Before we get to the heart of the matter, it is important to define what we mean by an indigenous church.
Henry Ven, a British mission theorist of the 19th century, challenged the conventional ways of missionaries planting churches within the local contexts of their mission fields. According to him, and his fellow American mission theorist, Rufus Anderson, an indigenous church must exhibit the following three “Selfs”:
1. Self-supporting
2. Self-governing
3. Self-propagating
One can identify a church as indigenous when it is supported by the locals, governed by the local leadership, and propagated by its local members. Later in the 20th century, Paul Hiebert and David Bosch, introduced the fourth Self to this model by Venn and Anderson i.e., self-theologising. Others might have added or probably will keep adding to this list of Self, however, the point is that any indigenous church is one that is by the locals and for the locals.
With that in mind, let us also not forget to recall the historical backdrop against which many indigenous churches were birthed. Yes, I am indeed talking about the colonial past. When it comes to indigenous churches, whether that of Asia or Africa, one cannot analyse them comprehensively without mentioning their colonial past. These two are forever intertwined and inseparable because this has ever since become a contributing factor to many key issues that the indigenous churches face even today as we speak of the colonial rule in the past tense.
Here are four key issues that the indigenous churches face or have faced in their efforts to self-support, self-govern, self-propagate and self-theologize in their own cultural contexts.
1. Lack of “Called” Leadership
Only a handful of indigenous leaders are fortunate enough to get proper training before taking on a leadership role. The rest are often not trained in any specific way. There might be more to this than simply not having enough funds or training facilities available. Financial support does help make training local leaders possible, but taking a closer look and asking questions like who has access to foreign funding or local training facilities might reveal deeper issues within the system.
One of the major unaddressed issues in many indigenous churches, that I have come to observe, is what I would call a ‘misplaced mission.’ It is not that there are not enough local training facilities available for the locals, and it is certainly not about having inadequate funding that we will address later in this article. It is more about the local Christian leadership, instead of serving God, begins to serve themselves, or when the personal interests or even the interests of an organization take priority over God’s interests.
It is when accepting candidates in seminaries or pastors in denominations, for instance, are based on recommendations from other powerful and influential local leaders whom they can’t refuse. It is when the question of whether a person is called for God’s work becomes secondary and keeping major players happy and key relationships intact takes priority over the work of God. This is just one of the many examples of corruption that has crept inside the church. This is a power that works subtly underneath.
But what happens when we begin to neglect the work of God? We end up with an uncalled leadership that is raised for all the wrong reasons by those who have power and influence within the local church network. And the cycle continues. The ones who do happen to enter the system with a true calling, do not stay in the system for long as they are either suppressed, oppressed, or in some cases even eliminated. Ironically, the ones in church leadership, instead of directing their efforts to train new leaders, are busy ensuring that they remain in power.
This is not to say that we should never consider recommendations from other Christian leaders or institutes or to insinuate that the higher-up indigenous leadership is corrupt through and through. It is to draw our attention to the fact that this is happening and is one of the more deeper-rooted problems that needs our attention. We must make sure that our efforts are always focused on God's work first.
2. The Game of Ecclesiastical Power
Speaking of leadership, in the context of church, power is measured by the ecclesiastical status one possesses. This holds true for all churches, whether indigenous or not. There are pastors, moderators, bishops, archbishops, and other official positions. Many of whom are paid through foreign sources.
These foreign subsidized pastors, bishops or other church officials appear visibly distinguished from the rest of their peers and the community at large. It is common in the Global South to observe lavish lifestyles of bishops and other Christian leaders while many among their congregations and local counterparts, often the ones serving in the periphery, live in absolute poverty.
Given this economic divide, such ecclesiastical positions, especially in the mainline churches, are therefore readily associated with material benefits, wealth and status, respect in the society, influential connections among the elites of the local Christian community and so on. These perks make many want to climb the ecclesiastic ladder, and church leaders become no different than extremely competitive corporate employees who are often found scheming against each other.
This game of attaining and maintaining ecclesiastical power has badly damaged the indigenous churches. Again, this comes back to the issue of ‘misplaced mission.’ The church leaders in their quest for more power have turned their backs to their God-given mission. I would propose that this is not an issue of untrained leadership, but that of an uncalled leadership - when someone serves the Body of Christ with an ulterior motive of serving themselves.
3. Dependency on Foreign Money
I am reluctant to say that lack of financial support from outside is the supreme cause for all that is lacking in the indigenous churches. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case according to Glenn Schwartz, the author of When Charity Destroys Dignity: Overcoming Unhealthy Dependency in the Christian Movement.
In his book, he outlines the dangers of well-intentioned giving which leads to what he calls the dependency syndrome. It is the unhealthy reliance of indigenous churches on foreign money. According to him, this dependency not only hinders the locals from utilizing their own resources or taking initiatives but also extinguishes their reliance on God. They begin to rely more on external funding than putting their trust in God to lead them through their difficult times.
Moreover, they do not get to learn how to give sacrificially themselves and when money is generously given it also creates a sense of entitlement among those at the receiving end and elevates their expectations. When expectations are elevated; no amount of money is ever enough. On the flip side, often this foreign money comes with strings attached. The ones who give, begin to interfere in the internal matters of the indigenous churches that they support and influence the decision-making process. In turn, the local leadership often gives in for fear of losing support. At other times, this is a cause of friction between the two parties.
So, what shall we say then? Should we stop the practice of giving? Schwartz’s solution to this problem of dependency is for the indigenous churches or organizations to be self-reliant which he believes can be achieved by what he calls geographical proximity. This means that churches that are geographically closer should interdepend for support while foreign aid should only be provided in situations where there are no local resources available to depend on.
However, John Rowell, from the opposite camp, while still acknowledging the issue of dependency, would argue that the self-reliant model for the indigenous churches is quite impractical, and that the Bible emphasizes on maximizing giving not minimizing it and that it is our Biblical duty to give to the poor and care for the ones in need. In his book, To Give or Not to Give? Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity, and Redefining Sustainability, Rowell outlines some principles of giving in which one can still give generously without causing unhealthy dependency.
While this is an interesting debate, both Schwartz and Rowell did agree that foreign aid does create an unhealthy reliance and precautions must be taken in order to avoid it.
4. Bitterness Rooted in the Colonial Past
When the colonial era came to an abrupt end, all of a sudden, the locals had access to massive Cathedrals that only the colonizers could worship in and were to take charge of the dioceses across their regions. But had they been prepared to take on these important leadership roles? The answer is a resounding no!
While missionaries of that time were apparently doing much for the propagation of the indigenous churches, they always retained the power and leadership in their own hands. There were little to no efforts made to equip and train the locals for leadership roles as they deemed them inferior, untrustworthy, immature and at times even less than human.
Such racist tendencies of the missionaries of that time hindered the growth of the indigenous churches. When they did eventually get to a point in history where the locals could be a part of the leadership, find their own identities as indigenous churches or have their own spiritual journeys with God, they found themselves at a loss with how to handle it all.
While the West, to quite an extent, has abandoned their old colonial ways, the Orient is still visibly in the strong grip of its ramifications. It is hard for the locals, who have been a victim of colonial oppression, to think of the missionaries and the colonial powers as two separate entities. And rightly so. The ‘altar’ and the ‘throne’ were quite closely associated with each other in European monarchies. History tells us how missionaries of that time were at the forefront of the colonial mission.
The notion of ambivalence or duality of the colonial discourse might shed some more light on this matter. The colonizer took up the role of a father disciplining his child, the colonized, while at the same time being the oppressor oppressing the colonized. This duality i.e., father/child and oppressor/oppressed birthed confusion within the identity of the colonized. They wanted to be like their father but detested the oppressor. So, what came out of this toxic father/child relationship? Resentment.
Out of this resentment emerged a pride within the colonised, leading them to think that they can do it without the help of the colonizer. This tug of war still takes place between the resentful locals and the paternalistic missionaries. It has only been a hinderance in the spiritual growth and coming of age of the indigenous churches keeping both sides busy in holding on to the rope and investing their energies in pulling it in their own directions.
Therefore, issues like holding on to the rope, climbing the ecclesiastical ladder, ensuring power and status, or unhealthy reliance on foreign money are all distractions that affect the day to day walk of indigenous leaders with Christ. And when the leaders lack in spiritual depth and maturity, the outcome will not only impact their personal growth but will have broader ramifications on the spirituality of the indigenous churches at large.
The whole point of elaborating on these deep-rooted issues within the indigenous churches is not to finger-point at either the indigenous leadership or to blame their past colonial masters for everything. Neither it is about prescribing solutions. It is simply to bring some concerns to the surface and instigate healthy discussion over issues that truly matter.
Bibliography
1. A critical reflection on the indigenous church leadership that behaves like modern-day pharaohs - The Lutheran church as a case study as we search for servant leadership that is liberating and transformative by Olehile. A. Buffel - http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0256-95072019000300004
2. Article on the biography of Henry Ven https://www.bu.edu/missiology/missionary-biography/t-u-v/venn-henry-1796-1873/
3. Rowell, John. 2006. To Give or Not to Give? Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity, and Redefining Sustainability. Tyrone, Ga.: Authentic Publishing.
4. Schwartz, Glenn J. 2007. When Charity Destroys Dignity: Overcoming Unhealthy Dependency in the Christian Movement. Lancaster, Pa.: World Mission Book Service.
Comentários