As I have mentioned before, my wife and I had looked to go into missions under a regular mission agency. We were going through the process. We got slowed down because I was chubby. (Considering how much thinner I looked back then, I do wonder how realistic their “chubby designation” was.) I was told, by a person heavier than I, that if I lost something like 15 or 20 pounds they would start the processing of our application again. I will admit that this annoyed me somewhat since we were told only months earlier, by the same person, that the “chubby test” might slow down commissioning, but would NOT slow down the application process. Between that and having a vision statement that sounded way too denominational for us kind of got us wondering if the mission agency was for us. Not long after, the mission agency (it was not one of the so-called “faith-based” agencies) ran out of money and stopped all commissionings for several months. When our church was willing to help us go without a mission agency, allowing us to serve as independent missionaries, we jumped at it.

A few years later, we were doing okay, but we had struggled in some ways that missionaries under a large agency don’t, so we mentioned to a missionary friend (from the same mission agency we had applied at) that we were thinking of going under an agency. He said something to the effect of, “Hey, you are doing real ministry, doing what you want, and are supported, so why would you want to be under an agency?” Of course, that question established three things in the issue of independent versus agency. With an agency, doors may be opened for ministry where being independent, one must work to create one’s own opportunities and access. With an agency one, HOPEFULLY, has a better system for support. Negatively, agencies (especially the ones that essentially employ their missionaries) have more control of what missionaries do. Our friend felt we had the best of all worlds. This was underscored two years later when he and his family were led to leave the mission field when their agency made a questionable decision in changing how they do missions. Missionaries had to adjust to the new way, or be moved out.

So now my wife and I have been in mission work for awhile. We are in our 21^st year. I have seen some good things about being an independent missionary, and I have seen deep problems with it. I don’t really want to focus on the clearly good or clearly bad (we were cut off by our two largest supporters, one of those times with little to no safety net… that was bad). I would like to look at issues that are more ambivalent. Most issues are both good and bad.

Ambivalent Issue #1. Control/Accountability. Being independent means that one has a certain amount of control that one may not when being in a mission agency. Of course, some agencies (such as ones that effectively employ their missionaries either directly through pay, or indirectly through running the mission site the missionary serves at) are more controlling than others. An independent missionary may have supporters (whether friends, relatives, churchmates, or churches) but the relationship often comes with less strings attached. This is not, however, always true. In our case, we keep our supporters up to date regularly— averaging around twice a month. We receive advice, prayers, and some level of accountability, but no real direct control. We find that to be nice…

…But lack of control or accountability is also a problem. I have seen some bad missionaries (not too many thankfully) and often (usually) they were independent missionaries. Sometimes, they had supporters, and sometimes they were able to self-finance their work. Some I feel that they don’t really know what they are doing… just latch onto what others are doing. I have known of a case or two of people that simply did not do ministry— they just accepted support and occasionally told supporters what they wanted to hear. Some others did not seem to be missionaries really… but more like businessmen who were just tangentially involved in missions, or people who pay local people to do mission work for them.

I like to think the positive side of this lack of control and accountability is that one can be flexible ministerially, and seek local accountability. People 8000 miles away are not necessarily ideal to tell a missionary what the best thing to do is in the field. Neither are they necessarily in the best position to hold a missionary accountable. Partnering with local leaders and ministries can often serve as a better alternative. Everyone needs some accountability— but it is best to have people who understand what one is doing and understand the mission context. That being said, when one’s accountability partners are not the same as one’s supporters, there are potential problems. At its worst, a missionary can be seen as unaccountable by local partners because they receive independent funding, while also being effectively unaccountable to supporters because they have multiple time-zones of separation from what they are actually doing. They are doubly unaccountable and at risk of falling into deep problems.

I think the advantages and disadvantages in this regard are pretty similar to denominational differences with regard to hierarchy. Let me give an example from our (limited) experience. We run a training center for Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). While our training is quite competitive price-wise, it is certainly a major investment of both time and money for a minister to take a unit— to say nothing of taking multiple units. We have trainees from many different denominations. Some are ministers from hierarchical churches while some others are ministers from non-hierarchical churches. Which has an easier time? It depends. The non-hierarchical ministers have the option to just decide to take CPE. That is a great power. However, they have to figure out how to come up with the money, and must work out on their own how to come up with the time to do it. (One unit of CPE is 400 hours of total time investment.) For hierarchal denominations, one must ask permission. One of our trainees got in a bit of trouble for taking CPE, funded by a personal mentor, but without the blessing of the denominational leadership. That was awkward. On the other hand, when a hierarchical denomination does give blessing for the training, it often comes with the funding and the time to get the training. Which is better? I suppose it depends on who one’s bishop is in a hierachical denomination. From what I have seen the worst situation is neither of these, but those hierarchical denominations that control, but without giving support. I struggle to see why one would choose to stay with such a denomination… but perhaps I am missing something.

This is the end of Part One. CLICK HERE for the second, and final, part