More of This, Less of That
A rubric for a Church Missions Program
Years ago, I had a conversation with a local church pastor about their missions program. The pastor, Dave, was also the board chair for the mission agency I was leading. As we talked about engaging the local church, I (arrogantly) said that churches were mostly practicing, “Aunt Agnes Missions.”
“What do you mean?” he asked.
“That’s when Aunt Agnes’ son-in-law is going overseas with some campus ministry, and he asks for financial support. Instead of strategically choosing an unreached people group for the church to focus on, or some other important goal, the church gives because it is Aunt Agnes’ son-in-law,” I smugly replied (yes, I know, I can be serious jerk at times).
“Ted,” said Dave with a pained expression, “that is not fair. Aunt Agnes has invested more in this church over the past 40 years than anybody else. I want to honor Aunt Agnes, and I am excited that she has a son-in-law that we can support.”
He was, of course, 100% correct. While missions agency leaders have the benefit of thinking strategically, church leaders need to think about the people they are shepherding.
Last month I attended a meeting of my own church’s missions team. I loved what I heard about their strategy. I have watched as they have grown increasingly globally aware and are working to make a difference both locally and globally.
One of the paradigms that framed the entire discussion was “More of This, Less of That.” They listed five areas:
More depth over breadth
More mutuality and less us-to-them
More indigenous and less external
More unreached and less reached
More whole gospel and less reductionist gospel
They defined two goals: Finish the task and develop church leadership.
The “More/Less” paradigm gives this church the ability to bring greater focus on missiologically rich and strategic concepts while, at the same time, recognizing that if Aunt Agnes asks the church to consider something, they can do it.
Like me when I was younger (I know I still suffer from this), missions leaders tend to be judgmental about the church’s contribution when it comes to strategic missions. There are good reasons for this. For example, most missiologically-suspect short-term trips are executed by churches, not agencies. Yet, agency leaders need to be more aware of the complex issues facing church missions leaders. They need to make room for the local as they pursue the global.
The “More/Less” approach is one way to bring focus without losing the ability to adjust to local church realities.
Well said. I have served on or led the missions teams at 4 churches over the years, and have come to a very similar conviction. If as a church we are casting the vision for missions, and someone from within the church is moved by God to go somewhere other than our narrow focus / areas of priority, I don't want to play junior Holy Spirit and say they are wrong or squelch their calling. I wanted it to be about God's agenda, not mine / our church's. My solution was to prioritize a higher percentage of our church support for those serving in our area of focus (in our case, Bible translation, unreached people groups, and training national Christian leaders), while still also supporting those from within the church at a bit lower percentage when they didn't fit that focus (assuming it was for a vetted and valid missions ministry).
It is certainly possible to be smug and arrogant when refusing to support Aunt Agnes' son-in-law. But, it is far from necessarily arrogant. I would say that refusing to support him in favor of an existing church missions strategy is probably the right choice in most situations. Conversely, it is equally likely and equally unnecessary that someone would be arrogant in suggesting that he should be supported.