How does this factor in District budgets? I realize there is no real way to look at each individual congregation's work plan/budget to see how it is spending money on local mission work.
To my understanding, all money directed to international missions must go through OIM. But, there is no such requirement for national mission work, which is often done at the congregational, circuit, and district level for work and funding.
Rather than trying to quantify total spend in each sphere, we are highlighting lost domestic evangelism opportunities and capacity when money, time, and effort are exported abroad at a time of great need on the collapsing home front. Another way to look at this is to invert your question. How much are the foreign missions and church bodies raising for themselves relative to the direct and indirect LCMS subsidies they receive? What is the cumulative total? How do we quantify the time and treasure invested in Ethiopia, only for its Lutherans to remain insistent on being Pentecostals and ordaining women? How do we justify being in fellowship with SELK if we cannot be in fellowship with the Australians? So, it’s about money + entanglements, many of which are impossible to quantify in dollar terms or other hard metrics.
I do not know if you can quantify mission work, either domestic or abroad. Not only is there the difficultly in having a hard metric, everyone and their dog is going to argue over what is and is not mission work. For example, is the congregational school a mission or not? If a school is a mission outside our nation, why would it not be considered a mission at my hometown? So, we have that whole mess as well.
In theory, every Christian is a witness of the Gospel, making them a missionary. We primarily live this out within our vocations. For example, when it comes to my family I have fulfilled the first half of Matthew 28:19 by having my children baptized, and now I am working on the second half by teaching them what it means to be a baptized child/disciple of God (and by having children the Lord has blessed me in fulfilling His command of being fruitful and multiplying). But, also living my vocation as neighbor to those who live close to me, helping out my community, being a good citizen, etc. I do those things as if to God and they are a reflection of God's love.
I am not trying to be adversarial in any of this, by the way. I am the Oklahoma District Evangelism Executive. Depending on how you want to count it, 60-85% of the OK District workplan/budget is going towards missions/evangelism/outreach within the borders of the District. So I am just trying to think through and work through what you wrote. Maybe we need to put those signs back up in all our churches on the inside of the doors so people see them when they are walking out, "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD!"
As far as Ethiopia, I am completely unfamiliar with it and cannot comment one way or another and so will refrain.
And, as far as the SELK, my understanding was the break happened after our last Synod Convention. If I am wrong on the timeline, I apologize. It takes passage of a resolution to break fellowship. In like manner, it takes a passage of a resolution to recognize fellowship.
We can certainly quantify the dollars sent abroad vs the dollars invested at home. With the LCMS in an attendance death spiral, we cannot avoid re-prioritizing our efforts to the home front lest the people languish for the bread of life. I'm sure the OKD could do with an infusion of cash and talent.
Best wishes for your efforts. May God bless them to bear the fruit he provides.
Our congregation recently had a vicar heading to the Dominican Republic present on mission work. I'm fairly certain the Synod is trying to get ahead of this when he proactively acknowledged that some might question why the LCMS does foreign missions when there is so much to do domestically? His answer to this was simply that domestic and foreign missions are not at odds and that we can do both. But, of course, this intentionally ignores that we can't do both. Resources are limited, so we can't do it all. And where you direct your resources says something.
And as you indicate, I don't see any indication that the foreign missions we have will one day return the favor so to speak by sending resources back to the US to revive the church here. If we don't do it, it won't be done.
There is also a clear refusal to respond to criticisms for directing mission resources to places that are arguably more Christian than our own communities. The Dominican Republic has Roman Catholicism as its state religion, 90% identify as Christian with 60% being Roman Catholic. Those are numbers that I don't think you can find anywhere in the US. So are we just there to "convert" from other denominations? How do we choose our foreign mission locations? There are many cases where looking at demographics of Christian presence already there doesn't seem to make sense to someone on the outside.
I am also a vicar, currently serving my vicarage in Puerto Rico. I also spent 2 months doing orientation in the Dominican Republic before coming to Puerto Rico. As for your comments about the reported numbers of Christianity in the DR they do not represent at all the spiritual condition of the average person there. Yes, nearly everyone in the DR is a cultural Christian but most could not tell you anything about the Bible, what their baptism means, or why they are saved (the same could be said for many "Christians" in the US). They do not know the true gospel as the Lutheran church proclaims it. Puerto Rico, where I am serving, is much the same. Puerto Rico has a "church" on basically every street corner of the island, yet it is a place and people dwelling in darkness, starving for the true gospel. PR has a population slightly over 3 million, with even more Puerto Ricans than that living in the US. Should we abandon them to every sect and wolf in sheep's clothing? The gospel is gladly received here because it is so needed, and we just had our first young man from Puerto Rico begin seminary studies this Fall. Confessional Lutheranism is poised to thrive in Puerto Rico as liberal churches collapse, and there are potential long-term upsides of missions in Puerto Rico because of its relation to the US and the possibility of raising up Spanish speaking pastors to serve not only in PR but also in the US, where Confessional Lutheran pastors who speak Spanish are desperately needed. (That is part of the reason I am doing a vicarage in Puerto Rico).
Also, please explain why you think we can't support domestic and international mission? Does Jesus Christ not give enough gifts to his church to both support themselves and spread the gospel to all the nations as commanded? Yes, there is always a limited amount of financial resources to go around and we ought to first support those "of the household of faith," but that doesn't mean we cannot or should not also support international missions. The motivation and sometimes brazen confidence to sow the gospel where the ground doesn't seem so fertile comes from Jesus Christ's command and his promise that he is with us always, and he is the one who gives the growth. It does not come from the sort of "zero-sum" mindset which limits the almighty God's ability to reach people with the gospel to the amount of dollars in the church. That sort of mindset is what leads the one with one Minai/Talent to bury it in the ground instead of investing it in faith (Matt 25:14-30).
And to be absolutely clear, I agree with this article in that we should invest more in domestic mission, especially in fruitful areas with dense populations and minority populations ripe for the spread of the gospel. However, I completely disagree that this is accomplished by robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, that is, taking funds from international mission and putting them toward national mission. This completely misunderstands the foundational motivation for any mission (foreign or domestic) which is the Lord's commands and promises (not the total amount of resources), and also (if I am correct in my understanding of the Annual report) is a misrepresentation of how the funds for mission are collected and distributed by the Synod.
The thing you have to take into account here is what is means in the Annual Report when it says “Use of Donor Restricted Net Resources.” From what I understand (and I could be confused about what funds are represented here) the reason that almost all the funding for international missions comes from that category is because OIM currently uses the Network Supported Missionary (NSM) model to support her missionaries. I’m currently serving my vicarage in Puerto Rico but am classified as a missionary of the Synod. As such, I had to fundraise in the US for my own service. Mission advancement also helps us fundraise, but generally speaking, the money that goes to fund my missionary service comes from my fundraising efforts, i.e. I presented at dozens of congregations, and people or congregations sent money to OIM that was earmarked specifically for my support. People gave that money because they wanted to or I convinced them to. I don’t think you’re wrong that we should maybe put more money/effort into domestic mission. But what does that look like? Grandma Schmidt was willing to give me $500 for me to do mission in Puerto Rico, but is she willing to do the same to invest in her own community and what does that look like? Who is she giving that money to? The district? National mission in general? I can attest to the quality of the active LCMS missionaries and alliance missionaries I have met, and in my experience our international mission congregations are some of the most faithful in their word and sacraments ministry (confessional, liturgical, etc.). Can the same be said of Synod national mission and the congregations it supports? Again, I may be confused of what that 15 million number represents, but I believe a majority of that comes from individual missionary NSM support. If I’m incorrect and that 15 million represents funds in addition to NSM funds then someone at OIM needs to explain to me what we spend 15 million dollars on, besides missionaries, and how we can get some of those funds to help our work in Puerto Rico.
How does this factor in District budgets? I realize there is no real way to look at each individual congregation's work plan/budget to see how it is spending money on local mission work.
To my understanding, all money directed to international missions must go through OIM. But, there is no such requirement for national mission work, which is often done at the congregational, circuit, and district level for work and funding.
Rather than trying to quantify total spend in each sphere, we are highlighting lost domestic evangelism opportunities and capacity when money, time, and effort are exported abroad at a time of great need on the collapsing home front. Another way to look at this is to invert your question. How much are the foreign missions and church bodies raising for themselves relative to the direct and indirect LCMS subsidies they receive? What is the cumulative total? How do we quantify the time and treasure invested in Ethiopia, only for its Lutherans to remain insistent on being Pentecostals and ordaining women? How do we justify being in fellowship with SELK if we cannot be in fellowship with the Australians? So, it’s about money + entanglements, many of which are impossible to quantify in dollar terms or other hard metrics.
I do not know if you can quantify mission work, either domestic or abroad. Not only is there the difficultly in having a hard metric, everyone and their dog is going to argue over what is and is not mission work. For example, is the congregational school a mission or not? If a school is a mission outside our nation, why would it not be considered a mission at my hometown? So, we have that whole mess as well.
In theory, every Christian is a witness of the Gospel, making them a missionary. We primarily live this out within our vocations. For example, when it comes to my family I have fulfilled the first half of Matthew 28:19 by having my children baptized, and now I am working on the second half by teaching them what it means to be a baptized child/disciple of God (and by having children the Lord has blessed me in fulfilling His command of being fruitful and multiplying). But, also living my vocation as neighbor to those who live close to me, helping out my community, being a good citizen, etc. I do those things as if to God and they are a reflection of God's love.
I am not trying to be adversarial in any of this, by the way. I am the Oklahoma District Evangelism Executive. Depending on how you want to count it, 60-85% of the OK District workplan/budget is going towards missions/evangelism/outreach within the borders of the District. So I am just trying to think through and work through what you wrote. Maybe we need to put those signs back up in all our churches on the inside of the doors so people see them when they are walking out, "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD!"
As far as Ethiopia, I am completely unfamiliar with it and cannot comment one way or another and so will refrain.
And, as far as the SELK, my understanding was the break happened after our last Synod Convention. If I am wrong on the timeline, I apologize. It takes passage of a resolution to break fellowship. In like manner, it takes a passage of a resolution to recognize fellowship.
We can certainly quantify the dollars sent abroad vs the dollars invested at home. With the LCMS in an attendance death spiral, we cannot avoid re-prioritizing our efforts to the home front lest the people languish for the bread of life. I'm sure the OKD could do with an infusion of cash and talent.
Best wishes for your efforts. May God bless them to bear the fruit he provides.
Our congregation recently had a vicar heading to the Dominican Republic present on mission work. I'm fairly certain the Synod is trying to get ahead of this when he proactively acknowledged that some might question why the LCMS does foreign missions when there is so much to do domestically? His answer to this was simply that domestic and foreign missions are not at odds and that we can do both. But, of course, this intentionally ignores that we can't do both. Resources are limited, so we can't do it all. And where you direct your resources says something.
And as you indicate, I don't see any indication that the foreign missions we have will one day return the favor so to speak by sending resources back to the US to revive the church here. If we don't do it, it won't be done.
There is also a clear refusal to respond to criticisms for directing mission resources to places that are arguably more Christian than our own communities. The Dominican Republic has Roman Catholicism as its state religion, 90% identify as Christian with 60% being Roman Catholic. Those are numbers that I don't think you can find anywhere in the US. So are we just there to "convert" from other denominations? How do we choose our foreign mission locations? There are many cases where looking at demographics of Christian presence already there doesn't seem to make sense to someone on the outside.
Interesting points. It certainly would be worthwhile for the LCMS to fund a massive missionary push on behalf of Lutheran Mission Australia.
I am also a vicar, currently serving my vicarage in Puerto Rico. I also spent 2 months doing orientation in the Dominican Republic before coming to Puerto Rico. As for your comments about the reported numbers of Christianity in the DR they do not represent at all the spiritual condition of the average person there. Yes, nearly everyone in the DR is a cultural Christian but most could not tell you anything about the Bible, what their baptism means, or why they are saved (the same could be said for many "Christians" in the US). They do not know the true gospel as the Lutheran church proclaims it. Puerto Rico, where I am serving, is much the same. Puerto Rico has a "church" on basically every street corner of the island, yet it is a place and people dwelling in darkness, starving for the true gospel. PR has a population slightly over 3 million, with even more Puerto Ricans than that living in the US. Should we abandon them to every sect and wolf in sheep's clothing? The gospel is gladly received here because it is so needed, and we just had our first young man from Puerto Rico begin seminary studies this Fall. Confessional Lutheranism is poised to thrive in Puerto Rico as liberal churches collapse, and there are potential long-term upsides of missions in Puerto Rico because of its relation to the US and the possibility of raising up Spanish speaking pastors to serve not only in PR but also in the US, where Confessional Lutheran pastors who speak Spanish are desperately needed. (That is part of the reason I am doing a vicarage in Puerto Rico).
Also, please explain why you think we can't support domestic and international mission? Does Jesus Christ not give enough gifts to his church to both support themselves and spread the gospel to all the nations as commanded? Yes, there is always a limited amount of financial resources to go around and we ought to first support those "of the household of faith," but that doesn't mean we cannot or should not also support international missions. The motivation and sometimes brazen confidence to sow the gospel where the ground doesn't seem so fertile comes from Jesus Christ's command and his promise that he is with us always, and he is the one who gives the growth. It does not come from the sort of "zero-sum" mindset which limits the almighty God's ability to reach people with the gospel to the amount of dollars in the church. That sort of mindset is what leads the one with one Minai/Talent to bury it in the ground instead of investing it in faith (Matt 25:14-30).
And to be absolutely clear, I agree with this article in that we should invest more in domestic mission, especially in fruitful areas with dense populations and minority populations ripe for the spread of the gospel. However, I completely disagree that this is accomplished by robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, that is, taking funds from international mission and putting them toward national mission. This completely misunderstands the foundational motivation for any mission (foreign or domestic) which is the Lord's commands and promises (not the total amount of resources), and also (if I am correct in my understanding of the Annual report) is a misrepresentation of how the funds for mission are collected and distributed by the Synod.
The thing you have to take into account here is what is means in the Annual Report when it says “Use of Donor Restricted Net Resources.” From what I understand (and I could be confused about what funds are represented here) the reason that almost all the funding for international missions comes from that category is because OIM currently uses the Network Supported Missionary (NSM) model to support her missionaries. I’m currently serving my vicarage in Puerto Rico but am classified as a missionary of the Synod. As such, I had to fundraise in the US for my own service. Mission advancement also helps us fundraise, but generally speaking, the money that goes to fund my missionary service comes from my fundraising efforts, i.e. I presented at dozens of congregations, and people or congregations sent money to OIM that was earmarked specifically for my support. People gave that money because they wanted to or I convinced them to. I don’t think you’re wrong that we should maybe put more money/effort into domestic mission. But what does that look like? Grandma Schmidt was willing to give me $500 for me to do mission in Puerto Rico, but is she willing to do the same to invest in her own community and what does that look like? Who is she giving that money to? The district? National mission in general? I can attest to the quality of the active LCMS missionaries and alliance missionaries I have met, and in my experience our international mission congregations are some of the most faithful in their word and sacraments ministry (confessional, liturgical, etc.). Can the same be said of Synod national mission and the congregations it supports? Again, I may be confused of what that 15 million number represents, but I believe a majority of that comes from individual missionary NSM support. If I’m incorrect and that 15 million represents funds in addition to NSM funds then someone at OIM needs to explain to me what we spend 15 million dollars on, besides missionaries, and how we can get some of those funds to help our work in Puerto Rico.