–– Paul Schlehlein

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

Receiving services and material for free is a serious problem in Africa. For decades, foreign aid has flooded into Africa, though the continent remains the poorest in the world. NGOs grow in Africa like the frogs multiplied in Egypt. Shouldn’t someone shut off the tap and call the annual billions sent to Africa a colossal mistake? Not according to many, where politicians from South Africa still complain about the cutting of USAID, which accounted for 17% of South Africa’s health budget. Other African leaders insist on debt forgiveness. 

What is a church?

Sadly, this mindset has trickled down to the church. Is it healthy that many African congregations are kept afloat through foreign donations? To answer this question, we must first define our terms. The local church is a body of believers that has covenanted together to preach God’s Word and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

According to Scripture, the two marks that comprise a church are proper preaching (2Tm. 4:2) and the proper admin of the two ordinances (Mt. 28:18-20; 1Cor. 11:24)—which assumes membership and church discipline. 

These two marks define the validity of the church, but the “three-selfs” determine the autonomy of the local church. Autonomy is important because it helps signal when a missionary can cut ties with a church plant. A self-governing church enjoys its own elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1), a self-propagating church carries out its own evangelism and discipleship (Ac. 1:8), and a self-sustaining church does acts of mercy and supports its own pastor (1Tm. 5:17). A church without elders is still a church but not an autonomous church. Thus, an assembly in Harare that’s looking for a pastor may need pulpit-supply from Bulawayo, but it’s still a church.

“Self-sustaining” is to church-planting philosophy what Limited Atonement is to Calvinism—easily the most debated point and usually the last to be adopted. 

Some define “self-sustaining” in negative terms, as in what it avoids. “Our church is self-sustaining because we don’t take outside funds.” A better model defines self-supporting churches positively. “We are autonomous because we financially support our own pastor.” This means every church’s two-fold goal should be to respect their pastor and pay him well. 

First Timothy 5:17 commands respect and remuneration with an imperative verb: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” First Corinthians 9:14 doesn’t suggest churches support the pastor. It demands it. “The Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” 

KFC vs. USA

So it’s more precise to define a “self-sustaining” church in positive terms (“Babangu Baptist supports its own pastor”) rather than negative terms (“Babangu Baptist doesn’t receive funds from London”). 

To explore this further, lets embark on a thought experiment where we consider two Congolese pastors. Both pastors are thirty-five years old, married, with two kids. Both welcome about 60 people in attendance each Sunday. Both congregations buy their own Bibles and chairs. Both congregations have a half-dozen church members with jobs. Neither congregation financially supports their pastor. 

The first pastor works a full-time job as a manager at KFC and gives about a dozen hours of work to the church per week. The second pastor is financed by a missions organization in the US and gives forty hours a week to ministry duties. Both earn salaries that can support their families.

Pastor KFC’s method of financial support enjoys many benefits. No one questions his motives for pastoral work, since his paycheck isn’t tied to the ministry. This method also allows him to step away from the pastorate and still provide for his family. 

Pastor USA’s method also enjoys some perks. He was able to plant a church where there was none. He can also give more hours to the congregation. But there are downsides. First, his motives for ministry are more easily criticized. Second, if he discovers he’s unfit for ministry, he’ll be tempted to remain in the pastorate since his funding is tied to it. Third, it relies on an unsustainable method of overseas funding. Eventually it will dry up. 

Fourth, when funding comes from a different culture from afar, there is little accountability. Fifth, it may cause envy and dissention with other pastors who haven’t procured foreign funding. I’ve witnessed this many times. 

Free pastors

Missiologists have debated this scenario for decades, if not centuries. The purpose here is not deciding which pastor employs the best method, though I favor Pastor KFC. The above scenario comes from the pastor’s perspective. But from the church’s perspective, both congregations equally enjoy a free pastor and in the long run, that’s a problem because both churches use a crutch. 

Pastor KFC receives his paycheck from a wealthy businessman in the Congo while Pastor USA receives his paycheck from a wealthy church across the globe. I see little difference between the two from the church’s perspective. Neither support their pastor. Neither are self-supporting. 

But the “three-selfs” framework is not all or nothing, like a man being elected or not for president. There are tiers, levels, and degrees. A church of 100 boasting three elders and five deacons enjoys more autonomy and maturity than an equal-sized church with one part-time pastor. A church that does the best they can to support their pastor can perhaps be called “self-supporting” in the broadest sense, but not narrowly. 

Why don’t churches support their pastors? Perhaps it has only women, or only youth, or only unemployed men, or only adults that won’t give. Whatever the reason, the church is not mature and is still not self-sustaining. 

Actions Steps

Good ideas should produce good actions. Consider the following two:

First, missionaries and pastors must courageously teach their churches—no matter how poor—the simple math that ten families which each give a tenth can support a pastor at the average salary of the ten. This yields the ideal situation: the pastor lives equal to the congregation. 

Second, missions organizations should stop using the word “missionaries” for native pastors they support. This misguided terminology makes it easier for native churches to expect financial support for the long haul. For example, HeartCry Missionary Society claims to support 391 “indigenous missionaries”, almost all of whom are local pastors. But not every Christian is a missionary. Nor is every pastor is a missionary. A missionary is a cross-cultural evangelist. Calling local pastors “indigenous missionaries” (an oxymoron) only confuses the local church.

Conclusion

This matter is important because the purpose of the Great Commission is to establish churches that outlive the missionary. A church will not outlive the missionary if it was built upon poor methods, and proper methods cannot properly be employed without clear and precise definitions. 

Baby churches that cannot support their pastor are still in a missionary relationship. In many cases, this is understandable. The problem arises when there is no desire to step aside from outside dependance. Instead, they should pursue the joy that comes from obeying Paul’s command in Galatians 6:6: “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.”