The Trouble With Patience

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Well, endowment is my prefered method. second would be to have missionary evangelists working for the ORG that is full time traveling rasing money for Missions dept.

Then set up budgets for each country, let the budget for that country be the rule, then place missionaries where they are fit the budget/fill the need.

this is SUPER simplistic, but it is far better than the current methodology.

Ferd, define endowment please.

[Truly Blessed]

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.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Metro-missionaries only?

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

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Well, endowment is my prefered method. second would be to have missionary evangelists working for the ORG that is full time traveling rasing money for Missions dept.

Then set up budgets for each country, let the budget for that country be the rule, then place missionaries where they are fit the budget/fill the need.

this is SUPER simplistic, but it is far better than the current methodology.

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.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by rrford

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

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

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

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.

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

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by rrford

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.

OUCHEEEWOWOW!

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

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Ferd, define endowment please.

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)

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

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

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.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Ferd

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)

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.