The work product was called the aforementioned Lausanne Standards.  They weren’t conceived as rules but as guidelines, a series of affirmations and agreements for the giving and receiving of money in God’s kingdom. The Standards were introduced in Cape Town at the Lausanne Congress in October 2010. At their core are a series of guided conversations leading to the penultimate needs of both donors and missions leaders, that of accountability and trust. Donors need accountability from missions leaders to know they are accomplishing their callings before God. For their part, missions leaders need trust from the donor to accomplish their callings. The mutuality of their needs should be expressed as a communion of giving and receiving, but that isn’t always the case.

The giving and receiving of money for missions is transactional in nature. It is simply a gift for the accomplishment of a Kingdom purpose, yet so much more is going on.

In the time since the Standards were introduced it seems they have been more widely embraced by missions leaders than by donors. Some of the comments I have heard have led me to this admittedly un-scientific observation. Donors have said they were touchy-feely, meaning I assume, unprofessional or all about relationship trumping action and accomplishment. In the opposite direction, I even heard one complaint that the Standards were a set of prescribed rules you had to follow. Others have termed them unrealistic, which I took to mean too much work for two little return.  Still other donors have not seen their relevance, in effect saying, “I have no need of these, my partners and I get along fine.”

Missions leaders, on the other hand, have often made comments along the lines of “I wish I could engage with my donors in this conversation,” but have missed some of the main points of the Standards themselves, particularly those that call for respect of donors and not seeing their questions as the madding rants of control freaks.

I see the Standards as an attempt to find a balance point in the transactional nature of giving between the poles of true community and true contract. The transparent nature of trust is a powerful adhesive that can bind a disparate group of individuals into a community. Accountability is the very fabric of a contract.

What happens in your culture when a fund raising proposal is seen as tantamount to a binding contract, where the missions leader is promising to follow the exact letter of the details, when in contrast, in their culture a funding proposal is seen as nothing more than a plan, an aspirational idea, given God’s favor, that outlines what the missions leader is hoping will take place?

I have observed this very thing happen between American donors and their majority world partners, where contractional thinking and the desire for relationship end up in conflict- with the ministry aspect of both getting lost in the transaction.

For that matter, what happens when it is believed that the zeitgeist of the funding community is that only big hairy audacious goals and outcomes will get gifts? Do you think there is any chance that those who need the money will be tempted to create big goals, extrapolate big results and, in effect, dance to the tune the donor is perceived as playing? 

You can go weak in the knees in front of a donor when you know the life and death outcomes making your payroll can impact.  Courage is a necessary attribute of leadership. You check it at the door, at your peril. I know, I’ve been there and I have succumbed to my fear willing to say or do almost anything to get the money. Sometimes you must say no to the gift.

Giving is as much a ministry as is putting the money to work. Donors are presented with a dizzying array of opportunities. Exercising a healthy skepticism can be helpful to God-honoring discernment. Delving in deep enough that you have truly connected is the most sure fire way I know of avoiding being manipulated.

Trust and accountability: To get there I know of no easy path or no more rewarding journey.

Several Christian leaders have been asked to continue the conversation by responding to this lead article.  Read their responses and share your own thoughts:

Sas Conradie responds to Rob’s article

Alex Araujo responds to Rob’s article

This blog is set out to start a conversation. We desire your comments. Please read the Standards at http://www.lausanne.org/en/documents/lausanne-standards.html and let us know what you think.