Strategy and the Spirit

I like the short piece Ray Ortlund posted this morning on his Gospel Coalition blog, a judicious and compact statement of where church multiplication – what in our circles falls under the heading of “church planting movements” – comes from.

ImageStrategic plans are good and helpful, he says, but they are not what brought about the exponential growth of the early Church described in Acts 9:31; that comes only by the miraculous work of God to transform people’s character. It’s a good word for American evangelicals whose churches have tended to be enamored of programs, strategies, vision statements, branding and the like, often under the influence of the thought world of corporate business. Without any such deliberation, a little Jewish sect became a world-transforming people, because they were characterized by the “fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit.”

I like this because it pushes against some really harmful ideas about what sort of an outfit the Church is supposed to be, but despite Ortlund’s avowal that he doesn’t at all object to strategy in church planting and leadership, I can’t help feeling a little defensive. Our missionary call right now, after all, is to go and serve a church plant that was started by a group of people trusting God to provide growth – by helping (among other things) to develop and implement the vision and strategy they have lacked, and in the absence of which they have not multiplied.

Strategic planning is easy to defend pragmatically, or even theologically “as a matter of wise stewardship” (Ortlund’s approach). But I think both of these defenses of the kind of work we will be engaged in tend to promote the idea that strategy is our part of the equation, while the Spirit is God’s. There’s a sense of sacred/secular divide here: by our strategic efforts we stitch together a Frankenstein’s monster that God must then enliven with a bolt of lightning; or God kindles a fire that needs our carefully constructed log pyramid to reach its full bonfire potential, something like that. Part of the work is God’s business, and part of it is ours, and we get things right by not getting the wrong idea about how big our part ought to be. (Ortlund does not mean it this way, of course.)

But the Lord’s work in the world isn’t like that. It is really dangerous to imagine that we can strategize on a purely pragmatic basis and offer this up as a component of God’s work to grow His Church, just as it would be fatal to imagine that Jesus was 35% man and 65% God (or any other proportion of each). It matters what kind of strategy we’re trying to develop and implement, and our categories, even if they look like or are inspired by what we’ve learned from the business world, need to be drawn from God’s revelation to us.

The sermon at our home church on Sunday hit home with me as I think through this. The pastor, preaching from Colossians 4:2-6, taught that the Church’s mission comes down to three tasks: faithful prayer, wise conduct, and gracious speech. If our vision and strategy aren’t really efforts to promote these three things by proclaiming the grace that trains us in godliness (Titus 2:11), then they are really impediments to the work of the Spirit – just as a “Spirit-led” approach that refuses to be trained in these things can itself constitute a strategy that hinders that work.

So we will think and talk about a “target group” for our church plant, but if we don’t mean by this a simple awareness of who our neighbors actually are in the place God has put us, we’ll be of no good to that group or any other. We will think and talk about a “philosophy of ministry,” maybe even a “mission statement” (much as I abhor that particular jargon), but if we don’t mean by that a commitment to praying for our neighbors and giving them the proverbial cup of cold water in the Lord’s name, our philosophy will be at cross purposes to God’s. We may put together an evangelistic strategy, but if the heart of that strategy isn’t building up the church in faith, hope, and love by word and sacrament, it will be doomed sooner or later.

The medium is the message. The strategy has to be the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit, or else it is no stewardship at all.

-Ben

Birds and Lilies

2014-05-01 12.22.42Matthew 6:25-34 has been coming up a lot in my life lately. I was given the passage to preach as part of my examination to be licensed as a preacher back in August, and just last month it was the text my brother and his wife chose for their wedding. The Lord may just be telling me something.

So I thought I’d post the text of my sermon from last year here, for any of you who are in a similar place, struggling with the unknowns of today and tomorrow. It’s mostly a sermon to myself at the moment, but I hope it’s profitable for you in whatever small way.

-Ben


 

I. What Is Jesus Really Saying?

Some things Jesus tells us are simple enough, but they don’t quite sit right. Don’t be anxious. Look to the birds and the lilies of the field. It doesn’t take too long thinking about these things for them to ring a little hollow, does it? Before long we find ourselves saying, “But what about…” What about the 16 million or so children—just in our own very wealthy country—who can’t be sure where their next meal will come from? What about their parents? Are we really supposed to just tell them not to be anxious? I’m sure there are people in this room who have known that kind of uncertainty as more than a statistic. My father was diagnosed with cancer when he was just about my age, with two small kids and no full-time job. His father was born into a Kansas farm family during the Dust Bowl years. What could this command have meant for them and their families?

But we can’t get around what Jesus is saying. Speaking from a mountain, in a way that deliberately recalls Moses, his words carry divine authority. And obedience that goes down to the depths of our thoughts and emotions is just the standard he sets. God forbids not just murder and adultery, but the anger and lust in the heart from which they proceed. His prohibition of anxiety is the same kind of command, forbidding the sinful attitude of anxiety that characterizes a heart sold to the mastery of the false god Mammon (vv. 25, 31, 34).

So the sin of “being anxious” is not a little foible that holds us back from reaching our full potential. It is a grievous offense against God—as one commentator puts it, a “practical atheism” that denies God’s ability to provide, or worse, a spirit of slander against God’s character that denies His willingness to do so.

And Jesus doesn’t seem to make any exceptions. He isn’t cautioning against fretting over things that are unimportant or wanting things that are bad in themselves. It’s clear (vv. 25, 31) that we are forbidden to be preoccupied with our very survival—the things that God the Father knows we need (v. 32). Don’t be concerned, Jesus says, about the very things it makes perfect sense to be concerned about. This is a hard saying; who can listen to it (John 6:60)?

Jesus explains this by using illustrations (vv. 26-30) that have become proverbial to our culture, shaped as it is by Scripture, and that familiarity dulls their very real difficulty and strangeness. The meaning seems obvious enough: God feeds the birds, even though they don’t know enough to worry about where the next meal will come from, and He clothes the flowers, even though they don’t worry about how they’ll dress themselves. If God takes care of so many familiar, mundane creatures, how can you think He won’t take care of you?

If you were raised as a first-century Jew, though, and the Old Testament was your Bible, these words might resonate differently. When we hear Jesus talk about birds, our minds are likely to go to sparrows, flitting around and pecking at birdseed. That’s certainly part of the picture, but when birds show up in the Old Testament, there’s very often another scene in mind: carrion birds picking the bones of those who are under God’s curse (David’s speech of defiance against Goliath; God’s curse against the Israelite royal houses of Jeroboam and Baasha). Luke’s version of this saying mentions ravens specifically, hinting that Jesus did have this picture in mind.

The illustration of the “lilies” and “grass of the field” also carries echoes of the Bible Jesus’ disciples knew. Lilies and Solomon go together very naturally; lilies are all over the Song of Solomon, perhaps connected to the fact that flowers were prominent features of Solomon’s temple furnishings (1 Kgs 7:19, 22; 2 Chr 4:5). The image of grass that’s here today and gone tomorrow calls to mind Isaiah 40:6-8, where God says that “all flesh is grass” and all its “glory” is “like the flower of grass,” which withers and fades, in contrast to God’s word, which stands forever. No earthly glory could compare in the mind of an Israelite with Solomon’s, but the Jews knew that for all his greatness, his unfaithfulness had set in motion a long decline toward his people’s exile and the destruction of that beautiful temple.

Whatever we make of Jesus’ words here, they aren’t naive optimism. Jesus is speaking about life in the real world, the fallen world, a world with reminders of God’s curse and man’s sin everywhere.

There’s another problem with Jesus’ teaching: he seems to be promising more than we actually get. A glance through Proverbs ought to tell us we shouldn’t expect to eat without working for what we get—and Paul forbids it (2 Thess 3:10). Yet Jesus says: the birds eat well without working for it, and you’re more important than birds. How much less should we have to toil to keep food on the table?

As for clothing, I’ll confess that I personally wouldn’t want to be seen in Solomon’s court in anything from my closet. But again, Jesus says: the flowers are better-dressed than the great king, and what are flowers next to you? Shouldn’t we be expecting bigger and better things than what actually comes our way? Are we being shortchanged, or is Jesus just indulging in hyperbole? It’s a thought that we’re probably often too falsely pious to let ourselves think, but once it’s in play, it’s hard to stop.

What Jesus says next (Matt 6:33)—another line we all know (and can sing) by heart—feels like he’s rubbing it in. Seek ye first the kingdom of God… Prioritize the kingdom, and you get the rest thrown in! It sounds so wonderful, but if we call ourselves Christians and try to live up to what that means, doesn’t it ring a little hollow? Doesn’t it seem that either Jesus’ promises aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, or more likely, that our faith obviously isn’t what it needs to be in order for us to claim them? Give the health-and-wealth, prosperity-gospel crowd their due: even if they’re wrong about what he’s saying, they think Jesus means it. We are just not supposed to be anxious.

II. Why Is It So Hard For Us To Hear?

If you’re like me, you sense that you’re supposed to be comforted and strengthened by this passage, but it never seems to work that way when you read it. Either familiarity breeds contempt, and the sayings seem trite—Jesus’ version of “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”—or they become a guilt trip, a wagging finger that makes you doubt your salvation whenever the bills stack up. Why is this? Why is it so hard to receive our Savior’s word with joy?

What we’re experiencing is the discomfort of God’s word shedding light on the condition of our inmost character: freedom from anxiety is the standard set by the first commandment, just as avoiding anger and being quickly reconciled with one another is the standard set by the sixth. And the problem Jesus exposes by setting forth the standard is the one that goes to the root of who we are as sinners: not just that we fall short of the standard, but we hate the standard.

We hate the standard, and we treasure our anxiety. Anxiety helps maintain the illusion that we, or something other than the living God, are in real control of our lives. Anxiety is the activity of a heart that has an escape hatch, a space within us that we think of as safe from God’s interference and a refuge to run to in the event we find Him untrustworthy.

When we hate the standard, our responses reveal our hard-heartedness. When I was a boy, being told to clean my room elicited at least one, and usually both, of two responses from me. One was to shove my various Ninja Turtles and Dino Riders into a pile under the bed and toss my clothes indiscriminately into the closet. Then, usually after this plan of action somehow failed to meet Mom’s approval, I would actually put everything where it went, but to do it while carrying on like I was the most mistreated child who had ever walked the earth.

I tried to pass off both of these responses as “obedience,” but neither was obedience. My first response amounted to lowering the standard until I could meet it without any more effort than I cared to expend. My second response amounted to despair at the standard, treating it as an impossible burden (and I was too self-absorbed to realize the absurdity of that at the time).

It’s the same way with this command, and I know it from recent personal experience. I’ve raised support for a two-year missionary term, and my wife and I are raising support now to serve long-term. When your ability to pursue what you believe is your calling, not to mention your ability to feed and clothe yourself and your family while living overseas, is wholly dependent on the generosity of people you ask for money, this command hits a soft spot. My reaction to Jesus’ words is still one of the same two: either I lower the standard and convince myself Jesus is telling me just to relax, stop thinking about things so much, and that it’ll all just work out; or I resent him for telling me that I shouldn’t fret and obsess over what I need to do to make sure it does work out.

These responses have a common root: I want what God can give without desiring Him. As a child, I wanted credit for having a clean room (I wasn’t the sort to really want the clean room for its own sake); I didn’t really care what kind of son I was being to my mom. Today, I want assurance that the money will come in, without all the troublesome business of learning to pray and give thanks for the ways God provides it. What I want is freedom from anxiety without the Christ who says, “Come to me, and I will give you rest.”

III. How Do We Change?

Yet this same Jesus who tells us not to be anxious is the one who calls us with the offer of rest. He does obviously mean for what he commands us to result in our not laboring under the burden of our anxieties, for his word not to be choked by the cares of this world. How do we hear Jesus tell us not to be anxious and love the standard?

The key really is just that: to hear Jesus speaking in this passage. Jesus the Lawgiver sitting on the mountain is not a different person from Jesus the Suffering Servant or Jesus the Risen Lord. There’s a reason Matthew gives us Jesus’ teachings in the context of the story he is telling of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection: he means us to read these things together, and he means us to see the teaching embodied in what Jesus does, and to see the Good News about what he accomplished give meaning to what he teaches.

So when Jesus commands us to seek the kingdom, he is not only telling us what to do instead of worrying about food, drink, and clothing, but pointing us to himself. The kingdom isn’t something hidden away that we need to go look for; it’s a present, public reality: Jesus is, even as he commands this, announcing the arrival of the kingdom. He is the kingdom of God, and his righteousness is God’s righteousness.

Jesus shows us what it looks like to love the standard: when the devil tempts him to provide bread for himself, he knows what really sustains life; when the devil prompts him to demand a sign of God, he trusts without putting the Lord to the test; when the devil promises a shortcut to all authority on heaven and earth, he keeps his integrity.

In Jesus, we have an example for when the money isn’t coming in: where the disciples wonder how to feed a crowd of thousands, Christ knows that his Father is a God of abundance, counting on God’s generosity to surpass all natural expectation, providing not just what is needed, but enough for everyone with food to spare. He is an example for when the diagnosis is worse than you thought: in Gethsemane, he prays for the cup to pass, but chooses the will of the Father.

Jesus shows in his life what it means to seek the kingdom first: it’s trusting that the life our God promises to us far surpasses the life sustained by the things we need here and now.

This makes sense of the strangeness in Jesus’ illustrations. If God uses the curse laid on the earth to feed the birds, how much more will He use the redemption of the world from the curse to feast the redeemed? If the splendor of fading flowers surpasses the glory of Israel’s most glorious king, what kind of glory will the people born of the imperishable seed of God’s living and abiding word radiate?

And the good news is this: these promises are not possibilities held out to you if you will just “be like Jesus.” These promises have been kept. Jesus has received them; he lived by every word that comes from the mouth of God, drank the cup of God’s wrath, to be clothed in robes white as light in his exaltation. We love the standard because we love him, because he first loved us.

Jesus closes by telling his disciples not to be anxious about tomorrow (v. 34), and this saying too is transformed by what he has come to do. It seems cynical: don’t worry about tomorrow, because today’s bad enough. And there’s a truth to that in the present age. The miseries of this life are new every morning, and we never really anticipate the misfortunes that befall us, so it’s useless if not paralyzing to worry over them.

Yet Jesus speaks as the one who would endure all the “trouble,” all the evil of the present age, for our sakes. He passed through the worst that tomorrow can hold, and the Father raised him up in glory. Where the miseries of life are new every morning, the mercies of God have overcome them in him, forever and ever. The Father has given us Christ himself; how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? So don’t worry about tomorrow; live and work where God has called you, knowing that today and all your tomorrows will give way to the joy set before you, and that your heavenly Father will give you all you need to endure until that day.

When Do You Leave?

It’s the first question we get from just about anyone who knows (a) our names and (b) that we’re missionaries: “When do you leave for Germany?”

ImageIt’s also probably the hardest to answer, even though the answer is simple: we leave when we are fully funded, when churches and individuals have committed to give enough support to cover our entire monthly budget for at least one term (five years, in our case). It’s an answer Anna and I have given so many times that we feel we must surely be turning blue in the face by now.

But it’s not an answer that seems to resonate. Maybe we as a culture are fond of clear deadlines. Maybe most of us (with what I can’t help thinking of as “real jobs,” in unfavorable comparison with my own) think of work, even ministry work, as basically a contract in which the employee is given a clear start date when he or she is hired – that is, you start when you’re needed, at the pleasure of the one hiring you. For missionaries with some agencies, no doubt that’s closer to the case, and they can leave for the field less than fully supported if the ministry demands it. But there are good reasons for doing it the way our agency does.

The most basic of those reasons is a very obvious reality: our support base is in one country, our work in another, faraway one. Raising support is a task that requires making personal connections – you can communicate well enough from the field, especially nowadays, but it’s essentially impossible to meet new potential supporters and nearly as difficult to turn potential supporters into actual supporters by phone or email. And a second reason is like it: missionaries who have to raise their own support never really get to stop raising support. People lose jobs, encounter unexpected expenses, or just lose interest or forget; church budgets crash because of splits or economic downturns. Support goes away more quickly and often than it accumulates.

Take these realities together, and you can see why it would be a pretty bad idea to send us to the field without even once reaching 100% of our funding. We’d likely never hit 100% ever again, and while we would be able to set a clearer start date and get into ministry earlier, we’d be setting ourselves up to have to leave the field unexpectedly, arguably a much worse outcome than a delayed start.

Still, it’s irksome to have to answer that dreaded FAQ honestly, and that shows more about our hearts than about the realities of mission work. I want to give people a deadline so they’ll know the time to give is now; I want to give a deadline so they’ll believe it’s important for me to be on the field sooner rather than later – so they’ll know I’m important to the team we’re joining. I want to give people a deadline because I’m tired of raising support, and I want to will an end into sight; I want to give a deadline because I want to have the answers.

Mostly, I want to give people a deadline because the real answer is “When God wants us to go,” and that’s an answer that requires me to kill my desire to be seen as important, to be seen as successful, to be seen as having it together. And of course that’s what I need more than anything, which is perhaps the wisdom lurking behind requiring full funding before we can go to the field.

So: when do we leave? When God wants us to go.

-Ben

First Impressions

We spent a week last month in Berlin, the first time either of us had been back in Germany in nearly four years. It was an opportunity opened up to us by my brother’s decision to get married in France over Easter weekend – since we were in Europe anyway, it was (comparatively) a hop, skip, and a jump over to Berlin from the Paris area.

ImageMost missionaries in our agency do a trip like this – the shop term is “vision trip” – long before they’re as close to moving to their field as we are. Having lived and worked in Berlin before under the same team leader we’ll have this time around, we committed to our new work sight unseen, even though we’d never really been to the part of the city we’d be serving in, nor had we met our German partner (actually, our team leader hadn’t even met our German partner when we started raising support!).

Even though the trip was great, it’s been bittersweet to be Imageback. We see our support raising as a ministry to the people who are sending us, and we feel better able to do that now that we have at least a few first impressions of the place we’ll call home and the people who will be our co-laborers there. At the same time, it’s just hard to have been there and not know when we’ll return for good – we must be supported at 100% of our monthly budget (we’re at nearly 80% as of this writing) to move to Berlin, so we can’t set a date before that point.

Still, it’s good to be able to share a few of those first impressions with you:

  • We’re going to be living and serving in western Europe this time. That wasn’t the case before, even though we were in the same city; we have relocated from the former East to the former West, and the feel of the place is different in a way that’s hard to pin down. It’s relatively conservative and religious, although that needs to be measured by Berlin standards – it means that “only” something like half of the roughly 80,000 residents are professing non-Christians. (That’s not taking into account the likely majority of self-identified Christians: those who were baptized as babies and therefore pay the church tax but who haven’t darkened the doors of a church since their baptism.)
  • Lichterfelde is just nice. It’s green, quiet, with more kids than many parts of the city, a pretty canal running through the middle of it, and some rather ornate old villas that lend a real charm to the area. There are a lot of positive words I’d apply to a lot of Berlin, but “charming” wouldn’t spring to mind in many other areas.
  • The larger area isn’t monolithic, though. Go a mile or two north and you’ll find yourself in Steglitz, a downtown strip of conspicuous consumption. Go the same distance south and you’re in a huge public housing project, a poor, immigrant-dominated area that feels surprisingly inner-city even though it’s on the very southern edge of Berlin.
  • Our ministry partnership is exciting, with a pastor who lines up well with our team theologically, is in real need of hands to help bear the ministry load, and hopes to grow his church in maturity as well as in numbers. (Not to mention that he’s married to a Texan, meaning he’s aware that salsa should not be ketchup and that the leaves of the coriander plant are edible too.) It’s clear that there’s a place for us, and that’s encouraging.

ImageOf course, our encouragement also means we’re itching to be there, so if you haven’t yet, mosey on over to our support page and take out a chunk of the last fifth of our monthly budget.

-Ben

Barbara

Foreign films are awfully helpful to a missionary: they help with language acquisition, let you observe people from another culture interacting under a variety of circumstances (without the stress of having to participate yourself), and – perhaps most importantly – offer a better sense of what kinds of characters and stories resonate with the culture.

Germany’s relatively recent history has been fertile ground for its filmmakers in the present century; 2006’s outstanding The Lives of Others dissected the human toll of the East German surveillance state in the waning years of the regime, while the sweetly funny Good Bye Lenin! (2003) walks with an East German family through the surreal, traumatic experience of their country’s collapse and reunification with its long-estranged Western sister.

ImageAnna’s and my most recent viewing, Christian Petzold’s Barbara (2012; available on Netflix Instant), is an outstanding contribution to this cinematic retrospective. Set in 1980 (a decade before reunification) in an anonymous little East German town, it follows the title character – a doctor exiled from a prominent post in Berlin for seeking to leave the country – as she plots with her West German lover to defect and start a new life. A severe career downgrade, coupled with constant surveillance and regular searches of her home and person by the Stasi, have left her bitter and closed off from neighbors and colleagues. Nina Hoss’s marvelous performance sells but never oversells Barbara’s aloofness; bits of emotion show chinks in her armor, and it’s especially clear from her bedside manner that her patients are her one source of joy in her present circumstances.

It’s a film that could easily have flattened its characters (Hoss is joined by Ronald Zehrfeld as her boss at the hospital and Rainer Bock as her thorn-in-the-flesh Stasi observer) into caricatures – the Rebel, the Collaborator, the Oppressor – or played up its fairly melodramatic plot for tearjerking purposes, but Petzold’s direction is carefully restrained and his characters carefully humanized (although Zehrfeld verges on too-dreamy-to-be-true once or twice).

Barbara is most centrally and beautifully a story about the realization that Barbara’s salvation isn’t a matter of living under the right government (or at least no longer under the wrong one), nor of being with the man she loves, but a matter of recovering her humanity and becoming who she is made to be – it reads well in context as a reflection on the East German movement toward political liberation, which, while successful, hasn’t been the panacea it was cracked up to be. On a human level, it’s a resonant story of personal growth that emphasizes the transformative power of mercy.

It’s a film well worth the time of anybody who appreciates a well-made drama, but especially for those who’d like an insight into life in the surveillance state from the perspective of relatively ordinary people, as well as those interested in how contemporary German storytellers use that historical reality to reflect on the human condition.

-Ben

Hands and Prayer

201403309510333895595bestshotThis past Sunday, I was ordained to the Christian ministry. Officially, I’m a Teaching Elder (being called an “elder” has a way of making 30 feel younger than it has since my birthday) commissioned as an evangelistic missionary to Berlin. It’s a strange feeling, a lot like being newly married – hard to process, different and yet not different, at once the culmination of a long, hard-fought, seemingly impossible process and only the beginning of something I feel I can’t possibly be really prepared for.

The ordination took place in the morning worship service at our sending church, and I’m glad for that – a few people remarked that it was the first time they’d seen an ordination take place. There’s a high point to the whole service: once I’d taken my vows, and before I was given a charge, I knelt and was surrounded by the commission of elders appointed to carry out the ordination, who laid hands on me and prayed for me.

That’s the essence of Christian ordination, if we take our cues from the handful of New Testament texts that refer to it (Acts 6:6; 13:2-3; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6): laying on of hands with prayer. In the Old Testament, it was sacrifices that received laying on of hands (Exod 29:10 and many other places), transferring the guilt of the worshiper to the animal; now, it’s the gift received previously by the elders that is passed on to the ordinand.

In Acts, it’s made clear that this always happens in conjunction with prayer, and that’s the thing that is so good for the congregation to see happening. The founding event in a man’s ministry is an act of prayer, asking God to provide all that’s needed for whatever He asks of the new pastor. Missionaries often make what must seem like an emptily pious habit of asking for prayer in their presentations and meetings. We talk a big game about how much we need individuals and congregations to be in prayer for us, but I imagine most of our hearers are getting squirmy by that point because they know the next thing we’ll ask for is money, the thing we all know missionaries are really after.

That’s part of the process, part of the discomfort of our calling. We do need money, as I’ve detailed recently, and there’s no point pretending we’re not hoping for donors as well as prayer supporters. But ordination happens by prayer, and so does the work of every ordained officer of the church, and so does the mission of God in the world. That becomes a much more pressing reality for us once the money is there and we reach the field; we realize how incompetent and needy we are, and we start to see a correlation between the activity of our prayer teams and the fruit we see. Ask a missionary who has spent time on the field – at least with a healthy team – what he or she misses most about being there, and a likely answer is the experience of intense, regular prayer with others who see praying as foundational to their task.

If an ordination commission has not prayed for an ordinand, they simply have not ordained him. If a church does not pray for its missionaries, it has not sent them. If missionaries are not praying, they are not carrying out the mission; neither are we doing what we were sent to do if we are not asking you to pray for us and telling you how you can intelligently and strategically do so. This is the calling we all share, whether we go or send: to pray for laborers to the harvest.

-Ben

Where Does the Money Come From?

As you can tell from our nifty Berlin-TV-Tower-shaped support thermometer over there on the sidebar, we’ve raised about 70% of the recurring support we need to move to Berlin. We tend to field a lot of questions and also pick up on various perceptions (and misperceptions) about where our support comes from (or is supposed to come from), so I thought I’d try to break down the numbers a little bit and show what our support base really looks like. (Disclaimer: I have no idea how typical we are among missionaries in general. I have a feeling we’re not unusual among those from our agency, but these numbers are our own.)

Here’s what the numbers show:

  1. Most of our support comes from individual donors, not church budgets. We receive support from four churches; only two of those are in our denomination. Together, they account for 32% of our total monthly support need, less than half of what we’ve raised so far. While we are making an effort to seek support from as many churches as possible, it seems reasonable to project that a solid majority of our regular giving will come from individuals. As of this writing, we have 59 pledges from individuals – that’s about 15 individual supporters for every supporting church! We know that we are at least somewhat representative in this respect: while our agency reported a 3% overall increase in missionary support from 2012 to 2013, support from churches dropped 8%.
  2. “Small” pledges add up. New supporters are sometimes apologetic about how small their commitments are, but pledges of $50/month or less account for 37% of the individual support we’ve raised so far. Of course it’s easy to get excited about big pledges when they show up, but it’s important to understand that “every little bit helps” isn’t just a platitude. We wouldn’t be nearly as far along as we are without dozens of people giving at these levels. Every person or family who gives what they can is a partner, somebody who is affirming our calling and investing their resources in us, and that means a lot.
  3. We need a big team. This follows directly from the last two points: we are supported mostly by individuals, and while some of those are able to give at high levels, the overall average is a little over $60/month. If that stays consistent, then we’ll still need about 50 more individual supporters (fewer if we are picked up by some churches at higher levels).
  4. Recurring is recurring. We love year-end giving, we really do – but while it can save the day when budget shortfalls loom, it’s not that helpful for getting to the field in the first place. In theory, if our support account fills up with enough one-time giving, that can be prorated over a five-year term to cover our monthly budget, but that means our account would be drained by the time we are back in the States between terms. What’s crucial for us is commitment, whether that means giving every month (or quarter, or half-year) or promising that a certain part of your year-end giving will go to us every year. Of our 59 individual supporters, seven have made annual pledges, which are together worth $350 of our monthly budget.

We spend a lot of our time lately beating the drum of our need for people to commit to ongoing support, and I think that can be intimidating to people. Who knows whether the monthly pledge I make this year will be sustainable five years down the road? People lose jobs, gain dependents, incur unexpected costs – James 4:13-15 comes to mind. What we are asking when we ask for support is an act of faith, a commitment that only divine providence will allow to be kept. We trust that God has called and equipped us to be sent, and we trust (and hope you will trust) that He is likewise calling and equipping you and many others like you to send, regardless of what the numbers look like to our dim, frail eyes.

-Ben

Putting Patrick Back in St. Patrick’s Day

Fellow MTW missionary Mike Pettengill has published a nice overview of who St. Patrick really was and why he matters over on the Gospel Coalition blog. I share the sentiments but usually don’t participate much in the more or less monthly crusades to reclaim the real meaning of this or that holiday from the secularized accretions of Santa or Cupid or the Bunny or whatever, but this one hits close to home for, I hope, obvious reasons.

St. Patrick

Patrick isn’t just an exemplary figure (though Mike shows ably that he is that) – he is a marvelous illustration that God’s interest in and interaction with history doesn’t end with Acts 28. Anna and I listened to Thomas Cahill’s fascinating How the Irish Saved Civilization on CD this past fall as we traversed Appalachia; while there’s plenty to quibble with or be skeptical of in his portrait of Patrick, one point stood out: Patrick was quite likely the first missionary since the apostolic age to venture outside the bounds of Roman civilization.

That’s huge: Patrick was the means by which the Church reclaimed its founding and essential mission in the waning days of the civilization into which it had been born. He beat Gregory the Great to the punch by more than a century and a half, and his spiritual children and grandchildren were there with the gospel of Christ the last time Europe found itself suddenly a post-Christian continent.

So enjoy the secularized, folkloric silliness that St. Paddy’s is today, but in the midst of it, remember that though kingdoms and empires rise and fall, the Church is and will be to the end of the age a people on a mission, never more itself than when we go and send and pray. Think of your missionaries today, and pray that the same Spirit that empowered Patrick would guide and strengthen them for the blessing of the nations.

-Ben

Spring in a Minor Key

Image

I like Lent. For some reason, this year seems to be the time to criticize the season’s growing popularity among evangelicals, particularly from those in my own theological tradition, but I still like it. The critiques are generally pretty valuable and on-target; there are and have long been a great many bad reasons and bad ways to observe Lent, and endorsing it probably ought always to be accompanied by plenty of caveats.

Setting aside the controversy, Peter Leithart articulates well what I like about it: “Lent is a minor movement in the symphony of the church year, dissonance that opens into the resolution of Easter.” There’s an aesthetic to it; the year isn’t flat, with an uninterrupted sequence of normal weeks and Sundays punctuated (maybe) by Christmas and Easter. That’s not how God set up the seasons in the natural world, and I think it’s fitting that the church year reflect that as it helps us walk through the gospel story.

For those of us here in the northern hemisphere, there is something else I like about that: Lent happens as winter becomes spring, a minor-key liturgical season in a major-key natural season. Advent prepares us for light in the dark of winter; Lent tempers the light and warmth of springtime with sober meditation on Christ’s journey into darkness.

Image

It’s a reminder, in that way, that what we see and feel and experience right here and right now isn’t the whole story. The joy of Easter was won on the cross; the Lord didn’t want Paul to grow conceited, so he allowed a thorn in his flesh; we enter the kingdom of God only through many tribulations. But none of these things (the cross, the thorn, the tribulations) is final; they are dependent on the resurrection, the revelation, and the kingdom for their meaning. Today’s affliction isn’t comparable to the coming, ultimate joy.

I’m a missionary raising support, and so my temptation is to read each day’s experience as though it were the final word: a church that seemed so interested can’t support us after all, and I think our work in Germany was a ridiculous pipe dream all along; a big, unexpected pledge comes in, and I think we’ll be there next week; I tell the same stories and make the same plea a hundred times, sometimes with success, sometimes without, and I feel the only way to survive is to flatten it all out into a job, something that just goes on until it stops, not a story with conflict and obstacles and a divinely ordained ending.

But keeping Lent, if only by reading more about suffering and repentance in my Bible than usual, tunes my heart to hear the minor movements of the year (or the day, or the week) with an ear toward the triumphant conclusion. It tells me that I am in a season, and seasons change – that’s just about all they do. But it tells me that the Christ who suffered is the Lord Jesus who reigns, too, and that the Christ who reigns is the Jesus who suffered. He is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.

-Ben

American Bread to the German Palate

A friend on Facebook posted a fun translated list of travel tips for visitors to America from Japanese websites. Since there was no German equivalent on the site, I was inspired to browse some German sites on my own to get some Teutonic perspective on my home country. I may try to put together a digest of some gems later, but this travel-advice page’s description of American bread was too good not to dedicate a whole post to.

My translation:

When you can, I recommend making your own meals, at least where breakfast is concerned. Every supermarket has every food known in Germany – and in larger sizes and quantities. However: bread – and rolls – are a horror to every German. A Chicago hard roll is related, at least genetically, to the normal German roll; everything else is rubber. Try, in some unobserved moment, squeezing a loaf. It squishes! And once you let go, it resumes its original shape. It’s the same when you chew it. Don’t let yourself be blinded by the resemblance of some loaves to rye bread. It’s still gummi bread.

If you’re lucky, you might find a German baker somewhere. That, however, will require its own dedicated vacation fund.

Sorry, America, but he’s got a point.

-Ben