Summary: This page explains my views as to why "regular" mission boards are not biblical
(Reason number 1 of 5). For the calling page, see Why we are not under a board.

Why "regular" Mission Boards are not Biblical
Because they are not in the Bible!

by Missionary David R Cox

(1) Mission boards are not biblical. The New Testament model which sets our only precedent and example is a local church sending out, overseeing, supporting, administrating, and being the sole help, authority, and only entity handling funds for all of missions.

Outline: Definitions. No biblical example. Reasons we have mission boards in the first place:
(1) Oversight.
(2) Screening Candidates Rejection of famous people who can best screen? factors of placing men in the ministry Acts 13 & Sending by a local church High authority False Prophets controlling others The Doctrinal Questionnaire The Interview Mission board candidate school
(3) Money Management
(4) Checking up on missions
(5) Promotion of Missions

I called a pastor one time trying to get a deputation meeting and when he asked me which mission board I was under, I replied that I was under my home church, and I was not under a mission board. He said, "Well, I guess that is okay for you even though that is not the way the apostle Paul did it. We don't allow missionaries that are not under boards for deputation nor consideration for support." And having said that, he abruptly hung up the phone.

At issue in this "issue" of using "regular" mission boards or not is whether the practice is New Testament biblical. I will define a "regular" mission board as being one that specifically is not under a local New Testament church, but rather organized as a religious organization not under the authority of a single local church. These mission boards typically have a board of directors which brings in many ministers from many areas, and supposedly give it an air of authority, experience, and validity. For the rest of this study, I will refer to "regular" mission boards as just "mission boards".

The bottom line in all of this is that we see no example (biblical precept) nor command that gives us the luxury of using, organizing, or supporting a mission board. Even if man comes up with a supposedly better plan for doing God's work than what God has given us, we cannot ditch what God has given us, and take up something else. No matter if people criticize the biblical method or assert that it just doesn't work. (Usually when there is "valid" criticism on a supposed biblical method, it is because it is flawed and does not have some element the Bible presents with it or something has been changed from the Bible model or command.) No matter if tradition, history, and practicality have established another method, we must stick to what is biblical.

Having said that, we see no hint of a mission board in the New Testament.

The only players in missions are individual ministers who are the missionaries (doing evangelism, teaching/discipling, and planting local churches), and the local churches that send them (authority and oversight) and financially support them, and the new churches that these missionaries plant from their own labors at evangelism and teaching/discipleship. If people would just grasp this point, that would save everybody a lot of heart ache. It has been my personal observation over the years (both in the mission board I was associated with as well as others) that the process is flawed and unbiblical. Because of that, it just doesn't work like it is supposed to work. More on this later.

Therefore to be frank, mission boards are a fabrication of men, it has no place in missions nor biblical support for its existence. Therefore, those Christians who want to be truly biblical, must not support missionaries under mission boards nor submit to the authority of nor use mission boards in any way. It is an unbiblical construct of men! No matter how you look at it, it always comes back to this same point. The burden of proof that mission boards are biblical is on the mission board, not the missionary and church who refuse to accept a man made construct.

Reasons we have mission boards in the first place

Generally the primary reasons given for mission boards are the following:

(1.) Oversight  - "The mission board will do a better job at oversight of missions and missionaries than a local church can possibly do."

Pastors and mature Christians need to think through this point very long and hard. There is a presumption in this statement which is very difficult to accept if you think about it. This line of thinking is built on the premise that churches do not know how to do the very business God has assigned them to do, that is evangelism, teaching, and planting churches. Why should churches surrender the oversight and control of these things to an entity that supposedly knows how to do it better? Because the church "messes things up" if they don't, is the presumption. Moreover, the burning question in this is simply, "Will God allow churches to shift the responsibility, oversight, and administration of missions to somebody else?" The short answer is, no, churches cannot give up their responsibilities to somebody else. It is like the Christian man who does not want to fulfill the sexual needs of his wife. Can he really delegate to another man what God has given solely to him to complete as a duty? No. What God lays at their feet, they must do, even if it is difficult, disagreeable, or undesired.

At issue here in the heart of all of this is that men are changing the way God has given us to do the ministry. Christian schools and seminaries, mission boards, and other religious organizations break with the God-given, New Testament standard of a local church to do the work of the ministry for something else. We cannot make it any simpler than that.

The issue of who can oversee missions better is not at question here. The question is who is supposed to be doing this as God has commanded things? The answer is the local church. Many of the problems in missions today could be resolved if churches and missionaries would just go back to the Bible for their direction and guidance.

(2) Screening of Candidates - "Mission boards screen potential missionaries much better than a local church can."

The bottom line is not what appears best to us, but what has God said about the matter. The mission board may have PhDs on their board and great men of God who do the screening, but the main problem is that they are looking to promote their ministry (i.e. the mission board), and they are not as interested in men of God who will really do the work of God. This point will be debated, but in the end, this is what all of this boils down to, mission boards want "game players" who will work well with whatever and however the mission board wants to do things. The most godly of men get kicked out of missions because they are not "game players". Why?

Rejection of Famous People by Boards - According to most mission board candidate committees, the Apostle Paul would have been rejected from being a missionary because he had a conflict with Barnabas, and later with Peter, an Apostle and an authority figure in Christianity at the time. Moreover, Paul and the Antioch Church went up to Jerusalem to challenge the doctrine supposedly coming out of that church, and that shows a lack of submission to authority. Peter would have been rejected because of his past bad testimony and his lack of education. Barnabas would have been rejected because he brought them Paul who later had conflicts with Barnabas over taking John Mark along (the recommendation of the senior missionary, Barnabas at the time). Timothy would have been rejected because he used a little wine for his stomach's sake. The typical thinking of most candidate screening committees is just totally off by biblical standards. They examine lightly his doctrine, and then in depth question him to discern if he is going to be a "game player", or a "good missionary under our board".

We find the Scriptures putting a different slant on things. First there are scriptural requirements that must be met, and these can only be discerned by visiting and seeing the candidate in his natural setting (his home and his church). How does his home life reflect the standards of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1? Seldom are these issues even touched on. Secondly the Scriptures put the emphasis on a tried and true minister. In other words, Paul and Barnabas were teachers first before becoming missionaries. Mission boards want young people fresh out of college (with NO EXPERIENCE or a very limited experience). This is very important for them, because they are recruiting "game players", not seeking godly men and women.

Therefore, the Scriptures stand in contrast to mission boards in that they put the emphasis on men that already have proven themselves in a local ministry as a Bible teacher and preacher. Mission boards seldom or never want to take the time to go see a candidate preach and teach. They are "too busy themselves" "in their ministries". The Scriptures specifically restrict novices positions of administration and leadership (the missionary is going where there are not churches, believers, or leaders, so he is taking on that role of leader starting or working in a ministry). The mission board specifically seeks novices.

The Scriptures in 1 Timothy 3 states "let these also first be proved; then let them use the office ..." (3:10). This statement means that both bishop (overseer) and deacon (servant or more humble minister) must have a proving time before they take on their official roles. Seldom do mission boards want men that have already pastored churches or proven themselves in the ministry (unless they are extremely devoted to that particular mission board). Why? We return to the main point, Mission Boards want good game players, not necessarily good men of God. That actually gets in the way, because a real man of God will not allow just anything, and when they begin to complain or not be so enthusiastic towards the unorthodox activities of the Mission Board or fellow missionaries under that board, he is not a good "game player".

Who can best screen candidates - Those who can "screen" missionaries candidates best are one of two people, those who are already doing that same work, i.e. veteran missionaries, or number two, pastors who are behind these people financially and are doing the same ministry and work in the states (assuming both have experience and are expert students of the Word). You cannot screen intelligently for what you do not know, and what you only know by second hand experience. Reading books, talking to missionaries, or even dealing with missionaries on the basis of a mission board in administration over missionaries does not give you true insight into the work, ministry, problems, special situations and considerations, nor does it qualify you in any way to decide the fate of missionaries. It is my observation that even "veteran" missionaries that return to the States to work in the administration of a mission board are usually missionaries that simply could not cut it on the field, had problems, and are seeking to get into something "softer" and easier. The burning question is, "if they are such good missionaries, why didn't they keep on doing what they were doing?"

The Bible presents several factors in the placement of men in the ministry: 

(1) a call by God according to the will of God (Mat. 10; 1 Cor 1:1; Rom 1:1). The Holy Spirit places ministers in the ministry Acts 20:28.
(2) a desire within the candidate. 1 Tim 3:1, 1 Peter 5:2.
(3) a recognition or acceptance by the local church where that person has labored before officially entering the ministry. Acts 13:1-4

Acts 13:1-4 needs special attention. The important point here is that Paul was ALREADY ministering in the church at Antioch when he received the call to change ministries. He was already a regular minister, preacher, teacher there at that locality, and God changed what he was doing and where he was doing it. What happens here is that Paul changed his ministry from that of a local church minister to be the first and greatest missionary of the church age (apart from Christ Himself).

On another note, Paul responded to the Macedonian call because the Holy Spirit led him. He was very responsive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. We do not see any communication of any kind with the sending church in Antioch. Paul as a missionary was self directed, following the leading of the Holy Spirit. If the missionary cannot be trusted as to his leading and decisions on the field, he should not be there. A mission board is not a solution, nor a minute day by day oversight by a local church. Either he is a leader and we trust him, or we should cut him off and recall him from the field.

Sending by the local church - Although many make much out of phrase "they (the Antionch church) sent them (Paul and Barnabas) away", we need to understand that the actual wording here indicates that the church "cut off" or "severed relations" with them and from that church ministry. The idea behind this word here is that they no longer had any relationship or obligations between them. They were free to do as God led them to minister. This is also the word for divorce in the New Testament. When a man and woman divorce, the man does not have authority over the woman's life still. 

In light of this fact, the missionary should be seen as an independent minister, and not an employee of his sending church. If he cannot make correct decisions and work without close scrutiny and oversight, then he should not be a missionary in the first place, but should be an assistant under a pastor and church until such time as he is mature and responsible enough to take on a ministry of his own (either in the states or on the foreign mission field). 

This flies in the face of almost every mission board that is out there. "Their" missionaries are considered like employees of the mission board (not that the mission board gives them one dime of money, they have to pay their own salaries through the hard work of deputation and quite the contrary, the mission board sucks them dry with charges, fees, etc that they do for the missionary and charge him for it), but the missionaries are employees in the sense that they are restricted, constrained, and commanded as far as their ministry. The missionary is "under the authority of the mission board", therefore any variance from what the mission board tells him to do is considered to be "disobedience to a higher authority." We never see Paul nor any of his fellow missionaries under this kind of situation in the New Testament. But we do see Paul challenging the "goings ons" of the church at Corinth, and even Peter when he walked in error. Error or obedience to the word of God is what rules, not an organization that rules despite their unbiblical policies and practices.

Disobedience to a "higher authority" - But wait a minute, where did this higher authority come into being? It is a fabrication of men that is not biblical! The authorities that we are under are women under their husbands, children under their parents, church members under their pastors, employees under their employers (here is where mission boards want to grab some kind of legitimate authority), and citizens under the governments. In the case of employers and employees, the relationship ALWAYS HAS TO BE ONE OF EMPLOYER PAYING THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEE! To collect money I have to raise from local churches and write me a check every month is not paying my salary. So this "higher authority" of Mission Boards is not established in any way by the Bible. This is an old trick that Satan uses to disrupt the normal communication line between God and the individual. It goes all the way back to the New Testament.

False Prophets controlling the lives of the brethren - We do see in the New Testament a group of people who wish to control the brethren's life and ministry, and that is the action of false brethren. We, as Baptists, believe in soul liberty, which means each person has a particular relationship with God, and God leads and directs individuals, especially in their service or ministry aspect.

Churches and Christianity would be well served if they raise their personal standards for their missionaries and demand that the younger men serve in the states in a church until they get experience, maturity, and stability. Nobody is well served by a young missionary who goes out to have problems and comes back home in shame and discouragement. This is prevented by getting into the ministry in a church in the states for a few years under experienced men so that the disappointments of the ministry are known and dealt with to the young minister before he is found with problems all alone. 

More Screening Issues

Typically a mission board will have a doctrinal questionnaire that candidates fill out. They then will have a personal section, and an interview.

The doctrinal questionnaire is all too easy to guess what they want in the blanks. Most mission boards even put out propaganda specifically stating their doctrinal position, so that an astute missionary can just copy it from their own literature into their questionnaire. Many missionaries get where they can "read people", and they give them back the answers that they are looking for. Very easily, they investigate what is the boards doctrinal stand on an issue and take that particular position. Note that this is not always done knowingly by the candidates. Most candidates are very young men who are just starting out in the ministry. They have not done much preaching, and not very much preaching to the same audience for months on end. So they do not understand and know really what they believe. Being inexperienced, they take the position they were taught in school (Bible college) most often, the position that is the most popular among those they "run with", or the position of somebody they look up to in the ministry.

The biblical form for checking a minister's doctrine - When a local church takes on the oversight of a missionary, it is because they are familiar with his testimony, his preaching, and his stand. In the case of a young man, usually he has grown up in that church, or they have heard him preach and sat under his ministry for some time. In the case of Paul, the church at Antioch had heard him quite enough because Paul was a teacher and preacher in that local church. This is the biblical example, churches authorize missionaries because the missionary has ministered to THAT church, and they know him. The only way you can discern if a minister has the right doctrine is to sit under his teaching for a while (which takes time and patience). Then ask questions and challenge him on what does not appear to be right.

Mission boards handle way too many missionaries to get very involved with screening and knowing these people before they are sent out. A local church can afford to take this time and do a more thorough task if they have the resolve to do so because each local church would probably handle very few missionaries in this way.

The interview - The candidate committee (usually pastors and leaders of Christian ministries) will sit down with the missionary candidate to interview him. This is like a farmer sitting down to interview an engineer or a doctor for a position. The candidate committee knows nothing about what they are pretending to be an expert at, which is missions, and living in another country, culture and language ministering. They do not know what it is like to live by faith on promises of income (that often don't come, come later, or come in part). In point of fact, most men on a candidate committee have never been a missionary themselves, and few have even been a pastor. They don't know what it is like working with people in a local church situation. They haven't a clue. Visiting a missionary on the field gives very little insight to the problems and difficulties of being a missionary. People visit a foreign country and think they are experts after two short weeks. This is simply ridiculous. This is like a person from China coming to the USA, visiting Disneyland the entire week they are here, and returning to China and declaring that they know everything there is to know about the United States, American culture and life, etc. They are only self-deceived "experts" in their own minds.

My point here is so pointedly proven by the typical mission board-missionary communication problems that always exist. They are not "talking on the same level", and conflict always breaks out. Usually either the missionary humbles himself and the board is "always right" even where they are wrong, because they are his (unbiblical) authority, or the missionary is history.

Of those few candidate committee members or mission administrators who have been missionaries, the norm seems to be that they either could not endure the different culture of a foreign country, they could not learn the language well, they could not handle the stress of missionary life, they were poor pastors and worse at inter-personal relations, or they have some other problem (such as not being really called to serve in another country) and so they seek to stay in missions but to return to the comfort of their home country. As an almost absolute rule, no active missionaries that are successfully carrying on the ministry of missions in a foreign country (we would specify evangelism, teaching, discipleship, and church planting, all of these) are allowed to participate in such interviews. These are the only people that really can discern quickly who will be a good missionary and who will not. Pastors who have years of experience in the ministry can often also spot ministers who "won't make it", but mission boards don't like lust any local church pastors participating in their internal affairs, but only pastors that 100% for that board, no matter what (i.e. a good game player).

Mission boards view their missionaries as a commodity by which they make their living, and they bristle at the thought of the missionaries having a say, right, or participation in the administration of missions even though they may be in the states on furlough and well could participate in this process. Those missionaries who "play ball", are "team players", or who bend over backwards in pleasing the board are the ones who are chosen to come home and go into the administration of the mission board.

Mission board candidate school - Most mission boards have what they call "candidate school" or something similar where each year the missionaries on deputation and those returning for furlough come together some place to have a week or so of meetings. In these meetings, the new missionaries learn the "rules of the road" (the rules of the mission board they must live by or they will be kicked out). Most mission boards also try to "impart wisdom" in doing missions. It is amazing to me in the candidate schools that I participated in how little veteran missionaries participated, even in supposedly "question and answer" times. The speakers of these meetings are generally all either mission board administrators or board members of mission board executive decision making committee. Every now and then somebody else (outside the mission board) is given the privilege of speaking, and this is when the mission board is eyeing that person as a potential future board member. These special speakers are never missionaries as a rule, especially somebody in missions outside of their own mission board. To be together for a whole week, new missionaries not yet gone to the field mixed with veteran missionaries, some having 20 or more years under their belts, and to not allow a sharing of experiences, problems, or solutions to these problems is truly amazing. But across the board, mission boards always will look at a missions administrator who has never been a missionary in a foreign country as having more expertise, more to say, and having more authority in how to do the Lord's work than people on the front lines, even those in that same mission board.

(3.) Money Management - "Mission boards can handle the concerns of money, insurance, retirement, etc. better than a local church can do."

When we turn to money, we need to understand that God has set in concrete a way in which missions is to be done. To vary from what is clear is simply sin. There is no other way to look at it. You must have a "loop hole", a command, a clear example, or a blessing of God to do things in a different way. In the Old Testament, God ordained various things, and when the children of Israel fabricated new things (like the golden ox, the second temple, etc), God harshly judged them.

When we talk about money and mission boards, most people think that mission boards greatly help the missionaries financially. The truth of the matter is that mission boards do not financially help missionaries, but rather hurt them. From my experience most mission boards fall into one of two groups: (1) those that suck the blood from the missionary, or (2) those that starve the missionary.

(1) The Blood Suckers - These mission boards take the attitude that since they are doing a service for the missionary (like a bank or a car wash) then they should be able to partake of the missionary's income (most often they give the missionary no choice, and since they collect the missionary's donations, they take it out without his "permission"). So they charge the missionary a fee, or make gain from the minister of God. How do they do this? Many will automatically take the missionary's "tithe" off the top from his income before he gets it. The tithe is supposed to go to a local church for the doing of the Lord's work where the Christian attends church, and since the missionary is associated with a church on a foreign field, his tithe should go where he congregates, not to some Christian organization in a foreign country. Moreover, a tithe is a voluntary matter between God and the individual Christian, and nobody should "extract by force" a person's tithe. In some cases, this "tithe" is 15%. I do not know the rationalization mission boards give that practice this, but it just makes things more ridiculous. Some mission boards just charge a set fee each month for their services, and some on top of their forced "tithe".

Then there are the fees. Many mission boards charge the missionary for every piece of correspondence, donation, or activity they perform for him. That means, if a little old lady sends the missionary $10, the board will charge the missionary $3.50 for sending her an acknowledge of that gift, at the end of the year, they will send her a year summary which they charge another $3.50, and they will charge the missionary another $3.50 for sending him the notice that she gave $10. Ridiculous to the core. When the mission board makes the rules, then they do things to benefit them, not the missionary. For example, instead of giving a quarterly or just a yearly statement to supporters (which would be best if you get clipped for every email, letter, or bank transaction that is done for you), they often decide to go to a monthly scheme, with double jeopardy if somebody gives twice in a single month.

Then there are the funds. Missionary funds are money that is set aside for a special purpose, like plane tickets to get to the field, setting up equipment and household items on the foreign field, return to the US plane tickets, furlough needs, emergency fund for emergencies, medical emergency fund, building fund for a building on the field, etc. So what is wrong with mission boards forcing the missionary the save money? The trick here is that the money is held in the mission board's bank account, not the missionary's. In almost all cases, the board "keeps" this money for the missionary, but they give no interest to the missionary, because "they are not a bank". In most cases these funds can get up into sums of 100,000 dollars or more per missionary sitting in the mission board's bank account drawing interest for them, but they give no interest back to the missionary. With hundreds or thousands of missionaries, this is a great source of income from interest for the mission board.

Then the mission board controls the dispersing of these funds. An emergency is not what the missionary declares to be an emergency, but what the mission board permits. Two very big differences. A great gulf fixed between them. Missionaries then turn around and need to borrow money to purchase a vehicle, or for something that the mission board does not think falls into the categories they have arbitrarily set up. "No you cannot have money out of your funds for that, but we will loan you money at the market rate." So the mission board turns around and LOANS THE MISSIONARY HIS OWN MONEY AT MARKET INTEREST RATES! Where does the interest of this loan go? Into the coffers of the mission board. Where did the money come from? The missionary is paying the mission board to loan him his own money. If this is not a scam of a great degree, I don't know what is.

Then there are property concerns. Missionaries often start something in another country where property is concerned. Many boards will get a corporation in the foreign country set up under the name of the mission board, and they force all their missionaries to place any property in the name of the mission board, including church property of a church they plant on the field. This is for control reasons, where if the missionary leaves the mission board for any reason, they will lose that property, and usually the church must move out of that building, or accept the mission board's decision of pastor or missionary to take over. Now where did the money come from for the building in the first place? Often times from the donations of the members of that church on the foreign field, and other times from churches that donated TO THAT MISSIONARY (NOT THE BOARD) to set up an independent local church in that field. This is not independent autonomous government, but a kind of denomination of sorts, where a few control the many.

Retirement concerns. Some mission boards go so far as to make the missionary lose his retirement money (money that he paid out of his income into a "retirement fund") when he leaves the mission board. Is this even legal? Remember we cannot take a brother to court, so it is done, simply put.

Where does all the extra money come from? All of this sucks up funds from the missionary's budget. Where does the extra come from then? Very simple, the mission board raises what the missionary needs for support. The bottom line is that the mission boards do not raise money for missionaries, they do not save money for missionaries, the mission board takes money from the missionary. This is help? Many missionaries are finding that they need support levels of $4,000 to $8,000 a month. Figure most churches average around $75 or at least under a $100 a month to each missionary, and you have a situation where the missionary needs to raise support from 100 churches or more to meet all these excessive and imposed expenses.

Let's figure this one out all the way. 100 supporting churches, you go to 5-10 churches for one that will take you one, so you need to visit somewhere around 500 to 1000 churches. You can only visit on Sundays, usually 1 church per Sunday if you are lucky and diligent and good. So that is 52 Sundays in a year, so if you need $8,000 a month, with normal deputation, it will take you somewhere between 10 and 20 years of deputation! This is literally and eternity, because by 5 years or so, the first churches that took you on will drop you if you don't get to the field, so it is a vicious cycle that never ends.

Okay so how much do missionaries raise in a typical year of deputation. That would vary from missionary to missionary, and some missionaries have a base of churches and pastors they are already friends with that would immediately give them $500 or more a month in some cases. I personally know of an independent fundamental church that gives their missionaries from their own church or their church group $1200 a month. These is great but not the norm for the great majority of missionaries out there. What I have seen talking to a great many missionaries and watching their support level go up, is that today (2004) the average a missionary can raise would be around $700 a month in monthly support per each year of deputation IF THE MISSIONARY IS REALLY TRYING HARD. That means a typical missionary would raise his support in 6 to 11 years depending on if it is low ($4000/month) to high ($8000/month).

So what do missionaries do when they cannot raise all of their support? They go without 100%, and then come back in a year or two to do more deputation work. Why is this so? Because we have lost sight of going out in faith with what God gives to us, and making due with it. Mission boards are set up to make sure that missionaries "get all their support" and "are responsible". But the very same mission boards are taking a deep cut into their funds. I quickly mention that the missionary often has to suffer anyway, but the mission board always gets their cut. For missionaries with low support, their obligation towards the mission board is not overlooked or forgotten, but is the first thing that comes "off the top" of his monthly support. Forgiving them these fees and things is not permitted, but going years with little or nothing in retirement, in children's education, skimping on medical needs, and doing without in general is simply what you have to do to get on the field. Once there, you have to go back to the states to keep raising support. It almost seems hysterical that the mission boards are so out of it, that they raise the support levels so high that nobody can ever get to the field with all of his support. The missionary is in a perpetual cycle of deputation then go to the field for a year or two, then back for more deputation, and then try to validate all the money coming in by doing something for a few months on the field, then back for more deputation.

"Professional" money raising missionaries - There are some missionaries who really fall into their own "niche" in this business of raising money. On the field they are the mediocre or horrible missionaries, but going from church to church raising money is really their "thing." These are the guys that get along with every pastor perfectly (even two pastors that are on the opposite ends of the spectrum on certain issues). They have the $5000 laptop setup, with the video projector that costs $10,000 to get that $25 a month support check from a church. These are the guys that come rolling up in a quarter million dollar mobile home, because "it is cheaper to travel that way". (Excuse me, but it is cheaper to stay in the basement of the church in a missionary room, and to drive a junker car.) These missionaries are experts at paying other people on the field to set them up with a perfect ministry. They themselves may not really be involved, but they showcase what "they are doing" to every church in the USA. I personally have seen financial statements of missionaries making $10,000 plus dollars US per month in personal support (not including ministry funds that are counted separately). That is $120,000 per year for being a missionary. One missionary pilot I know crashed 3 planes and was working on his fourth plane. A small Cessna costs around $120,000 dollars as I understand it. Where did this money come from? Church missions funds. He pays $1000 dollars a month in maintenance and airplane parking fees at the airport on top of all the rest! Yet because he flies Mexican preachers from place to place in the jungles (there are roads, and there are buses that travel these roads, but he makes the pitch that he is doing a great service for the Lord). I ask, "do you do this year round?" No, he does this for a month or two and then returns to the US to live and raise more money for 6-10 months. You have to pay for all of this remember. The topping on the cake, he flies his Cessna back and forth when he goes to the states!

Reflections on the stupidity of our own system. I am not talking "through my hat", or without experience. I am a missionary living this very thing, and witnessing it in many other missionaries around me. I see a lot of dedication on the side of the missionaries, what we have to do in order to comply with God's calling. But I wonder why we need million dollar mission's headquarters back home, when we are in this stressing situation. On the other side of the coin, I also note that we minister to people in a foreign country that make a couple of HUNDRED dollars a month, and get by quite nicely at it. They always can do with more, but who is not in that situation. How do you get people who make $300 a month to tithe to financially support their church fully, and to work when you are putting down $600 a month on medical insurance? These issues are things that we need to meditate deep and long about them. 

We decide what "necessities" we have to have. But in reality, God will still judge us for the foolishness we get ourselves into.

The advantage of a local church handling missions funds - Seeing all sides of the issue, it is much better and cheaper for a local church to handle missionaries. First of all, they usually generate very little expenses to handle the missionary. They usually already have a secretary, an office to work from, and people who are willing to work for free. All that a church does for oversight of missionaries, they do within their own organization, and they need no overhead except what they already have. Church people can held send out a prayer letter, and a few more stamps and phone calls is all the real extra expenses we are talking about. If a pastor goes to visit their missionary on the field, well, many pastors that do not have oversight of missionaries do that anyway!

(2) Mission boards that starve the missionary.

The other tendency in mission boards (which is slowly going the way of the dinosaur) is to not take money from the missionary, but set his support level at levels so low that in 6 months or a year he can raise his money and go to the field. These mission boards typically are under an umbrella themselves, such as belonging to a Christian university, or some other Christian organization that wants the prestige of having their own mission board.

First of all, a mission board today cannot function without money, and if they get money from some Christian institution, then they are out of touch with the reality of finances. Thus get their income from going to local churches and raising money for themselves "as a missionary". This is the same thing in another disguise. 

Mission boards are financially in competition with missionaries, they not are helping them. The bottom line here is that there is only so much money going to come in for missions. The money is limited, Christianity is not growing but maintaining, and people are less burdened about the Lord's work in general, and missions in particular. We should promote missions. But the "we" here is pastors to their own churches. Why cannot a pastor promote missions to his own church? Because he is "incapable" of doing it, so the mission boards tell us. We have to bear the burden of a mission board with a million dollar building, hundreds of secretaries and people running around in an office somewhere, and much money invested in all of this just to get people to give to missions. Mission boards very subtly raise their own missionary support. They do a good job at, and are quiet at it. In the end, the money given to a mission board for their own support is money that is not sent to a foreign field missionary to do the work of God. The competition in missions is fierce, and it simply is getting to where a missionary, any missionary, has a hard time getting his funds raised and getting to the field.

What do mission boards actually do to help a missionary raise support? In reality, they only have a name, a fame, a presentation of doctrinal purity that they project, and that they presume others will accept (until a rouge missionaries proves them wrong which is always covered up by the board). The board gives the missionary a list of churches that missionaries can get from other sources. The board provides the missionary with literature (promoting the mission board, not the missionary's ministry). The board does not print and send letters to churches for the missionary. (The missionary has to write, pay for it, and follow it up himself even if the board will physically print and send it out.) The board does not call churches and get the missionary more support. The board does not talk to pastors to convince them to support the missionary. In other words, the missionary has to do all the work of getting support and the board does nothing except take their slice of his pie, and tell him what to do. But the board takes pride when THEIR missionaries get their funds raised and get to the field.

Who can best decide how much money a missionary should raise as support? First the missionary himself. He knows his budget, he knows his pain thresh holds, and he can tell quickly if it is too little money. What about if the missionary sets his support too high? Then he will be like all the missionaries under mission boards. But pastors of small churches do not tolerate much of this foolishness. When they make $2000 a month, it is hard to justify giving to a missionary with a $250,000 mobile home, two cars (one in the US and one on the foreign field), two houses (one in the US and one on the foreign field), making $8000 plus another $3000 in ministry fund expenses per month ($100,000 a year, plus 36,000 ministry expense), etc.

Also pastors will just simply cut off a missionary after 3 or 4 years of deputation. So the system IS SELF-CORRECTING if pastors are attentive to how much their missionaries are making, and how long they are in the US. Some missionaries are very deceptive and closed on these details of their lives. Secondly, his pastor of his home sending church can help him decide. Usually the pastor has to promote his missions program, and he finds it hard when the missionary makes too much money and his church members find out about.

How much help does a mission board give in relation to finances? Having lived both under a mission board and a local church situation, I do not see where anything financial that a mission board does is better or different that what a local church does. Concerning setting a support level, this is best left up to the missionary. He can write missionaries on that field of service, visit the field before deputation is over and get a good idea of how much money he needs to do the work. He knows his situation with the churches he visits and can gauge what he can raise and how much time he has to do it in. Unfortunately, mission boards either set his support too low (causing him great economic problems and a general hindrance to the work altogether), or they set it too high forcing him to stay in the states and raise support when he could be on the field serving. When the missionary is in control of this, he does what he has to do, and what his supporters force him to do. Without being on the field working, he has no reason to get support money. So he is under the constant watch and pressure of churches and pastors to do something for the money they are sending him. Churches do not like to see missionaries too long in the states, and they will simply drop his support (often without advising him beforehand or afterwards).

The problems of retirement, special financial needs, sickness, etc. In the matter of retirement, churches who do not want to hear about difficult situations have pushed mission boards to demand missionaries to raise money for retirements, more money for medical insurance, etc. The bottom line is that this does not help matters at all, but rather complicates things. When churches get to the point where they do not want to help Christian brethren in need (Matthew 25:32-46), and especially when there is a special need, then we are in a sad shape. Christ seems to make it very clear that those who refuse to respond to a brother in need simply are not saved. The way that God has set up for us to deal with crises and emergencies is not insurance and money in the bank, but trusting in God to provide for our needs, or God giving us grace to endure whatever. Christians are to respond to brethren in need and crisis, and the Christians that are most heavily obligated in this matter are those in that particular local church where the Christian in need congregates. The exception would seem to be for missionaries who experience problems out in the foreign mission field. We cannot build other constructs to get around what God has set up and how God has ordered things.

Moreover the flipside of this is bad also. Missionaries have become beggars and liars, in that they do not trust in God but rather "work the crowd" to get money, often making boasts of things that just are not a correct take on the situation, i.e. a lie or falsehood. They experience a constant crisis or emergency always begging for money. In a church situation, the brethren see through this and give nothing to him. But in missions, these people get all the attention and funds.

(4) Checking up on Missionaries - "Mission boards can visit their missionaries better than a local church can."

It is interesting to consider how people would react if pastors were placed under the same "checking up on you" mentality as missionaries. Few pastors would accept this at all. Why? Because they are like CEOs, people who are leaders that had better know what they are doing, or get out of leadership. It is like if we have parent checkups, where somebody comes in and checks up on how you are raising your kids. There is a self-responsibility, an autonomy to the local church work that resists external people coming in and assuming authority and messing up everything.

Missionary Checkups don't work. The bottom line here is that mission boards could use their resources to visit their missionaries in an orderly and logical manner, but they don't and it is really impossible. Consider a typical mission board with 100 missionary families spread out over the world. If you had 4 couples in the administration of the mission board to just visit missionaries, that would be 25 missionaries each to visit. They would have to visit an average of 2 per month. When a missionary gets a visit from the home office, seldom does the visitor speak the language of the people of that field, and usually he comes for a week to a few days, and he is the guest preacher. This may help as far as encouraging the missionary, but it does not do anything for detecting problems in that missionary's family, personal life, nor ministry. These problems cannot be detected by such a visit unless the problems are well advanced and are in the stage of open festering. The mission representative has to juggle what each missionary is doing on each field, and try to keep straight dozens and dozens of people and situations. Even if he discerns something wrong, how can he counsel and "fix it" in just a few days. This is difficult for pastors to do in the course of year, and now the mission board representative is going to do it overnight, when the mission administrator usually has never had any experience at pastoral counseling. Like that is going to happen. Right.

When pastors visit missionaries on the field, they usually are interested in these missionaries and have been closely following their missionaries through prayer letters and emails with them. They usually tend to have more of a friendship relationship with the missionary, knowing the missionary and his family personally, and a mission board representative is one of reading reports and seldom reading prayer letters. My experience is that pastors read my prayer letters and want to know more details of what I am doing. Mission board administrators read my prayer letter and "suggest" I cut it down to a half or quarter of a page. If the pastor has a relationship with the missionary such that they can both talk over problems and situations in the ministry, they approach each other as equals, and there is not that natural defensiveness ("don't tell and nobody will know" syndrome) when dealing with a representative from the home office. Moreover, the pastor is usually a person concerned about people, not so concerned about image or the "organization". 

My experience with pastors over the years has been that the majority of them want one thing from me as a missionary, for me to be fruitful, productive, and in God's will. My experience with mission board executives over the years (including several other boards I was not associated with) is that they want their missionaries to be loyal supporters of the board, not causing them embarrassment nor shame, but providing them with bragging material (how many won to the Lord, how many buildings put up, how many churches started, etc.). The difference is subtle but real. 

If you do not promote the mission board, you eventually get neglected or out of sorts with the board. You are not a "team player". You get skipped over for the niceties that the board gives to missionaries from time to time. You are on the outside even though you are one of them. This feeling of being excluded, being "all alone out there", is a deep problem in missionaries on the field as is, and to receive this kind of treatment from "their own group" causes a tremendous harm to the missionary.

(5) Promotion - Mission boards can promote missions better than a local church can.

This truly shows the spirit of modern missions. It has to be promoted, as in a Madison Avenue, Public Relations, kind of way. No longer can we rely on the simple fact that God calls men into the ministry, God pays for what He orders, and beyond that, God answers prayer, and God moves God's people to pray and financially support missions. We leave God out of missions, and that is why we have the mess we are in today.

If local churches are highly involved in evangelism, teaching, making disciples, and planting biblical local churches in their own area, then it is logical that they will promote the same outside their area. Promotion here would mean the praying for workers and works, the raising of money for workers and works, and the sending of people to the foreign field. What more kind of promotion is necessary or biblical?

The bottom line here is that mission boards poorly promote missions, and heavily promote mission organizations. You promote a man's ministry by letting him minister, letting him preach and teach. Mission boards are grudging when it comes to giving their missionaries speaking opportunities if a mission's administrator can do the job instead. Giving money to a mission board does not get the job done on the foreign field. What it does is support a stateside US organization. Donations to mission boards are always 100 per cent taken from missions funds that otherwise would have gone to real missionaries and not the "vapor" (it appears to be something there but there isn't) missionary ministry that a mission board is.

We need to understand that the only way the Lord's work will go forward is if godly men and women will sacrifice, go into the harvest, and dedicate themselves to winning people to the Lord, and staying with those converts until they are discipled, stable, mature church members that themselves are in the ministry, organizing these converts in the Bible mandated structure, a biblical local church. Clubs, schools, orphanages, nor any other human construct will not work. A local church must be the structure that we funnel all converts into. There is no other way of "doing the ministry".

Last Modified: 04/23/06