This is the second part on this topic. If you want to read the first part first, please CLICK HERE.

Let’s continue with a couple of more ambivalent issues as it pertains to independent versus agency missionaries.

Ambivalent Issue #2. Support. I have already talked about support a fair bit and don’t want to repeat myself too much. Generally, being an independent missionary MAY make receiving support more difficult. Some mission agencies provide the support directly… while others have a network in place that (ideally at least) should make raising one’s own support easier. At least having one’s name associated with a mission agency may make churches believe that one has been properly vetted for ministry. The worst, obviously, would be one’s that require deputation (raising one’s own independent support), take their administrative cut, but then don’t help much in the area of support raising or support maintaining.

Independent missionaries who are not self-funded have to work constantly on support-raising and maintaining. Some will talk about having to remind their supporters regularly to keep supporting. Many find that support raising is a regular part of their monthly ministerial duties. Even reliable supporters can be fickle or forgetful. An independent missionary friend of ours ran a Christian orphanage and was almost 100% supported from one church. That church got a new pastor who picked up the belief that caring for orphans in a majority world country is not missional. (I would like to whack the pastor’s missions professor over the head with a very thick study Bible, or perhaps the latest version of “Pespectives on the World Christian Movement.”) Support dropped from 100% to 0% overnight. That does happen (I can attest to this from personal experience— going from 100% to 10% in one month). Many missionaries I know have left the field because of finances.

But it is a LOT more complicated than that. Let me give an example. A few years ago we had a typhoon come through near us and caused all sorts of serious damage. We wanted to come up with a way of helping out. We contacted some friends and asked if they could help. Some could and did. But we also had some of our own money designated for mission work and we were able to release that immediately. This is in contrast to a missionary friend of ours who was part of a very large and well-funded mission agency. The missionary was financially set for personal needs, but had to put in a lot of paperwork to receive money to do ANY ministry work outside of what their team normally did. Of course, filling out some paperwork, as long as the review process is not too long and onerous, is not such a big deal. Also, potentially at least, a large agency, especially if it is tied to a large denomination, can come up with funding well beyond what my wife and I could ever scrape together.

For me, however, the best strength that independent missionaries have comes from the relative lack of support. For years, we did medical missions partnering with a missionary friend. This is a somewhat expensive ministry… but less so since 100% of those involved (except myself) are local rather than from overseas. Additionally, we partnered with localities (local churches and LGUs— local government units— to reduce some of the costs). However, in more recent years, we have moved to ministry work that requires less support from overseas. For example, consider our counseling center. Our office and counseling room are provided for us by a partner free of charge. Water and sewage is free and electricity is nominal. Most of the operational expenses are covered by trainee fees. The only things we normally pay for out of our support are scholarships, and seminar trips.

This is big. Some missions groups have existed in a manner that could be described as “throw money at the problem.” There has been, in recent years, a greater focus on “vulnerable missions” and a recognition that overseas money going into missions can create unhealthy dependencies. Lack of money can lead to less expensive missions. But cost or efficiency are not the main issues. Taking ministry out of the hands and out of control of local partners is not healthy. This is even more true in terms of long-term work. If a ministry is NOT primarily funded by foreign money, and local workers are trained to lead it, the missionaries are not a necessity long-term. Things can continue after they are gone.

A large ministry that I was involved with was largely funded and partly run by foreign missionaries for decades. The mission agency eventually decided to move out. I recall a number of people believing (and many of these were local) that the ministry would die… or be forced to be taken over by another foreign group. Thankfully, this did not happen. It is today locally run and funded. A number of the ministry programs and structures of that particular agency did cease in their mission, however, when they left.

Ambivalent Issue #3. Partnership.

Independent missionaries have to develop their own partnerships. This is good and bad. Historically, a lot of mission agencies did everything on their own. In recent decades there has been a trend towards greater partnership between agencies and denominations. This varies from agency to agency. Some have gradations of partnerships— where the level of partnership depends on how closely two groups agree on doctrine and vision. Independent missionaries don’t necessarily have these limits. In our case, consider this month and next. We did a partnered activity with an organization that is under the umbrella of the Church of the Nazarene. Our next seminar activity is with The Salvation Army-Philippines. After that is an activity with a pastors’ organization of Southern Baptists. Additionally, our trainees are working at a Roman Catholic hospital with Roman Catholic chaplains in a formal partnership. I have been asked, “As a Protestant, how are you able to work with Catholics?” I have tried different ways of explaining it, but I actually have a hard time coming up with a way to share it, because I find it very easy to work with Catholics. I work with them when we have common interests and mission (which is common) and don’t when our interests are not in common. That is the same, frankly as with Protestant groups. I don’t go to my mission mobilizer or team leader to verify if this is a good idea or bad— I can make that call myself.

But there is value in having some supervision and accountability. Partners can be of great value— or a great problem. Some partners in our past were problematic. However, a majority (but not all) of the partners that I regret working with were actually from the same denomination as I was in. This is not because people in my denomination are generally more troublesome. It is just that I have worked with a larger number of partners from my denomination than of other denominations. Problems simply are likely to happen occasionally. I have had to learn to focus on the behavior, reputation, and character of people. Their exact denomination or faith tradition can be important, but less so than one might think. I recall working with a mission friend of mine who is of a Pentecostal denomination. There were people suffering after a major regional disaster and a person came from his denomination with a considerable amount of money to help out. That person, however, only wanted to help people who were part of his denomination— or at least where a church of his denomination was active. My friend realized that this was NOT a person he wanted to work with again— one who cared more about his denomination than he did about people in desperation.

There are advantages to being independent when it comes to partnership— but such an advantage does place a sizable burden on the missionary for vetting and reviewing partnerships.