Byrnesys Blabberings

To continue our 21st Century Missions series, Trevin Wax who blogs over at Kingdom People has been good enough to write the fourth response in the series that has dealt with the approach to finance in mission. You can find the rest of the posts from the series so far here. I asked Trevin to share a little about himself before we got started:

My name is Trevin Wax. I’m currently serving as Associate Pastor for Education and Missions at First Baptist Church in Shelbyville, TN. From 2000-2005, I attended a Christian university in Oradea, Romania and participated in mission work in city and village churches in that area. I bought a one-way ticket to Romania as a nineteen-year-old in September of 2000, spent several months learning the language, and then the rest of my time in Romania serving in local churches. In Romania, I met my wife (Corina) and we were married in December 2002.

In considering financial support for missionaries to what extent do you think it is important for both the supporter and supported to think about the support as theological endorsement?

It is more important for the supporter to agree with the missionary’s theology, than vice versa. For example, there may be a convinced Baptist missionary on the field in Africa and a baptistic, non-denominational church in the U.S. may decide to support him. The Baptist missionary can accept the funds from the non-Baptist supporter as long as both positions are clearly identified. It would be inappropriate for the supporter to ask the missionary to change his/her convictions in order to receive support… If the supporter has a theological problem with the missionary’s strategy or teaching, then the supporter should find and support someone else who lines up better with the ministry’s beliefs.

I do not think it is wrong for a supporter to stop funding a missionary in case of theological error or difference. It is naive to think that a supporter should have no say in what takes place in the life of the missionary. If the supporters are financially invested, they should also have the right to take stock of the missionary efforts they are supporting.

Of course, the relationship between missionary and supporter is flexible. At times, the supporter may understand that the cultural context calls for an unusual strategy. I usually recommend that supporters yield to the people on the field when it comes to cultural questions. For example, most Baptist churches in the United States have a public invitation at the end of a service. In Romania, there is no ‘altar’ to call people to, and regular services are discipleship-oriented, not evangelistic. Therefore, a public invitation makes little sense in the Romanian context. It would be wrongheaded for a Baptist in the U.S. to demand that the missionary have an altar call in every service in Romania… This, of course, is not a theological dilemma necessarily, but a question of praxis. Should the supporter make such a demand, the missionary can either comply (somewhat awkwardly, considering the Romanian culture) or decide to find a supporter who is more flexible in issues of culture.

There is an increased awareness in Churches today that the mission field is also their local community, some are saying this is resulting in a drop in financial support being directed to International missions? To what extent do you think this is a good or bad change?

If we are no longer supporting international missions, it’s a bad thing. If we can uphold our commitment to international missions and at the same time understand that our mission field is in our backyard, then it is great to have a heightened awareness that we live in a post-Christian, increasingly pagan context. There is no reason why we should not hold both of these together. A passion for international missions can actually light the fire for mission efforts back home in the local community. At the same time, local missions should lead to mission efforts around the world. Missions need to become glocal – both in the backyard and around the globe. Putting local missions and global missions together helps us see the dynamic of the transnational kingdom we belong to.

Many are suggesting that the traditional conception of missionaries and those who ‘Go’ and are financially supported needs to be revised to a more self sustaining bi-vocational model akin to Paul’s tent making enterprise, Is this a realistic model in all contexts? What would be the grounds in your opinion for advocating an approach to missions which is based entirely on financial support?

I’m not sure we need to make this "either-or." There are many missionaries around the world funded by mission agencies, but who also do a job throughout the week in their country of residence (teach English, carpentry, business, etc.) Of course, the missionary’s job makes their stay in a place like China credible and lawful. I would be careful in assuming that Paul’s tent-making necessarily means that he was bivocational. One of the reasons he made tents was so that no one could claim he was sponging off the Christian churches. He makes it clear, though, that he could have and actually deserved their full financial support. 

In some places, bivocational work actually increases the effectiveness of the mission work. Consider rural farming communities. Working the land gives a missionary a credibility that he or she would not have if she drove up in a Volkswagen twice a week to hold services. In other places, bivocational work decreases a missionary’s effectiveness. Some missionaries are there to coordinate mission teams, strategize about reaching certain people groups, and work at the macro-level, not merely individual to individual. In that case, having to be bivocational would take out much of the time that would be better spent in actual mission work.

It depends on the context. I’m leery of those who would have us ditch one strategy completely and embrace another. We need different strategies for different places. Different missionaries have different callings.

In your opinion what claim does a financial supporter have on a missionary, in terms of communication, accountability, and authority?

I think it is vital that a financial supporter hold a missionary accountable. If an agency is funding a missionary, they have every right to make sure their money is being put to good use and is being spent wisely. To say otherwise would be abandoning the Christian call to good stewardship. I recommend that mission agencies check up on their missionaries, ask for frequent reports, know of the missionary’s schedule.

That said, I believe that both the missionary and the agency or supporter should trust each other. You don’t want a supporter micromanaging the mission from afar. I am not talking about being so detailed that there is no flexibility. It is important, however, for a mission agency to communicate with a missionary and to know what the mission is and how it is being accomplished. Missionaries that are held accountable by their supporters are much more effective than those who are not. Furthermore, they have recourse in case they are ever accused of manipulating funds or wasting time.

What are the foundational concepts which effect the way in which you ‘raise’ financial support? Do you ask for financial needs directly? Or do you not make people aware of financial need and trust that God will provide?

I did not raise financial support. For two years before I went to Romania, I worked and saved money so that I could support myself. Every summer, I came home and worked for several months and then lived off those funds when I returned to Romania. A few church members who knew me would help me financially occasionally by sending a gift. My church occasionally sent money, or an anonymous donation would come in.

But my mission work was unique in that I needed little money to actually do missions. I only needed money in order to live in the city or village like everyone else. My mission work was involved in local churches. I was not responsible for funding building projects, major church activities and the like. Had I been responsible for such projects, I assume I would have needed more financial support.