People in America have many opportunities to learn who Jesus is and to become His disciple. This isn’t true for the 3 billion people who haven't even heard His name, as you and I have, or had the opportunity to learn about how to become His disciple. The Southern Baptist International Mission Board (IMB) estimates 155,000 people are dying every day without having this opportunity as they go into eternity.
Unreached people groups (UPGs) are growing faster than the number of people becoming Jesus' disciples among them (Operation World). Our missions are falling behind. Why?
Rethinking Mission Funding Paradigms
It’s been nearly 2000 years since the Apostles established the first churches. Their model was to preach where others have not gone (Romans 15:20), and ‘entrust the gospel to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.' (II Timothy 2:2) They released the gospel message to those they reached, equipping them to in turn teach others, and the early Church grew explosively.
Since then, the gospel has reached every nation. There are now Christians in every country. Even in places where the majority population is either unreached or unengaged with the Gospel, there are national Christians nearby.
Rather than entrusting the gospel to these national and nearby missionaries, as they did in the New Testament, we are relying on a western-sending missions model. We are now losing ground in world evangelization, with the unreached populations growing faster than we are reaching them. What mission funding paradigm could provide the greatest gain in seeing the Gospel impact the last to be reached people groups? Perhaps a return to the Scriptural model should be considered.
The last to be reached groups today are the most difficult in terms of location and religion. What mission strategy is best to meet the needs of these challenges, using wise stewardship? The choices come down to: (1) sending more western missionaries to teach and train nationals; or (2) returning to the Scriptural model, and entrusting national Christians who live near these people groups; supporting nationals who train and teach other nationals.
Paradigm 1: Funding Western Missionaries
Many western missions organizations still believe Americans are needed to train national church planters. Given the high cost of training and maintaining American missions, and as we are losing ground in missions, this is an expensive assumption at this stage in missions history. In fact, this assumption has proven to be incorrect.
One major missions course showed how one country is shifting from receiving western trainers to being capable of training their own people. That country has the largest mission association in the world with more than 220 organizations sending out nearly 50,000 national mission workers into their own country.
Sending western missionaries is expensive and unnecessary. IMB says it costs $60,000 to send a single American, or $120,000 for a family. Upon arrival, they don’t know the language or the culture they are sent to serve.
Studies show that generally, western missionaries are not there to train the national church planting organizations, and they instead spend the great majority of their time doing the front-line work themselves. Even if westerners were training nationals, existing national organizations can train their own local people much more effectively and at a much lower cost.
To make the situation even worse, the ReMap II study claims that foreign missionary field attrition within the first few years is 46-63%.[i]
Western missionaries may claim that God called them to go, so they say cost and effectiveness isn’t a factor. But is that so, when considering the many who are lost and the need to steward God’s resources wisely to reach them?
Paradigm 2: Funding National Ministries
Paul instructed Timothy to ‘entrust the gospel to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others also.’ (II Timothy 2:2) The local people became the missionaries, also teaching and reaching their own people. Funding national ministries isn’t that new.
Over the last 30 years, many in-country and national church planting organizations have been starting churches among UPGs. These organizations are able to make many more disciples at much lower cost than our current missions paradigm. We must decide: will we continue to send missionaries from the west, or will we entrust the gospel to national missionaries, and support local churches and ministries as they seek to reach their own and nearby people?
For example, one organization's goal is to see the Gospel reach 500 of the last unreached and unengaged people groups (UUPGs). It costs $10,000 per year for two nearby national Christians to bring the Gospel to these groups. Usually, within one to two years, new believers become disciples, a new church or fellowship group is formed, and then the new believers begin to multiply. The group is being effectively reached with the good news of the Gospel through the ministry of national and nearby missionaries.
There are many variations of the national/nearby missionary model. Some national church planting organizations have American or other foreign fundraising abilities, while others only raise money in countries where the UPGs are.
It's important to note that these differences in costs are the result of the inherent effectiveness of nearby national missions. They are not the result of strong-arm tactics by western organizations to minimize costs. The best missions partnerships recognize that a workman is worth their wages. And yet, caution must be taken not to disrupt local economies with western financial practices. This must be a consideration in ministry, as much as in any other arena.
Most national organizations establish their own budgets, which can vary and depend on the local practices. Some national organizations financially support a pastor at about $150 per month. Other organizations only pay national trainers to train bi-vocational pastors, following the Apostle Paul’s example. A sustainability question is, when do you stop supporting national church planters? One organization provides salaries for six years, gradually reducing their support during the period. Sometimes local churches will cover the cost of a new church plant, as we Americans do in the US.
The Cost of New Churches and Disciples
Wise stewardship calls for a financial comparison of Paradigm 1, in which an American church’s annual budget can be as much as $10,000 or more per new disciple made, with Paradigm 2. Under Paradigm 2, funding national church planters, the cost of establishing a new church can run from $300 to $2,500. A church’s cost for making new disciples can run from $15 to $100 per new disciple. By entrusting the gospel to the local church, many more people can be reached with the Good News and be discipled.
It’s important to note that these national organizations are very motivated to plant many new churches. For example, one national was led to Christ by a foreign missionary. He ended up planting two new churches. Then a national church planting organization helped him train over 20 new church planters who planted one or more churches each. When he began to serve with an in-country missions organization, his effectiveness multiplied. It’s a clear example of the studies, which find that the national-funding paradigm can produce more rapid multiplication. When we begin to support God's work through the local church and ministries, many more people can hear the Good News and be discipled.
Establishing New Churches
Starting a new church may begin in many different ways, and all can vary considerably in terms of cost per new church plant.
Most church plants among UPGs begin as house churches which, as we’ve seen in eastern Asia, can result in rapid church growth. Fewer churches begin with a building project. Eventually, some local believers may build a church building with their own funds, labor, and land ownership, and they can be proud about their accomplishment.
Wise stewardship also calls for consideration of one situation, when western missionaries built a church building for the nationals. Eventually the church members notified the western donors that “your church needs painting.” This situation is not repeated when the local, national missionaries take the lead and ownership of the ministry.
Scriptures show that God works through local bodies of believers, and it is often difficult to multiply disciples without planting a church first. Some new emerging models based on New Testament practices will follow a different pattern.
Defining What We Count - How Do We Know?
The definition of a new disciple can be based on baptism, church attendance, and sharing the Gospel. Hopefully, new disciples have genuine personal testimonies which often result in the start of a multiplication process, producing many generations of new disciples.
Confirming the number of new churches planted and new disciples made begins with the notion of ‘trust but verify.’ Audits on new church attrition are often helpful. Attrition could be as high as 30% with US churches. One church claimed they were close to zero attrition. Is it true? It’s important to conduct internal audits of churches planted and new disciples made. All of the organizations we fund are very transparent and open to reporting as well as independent audits and studies.
Conclusion: It’s About More Opportunities to Make Disciples
Where do we stand with this changing funding paradigm in missions today? Even now, as much as $12 billion a year in mission giving is spent sending Americans to mostly already-reached areas. By comparison, funding to train national church planters among unreached peoples may only total about $100 million per year. If only a small amount of the $12 billion going to send Americans to reached areas was redirected to nationals training other nationals among unreached peoples, far more church plants and new disciples would provide a greater opportunity for many more unreached people to hear the gospel, accept Christ as their Savior, and become disciples.
Instead, we are losing ground. National missions funding of new pastor training provides a clear path to increasing the opportunities to hear the gospel by many more people. Experience and studies show that the Scriptural model of nationals teaching and training other nationals are much more effective to reach their own people. We pray we will soon return to the model of entrusting the gospel to national and nearby believers, and with it, the explosive growth experienced by the early Church.
[i] ReMap 11: Worldwide Missionary Retention Study & Best Practices. WEA. (2/24/2010)
https://www.worldevangelicals.org/resources/rfiles/res3_95_link_1292358708.pdf