"Mission is the very lifeblood of the church. As the body cannot survive without blood, so the church cannot survive without mission. Without blood the body dies; without mission the church dies. As the physical body becomes weak without sufficient oxygen-carrying red blood cells, so the church becomes anemic if it does not express its faith. The church . . . establishes its rationale for being—its purpose for existing—while articulating its faith. An unexpressed faith withers. A Christian fellowship without mission loses its vitality. Missions are the force that gives the body of Christ vibrancy, purpose, and direction. When the church neglects its role as God’s agent for mission, it is actually neglecting its own lifeblood.
Gailyn Van Rheenen, Missions
Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies 1996:31
So how should a mission, wherever he or she serves, handle the concept of raising support? There are really only two ways to look at it. First, as a business that would require networking to conduct several campaigns to seek out and/or convince others that their mission efforts are worthy of support over other missionaries. This attitude is no different then corporate America where persons are hired based on skills/performance…the rat race is alive and well in this arena and/or competition between missionaries is at the forfront of any church decision. You would think that the primary thrust in any church is to support missions. “Mission is the very lifeblood of the church. As the body cannot survive without blood, so the church cannot survive without mission.”
Most churches believe that the mission field is to fill a building just to pass the plate so they can administer support to field logically. Unfortunately, based on a poor definition of what missions are true offering, most budgets are being cut to the point where mission efforts are being critically injured as to allow bigger and better facilities to be built. Thus, missions around the world and this includes missionaries right here at home, have to seek other means for income.
The second methodology for support comes from a well known person…George Mueller, which doesn’t use the services of any group to get the job done. Mueller had only two shillings to his name when he began the orphanage work, but over the next sixty years God sent more than $7,500,000 to supply their needs. New buildings were built or purchased, staff was hired, and the hundreds of children never missed a meal. In addition, during his life time, he started 117 schools, which educated over 120,000 young people and orphans. He became pastor of Bethesda Chapel in Bristol. The church had some 2,000 members at his death. Mueller resolved never to tell anyone what his needs were. He told them to God and confidently expected them to be met.
Now, of these two methodologies, which one is better? Certainly Mueller’s attitude of depending on God for everything proves beyond a shadow of doubt he was a man of God who truly walked by faith, but without church intervention, only Mueller saw God’s blessings. The church or other individuals could have certainly had a piece of the action, but they declined to build bigger and better buildings to their own glory.
"Let us see that we keep God before our eyes; that we walk in His ways and seek to please and glorify Him in everything, great and small. Depend upon it, God's work, done in God's way, will never lack God's supplies." (Hudson Taylor)
It certainly would make life easier if churches and other individuals would get involved as partners, but the work will continue, with or without their intervention.
Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God states, “Christians need to find out where God is working and get there.” All any missionary could ask…be apart of our team and see how God blesses.
