Money is a very powerful thing. Having money or access to money gives a certain power. The lack of adequate financial resources can make one feel helpless. Some Christian leaders are willing to give up a great deal in order to obtain the finances needed to live well, provide for their families, ministry, or have basic needs met. At times there is a compromising of values, strategies and ideals in order to obtain income. The lack of money can make one feel so desperate.
The
way in which we think about and use money is very, very important.
Jesus
said we could not serve both God and mammon (money). He also said to be on our
guard against all kinds of greed. He told us not to worry about material
things; food, clothing, etc. He told us that the Father knew what we
needed and would be faithful to give these things to us. But sometimes we
compromise to gain finances. And sometimes once we have enough money,
even in our generosity we use that money inappropriately.
In
my leadership role in South Asia, I've been talking a lot about two words
related to money and missions. One is the word dependency, the other is
paternalism. In this article, let’s talk a bit more about these two
words. Dependency is when we develop an unhealthy relationship with a
donor where we start to look to them as the supplier of our needs rather than
to God. Who is responsible for the problem of dependency? Is it the
donor, or the person receiving the money? I believe both are responsible
for allowing dependency, though the greater responsibility is on the
donor.
Many
times dependency happens without our realizing it. We give out of the
goodness of our hearts, wanting to help. We give without thinking through
the long term consequences. We don't ask the right questions of the
situation. We don't ask whether or not our giving truly helps the person
receiving the money to grow in dignity, faith, and to be what God has called
them to be. Sometimes our giving makes them weaker and puts them in a place
where they need you, the donor, in order to survive.
Giving
and receiving is biblical. It’s right. But giving when it causes
someone to look to you instead of God takes them away from Him, rather than
pushing them toward Him. This doesn't help them, it hurts them.
As
a missionary serving in Asia for the past 20 years I've faced many, many
situations where I was presented with a need where my giving could either help
or hurt. I've made a lot of mistakes. Sometimes I've given and caused
dependency, where those I gave to started to look to me as their source of help
instead of God. Sometimes I've given and then used the power over them
which my giving created, to make them do what I wanted them to do. It was
never obvious or out in the open that I was doing that. Usually I was hardly
conscious of it. Using financial power over people to influence them is a very
subtle, but dangerous form of control.
Let
me describe a hypothetical situation to make it clearer. Let's say I’m
teaching about church planting movements (cpm) and that is my passion. I
really want everyone to be as excited about CPMs as I am and to embrace that
strategy. I really believe in this strategy and think it is the most effective
way to reach the unreached. So I meet an Indian DTS student and we become
friends. I can see they have potential. I decide to help them do an
SOFM so I finance their DTS fees. They later want to get married, so I
help provide a lot of the money for the wedding. They see me as their older
sister. They love and appreciate me. But God is calling them to work with
Kings Kids (Children's ministry), not to be involved in CPMs. They share
their vision with me, but I'm not excited about that vision. I had a lot
of hope that they would work in church planting and do SOFM.
I'm
faced with a choice. Will I use my financial power to manipulate them and
cause them to stay in church planting where I want them? Or will I
release them to follow God's plans? It's very tempting here. I know
that because I've helped them so much financially, they will listen to me and
probably do what I tell them to do, especially if I offer to finance them as
they do it. If I offer to support them as they join a cp team, that is
probably what they will do, even though it’s not what they are called to do or
their vision. But we really need church planters! And it’s not
wrong for them to church plant. But it IS wrong to use money and
financial influence to control people.
So
what is the right thing to do here? Well, first is that they shouldn't be
dependent on me. My generosity could lead toward their looking to me instead of
God. Maybe I need to stop giving to them, and instead look for a donor
they can connect with directly rather than through me. Or maybe I need to
help them start an income generation project where they can make money and then
have control over it for themselves. This frees them to listen to God for
personally and do what He is saying, not feel they have to do what I am saying
as their rich and generous friend or elder “sister/didi”.
What
is the wrong thing to do here? The wrong thing to do is to offer them a
financial incentive to do what I want them to do. If for example, I
suggest that they join a church planting team and tell them that I will help
pay for their housing and food on that team, but that I'm sorry I can't help
them if they want to join Kings Kids. As long as they listen to me, do what I
think is best, and as long as they are loyal to me, they will receive financial
help from me. But if they start to have other visions and feel God is
leading them elsewhere then I will remove my help. This is unhealthy
dependency and using financial control to manipulate people.
It
is sometimes a fine line. Financial manipulation is not always
intentional. But make no mistake, it is still very dangerous. I'm
not saying that money that is given for one particular thing should be used for
other things. If, for example, there are resources given for Church
planters in South Asia, we can't give those to people who are working with
Kings Kids or DTS. It's not wrong to designate gifts for a particular
ministry. But it is wrong when you don't give people freedom to make
decisions on their own. It’s wrong when you cause them to have to do what you
want (consciously or unconsciously) because of your financial power over them.
It
is also dangerous to raise money for people and have the money always come
through you and to never connect those people to the donors directly.
Sometimes we do this because of language issues. We are Swedish and we
have a Bangladeshi staff who can't speak Swedish. We ask a church back
home to support them and so we have to be the person to communicate with them
because of language. This is not necessarily wrong (though it would be
better if you helped a Bangladeshi church you have relationship with to support
them if possible). But it can become wrong if you take the full
responsibility for all communications and if you do not allow them access to
the church directly. Then you have control. This is true even if
you never touch that money and it all goes through your office staff, etc.
In
these kinds of situations, we as missionaries and leaders have made many, many
mistakes. We give them the money from the church, we write the reports
back to the church, and the local missionary never learns how to interact
appropriately with donors. We are making them handicapped, not truly helping
them except with their immediate need. This is dependency. If we
leave, or if we get angry with them or our relationship with them somehow is
damaged, then they lose their support.
Instead,
we need to connect them directly and let that church truly become their
supporter. We must teach them how to relate to the church in a good
way. We can teach them how to write newsletters in Bangla and then
translate them for them into English or Swedish. But the responsibility
to write is theirs. If they don't write, then no report goes. If no
report goes, they may lose their support. But then they learn that
communication with donors is important if you want to keep donors- an important
lesson that actually empowers them.
Never
do something for them that they can do themselves. If they don't know how to do
something, teach them. Don't assume that they can't learn or take
responsibility. Don't treat them like a child who is incapable of doing
anything. This is paternalism- when we take the role of a parent with an
adult and treat them as a child. We take care of them and do things for them
that they are actually capable of doing themselves. This does not help
and in the long run it could make them weak and handicapped.
Whether
you are a foreigner or an Indian, Nepali or Bangladeshi, we all need to be very
careful about how we both receive money, how we give it and out and how
we raise it for others. It is very easy to create dependency and hurt
those we are actually trying to help.
Some
questions to discuss:
1)
Have you seen examples of dependency or paternalism around you?
2)
How can we avoid becoming dependent or creating dependency in others we give
to?
3) What is paternalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment