Business as Mission – A Case Study from North Africa

Kyo-un Jeong

Editorial Board Member

Source: ILO, Global Employment Trends for Youth 2024

The Global Bridge Institute seeks to explore business as a creative means of ministry in various mission fields by uncovering real-life cases of ongoing business initiatives and listening to stories from the frontlines. While our commitment to evangelism, discipleship, and church planting remains unchanged, it is increasingly important to remain open to the evolving needs of local contexts and to adapt accordingly.

Through this series, we aim to explore what practical needs business-as-mission (BAM) addresses, particularly in serving local youth, and what implications this model carries for holistic ministry that touches both individuals and broader communities.

Business-as-Mission Interview: Missionary Song-won Kim Missionary Song-won Kim operates a restaurant and dessert shop in a North African country, combining ministry with business.

Q1. Could you briefly share the background of how you started your business on the mission field? A: I’ve served in North Africa for nearly 12 years. I originally entered the field for church planting. However, local ministry partners often struggled with unemployment. To provide jobs, I opened a Korean-style fried chicken restaurant using seed funding pooled by myself, a Korean coworker, and two local believers. After opening the restaurant, I found that interest in Korean culture (K-POP, K-FOOD) was quite high, and business took off quickly. To meet demand and provide more jobs, we expanded.

Q2. Business-as-Mission involves sharing the gospel and practicing Christian values through one’s workplace. How have you applied this, and what were the pros and cons? A: At first, I approached the business as a form of church—daily morning prayer meetings and weekly worship services were held. I invited even non-believing staff to participate, aiming to naturally share our faith. The upside was that a Christian atmosphere developed, and some staff encountered the gospel and experienced transformation. Playing praise music and having gospel-centered conversations became part of the environment. On the downside, employees sometimes felt pressured, as if worship and prayer were being imposed. For me as the employer, it became emotionally challenging to navigate the roles of "boss" and "brother in Christ."For example, I needed to give honest feedback to underperforming believing staff, but felt conflicted between accountability and grace. Employees were also confused by the dual roles.Eventually, I concluded that workplace operations need clear professional guidelines, while faith practices should be encouraged but voluntary. Now we maintain space for prayer before opening or after closing, but participation is never forced.

Q3. What distinguishes “business-as-mission” from simply “doing business on the mission field”? Also, should a missionary actively pursue profit, or aim to stay within modest bounds?A: Opinions may differ, but I believe:

1. A missionary-run business must clearly serve a missional purpose. Both the process and outcomes should align with mission values—no unethical practices, and profits should support church planting, local self-sufficiency, or community needs.

2. A BAM initiative should pursue profit. It’s misguided to downscale intentionally just to "protect ministry time." If business thrives, a proper management system can allow the missionary to step back and focus more on evangelism.

3. If the business becomes a tool for personal wealth accumulation, that contradicts the spirit of initial sacrifice. Transparency in financial management and mutual accountability within the community are essential.
   

Q4. What does business-as-mission mean for local workers who lack the financial support of a sending church? A: Many global workers are part of a new wave fulfilling the Great Commission without solid backing from local churches. Business is a vital tool not only for finances but also for visa legitimacy. In the early days, to send out the first generation of local disciples, we sold Korean souvenirs—facemasks, chopsticks, K-POP merchandise—on the streets. It was a season of purity and passion.But such events are not sustainable as a funding model. Long-term missionary support and sending initiatives require something more structured. BAM can fill this gap by providing sustained income.

Q5. What practical challenges have you faced in running the business? A1: (Financial pressure) Like most entrepreneurs, we faced issues—construction delays drained funds, and used equipment often broke down. A2: (Team conflict) There were philosophical differences with Korean coworkers and mismatched working styles with locals, which created tension. A3: (Local staff training) I wanted to quickly train local managers and give them responsibility, but it was challenging to instill ownership and share faith in an organic way. A4: (Team consistency) Leadership gaps and staff turnover hit the business hard. Without a clear sense of accountability, morale dropped and operations became unstable.

Q6. Issues like business ownership, profit sharing, and role distinction seem crucial in BAM. How do traditional BAM principles compare with your reality? A: Traditionally, BAM emphasized collective ownership and treating profits as public goods. I also once said, “business must be team-owned.” But in practice, this model diluted ownership. Without a clear manager, response to emergencies was delayed. People would close early due to fatigue rather than push through during busy hours. Even hardworking local staff eventually left because they had no equity, and after years of work, they were financially back to square one.The lesson? There must be a designated business leader who handles HR, finance, marketing, etc. Equity and revenue distribution should be clear. In our case, we now allocate profits according to initial investment and earmark a portion for local ministry and church planting.

Q7. Based on your experience, what should future BAM practitioners think through in advance? A: Here are my suggestions:

1. Define clear ownership and profit-sharing structures. Who leads? Who invested how much? This clarity preserves principles and ensures accountability.

2. Ministry collaboration can be team-based, but business operations should have one responsible leader. There’s no need to rotate business leadership among the team—it only creates confusion.

3. Aim for long-term local empowerment. Beyond employment, create pathways for locals to gain equity or open their own businesses.

4. Don’t fear balancing ministry and business. While the first few months require hands-on effort, you can later delegate operations and focus more on ministry. Running a business doesn’t mean you’re less spiritual—it’s a God-given tool to meet people, fund missions, and plant churches.
   

Q8. How would you like to see BAM develop going forward? A: Three hopes:

1. Redefine “team business.” Rather than assume it must be team-owned, clearly define who owns and manages the business, and let others support as collaborators.

2. Ensure financial transparency and assess how profits contribute to missions. Clarify whether the venture was funded by public donations or private capital.

3. Create direct impact on local churches and communities. Ideally, business leads people to Jesus, supports their independence, and helps the church grow organically. This requires less proselytizing and more value-sharing through lived example, offering space for free response.
   

   
   

Conclusion This interview reaffirms that operating a business in the mission field can be a powerful expansion of ministry—creating jobs and laying a foundation for church sustainability. However, challenges such as ownership, managerial responsibility, financial integrity, and balancing ministry must be addressed. Especially when business is treated as a “public asset,” lack of clarity can reduce motivation and accountability. Clear leadership and structured profit-sharing are essential. Empowering locals through equity, wages, and training is also vital for long-term sustainability. Ultimately, the essence of BAM is whether both the process and the outcome contribute to mission. If the business is honest, spiritually nurturing, and financially supportive of church planting, then it truly bears missional fruit. We hope that more experiences and case studies will lead to well-contextualized BAM models suited to various regions and situations.