Don’t George Muller Me: A Missionary’s Plea for Understanding

by Trevor Johnson

George Muller (1805-1898) is a model of faith for many. Moving from Prussia to Bristol, England, in 1832, Muller ministered as a pastor, started schools and orphanages, and sacrificed unceasingly for others. Many of the sins of his early life were associated with money. After conversion, however, a marked change occurred, and Muller developed several strong convictions about his own use of funds.

George Muller (1805-1898) is a model of faith for many. Moving from Prussia to Bristol, England, in 1832, Muller ministered as a pastor, started schools and orphanages, and sacrificed unceasingly for others. Many of the sins of his early life were associated with money. After conversion, however, a marked change occurred, and Muller developed several strong convictions about his own use of funds.

Some of Muller’s convictions were to (1) never have a fixed income, (2) never appeal for funds, (3) never have any savings, but to spend all his extra on the poor, and (4) owe no one anything.

Muller never made an appeal for funds, but prayed to God for the means to support the orphans under his care. And, the funds came in! His lifestyle greatly impacted missions so much so that Hudson Taylor and C.T. Studd, among other missionaries, adopted his principles as well. Today, as missionaries train and prepare to go out into the missionary harvest fields, many become acquainted with George Muller’s name.

Even more, many greatly admire Muller and urge all missionaries to live by his private standards. Some missionaries even exhort their peers in a similar manner.

While quite a few are not aware of all the details regarding Muller’s convictions (but merely desire to see Muller’s model of faith emulated), others assert that his methodologies and convictions ought to be made normative for all—or at least for all who really trust the Lord.

I love and admire George Muller, but I have this to say: Please, don’t George Muller me! Allow me to share a number of things concerning funding and support that it would be helpful to remind ourselves of.

1. We shouldn’t produce false dichotomies in the name of trusting God. I have no doubt that many people are very well-intentioned in taking a Muller-like stand in their ministries or in urging others to do so. However, in advocating their stance to others, they often draw a number of false dichotomies. Consider the following statements:

• We are not going to raise support; we are going to go on faith!
• We are not trusting in the means of people; we are trusting in God, who gives us our daily bread.
• God is enough; we are not relying on people.
• When we receive unsolicited funds, we give God all the glory.
• We should seek God alone in financing this ministry.
• We do not make our appeals to others; we appeal to God alone.

If the above statements are to believed, then

• Planning and budgeting imply distrust of God
• Informing others with regard to needed funds equals disbelief in the sufficiency of God
• Receiving funds based on stated needs or budgeted pledges means that we fail to give God all the glory

2. Often, not soliciting funds can become conspicous. I know several ministers who make much of the fact that they never solicit supporters for funds. And they remind you of it. Often. So frequently, in fact, that it becomes a sort of solicitation in itself.

One pastor I know took a short vacation with a follower of Muller’s methodology. At every stop which cost money, this person lacked the funds and often mentioned something to the effect of, “If the Lord wants me to go [to this park, event, etc.], then he will provide the means.”

His traveling buddies ended up being this man’s “means” at every stop. The pastor remarked to me later that, “I would have much preferred that this man receive a set salary that was sufficient and enabled him to pay his own way instead of constantly needing to remind us, ‘if the Lord wills for me to go, he will provide a way’ at every stop.”

3. Sometimes, it really is helpful to have your own store of cash. A few missionaries and pastors I know have had many ideas for new projects, but no savings to initiate any of them. Their methodology of work was as follows: as they mentioned their plans to supporters (being careful, of course, not to make any solicitations) they then occasionally received particular funds for a particular project.

This was then taken as God’s way of affirming which projects gained priority and which got set on the back-burner. “If the Lord wills it, then the Lord will support it” was one pastor’s favorite justification for this practice of prioritizing projects.

However, I have observed that many less visible but seemingly more effective projects often were delayed or cancelled as more visible projects gained quicker support from supporting churches. Whereas the missionary ought to have been setting the priorities based on his or her knowledge of the local context and conditions, instead, he or she prioritized based on designations from churches operating thousands of miles away. This is not a good strategic move.

Perhaps a better way would have been to prioritize, and then raise support and monies based on these prioritizations—or at least set aside undesignated savings for such projects. To limit one’s actions on the mission field by never soliciting funds, and never betraying a designation (and never properly informing would-be supporters which projects should take priority) is to be a poor steward of time and funds.

4. A good relationship means full disclosure, including needs. A missionary-supporter relationship should never be primarily about funds. But financial giving does play a part. Each partner has a role; the missionary goes and the sender sends. Therefore, to be sent well and to send well necessitates a lot of communication that is direct, clear, frank, and frequent. Financial support and financial needs are topics which should not be hidden.

5. Disclosing needs allows for full and informed participation. By hiding one’s needs or failing to fully disclose all aspects of one’s missionary labor (namely, funding and finances), a missionary is denying the blessing of full participation in the work of missions to many who could otherwise be included. After all, if it is more blessed to give than to receive, then the missionary offering an opportunity to give towards gospel work is an offer to bless folks by allowing them to give.

Participation in the Great Commission is a blessing; and participation in missions for those who cannot go usually takes the form of prayer and financial support. Missionaries who admire Muller, please listen! Disclosing needs allows full and informed participation by the larger Body of Christ in world evangelization.

If one’s attitude towards missionary-supporter relations is that the missionary is a beggar, then of course you might gain a negative attitude about the relationship. But if your attitude is that the whole Church engages in missions, and that some go and others send, and if that sending is done through prayer and support, then why should we deny missions senders vital news about one major element of the work?

Yes, “God’s work done God’s way will never lack God’s supply,” but how does God bless and supply his workers? He does it through other believers. How are we to pray intelligently or use our resources wisely if the facts are not known? God does not ordinarily call or move people without using information and knowledge. God moves people based on news and knowledge of the needs.

Bless your supporters by allowing them the privilege of participation in a work that really matters in this world. Many cannot go. Therefore, praying and supporting missionaries is the means by which they take an active role in world evangelization. Including them is not begging; instead, it is blessing them by giving them an active role. An intelligently-informed role is preferable to trying to act in the absence of clear information about needs.

6. Most of Muller’s practices are not required by scripture. One can find no prohibition in scripture against ‘advertising’ one’s needs. Paul’s letter to the Romans comes to mind here: “I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while” (Rom. 15:24). In 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul encourages the church there to give generously, and 1 Corinthians 16 contains instructions about how to gather these gifts. Paul is fairly direct about giving towards the poor saints in Jerusalem.

If a Christian is privately convicted with a specific burden to add extra measures of strictness to his or her own daily religious life, then that is fine. If one’s sin largely occurred in the area of money, as in Muller’s case, we can sympathize with such strong post-conversion convictions regarding finances. But to require extra measures of strictness for others which are not demanded in scripture is unwarranted, and is not an evidence of a greater level of holiness or a greater legitimacy of their appointed work.

I see nowhere in Muller’s writings any indication that he expected his own private standards to become normative for all Christians everywhere.

Muller’s calling was a specific one, for a specific time, in a specific place, and to a specific man. While Muller’s faith is to be greatly admired, his methodologies should be examined carefully before being made normative for every missionary. “Going by faith” doesn’t mean that a missionary does not or should not budget and plan and let supporters know of his or her needs. Hiding one’s needs does not indicate an extra measure of holiness, nor does suffering due to poor planning.

7. There is no virtue in suffering needlessly. There are enough strains and stresses on the mission field without adding extra measures which may increase one’s challenges. We sympathize with missionaries who catch tropical diseases, but our sympathies would dwindle if a missionary was afforded the means of alleviating his or her suffering, but refused those legitimate means.

In like manner, those who suffer needless financial deprivation on the mission field and lack the means to care for their own families or initiate new projects due to an extra-biblical conviction about not reporting those very needs are not somehow more praiseworthy because they are suffering more. Rather, their suffering can be linked (at least in part) to their needless convictions.

Many missionary families I know have suffered severe illnesses which come on quickly. If a missionary family on the mission field suffers a medical emergency, I would much prefer that they communicate this need immediately and, even better, have an ample supply of ready cash stowed away in savings for just such an occasion.

Unless one is specifically called otherwise, frequent communication about one’s missionary labors and all aspects of that labor (including finances) should be the default action so that hardships are reduced to those trials that are essential to the spread of the gospel.

8. Consistent and sufficient funding lowers missionary attrition. The ground-breaking REMAP I and II studies on missionary attrition interviewed thousands of missionaries and numerous missionary agencies representing forty percent of the Protestant world mission workforce. Their goal was to search for the causes of unwanted missionary departure from the field.

The books Worth Keeping and Too Valuable to Lose were published in order to make known these findings and determine those missionary practices which best serve to sustain the missionary harvest force.

These studies found that regular and consistent financial support is highly correlated with high rates of long-term missionary sustainability on the field. Therefore, one of the “best practices” suggested by the REMAP studies was for missionaries to maintain consistent and sufficient levels of financial support.

Quite simply, there are plenty of other things to worry about in missions without the added stress of going broke every month. Having a network of supporters giving consistent and sufficient funding allows a missionary to sustain present ministries, fix a monthly salary, plan for future steps, save for new initiatives, and save one’s emotional turmoils for more important battles.

One missionary family I know with Muller-esque leanings spent most of an entire term (four years) chronically under-supported and short of funds. This frayed their nerves, strained their marriage, and the missionary grew distressed because he saw so many opportunities for service and yet did not feel the freedom to ‘advertise’ or ‘solicit’ funds to meet these needs in order to exploit those doors that the Lord appeared to be opening to him.

At the end of their term, this missionary family went home exhausted. When they explained their convictions about finances to several churches, they were approached several times afterwards and asked, “Why did you suffer all that? We would have been only too glad to help?” or “We were waiting for clear information on just how best to help you. Why didn’t you communicate more clearly with us?”

Missionaries who lack consistent funding go home early. Again, Muller’s individual and specific call to never solicit funds or have a fixed income is not a normative pattern for all Christian workers and may, in fact, be a destructive practice if it were to become a prescriptive practice among missionaries.

Some Solid Principles We Can Learn from Muller

Muller’s conviction was that he ought not to have a fixed salary, nor should he ever communicate his financial needs. My conviction is that missionaries, unless specifically and powerfully called otherwise, should strive for a predictable and relatively consistent rate of support. This includes striving for clear, direct, and frequent communications about all pertinent matters regarding their missionary labors (and one such relevant matter is, indeed, finances) with supporters.

Despite my minor irritations when urged to “Muller it,” I’d like to list below some of Muller’s other principles concerning money that we would all be very wise to follow:

First, Muller scrupulously receipted funds and ensured that all designated funds were only to be used according to those designations. While it would be hard to maintain a ministry if one hundred percent of supporters designated that all of their funds were only to be used for direct evangelism and not used for other costs associated with missions-sending (such as food, clothes, housing for missionary families, mailing costs, etc), Muller’s principles in this regard are solid. In fact, most missions agencies diligently honor designated funds and scrupulously receipt those funds.

Second, Muller diligently checked receipts and reviewed financial matters regularly using the highest standards possible in order to ensure the utmost honesty and transparency in the use of funds given to him. Most missionary organizations do the same, employing outside auditors such as the ECFA (The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) to annually audit their funds and ensure solid stewardship.

Third, Muller held that donors were to be thanked privately and not publically. While hospitals dedicate wards and benches to their donors, missionaries ought to love their supporters enough to guard them from any temptation to pride that may result from public exhibitions of charity. This seems a wise general practice.

Finally, debt was to be strictly avoided. Many aspiring missionary candidates see departure for the field delayed by years as they attempt to pay down a debt ironically accrued through gaining an education that would presumably help them in their future missionary labors. While an occasional credit card expense may be justified if immediately paid, Muller’s principle of avoiding debt is sound.

In all of the above matters, I give Muller’s convictions a hearty amen.

Concluding Thoughts

The power of prayer shone bright in Muller’s life. Who would not want to emulate that? Additionally, many ministries appear downright pushy, manipulative, and even deceptive in their schemes to gain money. Many televangelists appear to live lavishly. All of these reasons make Muller an inspiration to us and cause many to desire to either imitate him personally or desire the missionaries that they know to become more like him.

If you are moved by Muller’s particular convictions and are led to make them your own, please consider the following suggestions:

1. Remember that a private calling cannot be made normative for all Christians or all missionaries.

2. If you say you follow Muller, also seek to follow him in his fervency of prayer.

3. Keep diligent accounts of how your needs were actually met and publish those. If you are going to deny supporters information about your needs, at least bless them with retroactive notices of how your recent past needs were met. Muller published large lists containing hundreds of answered prayer requests and the means by which they were answered. Good communication is a must as missionaries strive to bless those interested in their work. In fact, if you follow Muller’s specific convictions, then you must be even more diligent to inform supporters of the blessed and specific ways in which God has blessed you through them, even without asking.

George Muller is a faithful example of dependence and trust in God, a servant of God who followed an individual and specific calling that inspires us even today. As you encounter missionaries seeking to plant the gospel in other lands, introduce them to the wonderful story of Muller and urge them to follow the prayer life of this great man.

But with regard to making needs known, please, please, don’t George Muller them.

. . . .

Trevor Johnson is an ordained minister and registered nurse serving with Heartcry Missionary Society among a remote tribe in Papua, Indonesia.

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 2. Copyright  © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.

Questions for Reflection 1. How does planning and budgeting relate to trusting God and following his will even when it strays from your own plans or budgets? 2. In the New Testament Epistles, how did the Apostle Paul speak of his needs? Did he make his needs known and request help from the churches and, if so, when and under what conditions? What can we learn from his example? 3. I believe that many people gravitate towards the “George Muller approach” in reaction to the sometimes-gimmicky approaches adopted by some ministries trying to raise funds. What do you believe are some deficient fundraising practices and techniques that we need to avoid? How can a healthy appreciation of Muller restrain these unhealthy tendencies? 4. Are there times when missionaries should hide their needs? How do we know how broadly and persistently we should tell others about our ministry needs? 5. If new missionary appointees become acquainted with Muller’s life and testimony, in what ways will they be blessed and challenged as they begin to raise support to go to the field?