Missions Gamechangers in 2018: Fundraising

Mark Vowels, CGO Director

This continues our series on things that could change missions in 2018.

​It takes money to do missionary work. It takes money to get to the field, stay on the field, work on the field, and return from the field. This is true for both short-term missions and career missions.

Since the dawn of the so-called modern missionary era in the time of William Carey, most missionary activity takes place because donors voluntarily offer money to send missionaries. Prior to this epoch of missionary history, a great deal of missionary effort was funded by the labors of the missionaries themselves as they used their skills to work on their fields of service.

In our day, the financing of missions is undergoing a potentially-dramatic shift which could threaten the status quo and change the way we send missionaries to their field of ministry. Before thinking of what is causing this shift and what the ramifications may be, let’s pause to ask – what is the biblical pattern for financing missionary outreach?
As we look to the New Testament, we see three sources of missionary financing.

1. First, in some cases, funds were provided by churches which supported the work of the paradigmatic missionary, Paul the Apostle. The Philippian church sent money to Paul on several occasions (Philippians 4:15-16). Paul assumed that it was the responsibility of the church at Rome to help him in his proposed gospel expedition to Spain (Romans 15:24), and the Corinthian church to fund his return voyage to Judea (2 Corinthians 1:16). In 2 Corinthians 11:8, he described having received money from churches (which ones are not specified) in order to accomplish his ministry in Corinth. And while the text never specifies that the church in Antioch funded Paul’s journeys, it seems safe to assume that they gave some financial backing to his work (Acts 13:3; 15:3).
2. Second, there were times when individuals gave money to fund the spread of the Gospel. Most of the money needed to fund Jesus’ earthly ministry apparently came from individual donors (Luke 8:1-3), and He sent out His disciples with instructions to humbly receive offerings from anyone who was willing to give (Luke 10:7-8). This is speculation, but I wonder whether wealthy individuals such as Lydia in Philippi also gave money to Paul to help him as he continued his outreach to the next city (Acts 16:40).
3. Finally, there were times when the great missionary Paul had to work to support himself and his team (Acts 18:2-3; 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8).

Our current system of missionary deputation and faith missions has worked relatively well for many years, but it is not a system that is demanded by Scripture. That is not to say that it is contrary to Scripture; not at all. But it is not expected by Scripture, and so there is no point in defending that methodology as being somehow the one right way to do things. The traditional approach to which we are accustomed has served us well, but it is, in fact, only a method based on functional principles and practices that has worked relatively well for many years.

The stark reality that confronts many people today who are trying to raise money to go to the mission field is that it is increasingly difficult to secure adequate funds in a reasonable period of time. Average times for completing missionary deputation seem to grow longer and longer. Most churches are giving everything they can and a decade or more of slow economic growth means that most church missionary budgets have not expanded in recent years.

In addition to economic factors, there are some sociological factors that are presently affecting missionary financing.

1. First, many churches want to become more directly engaged with doing missions, not just funding missions. That means that they use money from their missions budgets to send teams to the mission field and to get involved with what God is doing in other parts of the world. They recognize that part of the way they disciple their people at home to live missionally is to involve them in missions away from home. The more money that churches expend to do missions directly, the less they have to finance more missionaries.
2. A second primary factor is a shift in thinking among donors and potential donors. Many younger donors in particular dislike giving institutionally. Giving to an institution, be it a church or an organization, seems very impersonal and takes the control for how donations are used out of the hands of the giver. Therefore, a growing number of donors are eager to give directly to a favored missionary. They want to give because they have a personal relationship with the recipient, not because he or she is someone to whom their church has made a commitment. Also, someone who has a relationship with the person to whom he is giving, feels a sense of ownership for what is being done with the money. Today, many donors want to have a place at the table for discussing how ministry will be pursued and prioritized. Traditionally, such strategic thinking has been the domain of the “missions professionals,” but more recent leveling within our society encourages donors to have more of a voice in the practice of missions. Rather than resist this shift in perspective, I encourage missionaries and mission agencies to embrace the change and tap into the benefit of creativity and entrepreneurship which results from networked thinking about missionary practice.
3. A third major factor in the shift in missionary financing is the rise of business as mission or tent-making approaches to service on a mission field. In many cases, this shift has been necessary because countries which used to grant missionary visas will no longer do so or because the countries which are home to the world’s least reached peoples are hostile to Christianity and any kind of overt missionary activity. Much of the shift in methodology has also come because using marketable skills in a work environment on the field provides a much more natural platform for interacting with local people about the Gospel. The topic of business as missions and tent-making demands a blog or two of its own, but I think that we are seeing only the front end of a general transition regarding how missionaries access their fields and the platforms that provide their identity on the field. Rather than being the foreign religious leaders (traditional home-supported missionaries), tentmakers might be seen simply as foreigners who live in local neighborhoods and work in local businesses. They provide needed services which in turn secure an avenue for relationships and gospel communication.

Much more could be written about the changes which are taking place in the world of missionary finance. Any attempt to prognosticate the future will at best prove to be only partially correct. In my estimation, the key issue during periods of methodological transition is to carefully examine whether the status quo is biblically necessary and whether the new approach is biblically permissible. We should not promote change for its own sake, but neither should we resist change simply because it’s not the way we have always done things. Always is always a temporary concept! I’m hopeful that great things will come from the shifts that are currently underway.