Response to Song-won Kim’s Article

Cheol-Young Lee

(Head of the International Affairs Research Association)

First, I want to express my deep gratitude to Teacher Kim Kwon-se for writing such a valuable piece. In your writing, I could strongly feel your heartfelt love for the local people and their souls, and it made me reflect on how much thought and prayer you must have offered while witnessing the bleak reality in Tunisia. Although I cannot claim to be an expert in BAM (Business as Mission), I would like to offer some counsel on your article based on my own experience and perspective. I earned a master’s degree in economics in Japan and have taught as an adjunct professor in the School of Management and Economics at Handong Global University. Of course, this does not necessarily make me an economics expert, but because I’ve had somewhat more exposure to economic viewpoints within the research institute, I would like to examine your article from that angle.

The Starting Point and Problem Awareness of Business as Mission

Researcher Kim’s question,“Why do so many people leave the church, and why do only a few remain?”is the fundamental motivation for initiating Business as Mission and is also the key problem awareness that connects to the necessity of BAM emphasized later in the article. When you wrote that“to make up for this, what often happens on the mission field is that missionaries directly support local Christians,” I believe you identified the structural limitations involved in compensating for the social and economic losses a Muslim must endure when becoming a Christian. I also agree with the two resulting problems you mentioned.

However, regarding whether “indirect support through job creation”—instead of direct assistance—can truly resolve these two issues at the root, I hold a slightly different opinion.

Tension Within the Community and the Problem of “Moral Hazard”

First, as you stated, the subtle tension and sense of comparison that form between locals who receive direct financial support and those who do not can still arise even if the method shifts to “employment.” In other words, the same tension and comparison will likely occur between locals who obtain jobs through a missionary and the second or third wave of locals who later join the church. Changing the channel of support from cash assistance to employment does not change the underlying nature of the issue.

Eventually, to resolve this problem, one would arrive at the unrealistic conclusion that the church must provide employment to all locals within the community. If that happens, the motivation for church attendance risks shifting from faith to livelihood. While this might enable short-term expansion or community maintenance, in the long run it could lead to moral hazard—that is, actions driven not by spiritual zeal but by material incentives.

Examining the Idea of “Believers Equipped with Worldly Competitiveness”

Second, regarding the assertion that “believers must not grow like hothouse plants inside the church but become people who possess competitiveness in the world,” I believe this requires biblical examination. The ministries of Jesus and the apostles—particularly the Apostle Paul—were not focused on equipping believers with worldly competitiveness.

If we consider “worldly competitiveness” to be an essential element of discipleship, then the church would have to prioritize college entrance, job placement, or economic self-sufficiency over spiritual formation. Although I agree that the changing times call for various forms of ministry not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, I still question whether “strengthening competitiveness in the world” is an essential component of discipleship. When the church adopts the same competitive logic as the world’s value system, there is a danger that the essence of the gospel may become blurred.

The History of Self-Support and the Role of the Holy Spirit

I fully agree with the point that Teacher Kim Kwon-se emphasized regarding the church’s self-support. In the history of the Korean church’s growth, self-support was indeed a crucial factor. However, the important point here is that the beginning of self-support arose not from economic growth but from the work of the Holy Spirit.

After missionaries Underwood and Appenzeller entered Korea in 1884, the Korean church relied on Western financial support to build churches and schools until the early 1900s. But after about twenty years, an awareness emerged: “How long will we depend on Western capital?” As a result, self-support, self-governance, and self-propagation began to be emphasized, and the decisive turning point was the 1907 Pyongyang Great Revival.

Figure 1. The Pyongyang Revival of 1907 Note. The Power of the Gospel to Transform: Lessons from the Korean Church

At that time, Joseon’s economic structure was agrarian, with almost no industrial base, and most who came to church were from the lower classes—women, servants, and slaves. Compared with present-day Tunisia or most mission fields, the situation in Joseon was likely even worse. Yet, even in such poverty, believers began self-support by contributing small offerings together. With its movement-like momentum, the number of self-supporting churches continued to grow until around 1930, and after liberation, the Korean church no longer depended on foreign capital.

This did not happen because missionaries created jobs to make people self-sufficient. Rather, it was because believers who experienced God’s grace through the Holy Spirit’s presence voluntarily dedicated themselves, and this dedication developed into a movement rather than a one-time event. In other words, self-support was the result not of “injecting economic capital and creating employment,” but of “believers moved by the Holy Spirit offering voluntary commitment.” I believe the Holy Spirit and this movement-like dynamic are extremely important elements in achieving self-support.

In contrast, we can look at the case of Israel, where I currently serve. As of 2025, Israel’s unemployment rate is 2.9%, lower than the OECD average (4.8%), and its per capita income is about $54,000—much higher than Korea’s ($35,000). Yet many churches in Israel still rely on foreign funding and are unable to be self-supporting. This shows that employment and economic growth do not necessarily lead to a church’s self-sufficiency.

Therefore, for a church to truly become self-reliant, what is needed is not job creation or employment but the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit and inner transformation. Believers who have not been transformed by the Holy Spirit will not use their money for the Lord no matter how much they earn, and material abundance may even harm the church. Furthermore, unless this self-support arises as a movement, no national church can become self-supporting.

Labor Markets and the Problem of Economic Distortion

Now, let us examine the employment-creation model of Business as Mission from an economic perspective. From a business standpoint, it may seem very desirable for a missionary-created enterprise to succeed and for church members to achieve economic self-reliance. However, from a macro perspective—especially within the framework of labor economics—we must carefully consider whether such a structure can truly have a positive long-term impact on the broader local community.

Wages in the labor market are primarily determined by labor supply and demand and by worker productivity. However, when a missionary brings in external capital and operates employment not based on “market principles” but on “relational principles”—that is, giving hiring priority to church members—the labor market equilibrium can become distorted. Although a few small businesses may not have enough influence to disrupt the entire market, if such a model becomes widespread, the following problems could arise:

(1) The Problem of Distorted Signaling

In labor economics, signaling refers to the signals workers send to employers to demonstrate their skills and capabilities. In modern society, academic degrees, work experience, and certifications are typical signals. However, if a missionary-centered hiring structure becomes normalized, these signals may be replaced by “religious devotion” and “loyalty.” In other words, instead of improving their skills or productivity to prove their ability, workers may attempt to gain employment through “religious behaviors” intended to please the missionary. This creates a faith-based signaling structure. Such a system not only reduces the efficiency of the labor market but also harms the sincerity of faith itself.

(2) The Problem of Weakened Work Incentives

In a missionary-centered employment structure, it is difficult for missionaries to easily dismiss low-productivity church members because of the unique relational dynamics within a faith community. As a result, workers may lose their motivation, thinking “I won’t be fired anyway,” and may become negligent in their work.

This problem also occurred in past communist systems. In the early church, voluntary sharing and dedication were possible because of the work of the Holy Spirit. But in the absence of the Holy Spirit, communist systems—which attempted to adopt similar collective sharing—ultimately collapsed due to loss of work incentives and inefficiency. In short, an economic structure without the Holy Spirit weakens the vitality of the community.

Furthermore, local workers who become negligent under missionary employment may be unable to re-enter the broader labor market, becoming what we might call “greenhouse flowers.” Ironically, employment structures meant to prevent believers from becoming greenhouse flowers may end up producing exactly that outcome.

We must also seriously consider whether it is wise for ministers and local believers to become financially entangled in employer–employee relationships.

(3) Structural Consequences of Market Distortion

Over time, such a structure distorts labor supply and demand. Local workers will prefer church-based employment over the general labor market, and missionaries will hire based not on productivity but on “spiritual relationship and loyalty.” As a result, the overall efficiency of the labor market declines, and it may even become harder for workers to enter the outside economy.

Moreover, if missionary businesses end up harming local competitors and distorting the labor market, can we truly call that “successful business as mission”?

In summary, if the goal of Business as Mission becomes “local employment,” it may appear successful in the short term from an economic standpoint, but in the long term it is unlikely to become a sustainable structure. I believe that Business as Mission should focus more on forming gospel-centered relationships and providing ministry contact points rather than on job creation itself. In other words, employment should be a means, not an end, and business should function as a channel for visa acquisition or entry into local society—making it a more persuasive and sustainable mission strategy.

Defining Business as Mission

Before discussing Business as Mission, we need a clear definition and understanding of the term. BAM (Business as Mission) literally means “business as a form of mission.” After reading the 2020 report from the official BAM Global website, the BAM-related publications from the 2004 Lausanne Conference, and the 2014 report on church planting and BAM, I reached one conclusion: The primary agents of BAM are not missionaries, but professional businesspeople. BAM goes beyond merely operating a company; it focuses on how businesspeople can fulfill their missional calling through their businesses. Therefore, BAM case studies frequently discuss topics such as workplace worship, Christian organizational culture, and ethical management. They also consider how to collaborate with mission organizations and missionaries. Furthermore, BAM includes not only business in mission fields but also any form of business that participates in God’s kingdom and mission, even outside traditional mission contexts. From this perspective, even Korea’s past “Samsung School” can be seen as a representative BAM example.

By contrast, it is relatively difficult to find extensive material on BFM (Business for Mission). My understanding is that BFM refers to the concept in which a missionary uses business as a tool or means for ministry. That is, while BAM focuses on businesspeople running their businesses missionally, BFM is about missionaries using business to conduct mission. The two have different emphases—BAM on “business,” BFM on “mission”—and thus their goals and measures of success differ.

BAM Global presents four success criteria for BAM:

1. Economic success — a sustainable financial structure that can operate without external funding, enabling stable continuation of mission.

2. Social success — transforming local communities through job creation, fair wages, and restoration of human dignity.

3. Environmental success — stewarding God’s creation through environmentally responsible and sustainable practices.

4. Spiritual success — contributing to the expansion of God’s kingdom through evangelism, discipleship, and church planting.

However, in the case of businesses operated by missionaries, evaluating success solely by these four criteria is insufficient.

For example, imagine a missionary starts a business that consistently runs a deficit and requires continuous external funding. Yet through this business, relationships with locals are formed, a church is planted, and continued operations would likely connect even more people to the church. Economically, this is clearly a failure—but spiritually, it is a success. How should we evaluate such a case?

Many missionaries would likely argue that if souls are being reached, the business should continue even at financial loss—and I would probably feel the same if many people were connecting to the church. In missionary-led businesses, spiritual fruit may rightly outweigh economic performance.

Interestingly, according to BAM Global’s State of the BAM Movement Report (2020/21), survey responses from 470 BAM collaborators showed that the financial condition of most businesses involved in the BAM movement was generally weak. This indicates that missional businesses do not necessarily achieve financial success—and that economic self-sufficiency does not always guarantee missional accomplishment. Conversely, if a business is financially successful but produces no spiritual fruit—no evangelism, no discipleship—then it is economically successful but missionally a failure. In such cases, missionaries may struggle with identity confusion: Am I a missionary or a businessperson?

In the end, the essence and purpose of businesses run by missionaries and missionally minded businesses run by businesspeople are different, and therefore their criteria for success must also differ. To this day, systematic research, case studies, and clear guidelines for missionary-led businesses remain insufficient. Generally, Business as Mission discourse is focused on BAM, not BFM. Many BAM Global reports strongly reflect the concerns of businesspeople, giving the impression that Business as Mission is being viewed from the perspective of entrepreneurs. But the perspective of a missionary viewing business is different from that of a businessperson viewing mission.

I believe this is an area that must be studied and established going forward, and that our Global Bridge Institute—and Teacher Kim Kwon-se—should help lead this important work.

Missionaries, Business, and Finances

As mentioned above, we cannot find a direct biblical model in which business is explicitly used as a tool for mission. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul’s comments about his own labor and self-supporting ministry appear in 1 Corinthians 9, and I believe this passage is relatively overlooked in today’s discussions on Business as Mission. This is likely because most Business as Mission models today are BAM models in which the primary agents are businesspeople, not missionaries. So then, how does Paul explain his ministry and financial matters in 1 Corinthians 9?

“This is my defense to those who examine me (v. 3): Do we not have the right to eat and drink? (v. 4) … Do only Barnabas and I not have the right to refrain from working? (v. 6) Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? (v. 7) … If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? (v. 11) If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. (v. 12)”

In this passage, Paul clearly states that it is a legitimate right for a missionary to receive living support while preaching the gospel. In other words, those who preach the gospel naturally deserve to receive material support in return. According to his reasoning, it is perfectly consistent with spiritual principles for missionaries to receive financial support from local believers through their ministry. Of course, in many mission fields this may be practically difficult, but “those who receive spiritual things sharing their material things” is the biblical principle Paul presents.

However, Paul also states that he and Barnabas did not claim this right. The reason is revealed in verses 17 and 18:

“For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a stewardship. (v. 17) What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. (v. 18)”

Paul explains that preaching the gospel is not his personal choice (“of his own will”) but an act of obedience to a calling. Therefore, the “reward” he receives is not financial compensation but the heavenly reward gained by giving up his rightful claims. Interpreted literally, Paul is saying: “Missionaries receive no earthly reward for preaching the gospel, because they are simply fulfilling the command they were given.” If one does something voluntarily that was not commanded, there may be a reward; but for doing what one was commanded to do, there is no claim to a reward.

This aligns with Jesus’ words in Luke 17:10:

“So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

Jesus teaches that a servant called by God does not receive wages for obedience. At first glance, the passage may appear to promote a self-centered reward theology because of the term “heavenly reward.” Some may ask: “If there is no reward for preaching, should we all engage in business and support ourselves to receive a reward?”

I do not believe Paul is instructing everyone to engage in self-supporting ministry for the sake of receiving rewards. Rather, I believe the bigger point is not taking one’s rightful claims for granted, and choosing instead to live in pursuit of heavenly reward. Scriptural interpretation varies widely and depends on how each person receives the Word. Nevertheless, I believe that 1 Corinthians 9 is a passage that missionaries—who serve as called servants—ought to contemplate deeply at least once.