Anyone else out there struggling as I am, with the apparent hegemony of holistic or integral gospel? This seems to mean for a westerner that in order to do Christian ministry in places like Africa one has to bring in money. Always bringing in money means you are promoting the prosperity gospel and making people dependent on what you have, often in unhealthy ways. Having the money and controlling the money means that the outsider is the boss. Then local people can't get anything off the ground, unless there is an outsider as boss. When local people do try to do something, it looks poor if not pathetic compared to what an outsider can do by implementing 'holistic mission' (i.e. subsidising what they do using outside funds). Where did this notion that Gospel has to be 'holistic' come from? Is it really biblical? Can the Gospel not simply be 'Gospel' without having to be labelled as 'holistic'?
You need to be a member of oscaractive to add comments!
Replies
I agree that this is a problematic area, but we need to remember that the Gospel has always involved showing the love of God, not simply proclaiming it as a series of propositional truths. Jesus, we are told, went about doing good. We can and should share what God has gifted to us, whatever that may be - expertise, wisdom, physical strength or money. We don't have to maintain control over what is given, although we have to realise that the donors may not always be happy with this arrangement. We can give with no strings attached, trusting those to whom we give to use whatever is given as seems fit to them. But if we do, we have to deal with how we might react if the gifts are not used as we think best. I remember raising £1,200 towards the conversion of a building as a church in Moldova. On my next visit, I was shown an outside toilet and a fence round the property, which was how the funds had been used. Nothing had been spent on the actual building, but my priorities were clearly not the same as those of the local brothers. 1o years later, I was privileged to attend the official opening of the church.
Perhaps it would be easier if we concentrated on the fact that all the good things we have are gifts from God anyway. If we keep in mind that we have nothing of our own, will we be less likely to want to control 'our' money and how it is used by others? I once heard a message on giving, and the speaker said that our responsibility was to pray about how much we should give and to whom we should give it. Once it was given, it was the recipient's responsibility to pray about the best use of the gift, not ours. They may have better awareness of local needs/situations. (Having attended a couple of very long services in an ancient and very cold church that did not have any toilets, I totally agree with the outdoor-toilet priority!)
I do wonder how one can 'not control' one's donated resource? In a sense that is easy, as I can give Bob $5 and then turn my back on him and not talk to him again, if you like. I mean, I can hand over the money, and then do nothing. Meanwhile though, Bob is no fool, and is aware of the circumstances that resulted in my giving him $5. For example, Bob has a car and is able to pick me up from the airport, and he has a you-tube on the internet explaining what he is doing, whereas Daisy who does not have those things will not get my donation. Similarly, if we come home from Moldovia and tell our friends that we gave Bob $5 and we haven't really got a clue what he is going to do with it, our friends are unlikely to give any of their funds to Bob. If on the other hand Bob makes it clear what he is doing with the money, and he is wise enough to use it in the kind of way that makes me happy, then I am much more likely to tell my friends what a great man Bob is, and they will donate more to him. In the process of Bob's aligning his reported (and / or actual) use of my $5 to that which he knows I will be pleased with, am I not indirectly but very effectively controlling my money?
There are a lot of ifs and buts about this scenario which do not really do recipients or donors of 'gifts' much spiritual credit. If we only give to Bob because he has a car and can pick us up, then the donor's motives are doubtful. It would be possible to give to both Bob and Daisy, whether or not they can help us. If Bob wants to help pick me up from the airport, it may have nothing to do with the gift, but simply Christian friendship, using what he has to help me as I have used what I have got to help him. I agree there are incidents where 'Bobs' will seek to foster relationships in order to gain materially, but it is not always the case. Being able to discern between Bobs is one of those things we, as donors, need to be praying about as Philippa has said. Certainly any attempt to control activity because I control purse strings must be avoided wherever possible.
Because of the dangers, however, it would be better to set up the friendship relationships in the first place without financial bases, so that any 'help' in either direction I seen as a result of Christian love rather than of material superiority or inferiority.
Good point. That way, our offers of help, whatever they are, are made in the context of our friendship. I think it is fairly easy to spot when the 'friendship' is motivated by the idea of material gain.
For example, a few years ago, I was put in touch with a lady from another country who wanted penfriends to share spiritual discussions and improve her English. The first two letters talked about our responsibility as 'Christian family' to encourage each other and contained hints about the difference between 'wealthy Britain' and her 'poor country'. The third letter started 'I am glad God has blessed you by putting you in such a wealthy country compared to mine. Please send...' There followed a long list of electronic gadgets, designer clothing etc, which were completely out of my reach! I explained that not everyone in Britain was that wealthy and that I did not know anyone who could afford these things for themselves. That was the last I heard of her!
By comparison, letters from others in materially poor areas are full of their gratitude to God, talking about what He has done in their lives, sharing what He is doing in their area. They are a huge encouragement and help to me, and I hope I am able to help them a little too. It is certainly not a one-way relationship; if anything, I would say I am the person who receives greatest blessing from the friendship as I learn so much from their love for God and determination to serve Him at all costs.
Hi Ralph, But do we give mainly to people who have cars? I don’t know what you mean by ‘it would be possible to give to both Bob and Daisy’??? What do you mean by ‘possible’? Let’s talk about what is LIKELY. Yes, you and Bob scratch each others’ backs … You say ‘it is not always the case’, but how often is it ‘the case’? I hope you have great trust in your ‘discernment’, that can be life and death for some others. … Don’t you think Bobs of this world might see through the fact that you are setting up a ‘friendship’ first, with resources coming later? Who wouldn’t want such a friend? You say “any attempt to control activity because I control purse strings must be avoided wherever possible”. How are you going to avoid this? Phillipa says she ‘thinks’ “it is fairly easy to spot when the 'friendship' is motivated by the idea of material gain”. Hmmm. There are a lot of people trying to make it difficult.
Jim, your comments on this topic seem very personal - I wondered if you or someone you know have ever had so-called 'friends' who were only after what you could give them, or whether you have experienced people ignoring your needs in favour of a mission with u-tube, fancy publicity etc? If so, I am really sorry, and I hope nothing in this discussion has added to the distress.
I know that hurt from our church family is so much harder to deal with than anything that comes from outside. It can be a really tough area to deal with, especially when we have seen examples of things going horribly wrong, but I do believe that God will guide us in this area, just as in any other if we ask Him to.
Hi Philippa, Thanks for your response. I guess you have heard of the issue of 'prosperity gospel' in Africa? Many Westerners get very frustrated, I think I can say, with African people's proclivity to the prosperity gospel. There is a kind of 'primary to the material' way of thinking in parts of Africa that results in such a gospel. That isn't something new, or something strange. It is extant, and it is there.
That is not to say that African folks themselves perceive such. They perceive what is 'normal' for them, as we perceive what is 'normal' for us, each of us. This is where what we could call 'intercultural communication' gets fraught (especially when everyone is using English). Particularly 'mission from a distance' can miss some of those issues. That is - relationships that are built and/or developed over the internet, and through a Western language can remain blind to some of these things. Sometimes false confidence in what we are doing is unhelpful, but we may not even realise that our confidence is ‘false’. Hence I challenge Western folks to build cross-cultural relationships in mission that are not on the back of foreign resources. That can be very difficult.
The original question in this thread concerned the holistic gospel. People who work on the basis of 'holistic gospel' who thus consider (in practice) transfer of resources from the 'haves' to the 'have nots' to be an essential part of sharing about Jesus ALWAYS build relationships on the back of their access to resources. The fact that they may not feel their hand being bitten does not mean that all is well. Often they do not feel that they are getting bitten because their hand is far away safe on a computer keyboard. Helpfulness of their resources might not arise by default. Sometimes an injection of resources can be unhelpful.
I can appreciate that an injection of resources can be unhelpful and have known situations where that has happened. At the same time, the Bible shows that we are meant to support each other and share with each other financially as well as in other ways. I guess all any of us can do is to bring all that we have and are before God in prayer and ask Him to give us wisdom, that our giving furthers what He wants to do, rather than hindering it.
Perhaps if the church in the West had a more biblical view of finance, we would not make so many mistakes? I have recently received appeals from secular and Christian charities that use emotional blackmail techniques - there was little difference between the two. I have read articles about support-raising for mission that discuss how to make your 'prospect' feel 'uncomfortable' about not donating. I have been told that if I have good 'networking' contacts with several churches then raising support is easy, but if I don't, then it probably won't be possible! I've also heard churches saying they believe they should do a particular ministry/outreach etc, but 'can't afford it financially'. I feel really uncomfortable when I see Christians absorbing so many of the world's techniques and beliefs in money-raising. What has become of 'my God shall supply all your needs'? If we focus less on our own abilities and efforts and more on God, perhaps we wouldn't make so many mistakes!
Money is only part of the support that is needed by any Christian ministry. If I give Bob $5 and never speak to him again, how am I going to pray intelligently for his work? How am I going to encourage him in the bad times or rejoice with him in the good times? On the other hand, if I give Bob $5 because of his you-tube video, fancy website, glossy newsletter, then maybe I am donating for the wrong reasons...?
I believe our giving should start with prayer - if we bring our money to God and ask Him where He would like it to go, we are less likely to give unwisely. Also, if 'Bob' or 'Daisy' know that we love and care for them and are praying for them, they are less likely to worry about what we will think of their use of that money and will be more able to focus on how God wants them to use it. I support mission work in some financially poor areas and I trust the workers to use any money I send wisely, not because I am 'keeping an eye on them', but because we pray for each other, encourage each other and support each other. Christians should be able to communicate with each other without control or manipulation. If they can't, I believe the problem goes far deeper than finance.