TENTMAKING - IN SEARCH OF A WORKABLE DEFINITION    By Patrick Lai

What is "tentmaking"? In 1989 I attended the Lausanne II Tentmaking Track hoping leaders would agree on a workable definition of "tentmaking". Giving clarity to missiological terms may seem trite, but I have seen how clearly defined terms may change history. I remember 15 years ago when few understood Matthew 24:14 and the priority of the "unreached". Thanks to the relentless efforts of many, today the majority of members of the American Church Mission Committees and mission agencies now understand the term "unreached people" and the priority of reaching them. Most of these unreached peoples are living in RANs (Restricted Access Nations) also called CANs (Creative Access Nations), two other terms that clarify which countries do not grant missionary visas. Knowing the days of open missionary endeavors are decreasing, tentmaking must play an increasing role in planting churches among these least reached people groups. However, few (including the missiologists I have met) understand the scope of tentmaking, its options and possibilities. Many are locked into one limiting viewpoint that not only affects how tentmaking is viewed, but also restricts our willingness to be creative in trying new entry strategies for placing duel identity missionaries among the unreached. I also realize that a great number of western missiologists have accepted the American lay movement's emphasis that work is ministry. I would not disagree with that in any way. That is realistic and good for witnessing, discipleship and other social ministries. I know of many models where a team, or 2 individuals have succeeded in planting a church among the unreached. But at least one person worked the business while at least one other ministered nearly full-time to the people. I have also seen churches planted by part-time employees. Yet practically speaking, can anyone one show me a church that has been started in an E-2 or E-3 [Ralph Winter's definitions: culturally near (E-2) or culturally distant (E-3) peoples with no culturally relevant church able to reproduce itself. GP] situation by a full-time employee of a secular firm? In all my travels I have found only 2 such successful models, done by uniquely gifted people. But most of us are normal human beings. So our choices are to give up our romantic ideas for dual-identity missionaries (tentmakers), or we need to bring reality into our views of tentmaking. At the Lausanne II Tentmaking Track, there were many missiologists and mission leaders present, but only a few who were doing tentmaking. As I reviewed my notes of differing opinions on the definition of a tentmaker I did find some common ground upon which to build. It seems that there are 9 major factors which consistently affect people's definition of a tentmaker. Those criteria could be broken down into 3 categories. The first are those groupings which everyone agreed are essential to a person's identity before they could be defined as a `tentmaker'. The second category includes criteria which are essential to a few, important to most, but negotiable to a hand-full. The third stands alone as the most divisive. CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEFINING A TENTMAKER: 3 CATEGORIES A. Commonly Agreed Upon Criteria for being considered a tentmaker; - live and work in a cross-cultural situation. (E-2 or E-3) - have a secular job. - have a religious ministry. B. Important But Not Essential Criteria - have missiological and secular training. - have defined ministry goals. - be living in a closed country (RAN, CAN). - reside among the people in the country where you are ministering. - have a legal resident visa. - be sent out by a church and/or mission organization. - is accountable to experienced field personnel. C. Divisive Criteria - source of salary. The divisive issue was this; must the tentmaker be fully supported by his secular job? Or is it acceptable to receive part of his support from his job, and part from churches at home? Or can the tentmaker be fully supported by churches at home and work for no financial gain while having a non-missionary visa? In consideration of these categories I propose that we put aside our differences and recognize even as there are many types of missionaries, there are also many types of tentmakers. Having visited with over a hundred tentmakers living throughout the 10-40 Window, I believe that all tentmakers can identify themselves in one of the 4 following ways. To sound missiological may we call them; T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4. (The "T" is for tentmaker.) 4 TYPES OF "TENTMAKERS" T-1 = The T-1 tentmaker is hired by a company in their home country to do a job they are uniquely qualified for in another country. The company pays their salary and often provides numerous other benefits to entice the employee to work overseas. T-1 tentmakers are sincere Christians who are active witnesses for the Lord at home as well as abroad. Note, a T-1 fulfills all of the criteria in category A and is fully supported through his job. However, T-1's are overseas not out of any special calling or desire to minister, but because they have been sent there by their company. Of course the Lord may use the company to send them out, but for seeking definition and distinction this makes them different from other tentmakers. At least initially, the T-1's primary motivation for being overseas is their employment, and not to be a witness. Usually T-1's have no special ministry training and have not thought through how they will witness, disciple, or plant a church in their adopted country. Rarely do they become fluent in the local language. T-1's take things as they come. Most work 50 to 60 hours a week for their company and minister both on and off the job as opportunities arise. In other words their life and outreach is much the same as it was in their home country. The majority of T-1's work and witness in an E-2 (near cultural) situation, though some may have an E-3 (distant cross-cultural) ministry. Note a T-1 is lacking most if not all of the "Important But Not Essential Criteria" in category B. T-2 = The T-2 tentmaker is similar to the T-1 in that the T-2 also fulfills the criteria of category A and is fully supported through their job. However, a T-2 differs from the T-1 in that they do have a calling from the Lord to reach out to a specific people group. A person may chose to work and minister as a T-2 because the country of the people group they are targeting restricts traditional missionary activity or they desire to minister among a group of people that is less reached than others. Their job would give them a unique entry into this segment of society. The T-2 seeks out training which will qualify them to work for some foreign or national firm, in or near their target people. T-2's have some practical ministry experience and have learned cross- cultural ministry skills. They have a plan for evangelizing, and discipling their converts and possibly even church planting goals. T-2's may be associated loosely with a traditional mission, for emotional support and guidance. Thus, in addition to fulfilling all the criteria in category A, a T-2 also meets all or most of the criteria in category B. A T-2 takes a job primarily, if not solely, to facilitate their getting into the country to plant a church among their target people. Within their hearts, the ministry comes first and the job second. Ideally a T-2 strives to have a balanced and integrated mix of ministry and work. Most T-2's do learn some of the national language, but are rarely fluent. Usually their jobs provide unique access to nationals, with natural witnessing opportunities. The weakness of being a T-2 centers around the time they have available to truly do church planting. Sowing seed is not church planting. Reality proves that their job takes more of their time than they would like to give it. Since the job pays their salary they invest a great amount of time, usually more than expected, in working. This leaves precious little time for ministry. Their working situation prevents them from managing their own time. Most T-2's work for non- Christians. Thus, witnessing may be restricted at the office. Also T- 2's often lack the accountability and networking to lay a church planting foundation that lasts. T-3 = The T-3 differs greatly from the T-1, but is similar to the T-2. Like the T-2, the T-3 meets all criteria of category A and most or all of category B. However, the T-3 is partially or fully supported by the church at home. Thus, back home a T-3 is considered a missionary, while overseas the T-3 has a non- religious identity. The T-3 has received missiological training and has a solid strategy for doing evangelism, discipleship and church planting among a specific target people. They also have acquired a skill which is sought after by some company or group within the foreign country they need access to. This skill makes them `desirable' providing them access to that country. Such missiological and business training often requires 3 or 4 years of specialized training. Often this is in addition to a university degree. T-3's frequently serve under or have a relationship with a mission or a team of like minded people. Such relationships provide the accountability needed to do ensure they are keeping their priority of church planting. The primary difference between a T-2 and T-3 concerns the importance of being able to manage one's own time. Controlling their schedules enables them to have more discretionary time for ministry. Many T-3's start their own business and recruit others with the same job and/or ministry goals to come and work and minister with them. The T-3 sees their job as a vehicle to enter the country first, a way for reaching out to people second, and a means of financial support last. Thus, the jobs T-3's set up or take are jobs which are not so demanding on their time. They, or a team member is their boss giving them greater flexibility. However, this obviously affects their salary. As a result T-3's usually supplement their salary by raising partial or full support as would a traditional missionary. T-4 = The T-4 tentmaker is not a tentmaker in the sense of working a regular 9 to 5 job for a company, but he is not a traditional missionary either. A T-4 may be a student, social worker or the like. They may even have a job with a firm, but by prior agreement they really do not work for their company. The company simply provides a "cover" visa by which they may enter and reside in their target country. T-4's fulfill all the criteria for categories A and B, but they receive no salary from their company. They raise their salary support like a regular missionary. Thus, their source of income is the major criteria separating them from other tentmakers. Like a T-3, they are often connected to a mission organization through which they raise financial support, receive guidance and are held accountable to accomplishing their ministry goals. T-4's seek to minister full-time through their predetermined strategies and methodologies. Another category which is not considered in our definition relates to the "non- residential missionary" [NRM]. Most Christian workers who itinerate between countries or reside illegally in a country do so to remain `missionary' in their focus and ministry. Thus NRMs may be defined as fully missionary. Though some "non-residential missionaries" do fit into one or more of the groupings above, I do not see a need to provide for them an additional category because they already may define themselves as "non-residential missionaries". It is possible then to be a T-3 or T-4 missionary or a T-3 or T-4 non- residential missionary. The point of this article is to bring some clarity to the issue of defining a tentmaker in workable and understandable terms. Using the T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4 definitions solves many of the questions and problems in the same way the E-1, E-2, E-3 and the M-1, M-2, M-3 definitions clarify the role of an evangelist and a traditional missionary. I have yet to find a tentmaker in Asia who has not liked this system for explaining who they are as a tentmaker. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to being either a T-1, T-2, T-3, or T-4 tentmaker. I am not proposing that one is better, or one more spiritual than the other. Each has it advantages and disadvantages. To some, one may be more desired than another. Yet understand that I believe all are needed. I hope the use of these terms will facilitate unity and understanding of various tentmakers and tentmaking options among missions and churches world-wide.

Click here to return to Index of Articles