Self-supporting a thing of the past?

I have long admired missionaries who diligently raise their own support in order to venture onto the mission field. As a kid I can recall regular visits from missionaries on Sunday evening with hopes of ensuring our congregations on-going support. Unfortunately, self-supporters eliminate most of the need for a fundraiser however they most certainly honor the relationship-building process by establishing a vital link between the donor and the missionary.

Interestingly, Ned Kiser reports that the self-supporting missionary may be a thing of the past. According to Kiser, for a variety of reasons younger missionaries are not having as much success implementing and/or embracing this long-standing practice and rather than pull these younger folks from the mission field, agencies are finding it necessary to increase their investment in fundraising efforts and development officers. Kiser writes that many agencies will likely find that they must move from the self-supporting missionary model they have long used, to more of a hybrid model that includes both self-supporting missionaries and agency-centered resource development carried out by a staff and board who are dedicated to the task.

My initial thought was that such a change would result in a loss of efficiency that is built into the self-supporting model. Self-support certainly avoids the cost of professional, not to mention expensive development officers and allows the missionary to assume nearly all responsibility for the fundraising process. And therein we discover the benefit of this change- while we may find it efficient to have missionaries be their own fundraisers; there is real doubt whether they are the most effective fundraisers.

For example, a couple weeks ago I enjoyed an evening with a friend who happens to be self-supporting missionary. In our conversation, he shared with me how he intended to approach one of his highly-capable and apparently generous friends for a gift. In the end, I was doubtful whether my friend would even come close to asking for a gift that matched up with the individual’s capacity and furthermore I was uncertain whether he intended to ask for a multi-year commitment- two practices that often raise an organization’s fundraising efficiency.

As Kiser insists, we dare not confuse methodology with the actual ministry we seek to accomplish. And we certainly do not want to interfere with God’s work for the sake of marketing plans and aggressive sales tactics. However the truth of the matter is that in ministry I found we have two types of people. The first group are those who are called to be on-the-ground, in-the-trenches, front-line missionaries. Many of these people are neither comfortable nor inclined to be very fond of fundraising. In contrast, we have people who are better suited in the home-office, on-the-pavement or in-the-lobby- you might mistake them for passionate sales-people. These people can communicate the mission in any direction and are particularly good at fundraising. On and off the field, I have found this dynamic plays out in every organization I have worked for. I have always found myself a better voice for those in the field and I am eager to assume fundraising responsibilities. Admittedly, I have never been particularly good on the front-lines – Erika and I embraced this truth, as did my boss, early in my ministry career. Since then I have remained confident of where God has placed me to be of greatest service.

I trust my confidence in my place in ministry is just as strong as those who find themselves best suited for the field. I recall a conversation with another missionary friend who said he felt no closer to God then when he was on the field with those he was called to serve. Similarly and personally, I often feel the greatest impact I have in the kingdom is to encourage individuals to generously support the mission and vision I come to represent.