Critique of Integral Mission
'Material Provision' or 'Preaching the Gospel':
Which is Appropriate for the Sub-Saharan African Scene?
Reconsidering 'Holistic' Mission.
By Jim Harries
To be published in Evangelical Review of Theology. (Date of publishing not yet known.) Revision of February 2007. Copyright applies.
Introduction
We 'cannot properly help a person . . . while disregarding his or her . . . material or bodily needs . . . and merely preaching the Gospel is a misunderstanding of God's purpose' writes Padilla [1] as part of an occasional paper of the 2004 Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism.
Padilla cites the well known British theologian John Stott in his support. Glenn Schwartz and others point out that current mission activities create unhealthy dependence and are 'working hard to encourage church leaders, particularly in Africa and America, to stand on their own two feet and to discover the joy of breaking out of the stranglehold of dependency.' [2] Reactions against anti-dependency efforts have again been strong. Rowell claims that ' . . . missiological principles that emphasise Western concerns about dependency are sometimes being applied today to serve selfish ends rather than moving us toward a search for more sacrificial means . . .'. [3]
Little explains how the parting of the ways in the evangelical Christian church occurred following disagreement between those who advocated the 'horizontal' as against the 'vertical' roles of the church. [4] That is, the relative importance of the relationship of the church vertically with God, as against horizontally with fellow men. The ecumenical movement exemplified by the WCC (World Council of Churches) has long been focusing more on horizontal relationships. According to Little the evangelical wing of the church held out for longer, but turned to follow a similar direction in the early 1970s, represented especially by a 'change of mind' at the Lausanne convention in 1974 [5] mentioned above. For Little, this represents an abandoning of the legitimate role of the church in the world as after all ' . . . the deepest impoverished state a person can suffer is alienation from God and therefore the greatest demonstration of his compassion is the remedy for this plight'. [6]
Underlying a radical transformation of missionary strategy from the proclamation of God's power to that of social action advocated at Lausanne, I suggest, is the current state of ideology in Western nations. Professing Christians living in the West cannot be exempted from the influence of a community whose academia has for centuries denied the role of God in human lives. Christians living in the West should be acutely aware that they see the world through tinted spectacles, with blinkers barring significant aspects of the nature of people and the nature of God as understood in the majority of the world, from view.
It would seem that decades of appeals for Western nations to be culturally sensitive in their relations with the non-Western world increasingly fall on deaf ears. I feel justified in claiming this for a number of reasons: First. An ever-growing proportion of the Western Christian presence in the poor world being short-term, has resulted in shrinking opportunities for learning cultures and languages. Second. The end of the cold war and the ever rising confidence of the West in its own capabilities has reduced the need for cultural sensitivity. Third. The rise of the internet and global communication in general enables geographically isolated communities to continue to relate closely to their societies of origin, thus reducing the need to identify with a foreign non-Western people even if the Westerner is living among them.
The long term impact of these factors should be born in mind. It is probably true to say that most Western missionaries who leave the African field after any significant period of time will advise those following them to learn language and take a more accommodating and understanding approach to the culture they are meeting. Yet new workers in most cases do not do this.
Therefore in Africa new workers from the West are not looking at a clean-slate scenario of 'untouched people.' Instead they are faced with a legacy of repeated expressions of cultural ignorance and blunders by their predecessors. Some African people having to various degrees given up hope of ever being understood by Westerners, are becoming less willing to be open and more inclined to allow missionaries and other foreigners to go round in circles, if only so as to minimise damage in sensitive areas (which is many areas) of church life and life in general. [7]
The West's perception of international concerns and how to engage with them narrows as a result of its operating from an ever shrinking pre-suppositional base. Mission emphasis today is on short-term involvement providing technical assistance.
But any notion that this is somehow neutral to broader theological or ecclesial issues in Africa needs to be debunked for at least two reasons:
First: African religion is rooted in a search for power, which easily includes financial power, so projects with outside funding become part of how Christianity (or other 'religion') is understood in Africa. They are not seen as 'extra's' to the church. There is no extra space beyond the category of 'religion' that can be occupied by 'secularism' as is the case in the West. (This is a part of what it means to be 'holistic'.)
Second: Relatively poor locally funded African church budgets often being dwarfed by ambitious schemes funded and administered from abroad results in imbalance and unhealthy power struggles and jealousies.
Central to this article, is the understanding that word meanings arise from the context of their use. This includes the term 'holistic'. In parts of the world where the dominant worldview is secular, it means that the Gospel is to be presented in hand with science and technology to improve people's lives. In parts of the world where the worldview is 'magical', it means that the Gospel is accompanied with 'magical' powers to improve people's lives.
I acknowledge that the term 'magic' is very difficult to define or translate. I use it to represent those aspects of African ways of life that are out of sight of Westerners as they are out of range of Western people's worldview. [8] One people's science has become another's magic.
A Biblical Background
I include this opening section on the Bible, to indicate clearly what Western advocates of holistic mission seem to ignore, that God's Word in the Bible is not spread hand in hand with projects, finance, aid or technology.
It was an amazing feat for Noah to build an ark that was to carry a multitude of animals and marked a new beginning for mankind. After Noah, God chose Abraham to be his faithful follower. [9] Abraham, as Noah, was not without his failings. He managed to acquire wealth from Egypt then Abimelech by telling lies about his wife. [10] Whether it was right or not for him to make Hagar pregnant has been debated ever since. God chose Abraham's second born son to be the son of promise. He was to have 12 (male) grandchildren through his youngest son, that went on to be known as the founders of the tribe of Israel.
The Bible tells us much about the course of these 12 tribes through history. At times success, and then many times disappointment when the people failed to heed God's word. Jacob and his sons were taken to Egypt, then their descendents left again under the leadership of Moses, (see the book of Exodus) but despite periods of great prosperity under kings like David, they were later again taken into exile. Many of the tribes disappeared from the subsequent historical record. Yet, through God's amazing grace and power, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin came to be known as the Jews and have maintained their ethnic identity up to today.
Perhaps out of frustration with the failings of those who were specially called by God (by then known as the Jews), [11] God chose to extend his salvation plan to the whole earth through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus known as the Christ or the 'anointed one'. Jesus succumbed to the wrath of his fellow Jews resulting in his cruel crucifixion at the age of only 33 after a few years of itinerant ministry within the confines of Judah, Samaria and Galilee. [12] As well as a teacher of God's profound truths Jesus was a miracle worker and had a heart of love greater than any other man before or after him. This love was demonstrated in the ways that he interacted with those around him, culminating in his shameful (from a human pint of view) death.
Never having risen to political fame or having vast quantities of earthly wealth, Jesus nevertheless acquired great renown because, Christians believe up to today, he was God incarnate. His followers continued his ministry after being filled by Godly power, resulting in the existence of bodies of believers around the world up to today known as the ecclesia or church. Up to now those in the church, colloquially known as 'Christians', continue to follow the example of Jesus and proclaim his teachings around the globe.
Some years after the life and ministry of Christ and his disciples Christian writings were gathered together with what had become the Jewish canon of Scriptures to form the Bible, as it is today. That Bible remains the written text that guides and inspires Christians. The words contained in it are considered uniquely inspired by God himself to provide counsel in all areas of life. Ever since, and even before the canon was closed, Christians have been challenged to know just how to interpret the Bible. This has become a particularly critical issue since the Reformation in 16th Century Europe resulted in the formation of the Protestant church whose numbers include the World Evangelical Alliance and churches affiliated to it.
Even modern translations of the Bible do not mention many things that have become a normal part of day to day life by many in the English speaking world. Especially technological things, things arising from science and from more recent thinking about society and the nature of man. There is no overt mention of electricity, of vehicles, of rockets or telescopes, even of strategies, programmes or projects in the modern sense. The Bible does not advocate hospital medicine or primary and secondary schooling, formal universities are not discussed or referred to, pensions are not even mentioned, neither is formal insurance in case of theft, damage or death. The Scriptures rarely even mention countries outside of the Eastern Mediterranean basin and seem not to anticipate that one day there will be nuclear power, space travel or x-rays as a means of examining one's teeth. Terms (and concepts) such as bureaucracy, socialism, capitalism, development, AIDs and sustainability are not found in the Bible.
Every generation of Christians looks to the Bible for answers to questions as to how they ought to live. They attempt to understand the Scriptures through the guidance of God the Holy Spirit because they want the answers to be compatible with their Christian identity. They want to do the will of God.
I am here trying to point out that knowing the will of God is no straightforward mechanical task. God has not left us with closely defined instructions in a legal document. In the current globalising world, questions on what to do and how are more pressing than ever, as certain people in the globe find themselves with the technological means and powers to influence the lives of others on a hitherto unknown scale. How are they to know the will of God in this circumstance? What is the will of God that Christians are to follow?
The practice of Jesus himself could support diverse positions in this regard. How did he respond to people who he met? Does Jesus' healing many sick people justify Western medical projects as part of Christian mission today? Does Jesus' feeding 5,000 set an example for us to follow, or in the light of the response of those who he fed, [13] is it teaching us not to feed people, as Jesus' temptations strongly imply? [14]
I will not attempt to draw on Biblical proof texts to make my case. This is because the words that people find on studying the Bible have to come out of their own cultures. [15] 'Proof texts' are often inappropriate. It has often been suggested that people read out of the Bible what they want to, although that is not entirely true. I arrive at the positions that I do from the context of what I believe to be a life of commitment and sacrifice in God's service, guided by his Word and lead by his Spirit.
A Note about the Expression of Power in the Church
A presupposition that I make in this article is that donors offering finance and material goods to the Third World and more specifically African church thereby acquire significant power to influence the church concerned. I say this in part on the basis of personal experience in Western Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. I have considered this in more detail elsewhere. [16]
I also assume that an offer of aid is like a trap that recipients cannot usually avoid. Hence donor money is forced onto people even if they do not want it. This is particularly true in contexts of 'poverty' in which the extended family is powerful, and in which needs for finance are increasingly being advocated, such as education, health, the need to have things and so on, as is happening as the 'poor' world is being incorporated in the globalising process. That is to say, a leader's refusal to accept assistance that has been offered will undermine his authority, hence he can be forced to accept an offer of help in order to maintain his popularity even if he knows that the overall impact of the assistance will not be to his people's advantage.
Where Padilla and Holistic Mission Have Gone Wrong
Padilla spoke out in favour of 'holistic mission'. [17] Whether or not he was himself anticipating this his words, once validated by people like John Stott at the Lausanne congress, have been interpreted by others as ecclesial license for relief and development work. Hence 'the atmosphere generated by the (1974) Lausanne Congress has been described as 'euphoric,' particularly for relief and development workers who 'could now appeal to the evangelical constituency as family, without the fear of either being rebuked for preaching the social gospel or being charged of compromising on evangelism.' [18] Padilla also says that ' . . . holistic mission is mission oriented towards the satisfaction of basic human needs, including the need of God, but also the need of food, love, housing, clothes, physical and mental health and a sense of human dignity'. [19]
Perhaps intentionally or perhaps inadvertently Padilla has thus legitimized the understanding that provision of material assistance should be a part of Gospel preaching in the Third World. But did he realise that this would result in a class-segregated church-leadership? That is, that proclaiming the importance of the church's role in meeting physical needs can illegitimise the evangelistic efforts of those not privileged to have access to a material surplus or technological know-how?
Given that the church is now multi-cultural and multinational, that is a slap in the face to two-thirds or more of the World's Christians. Should such Western domination of the world church be encouraged? The West has the economic power to provide for the 'basic human needs' mentioned by Padilla. Provision of need buys power. Are we to understand that a church not linked to Western benevolent donors cannot be preaching the true Gospel?
The ancient message deeply rooted in Scripture and church tradition encouraging persistence in Christian faith and service even in a context of poverty, suffering and trials never mind persecution is nowadays, according to proponents of holistic mission, replaced by materialist consumer-driven Christianity. That is saying in effect that non-Western Christians are given official foreign ecclesial approval to move to churches that have the most generous donors.
Surely this is ignoring Biblical mandate? Christ called his disciples to leave their worldly society in order to be his followers. [20] 1 Kings 17 tells how God sent a famine (and not food-aid) in response to the sin of Ahab. The Apostle Paul endured much affliction in the course of his preaching. With the possible exception of the collection for Jerusalem, he initiated no 'compassionate ministries' in the modern sense. (I believe that the collection for Jerusalem was not assistance for the materially-deprived, but the making of an ecclesial/prophetic statement. [21]) Why then are modern day prophets insisting on being prophets of profit?
All too often, the stumbling block and the foolishness that prevent non-Christians to turn to Christ is not really the stumbling block and the foolishness of the gospel centered in "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23), but the self-righteous attitude and the indifference to basic human needs on the part of Christians. The first condition for the church to break down the barriers with its neighborhood is to engage with it, without ulterior motives, in the search for solutions to felt needs. Such an engagement requires a humble recognition that the reality that counts for the large majority of people is not the reality of the Kingdom of God but the reality of daily-life problems that make them feel powerless, helpless, and terribly vulnerable. [22]
It is hard not to agree with Padilla. But one ought to ask how the Bible and Christians through history, have sought to resolve people's 'problems'? The foolishness of the Gospel and offence of the cross [23] include that someone should give up worldly prestige or advantage on entering the Kingdom of God.
God's Kingdom is like a treasure hidden in a field [24] promising a deep heartfelt peace and eternal reward to those ravaged by the storms of life. It is the insistence that the cross be accompanied by material reward that is an offence to the Gospel.
Thus interpreted the quote from Padilla above bypasses the possibility, implicitly believed by millions of people around the world, that felt needs are met through the Gospel. It is their faith in God that helps people to overcome the 'powerlessness and helplessness' described by Padilla. It is through belief in God that demons of poverty, disease and helplessness are driven away. What do we say to people who believe this? To condemn them seems to require a condemnation of Christ, who was himself heavily engaged in removing demons.
It is widely understood that a genuine Christian life will raise someone's economic standing. That is, someone will be better off as a result of becoming a Christian, without the church being actively involved in 'social action'.
Many reasons are often given for this including:
* stable monogamist Christian marriages rooted in true love and mutual respect between husband and wife.
* avoiding excesses of alcohol and drugs.
* in the classic Protestant sense, expressing one's Christian commitment through diligence in one's worldly calling.
* mutual support from a wide Christian family.
* overcoming fear of ancestral spirits and thereby avoiding expensive and time consuming funeral rituals otherwise necessitated.
* undercutting the fear of witchcraft that dominates many societies and binds them to relations of mistrust, hatred and suspicion.
* a unified and purposeful view of life, that arises from belief in the power of a single, concerned and influential God.
These are extremely powerful factors contributing to improvements and changes in people's circumstances. Associating the Gospel strongly with Westernisation may, by orienting people primarily to a search for material wealth, deny many people access to the above. 'Striving' in life comes to be for money and relationships with donors, instead of for productivity, personal holiness, morality etc.
'The message of salvation implies also a message of judgment upon every form of alienation, oppression and discrimination, and we should not be afraid to denounce evil and injustice wherever they exist' writes Stott. [25]
It would be easy to agree with this statement, if only one could be sure just what are 'evil' and injustice. Is it easy to discern such 'evil'? Once identified, how are we going to tackle it? Depending as it does on the desirability of ultimate ends, identifying evil is a theological process.
For example, it is presumably advantageous to have problems in this short life if this results in greater reward in eternity. The Bible is replete with examples of redemptive suffering. Is it better for someone to live with pleasure and joy for 70 years and then go to hell, or is it better to struggle and suffer for 60 years and then spend eternity in heaven?
Attempts at defining evil that appear to ignore such questions are making implicit theological assumptions. On what basis are these assumptions made if not a subjective basis of faith? Surely this points to the foundational importance of faith and theology, i.e. 'preaching' to bring about social change!
What should be done to someone whose actions we find to be evil? Do we punish them and force them to change? Or do we point out where they are wrong? The former is tempting, but often paternalistic and arousing of justified opposition, even if this is underground and secret. The latter while a demanding and complex task is part of the essence of traditional missionary work, classically carried out by the very means of teaching and preaching that 'holistic mission' proponents seem to be so unhappy with.
Should the West use its economic, educational, social or even military might to forcefully extinguish evil whenever it is 'spotted' or is it better to 'appeal' to people through preaching?
Even if we choose to leave aside the ultimate questions regarding evil discussed above, complexities still abound. Is it wrong to steal, if theft is the only way to avoid death through starvation? Is wife beating to be condemned out of hand if there is a community in which the alternative is prostitution that results in aids? Is dictatorship to be outlawed if it is the only way to maintain peace between warring factions? Family disputes are notoriously difficult for outsiders to deal with. Who will identify the 'evil' in the actions of husband and wife to one another?
Ethicists have for Centuries argued the relative advantages of deontological (norm based) as against teleological (end based) understandings of good and bad. [26] Do we now have the solution? Is it good to allow your child to enjoy eating chocolates from morning to night if he/she wants to, if the long term effect is an early death through a heart attack caused by obesity? Is it good to assist African populations to mushroom if there is no visible way for them to sustain their increased population density, such that people end up engaging in mass homicides such as occurred in Rwanda in the 1990s? When are actions evil, and when does 'aid' become 'interference' in other people's lives? And so on.
Short-term mission is these days much on the increase. So is the differential in wealth between the poor and the rich parts of the world. So is the degree to which the 'poor' world imitates and depends on the rich. Short-term workers from the West are greatly materially advantaged by comparison to most African people who they come to meet. Is it helpful for them in addition to be told that they have divine authority to condemn the evil that they find? That is, that which appears to them to be evil, given their frequently very limited life experience and contextual training? An ecclesial stamp of approval on what can easily be a narrow bigoted perspective is not, it seems to me, doing anyone any favours. Much better to concentrate on 'merely preaching the Gospel' than to blunder blindly and destructively into other people's affairs.
Padilla in telling us that: 'The church fulfills her vocation as light of the world not merely by preaching the Gospel, but by letting her light shine through 'good deeds' . . . ' (Matthew 5:16) [27] seems to suggest that there are some preachers whose view is contrary to this. Do we have impassionate preachers who will share about the love of Christ while their own hearts are cold and callous? If they are there, then let's pray that God will still be able to use them to promote his Word [28] despite this weaknesses, and not say that the presence of those who abuse the word should stop the rest of us from following it.
Most of us understand that preaching the Gospel is never 'merely'. It has been known since time immemorial that a preached Gospel is only effective if what is preached is demonstrated in the life of the preacher, and inspired by God's Spirit.
The two key differences that I can identify between the current age in the West and that of New Testament times are that in the West:
First: Preached words are themselves no longer considered effective either in drawing blessing or driving away bad spirits.
Second: That love is all too often these days interpreted as being expressed financially in monetary generosity and gift giving, and not in empathising, spending time with people, listening or even understanding, except with rational or quantitative ends in mind.
Christians born and raised in the West are facing a dilemma. They have been deluded by secular norms that threaten to undermine the very faith that they confess. Already this has resulted in historically Christian nations presenting a secular face to the world.
'Secularism' is an example of a great non-translatability. It does not make sense in the 'religious' majority of the world. I dare say that it does not make sense to God either, or to those who hold it in tension with some kind of 'private religion'.
This confusing state of affairs should cease to be the front which the West presents to the world. The key to comprehending a people has always and every-where, except perhaps in the West in the last few Centuries or decades, been to understand what they believe about God(s).
The key to bringing lasting heart-rooted change to a community is to enlighten people on more of the great truths of who God is and what he is like. If the West is to have a helpful message for the world then it should share what it knows about God, and not its confusion about 'secularism'.
Padilla and others may have been right to say that 'social action' should be a part of the work of the church. But then the question arises, what kind of social action? It appears that Padilla may have unwittingly played into the hands of people whose agenda would go on to do more harm than good by promoting unhealthy Third World dependency.
The Anti-Dependency Movement
The growth in 'holistic mission' in encouraging wealth transfers from the West to the poor world' has aggravated dependency concerns. Schwartz is in my view correct to say that 'dependency on outside funding' . . . is 'one of the most difficult problems facing the Christian movement at the beginning of the 21st Century'. [29] He is absolutely correct to say that modern missions methodologies result in 'the Gospel itself [being] distorted' and that people's interest in the Gospel for the sake of material possessions means that 'something goes terribly wrong in the spread of the Gospel'. [30] Schwartz has 'stood in the gap', filling that difficult and apparently contradictory position of being the American who is telling people to give (or in the case of Third World churches receive) less! Reese considers dependency to be ' . . . a perversion of the Gospel'. [31] He points out that 'under the title of partnership local churches or associations have been able to circumvent established missionary policy based on field experience' [32] thus agreeing with other authors such as Rheenan that partnership has simply '... frequently become a disguised form of paternalism' [33] and Helander and Niwagila's saying that in Tanzania 'fixation in the roles of rich giver and poor receiver has taken place'. [34] 'There cannot be a partnership in a setting up of dependency and patronage' [35] say Helander and Niwagila. Rather: 'the sharing of material resources is perhaps one of the most difficult matters in the history of partnership'. [36]
Reese points out that promotion of dependency may even be inadvertent: 'American missionaries in Zimbabwe almost automatically seem to be preaching a prosperity gospel even if this is not their intention . . . In such a situation, missionaries need a strategy just to avoid adding to dependency. . . . yet Africans are embracing them with zeal'. [37] I would certainly acknowledge that the same situation as Reese describes is also found in Kenya. Someone can inadvertently be 'preaching a prosperity gospel' because African people can make an implicit link between the Gospel and the wealth of foreign visitors. It is as if the wealth has arisen as a result of the Gospel. Those preachers from America or Europe who are unaware of the African context they are entering can say things that while true in their own context, are far from true in the African context. For example, someone from America saying that they 'trust completely in God' is assumed to mean this as being 'in addition to their pension and medical insurance'. Such fine points may not be picked up by African listeners who are relatively unfamiliar with such. One could add many things, such as the tendency of Christians visiting from the West to overtly be involved in 'spreading the Gospel' while implicitly being mostly engaged in dispersing wealth. 'Bringing the Gospel' can be like a cover for handing out money and material.
Schwartz advocates certain steps to be taken to resolve dependency issues. These include: First. To recognise that non-dependent churches are healthier. Second. To address the issue with serious determination. Third. To teach local people of their obligation to give to their church. Fourth. To encourage spiritual renewal. Fifth. To ensure there is local ownership. [38] Reese talks of the need for the kinds of mission programmes that do not create dependency, good training for missionaries, and mission euthanasia. [39] He advocates steps that Zimbabwean churches and the American churches relating with them ought to take to resolve dependency issues. [40]
I stand with the above in the solutions they advocate for dependency. I add additional ones below. Before doing that, I would like to consider the opposition that those who advocate the avoiding of dependency have aroused.
Opposition to the Anti-Dependency Movement
Rowell's book entitled To Give or not to Give [41] is an attack on those people who are trying to restrict giving by Western nations to churches in the poor world on the basis that excessive giving generates dependency. Rowell believes that ' . . . the negative realities we associate with dependency can be largely reduced without denying legitimately needed support for the poor'. [42] His heartfelt plea for generosity considers those who advocate reduced giving to avoid dependency as ' . . . managing to convince ourselves that we are somehow acting in the best interests of impoverished people by keeping what is ours, even as we observe their incredible needs'. [43] He suggests that 'missiological principles that emphasise Western concerns about dependency are sometimes being applied today to serve selfish ends rather than moving us toward a search for more sacrificial means . . . '. [44]
Scattered throughout Rowell's book is a lot of good missiological advice. His concern is very real, and I imagine shared by many. It also demonstrates that the West is the source of a lot of the pressure to give. That is, that Western people want to share of what they have. To some extent motivated by guilt, to a large extent out of compassion and concern for others who appear not to have a lifestyle comparable to theirs, Western Christians want to give to the poor Christians in the world. Why should they be deterred from this admirable aim? Expressed in this way, this is a troubling question. But it is the execution of this apparently charitable ethic that brings problems. Especially when charity (i.e. 'receiving') is in effect forced onto people (see above). Rowell's arguments unfortunately demonstrate ignorance of much that happens in practice on the 'mission field'.
Rowell identifies a problem in giving as being that 'strings' are attached. [45] I may well agree with him that it would be good to attach less strings, but strings are unfortunately inevitable when funds are donated, because of the need for accountability to their source. This is one important reason why it is always a lot healthier for funds to be generated internally to a culture rather than from the outside! Rowell is keen to see foreign church workers (missionaries) having staying power [46] and learning languages and cultures. [47] Unfortunately it has been my experience that workers carrying a lot of funds usually have less staying power, if only because controlling disbursement of funds implies power, which combined with the ignorance of foreigners results in their acquiring enemies and generating tensions that can be wearing and/or force them off the field. Maintaining relationships with donors and the need for careful accountability in the use of funds will force a missionary to spend a lot of time on his computer and maintaining an administrative infrastructure which often leaves little opportunity for learning of languages and cultures.
Rowell's book is unapologetically focused on 'financial' issues in missions. This focus on material rather than spiritual things unfortunately illustrates a tendency, already alluded to above, of mission being dominated by funding concerns. Should these always be so high on the agenda? His reference to the Marshall plan [48] illustrates this tendency, proposing that mission be an imitation of this secular post-war strategy aimed at encouraging economic growth in Europe. He does not consider the vast cultural differences between Western Europe and Africa. At the time of the Marshall plan Europe was on a course of economic development that had been interrupted by war and depression, whereas 'economics' is not a word even found in 'holistic' African languages. Rowell seems to think that people who are generous in giving end up worse-off as a result. While this may be true in the case of the original voluntary 'donors' who take a cut in their standard of living, I wonder if he has considered that such proposals will make the Western businessmen whose markets for (various) products are thus boosted to jump for joy? One could ask whether or how commercial interests are backing Rowell's position? It has certainly been my experience that being heavily involved in funding projects and people in the Third World adds to the wealth, and even prestige of the missionaries (or development workers, or businessmen) involved. A missionary (or anyone else) who is heavily involved in funding becomes subject to the interest of many Western as well as African individuals and organisations. They can easily justify having resources at hand themselves to enable them to administer the required aid / projects, welcome donors on their visits and so on. This in turn makes them wealthy. High turn-over multinationals like World Vision have a lot of time for those involved in dispersing money, but little interest in missionaries wanting only to work closely with a people in indigenous ways.
Rowell's enthusiasm for sending funds overseas from the West is give oriented and not receive oriented. He asserts repeatedly the importance of giving, but does not offer a solution for the problems that this can result in for recipients. In that sense he has not addressed the dependency issue at all, but will have aggravated it should his book convince more people to be generous givers in ill thought out ways. I agree with him that 'giving' should continue. My proposal as to how that 'giving' should be channeled is found below.
Different Understandings of the word 'Holistic'.
A basic, important but little considered matter in the discussion of holistic mission, is the implicature (what is implied by the use) of the term holistic itself. Few Westerners realise that whereas it may be clear to them that the material side of it is achieved through rational means, others (certainly in Africa) are busy bringing it about through what can loosely (given the weaknesses of English in this area) be called 'magic'. Many African people have traditionally understood that they prosper if they can please their ancestors. This has often been done by offering sacrifices and libations. The same reasoning is now applied by some to the acquisition of wealth and prosperity in the modern world. So some have understood that 'the goods . . . could be accessed by pre-modern means'. [49] People involved in this debate are understanding the term holistic in profoundly and importantly different ways!
Examples of the 'magical' approach abound in Africa. The classic is perhaps the African funeral and death-rites, that are increasingly being incorporated into churches in some parts of the Continent (including Western Kenya that is my home). Some African people will invest massive amounts of time into arranging and attending expensive elaborate funerals and burial programmes. Distant travel to and investment in funerals takes vast amounts of resources, never mind time from otherwise productive activities. Additional ceremonies often occur again months and years after burial. An important orientation of all these activities is to ensure that the ghost of the departed not be troublesome, that is that s/he not interfere with people's acquisition of important basic needs. The same orientation is reflected in a pre-occupation in African churches with cleansing; that is a rallying of spiritual forces aimed at the removal or de-activation of troublesome ghosts or spirits of the dead (driving out evil spirits). The difference between Africa and the West is not in the desire to meet needs, but in how they are to be met.
African people who deeply and implicitly believe in magic cannot (from a Westerners point of view) get their act together to run projects on the basis of Western rationality. Westerners who assume their rational route to be correct get frustrated, de-motivated and even give up when they realise that those being 'targeted' are the ones damaging the structures that they so carefully set up, because they are interpreting them from the perspective of their own cultures. How felt-needs are to be met; through Western rationality, or through combating untoward spiritual forces, is an important question.
Designers of formal holistic mission strategies are typically Westerners. If they are non-Westerners, then they will be imitating Western blueprints. Non-Westerners are consumers of such 'mission'. Holistic mission designed by the non-West will be a combining of the Gospel with 'magic', as defined above and see also Harries [50], and not Western rationality.
The West assumes that physical needs should be met through donated contributions. This is clearly not the example given in the Scriptures. The classic instances in which Jesus fed thousands as recorded in the Scriptures are given as 'miracles' (Greek semeion, signs). That is, Jesus did not raise funds and purchase bread in order to feed 5000, but instead he multiplied a few loaves so as to suffice to satisfy thousands of people. [51] Similarly, Jesus did not heal people through the use of bio-medicines, but by praying for them and on the basis of their faith. [52] Jesus was a healer and 'miracle worker', and not a project coordinator, highly trained scientist or fundraiser. It is non-Western societies and not the rationally oriented West who are in this respect more closely in line with the Scriptures.
The difference between these is important. 'Spiritual healing' (for want of a better term) and miracle working are not dependent on foreign links and a distant economy. They do not create dependency. Their operation is not restricted to a particular people of a particular culture and a particular economic and social class. Spiritual gifts of healing and miracle making may be given to anyone who genuinely believes in Christ.
Westerners looking at 'holistic mission' today generally consider the operation of projects to be on the basis of reason and from the platform of a globalised economic structure. This is not a Biblical model. The kind of economic rationality that underlies today's globalisation was not there at the time of Jesus. It is surely wrong to assume that because Jesus fed people by miracles (on very few occasions) and healed people (rather more often) Western Christians now have a mandate to create material dependence of the rest of the Globe on them by imitating his actions using alternative rational means. An extra-rational justification and foundation for rationality is a questionable mixing of categories. Modern technology and foreign funded projects are not neutral mediums of action, but have numerous implications for the society to which they are being applied. These have been outlined in brief above. Making peoples and societies dependent on technologies that they cannot from within their own worldview understand, control or perpetuate is in creating a high level of vulnerability to foreigners, immoral.
Additional Means for Overcoming Dependency
It is clear to me, and I hope I have made this case plainly above, that dependency is a serious issue in mission and (so-called) development work today. I would like to make two suggestions in addition to those above as aids to resolving it. I do so on the basis that I would like to encourage and not discourage ongoing 'missionary work'. I believe that the unity of the church will be aided by having more and not less people travelling between its branches. But I do see such work as needing to have a different character than is common today. In the past Western missionaries would use their control of the purse strings to 'take charge' in leading fledgling churches. I propose 'missionary poverty'. In much of Africa Western missionary superiority is almost guaranteed because official languages used are European. I propose that missionaries insist on favouring local tongues in their ministry.
a. Missionary Poverty Gifted Westerners are these days reluctant to take leadership in Africa through fear of accusations of paternalism. This results in a starkly different situation to that in the West itself, where many efforts are expended at actively integrating different races of people. Why this difference? I suggest that at its root is the wealth of foreigners on the African scene that (combined with their failure to learn local languages, see below) enables them to stand aloof and so keeps them ignorant of local people's ways. This ignorance is inhibiting what could otherwise be extremely helpful cross-cultural interchange. The church, as a foundationally egalitarian body, should be leading the field in resolving this perpetuation of inter-racial barriers.
I do not mean by this that Western missionaries should be too poor to keep themselves and therefore go hungry or 'go native'. Rather, that they minimise the Western wealth that they use (often referred to having a 'simple' lifestyle) but most importantly that they not use their Western wealth to further their Christian ministry.
- This is a step in the direction of a Biblical model, in which missionaries make their living through those whom they serve (1 Corinthians 9:11). If missionaries must support themselves from the West, then at least they should allow their ministry to be dependent on the resources provided by local people.
- This can be helped by a geographical separation of a missionary's ministry location from their 'Western base'. I suggest that a missionary live with their family (or have a site for retreating to a Western context) in one place, but base their ministry in another. The high technology and financial dependence that characterises their 'Western' home life should not interfere in their ministry. [53]
- Note that many people will not object to a foreigner's maintaining aspects of the way of life that are peculiar to their culture. I have yet to hear Brits object to the fact that Indian people in the UK eat Indian food, or that Chinese people treat themselves with Chinese medicine. Foreigners are usually given license by locals to continue their foreign ways.
- A problem that has beset the Western missionary and development worker, is the confusion between the Gospel and Western culture and technology. We are commanded to share the Gospel with all men, but contrary to popular Western wisdom today, I suggest that this command does not extend to our whole way of life and technology.
- For foreigners to 'have' things (even including vehicles, computers, radios and televisions) has not been the issue for African people. It is their promoting of their way of life as if it is superior that has caused many problems. A missionary (or any 'visitor' to a foreign country) if given freedom to continue to live according to the principles of their original culture should not, I am suggesting, try to impose that way of life on others.
- This will not prevent market forces from operating. This is not to say that African people, for example, should be denied Western goods. But that Westerners working for the church should not use donor money to press them with the same.
- Not being preoccupied in promoting their own culture to foreigners will result in opportunities of all sorts for foreigners to be learning from locals.
b. Use of Local Languages Operating one's Christian ministry in the local language has numerous effects and benefits that are these days rarely considered:
- It results in 'enforced humility', the flip side of which is that it removes 'enforced superiority'. For example, a British missionary using English in Anglophone Africa, because the African language is modelled on British English, starts from day one at the top of the linguistic pile. On the other hand, working in a local language will make everyone else into the missionary's linguistic superior. Which is the best way for a missionary to begin ministry in a foreign context, as the superior know all, or a listening student?
- A foreigner's use of the local language can be a major boost to the self-worth of the people concerned. People brought up in the native English speaking world usually do not consider this because they presuppose it. (Foreigners must learn English so as to function in the UK or America.) Much of Africa cannot say the same.
- Closely related to the above, is that it deters a missionary from being a divisive and debilitating influence onto a community. This has been particularly problematic in Africa because bearers of a foreign language have (through their economic clout) also been major power players while ignorant of local conditions. How much better to use such a powerful influence to build local capacity and community by using a local language!
- Once the economic advantage of the missionary is removed (as discussed above), reasons and opportunities for learning a local language will open up. An important reason for the failure of foreign workers to learn local languages has been because, having a knowledge of the language which happens to be the language of the wealthy and of international commerce, they are drawn into those upper class cliques. Top leaders and businessmen will be less of a distraction for missionaries who do not wield major economic clout.
- Learning a local language will enable missionaries to be much better informed of local ways of life. This will enable them to ensure that their ministry is more in tune with the local context, and therefore more effective and sustainable.
While Padilla may have been right to criticise the Western mission enterprise for its lack of 'social action' amongst the people they were reaching in Africa, his proposed solution of advocating holistic mission has, in giving ecclesial license to the Western development fraternity, caused its own set of problems. These include a serious aggravation of the 'dependency' problems facing non-Western churches. While standing with prior advocates of anti-dependency strategies, missionary 'poverty' and use of local languages are proposed as additional keys to resolving these issues and for more productive missions practice in the days ahead.
Endnotes
[1] Rene, C. Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' pp. 10-23 In: Lausanne Occasional Paper. No. 33. Lausanne committee for World Evangelisation. Held in Pattaya, Thailand from September 29th to October 5th 2004. (2005) accessed 14 Feb 2007 p. 15. Return to article
[2] Glenn Schwartz, 'A Voice for a New Emphasis in Missions.' Revised February 2006. An Interview with Glenn Schwartz. accessed 17 Feb 2007. Return to article
[3] John Rowell, To Give or not to Give?: rethinking dependency, restoring generosity and redefining sustainability. London: Authentic 2006. p. 3. Return to article
[4] Christopher Little, 'What Makes Mission Christian?' pp. 78-87 In: Evangelical Missions Quarterly. January 2006. Volume 42, No. 1. Return to article
[5] Little, 'What Makes.' p. 79. Return to article
[6] Little, 'What Makes.' p. 85. Return to article
[7] See also Jim Harries, 'Language in Education, Mission and Development in Africa: appeals for local tongues and local contexts.' accessed 19 Feb 2007. Return to article
[8] See: Jim Harries, 'The Magical Worldview in the African Church: what is going on?' pp. 487-502 In: Missiology: An International Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, October 2000. Return to article
[9] Genesis 9-12. Return to article
[10] Genesis 12:10-20 and Genesis 20:1-18. Return to article
[11] Romans 9. Return to article
[12] See the Gospels. Return to article
[13] John Chapter 6. Return to article
[14] Luke 4:1-13. Return to article
[15] See Jim Harries, 'Pragmatic Linguistics applied to Translation, Projects and Inter-cultural Relationships for Frontier Missionaries (not only for Bible translators): an African focus.' accessed 19 Feb 2007. Return to article
[16] Jim Harries, 'Power and Ignorance.' on the Mission Field or "The Hazards of Feeding Crowds".' accessed 15 Jan 2003. Return to article
[17] Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' Return to article
[18] (Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' This quote is taken from: Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, (eds.), The Church in Response to Human Need (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 2003), ix.) Return to article
[19] Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' Return to article
[20] John 15:19. Return to article
[21] Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: the history of Paul's collection for Jerusalem. (Nashville: Abingdon Press 1992.) Return to article
[22] Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' pp. 19-20. Return to article
[23] Galatians 5:11. Return to article
[24] Matthew 13:44. Return to article
[25] John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 1975.) p. 24. cited in Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' p. 12. Return to article
[26] Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: alternatives and issues. (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1971.) p. 13. Return to article
[27] Padilla, 'Holistic Mission.' p. 21. Return to article
[28] As suggested by the apostle Paul in Philippians 1:15-18. Return to article
[29] Glenn Schwartz, 2000. 'Is there a Cure for Dependency amongst Mission Founded Churches?' accessed 17 Feb 2007.) Return to article
[30] Schwartz, 'Is there a Cure.' Return to article
[31] Robert Boyd Reese, 'Dependency and its Impact on Churches Related to the Baptist Convention of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Christian Fellowship.' PhD Thesis. Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. May 2005. (Version that I read did not have the original page numbers.) p. 64. Return to article
[32] Reese, 'Dependency and its Impact.' p. 9. Return to article
[33] Gailyn Van Rheenen, MMR#13, 2001, 'Money and Missions (revisited).' accessed 20 March 2002. Return to article
[34] Eila Helander, and Wilson B. Niwagila, The Partnership and Power: a quest for reconstruction in mission. (Usa River, Tanzania: Makumira Publications (number seven) 1996.) p. 74. Return to article
[35] Helander and Niwagila, The Partnership. p. 85. Return to article
[36] Helander and Niwagila, The Partnership. p.125. Return to article
[37] Reese, 'Dependency and its Impact.' p. 37. Return to article
[38] Schwartz, 'Is there a Cure.' Return to article
[39] Reese, 'Dependency and its Impact.' pp. 77-80. Return to article
[40] Reese, 'Dependency and its Impact.' p. 76. Return to article
[41] Rowell, To Give. Return to article
[42] Rowell, To Give. p. 23. Return to article
[43] Rowell, To Give. p. 3. Return to article
[44] Rowell, To Give. p. 3. Return to article
[45] Rowell, To Give. p. 18. Return to article
[46] Rowell, To Give. p. 12. Return to article
[47] Rowell, To Give. pp. 14-15. Return to article
[48] Rowell, To Give. p. 141. Return to article
[49] Balcomb, Anthony O., 'Modernity and the African Experience.' In: Bulletin for Contextual Theology African Theology. Volume Three, No.2, 1996. accessed 29 Sep 2004. Return to article
[50] Jim Harries, 'The Magical Worldview in the African Church: what is going on?' 487-502 In: Missiology: An International Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, October 2000. Return to article
[51] John 6:5-13 Return to article
[52] For example see Mark 2:5. Return to article
[53] See: Jim Harries, 'Power and Ignorance.' Return to article