- Jun 27, 2003
- 1,012
- 28
- 48
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I am raising support to work in missions and have run across something when approaching churches in request of support.
We will be working stateside and in a support role. Thus, we are looked at as being on a lower echelon of missions. People going overseas, in particular to unreached people groups (which our organization vivasciously supports), usually get more financial support from churches. Or GET financial support from churches, while support roles do not get any.
I can see where it would be easy to argue that this is an unsavory practice. I can't say, however, that It's preferential treatment (giving the mission's committees the benefit of the doubt, with no reservations), or unfair. Seeing though that the support team that is required to have a missionary overseas is greatly more than a one to one ratio, this bias seems to be shooting missions in the foot by those most eager to see it prosper. I can't find the info off hand but think in the army, for every man on the front lines, it's 8 men behind him.
comments?
We will be working stateside and in a support role. Thus, we are looked at as being on a lower echelon of missions. People going overseas, in particular to unreached people groups (which our organization vivasciously supports), usually get more financial support from churches. Or GET financial support from churches, while support roles do not get any.
I can see where it would be easy to argue that this is an unsavory practice. I can't say, however, that It's preferential treatment (giving the mission's committees the benefit of the doubt, with no reservations), or unfair. Seeing though that the support team that is required to have a missionary overseas is greatly more than a one to one ratio, this bias seems to be shooting missions in the foot by those most eager to see it prosper. I can't find the info off hand but think in the army, for every man on the front lines, it's 8 men behind him.
comments?
