More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to Protestant Aid.Gordon College.FINAL
Similar to Protestant Aid.Gordon College.FINAL (20)
Protestant Aid.Gordon College.FINAL
- 1. E C O N O M I C S O F G L O B A L P O V E R T Y G O R D O N C O L L E G E J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 5PH O TO : L .C . N Ø TTAASEN - CH RIST TH E REDEEMER
- 2. DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS *Develtere & De Bruyn, 2009, p. 913 “The rise of non-specialists includes other “non-development” government departments (ministries of education or trade), trade unions, farmers’ associations, social movements, schools, hospitals, foundations, migrant organisations, companies, sports clubs, and groups of friends.”* Bilateral Multilateral NGO
- 3. INTEGRAL MISSION Development Humanitarianism Human Rights Progressive, imagined future Alleviation of present suffering Prevented/Restored, past failures
- 4. BENEFITS Better Understanding • Congregations of Development Policy and Practice • NGOs of Congregations • Development Policy and Practice of Congregations
- 5. INTEGRAL MISSION Jesus’ healed of all types of needs, especially among the marginalized Matthew 9:35-36, Luke 4:16-21, Luke 7:18-23 Ongoing process of total reorientation of life with all its aspirations, ideologies, structures, and values Lutheran World Federation, 2004, p. 32 God’s good news for body, mind and spirit Brian Woolnough, 2011, p. 195
- 6. INTEGRAL MISSION Christians have long engaged in global aid The social gospel (1880-1920) divided conservative and liberal Protestants Post-WWII evangelists and media witnessed need Evangelicals channeled efforts through NGOs and congregations Lausanne 1982 Sizable resources today CHARITY SOCIAL GOSPEL WWII EVANGELICALS LAUSANNE
- 7. RESEARCH GOALS RQ1: Describe Protestant aid • Where are churches operating? • How many activities are being pursued? • Do denominations differ, and if so, how? • With whom do they partner? RQ2: Do congregations differ in integral mission engagement? RQ3: What factors govern aid allocation?
- 8. RESEARCH GOALS RQ1: Describe Protestant aid RQ2: Do congregations differ in integral mission engagement? • H1a: Mainline congregations will engage in IM significantly more than will evangelical congregations • H1b: Evangelical congregations will engage in significantly more IM than will black congregations • H1c: Evangelical congregations will engage in significantly more total mission activities than will mainline and black congregations
- 9. RESEARCH GOALS RQ2: Do congregations differ in integral mission engagement? (con’t) • H2a: Mainline congregations are more likely to partner in development with parachurch agencies and secular NGOs than are evangelical congregations • H2b: Evangelical congregations are more likely to partner in development with missionaries, indigenous congregations or agencies, or lead efforts themselves than are mainline congregations • H2c: Evangelical congregations will partner in development with religious NGOs to a greater degree than will mainline congregations
- 10. RESEARCH GOALS RQ3: What factors govern aid allocation? • H3a: Congregations are more likely to emphasize proximity when selecting short-term IM activities than they are when supporting long-term efforts • H3b: Congregations are more likely to emphasize poverty, population, and policy when selecting long-term IM activities than they are they are when supporting short- term efforts
- 11. DATA & ANALYSES Congregational webpages and archival data Congregations of 1,750+ UK* / 2,000+ US/Canada • Random • Stratified (by denomination) resampling Country Sample % of Total Canada 22 100% UK 14 100% US 401 24% Total 437 437 *Bird, 2014; Hartford Institute of Religion Research, 2014
- 12. MEASURES Integral Mission Percentage (IM%) • Congregation-sponsored non-domestic activities containing a human, social, natural, physical, or financial component, divided by its total number of non-domestic outreach activities • An unweighted average percentage is calculated across denominational groups and families Livelihood Emphases (Human, Social, Natural, Physical, Financial) • IM activities were coded into one or more of 44 development sectors, such as Construction and Building, Environment and Energy, Food and Food Security, Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene • Sectors were rated according to their perceived contribution to five livelihood assets (DFID, 1999) • Construction and Building = 100% physical • Microfinance = 66% financial + 33% social • Disaster response = 50% human + 50% physical Congregational Families and Groups • Denominational affiliation (Hartford / Bird) • Denominational group (black, evangelical, mainline) (Steensland et al., 2000) • Denominational family (Association of Religion Data Archives, n.d.).
- 13. MEASURES Geographic Concentration • Weighted average of the mission activities within UN (2013) geographic sub-regions (e.g., Eastern Africa, Central Asia) 𝐺𝐶= 𝑖=1 𝑛 𝑟 𝑖 𝑡 2 Where: n = the number of geographic sub-regions in which a congregation has IM activities r = the number of congregational IM activities within a sub-region t = the total number of congregational IM activities Short-term and Long-term Activities • Short-term - Summer mission trips, Christmas gift boxes, disaster relief donations, etc. • Long-term - Missionary IM, child sponsorship, fair-trade importing, educational scholarships, ongoing school or village support, etc.
- 14. MEASURES Aid Allocation (Clist, 2011) • Poverty (need) • GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) (log) • Number of people disaster-affected, 2004-2013 (EM-DAT, 2014) • Population (magnitude) • National Population (log) (WB, 2014) • Proximity (closeness) • Distance: Bilateral distances from one country to another (GeoDist gravity variable dataset: Mayer & Zignago, 2011) • Political Terror: Political Terror Scale (Gibney et al., 2014) • Percent Christian (Johnson, 2014) • Policy (strategy) • Unevangelized (Johnson, 2014) • Christian Growth (Johnson, 2014) Short- or Long-term Aid • 𝐴𝑖𝑑 𝑠𝑡 = ∝ + 𝛽1 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖 • 𝐴𝑖𝑑𝑙𝑡 = ∝ + 𝛽1 𝑃𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦𝑖 + 𝛽1 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖 + 𝛽1 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑖 + 𝜀𝑖
- 15. ANALYSES Data • Ordinal data • Uneven denominational sample sizes • J-shaped DV (IM%) – could not normalize without distortion • Non-homogeneous variances • Nonparametric Levene’s test unequal variance for • Denominational groups: F = 5.83, df = 2, p = .003 • Nations: F = 3.67, df = 2, p = .026* Analyses • Descriptive reporting • Non-parametric tests: Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis • Linear and zero-inflated negative binomial regression *Nordstokke & Zumbo, 2010
- 16. SAMPLE Dispersion • 42 - US states • 4 - Canadian provinces • 51 denominations (e.g., Evangelical Free, PC (USA)) Denominational Groups • 74% - Evangelical • 17% - Black • 10% - Mainline Denominational Families • 11 families (e.g., Anabaptist, Adventist, Anglican)
- 17. INTEGRAL MISSION ACTIVITIES Category Number Integral mission activities 1,092 in 12 months Congregations with at least 1 activity 54% Average activities per congregation 2.5 Average activities per congregation with at least 1 activity 4.6
- 18. INTEGRAL MISSION PERCENT 20% 25% 28% 33% 39% 39% 46% 46% 49% 61% 69% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Adventist Baptist Pentecostal Nondenominational Anglican Restoration Methodist/Pietist Lutheran Holiness Reformed/Presbyterian Anabaptist Mean Integral Mission Percentage *IM% = Integral Mission / Total Mission
- 19. SECTORS 10.20% 1.50% 1.85% 1.93% 2.21% 2.28% 2.35% 2.57% 2.71% 3.00% 4.21% 4.71% 5.49% 7.77% 11.77% 15.98% 19.47% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Other Women's Programs Microfinance Disaster Response Vocational Training HIV/AIDS Holistic Business Development Services In-kind and Logistics Agriculture Justice and Human Rights WASH Food and Food Security Education Construction and Building Health, Medical and Nutrition Children and Youth Percent of IM Activities
- 23. PARTNERS Partner Organizations Type Count Compassion International Global Development 22 World Vision Global Development 14 Samaritan’s Purse Global Development 11 International Justice Mission Global Development 10 Amor Ministries Short-term Missions 8 World Relief Parachurch 7 Living Water International Global Development 6 A21 Campaign Global Development 5 Food for the Hungry Global Development 5 International Ministries Parachurch 5 My Contagious Generosity Regional Development 5 Africa Inland Mission Missions Agency 4 e3 Partners Short-term Missions 4 Back2Back Ministries Global Development 4 Business Partners International Parachurch 3 *Total partners = 502; 2.5 partners per congregation
- 24. LOCATIONS 20+ activities 7-19 activities 4-6 activities 2-3 activities 1 activity
- 25. LOCATIONS Region Count of Activities Percent of Total Activities Latin America & the Caribbean 344 44% Africa 244 31% Asia 160 20% Europe 37 5% Oceania 2 0.3% Total 787 100%
- 26. GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION 1.00 0.74 0.58 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.30 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1 2 3 4 5 6-7 8-10 11+ Annual Congregational IM Activities Mean Geographic Concentration 22 Global Regions: East Africa, South-East Asia, Polynesia, Etc.
- 27. RESULTS H1a: Mainline higher in IM% than evangelical • Supported (𝑈 𝑑𝑓 = 322 = 3942.5, 𝑧 = 3.00, 𝑝 < .002) • Evangelicals = 29% of activities are integral • Mainlines = 67% of activities integral H1b: Evangelical more IM than black • Supported 𝑈 𝑑𝑓 = 346 = 4716.5, 𝑧 = 6.13, 𝑝 < .001 • Black = IM median of 0% H1c: Evangelical more total mission than mainline or black • Supported (H = 88.6 𝑑𝑓 = 2 , 𝑝 < .001) • Evangelical = median of 5 total mission activities • Mainline = median of 4 • Black = median of 0
- 28. RESULTS H2a: Mainline partner with parachurch and SNGOs than evangelical* • Not Supported (𝑋2= 0.12 𝑑𝑓 = 1 , 𝑝 = .725) • 6 SNGO partnerships, all with evangelicals H2b: Evangelical partner with missionaries, indigenous congregations or agencies, or lead themselves than mainline* • Supported (𝑋2= 35.8 𝑑𝑓 = 1 , 𝑝 < .001) H2c: Evangelical partner with RNGOs than mainline* • Supported (𝑋2= 5.4 𝑑𝑓 = 2 , 𝑝 = .02) • Evangelical = RNGOs lead 63% of activities • Mainline = RNGOs lead 28% of activities *Activity = level of analysis; 1,096 IM activities recorded over 12-month period
- 29. RESULTS H3: Aid Allocation • Countries = unit of analysis • Count data with excessive zeroes, high dispersion • Countries not receiving aid remain in the analysis (McGillivray, 2003, 2004) • Some attracted 50+ IM activities • Zero-inflated negative binomial regression (ZINB) (Walters, 2007) • Vuong tests for data dispersion confirmed the ZINB over Poisson (𝑧 = 13.18, 𝑝 < .0001) or standard negative binomial regression (𝑧 = 9.27, 𝑝 < .0001)
- 30. Short-term Integral Mission Long-term Integral Mission Variable Coef. SE z p Coef. SE z p Proximity Distance (Ln) -1.4134 .5990 -2.36* 0.018 -1.6317 .6180 -2.64** 0.008 Political Terror .1701 .2316 0.73 0.463 .0741 .1878 0.39 0.693 Percent Christian 5.9724 1.7922 3.33*** 0.001 -.4078 1.3792 -0.30 0.767 Poverty GDP (Ln) -.2348 .3844 -0.61 0.541 -.7551 .3560 -2.12* 0.034 Disaster (Ln) .5369 .2218 2.42* 0.015 .2350 .1660 1.42 0.157 Population Population (Ln) .1065 .2893 0.37 0.713 .7527 .3078 2.45* 0.014 Policy Unevangelized 8.4962 3.0700 2.77*** 0.006 -1.7003 2.5196 -0.67 0.500 Christian Growth 5.7701 12.7851 0.45 0.652 14.4495 10.9182 1.32 0.186 LR X2 (8)= 41.60***, p < 0.0001, n = 160, nonzero obs = 51 log-likelihood = -124.4846 AIC = 272.9693 LR X2 (8)= 34.44***, p > 0.0001, n = 160, nonzero obs = 58 log-likelihood = -135.6054 AIC = 292.3347 RESULTS
- 31. RESULTS H3a: Short-term IM explained by proximity • Supported: (𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐴𝐼𝐶 𝑚𝑖𝑛−𝐴𝐼𝐶 𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 = 1.23) H3b: Long-term IM explained by poverty, population, and policy • Partial: (𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 0.65)
- 32. DISCUSSION ACTIVITY Half of congregations engage in global integral aid One-third (34%) of global activity is integral • 55% of mainline activities • 35% of evangelical activities • 12% of black activities • Data represent activity counts rather than budget or labor investment • Historical influences remain evident across denominational groups, yet evangelicals are participating in IM
- 33. DISCUSSION ACTIVITY Denominational Families • Anabaptist and Reformed/Presbyterian emphasize IM most (on websites); Holiness, Lutheran, and Methodist/Pietist traditions are high despite significant theologically conservative (evangelical) inclusion • IM may be historical, catalyzed by influencers (e.g., Campolo, Sider, Corbett/Fikkert, Wright), RNGOs/agencies, missionaries, congregational isomorphism • Data likely underestimate IM activity • Incomplete website data • Centralized tithing conceals congregation-level engagement (e.g., SDA) • Decentralized mission to small groups conceals IM activity • Theological and historical nuances in mission, church and domestic emphases, and material, social, physical, and financial well-being
- 34. DISCUSSION GEOGRAPHY Geographic diversity (reinvesting after 4 regions) Likely influenced by multiple factors • Missionaries with full salary concentrate congregational resources • Portfolio of locales and price points for short-term activities cater to member interests • Relatively low geographic concentration raises questions about current and optimal IM strategies
- 35. DISCUSSION AID ALLOCATION A post-hoc full regression model rather than hypothesized models offers the most complete picture Short-term IM • Nearer • Disasters • Christian Long-term IM • Nearer • Poorer • Populous
- 36. DISCUSSION CHANNELS RNGOs, missionaries, and mission agencies have effectively targeted and appealed to congregations • 65% - RNGOs, missionaries, mission agencies • 4% - Parachurch agencies • 2% - Secular NGOs Fragmentation • Of the 339 RNGOs listed, 71% show up fewer than five times • Functional for congregations, less so for coordination, efficiency, and impact?
- 37. DISCUSSION SECTORS & TRAINING Relief Emphasis • 72% human and physical sectors • Role, channel, tradition • Little advocacy, financial, or environmental efforts Little Training • 23% missionary-lead • 15% congregation-lead • 5% poverty/missions education Even Less Impact • 0.005% impact data
- 38. LIMITATIONS Data likely underestimate IM activities Labor and financial inputs, attitudes, impacts, etc. not included Small UK/Canada sub-samples; some denominations too Offset investments (e.g., domestic aid) not measured Cross-sectional data Long-term impacts of aid are endogenous
- 39. FUTURE RESEARCH Holistic impact Definitions of development, practically and theologically IM methods (e.g., practices, change models, cultural engagement) Training, preparation, motivation, and attitudes Effective congregational practices (e.g., staffing, communication, congregational integration, etc.) Other religious traditions Effective partnerships Challenges and failures Spiritual incorporation Offset engagement Non-northern IM Convergence and collaboration Congregational giving (Schnable, in press)
- 40. THANK YOU Monty L. Lynn Professor of Management Abilene Christian University Abilene, Texas USA monty.lynn@acu.edu www.acu.edu/coba
Editor's Notes
- Add to this the host of financial intermediaries and social ventures engaging in impact investing. Missing is churches. Begs questions of institutional roles and ethics, and sphere sovereignty and other perspectives. And relates to Severino and Ray’s (2010) CGD paper on hyper-collective action [although not at the large-institution level].
- Matthew 9:35-36 - 35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Luke 4:16-21 - 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[a] 20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 7:18-23 - 18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” 20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” 21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”
- Religiously-affiliated organizations on the whole attract 73% of US giving, or an estimated $230.84 billion USD (McKitrick et al 2012). The percentage of these funds dedicated to IM is unknown, as is the number of hours of volunteerism; but several indicators suggest that Protestant philanthropy and volunteerism is sizable. Protestants constitute the largest share of congregants in the US with approximately 335,000 Protestant congregations claiming 135 million members. RNGOs constitute an estimated 10-18% of US nonprofits (Grønbjerg et al 2006, Wuthnow 2004). Approximately 10% of total US giving goes to international aid organizations, or $31.62 billion USD, a large portion of which comes from religious adherents (McKitrick et al 2012). Donations to missionary societies were estimated to be $3.75 billion in 2000 (Clarke and Jennings 2000). McCleary (2009, p. 158) estimated that in 2005, evangelical NGOs had revenues of $2.97 billion USD, capturing 40.5% of RNGO revenues and 18.7% of total NGO revenues. World Vision’s 2013 private contributions amounted to $598.8 million USD (World Vision 2013).
- Religiously-affiliated organizations on the whole attract 73% of US giving, or an estimated $230.84 billion USD (McKitrick et al 2012). The percentage of these funds dedicated to IM is unknown, as is the number of hours of volunteerism; but several indicators suggest that Protestant philanthropy and volunteerism is sizable. Protestants constitute the largest share of congregants in the US with approximately 335,000 Protestant congregations claiming 135 million members. RNGOs constitute an estimated 10-18% of US nonprofits (Grønbjerg et al 2006, Wuthnow 2004). Approximately 10% of total US giving goes to international aid organizations, or $31.62 billion USD, a large portion of which comes from religious adherents (McKitrick et al 2012). Donations to missionary societies were estimated to be $3.75 billion in 2000 (Clarke and Jennings 2000). McCleary (2009, p. 158) estimated that in 2005, evangelical NGOs had revenues of $2.97 billion USD, capturing 40.5% of RNGO revenues and 18.7% of total NGO revenues. World Vision’s 2013 private contributions amounted to $598.8 million USD (World Vision 2013).
- Religiously-affiliated organizations on the whole attract 73% of US giving, or an estimated $230.84 billion USD (McKitrick et al 2012). The percentage of these funds dedicated to IM is unknown, as is the number of hours of volunteerism; but several indicators suggest that Protestant philanthropy and volunteerism is sizable. Protestants constitute the largest share of congregants in the US with approximately 335,000 Protestant congregations claiming 135 million members. RNGOs constitute an estimated 10-18% of US nonprofits (Grønbjerg et al 2006, Wuthnow 2004). Approximately 10% of total US giving goes to international aid organizations, or $31.62 billion USD, a large portion of which comes from religious adherents (McKitrick et al 2012). Donations to missionary societies were estimated to be $3.75 billion in 2000 (Clarke and Jennings 2000). McCleary (2009, p. 158) estimated that in 2005, evangelical NGOs had revenues of $2.97 billion USD, capturing 40.5% of RNGO revenues and 18.7% of total NGO revenues. World Vision’s 2013 private contributions amounted to $598.8 million USD (World Vision 2013).
- Religiously-affiliated organizations on the whole attract 73% of US giving, or an estimated $230.84 billion USD (McKitrick et al 2012). The percentage of these funds dedicated to IM is unknown, as is the number of hours of volunteerism; but several indicators suggest that Protestant philanthropy and volunteerism is sizable. Protestants constitute the largest share of congregants in the US with approximately 335,000 Protestant congregations claiming 135 million members. RNGOs constitute an estimated 10-18% of US nonprofits (Grønbjerg et al 2006, Wuthnow 2004). Approximately 10% of total US giving goes to international aid organizations, or $31.62 billion USD, a large portion of which comes from religious adherents (McKitrick et al 2012). Donations to missionary societies were estimated to be $3.75 billion in 2000 (Clarke and Jennings 2000). McCleary (2009, p. 158) estimated that in 2005, evangelical NGOs had revenues of $2.97 billion USD, capturing 40.5% of RNGO revenues and 18.7% of total NGO revenues. World Vision’s 2013 private contributions amounted to $598.8 million USD (World Vision 2013).
- While congregations sponsor 36% of their IM activities in low-income countries (Table 5), the level of poverty is not a significant attractor for short-term mission (Table 8). It is—as one might suspect—for long-term IM. Disasters are a significant attractor for short-term IM, but not for long-term (Table 8 and Appendix F). This is consistent with an aid- rather than development-focus, but other influences may be at play as well. Fink and Radaelli (2011), for example, found that with ODA, political and strategic factors played a crucial role in emergency aid allocation. They found that geographical, political, and historical links influence emergency aid, and bandwagon effects occur. Some parallels may be drawn with congregations, especially in their links through RNGO and denominational alliances, to regional neighbors, and via the institutional influences of other congregations.
- The emphasis on relief may have theological or historical reasons for existing but it may not be efficacious if poverty alleviation is the goal. Potential concern exists regarding adequate awareness of development policy, practice, and resources for effective development.
- Some multi-campus cell-based churches decentralize missions which are often not reported on a website, and some denominations simply transfer a percentage of their budget to parachurch agencies which deploy resources on behalf of the congregation. Other congregations may not publically post outreach information or they may not keep their website current. Thus, reports on IM activity counts, partnerships, and funding likely was conservative. British and Canadian samples were small which prevented controlling for influences such as within-country denomination. Thus, the reliability of national comparisons is dubious. Some denominational sub-samples were small as well, making conclusions tenuous. Domestic aid, but this would have been an interesting comparison with international IM. It would have shed light on the black Protestant churches, for example, and may relate (positively or negatively) with international activities.
- Is there a mutual change among donor and beneficiary (see Williams, footnote 8)? Is a building project for a missionary’s home, a church, or a Christian camp, development? When is a sports program in a developing country development and when is it not? Is teaching English, development? How are flight services for medical missions treated? How is impact assessed and measured? Beyond the general debates about short-term IM, distinctive short-term models, such as Farrell’s (2013) Peruvian case study, could be enlightening. Considerable insight may be found in drilling down to IM methods as well. To what degree do they correspond to mainstream development practice? How are they unique? How well are they responding to historical issues such as dependency (cf. Malone, 2005; Taylor, D., 2012)? How well trained are those engaging in IM, both in congregations and in development settings? What cross-cultural issues are at play and how well are they understood? What congregational characteristics differentiate effective from less effective relief and development? What role do pastors and staff, theology, and culture play in deploying aid? How are IM efforts staffed and organized within the congregation? In the present study, Protestants are the focus. But how do other Christian traditions (e.g., Catholics) and religions (e.g., Jewish and Islam) engage in aid? NGOs by size, character, activities, and effectiveness could be studied as well to provide insight into the characteristics of NGOs with whom congregations partner and do not partner. From a social-psychological perspective, multiple theories might explain congregational behavior (cf. Thomas, McGarty & Mavor, 2010). How do congregational perspectives of poverty fit social science explanations (Vu, 2011)? On the theological and missiological side, what attitudes exist among missionaries, congregants, and church staff regarding IM? How well supported are long-term IM efforts and what challenges do missionaries and RNGOs face (e.g., Strand, Mellinger, Slusher, Chen & Pelletier, 2013). What theological and historical questions remain in the conversation between spiritual and physical mission? To what degree and when are power and money corrupting influences in mission and how can these be avoided (cf. Taylor, D., 2012)? In what ways are spiritual elements incorporated into aid development and with what impact? Are congregants active in IM being drawn away from other forms of engagement (e.g., community service (cf. Morrison, 2014)? With five of the ten largest national populations of Christians being in low- or lower-middle income countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Philippines), what intra-national development approaches exist or might be developed?