Questions Raised by Missionaries and Mission

Leaders in East Africa

September 11, 2002

Answers given by Glenn Schwartz, Executive Director World

Mission Associates

1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. What is the current definition of dependency in
missiological circles?
The following is a description of dependency found in the
Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Baker Books, 2000)
pages 269-270. It was written by Dr. Donald F. Smith. This is
only a portion of a larger article.

Economic dependency has been shown to inhibit national

development, yet economic dependency has been repeated in
church-mission relationships. Both national and church
dependency are characterized by very few sources
investing/giving heavily through an indigenous controlling elite.
Fundamental decision-making is implicitly the prerogative of the
donor not the recipient. Foreign assistance is large relative to the
receiving economy. A large proportion of its university students
and leadership are trained in a few foreign sites, and a
considerable portion of the aid is spent on purchases from
abroad. The economic top 20 percent receive most of the funds,
which reinforces their position, and the bottom 40 percent
almost none.

Christian ministries unwittingly perpetuate economic dependency

when they plead "just send money," separating funds from
fellowship contrary to the example and teaching of 2 Corinthians
8 and 9. "It continues to make the national church dependent . .
. It often robs the national church of its natural potential. When
easy money . . . is available, very few want to explore
indigenous ways of fund raising."

"Dependency is also created by imported structures,

methodologies, and institutions that are suitable for churches of
one culture but not for another area. By placing inappropriate

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
and even impossible demands on the churches, those churches
become dependent on the guidance of outsiders who understand
the imported system. A form of Christianity is created that
cannot be reproduced. Paternalism and its mate, dependence,
thus may grow from the very structures of mission and church,
not from some weakness in either the new believers or the
missionaries."

My definition of dependency relates to churches that could stand

on their own but for one reason or another have chosen to let
someone else support them. I do not consider people dependent
just because they are being helped. It becomes dependency in
my estimation when the help they receive is negatively affecting
their ability to help themselves. This is a very brief and
inadequate definition of a very complex subject.

1.1.1. Is this the definition that churches in Africa also

use?
I heard one African church leader call dependency a
demon. I heard another describe as a sickness that
affects not only the church, but also governments and
families. We know that governments sometimes get
more grants and loans than they can repay and so they
end up using new money to pay interest on earlier
loans. That is the seamy side of prolonged dependency.
Families experience dependency when they find a dozen
or more members in an urban area living from the
income of a single wage earner. No one needs to
convince people like that the dependency syndrome is
real.

1.1.2. Is dependency purely a western problem rather

than a concern of the churches in Africa?
I have met many African church leaders who are tired
of the dependency syndrome. In fact, some of them
have demonstrated by the positive steps they have
taken that the syndrome can be overcome. When one
realizes the progress that can be made when people
decide to overcome dependency, it would be a fallacy to
think that we dreamed it up in the West. We may
unwittingly be helping to cause it and to perpetuate it,
but it is a real problem for those caught in its trap.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 1.1.3. By raising dependency issues with the church in
Africa, is the mission again imposing its agenda
on her?
Dr. Alan Tippett used to say that many of the financial
problems facing mission-established churches were
caused by the mission. Therefore, it is not acceptable
for the mission to walk away from responsibility in
relation to dependency. I have found quite the opposite
reaction from church leaders when I speak about the
problem of dependency. For example, one of the things
I hear is that this is the first time any white missionary
acknowledged the problems they have been living with
for a long time. Therefore, I do not hesitate to talk
about the problem we as westerners have caused, and I
heartily encourage local church leaders to take the
initiative in setting things right. The magnitude of the
problem is so great that we must all work together to
do something about it.

1.2. How should dependency be measured: dollars, personnel

or intangibles?
Dependency can be measured in all of these ways. For example,
one of the ways churches demonstrate dependency is by inviting
outsiders (western missionaries) to hold positions of
responsibility when a local person might do just as good a job or
even better. This might be done for the prestige factor of having
a foreign person involved. A spirit of dependency also arises
when it is assumed that westerners are more intelligent and
have more creativity. Local people sometimes conclude that they
might as well sit back and let outsiders do what they do best.
Another reflection of the dependency syndrome is evident when
a westerner is appointed to a position, for example, simply
because foreign funds are available for his or her salary. The
rationale is that if a local person were appointed to the position,
then local resources would need to be raised in support of it.
Every outsider should be aware of the fact that dollar signs
might be attached to the appointment.

Of course not all dependency is related to money. It can be

related to theological concepts (foreign theology, hymnology,
missiology, etc). It can also be dependency on people as
mentioned above. As one mission executive said some time ago,
"When one becomes aware of the dependency syndrome, there
seem to be evidences of it in many places."

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
1.3. How do we distinguish between what is and what is not
acceptable assistance?
If people are in desperate need and will not survive without
outside assistance, then someone is obligated to help. Jesus
commanded it. However, I have found that help is often closer
than we might think. It might be in the extended family, the
neighbouring village or province, or even another part of the
country. Too often those closer resources are often bypassed in
favour of the global resources which are readily available.
Sometimes the global resources need to be given more than the
local people need to receive them - not always, but sometimes.
When this happens, it may create or perpetuate dependency in
an unhealthy way.

1.4. Are there any positive elements to dependency?

All of us have experienced the positive effects of healthy
dependency. Children would not survive without the help of their
God-given parents. Husbands and wives become dependent in
ways that can actually be gratifying for one another. Indeed, a
spirit of unhealthy independence can be as harmful as outright
dependency. The challenge is to find ways of helping without
leaving people with the impression that they will always need
help and may never be able to stand on their own two feet. That
is when positive elements become negative and a healthy self-
image or community image is destroyed or diminished.

2. BIBLICAL
2.1. What is the Biblical teaching on dependency?
There are three Biblical examples to which I often point. One is
the time of building the Tabernacle in Exodus 35. A wandering
band of refugees was asked to make a contribution toward the
building of the moveable house of God for the journey to the
Promised Land. In the end, they gave so willingly that Moses had
to tell the people to stop giving. This fundraising project ended
with the glory of the Lord filling the House of the Lord to such an
extent that Moses could not enter. Remember that those making
the donations were refugees with an uncertain future.

The second illustration is found in the preparation for the

building of the permanent house of the Lord - the Temple. God
decreed that David could not build the Temple, but he was
instrumental in the fund-raising phase. David mentioned several
times in 1 Chronicles 29 that the people gave willingly toward
the project. He also reminded everyone that what they were

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 giving came from the hand of the Lord and that they were only
giving back some of what He had already given to them. This
fundraising project ended with everyone prostrate before the
Lord in worship.

A third Scriptural illustration is found in 2 Corinthians 8 in which

the Macedonians were described as being in severe trial and
extreme poverty. The Apostle Paul says that, even so, they
begged for the privilege of giving. This clearly shows that not
only the wealthy are expected to give or that the blessing should
go only to those who are well off.

2.2. With regard to dependency issues, what distinction

should be made between us as individual missionaries
and us as a mission organisation?
If the mission is a reflection of the attitudes of the missionaries
who are its members, care should be taken to avoid dependency
among both the individuals and the institution itself. Neither the
members nor the organization should be involved in creating or
perpetuating dependency. It may be possible for a missionary
family to assist people in the community simply because they
are good neighbours or because they have compassion for those
who are suffering a natural disaster for example. The mission
might take a more cautious approach because it does not want
to create or perpetuate dependency which could become long-
term. The mission also might seek to help raise local resources
as a matter of policy to help reinforce the fact that local
resources are available. This is much healthier than creating or
perpetuating dependency.

2.3. Even though dependency may result, do we not have a

Biblical mandate to help African Christians in need?
It is hard to see how creating long-term dependency - which
often robs people of self-hood - could have positive benefits.
Should someone help? Yes! How to help in a Biblical way without
destroying local initiative is the challenge facing the
contemporary missions movement. In Lesson 9 of our video
series I have tried to show that the ideal is the closest resource
with the farthest being the last resource. I refer to this as the
principle of geographical proximity. It is too detailed to go into
here, but I believe the principle is valid.

2.4. What criteria can guide us in giving biblically to others

who are poorer than ourselves and yet not create

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 dependency?
There are two interesting statements from scripture. In Galatians
6:2 we are told to "bear ye one another's burden". Only three
verses later (6:5) we are told, "every man shall bear his own
burden". Obviously there are times to help someone and times
to let someone help themselves. I believe this is true of churches
as well as individuals and families. In relation to avoiding
dependency it points to a principle I often stress: Never do for
others what they can and should do for themselves. People feel
best about themselves when they carry their own responsibility.
When we take that privilege away, we sow the seeds for
dependency. By the same token, when someone is truly in need
we are obligated to help bear one another's burden.

2.5. How can we avoid the perception that with the concern
not to create dependency, we appear to be greedy, selfish
and even disobedient to Scriptures?
This is a criticism we often hear when westerners find out that
we are promoting self-reliance among mission churches. One
way to think of it is like this: If you promote the dignity and self-
respect of those you are trying to help, you may be the most
self-giving of all. On the other hand, if you steal someone else's
self respect, that can hardly be a credit to one's own Christian
grace.

The issue of redistributing global resources is too huge to tackle

here. Suffice it to say, that Lesson 4 of the WMA video series on
dependency deals with what westerners can do with their
resources in an effort to avoid or overcome dependency.

One is tempted to ask about the source of the wealth in western

churches. I draw attention to this in Lesson 4 of the video series.
In no way do I justify westerners accumulating all they can and
then refusing to share with those in need.

2.6. We have clear Biblical instructions to be compassionate to

those around us who are in need. How can we be obedient
and yet avoid dependency?
The need to show compassion toward those in need can be
substantiated from the Scripture. Jesus commands it. It might
be helpful to reflect on the global dynamics in local terms. In a
congregation in North America or Europe, for example, there
may be some very wealthy people and some families in dire
need. How does one help the families in need? Does one

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 advocate a redistribution of wealth in the congregation until all
have the same amount of resources? Or does one try to make
sure that basic needs are met and help to ensure that those in
need are able to provide for themselves? We normally choose
the latter. Of course there is Biblical precedent for everyone
sharing equally as in Acts chapter 4. Our Christian responsibility
lies somewhere between a full redistribution of wealth and giving
responsibly, so that people will be able to care for themselves in
the long run.

3. CHURCH AND MISSION

3.1. Is it justifiable for a mission agency to subsidise a
programme which the local church is unable to sustain if
that programme makes a positive impact on the extension
of God's kingdom?
Obviously there are times when someone needs to help people
who cannot help themselves. However, unfortunately many
times the programmes created and supported by mission
agencies are not the idea of local people. In fact, sometimes
they are born in the hearts and minds of missionaries who create
the programme simply because they have the outside funding to
do so. (This is mission methodology based on expediency rather
than a sound theology of mission.) Years later, when
missionaries try to withdraw, they find that there is not sufficient
local interest to keep going what they started. We should not
generalize by saying that outsiders should never begin local
programs. However, with all we have learned about the
importance of ownership, great care must be taken to avoid
creating something that might become a burden for local
believers in the long run. I find it helpful to think of missionaries
limiting themselves to being advocates and avoiding the
temptation to become innovators. This is not the place to deal
with that in detail but it is good point for missiological
discussion.

3.2. If a dependency relationship has been established which

is subsequently recognized as being ill advised, what
steps are recommended to rectify that relationship?
In Lessons 7 and 8 of the WMA video series on dependency I
give many suggestions on how to avoid or overcome the
dependency syndrome. I will not repeat all those suggestions
here, but suffice it to say that there are many things that both
missionaries and local church leaders can do when dependency
clearly exists. From the standpoint of the missionary, nothing is

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 more important than a change in attitude, including confessing
paternalism, when it comes to overcoming dependency. I believe
missionary attitude is the greatest single issue behind the
dependency syndrome.

3.3. With many local churches ready to develop relationships

with outside agencies, what steps can be taken by
agencies to ensure that the relationship between
churches and agencies is a healthy one and not one that
could lead to dependency?
The idea that mission-established churches need the outside
resources mentioned in this question is an interesting
assumption. It assumes that in the relationship, there must be a
flow of resources to the mission church. Perhaps that is why the
dependency syndrome flourishes the way it does. Of course,
there are principles to be followed when giving help, and some
agencies have developed guidelines for such giving. Since I
concentrate on how to help churches avoid dependency, I don't
concentrate on how to develop financial partnerships. I leave
that to those who begin with different assumptions.

3.4. Is all assistance through agencies a detriment to churches

in Africa?
Obviously there are ways that mission agencies can help newly
established churches. One of the ways is through the people
they send from their own churches (their own missionaries) to
help plant the church in the first place. Interestingly, the Apostle
Paul made a point to avoid dependency to the point where he
worked for his own living - not exercising his own rights so that
the Gospel would not be hindered (1 Corinthians 9:12). Here is
my suggestion: Consider what kind of assistance is being given
and ask yourself if it is helpful or detrimental to the establishing
of a healthy mission church.

3.5. Should missionaries tithe through their local churches,

recognising that with their greater wealth they will be
inflating the local church's receipts unrealistically?
Missionaries differ on whether they should tithe to the local
church they attend. There is good reason to give this issue
consideration. In some cases the tithe of one missionary family
could turn out to be more than the entire offering from others in
the church. This problem is exaggerated when there are many
missionaries living on one mission station. It is actually an
argument for spreading missionaries around rather than

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 concentrating so many in one place.

This question points to a much larger issue. How does one deal
with the disparity of the income of a western missionary family
compared to those among whom he or she works. It can't be
answered here, but anyone who is interested should have a look
at a book by Dr. Jonathan Bonk entitled Money and Mi$$ions
(Orbis Books, 1991). In this book, Dr. Bonk makes the point that
it is very difficult for some people to hear the Gospel across a
wide economic gap.

My observation is that the wide economic gap contributes to the

dependency syndrome because there is such a great temptation
to use the wealth on the one side to try to lift the other. Yet
there is significant Biblical and other evidence that those who are
not well off financially often have something significant to give to
the Lord and the wider world of which they are a part. If western
missionaries aren't aware of it, they just might destroy the
initiative of local people to give, thereby depriving them of the
blessing of giving.

3.6. How do we encourage contacts between partnering

churches in the west and local churches without
stimulating unhelpful dependency?
Once we deal with the assumption of money being the basis of a
partnership then we can begin to think about what other kinds of
things are in order. For example, churches in the non-western
world can be recognized for the gifts of preaching, spirit of
sacrifice and success in spiritual warfare. The western world has
a lot to learn from people like that. While people in such
churches have so much to offer, the prominence of finances in
the equation obscures the "gifts" others have to offer.

Don't forget, those who are perpetually dependent may be

suffering from a poor self-image and community image. Even
though they have other gifts to give, they may feel ashamed to
present themselves because of the economic dependency.

3.7. Church-run income generating projects always seem to

divert the church from her main calling. Are there other
means of generating funds which help the church avoid
dependency and yet encourage growth and maturity?
Church-run projects are often an indication that churches have
turned away from the primacy of tithes and offerings. I believe

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 that legitimate income for the church is from the pockets, grain
bins and bank accounts of dedicated believers. When the church
turns to income generating projects it sends an important
message to church members: If you are too poor to give, the
church will run a project to get income. First, that creates and
perpetuates dependency. Secondly, it gets church leaders
preoccupied with moneymaking projects. They become more
concerned about profit and loss of the church-run businesses
than about tithes and offerings given for church growth and
evangelism. It must make the Enemy very pleased to see the
church diverted from its main goal that way. My conclusion is
that businesses should be owned and run by business people
who will give their tithes and offerings to the church. When that
is done, church leaders will be able to disciple church members
and not worry about profit and loss in what are often poorly run,
church-owned businesses.

There is a principle coming out of West Africa from the Faith and
Farm people. They discovered that when individuals and families
were made successful and taught stewardship, the church was a
natural beneficiary. This is a much healthier alternative than
having church leaders trying to run church-owned businesses.

3.8. When institutions prove themselves by training effective

leaders of the church in Africa, is a measure of
dependency acceptable given the positive impact that
they make for the kingdom of God?
This makes the assumption that church leaders (probably
missionaries and evangelists) can be supported with outside
funds. A healthy church is self-supporting and self-propagating.
Apart from depriving a church from supporting its own people,
there is a danger that someone will decide to become a
missionary or evangelist because overseas funding is available.
This has a major implication because sometimes those supported
in this way are not acceptable to the local church that should be
supporting them. (They may be a choice of the outside mission
society or even individual missionaries.) Foreign funds also help
such people to get round local accountability. Some time ago I
heard about a church in North America that substantially
supported a pastor in East Africa - about ten times the local
salary. I asked them what work he was doing. The response I
got was, "He says that he has three congregations." No one
knew for sure because all they had was the pastor's word.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 Of course there are many places where those who give the funds
are fully aware of what is being done and what is not. But if one
accepts what Dr. David Barrett says about available resources
among African Christians, then the kind of support alluded to in
this question becomes quite questionable. Dr. Barrett says that if
African Christians gave just two percent of their income, they
could pay all their expenses including leadership training, church
building, outreach, development projects - and computers if they
want them.

3.9. What expressions of dependency have been noted in

outreach to Muslims?
I know of a project started in a mainly Moslem country in Asia in
which revolving loan funds have been used successfully to help
converts to Christianity to get on their feet economically.
However, they insist on four principles: 1) that those who get a
loan must make regular instalments to repay it; 2) that they
must pay all their taxes as a witness to the government; 3) that
they must pay a tithe of their income to the church; 4) that they
must put some into savings for a rainy day or to help someone
else in need. In this situation there isn't a hint of making
outright gifts or grants - the kind which sow the seeds for long-
term dependency. Since I am not intimately involved in Muslim
ministry, I will not seek to comment further here. There are
others who are more able than I to do so.

3.10. Can dependency in its widest sense be so strongly

engrained into church and mission cultures that it keeps
both church and mission from speaking honestly with
each other?
Obviously, without a doubt. For the problem to be resolved, both
sides might have things to confess. In some cases local leaders
fear losing the funds that pay their salary. It takes a bold local
leader to advocate stopping outside funding when his or her own
salary is at stake. (However, I might add that the Presbyterian
leaders in East Africa did not let this stop them from calling a
halt to outside funding, and with great benefit.)

The stakes are high for missionaries as well. They must consider
the implications of their life-long work being put on the altar of
sacrifice. The danger is that no local person will take sufficient
interest in keeping their projects going. But what if that life-long
work represents a millstone tied around the neck of the church?
I know of a missionary who spent about twenty or so years

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 developing a number of substantial income generating projects
for a church in Central Africa. After being back in North America
for about ten years he returned for a visit to see how things
were going. He was given a very disconcerting message. One
church leader said to him, "I just want you to know that your
greatest contribution as a missionary is our greatest problem
today." One urgent reason for seeking to deal with the
dependency syndrome is to keep any missionary from hearing
such words.

3.11. If the local church prefers to be dependent, what then is

the role and responsibility of the mission agency?
I refer again to Lessons 7 and 8 of our video series on
dependency. There are many things that church leaders and
missionaries can do to both precipitate and anticipate the shift
from dependency toward self-reliance. Anticipating the change
means looking forward to having it happen. Precipitating it
means doing things to get it to happen.

3.12. What steps can a mission agency take to help the local
church to be realistic in planning according to available
means?
I have come to believe that unrealistic planning is related to the
fact that, in the past, outside funds have been an important part
of how things were done. Missionaries themselves often had
mega finances available for what they wanted to do. Little
wonder that local people considered that an attractive and
legitimate way to proceed.

On the other hand, suppose the idea of self-support had been

introduced from the beginning and projects were undertaken
within the range of local resources. How much healthier things
would have been. After years of outside funding we are reaping
the results of what was sown. On the positive side, I recommend
that missionaries and mission executives decline the invitation to
be present when local leaders get together for business
meetings. The very presence of "moneyed" westerners in the
room can change the very dynamics of the meeting. It is at
times like these that budgets are brought out and anticipation is
raised about how much the outsiders will be giving - sometimes
in the name of partnership. Remember, that one-way flow of
resources is hardly partnership. It is more like sponsorship.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 This is a complex question which deserves much more attention
than it is being given here.

3.13. How can the focus of church-mission relationships be

shifted from dependency to a partnership in ministry?
Much depends on what one means by partnership. By now the
reader will probably be aware that I am sceptical of partnership
for the reason given in the last question. The process is often a
one-way street with little sign of true partnership. A good
partnership is one in which everyone brings something to the
table - not just money - so that real contributions are evident
from all the participants. Unfortunately, money - especially from
the outside - distorts the picture. I won't go into it here, but
there are healthy partnerships in which money is not the prime
ingredient. Those do exist, but unfortunately they are too few
and far between.

3.14. What working models are there in Africa of churches

moving from dependency to a more healthy partnership
with mission agencies?
Lessons 1 and 2 of the WMA video series on dependency include
quite a few stories of churches in Africa which have made
progress in the move away from dependency and toward self-
reliance. I use the term "toward" because I do not look for
perfect examples. However, there is evidence in many places in
Africa where significant positive steps have been taken. In some
cases, church leaders scoff at the idea of going overseas for
funding. It can be done and indeed, it must be done, if the
Christian movement is going to mature in Africa. If it is not
done, then what chance will the church in Africa have of finding
its joyful and rightful place in the expanding Christian
movement?

There is a shameful element to all of this. Sometimes the

rationale is that westerners must give the money because they
have it - regardless of the dependency it might create. This is
donor-driven missiology, the kind that gets cross-cultural church
planting into deep trouble.

4. NGO's
4.1. Many NGOs want to assist churches with AIDS relief
which would help meet an overwhelming need. However,
to do so could change the present positive attitude of
church members from involvement in "ministry" to doing

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 "business". Should this concern keep us from accepting
finances which would provide relief, but could damage the
overall ministry of the church?
There is always a chance that the presence of outside resources
will change the dynamics in how churches do their work. I find it
helpful to think of healthy self-reliance not being dependent on
outside resources. Look at the places where churches are now
standing on their own two feet, and it most likely happened
when they turned down outside funds rather than when they
accepted them. Someone must help with the enormous problem
that AIDS represents. But church leaders should avoid the
temptation of looking at the income related to a crisis such as
this as a solution for their other financial problems.

One bishop in East Africa spent ten years developing donor

relations for the purpose of getting development funds. At the
end of the ten years he did some research to find out what
happened to local church member giving in the same ten-year
period. Not surprisingly he found that local member giving had
gone down. He regretted what he had done.

4.2. Given the overwhelming impact of AIDS, are we not

morally obligated to help those in distress by accepting all
available funding?
Don't forget, that someone clearly needs to help. However, AIDS
will not be stopped by enormous amounts of outside funding.
AIDS is a behaviour problem with roots in morality. Whatever
contributes to resolving the problem on that level should be
encouraged. Of course, it is Biblical to assist widows, widowers
and orphans. Here again, how they are helped becomes critical
so that long-term dependency is avoided, if at all possible.

Under normal circumstances one would look to extended families

to assist with orphans, widows and others who suffer as a result
of the AIDS epidemic. Sometimes the extended family is so
decimated that it is not there for the people it would normally
serve. Again, clearly someone must help. Learning how to do so
is an enormous challenge and I do not want to minimize it in any
way.

4.3. If funding through missions is to be discouraged because

of dependency issues, is it acceptable for these finances
to be provided by NGOs, most of which do not seek long-
term relationships with the local churches?

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
 NGOs often become an attractive alternative to mission societies
when it comes to getting outside funding. If the mission won't
give the funds church leaders want, the next best chance is an
NGO. Some NGOs are careful to use revolving loan funds or
similar things to help avoid dependency. Unfortunately, others
fall into the trap of using money in detrimental ways. In some
cases they are going straight to the top of my geographical
ladder (global resources) in order to meet very local needs. (I
am referring to the principle of geographical proximity in Lesson
9 of the video series.) When they do this, they are bypassing
every other resource in between. That is sad, because it makes
it look like things such as the extended family system are
dispensable. That is very serious, because if the extended family
is allowed to dwindle away, an enormous local resource in places
such as Africa will be lost.

Of course, NGOs have another pitfall to avoid. Sometimes they

are so well funded that they pay salaries three or four times that
of local churches. This lures away from churches some of the
most capable leaders. Then when the crisis ends, the NGO
releases the staff, and they are expected to return to their
churches to find employment. But by that time they can't afford
to live on the income the church is prepared to pay. Leaders of
NGOs should consider carefully the implications of this mode of
operation.

In conclusion, I express appreciation to the missionaries in East Africa

who formulated these questions and asked for my response.

Glenn J. Schwartz
World Mission Associates
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
September 11, 2002

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu