Who gives the most?

I was recently reading the passage in Mark 12:41-44 again where the poor widow came to the temple, dropped two coins in the chest used for the offerings, after which Jesus reacted by saying that she had given more than all the others who had given from their wealth.
John Rowell, in To Give or not to Give also writes about this under the heading of The Principle of Proportionate Sacrifice (p 194-6). I have for long maintained that many third world churches are giving relatively more than their Western counterparts, for the simple reason that the majority of these church members are extremely poor while in most Western churches the majority are extremely rich.
Rowell has a very interesting way of looking at proportionate giving. Within the Kingdom of God it doesn’t really matter how much is given. God can use a little to accomplish much, as we well know from the miracle when Jesus fed the crowds with five loaves of bread and two fish. Rowell writes: Proportionality in giving is determined, therefore, not by what we have invested financially in a kingdom venture, but more by what we have kept for ourselves.
Rowell then suggests the following formula to calculate how generous we are: We should divide what we saved by what we gave every time we make a donation. The resulting quotient will show whether we are selfish or sacrificial. According to this formula, Rowell calculated that Americans are keeping approximately 97% for themselves. (Rowell is an American, which is the reason why he concentrates on his own country, but the same could probably be said about most Western countries.) Even if we tithe (something which I personally adhere to, not as a law, but as a rule-of-thumb) then the amount which I give for kingdom ventures are still depressingly small, compared to what I keep for myself, not to live on, but to acquire luxuries.
Maya, one of the readers of this blog who also frequently comments, recently brought my attention to a website: Global rich List. On this website you can determine how rich you are compared to other people in the world. (I don’t think this is very accurate, as similar sites such as Rich-o-meter have slightly different results, but nevertheless it gives an indication of where you fall within the worlds economy).
According to this website, 50% of the world’s population receive less than $850 per year. In the DVD Dear Francis which I recently wrote about, it is said that more than 60% of Swaziland’s population are getting 45 US cents per day ($165 per year) or less, which places this group in the poorest 5% of the world’s population. Obviously, not all our church members are as poor as that. Some of them do have well-paying occupations and some of our church members, especially up to the northern part of the country (Mbabane and Manzini) would even be considered to be fairly rich. But on average, the greater part of the population, and the greater part of our church members are extremely poor. And yet, many of them are still giving generously to kingdom ventures.
Which brings me back to the question: Who gives the most?

Disparity in salaries in missions

Readers of this blog may wonder why missionaries write so much about money. Before I came to Swaziland I also had the wonderful idea that missions is all about the gospel and proclaiming the peace of Christ and people of different cultures living in harmony with each other. It didn’t take long for me to come down to earth and to realise that there were many issues in missions which I had never considered before and which was never taught to us at university. And most of these issues concerns money. And mostly it is about local people working in the church not getting enough and closely related to this, that expatriates working as missionaries are getting too much.
John Rowell, in his To give or not to give, also writes about this problem. Western missionaries have always received a higher salary than the local church leaders and it is understandable why this would also cause a lot of tension amongst workers.
Yesterday was not a good day for me. Out of the blue I received a letter from one of our fellow church leaders in another congregation with a sharp attack against me personally as well as the missions committee which sent me to Swaziland on exactly this topic. This type of thing is really sickening. I went to university. He went to university. I’m getting probably about three times what he is getting. I’m being paid by the missions committee which sent me to Swaziland while he is being paid by the local church (which receives a subsidy from the same missions committee, but not enough to pay his full salary.) On the other hand, we also make use of church leaders who have not had official university training and he is getting about four times what they are getting. And so it seems to me, that the disparity is there and will always be there, unless if all church funds could be placed into one big pot and then divided equally. But then again: Will that be fair? Will everybody be happy then? As parents we always said that if you have four children and you treat them all equally, then three of them are being treated unfairly. Is the same true in the church? I know that the responsibility which I have to carry and the expectation which the church has of me is much greater than the responsibility which any of the local church leaders have to carry and the expectation which people have of them. But is that reason enough to have a disparity in the salaries?
If I think about what Jonathan Bonk wrote and I think of what John Rowell wrote, then I acknowledge that there is a lot of unfairness in the system. But then again, is there a way in which this will ever be solved?

Married or unmarried as missionary

In my early years in Swaziland my wife and I often discussed the advantages and disadvantages of being married as missionaries. We didn’t have much of a choice then, because we were already married when we arrived in Swaziland. In certain aspects it would have been easier for me to have been unmarried. For one, the best method to learn a new language is to stay within a community of people where you are forced to use the new language every day. My one colleague and his wife did this, but they were in the position that they had no more children in the house when they arrived in Swaziland. For us it was impossible as we had a six month old baby with an allergy which made it impossible for us to live away from home for more than a few days.
John Rowell writes in another context of the desirability to be unmarried in missions. He is involved in missions in Bosnia and says that they used to send unmarried people as missionaries to Bosnia (who eventually got married to nationals!) and then eventually sent a married couple. But the married couple went with a huge container filled with their belongings. (He writes in the context of affluence in missions – a topic which I will come back to at a later stage). He says that, if a missionary is unmarried, then it is much easier and much cheaper to live like the local people.
There is definitely truth in this. But I would be reluctant to make a rule one way or the other. The fact is that God created most of us not to be on our own. I wonder whether I would have stayed in Swaziland for so many years if I had not been married. It is jokingly said that single male missionaries going to Russia cannot hold out for more than six months before they marry a Russian girl. (I can fully understand why, as it does seem as if God blessed this nation with some of the most beautiful girls in the world!) But I doubt whether that is the only reason. I have some wonderful male friends (my buddies!) But there are just some things that they will never be able to understand in the same way that my wife does.
I am busy with a book on the handling of stress and trauma. Being a missionary often means handling extreme stress and trauma. The spouse is usually the first person with whom problems can be discussed, to whom blunders can be confessed without fear of being rejected and with whom debriefing can take place on a daily base.
Another advantage is that in many traditional “mission” countries, family life is at a very low point. This is true in Swaziland (probably most of sub-Saharan Africa) and it is also true in Russia (which I also have personal experience of.) To teach people theoretically on how married couples should live and how families should live makes little difference. But it can make a difference if a married missionary can model a different way of living as family and can become a mentor for a few couples who wish to change their relationship.
Being unmarried as missionary also has certain problems. My experience of unmarried people is that the majority of them become fairly selfish after some time – usually without them really realising it. (My apologies if you are unmarried and fall outside this description). This is understandable, because a person learns to live without having to take anyone else into consideration in their private lives. But this tends to filter through into normal life as well with the effect that many unmarried missionaries refuse to deviate from their fixed viewpoints or methods of doing things which can cause some tension in a missions situation.
I guess that it would be impossible to say that the one is better than the other. Both have advantages and both have disadvantages. It would probably make sense to acknowledge the reality within which you find yourself and then do everything possible to proclaim the kingdom of God within the circumstances in which God had placed you.

Faith Offerings

(Communications are still down so I’m posting in the school classroom again!)
One of the trends which seem to be catching on quite a lot nowadays is what is known as Faith Offerings. This is usually done in a church where people have started developing a vision for mission. But because the normal budget seldom allows for much to be given towards missions, church members are encouraged to partake in the system of Faith Offerings. On a certain Sunday, after having been informed about the system and sometimes after a period where the church focussed on missions, church members are invited to pledge a certain amount of money to the Lord which will then be used exclusively for missions. This amount is also pledged, not as part of the normal tithing, but as something extra which the Lord is being trusted for.
I have heard wonderful testimonies where churches have started with this system and where they collect huge amounts of money every year. I have also heard wonderful testimonies where people who had pledged a certain amount as a faith offering had received it in a miraculous way.
In principle I think that this could be a wonderful time of growth and greater commitment from a church and it members towards God’s mission on earth. But, and this may come as a bit of a surprise, I have a slight uncomfortable feeling about faith offerings.
In many places the money is pledged during a public service where someone would speak about missions who is able to connect to people on a very emotional level. By the time they come to the point of making the pledge, some of those responding are just not thinking rationally anymore. The question I have is whether people are then giving because God had convinced them to do so, or because a good speaker had worked on their emotions. I have never been present in such a service, but if I had been the one leading the service, I would hand out the pledge forms and then send all the people home with the request that they first of all pray about this to hear how much God wants them to pledge but furthermore that the family (and mainly the husbands and their wives) come to an agreement on how much they should pledge. To make an emotional promise which may eventually lead to disagreement between the spouses will be to nobody’s advantage and definitely not to the glory of God.
I see faith offerings as an emergency measure to “kick-start” mission involvement and I don’t think that this is a long-term solution. God wants each and every church to give a substantial amount to missions. John Rowell mentions in his book To give or not to give? that in the USA on average less than 3% of the money received by churches is spent outside that church. I don’t have statistics for other countries, but my guess is that in most Western countries things will be the same. Even though it sounds totally unrealistic, I believe that churches could never be satisfied about their financial involvement in missions before the amounts spent inside and outside are in balance with each other – in other words, at least 50/50. Faith offerings are a way in which churches start fulfilling their Godly obligation towards missions and working towards this goal, but eventually it should become part of the church budget where substantial amounts on the budget should be used outside the church in order to fulfill God’s commission.
Something else which worries me about the faith offerings is that church members are encouraged to “trust God” for the amount which is being pledged for missions. But why only the members? What about a church “trusting God” for the amount which He wants them to spend on missions. How strong would the testimony be if a church pledges (in its budget and obviously in total dependence upon the Lord) a certain amount towards missions, saying that other necessary expenditures, such as the painting of the church or the replacement of a carpet will only be undertaken once the amount which had been pledged had been collected? What could happen within the kingdom of God if a church should pledge 10% of ALL income received towards God’s mission? The 50% can come with time! A church doing that would convince me that they are truly serious about missions. And this could become the church’s Faith Offering towards God’s work outside the congregation and the members can then become part of a much greater project undertaken in obedience and in faith.

Helping a church instead of only helping an individual

Two books I recently read and which I discussed shortly some time ago, Glenn Schwarz’s When Charity destroys Dignity and John Rowell’s To Give or not to Give? both refer to the importance of not helping an individual financially but rather helping the church as employer. I share that feeling, (although I think that there may be exceptions to this rule – to which I will come back later).
There are a number of reasons why I think that one should help a church rather than an individual. Helping an individual can so easily lead to jealousy amongst the church workers. If one is singled out (perhaps because of a more charismatic personality) and receives extra money while the others suffer, then the Holy Spirit will have to work overtime to prevent tension from coming between the workers.
A second reason is that the initiative is taken away from the church if a person is singled out to receive extra money. Those on the outside perceive a certain person to be the best worker and on those grounds decide that they are going to help this individual. Those on the inside may have better knowledge or other information about the worker and they may feel that the money should rather have been spent in another way. But because the initiative had been taken away from them, they have no further say in the matter. Even if that worker should come under church discipline, the help will still be continued from outside which makes it very difficult for the church to give advice to this person.
A third reason is that the greatest need may not be there where money is being asked for. Schwarz gives the example of a certain individual in southern Africa who requested help from him after three years of drought and then floods demolished everything within a certain community. Schwarz prayed about the matter and eventually gave money to the community instead of to the individual who had asked the money. In this way the help could be distributed fairly. I think that was a wise decision.
Although I consider this as a good rule-of-thumb, there may be times when exceptions can be made. We as family, together with a number of our friends are involved with a certain individual in Russia who runs the children’s ministry in Samara. Except for praying and showing interest in her ministry, we also pay her salary. How do we do this so that there will no tension between the workers in Samara and that the initiative remains in the hands of her church? First of all we have a personal relationship with this person. Many of us have met her in the past and she was also part of the team who visited us this past weekend. We know her and we know what work she is doing.
Secondly we went to the directors of the Bible school which normally pays her salary and asked them how we could contribute to her salary without running the risks mentioned above. After finding out how much she receives every month, we agreed to pay this exact amount into the account of the Bible school and they would then pay her salary as normal. She is therefore not getting a higher salary than her colleagues. In this way there can be no possibility of any jealousy or a feeling from the directors that something is happening behind their backs. But the advantage is that those who are giving the money have personal contact with the person receiving it, get feedback from her about her work and also have a personal interest in the children’s ministry in Samara.
Obviously, if she should leave the service of the Bible school in the future, then the help would have to be reconsidered (and in fact every year we sit down and discuss whether we should continue this assistance for another year, thus allowing for changes in the system), but for the moment this seems to work for us. But I would only advise giving help to an individual rather than the church or organisation employing that person if the long route of discussing potential problems with the employing body had been followed. Otherwise the best way remains to help the body, rather than just one individual.
I would like to hear how you feel about this.

The Three-Selves Formula (3)

I was in a meeting on Tuesday where it was once again said (I’ve heard it many times before) that the future of missions to a large extent will be initiated through Africa and Asia. The Western church, which was responsible for bringing the gospel to large parts of Africa and Asia, are no longer and will no longer be the main role-players in the act of reaching the unreached.
If the West is unable to impact the world effectively and, due to various circumstances, Africa and Asia are presently better equipped to do this work, then the question may be asked whether the Western churches still have any role to play. Are they going to disappear from the scene in order for the churches in Africa and Asia to fulfill God’s vision of the gospel being proclaimed up to the ends of the earth? Chris Marantika, a theologian from Indonesia, does not think so. He sees the world as God’s playground in which He wants to have total control. Marantika then proposes an alternative to the Three-Selves paradigm in which he invites churches from all over the world to take hands and to play together, pray together and pay together in order to proclaim God’s salvation through Christ in all places. In that way, according to Marantika, all churches can still be part of the work that needs to be done. The Western churches will obviously not be the ones dictating how the work should be done, but they will still be part of the solution.
Personally I do have some reservations about Marantika’s viewpoint, as it could so easily lead to a situation which is experienced by many missionaries today that all obligations are fulfilled once people have prayed and sent a cheque to have the work done. I don’t think that Marantika has this in mind, but knowing people, it could very easily lead to such an undesirable situation. But I mention this as one of a few alternatives to the Three-Selves formula which seem to have become outdated or at least misinterpreted in our times.
Rowell also proposes an alternative – not a threefold formula, but one principle which he believes may be crucial in future mission projects, and this is sustainability. Quoting John 15:16 where Jesus commands us to bear fruit that will last, he says the question should not be whether we invest in missions but rather where and how we invest to generate lasting results, even after the missionary had left.
And this, I think, may be one of the greatest challenges which Western churches will be facing in missions. This calls for much greater involvement on a personal level, where churches prayerfully seek God’s will, not whether they should be involved, but where and how they could become involved in order to help in a sustainable way. And if this should start to happen, then I foresee that Marantika’s vision of churches worldwide taking hands to play together, pray together and pay together within God’s world, may not be farfetched.

The Three-Selves Formula (2)

In a comment on yesterday’s post, Maya asked why the three-selves is an issue? I think it is an issue, because for many people this formula is almost as indisputable as the gospel. Obviously, if they are correct in believing that the three-selves formula summarises everything we need to know about indigenous churches, then I’m happy with the situation. But what if they are wrong? How could this influence people’s involvement in missions?
Rowell discusses the background of this paradigm as formulated by Henry Venn in detail. I’ll try to summarise in a few sentences what he writes in an entire chapter: For more than 30 years, Venn was the director of the Anglican Church Mission Society. He had three primary goals which he wanted to achieve:

1. to end the African slave trade
2. to assert the basic rights of indigenous peoples living under British rule in the various British colonies
3. to reform the British missionary practice of insisting on foreign control of national congregations

If Rowell is correct (and I believe he is, as this history is well documented in his book) then it seems as if the three-selves were formulated, not primarily to convince the mission churches to become more indigenous, but rather to force the missionaries and the home church in England to allow the mission churches to become more indigenous. Mainly Venn was concerned that the local people should govern their own church instead of having people from outside deciding how things should be done.
Another interesting fact which he mentions is that Venn, when implementing the self-supporting part of the formula in practice in his own ministry, had little concern that financial assistance was given from outside. What he was more concerned about was that there should be one fund only into which all money is paid and that the local church leaders then take responsibility on how to distribute the money.
My personal concern (Maya – the reason why I consider this to be an important issue) is that many Christians may be using a misinterpreted understanding of Venn and Anderson’s Three-Selves formula to free themselves of Godly obligations towards Christians who are truly in dire need. Should we understand the background of this formula more correctly, it may mean that we could become involved with churches who are not financially as strong as we are, without jeopardising their wish to be truly indigenous. But we’re not through with the topic yet, because I also realise that its not a matter of either this viewpoint or that viewpoint.
A last remark for today: I’ve had quite a lot of thoughtful responses on this topic. I really appreciate you spending your valuable time reading my posts and then spending even more time in leaving your thoughts. Please keep on reading and responding.

The Three-Selves Formula (1)

One of the blogs I regularly read is http://persecutedchurch.blogspot.com. Some time ago Glenn Penner posed the question: Is the Three-Self Formula Still Relevant? What followed after that was a bit of a heated discussion between him and myself (but to be honest, I wasn’t heated and I do believe he misunderstood me and things were put right afterwards, for which I am very thankful 😉 If you are interested in this topic, you should read what he says and then also read the comments (at present 17 of them). Then you will also better understand why I have been reading the books of Schwarz and Rowell over the past few weeks.
I assume that all students of missiology are familiar with the three-selves formula. But then, I’m not writing here only for missiologists and therefore a very short explanation of the three-selves formula is appropriate. In 1854 and 1856 (specific dates debatable), two missionaries, Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson, independently of each other, said that the three signs of an indigenous church are that they should be self-propagating, self-governing and self-supporting. John Nevius, who also lived in the times of Venn and Anderson, further popularised this so-called “three-self” paradigm. Since that time it has almost universally been accepted that these three characteristics should be present before a church can be considered to be indigenous. I was taught these principles at university and have on more than one occasion heard, during mission meetings, how important it is that these principles should be adhered to in the church in Swaziland.
It was only when I started working on my PhD that I found to my surprise that serious missiologists were actually questioning this viewpoint. Somewhere along the line, while busy with me preparatory studies, I had to evaluate this formula critically and then realised that I’m not so sure that I could fully agree with this anymore.
I have many concerns about this issue and will be returning to this topic over the next few days. My main concern is that, of the three points of the formula, only one is really important for people in Western churches. No prize for the correct answer! Western churches don’t want to be in the position any longer where they have to support “mission churches”. Many are looking for ways to get out of their commitments and this seems like an honourable way to take this step. (I may be generalising but I am also speaking from personal experience where a group of churches in South Africa who had been supporting our work in Swaziland for many years have now decided to withdraw and this is one of their – almost Biblical-sounding – arguments used to motivate the decision). If I can withdraw my money while convincing those who had received help that I am in fact doing them a huge favour otherwise they will never become an indigenous church, then it doesn’t sound so bad!
Obviously this is not how Venn and Anderson meant it when they formulated their viewpoint. But with time, this is what it has become (to a very large extent, at least). So my question remains: Is this formula really relevant today? Are there other things we need to look for in an indigenous church? And what about support from churches who have more? Is this right or is this wrong? What about co-dependency?
Please feel free to join me in this discussion. I must be honest and say that I don’t have a final answer. I’m looking for a better answer than the one we have at present. Writing about this is therefore my way of trying to get my thoughts in place. If you have a contribution to make, please do so.

To give or not to give? John Rowell

Some time ago I posted my views on Glenn Schwarz’s book: When Charity destroys dignity. You can read my negative remarks here and my positive remarks here. I mentioned then that I ordered two books at the same time with conflicting viewpoints. The second one was this book by John Rowell, To give or not to give?. And after reading it, I can fully understand why Glenn Schwarz writes in his Postscript to the Preface that he does not agree with John Rowell.
OK, once again a few negative remarks before I come to the positive. George Verwer, founder of Operation Mobilisation, writes in his recommendation that this book “is not an easy read”. I tend to agree. The author uses excellent language, but on a few occasions I found myself wondering what some of these words really mean. Using slightly simpler words, would have made this book accessible to a much greater group of people. However, it was great to read a book which seems to be well thought-through and is well documented.
The only other negative remark I would make is that some parts of the book put me on a guilt-trip. But then, on the other hand, the sermon on the mount also puts me on a guilt-trip, so perhaps this should not be seen as something negative!
What caught my attention as I read Rowell’s book, especially because I read it directly after Schwarz’s book, was the difference in the premise of the two authors. Schwarz writes from the premise that we do not want to create unhealthy dependency, therefore, when we give, we have to be careful how we give. Rowell writes from the premise that God commands us to give. As we give, we also have to keep in mind that we do not give in such a way as to create unhealthy dependency. And this more or less, for me, sums up the difference between the two books. Schwarz seems to look for ways to get out of giving, for fear of creating dependency. Rowell looks for ways to give more, without necessarily compromising those who receive.
God willing, in the weeks that come, I will be returning to many of the topics covered in both books. These include topics such as giving without any strings attached, tithing, the three selves formula, partnerships (yes, once again!), faith offerings, sustainability and a few more. So, if you are interested in these topics, you know where to find me. But I would also appreciate your comments.
A final remark: If I have to make a choice, it will be fairly easy for me to say that I am more comfortable with Rowell’s book. Personally I am also totally against unhealthy dependency. But I prefer the Biblical starting point that Christians are blessed by God, (also materially), in order to become a blessing to others.
But then again, working amongst people who are mostly living in extreme poverty, I’m biassed!