There are different ways of showing the levels of support in Missionary Member Care. Harry Hoffmann has a nice way of showing it— The Pyramid of Care.

I like this way of showing care. I did suggest a slight modification from a pyramid to an octohedron. The only reason for doing it is to show “Self-Care.” One’s resiliency can be thought of as relating to the volume of the figure. If one is looking at it that way, adding self-care as a dimension makes sense. I show that below. That being said, I am not sure that my figure adds much to what Hoffmann has done.

Another model is the one by Kelly O’Donnell. It is a classic one of concentric circles with one’s toward the center being “more important” in some sense while moving outward, the circles are less critical (less “central.”)

I think it is a good model… but I do think that it may be better for some missionaries than for others. For me, I don’t find it as useful. Some concerns:

1. I will start with the most controversial. I don’t think Master Care should be in the middle. I think Self-Care should be in the middle. It always sounds the most spiritual to put God in the middle of every figure we do…. but there are costs to this. My biggest issue is that Master Care (God’s Care) is very often done through others. As such, God’s care encloses the other’s care. It is better shown by putting God’s care as the outermost all-encompassing circle. Secondly, and this is very much personal taste I admit, even the most spiritually centered missionary (and missionaries as a group I have not found to be especially spiritual) we tend to relate to the world with him/herself at the center. We have an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric perspective. I feel it is more honest to show that in the figure— and that anthropocentric perspective is even more true when we are under stress. Putting God as the outermost ring shows this reality, while still challenging by showing God’s care surrounds (and includes) all of the other forms of care.
2. For me, I don’t see much use in separating between Network Care and Specialist Care. My view on that could easily change… but personally, it seems adequate to put both in the same circle.
3. I was always a bit uncertain about the Mutual Care (half) Circle. It includes expartriates and nationals. In other words, I suppose that includes people I would call Welcomers. These are people who live in the field where a missionary serves. I fully agree that they are potentially a great source of help. However, it was never clear to me where Friends, Family, and Sending Church fit into this diagram. Perhaps Friends who are supporters and the sending church could be loosely put under Sender Care, but that does not make sense to me— the attachments one has with friends family, and church members far exceed the connections one (normally or initially) has with one’s mission sending organization, or mission partners, or mobilizing structures, etc. <This connects a bit with the Pyramid of Care shown above.>

So I would suggest the following figure. If you don’t find it an improvement— well, you are probably right. But I hope it at least gives something to think about.