Business as Mission has been a strong and growing segment within the modern tentmaking movement. The model attracts a lot of attention because it holds out the possibility of being self sustaining because it can generate its own income. It is sometimes the only model that is legal in countries that exclude foreign religious workers from entrance.

One issue that often comes up is the source of funding for the workers. On the one extreme there are those who are completely donor supported and run a business for the other advantages of doing business as mission. On the other end of the spectrum are workers who are solely supported from the fruits of their business. And in between there are a variety of hybrid models.

A new study produced by Dr Steve Rundle – author of Great Commission Companies – expands our understanding and provides fuel for further reflection. In his recently published article in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research Rundle examines the question, “Does Donor Support Help of Hinder Business as Mission Practitioners?”

There is no end of opinions about which model is best. Strong cases are made by the proponents on both sides. What has been lacking is strong empirical research to illuminate the discussion and aid in making the best strategic decisions. Most of the evidence is anecdotal with only a few studies to guide the discussion. Those familiar with the debate will know the arguments for both sides. I will not try to cover them here. My purpose here is to highlight the main findings of this new study and encourage the reader to explore the entire article for himself.

Some of the findings provided stronger evidence for conclusions suggested by earlier studies, while other finding were surprising.

“The evidence presented in this article suggests that, for a BAM business to have a meaningful impact in a community, it should be structured and incentivized much like a “regular” business, which includes (1) an independent board of directors and (2) salaries that are based, at least in part, on the company’s performance.”

The study focused on testing two economic hypotheses. The first was based on the assumption that BAMers who depend on their business for all their income will devote more time and energy to the business and will therefore generate more revenue. It is expressed:

“Hypothesis 1: Business-supported BAM practitioners will have a greater (more beneficial) economic impact on the local community than their donor-supported peers.”

The second hypothesis is based on the assumption that donor-supported BAMers will have less pressure to grow the business and thus will have more time to devote to producing spiritual fruit. It states:

“Hypothesis 2: Donor-supported BAM practitioners will be more effective in producing spiritual fruit than their business-supported peers.”

A questionnaire was given to about 200 self identified Business as Mission practitioners and their responses were analyzed on a number of dimensions.

“This study found that, compared with fully donor-supported BAM practitioners, those who are fully supported by their Business report significantly better results in the economic and social arenas, and are no less effective in producing spiritual results.” [emphasis is from Rundle]

As expected the first part of the finding supports hypothesis #1. Those more focused on developing the business grew their businesses more and produced more income. This not only helped the BAM person directly, but enabled them to have more impact on bringing social benefit to their community.

The second half of the finding was counter-intuitive and did not support hypothesis #2. No evidence was shown that those spending less time developing the business were more effective in producing spiritual fruit.

In the full article the author presents cautionary qualifications to how far the findings can be applied and issues that need further study. He concludes:

“One thing we can say with certainty is that the questions raised by the integration of business and missions will keep mission scholars busy for a long time!”