–– Paul Schlehlein

The audio version of this article is available here: YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

What would happen if foreign funds to African churches suddenly stopped? Suppose that tomorrow God shut off the massive monetary pipeline flowing from the West to the pastors and Christian workers on the Dark Continent? Would the church sink or swim?

The immediate consequences would be severe because wealthy nations have pumped billions of dollars into Africa for decades. It has become a way of life. None of the top 30 foreign aid contributors come from Africa, though six of the top fifteen recipients of foreign aid are African nations. In 2017, the United States gave $34 billion in foreign aid, including $1 billion to Ethiopia, $887 million to South Sudan and $600 million to South Africa. 

Wealthy foreign nations have failed to learn that foreign aid will never help a country if the conditions for economic growth do not exist. This is why the cycle of giving never ends. Sadly, wealthy churches have not learned this lesson either. Though the numbers are not as high as foreign aid, churches from the West drive millions of dollars into African churches to support their pastors and ministries. 

The Problem

For example, in the country of South Africa where I minister, I am a part of an organization called Sola 5. In this association of churches it would be difficult to find more than a handful of churches that do not receive support from overseas, usually from the United States. From Zambia to Zimbabwe, from Cape Town to Lilongwe, if money from overseas becomes available, the church or pastor will almost always take it without a second thought. This is wrong because it shows that these African churches are not indigenous, but in fact dependent upon the giving from other nations. 

A Biblical Case

To escape this cycle of paternalism, the African church should follow the example of the believers in Philippi as the greatest model of indigenous church planting. Paul never established a church more mature than Philippi, so it makes sense we should mimic her example. 

Amidst severe persecution in Acts 16, Paul planted this church the old fashioned way by utilizing five principles: preaching the word (v. 13), trusting in the sovereignty of God (v. 14), enduring persecution (vv. 19-24), prayer (v. 25) and loving the people (v. 28).  

After a brief time, the church in Philippi became self-governing (Phil. 1:1), meaning they possessed their own elders and deacons. The church became self-propagating (Phil. 2:25), meaning they evangelized and discipled their own people. And the church became self-sustaining (Phil. 4:15-18), meaning they supported their own leadership. 

This latter point is remarkable because the Philippian church was not rich. Rather, their “generosity” came out of “deep poverty”. As Second Corinthians 8:3 says: “According to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord.” 

Church History 

I am not promoting a new strategy. Many of the great missionaries of the past feared the results that came from paternalism. Western churches would raise funds to send out cross-cultural evangelists, but they rarely used this money to assist in local works and ministerial projects. 

For example, John Paton, the great missionary to the cannibals of the New Hebrides, refused to fund the building projects of the islanders. And he watched with joy as the locals used their own money to purchase each copy of the new Bible translation in the Tannese language. He said in his Autobiography: “I have striven to train them to be self-supporting, and have never helped them where I could train them to help themselves” (p. 363).

Now, Paton did give, but this generosity always came with great prudence. He raised thousands of pounds for a ship, the Dayspring, but its purpose was primarily to transport missionaries. When the natives built their building, Paton provided the nails—little else. 

The indigenous strategy is not unique or important only in Africa. Three-self church planting led the way in the 19^th century until consumerism controlled the blueprints of today’s missionary methods. 

For example, in the early 20^th century, a man named Bruce Hunt was serving as a missionary in northern Korea. The church experienced such rapid growth that their previous building could no longer contain the congregation. At this point Hunt considered buying the Korean church a new building. After all, the Christians had no money. But in the end, the missionaries held their ground and insisted the believers take personal ownership. Finally, a widow sold her property to purchase what was needed and the result was a local church twice as mature than before. 

In his book The Korean Pentecost, Hunt wrote: 

“Possibly, I might have advanced the balance needed; but it is against our Mission rules and policy to put American money in Korean churches. The temptation to do so is often great. They are so poor, how can they give all the funds necessary? Yet experience has proved that it is better to let them bear the burden alone and grow strong by bearing it. They always manage somehow” (p. 64-65).

Benefits

Back to the original question. If foreign funds dried up, would the African church sink or swim? I would argue the answer is both. The African church would sink at first. But like a boxer that collects himself after a stunning blow, I believe the African church would regain its footing and become even stronger than at first. The African church must fall before it can fly. 

In light of this, I would implore the African churches to follow Paul’s method of indigenous church planting. Seek to establish three-self churches, and consider those churches immature until these marks are obtained. 

Consider the following benefits of indigenous church planting. 

First, three-self churches are biblical. Scripture, not culture, defines a mature church. A congregation that is not self-governing, self-propagating, and self-sustaining is a weak church, if it is a church at all. 

Second, three-self churches teach character. Cut the umbilical cord of foreign funds and watch the church grow in its ability to count the cost, depend on God in prayer, persevere in hardship, work as a team and experience the joy of sacrificial giving. 

Third, three-self churches reduce conflicts. I recently met an older pastor in southern Africa that has fought many denominational battles. I asked him how he would fix the problem. He answered immediately: “Cut off all foreign funding.” I know another missionary team that worked for decades to create a three-self church. Then an African church planter with massive foreign backing started a ministry nearby, creating the potential for disputes. 

Fourth, three-self churches come with built-in accountability. All a church needs to support their pastor is ten families that work and tithe. These ten families also keep the pastor accountable. This is contrary to foreign supported pastors that enjoy little to no oversight. 

Sum

The African church is not as mature as most believe because they still depend on massive foreign funding. If they follow the model of the Philippian church, who gave amidst their deep poverty, the African church will grow in maturity and numbers.