Just Throwing Money at Missions
“We don’t want just to throw money at some mission point, we want to be connected to something where we can actually get our members involved.”
I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve heard the above sentiment from church leaders. While I understand where they are coming from and can affirm much of what drives such a statement, I always feel conflicted when I hear this. Behind the good intentions reflected in this kind of thinking lurk some problems that need to be identified and screened out.
First, let me say that I’m always thrilled to hear church leaders express a desire for a relationship that goes deeper than mere financial support of global missions. It is discouraging to missionaries and ministries around the world when their financial supporters show no interest in them beyond sending a check. In addition, negligent funding (i.e., funding without engagement) creates opportunity for all kinds of corruption and malfeasance.
That said, American churches should never underestimate the importance of financial contributions to global missions. America has 4% of the world’s people, but we have 25% of the world’s wealth. To those whom much is given, much is expected. The majority world church has 70% of the church’s people, but they only have 17% of the church’s money. We need to be involved beyond funding, but we cannot avoid our responsibility to use our financial blessings to serve the global kingdom of God. Lazy and detached funding practices are never wise. But money is never just money. Money is a form of loving or not loving. It is a form of being grateful or being selfish. It is a form of service or selfishness. We can’t fulfill our calling just by sending money, but we can’t fulfill our calling without sending money. The question is how do we use money well without becoming absentee partners or acting like controlling colonial masters?
While I am aware of the problems money can cause by fostering dependency and propping up powerbrokers who abuse their American connections to control and abuse, I’m also concerned that the values of independence and self-sufficiency which Americans cherish are more western values than Kingdom values. Under the reign of Jesus, none of us are independent nor self-sufficient and should not seek to be. God is our only source, and he expects us to steward what he puts in our care to accomplish his will. We are called to be interdependent and generous for the uniting of all people who live in generous mutuality. Money is just one of many resources required to advance the kingdom of God and it should not be viewed as the most important resource. Nor should those who are only putting in money be in a position to control those who are putting in their whole lives. We can form better partnerships than this.
But, as important as providing financial support can be, it is not enough by itself. Partnership involves money but should not be about money.
So, what is the problem with churches wanting to be more involved? Nothing, if they are wise about how they get involved. But, if we aren’t careful, in our effort to be “more involved” we will unintentionally make our missions ministry about us instead of the mission of God. Missions should not be about American churches providing cool experience for our members, but always should be about providing a service and expanding God’s reign among others.
Also, when we engage in missions with a focus on “being more involved” we may limit our missions partnerships to places we visit easily. That means we will only get connected to countries near the U.S., such as Latin American. However, that mentality will exclude the parts of the world with the most unreached people groups and the greatest needs. Because Americans have more resources, we are among the few people who can invest in the hard and faraway places. But we can’t easily send short term mission teams to these places. Yes, we need to be involved beyond finances, but let’s not turn that into an excuse to invest only where we can visit easily and cheaply so that we have the experience we want for ourselves.
Finally, churches who want to be “involved” can unknowingly create huge burdens for on-field workers by overwhelming them with visitors who want to “help” but who don’t have the knowledge, skills, or time to help in meaningful ways. It can feel like your grandchildren wanting to help you with car repair. It’s a nice sentiment, but it isn’t realistic.
So how can the church be “more involved” and not create problems?
1. Make sure that your “more involved” elements involve things that the people in your congregation can actually do.
Mobilize a prayer and care ministry
Gather stories from your missions partners that will inspire and inform your church about how to be more effective in fulfilling your mission at home
Provide encouragement and service to your mission partners as they need and request
2. Things to avoid in your efforts to be “more involved”
Making mission about you instead of the mission
Making your global workers an offer they can’t refuse (forcing things on them they don’t need)
Limiting your mission sites to places you can visit in large groups
Underestimating the power of money to both bless and curse depending on how it is used.