• FEATURE: A major budget shift helped rejuvenate missions for Park Street Church.
• TOOL PACKAGE Analyze your budget using these three approaches to clarify funding priorities.
• GREAT IDEAS Use these suggestions to help allocate missions funds wisely.

 E-mail this page    Printer-friendly page

CHANGING THE APPROACH TO MISSIONS SUPPORT

What does a church do when $44,000 annually must be drained from reserves to cover global outreach commitments? What if many of the older church members have left and those replacing them have little background in missions and don’t know the missionaries?

Facing such issues, one church took extensive measures that will not fit the strategy of every congregation. But their experience presents an interesting case study highlighting issues many congregations are grappling with today.

Missions Pastor Casely Essamuah was confronted by these sobering statistics at Park Street Church in Boston, MA, in the late 1990s. Since its founding in 1809, the church had sent out over 300 full-time missionaries supported with millions of dollars. They had even contributed to Adoniram Judson's mission to Burma. But the church culture had changed, and it became obvious that the missions ministry had to adjust, too.

A Monumental Shift
Praying and searching for what Essamuah refers to as a "survival strategy" to bring missions back to life, he and the missions team, the senior pastor and other church leaders proposed, and the church approved, several major alterations to the missions program. One monumental shift was how they funded missionaries. Instead of supporting 37 active missionary units at about 15% each, they would give 80-100% support to a small number of missionaries who would be considered part of the ministerial staff.

When the new policy was introduced in late 1997, Park Street leaders knew that the change would require some hard choices, so they proceeded carefully. Support for those within 10 years of retirement was not changed because the church thought that a shift late in ministry would be unnecessarily disruptive. The remainder of their missionaries were invited to request a full-support relationship with Park Street. The church retained the right to review and affirm or deny each request.

Veteran missionaries faced a difficult decision. They would have to terminate their financial relationships with other supporting churches (with the exception that one or two churches in the New England area could continue to provide up to 20% of support). Even if they agreed with the new policy, some missionaries declined because they did not want to break years-long relationships with other supporters.

Those open to the new arrangement understood that they would be expected to help rejuvenate the missions program and be involved in ministry at Park Street. They also would help the missions team form a Barnabas support group around them, agree to consult with Park Street on all major ministry-related decisions, and submit to a periodic evaluation.

Regardless of the missionary's response, Essamuah contacted all of his/her supporting churches to explain the rationale for the offer. Many responded favorably and wished they could do the same. However a few were furious, perceiving Park Street’s actions as hurtful to their own missions program and in essence a hostile "buy out."

The church did not want to jeopardize the work of any its missionaries, so support for most of those who chose not to participate in the new policy was eliminated over a two- or three-year period. In addition, they were assured that the church would not automatically stop support at the end of that time if they had not replaced all of Park Street's funding.

Positive Results
Today the church has 12 fully supported missionary units. The new policy allows them to spend almost their entire home assignment in one place instead of extensively traveling to raise funds. This time is now invested in their own spiritual refreshment as well as building relationships with the church body.

Paul Martindale, one of the Park Street missionaries, believes that the change has been very beneficial personally. "Home stays are now restful and productive," he confirms.

Interaction with the pastoral staff has increased, too. Before the policy was enacted, most church leaders did not really know their missionaries. Now home-assignment missionaries have an office at the church and attend pastoral staff meetings. The benefits go both ways. When theological issues are discussed, the missionaries contribute an international viewpoint that broadens the staff's perspective.

Essamuah recognizes that the policy has some possible downsides. One is the potential delay in fielding new workers if the church lacks the funds to fully support them. But overall he is enthusiastic, and he believes the turnaround in the missions program confirms the wisdom of the change. Since the new policy was adopted in late 1997, missions giving has blossomed. The first year it went from $600,000 to over $1 million; this year's budget tops $1.5 million. And each missionary has a prayer and support team called a Barnabas group that knows and cares for them.

For additional information about Park Street Church's missions program visit www.parkstreet.org. They recommend Michael Griffiths' Get Your Church Involved in Missions available at www.ca.omf.org.

This month's tool package features three prisms for examining and evaluating your church's missions investments--a focus analysis, a ministry analysis and an Acts 1:8 analysis. Download the charts and guidelines at www.dualreach.org/missions/bm~doc/bdt-t7.doc.

Great Ideas offers a collection of practical suggestions from a broad range of congregations that will help your team tackle the budgeting task with new insights. Download these free ideas at www.dualreach.org/missions/bm~doc/GI-8.doc.