As of now, there are still 2251 languages with nothing of the Bible translated. America has been blessed with many resources, a high amount of education opportunities, and a ton of wealth (we are still rich whether we are in a recession or not). America could singlehandedly provide every remaining language on earth with a Bible without even noticing a loss to our congregations or wealth. One website noted that we have more missionaries working with the 400,000 Alaskans than the 1 billion Muslims in the world (80% have not heard the Gospel), 1 missionary for every 1,000,000 Muslims. Worldwide, an estimated 2,000,000,000 will never hear the Gospel, God’s power to salvation. More than just evangelism, in China an estimated 20,000 new believers are converted every DAY! There is a need for Christians to come who have been trained in sound doctrine lest they are led astray by a false Gospel and false teaching as Paul warned.

At this point we are quite honestly pitiful at sending missionaries. People think they have too much to lose here, and we continue to build a comfortable life, like a foolish soldier who builds a house on the battlefield, thinking he is already home. Right now the SBC is sending out 1 missionary a year from every 300,000 members. I have personaly seen the missions budget of only 2-5% in some of the largest SBC churches. Some spend more on sermon illustrations than sending missionaries to meet these needs. I challenge you for the sake of the Gospel to step it up. Get people personally involved. Set up two budgets, general offering and missions, so that people can see how little they give to missions. People are typically very ignorant of missions, and it would be a beneficial thing to teach them. If you think “we can’t all go”, I assure you will will never reach the problem of too many going. Quite making excuses and waiting for a call that went out 2,000 years ago. We have been given all authority and the power of God in the Gospel to bring life to this dying world and I pray that we would go. We have the resources, the training, and the wealth.

So, yes, missionaries should train up indigenous leaders to lead their people (and there is a great need to trust that once trained, they will be able), but it doesn’t mean we should cut out missionaries to provide for national leaders. It means we need to do both. As I believe I have shown above, there is MUCH work to be done, even if only training up national leadership. This is not just for the sake of world missions, but it provokes them to live more mission-minded here in America as well. Let’s get people excited to be on mission and get personally involved and informed in what God is doing around the world.

Phil N. You bring up some good points but it seems that you miss the point of what missionaries are/do. The question we should be asking is: should cross-cultural ministers (missionaries) be views as different in function/role than pastors. Nationals are not cross-cultural ministers, they are pastors, teachers, etc.

When a US church or denomination decides to financially support a national minister out of their “missions” budget, what does that say about their view of missions? The assumption is that “missions” relates more to the work than the person. Christians cross-boarders to spread the Gospel is not important, it is only important that some type of “work” is being done there. Church planting networks, theological education and pastor training programs and others have managed, in recent years, to by-pass the concept of a cross-cultural worker altogether. People like Rick Warrens suddenly think they are experts at spreading Christ in Africa through nationals because they can build a huge church and sell millions of books int he US.

Building up people who will leave their home country in the name of spreading the Gospel is devalued because accomplishing, or more like taking credit for, the “work” is more important. Because the “work” is more important than the people doing it, pragmatism wins out. The question I have for all us ministers: are you more concerned that your church is simply “doing” something mission like in another country or that your church is actually discipleling and training people who are willing to go? If your answer is not the latter I am afraid that we will soon run out of American Christians that are willingly to do anything.

I agree completely. Having talked with you about this type of thing before, I know that we see eye to eye here. I have just recently been in discussions with IMB missionaries where their concerns over partnering with nationals were expressed very vocally, but they never considered what they themselves were doing or if it was hindering the spread of the gospel in any way. If we look at both sides of this, the only way that we can blindly accept what Americans (who are fully funded by American churches) do while simultaneosly reject supporting indigenous workers is to believe that the indigenous workers are somehow inherently inferior to the American workers, or that they simply cannot be trusted. Your ability to see both sides of this is fully expected by me, yet refreshing considering the implications of this discussion.

By the way, I’m not saying that it is wrong to fully fund American missionaries through the IMB. I want that to be clear. But, this argument cuts both ways if we are not careful.

I also wanted to point out another area in which the church tends to outsource the great commission. It isn’t healthy to blindly send money to a professional missionary any more than it is to blindly send money to a national.

I’m of the opinion that fully-funded workers aren’t a bad thing if God has led a church to prayerfully and strategically make that decision. Same goes for national believers, international business, or social/humanitarian work.

Great discussion.

I am sensitive to issues of dependency. I understand that and I agree that it is a concern. But, my point is that we send a missionary family overseas and they often live in a nice house with servants and drive a nice Range Rover and have a motorcycle and spend a lot of time in villages with some people that they are training and they leave every 6 weeks to 3 months for a meeting somewhere else, all the while claiming to be “consultants” for some pretend business while churches in the States pay their full salary and expenses. The people that the missionaries are training see all of this and think that all of this is necessary to do the ministry and then hear that THEY should not be supported because it could create “dependency” issues in their lives. If they are going to be supported, it should be by their own people. So, the indigenous workers, who have no money, walk 14 kilometers a day through the mountains to visit people and do their work, all the while, the Americans speed past them in the Range Rovers on the way to a meeting or to pick up a team visiting from the States who have paid thousands of dollars for a 2 week sight-seeing tour/prayerwalk.

The IMB missionaries are often culturally and socioeconomically as far away from the people as they can possibly be. I’ve been overseas. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen all of this. They are completely dependent upon Stateside support, resources, and logistics. It just rings hollow to hear about creating dependency issues among national workers when IMB missionaries are often very dependent and also very much “other” from not only the lost in their country, but also the believers there because of how many of them live on the field.

I’m not begruding the missionaries of anything, by the way. I’m not against them having what they need to do the ministry and I don’t think that they should live in abject poverty. My point is just that Americans going to countries like India and living the way that they do while supported by churches in the States can create a massive problem for the indigenous believers as well. We brush that aside and only focus on the problems related to dependency, while at the same time, constantly asking for more money to put more full-time missionaries on the field that are supported by churches back in the States.

Does anyone else see what I’m talking about here? I’m not anti-IMB at all. This isn’t even a complaint. I am just saying that the problem goes both ways and saying that we should not support indigenous workers for $150 a month while we SHOULD support IMB missionaries for $3000 per month comes across a little strange to me. Unless we are saying that Americans are inherently superior and more capable than indigenous workers and proper relationships are impossible between American believers and indigenous workers, I don’t understand why it is wrong for one and proper for the other.

“Stuck inside their own culture, they are unable to see key strategies for cultural translation of the gospel. Like Michael Carpenter always says, it’s like asking a fish to describe the water he’s swimming in…”

This is true from within the US as well, I think. We’ve just moved to South Jersey from Arizona (after being in the latter for six years) and have seen the benefit of being an “outsider” in a very established “traditional” religious culture.

We see things others don’t.

But at the same time, as I am sure you realize, there are tons of things we simply don’t see, and don’t “get” as newcomers. It has been important that we form partnerships and a team of people who can help us with our blind sides.

Perhaps the key is no matter where God calls you as a missionary, you recognize it is His church He is building, and we are His servants.

I love Newbigin’s analysis along these lines.

Thanks again for writing.

That is why we do not see supporting foreign missionaries as a problem – they are being supported by their home churches who have sent them out.

So it is not so much an issue of “full-time” pastors vs tentmaking, but rather a question of who funds and sustains the national church. There is good evidence to suggest that significant, ongoing reliance on funds from “outside” has undesirable effects stunting and in some cases corrupting national churches.

I am also reminded of John Nevius’ seminal work on “The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches”. It is back in print again, and it is amazing how Nevius nails on the head the pitfalls of supporting national workers (especially early on).

I’ve done a couple of posts related to this topic that you may find of interest. “Are Long Term Missionaries Obsolete?” (http://bit.ly/30G3ml), and “Should All Missionaries be Tentmakers?” (http://twit.ac/pmXM)

One other thing: If we are going to say this about the work of nationals, should we count their baptisms? How many of the baptisms that IMB missionaries claim each year are actually performed by nationals and national churches? 90%? 95%? More? If we are going to claim their baptism numbers, maybe we should look at them a bit differently. We feel as though we have the right to be full-time, but they don’t. Why is that? We have Christian institutions, but they can’t. Why is that?

I agree with all that you have said here about the dangers of working with nationals, but there are also many good believers that our money WOULD do better to support. I guess that the real necessity is to be led by the Holy Spirit and walk through the doors that God opens for you as you try to impact lostness around the world.

The only thing I would “counter” with, if I may call it that, is this: At some point the national church has to succeed or fail on its own. And then they need to become a sending body. That’s what I understand of the Bible at least. So while I would submit that your post is applicable early on, someday it shouldn’t be true, right?