Al recently received an email from his sister regarding this article that she had read on the Mennonite online magazine. Al’s sister has participated in several short term mission trips and wanted Al’s perspective on the article. We thought that many of you might be interested in his response.
Hi Lois,
I apologize for not having replied earlier to your email regarding work groups, church teams, etc.
The article you sent written by the Mennonite summarizes very well my thinking, attitude, and feelings regarding work teams from U.S. churches. The writer expresses concisely and concretely a positive missiological attitude that many missionaries presently feel regarding the participation of work groups from the U.S. churches. My evaluation is from our personal perspective in regards to our experiences in Chiapas, and perhaps would have to be modified or adjusted to other situations in other countries. Since you asked for my perspective, Sue and I are very much in agreement with the thoughts expressed.
You also asked about our historical perspective, since Sue and I have hosted numerous work groups and if perhaps that has changed during our missionary career in Chiapas. I admit that our attitude has changed through the years as the church in Chiapas has matured. We have hosted work groups with Tzotzils, Tzeltals, Ch’oles, and Spanish-speaking churches, so I think our perspective is representative of various cultural groups, since we have the same evaluation for all the groups.
Initially, we did work experiences to help the church, since the church was small, struggling, economically poor, and without many resources educationally, physically, and economically. Through work experiences, we helped provide clinics, Bible school and seminary facilities, educational training, and other learning opportunities. Those experiences were always coupled with participation physically, financially, and relationally with the visiting work teams. From the outset, the Tzotzil church has been taught giving, stewardship, offerings, and local responsibility; not wanting the local church to depend on foreign groups to provide for their financial needs/desires/hopes. Local responsibility was an important element of our stewardship training. We did not initiate projects, ministries, or permit foreign help without insisting that the local and regional church consider its responsibility, ability, and participation. Everything needed to be evaluated and approved by the local presbytery (classis), synod level, or the national level church leaders. We avoided working with local churches and individuals – much to the dismay of the local pastors, leaders, and aspirants. The upper level leaders needed to evaluate and approve. We did not construct worship centers, churches, or other congregational buildings or personal homes; that was a local responsibility.
As the church matured, we insisted on working only with presbyterial (classis) level constructions – Bible Schools, seminaries, and larger training programs. Local construction was financed, implemented, and done by locals. We made an exception in constructing local clinics for the paramedic program, and those created problems, disappointments, and frustrations in the vast majority of the situations. Only a few clinics have continued to be used according to the original intention.
In the past four years, the RCA has refused to do any construction other than at the presbyterial (classis) and synodical level. Each project has been evaluated and approved by a joint commission on mission specifically founded to evaluate each request – a commission founded some 30 years ago. The composition is 4 members from the National Presbyterian church, one representative from each of the 4 synods, and 2 representatives from the RCA. Each project must be supported financially by 35% or more with local funds – and the amount of foreign funds can never exceed 65% and is often less than 50%. Local responsibility means just that – no special gifts, special offerings, etc. without approval from the upper levels.
As the church has developed, we find almost no need for foreign work teams. So we have switched to experiential teams. These teams visit and interact with the local church leaders. They discuss and learn from listening to local Chiapas leaders. They do not offer funds, and they are not permitted to offer monetary support. The local people do ask for financial help, IPads, computers, video projectors, buildings, etc. and we reply that all requests must be channeled through the joint committee; and we make sure that is what happens. So the local church is now independent financially.
The Tzotzil Bible School has four computers, two video projectors, white boards, benches, chairs, study tables, library, etc. – all purchased with funds from the local churches – with no foreign funding. The school is maintained and supported through offerings from the Tzotzil churches and congregations and a small percentage of their yearly budget comes from the Reformed Church in America. The teachers, administrator and director all receive their salaries from the Tzotzil presbyteries. The highland Tzeltal Bible School is the same and actually has more financial resources due to good stewardship training.
Sue and I think the thoughts expressed in the article are very sound theologically and missiologically, and we agree with the author. When the local and national church participate, it helps develop a faith based church not dependent on foreign funds. I cannot speak for all missiological situations, but we hear reports that the African church has very similar feelings; the emphasis is on trusting the Lord to supply, not on foreign visitors.
I hope this is helpful. I am aware that not everyone agrees with my thoughts and experience.
Have a blessed 2014.
Al
Al and Sue in Chiapas 