Google Translations

« SNAFU | Main | Off to Soliton | Nomadic Faith | Spiritual Cartography | Vx 'Suicide' »

August 02, 2006





Jamie Arpin-Ricci

A fair critique, giving me something to think about. I will say, however, that the way Jesus & His disciples were supported was very clearly a culturally familiar and appropriate model. Not sure we can take it completely into our context without missing a great deal.


Andrew Dowsett

I agree with you, Kester. I also appreciate Andrew Jones, and also feel uncomfortable with some of the money posts. I don't want to say its wrong, but I think it is wrong for me. So, I don't have a PayPal donate button on my blog.

We try to live within our means, and generally avoid having savings (though as we sold a house last year, we have some at the moment - and we're living off them). Whenever we've had an unforseeable expenditure come in, I've asked God to provide the amount we need. I don't mention it to anyone else. Time and again, the money has arrived, as gift - often anonymous. I don't post that to appear holy; it's just a matter-of-fact of our life.


Nice work Daniel. Signal to Noise. Gets the mathematician in me frisky.

In terms of 'culturally familiar and appropriate' models, I'm worried that the unprecedented levels of personal debt that people in the West are taking on are skewing the measures of 'appropriateness'. We pay extortionate interest on mortgages lasting 25 years to live in brick boxes. Credit cards 'take the waiting out of wanting'...

I think the waters are so muddied, but I'm fairly sure that generous donors with long application forms funding bloggers are not the answer to the great commission.


I couldn't agree more. Funding in some instances may be the way to go, but for me the emerging journey is all about relationships. Reading about people existing in the world of work and toil whilst meeting and celebrating God is an inspiration. Reading about projects to establish a kingdom or fund this initiative or that focus thing make me feel like I am in work.

Live within our means and dream within God's. Gifts do come, and funding is rarely (if ever) a gift.

Jamie Arpin-Ricci


On that count, I think you are dead on. We have a very strong value in our ministry centre when it comes to support your missional habits through irresponsible use of credit (which is frighteningly common). Well said.


andrew (tall skinny kiwi)


this is the third time i am attempting to comment on this post.

are you keeping my comments and questions off the post for a good reason?

my first and second comment is recorded here

would love to hear your response to my question about your wife working in partnership with Foundations and Donor organisations with her managerial role in Greenbelt and if she has any wisdom to add to the conversation.

see you next week


Andrew - I'm sorry, I've no idea what happened to your comments. I've never edited or deleted any comments on this blog, so sorry if you've had problems commenting... hopefully it's not a wider problem. (Might be to do with CoComment? Not seen it before. Great idea.)

A couple of things in response.

Greenbelt is now pretty financially independent. It has had some historic debt, which is now paid off. It does have 'partners' - organizations who put money into the event - but I think this is a different sort of relationship to simple donor funding. Firstly, they are clearly identified as such. They are on site, usually bringing a particular focus, such as Christian Aid or DFID do, and all GB materials have their logos on them.

She's away on site at the moment, but I'll ask her if she has any thoughts.

The stories of people getting to events like you mentioned are great. Sacrifice and generosity are so key.

You mention in the comment on Jordan's post that "finding creative ways for dozens of missional networks across the globe to fulful the Great Commission does need partnership and resources". I would agree with this to an extent. But what worries me is that having to apply to foundations such as Maclellan is 'old world' - rich patrons buying into stuff - very top down. What I think we need to work towards in mission is 'sustainable development' - bottom up, and I'm not sure that such funding processes encourage that.

They might also actually encourage compromise - insisting (as Maclellan do) on signing up to certain doctrines. If we need the cash, do we economise on the truth of our position in order to please them? It's a tough one.

The central tenet has to be meaningful relationship. And some of the 'big business' industrial missions funds don't strike me as holding to this. Your original post was all about cheeky ways to improve success rates in funding... If we are in meaningful relationship, I'm not sure if application forms ought to be needed. What do you think?

The comments to this entry are closed.