In this chapter from his book Great Commission Conundrums, Jon Nelms, founder of Final Frontiers Foundation, looks at the biblical example for how missions funds were collected and dispersed, and whether they were used for more than supporting preachers. Reading time: about 16 minutes.
Have two separate budgets; designate one for missions and the other for ministry.
Explaining the Conundrum: How Missions Funds Should Be Used
I suppose another way of framing the question is, “On what should we or should we not spend our missions’ dollars”? Missions giving is primarily considered to be for the support of missionaries. But is using mission funding for needs or causes other than personal or ministry support legitimate?
Assuming your answer is affirmative, you now have to determine your budget and the budgeted items. I cannot help you with the first, but I can give some counsel on the second. To be more specific, you have two options. The first is to decide if you only want your missions’ money going to purely missions’ efforts, i.e., church planters, church planting, evangelizing, and training new preachers and pastors. The second is to decide if you want some of it to go to other causes that may or may not have anything to do with what I call biblical missions, i.e., orphanages, feeding centers, clinics, schools, rescue missions, anti-abortion clinics, etc. Keep in mind that these ministry needs, and ministry programs also need to be funded and often assist in what I call “pure” missions.
My intention is not to persuade you to take funds away from these various ministry causes so you can give them to missionaries. Instead, my intention is to keep you from taking the funds that you intended for missionary support and diverting them to non-missionary causes. Almost every church I have consulted regarding their missions’ program has faced this dilemma because most churches consider any monetary gift that leaves their physical address to be classified as “missions.” So then, how can this problem be resolved?
To me, the solution is easy. Have two separate budgets; designate one for missions and the other for ministry. All these various ministries need funding and should be considered. I have found that if we don’t intentionally give missions funding to pure mission items, then “missions” becomes nothing more than a catchword that we use to define our support of anything that is not listed in the church’s operational budget. Mission budgets often and unintentionally become slush funds used to cover unfunded or underfunded projects. For example, if you can’t afford the high summer utilities, take it from missions. If you can’t pay the pastor this week, take it from missions. Suppose the church bus needs new tires; take it from missions, etc.
If we define missions scripturally as church planting, we will see the necessity to fund it carefully and specifically. Otherwise, the budget is in danger of becoming a well-meaning, unintended slush fund.
I have heard of churches using their missions fund to build a basketball court. The reasoning is this will help us reach the youth of the area, which, after all, is our mission field. Wrong! The local youth are not missions; they are ministry. In His Great Commission, Jesus included Jerusalem as a mission field—until Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit came, the gospel was preached, and the entire city was evangelized in a single day. It was no longer a mission field; it was now a ministry field. House churches were everywhere, meeting daily, and great assemblies met outside the temple compound. Pastors were shepherding their flocks, and preparations were being made to take the gospel worldwide. Sure, people were still being converted, but the city as a whole had already been “reached” with the gospel.
May I make an observation here? When Jesus gave the Great Commission, He told them to preach in Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. He skipped over the Galilee region, a separate geopolitical region, recognized and administrated by Rome. Why would He command them to preach in Jerusalem and then intentionally skip over Galilee? I can only submit an opinion. If you study the Gospels, you will see that Jesus did very little of His preaching in Jerusalem, though He did some in nearby communities like Bethany; yet He performed most of His miracles and teachings in Galilee. (Some say over 80%.) Most of His post-resurrection appearances were in the Galilee. He had already saturated Jerusalem with the knowledge of who He was and what His message was. They didn’t need to be told what they already knew. They needed only to be confronted with the choice of accepting or rejecting Him. But the rest of the world still needed to hear that same gospel; thus, the mandate to go.
Suppose you accept that biblically, a missionary is a church planter, and a mission field is a region where Christ is unnamed and unknown. In that case, it is an admission of absolute failure when we call our neighborhood or city a mission field. So, let your funds collected and designated for missions be used for missionary support and activity, and use the funds designated for ministry needs for their particular purposes. If you read on, you will find an example of Paul’s doing precisely that.
Examining the Conundrum
Let’s first establish a foundation regarding giving. David’s greatest desire was to build a permanent temple for God so that He could live among them in a befitting manner. God may have been satisfied with an old tent (the word for “tabernacle”) but David, living in what was luxury to him, felt despondent that God should have less than he enjoyed; less than His glory was worthy of. However, due to his sins, he was not allowed to construct the temple, so in his mind, he did the next best thing. He began gathering and storing the materials needed so that his son Solomon could build it.
To make this a nationwide enterprise, allowing everyone to participate, he gathered his leaders before him and declared what he was personally going to give, thereby accomplishing two goals. First, it showed his dedication to God and that his love for Him was more significant than his love of wealth, demonstrating that it was not right for him to have so much and God to have so little. Secondly, it served as an example for the leaders to follow personally, display publicly, and used as a motivating example for their local citizens to emulate (I Chronicles 22).
David anticipated that some would seek excuses for not participating. He reminded them their offering was not a loss of “their” wealth; it was returning of a portion of “His” wealth, with which he had both blessed them and over which He had appointed them as stewards. Listen to his words as he prayed:
I Chronicles 29:14, “But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.”
David did not infer but rather stated emphatically that “all” we give to God came from God, so in effect, when we give, we are not giving to Him; instead, we are “giving back” to Him. Logically then, if we do not give, we are withholding from God what is His. That is embezzlement and theft, and don’t expect to get away with it.
Technically, we are not owners of our wealth or possessions but rather the stewards of God’s. He allows us to keep a portion of His wealth for our maintenance and blessing, but the rest is for His work. If we keep too much for ourselves, then He may take back what He has given us. If we properly manage His funds and use them according to His pattern, then He, in turn, blesses us, giving us more to manage (Matthew 25:14-29).
Exposing the Conundrum
The best way to put this puzzle to bed is to look at passages of Scripture that directly refer to it.
Biblical Examples of Funds Used for Missionary Support
First, in Romans 15:24, Paul wrote to the church in Rome, which he did not start and had not yet visited, though members of his own family attended there. He said he planned to visit them while on his way to do missionary work in Spain and asked them to help him on his way.
Second, in Philippians 4:16-18, he praised them for sending help to him over and over, whenever he was in need and acknowledged that they would share in his heavenly rewards for what he accomplished with their help.
Third, in III John, we find the apostle somewhat concerned and perhaps perturbed. He wrote this letter after being reunited with some traveling preachers who reported what they encountered at the hands of the church leaders, to whom he had referred them.
The first was Gaius, whom he called a “dear friend.” He commended him for his testimony and persistence in faith and example. (We cannot be confident this man was a pastor/elder; if not, he was perhaps a prominent layman in the local house church.)
In the first half of the letter, he praises Gaius for taking care of these traveling preachers, men who had received no support or help from the unconverted Gentiles to whom they had been proclaiming the gospel. These men were, without a doubt, missionaries. We do not know their race or nationality, but it is apparent that they were not a part of this particular church body. John stated that these traveling preachers/missionaries were strangers to this local congregation (v. 5) though they came bearing his regards.
In the last half of the letter, John refers to a second man, a pastor named Diotrephes. Regardless of what good he may have done in life and ministry, his name is forever infamous because of his actions against these preachers. Was he an adulterer? A drunkard? A scandalous criminal? Not at all. His sin was that he was puffed up with pride (v. 9), unwilling to humble himself under the apostle’s teaching. He spoke against John’s ministry, person and authority and refused to receive these brothers whom John had both sent and recommended. To add to his infamy, John concludes his condemnation with the fact that Diotrephes not only refused to support them personally, but he also forbade the members of his church to help them. He even warned that if anyone disobeyed him by helping these traveling preachers, he would expel that man/family from the congregation. This expulsion was going a step too far.
This pastor obviously had a problem with the apostle John, but it seemed to carry over toward anyone affiliated with John. It was not enough for him not to give “his” money to help these men, but he insisted that his church members not give “theirs” as well.
John began his conclusion with two points. Having plans to pass by their town, he stated that he would personally confront this pastor and put him in his place (v. 10). Then he admonished Gaius and the others to continue to do as they had been doing, reminding them that they should “follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God” (v. 11).
Though a pastor, this man had strayed far away from the teachings of God and had become “evil.” Later in Acts 20, in his farewell address to Ephesian elders, he reminded them that they are to help the weak, and “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Obviously by context, helping involves more than sympathetic words. Sympathy may console, talking may comfort, but giving alleviates the need.
I can recall many occasions when I first started this work of supporting national missionaries. Well-meaning pastors would sometimes rebuke me, saying that I was a traitor, an enemy of missionaries (which I still hear to this day though I am a missionary), and that “American money belongs to American missionaries.” The first two judgments I ignored. But with the third, I always agreed but reminded them that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” meaning all that it is, is His—not America’s. And so, my viewpoint was and still is that whatever is yours belongs to you; spend it as you will, but whatever is His belongs to His servants, doing His work, regardless of race or citizenship.
I was always troubled to hear a pastor or mission board director make such improper and unbiblical comments. However, it was worse when taken a step farther by telling his church members not to support a national missionary. Afterward, he would call other pastors to warn them of my “evil actions,” saying I was “trying to destroy American missionaries” by funding national missionaries.
After 35 years of teaching the value and validity of supporting national preachers, I thought this hostile attitude toward them (and me) had ceased. Still, a few months ago, I was speaking with a young missionary at a conference. He mentioned a mutual acquaintance—a man who has been kind to me when in my presence. He said that when my name was mentioned (as it often is in missionary circles, referencing my efforts to raise support for national preachers), he said, “Jon Nelms just goes around stealing money from missionaries.”
I know that most missionaries do not feel that way about me or Final Frontiers. They appreciate our efforts to support the national preachers, and many refer men to me whom they know to be needy and worthy of support. However, there are still those out there who feel threatened that a national preacher would get a share of the limited missions funding available rather than it going to them.
My issue is not race or citizenship; it is credibility. I am opposed to any missionary, red, yellow, black, or white if he is lazy and unproductive. I wouldn’t give $50 to any preacher who is like that—American or national. For that reason, we carefully monitor the quarterly reports of the men we support so that if need be, we can cut them off. But the reality is, if you support a national who is lazy and unproductive (and many are), then you have wasted $50 a month of God’s money. However, when you support an American who is likewise unworthy, you waste $5,000 to $12,000 a month. This is why I make a crusade of helping churches understand that they are stewards of God’s missions’ money and will be held accountable for any waste—national or American. I would never say that all missionaries are that way. I only suggest that you make sure the ones your church supports are not among them.
A Biblical Example of Funds Used for Other Causes
Let me say that the following passages are not doctrines but rather are examples that are logical, credible, and accountable. If followed, the possibility of fraud and deceit is limited. Furthermore, it may surprise you to learn that the purpose of this particular gift was not for missionary support but for what some call social work and what I call ministry.
The closing verses of Acts chapter 11 and II Corinthians chapter 8 are complimenting passages. Years earlier, various prophets had warned that a famine was coming to Jerusalem. Paul, who was emotionally touched by their upcoming tragedy, began asking the Gentile churches to take up offerings to send to them. We don’t know why this was such a great concern to Paul. Perhaps it was motivated by his lifelong regret for having formerly persecuted the believers living there.
We read this passage as if Paul requested it on Saturday, collected it on Sunday, and left for Jerusalem with the offering on Monday. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a full ten years later that the famine finally hit, and when it did, Paul began to go from church to church collecting their decade-old, pledged gifts. Some, namely Macedonia, collected more than planned, while others, namely Corinth, failed to collect much at all, despite having pledged. He praised some and rebuked others; then he outlined their success or failure and the logical steps he would take to collect and disperse their funds. That’s what I want to bring to your attention by looking specifically at Acts 11:27-30.
How the Funds Were Collected and Dispersed
- There was a motivation for their giving (a famine).
- There were the means of their giving (each according to his ability).
- There were the messengers of their giving (Paul and Barnabas were to receive, collect and deliver their gifts).
- There was the method of distribution (the gifts were to be dispersed by the church leaders in the targeted area).
When I first stumbled across this principle more than twenty years ago, I realized I had unintentionally copied it; and that we were soliciting, collecting, and dispersing funds precisely as Paul had. Over the decades, I have been surprised to see that many of our ministry protocols have been established intentionally and unintentionally according to actual biblical examples. Let me explain.
- Motivation. You give willingly because of a need (whether for a preacher, a child, Bibles, PowerPack, project, etc.)
- Means. I expect that most give according to their ability or desire, but if not, at least they give.
- Messengers. Your funds are sent to us directly or sometimes given through your church. We process them to the budget item or project for which they were intended. Next, a receipt is sent to the donor. For accountability purposes, our administration is overseen by our executive board, with annual accountability given to them, the IRS, and all donors and finally published online for all to see.
- Method. We send the funds to national pastors who oversee the use and distribution of the funds according to the need or project for which they were given, requiring they, in turn, provide a report for their administration to us, which we then forward to the donors.
This is done because of American pastors, who are eager to see God’s money used to support God’s servants, whoever and wherever they are. Thank God that our pulpits in America have few like Diotrephes and many like Gaius.
Give attention to the method that Paul used to distribute the funds; he did not give them to the people, the families, etc. Instead, he gave them to the pastors to distribute. Why? Logic implies that Paul did not know the individual families. He did not know which one needed how much and could have been misled or manipulated by someone with a tear-jerking story. The pastors, on the other hand, knew them. They lived with them. As shepherds, they knew where they lived and their needs; thus, they were best suited to handle the distribution after Paul handled the delivery.
We use this same principle in dispersing funds for preachers, orphans, widows, etc.
Eliminating the Conundrum
Suggestions for Missionaries
- Remember that Paul did not only ask people to give; he told them why he was asking, what he was asking for, how they could provide the funds, and how he would distribute the funds. Missionaries often make the mistake of being too vague with their request. They think that because it is a supporting church, they don’t need to give details. But they do! First, giving details is part of the accountability process, and secondly, it promotes the need by touching the heart. People give for what moves them. We raise millions of dollars a year, but it is all for specific preachers, people, projects, or purposes. And the funds only come because we have carefully and honestly elaborated on the need before asking for their help. It is also because, after thirty-five years, we have developed a reputation for honesty and transparency that does not come overnight or by happenstance.
Suggestions for Churches
- Establish a policy in your church about how and for what the missions’ funds will be dispersed. It may be helpful to set up both a mission budget and a ministry budget. If this is too complicated, then study your current giving to determine how much of your missions’ funding is going to missions. I think most pastors will be surprised to find that 30 to 70 percent of their “missions” dollars are diverted to social and ministry causes in their state, city, and neighborhood. This may be a good testimony in your town, but is it what you wanted to accomplish with your missions giving? If so, keep up the good work, and if not, make the necessary changes.
- Sometimes churches are not aware that their people give outside the church because they are not in agreement with how they use their funds. When people are unhappy, they tend to “vote with their feet,” but usually, long before that happens, they have “voted with their finances.” The wise pastor understands that it is not his place to control his people but to lead them.
Suggestions for Families
I add this category this time because it applies to the passages we have studied.
- The families brought their gifts to be collected by the church, who then appointed Paul to deliver them to the pastors abroad, who then distributed them to the families in need. In short, the process went from families with financial ability in one area to families without financial ability in another area. Everything else was a part of the process that made the objective possible. Make sure that you have a purpose for your giving and that it is managed as you expected.
Support this work
Your gift through The Great Commission Fund supports national church planters who are taking the Gospel to their own people.
