Missionary Support 2 – Indigenous Missionaries
Last week I pointed to and commented on Mary’s post on missionary support. She has come out with a second post on this topic, looking at supporting indigenous missionaries rather than investing so much into sending Western missionaries. This has raised some excellent questions, again with great dialogue in the comment section. I really want to weigh in on this one. Before I begin, I want to say that I am in agreement with Mary that there is a great need for more indigenous leadership within the global missional movement. We do need to rethink who and how we send people from the West into non-Western missions contexts. That being said, there is much more to the issue that must be explored.
First, K.P. Yohannan’s book “Revolution In World Missions” is a well known example of strongly calling for indigenous missionaries (supported by the West) and fewer Western missionaries being sent, cited by Mary and some commenters. It has some very good truths in it. However, I am not convinced that Yohannan’s organization has always accomplished this task appropriately. This doesn’t undermine the merits of the principles of the book, but it does demonstrate that application is far more challenging.
Further, there is the concern of producing ethnocentric faith communities. Ironically, the response to this issue within Western Christianity (that is, as we realize our own ethnocentric Christian expressions) is to push for indigenously lead faith communities abroad. While this intention is good, it can unintentionally produce different cultural versions of the very problem it seeks to overcome- that is, churches that are too narrowly defined by their singular culture. After all, Scripture clearly shows us that God’s Church is a diverse one. To that end, cross-cultural missions offers that benefit, both for the sending and receiving cultures.
Neither can we deny that we have sown the seeds of colonialism throughout the world, where deep roots have taken hold. We consistently find ourselves in cultures that, despite our best attempts to change things, still buy into these lies. Most recently our team was in Uganda where many still embrace the mythology that Western Christianity (including broader Western culture) is the ideal to pursue (and look to their own culture as “inferior”). The reality is that we will have to play a role to undo much of this damage (albeit a supporting role), even as they play a role in undoing the same damage here in our contexts.
Connected to the previous point is the need for Western Christians and churches to have their eyes opened to the global reality they live in. They need to see the complexity of God’s people and Creation, recognizing how the simplest of our choices in our local context can have devastating or positive impact half the planet away. Our own Christian worldview is too narrow, therefore cross-cultural relationships are crucial.
Despite the many mistakes and failures of Western Christianity, we must humbly acknowledge our strengths as well. We have a rich history of religious practice and freedom (though often fraught with problems), which means we have a great deal to offer other cultures. I want to be careful not to suggest we have more to offer, but to recognize that, especially given our massive wealth and freedom (often enjoyed at the expense of the very people we are sending missionaries to), we do have a great deal of repsonsibility. Where much is given, much is required. Our methods and stance need to change drastically, but indigenous missions is not a sufficient model on its own without addressing these and other specifics.
Finally, while not underestimating the importance and power of financial resources in the context of world missions, nor wanting to understate the embarrassment of our excessive wealth in the West, we must recognize that money is but one aspect to this issue. I fully affirm the need for better stewardship and greater generosity, all of which (in my opinion) demands that we live simpler lives as Christians, counter-culturally I might add.
However, God is our provider and His calling to us may not always be the most financially efficient approach. This is not as excuse for irresponsibility or excess, but through the fear of God and sensitivity to His Spirit, we must recognize that the financial merits of our models are not enough to really inform the change that needs to take place.
Again, check out Mary’s blog and join the discussion. Also, let me know what you think here.
Excellent points, Jamie. You’re right in saying that the application of principles is challenging and that money is not the sole issue here.
You pointed out that we have a role in undoing some of the damage from colonialism. I agree that the mentality has been detrimental to both sides. What are some practical ways we can begin to undo some of this damage? I ask this because I don’t think that the Western Church in general fully understands what this mentality even looks like and ignorantly perpetuates this myth.
Did that make sense? At any rate, I’ve enjoyed the discussion around this topic and really appreciate what you bring to it.
Mary
Hey Jamie,
This is a timely issue isn’t it?
I have commented on Mary’s blog and will repeat my comments here. Sorry I really haven’t focused on the money aspect because as i think you were alluding too, mission is not the same as an efficiently run fortune 500 company even though we use business principles and must be good stewards. Anyways here’s my “way too long” opinion:
I too like Bob’s comment on Mary’s blog: “an exchange of leaders across throughout the world” I think that represents not only the heart of mission but also the reality of globalization. Leadership from all nations to all nations.
I think I have seen a bit of this dilemma from both sides. As a Caribbean church leader, I have worked with many North American missionaries. Post-Colonial sentiment is strong in the caribbean and therefore it’s not easy for these missionaries. Some of this is justified in my opinion. However, I also told my fellow Caribbean workers that humility is also needed on our part. Through history “other-cultural” influence can either bring a civilization forward or colonize it in various forms. I think a culture often can’t see it’s own blindspots. So even though indigenous workers might be more effective in so many ways. I witnessed first hand how “genuinely humble” cross-cultural missionaries were able to see things we couldn’t see in our own culture and help tremendously. That’s important for all to remember.
It’s not only imperative for Western Missionaries to be humble in their endeavours but for indigenous countries to be humble in their reception. Indigenous cultures are tested in their reception of “the stranger” to use OT lingo as well.
Now I am a leader in Canada. For me in a sense the roles are reversed. For sure one of Canada’s great strengths is welcoming the stranger. I think I have some things to contribute to this great country as I try to listen and learn as well.
So again I see a powerful model in leaders from all to all nations.
peace,
Anderson
Hey Mary,
The work of undoing colonialism is a complex one that we are just now learning how to do. Genuine dialogue is critical, with Amahoro being most recent example of this in Uganda (check out Brian McLaren’s website). This will take time and humility, and as I said in the post, we in the West must let those most impacted by it lead the process, either wise we risk repeating the same errors in our attempts to overcome them.
A significant part of the challenge is going through out own worldview (and resulting theology, missiology and ecclesiology), finding and addressing where this very colonialism has taken root. This is a difficult process, as the subtlety of its influence makes it hard to see. Combine this with them naturally being in our blind spots (it is tough spotting ones own worldview through the lens of ones of worldview), and we have our work cut out for us.
I have come across a few churches and ministries that have intentionally built partnerships across these cultural divides focused primarily on relationship and mutual service. This shift to mutuality will be tough from both sides, which is why spiritual and missional formation of the emerging generations MUST focus more intentionally on this issue. Again, Amahoro is a great example of that.
We are looking at being more intentional about this in our next Discipleship Training School, with some very innovative ideas already brewing. Thanks for helping the process.
Peace,
Jamie
Hey Anderson,
Always glad to hear from you! I agree with you that money cannot be the guiding issue in this. It cannot be ignored, but our Western bias usually places too much importance on it.
I really appreciate you bringing and affirming the same values from the other side of the issue. This is critical to the process, but I felt it was not for me to make that statement here. So, thank you for bringing this essential piece to the puzzle.
Peace,
Jamie
WHile money isnt the only issue, it is a strong one for my wife and I. We would much rather send cash to indigenous works and leaders than support western exports. We have good friends in organizations like YWAM, but have deep questions about the validity of short term efforts in particular and the huge cost of travel… particularly when there is so much work that can be done locally. It’s a real Catch 22 when you love and believe in the people involved..
Len,
Your hesitation is valid. Even as a member of YWAM, I am constantly examining the validity of short term missions efforts where huge expenses are required. We need to be more careful with how we give and participate in that respect.
One of the tensions, however, is between the ideal and the reality. We need to pursue the Kingdom ideal, but recognize that we are in process. Therefore, something less than ideal is still preferably than many other alternatives. In this respect, I still see the importance that careful and responsible short-term models can have in the process.
One example is what we saw in Uganda. There are many NGO’s and missions agencies working in Uganda that are supported by the West. Many of these are indigenously led and staffed. They do great work, but there is a reality we don’t see. Beyond the PR we read/view here in the West that inspires us to send funds to these projects is another set of problems. I’ll cite two that we commonly see:
First, many locals are pleased when Western missionaries visit the sites, as distribution is given fairly, whereas when there are no Western observers, those local in charge almost always take the lions share for their families and/or to sell. Now, this is a generalization, but this has been a very common experience with many of our teams in many cultures. I am not suggesting that we play a monitoring role, but rather than what we perceive to be a more fair “indigenous” model can often be idealistic naivety, often no better or ultimately cheaper than the alternative. This is one of many examples of this kind of problem.
Second, as I mentioned in the post, a startling number of indigenous leaders are promoting dangerous values (such as prosperity gospel and colonialism) through their ministries, often far stronger than even the less enlightened Western missionary. In some cases, it is actually resulting in the death of thousands. We have sown the seeds of these false doctrines and are now seeing their bear the sad fruit. It would be irresponsible and reprehensible for us to withdraw now without owning our (lions) share of the responsibility to see this changed.
Again, our stance and methods must change, but we would be foolish and even disobedient to abandon sending Western Christians abroad. Not only will the world suffer, but our own context will suffer as well.
Thanks for pushing in, Len.
Peace,
Jamie
Ya, I think the point Jamie raises here is that one can’t just make assumptions on the effectiveness of indigenous works. So the question I would have for Len is “what is the basis for his preference?” My research and experience suggest that while indigenous works are very significant they are many blindspots and shortfalls as should be expected. So “other-cultural” input is not only a good idea but could be very necessary.
This is not only true in “traditional missions” but in education, business, sports e.g. The West Indies cricket team recently benefited from the expertise of an Australian coach.
Again, I still think it’s helpful to think of this conversation not just in terms of traditional “missions”. So throughout history and in our world today cultures and civilizations have greatly benefited from the contributions of other cultures and civilizations when there is mutual humility. Of course there have been negative consequences due to pride.
So in my opinion, the idea of leaders serving other cultures and nations is not only consistent with the biblical narrative but an effective paradigm that are money should readily go to.
Anderson,
Well said. It is an exciting prospect, especially if it can be done well. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, Thanks for taking on a subject in which you have closer, first-hand knowledge and experience with. I think all you say sounds very sane and balanced in a way that is needed and helpful and oftentimes lacking from many of us. Oftentimes because we just are not aware of enough.
Churches need to think more on these things, or at least it’s good when a seminal group can do so, from which, over some time changes in thinking and practice can occur.
Blessings on you, your work and on all of this.
Ted,
Thanks. I am still wrestling through a lot of this, but I have quickly found that, while genuine critique is needed (as is change), there is a lot of well intentioned, but ultimately reactionary ideas emerging. I think it needs some serious time and attention..
Peace,
Jamie
thanks Jamie. I liked you post, but had to go to the dictionary a few times. Anyaway, I how are things going with the students that were having some troubles?
Hey Phil,
Kim says that to me all the time too. As for the students, one is doing quite well. The other, while at least maintaining relationship with us, decided to leave the DTS near the end for reasons that were quite unwise. We pray.
Peace,
Jamie
A couple of questions pop to mind:
1. Are we just looking for ways to let ourselves off the hook in terms of responsibility in other nations? Is this really just about the “best bang for our buck”, or the best “return on investment”?
2. Would taking an attitude of “let the locals handle it” result, over time, in us becoming insulated and insensitive to what’s going on around the world? Because it’s not “our” responsibility or our opportunity anymore?
3. By sending money instead of people, would we be guilty of absolving ourselves of both the Great Commission as well as personally responding to God’s call, and saying — in effect — “I gave at the office”?
Robbymac,
As to your first point, I think you hit a critical issue. As I mentioned above, if we evaluate things through a financial lens (i.e. investment, return, etc.), we expose our narrow, consumeristic worldview. It isn’t enough.
In answer to your second question: yes, I think it would leave us (and them) isolated, robbed of the ecclesial diversity of Christ’s Body.
With respect to your third point, while I do believe there is an important place for Western funding of global missions (including indigenous leaders), to do so at the exclusion of our own global involvement is wrong. It can become, as you elude to, a form of missional indulgences.
Great points! Thanks.
Peace,
Jamie
I think it is all a matter of what God wants you to do. If he wants you to go then by all means go, if he wants you to send someone financial support do it.
There is no need for a doctrine or mission plan just do what it is he wants you/us to do.
Thanks for weighing in, Johnny!
Peace,
Jamie