“Missions Possible, Part 3” by Larry Stout
“Missions Possible, Part 3” by Larry Stout
In the first two parts of this series, I discussed the necessity for both long-term and short-term missionaries, as well as how important it is to support the long-term missionary on the field. The responsibility for this support is generally designated to a missions board in a church. It is a very inconvenient truth that missions boards are probably the weakest link in the entire spectrum of missions.
Most missions boards fall into two different groups, which could be termed the Micro-managers and the Macro-managers. The Micros are those who actively work very hard to supply the tools the resident missionary needs to accomplish their work. The major denominations such as the Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God pride themselves in making sure their missionaries are well supplied. They make sure the missionaries are financially secure, that they get needed rest, and that they receive periodic visits from their supervisors for assistance and encouragement.
But the other side of the coin is that the Micros require extensive accountability. They believe that they must not only support but also ensure the focus of the missionary. I remember seeing a weekly report that one missionary was forced to fill out, and I honestly believed he was kidding me with it. It was detailed with many columns asking a number of questions like how many people he talked to and how they could be ‘classified.’ I asked him if it bothered him that he had to report almost every time he went to the bathroom, and he said, “It is a pain, but what can I do?”
Fortunately, the Lord blessed Debbie and I with a board that fell into the second group – the Macros. In the fall of 1990, we had made the decision to do missions work in the USSR, basing ourselves in the capital city of Riga in the Soviet Republic of Latvia. At the time, no major missionary organizations sponsored missionaries to the Soviet Union, so we formed our own, Interlock International, and soon after Carpenter’s House in Gilbertsville, PA agreed to be our home sending church. We were not always as well supplied as other missionaries and often had to do without. But, our needs were always met, and we had loving supporters who would send a care package or answered a need at just the right time. Within the first couple of years, Pastor Ray Centrella and board members, John Kratz, Richard Johnson, and Mark Hettler, each made trips to Latvia to assist us and get a first-hand view of the world we were living in.
These dear brothers believed in us and let us do our work. In over fifteen years of ministry, we never once felt like they were looking over our shoulder to second-guess us. The one incident that came close was when Mark questioned my decision to align with a group called Resurrection Churches and Ministry (RCM). He had a very bad experience with them in the past, and offered to step down from the board rather than challenge me over it. I, on the other hand, so valued Mark’s friendship and counsel that I felt that losing him was not worth gaining RCM’s support. As it turned out, this was definitely the right decision, as RCM imploded a short time after amidst controversy and scandal.
I have never ceased to be amazed by the arm-chair missions board generals in America telling the missionary on the field how they should be doing their work. Of course, character issues should be decisively dealt with that could seriously reflect upon the integrity of God’s people. But, too many missions boards have in their minds what is the right way to go, and are almost offended when they are told by the missionary that these ideas will not work. Our daughter and son-in-law experienced similar misunderstandings during their missionary work in Ecuador.
Fortunately, we never had to contend with a board like that, but we had our share of well-wishers who tried to tell us what we should be doing. Once when Debbie was assisting a woman from America with an adoption, Debbie was told by the woman that the problems with the adoption were her fault. This came from a woman who had never set foot in the country and had no idea about the adoption process in Latvia.
I had a friend tell me that my work with teachers in the public schools was misdirected, because he had heard of another ministry that was doing direct evangelism in schools. When I tried to explain that my work was designed for the long-term rather than the immediate, he felt I was not hearing God and missing a great window of opportunity. (Today, the work with teachers continues and those who were doing evangelism have great memories but not much else.)
Sadly, there have been competent missionaries who ultimately failed in their work because of incompetent missions boards. The partnership is a delicate one, and both parties need to communicate well and respect and trust one another. The Lord blessed us abundantly with tremendous support churches (Carpenter’s House, New Passion Church, and now Calvary Community Church in Houston, Texas) who have covered us in love and prayer. The success we enjoyed could not have been done without them. It is a shame that there are not more like them.
In the first two parts of this series, I discussed the necessity for both long-term and short-term missionaries, as well as how important it is to support the long-term missionary on the field. The responsibility for this support is generally designated to a missions board in a church. It is a very inconvenient truth that missions boards are probably the weakest link in the entire spectrum of missions.
Most missions boards fall into two different groups, which could be termed the Micro-managers and the Macro-managers. The Micros are those who actively work very hard to supply the tools the resident missionary needs to accomplish their work. The major denominations such as the Southern Baptist and Assemblies of God pride themselves in making sure their missionaries are well supplied. They make sure the missionaries are financially secure, that they get needed rest, and that they receive periodic visits from their supervisors for assistance and encouragement.
But the other side of the coin is that the Micros require extensive accountability. They believe that they must not only support but also ensure the focus of the missionary. I remember seeing a weekly report that one missionary was forced to fill out, and I honestly believed he was kidding me with it. It was detailed with many columns asking a number of questions like how many people he talked to and how they could be ‘classified.’ I asked him if it bothered him that he had to report almost every time he went to the bathroom, and he said, “It is a pain, but what can I do?”
Fortunately, the Lord blessed Debbie and I with a board that fell into the second group – the Macros. In the fall of 1990, we had made the decision to do missions work in the USSR, basing ourselves in the capital city of Riga in the Soviet Republic of Latvia. At the time, no major missionary organizations sponsored missionaries to the Soviet Union, so we formed our own, Interlock International, and soon after Carpenter’s House in Gilbertsville, PA agreed to be our home sending church. We were not always as well supplied as other missionaries and often had to do without. But, our needs were always met, and we had loving supporters who would send a care package or answered a need at just the right time. Within the first couple of years, Pastor Ray Centrella and board members, John Kratz, Richard Johnson, and Mark Hettler, each made trips to Latvia to assist us and get a first-hand view of the world we were living in.
These dear brothers believed in us and let us do our work. In over fifteen years of ministry, we never once felt like they were looking over our shoulder to second-guess us. The one incident that came close was when Mark questioned my decision to align with a group called Resurrection Churches and Ministry (RCM). He had a very bad experience with them in the past, and offered to step down from the board rather than challenge me over it. I, on the other hand, so valued Mark’s friendship and counsel that I felt that losing him was not worth gaining RCM’s support. As it turned out, this was definitely the right decision, as RCM imploded a short time after amidst controversy and scandal.
I have never ceased to be amazed by the arm-chair missions board generals in America telling the missionary on the field how they should be doing their work. Of course, character issues should be decisively dealt with that could seriously reflect upon the integrity of God’s people. But, too many missions boards have in their minds what is the right way to go, and are almost offended when they are told by the missionary that these ideas will not work. Our daughter and son-in-law experienced similar misunderstandings during their missionary work in Ecuador.
Fortunately, we never had to contend with a board like that, but we had our share of well-wishers who tried to tell us what we should be doing. Once when Debbie was assisting a woman from America with an adoption, Debbie was told by the woman that the problems with the adoption were her fault. This came from a woman who had never set foot in the country and had no idea about the adoption process in Latvia.
I had a friend tell me that my work with teachers in the public schools was misdirected, because he had heard of another ministry that was doing direct evangelism in schools. When I tried to explain that my work was designed for the long-term rather than the immediate, he felt I was not hearing God and missing a great window of opportunity. (Today, the work with teachers continues and those who were doing evangelism have great memories but not much else.)
Sadly, there have been competent missionaries who ultimately failed in their work because of incompetent missions boards. The partnership is a delicate one, and both parties need to communicate well and respect and trust one another. The Lord blessed us abundantly with tremendous support churches (Carpenter’s House, New Passion Church, and now Calvary Community Church in Houston, Texas) who have covered us in love and prayer. The success we enjoyed could not have been done without them. It is a shame that there are not more like them.
login to post comments
Except where otherwise noted, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License