The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Auteur: Jim Harries
Date: 19.08.2010
Category: Formation de dirigeants, Partenariat, Intégrité et humilité
Let us imagine a Westerner having interest in supporting Gospel work amongst a certain ‘poor’ non-western people.
In my experience (in work in Africa), if you go to such people as a ‘western missionary’, but do not give things to them, they can very quickly tire of you. This reflects a degree of valuation of western missionaries that is based very much in their ‘money’, and also a morality widespread in the West – that if you work ‘with the poor’ you have to be giving to them. But, if the missionary keeps control of their money, then they will inevitably (even if inadvertently) use the money to acquire power for whatever ministry(s) they are engaged in, while of course keeping ‘strings’ attached to their money, producing ’dependency’, and setting themselves apart from other people on the ground.
The solution seems to be, that the missionary should go, and give their money (however much) that they have ‘for ministry’ and not for their personal upkeep, to someone in the organisation in which / for which they are working, say on an annual basis. Then it is known that the missionary is ‘donating’, so they don’t have to be accused of being tight and uncaring. But, providing they do not ‘check’ on how that money is being used, they are not attaching strings to it, will not be manipulating ministry through it, and will not attract the interest of people who would like to see the money diverted in their direction, as they have no control over how it is used. So then, the ministry is being funded, but because the missionary is not controlling the funds, it can be run ‘indigenously’.
I can say that I personally worked on the above model in a certain ministry for 10 years. I can say that it ‘did not work’. After 10 years, it was a relief to find that someone other than me pulled the plug on the money; when the corruption and misappropriation that was going on became more and more widely known.
On the basis of the above and related experiences, I do not see how that model can work. Many donors these days operate from a vast distance, and have almost no familiarity with local languages, contexts and conditions. That can ‘work’ in a way – if they are out of reach and receiving either no reports about how their money is being used, or only the reports by the official recipient. Such may of course end up supporting someone financially who, far from being an asset, may be a liability or problem to the ‘true ministers of the Gospel’ on the ground.
There is another model which I think is more workable. That is, for a missionary from the wealthy world to ‘invest’ in a known ministry, using money in a way that has evident strings attached, while investing their time and heart into other ministry to which they are not donating significant money. The missionary must keep a check to make sure their money is not being abused in the first case. But, if their efforts and time is being directed to people other than those involved in that ministry, then their money will not be acquiring influence where those efforts are expended, except perhaps indirectly (which I think is OK). If people working with the missionary in the area where he (she) spends time / effort want to accuse him of being uncaring because he does not always have his hand in his pocket, they can be pointed to that ‘other ministry’ where money clearly IS being invested by the missionary.
To expand on this a bit using an example, let us say a missionary from the West starts a football club for boys, and provides footballs and Bibles and sometimes even food to all concerned, while overseeing the running of the club. Meanwhile, most of the missionary’s time is spent in Bible teaching, pastoral visiting and preaching etc. When the missionary visits a bible class, home or church, he leaves with the money that he goes with. Thus a western missionary IS fulfilling the perceived need to ‘be giving’, WITHOUT having inappropriate control over the key Gospel ministry in which they are involved.
Note that the ministry that receives the funds should not be the key ministry. E.g. it should not be the church - because we do not want to put the church into a position of ’dependency’. If a missionary’s money is to reach ’the church’, it should do so indirectly - e.g. (in the above example) through footballers making voluntary contributions to the church through money they have received through playing football supported by the missionary.
Mots-clés: strings, money, donors, ministry priority, the poor, helping.
Vues: 5617
Commentaires: 5
Recommandations: 0
Conditions d'utilisation | Charte de confidentialité | Le Forum mondial de Lausanne est soutenu par World Wide Open | Qu'est-ce que World Wide Open?
Conversation Poster un commentaire
Nigéria
Thanks again jim for inviting me to this topic even though, in my opinion, we are simply running in circles. the points have been made. However, let me remind you that youe experiences are not determinants. Misapprporiation and embezzelment are global issues not limited to Christian missions, let alone donoring or non-western cultures. The only difference is that methods of detection are more advanced in the West but even then there several Internationalized dirty cases from the heart of the West where funds donated for missions never left the donor country and reports of its use were recieved.
Money has power attached to it. Consequently, whoever has more money is seen as hindering those that have less. Again this happens all over the world, even among churches in the West. However, even with that, those who have the message are NEVER inferior to those that have money or more money. on the whole, I think we have made some progress despite the rigmarolling. You now agree that there should be ’donoring’ - the footballs etc.
On the incarnational model of ministry that had been mentioned over and over, we need to remind ourselves that Christ applied the power of Godhead when needed. When they arrested and took Him to the cliff, He simply walked away from their mist. On other occassions He healed ALL their ailments/fed them etc.
I’m struggling to build a school of missions in the village where I live and preaching and showing films/Power points where necessary using Laptops and projectors. Last month my house was buggled three times and the laptops were stolen. What do I do now? Return to shouting or stop building? I’ll go on without the equipment but I’ll ask Jim to send me other Laptops, if he can afford them, let’s see how he’ll use them to controll me or make me dependent on him!
13.09.2010
Kenya
@ besoman:
Hi Mbah, I am very sorry to hear of the theft of your laptops! Wow. That is a blow to your project.
There are some parallels to the work you are involved in and that which I have engaged for many years in Kenya. 10 months after setting up, we had a big theft case that blew the teaching programme to pieces. Ironically, it wasn’t ‘my’ things that were stolen, because I didn’t bring any, but items were stolen from the White-funded centre at which I was ‘piggy backing’, I guess you could say.
The frustration can certainly be intense whichever way you turn. If there are no computers, then things move incredibly slowly, as these days everyone thinks that the way forward is through the computer. But, if you have the computers, then theft can happen, and endless issues of trying to keep them running etc. I have chosen the prior route. I believe in the end it is the best route. At least – as far as I as a foreign missionary am concerned. That’s the example I want to set. What people want to do with it is of course their choice.
13.09.2010
Nigéria
@ Jim_Harries:
Thanks for your concern on the thefts. Its surely fraustrating, especially because of the lost work (unfortunately I was not backing-up) but we’ll get over it. There had always been thieves but they cant stop the work. Equipments move the work faster and in most cases make it easier but could also pose problems outside attracting thieves. The problem is with depending on them. Our major problem is that we (my wife and I) have decided not to ask for or accept any help on the building until we finish plumbimg (We are working on doors and windows now and God is helping us). We are on leave for at least two years from he Diocese of Nike (Anglican Communion). We can take such decisions because we are salaried staff of the University. However this greatly limits our availability for missions and this is NOT good. Many Nigerians are yet strugling with understanding involvement with global missions. So what is the way forward? Some people MUST be aided to mobilize the church in Nigeria. You may be suprised to know that some Bishops and others are in Lausanne are sponsoring themselves (The Church is NOT funding their participation) What am I saying? The global effort will move faster with partnership that includes funding, which may include food and clothes where necessary. The dependency question is answered by the way the funds are handled.
14.09.2010
Kenya
@ besoman:
It is great to discuss, but at the same time I think we are talking past each other. ... Any road, all the best!!!!!!!!!
14.09.2010
Nouvelle Zélande
Jim highlights an important issue in cross cultural mission. I think the issue of how we seek to live out I Cor 12 in a cross cultural mission is one we must constantly pursue and seek to develop best practices. I think there is still a place for incarnational ministry where the missionary seeks to live among the local people until he/she earns credibility. I think we should not begin a relationship by ’giving funds’. We should also be careful about the issue of the perceived ’power’ of the missionary because of the wealth he/she brings.
10.09.2010
Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire. Si vous n'avez pas de compte, vous pouvez vous inscrire dès maintenant (c'est facile et gratuit !).