The problem with this argument is two-fold. In today’s economic world very few
national missionaries can live on the paltry support that is advertised. While there may be a national evangelist
working in a village that can live on less than $50 a month, most cannot
survive on that income if they have a family and it certainly is not adequate
for a national living in most towns and cities.
The second weakness of this theory is that, though the
national may be from that culture does not mean they know either the targeted
people group or the language.
One of the reasons I became a facilitator to the national
church was due to what a prominent national leader in India said to me several
years back. This brother was one
of those who, in essence said, “American stay home, just send money.” Through a mutual friend we had a
meeting in which this leader asked if I would come to their seminary and teach
cross-cultural church planting.
Knowing his reputation, I asked him why he would invite me, an American,
to teach. His reply was
revealing. “We are supporting
hundreds of evangelists throughout India, Bhutan and Nepal,” he stated, “but
we’re not really having much success reaching Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims. Many times our evangelist from the
south go up north and work among non-Christians from their home districts,
nominal Christians and tribal’s.
We don’t know how to serve cross-culturally.”
Cross-cultural missionaries are just that, taking the Gospel
across cultural, linguistic, religious, caste, tribe boundaries. Every missionary, no matter where they
are from in the world, must learn how to serve cross-culturally, even in his or
her own country. Just sending
money to national missionaries does not make them more effective.
There are certainly many worthy national ministries that are
worthy of support. However, as I
stated earlier, the missions teams responsibility is to investigate those
national programs. Not built on
emotion, analysis of the national organization should include their purpose,
their structure (do they have a board or belong to a national accountability
network) and their finances. There
is nothing paternalistic in asking these questions. Quite honestly, when it comes to Americans and national
church workers, most Americans are woefully naïve.
Indeed, the western church has been, and still is, guilty of
paternalism. If your church enters
into a financial partnership with a national ministry recognize, beyond a
standard yearly financial report, your contribution should not have strings
attached and your church should not micro-manage how money is spent. If you give to any program, national or
local, there is a certain amount of trust that should be a part of any partnership. Trust is built over time, so do your
homework, be diligent in knowing what you are funding and then trust that your
national co-worker is using your investment wisely.
Because of my role in world outreach, I have many wonderful
partners throughout the world.
Some of these co-workers I help financially. Though I get requests for financial help routinely, I never
give to a cause that I don’t anything about.
As a missions team, do your homework. Ask for references, visit the project
on the field with someone who understands the context, not just the need. Spend much time in prayer, asking the
Lord to give your team discernment.
1 comment:
good stuff, dad. Haven't been on your blog in awhile. Your a good teacher.
Post a Comment