I enjoy receiving and collecting newsletters sent out by missionaries. These letters as well as blog sites lead me to pray for those who are serving Christ in exciting ways. I recently received a bulk email which was sent to a large number of people from a missionary who told an incredible story of missionaries being sent from Latin America. The letter told of a young woman preparing to go from Latin America to Europe. That in itself is an amazing, and historical story in itself. The missionary’s letter told how the young woman had been preparing to leave her home country by training for her new cross cultural experience and also by raising support for two years in Europe. Raising this much money in her home country is enormous, and even though churches had been generous in their offerings, she was still lacking funds. The missionary’s letter went on to tell how a 15 year old boy heard about this, and made the decision to give a computer which he had at home to support this young woman. The boy’s parents were proud that their son had given in this way, even though this computer represented a great sacrifice that his father had made to save money from his small salary to buy it. The missionary told how he went to the house which was a very humble home to pick up this computer. He also mentioned that he would be looking for someone to purchase the computer so that the money could be passed on to the work of the young woman going as a missionary to Europe. As I read this story, I thought, this is a great story of how missionaries had worked alongside people to carry out the mission of God. The missionary assumed that the people in the country where he was serving could be missionaries just as he was a missionary; he also assumed that people could participate in sending missionaries. What an incredible story of God’s work which does not have political or economic boundaries.
As many bulk emails, people began to respond to this incredible story. Some responses were that North Americans should raise money to buy the computer and thus provide funds to support the young missionary woman. Other responses were that North Americans should give money so that the computer could be paid for and then given back to the boy who gave it.
As many bulk emails, people began to respond to this incredible story. Some responses were that North Americans should raise money to buy the computer and thus provide funds to support the young missionary woman. Other responses were that North Americans should give money so that the computer could be paid for and then given back to the boy who gave it.
What are the issues involved?
I open this blog for your thoughts:
I open this blog for your thoughts:
33 comments:
Greetings-
My name is Jeremy Henderson. I'm associate pastor at Raleigh First Church of the Nazarene. I happened upon your blog via the NTS website.
In answer to your question I believe Paul's advice to give as each has purposed in his heart to give is sage advice. Not to give under compulsion, also Paul's, is good advice as well. There will be situations that the Holy Spirit tugs at our hearts on and others that will not. Obviously we who are in the states do carry a bigger responsibility as those who have been blessed financially, however, I don't believe God is limited in providing for needs by the very nature of our geographic or even socio-economic conditions.
I received an email from a church member this week who is in touch with Nazarene Missionaries in South Africa. They are in need of some additional funds to help a student at S.Africa NTC. The story touched my heart in particularly because the Nazarene Missionaries of which I speak are originally from Raleigh First Nazarene. However, I do know that not all hearts are moved in the same way as I am. But to give out of a sense of "obligation" could possibly lead to stealing the "joy" out of a cheerful giver which Paul advises us not to do.
Don't know if any of this makes sense, but it's my thoughts. May God richly bless you!
Grace and peace-
Pastor Jeremy Henderson
Associate Pastor
Raleigh First Nazarene
I believe that re-purchasing the computer for the young boy would be stealing something from his experience with God. More faith lessons are learned when we give sacrificially and not from our left-overs. We wouldn't even be talking about this story if he were a wealthy businessman.
I have a friend who should have retired several years earlier than he did, but he continued to work so that he could give generously to missions and missionaries.
As a missionary, when I spend money, I never want to forget that, in many cases, that money came from people who are not even as well-off as I am.
On the other hand, I don't think we need to feel sorry for (or try to fix) those who have given or sacrificed so much (or more than WE think is reasonable)
-Rich Walker
I am Scottie Behm a NTS student and lay pastor to a new Celebrate Recovery ministry hosted by the Church of the Nazarene in Claremore, Ok.
The son most likely loves the computer it is one of the most precious gifts he has ever received. God then touches the son through the words of the missionary to share the greatest gift he could. The boy gives his very best, in the answer of God’s call. The Gift is a sacrificial gift of love. Further more this boy’s father and mother blesses the sons giving of the computer to the missionary.
As I looked at this story, I looked through the lens of the missionary, the son, the father, the observer and then the lens of the Father and Son. I began to see the sacrificial gift of the Son Jesus on the cross, in this story. I see the very heart of God at work in this boy and his family. My eyes became wide open when I thought from a missio dei standpoint what shall I do for our Lord Jesus, God’s Son.
To me this story is God’s story and it is a call to action through sacrificial love and of service. This story becomes even more powerful if each that reads this blog then begins to respond like the boy in the story.
To me the issues are where is your heart today, how will you answer God’s call? What is God calling you to do or give? Who can you team with to help send into the mission field to share God’s word?
There are many things that come to mind.
The first is that a young boy would sense the urgency to give something as precious as a computer in this way.This is awesome, and would make me wonder if God does not have a call on his yourng life.
Another thing that strikes me is that all people are basically the same. We, as Christians, hear God's still small voice asking us to contibute in many, many ways.
A third thing that I see seems to be a natural reaction by many. "Let the North Americans take care of these items with their money, they are rich."
Why is that? Is it possible that if the North Americans come to the rescue with their finances every time at the drop of the hat, that it will stymie the spirtiual growth of both parties?
In other words, do not other people outside of North America need to learn to give, even outside what may be deemed "a humble circumstance?"
And couldn't North Americans learn to grow by doing something other than what many would consider "throwing money at the problem," or even worse, soothing their own conscience by doing what comes easy; giving money?
My name is Chuck Self and I am a student at NTS. I am posting as a student participating in online posts for MSS 510 Ministry in Cross Cultural and Global Contexts.
Here are some of the issues I see concerning the responses to this story. The first is the response that says "North Americans" should do A, B, or C. Already the people responding are drawing boundaries between what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be an American. It does not matter where you are from you can give of monetary means to support this missionary and her efforts. The issue is we have been programmed to think about America being a "priveleged" country and that is why we should give to relief aids and social justice means. This is a true phenomenon except when considering Christian affiliation. We should give out of our Christian sense of responsibility and stewardship before we ever give as N. Americans.
The second issue I see is tied heavily our value in possesions and the belief that technology makes life better. These are really two seperate issues so I will state my case for the possessions argument first followed by the technology argument. When I read the idea that we should buy back the computer for the boy I found myself thinking about the time when the woman came into the dinner party and poured expensive perfume on Jesus. The disciples and others at the party thought in their hearts that what she had done was a travesty because that jar of perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. What they failed to realize and what we fail to realize today is that we live in a world engulfed in a fear of scarcity. Clearly this woman was living in a world of abundance in the sense that material possesions did not control her dispositions in life. We can see this fear of a myth of scarcity all around us--its what influences nearly everything we do all the way from birth to the grave. In the same way we fail to recognize that this boy is saying look here is my expensive jar of perfume given for the work of the kingdom. We think we have to make up for this out of our fear of scarcity and give the computer back to the child which would intern nullify his gift. It would be as if he had never given anything in the first place. I think this would be detrimental to the whole situation. It also reflects the ideology that technology extends life. Obviously computers have aided in every aspect of life giving the computer back to the boy is really tied to scarcity in that we believe this will either extend his chance for greater economic ability later in life or that he should be able to have this luxory for the sake of having it.
I'm not at all advocating that the computer or technology are inherently evil, but when we place our trust in these over against our trust in God then they become idols. Again the boy represents a spirit that is able to recognize the world we live in is really one of abundance and his material possesions can be used to extend the kindom and not his own personal grasp for power and survival.
One last issues I see is the centered around the idea that all we can do is give money. Instead of changing our patterns of life, we just give out of our abundance. The same is true for other social justice relief efforts. We are programmed to think the structures and systems are too big for us to actually participate in so we'll just give money. This disconnects us from the reality of what is really going on in the world. This gets translated to missions when we think all we can do is give money because we "can't" participate. Or we will elect to go on short term missions because we really "can't" participate in long term missions. Which often the reasons we can't is because of a myth of scarcity. I know it isn't that simple and it would take much more ink to develop a full argument for the ways in which a myth of scarcity has helped us find ourselves in these situations.
These are just some of my thoughts. For a richer understanding of this myth of scarcity see, Samuel Wells' book God's Companions. (ISBN: 978-1405120142)
My name is Brad McKenzie and I am senior pastor at Baton Rouge, Louisiana First Nazarene, and I am posting to this blog as part of Dr. Wesley’s Ministry in Cross-Culture/Global Context class.
First of all, I think that we need to celebrate the reality that God is raising up people all over the world to participate in His Missio Dei. There is in this story a real sense of the kind of engagement that God desires from all who are believers in Christ. I am excited about this kind of story with the testimony of a young boy feeling like he should make a great sacrifice to participate in missions by supporting someone who was called to go. What we have here in my opinion is the beauty of Western Christians staying the course of world evangelism over the past century. It is incredible to see that now missionaries to a country are sending out missionaries to other places.
Why is this happening? First of all, we have to remember that Christ called us all to go to the nations. What we have to remember as well is that this young woman was called by God to go to Europe just like the missionary working with her had been called to that country. In the same way, this young boy was also called to participate in world missions by the moving of God on his life to give something that could help the woman go to Europe. God is the one who calls a person to serve in the way He sees fit. The church does not call people, God calls them and they have the wonderful privilege to participate in His call.
Secondly, I believe that it is necessary for the entire world to participate in world missions in order to reach the thousands of people groups that do not have any Christian influence. I believe that God is interested in all people of all nations participating in the great commission. He is calling the world to participate in getting the message to every corner, people, and language. Again, I think that we need to celebrate the victory we can see here that God is using foreign missionaries in one country to send out people to be foreign missionaries in another country. We should be very excited about this prospect and see that the Missio Dei is being done in our sight.
Now I need to address the issue of the boy and the computer. As I have already said, I believe that God called this boy to give his computer just as he had called the young lady to go to Europe and the missionary to come to this particular Latin American country. I am beginning to believe that every facet and detail of a story is essential to the purpose of God. It may not sound very seminary student like and too pastoral, but there is no detail in God’s story and purpose that is insignificant. I think that this boy giving this computer was as much a part of the story of the lady going to Europe as she actually putting her foot down there.
I have a plumber on my board that owns his own business. He is not a super wealthy person, but he does well. He works hard for a living and has found that he is never without work to do. Over the past year we have had various needs arise where we need a plumber at the church. This man will come out and do the work and not charge the church anything. I will ask him every time what we owe him and he responds the same every time, “Awe preacher, don’t rob me of God’s blessing by trying to pay me, He has asked me to do this and I am committed to be faithful.” I ask every time to be proper, but I know what the answer will be.
As a pastor, I have received many wonderful personal gifts and blessings over the years. Many times I will at least try to take the check at a meal or ask what I owe when someone takes me golfing or to a game. I do all of this to be proper and not assume anything, but as well I guess I feel a sense of guilt that I do not deserve these blessings. I have heard so many times people say to me, “Pastor, don’t rob me of a blessing.” What are they saying? Is it an issue like tithing that if they give to the Pastor they will receive blessings? This may be true, but almost 99% of the time it is not for that reason. Almost always, the attitude of the person giving to me and my family is that they are blessed by the act of giving to someone and blessed by being faithful to God when they feel he is asking them to do something.
I feel the same about the boy’s computer. He received a blessing from the action of being faithful to God’s call. He also received a blessing by understanding the impact his gift would have on the woman raising money. I believe that North Americans have a greater responsibility to give more than the rest of the world financially because of our abundance. This responsibility is based on the amount we can give, not the attitude and obedience to give. We have much and much is required of us, but I believe that God is calling all of the Christian church to give sacrificially of their means and possessions to take the message of Christ to the world.
If God put on the heart of some North American to buy the computer and thus become the financial benefit form the boy’s gift then that North American should be faithful to the call. As well, if a North American feels inclined by the Lord to buy the computer and give it back to the boy, they should be faithful to this call as well. What should not be implied here is that because North Americans have money we should step in and make this an even greater story. We need to do what God is calling us to do. I would also mention that there may be another native to that country that God will call to replace the computer or give a blessing to the boy that would be greater even than the computer.
In any case, there seems to be an even greater lesson for the North American church to learn for all of this. Maybe instead of throwing a few dollars to this project to make it the way we think it should go, we should lean the principle of true sacrifice and obedience to God. It is completely appropriate for the North American church to read this and instead of wanting to immediately find a solution to the situation, we pray and ask the Lord what we should do. It is also completely appropriate for the North American church to be challenge to be engaged in the Missio Dei of God in such a way that we would make comparable sacrifices. I do not think that we understand as a church what it means to make sacrifices to change the world for Christ.
In closing, it is appropriate to again challenge the world, especially the North American church to engage in missions with the same fervor, sacrifice, and obedience that this boy did. We can learn a great lesion form this young example.
My thoughts,
Brad McKenzie
It's interesting to see the varying perspectives on what it truly means to participate in the mission of God. There are several issues at work here.
First of all, I am humbled by the willingness of the boy to follow God's lead to give the computer to the missionary's cause. The fact that his own father sacraficed his hard-earned money to buy the computer for him only shows how much the boy was truly giving up. It was so much more than a computer, he was also giving the missionary something that represented hard work, dedication, sacrifice, and love on behalf of the son.
I was also humbled by the response of the boy's parents. My initial response was "how can this boy give something away after all his father sacrificed to get it?" But, even his parenst were "proud that their son had given in this way . . ." There didn't seem to be a single ounce of regret on their part. This was truly a story of a family working together in step with the Spirit.
As for the response to the e-mail, I do think there were good intentions, but to raise money to get the computer back to the son would only be telling him that he sacrificed too much. Also, instead of raising money to get the computer back to the boy, why not raise money to give to the missionary and thus, support the young boy by joining him in the cause? What better way to affirm the importance of the sacrifice than to join him?
Why do we tend to feel sympathy for the boy and his cause rather than for that of the missionary? Wouldn't we be blessing the boy more by affirming his obedience?
Robby Giffin
It is great that the boy gave the computer for missions. A computer doesn't seem like that much of a sacrifice, but it seems that the boys father and the boy had both worked very hard for the computer.
It makes me wonder what we have in our lives that we work so hard for, but we don't need. My computer broke down a few months ago and I didn't think I could survive. I am doing alright though. I think I am almost better because of it. I have been able to read more and to spend more time with people that I care about.
I'm kind of torn in how to respond to the comments of the North American readers from the story. On the one hand, I'm glad that they are willing to take responsibility, realizing that we do have more resources than most people around the world and we should use them to help others.
But on the other hand, I think sometimes we get a little arrogant, thinking that we, as North Americans, are responsible for fixing things, especially things like this which would be easy for us to fix. We get 200 people to send $15 bucks for this cause, and then feel great about ourselves, but we continue living as we always have, keeping our own prized possessions for ourselves.
As some have mentioned before me, I think the best response to the story is to allow ourselves to be convicted, to be open to how God may call us to give up a thing that we possess for the good of the kingdom of God. Perhaps some of us would donate a computer to a local after-school program or an inner city church that may need one. Perhaps some would pledge a monthly gift to a local ministry in need of funds. Perhaps a church would donate a van to another church that can't afford to buy one. Perhaps we would begin to give sacrificially as this little boy has done.
One of the primary issues here is one that has been discussed in many of the materials we have read in this class. That is the issue of many of us North Americans equating possessions with happiness. This is evidenced in the comments heard so often when someone returns from a short term mission trip: "The people there are so poor, but yet so happy. I was shocked." As a result of this mindset, we often feel we need to "come to the rescue" with our money and possessions. Certainly we need to be generous with the blessings God has given us, but we also need to recognize that God can use others to be a blessing as well. If our ultimate goal is to spread the Gospel, then perhaps the funds would be better spent doing that rather than replacing the boy's computer. He was no doubt aware of his father's sacrifice in buying the computer, and knew that it may be a long time before he owns another one. But he chose to be obedient to the Spirit's leading and give it anyway.
I think the bottom line is that each person should give as the Holy Spirit leads, and that with a grateful heart. If I truly feel led to replace the boy's computer, then I should do it. But I shouldn't do it as a rich North American, but as an obedient Christian who is simply following the Spirit's lead.
What is convicting is the passion that prompts the surrender of something prized for the sake of something of a higher or more pressing claim. This reflects a dictionary definition of sacrifice. Should we then be caught up in conversation concerning a response to reimburse someone’s sacrificial passion with the funds of those who may not be so ambitious (a characteristic of functional Christendom)? Should it not call for equal sacrifice? True sacrifice results in personal loss. What is operative in the hearts of those gifting is a higher value. Paul said, "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." 1 Corinthians 9:23 (NIV). These are those who are “rich toward God” (Luke 12). A self-centered heart has difficulty expanding beyond a narrow self -perception to a global view. To covet the success of the missio Dei over self- satisfaction and physical and financial security is less probable with those in the lap of luxury. I remember my friend Charlie when he retired as a machinist, having all, by his own assessment, that he financially needed for life. Upon hearing a like-sacrificial story, he returned to work to use his skills to function as a financial partner and as an instrument in the missional work of God’s Kingdom. What is embodied in the response of the boy and the missionary is their voluntary surrender to the reign of the Missionary God who calls, gathers, centers, and sends His people. They reaffirm that evangelism and mission must be relevant to all.
As you rightly note, David, this was originally one story: The exciting story of how a missionary was being sent by the Church of Latin America to Europe.
That story was later hijacked and possibly eclipsed by the response of those who received the bulk email. Their responses press questions of missions and money into the foreground. How can a world wide Church--with all the economic disparity that exists--authentically collaborate together in God's mission?
Answering that question is extraordinarily challenging. The situation emerges when missions is no longer moving in one direction (West to the rest). However, our conceptual framework--I fear--has not caught up to this new reality. Our answers still seem to emerge from the language and imagery of the one-directional Modern Missionary movement.
Thus, I hesitate to craft any response, lest I prove my own point.
Below, though, are a few thoughts and/or cautions about how to possibly approach this situation:
When the Modern Missionary Movement stood on tip-toe and tried to peer into the future, it often imagined a Church outside the West that was "self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating." These three-selfs have doggedly hung around as measuring sticks for what makes a church. (See for instance, the Manual for the Church of the Nazarene, which still evaluates every district by these standards.)
While laudable, the "three-selfs" are ultimately inadequate. They define the Church according to principles which appear--if at all--negligible in the Scriptures.
Raising money for budgets, for instance, never seemed to trouble Paul as much as the need for the Church to be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, or for the Church to hold fast to the faith received.
Yet, in the story relayed, I see echoes of the "self-support" principle surfacing. There is deep ambivalence on the part of those who received the email as to how to proceed. On the one hand, the compassionate heart wants to intervene: "You do not need to sacrifice like that. We will help you." On the other hand, we want to stay distant and applaud the entire Latin American church for "stepping up," and becoming truly self-supporting.
If we could possibly untangle ourselves from the perspective of pushing "self-support" as a key attribute of the Church, perhaps we can more genuinely enter into this new--and creative--space being opened up by Majority world sending.
Besides, if we are to move past a one-directional concept of missions, we will be required to enter into conversations with our co-laborers. Deciding from a distance, on behalf of everyone, how North America can collaborate with Latin America will only reinforces old patterns: i.e., the West making decisions for the Rest.
If we are to enter a new paradigm, I think we will have to do it jointly. Opening conversations like this--with those involved in Latin America--might begin to craft a new vision for world wide cooperation.
Greetings from Guatemala. I am Scott Armstrong, and I am the missionary referred to in this story. the whole thing was one of the coolest things I have ever been a part of. It was a huge sacrifice. Two thoughts here:
1. What does the Bible say about this? Well, this gets sticky. After I shared this story with all my contacts, some equated it with the boy and his loaves and fish. He fed the multitude, but he was fed too, right? Others equated it with the widow's mite. She gave and it does not say that Jesus stopped her and took her only livelihood out of the offering plate and said, "Oh, my. You need this more than any of us." No, in fact, the widow seemingly did not even know she was being lauded for her gift. Others parralleled the boy and his computer with Abraham´s sacrifice of Isaac with the giver truly sacrificing but God giving his son back to him. There are many other analogies. The act of contextualizing is complicated because the same Bible seems to give us several options. That is where the Holy Spirit guides (through tradition, experience, and reason--with Scripture as the foundation).
2. An update on this kid and his family: This happened 5 months ago. I would love to tell you they have found themselves rich and never been better or more blessed financially. But they still do not have a new computer. Mom has lost her job. The teen has struggled with a spinal difficulty that has made him miss school sometimes with great pain. The computer is still for sale although many people have donated bits and pieces toward the volunteer missionary's trip. Does any of this change how we view this gift? We see "sacrifice" and "blessing" so often in terms of finances. Much of the world would grimace at that simplification.
My name is Vania Shunko. I am youth pastor at the Church of the Nazarene in Bethesda, Ohio. I am responding to this in reply to Dr. Wesley’s mission class at NTS.
The first thing that struck me was the people’s response that North Americans should respond to the needs. I wonder why they only included North Americans, why not Christians in general. Christians everywhere should feel a need to become involved, not monetarily necessarily, but in prayer. No matter the nationalization. I think for so long Americans have somewhat generalized the thought that we are the only ones sending missionaries and contributing to the missional cause. There are more missionaries being sent from other countries every year. We cannot solve all the problems that we read in e-mails or mission magazines. We can have a heart for prayer and supporting our missionaries through our churches.
Second is, why return the computer? I believe it would be taking away from the young man’s gift. The Lord is going to bless him. We do not know how, when, or where but God does. I believe the best thing to do would be to ATM (ask the missionary) what he believes is needed most? The responses of the people were very American and self-oriented. They want to dive in right away and fix the problem themselves. We have to let the Spirit lead us. Pray what the Lord wants, pray for a solution. It is hard to know what to truly do or say when we are not there in the situation.
In Him, Vania Shunko
My name is Charlie Floyd and I am the interim pastor for the Walnut Hills Church of the Nazarene in Huntington, WV and I am also a student in Dr. Wesley's Ministry in Cross-Cultural/Global Contexts class at NTS.
The issue that determines our giving cannot be separated from the idea of "to whom much is given, much is required." Although the North American church has seemingly more opportunities to give than others, the opportunity to sacrifice is not reserved for Christians in North America.
Many people in the church come in with a very North American consumer background. If we would endeavor to live like John Wesley and limit our personal spending first and then determine our giving later, we would definitely be able to give more than we do.
Giving 10% is a great place to start but it seems that the more we make, the more Caesar wants. Tax Freedom Day for most Americans is in May or June for some states. This means we spend almost half a year paying our tax burden for the privilege of living in these United States. In spite of that fact, we must still be prepared to participate in supporting the ongoing work of the Kingdom of God. This should remind us that anything that is really important to us must be planned for well in advance and true planning and sacrifice must work together to help us support the ongoing work of the Kingdom of God through tithes and offerings.
I have used an illustration to preach a sermon on priorities. I begin with a clear pitcher that I fill with four or five large aquarium rocks. We agree (the congregation and me) that the pitcher is full. Then I add a bucket of gravel to fill around the big rocks. We then agree again that the pitcher is full. Then I add some colored sand to fill in between the big rocks and the gravel. We agree again that it is full (at least most of the people will agree if not all with me). Then I pour from a water pitcher to fill the big rocks, gravel, and sand until the pitcher cannot hold anything else. We all know now that the pitcher really is full but I ask for the lessons that can be learned.
Someone always says that you can always add more things to your life than you first thought (which may be true but it is not the point). The point is that if you don't begin with the big rocks (priorities) in your life (the pitcher), you will never be able to fit them in without emptying your life of all the other stuff (signified by the gravel, sand, and even water).
Determine early on what is a high priority (or a big rock) in your life because if you don't, you will have to get rid of many little things to make room for what is really important.
Charlie Floyd
Hello, I am Jonathan Rider. I am still processing the implications of this story. These are my initial thoughts after reading the story and many of the responses.
Both the boy and the parents are examples of being Christlike disciples. They are willing to take up their cross daily by giving away that which took much sacrifice to recieve.
As others have said, for us Americans to pull out the credit card and replace the computer would miss the heart of the issue. I am often that disciple after Jesus tells a parable asking, "What are you saying?"
As a parent and pastor, the question that burns my heart is how do we nurture Christlike disciples here in America? Our model of ministry is reward based, not sacrifice based.
We are more likely to pay or be paid to do ministry then to sacrifice. And when we do sacrifice, we count the costs. We make sure people know that we are volunteering our time. Time is money.
It seems that if the family or son would have counted the cost, they would have come to a reasonable decision that this was crazy.
I am wrestling with the question, "Do we/I really need God?" Well, yes, I rationaly know I need God. But, am I desperate for God as Dr. Wesley recently stated in an email? When I lead a worship service, small group, or Sunday school class, do I really need God to show up or am I satisfied with my efforts?
Maybe, my test is how much I am willing to sacrifice is how much I need God? I will continue to process and pray. God have mercy. God thank you for revealing your Son to us through the sacrifice of this family.
Hi there, Cole Weston from NTS here.
This is one that takes much thought. Thus far I think I've identified two things that come to mind:
1. Jesus did not come to those with the greatest resources. He called those who would follow. It seems we must use our gifts in service, but not become obsessed by how much we have, or claim some superior place because of our blessedness.
2. There seem to be a flood of imported Western ideas here. Competing against the gospel seems to be under the radar assumptions of the West. "We have the most to give" = It's our responsibility as the "winner". "We should replace the computer" = No one should have to sacrifice. They need to have spirituality and materialism together, like us!
I know these are generalizations, but can you see the sub rosa implications in this thought? There's also the guilt of "We have so much, clearly we must be the leaders."Really? Perhaps we've got a lot, and must steward it, but how does that AT ALL qualify us to lead anyone? The wealthy were not leaders in Jesus' movement by virtue of wealth, although we hear that some of means helped.
Looking at our own denomination, I wonder about the "self-supporting" model brought up earlier by Daryl. Implicit in this seems to be some concession to our society – but I am not sure if it is good or bad. Obviously we cannot continue our work if we are not solvent or self-supporting, but how important is money, really? I just can't help but wonder how much of our activity is reigned over by monetary concerns. Perhaps we need to see how our neighbors in other countries minister and work with lower budgets.
My name is Josh Broughton and I am currently the youth pastor at Ottawa First Church in Illinois.
As I begin to think about the story presented for this post, I am always amazed at the generosity of young people. The boy giving up the computer is definitely a leading from God.
The question that keeps coming up in my mind is; does the United States sending money take the place of the sacrifice of the boy? For the boy it was a huge sacrifice, but for our culture it is as simple as writing a check and sending it.
Can God still provide a way for the young lady to go to Europe for mission work if the people in the United States does not give? It just seems like a great story of faith and sacrifice. I means so much more for the boy to give and the young girl to have the faith that God will provide!!!
That does not mean that God cannot use the blessings of the United States to help this young girl go to Europe, but is this the best stategy?
I would like to thank all of you for your good discussion and for Scott, who has generously allowed us to use this story as a means for us to learn more about missions and money. I have chosen to use this example, not so that we can dissect with Scott is or isn’t doing, but so that we can look at the larger issues of the use of resources in mission work. Taking the global context into consideration in which the Christian population is growing “southward” in some of the poorest parts of the globe, and taking into consideration the growth of Short Term Missions and other initiatives which come primarily from sectors of the church with financial capital, this is a vital discussion.
I would like to pick up a little of the conversation that Daryl initiated in his post. There are various modern mission leaders who continue to write against the dangers of non-Western ministries depending on Western money. For example, Robertson McQuilkin, former president of Colombia International University, wrote an article for Christianity Today on his experiences with mission funding in India with the title, “Stop Sending Money!” Another is Glenn Schwartz, who has published an article (EMQ 30, 1994) called “cut the apron strings” which points to the detrimental effects of financial dependency.
In recent literature, however, a new emphasis has arisen that encourages financial partnership between Western donars and non-western recipients. Some of those who support this are Luis Bush, Bob Finley, and K.P. Yohannan. This perspective has been characterized as a “just send –money movement”. Either of these extremes is unhealthy and does not reflect the true nature of the Church.
Needless to say, the issues of indigenization, and the goal of missions has been an on-going discussion for many years (as Daryl pointed out). And there is great need for further work in this area. I personally do not think that independence (“three-self”) should be the goal of missions. We must continue to strive toward models of “interdependence” if we are to truly be the body of Christ. For people who pastor, and those who lead youth groups in ministry to individuals with less financial capital, this can be a real challenge. U.S. culture is saturated with the idea that having material possessions is equivalent to a person’s value. The real issue here is how do we function as one body moving toward the same mission? If the mission is God’s, all of us who share in the body of Christ become part of a sending church. This includes me; it includes brothers and sisters in every corner of the world, and yes! It also includes a young girl willing to leave her home in Central America, and it includes a young boy in Central America who is privileged to come as an equal partner in God’s Mission!
My name is Brian Utter and I am a missionary in South America. I couldn't comment last night due to travel, but wanted to point out the importance of a maturing church. Since most of the comments have focused on the article and I would echo them, I want to add another angle...
As our denomination celebrates 100 years, many of our mission fields are also celebrating 100, 90, 80 years. Depending on which part of the world, you will still see a great dependancy on funds from the US. However, a truly maturing church will show 1) Non-US missionaries being called and serving overseas. 2) National leadership taking responsibility: both for strategy and finances.
A great example is Peru. The Church of the Nazarene has actually been in Peru for more than 100 years, since one of the groups which joined together to form the denomination was already at work there. Peruvian leadership can be found at all levels, from the Field Strategy Coordinator, DSs and Pastors. Peruvian churches give to the World Evangelism Fund, Alabaster, Compassion, etc. The Peruvian church is currently funding four national missionaries opening the church in four new provinces in the eastern section of Peru.
Now look at Argentina, where I live. The CON has spent 80 years in Argentina. Again, leadership from FSC on down to pastors is Argentine. However, dependency on outside resourcing exists and giving to a global effort is not very present. The national board has a strategy much like Peru in reaching all of their country and planting the church in ever province, but the national churches are not giving to support national missionaries.
What is the difference? Mentality. The Peruvian church has been grown to think and give globally. Whereas the Argentine church (even though we have many global missionaries who are from Argentina) have been slow to develop this mentality.
There is also a big difference between being independent and dependency. Many countries want to 'govern' themselves (to be independent) when it comes to the church and an outside missionary influence, but they sure don't want the outside funding to cease.
So, is it the missionary's job to help develop an mentality of global giving in the mission field? Will globally giving encourage less dependency on US funds? I await your answers.
The independent (“three self”) criteria is favored in North American church-planting strategies. It is as though “healthy independent” churches have lost sight of resources that have contributed to the success of their ministry. Much of these resources are secular in nature. The early church missionary movement was accelerated by Roman roads and the current Jesus Film Project to technology. The quality of functional structures does contribute to a higher level of achievement. This, North America does have to offer. Into this tension of “stop sending money” and the “just send money” movement as Dr. David Wesley has identified, healthy functional structures are drawn into consideration. An aspect of healthy structure is accountability. Embezzlement of funds is just as much a concern for North American denominations as it is for missionary organizations, so the World Christian Database indicates. Our church recently sent sports uniforms and equipment outside the Nazarene channels to a village in Zimbabwe. Our connection to the local village and school is through a young man from Zimbabwe in our California church. We are convinced we have a spiritual responsibility to engage. Our hope is to build a relationship with local officials known to our church member and build a school in a country where the US tourist’s survival rate is poor. Short term mission projects are not a consideration. We are testing the waters for people that are trustworthy. This happened prior to Mugabe’s recent escapades and it may not be surprising why are gift has not arrived. Building healthy interdependent relationships takes time. Building healthy cross-cultural interdependent relationships even more so.
I remember sitting through Missionary services about 4 times a year growing up in the Nazarene Church. Each service you could almost predict what the Missionary was going to do. They were going to paint a bleak picture of the situation (including living conditions, lack of resources, disease, etc.) where they were headed. Then, they were going to ask for money.
I wonder if my own stereotypes regarding what other countries lack actually was formed by those very missionaries? I understand money and resources are needed, but I agree with the notion that there must be an interdependence.
I guess the real issue is what does that look like? What does it look like to be interdependent? How can the goers, the senders, and the receivers all work together to see God's mission fulfilled?
I recently discovered the "three-self" process during a class on the History and Polity of the Nazarene church. I found it rather disturbing at that point, and I appreciate the comments that have been made concerning this issue.
Even in the US there are churches in impoverished areas, working with and among the homeless and poor, that are in desperate need of funds. In order to make it financially many pastors in these settings take no salary. If the church as a whole would take a more interactive stance, rather than wanting each individual congregation to be self-sustainable, there would be a multitude of funds that would open up all kinds of doors for work and ministry in these hurting areas. But because of the way things are, these churches struggle along on thier own, getting by with the well-meaning volunteers who offer service for a season.
How can we begin to move towards an understanding of the church as interdependant? We should be lifting each other up, giving to one another when there is need, not pushing new congregations into the water with a 1 or 2 or 5 year floatie and then letting them sink or swim on thier own. This makes sense to some degree for churches working among the middle and upper classes, but it makes no sense when a church has dedicated itself to work among the poor.
I want to respond to the comment that Rich made. I agree with you 100% Rich. Why do we always look at the money, or gifts given by someone that we consider "poor" as if it is such a tragedy.
Why, in this instance, should the boy be given the money for the computer? To me, that is not allowing the boy to sense God's blessings in giving.
In this class we have talked about the fact that sometimes we have a cultural ignorance. If the boy that wants to donate that computer is given the money for it, then we have bought into that cultural ignorance.
Let him give the computer and we "rich" North Americnas stay out of it. Everything cannot be cured with money:-)
Andy
After reading the comments it appears we are pretty much all on the same page and that is encouraging. One comment that I've really thought about and have tried to let sink in was the comment by Jonathan Rider, "Our model of ministry is reward based, not sacrifice based." Truly we have used Behavior Modification techniques in the church that are based on reward and punishment. The problem is we learn to live based solely on recognition or fear of punishment. This gets extended into the way we minister for recognitions sake--obviously not everyone but as mentioned in one of the posts even how we view time as money affects how we minister for recognitions sake. If we are able to embrace a different learning style that is narrative based and communially constitutive our responses may be different and may intern reflect more of a sacrificial system.
Thanks to those who mentioned the parents willingness to sacrifice as well. This is something I hadn't thought much about until reading some of the posts. Obviously sacrifice is something that is understood on a communal and family level. Family systems theory comes in to play even when we never expect it.
On the other hand, I don't want to demonize the raising of moneys to support. In the economic system we all participate in, this is often a vital part of living. Usually it is easier to get many to give little instead of one giving much. I think the danger we face is when we assume this is all we have to give is monetary funds; this is especially 'dangerou' when we think this solves all the problems. I don't know. I think it is too easy to demonize those who want to give money in scenarios like this. To bring it all back to the comment on behavior modification, the fault is not just on the people who responded to the email but it is also on the communities that these people participate in and how those communities shape their/our lives.
I believe I indicated in my previous post that I agree we shouldn't assume as "wealthy" North Americans that it is our job to come to the rescue and replace the boy's computer. But if I can play the devil's advocate...
As Scott said in his post, the Bible gives several options for guidance, and one of those options is that sometimes God does give back to us what we have sacrificed, or been willing to sacrifice, to Him (e.g., Abraham & Isaac or the boy with the lunch). What if a person does feel led to replace the computer, not out of North American arrogance, but simply out of a heart sensitive to God's still small voice saying, "I want you to do this." Is it not possible, then, that God might use that person's obedience to give back to the boy what he has chosen to sacrifice to God?
I guess what I am getting at is that motive is crucial. How I respond to missions shouldn't be determined by assumptions or pride or duty, but by the acting of God upon my heart through the Holy Spirit. I have to trust that if I am in step with Him, then the gift I give will accomplish what He wants it to accomplish.
I have re-read all the posts and as I was reading Scott A(rmstrong)'s post I thought of the way that we sometimes give. I am involved in giving to the local church through tithes and offerings, Faith Promise for mission, and other gifts for NYI, NMI, and Sunday School. I also give for special occasions such as special missionary services and I have also given in the past to certain missionaries who have gone from districts that I have been part of.
One thing that almost always seems to be true about Nazarenes is that when they know about a specific need, they usually give. For instance, if I know that Brian and his family, who were sent by the Akron District (now East OH District) to Papua New Guinea had a specific financial need, I was able to tell the Akron Ellet Church of the Nazarene (where I used to pastor) that Brian and his family had a particular need. Since they knew Brian and his wife and children, they would take up a special offering to meet that need.
I also know that there are always needs on foreign and local mission fields and it seems to be overwhelming to the point where we can not make a difference, nor meet all the needs, so why be overwhelmed. This is where the systematic giving comes in. God bless my gift and those other gifts until we keep on giving and giving until there are no more needs (if that day will come).
My point is that it is easier to get people who know names and specific needs to give them an offering than to sometimes motivate people to give to the just as real needs of the nameless and faceless (to us) masses of humanity who cry out to God to meet their needs and He does that through my systematic and special giving and yours also.
Charlie Floyd
Scottie Behm
NTS Student
Dr. Wesley’s Mission Class
I wanted to start by saying that I have enjoyed reading this blog and the different aspects discussed. In particular it was enjoyable to hear the perspective of the missionaries. One of points that hit home with me had to do with the maturity of the church and the mission efforts being in place 80-100 years. With the growth of the mission effort 100 years ago coming from Europe for someone outside looking in it is neat to see that the mission efforts are returning full circle again.
The issue of money and missions is the focal point of this lesson. To me the sacrificial giving that this boy did for the missionary and the father did for his son in the original purchase are key models for the correct heart we should have when we give. We can extrapolate this type of sacrificial giving from the individual level to that of groups, communities, countries and the body of Christ. That is when this type of giving has great potential for making a difference for the Kingdom of God.
We have heard many times over how wealthy the North American People are throughout this blog. I want to introduce a couple of new economic thoughts into the discussion. In an article dated April 21, 2008 for the Oil and Gas Journal by Dr. Gawdat G Bahgat is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in Indiana. The article was titled “Oil funds: threat or opportunity?” Mr. Bahgat focuses on the 675 Billion dollars in oil revenue from net oil exports by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qutar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. He makes three key points:
1. “By the late 1980s Kuwait was earning more from overseas investments than it was from direct sale of oil.”
2. “The soaring of cross border investment represents a potential structural shift in the global economy.”
3. “The Challenge Western financial markets face is how to ensure the steady inflow of badly needed investment while… addressing popular skepticism that these investments might be driven by strategic interests.”
In some ways as I have read these comments I feel we have been missing a larger point that Dr. Bahgat makes in point number two above the potential shift in global economy. Now many of our comments seem to assume a wellness or separateness from global competition for the North American culture. There is a new book called the “Braking Point: America’s Energy Dreams and Global Economic Realities” being released by Mark A Stansberry and Jason P. Reimbold looks like it will be an interesting read.
As the Christian church is growing and becoming centered in the Southern Hemisphere there are some practical realities associated with money and missions, or the lack there of. In some ways the Christian movement must compete for and seek to win the lost. A map on page 542 in the Perspectives book shows that based on 2000 Ad population numbers there are 2.5 Billion in 50 countries that are providing resistance to the grow of Christianity, 36 Muslim Countries account for 1.1 billion, 2 Hindu Countries another 1.1 billion people and 12 Buddhist Countries .3 Billion people.
At an individual level “a person must overeat by at least two dollars worth of food per month to maintain one excess pound of flesh. Yet two dollars a month is more than what 90% of all Christians in America give to missions.” (Ralph D Winter. “War Time Lifestyle” Perspectives p 707) I don’t know about you but I am at least 20 lbs. over weight and have only given a little over the average to missions through my tithes. My giving has been next to nothing proportionately to the 15 boy and his gift of the computer in the original blog.
With a significant shift of the global economy in recent months to oil rich countries that tend to be Muslim, I believe we should prepare to increase our sending and giving in order to meet the new needs of injustice, poverty and world strife that will occur as a result of the new shift. Also I think the allocation of resources needs to be done so globally in manner that best uses the resources for the benefit of the Kingdom of God when we choose to team interdependently we attempt to arrange ourselves to become effective. There is a corny picture (Bill and Amy Sterns Perspectives P725) of a four stage missile or rocket that is made up of 1) the church 2) our own people 3) reached people and 4) the unreached people. It shows that the church must reach groups 2,3,4. It also says that crossing cultures takes place when we send and become interdependent on the reached people as our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Also is it wrong to remember the 15 boy, as Scott Armstrong mentions his pain and the spinal condition. Or the family’s new financial need due to mother losing her job. I personally would love to hear that this child got the best medical care possible for his condition. Yet I understand that we cannot just fix every situation we hear about, yet I am left with the thought what would Jesus do?
As we talked about the maturity of the church and mission efforts in effect going full circle I share the following thought. The quote I want to end on is from Ralph D. Winter and Bruce A. Koch under the title of “The Essential Missionary Task Perspectives p 516. ”Why not expect that God is well able and willing to attract to His Son a substantial movement that will spread rapidly, spontaneously and thoroughly within whole peoples.”
I want to respond to this question presented earlier in the discussion: So, is it the missionary's job to help develop an mentality of global giving in the mission field? Will globally giving encourage less dependency on US funds?
It seems to me that as churches all over the world continue to think globally then there will be less of a push to look to the United States for most of the funding. It was encouraging to hear about the Peruvian Church and how effective they are throughout the world.
I also think that it is the job of the missionaries to continue to strive for a different mentality throughtout the churches. The churches need to look within for help and leadership, but it is still the responsibility of the churches who are more well off to pitch in financially in order to further the gospel overseas.
Thank you, Scottie for the economic perspective. I am still trying to understand what it all means.
I appreciated your closing through throught the quote from Ralph D. Winter and Bruce A. Koch under the title of “The Essential Missionary Task Perspectives p 516. ”Why not expect that God is well able and willing to attract to His Son a substantial movement that will spread rapidly, spontaneously and thoroughly within whole peoples.”
God is able to exceed our imagination. I find rest at night knowing this truth. I believe the basic economic challegne, "a limited amount of resources with an unlimited amount of want" is fundemantally routed in our dependence on God. We will always be thirsting for more without God. God is the Creator who can bring fulfillment to our needs. At the end of the day, I must be willing to with honesty say I done my best, the rest is up to You God.
In the global world, there is a need for interdepency, not dependency. Their is a need to listen, share, and receive.
Maybe our best lesson is found in scripture through the model of the early church: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47)
Well, we've heard some impassioned perspectives! We hear how money isn't everything, but still we need to send money. And I really resonate with the rewards based idea – something I'd love to talk to our youth pastor about to get his perspective. Clearly North America must provide resources, as we've been richly blessed. But I think too often we think because we are the most blessed, we are the leader. We do have tremendous technology and money, but this is not all the advantage there is. If one can send thousands of dollars, men, equipment and do it overnight, but the team cannot communicate with the natives to do anything of lasting value, we've just wasted an enormous amount of money doing nothing.
I'd love to end this by saying we need to do this, or we need to do that. But again, this is the American reaction. Perhaps its time to observe what God is doing, and take some lessons for once, instead of trying to be the leader.
Still thinking on all this. Thanks for the great quotes!
This is my Thursday response to the post of this week.
I think that this discussion has been one of the best we have had in the whole class. All of us have made wonderful observations and engaged in a very important conversation.
I know some have said this already in their response, but I want to address it as well. Our North American culture, and as well our North American missions vision, seems to continually center on the power of money. As I was reading the post tonight I was thinking of both Jesus and Paul. Never in the accounts of Jesus' life and ministry do we find Him taking up a collection or needing to raise money to get to the next town. We do have instances of people giving of what they had to Jesus to do what he wanted with it. We have the account of the boy with the fish and bread, the woman with the perfume, and the man who gave the Lord his donkey and room. In the writings of Paul, we get a picture of his commitment to bi vocational ministry along with raising money for churches in great need. What is different here, Jesus' ministry was not one of organization and structure. It was a nomadic ministry that sought out needs while all the time focusing on Jerusalem and the cross. Jesus even told his disciples to not take money with them on their journey to proclaim the kingdom. Although depending on the kindness of others, Paul never said he was not able to minister because of finances.
Tom made a good point concerning surrendering to God's calling. Another in our class said that we need to not be so concerned with the financial cost of missions but a commitment to prayer.
I spent time in NYC this week as we prepared to take our mission trip to New York this summer. There is money and power all around that city for the purpose of money and power. I spent two hours at the Brooklyn Tabernacle where we prayed and sang for two hours telling God that we depended on Him and believed He was going to take care of us.
I have heard all of my life that God own the cattle on a thousand hills. God does not need my financial gift; I believe that He wants my surrendered heart. To me, this whole discussion is not about money, raising it or giving it, it is about being surrendered to God's mission for the world and participating however He enables us to do. I have tears in my eyes as I respond, because I am realizing that surrender to God is really the only thing that will make a difference in this life.
Blessings,
Brad
Vania Shunko
NTS Student
Thinking of what Scott Armstrong said, and what difficulties the boy and his family have been through, maybe it is time for action. Perhaps this update and connection is a way for people to know that there is a need. I liked Armstrong’s illustration from the Bible that the Lord did give back to the boy with the loaves and fishes and to Isaac when he offered his son. Are we over analyzing? In situations like this family is facing, if they were in our neighborhood, our friends, or in our church, would we not reach out to them? They are in our global church, so should we not do the same. We are all in the family of God and need to sometimes remember that. So, I guess I am altering slightly my initial opinion. I do not believe the computer should be given back, because I feel it would take away from the sacrifice the boy and his family made. The family should be given back to though. In support, whether in prayer or financial, whatever the Lord leads someone to do. It does not even have to be North Americans; it can be anyone, from anywhere. The best would be for the support to come locally, so they are building local ties and dependability.
Second, did Christ not ask the rich man to give all of his possessions and follow Him? Since I read the initial story, I have been thinking about the money I spend on completely ridiculous things. Spring is here and I need a pedicure to wear sandals. Or so I used to do every year. I pay $40 for a pedicure, once a year; I pay $60 to get my hair cut and dyed, every two months. Would that not be considered wasted wealth? Should we give up the unessential and give more? I could adopt a second child through Compassionate Ministries with what I spend just on these. I am a little embarrassed to admit that. I have heard myself say too many times, “I need to do something for me and pamper myself every once in a while.” Why can I not be content with the things I do for others? Shouldn’t I be just as blessed through what they have received? In our possessions and accumulated wealth have we not crossed the line of idolatry? If we put more money into the Play Station we bought than the offering plate does this say something? I guess it is a matter of perspective. I have just felt convicted more this week about my spending than I ever have.
In Him, Vania
Post a Comment