Ferd, define endowment please.

I spent 23 years in the UPCI, 8 years as a Missionary, and another 4 years as a District Foreign Missions Director. I have spent 10 years in another organization that is the oldest onesness organization in Canada going back to 1921 and their mindset was just what you are advocating, a fellowship of churches and ministers.

My personal opinion is that in spite of the top heavy aspect of the UPCI it is far better as a centralized focused organization then it would be as just a fellowship of ministers. There is amazing strength to accomplish great things for God when churches and pastors are mobilized by a common cause such as their message, and its missions program.

While a fellowship of ministers and churches sounds great, I don't think it works well in reality. Any group that has followed this path hasn't experienced much growth from what I have observed.

I was District Leader for two years in the group I'm with. During that time the number of churches in our district declined because the only association with ACOP was the pastor. When some churches voted in non ACOP pastors the new pastor tended to fellowship with whatever group he was associated with rather than with us.

I have to say that I never minded deputation when we were missionaries. I found it invigorating and encouraging to be back in North America where I could share my vision and burden in person. We always felt that it was a privilege to spend time with pastors and considered travel a great social and educational experience for our family.

No. The District where I served as HM Secretary actually financially supported Home Missionaries and advocated them raising funds personally.

Or we could simply fulfill the original goal of Foreign Missions. That would be to send a Missionary; let him evangelize; let him then train leadership; let those leaders take over; let the Missionary go somewhere else.

Seems we have a US political approach tro Foreign works. "They can't survive without us." Reckon we may never know.

That's how it should be. Do the funds filter through the district, or go straight to the missionary?

Great post TB. Thanks for an "inside" perspective.

OUCHEEEWOWOW! :beatdeadhorse

So true. I just wasn't brave enough to say it. :ty

Like colleges do. you put money in a fund and use the intrest gained. all new money goes into the fund thus year by year the amount you can use grows as well.

you can invest the funds in many different ways from real estate to Tbills. The arguement against it is it turns the church into a business. but we are competing with everyone else and they have hospitals and universities (real ones)

Obviously it was preferred that they went through the District as far as individual support. There was no deduction from what was sent. 100% went to the Missionary.

Also, the percentage of CFC that stayed in the District was used primarily to support Home Missionaries. At one time we had 4 or 5 men receiving between $400-$1200 per month for a year at a time. After that year they could re-apply for further support.

The ONLY way this would be successful is to let someone OUTSIDE of the UPCI handle the investments. We do not need to do this in-house.