Be Generous but Avoid Financial Dependence
PDF EBOOK
STATEMENT
Indigenous churches must be planted with the aim to exist independently of foreign support and flourish in the grace of giving. Financial independence should be included in our planning, teaching, and methods, recognizing this may be countercultural and take years to achieve. When outside support is deemed wise, it’s best to establish accountable means of giving that strengthen the congregation’s giving. Ongoing foreign support of essential church functions, such as salaries and meeting space expenses, can create an unhealthy dependence that inhibits the church’s sustainability.
Stories from Overseas
There is a church building in Central Asia where an indigenous congregation worshiped for several years. Though they were in a Muslim context, in the early 2000s, this newly planted church received government approval. It became the only recognized Christian gathering known among this large, unreached people group. The church grew rapidly. By 2007, hundreds attended, and the church constructed their permanent building. Shortly afterward, an international parachurch ministry, delighted to find a flourishing indigenous church, decided to fund the ministry of the church. Seeing large amounts of cash distributed amazed the local members–for a time. However, over the following months, confusion and disunity increased as outside funds rather than local leadership began to direct the church’s ministry. Conflicts among church members grew about how to distribute the money. By 2009, because of these internal disagreements (and not the expected pressure from Muslims), the church disbanded and dissolved completely. The hurts ran so deep that no indigenous church gathered in that building for 14 years. Only one year ago, a small group of local believers, formerly members of an international church, began meeting as a church there again.
A group of indigenous church plants in Southeast Asia tell the opposite story. In these church plants, sacrificial giving to the church was taught right away, and missionaries set an example by giving to the local church. Therefore, initial funding for the pastors came through the local church instead of from an outside entity, and these funds were held in a single pot under the authority of indigenous church leaders and their congregations. In addition, there was a precedent in the culture for bi-vocational ministry, so many church plant pastors received some support from their local churches while maintaining side employment. As the churches matured, these pastors embraced a lifestyle typical for the socio-economic status of the church members, contributing to a healthy culture of giving.
An international worker from East Asia observed first-hand how international funds have contributed significantly to the development of churches without causing harm. Because these churches meet in homes, long-term outside funding provides office space where pastors prepare sermons, conduct pastoral internships, and translate and print spiritual resources. International churches in the area contribute funds to publish Christian resources in the local language and provide theological education for church leaders. These resources strengthen the church without developing dependence for core church functions or inflating church leaders' living standards. Such well-considered giving contributes to a robust, well-equipped church without fostering disruption and disunity.
What makes the difference?
The Issue
The aim of missionary work and the financial support behind it is planting healthy churches that endure. These churches face unique cultural challenges and needs, but they share the same dignity and sovereignty under Christ as their sister churches worldwide and are heirs of the same promises (Ephesians 1:18-19, 4:4-6). Unfortunately, there are many situations where a relationship of long-term, one-sided financial dependence damages indigenous churches. Outside financial support with no definite end date can hinder spiritual development and increase vulnerability. Faithful church planting aims for financial independence, even if there is a need for outside support in the short term.
Defining Financial Independence
Financial independence means the indigenous church can carry on its essential functions apart from outside financial assistance. That is, the church is not dependent on outside funds to meet for worship or the long-term support of its leaders. In addition, the church is equipped with the vision and ability to carry on ministry, for example, giving to support local outreach.
Churches in the New Testament give financial support to other churches in need (Romans 15:25-28, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 9:11-15), and churches today that have the means should be generous. So, financial independence does not suggest that the indigenous church shouldn’t receive outside aid in times of need. Instead, planning for financial independence removes the expectation that those who supported an indigenous church plant are God’s ongoing provision for that church. The goal is for the indigenous church to depend directly on God, teaching its members the importance of giving to the church. To this end, church planters should encourage church members to support the church early on. Failing to do so means the growing church continues to depend solely or in large part on the generosity of outsiders.
Dangers of Inappropriate Dependence
Finances are a display of God’s provision for his people. In Matthew 6:30-33, Jesus teaches that God knows our needs and we are to seek His kingdom first. When a church depends on an outside entity to provide finances in a way that hinders its dependence on God, spiritual growth can stagnate. The church lacks deep reliance on God and the resulting confidence in Him that accompanies maturity into a strong and fully indigenous manifestation of Christ’s body.
Inappropriate dependence can also hinder the gospel witness of the indigenous church. The watching community is often suspicious of outside aid. Financial support gives credence to the charge that Christianity is an “outsider” faith and that new believers have sold out for monetary gain. It can expose young Christians to persecution based on jealousy or fear of outside cultural influence rather than for their devotion to Christ.
Undue influence is another danger. Churches or individuals providing financial assistance might expect a considerable say in what the indigenous church does. Similarly, the indigenous church may adopt practices that will please supporters and encourage more financial support.
Foreign funds also pose spiritual temptations and consequences (e.g., 1 Timothy 6:10). Large sums of money can entice people to sin, leading to territorialism, greed, deception, jealousy, factions, and entitlement. These funds can also discourage new believers from giving and from growing in love for one another and their leaders as they show them this honor (1 Timothy 5:17-18).
Inappropriate financial dependence damages indigenous churches. Sometimes, churches fold entirely when foreign financial aid ends. Others have “converted” wholesale to follow a cult that arrived with offers of further funding. Believers and whole ministries lose credibility, and relationships fracture within the indigenous church and between indigenous and supporting churches over financial disputes. Long-term missionaries lose visas due to retaliatory complaints over funds. Outside financial gifts without careful and thoughtful oversight typically lead to more spiritual vulnerability than spiritual health in the indigenous church.
Challenges to Financial Independence
Given the dangers, why do missionaries and church leaders quickly resort to outside resources to shore up a church? What prompts even well-meaning outside churches to perpetuate financial entanglement rather than encourage growth towards autonomy? What cultural and economic factors stymie indigenous churches’ move towards financial independence?
New believers in indigenous churches often face difficult economic conditions stemming from persecution, unstable governments, poverty, lack of opportunity, and more. Missionaries and their sending churches see these hardships and want to help. They know they can easily lift at least some of these burdens by sending money. It’s easy to consider financial aid as the primary means of expressing concern and care, but caution is necessary. Outsiders can’t quickly grasp the many factors at work in a different culture. Financial aid may not be the deepest or most pressing need, and the long-term effects of giving must be understood and considered.
In addition, cultural expectations often exert a hidden influence. Missionaries or local believers familiar with an established church may assume a new church needs a permanent building and salaried pastor; local believers may have seen no examples of bi-vocational ministry or rented meeting space in their cultural context. In some societies, primarily where a visible wealth gap exists, a patron-beneficiary system establishes a pattern of long-term financial assistance in exchange for loyalty. Such a system in the culture often creates an assumption that a similar pattern will exist between an established church and a newly planted church. Sometimes, previous mission work sets expectations of high salaries for church leaders.
Faithful biblical teaching and reliance upon God are the best protections against unhealthy financial dependence, but they require patience and long-term commitment. Church members can become discouraged and face temptations to pursue worldly ways of success. Outside (often Western) impulses to “make something happen” can pressure young indigenous church leaders to forgo their plans to become financially independent and accept support.
Planning for Financial Independence
How can missionaries and local leaders achieve financial independence in indigenous church plants? The first step is simply embracing financial independence as a goal. It sounds obvious, but with this commitment, givers acknowledge explicitly that in every diverse cultural situation, the gospel rather than sufficient funding is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). Further, the Spirit and the Word establish the church (John 14;26, 17:17) and not financial backing. Finally, a wise financial perspective bears in mind that local giving by the church supports the sanctification process (Acts 20:27-35). A bedrock commitment to these principles will guide decisions that avoid using money as though it has the power to preserve the church or as though financial scarcity—rather than sin and unbelief—is the main threat.
With this commitment confirmed, three general principles can help guide financial investment in indigenous churches: mutuality, accountability, and generosity. Mutuality describes systems of giving in which both the givers and receivers see themselves as brothers and sisters in Christ growing into full partnership in the gospel. Guidance and shared decision-making about funds may be needed as indigenous churches mature (2 Corinthians 8-9), but growing trust and mutual respect through demonstrated faithfulness is the goal. A mutual relationship like this is in sharp contrast to a model where an international ministry basically employs local church leaders to be “boots on the ground” for their church planting vision. Mutuality encourages the supporting church or organization to honor the authority of local church leaders. Likewise, it encourages indigenous leaders to engage in ministry with a sense of ownership in the Great Commission.
Second, it’s wise to have a system of accountability in place when an outside entity gives funds. Tyler Markson observes, “Often, it is easier to send a check and ‘trust the Lord’ with the results than to do the hard work of ensuring the money is used correctly.” [1] However, effective processes regulating and reporting on the use of funds protect believers from temptation, loss, jealousy, and conflict. Setting up these processes requires careful communication to understand how the culture thinks about money. For example, designated giving is unknown in many societies, and holding money for a specific purpose in the face of other needs may create relational conflict and a crisis of conscience for recipients. In such cases, just-in-time giving [2] serves the receiving church well and is worth the additional administrative load for the supporting church. Donors and recipients must work through cultural differences to agree on an accountability plan before transferring funds and work to maintain open communication. Laboring to deliver and track funds in transparent and culturally understandable ways supports learning, trust, and spiritual wholeness for the giver and receiver.
The goal of accountability is not mainly to protect investments but to provide opportunities for building both character and trust over time. Done well, giving with accountability can be a path to mutuality, contributing to solid relationships of trust. When a leader’s character is tested and well-known, giving with greater confidence is possible. Money is a tool that can be used well to build the church by faithful laborers; however, in the wrong hands, it can lead to disaster for the individual and the church. However, concern for averting such disasters should not keep us from putting that tool in the hands of those who will use it well. Rather, it should make us more rigorous to discern who is trustworthy.
Finally, giving should be governed by generosity. The care required to give well need not diminish our joy in free and generous giving. Giving that honors God is born of both joy and discipline, and there is an expectation in faith that our giving will bear fruit (2 Corinthians 8:7, 9:6-7). However, Scripture repudiates any expectation that money manipulates spiritual fruitfulness (e.g., Acts 8:20, Romans 11:35). Generosity borne of delight is motivated to invest temporal resources to gain a stake in what is supremely valuable. Paul echoes the parable of the pearl of great price when he says, “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (2 Corinthians 9:23,18). Generosity driven by this spirit of hope-filled investment is never limited to finances; it is prepared to invest deeply and personally in love (1 Thessalonians 2:8). As such, it can more readily resist unhelpful financial impulses by looking beyond numerical outcomes and persevering in the quest for genuine spiritual fruit.
Getting Practical
Because cultural, religious, and political contexts differ significantly, developing universal rules for wise giving is complex. Missionaries working in different parts of the world shared the following practical observations, which may be helpful. These ideas fall into the categories of ministry structures, giving structures, and investments that tend to serve the longevity and maturity of indigenous churches, as well as some types of investments to avoid.
Ministry structures. Consider bi-vocational ministry a valid path for church leaders in areas where opportunity allows. When pastors maintain a means of personal support, they are less likely to leave the pastorate when salary expectations are unmet or outside funding drops off. Secondly, churches and pastors should adopt a meeting location and standard of living that fits the local context.
Giving structures. Encourage giving to a church or organization rather than an individual whenever possible. Committing to time-limited or project-based funding is more likely to avert dependency. It’s helpful to negotiate specific timeframes and give designated funds on a just-in-time basis. Finally, don’t give apart from a bilateral commitment to maintaining an ongoing relationship as the primary basis for accountability.
Unsound Investments. We would caution against two specific investments in almost every case: salaries and church essentials. First, avoid paying church leaders’ salaries without solid confidence in their character and doctrine, proper accountability, and the end goal of financial independence. This individual and open-ended means of support is highly likely to create dependence and be catastrophic for the church if discontinued. Likewise, paying expenses required for the regular meetings or functions of the church (e.g., meeting space) leads to unhealthy dependence that might fracture the church if it is withdrawn [3]. Remember, it isn’t only the ability or commitment of the supporting church that determines these risks; rapid changes in political or economic situations abroad can suddenly make the delivery of funds difficult or impossible.
Sound investments. On the other hand, there are many ways to invest wisely. The following list isn’t exhaustive but includes ways missionaries have seen financial giving bear good fruit.
Theological education: Investing in theological education has often borne good fruit for individuals (with caution), especially for establishing and building up institutions that further this goal.
Bi-vocational seed money: Funding to help pastors establish a business for bi-vocational ministry can support long-term financial and spiritual benefits for the church.
Matching grants: Offering matching funds for special projects encourages the indigenous church to grow in giving and allows for partnership in ministry, as well as the experience that builds mutual trust.
Scripture and biblical resources: Funds for translating, producing, and publishing Scripture and theological or devotional resources in the local language can strengthen the church for years to come.
Relief: Following the New Testament pattern, churches are always encouraged to support one another in practical ways during natural disasters, acute persecution, or political turmoil.
Undergirding all of these recommendations is the essential need for clear and regular communication among missionaries, support for church leaders, and reception of indigenous church leaders.
Ultimately, it is Christ who builds his church, and he has promised that the very gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). It is our prayer that this article will encourage supporting and indigenous churches alike to give with greater insight, generosity, and hope.
Footnotes:
[1] Markson, Tyler, “Seven Principles for Funding Foreign Missions”, 9 Marks Article (December 9, 2022)
[2] “Just-in-time giving” means providing funds a little at a time as they are needed to serve the receiving church, rather than as a lump-sum to coincide with the giving church’s budgeting schedule.
[3] In some areas, believers have found that a church building actually builds trust, presence, and legitimacy with the local community and government. In such a case, helping a church gain a recognized meeting place may be a strategic priority for outside investment, still with the long-term goal of financial independence.
