In this chapter from his book Great Commission Conundrums, Jon Nelms, founder of Final Frontiers Foundation, asks whether the purpose of giving to missions is to support the messenger or the message. Reading time: about 15 minutes.
In this case, their intention had not been to support the messenger (missionary) but was instead to fund the proclamation of the message in that country.
Explaining the Conundrum: Supporting the Messenger or the Message
A dear friend, who is one of the most missions-minded pastors I have ever known, recently shared a story with me. He stated that he had to drop a missionary in a particular country because he was leaving. He wanted to know if we had anyone serving there so he could transfer the support to that missionary. He additionally stated that he was supporting that missionary family only because they were serving in that particular country. It seems that he had a particular burden for that particular land and the peoples that inhabit it. In this case, their intention had not been to support the messenger (missionary) but was instead to fund the proclamation of the message in that country. And as the missionary was now removing his ministry from that land, my friend wanted to end their support relationship.
Examining the Conundrum
Many missionaries have confessed that after serving on a field for some time, they begin to feel a burden to move elsewhere. When they inform their supporting churches of their intention, a percentage of them drop their support. They hear statements like, “If you don’t know where God wants you, then we don’t want to support you.” As you can imagine, this reaction is very frustrating to the man seeking to follow God’s will. It is also financially crippling at a time when he needs extra funding to finance the move.
Churches with this mentality presume that God never redirects a missionary to another ministry or country. They are wrong. The irony of this reasoning is that the pastors of supporting churches who drop a missionary for moving fields have often pastored in several different churches and even in several states. They would undoubtedly claim that God directed their moves. Why should a missionary changing his field be any different? If moving is acceptable for a pastor, it should be acceptable for a missionary. This is especially true when you consider that most “missionaries” are not truly missionaries (church planters) but are pastors in a foreign land.
In that situation, the problem for that particular church was that the missionary had not produced any national fruit to take over his ministry, or at least he did not indicate that he had. If so, the church could have transferred their support to his “Timothy.” Instead, I had to recommend a national missionary living there who was doing an outstanding work and could benefit from their support. In this way, they were able to continue their outreach in that land.
In my mind, the missionary should have been dropped long before his intended move since he was not fulfilling the very purpose of his call. He had not planted a single church, nor had he won, discipled, and trained a single national for the ministry.
Exposing the Conundrum
I have long believed that God’s calling is more to a people than to a country. Country borders change over time, but tribes (people groups) generally do not. For example, Prussia no longer exists, but its people do; only now they live in what is known as Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Germany. As a result, they may now speak various languages, whereas before, they primarily spoke what has become an extinct Baltic language. But they are still the same “people”—no matter what language they speak.
Statistically, as of around 2015, an existing language reportedly goes extinct every two weeks. For example, the Busuu language has only eight living speakers. In addition to their native tongue, 96 percent of the world’s population speak one of the four most common languages: English, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, and Spanish.
Consider how short-sighted and damaging this reasoning can be. Suppose a missionary to the Cherokee Indians living in Georgia in 1820 decided to move to Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina to reach the Cherokees living there. His support would have been terminated due to his “moving fields.” Let’s suppose he decided to risk his support, leaving the Cherokee churches he had established in Georgia in the hands of faithful men and moved to North Carolina. He left his field, but soon he has a new problem. From 1836 to 1839, nearly all of the Cherokees were rounded up and forcefully relocated to Oklahoma in a trek now called the Trail of Tears.
Now the missionary was presented with another problem: does he move with them and continue his calling, or does he stay in North Carolina and retain his remaining support? His location had changed several times, as did the tribe’s, yet they were the same people that they always been. They had the same blood, same language, culture, dress, diet, and traditions, only with a different and constantly changing location.
So the question that begs an answer is, are we to support the messenger (the missionary) or the message (the gospel)? The answer is simple—yes. This conundrum can be looked at in at least two ways, so now we are back to the two-sided coin.
Heads—A Biblical Perspective
Accepting that a missionary is not a pastor serving in another land but is instead a church planter and a discipler of church planters, logically he will not, cannot, and perhaps should not stay in one place long-term. He must move on as surely as a bird must fly or a fish must swim. Moving is in his nature. However, keep in mind that with today’s good roads, modern vehicles, and instant communications, a missionary can more easily base his operations from one place and still reach out to multiple locations—much like the spokes of a wheel reaching out from the center.
Paul never stayed anywhere more than a few years and, in some places, like Thessalonica, he stayed for only three weeks. His stated purpose as a church planter was to plant the church and appoint elders who could then mature the saints into duplicating that pattern. This strategy freed him to move on and start again. (In Ephesians chapter four, he used the term apostle, from which we get the English word, “missionary.”) His church planting process would then be solidified and accelerated by traveling “prophets.” These were preachers who were teachers and exhorters. Next would follow “evangelists,” who were men and ladies who were gifted in soul winning. Philip, probably a Hellenic believer of the Jerusalem Church, was called an “evangelist,” as were his daughters. Finally, the congregations could multiply by the ministry of “pastors and teachers” who cared for the sheep, matured the new believers, and developed more recruits for the same “offices” already mentioned. Why? Was it so that congregations could grow to become “megachurches” and build massive structures on ever-expanding campuses? No, but rather so the gospel could spread into every corner of the globe, and each new congregation would have the support of prophets, evangelists, and pastors to help them plant and mature even more churches. By this method, they would fulfill the Great Commission.
As a missionary, Paul did not spend his time in one place. When his job was finished, he moved on. He and his disciples were so successful with this pattern that there was no place left in Greece and Asia Minor for him to plant new churches (Romans 15:23, 24). Thus, he announced his plans to go to Spain and start over.
What? Paul was not saying there were no established churches where he could preach. He was stating that no villages were left to evangelize and plant a new church. They (his disciples and their disciples, etc.) had covered the subcontinent and “turned it upside down” (Acts 17:6). Thus, to continue his church-planting calling, he was compelled to move farther out. Why? Because his rule was that he did not “build upon any other man’s foundation” (Romans 15:20, 21) In other words, he did not plant churches where others had already been before him. He went where the gospel was un-preached and unknown and started churches. He did not follow others; they followed him. He was not the evangelist, the prophet, or the pastor; he was the missionary.
Of course, Paul did take the opportunity to visit other established churches like those in Antioch, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Rome, none of which he had started. He went there not to plant but to encourage and strengthen the Body (as a prophet). Thus, we see that a missionary can wear multiple hats as long as they are temporary, but his primary purpose is church planting.
But what about moving to another country?
In a sense, every time Paul moved, he was moving to another country. In reality, they were more separate “cultures” than “countries” since they were all under the supervision and administration of the Roman Empire. Everywhere he went, the people had their own culture, language, gods, foods, etc., but they were also familiar with and subservient to the Roman language, culture, gods, and customs. He was always both a foreigner and a “homeboy.” Practically speaking, he may never have had to learn a different language to minister because the empire had two common languages—Greek and Latin. In most regions, locals were allowed to keep their mother tongue while not in other regions.
Thus, from a biblical perspective, a missionary moving to another field is not wrong; to the contrary, it should be a common practice, though multiple fields could all be in the same “country.” For example, in Thailand, a missionary can minister to the Thai in Bangkok, the Burmese speakers on the western border, the Laotian and Cambodians on the eastern border, and the Malay on the southern tip, or one of several dozen different tribes in the north—all while living receiving support as a missionary to Thailand.
I have been a missionary for well over thirty years. Some churches refer to me as a missionary to Thailand; others classify me as a missionary to Honduras, others say the Middle East, and still others India. I can tell when a church began their support by how they designate me. Our quarterly magazine, the Progress Report, clearly reveals that I am based out of the USA and plant churches worldwide, encouraging the established churches and planting new ones. To my knowledge, no church has ever dropped my support because I was someplace other than where they thought I was or should be. The fact is, the purpose of the Progress Report is to make my location known as well as my labors and purpose. When at home, I do not lounge until it’s time to get on a plane. I work long and hard, as we are all supported to do.
Tails—A Practical Perspective
Sometimes a person or church has a particular burden or even calling to personally take the responsibility to reach a specific people group or cover a specific region with the gospel. If you desire to reach a tribal group living on a specific island and supported a missionary precisely because he can/will evangelize that tribe, it would make sense to drop his support if he decided to move elsewhere. You were not supporting him as much as you were supporting them. It’s very logical.
This was the situation with my pastor friend that I mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this conundrum. His church has a burden to reach Honduras. His church supported an American man working with us there who eventually left to do other ministries. The funds they gave monthly were not intended for the missionary/messenger’s benefit but rather for preaching the message to those people. So, it made perfect sense to give the funds to another messenger in Honduras.
When I was in the fifth grade, I couldn’t pronounce “s” correctly, so my parents hired a tutor to help me. Rather than saying “s” with the front of my mouth, I let it slip out on both sides at the back of my mouth. My tutor taught me to practice by repeatedly saying, “My sister Susie likes strawberry ice cream” and “Sam picks up seashells by the seashore.” The exercise was a brilliant success as I have since been able to pronounce the formerly elusive “s” correctly. That tutor moved on to help other children with speech problems. I cannot remember any discussion of my parents continuing to pay her after her job was done.
Two years later, however, I was struggling with math. When seeking a tutor to help me, they did not continue paying the speech tutor; they hired a tutor who specialized in math. Locking the speech tutor into a lifetime contract would have been ridiculous as her job was already done. Likewise, simply because her title was “tutor,” hiring her to help me in math would have been equally silly. Having skill in one subject does not mean skill in all subjects. Speech and math, though both educational subjects, are as different as pastoring and church planting. For the minister to be proficient in both is highly unlikely. As with a tutor, pay him for what he can do—not for what he cannot.
At one time, Paul was called to go to Macedonia. It is feasible that someone having the same burden could have supported him until his purpose there was complete, then support those he left behind to finish the task. Macedonia was not a city but a region of Greece with many villages yet to be reached. Paul left the region because his missionary purpose was to knock over the first domino and move on, letting the others fall by his converts’ efforts.
Some churches get upset about this concept because occasionally, the missionary informs his supporters about a change of fields while still in language school, even though he has not yet visited the country of his calling. They feel, therefore, that he is uncertain of the will of God.
Having been a missionary in Central America, I know that most missionaries attend language school in Mexico or Costa Rica. Costa Rica has the highest standard of living of all the Central American countries. The climate is more temperate, the people are often blue-eyed and blond-haired, and English is commonly spoken. Besides that, the culture is nearer to that in the USA than any other country in the region because more than 70,000 “ex-pats” (mostly retirees) live in Costa Rica. The country caters to them and entire subdivisions are designed for Americans. Store signs and street signs are in English; the cost of living is lower, medical care is excellent, the infrastructure is superb, the crime rate is low, and the government is not as corrupt as those in other Central American countries. As a result, missionaries fall in love with Costa Rica. The wife makes friends, the kids learn their way around, and soon their advertised call to Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, or Guatemala gives way to the allure of a new call to Costa Rica.
Basically, Central Americans are all the same people, so does it matter to which country the missionary goes? No, probably not. However, for a church to doubt a missionary’s discernment and calling when he presents himself to churches on the pretext of having an overwhelming, all-encompassing, life-changing burden for one place, then quickly moves on to another is not strange. On the contrary, had his call been presented as being to the “people” of Central America, rather than to a specific geographic location, there would have been no problem.
Eliminating the Conundrum
A Helpful Conclusion for Those Who Sponsor
We commonly have sponsors who drop the national preacher’s support they have been funding in our ministry for one reason or another. Often, we initiate it by informing them that the preacher they had been supporting is no longer serving, has passed away, etc. Some sponsors end their support at that time, and we never hear from them again. That is because, from their perspective, they were supporting that particular preacher, the messenger. Over the years, they had developed a relationship with him and his family, and now that he has passed on, they feel no impetus to continue support. Others in that situation (and this is far more common), ask us to assign them another preacher. Usually, they don’t care who he is or where he is because, from their perspective, they are primarily supporting the proclamation of the message. The messenger is not the issue; the issue is the message that he is declaring. Whenever possible, our policy is to try to assign them another preacher (messenger) from within the same accountability group of preachers and the same region or country, so the group is not weakened or shorthanded.
In summary, the two perspectives are not competitive; rather, they are virtually the same. In the book of Romans, Paul pointed out the following:
- The pagan cannot believe in Christ if they have not heard His good news (the message) (Romans 10:14).
- They cannot hear the message if someone does not take it to them (the messenger) (Romans 10:14).
- That particular “someone” (messenger/missionary with the message) cannot go unless he is sent (financially enabled by the sponsor) (Romans 10:15).
So then, whatever your perspective is—you play a vital part.
Suggestions for Missionaries
- Churches are more inclined to continue their support if you have been proven worthy of it. Remind them of what you accomplished with their support, the fruit you produced that will remain behind to carry on, and why you feel it necessary to leave. If not, this is just an opportunity for them to jettison dead weight. Many churches struggle with meeting their missionary budget each month and cannot turn a blind eye to a legitimate reason to drop a missionary who is not meeting their expectations.
- Give the churches some notice rather than just springing it on them. Remember they are “partnering” with you. They should know what their “partner” is considering and why. Paul had a reason for where and when he moved. Often it was because relatives were living there of his converts living here.
- Please realize that the intent of their support may have been for your field’s evangelization more than for your needs; so don’t take it personally. Be gracious and understanding. Your attitude could go a long way in persuading them to continue your support on the next field you target.
Suggestions for Churches
- In each support scenario, determine if you intend to fund the message or the messenger who is bearing the message. Whatever your choice, and it could be different for different missionaries, inform the missionary upfront. This will settle whether you feel it necessary to drop support if a missionary decides to move to another field and will not come as a surprise to him.
- If you decide to support the message, then look for someone there to take the place of the messenger. In most cases, we would have a national preacher in the land, or the mission board that the missionary served with may have another who could benefit from your help. Certainly, the missionary himself should be able to recommend you to other men who are serving there.
- Consider that nearly the entire Muslim world, where you probably support no missionaries, has gone without the message because the messengers had to leave. Look at the absence of Christianity that has resulted! Final Frontiers now has messengers living in almost every Islamic North African and Middle Eastern nation closed to missionaries. You could help one of them.
- Keep an open mind about missionaries moving around. A dedicated, biblical missionary will always be conquering new territories for Christ. And consider this, if Paul had remained where he started, he would have been the assistant pastor to Barnabas and would have only been known as the first missionary to Cyprus. (Barnabas was from there, so it was his home.) Aren’t you glad he moved from place to place? Why then should missionaries today do otherwise? Remember, those who move are missionaries; those who remain stationary are pastors serving in foreign lands.
Support this work
Your gift through The Great Commission Fund supports national church planters who are taking the Gospel to their own people.
