Have you ever been to a local congregation that has a missions board up with multiple missionaries? I do not mean a large congregation with multiple missionaries. I mean a typical size medium congregation, one with an attendance around a couple of hundred people. Sometimes their missions board will proudly display ten or more different missionaries scattered around the world. They may even have some photographs of the missionary at their meeting place. So, this congregation ought to get high praise, right? Hmm, well, maybe.
As you know, our family were missionaries overseas for a decade. This meant three rounds of fund-raising. And, I remember way too much fund-raising visiting churches that were excited about giving a couple of thousand dollar a year. And some of them had the message board with the multiple missionaries. But, do the division in your head. A missionary with a full travel and ministry budget can easily cost $60,000 to $100,000 per year. That means that at $2,000 per congregation, one would have to visit 30 to 50 congregations, or a whole year of fund-raising, because most congregations want you there on a Sunday. That happened to me on all three of our fund-raising trips. I used to envy the two missionaries in our organization who had 10 or so churches footing their entire support.
Now think about it a different way. What if those medium-sized churches with multiple missionaries cut it down to just a couple of missionaries? They would then be able to give some significant support to that missionary family and shorten the time that the missionary parent had to spend away from his/her children. Imagine investing $15,000 to $20,000 on just one missionary. Why with just five churches of that type, a missionary family could spend most of their furlough together and recouping energy for their next stint overseas.
You see, theoretically, furlough is a time for a missionary to unwind from the high stress of living in another culture, preaching a message that may not be either common or popular. It is a time to reconnect with family to re-establish roots. It can also be a time to do some studying and to catch up with the latest in missiological or other thought. It may be that the missionary realizes that they lacked some training that they need before they go back. But, all too often, the missionary ends up not having the opportunity to either rest or to prepare for the next stint overseas. Rather, they are expected to become a traveling circus and put on a show every Sunday. Since a congregation only sees them one or two days, they do not realize that the missionary is going to be doing the same thing over and over and over for a year, with, perhaps, little time for themselves or their family.
On every furlough, I was separated from my family for weeks at a time as I would take a swing through various states raising money. You see, our children needed the stability of being in the same school during our whole furlough. So, instead of rest with the family, a furlough meant family separation. But, congregations do not give without a personal visit from their missionary. So, I had to travel in order to go back.
So, if you are a member of one of those congregations that has multiple missionaries on their board, but really only give each of them a couple of thousand dollars, I would suggest that you talk to your pastor about whittling it down to just a couple, but giving them hearty support. After all, which is more imporant, that you get to boast about how many missionaries you support, or that you help one or two missionaries maximize their furlough time, get a rest, spend time with their families, and maybe get some additional learning done that will help them to better do their mission calling? Think about it.
Hello,
Interesting post, some of which I can relate to having lived overseas in various mission works.
I can’t help but notice the tone of your post, which sounds like you have a bit of resentment or bitterness. Perhaps you shouldn’t have been a missionary if you didn’t like doing these things and it caused you to have a chip on your shoulder? You impute motives to churches that support a variety of missionaries. While I don’t particularly care for that model either, I certainly would never accuse all churches that do this with getting to “boast about how many missionaries you (they) support”! That was an uncalled for accusation of Christ’s church. Can you not see that perhaps they are excited that they can take part in what God is doing in various ministries, even if only in a small way? Now, of course, if they require a visit that puts a missionary out and divides his family (assuming the missionary has actually been forthright and informed them of this hardship), then they should be rebuked and taught a better way to show their love for the missionary and the ministry he is doing. In this day of electronic media, I find it hard to believe that a god fearing body of Christians would be so hard hearted. Our church does video conferencing with some missionaries that we support who cannot travel for various reasons. It is virtually free with the internet these days. And it is very simple to set up. There are ways to work around these problems, but it requires open communication with the supporting churches so that they understand the position of the missionary. Many of them, I am sure, have utterly no clue whatsoever of the difficulties a missionary may have in visiting them. And I believe many missionaries don’t bother telling them either. Those missionaries pretty much set their own plate and eat the results.
One other thing that shocked me about your post was the amount of money you mentioned being “easily” costing. $60,000-100,000!!!!?? Wow! In the countries I’ve been in, that would set me up better than the mayor of the nearby city!! I would even be living high on the hog in Tokyo of all places! I could live in Tokyo on less than $3,000/month, very comfortably with absolutely no financial stress AT ALL. I can’t even imagine what I would do with $100,000! Some of my best friends in Japan, living in Tokyo, don’t make nearly that much and have houses, not just apartments and are raising 2 or 3 children. They even have a car, which isn’t really necessary in Tokyo, but they enjoy the luxury of driving around on weekends. It just goes to show that they have plenty of money on a salary well below $100,000. By the way, they also go on vacations to foreign countries now and then too. Perhaps we have very divergent ideas of what missionaries do and why they might need extravagant amounts of money…. When I was in India, Pakistan, Thailand and other places, I could very comfortably live on $1,000 a month. What would I do with the $88,000 left over at the end of the year?? Actually I lived on less than $400 a month in Bangkok recently and was not terribly uncomfortable, but it definitely could have been nicer than it was. I was alone, but even if I had a wife and 2 children with me, you can see that it wouldn’t even add up to more than $2,000 a month.
Missionaries becoming “professionals” has caused many problems with this sort of thing. I’ve met missionaries who complained that they didn’t have time to go to the beach or go sightseeing or hiking or fishing or what have you, more than once every couple of weeks!! I don’t even have that kind of luxury here in America! It seems that the idea of the mission field being any sort of sacrifice has been lost to many people on the “mission field”. I have seen so many “missionaries” living a lifestyle that only makes the natives jealous and often just attracts people who think that if they can be close to the missionary they will be able to financially benefit somehow. Maybe I know now why they can afford to live with such luxuries as 4 wheel drive trucks and nice homes and the cost of sending children to boarding schools rather than homeschooling! They are rich. With that kind of money, I can’t imagine complaining about having to spend a time now and then going on support raising drives. But I guess after living the high life, they get soft and going on support raising drives seems like hard work.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not accusing you of any of these things. Although, I can’t help but wonder due to the tone and the dollar amounts you wrote. These are things I’ve seen frequently and disgust me. And I just got an inkling why some of these things exist when I saw what you mentioned as a dollar amount for support of missionaries. And you even alluded to that amount perhaps being in a mid range level, being that the budgets can “easily” reach those amounts. I am truly flabbergasted. Perhaps missionaries need to learn how to make tents! It is sickening to think of the waste going on out there in the field of professional missionary work. I wonder what Hudson Taylor’s budget was… or Adoniram Judson’s or David Brainerd’s or William Cary’s or just about any of the well known missionaries of old whose ministries God blessed so tremendously.
At any rate, I do agree with you on the idea that it would be nice if churches would more substantially invest their funds in a smaller number of missionaries. Or, if they only give small amounts to let the missionary know that they need not visit if it is at all inconvenient. For that matter, even if they support with massive amounts of money, they should let the man know that he need not visit too often if it is inconvenient. Perhaps they should go visit him! But I wouldn’t want to make blanket accusations that churches are boasting over supporting many missionaries. I would rather think the best of them, that they are excited to be a part of God’s work in many places unless there was evidence to the contrary. And if there was such evidence, the missionary would do well to let them know that he would rather not receive their money until they got their heart right.
I hope your suggestion gets heard and some churches do act on it. That would be good.
In Christ,
Dale
As to missionary costs, you may wish to review an excellent mathematical analysis of the situation of missionaries that are in the same type of fund-raising system that I describe. Notice that the budget that is set for the missionary is $58,625 of which only $35,000 is actual salary during the time he is fund-raising. But, the fund-raising costs associated with that amount are in addition. Then, the author comments that a missionary’s actual overseas budget is closer to $100,000. The author concludes that, “This problem is the current direct missionary support system. It does not work. It consumes most of the money it generates”
If you will do some research, you will find that budgets from $65,000 to $100,000 are well within the norm for missionary organizations
The webpage is: Here
You make a mistake that is typical of those not involved in budget planning for missionaries. A missionary must not only raise personal funds, but must also raise funds to survive while fund-raising, plus must raise funds for the ministry itself, plus must raise a percentage (usually 10 to 20%) for the organization that is sponsoring him/her, plus must raise what is normally the employer’s share of social security and medicare, plus must raise . . . . Thus you make the mistake of assuming that the missionary actually gets $65,000 to $100,000. When we had to raise around $65,000 per year, our actual “income” was around $34,000 gross income.
You also make the mistake of thinking that missionaries can simply be tentmakers, like the missionaries of old. Yet, nowadays, many countries will not let a missionary enter and work, as the article points out. Many countries now have the same policy as the USA, a work visa is very hard to get while a religious visa is much easier to get, but one is forbidden from working outside their religious setting. If every missionary in Peru (where I was) had had to get a job, there would not have been enough visas available from the government to host them all. Moreover, in many Third World countries, the workday is six days a week and more than 8 hours a day. That is not much time left for the hard work of missions!
However, your comments are indeed typical of something else, and that is something for which I need to call you to account. Look again at several of your phrases. You confirm my comment about oh so many Christians in the USA that are “mission minded.”
Notice what happened as I posted my strong critique of current practices among some churches. “… you have a bit of resentment or bitterness,” and, “perhaps you should not have been a missionary if you did not like doing these things,” and, “They are rich. With that kind of money I can’t imagine them complaining.”
Notice that this is a very typical line of attack in the USA. Oh, you must have a psychological problem. Oh, if you see problems, then maybe you should just go–this is a variation of “America, love it or leave it.” Oh, let me tell you stories about how missionaries do not really work but spend all their time at the beach. Oh, we need to force the missionaries to home school (hmm, did you ever look up the costs of home schooling?) or to send their children to an inadequate Third World system of education so bad that any local citizen who is not dirt poor sends their children to a “private” school.
So, you either try to convince me that I have psychological problems because I have critiqued, or that if I complain then I should not have gone to missions, or you try the shame route by implying that if I were truly spiritual I would be like Saint X cited from missionary history or you even imply that missionaries are overpaid self-indulgent crybabies. That is not an argument from facts and figures, that is a purely ad hominem argument.
Again, let me emphasize, the figures that were cited are typical missionary figures and include all the costs of a person who is going to live multiple years overseas with a family. Those figures take into account not merely personal money but also ministry money. They also take into account the costs of coming back and reintegrating into society without a serious loss of benefits.
Finally, the arguments presented are precisely why missionaries have gone “professional” and why so many denominations have now put out clergy pay guidelines. Local congregations can always find manipulative arguments that lessen their responsibilities to either missionaries or pastors. Note that as far back as 1 Corinthians, St. Paul had to write:
Some things do not change, do they? St. Paul had to defend himself against the “tender mercies” of the congregations. To this day so do all who are involved in ministry.
Besides the economic reasons, I think there is another one to support less people but support several with more resources. When a smaller church supports a dozen or more missionaries it is difficult for a church to rally behind them. The typical person can not keep track of more than a couple of things if they don’t have a passion for international missions. But if you have just a few areas and missionaries you support, it is much easier to get the church to pray for and support them in non-financial ways.
Liked the post. I am going to link to it.
I think that one of the problems with the most popular “support raising models” is that it denies a truth from the Bible: we are different parts of the body, and yet everyone is expected to have the strength of “support raising”. I believe some people have a gift and calling for that — and others do not. It seems that a person who would quite successfully translate a Bible into a foreign language but have trouble speaking to thousands of strangers would be penalized in that environment. I guess this is a slight variant of what you are saying — I would just add: it seems like we’re asking all missionaries to be an eye or an ear, or whatever same body part when that is not what they have been called to do.
Thanks for the details. And disagreement, or even been disturbed by certain mindsets is not bitterness. And why can’t people mention it? Especially if it is intended to strengthen the relationships and resolve issues — as I believe you are trying to do.
Thank you for serving the Lord!
Sean
You are quite right. I have met some Wycliffe Bible translator folks who are really rotten public speakers, but incredibly good linguists! They were also warm and personal and had a real interest in the people whose language they were translating. Most Bible translators have to be warm and personal folk because they have to be able to gain the trust of the people with whom they are working in order to produce a sound translation. But, they need not be able to speak publicly.
So, you can imagine what a trial it is for these type of folk to fund-raise, as you so rightly pointed out in your comment.
Thank you for this, Fr. Ernesto.
As an unmarried missionary candidate, the constant travel has not been such a hardship– truly, it’s been a delight to meet so many excellent Christians whose hearts are opening towards support for long-term missions. As I was in the full-on support-raising mode for a good half of last year, I had a beautiful time witnessing the good work and encouragement of congregations across the North American continent.
Given the state of Orthodox Christianity in North America currently, a parish that gives $500/ year counts as a “major supporter.” Most of my support comes from families within parishes that I’ve visited, and there are at least two parishes whose faithful are together giving yearly enough money to keep me on the field for an entire month. I have no complaints. It’s a blessing, and I love it.
But I’m a single guy who likes to be on the road, who doesn’t mind sleeping on the floor or riding in a Greyhound, and who can get by on peanut butter and tap water. As much as I loved my support-raising journey, it was exhausting. Even with a shoestring budget, there were significant expenses. Spiritually, it is really tough to be at a different church every few days and to be put on display every time you show up at church. And if I had a spouse, children, or obligations there’s no way I could have spent six months on a cross-continent support-raising campaign.
In the coming decade, if my support team could be drawn down to a dozen or so parishes in the same geographical area, each congregation committed to providing yearly what is necessary to keep me on the field for a month, that would be a great blessing. It is my support-raising goal. As cool as it is to have the support and encouragement of faithful as far away as British Columbia, Southern California, Colorado, Ohio and Florida– it’s not easy to stay well-connected to such a far-flung group.