One of the most painful issues for our team leader is the issue of gradually withdrawing financial support from a significant number of Thai churches that our mission is still financially supporting. In most cases these churches have been started by one of missionaries in the past, and the church started receiving financial support from the mission to help it along. The old policy I think was that within 5 years the financial support would gradually stop and by that time the church would be self supporting. In reality, almost always the financial support was still needed after 5 years. When you try to reduce the support, the church makes it clear that they feel like you are abandoning them. The current mission policy is not to provide any regular financial support to a church or a pastor. However, there are many legacy situations still being resolved.
In my opinion it would have been better to have never provided financial support in the first place. In almost all cases it is unhelpful and cripples the church with a dependency on foreign money. I recently heard that perhaps as many as 90% of 4,000 Thai pastors who attended a recent Evangelism Conference in Bangkok are supported in significant way by foreign funds.
Although it is so hard to cut financial support to these financially needy churches in the long run it is that best thing for that church. If it can't survive without foreign funds then maybe it is best that it doesn't. It sounds harsh but I think it is the truth. Then the congregation will face the problem for themselves and work out a viable solution. Perhaps it will mean that the Pastor needs to find a part time job to supplement his income. Perhaps the congregation will realise that if they don't give more then they won't have a Pastor. For foreign missions to continue to fund these churches isn't viable or the best use of fund. Also as long as those funds are there the church will know that there is always a fall back option. Ask the mission.
When you give money to one church to buy land or to build a church, the other churches see this and come asking for money too. When you don't give it to them, they think you are showing favoritism. You gave it to them but why not us?
At college we saw a case study of a church in Africa which had depended on foreign support for decades. When the support was cut the church in time actually developed and icnreased their giving to the point that they were giving almost $500,000 to overseas mission. They learnt they could do without foreign support and took it upon themselves to find the funds to self support the ministry of the church.
If a new church plant cannot afford a Pastor, I say it should not have a Pastor. Work out some other way to lead the church. The worst thing you can do is to prop it up with foreign money making it anemic and dependant. The church must be self support from the start or not at all.
I can see first hand the heartache in our househelp's eyes and face when the Korean missionaries cut her husband's salary last month. They are just barely struggling to meet the bills. The missionaries never should have put him in the situation first place and it has put so much tension in the relationship between them.
In my opinion it would have been better to have never provided financial support in the first place. In almost all cases it is unhelpful and cripples the church with a dependency on foreign money. I recently heard that perhaps as many as 90% of 4,000 Thai pastors who attended a recent Evangelism Conference in Bangkok are supported in significant way by foreign funds.
Although it is so hard to cut financial support to these financially needy churches in the long run it is that best thing for that church. If it can't survive without foreign funds then maybe it is best that it doesn't. It sounds harsh but I think it is the truth. Then the congregation will face the problem for themselves and work out a viable solution. Perhaps it will mean that the Pastor needs to find a part time job to supplement his income. Perhaps the congregation will realise that if they don't give more then they won't have a Pastor. For foreign missions to continue to fund these churches isn't viable or the best use of fund. Also as long as those funds are there the church will know that there is always a fall back option. Ask the mission.
When you give money to one church to buy land or to build a church, the other churches see this and come asking for money too. When you don't give it to them, they think you are showing favoritism. You gave it to them but why not us?
At college we saw a case study of a church in Africa which had depended on foreign support for decades. When the support was cut the church in time actually developed and icnreased their giving to the point that they were giving almost $500,000 to overseas mission. They learnt they could do without foreign support and took it upon themselves to find the funds to self support the ministry of the church.
If a new church plant cannot afford a Pastor, I say it should not have a Pastor. Work out some other way to lead the church. The worst thing you can do is to prop it up with foreign money making it anemic and dependant. The church must be self support from the start or not at all.
I can see first hand the heartache in our househelp's eyes and face when the Korean missionaries cut her husband's salary last month. They are just barely struggling to meet the bills. The missionaries never should have put him in the situation first place and it has put so much tension in the relationship between them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment