The Dread Cancer of Stinginess?

I recently took over leadership of the missions ministry at my church, the Ann Arbor Vineyard, and one of the issues we're dealing with is how to balance the need of our sister churches with the fear of creating a dependency. As John Rowell points out in the beginning of his article The Dread Cancer of Stinginess | John Rowell | The Christian Vision Project

Few principles have been as central to the modern missions movement as the "three-self paradigm." This seminal framework was popularized in the 19th century by three notable leaders: Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson, and John Nevius. It proposes that truly indigenous churches should be self-governing, self-propagating and self-supporting. For 200 years the three-self ideal has been nearly axiomatic. Modern missiologists have placed particular emphasis on the last point, interpreting it to emphasize financial independence and developing a whole stream of thought trumpeting "the dangers of dependency." These missiologists want to prevent the unhealthy dynamics they presume are unavoidable when outside funds are introduced into any newly developing indigenous movement.

Indeed, a desire to avoid dependency is also a core part of the "Missiological Assumptions for The Vineyard—USA" which states:

Dependency exists when churches in another culture are not able to function on their own without assistance. The most common form of dependency is financial. While we recognize that some level of dependency is likely during the pioneering stage of church planting, we are committed to avoiding long-term dependency among our churches.

But like Rowell, I think there is a real danger of misapplying this principle due to biases inherent in our western mindset toward the world.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of indiscriminate handouts driven by guilt at having wealth. The ability to create wealth is a gift from God and I don't feel guilty about it. At the risk of heading down a rabbit trail I'll add that I have to balance this with a strong dose humility when I realize that my ability to build a business may be dependent in large part on structural imbalances in the world. Never the less, as Don Bromley so eloquently said from the pulpit this summer (and I paraphrase from memory): "It's great if you know how to create wealth...now go give it away to help the poor!"

But how do we do that without creating unhealthy dependency? Rowell proposes a “more interdependent” model where, quoteing Samuel Escobar, "churches from rich nations add their material resources to the spiritual resources of the churches in poor nations in order to reach out to a third area." He then points to YWAM as one example of such a model.

All well and good, but it doesn’t seem to me to address the core issue: How to avoid dependency? For me, answering this question has to overcome a number of ingrained biases.

Living in a wealthy society, we’ve all had experiences where we realize we were taken advantage of. The world is full of con-artists and people “working the system,” isn’t it? Likewise, for most of my adult life I had been a Reagan, trickle-down, “the welfare system propagates poverty” Republican. I emphasize “had been” because I’ve come to see that too often this perspective fails to address the real justice issues that exist in how our society is structured. Never-the-less, the fear of creating yet another systematic imbalance through hand-outs is legitimate.

But I really think we need to carefully check the prescription for our glasses when we we’re looking at poverty issues in the world. It’s too easy to forget the yellow-tint that’s formed from seeing the local dysfunctions within our own system. Regardless of your perspective on the US welfare system, it doesn’t compare to the endemic poverty that exists in much of the world. For the most part, we’re not talking about giving someone extra money they might use to by a Nintendo instead of food. Many of our brothers and sisters don’t even have running water, much less televisions!

So what’s the answer? I’m no expert and I’m only musing out loud, but over the coming months, here’s what I’ll be pondering:

Can we trust local leadership? Can we get on the same page with them regarding the problem of dependency?

If we’re dealing with an area where Christians are persecuted, should we give more? Or give less because the perception that they’re beholden to “western” money endangers them?

Is there a way to give that fosters economic development such as micro-loans, etc.?

And finally, if dependency is such a big deal, why didn’t Paul address the topic in his letters? He clearly did on the local church level, but when talking about intra-church giving his advice was to give generously. Period.