Need Missionaries, not just Money
1. It appeals to the materialistic desire for comfort amongst Western Christians, that just by giving a bit of money they are let off the missionary hook and do not have to sacrifice themselves.
2. Foreign money can very often damage the growth of missionary vision in countries where this is developing. Note how the Friends Missionary Prayer Band in India [Ed: the largest mission in India] made the deliberate decision that they would not accept foreign money for the support of their missionaries because of this very fact and they have a significant impact on many parts of India.
3. Foreign money, if not given through indigenous bodies of believers, diverts the accountability from the body of Christ within that country to an expatriate group - often in the States - who call the tune and set the parameters of that ministry. It can so easily become foreign-controlled and is a step back from true indigeneity of missionary thrust. Donors in the West are far more inclined to insist on accountability to them than to the body of Christ in the country to which the money goes, which is tragic.
4. There is an implied division in the body of Christ. In our own mission, WEC International, we have made a deliberate decision that we make no difference about where a person comes from or to what ethnic group he belongs. We are all treated at the same level. I believe this is essential for the body of Christ worldwide. We are all responsible to give and to pray and to go. There may be different parts of the body that are better able to do certain aspects of these three types of ministry than others, but that is beside the point. We are one body.
5. There is an implied paternalism in this type of mission activity. We see it in our vocabulary. I heard of someone saying that a national pastor was preaching in his church in New York. My immediate comment was, "Oh, you mean an American." "Oh, no, somebody from Africa!" We use this term "national" which is really just a paternalistic pat on the head for those good little boys who are willing to work for less in another country. May I just add this point that if a missionary leaves India to work in Africa and vice versa, it costs them as much and possibly even more to serve as a missionary in another country. We know this adds to our cost for our workers from these continents who have gone to other continents for Jesus.
-Patrick Johnstone
2. Foreign money can very often damage the growth of missionary vision in countries where this is developing. Note how the Friends Missionary Prayer Band in India [Ed: the largest mission in India] made the deliberate decision that they would not accept foreign money for the support of their missionaries because of this very fact and they have a significant impact on many parts of India.
3. Foreign money, if not given through indigenous bodies of believers, diverts the accountability from the body of Christ within that country to an expatriate group - often in the States - who call the tune and set the parameters of that ministry. It can so easily become foreign-controlled and is a step back from true indigeneity of missionary thrust. Donors in the West are far more inclined to insist on accountability to them than to the body of Christ in the country to which the money goes, which is tragic.
4. There is an implied division in the body of Christ. In our own mission, WEC International, we have made a deliberate decision that we make no difference about where a person comes from or to what ethnic group he belongs. We are all treated at the same level. I believe this is essential for the body of Christ worldwide. We are all responsible to give and to pray and to go. There may be different parts of the body that are better able to do certain aspects of these three types of ministry than others, but that is beside the point. We are one body.
5. There is an implied paternalism in this type of mission activity. We see it in our vocabulary. I heard of someone saying that a national pastor was preaching in his church in New York. My immediate comment was, "Oh, you mean an American." "Oh, no, somebody from Africa!" We use this term "national" which is really just a paternalistic pat on the head for those good little boys who are willing to work for less in another country. May I just add this point that if a missionary leaves India to work in Africa and vice versa, it costs them as much and possibly even more to serve as a missionary in another country. We know this adds to our cost for our workers from these continents who have gone to other continents for Jesus.
-Patrick Johnstone
