Avoiding or Overcoming
Dependency in Cross-Cultural
Church Planting [1]

by Glenn J. Schwartz

INTRODUCTION

To say that there is more than one way to do cross-cultural church planting would be a considerable understatement.  Consider, for example, the following successful church planting effort.

An African American shop foreman, Mr. R, decided to take an evening course in theological education.  This was in addition to his six ten-hour days working in a factory.  The professor asked each one in the class to create and carry out a practical assignment as part of the coursework.  Mr. R decided that his project would be to plant a church in his spare time in fulfillment of the course requirement. 

He began by organizing a Bible study while continuing to work sixty hours in the manufacturing plant.  The Bible study grew into a congregation.  When I was first told about this church there were 350 people in attendance.  Mr. R was serving as the senior pastor – and still working sixty hours in the factory.  Obviously there was not an unhealthy dependency – even on the pastor.

Not all church planting efforts are this successful and encouraging.  In fact, some new congregations take many years to get on their own two feet.  It sometimes seems like they will never become self-supporting.

What follows is an effort to look at a few of the factors that result in healthy church planting.  Some consideration will be given to those practices which result in long-term dependency - with suggestions for resolution.

A PERSONAL WORD OF EXPERIENCE

As a missionary living and working in Zambia in the 1960s, it was my privilege to be involved in three different church plantings.  To my regret in one of them, I actually served as the first pastor.  That should have been the privilege of a local person.

One thing I learned very early on was the importance of identifying local resources.  In the second church planting in which I was involved, the matter of local resources surfaced at the very beginning.  The church people in the community asked us as missionaries to provide a building for them.  During the discussion the pastor from a nearby congregation listened to the request and interrupted by recounting his own experience.  The following is the story in his own words:

“Several years ago our congregation decided to build our own building.  We wanted to do it all with our own labor and at our own expense.  Our purpose was to be able to go to the larger conferences of the church and tell other people that ‘we built our own building at our own expense.’  However, the missionaries decided that we should accept their offer to put on a metal roof which they would pay for with missionary funds from overseas.  We reluctantly agreed and the missionaries actually came and put on the roof for us at their expense.  The result was that we could no longer say that we built our church building with our own resources.”  (I regret to say that I was one of the missionaries who went there that day and helped to put on that roof.) 

Upon hearing this pastor’s story that day in 1967, I determined that I should never again be part of taking away the privilege that rightly belongs to those who can and want to do things for themselves.  Little did I know at that time that three decades later my ministry would be primarily raising awareness about such well-intentioned efforts which, unfortunately, help to destroy local initiative.

PATTERNS IN CHURCH PLANTING

In church planting efforts, it is important to ask an important question from the beginning.  Is it intended that this new congregation will be like the congregation or denomination which has the vision to plant it?  Or, will this new congregation intentionally be planted among those who are culturally different?  If the population to be reached is different, is it a little different or very different?  These factors will have a bearing on which church planting approach is most appropriate.  This brings to mind the terminology E1, E2 and E3 introduced by Dr. Ralph Winter.  E1 is church planting among people just like us.  E2 is done among those who are near cultural neighbors (culturally) and E3 is done among those who are culturally very different from those with the vision to do the church planting. 

Dr. Winter put Hispanic church planting into the E2 category as near neighbors though that could be debatable.  But because of the cultural distance, Navajo church planting is clearly E3.  One could debate where lines should be drawn, but suffice it to say at this point that differences should be taken seriously.  In fact, even when language and culture seem on the surface to be the same, considerable differences might exist.  That is why more and more congregations in North America are including both traditional and contemporary options in their Sunday worship.  At first glance, both might appear to be E1, but clearly there are cultural differences and preferences to be considered.  Those who ignore this reality lose good people from their congregations unnecessarily.

In church planting there are cultural and financial implications depending on which choice is made.  Let’s begin with the cultural.  If E1 is the objective, it may be possible to take a significant number of people from an existing congregation in order to get the new congregation started.  They are already like the people they are trying to reach.  It might be decided that half of the congregation will go into the new church planting giving the new effort a financial jump-start.  Mature believers who are accustomed to contributing to the church will help to make financial viability a possibility very early on.  It is quite in order to begin an E1 church planting with a significant number of such outsiders. [2]

Church planting is not as straight forward if the new congregation being started is E2 or E3.  In this case, if the new church planting is to be like the society in which it is being planted, one will not want a significant number of outsiders coming onto the scene with customs and mores unlike the people who are to be reached.  To avoid this happening, one denomination in the USA decided that in E2 and E3 church plantings no more than two couples from an existing congregation should become part of the new church planting.  Hopefully the few who participate will be culturally sensitive as well.

Becoming aware of this principle in E2 or E3 situations has many ramifications.  In cross-cultural church planting one objective should be to ensure that the new congregation will have its own identity and not that of the outsiders.  Why is that identity so important?  It is to ensure that the new congregation will be a place for people in that society to feel at home.  Otherwise, potential members might get the feeling that they are joining something that belongs to someone else - and they would be right.

There are also significant financial implications regarding the planting of E2 and E3 congregations.  Decisions made in the early stages will determine whether the new congregation develops - or avoids - the pitfalls of dependency.

There are several finance-related factors to keep in mind in the early stages of E2 and E3 church planting. 

  • First, it is possible to encourage new congregations to develop their own financial base from the beginning.  This is critical, especially if a congregation does not have the jump-start from a significant number of people brought in from the outside. 
  • Second, a congregation which consists primarily of new believers needs to introduce the concept of Christian stewardship from the time of conversion.  If new believers begin a pattern of looking to others rather than to their own resources, then the dependency problem is on its way. 
  • A third implication is that without an adequate financial base, there will be little funding available to pay a pastor, provide a building or to send out missionaries. 

The health of the congregation for years to come could well be determined by what the leaders recommend and implement from the beginning.  In other words, there is no substitute for avoiding a spirit of dependency from the beginning.

THE IMPORTANCE OF OWNERSHIP

One of the more important factors to be considered in the early days of church planting is the issue of ownership.  If those who begin the process advocate local ownership from the beginning, the oftentimes messy process of transferring it later on can be avoided.  “Early ownership” might not be the quickest way to plant a new congregation; but for its long-term health, it is likely to be one of the most important.  For example, local owners who want to preserve their own dignity will not be looking to outsiders every time they want to develop another part of the project.  They will set their own agenda, which might include borrowing to build.  But, even borrowing will be an honest obligation which they will “own”. 

Ownership means that people in the new congregation will have something to say about who pastors them, how much that one is paid - if at all - and whether that person will hold other employment and for how long.  If outsiders decide those things from the beginning, the syndrome of dependency already has a foothold.

Local ownership has many implications: 

  • It means avoiding from the beginning a well-paid outside church planter that local people cannot afford.  The transition from outside to local funding for such a salary can become an enormous barrier to cross once it is established.
  • It means avoiding outsiders having pity on the new believers to the point that they think they have nothing worth giving back to God. 
  • It means stimulating new believers to have a vision of growth that will keep the blessing within their fellowship, rather than surrendering it to older, wealthier believers who live and worship somewhere else. 

AN ILLUSTRATION FROM EAST AFRICA

A church-planting story from East Africa will help to emphasize the point of starting out right and avoiding the spirit of dependency.  An African missionary was sent from his church in Nigeria to work in Tanzania.  He was given an air ticket and a small amount of money to get started.  Upon leaving Nigeria he was told, “This is all the money we have, so you will need to plant a church very quickly and teach the people to give because that is how you will be supported.”  That is a low-budget church planting strategy designed to avoid the problem of dependency.  I am happy to report that the Nigerian missionary was not in Tanzania very long until he started fourteen congregations - all without financial support from the outside.

This points to the importance of starting out right.  But, what about those who have inherited a dependency-ridden situation started by someone else a generation or two ago?  The problems that were created did not appear over night and, most likely, will not be resolved over night.  This means seeking for the leadership of the Holy Spirit and finding the route of spiritual renewal and spiritual growth in order to restore dignity to a congregation which should be able to stand on its own two feet. 

RAISING AWARENESS ABOUT EXISTING DEPENDENCY

Everyone involved in situations where dependency exists will need to become aware of how serious the problem is.  In fact, some people will need to be convinced that there is even a problem.  This results because there are those who don’t see any problem with one part of the body of Christ leaning on another – even for long periods of time.  After all, they rationalize that it is the responsibility of one part of the body to care for another.  In this case, the challenge will be for those who are dependent to realize that they too have an obligation and privilege to put back into the Christian movement some of what God has given to them.

There is another place where awareness about dependency will need to be raised.  Those who are perpetuating dependency through their good intentions are most likely getting a good feeling from the contribution they are making.  They too, will need to be convinced that long-term dependency is not healthy.  Experience has shown that there is hope for those on both sides of this fence – those who are dependent and those who are perpetuating the dependency.  In both cases awareness about the dangers and long-term implications will need to be raised if progress is to be made.

THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE MAGNIFICENCE OF THE SOLUTION

It is important to acknowledge the MAGNITUDE of the problem.  The following sketches show part of the picture: 

  • One small denomination in Pennsylvania planted a single congregation in Latin America.  Over the years the well-meaning people from Pennsylvania invested more than a million dollars in that one congregation.  More than that, the congregation could not seem to grow beyond fifty members – after a million dollars and more than a decade in existence. 
  • Another denomination planted many congregations among Latin Americans investing several million dollars.  They are still waiting for those congregations to become aware of their privilege of supporting the church planter who serves them.  Denominational leaders are frustrated by the lack of financial ownership reflected in the new congregations.
  • Someone calculated that congregations planted in Europe by American missionaries cost an average of a million dollars each.  They hardly ever grow beyond a hundred in attendance and are often pastored by the missionary who started them or a missionary successor.
  • Church planters going into the Former Soviet Union have created serious dependency in as little as two or three years.  Some are wringing their hands asking what to do now.  Sadly, some do not see it as a problem and are glad to make the funds available for as long as it takes.  One North American congregation just sent off a quarter of a million dollars for church buildings in the Former Soviet Union (FSU).

But this bleak picture is only part of the story.  What about the MAGNIFICENCE? 

  • An American mission society decided to do church planting in the Former Soviet Union.  Such awareness was raised regarding financial responsibility that the new believers offered to reimburse the missionaries for the expenses they had in bringing the Gospel to them.  That reflects the magnificence.
  • In another situation some two hundred congregations were planted in Papua New Guinea.  Twenty years after the founding of the church, some of the missionaries were already back in North America.  On the occasion of the twenty-year anniversary, the church in New Guinea sent air tickets to the missionaries in America inviting them to return for the celebration.  When they arrived in Port Moresby, local church leaders provided hotel accommodation and put into the missionaries’ hands some cash which they would need for meals while they were there.  That also reflects the magnificence.
  • In an E1 church planting in Pennsylvania a handful of believers met in rented facilities for more than a decade while they worked and prayed to build up the congregation.  They made a commitment to give away to mission projects outside their congregation ten percent of all the funds they raised toward their own building fund.  As they look upon their recently completed building, none would say that the road was easy.  However, they were careful to retain ownership of the process throughout.  They may have borrowed funds in the process, but always with the consciousness that “this church is ours and whatever is done must be handled by our own people”.

What can one conclude from events such as these?  It becomes clear that planting dependent churches is not inevitable.  The secret is to find out what principles can be put in place from the beginning to help avoid long-term dependency.

BUILDING THE CONCEPT OF SELF-SUPPORT INTO THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING

There is no substitute for avoiding the dependency mentality from the beginning.  The following are a few suggestions regarding how to lay a sound foundation early on.

  • Consider having a church planter who is earning a living just like the people in the congregation.  Mr. R, in my opening story, sent a powerful message when he kept his factory job and delegated the work of the congregation to those in attendance.  On the other hand, paying the pastor with outside funds makes people think that since he or she is being paid, then “the work of the church” belongs to the one being paid.
  • Consider rented or shared facilities for as long as it takes.  It helps to remember that the real Church is people, not improved real estate.  But how does a congregation compete for attendance when others have spacious and comfortable facilities?  Does it not come down to whether there is Life with an upper case L within the fellowship?  If that Life is present, there may be little competition from the place where the facilities are better but where Life is missing.  One of the ways to compensate for this in the early stages is to share facilities with those who have space to spare.  It may mean meeting at unusual times, but always with the aim of ensuring that the new congregation maintains it own identity and feels good about supporting itself.

SOMETHING NEW VERSUS RENEWAL

In some areas where new church plantings are undertaken there are existing buildings, perhaps with a paralyzed congregation in existence.  Such a congregation might not be growing and in fact could be dwindling.  Almost every denomination has congregations in this category.  Unfortunately, the rationale is sometimes, “Why waste a good pastor on a place like that?”

An alternative to assigning such a place to death or ineffectiveness would be to consider spiritual renewal.  It is important to remember that even that which is new will someday be in need of renewal.  Renewal should be acknowledged as a fact of life, as important in some circumstances, as beginning something new.

TAKE A LESSON FROM THE LIFE OF WILLIAM CAREY

Before William Carey went to India as a missionary he served as pastor of several congregations in England.  In a place called Harvey Lane, Carey faced a unique challenge.  He took over a congregation that was characterized by severe internal dissent.  They had gone through three pastors in as many years.  The congregation was said to be divided “three against two and two against three”.  Disputes included issues related to theology, among other things.  Following Carey’s short honeymoon period as the new pastor, the ugly reality became evident.  When it became clear that normal patterns of discipline would not resolve the situation, Carey embarked on a rather radical process.  He declared the congregation to be closed and only to be reopened after each member had an opportunity to declare his or her position based on Scriptural behavior.  Some found they could not bend to the new standard and did not return.  However, such a spirit of renewal followed that most responded to the challenge of the new beginning with repentance and renewed vigor.  The church set aside days of fasting and prayer and soon a new gallery was added to accommodate the crowds who gathered to worship at Harvey Lane. [3]

It could be that an existing building needs only the transformation of those present – with the possible exit of a few – to become the basis for what could become, in effect, a healthy new church planting.  Indeed a small building without a mortgage might already be in place.  Of course, visionary leadership is the key ingredient if either revitalization or a new church planting is to be successful in a location like that.  Without visionary leadership, both the existing congregation and any new church planting are doomed.

There is another alternative regarding the renewal of a stagnated congregation.  This would be to place a successful pastor, perhaps one capable of leading a much larger congregation, into that location.  At first thought, this might seem to be a waste of a good leader.  Of course, it is not a waste unless the existing unhealthy spirit of the old congregation is left unchallenged.  Or it might also be a waste if the location does not represent an available population on which to draw.  In that case, of course, one would not do a new church planting in such a location.

DEALING WITH DEPENDENCY WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTS

So far we have been primarily dealing with the idea of new church plantings or revitalizing older existing congregations.  What can be done about places where well-meaning people in a previous generation planted churches that are perpetually dependent on outsiders?  This is a complex issue and one to which there are no quick and easy answers.  So convinced am I of the complexity that I have produced an eight-hour video series in an attempt to deal with the issues. [4]  This is not the place to recount all that is said there, but I shall attempt to summarize a few of the principles for overcoming dependency.

WHERE DO THE BEST IDEAS FOR CHANGE ORIGINATE?

Where dependency is entrenched, there may be a desire for change on one side but not on the other.  If it exists on the side of those providing the outside resources, there are a few things that can be done to precipitate change.  Upon reflection one might be surprised at the number of options available to those who provide funding.  The following are a few suggestions:

  • First, there needs to be a willingness for attitude change on the part of the funders.  Sometimes they hold the idea that subsidy will be needed forever.  This assumption frequently fuels the dependency mentality.  Without a change at the assumption level there is little hope for change.
  • Second, there is no substitute for adopting a spirit of anticipation about eventual change.  One must begin to think about better days ahead.  One must look forward to a time when local people will joyfully stand on their own two feet.  During this process it will not be unusual for old feelings such as compassion, for example, to get in the way of real change.  Of course, if compassion is needed, it should be exercised.  How does the love of God dwell in those who have no compassion (I John 3:17)? 
  • Third, it may be necessary to ask whether inappropriate compassion exercised in the first place might be at the heart of the problem.  This may mean distinguishing between “relative poverty” and “absolute poverty”.  In cases of absolute poverty, someone must help or those in need may not survive.  In cases of relative poverty, people might not be as well off as those who are trying to help, but they may well have something to give back to God, if they choose to do so.  When that distinction is made, anticipation about better days ahead is certainly in order.  But anticipating better days ahead is only one of the steps that can be taken.
  • Fourth, It can be shown over and over again that those who seem to have nothing to give actually can give back to God from the little they do have.  In 2 Corinthians 8 we read about Macedonians who begged for the privilege of giving “out of severe trial and extreme poverty”.  And when that happens, the God who receives from them becomes their provider.  There are unbelievable stories out of refugee camps and other situations of poverty where one would assume that people live in absolute poverty, yet they joyfully find a way of giving back to God from what he has entrusted to them.  It is why the two small coins of the widow (Luke 21:2) represented so much by comparison.  We must take great care not to do our giving in a way that destroys that initiative to give, however meager it might seem to us.  It is an important reason to acknowledge the difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty.
  • Fifth, in addition to anticipating change, there is the importance of doing things that will precipitate change.  How can such change be precipitated?  Ideally, the decision to move away from dependency is best initiated by those who are dependent.  If initiating the process of change is by outsiders, it could well be perceived as another imposed solution from the outside.  Paternalistic decision-making may be what caused the problem in the first place. [5]

WHAT KIND OF THINGS CAN OUTSIDERS DO TO PRECIPITATE CHANGE?

  • First, if congregations are dependent because of the lack of spiritual maturity, then there is no other place to begin.  People who do not know the Lord or have a passion to serve Him are not likely to enjoy the benefits of being self-supporting.  Without spiritual renewal or even sermons on the new birth, it is unlikely that they will ever joyfully put enough into the church collection to sustain themselves, let alone reach out to others.  Both insiders and outsiders can preach such sermons.  The key is to recognize when the lack of true spirituality is at the root of the problem.
     
    The need for spiritual renewal points to one of the major things outsiders can do to precipitate change – that is to pray.  After all, this is a spiritual battle and no one is more pleased about the paralysis caused by dependency than Satan himself.  We are reminded that this Gospel is adequate to bring down strongholds (2 Cor 4:10). 
  • Second, it might be necessary to remind dependent people about the unreached wider world.  Assume for a moment that there is a cluster of congregations that could probably stand on their own two feet.  However, through the efforts of well-meaning outsiders, they allowed someone else to subsidize their congregations long after it should not have been necessary.  One could raise awareness about unreached people elsewhere and ask them to participate in reaching them.  One could also ask if it is right to continue to send funds to a place where the Gospel has been preached for a long time while others have not had the opportunity to hear it for the first time.
  • Third, those who hold the purse strings may need to examine their own attitude regarding the funding they provide.  For example, people who represent funding sources should recognize themselves as people of power.  They might precipitate change simply by declining to be present when local people engage in business discussions about the work of the church.  Gracefully declining to be present when decisions are made can send the message that we (as outsiders) do not need to be a controlling or even an influencing presence in local decision-making.  After all, is it not in those business meetings, when the funders are present, that the long lists of projects are brought out for consideration?  It can be shown that the very presence of a person of means in such meetings distorts the decision-making process.  Those present may be guarding their thoughts and words based on the fact that the funders might be offended.  That is why the solution might be precipitated when the funders simply decline the invitation to be present when local decisions are being made.  This is not always easy because such things provide real meaning in the life of the funder, unfortunately even if it creates or perpetuates dependency.
  • Fourth, another way to precipitate change is to help raise awareness about the availability of local resources.  This may be as simple as looking around at other churches or organizations functioning in the same area.  Some of them may never have had the problem of dependency.  Maybe they once had it, and now it is resolved.  One way to do this is to stimulate conversation regarding why not everyone has the problem of dependency.  This kind of investigation can be beneficial for both the funders as well as those trapped in dependency.  It is not unusual for resources to be within arm’s reach while people turn to those far away for subsidy. 
  • Fifth, it is helpful to remember that increasing income is only one way to move toward locally supported churches and other institutions.  Cutting expenses is the other way to help make something manageable.  This is important if outsiders created expensive projects such as buildings and programs that are only sustainable with outside resources.  Precipitating change in this kind of situation is tricky business.  But, it includes local people learning that they are free to close down expensive projects, even if they were the pet creation of well-meaning people who may or may not still be on the scene.  To avoid more paternalism, the decision to close down projects should not be made by outsiders - but granting permission to do so is certainly in the hands of the well-meaning creators of the problem - or their successors. [6]
  • Sixth, precipitating change can be done by making the vision of self-support the topic of sermons and other presentations at leadership conferences, retreats and annual general meetings.  Speakers can be asked to describe the problem as well as the challenges of overcoming it.  In my own experience conducting seminars on dependency over the past fifteen years, I have found that such conferences might not produce instantaneous change, but as those in attendance discuss the ideas later on, change does begin to occur.  The healthiest change might not be the abrupt change, but rather that which grows out of serious prayer and reflection over a period of time.  I have been both astounded and gratified to hear what decisions were taken sometimes a year or more after we conducted a seminar on dependency.  I should add that I have seen instantaneous change occur.  On one occasion in Mozambique before a two-day seminar ended, local pastors publicly confessed their dependency on outsiders and then formed a local committee to send out their first missionary.  Since then, they have sent out several missionaries after not having done so in the first eighty years of having the Gospel preached among them.  We must not conclude that the process of dependency must go on forever. 

INITIATING A PROCESS OF CHANGE 

Professor Alan Tippett used to say that if outsiders created financial problems among mission-established churches, they should not simply walk away as if they have no responsibility. 

  • First, recognizing the role outsiders had in creating the situation would be a positive step. 
  • Second, engaging in frank discussions about the current situation may be necessary to get the ball rolling. 
  • Third, it may take some humility to acknowledge that the altruism of outsiders is behind the dependency. 
  • Fourth, seeking the counsel of local people in solving the problem is an essential step in the right direction.  This helps to break the pattern of paternalism which is what local people might sense if there is another solution imposed from the outside. 

WHAT ABOUT THE HIGHLY PAID LOCAL PERSON WHO IS IN FOREIGN PAY?

As churches are planted and local people assume positions of pastoral leadership, hopefully the ideal of self-supporting local congregations will develop early on.  Sooner or later the salary of an outside paid church planter will become a concern.  This is particularly true if the church planter - such as a missionary - is paid an inordinately high salary compared to what local pastors are able to get from their own congregations. 

At this point great care must be exercised in dealing with the disparity.  Unfortunately, it is not unusual for church planting missionaries to serve as pastors of one or more of the churches they plant.  Then there comes the time for a local person to take over the congregation or the position.  Of course, it is assumed that the outsider’s salary will not be transferred to the new local person.  The local congregation, having benefited from outside support of their missionary pastor or church planter, may resent having to pay the local pastor who is chosen to replace them.  This is not a pleasant place for a new local pastor to step in.  One such local pastor in Tanzania told me about his dilemma.  He said that his congregation told him to go find his salary at the same place as the missionary.  This reflects how serious the dependency mentality can be when it is not avoided from the beginning.  It takes a little Christian grace, patience and some re-education to work through the implications.

Mission administrators who recognize such unhealthy dependency would do well to nip it in the bud before it becomes a way of life.  Such a highly paid church planter or pastor paid from the outside might well be redeployed to another location at some distance.  Conversations should begin about how to engage a local church planter or pastor willing to live on a salary and expense account commensurate with local resources.  This is a complex subject that has implications for how missionaries are paid, where they put their weekly tithes and a host of other things too complex to deal with here.  If the highly paid church planter or pastor is willing to remain in position, then he or she should be prepared to disclose his or her personal financial situation and adapt to the local level of support.  In this way a potentially explosive situation might be avoided.  Suffice it to say, that allowing an unresolved disparity to continue might not be the healthiest for all concerned. 

HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD ONE ALLOW FOR CHANGE?

One might assume that healthy change from dependency to self-support could take a long period of time.  This may or may not be the case.  It is helpful to think about the issue of “readiness for change”.  Professor Tippett used to say that when the appropriate psychological moment for change comes, it should be seized without delay.  In fact, he said if that moment has arrived and is not recognized, the readiness for change may pass and a long hard struggle could follow.  How does one recognize the appropriate psychological moment for change?  Only those who are spiritually and culturally sensitive will be able to recognize the moment.  This is too complex a subject to deal with adequately here.  But it is one that certainly deserves attention if the time for change is right. [7]

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE IN INTERDEPENDENCE?

A word is in order about the globalization process at work in our fast-paced world.  It is not unusual in this day and age for North Americans to go throughout the world looking for those with whom they might link up as “partners in the Gospel”.  Sometimes this results in adopting existing independent churches into the North American denomination.  This might be called “church growth by acquisition”.

It is important to examine the reasons why this is done. 

  • First, such acquisition helps denominations grow at a faster rate than by normal church planting.  It certainly looks good on paper, especially for the giving constituency at home.
  • Second, the motivation might be that, as westerners, we can become the benefactors for those who are less well off.  In other words, this becomes a place for us – to put it crassly – to give our alms.  Giving alms is valid if the situation is characterized by absolute poverty, but highly questionable in cases of relative poverty – no matter how good it makes the donors feel. [8]
  • A third motivation might be that we are genuinely interested in helping those who seek an affiliation with other believers in order to demonstrate “oneness in the Gospel”.  Some use the term “interdependence” for this process.  In reality, given the economic disparity between the two parties – interdependency might not be the best term.  As wealthy westerners, we might need something that others have, but it may be a kind of medicine which is hard to swallow.  I am referring to the kind of humility and contrition that the rest of the world is waiting for us as Westerners to demonstrate.

One way to encourage oneness in the Gospel and real interdependence is the way it is described in East Africa.  Leaders of the self-reliance movement there have coined the term “local-local interdependence”.  Their point is that interdependence for the sake of the Gospel is a noble ideal, but it is best done between those who are more or less equals.  They say that if there are several clusters of churches in an area such as East Africa, the Caribbean or Central America, they might best demonstrate their oneness in the Gospel by sharing human and other resources with others in the area who are like them.  In other words, interdependence is healthier among equals living and working in the same region. 

How might this work?  One church might have a Bible Institute, another a building big enough for large conferences and yet others a campground or printing press.  Resources are then shared at the local level, oneness in the Gospel is demonstrated, and the Gospel of the Kingdom is shown to a waiting world simply by the unity which is displayed.  Consider for a moment the alternative.  If the only visible partnership is with wealthy churches overseas, the waiting and watching world might well become suspicious of what this Gospel is really about.

INTERDEPENDENCE AND LEVELS OF EXPECTATION

One of the problems with international relationships and interdependency has to do with levels of expectation.  It is natural for everyone to expect to get something out of such relationships.  Some clusters of churches identify with wealthy western partners in order to benefit financially.  Many dependency situations have roots in this kind of expectation. 

But there is another kind of expectation.  This is on the part of the wealthy or western churches which seek the linkage for their own benefit. [9]   They would like to see the new partners from other parts of the world “buy into” the psychological unity that we all believe should be part of the Christian Gospel.  But when that “buying in” fails to happen, people on both sides of the coin feel let down.  Wealthy westerners need to examine why it is hard for others to buy into psychological oneness with “our kind of people”. 

Why is it not enough for people to build their own ethnic identity or ethos as a church?  Why should they have to become like us, to enjoy our way of life, to fit into our way of worship or church administration?   This is one more reason to encourage churches in other parts of the world to find their fellowship and cooperation with those who are closer at hand.  The term I used above comes to mind – local-local interdependence.  We might be able to reduce anxiety on both sides if such expectations are lowered.  As much as we would like it to be that way, the way we do things just may not create “a place for others to feel at home”.

It might be helpful to try to understand what it is like for outsiders to try to fit into our kind of ethnic church which has developed its own unique identity.  Sometimes there is an unseen hand that makes outsiders feel that “belonging” is something they may never achieve.  For example, an Asian who married into an ethnic church in Pennsylvania did her best to fit in.  Of course, one hurdle for her was that she was considered somewhat exotic.  Such special attention is enough to give one an uneasy feeling.  But after some years of trying to fit in, she came to the following conclusion:  “I feel like I am interrupting a family reunion whenever I go to church gatherings.”

Some years ago I learned about a young couple living in Southern California who felt the unseen hand every time they went to church.  The congregation they attended was of Dutch (Holland) descent.  People in the congregation all spoke English, but they were not aware of the little cliques they formed following the Sunday service each week.  Their conversations were clearly for insiders and sometimes even the punch line of a funny story was in Dutch, not English.  That would be enough to make any outsider uncomfortable.  Outsiders simply laugh to be polite.

On one occasion this couple went home from the morning service and discussed their feelings during the noon meal, as had become their custom.  All of a sudden, the husband hit the table with his fist and said, “That’s it.  We’re staying; these people need us.”  Those in an ethnic church will sooner or later need to acknowledge the extent to which the unseen hand convinces outsiders that “this is not a place to feel at home”.  It becomes doubly important when those in an ethnic church seek to plant churches cross-culturally.  It can be done, but it is a challenge requiring cultural sensitivity, understanding and an awareness of how the process feels to those feel who are different.

CONCLUSION

There is plenty of evidence to show that church planting without causing dependency is possible.  Also dependency where it exists has been shown to be curable. [10]   However, in each case there may be a price to be paid.  First, it may include a generous dose of humility and cultural sensitivity.  Second, it might mean a serious time of reflection on how to get out of the current state of dependency in which congregations find themselves.  Third, it might mean serious hard work over a longer rather than shorter period of time.  Anyone looking for a quick and easy solution will probably be disappointed. 

There is one thing about which I am convinced.  I do not believe that seriously dependent churches are healthy, happy or honoring to the Lord.  Whatever can be done to avoid or lift the burden will be a merciful thing for all who are involved.

Glenn Schwartz
Executive Director
World Mission Associates
April 30, 2003

Note:  I welcome interaction with anyone who would like to discuss issues raised in this paper.  I can be contacted at the following address:

World Mission Associates
128 East Grant Street
Lancaster, PA  17602
Phone: (717) 299-1427
FAX: (717) 299-2943
E-Mail: GlennSchwartz@wmausa.org
Web Site: www.wmausa.org

Notes:

[1] This paper was originally prepared for the Leadership Council of the Brethren in Christ Church in April 2003.
[2] One side benefit of taking a significant number from the existing congregation is that it makes space for the original congregation to grow.  This is an alternative to building a new building each time the old one fills up.
[3] This story can be found in the book Faithful Witness:  The Life and Mission of William Carey by Timothy George (Christian History Institute, 1991) pp 27ff
[4] This series entitled Dependency Among Mission-Established Institutions: Exploring the Issues is available from World Mission Associates in three formats:  Video, audiocassette and audio CD-Rom.  Videos are available in NTSC, PAL and SECAM formats.
[5] About twenty-five years ago a colleague and I tried to counsel a friend who was obviously getting into difficulty through the way he tried to help people.  In defending himself, our friend made the following rather revealing statement: “How can you accuse me of paternalism. I treated these people like my own children and they did not appreciate it.”
[6] For many more suggestions on how to precipitate change toward healthy self-reliance see Lessons 7 and 8 of the WMA video series on dependency. Those lessons deal with what missionaries and local church leaders can do to avoid or resolve the problem of dependency?
[7] For further information on this, see Alan R. Tippett Verdict Theology in Missionary Theory.  Also, see Lesson 13 of the WMA video series on dependency.
[8] On giving alms, I recently learned about one perception in a West African Muslim country regarding the US invasion of Afghanistan.  The West Africans concluded that the USA needed a place to give their alms.  This was reinforced when the President of the United States put out a call for every child in America to give a dollar to help the children of Afghanistan.  Such may be other’s perception of what we think of as a generous act of compassion.
[9] Korean churches are finding similar problems as they become active in world evangelization – especially given the amount of money they have available for missions.  Nigerians who have changed the paradigm (as in my illustration above) will not find the problem to be as significant.
[10] For further information see the following article on the WMA web site:  Is there a Cure for Dependency among Mission-Established Institutions?  The web address is http://www.wmausa.org.