I love this quote from David Smith:
However, it would be a grave mistake for Christians in the West to imagine that they are somehow in a position to predict, far less to control, the precise shape and nature of the twenty-first century Christianity which is emerging with its centre of gravity firmly located among the poor peoples of the Southern hemisphere. As the churches in Africa, Latin America and Asia mature and seek for biblical answers to the pressing issues that arise in contexts charactarized by poverty, sickness and oppression, their theologies and spiritualities are likely to take unpredictable forms and will pose questions for believers in the West that are likely to be profoundly challenging and disturbing. Thus while the emergence of ‘World Christianity’ begins to look like a phenomenon of world historical importance, it would be deeply misleading to interpret it as nothing more than an extension across the globe of the kind of revivalist religion made in America and at home with Western cultural and economic values.
From Against the stream p. 63.
The problem is, that from where I’m sitting, many Western agencies are trying to control the development of World Christianity; either by uncritically importing teaching and methods from the West which are not directly relevant in the new context, or (more sinisterly) by removing funding when Christians in other parts of the world don’t conform to what is expected of them.
20 replies on “Who is Driving?”
Is it control or accountability? More and more people require financial accountability of the organizations they support. There is an expectation that basic audits and reports are conducted and certain principles adhered to or funding goes elsewhere. People also want theological accountability. Almost all orgs post their basic statements of faith and if it deviates from their own, they will support elsewhere. The hard conversations involve where to draw the line and if the line can move but to think that people or agencies will fund orgs without question or accountability isn’t going to happen regardless of where on the compass they reside.
I think you just illustrated my point!
Sylvia Foulds liked this on Facebook.
Jon Barnes liked this on Facebook.
If that is the case, are you saying that funding entities should not have expectations in regard to financial or theological standards? Some would call that irresponsible. How do people decide where to give? Everyone employs some form of criteria that almost always includes basic theology. I could list several ministries here in Nigeria that most mainstream Christians are not going to fund because they are on the other side of the theological line.
Nev McCormack liked this on Facebook.
The problem with this is that it assumes that one party sets all of the standards, they are the ones who define basic theology, who say what mainstream Christian is and who define where the theological lines are. As David Smith points out, that simply isn’t possible in a growing Church where Christians are developing theology out of their contexts rather than having it imposed out of ours.
I also note that in these conversations, very little is ever said about the accountability of the funders to the Christians in other parts of the world. If we are truly talking about partnership, this must go further than simply sending cash.
Will Sawers liked this on Facebook.
Dave Burke liked this on Facebook.
[…] morning, Eddie Arthur wrote “Who is driving,” a prophetic post (in the old sense of the prophet speaking truth to power sort of […]
I read somewhere recently about an exasperated non-Western worker exclaiming that “partnership” is the new colonialism”!
As I view the instances of “funding” in the NT, there was very little “accountability from human to human” involved. Biblical funding of Christians by Christians was based on “relationships between people” plus “accountability to God”. In their insistence on “recipient to donor accountability”, today’s funders display what Bryant Myers calls the “God-complex.” Having the power (and maybe habit) to insist on accountability is quite different from having the right to insist on accountability.
Then why bother to post mission statements, statements of faith and belong to ECFA? We all make choices with our giving/funding based on the criteria each of us creates. We do not give to orgs that are lacking financially integrety, or do not align with our basic theology or throughts on mission. We should not mirco manage those we support but to expect some level of crediblity or alignment is not a God complex, it’s being a good steward.
So you define who is credible.
Part of the ‘control’ thing comes from the funders – that could be altered. Part of it comes from government controls on money travelling abroad and charitable status of organisations. That is not so easy to change (at least in terms of loosening controls).
Yes, we all define who is credible, one way or the other. Case in point; the news recently mentioned a pastor in the Atlanta area who is raising funds for a multi-million dollar jet. Are you going to send him $100 or $1000? Probably not because you most likely do no agree with his prosperity theology or that it is a wise use of ministry funds. We make those decisions everytime we make a donation. We look to God to lead us in our giving but He also expects us to use the wisdom and intellect He blessed us with.
What’s particularly interesting is that in a discussion about *partnership*, the only thing people have talked about is who gives *money* to whom.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comment.
Especially liked the post about “Which Bible ….?” liz
John Steketee liked this on Facebook.