This is the fourth post processing the recent articles from Andy McCullough on changes he believes are necessary for Newfrontiers to decolonise apostolic ministry (please read the previous articles: part one; part two; part three).

---

Money. The love of which is the root of all kinds of evil. And money, according to Andy is causing problems in the exercise of apostolic ministry within the Newfrontiers family. Andy frames his critique around three questions.

1. The Narrative Question: Which story is this gift perpetuating? – what habits are being reinforced? – what is the cumulative effect of this money?
2. The Patronage Question – What is the liberative effect of this money? Does this gift create Freedom or Control?
3. The Envy Question – what is the effect of this money on others in the context?

With regards to the first question Andy says,

Every time money flows from North to South, it reinforces pride in the givers and humiliation/dependency in the receivers. The status quo is perpetuated. The narrative is unchallenged. Western Christians feel happy that they have sent money to solve a problem. They may fail to zoom out in their perspective to see that they are actually exacerbating a far more serious issue.

This is a strong charge, that the way money is used is humiliating.

With regards to the second question,

Friends tell me that this feeling of patronage obligation is very real. When churches from the West give them money, even if they are told “no strings attached, use it how you want,” recipients may feel honour-bound to use it in a way they will understand or approve of, because they see things through a patronage lens. This can rob them of contextual freedom, without the donors even being aware of it!…

Sometimes donors are aware of this dynamic: but are using money the way a dog uses urine – to demarcate territory, to say “this church is mine, this leader is mine,” to buy loyalty.

This is worse because we’re adding control, to humiliation.

And with regards to the third question,

The recent widely celebrated response of British churches to the Ukraine crisis, in hospitality for refugees, in aid money, has also created tensions in other parts of the body of Christ. What about Syrian refugees? What about the war in Yemen? Or the Kenyan drought? Whilst this is not a reason not to respond, perhaps the volume of celebration via social media could have been toned down, so that other dear brothers and sisters who would dearly love such a response would not be caused to stumble. Perhaps Jesus’ warning, “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,” was designed to help mitigate against envy in situations of generosity.

So the third charge is that careless giving creates envy. Envy, control and humiliation. This is strong stuff.

And as a result of this analysis Andy proposes four responses when the issue of money comes into play.

• Slow down – expediency or problem-solving is not the only thing in play.
• Zoom out – think about the context not just the individual situation
• Consult widely, especially with local people in that context.
• Let’s help one another. Let’s interrogate one another’s decisions. Let’s find ways of being accountable, of overcoming our own blind spots. Let make sure money is not creating tensions within the wider body.

Now all this could be true. It’s certainly the sort of charge-list that has been brought to Western donors of all kinds for at least 30 to 40 years, so these are not new issues. The NGO sector has been wrestling with this stuff for decades, so it would be a little surprising if we were exempt from a similar set of mistakes and challenges. And if this is all true then I hope that somewhere behind the scenes, examples are being given, names and places are being shared because it’s only in those moments of humble confrontation can better ways be found.

However, I do have a problem with Andy’s analysis and it is this: it is one-sided on all counts. The problems we have with money do not just lie with the ones who have or give it but also with the ones who don’t have it and want it.

What’s the story?

Let’s take the first question. Andy quotes Harvey Kwiyani who says, “the Western Church is good at giving but not good at receiving.” But isn’t the opposite also true? There are parts of the church that are good at receiving but not good at giving.

Andy also quotes, Mekdes Haddis, “an Ethiopian Christian, who helpfully distinguishes between vertical generosity, which perpetuates power distance, and horizontal generosity, which expresses mutuality, give-and-take, togetherness, friendship” which all sounds very lovely. But I can almost guarantee you that if northern hemisphere travels south or east and all you offer is mutuality, friendship and togetherness you will disappoint people. They might want all of those things but that doesn’t mean they don’t also want/need your money.

My point is this, they might not want a ‘white saviour’ but they do want his cash. The story of money and it’s redistribution back from north to south has more than one layer to it.

Who’s really in charge here?

What about the second question and the issue of patronage? Andy asks, “Is it possible to make this gift in a way that the recipient preserves their freedom, within their conscience, to do ministry as the Spirit leads?” And that’s a good question because it seems from what Andy says that it might not be. At the very least it would seem that this is incredibly difficult to do well. Apparently, even when money is given with no strings attached the recipient attaches strings. So whose fault is that? If you’re moving towards a relationship of mutuality, friendship & togetherness then I think there needs to be an equal owning of the problem from both parties to work out a new way forward. That won’t happen if the blame is always dropped at the feet of the giver.

The other issue is that patronage can be given to you whether you want it or not. Here’s a real life situation that I’ve come across on numbers of occasions with people in Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa. You’re asked for financial support from a friend in a developing country. You want to be generous, so you respond positively. Then after a while, they need more money for something else. Nothing has really changed in their circumstances and you are one of the few people they know outside of their context who can help, so they ask you again. And again. They ask you to help them fix their house, to help them find a job, to help them educate their children, to help them pay for their uncle’s hospital bill and their cousin’s funeral. Each situation is deserving and understandable but unspoken they are treating you as their patron. And before you know it, the burden of responsibility for their life is being imperceptibly shifted to your shoulders. It’s patronage only without any reciprocal claim. After all what exactly are you going to ask for in return?

If, as Andy says, the core question is around freedom vs control then it is not only the wealthy who try to control. Indeed the poor can and do use their poverty to manipulate (after all it is weirdly almost the only thing they have going for them) and they use it to try to control the kindhearted westerner and the most common weapon is guilt. I’ve advised people to stop giving for precisely this reason, they were being manipulated and on occasion the recipient was not always consciously aware that this was what they were doing. The donor was not the ones using, they were the ones being used.

The sins of the sons of Israel

Lastly, what about the issue of envy? When you think about the story of Joseph, his father Jacob and his brothers (Genesis 37), who is at fault for the brothers’ jealousy? You’d have to lay some of the responsibility at the door of Joseph wouldn’t you? He certainly didn’t seem to use the gift in a humble manner. Nor could you entirely absolve Jacob of responsibility, after all he chose to give a fine gift to one son above all others. Certainly the giver and the receiver here are at least partly to blame. But if you divide the responsibility in two and instead of three then you have a problem, Joseph’s brothers are also fully accountable for their response. Jealousy might be understandable but it is not excusable. Jacob was free to give a gift to one son and Joseph was not wrong to accept it, nor was he wrong to wear it. The brothers don’t get a free pass for chucking Joseph in a ditch and selling him into slavery because it’s not their fault they were jealous.

The issue of envy is not a new one. Child sponsorship agencies have for decades had to deal with the risk that their model of helping alleviate poverty exacerbates division. So the reality is from an individual to an organisational to a national level, whenever a gift is given, there is a risk it creates jealousy in someone, somewhere.

Andy says, “Previously non-capitalist, content communities are infected by foreign funds washing into a situation.” I’ve worked in disaster response and I fully understand how one country that hits the headlines can have SO much money coming in that the NGOs literally cannot spend it fast enough and they race around sticking flags into villages to claim it as their project because they have MILLIONS to spend in that country that cannot be used anywhere else. That’s not ideal. While at the same time a neighbouring country that is equally poor can be struggling for money and essential projects are struggling to survive. That’s an unfortunate and harsh reality, to which there’s no easy answer.

There is no right answer to who is most deserving of your money, or to which cause should it go. I won’t be surprised if in a few years time, and there’s still a war in Ukraine, that we hear the the complaint wondering why we’re not still being generous to Ukraine, which by then will have dropped further down the news pages. Sometimes our memories are as short as our attention spans.

So what to do? You don’t necessarily make anything better by not giving money ‘to leaders who speak English, or are good at building relationships with Westerners’. Andy’s suggestions are wise and helpful. Care and wisdom is necessary when offering help. It usually requires the insights of a trustworthy local who can help you navigate the complexities and it requires real trust to let them steer you and it requires genuine integrity on their part to not just steer you to their best friend or brother or both.

Andy’s final recommendation was, “Let’s help one another. Let’s interrogate one another’s decisions. Let’s find ways of being accountable, of overcoming our own blind spots. Let make sure money is not creating tensions within the wider body.” And I agree with that but I think in this article the interrogation was one sided and if we are to model partnership, healthy sharing of resources and kingdom generosity then that interrogation needs to be a two-way street.