Rethinking Member Care “Models”

Maybe three years ago, I did some work on member care models after going through an online training course with Harry Hoffmann. It was great, but I was not fully sold on the “Pyramid Model” he used. But recently I have had a change of heart and agree that model is great. His model is:

I suggested making self-care more explicit, which makes sense from a logical perspective. Doing that makes an octohedron:

What sold me on Hoffmann’s model was actually seeing him do a presentation live at a missions conference I attended in Cavite Province, Philippines. In that presentation, he took four bamboo poles. Then he got five volunteers. One volunteer was the missionary. and each of the other volunteers took on a human role— family/friend, people helper, church, professionals. Each of these for held on to one of the bamboo poles. Then he showed visually how each group comes along to support the missionary. As these poles come together they form a protective pyramid— the apex of which can be seen as God who brings all parties together in caring for the missionary. Then he shows what happens when a missionary moves and loses parts or all of the pyramid and what happens after that. Seeing it presented in this way, the minor limitations of the model I think are more than compensated for by the visual, almost visceral, way it shows missionary care. Thus, I don’t see myself using the octahedron model in the future.

2. That being said, I still have issues with O’Donnell’s model even if it is more comprehensive than Hoffmann’s model.

It is good in many ways, and as I said is more comprehensive than Hoffmann’s but there are a couple things I don’t like. (A) I don’t like Master Care being in the middle. This sounds bad since the model is built on the idea that that which is toward the center is more key or important. Master Care (God’s care) is certainly the most key, correct? My issue however, is that God’s care is commonly done through people, so it is not useful in my mind to separate it from other forms of care. In fact, to me it it is better to show Master Care as the outermost ring with the implication, hopefully, that Master Care encompasses everything within it. (B) I never really cared for the next ring where it is cut into half rings with Self Care on one side and Mutual Care on the other. I must admit that it is hard for me to verbalize this dislike of mine. It just seems like a random way to show it.

I have no reason to think anyone will prefer this way, but I feel that it is clearer this way. Yes, putting God in the center suggests… well… centrality. But putting Him outside implies that He is all-encompassing, and suggests that the human care resources are part of that divine care.