Revisiting Self-Support in Mission or: The

Question of Sharing Resources Between

Churches
REC FOCUS - Vol. 1, Special Edition - April 2001

Prof. J.J. (Dons) Kritzinger

INTRODUCTION: THE SCENE IS SET

There are few challenges in the theory and practice of mission which
are of such recurring and abiding urgency as that of the (financial and
other) relations between the mission agencies and sending churches,
on the one hand, and the churches that grew from their mission
endeavors on the other.

To a certain extent this "problem" dates from as long ago as the time
of the apostles. One could also point at other instances from the early
mission history, both Catholic and Protestant where these relationships
were delicate. But mission-church relations most definitely became a
burning issue since the modern missionary movement of the 19th
century, when first Western mission agencies and later Western
churches actively started to send out (Protestant) missionaries to the
(later so-called) Third World.

The standard method used by these missionaries was the

establishment of mission stations. These "homes away from home"
were in the first instance necessary for the growing number of
missionaries to survive in the foreign and often unhealthy and
dangerous circumstances. Here they could live together and continue
with their lifestyles. But the mission stations also became home to the
first converts, who were either outlawed by their tribes, or were
attracted to this new way of living. Here the institutions, which the
missionaries deemed necessary for serving the indigenous people,
were established: schools, hospitals, workshops, trading stores. Here
the first church buildings were also erected. They became growth
points...centers of "civilization." The missionaries became important
and powerful figures, regarded as chiefs in their own right. They were
the "mayors" of some of the most important towns.

From these centers the missionaries initiated and continued their

church planting work. They became the "church fathers" of the young

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
church. The gospel was communicated in many different ways, but the
most important pioneers in this regard were the teacher-evangelists
who were trained in the upcoming schools on the mission stations.
These people were recruited from the first believers, and were usually
in full-time employment of the mission. In time they became the
leaders of local groups of Christians, given further training, and
ordained to become full-fledged ministers of religion. The young
church became an extension of the denomination at home.

The aspect that we should especially note in the context of our

argument is the fact that this approach was expensive, and that these
"mission churches" had almost no alternative but to continue the same
(expensive) model of ministry and buildings. This was more or less the
standard practice, at least up to the middle of the 20th century, when
it was in most cases too late to change the pattern. As van Houten
acknowledged with reference to the REC (Reformed Ecumenical
Council) churches:

Our larger and wealthier churches all had mission agencies that
heavily supported the younger and emerging churches and continued
to support them well into their own stages of independence (1992:2).

It took about half a century of intensive mission work with the

"mission station approach" – more or less in the middle of the 19th
century – before two perspective leaders of Western mission
organizations coined the "three selves" formula as a way forward out
of the quagmire of dependency. The goal for the foreign missions, they
said, was to plant "self-governing, self-supporting and self-
propagating" churches. Only when this goal of independence is
attained will the missions be able to withdraw and be freed to move on
to further pioneering ventures, they felt.

The ideal of self-government was not too difficult to reach. Admittedly,

it was usually a rough journey, with much misunderstanding along the
way, but the local leaders were available. They could take over. The
self-propagation just happened. The Holy Spirit continued the work.
The younger churches grew. Sometimes the growth was too fast to
handle. This growth usually happened without (or in spite of) the
missionaries. But the self-support...

Too often, one can almost say in all cases, the goal of self-support
proved to be unattainable. Since this goal was formulated, almost a
century and a half ago, it was one long, uphill struggle for the younger
churches to reach it. Although there are many examples of churches

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
which did attain that goal, there are not many among the "mission
churches" – those who were birthed by Western missions. Why?

I have argued elsewhere (1979:25-27) that there are basically two

reasons for the continued dependence of churches: the socio-economic
and the missio-economic.

The socio-economic reason deals with the social aspects of the church:
how the church and its ministry are viewed. Through a long process in
the West the pastor-minister became middle class: academic training,
competitive remuneration, housing and status. In the West this is
natural, because the church became – tragically enough – a middle
class institution. This concept of the ministry is however, too
expensive for a poor (African) community to finance. Another
expensive element is the buildings of the church. It is very difficult for
poor communities to erect a church building conforming to the
inherited ideal (steeple, and all that).

With the missio-economic reason for dependence I mean the fact that
the mission church is "loaded" with personnel and ministries. The
church is (correctly) seen as the agent through which the non-
Christian environment should be reached (1979:26). But the net effect
is that the church ends up with more paid personnel than necessary
for its own ministry.

The result of this is dependency, and dependency is like a cancer

eating away the health of the church. A continued dependence is
hazardous. It is fitting to quote the Old Testament prophet Hosea 7:8-
9 (Good News Version)

The Lord says: "The people of Israel are like a half-baked loaf of
bread. They rely on those around them and do not realize that this
reliance on foreigners has robbed them of their strength."

The apostle Paul, again, urges the Christians in Thessalonika to look

after their own affairs, to work with their own hands and earn their
own living.

In this way you will win the respect of those who are not believers,
and you will not have to depend on anyone for what you need (I
Thessalonians 4:11-12, Good News Version)

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
To be permanently dependent on the goodwill of others is certainly not
healthy. There is no way in which we can twist biblical principles into
acceptance of such an existence. With the umbilical cord still intact one
cannot even speak of a completed birth!

How to deal with this dependency and the relations between the givers
and the receivers is the subject of this paper. The 1996 Assembly of
the REC adopted as its priority that "the REC, especially in its policies
on the missionary and diaconal aspects of church life, take seriously
the inequality between its member churches in terms of economic
context and human and financial resources. To that goal the REC will
promote advocacy, development and sharing to the best of its
possibilities" (van Houten 1997a:7).

We will have to take this further.

TWO STATEMENTS OF AGREEMENT

The weight of the Biblical message underscores the obligation that
Christians as stewards should reach out to the poor and needy and
share their resources.

I am not going to argue this point here. Not only in the Old, but also in
the New Testament this is one of the themes that is ever present.
Those who are gifted by the Lord with ample resources have the
obligation to give, to share, to show through their benevolence that
they understand that "all good things come from heaven."

This message is of special importance in these days that (some, or

many) Christians are rich, and came to belong to some of the most
affluent societies on earth. Rich Christians are in real danger of
becoming worshiper of the "god of the good life" – becoming
consumed by consumerism. In this context, Boogaart (1999:2) feels,
tithing and giving is important as a "counter-cultural act."

One-sided dependence (the dependency syndrome) is as deadly a

phenomenon (disease) in nature as it is in the church body.

Don't take the following example to mean more than what is meant by
the illustration, but in the national parks in South Africa one often
finds the sign to the effect: "Don't be cruel by feeding the animals!" An
animal that becomes dependent on tourist handouts during the tourist
season cannot cope any more under normal circumstances. The irony
is that giving sometimes does more damage than good.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
This is also the case with people...and with churches.

THE CASE FOR (AND AGAINST) GIVING

(or: the roots and fruits of dependency)
The need to give

Turning again to the Biblical roots (the statement above): how can
Christians and Churches not give to those brothers and sisters in
need? Not only is there a need out there among the "have-nots," but
also the "haves" have a legitimate need to share. There is a Spirit-led
tendency to give.

Not only is this the inborn reaction of Christians, but the fact is that
there is globally, and usually in every country, a massive imbalance
between rich and poor. It is so important - even on humanitarian and
political grounds - that this gulf should be narrowed. Socialism and
Communism didn't succeed to do this. Capitalism seems to just widen
this gulf. What about Christian giving? Could this perhaps be a
direction to pursue?

The process we described above was made possible by exactly that:

sacrificial giving. Christian communities and individuals reached out,
giving themselves, and of themselves, to further the gospel. Many
gave their lives for the mission. Some died an early and tragic death;
many others gave a lifetime of service. This was made possible by
others who gave money, not all out of affluence, but nevertheless on a
scale that could not be matched by the receivers. This was wonderful.
But the giving created structures that were unsustainable.

How not to give

One should problematize giving. Not all giving is helpful in the long
run. The traditional ways of missionary giving were not only
paternalistic, but also unfair.

Missionary giving was in the first place for missionaries. Missionaries

went out with support that was usually not nearly at the level that
their fellow pastors received at home. They thought of themselves as
living a sacrificial lifestyle. However, they usually had an unfair
advantage over against their indigenous colleagues in the "mission
field". There they were regarded as the richest of the rich. What a
predicament... caused by Christian giving!

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
In 1991 Jonathan Bonk published the book Missions and Money.
Affluence as a Western missionary problem. "A basic argument of this
book", Walbert Buhlmann says in his Forward to the book (1991:ix), is
that an imbalance in the relative wealth in evangelizer-missionaries
and those among whom they work distorts the transmission and
inculturation of the Gospel.

Bonk himself states:

It will be the argument of this book that this insular prosperity, while
enabling the Western Church to engage in numerous expensive,
efficient, and even useful activities overseas, has an inherent tendency
to isolate missionaries from the cutting edge of missionary endeavor,
rendering much of their effort either unproductive or
counterproductive, or sometimes both (Bonk 1991:xix).

Missionaries usually lived and functioned in a way which was far above
the possibilities of the local pastors and church leaders. They assisted
the people in ways that could not be emulated by their indigenous
colleagues (transport, financial incentives, bursaries, etc.). They
impressed them with technology that was out of reach of the local
pastors. They made the indigenous leaders appear second class. This
sometimes caused jealousy and resentment. This giving is unfair.

In the second place missionary giving was to the young churches.

What started off as giving to missions, developed into subsidizing the
work of the young church. It was well-meant, and destined for the
continuation of the (mission) work. This giving to the church was,
however, usually paternalistic, because it was in the form of hand-
outs. The young Christians were not expected to contribute anything,
let alone to reciprocate. As a matter of fact, they were not allowed to
take responsibility, because the church and its institutions belonged to
"the mission". These subsidies and grants were easy money for the
church. But it also meant control: "he who pays the piper calls the
tune." It was condescending. It therefore led to dependence.

To give solely out of sympathy, or your own need to give, is simply not
good enough. It usually leads to unwanted results. In fact, it often
leads to jealousy and leadership struggles over control of the money...
and resentment, especially if the support is not sustained indefinitely
(see McQuilkin 1999:57). He continues:

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
... churches and church leaders that secure a financial pipeline to the
United States soon become mired in an ecclesiastical welfare state...
(they) tend to depend neither on God nor on themselves... (they)
become preoccupied with raising North American funds...

McQuilkin (1999:57) quotes Jerry Rankin of the Southern Baptist

convention:

"One thing inevitably occurs when North Americans subsidize the work
of churches and pastors on the mission field: potential growth is
stalled because of a mind-set that it can't be done unless an overseas
benefactor provides the funds".

This mind-set was never intended by the givers. They wanted to serve
the Lord (and the church) with their giving. They intended to help
extend the Kingdom. But their pious dreams often became nightmares
of broken relationships and nasty struggles. The fact is "giving can be
taking" if it does not "encourage true discipleship, produce a spirit of
sacrificial giving, of responsible ownership of the ministry, a greater
reliance on God, an attitude of genuine gratitude among the
recipients" (McQuilkin 1999:58).

Donors begin to realize that they committed serious mistakes.

Paternalism inevitably leads to tragedy. Kindness can be cruel, they
realize. But how to get out of this situation? This is not at all easy.

How to get out of the dependency mode

"Does money today so obfuscate interchurch relations as to distort the

gospel? For both members of long established and younger churches?"
is the serious question of a seasoned missionary leader (Buhlmann, in
Bonk 1991:xii-xiii). The problem is that money has to do with power.
This area is "political", it is all about power play. Van Houten (I 997a:
10-11) reviews a book by a certain Taylor who describes three basic
ways in which power relationships between churches have been dealt
with in the ecumenical movement:

1. Moratorium... (the end to giving and receiving)

2. Block grants... (a new way of giving)

3. Sharing of decisions... (we will get to that in the next paragraph).

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
The first strategy is to put an end to the financial relations. One
possible approach is to stop all giving. Glenn Schwartz of World
Mission Associates is well-known for his hardline approach. He is so
convinced of the dangers of dependency that he prescribes the bitter
medicine. And he gives examples of the success of this strategy.

When this route is initiated by the donor, however, it is nothing but an

extreme form of paternalism. You have burned your fingers, now you
stop the music. It is like running away from your own shadow. It will
not succeed. Much damage will also be done in the process... to
projects, relations, reputations, credibility.

The usual way to stop funding the young church is the (unilateral)
decision to commence with a "sliding scale". The contributions are
phased out over a 3 or 4 or 5 year period. The intention may be to
assist in the attainment of self-support, but the effect is, like someone
said, the same as when it is decided to cut a dog's tail one cm at a
time! It is cruel. Bob Finley, a mission leader, feels that this is also
dishonest: why is it OK that mission sending bodies get their funds
from far and wide, but the young church is not allowed to do so (Finley
1999:73-74)?

Or all receiving could be terminated! This initiative comes from the

receiving end. Although not without relational problems, this could be
seen in a positive light. The examples that Schwartz quotes are from
cases where the younger church leaders themselves took the bull by
the horns and refused receiving any further donations from outside.
This is not paternalism, but a sign of maturity. These interventions are
in the tradition of the famous (or is it infamous?) moratorium call of
the 1970s. John Gatu, Presbyterian leader from Kenya, appealed to all
Western mission organizations, churches and donors to refrain, for an
indefinite period, from sending any money or personnel to Africa.
Although the moratorium never fully materialized, the message came
through very clearly: allow us to be ourselves. It was a strong reaction
against the kind of giving that enslaves.

Another way in which the problem is dealt with is to step up control. A

more rigid system of reporting and evaluation is introduced. Money is
only given on receipt of sufficient evidence that it is needed, and that
the church is already doing its best to fund the ministry. But this can
be another paternalistic way to order relationships. This is especially

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
happening, says Ted Ward (1999:149), where local churches become
involved in the funding of overseas projects. He calls this "budgetary
tyranny", and warns: "Surely, responsible handling of resources
dedicated to God requires vigilance, but God is not honored when
control is a stronger value than trust".

In a recent article Fabian Dapila reported on an interesting comparison

he made between the situation of the Roman Catholic Church and the
Evangelical Church in Lesotho. He says: "Economic independence for
African Churches is not a fantasy. It has been attained in the past..."
(Dapila 1998/9:7), and

"...this article takes issue against an argument that is commonly put

forth in this regard, namely, that the 'younger', African churches have
been unable to mature because their socioeconomic environment was
not taken into account... Using Lesotho as a case study, the author will
opine that the economic dependence of African Christianity on the
West is of its own making. It will further be argued that blaming the
financial dependence of African Christianity on the Western world is a
ploy to divert attention from the real problem ' (Dapila 1998/9:2).

What is this "real problem"? It seems as if he wants to say - and I

would like to return to this question - "churches in Africa need to be
courageous enough to dismantle structures that do not positively
contribute to their economic growth, and set up more appropriate
ones."

It is appropriate to give attention to the third strategy of Taylor:

sharing decisions.

THE CASE FOR (REAL) SHARING

(or: towards true mutuality)
One should actually table an objection to all the attention given to the
struggle for self-sufficiency. For the above reasons it is important to
speak about this, but the danger of a doubtful ecclesiology lurks in the
background. What makes a church a church? Too much attention to
independence is not theologically tenable. The liberation approach of
moratorium and confrontation carries with it an over-emphasis on
independence. It may also foster a church practice which is in the end
unbiblical with its obsession with money matters. The essence of
church life is giving and receiving.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
As Van Houten (1997b:4) correctly states: "Dependency is not finally
about money. It is a spiritual question. What kind of church are we
making? Is it a church of the members or of the missionaries"?

It is, on the other hand, also necessary to deal with the incessant
problem of paternalism. Saayman thinks the problem is theological:
there wasn't enough attention given to "a more encompassing
missionary ecclesiology" in the post-colonial era. He refers to the
attempt of Jansen Schoonhoven (1977) to develop the notion of
interdependence, but feels that the debate didn't progress much
further (2000:5). What is at stake is "true mutuality."

What is at stake in the problem we are dealing with, is what was

earlier called "development", the eradication of poverty, and the
fostering of mature relations between individuals and communities.
But it is a good thing that the concept of development, which became
so identified with a paternalistic better-than-thou attitude, is not used
here. The emphasis should be on the more reciprocal "sharing".

In 1996 the Assembly of the REC adopted as its priority that

"the REC, especially in its policies on the missionary and diaconal

aspects of church life, take seriously the inequality between its
member churches in terms of economic context and human and
financial resources. To that goal the REC will promote advocacy,
development and sharing to the best of its possibilities" (Van Houten
1997a: 7).

The deliberations at the 2000 meetings follow this up. We should (a)
note 'The inequality" (materially speaking) between the member
churches, and (b) explore the concepts of "advocacy, development and
sharing" which were mentioned as possible directions to take.

I would like to do it in three ways: first to place the issue of inequality

into its wider context of globalization, and to re-state the real issue:
that of (material) poverty amidst affluence; secondly to look at the
challenge of restructuring; and thirdly to indicate some practical and
wise ways of sharing resources. (I will not expand on the concepts of
advocacy and development.)

1. Globalization and the specter of rich and poor

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Globalization is the current term describing the interlocking of the
economies of all countries of the world. It is not only describing the
reality that the isolation which some economies suffered (or enjoyed?)
in the past came to an end. It is also the name for a new ideology, the
ideology of a free market. Who is benefitting from this ideology?
Naturally those who were there first, those with the economic muscle
and the ability to enter the "free markets" of the world! These
powerful players made the rules for the game: all countries have to
play it the way they (the rich countries) are used to. Globalization is –
to put it bluntly – the face of imperialism and colonialism today.

However, the other side of globalization is that it is not easy any more
to hide the inequalities. Even on political and economic level the rich
cannot just ignore the poor. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa,
enjoined the G7 countries of the North not to forget Africa and its
woes, and used Biblical terminology: "be your brother's keeper." In a
sense globalization also indicates a global "brotherhood," it sounds
nice, but in practice the relations come close to paternalism.

The theory is that globalization will lead to a more egalitarian

society...the traders will all benefit in the open market. This doesn't
seem to happen. I give one example, from Africa.

...of the estimated sub-Saharan African population of 580 million in

1995, 220 million fell beneath the poverty line... of US$1 per person
per day. This had risen from an estimated 180 million persons in
1987... These (and other) generally depressing figures obviously raise
questions about the efficacy of the stabilization and structural
adjustment programs which began to be applied in African countries
from the early 1980s onwards..." (Belshaw 1999:116).

It seems as if the poor get poorer and the rich richer.

This is the context in which our theme must be discussed. The

inequality between churches is not just a micro problem, but part of a
much larger picture. Does it help, and is it fair, in such a situation to
just cut off help to the poor? Isn't there a more inclusive challenge
that must be dealt with? These, and other compelling arguments form
the basis for the church's actions on a macro economic level. The
Jubilee initiative is a good example of this.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
One cannot and should not ignore the wider issues. They are real. I
would, however, like to recall the words of Eddie Bruwer who, at the
1996 REC conference on Development, said the following:

"After the high temperatures of slavery, colonialism, racism, and the

era of the angry prophets, it is now necessary to move down to the
small world of people with almost no public profile. The micro-world is
the world with less publicity and closer to the grass roots, where our
presence could mean something to people who are in search of
brothers and sisters to support them at a level that makes sense to
them... This is the real place for the Church. This is the Galilee where
Jesus would have spent the most profitable three years of his life,
telling the people not to publicize what happens" (Bruwer 1996: 11).

The church can get so caught up in the macro-economic struggles that

the specific issues of relations between churches and people on the
ground do not get the attention they deserve. The solution to the
problem of inequality must (also) be found in the context of face-to-
face relationships and the sharing of decisions.

2. Restructuring

The first area which needs to be addressed in this one-to-one

relationship is the challenge of restructuring. I again quote the Lesotho
example which Dapila (1998/9:18-20) analyzed:

... churches in Africa need to be courageous enough to dismantle

structures that do not positively contribute to their economic growth,
and set up more appropriate ones.

"...Whereas the Oblate missionaries tried to plant a Church within a

universal Church, the LEC set out to plant an unaffiliated Church...
Whereas the LEC trained its members to recognize the need to support
their own Church by using their own resources, the RCC excluded the
African Christians in their fund-raising activities and did not make
them feel responsible for the Church that was being, established...
self-government was made part of the evangelization process in the
LEC. The LEC missionaries had confidence in their converts - a
confidence motivated by the apartheid system in South Africa that
demonstrated a lack of confidence in Africans... The local LEC
members began practicing self-reliance from the Church's inception....
The RCC of Lesotho, on the other hand, was built on mistrust and lack
of confidence in Africans. Africans were seen as incapable of doing
anything for themselves... The decentralization of the RCC's funds
contributed to its economic retrogression..."

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
What I am proposing is a return to the (reformed) view of the local
church as the essential expression of church life, a return to the micro
structures. Why is the local church (on congregational or synodical
level) dependent on outside sources? Are there not cheaper (more
realistic, indigenous, contextual) ways of being church? This discussion
will have to be theological (ecclesiological: emphasis on the Body, the
ministry of the laity, etc.), but will also have to be practical and
strategic (the shape of theological or leadership training, the form and
status of synodical structures, etc.). The discussion will have to return
to the basics.

The British economist Schumacher, especially known for his expression

"small is beautiful," visited the Transkei (South Africa) in 1970. He
reminded the audience of the bankruptcy of the big donor approach to
development. The poor have somehow to pull themselves up by their
own boot-straps, he said. "But the real problem is that they usually
don't have boot-straps. And so there does remain something to be
done to supply them with the boot-straps..." And what would these
boot-straps be? He said: appropriate knowledge. He emphasized:
communities have the answers. They only have to be freed
(empowered) to develop their own answers (Schumacher 1970).

It seems as if this small-scale approach is getting new attention.

Looking at the apparent failure of the present approach to help Africa,
Belshaw (1999:119) sees the church's role in this direction:

"Christian advocacy and example in favor of prioritizing the small-

scale, farm-based strategy should take place on an increased scale in
the short-term, it is suggested, before the donor-preferred strategy
gathers momentum and becomes reformable only at much greater
cost in future".

These are the kind of issues which should be discussed in a context of

a sympathetic relationships.

3. Practical ways of sharing

It seems as if sharing - sharing in decisions, sharing resources - is the

way to go. This sharing has usually been linked with the concepts of
mutuality, equality or partnership. The theory of the matter is in place.
Already in 1988 the REC Assembly meeting in Harare emphasized that

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Sharing by the rich with the poor is not simply a matter of mercy, but
also of justice.

Sharing should neither create nor perpetuate dependence, but

promote self- reliance and foster independence.

Sharing of resources is a matter of mutual arrangement, so that both

donor and recipient are accountable.

No project should be funded entirely from outside sources.

Both the receiving church and the giving churches should be giving in
proportions agreed to under the application procedure... (Van Houten
1997a: 14).

The theory, as I said, is not unknown. However, ten years later the
general secretary of the REC confessed that, despite all the theory, "it
has been extremely difficult to implement these ideas in a meaningful
way" (Van Houten 1997a:9).

The problem is the practical implementation of these insights. I want

to end the paper by referring to some practical guidelines on this kind
of sharing.

To me the crux of the matter is human relationships: without

meaningful, understanding, personal relations the necessary bilateral
sharing will not work. This is the start of "Liberating Development",
says Bruwer (1996:1 1):

"Practically speaking, Liberating Development follows this process:

It starts with learning (listening) by the person who accompanies the

process. To listen and observe is a precondition for teaching and help.

Secondly, the community concerned is encouraged to think through a

specific problem in their own situation by talking with one another.
Talking, about a problem means identifying the problem, which is
already the start of the solution.

Thirdly, the community must decide what kind of teaching, information

or input is needed...

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Fourthly, every new input, information or teaching has to be rolled
over into organization, to transform decisions and information into
action.

After action the process starts all over again..."

This a time-consuming, but profitable process.

Through this process practical steps may crystallize. One example of

such steps - which may not be acceptable in all contexts - is related by
Abe Vreeke out of Nigeria. Here the question is to what extent the
Christian Reformed World Missions should continue to resource the
Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria with personnel and money.<

1. Maintain "mother" "daughter" relationships at denominational

levels...

2. Pull out of "internal" ministries... such as seminaries, Bible schools,

youth programs and educational projects such as Sunday School,
catechism, and literacy classes... If a daughter church cannot find the
personnel or resources to maintain certain ministries, it might be
better for these ministries to cease functioning...

3. Pull out of "local" evangelism projects... it might be better for the

church and mission to identify the boundaries of the outreach ministry
the daughter church can and should support on its own...

4. Partner to reach beyond geographic and ethnic borders... it is

imperative that the national church is able to come to the partnership
relationship as an independent denomination free from foreign
financial and missionary dependence..." (Vreeke 1997:7-10).

Here is the possibility of difference of opinion. The intention is clearly

to help the local church to take control of its own affairs, but also to
ensure continued involvement by the missionaries. It may or it may
not be acceptable.

On the one hand there is the principle formulated by Robertson

McQuilkin (I 999:59):

"The primary commands and examples for giving money in the New
Testament center in one group: the poor... But I can find no instance,
let alone any command, to give towards the ministry of another church
... Certainly we send people, especially to cross unto unreached
frontiers... And we send money to assist the poor and disenfranchised

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
in our worldwide family. Beyond those two New Testament patterns, I
find not only no justification for supporting the ministry of other
churches but also great hazards in doing so".

He is willing (only) to supply money and people (a) in aid of poor

communities (not churches), and (b) further frontier missions.

On the other hand Bob Finley has no problem becoming involved in

providing financial support to indigenous ministries.

(It) is effective if a clear distinction is made between directly

supporting individual workers, on the one hand, and, on the other,
supporting such workers indirectly through indigenous mission boards
that give oversight to the handling of funds (Finley 1999:73).P>

These are the kind of differences which could only be sorted out when
there are real open discussions between the parties involved. The
precondition for success would be that time and effort be put in by
people who came to trust each other through a process of (spiritual)
sharing as brothers and sisters in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Roland 1960. Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? London:
Lutterworth (5th edition)

Belshaw, Deryke 1999. "Poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa in the

context of the decline of the welfare state: the strategic role of the
church." Transformation 16(4), 114-119.

Beyerhaus, Peter and Lefever, Henry. 1964 The Responsible Church

and the Foreign Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bonk, Jonathan J. 1991. Missions and Money. Affluence as a Western

Missionary Problem. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Boogaart, Thomas. 1999. "Tithing and Addiction." The Gospel and Our
Culture 11(3), 1-2.

Bosch, David J. 1978. "Towards true mutuality: exchanging the same

commodities or supplementing each other's needs?" Missiology: An
International Review 6(3), 283-296.

Bruwer, Eddie 1996. "Poverty, Dependence and Liberating

Development." Mission Bulletin 16(3/4), 4-19.

Cronjé, JM 1981. Subsidiëring van Jongkerke. Pretoria: ISWEN.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Dapila, Fabian N. 1998/9. "Girding the Eastern David in Saul's Armour
and Putting Saul's Sword in his Hands: The Economic Status of the
Lesotho Evangelical Church and the Roman Catholic Church in
Lesotho." Theologia Viatorum 25, 1-21.

Davis, J. Merle 1947. New Buildings on Old Foundations, A Handbook

on Stabilizing the Younger Churches in Their Environment. New York:
IMC.

Finley, Bob 1999. "Send dollars and sense. Why giving is often better
than going." Christianity Today, October 4, 73-75.

Hodges, ML 1953. The Indigenous Church. Springfield: Gospel

Publishing House.

Jansen Schoonhoven

Kritzinger, JJ 1979. ‘n Missionêre Bediening. Op weg na strukture vir ‘n

jong kerk. Pretoria: NGKB.

Kritzinger, JJ 1994. "Church and Buildings." Practical Theology in

South Africa 9(2), 192-200.

Kritzinger, JJ 1996. "Dependency and Independence. Perspectives on

the (expensive) way of being church." Practical Theology in South
Africa 11(1), 14-22.

Mbambo, Samuel 1996. "How does the rich church relate to the poor?
Mission Bulletin 16(3/4), 42-52.

McQuilkin, Robertson 1999. "Stop sending money! Breaking the cycle

of missions dependency." Christianity Today March 1, 57-59.

Nevius, John L. 1899. The Planting and Development of Missionary

Churches. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

REC 1997. "Church-to-church aid program. Information sheet." Mission

Bulletin 17(2), 14-16.

Saayman, Willem 2000. "Missionary by its very nature...": a time to

take stock." Forthcoming in Missionalia.

Schultze, Andrea 1999. "The Challenge of Jubilee to the situation of

Church land in Southern Africa today." IRM 350, 254-266.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Van Houten, Richard L. 1997a. "Sharing Resources in the REC."
Mission Bulletin 17(2), 2-13.

Van Houten, Richard L. 1997b. "Can you help us?" Mission Bulletin
17(4), 1-5.

Vreeke, Abe 1997. "When should a foreign mission agency leave?"

Mission Bulletin 17(4), 6-10.

Ward, Ted 1999. "Repositioning Mission Agencies for the Twenty-first

Century." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 23(4), 146-
153.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu