I know of nothing more injurious to mission work than going into a foreign country and promptly putting a host of workers on the American payroll. Nevertheless, it is a common mistake among mission workers.
To Pay Foreign Leaders?
-
1. The local people are often in desperate need. It is tempting because it seems so inexpensive and helps so many. Americans have been conditioned to think that money will solve any problem. How many of us have a desire to be rich? Most, I imagine. Why? Because we think it will cure all of our problems. It usually does not, but we think it will.
When I went into the mission field I was not rich in my own estimation, but to the Africans among whom I was then living I was very wealthy. They saw me as an American missionary with unlimited financial resources. We Americans may protest that we are not rich, but our new cars, fine clothes, and big houses are not very convincing to those who have nothing.
Someone once asked J. D. Rockefeller, “How much money is enough?”, to which he replied. “A little more.” How true that is in mission work. I have never known a missionary who did not need a little more money. He lives in a world where abject poverty abounds and needs cry out constantly. Guilt feelings about having money and possessions that others around him do not have may influence his thinking. The Scriptures he used in the past to apply to rich people now apply to him. He is now the One who can “fall into a temptation and a snare and into many foolish and hurtful lusts” (1 Timothy 6:9). He is now the camel that must get through the eye of the needle (Matthew 19:24). The need around him may prompt him to spend more than he has available. Putting a dozen people on his payroll will not end world poverty but he may find himself responsible for the wages and welfare of countless people. If this happens, he will find that he has more problems being “rich” than he had when he was poor.
I do not mean to imply that a missionary must be a stingy miser who is not interested in the legitimate needs of poor people. A miser will never be successful in mission work. What I mean to say is that a missionary must be able to accept his position as a rich foreigner without guilt, and use what he has in a reasonable way. If the missionary shows proper love and concern the foreign nationals will not resent “his riches.”
2. It creates rapid church growth. It is tempting to pay nationals because the initial growth is much more rapid. Obviously; a work will grow faster if one is paying a lot of people to do the work. Normally a work based on money will produce quicker and have greater early results, while a work based on self-support will be slower and have fewer results in the beginning. It is a proven fact, however, that a work based on foreign money will eventually stagnate and level off.
To illustrate the above point, consider what the Presbyterian church did in Korea many years ago. After being in Korea for several years they had 4,000 members, but growth had stopped. When they instigated a program based on self-sufficiency and self-support, membership initially dropped to 1,000 but fifteen years later reached 100,000. They experienced such growth because they no longer depended on a paid minority to do all the work; instead, all the church members were doing it.
3. It makes the work more easily controlled. Paying local leaders with foreign money is also tempting because it builds a work the missionary can easily control; if the native leaders do not stay in line, just cut off their pay. Obviously; this creates a situation where money determines authority. To the local people, as long as authority resides in the foreign missionary and his money; the work will remain a foreign work to them. The problem in this respect may be with the missionary himself and his temptation to create a personal empire which he protects and controls with money.
4.The system already exists. Local leaders are generally familiar with a system of previously established support. Consequently, it is tempting to continue with tradition.In most countries, the denominational churches have been there for many years and have instituted what is known as a paternal system of doing mission work. This is a method where a mission station or compound is established in a country and from it (or at it), their doctrine is preached, the poor are fed and clothed, the illiterate are educated, the sick are cared for, and native “pastors” are trained and paid. Almost everything is influenced by the missionary. He is responsible for training, benevolence, finance, and local decisions.
There is a paternalistic element in the Bible (1 Corinthians 4:14). The Apostle Paul brought the Corinthians to Christ and felt an obligation to them. He was their father in the faith, but he did not set up a system where they were reliant upon him for financing and benevolence.
Foreign Church Leaders
-
1. It leads to jealousy and dissatisfaction among church members. Those who are not paid by the American churches envy the one who is getting paid. If a native leader is separated from the people through excessive income, it will not only cause jealousy, but will destroy the effectiveness of the leader. The things that natives do to each other because of jealousy are unbelievable. I have seen houses burned down, children poisoned, property stolen and destroyed, bodies mutilated, and witchcraft used, all because of jealousy. There are few difficulties a missionary faces that are more complex and harder to solve than envy problems. Paying leaders will cause the problem quicker than anything I know
2.Paying foreign leaders leads to a never-ending and ever-expanding employment system. If it is necessary to pay someone to do a work in the first place, as the work expands new personnel will have to he paid to continue the work. It becomes a no pay, no work situation; money becomes the motive for preaching and growth. As a result, the work will never outgrow the money supply.
3.Paying foreign leaders tends to attract mercenary leadership, and creates a hireling system wherein money becomes the motivation, not the honest love for the Lord’s work. It also causes church members to view Godliness as gain. The message is, become a church leader and get rich.
4.The native church may think they are not responsible for paying their own preachers. Once a preacher is paid from America it is almost impossible to get the local churches to pay him. Anytime a missionary assumes responsibility for anything he will always have that responsibility. For example, a missionary in one African country raised funds to build a new church building. The nationals did not have the resources to pay the electric bill. They felt that the missionary had built the building and it was his responsibility to pay the electric bill. Today, that building is twenty years old, and to my knowledge the bill is still being paid with American money.
5.The leader who is getting foreign support may think he does not answer to the native church, but rather to the church in America. American money separates the national from his people in thought and sentiment. The result is that no one has control over him.
6.Paying foreign leaders tends to create a clergy-laity system that hinders the work of the unpaid laity. When money becomes the motivating factor, and the unpaid receive none, they are not motivated to work.
7.A foreign salary takes away the native leader’s freedom to function in his own society. He is paid by outsiders and if he does not please them he will lose his support. He is controlled by foreigners and cannot act as he may judge acceptable in his own culture.
8. A leader may think more highly of himself than he should if he is paid by an American church. Many people struggle with power, especially in underdeveloped countries. Pride may destroy the paid leader.
9.A foreign salary places the one being paid in an income bracket impossible for the local church to attain. Even if they were inclined to support the leader, they could never do it because his standard of living is too high. If the average month’s salary in an underdeveloped country is fifty dollars, and a leader is paid three hundred dollars a month from America, it would take years for the local wage scale to reach his American salary The economy would probably never develop to that point. The local church could never assume its responsibility.
It may become necessary to pay a translator, or perhaps someone to do office work. It may also become necessary to pay preachers to go into new areas, especially if they have to relocate. This, however, must be kept at a minimum.
Let me illustrate what I mean by minimum. In Malawi there are hundreds of churches and perhaps 40,000 church members. The work has spread from one end of the country to the other. There are approximately one hundred fifty preachers in the country yet only five of these are supported full time from America. During my stay in Malawi there were an additional fifty preachers who received $25 per year to pay their taxes and repair their bicycles. The entire amount of support from America was, and still is, about $9,000 per year. This is what I mean by keeping the support at a minimum.
There were over twelve hundred people baptized and twenty-five new congregations started in Malawi last year. The amazing thing is that the work has grown this way for years and years. By contrast, there are other countries in which we have labored nearly as long as in Malawi, but with far less success. In one particular country; the annual American support is over $100,000 per year; the growth rate has virtually come to a standstill. The most obvious difference is that the work in Malawi is not based upon the support of preachers, while the other is based almost entirely upon it.
I do not see how we can avoid paying those who work directly with a missionary or who are required to relocate, but there is no reason to pay most of the leaders or preachers in a foreign country.
Although it may be difficult to change a poor monetary system in mission work, there are some things that can be done.
First, greater effort should be put forth to teach foreign churches and leaders their responsibility in regard to self-support, self-propagation, and self-government. This will take longer in some places than in others. Second, we should plan more concrete methods to help foreign churches become self-supporting. Most of our foreign work just happens, it is rarely planned. At least, it is not planned on any kind of long term basis. Third, the wage scales in foreign countries should be investigated to see that the support is not excessive. We must not pay foreign leaders on a scale that indigenous churches can never reach. Last, more money should be directed towards encouraging maturity and self-sufficiency in foreign work rather than just maintaining the status quo.
In America there are churches that have been in existence longer than any of our foreign churches. Yet these American churches still need paid preachers to assist them. Perhaps we need to set our own house in order before we become too strict with our foreign brethren.
Those offices were started for the sole purpose of doing office work. They have never had authority over anyone, and certainly not over any churches. They are not a centralized headquarters which have control of all preachers and churches in Africa. Those offices are places where vast amounts of office work is done. Correspondence courses, church bulletins, study lessons, tracts, preacher’s certificates, church registrations, and a lot of other things are written, translated, printed and sent out of those offices. They were never meant to have, nor do they have, any kind of official authority.
Now what about those who work in the type of office described above? Is it scriptural for the church to pay someone to do that kind of work? I believe it is. (To my knowledge, none of the churches in Africa have ever hired anyone to work as an office assistant. The office work has always been done by preachers who are paid as preachers.)
If the church is authorized to do mission (evangelistic) work at all, then it is authorized to spend money to accomplish that end. This is the same principle we have used to justify a congregation buying and maintaining a church building, buying grape juice, song books, Bibles, and countless other things.
The command to worship carries with it everything necessary to fulfill the command. This requires a place to worship. A church may borrow, rent, or buy such a place. It may also pay money for up-keep on it. This might include paying someone to repair the roof or mow the lawn, but all of it comes under the general command to worship. By the same reasoning, the command to preach the gospel could include paying someone to do office work in connection with preaching. I realize this principle can easily be abused, but it is one we often employ and have done so for years.
17 S.F. 23rd, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73129.
No comments:
Post a Comment