Lausanne World Pulse – World Pulse Archives – World Pulse Archives

No support-raising cost, no time in language learning, no furlough, salary a fraction of a Western missionary’s. See how much more economical it is to support a national, rather than a missionary. So goes a prime argument for moving away from sending foreign missionaries toward supporting national workers.

While many good reasons exist for churches and mission agencies to partner with nationals, the financial argument—though one of the most frequently trumpeted—is probably the weakest.

One agency with multiple partners in Eastern Europe estimates it can support 28 national workers for the cost of one American missionary. This agency’s leaders assume an American missionary’s salary is $4,500 per month over 12 years, including two years of support raising and language study, and two years of furlough. So, they say eight years of productivity totals $648,000.

For the national worker they estimate no expenses for support raising, no furlough and a salary of $250 a month, totaling $24,000 over eight years.

It all sounds so logical. Surely foreign missionaries are an extravagance the church can no longer afford. However, a closer look at the facts uncovers some holes in the assumptions.

First, besides the fact that many missionaries even in western Europe would consider $4,500 a month a princely salary, it is unrealistic to say no fundraising expenses are involved in supporting a national missionary.

The agency maintains an office and staff in the US, so salaries, home office expenses and travel expenses to visit national workers must come from somewhere. Although nationals may not be directly involved in raising their support, someone is spending time and money to do so.

Likewise Western missionaries normally have a headquarters that support their work. However, most missionaries’ administrative expenses are deducted from the funds they raise.

But the financial argument for partnership really fails when working with nationals who live in wealthy countries where average salaries exceed those of traditional missionary-sending nations.

It may be less expensive to send American missionaries than to pay salaries of nationals in many spiritually needy but financially wealthy countries. In some European countries the church is small and no tradition of support-raising exists. Due to high employer taxes and government-mandated benefits, national partners will require salaries larger than those of American missionaries.

In Austria, for example, support-raising is virtually unknown. A mission that added an Austrian woman to its international team working within the country had to pay an additional 75 percent of her salary in taxes and provide a state-mandated six weeks of annual vacation. In this case, the mission had to raise more funds for the national worker’s modest wage than for its foreign workers. When mission leaders approach a potential donor they must explain the Austrian’s qualifications and the value she adds to the ministry—and why they should invest in someone who costs more than a foreign missionary.

If money is the main argument for partnership, only churches and missions in wealthy countries may consider the option—and then only when working in poorer countries. Missions-minded churches in Latin America, many of which are now sending missionaries to Europe and the US will find it far less expensive to send their own people than to cover modest wages for locals.

Although we are called to be good stewards, cost should not be our primary consideration in determining mission policy and plans. Using dubious mathematics to brand traditional missions and missionaries as too expensive and therefore less cost-effective than national workers is unproductive. Working with partners in other countries may make good sense financially—or not. The primary question, however, is whether partnership is the right approach in a particular case.

Many or perhaps even most churches and agencies that finance the ministries of national workers also recognize the value of sending missionaries. Hardly anyone in missions outreach would state outright that only one approach is right. A mixture of approaches can be invaluable as the ministries of missionaries and national workers complement one another.

It is tempting when raising funds among price-conscious churches and individuals to point to the supposed cost-savings of an approach. Everyone wants more “bang for their buck.” But let’s present real, solid reasons for our suggested approach. If we are proposing support for national workers, we can show respect for them and their qualifications by describing what they have to offer—their vision and the expected impact of their ministry.

Naturally, if the host country’s cost of living makes it possible to gain five nationals for the cost of one Western worker, we can and should mention that. But honesty should compel us to reveal the full expense of supporting those national workers, including the costs of raising those funds in the West and administering the Western agency which directs the work.

Is it necessary to put down one ministry model in order to promote another? Neither foreign missionaries nor agencies promoting national workers should attempt to win the attention and favor of missions-minded churches and individuals by denigrating the other. Let’s work to complement each other rather than to compete.

Sharon Mumper directs the Magazine Training Institute (MTI) from Austria. MTI equips Christian magazine publishers in East-Central Europe and Asia. www.magazinetraining.com