Direct support — the congregation sends the missionary itself.
Rather than fund a board that appoints, a congregation supports a named missionary family directly and receives their letters. It is the practice that most clearly expresses the refusal of agencies, and it makes the movement's overseas work hard to count.
Direct-support missions are the practical expression of the refusal to build agencies. A missionary family raises support from individual congregations and individuals, reports to them directly by letter and visit, and answers to a sending congregation rather than a board. The system produced substantial work in Zimbabwe, India, Ukraine, the Philippines and Brazil, and it makes the movement's overseas presence effectively uncountable — there is no central register of missionaries or of the churches they plant. It also puts a great deal of weight on personal relationships and very little on institutional accountability, which is a known vulnerability and one the movement's own publications have discussed.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.