It's Time To Get Serious About The
Cycle Of Dependency in Africa
by Glenn Scwartz
Some time
ago I learned about a missionary to Africa who gave more than 20
years of his life primarily to create and manage church-run businesses.
These were designed, among other things, to generate income to support
the church. Some ten years following his retirement he returned
to Africa to visit church leaders and other friends. To his dismay
he discovered that his greatest contribution as a missionary--a
church-run business--was now the church's biggest problem. That's
not my conclusion. It is what he was told by the church leaders
among whom he had worked.
In another case, a senior African leader of a rapidly growing denomination
lamented that he has no time to disciple new believers or train
the pastors who lead the churches. He said he rises daily to a long
list of activities that have little or nothing to do with the growth
of the church, adding that every major program was running an overdraft
at the bank: medical work, theological training, literature ministry,
and the farms left to the church from the colonial period. In exasperation
he asked what he should do.
These two examples illustrate a problem that has hindered the church
in East, Central and Southern Africa from joining the expanding
non- Western missionary movement. Non-western churches in places
such as India, Nigeria and Indonesia1 have started cross-cultural
agencies and training programs and sent out missionaries. However,
there are few, if any, from countries such as Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya and Zaire. Many churches in Central and
East Africa are far from the joy of supporting themselves financially,
let alone reaching out in cross-cultural evangelism.
Why does the church in some areas joyfully send out missionaries
after only a decade or two while in other places it is difficult
or impossible after a century or more? Is it because Africans are
economically poor and lack the resources? Hardly. God has given
Africa many sources, including money and highly qualified and gifted
leaders. Some of their members own farms in rural areas, houses
in urban areas, motor vehicles and sometimes TVs, VCRs and satellite
dishes. Sometimes these same people, while their churches struggle
with a bank overdraft, only drop a few coins in the collection plate.
At the same time, some of these church members give expensive gifts
at wedding receptions.
At the root of this syndrome there is an unhealthy dependence on
foreign funding and, sometimes, foreign decision-making. In some
cases mission-established churches received a form of Christianity
which simply could not be reproduced.
Some will say that there have been many individuals who are sincerely
dedicated to the Lord and who witness to their faith wherever they
go. That is true many times over, and for every one of them we genuinely
praise the Lord. Building a successful missionary program, however,
does not rest on individuals alone. Like evangelism, it is most
effective when it flows from the energized church as a whole. If
the larger church is less than enthusiastic or living under the
cloud of financial dependence, it will hardly send out its own people
or overflow with missionary enthusiasm.
Speak to an overburdened church leader in some parts of Africa about
the need to reach out in dynamic cross-cultural evangelism and he'll
show you a long list of reasons why the missionary movement, as
he knows it, cannot be reproduced. Indeed, he is a long way from
joyfully participating in such a movement. If he were to launch
a cross-cultural missionary program in his church, the first phase
would probably be characterized by foreign subsidy, and phase two
might need a bank overdraft to keep it going.
Wealth and poverty seem to have very little to do with breaking
dependency, experiencing self-reliance, and creating an indigenous
missionary movement. In both Malawi and Tanzania church leaders
report that the poorer synods are the most likely to support their
own programs and pastors. They may be peasant farmers who give their
offerings in the form of cattle, bags of maize, or other produce.
At the same time, the wealthier synods of the same churches remain
dependent on overseas funding. That's why I conclude that financial
independence has less to do with wealth and poverty than with a
mentality of dependence that accompanied the spread of the gospel.
The kind of message and the nature of the accompanying structures
have made it difficult for many in Central and East Africa to pass
the message on, particularly in cross-cultural evangelism. But where
Christianity can be reproduced successfully, cross-cultural evangelism
is being carried on beyond ethnic borders. And so, while some churches
have done well in evangelizing their own people, many have been
less successful in cross-cultural evangelism.
The complex structure of the Christian movement introduced into
many parts of Central and East Africa, built over many years with
millions of dollars, pounds, and deutschmarks, has been hardly reproducible.
The legendary "two shillings and six pence" required of believers
in some areas bore no resemblance to the size and cost of the programs
established in their midst.2
Expatriate personnel during the colonial period ran the programs
largely with foreign subsidy. How could they expect local believers
to do it without the subsidy? Today in Central and East Africa,
because of the weight of structures inherited from the past, church
after church cannot even think of cross-cultural evangelism. Instead,
church leaders are preoccupied with maintenance, indeed survival,
rather than dynamic missionary outreach. They have little energy
left to make cross-cultural outreach a reality, let alone a spiritually
rewarding adventure. In the end, local leaders look like poor managers,
even failures, for not keeping elaborate programs going.3
Church-Run Businesses
Why don't believers in Central and East Africa pitch in and give
offerings commensurate with the needs of their programs? One can
hardly blame them. In the first place, they did not create the enormous
and expensive programs they inherited. Further, is it reasonable
that they should put their tithes and offerings into treasuries
being used to cover deficits in failing church-run businesses? Sometimes
these businesses compete with church members who, as business people,
are simply trying to make a living from the same kind of business.
In some cases church members are expected to tithe to the church
which is operating a church-run business that is their nearest competition.
Now that many Westerners have left, the church and mission landscape
of Central and East Africa is replete with abandoned projects into
which millions of dollars, pounds or deutschmarks have been poured.
Concrete auto servicing pits between huge, welded-iron doors stand
out like sore thumbs in places where there are no vehicles to be
serviced. Sometimes one finds well-built cattle grids with no fence
on either side, standing as quiet memorials to a past age.
Some churches in this part of Africa have been left with tens of
thousands of acres of land without even a vehicle to drive from
one end to the other. One such church has an overdraft of more than
a million units of local currency. Is it any wonder that this church
has not joyfully begun a cross-cultural missionary training and
outreach program? Ironically, some businesses designed to produce
income for the church are themselves now in need of subsidy. Sometimes
they are kept going simply because they have been around a long
time and no one has the courage or know-how to shut them down. Some
continue under the fallacy that they could succeed with just a little
more effort and some more foreign funding. But even if that were
true, local believers would still not feel obligated to support
the church with their tithes and offerings.
High Cost Of Subsidy
Perhaps one of the most lamentable aspects of irreproducible church
and mission structures is that the enormous flow of outside funding
is what actually helps to keep many churches "poor." Through the
years believers often found that it was not necessary to put paper
money into the church offering plate. They knew that if they sat
back and waited long enough, funds would eventually come from an
unseen source. Sooner or later, the church and its program would
be rescued. Indeed, those who created the programs could not afford
to let them fail. People of compassion would somehow find the money
and close the gap, if for no other reason than to save the reputations
of those who had started the programs in the first place.
Unfortunately, contrary to the belief which some Westerners hold
that such days have passed, this rather bleak picture is real. In
spite of all this, however, there are encouraging signs for church
leaders in Central, East, and Southern Africa. Not all of the churches
are mired in dependency. The Presbyterian Church in East Africa,
the Lutheran Church in Tanzania, and the Assemblies of God in South
Africa have discovered that dependence on foreign funding can be
overcome. Some have not only begun to support their own programs,
but they have learned the joy of sharing spiritually and materially
with those beyond their borders.4
Move From Dependence
How do churches move from dependence on foreign funding to self-
reliance? While recognizing that these problems did not appear over
night and neither will their solutions, the first and sometimes
most painful step for church leaders may be to say "no thank you"
to the foreign funding that keeps them dependent. (This is especially
difficult if foreign money has been paying local salaries.) The
prospect of passing through lean months, even years, is not heartwarming
for those who have become accustomed to a more comfortable lifestyle
than they might otherwise have enjoyed. Those who were never dependent
on foreign funding may, in fact, be better off than if their churches
had been subsidized.
The testimony of church leaders who have made a successful transition
may be the most encouraging source of hope. For many of these leaders,
the newly discovered rewards of owning and operating their churches
is worth the pain it takes to make the transition. However, there
is also a fair number of defensive Westerners to whom one cannot
look for encouragement. They fear that the work into which they
have poured their lives will be destroyed.
During the time of the Reformation, Roman Christianity could not
be reproduced in Northern Europe. It did not offer a satisfying
religious experience, nor were its structures compatible with the
areas into which the Christian movement would expand. The movement
badly needed to be restructured and made indigenous. The Reformation
in Northern Europe was that indigenization.
Aren't many churches in Central and East Africa still waiting for
their own reformation and indigenization? When believers in this
part of Africa make the Christian movement their own, they will
more effectively join other Non-western churches in cross-cultural
evangelism. May that day happen before the two forces representing
a major challenge to Christians in Central and East Africa--Islam
and Western materialism--overtake a dependent, paralyzed Christian
movement.
End Notes
See John Dekker Torches of Joy (West Chester Crossway Books
1985) and Bridges a newsletter on third World cross-cultural
mission societies.
This mentality (sometimes known in Africa as the "ticket"
system) is still quite alive and well within some denominations
in Africa.
See "Church and Mission in Central Africa: A Missiological
Study in Indigenization." Glenn Schwartz, l989. Unpublished
article available through World Mission Associates. 825 Darby
Lane, Lancaster, Pa. 17601-2009.
See "From Dependency to Fulfillment" Evangelical Missions
Quarterly, July, 1991.