EMQ » April–June 2020 » Volume 56 Issue 2
By Gene Daniels
I am at one of those wonderful stages in life: two of my adult children are thinking about how they will launch out into their own callings to reach the nations. Like their mother and I, both of them feel called to reach Muslims, and they also want to walk a similar path of “faith missions.” We believe in modeling the ministry, so Linda and I have tried to walk-out our ideas of ministry in front of our kids; pursuing God, loving people, cultural appropriateness, etc. However, I’ve come to realize that some things need to be said explicitly, explaining what we do and why, otherwise currents in society will “fill in the blanks” in ways we did not intend.
One of the things which needs to be explicitly communicated between generations of missionaries is the matter of what it means to “live by faith.” We use this term a lot in Evangelical mission circles, but I fear the meaning has become diluted by trends and fads of the wider culture. It certainly has taken on connotations that earlier generations of missionaries did not know. There are probably many reasons for this, but one that stands out has to do with a particular social trend in Western civilization: “financialization.”
Over the past several decades we have witnessed a marked increase in the size and importance of the financial sector in the economies of many countries. For example, the financial sector of the United States economy has grown from 10% of the total in 1950 to over 20% today.[i] This has had a huge impact on our entire society. As much as we hate to admit it, the missions community has not been immune from this trend. In the more than twenty years I have been a part of faith missions, I have seen what can only be called a “financialization” of our thought. This has been manifested in many ways, but one of the most noticeable is a shift in the way we talk about ministry support. Today it seems missionaries talk a great deal about the money we need to raise and how that might be done, and very little about the kind of faith required to be able to say along with Paul:
I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me (Philippians 4:12–13 ESV).
Paul’s focus on the sufficiency of Christ, despite times of lack and need, seems completely antithetical to the current trend of financialization in mission. The problem I am trying to flag is this creeping change that has slowly made “support raising” a synonym for the “living by faith” Paul modeled.
Certainly there are many authentic ways to raise the support required to conduct effective mission ministry, but none of them should run afoul of Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew:
So do not worry, saying, “What shall we drink?” Or “What shall we wear?” For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well (Matthew 6:31–33).
I fear that in the concrete world of paying bills, many missionaries have subconsciously replaced “seeking first his kingdom” with seeking financial support. And rather than cherishing the fact that our heavenly Father knows what we have need of, we feel urged to make sure our supporters do. However, a little criticism goes a long way. It is easier to be a critic than to offer constructive critique, a trap I want to avoid. So as I think about my own children’s calling to the nations, I want to offer their generation some things to reflect on which might help them focus on faith, not finances.
Faith and Work
One of the persistent fallacies about walking by faith in missionary finance is that it excludes having a paying job. We see this in the way that most agencies have a very difficult time fully integrating bi-vocational missionaries into their organization. I would even say there is significant misunderstanding about the idea of integrating ministry and a paying job. For example, when we refer to vocational ministry with terms like “full time,” we inadvertent imply that the missionary who is bi-vocational is somehow doing less.
This seems quite ironic considering who caused the term “tentmaker” to be coined in the first place. An objective reading of the Apostle Paul’s communication with the churches shows that he gave very little if any thought to “raising support” for himself. For example, his well-known words in chapters eight and nine of second Corinthians are about raising money for the poor believers in Judea, not for his personal support.
What we do see, with great clarity, is that Paul was singularly focused on completing the task for which Christ called him. That meant that in some locations he worked at a job (Acts 18:1–4), and at others he was supported by financial gifts (Philippians 4:14–19). There were probably locations in his missionary travels where he was supported through a combination of the two. This great man of faith saw no dichotomy between “living by faith” and working for a living whenever needed.
Therefore, I believe it would do us well to remember that the life of faith missions is not in any sense opposed to having a secular, paying job. This is driven home by the fact that it was sweaty “handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin” which were carried from Paul’s workplace and laid on the sick to bring about healing and exorcisms (Acts 19:12).
This did not end with the apostolic era; in fact, bi-vocational mission was part of launching the modern Protestant missions movement. Despite being known for starting the first missionary support society, William Carey had his own pattern of bi-vocational ministry. First it was the time he worked as a cobbler to support his first pastoral ministry in England, then again in his early years on the field where he and other missionaries worked at an Indigo factory. I think it is safe to say that both Paul and William Carey were quite pragmatic about how they supported themselves. Their focus was on fulfilling their calling, not on how to come by the money to pay the bills. Yet I realize full well this is easier said than done.
My wife and I have been bi-vocational for about half of the twenty-five years we have been in ministry, although to be honest, we started on that path due to the force of circumstances rather than any particular conviction. At times we have been “fully supported” missionaries; albeit often not “fully funded” in the way most agencies use the term. Other times, one or both of us have needed to work to supplement the financial support we received from our church and gracious friends.
Yet no matter where our financial support has come from, my wife and I have been in “full time” ministry all these years. We have never done less ministry because of our paying work, nor have we done more because we reached a certain level of mission support. Currently that means as a part-time college instructor I often grade papers late at night after a full day of ministry, or answer students’ emails during layovers between flights. And when I am tempted to complain, I remember my national friends in the Muslim world, many of whom must work full time while leading churches or evangelistic ministries.
This financial pragmatism is a polar opposite of the ministry financialization to which we have become accustomed. We think nothing unusual about a missionary spending large amounts of their time “raising support.” I remember talking to a friend and colleague about a serious shortfall in their ministry budget. I suggested he look for an adjunct instructor position like I have since he is also qualified to teach at the college level. His reply was illustrative. He told me he could not take even a part-time teaching job because of the time it would take him away from “full time ministry.” Yet the intensive support raising plan he was following was itself a part-time job! If we are to avoid the continued financialization of mission, we may need to change our attitude toward paid employment but, more importantly, we probably need to change our attitudes toward financial support itself.
Financial Contentment
The epistle of Philippians was written by Paul to some of his most loyal supporters, and in it he says something quite profound about his relationship to the support they gave him:
“I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity. Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am in to be content” [emphasis added] (Philippians 4:10–11).
For some unknown reason, the church in Philippi had been unable to help Paul for a lengthy period of time. Translate this into contemporary mission language. Paul was on the foreign field, in the midst of a busy ministry, when his support budget suddenly had a big hole blown in it. It is reasonable to assume this would have caused a significant financial crisis for his ministry. Yet, when put in these terms, the Apostle’s response is even more remarkable. He simply focused on being content.
Now let that really sink in. Paul was content, meaning he was satisfied with things just as they were. He did not start an anxious letter-writing campaign to apprise his supporters of the situation. Paul demonstrated that it is possible to live calm and stress-free in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. In all areas of life this is a challenge, but contentment with regards to finance is an absolute necessity for the missionary who aspires to “live by faith.”
Walking this path means the missionary must deeply believe that what God has provided is enough—even if it does not feel that way. It might not be as much as other missionaries around us have. It may not even meet “our budget.” But contentment means learning to accept what God graciously provides, as enough, precisely because of who it is that is doing the providing. I would imagine Paul’s thoughts were rooted somewhere in the words of Jesus, perhaps something like: “… your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:8).
I am not pretending this is easy, even Paul had to learn how to be content. But that he did. And it is worth considering that few of us have ever faced the severity of hardship and deprivation Paul did. If he could persevere to learn that lesson in the First Century, we should be able to do the same in a much more comfortable Twenty-first Century. On the other hand, he did not wrestle with something that constantly attacks the contemporary missionary: consumerism.
One of the natural by-products of the financialization of our society is the development of an entire industry which aims to rob us of our contentment: advertising. Everyone from banks to shoemakers spend billions of dollars each year to stir-up the public’s discontentment, so that people will spend more money. Although we are loath to admit it, this affects missionaries like everyone else. Without realizing it, this can impact how much financial support we think we need.
This raises the issue of the difference between need and want, something each of us must be careful to discern. No one can say exactly where this line falls for someone else. Nevertheless, if we are practicing a deep sense of contentment in the Lord’s provision we will probably find there are many things we can do without. We might conclude that our old computer is really not that slow, or that yearly trip home to visit supporters is not necessary. It is amazing how much we can do without if we are focused on being content with what God has provided rather than how we can raise the money for more. Contentment also lifts our spiritual eyes off the things we think we need, and toward the giver of all good gifts.
Trusting the Lord, Not Technique
One of the characteristics of financialization is a focus on developing specific techniques for optimizing returns, rather than strengthening the economic fundamentals of a society. Economists are just beginning to recognize the adverse effect this has had on the US economy as it hollows-out many of our core activities. In a similar way, an unhealthy focus on “support raising” causes missionaries and agencies to put too much emphasis on the techniques and methods of funding rather than on the structural bedrock of missionary finance—an unshakeable confidence in the God who sends.
Developing a faith lifestyle as a missionary is about growing in confidence toward our heavenly Father who graciously provides, not learning the best ways to ask for money. Fund raising techniques can easily distract us from what is really important in the matter. In some ways they are like the use of technology in evangelism. There are many Twenty-first century technologies that are useful for reaching the lost, but they are not the substance—the gospel is. In the same way, learning different approaches to mission funding can be helpful, but these methods should never become the substance of how we view mission finance. This particularly relates to a very common missionary activity—writing newsletters.
The people who share in our ministries—whether by giving, praying, or simply loving us—want to know what we are doing. The modern missionary newsletter is an easy way to inform them about the news from the field. Whether it is paper, electronic, email, short videos, or a combination of all the above, missionary newsletters are a proven way to communicate vision, purpose, and ministry results to those who care.
However, one evidence of the financialization of mission is that many contemporary newsletters contain almost as much “fund raising” as they do actual missionary “news.” This is not to say it is wrong to ask directly for financial support. Missionaries need many things to fulfill their callings, finances, prayer, logistics, etc., and a newsletter can be a great way to clearly invite people to get involved.
On the other hand, the next generation of missionaries will do well to remember that many who pioneered the concept of “faith mission” not only rejected a guaranteed salary, but also refused to mention their financial needs to anyone but God. We have powerful examples in men like Hudson Taylor and Robert Morrison in China, or Peter Cameron Scott in Sudan. They understood that when James wrote, “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:3), he was referring to prayer, not communicating with supporters.
What’s more, their enormous contribution to world missions cannot be understood apart from their stance on mission finances, which was only one of the ways they demonstrated an invincible, stubborn faith. This is something that all missionaries can learn from, even those who do not chose to walk exactly the same financial path as they did.
Conclusion
After many years of watching the Lord provide for our ministry, I want my children to know they can trust the Lord in the same way. I also want them, and others in their generation, to know that when missionaries take the route of faith missions, they are choosing to walk a path that is out of sync with the world around them. Among many things, this means they must turn away from an unhealthy trend in our society which places an inflated importance on money, while diminishing other fundamentals of life.
One way this has affected the modern missions movement has to do with how we support our ministries. It seems to me that many missionaries, and their agencies, have shifted focus from the God who provides to financial strategies, and from fulfilling their calling to increasing the donor base. Some people seem to have the mistaken impression that “faith missions” is little more than a euphemism for “raising support.”
The next generation of missionaries can turn this tide by carefully thinking about some of the things they previously accepted without challenge. For starters, they may need to reconsider the way they view salaried work. Taking a job in order to support oneself in mission does not mean someone “lacks faith,” rather it is evidence of a singular focus on their calling instead of being distracted by how much money they can or cannot raise. Next, contentment needs to be restored to its rightful place in the missions vocabulary. Perhaps younger missionaries can crush the materialistic discontent that my generation allowed to creep into our devotion to Christ and his cause. And finally, I pray that my children will set their hearts to fully trust in the Lord, and lean not on the techniques or technologies of fundraising.
Nevertheless, this is a good place to make it clear that if there was only one right way to generate the financial resources needed in mission, then the Scriptures would have told us what it was. Without a doubt, there is room for a variety of approaches. That said, I don’t believe we should accept the creeping financialization of mission thinking which gives fund raising center stage and pushes other much more important things to the side.
Faith missions is about deeply trusting God to provide everything we need for life and godliness, not about how we pay the bills. And I believe this is something that my kids, and their generation of missionaries, need to hear clearly and explicitly from those of us who have walked this path before them.
Gene Daniels (pseudonym)
and his family served in Central Asia for twelve years. He is now the director
of Fruitful Practice Research, studying how God is working in the Muslim world.
[i] “How Wall Street became a big chunk of the U.S. Economy.” Witko, Christopher. Washington Post, Online edition, March 29, 2016. Accessed at Stable URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/29/how-wall-street-became-a-big-chunk-of-the-u-s-economy-and-when-the-democrats-signed-on/
