Should cost be a factor in your ministry decision?
Jan/20/2010 11:54
Money. Moolah. The almighty dollar. Many a missionary decision has revolved around the subject of money and ultimately where to go. For many years, perhaps since the 1960’s the decision to minister in cheaper locales (like the 10-40 window) has unfortunately been driven by cost, not by command causing many places to be neglected. While we’ve never been beaten over the head because of our choice of ministry location, we have experienced a backlash from those questioning our decision to work and minister in Europe because of the cost. We’ve heard things like:
“Why don’t you go to Asia or India where the needs are greater?”
“We only support the 10-40 window because we get more bang for our buck.”
“Europe had their chance, now it's the poorer countries turn.”
Ironically, when I compare the European portion of the Mint map with this map of Western Europe I see an interesting correlation; those places that we’ve labeled “too
Ultimately, I believe the question comes down to a matter of obedient faith. Do we trust God to care for us no matter where we go by being obedient to the command to go into all the world? Does Christ elevate poorer places because of their poverty to the exclusion of richer places. Has cost played a factor in your choosing where to minister? Explain why or why not in the comments.
0 Comments
The Hardest Math Lesson to Learn
Jan/15/2010 15:48
As I’ve learned about myself and seen in others, we missionaries tend to run a bit on the dramatic side. We like stats and numbers, especially when they favor our cause because they make things sound dramatically urgent. However, we also have a bad habit of sweeping those numbers under the rug when things are not as bad as we thought. Admittedly, there have been times in my past when my desire to see ministry happen in certain places caused me to pay less attention to the details than I should have. As Ed Stetzer discovered in his Christianity Today article Curing Christians' Stats Abuse, I am not alone-
Looking at the facts and choosing to be honest with the numbers about our ministry fields helps clear the air by getting the information right so that we can plan accordingly,“Reports of Christianity's demise in America have been greatly exaggerated. While the main thrust of good research does indicate that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Christians is declining, these data are not necessarily a bad thing. If three out of four Americans call themselves Christians, we are in big trouble. Three out of four Americans certainly do not live like Christians.”
Several years ago, a colleague of mine pulled me aside and pointed out my tendency to be overly-dramatic. Years have passed but I still hear his warning to me: “It’s not simply drama, it’s dishonesty.” In our case, Portugal’s numbers were worse than we thought forcing us to revise our numbers, our materials, and our website down. Sadly, the Portuguese demographical study found that only .08% of the population claimed to be a born-again Christians while only 1/3 of the 84% Roman Catholic population regularly attended mass. Ironically, I’ve felt a weird sense of vindication ever since then... I’ve asked myself since that trip if the numbers had come back better, would I have had the guts to revise my numbers upward possibly threatening support for ministry? I hope so. Readjusting our numbers in order to be honest, not fudging them to provoke drama or coerce money is a hard lesson to learn. But honesty is my (and your) only option. What about you? In your materials, on your blog, on your website, and in your missions presentation, are you honest with your numbers?“In the meantime, bad and misinterpreted data must not convince us that organized Christianity in America is dead and gone. Facts are our friends. The facts tell us that the church in North America is struggling but also, in many places, growing.”
Haiti relief resources
Jan/13/2010 16:38
Here are several options for contributing to the relief effort in Haiti in the name of Jesus. These are well known, respected organizations with long ties to mission and relief work around the globe. True religion, James tells us is looking after widows and orphans. Paul collected money for the Jews starving to death in Jerusalem. Events like these give Christians a opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, demonstrating before an unbelieving world that Jesus is the only way.
*Compassion International
*World Vision
*World Relief
*Faith in Action
Desiring God also lists 8 others that are also helping in the relief effort. You can view their list here.
*Compassion International
*World Vision
*World Relief
*Faith in Action
Desiring God also lists 8 others that are also helping in the relief effort. You can view their list here.
Mission Minded Families
Jan/12/2010 16:53
Is your family a mission-minded family? A new report on cbn.com asked the question of Ann Dunagan, Author of “The Mission Minded Family” to hear her thoughts for writing the book. Consider the following stats:
Interestingly, as missionaries in preparation, it isn’t something I’ve really thought about before. In fact, I’ve never thought about us as a “mission minded family” although this is what we are. Maybe it’s because foreign ministry is just a part of our DNA so we’ve never sat down to scrutinize it? I’m not sure. I wonder if we’re alone in this or if other missionaries feel the same way? Are you a mission-minded family?According to the latest Barna survey, only 11 percent of all churchgoers have been on a short-term missions trip. That’s only 2 percent higher than the overall percentage of Americans who have been on any kind of brief service trip. To make matters worse, the majority of those who have gone on a missions trip did so more than five years ago—
The numbers behind pornography
Jan/11/2010 12:27
Remember, pornography is the symptom, not the root and Jesus is the answer.
(Gizmodo via 9gag.com)
An Open Letter (to your congregation)
Jan/11/2010 08:27
Dear congregation,
This weekend I had a wonderful opportunity to fellowship with around 40 people at the first ever KontaktMission Workers Retreat in Knoxville, Tennessee. This wasn’t a mega conference with thousands of people, vendors, key-note speakers, or publicity. It was a simple gathering of like-minded, missional people concerned about the Great Commission and willing to do whatever or go wherever because of God’s command. You should be proud because the things you are doing in your congregation and teaching from your pulpit God has used to stir up your members to risk everything to save some.
However, as I sat around the table and listened to your members stories, I was saddened to hear that too many of these people were not receiving any support from you, their home congregation. This is exactly the opposite of what we find in scripture. In Acts 11 Paul and Barnabas were teaching and ministering for a full year with success and growth in Antioch but in Acts 13 they were set apart by the Holy Spirit to be sent out from the Antioch congregation for their first missionary journey. How can it be that scripture shows one thing but you’re doing another? In fact, let me ask another question: Why would you rather support someone you’ve never met, haven’t trained, with unknown work habits, unknown theology, and unknown family life versus someone you’ve trained, taught, discipled, cared for, counseled, and watched their family, life, and ministry? Why support strangers when you can send from your own flock?
Another disappointment from my discussions with your members was the level of frustration they felt because you were not open to the Lord’s leading in establishing where your congregation should work. Many, many people I spoke with said that you had denied them support because their location choice was different than the mission committee’s choice. I don’t think it is wrong to choose a mission location but perhaps God desires a different location if he’s setting apart your people for a place or a people? Consider how Acts 15 would have turned out if the Jerusalem council had decided that the church was only going to work with the Jews and cut off Paul and Barnabas’s ministry? Some of your choices-by-committee are killing the missionary vision in places where the gospel is needed. Compelling cases based on need are everywhere because the need is great everywhere. Open your mind and expand your vision so that you don’t miss God’s choice.
John Piper wrote that “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” I believe that God wants to do an amazing work through your congregation but I also believe that you’re missing tremendous opportunities by overlooking your own people and never considering where God might be sending them. Is the exaltation of Christ and the unceasing worship of his name by all peoples the basis for your mission or has your missions committee decided on something else? If it's the latter, let me suggest you rethink and readjust. You might be surprised by the opportunities that arise.
In Him,
Kevin@outpoured
This weekend I had a wonderful opportunity to fellowship with around 40 people at the first ever KontaktMission Workers Retreat in Knoxville, Tennessee. This wasn’t a mega conference with thousands of people, vendors, key-note speakers, or publicity. It was a simple gathering of like-minded, missional people concerned about the Great Commission and willing to do whatever or go wherever because of God’s command. You should be proud because the things you are doing in your congregation and teaching from your pulpit God has used to stir up your members to risk everything to save some.
However, as I sat around the table and listened to your members stories, I was saddened to hear that too many of these people were not receiving any support from you, their home congregation. This is exactly the opposite of what we find in scripture. In Acts 11 Paul and Barnabas were teaching and ministering for a full year with success and growth in Antioch but in Acts 13 they were set apart by the Holy Spirit to be sent out from the Antioch congregation for their first missionary journey. How can it be that scripture shows one thing but you’re doing another? In fact, let me ask another question: Why would you rather support someone you’ve never met, haven’t trained, with unknown work habits, unknown theology, and unknown family life versus someone you’ve trained, taught, discipled, cared for, counseled, and watched their family, life, and ministry? Why support strangers when you can send from your own flock?
Another disappointment from my discussions with your members was the level of frustration they felt because you were not open to the Lord’s leading in establishing where your congregation should work. Many, many people I spoke with said that you had denied them support because their location choice was different than the mission committee’s choice. I don’t think it is wrong to choose a mission location but perhaps God desires a different location if he’s setting apart your people for a place or a people? Consider how Acts 15 would have turned out if the Jerusalem council had decided that the church was only going to work with the Jews and cut off Paul and Barnabas’s ministry? Some of your choices-by-committee are killing the missionary vision in places where the gospel is needed. Compelling cases based on need are everywhere because the need is great everywhere. Open your mind and expand your vision so that you don’t miss God’s choice.
John Piper wrote that “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.” I believe that God wants to do an amazing work through your congregation but I also believe that you’re missing tremendous opportunities by overlooking your own people and never considering where God might be sending them. Is the exaltation of Christ and the unceasing worship of his name by all peoples the basis for your mission or has your missions committee decided on something else? If it's the latter, let me suggest you rethink and readjust. You might be surprised by the opportunities that arise.
In Him,
Kevin@outpoured
Portugal's Homosexual Mistake [u]
Jan/09/2010 11:49
In February of 2006 Portugal blocked the “marriage” of a lesbian couple challenging the country’s judicial position to not legally recognize their union. I remember the decision and supported the court. Yesterday however, Portugal reversed course when the Parliament forced a bill through effectively legally recognizing same-sex unions as “marriages.” Aside from the arguments that help to define what marriage is and isn’t I think that Portugal’s decision to legally recognize this is wrong. This is why:
Usually, the issue boils down to the idea of “equal rights” for all people. The problem is that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are not equal by definition. One produces offspring, the other does not. It is in the government’s best interest to protect and aid stable, healthy, heterosexual unions because they produce offspring that ensure the survivability of the people and government. For example, future generations of stable, healthy individuals contribute to the economy through work and taxes, contribute to the safety of that country by providing military might, contribute to the furthering of that country’s unique language and culture through education, art, commerce, and food. By removing the protection and “uniqueness” of stable, healthy, heterosexual unions, Governments undermine their own survivability. As I’ve written before, this is not a moral issue it’s a public issue.
[Update]
After my post last week, this news item appeared in my news reader: “Portuguese Split on Same-Sex Marriage” by the Angus-Reid Global Monitor. What I find interesting are two stats: First, that Jose Socrates and his Socialist Party only won 36% of the vote in September 2009. Secondly, that over half of the Portuguese population oppose homosexual “marriage” and that nearly 70% of Portuguese oppose homosexual adoption! The fact that such a small coalition government can force the majority of Portuguese people to adopt a bill they oppose speaks volumes.
Usually, the issue boils down to the idea of “equal rights” for all people. The problem is that heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are not equal by definition. One produces offspring, the other does not. It is in the government’s best interest to protect and aid stable, healthy, heterosexual unions because they produce offspring that ensure the survivability of the people and government. For example, future generations of stable, healthy individuals contribute to the economy through work and taxes, contribute to the safety of that country by providing military might, contribute to the furthering of that country’s unique language and culture through education, art, commerce, and food. By removing the protection and “uniqueness” of stable, healthy, heterosexual unions, Governments undermine their own survivability. As I’ve written before, this is not a moral issue it’s a public issue.
Notice that I am not denying homosexual’s the right to make long-term commitments to each other, the right to do things in private that they want, or the right to will their money to their partners. They can do all of those things as they see fit right now without government intervention. Rather, I am trying to make the argument that because these two unions are not equal the government should protect the one that contributes to it’s future through stable, healthy offspring. Beyond those few simple protections, government should stay out of the bedrooms of it’s citizens and leave them to their own lifestyles. Legally equating these two very different unions is wrong and in doing so, Portugal made a big mistake.“Society needs strong, healthy families that naturally produce healthy children for the good of and future of the state. In other words, it is in the state’s best interest (for future tax revenue, military protection, job creation, education, etc.) to protect the institution of marriage. Homosexual couples by natural process do not produce future generations, therefore they should not be privy to the special protections guaranteed to stable heterosexual marriages that do. These protections ought to be denied to them because in this important distinction, they are not equal. This is not intolerance, it is simply stating what is.”
[Update]
After my post last week, this news item appeared in my news reader: “Portuguese Split on Same-Sex Marriage” by the Angus-Reid Global Monitor. What I find interesting are two stats: First, that Jose Socrates and his Socialist Party only won 36% of the vote in September 2009. Secondly, that over half of the Portuguese population oppose homosexual “marriage” and that nearly 70% of Portuguese oppose homosexual adoption! The fact that such a small coalition government can force the majority of Portuguese people to adopt a bill they oppose speaks volumes.
Jots (1/9/2010)
Jan/09/2010 11:24
“The Love for Missions Starts at Home” (Via Desiring God)
Mission Leader posts a list of “Missional” videos all related to the theme of “Films as Mission Tool.” Click here to read more.
Randy Alcorn posted a question on Friday from Doug Nichols who asked “Is God Calling you to Missions?” Read here for his ten ideas on what to look for and here and here for my own ideas.
Mark Rogers on the Gospel Coalition listed 10 ways to Encourage a Missionary on Wednesday. Pretty good list.
Yesterday was the 58-year anniversary of the deaths of Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian in Ecuador. Justin Taylor details the information here.
(Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, Jim Elliot pictured left-to-right)
Speaking Missionese (Revisited)
Jan/03/2010 16:03
Last September I wrote two articles about the use of flowery language using what I called “missionese” and today a conversation after worship reminded me of those articles again. I’m reposting them here in hopes of sparking thought and conversation about the use of this language and to bring to light the words missionaries are using to perpetuate bad theology. Enjoy!
Being around the mission-sphere awhile means that sooner or later you’re exposed to a new way of talking and expression. The “missionese” spoken by and about missionaries is a derivative of “christianese” spoken by millions of Christian adherents especially those of an evangelical stripe. A few years ago Bel Air Drama Department posted a parody on learning to speak Christianese:
Unfortunately, B.A.D.D didn’t go far enough to teach us “missionese,” that strain can only be acquired through language immersion. The problem with “missionese” is that it is perpetuated by normal, well-meaning Christians who through their flowery descriptions paint mission work in celestial phrases. We missionaries are guilty of accepting this praise and then turning it around to describe our own work. Phrases like:
perpetuate the misunderstanding that missional ministry is something you must feel. J. Hudson Taylor once said, “The great Commission is not an option to be considered; it is a command to be obeyed” and I read elsewhere (although I couldn’t find the reference) “who needs a calling when we have a command?” I believe that there is a mentality within Christianity influenced by “missionese” that needs to be corrected. Not every missionary needs to be “led” or “called” only obedient. Not every decision requires confirmation, only opportunity and wisdom. Sometimes missionaries walk through doors that appear to be closed and stay put when doors appear to be opened. Missionaries and those that support them need not be super-spiritual people, simply obedient, humble servants obeying the command to go. So the next time you find yourself “feeling led” to do something for Jesus remember, Jesus “didn’t give you a burden,” he gave you a command.
If you read my post entitled “Speaking Missionese” last week you will know that I believe the modern idea of feeling “called” to missions or “being led to mission work” in-spite of wisdom’s direction or giftedness and opportunity is foreign to the bible. For instance, I would seriously challenge someone’s missional calling to the jungles of Sri Lanka who is married with 3 children and taking care of their invalid mother in Ohio. However I also know that to deny the Holy Spirit’s involvement altogether would be foolish. John Piper had some thoughts on this very issue a few years ago. If you have any sense of a growing desire for mission work read his thoughts.
Is God Calling You to Give Your Life for His Sake and the Gospel in Missions?
Speaking Missionese
Being around the mission-sphere awhile means that sooner or later you’re exposed to a new way of talking and expression. The “missionese” spoken by and about missionaries is a derivative of “christianese” spoken by millions of Christian adherents especially those of an evangelical stripe. A few years ago Bel Air Drama Department posted a parody on learning to speak Christianese:
Unfortunately, B.A.D.D didn’t go far enough to teach us “missionese,” that strain can only be acquired through language immersion. The problem with “missionese” is that it is perpetuated by normal, well-meaning Christians who through their flowery descriptions paint mission work in celestial phrases. We missionaries are guilty of accepting this praise and then turning it around to describe our own work. Phrases like:
- “feeling called”
- “being led”
- “God laid mission work on my heart”
- “having a burden for...”
- “received a confirmation” and
- “the Spirit opened a door”
perpetuate the misunderstanding that missional ministry is something you must feel. J. Hudson Taylor once said, “The great Commission is not an option to be considered; it is a command to be obeyed” and I read elsewhere (although I couldn’t find the reference) “who needs a calling when we have a command?” I believe that there is a mentality within Christianity influenced by “missionese” that needs to be corrected. Not every missionary needs to be “led” or “called” only obedient. Not every decision requires confirmation, only opportunity and wisdom. Sometimes missionaries walk through doors that appear to be closed and stay put when doors appear to be opened. Missionaries and those that support them need not be super-spiritual people, simply obedient, humble servants obeying the command to go. So the next time you find yourself “feeling led” to do something for Jesus remember, Jesus “didn’t give you a burden,” he gave you a command.
Feeling Called
If you read my post entitled “Speaking Missionese” last week you will know that I believe the modern idea of feeling “called” to missions or “being led to mission work” in-spite of wisdom’s direction or giftedness and opportunity is foreign to the bible. For instance, I would seriously challenge someone’s missional calling to the jungles of Sri Lanka who is married with 3 children and taking care of their invalid mother in Ohio. However I also know that to deny the Holy Spirit’s involvement altogether would be foolish. John Piper had some thoughts on this very issue a few years ago. If you have any sense of a growing desire for mission work read his thoughts.
Is God Calling You to Give Your Life for His Sake and the Gospel in Missions?
