One main objection to actually doing mission work is whether the sponsoring church can afford to support the missionary. This deters many churches from sponsoring, while others are content to sponsor a missionary without contibuting to his support. Both of those approaches are wrong. A church ought to be willing to sponsor a missionary, and should contribute to that missionary's support.
Of course, supporting a missionary's financial need is a daunting task. There is his salary, money for materials so he can send out reports (paper, ink, envelopes and stamps), facilities for worship, money for incidental expenses, and you'll want to have a promotional budget as well (I know Paul didn't have a promotional budget, he didn't have a radio ministry either, but both are great tools to communicate God's message to the masses.) The sponsoring church should be willing to contribute to these needs, but few sponsoring churches have the finances to provide for all these needs (afterall, the sponsoring church also needs to pay its bills and keep the lights turned on). So, (to quote a famous philospoher) what to do about what to do?
This is where the association can step in and assist the sponsoring church. The Texas state association and the ABA have mission funds designed to assist in the payment of missionary salaries, freeing up other support to be used to aid the new mission.
The courtesy is, however, if you plan on asking the association for assistance, to support the mission efforts of the association. If you think your church may ever sponsor a missionary, the best plan is to begin the support of associational missions today. It's not required, and you'll likely never be asked how much you support state/interstate/foreign missions, but supporting the very associations you ask assistance from is a mark of integrity.
If you feel that God wants your church to request support from the ABA, or the Texas state association for your missionary, the best course of action is to contact the secretary-treasurer of that association (ABA is Randy Cloud, Texas state is Marion Reed. They are in the book). I have spoken with both men, and can tell you that both will be extremely helpful in helping you pray about mission support, and both will be happy to guide you through the process of requesting support from the association. They are your friends.
Some things to note about mission support:
1. In both associations, missionaries who request full-salary are required to be full-time missionaries and thus should carry no secular employment.
2. In both associations (ABA and Texas state), sponsoring churches of missionaries who request full-salary are required to contribute 20 percent of that missionary's salary. Basically, if the full salary is 3,000, the association will pay $2,400, while the sponsoring church is to come up with the remaining $600 (which can either be mailed directly to the missionary, or to the association. The secretary treasurers would prefer it be mailed through the association for accountability purposes. I prefer it be sent directly to the missionary (reduces steps in getting the funds to the field, but I'm okay with sending it through the association).
When most churches see that $600 (or whatever 20% is, it is actually closer to $800 in Texas), they immediately think "we can't afford that!" That's not true. The association (both ABA and Texas state) allows sponsoring churches to collect money from supporting churches to help raise that $600/month. So, the sponsoring church could contribute $150, and have three or four other churches contribute $450. There you have your 20%. These funds can easily be raised on deputation. Seriously, if a missionary can't raise $600-$800/month on deputation, then either God is not calling him to this work, or God wants him to work without support. I recommend support from sister churches send their part of the support to the sponsoring church, who will then meet the obligation to the association.
3. In Texas, if a missionary requests half-salary, the sponsoring church is not required to put up 20%, and the missionary can work a secular job. This is actually highly recommended by some, but there are pros and cons to both full and half-salary. I'll list those at another time.
In the ABA, if a missionary requests half-salary, then the sponsoring church is responsible for 20% of the amount of half-salary, and the missionary can work part time.
4. Both the Texas state and ABA associations have deadlines for requesting mission support, which is usually 60 days prior to the messenger meeting. Do your best to honor this deadline. If you don't, your missionary will likely face additional scrutiny on the floor of the meeting and may be rejected.
5. Associational fund balances are healthy, but heavily burdened. For this reason, it is important for the sponsoring church and missionary to see associational support as being a short-term solution. It's not a long-term salary or a retirement fund. It is financial relief to get missionaries on the field and churches planted. I recommend planning on weening yourself off of associational support within three years.
Questions, complaints, comments? Post them here or email me.
4 comments:
OK my friend, I'll poke the bear.
I can't help but think that we would be a completely different association today, if we would have never allowed associational missionaries. So many of our churches see mission work as our associations work and not our churches work.
It has done great good, but in the long run, it had been a mistake.
Thanks for poking the bear! This blog was getting boring.
The problem with our association is not the mission program, but rather the fact that more and more churches are becoming inwardly focused. One group of churches is focused primarily on church growth, and their focus is on bigger buildings, better facilities, more visibility and more community involvement (which is actually a good thing.) I have no problem with a church being proactive concerning local evangelism, but many of these churches are pushing missions to the back page... some barely support any missions.
Then, another group is isolating themselves, convinced that they are the last few remaining faithful, and everyone else has gone the way of compromise and worldliness.
Then, there's the missional group.
While I can see how associational mission programs could lead churches to think that missions is the association's business, the fact is that fewer than 40% of Texas ABA churches support the state's missions program. (I bet that the national association has a lower support rate). That doesn't signal delegation, IMO, it signals derelection. (Then again, the remaining 60% might very well be sending the support directly to the missionaries. However, I have come into contact with more than one church who had for sometime not been supporting any phase of missions.)
The perfect scenario would be each church sending out a missionary, fully funding him, and the assocation provide more of a fellowship role. That's how it should be, but not how things are in reality.
Bro Leland. There are very few Churches in the ABA that can afford to fully support a Missionary. That is the very reason that I am strongly in favor of upbuilding local Churches. We should never do this and not support Missions. But it should be a complemantry thing. Build up the Churches so that they can in turn support Missions more. Marlin Freeman
I agree. We should be building up the Lord's churches, but how many churches are only trying to build themselves up and disregard missions?
The ideal scenario would be that all churches could fully fund their missionaries. However, that is not the scenario. You deal with things as they are, not as they should be.
Since most churches can not fully fund a missionary, I see the association as playing a vital role in assisting local churches with financial resources for their missionaries. However, if most churches are not supporting the association's missions program, then how long will that fund last?
I'm endangering my own support here, but I have a question. We have some in our associated work who feel guilty that our association has a healthy bank balance. They don't feel that we should have that much in reserve, and they are calling for sister churches to reduce support to the associational mission fund, and some are even calling for us to expend most of the balance on various enterprises (buildings, land, bailouts, etc etc).
These same voices are also calling on all men to pray that God would call more men to the mission field.
My question is, what happens if both of these requests are honored? What if the missions balances get expended, then God calls a multitude of men to the mission fields? We'd be in a hard place. "Well, God will provide," some say, but He already has. Let's not feel guilty of our balances.
Let's just have faith that God has already answered our prayers for more men to go to the mission field, they just haven't emerged yet. Furthermore, let's just have faith that God has already provided for what He's about to do... and let's be good stewards of that provision.
Post a Comment