Rolling Up Our Sleeves to Work

Editorial by David Snyder - President/General Director

Our theme for this year includes three different but coordinating actions: Watching, Waiting, and Working. In this editorial, I would like to emphasize the third word of our theme, Working. However, I am going to do so by addressing an aspect of missions that is currently being discussed extensively—supporting nationals and the promoting of that support.

The word work can strike fear in the hearts of many people. However, that should not be the case for Christians as we are to be always abounding in the work of the Lord.1 As we consider the job of missions, it is evident that there is a great deal of hard work to be done if we are going to preach the gospel to every creature.2 Because of the enormous job we have been commanded to do, the need for workers cannot be overstated. Along with continuously praying about the need for laborers, we must also be constantly proclaiming the need for laborers. However, there is a competing message that is often being promoted simultaneously. To state it succinctly, this message conveys the idea that supporting nationals will cost less and produce more results than a missionary sent from the United States. Sadly, I believe we are experiencing some negative and unintended consequences from this sometimes contrasting message.

I was recently in a conference with multiple speakers. One of the pastors who spoke preached from the pulpit that supporting a national who can speak the language and knows the culture is much more effective than sending a western missionary. The speaker went on to say that there were nationals who were “already getting the job done.” I understand what this preacher was trying to say and I recognize that nationals can accomplish things that I cannot—because they are nationals. My main concern is not the effectiveness of the national but rather the unintended consequences of the message. There were a multitude of young people in the service that evening who most likely interpreted what they heard as “There’s really no need to surrender to missions since nationals are already doing it and since they can do it better and for less money.” It is important to remember that the emphasis in Scripture is on sending missionaries into all the world, not sending money into all the world. It is one thing to surrender our money but it is a completely different matter to surrender our lives. Likewise, it is one thing for a church to send some of their money to support nationals on the field, but it is a completely different matter to send some of their members to win nationals on the field.



The United States has experienced a major cultural shift during the past 20+ years. Missions has also experienced a tremendous cultural shift during that same time. Sadly, the cultural changes in missions seem to correspond with the cultural changes in our country.3 I have been watching this shift slowly take place during the past several decades. Throughout our deputation ministry, which began in 1990, my wife and I were involved in many different missions conferences. During those conferences, it was normal for at least one person or one family to publicly surrender to full-time missions. In my present role with BIMI, I continue to be in numerous missions conferences. Sadly, it is now very unusual if there is even one person who surrenders to missions during a conference. There are a multitude of contributing factors for this shift. However, some of the changes we are seeing can be attributed to the unintended consequences arising from the message about supporting nationals.

I want to be clear that I am not against the proper support of nationals. Supporting nationals can and should be done when needed but with caution and concern for the process of biblical church planting.4 Additionally, there should be a great deal of accountability involved with any support that is sent to a national. This is why it is best for support to flow through a veteran missionary who can serve as “boots on the ground.” It is not enough for us to be throwing money at the mission field with the goal of hiring missionaries to work for us in God’s harvest field. I firmly believe that our emphasis must be on sending missionaries to the mission field with the goal of supporting missionaries to represent us in God’s harvest field. Although some may feel that I am “splitting hairs” with my last two sentences, I contend that after being involved in full-time missions for several decades, there is a dramatic difference between the two philosophies presented in each of those sentences.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize the need to carefully scrutinize the message we are preaching about missions. Specifically, we need to passionately stress the need for more Christians—from our own homes and churches—to surrender to full-time missionary service. The message of supporting nationals should be a coordinating message, not a competing message. Let us never lose site of the need to roll up our own sleeves to work in God’s harvest field as we watch and wait for His return.

---

1 1 Corinthains 15:58 — Emphasis added
2 Mark 16:15 — Emphasis added
3 For example, the affluent culture of today promotes the idea of paying someone to do work for us rather than our doing the job ourselves.
4 Nationals are an essential part of missions. The goal of a missionary is to turn his work over to a national. This is one of the biggest parts of reaching the ultimate goal of biblical church planting—indigenous churches. A church is considered indigenous when it is self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. Thus, if supporting nationals (or the promoting of that support) hinders the producing of indigenous churches, it is counterproductive to the Great Commission.

Next Article

---