This is part 2… You can read part 1 HERE.
For ten years some things about traditional missions have bothered me
– at least my understanding of tranditional missions. I'm not sure I
have the answers, but I struggle with several things. And I'm wide open
to being corrected on these issues…
Another question I have about missions…
2) Should we send parachurch workers to places around the world if they have local Christians who could fill those positions at a fraction of the cost?
My middle daughter is interested in missions. I love that. Her current interest is to work in an orphanage overseas. I love the goal of looking after orphans. James tells us it is religion that is acceptable to God. So I love it from that angle. But we've talked a couple of times about my struggle from a different angle.
Should churches be supporting individuals and families to work in a parachurch ministry overseas if there are Christians there who could be hired at a fraction of the cost? I'm not saying it is wrong. I'm just wondering if that is good stewardship.
If a person wanted to be a missionary (by traditional definition) to a country to work in a parachurch ministry – they would need to raise tens of thousands of dollars in support. And in some countries, the prevailing wage may be a couple thousand a year. That doesn't seem like good mission's stewardship.
I am sure there are specific roles that need filled by a specialist that needs someone to come from a place like the US. But is every missionary serving in a parachurch ministry from the U.S. a necessity? Might we be able to help the economic condition in the region and in a family by raising money to hire locals to do the same tasks? And they won't need to come home to the U.S. every four years and leave a hole in the parachurch organization.
Am I wrong? What am I missing on this point? Again, I'm not sure I'm right, but these are questions I don't think I've ever heard people ask when someone wants support.