Andy McCullough of the Unreached Network has begun a series of blogs outlining a case that apostolic ministry within Newfrontiers (the movement we both are a part of) should be decolonised. Having heard Andy speak powerfully on the subject there is much to instinctively agree with but I thought it worth working my way through his case so that a) I understand it properly b) if necessary critique it and c) where necessary apply it.

So make sure you read part one of his series before you go any further.

Here is Andy on the value of apostolic ministry.

I love Newfrontiers. I am a Newfrontiers boy through and through. And I’m arguing for a process of reflective decolonisation of apostolic ministry.

One of our contributions to the global missions conversation is a robust theology and practice of apostleship. We believe that Biblical language (elder, shepherd, evangelist, apostle, etc.) is more meaningful in a multilingual, global movement than non-Scriptural, culturally-embedded words like leader or missionary. We argue that apostles are still necessary gifts of the ascended Christ, as are the other Ephesians 4 gifts (prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers). If you are new to these ideas, may I recommend David Devenish’s Fathering Leaders, Motivating Mission, as a world-class introduction to the theology and practical outworking of apostleship today?

But Andy’s contention is that there is something problematic with how apostolic ministry is being practised that if not addressed will hurt the advance of the gospel. So what does he mean by ‘decolonising’?

I mean that, within many networks of churches, much of the doctrine and practice of apostolic ministry has been taught by white guys. As such, it needs to be interrogated for its “whiteness.” Viz a viz the doctrine, are there blind spots or culturally narrow perspectives that could be challenged or fleshed out by globally informed, power-sensitive perspectives? Viz a viz the practice, are there out workings of this idea that proliferate toxic dependencies, extend Eurocentric hegemony… basically that hurt people and hurt the mission of God? I believe it is the humble thing to answer yes to both questions.

In essence we have, he argues, made apostolic ministry a classic case of wearing Saul’s armour. It doesn’t always fit, it weighs people down, it doesn’t help them fight and we’ve been looking at the fit of the armour and not the faith of the fighter. Here are three problems he identifies in his first post.

1. Countries have become badges of pride

I still hear people strategising and praying about mission into new countries exactly like Cecil Rhodes might have sounded in wanting to paint Africa pink from Cape Town to Cairo.

Language such as “We’re working into X nations now” as a way of establishing credentials or even in worst cases asserting superiority would definitely need challenging. More partnerships in more nations does not equals greater apostleship. In a global movement we don’t need expansionist organisations but we do need genuine apostolic partnerships which brings Andy to problem number two.

2. We have called some men apostles who really aren’t & haven’t recognised some who really are

I still see recognition bias; we have more recognised Global North apostles than is merited, and fewer than we should from the Global South.

It’s worth saying that in our model of ministry apostolic ministry is only recognised not appointed. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then it probably is a duck and so you should call it for what it is. Given he’s talking about recognition bias Andy is suggesting we’re not very good at identifying a duck when we see one. What he is suggesting is we’ve missed the recognising apostolic ministry from the Global South because cultural barriers and biases are preventing us from seeing them in their true light. Conversely we’ve been prone to call someone who we do see as having an apostolic ministry when really the facts on the ground don’t warrant it but cultural proximity has given them a pass to a test they didn’t have to take.

Is he right? Well given that the vast majority of Newfrontiers churches are not in the Global North but the majority of apostles are, then yes he probably does have a point.

What should be done about that? Well, I doubt anyone will be unrecognised, I mean that’s an awkward conversation. But more likely extra effort will, and should be, made at better recognising apostolic ministry that arises in a other cultural contexts. I’m hopeful that this imbalance will be corrected. But it’s not the only imbalance that Andy says exists and if not addressed then greater representation may not result in equal responsibility or standing.

3. Money has equalled power

I still see unconscionably imperialistic use of financial patronage to control local leaders, “if we pay, we get to say”.

There’s a lot going on there and that one sentence hides an awful lot of complexity. Financial patronage is difficult to navigate. We’ve been asked by several African churches to work with them but what they primarily mean is ‘can we have some money?’ and are disappointed when it is not forthcoming. Then when genuine relationship does blossom there are very different ideas about what that partnership means. I mean partner they think patron. On more than one occasion I’ve had to wrestle with the issue that because I am a white European, I am (and by extension our church is) now thought of as responsible for them. There can be this sense of a burden being imperceptibly shifted onto your shoulders and that’s an uncomfortable one.

In addition those you give money to are often themselves financial patrons. If we give money to a leader from the Horn of Africa, for example, then that money is often used for the life needs of other leaders who in their turn have looked for financial support. There definitely is a pyramid of cascading financial patronage and that is something worth thinking through more thoroughly. It can be complex when patronage works slightly differently according to culture and context.

Then there are differing obligations. Western organisations often have to function under strict financial rules. There are challenges with putting money into an individual’s bank account and yet in some cases it is impossible to do it any other way. Here in Stockholm we regularly and repeatedly face queries from our bank about transactions sent to Africa because of tight European laws against money laundering (we’re not I promise) and we have donor accountability for what we do with the cash. There are annual reports, audits, charity law and more that are bundled up into western notions of stewardship and integrity. Therefore it’s not necessarily controlling to check that the money you gave for Purpose A was actually used for Purpose A, it is sometimes in fact the law.

Yet this is probably not what Andy is thinking of. The reality of many situations in the Developing World is that they need significant financial freedom in allocating resources because needs and priorities shift far more often and far more fluidly than relatively prosperous westerners in stable countries ever realise and too often we restrict or influence when we should trust & release resources.

When I worked in the NGO sector there was always the challenge of financial imbalances between different appeals. If disaster-struck Country A hits the headlines money comes rolling in. Sometimes NGOs struggle to spend it because they have so much but they can’t transfer any of it to equally struggling Country B because the money is ringfenced. What the NGO needs is money in their general fund which they have the freedom to allocate as they see best. And in reality this is what their partners and in our case our partners need too. They need resources for their general funds which they then have the freedom to allocate as they see best and that might include their own personal needs & support.

This requires a high degree of trust and a clear understanding of what is being entered into and a much clearer understanding of local costs. There can be an assumption that because you’re giving money to a developing nation context and especially if not to an expatriate worker that they can and should be able to get by with less.

Yet money isn’t easy and here some questions I’ve found it helpful to ask. Are you giving money to a person? Are you giving money to an organisation? Are you giving money for a specific purpose? Are there are any reporting requirements for the money given? Does it matter to you if others are also giving money to that person or ministry? Would you keep giving to them if they had other funding sources? What financial responsibility does friendship and partnership entail? How does say 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 apply here? Is it ongoing support or just an emergency appeal? Can you say ‘no’ and remain in relationship?

Finally does your financial support create dependency or build capacity? Experience suggests dependency is often the unintended outcome because money is often redirected from one area to another. The reasons for this are entirely reasonable, the need genuine, but then they need to come back to the western money well and ask again and you end up with financial patronage that skews ministry partnership.

Conclusion

You can probably tell by the allocated amount of sentences which issue I’m wrestling with most. The issue of financial dependency, assumed responsibility, trust, freedom and generosity are far more complicated and as I’ve learned the hard way a naive and simple desire to help does not always end up doing that or ends up entailing far more than you had bargained for. Patronage is not always imposed by the wealthier of the two parties.

In his next- post Andy challenges how we see and value local ministry in other cultures.