http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm Freewebs http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3837030


These folks said, "we have registered ourselves as the Evangelical Covenant Church of Haiti. Teach us your doctrine and church organization and we will follow it." It brought to mind the book of Ruth, "... your people will be my people and your God will be my God." If you listen to Ruth without sentimentalizing the story, you can hear a kind of covenant or agreement. "I will adopt your faith and this will place me under your protection and provision."
I learned from several sources that this kind of arrangement is common in Haiti. Many churches, orphanages, schools and others seek a patron from the US or Canada and the expectations for both sides are clear. They involve loyalty from the Haitian group and corresponding direction and provision from the donor patron. Almost every ministry that I visited had a relationship of this kind, often with an individual congregation in the US or Canada - and some from Europe. One not so positive effect was the high degree of competition for patrons between the Haitian ministries and the frequent unwillingness to consider cooperative approaches among each other - perhaps for fear of losing a patron to another's ministry . Still, these kinds of relationship have existed for a long time and appear to be the "default mode" for mission partnerships in Haiti.
So, think back to the last post on dominant/dependent relationships. How would you advise me? What should I say to the many US/Canada Covenant congregations that have established these kinds of relationships? How should I respond to those pictured above - and others like them? Their needs are genuine, of that I am sure. But what do you think a healthy relationship with them would look like?
]]> http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3837030#topBox http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3837030 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:44:00 -0100 http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3828201 Dependency has become a hot topic again. In part because of the massive increase in local church initiatives in mission, a number of articles have appeared denouncing "the problem of dependency in mission." These have been followed by defensive articles. The first to appear defended the generosity of work groups and mission teams and the next, quite understandably, were written by representatives of organizations that depend on donors for support for their programs. In this day of "tight money," they feared that attacks against "dependency" could erode their donor base.

I think that most of the articles rather missed the point of the debate because they misstated the premise. The concerns expressed by mission practitioners and theorists were not about dependency, by itself, but about the creation of unbalanced relationships of "dependency and dominance." It is not a one-sided issue. It's a systemic problem in which both sides are negatively effected. On one side, a comment by a Mexican friend applies. He said, "Some US donors follow a new kind of Golden Rule; that is, 'He who has the gold makes the rules." On the other side, there have been reported incidences of manipulation, passivity and a sense of loss of dignity on the part of the recipients. Stories abound about "inappropriate technology" and "white elephant projects" as well-heeled donors control the design, implementation and outcome of the projects to which they contribute. At the same time, other stories abound about recipients who "resist accountability" and who seem to do "nothing but wait for hand-outs."

I do not think that the solution to the problem of dominant/dependent relationships is to be found in a unilateral moratorium of generosity. Some time ago, our outfit had a program for raising funds and supporting mission efforts called C2C - the Century 2 Campaign, marking the beginning of the second century of the Covenant Church in the US. One project can serve as a good example. Newly established congregations in Oaxaca, in Southern Mexico, would acquire property for a place of worship. They would then lay the foundation and put up the walls - usually by their own labor. C2C provided funds for prohibitively expensive "last dollar" things like plumbing and electrical materials and roofs. From time to time, work groups from the US participated in various stages of construction, as well. The beauty of the program was that the local congregation "owned the project." They designed the buildings and built them with their own hands. We were able to provide meaningful help, but we did not control the projects or their outcomes. A critical evaluative point for the initial selection of projects was that the Oaxacan believers were committed to them, with or without our help. If we had not contributed, they would have done it anyway.

The participation of both sides is critical for a balanced and healthy relationship. That participation does not need to be identical (say, "dollar for dollar") but it most be perceived in some sense as equal. The people who will most benefit should have the largest voice in the selection, design and implementation of the project.

Does this make sense to you? Does it fit your experience?
]]> http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3828201#topBox http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3828201 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:07:00 -0100 http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3411441 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Council on Foreign Relations co-hosted a luncheon roundtable entitled Faith and Conflict: The Global Rise of Christianity on March 2, 2005 at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=71  is the address to the Pew Forum web site that will take you to some very interesting reading. Mark Noll and Michael Nazir-Ali's comments at that event were transcribed to the site. Take heart! It's short - maybe 3-4 pages, but concise and thought-provoking.

What they said is an excellent summary of the present context of world mission that I have tried to describe in my writings. It helps us to understand why world mission today is so complex and challenging. I know that you have a lot to do, but I hope you take a look at this when you have some free time. I welcome your feedback as well.

Just click on the link above to read what they had to say.




]]> http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3411441#topBox http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3411441 Sun, 11 May 2008 09:54:00 -0100 http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3397900 Before you read this, I suggest that you take a look at two new documents. Click on  "Documents" on the left of this page, scroll down, then click on "Insider Movements.pdf." After you have read it, close it and follow the same instructions for "New  Buddhism.pdf." Both articles argue that people can, do and should follow Jesus without having to leave Muslim or Buddhist culture/religion and becoming "Westernized Christians." The writers see parallels with the expansion of the Gospel into the gentile world in the early church in which gentiles were not required to become culturally/religiously Jewish in order to become followers of Jesus. This is controversial, but thought-provoking stuff. To what degree may religions be "neutral" expressions of culture or a Holy Spirit inspired search for God? At what point may other religions become competitors to Christian faith or even enemies of it? Well, other religions raise certain kinds of issues, but what about those of us who serve in Latin America or the Christianized West?
    Once upon a time, I heard from the leader of a Catholic religious order. Her order manages Catholic work groups and mission teams to Mexico from the United States. She had read On Someone Else's Terms and was upset by it. She was not disturbed by the discussions of language, culture or missiology. In fact, she found those discussions helpful and agreed with most of them. It seemed to her, however, that we were proselytizing dissidents and/or nominal Catholics in order to build our own alternative church. She was disturbed by a vision of Protestants recruiting Catholics, Pentecostals recruiting Catholics and Protestants, Christians evangelizing Christians. "Why don't you send people back - renewed - to bless their Mother Church? Do you have a corner on truth? Is our church fatally apostate? Is your church without flaws? Do you reflect the Gospel or merely the American culture of cut-throat competition?"
    What would you like to say to her?
]]> http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3397900#topBox http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3397900 Thu, 08 May 2008 11:01:00 -0100 http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3393350  Here's my observation.

1. Church people will fight about almost anything,
2. How people will fight is different from culture to culture  and
3. Getting my way (or our way) is the heart of it.

    If you have read On Someone Else's Terms or the other themes I have written about, you know that I have looked at this phenomenon in a variety of ways. But you may not know how deeply troubling it is for me. My earliest experience in mission with a conflict between church leaders (two pastors) and the fight that "spilled over" until it involved the whole congregation drove me to despair. I ended up spending several months at a Christian psychological care facility designed to "restore" burned out missionaries and pastors. I learned a lot about myself. I learned about healthy and unhealthy ways of engaging with conflict situations. I have managed, since, to keep my heart and mind relatively safe. But I confess to having very little faith in "conflict resolution" - cross-cultural or otherwise - even after all those courses and books about it.
    In the end, I have mostly just "been there." I try to listen. I try to withhold judgment. I tentatively and fearfully try to reduce damage and harm. I try to get Jesus back into the picture. And I guess I try to protect myself - perhaps too much. I try to bring in people who can help resolve conflicts; specialists at it. I don't try to do much of it myself. I think I understand my gifts and abilities and the lack of them, as well.
    Some conflicts get rather large. They divide leaders, congregations and even mission staffs who sometimes identify with opposing sides against each other. I have seen some remarkable, stirring and miraculous reconciliations and resolutions - but not many. Mostly, conflicts seem to just fizzle out from exhaustion, achieving a new, but not very satisfying status quo.
    Church conflicts may be a greater challenge to our witness to the presence of the Kingdom of God than all other threats combined. After 25 years in service in God's mission, I still don't really know what to do about them.
    It would take a miracle.
    Really.

]]> http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3393350#topBox http://davemark.webs.com/theblogpage.htm?blogentryid=3393350 Wed, 07 May 2008 11:37:00 -0100