I had a conversation this week with an individual who enthusiastically promoted their personal mission organization. Although I wasn’t much interested, I listened politely but moved on to other subjects as soon as possible. Curious, I did some checking and found that there was indeed such an organization that recently registered as a corporation in my state but with no financial statements on file. Impressive.
Whatever happened to the simple fact that believers were always on mission everywhere and that groups of believers, churches, gathered together to do God’s work? What would a church be like where the members all had their own autonomous mission orgainzation going but no one was much interested in pooling their gifts, talents, skills, and resources to cooperate on a mission that God led the group to accomplish?
And what would a denomination or convention of thousands of churches be like if every church had their own mission plan and offered only tepid support for cooperative missions as a whole?
I’m not much interested in a boutique mission organization that exists to fulfill the mission strategy, or fantasy, of any individual. The work may be good. The delivery of mission efforts may be sincere and somewhat benefical but if an overall strategy is lacking in that only the tiniest fraction of the unsaved world is given attention, then no thanks. Sure, I understand the thinking that maybe God is at work in all of these and that He is directing the minds and hearts of His people in such a way that all these fragmented efforts coalesce into a Grand Strategy to do His work in the world.
Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelming against that conclusion.
Individual, boutique missions is a product of American affluence and culture. We’ve got money. We like to be in control of spending it in ways that make us feel good. Look around and you find that it seems these mission projects that your friends are so passionate about are all within easy reach, a cheap airplane ticket, and in open countries. Often they are in desirable destinations, that is, places where folks used to Western standards would like to go.
Thank God that Southern Baptists have a global missions strategy carried out by our largest organization, the International Mission Board, that attempts to address the needs of people far beyond a cheap plane ticket and a nice place to go. I’ll put what I can into IMB and not dilute my giving by trying to help some of the numberless tiny, wasteful, non-strategic, boutique missions organizations.
Thank God that our North American Mission Board has broad strategy objectives. You may not agree with the approach but it beats by light years the strategy of doling out funds to our pals and colleagues to do some nifty botique mission project.
Some honest questions for the personal, boutique mission organizations:
- Am I spending more on travel expense than on actual missions to my target group?
- Is the salary and administrative expenses greater than missions expenditures?
- In the long haul is what I am doing helpful or harmful to recipients?
- Who benefits the most? Participants or recipients?
- Are more pressing needs being ignored while I do my own thing?
- Am I ignoring avenues to participate in projects that have a broad strategy to do what makes me feel good?
IMB has ways for churches to help in a strategic way. Ask Dave Miller and Bart Barber how. They do it.
Is the future of church missions to be that we all get us up a non-profit, try and raise money to do our own thing under the banner of missions…and while we contratulate ourselves on our personal missions interests in places where churches, Bibles, and Christian witness is abundant, most of the world goes to hell without hearing the Gospel even one time?
God forbid and no thanks, I’m not interested in giving to your personal mission organization.
Thanks William for this very strongly worded evaluation of Boutique Missions. It is spot on.
How would you define “boutique mission organization”? Are we taking any parachurch ministry here? Or just small ones? Or ones that only operate in one country or with one people group? Or?
I personally follow two separate parachurch missions organizations, and they are very different- one is Samaritan’s Purse. It’s global, its shoebox ministry is Gospel centered. I would assume I don’t have to go into much detail about it as it is quite well established and has been in existence for decades now.
Another is localized to the slums of Dubai. It’s specific and aimed at rescuing women who are sex-trafficked, providing jobs and the Word to them. It would be boutique if you answer that boutique equals small. It would be boutique if you answer that boutique equals targeted mission. But it wouldn’t be boutique if you answer that boutique is short-term or American-vacation-location. In fact, it was begun by a young woman who spent time in the IMB journeyman program in that area. But, it is brand new and not yet showng fruit if you looked it up in a “report” kind of way. As any ministry must be at the outset. If you interviewed the woman running it, I’m sure she would be able to tell you about the fruit.
I guess I’m just curious as to what qualifies as “boutique”.
I consider that one of the strengths, and one of the greatest appeals to me, of the SBC, is the IMB and NAMB.
They enable many small churches, like mine, and many 40 hour a week employees, like me, to participate in sending the Gospel to places needed, both at home and abroad.
Our church also has the privilege to having sent some of our ‘own’ as SBC missionaries.
I thank the Lord for this set up, and pray that we will continue to do our part in the proclaiming of the Gospel, both in our own neighborhoods and across the world.
After 38 years with IMB (half in Brazil and half at the home office) , I said a hearty AMEN!
There are a number of missions organizations that do effective work outside the SBC who may have a more narrow aim than the IMB and yet fill necessary gaps in mission work.
The IMB, itself, though global in its vision, has a narrow focus that emphasizes Unreached and Unengaged People Groups. Parachurch missions organizations focus on areas of missions that the IMB does not, often working in assisting and supportive roles (Wycliffe, MAF, Bible League, SIL, to name a few.)
Further, while the IMB has given primary emphasis to UPGs and UUPGs, there remains a need to assist in areas that have reached the 2% threshold (the arbitrary number of converts by which a people group is considered “reached”) but continue to need assistance from missions agencies that come alongside them. Groups like Reaching and Teaching, Multiplication Network, TEAM, Mission India, etc. who partner to provide training for indigenous pastors, and planters and equip trainers of trainers, etc.
None of these would fit the description of “boutique” missions, nor are they IMB, but all serve in vital roles in the global missions effort.
Todd, I wondered (while reading William’s post): could the narrowing of the IMB’s focus to primarily church planting, with a special emphasis on un-/under-reached people groups, be a major contributing factor to the rise of ’boutique missions’?
William, in the main I agree with you. This “boutique mission” phenomenon is not unique to the USA. I saw this again and again in Southeast Asia. It seems everyone wants to establish his/her own mission and direct it. When you have lots of small missions, you lose economy of scale. That is, you have lots of duplication of effort and higher operating expenses. To understand economy of scale compare the prices at WalMart with the prices at the little grocery on the corner. Our readers should check out the administration and finances of any mission agency or charity before giving to it. If the organization is spending more than 25% of its budget for administration and publicity, then that is a ministry to avoid. Of course, I am completely committed to the IMB, and they do a great job. However, Todd makes some good points in his comments. The IMB does not engage in Bible translation (except rarely), and the IMB does not do orphanage work. So, if a seminary student comes to me, asking about becoming a missionary Bible translator, I refer the student to the Wycliffe Bible Translators. In the same way someone with a passion to serve at an AIDS orphanage in southern Africa would have to look at an organization other than the IMB.
Every church has limited resources and makes opportunity cost decisions about their missions money. While there are many orgs that do a good job in needed areas, with necessary ministry services, I am settled on IMB as the preferred destination for my and my church’s funds, partly because they have an overall strategy, are in areas for the long haul with resident personnel who learn the language and all that. Not to say that there aren’t other orgs that do well. Why shouldn’t an SBC church not focus giving, praying, and going with IMB and not fritter away funds on an assortment of other things.
I’ve been down the road as a pastor where friends, church members, their family, their friends get a bug for their own missions non-profit, or some faith-based org. It’s tough to keep some of these out of the church budget. The worst, of course, are the folks with a deep ‘burden’ for the people of the BVI and who expect friends, family, and church to foot the bill for travel and the like.
SP is no boutique, and my church has done the shoe boxes a few times. I didn’t ask the church to put money in the thing. Most mssys I talk to aren’t all that enthused about SP for a number of reasons but they are a powerhouse around the world.
The individual with an orphanage in Haiti, or Kenya, or a ministry to sex workers in Dubai may or may not be ’boutique.’ It would depend on the stability of the org, the overall strategy, and as Mark says, the efficiency of spending.
Many of these type ministries relate to IMB personnel in some ways, since IMB doesn’t do a lot of this specific work.
Brent gives a good overview.
I’ve been in churches where the mission strategy was to spend so as to obtain bragging rights. No thanks on that. Anecdotally, I see more boutique orgs, personal missions non-profits now than in previous years. It’s a function of American individualism and affluence, I think.
As an IMBer, I want to say thank you to all our supporters who allow us to do what we do overseas. Over the years, though, I have gained a great appreciation for “boutique” missionaries who come and work along side us every day. Many are qualified SBC individuals who perhaps were following God’s leading to the mission field at a time when the IMB was not hiring, or not sending to places or jobs where these individuals could make the best use of their gifts and talents. Others have been omitted from service with IMB by medical or other policies that do not prohibit people from serving through other means.
Others, simply were called and given the opportunity to come under different auspices of varying shapes and sizes. There is also the fact that not everyone who comes with the IMB last. Our average tenure is only 8 years. I know plenty who do not care for their presence, but I know that where I live, there are a lot of lost people. I pray for more workers in this harvest, whether they are IMB or independent.
As an SBC pastor, I have led my churches to give to the IMB as the “default” and primary method of missions support. In every church I’ve served, however, we have also given to additional missions causes. This has especially been the case when we sent one of our members to serve with a missions agency other than the IMB (in our case TEAM and Multiplication Network) — I firmly believe that if we are to be on record as the “sending church” that such sending should be accompanied by significant financial support. In other cases, when the church had an existing relationship with an area no longer served by the IMB, had a passion for a kind of ministry that the IMB does not do or no longer does, or had a church member or elder/staff that served on the board of another agency. Of course, these additional organizations are vetted and must match our values, but I have no problem with supplemental support going to additional agencies or missionaries.
Again, we gave to CP, supported Lottie Moon, AND supported these additional avenues of giving.
Yep Todd!
It’s a Both/and not an either/or.
Having spent years working overseas with both the IMB and several non-denominational faith missions (Operation Mobilization, Bible Christian Union—subsequently merged with TEAM), as well as having partnered and fellowshipped with many more GCC (Great Commission Christian) groups on the field, I can affirm that both the IMB and many other GCC groups are engaged in strategic, worthwhile missionary efforts on the field. That being said, William’s “honest questions” in his post are spot on and worthy of careful consideration.
I liked your article William. I have been on many short term mission trips and I have seen our missionaries in action. I have never seen anything but sacrificial Christ-like hard work and dedication in the cause of the great commission from our missionaries. These brave men and women labor under very difficult conditions many times, and some under the threat of death. I would encourage all of us to consider our sacrificial support for the CP to fund our missionaries, and many other worthwhile ministries in the SBC. I would agree with many that we are not perfect. I would also agree that there are others that do a good job other than the SBC. What I like about the SBC is that we are so much stronger and more effective when we cooperative together. We give 14 percent of our budget to CP and 2 percent to the association. We also give 4 percent to other mission causes (Gideons, crisis pregnancy, homeless ministry, etc.). We sacrifice and do without to support our missionaries. We have found that God always gives back to us.
May God bless you in your journey of sacrifice giving. We give because we love you, and others like you.
I agree with William that the IMB should receive the main emphasis and support of every SBC church; however, Todd (as usual) makes a good point. If I was a pastor, and a couple from our church went to serve with the Wycliffe Bible Translators, I would include them in our church’s giving.
I like the use of the term “boutique missions.” I served bi-vocationally as a staff member in charge of missions in a church that had a real tendency to get caught up in such experiences and watched them divide the congregation when the participant, mostly the same group of people, kept demanding that the church members give to support their work, and got angry when some members wouldn’t contribute. There was an annual trip, starting with one to Germany, then two years in a row to Costa Rica, then to Japan. The slides and videos they brought back showed a lot of tourist experiences, and little actual “mission” activity. Half the participants were youth from as young as 12 up to college age. The organizations they connected with offered no real training, just scheduled their presence in a particular location with a particular task. In Germany, it was mainly handing out Jesus videos, and since most people spoke English there, they could communicate. In Costa Rica, they helped a local church with a remodeling project, and with a church plant out of that congregation in a beach community. The sponsoring church turned out to be a wealthy congregation of over 400 people who were mostly American expatriates living in Costa Rica because it is cheap, and you can own lots of property without much in the way of tax obligation. In Japan, the Jesus video thing again, but no one spoke English and the group didn’t speak Japanese. We finally got enough votes in the congregation to stop connections to these organizations, and hooked the youth ministry up with a NAMB short term missions group that did construction ministry and church planting domestically (and in Puerto Rico) and instead of a $2,500 price tag per person that included the air fare and housing, spent $230 and did some real good.