Heads up, it's a long post!
Rachel's Book Review #1
To Give or Not to Give: Rethinking Dependancy, Restoring Generosity, and Redefining Sustainability
-John Rowell
Rowell begins his book with a theological look at cross-cultural missions. He explains that the purpose of the West should not be to imperialize or subjugate indigenous churches as if they are somehow “lesser,” but to acknowledge the work of God that is already happening and align themselves with the missio Dei. “The presence of human witnesses to the gospel does not introduce God to a culture. It simply allows people to begin seeing in an incarnated way how God was with them all along, even if he was unknown, hidden, or rejected” (Rowell, 13). This perspective is the lens through which the rest of the book is written. Foundational to the following controversial discussion is 1) trust in God, 2) interdependence of the global church, and 3) commitment to Biblical mandate.
After the first chapter, Rowell begins a frank analysis of the western church’s disposition to withhold financial blessing from cross-cultural missions work in the name of preventing dependency. Although he acknowledges that unhealthy relationships are common between western and international churches, he argues that instead of simply not giving, churches that have financial means should seek healthy ways to bless those who do not.
The rest of the book reiterates Christ’s teaching about the inherent value and spiritual gifting of the poor. Jesus said that the poor are in a unique position to trust God and are less distracted by the worship of Mammon (or wealth). Rowell references Paul Heibert’s concern for an additional “fourth self” to the three self model (self-supporting, self-governing, self-propagating). He adds self-theologizing to the mix. This, he believes prevents unhealthy subjugation of non-Western churches and mutual benefit for all.
Rowell ends with some practical steps towards healthy support giving. 1) All parties must share a common goal, 2) There should be an exit strategy, 3) Absolutely no paternalism, 4) All parties must have extravagant generosity, 5) The most contextually relevant parties take the lead, 6) All parties are held accountable, 7) New programs, planning, and hiring is done by nationals, 8) There should be an evaluation of national capacity (to avoid dependency), and 9) Biblical stewardship and financial management is taught to all parties.
Everyday on my way to work, the beggar children of Manila swarm to my white skin and presumably deep pockets. My heart cries for them, but my mind is hardened, and my hands move to protect my purse rather than to open it. Is it rationalizing that stops me from giving? Is it personal greed or unwillingness to share God’s blessing? These are real questions that I must ask myself.
The word “dependency” has been a comfort and fortress when such pestering questions arise. Rather than truly engage with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, I rely on a steadfast principle that automatically excuses me from sharing. It’s ugly. But it’s honest.
Rowell’s book has challenged me to open my heart to God’s word about generosity and sustainability. Once again, I am asked to truly think about what my actions say theologically. Principle and practice are intertwined.
One of the most influential concepts from the book is that of a holistic gospel witnesses. It has been an unnamed value of mine for a long time. To have someone vocalize it in a detailed was more than helpful. It describes the idea that missionaries are not just going to convert people to Christianity, but rather a missionary tries to reveal God’s whole will for a group of people’s lives. That means that the Good News is not simply news. It is a dynamic life change and social mandate.
What does this mean for ministry? It means that handing out money and saying “God bless you” is not enough. It means that the cycle of familial vocational begging must end. Something, or someone must break the cycle by showing another way to the poorest of the poor. That something… is probably money. That someone… might be me. The question is no longer to give or not to give. The question becomes “how can I give in a way that creates a healthy relationship?”
I automatically thought of a ministry I was involved with in high school. Each summer we would go to a poor neighborhood and build homes for people. We brought our own tools. We invited the homeowners to participate in our Bible studies. We had a fun week serving the Lord. However, looking back on my experience, I wonder if that ministry created an unhealthy relationship where these people would feel helpless until the Western heroes arrived with their power tools to save the day. That wondering leads me to think of alternatives. Should we build the houses for them? If that creates dependency, should we not build the house at all? I think what Rowell would say is that you should absolutely build the house… but you should build it with them. He describes the difference as paternalism vs. interdependence.
Paternalism implies subjugation and imbalanced giving. “I am arguing, in contrast, that an approach to sacrificial partnership that empowers and enables indigenous leaders to advance their own visions and agendas may be the “best test” of our own convictions about God’s call on us to be generous in our stewardship of vast Western resources” (Rowell, 41). Interdependence gives control over indigenous ministries to the indigenous people and allows the Western church to invest in the kingdom work they are doing. It’s not a daughter congregation… it is a sister congregation.
I have learned to see that diversity is a way that God reveals distinctive aspects of himself. When Rowell talks about self-theologizing as an added “fourth self,” my heart sang. I have seen beauty in the Filipino God. He is my God through a different lens. As I listen to them, my concept of God grows bigger and stronger and lovelier. The way that my pastor prays for healing faithfully each weak reminds me that God is healer and totally sovereign. The way that “sister” and “brother” are names of constant encouragement (even to strangers) reminds me that we are all members of God’s family.
I think that what Rowell is getting at is that we would lean towards compassion over caution. God is obviously a compassionate God. There are too many Scriptures to count about giving to the poor. If I am struggling with a decision and do not know what path to take, I would hope that especially in a ministry setting, I would go for the most compassionate route.
To make this all very personal, I will share some of my life experiences with money. Growing up, I had everything I could ask for: large house, my own room, a closet full of clothes (which didn’t stop me from going shopping every other week), clean and hot water, great education…etc…etc. Money was NEVER a concern of mine.
When I felt my call to missions, I fully expected to minister to the poorest of the poor and live like them. However, it was an “in theory” kind of expectation that I never had to act on. After meeting my husband and getting married, I no longer had the financial support of my parents and the world changed. I had to have a budget. Sometimes we had to wait to buy groceries because we didn’t have the money in our account. My husband didn’t have insurance but needed to have a costly medical procedure. All of a sudden, money cannot be taken for granted. I have to depend on GOD for his provision.
I am so grateful. I know that I have much, but I also know that whatever comes, God will take care of us. This realization frees me to live simply and give generously.
I hope that as I am tested, this proves true.
