Recently I visited a church that belongs to a large denomination that pays the salaries of their missionaries. As a result of the cooperative effort by associated churches, missionaries within this bureaucratic structure do not have to “pound the pavement,” i.e. solicit support from churches and individuals for support overseas ministry. An appointed missionary within this structure receives a salary, retirement benefits, medical coverage and everything on the field is paid for (housing, vehicle, etc.). In contrast, myself, like the vast majority of missionaries on the field, function on what is called “faith support,” which means, that the individual missionary and family must raise their own support and whatever the budget is must go from church-to-church, home-to-home, finding people who will partner with them in their ministry. There is no cost efficiency in either one of the plans. Though the budget of faith missionaries may be slightly less than salaried people, the cost of doing business overseas is basically the same.
Secretly I have always envied salaried missionaries. I’ve often wondered what it would be like not to worry about inflation, rate of exchange of currency, finding affordable housing, purchasing a vehicle, insurance or donor attrition (trying to maintain support is a lifelong occupation). When you are in the faith support program it feels like you are asking people and churches to support “you,” whereas salaried people are compensated for the work they do.
Strategically I don’t believe salaried missionaries are any more effective than faith supported people. Indeed, as is the true of many bureaucratic structures, salaried people sometimes are less creative as they are placed in a job-to-do and unless they have seniority are unable to think outside the box until it goes through endless committees for approval.
The weakness of faith missions, though it does allow for more autonomy, is that there is often less accountability. Because so many people are not trained for cross-cultural work, programs and projects are often not well thought and tend to reflect the needs of the missionary than the needs of the host country. Evangelistic outreach, youth camps, feeding programs, schools and even partnering with the nationals sometimes is designed to justify the presences on foreign missionaries more than a strategy of missions.
Since we don’t live in a perfect world neither salaried nor faith missionaries has the advantage. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. What is important is that each missionary, no matter how they live and serve on the field, is that they be responsible to their calling. It truly matters to me what others may think about my job performance, but their evaluation is less important than my own assessment in missions. This self-evaluation can be deceptive as we all have a tendency to justify our work. Being faithful is important, but being faithful doesn’t mean I can just do anything (or nothing) and declare it a work of God. How one gauges effectiveness is often subjective, but it can’t be an excuse for not having a clearly defined role. At the end of each day the question has to be asked, “Have I done anything today, even if it’s as mundane as learning language, read an article or taught a class, to advance the Kingdom?” It’s a question that every missionary needs to ask, whether they are salaried or live on faith support.
