Mistakes in missions have a strange way of reproducing themselves. Take 'paternalism' as an example. In days gone by paternalism showed itself by the foreigner creating a dependency of nationals on foreign fmissionaries. Sometimes it was done with the best of intentions but it was still paternalism in the way that it created dependency on foreign leadership. We are now in a new day of missions where we have shed any vesture of colonialism and feeling quite proud of our models of equality and partnership. The fact is, we have come a long ways in living out the brotherhood of believers across cultural and national borders. But my question is, have we slipped into a 'new paternalism' not by making nationals dependent on our leadership but on our funding. Tens of thousands of evangelists in India receive their salaries from supporters in North America. Thousands of short-term teams go to majority world (Third-World by old terms) churches and paint walls or bring money for local projects with the best of intentions, but are still creating a dependency on the foreigners money.
So what has changed?
2 comments:
Yes, but foreign missions are such a good deal financially!! Here we have one million dollar building project after another on the same church "campus" in America. In India or Pakistan or other third world countries, we can build an entire church in a region without a church for a few thousand dollars. Instead of a pastor making six figures, we can support a foreign national for $30 a month. Isn't this just good stuardship?
You are right. It is a better deal with a lot more 'bang for your buck.' But we also need to consider what we are doing to the national church. It must be viewed as a partnership where they share in the costs. Even in the poorest of conditions unless they are contributing in some way they will not have ownership or self-respect, and when the roof leaks they will consider it our responsibility to fix it because we built it.
Post a Comment