Giving is considered a virtue. Surely it is great to help the poor, to rescue the dying, to boost declining economies and generally to use one’s economic advantage in the interests of the less privileged?

Giving (and receiving) have certainly become a preoccupation in the relationship between First and Third World churches. There is a growing awareness of the problems brought by a one-sided ‘giving’ relationship. These are often considered to be problems of ‘dependency’.[1]

I want to reconsider ‘giving’, from a Biblical and practical perspective. Was Jesus a donor? I think the simple answer is ‘no’. There is no record of his making donations to the needy. There is a report to the contrary – that finances may be better used to anoint his body than to relieve the sufferings of the poor (Matthew 26:6-13). Also a report to suggest that a widow contributing small copper coins has actually given more than a wealthy man’s generous contribution (Luke 21:1-4 NIV). Jesus was usually occupied other than by allocating and accounting for the use of funds.

What of other Bible characters? Paul’s collection for the church in Jerusalem is often cited. It seems to me that this was motivated by his desire to unify the Gentile and Jewish churches.[2] The plan seemed to fail. There is some talk of contributions being made to people experiencing famine in the book of Acts (11:27-30). There is little record of financial giving outside of immediate relationship on the part of others in the New Testament. The Old Testament does not, to my knowledge, encourage international or intercultural giving of resources by the people of God.

I believe that there is good reason for the absence in the Scriptures of many of the kinds of ministry that are these days so common – in which donor funds form the basis for inter-cultural relationship. I articulate some of these reasons below.

Donors seem not to realize that their money buys them great power in the relationships that they enter. The missiological literature is replete with exhortations to be humble, to listen, to draw near to the ‘other’, to partner as equals, even to share in indigenous movements. But, how open will the ‘other’ ever be if the foundation for the relationship is that the donor is in charge, and disagreement with him/her can result in a cut in funds?

It is sobering to think that very many Western people in sub-Saharan Africa work closely primarily with those African people who are financially dependent upon them. This may be indirectly – perhaps the presence of the Westerner is used by donors as an assurance that their funds are not being abused. Very often it is very direct – projects require workers, so African people are paid by Westerners to do what is required. Many Westerners have convinced themselves that this is a way of serving in Africa. But I would like to ask: how can one know that one is doing ‘what the people want’ if one has to pay them to participate in it? In reality very often paying people is shutting their mouths; poor dependent people will not want in any way to threaten the one who is the source of their funds.