Balancing Your Local and International Missions Efforts
I was asked to consult with a historically strong congregation that once had a fully funded ministry and a full-time, salaried pastor. Their perpetually shrinking budget and unbalanced missions strategy required that a new pastor serve bivocationally, which proved to be a wake-up call for the church members. The church’s commitment to international missions came at the expense of its ministry to internationals now living in their own communities.
The rural New England church with whom I met had always generously supported international missions and missionaries at a much higher level (up to 50 percent of receipts) than most churches their size. Over time that giving level became a source of pride for them. As the church budget shrunk, they refused to reduce the percentage of missions giving, motivated not by the impact of missionaries, but by their reputation as a generous church. To maintain this unsustainable giving, all other ministries had been curtailed or eliminated.
Something needed to change! As a church, ask yourselves:
What happens when your spending patterns become unbalanced and unsustainable—out of sync with your membership size and the fiscal realities you face?
Can out-of-control, prideful spending habits and priorities, no matter how well intentioned, threaten your health or even your very existence?
What should be done when your community outreach is sacrificed on the altar of global service?
It’s true that Jesus calls us to be “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8, NIV). It’s also a fact that, as Paul wrote, we (individuals and churches alike) “should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work” (2 Cor 9:7-8, NIV).
The church members bragged about how much money they gave to missions, even as each year passed and they reached fewer neighbors for Jesus Christ. Giving to world missions had become the goal. Anyone who dared suggest spending on anything other than international missions was made to feel less spiritual.
“Their mission giving became idolatry and a point of significant conflict in the congregation…”
Their mission giving became idolatry and a point of significant conflict in the congregation, but no one could stand against it because that was considered attacking the missionaries. They willingly sacrificed to send an American missionary to Asia, but could not find the time, energy, or money to reach out to young people from that very same country who were attending a nearby college and living near the church.
Churches need to support missions. Anyone who knows me also knows my great commitment to cooperative missions giving but, with this group of Baptists, I had the difficult task of helping them see it was time to reallocate some of their international mission dollars to local ministry. If they did not make this change, they soon would cease to exist and then there would be no support at all for their beloved missionaries.
Theirs was not an appropriate application of the Great Commission; giving became an idol. When I pointed this out to them, they sat in stunned silence as the realization dawned on them. The shiniest idols are always the hardest to topple.
“The shiniest idols are always the hardest to topple.”
As a result, significant struggles became obvious. They needed to:
stop functioning like a big church
adjust their missions efforts to current realities
shorten their committee-based approval processes
streamline their governing documents
be flexible and unafraid of structural change
Though it was obvious to everyone that these adjustments were long overdue, it still took humility and work to make it happen.
Some of the leaders found comfort in the old approach, even though it was no longer sustainable. One leader confessed that without their cumbersome system, a new approach might come too fast and be uncomfortable. Their historical leadership structure itself had become an idol. They looked to their habits for solutions, rather than to the Lord.
“They looked to their habits for solutions, rather than to the Lord.”
As Joshua challenged, “You have chosen to serve the LORD. . . . destroy the idols among you, and turn your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel” (Josh 24:22-23, NLT).
It took time, but they found healing and hope. An unbalanced missions strategy was threatening to kill off the congregation. As German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche stated, “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger”. Eventually they agreed to the needed adjustments and as a result the church became stronger and more effective—on the local, regional, and international levels.
In my experience, I think churches need to eliminate as many layers as possible to function better. We will benefit when we trust in the Lord instead of yesterday’s policies and governance structures that are no longer relevant for today’s ministry and missions. Most churches have some type of idol. The hardest ones to identify and eliminate are the ones that give us the most immediate gratification, comfort, and secretly stoke our own pride. We must not let idolatry control our churches.
I learned a valuable lesson during this experience. Churches need to think through a balance of local, regional, and international missions. Emphasizing one at the expense of another is not a healthy expression of the Great Commission. It takes all three to fulfill the biblical mandate.
Dr. Terry W. Dorsett is the Executive Director of The Baptist Churches of New England