1 Corinthians talks in detail about the church being separate parts of the same body. Each part designated by God to fulfill individual roles according to their particular talents. It would be ridiculous for us to expect our tongue to hear sound, or equally absurd to rely on our feet to digest solid foods.

So why do churches continually send missionaries out to the field with limited resources, knowledge and time?


There are a few fundamental problems with the way the church continues to handle the missions field:


  1. ✦Having the church take the financial burden of supporting a missionary while raising support, which easily takes up to three years.

  2. ✦Sending an missionary to a foreign land averages over $6,000 per month in support.*
    In comparison, the average american worker brings home a little over $3,000 per month.†
    (*source http://www.efca.org - †source US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

  3. ✦Missionaries and their families are often isolated geographically and spiritually from their supporting churches. And yet, still considered to grow and mature in their fellowship with God.


Currently missionaries are treated not as a part of the local church, but as a general contractor for God. The local church sends financial funds and has limited interaction or knowledge about the missionary work being supported.

Our local churches don’t normally have 20 associate pastors. So why do they support 20 missionaries? Instead of a shotgun approach to missions, where many missionaries receive a small percentage of their necessary financial support from a single church, the thought process should be serving a handful of missionaries with similar financial compensation as an on-staff pastor from a single church or small group of churches. Missionaries need to be viewed as a remote pastor from the local church. This would relieve the church from supporting missionaries during lengthy support crusades, not to mention the wear and tear on the missionaries themselves.

Have you been on vacation lately? If you have traveled anywhere outside of your local traveling radius, you know it gets down right expensive to stay somewhere for an extended period of time. One quick rule I learned on my mission’s trips was to let the native pastor do all the shopping. Why? Skin-tax. I would pay more for just about everything because I was a light-skinned foreigner. It was expected because I was from America, that I had money (which by their standards, I did) and I should pay more. Instead of sending swarms of missionaries to preach on the corners of dirty third-world corners, there needs to be a massive shift to disciple, enable and support native pastors in their home countries. They often can provide resources at half the price, don’t need to come home for furlough every three years and don’t run the risk of teaching their followers the american way of doing things. Remember, the way the american church dresses, worships, preaches, sit in the pews and ministers is based completely on our cultural system. We want to share the Gospel of Christ, and allow those to worship Christ within their own culture parameters.

Those missionaries which are in the field to church plant and raise up local pastors are separated from their support groups and friends. If the local churches treat their supported missionaries (both American born and non-American born) like staff, they could engage in a whole new level of growth and fellowship. Missionaries would have accountability to the church body more frequently, and the church body should have a more involved role in the ministry of the missionary. Short-term groups could visit and work on projects to help the missionary directly or indirectly through village projects. Pastors could visit the remote church and encourage, renew and impact the missionary directly and create a friendship more consistent with biblical “brotherhood” rather than a telethon supporter.

Missionaries should be able to focus on those things which are enhanced by their talents - church planting, discipleship and personal relationships. Raising financial support, long furloughs necessary to touch base with supporting churches and struggling in a country not their own are burdens which fall outside of most of their talent pools.

In the same sense, churches should be able to focus on supporting the missionaries through prayer, encouragement and hands-on interaction. Just writing a check once a month shouldn’t be the end result of a church’s involvement.

The trend to change the way the local church involves itself with those who share the gospel abroad is growing. Searching the internet reveals churches already committing to the idea of change, similar to those above. Park Street Church, in Boston has a great write up regarding their position on missions.

If the roles of the local church and missionaries are changed, then how they interact also needs to change. And that is where additional parts of the body need to come into play with their individual talents in the technological aspect.

 

1 Cor. 12:27