How The Current Emphasis On Dependency And! Self-Reliance Is Being Perceived and Received

Transcription

1 How The Current Emphasis On Dependency And! Self-Reliance Is Being Perceived and Received by Glenn Schwartz,! Emeritus, World Mission Associates This paper was presented at the Philadelphia Consultation on Dependency and Self- Reliance held on November 19-20, The copyright belongs to the author who takes full responsibility for the content and issues dealt with in the paper. For further information about the consultation or related issues contact: INTRODUCTION For the past fifteen years I have been traveling considerably in East, Central and Southern Africa conducting seminars on dependency and self-reliance. I have been listening to church and mission leaders, trying to learn why the church in that part of Africa has difficulty reproducing itself cross-culturally. Particularly during the past three or four years I have many reasons to be encouraged by what I see happening. The evidence is confirming something I have believed for a long time: i.e., that the dependency syndrome among mission-established institutions is not a terminal illness. One indication of the interest in the subject is the number of people attending this consultation. We actually have had more people prepared to make presentations here than we had slots to be filled. About ten or twelve years ago I had a long conversation with someone who served as fund raising counsel for non-profit organizations. We discussed WMA ministry for about two and half-hours, but he was having difficulty grasping what our organization was about. Finally he said, "Let me get this right you are trying to get Christians in North America to give up the idea of the Great White Missionary." I responded, "That s right, you got it." Then he asked, "And you are trying to get those same people to support your efforts?" "Yes", I said, "that is what we re trying to do." I shall not soon forget his reply: "No wonder you are having difficulty raising funds. North Americans like the image of the Great White Missionary, and you re trying to destroy it." I was given Lesson One in reality therapy! I am pleased to say that since then we have found ways to communicate our cause and the picture is much brighter for us now than it was back then.

2 INITIAL OBSERVATION I will begin with a few reflections on the historical situation regarding dependency among mission-established institutions. There is plenty of evidence that the concept of wholesome independence for mission-established churches was well developed during the 19 th century about a century and a half ago. I am referring to the writings of Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson, John Nevius and Roland Allen. However, for the past hundred years or more, much of what they said has either been ignored or given only lip service. I say lip service because it would be hard to find a mission executive in a western mission society who does not believe in the "indigenous principle". In reality, however some of those mission executives find themselves bogged down in church/mission relationships which are not exactly a credit to the indigenous principle. What is more, it has now become fashionable among western mission societies to seek out and establish relationships with previously independent churches in order to create "partnerships". Unfortunately, sometimes these so-called partnerships are built upon a one-way flow of western funds toward here-to-fore independent churches. This mode of operation results in what one might call "growth by acquisition". I mean by that, finding independent groups of congregations and adopting them into a western denomination as "our partners in the Gospel". Not all motivation for such acquisitions is laudable. Over a period of time, one church in Mozambique developed such a partnership with three different western denominations. Eventually each of the three relationships turned sour and the partnerships ended. In the last one western missionaries went in by stealth - at night - from a neighboring country to retrieve their four-wheel drive vehicle, something the local leaders claimed was theirs. That is the seamy side of growth by that kind of acquisition. THE NEW CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT DEPENDENCY I referred above to a new consciousness about the dependency syndrome. A number of denominations have taken the bold decision to make the move toward self-reliance a priority. I recently learned that the International Board of Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention is moving in that direction. Imagine the challenge of getting more than four thousand missionaries and related church leaders to think about local institutions and local support rather than foreign. One of the most remarkable transformations among western mission societies can be seen among the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in St. Louis, Missouri. A report in a recent issue of Mission Frontiers 1 tells of the significant shift of missions emphasis to the grass roots of that denomination. Read the story if you haven t done so. Coupled with the transformation among supporting congregations in North America is an awareness among their mission executives that mission strategy and policy must be reviewed and changed. This consciousness that western societies must change is reflected in the recent issue of the International Bulletin 2. It is there that stories are told of three different mission societies (LAM, SIM and the Mennonite Board of Missions, Elkhart) all seeking in one way or another to make adjustments and stay abreast of the times.

3 From the perspective of a missiologist, as well as anyone interested in successful management principles, these mission societies have something in common. They are engaging in change which is sanctioned and promoted from the top down. In some cases the change may be happening because it is being driven by the grass roots. When it is sanctioned or initiated from the top, it becomes safe for everyone in the organization from area directors to field missionaries and local church leaders - to think new thoughts about how to break the dependency syndrome. Where those in top leadership positions do not approve of new thinking, it becomes both risky and frustrating for those at the grass roots to get new inspiration. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS RESISTANCE AT THE TOP? I have often been asked whether I see any change resulting from my attempts to call attention to the dependency syndrome. One thing I have found is that when organizations themselves cannot change, sometimes individuals in them can. For example, one head of a mission society in the Middle East served at the very top of his organization. If anyone was in position to make changes, he was or so he thought. He decided that the time for change had come. As part of his strategy for change, he announced that there would be a review of all mission practices and structures with a view to eventually making changes as needed. Unfortunately, those with whom he worked did not share his vision for change. He soon recognized the seriousness of the resistance and resigned as head of the mission. He then decided to move his personal ministry into an Arab village on the West Bank where he came under the spiritual authority of several local Arab church leaders. He not only incarnated himself in the village geographically, he moved his psychological residence under local spiritual authority. His rationale was that the organization may not have been ready to change, but he was. Sometimes missionaries pay a high price for thinking new thoughts, and they have been involuntarily eliminated from continuing service. In reality, the change they are calling for is the renewal every organization needs to stay alive and abreast of the times. Another missionary by the name of Tim Michell worked in a very rural part of South Africa called Transkei - Nelson Mandela s home territory. He was a white "outsider" working with a non-white church in that community. I went to Idutywa, where he lived and worked, and conducted a five-day seminar in which I spoke about how missionaries can recede into the background in favor of allowing local people to move forward. This emphasis struck a chord with Tim and he decided to make changes in his personal mode of operation. As he backed off from official duties, he was gratified to see local people move forward and take responsibility. I followed his story with interest through his prayer letters which we got every half year or so. They were an interesting study in the transformation of a missionary. Tim eventually got to the point where he felt things were going so well on the local scene that he decided to take a leave of absence. He and his family relocated to East London some distance away for rest and recuperation. Imagine my delight when, after some months in East London, he wrote to say that his move is permanent. Because things are going so well back in Idutywa, he does not plan to return. The story in Tim s own words can be found on the WMA web site. 3

4 REACTIONS TO PROMOTING SELF-RELIANCE IN AFRICA I am often asked how African church leaders and their members respond to this emphasis on self-reliance. This is a legitimate question because they are the ones most affected by the dependency syndrome. They also have the most to gain if a solution to the problem can be found. Over the past ten or twelve years I have often been encouraged by the positive comments from African church leaders. I can say without a doubt that many of them know that the time for change has come. Many are ready to take the bold step of learning how their churches can stand on their own two feet. A few illustrations follow. At a seminar in Central Mozambique a few weeks ago a group of about sixty pastors all on their own - decided to publicly confess that they had become dependent on outsiders. One of them stood and led in a long prayer as all the other pastors repeated the confession after him in the Shona language. More than that, during the two-day seminar they formed a committee of six pastors who volunteered to work toward sending out their first missionary from that district. As the rest of us were leaving the seminar at the end of the second day, those six pastors remained for the first meeting of their missionary association. Stay tuned. At a seminar in Limuru, Kenya in May 1996 a group of about ninety church leaders also confessed the sin of dependency on foreign funding. They referred to it as an addiction "the more you get, the more you want" - and they admitted making compromises in order to get more funding when it is needed. They not only confessed the addiction but also committed themselves to forming a movement for self-reliance where they live and work. We should all pray for them in this up-hill battle. At a seminar in the northern part of South Africa several years ago a local church leader put all of this into perspective when he asked the question: "What would you think of a mother who kept a child on her back until the child was seventy-five years old?" He said, "Such a mother should be charged with crimes against motherhood." With comments like this and many others I have come to believe that there is a readiness among those in mission-established churches to get off the mother s back and begin to take responsibility for their own ministry and future. When church leaders learn the rewards associated with standing on their own two feet, I have found that some of them laugh or scoff at the idea of looking overseas for support for their churches. Unfortunately, there are westerners with resources to be given away, and they will seek to do so even if those funds create or perpetuate dependency. As an article in Time 4 magazine said sometime ago, developing countries which develop are not always in the best interest of western nations. In spite of the availability of western funds I see momentum in the right direction. It may take time, and there may be setbacks along the way; but I sense that the trend is in the right direction in many places. I do not deny that there are still many who look to the West and feel that Africa will never be able to make it on its own. But from where I stand there is reason for hope.

5 WESTERN REACTION TO THE EMPHASIS ON SELF-RELIANCE I shall give six different reactions which I have observed among missionaries and other westerners associated with mission-established institutions. First, there are some in western church and mission circles who do not understand what I am talking about. Some of them are overwhelmed by the needs they see, and any talk of people in the developing world learning to stand on their own feet doesn t make sense to them. They look at people like me and think that I just don t understand the situation in which they live and work. Unfortunately, some of them have little or no cross-cultural training, awareness or sensitivity. Neither do they feel the need for training or awareness. They are happy to be involved in meeting needs, regardless of whether their compassion and altruism might create or perpetuate the dependency syndrome. They are happy so long as they are not criticized or disturbed in the ministry which they find rewarding. It is hard to help those in this category. Second, there are those who listen to what I am saying and conclude that it may be true "but... " They have invested too much to even think of changing. Some have poured their entire lives into this process building a structure of one kind or another, however foreign and expensive it may be to maintain. It represents their life s work. They don t understand why local people can t take responsibility, but they conclude that it is just the way things are. Anyway they believe local people will probably be that way for a long time to come. This is sort of the Ian Smith syndrome in which he said "never in a thousand years" would the people of Africa be able to do things for themselves. In order for those in this category to change, a rather high price would need to be paid. It would mean acknowledging that the foundation on which their life s work was built needs to be altered. For some, the price is too high to pay. Missionary attrition in one form or another may be the only way they will exit the scene. If and when that happens, it will be necessary for someone else to step in and carry on or restructure what exists. Third, some have become aware of the syndrome, are frustrated with the existing state of affairs and are eager for change. Their problem is that they don t know what caused the problem or how to solve it. They may find it hard to accept that many good things they have been doing are now part of the problem on the local scene. Yet they know, sometimes instinctively, that change must come. There is hope for those in this category. The most frequent reaction I hear from them is that they did not know anyone had thought through the implications of the dependency syndrome. To them it was just a frustratingly normal state of affairs. Like some of us who were disciples of Donald McGavran, we were greatly relieved to learn that someone actually understood what we were going through and that, in other places, solutions were actually being found. People in this category are prime candidates for the kind of information that is being presented in this consultation. They want to learn, and the things our presenters are saying will be a great encouragement to them. I should interject at this point that there is a very important purpose in the presentations being made at this consultation. What we are saying, thinking and writing represents hope for those caught in the dependency trap and who think there is no way out. What we

6 have to offer may be the crack in the wall that they did not know exists. We are here to say that, when it comes to that seemingly hopeless cycle of dependency, it can be broken. It is not impossible to plant self-supporting churches. Listen to what Gerald Bustin will be telling us and that will become abundantly clear. So part of the function of this consultation is to help dispel the notion that dependent churches are simply an inevitable result of the spread of the Gospel, and that nothing can be done about the situation. Fourth, some believe instinctively that self-support for mission-established churches is possible. They knew it, even if their colleagues or mission executives did not. What we are saying in this consultation will be really good music to their ears. Perhaps they have been made to feel like their hunches were off base or that they were slightly off the wall themselves. They will take what we are saying as confirmation of the rightness of their own conclusions and use the illustrations we are giving to "conscientize" their colleagues or mission directors. We should pray for them, because if they encounter resistance, disillusionment can follow. But most importantly, there is hope for them, because if they learn how to be effective change agents, they can be the salt that affects the situation around them. Fifth, here and there one encounters those who so grasp the importance of what we are saying that they will become advocates for self-reliance among all whom they meet. Some of these are disciples of Bill Kornfield and Robertson McQuilkin. They will drink deeply from the historical fountains of Venn, Anderson, Nevius and Allen. They might even help to plow new ground regarding issues of dependency and self-reliance for the benefit of others. Among these I would include a growing group of African church leaders who are making thinking about this issue a priority. In Pasadena there is a group of African church leaders doing doctoral level research on this subject. They are enrolled in the School of World Mission at Fuller Seminary. In addition to their official academic program they have had occasional evening meetings to watch a video on dependency with a discussion following. Sanguma, one of the presenters at this consultation, is a prime mover in getting others together to talk about the issues involved. You will benefit from what he tells us about the progress he has seen in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Also, in East Africa there is a group of church leaders under the inspiration of Dr. John Gatu who are committed to promoting self-reliance in the Christian movement. In Senegal, West Africa, a group of missionaries and church leaders were setting aside every Monday evening to watch a video and discuss the implications for their work and ministry. In Burkina Faso twenty-five missionaries gave their entire annual retreat to watching the WMA video series on dependency with discussions following each lesson. They then recommended that their mission executives in North America get the tapes and watch them. The executives later placed their order. My hope for a movement promoting self-reliance lies with those in this fifth category. If something significant is done to promote self-reliance among mission-established churches, it will be by those church and mission leaders, as well as missionaries, who make learning about the syndrome a priority. After all, it is these people who see the

7 problem first hand and are familiar with the ramifications. It is they who are in position to make changes and influence others. We should pray for these people as they represent a genuine ray of hope for the future. Sixth, there is another reaction that must be mentioned. These are those who have examined the Christian movement of which we are all a part and come to the opposite conclusion from those of us making presentations in this consultation. They have concluded that supporting "indigenous institutions" is not only permissible, but it is the most appropriate mode of operation in our day. They rationalize that the West has the money, the rest have the labor, and the natural thing is to bring the two together to complete the task of world evangelization. We are not here to do battle with those who hold this position. After all, they are not here to defend themselves. In fact, this was a conscious part of our planning for this consultation. We decided that in this first-of-itskind consultation on self-reliance, we would seek to bring together like-minded people with the purpose of arriving at a mutual understanding of what we already believe. There may come a time when we will meet and discuss issues with those who hold different views. But that will be for another time and occasion. REACTIONS TO MISSION-ESTABLISHED CHURCHES Without a doubt, many people in the past several centuries came to faith in Christ through mission-established churches. Today, in many places, healthy churches are alive and well because of the outreach western mission societies put into practice. However, not all mission-established churches are healthy, reproducing institutions. (The same could be said for many western churches and other independent churches.) In the next section of this paper I would like to describe a number of reactions to the current state of affairs among mission-established churches. One of the most obvious reactions to mission-established churches is the phenomenon of the independent church movement. In East, Central and Southern Africa there are thousands of these movements. In 1973 David Barrett said there were at least ten thousand of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. 5 Since then many more have emerged. We know that in 1976 in Kenya a new one was born every two weeks. These churches were often a reaction to what was going on in mission-established churches. Often because of the low ceiling created by foreign people, many who came to Christ through missionestablished churches found that for their own self-respect they had to get out and begin something new and independent. The establishment of independent churches was one way to deal with the foreign leadership and foreign financial support of churches established by western mission societies. A second reaction to mission-established churches is something to which I referred above: the indigenous mission society movement. This is where some organizations in the West which primarily support "national workers" have essentially written off mission-established churches. They say that mission-established churches often did not become independent (or indigenous) and even more often, did not begin indigenous mission sending agencies of their own. This has caused those who support nationals with

8 western funding to write off mission-established churches as being associated with "colonialistic missions" and not worthy of the support they raise for so-called indigenous mission societies. However much we may disagree with their rationale and their tactics, they represent a major reaction to the problems that some of us know all too well among dependent mission-established churches. Obviously the conclusion to which they come is considerably different from mine. They write off mission-established churches as hopelessly unable to adapt and change. My point is that there is plenty of evidence that such churches can change and we are seeing it happen. A third reaction to mission-established churches comes from those who have a new enthusiasm for missions in England and North America but choose to bypass traditional western mission societies. They have learned that they can go out and establish direct links with churches in other parts of the world and relate directly to them. They have little interest in the work of traditional western mission societies. They send their own people on short-term mission trips and get directly involved in the life of the congregations in the big wide world of which we are all a part. Contacts with such churches are made by North American or European pastors who seek direct and dynamic partnerships. For them, western mission societies and their missionaries are an obstruction in the path to doing God s work as they understand it. Their mode of operation often results in direct financial support of those churches which they consider to be too poor to stand on their own two feet, and compassion drives them to help their brothers and sisters. Some of them have little or no understanding of the dynamics of the dependency syndrome which they are creating and/or perpetuating. This phenomenon is gaining momentum for several reasons. First, it provides direct involvement through short-term missions. As one of them said, "Our people not only want to pay and pray, they want to play " in other words, they want direct involvement. Second, their involvement does not take as huge an investment in western missionary couples as traditional mission societies. Third, it does not demand the lengthy and expensive training of full-time workers. In reality, this group most accurately fits what Dr. Ralph Winter calls the "amateurization" of mission. Their efforts are characterized by little or no cross-cultural training and, unfortunately sometimes, little cultural sensitivity. They do not believe that cross-cultural training is needed because for fifty weeks out of the year they let "nationals" do the evangelizing. Some who adopt this mode of operation have found that in a few short years they have created dependent churches and are already wondering how it could have happened. They have never been exposed to or thought through the implications of what it means for churches to be self-supporting. Forget the writings of Venn and Anderson. They probably never heard of the indigenous principle. If they did, they probably could not define it. In some cases, the financial dependency which develops may not be as significant as other forms of dependency which results. They seem pleased that the new churches with which they are now associated are similar in theology to theirs and they find it particularly pleasing when the new churches discover the same style of music that the partner church in the west is using. That is why I say the dependency they create is more than financial. (Of course, western theology and western music often characterize mission-established churches, as well.)

9 My own experience is that some western churches in this category have already had a rude awakening. A few have actually asked for assistance in how to nip in the bud the dependency they see developing. For others, it may take a while before they discover the need for cross-cultural training and become aware of what a truly indigenous church is. In the initial stages, those in this category are compassion driven. But more than that, they may be reacting against what they perceive to be a far too expensive traditional form of mission that of planting western mission-established churches. A final reaction is the course taken by many in mainline churches who have significantly changed their position toward mission-established churches. Some of then took the opportunity, particularly at the time of the moratorium in the early 1970s, to withdraw funding from mission-established churches. In addition, some were reacting to the growing feeling that overt preaching of the Gospel may be a violation of the respect which we should all have for those of other faiths. This has caused them to pull back from the cutting edge of church planting and opt for dialogue rather than evangelism. As evangelicals we would not agree with their reason for pulling back, but one ramification is the breathing space it sometimes affords the churches which were established. In terms of the move toward self-supporting churches, what they did for the wrong reason may have had an important side benefit - releasing churches to stand on their own two feet. For those committed to the spread of the Gospel, it provides the mission society an opportunity to move the scaffolding elsewhere. PROMOTING A MOVEMENT TOWARD SELF-RELIANCE Some time ago I began reflecting on what is involved in the development of a movement promoting self-reliance among mission-established institutions. You can read some of my thoughts on the WMA web site under the title "Reflections on the Development of a Self- Reliance Movement". I ll now mention several factors related to this. First, the growing interest in the subject warrants our considering how a movement might develop. A movement not to be confused with an institution or an organization can be a structureless emphasis in which like-minded people bring to the table what they have learned and share it for the benefit of others. This means that a movement thrives and grows like any organism on being fed. It can be fed with articles, audiocassettes, videotapes, sermons, books, pamphlets and other written and spoken materials. It is how ideas develop and are refined. The presentations made at this consultation are an important part of helping to feed the movement. The second observation is that the time is right for us to concentrate on this subject. I continually meet people who are concerned about the issue and want to work through the implications. No where is this more evident right now than among medical missionaries. The next consultation on dependency should be set up for medical people to discuss what they know about how to avoid or break the dependency syndrome, especially in large mission-established hospitals. I have been approached by medical missionaries in England, Africa and the USA who are ready to take a serious look at the dependency syndrome in medical circles. A few weeks ago (October 1999) I had the privilege of

10 addressing a group of medical doctors in our hometown (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) who are grappling with the most appropriate way to do medical missions in our day. Anyone interested in contributing to or participating in this kind of effort should let their interest be known. We have here Dr. Velma Lubbert of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod who is eager to meet like-minded colleagues. A top medical officer of the Salvation Army at their world headquarters in London is a ready and willing candidate to participate in such discussions. Another is a Kenyan medical doctor with a degree in theology and a PhD in tropical medicine who has committed himself to doing management seminars for church leaders because he believes it is in organizational management - not just medicine - that the solution lies for mission-established hospitals and clinics. A third observation is that the movement to which I am referring is not a call for an organization. The East African Revival has been going on for seventy years or more. They have citywide campaigns and still there is no office, budget or headquarters of that movement. What I foresee in a self-reliance movement is like-minded people who rally around the subject and make their contribution from their own platform, whatever that may be. Sharing ideas does not necessarily mean creating another structure. I heartily encourage all present here to consider how you might be able to encourage others with your writing and speaking, thereby helping to feed the movement. CONCLUSION I am enormously encouraged by the growing interest in this subject. There are any number of church leaders in mission-established churches who stand to benefit from discovering the key to breaking the dependency syndrome. Already we have seen dynamic examples of what happens when people are given a chance, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, to stand on their own two feet. Imagine the resources that could be released for world evangelization if this shift toward mobilizing local resources takes place. Not only will there be more resources to help get the job done, but those who provide the resources will discover the joy that far too often has gone to people far away. I am referring to us as westerners who jealously enjoyed the privilege which in fairness should have gone to others. If we can do anything to right that wrong, we will be making a major contribution to the Christian movement in our day. May God help us to do so. NOTES: 1 See Mission Frontiers November/December 1998! 2 International Bulletin of Missionary Research Vol. No 4, October 1999!3 See the article on the WMA web site entitled One Missionary s Encounter with Self-Reliance Thinking by Tim Michell!4 See Time Magazine December 4, 1995 pg. 108!5 See Schism and Renewal by David Barrett, Oxford University Press, 196