HealthBridge Global Blog

—————————-

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in these arenas, but rather an observer, and my comments should be taken as such.  I do not pretend to have all the answers nor to be above reproach in these matters, in fact, I confess to struggling with them as well; how else would I be able to describe them so accurately?  Any tinge (or deluge) of sarcasm, pessimism, or frustration you pick up while reading these posts about the pitfalls of international missions work, is simply a result of my attempt to be transparent and honest.

—————————

The topic of unhealthy dependency in international missions work could fill many volumes.  In fact, I read one such volume last year called When Charity Destroys Dignity: Overcoming Unhealthy Dependency in the Christian Movement, by Glenn Schwartz.  What a title, huh?

Since I have witnessed the problem of unhealthy dependency first-hand on the actual foreign field, I have begun to sing two songs on a daily basis, as a guide for what we are doing: sustainability and indigenous.  Today’s journal entry is about dependency, and I will deal with the indigenous factor in another blog.

Developing overseas leaders, projects, or organizations that are indefinitely dependent on on-going funding from the Unites States is perhaps the largest pitfall of all in international work.  The word ‘indefinitely’ is very important because foreign projects, people, and organizations often do need help in a legitimate manner.  But, we must be very cautious.  Many well intentioned people and organizations from the West have slid down a slippery slope of supporting people, and “keeping lights on” forever.

We always have good intentions and want to help.  We see a national leader living in a home with no heat, and no car to visit the 10 villages that he is trying to work in and the temptation to help is HUGE.  I understand this pull.  I sensed it myself regularly during my years Romania.  Needs are abundant AND VERY LEGITIMATE.  But, we have to be careful.  We have to be very careful.  We cannot always let our heart lead us in these situations.  Our hearts are not always our best guide for 2 basic reasons.  1) our hearts can produce feelings of guilt when we see people who do not have what we have.  Motivations of support out of guilt rarely end up producing wise results.  2) our needs of often different from the needs of those working overseas.  We may think they “need” something, just because we think we would need it, and so try to get it for them.  In the end we create new needs and greater dependency.

Many well-meaning people see the low cost of living in poor nations, and they say to themselves, “Oh, all they need is $150 a month!  Then Pastor X and his wife Z and their cute kids W, and Y can move to a nicer apartment and buy a bed for their children.  We can do that.  Only $4000 and we can get them a car too!”  But, as many are experiencing over the past few decades, the costs in these places are rising like the tide.  And (in Romania for instance) what was $150 just seven or eight years ago, is now $1500.  And, that car you bought for that pastor, well, that broke down after 2 months, and they didn’t have the money to fix it…so they just pawned it for $400 and spent the money on a the latest MP3 player.

When a rock-solid plan to wean the receiver off of U.S. support is in place, more often than not, when it’s discovered that the local funding goals/landmarks have not been met supporters come face to face with the idea that the person would “be out on the streets if support were to stop.”  And so, the dependence continues because no warm-hearted American would want to be responsible for putting a nice pastor and his family on the street.

When I talk about ‘supporters’ in these cases, they are almost always institutional.  Rarely, although it does happen, are individuals solely supporting whole families and churches overseas…although it has been known to happen.  Usually, it’s churches and organizations with larger budgets that can afford to cover these sort of costs.  As individual donors, we have a responsibility to educate ourselves about the type of missions work that the churches or organizations that we support are involved in, and the policies and philosophies they subscribe to.

I know I am playing the devil’s advocate here, but the issue is a serious one, and the scenario is one played out daily in places from Chile, to Romania, to Uganda, to Panama, to Thailand, to China, and so forth.

I have to make an important distinction (if for no other reason than for the sake of my own hide) between missionaries who are being sent, and local people who should be supported by their own people.  Americans sending Americans is OK.  Kenyans sending Kenyans is OK.  However, Americans “footing the bill” for __________(fill in the blank) is wrought with pitfalls.  Other countries footing the bill for Americans could be just as dangerous, but we simply don’t see that very much.

Think about it….why do American churches even have the resources to do missions work on the level that we do?  Because we have taken responsibility for our institutions.  We never expected others to come build our churches, schools, hospitals, or pay our pastors, or buy us cars.  We have assumed that responsibility and have done it philanthropically.  Why do we expect other nations to be able to so the same when we baby them?  They will not grow up if we insist on feeding them.  I know it sounds harsh, but I have history on my side.

I am not against giving.  I’m all for giving.  Part of my job is encouraging people to give more!  But I am ALL for smart, calculated, strategic giving.  Giving simply to felt needs, and giving to cover basic needs, often has the effect of stealing dignity, and robbing the receiver of the chance to be a part of his/her own provision.