Church Focus

So, we’ve asked the tough questions about missions and money: Are all people called by God to give financially to missions work? Or does He prick only the hearts of a select group? Is there a right and wrong way to give to missions?

Last week, we began to look at some of the different ways Christians give to missions. We’ve taken a look at individuals giving to individual missionaries, and now it’s time to look at some new clues that focus on the Church.

Week #3: “Like frontline soldiers in war, resident missionaries have a critical dependence on the support ministry of the home base. […] Through our giving we enjoy (as the apostle Paul beautifully describes) the ‘favor of participation in the support of the saints’ (2 Corinthians 8:4 NASV).”

So then, what is the role of the Church when it comes to supporting missions financially? When you begin looking at the wide range of approaches that local churches have for supporting missions, the answer to this question doesn’t seem quite so clear.

Let’s take a look at a few examples:
•Castle Hills Church in Texas commits 20 percent of its overall annual budget to support missions work both in the US and overseas, including (but not limited to) Pregnancy Centers, Christian camps, individual missionaries, as well as missions organizations. According to a 2002 Your Church survey, the national average for how much churches allot for missions in their annual budgets is 15 percent, meaning that Castle Hills is above the national average.

•The Assemblies of God, as a denomination, asks its local churches to give to missions through the faith-promise concept , a philosophy that encourages individuals to “promise to give by faith above your tithes during the coming year to the world-evangelization program of your church.”

•Many house churches (also called simple churches, organic churches, cell churches—you get the picture) are able to dedicate a larger portion of their annual budgets to missions and outreach because they do not have as many of the overhead costs of traditional churches (mortgages, upkeep, building campaigns, and so on). Therefore, more money given to the church goes directly to people in need.

•Other churches become sending churches, meaning that whether or not a missionary within their congregation uses a missions organization, the church becomes “home base” for that missionary—an approach encouraged by Baptist International Missions. Not only do these sending churches take on the bulk of the missionary’s support needs, but may also take on additional responsibilities like providing needed equipment, allowing missionaries to be on the church’s benefit plan, maintaining regular contact with the missionary, sending care packages, and so on.

Whether they build in a financial line item into their annual budget or rely on the generosity of its members, local churches vary quite a bit in their approaches to giving to missions. There’s no doubt about it.

If a church supports an individual missionary, what happens if the church changes its priorities? If a church supports missions organizations, how can church members be growing in the cause of spreading the gospel? And, should missions support be part of a church budget or come from ‘extra’ giving by its members? If we are going to get to the bottom of this missions mystery, we need your thoughts and insight. Please take a few minutes to weigh in.

Barnett, B. (2002). Friend Raising: Building a Missionary Support Team That Lasts. Seattle, WA: YWAM Publishing. 23-36.