the person you actually sit down with and drink coffee. With a smaller number of missionaries it is easier for the leaders of the church to visit them more than once a decade and to really keep track of what is going on. That’s my 2¢!
Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
Discussion