The American Dollar Support System

Last modified 6/5/97

Charles Cook

In the four decades since World War II the churches of Christ in

America have sent missionaries to every continent on the globe and
congregations have been established in every country except for about
twenty-five. The challenge has been put before the brotherhood to
target these remaining countries for evangelism and church planting,
and judging from our record, missionaries will be sent to them soon.
Wherever we have attempted to establish indigenous works, and that
has always been our stated goal, we have had to deal with the
question of putting national church leaders and preachers on the
American dollar support system. The question has been: "Who Pays?"
From the beginning this issue has been debated among us. Some
spotted this as potentially damaging to our efforts to follow the New
Testament pattern for church planting, and it smacks of trouble to
anyone with common sense. However, others saw it as a tailor-made
answer to the problem of starting churches where the standard of
living was extremely low and prospects for newly established local
churches supporting their own gospel workers was apparently nil. The
thinking was: "Why not put needed national leaders on temporary
support by American churches and when the foreign churches are
numerically strong they can support their own local personnel."
Further, it was reasoned that American brethren are generous and
want to be involved in not only sending missionaries but in doing
anything they can to further the cause of Christ. Hence, for the
majority of our missionaries it was a foregone conclusion, the
American brotherhood will be approached for carrying the burden of
supporting foreign nationals needed to lead the new congregations in
foreign lands. Perfect! Or, was it? As far as I am concerned the verdict
is in and the whole thing has been one tremendous mistake. To put
nationals on a U.S. monetary support system, no matter the motive,
no matter how temporary the arrangement, was a mistake of
monumental proportions!

Though some used the opportunity for personal glory, I believe most
of our missionaries had good hearts and were primarily interested in
promoting methods that would best facilitate the spreading of the
gospel into all the world. They never intended to create the monstrous,

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
self- destructive system that has evolved, they only intended to do the
right thing, and often did so at great personal expense. The decision to
shore up our works with the aid of American funds was a pragmatic
move, it was simply based on what does and does not work. The
Westernization or Americanization of the gospel and the imposing of
American funds to guarantee our success should never have
happened. We were trying to "force the kingdom," but the gospel is
designed to spread naturally throughout a country and will acclimate
to any economy. We ignored the true indigenous method. We were
arrogant and wanted to be in control of our works instead of trusting
God and letting the gospel run its own course.

This methodology was uniformly adopted by almost all our missionary

forces sent out after WWII. Wherever we went we created an
atmosphere of dependency upon the U.S. dollar, including Europe,
Asia, Africa, Oceania and Latin America. In my opinion this has
hindered the natural progress of the gospel instead of helping it.
Without realizing it we imposed our culture, methods and traditions
upon our converts, and then we put up the money to insure our
control over them. We have in practically everyone of our foreign
missionary works encouraged dependency on the foreign missionary
and his foreign money. The results have been:

Weak, national "welfare type" churches who depend on U.S. churches

for funding and U.S. missionaries for decisions.

A forsaking of the indigenous principle.

No personal responsibility for their own local evangelism.

No local leadership for foreign churches.

There is a ray of hope because many of us are beginning to realize the

importance of peoples' need for being responsible for their own local
works and programs. New local churches simply must be allowed to
take responsibility for local evangelism. They must from the start
begin developing and training future leaders. They must feel that the
success or failure of their congregation has greatly to do with their
own faith in God and that He is depending on them. They must
understand that the Cause of Christ does not need American monetary
aid in order to succeed. Every local church must become indigenous in
its own setting without any kind of control from without!

I would point to Paul's methodology as collaboration of what is being

maintained in this article. He entered a city or region and stayed but a

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
short time. He established local works in every place. He developed
leadership as soon as possible (i.e., Acts 14:21-23). There is no
indication in Scripture that he funded or controlled the administrative
processes of the churches he started. However, there is indication that
they funded him and provided his necessities from time to time (i.e.,
Phil. 4:14-20). When missionaries today establish works and make
them dependent on American funds they violate the very principles
and patterns clearly seen in the New Testament for doing successful
church planting. Paul saw to it that newly formed congregations were
granted the privilege of independence. He gave them the respect that
goes with supporting one's own work. Outside financing robs people of
the incentive to give of their lives and resources in support of their
own local ministries. When we do for others what they need to be
doing for themselves we only make them weaker in faith, not stronger.

In fact, in our modern missionary endeavors we have been doing for

our converts what they well may never be able to do for
themselves.....pay big salaries and build big buildings. A church does
not have to have a building, it does not have to have a paid preacher.
Who taught them otherwise? These are Western concepts which are
not necessarily biblical. Ideally, those of us who do missionary work in
foreign places should be giving our new converts a model they can
imitate, not one they may never be able to match. People need a
vision of what they can be and where they can go. In too many cases
we have given them our own vision, one they themselves can never
duplicate. Every church must set its own goals....goals that are
attainable. The American level of support is a model that national
churches cannot and perhaps never will reproduce.

Here is our criticism put succinctly: Most of the foreign works

established by American missionaries in recent years have never
matured to the point of having their own leadership, supporting their
own evangelists, or building their own worship facilities. And, the idea
that they might take on the responsibility for sending out missionaries
to other regions of their own country has not ever been discussed with
them. If an ax must fall upon the root of this problem it must be
placed at the feet of American missionaries. We are primarily the ones
who caused this syndrome of unhealthy dependence on foreign
funding and, too often, foreign decision-making. And, of course, when
we took our "plea for temporary support of foreign nationals" to
American churches they bought in hook, line and sinker.

In addition to robbing our newly established churches of incentive and

dignity and giving them a model of Christianity they could never

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
reproduce, we paid their preachers far more than their local economy
called for, we made them "little lords" over their own people. So, even
if it was temporary it could never be matched by them. And how could
a foreign local church discipline a preacher being supported by an
outside source? He ruled the roost. He called the shots. He ran the
show. In all of our Indian congregations where the local preacher is
supported by an American missionary via an American church, he is
the "pastor" and makes all decisions. That is, he does so in the
absence of the American missionary. When the missionary is on the
field he is in charge. It is an evil little system eating the very heart out
of what otherwise could be a fairly stable brotherhood. And how often,
to the delight of the missionary's ego, did they tell him they would
never be able to teach like him or know the Bible the way he does. It's
all so self-defeating! We have shot ourselves in the foot by creating
works that can only operate in our absence through the control of an
American supported pastor or works that quickly died after we
returned home because an American supported pastor was not left in
place. It was a sad day for the church when we abandoned the
indigenous principle.

However, many are still content to justify themselves by arguing that

because Asians, Africans, South Americans and other Third World
Nations were economically poor and lacked resources, America had to
step in and supply needed funds. In India it was easy to put forth this
argument because the Indian people were seemingly poor and in
obvious need of our financial assistance. It was all so logical, in the
way Socialism is perceived to be logical, in the way welfare assistance
seems to answer social problems. Our missionaries thought this was
the way to go!

In the case of India, and several other Asian nations, they were ruled
by the British for a couple of centuries. During this Colonial Era Indians
and other Asians were conditioned to receive handouts from the
expatriates running their countries. This is how the "stipend mentality"
developed in Asia. Much of this type of thinking has held over into
modern Asia (especially India) and there are many prepared to "do
whatever is necessary" to please the foreigner and get the reward.
Many of the mass baptisms reported in American brotherhood papers
over the years were motivated in just this way. The Americans wanted
Indians to cooperate and be baptized (Hindus go for a daily washing
anyhow) and Indians wanted American prosperity. Hence, they
reasoned "if we accommodate we will be rewarded." The village leader
might reason: "Perhaps they will dig us a new village well. Perhaps
they will supply rice or give rupees....let us do whatever is needed to

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
get the results." You read the reports in Christian Chronicle and World
Radio News: "1,647 BAPTISMS, 54 DENOMINATIONAL PREACHERS
CONVERTED, 105 NEW CONGREGATIONS STARTED IN INDIA DURING
RECENT CAMPAIGN SEASON." This is the kind of success everyone
wants to be a part of, invite that missionary to our congregation for a
presentation, give him whatever he needs to do more of this kind of
mission work....this is great!

When I first arrived in India twenty years ago I was overwhelmed with
what I perceived to be rampant poverty. In recent years I have
discovered that what at first looked like poverty was simply something
else, it was the way the culture in India operates. They were poor, but
most of them were poor only by my standard. Indians have money
and they know how to get things done. God has given many of them
abundant resources, including money, talents and other gifts. Indians
own businesses and farms and houses. Many have transportation
vehicles and TVs, VCRs and satellite dishes. What we failed to do was
to teach them what the Bible says about stewardship and responsible
Christian service. We taught first principles and footed the bill, that
was our M.O. Indian brethren who owned businesses and held good
paying jobs were having all their financial obligations to the church
paid for them, so on Sunday we were content when they dropped in a
few coins. I always wondered how they could come up with a lakh of
rupees (presently $3,800 U.S.) for a wedding but were too poor to
give for supporting the gospel. To many Asian Christians were taught
"token giving." On Sunday they drop in a few coins....because it was
all being paid for by the American brethren.

I know there are many who will become very defensive as they read
this, they will want to point out that there have been many sincere and
dedicated converts who were not contaminated by our support
practices. That is true many times over and for every one of them we
genuinely praise the Lord. Building a successful missionary program,
however, does not rest on individuals alone. Like evangelism, it is
most effective when it flows from the energized church as a whole. If
the larger church is less than enthusiastic or living under the cloud of
financial dependence, it will hardly develop its own leaders, send out
its own evangelists or overflow with missionary enthusiasm. Mention
these things to the average foreign congregation and they will
instantly supply you with a listing of reasons why their local
responsibilities cannot be met. It will all boil down to them not having
the resources or abilities. That translates: "We are just a poor Indian
church, what can we do?" They will insist that foreign aid is needed.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
It might surprise us to discover just how little available resources have
to do with creating self-sufficient, self-governing and self-propagating
churches. Funding and budgets are not even alluded to in the book of
Acts, the early Christians simply did it. In the New Testament wealth
and poverty seem to have nothing to do with creating an indigenous
work. But with modern missions they seem to be paramount. The
problem has been our poor methods, we have taught dependency
upon the American dollar. We have talked money more than gospel.
We have created a mentality of dependence in our converts and all
because we were afraid to let them grow, we wanted to control the
growth and guarantee success. We should have planted, watered and
left. We dug in, invested and controlled. For these reasons I conclude
that financial independence has less to do with wealth and poverty
than with a mentality of dependence that accompanied our mission
efforts.

In India in particular, but in other places too, our missionaries baptized

people by the thousands and left them without any follow-up teaching
or organizational structuring. As we say, they dip'em and drop'em.
When new converts are made there must instantaneously begin the
process of forming them into functional congregations with regular
meeting habits, and there must instantaneously begin the process of
developing leadership within the new work. In too many instances
none of these follow-up procedures were administered. Some thought
this matter would automatically take care of itself, that these new
Christians would just naturally form into congregations. Others
evidently gave it no thought whatsoever. But missionaries who plant
works must pass on vision and responsibility to the people they are
working with. We must give our new converts a chance to make it.
What some have done regarding this business of baptizing masses and
leaving them is tantamount to taking a new born baby on the night of
its birth out of its nursery and laying it beside a busy highway hoping
for its survival. How in the world did these "dip'em and drop'em
missionaries" expect these thousands of newly baptized Christians to
make it without further instruction and organization....without further
teaching in the Word? When Jesus commissioned us to make disciples
and baptize those who believe, he further instructed us to continue to
teach them to maturity (Matt. 28:18-20).

In those mission fields of the world where churches have been planted
and reached a good level of maturity (and there are some such areas,
we have not intended to sow despair and suggest that mission works
everywhere have failed) we now have viable leaders overseeing self-
sufficient bodies of believers who themselves are sending out

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
missionaries to unevangelized regions. This is the indigenization
process at work.

On the other hand, this DEPENDENCY SYNDROME is what we have

more often produced and it carries over generation after generation.
We are now into our third generation of Christians in India and hope
we are seeing the problem being resolved. The first and even the
second generation never felt confident enough to become decision
makers and leaders. They fostered that old "stipend mentality" and
worked every angle to get American support. Many of our works
quickly died with the departure of the missionaries. And where
American funds were withdrawn there was a sudden and sure death of
the work.

Asians in general (India included) are becoming more affluent, but

seemingly remaining on American support still carries a high priority. I
talked with many well-to-do Brethren in Asia who speak candidly about
going to America to raise work funds for their churches. Many of them
have no intention of becoming self-reliant, and creating an indigenous
Local Church.

Even with the recent slump in the Asian economies, one visiting Asia
would have to be blind not to see the tremendous economic progress
made over the past ten years. However, I know of several affluent
congregations in Asia that remain dependent on overseas funding. This
situation is a carry-over of the old mentality of dependence that has
characterized our Mission Works in Asia from as far back as the 1960s.
And, let us not kid ourselves, European, African and South American
churches are still calling on the American Church to foot the bill.

What if all support from America was suddenly cut-off? What would
happen? (This could happen if there were to be an economic collapse
in Western societies.) The first reaction would be that a sudden
withholding of funds would be neither Christian nor productive, that it
would in fact be cruel. I am not certain....not certain that it would be
unchristian nor non-productive. To say the least, it would be
interesting. This would tell us what our works are made of....straw or
gold. It just might be the right prescription.

Perhaps the most pitiful aspects of these American funded foreign

churches is that it is the outside funding that is actually keeping them
from growing spiritually and maturing in the Lord. Foreign nationals
quickly caught on that there was no need for them to put real money,
paper money, into the church offering plate. They knew that if they

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
dropped in a few token coins and sat back and waited long enough,
funds would eventually come from an American source. No one
matures while letting others pay their way and carry all their burdens!
No one matures while learning the selfishness of a welfare mentality -
never to know the joys of giving is a sad thing!

Perhaps the answer to these problems created by poor mission

methods lies with the foreign churches themselves. Perhaps the most
effective solutions would be for nationals to declare that they don't
want or need any more outside funding. This has happened in a few
places. This approach is much preferred to the American supporting
church arbitrarily cutting off the funds. Unfortunately, in both cases
there is potential for hurt feelings, particularly in the latter. It is also
good to remember that while either decision may cause hurt, to allow
the problem to go unresolved may be even more harmful in the long
run. Remember that a sudden or drastic transition is not the only
option. It likely would be more feasible to take a generation and
educate ourselves to a more sensible methodology and allow these
problems to go away. The sooner we stop perpetuating dependency on
American funds, the better. May God give us all the opportunity and
courage to do what is right.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu