Faith based mission programs are, quite simply,the sending forth of missionaries based on the promises of people to support them. The security of the funding of such positions lies in the promises of those who have "pledged" their support. This style of missionary support is distinctly differ from what might be called charitable support based missions. Whereas faith based missionaries are expected to raise their own support, a charitable support based missionary has the commitment of the sending agency behind it. Many larger denominations have historically utilized this charitable support model. Congregations give a portion of their offerings to a higher judicatory body which then utilizes that money to support it's missionaries.
In the first instance, the funding is driven by support of the individual's understanding of his or her calling. In the second, the funding is driven by the sense that the denomination will determine the calling and hire (much like a business) the missionaries to carry out that calling.
I belonged to one of the latter, charitable support based organizations. And therein lies the introduction of a related, but essential issue in missionary work - The Mission/Missionary Policy. These are the rules and regulations by which and through which missionaries are selected and sent.
Our policy had some very good elements. But, like any business enterprise or any organizational structure for that matter, the policy was only as good as its implementation was able to yield good results. And so my story goes...
A group from one of the denominationally affiliated congregations in the USA had come to the mission field to see first hand what we were up to. A part of my task in mission was to coordinate these "looky-looky" groups as I liked to call them. The wanted to see their money at work. These groups could be of great assistance to the missionaries in helping to advance the cause of mission back in the USA. But so too, they could be a tremendous burden on the work of those in the field working in fields such as the engineering of water filtration systems, serving as physicians and surgeons, teaching, etc. So as someone whose task it was to keep the congregations connected to the broader mission work of the denomination, it fell to me to help itinerate the groups, and I REALLY enjoyed telling the story, making the connections, and watching people's eyes grow big and their hearts grow wide as they discovered just how real and exciting the story of mission work was. Lives were being changed in the field in which we worked and in the lives of those who came to see that work.
This particular group was so enamored of the work, they asked why we didn't produce some videos that could be used in the congregations back home. I hemmed and hawed a bit about how the sending organization/denomination was trying their best to bring some equipment into the field to interview the missionaries and then produce something for broad use across the many congregations.
"No," one person said. "Why aren't you making a video of this?" "Why aren't you sending video's back?" My reply was simple. "We don't have the resources to purchase a camera." (This was pre smart phone days.) So of course the funding was made available. When I checked our Missionary Policy Manual, I learned that this sort of provision was against our policy. I check with the folks stateside at the sending office as was told that the local indigenous organization with which I worked needed to receive the funds and own/hold the equipment. When I responded that that would be problem due to some rather nefarious issues with the partner regarding such matters, I was told that was none of my concern. The money needed to be tracked and the partner was notified. Eventually the funding came through the partner's head office, to the department to which I was assigned. I was given the money and told to "go buy the camera."
Dutifully, and hopefully, I did just that. We managed to make a couple of videos, but was asked to turn the camera over to the Department Head for safe keeping and broader use by the department. Not a problem...
After several months, we had another group coming and I ask permission to use the camera only to be told it wasn't available. When I inquired further, I was told it was none of my concern. As I probed more deeply, through the lower level staff, who really always tended to be the most trustworthy members and the "getitdoners" I was told that the Department Head had given it to his son who used in on vacation and broke it. $1000 video camera gone, never to be seen again.
This is the challenge of mission. Balancing accountability, responsibility, transparency, and practicality.
Unfortunately, in this, and so many other instances, a policy which reads well, which interprets "partnership" in an egalitarian manner, and makes the decision makers look good to their constituents, fails so miserably in practice.
Seasoned missionaries with my organization rightly pointed out that the question should have never been asked of the policy issue. The gift should have been received, gratitude expressed, and the video camera purchased and kept; that it was none of the sending agency's/denomination's business. But therein lies the other rub in these settings. Principles. How do we as people of principle and integrity, who believe in following guidelines, balance the need for this integrity with the on the ground realities...
It's not an easy question, but I do know, after 10 years of experience, that the missionaries who come down on the side of reality and practicality last long in the mission field amongst these charitable support based funding models of mission.
By the time I had realized this it was too late. My constant questioning of the policies and the demonstration of their dysfunctional application, had earned me the status of persona non grata. It was known, in a sense, that I "had the goods"; that I was "not a player"; that I "dared to call out the policy failures", and even "the corruption" of the organization with which I worked.
My sense is that the more significant difference between these two models of mission funding is the reality that faith based missions is based on the integrity of the individual to do what they feel called of God to do, and that the charitable support based funding model is based on the need for the organization to maintain control, even when they haven't a clue as to what is actually happening. In this latter model there is an inherent patronizing attitude toward the missionary, an assumption that they are insufficiently equipped to make even marginally significant decisions. It ends in a micro management of the resources of the organization from a distant office which is too often out of synch with the particularities the missionary faces.
This charitable support based model, in my particular case, has resulted in such increasing distrust that the missionary effort is largely a failure. Funding is no longer sufficient to retain a vibrant force. The missionary force has been more than halved in just the past 15 or so years. Missionaries who were previously paid as couples are, in some cases, forced to live on single missionary salaries. Longer term missionaries were offered a buy out.
It leads me to believe that many of the faith based, faith promise missions had it right all along.
Long-live faith based missions.








