« Mauritanian coup d’etat

Business

For Profit Structures in Mission Movements

 

A review of world impacting movements will reveal that every movement (and the sub organizations within movements) consists of systems, strategies, and structures.  These three elements are universal and make up the overall logic of the movement.  The goal of missions movements is to complete the great commission.  Therefore, every missions movement should have systems, strategies and structures:

 

• that enable it to overcome all four barriers to world evangelization, and…
• that are aligned with the call of Christ to complete the great commission.  

This being the case, we should anticipate what some of those systems, strategies and structures (hereafter simply “structures”) might be. 

 

When we think of missions the structures that leap to mind are those of mission agencies. This is natural; nevertheless, I propose that some of the structures we need are actually businesses.  For example, we need for-profit wineskins that function as market systems.  These for-profit structures should be inherently missional and transformational but they should also serve as systems of finance that will fund themselves, while also creating additional revenue to fund other Kingdom efforts that are operationally essential but lack market viability. 

These other efforts are needed structures that exist within the will and purposes of God, but are not market viable.  They are what economists call a market failure: something (goods or services) that the market will not allocate efficiently (Justly, morally, etc.).  These market failures are the domain of governmental and non-governmental organizations (not-for-profit organizations), and are most often cost centers.  Examples of governmental public goods that we don’t want to see distributed on a market basis are bridge maintenance, policing and firefighting services.  These are in the realm of non-profit governmental structures.

  

The chart above illustrates this reality for the great commission.  There are some kingdom systems that need to be not-for-profit (NFP).  The primary examples are proclamation systems, prayer and prophetic systems and hand-out systems.  There are clear biblical examples limiting the market distribution of these things.  Some examples are:

 

 The young prophet of Judah in 1Kings 13 – the background for this story is that Jeroboam was supporting corrupt mercenary prophets and priests who were would offer their “spiritual services” at a price.  The young man of God from Judah is commanded to go and prophecy judgment on these practices, but he is commanded not to eat any of Jeroboam’s bread, or in other words partake of the very thing that he is prophesying against.  He is ultimately tricked by a corrupt prophet to do this very thing, comes under judgment and is slain by a lion.

 

 Jesus and the money changers Mark 11 – The court of the gentiles is filled with corrupt moneychangers who take advantage (gouging) of gentiles and pilgrims who want to worship at the temple.  Jesus overthrows their tables and drives them out, proclaiming, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

 

Jesus’ sending of the 12  in Matthew 10 – With regards to ministry of preaching, healing, deliverance, etc. Jesus says, “Freely you have received, freely give.” He tells them to live by the generosity of those who receive the ministry.

 

Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8 – Simon tries to cut a deal with Peter for distribution rights on the impartation of the Holy Spirit and Peter answers, “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!”

 

There are other structures that can exist as either for-profit (FP) or not-for-profit wineskins, or as a blended model.  For example, training and equipping is typically done within a non-profit wine skin.  Nevertheless, there may be kinds of training (business or technical training, consulting, coaching) that could be done in a for-profit wineskin.  Discipleship training is better done in a non-profit setting: every believer should be equipped for ministry regardless of their ability to pay.  Primary schools are an example of a training structures that are also a hand-up system.  In the US we believe that primary education is a public good therefore we have free public education.  There are also, non-profit religious and non-religious schools, and for profit businesses that provide a primary education.

 

Thus far we have spoken primarily about organizations, but some of these systems can be organic, that is relational, non-hierarchical, ad-hoc in structure.  This is especially true of the not-for-profit wineskins that have proclamation functions.[1]  I am thinking in particular of the success of church planting movements. I have created the following quadrant diagram to illustrate this.  

 

I recently attended a Friday morning discipleship meeting that is a good example of a “C” quadrant wineskin.  This meeting is a simple meeting of 6-12 local businessmen who get together and encourage each other in their walk with the Lord.  They usually read through a book together and one of the men volunteers each week to lead the discussion on that week’s chapter.  This group’s structure is well suited for its purposes.  They have little logistical complexity, an almost non-existent cost structure (no need for a revenue model), and low demands for leadership and subject matter experience.

 

I am fond of saying that forming a non-profit organization is like “creating another hungry mouth to feed.”  This is especially true of those that have logistical complexity, correspondingly high leadership demands and a cost intensive structure.  I think that a good rule of thumb is that a structures should only adopt a D quadrant structure when needed.  If the market can appropriately and efficiently provide a solution then let it. Adopt the simplest and most organic structure possible in meeting your objectives. 

An exciting area that needs more exploration is the potential for symbiotic relationships between for-profit enterprise systems and not-for-profit missional systems.  I think this is especially possible when one or the other has a relatively low level of complexity.  In other words, a pairing of a logistically intense business model with an organic model of church planting is attractive.  In contrast, the combination of a logistically intense business model with a traditional and also logistically intense church planting model would have the effect of pulling the whole thing apart (and the people involved).

 

Jason is a contributing editor with Momentum Magazine.  He serves as a missionary with Calvary International and works as a strategist with the Regent Center for Entrepreneurship in Virginia Beach.  He has written a book on business as mission titled Eden Inc.

 

 

 

---

Other Related Posts

• Lessons Learned
• The Shop Church: The second mile
• Introductory Post - Jason Benedict
• SIM: Moving forward in business-based ministries
• Three small kilometers

© 2008 Momentum Magazine.
Related: The Mission Manual · Justin Long's Annotated Links and Notes