I really appreciated this article asking whether it is hypocrisy to ask locals to be self-supporting. The author makes some excellent points and is completely right to say, "dependency upon Western dollars is a major problem, undercutting the emergence of healthy churches in many places overseas and stunting local believers in their growth."
He is spot on in identifying that local aspiring leaders can sometimes be found on the look out for Western patrons and that when there is a weak (or non-existent) culture of giving among local believers, it becomes self-perpetuating.
The author says, "Foreign financial support, if attempted, must be done very carefully and wisely, always with an explicit vision toward self-supporting local churches." Agreed. Self-supporting local churches are the best way forward. He goes on to say, though, that while proven, mature workers are worthy of their wages but that their salary should either be locally-raised or part of a plan where it decreases over time, similar to church plants in the West. If Western money is to be invested, training local leaders to either start a business or find work can be a better use of resources.
Foreign financial support must be done with thought and care and with an aim of moving towards self-support. But I'd add one more important part.
Self-supporting local churches are the best way forward - where this is possible.
I know that there are some Western churches whose demographics make it nigh on impossible for them to become self-supporting. Stephen Kneale has written about how their church situation in northern England means that they need long term external partners. He lists four reasons why that is the case for them: who they're reaching; transient population; great physical need; and nobody else is there.
If I hope and expect that most churches and church plants in Western countries would become self-supporting at some point but understand that there are situations where that might not be the case, I should accept that similar situations may arise in other countries too.
Looking at the Bible, there is clearly a principle of teaching and encouraging sacrificial giving. But, as with many Biblical commands, we have freedom to use Spirit-given wisdom to determine how exactly to apply that.
While acknowledging that self-supporting local churches is the ideal, can we find room for an understanding that some churches in every country will need financial support from long term external partners? The key here has to be that they should be long term and partners. I'm not advocating pulling out the cheque book to give whatever is requested, no questions asked. Neither should money flow in with strict strings attached, where the givers decide how the money they give should be spent.
It should be a relationship, a true partnership in the Gospel where there is healthy sharing and accountability.
Let's imagine a situation. (You can decide how rooted in reality it may or may not be!). A local pastor is not locally supported. And looking around at his church, even if everyone was giving sacrificially, that would still not be enough. Every single one of the reasons Stephen Kneale lists in his article linked above would apply to that local fellowship. It's not primarily comprised of refugees and asylum seekers, but there are certainly some. Others do not have well-paying jobs or are students. The church membership is fairly transient too - many of those who come to faith and are baptised end up moving to other cities. This is usually for work but sometimes to gain greater freedom to be involved in church due to local family pressures. There's great physical need too. And there are no other churches in the city, or even remotely near to the city.
Yes, this pastor could go back to secular work. But after 5.5 days of secular work a week, and with a wife and family, would it be healthy and sustainable to ask him to pastor on top of that? He already has more work as a full-time pastor than he can handle alone, particularly as there are a large number of 'seekers' in both his city and neighbouring cities who come to him and want to investigate Christianity, and not a lot of people in the church practically and theologically able to help in this. He's been doing this role for a number of years too - long enough that he'd have moved out of any gradual step-down support plan by any Western timescales.
This local pastor's church have not got everything sorted perfectly in their fellowship. Like many other churches, there is more to be done in developing a sacrificial giving culture. There is also more to be done in establishing a healthy understanding that Western churches are not just a source of money to be tapped.
But a critical element of his external support is that it comes with in-country accountability. Twice a year, a small group of men meet with him and his wife. They are a mixture of fellow pastors from other cities and foreign workers who live and work in the country and who know him well. They have an honest conversation about what he's doing and how he's spending his time, how the church is doing, and a holistic look at how he and his family are doing. This type of on-the-ground accountability by people who know and care for him, as well as knowing the church and the culture, is a vital component of healthy, long-term external partnerships. The group act as a bridge between the external supporters and the local pastor. Working together in this way builds trust and provides reassurance that Western money is not being invested unwisely. This partnership model has worked well for a number of years and has provided this pastor with the spiritual, emotional and financial support to continue in ministry through some difficult periods. And there is Gospel fruit evident.
It's not hypocrisy to ask locals to be self-supporting. But if that's really not possible, might healthy long term partnerships be an alternative?
