This question sounds strange, to me at least, and I think it might for you as well. But let me tell a couple of stories before I flesh this out.
Story #1. A friend of our family in the Philippines is a single female missionary. She had adopted an at-risk child in the Philippines and raised her as her own. One day, back in the States she was sharing to a group about her mission work. Apparently she spent a fair bit of time talking about her work in helping her adopted daughter. Later that day, after the presentation, she found that someone snuck a note into her things; she is not sure who that stated:
Raising a child is NOT Missions!
I am pretty sure that this note stung her since she shared it with us many years later. We will get back to this later but will now go to the second story.
Story #2. Another missionary friend (husband and wife actually) ran an orphanage in the Philippines. They were 100% supported by a large church in the States. However, that church had a change of leadership. The new pastor had a different perspective on missions. Since an orphanage is not intentionally evangelistic and not tied to church planting, it is not “real missions,” according to him. The family and that ministry went from 100% support to 0% support overnight.
Mulling on these stories, it is easier to look at Story #2. Back in the 1960s and 1970s there was a time when people like Donald McGavran (and his protégés), Peter Wagner, Ralph Winter and others were seeking to define Christian missions in very narrow “spiritualistic” terms, such as only doing evangelism, discipleship, and church planting in unreached parts of the world. Happily, they lost that battle. While Christian missions needs to always have a solid spiritual aspect and foundation, ministries that only address spiritual ministries are not superior. In fact, they are arguably “sub-biblical.”
So in that story, while accepting that a local church can always choose who and what to support, I feel they “Chose Poorly.”
Story #1 I feel is more complicated. If all she did was care for a child she adopted, I agree that she was not really doing Christian missions. However, I know she did other work. Raising a child is ministry, and taking in an at-risk child is even more so a form of ministry. If 100% of her ministerial work was caring for the child I feel that the term “missionary” would not be appropriate. I know a case somewhat like this. A couple came to the Philippines to do some short-term ministry. While there they felt called to adopt an at-risk child. In the process of doing this, they discovered that they were unintentionally circumventing some systems that were put in place to prevent human trafficking. To obey the rules, the husband returned to the US to work, while the wife stayed in the Philippines to care for the child as the slow process for international adoption done this way could run its course. I believe it took about two years. The woman who stayed in the Philippines would, I think, agree that she was doing ministry, but she did not consider herself a missionary. But what would be acceptable? Can a missionary invest 50% of ministry work on raising a child and still be a missionary? 40%? 25%?
I don’t think there is a set rule. I feel that generally a missionary family should spend less than 50% of their ministry work on raising their children. I am not counting orphanage work here. But is it appropriate to come up with a number at all? I have friends who served overseas for many years with 6 children. They were definitely missionaries doing important mission work, but I can’t help but assume that they did invest more than 50% of their ministry time on raising their children (especially as they were homeschoolers).
In the end, I do believe we should affirm the work of caring for a child as part of ministry work, while also acknowledging that doing that alone is not enough to make one a missionary, even if one is in a cross-cultural setting.
This odd topic hits my wife and I more directly lately. We are now in the US helping to raise our grandchild. We are not in the Philippines and are not sure when we can return. Despite this, we are continuing to do cross-cultural ministry, especially with online seminary teaching. Most of our support comes from our own savings so labels are not that critical for us. Still, we do receive some support from churches and individual supporters. Therefore, we did let them know our situation and we made it clear that we understand whatever decision they would make as far as continued support. Up to this point, they have chosen to continue support. That is gratifying, but we understand if they change their minds later. We are still trying to figure out who we are now. Are we foreign missionaries on an extended break? Are we retired missionaries who continue some overseas ministries? Are we something else?
