Sharing life in Christ - when living standards collide?
We're still a class society. Not like it was for Jane Austen, but it's still there in a big way in North America - and it's wrong. Life together in the Kingdom should obliterate class divisions.
As strong as North American class divisions are, what about in the international arena? What about when North Americans try to live in foreign (and non-Western European) nations? Missionaries supposedly go to "serve" and "share" the Gospel. They make "big sacrifices."
What's below and in the comments began as an e-mail conversation between a national Christian in South America (who received his M.A. from an American theology school - we'll call him "P"), a missionary on a missionary team in that same country ("C"), and myself ("SM," who wants to live overseas but with a "real job" - not as a missionary).
I've edited parts out to preserve anonymity. It started with an e-mail from "P":
Subject: a frank question
my dear missionary friends:
I was struck with a piece of information that left me appalled a couple days ago. I believe you will have no reservation to answer/confirm me this information. Let’s say an American church of Christ has two missionaries on the field: one is an American family and the other is native, indigenous family. The church will give a much higher salary to the American family, in order to keep their social, comfortable status tantamount to a living cost as in the States. Whereas to the natives the church will give a salary equivalent to the local families. Do you guys think these politics are true for all or most the churches? In sum: a differentiated salary approach.
Peace
posted by SM - Link to this post -
9 comments
9 Comments:
Hey, "P". My personal take on it - as someone who is in the stage of life where we will soon start making decisions about our long-term living standards in a foreign country - is this:
The accepted level of living standards for Western missionaries in less-wealthy nations is embarrassing and wrong (and pathetic and unChristlike). What's even more embarrassing and wrong is all the talk of "sacrifice" and the pity-parties that sending churches will give to the missionaries. Now, with the last two or three generations of Western/American CoC missionaries, in some ways they were not taken care of enough and suffered for it - but in other ways they lived obscenely affluent lifestyles relative to the local context. There is a horrible double standard that is just plain wrong. Americans in general would be more moral to live at a lower standard of living in their own country, nevermind when they live elsewhere!
However, the solution is not as simple as saying, "So we should just pay everyone the same." Americans living elsewhere are not South Americans, or Africans, or Chinese. They live partly in two different economic contexts and have to relate to family that lives in their home context. I think cross-cultural missionaries do have some different, legitimate needs that locals don't have. I'm not justifying the obscene relatively affluent lifestyle that American CoC missionaries typically get away with. But I am saying that in certain instances it is warranted that a cross-cultural family have/receive some things that locals won't have. I'd say that for a South American missionary family to the States, or Americans going to S.A. Basically, we can't pretend that we're locals, because we're not. Identification/incarnation can only go so far before it becomes patronizing/disingenuous.
Besides, in cases where Westerns did go entirely native: where they lived/worked on the local economy and diet, they were not received well. People knew that they could live better if the wanted, and felt like they were hoarding their wealth.
For us - we eventually want to get jobs like normal people, and live a lifestyle that is culturally and economically understandable and within reach of the average urban local. Basically, we want to live life tangibly in ways that the average person in their economic and cultural context can understand and imitate. Life with Christ is a shared adenture, and we can't grow together with the local people unless our lives can be mutually shared.
In the midst of all that, there may be things we have that the average urban local does not. I don't know exactly what yet, because we'll have to consider each one separately. But things like internet access and a computer: our families are literally on the other side of the world, and we can't just pretend like they live in the next province. Or money saved for retirement: we don't come from a culture or economy where we can expect our kids to financially support us in our old age. Both of those examples are not firm decisions, but just examples of stuff we'll consider.
Anyway, this is probably more than you wanted! Please dont' hesitate to voice concerns about the way N.Americans are, and please don't hesitate to challenge our own plans and decision making. We would greatly value your critique and perspective! Especially regarding what is truly appropriate for Westerners planning to live and model Christ on 'foreign' soil.
SM,
I can so totally relate to what you describe in the beginning to the excess, being from a team that has as its identity the pity parties and affluence that you describe. It is hard to see ourselves as teammates at heart with our team, when we have such a different perspective and standard of living in order to try to live at a level that is more consistent with the locals that we work with.
I mean the excess to me is just crazy, but the funny thing is that I have to guard my heart bec I see my teammates taking weekend trips to [resort city], and bragging about their new cars and such. It is hard for my physical man to not desire those things. So on this team it is my call to always keep my eyes of Christ who gave up everything.
At the same time I am thankful that I have enough to provide for my family, and that we are going to be able to put away some money for the future so that I won't have to be dependant on my kids for my wellbeing when I am older. I believe that it is important to see our resources as blessings from God, to care for your family at a level that allows the locals to see that you are not hoarding or greedy and that I hang on loosely to my bank account and am ready to share when I see needs.
"P",
I don't even know where to start. One thing that i have learned living in America is that even though they would never say this, they are very proud of the fact that they are the world's economic power. This worldview has entered the church so that the now middle to uppper class churches OF christ in the states have a mindset that Americans and especially Christians are the blessed ones of God and deserve to live a life at a standard of living that is the highest in the world. So any missionary that braves the big bad world by moving away from their home culture of safety and affluence, deserve to be poured upon with excess affluence bec they are making such a sacrifice in the name of Christianity and the c of c's.
Saying all that, the simple fact is that the national family no matter what their work ethic, sacrifice, education, prepararation, leadership abilities that are greater than the American missioanries families, because they minister in their home culture and in their native language: are not from the Unites States. Therefore the national workers are not as deserving of the affluent outpouring as the American families that have made the kind of sacrifices that the decision makers in the American churches can relate to more, being from the same socio-economic culture. Simply put, the national workers are not from the states and therefore should not expect to recieve the same compensation.
This happens in all 4 of the Latin American countries I have worked in. In every case there are hard feelings between the local national church leaders, who inevitably have a greater influence in the life of the church because the local members can relate to them more easily than the American families. Is this fair? No, but it is the reality in the c of c compensation of mission work around the world. It will not change until there is a reenvisioning and education of our mission sending decions makers in the states or any sending nation for that matter. It comes down to the fact that the WASP american churches treat other WASP american missionaries from a ethnocentric cultural perspective that has little room for being able to make informed jugements for how to deal with appropriate renumeration for the national workers that they choose to support for the good of the work.
In other words the guys in the churches in the states are full of people with good intentions that want to support missions around the world, but they are so grossly ill-informed. I'll be praying for this situation, and that the national family will have wisdom and a sense of contentment for the economic discrepancies that exist between American and national workers in the c of c's.
to add to what "C" said, in order for stuff to get to the ears of the senders and the potential sent-ones, White-boys and their families are going to have to go live it in a foreign country before their critique has any chance of being considered.
There are too many hyper-critical grad student-aged white kids with no real ministry experience in CoC's. Their voice can't compete with the 'good ol' boys' who have 10 and 20 years on their resumes.
I'm paying extra special attention to Mr. & Mrs. "C" and Travis and Cara - as these couples are the most likely of all the ones I know to truly challenge the status quo through their lifestyle overseas.
i just have ONE request: don't mention my name in any form. i fear that my sponsoring wealthy church may find it out that i have started this type of discussion, then i'll be in hot water!
but you guys had an excellent critique and, "C", i think you're not off the mark: down at the core it's still the same pervasive thinking: "american for the americans!" given they are now living abroad, take america there to them, poor ones!
ever since locals have noticed the disparate gap between them and us, but they never dare to speak about it, since missionaries have made the sacrifice to come down here and have given so much to/for us. i guess older generation of missionaries did not about the concept of mission incarnation. well...
i'll try to reply to your e-mails each at a time.
Hum, there's a lot to comment on here. I guess when I look at Biblical examples, wealth is not a problem in itself, but our view of wealth, our "rights", and how we view our wealth in relationship to those around us is key.
How do my standard and manner of living affect my neighbors and brothers? How does my lifestyle reflect my Lord? Do people around me see me as a blessing to the nations, or as a scrouge?
God from the beginning did seem to have a vision for blessing his people so that they could be a blessing to the nations. Jesus shows us how to strip down to simplicity of lifestyle to reach those whom God loves and desires.
Does our wealth rob us of compassion? Are we being good stewards of the resources God has given us?
I've a stinkin' big amount of questions to answer, don't I. Needless to say, I don't have all the answers yet.
What about couples where one is American, and the other is Mexican?
dear SM and C,
let me start by giving you some details how all this started. sorry for the long delay.
i knew that the old school of missionaries shared a view that indigenous, locals if ever
supported by US churches should have a much lower salary, so that he wouldn´t stand out above his churchmen and countrymen. that by itself is already appalling! but what really surprised me was when i heard the same statement/conviction from the mouth of new american school of missionaries, who is sponsored by a progressive CoC! wow! so, as C put it, it goes beyond doctrine, it´s the american worldview into the church, regardless of its doctrinal position, whether liberal or fundamentalist. i think that C is quite correct. perhaps it´s the expansionist, yet colonial, american view in the very hearts and minds of the american elders and ministers and the parish. AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS: so given i´m not american, my share/lot is must be lower.
SM's point that the social, comfortable status has to be maintained while living abroad,
regardless of where, is true. the incarnation is only at the level of coming down, not of becoming one like all the others. in this regard, i sense that the catholic missionaries have done a much better job. they have encoroparated a fuller incarnation in their mission works. they go beyond doctrinal concerns.
on the other hand, i think that the Spirit has put a word of caution in my heart.
first, i must not let a bitter heart grow within me "against" my american brothers. you're fully right, C. by the same token we can criticize them in respect to their use of the material blessings and their lack to disattachment; they can criticize us on other regards as well.
second, i cannot go against the fact and all odds that the Lord has used US to spread the word of His Kingdom, whether we like it or not. despite of general american arrogance, blatant generalized ignorance (specially their cosmology), enculturated self-indulgance and self-reliance, if it were not for their work in this part of the world, we would still be subjected to the pitiful way christianity is rendered to us by the roman catholic church. i would still be in ignorance of god's love, revelation, and living my "catholic" nominal life without any godly ethics. so, i must be very careful not to end up swinging to the extreme of ingratitute towards them. i am what i am today, thanks to the american work here. without them, i could only foresee it would be so much worse.
peace out,
P
PS: we’re not to be a michael moore of the CoC, guys!
Thanks for your perspective, P. Two things in particular I wanted to comment on.
You said: SM's point that the social, comfortable status has to be maintained while living abroad, regardless of where, is true. the incarnation is only at the level of coming down, not of becoming one like all the others.
I hope it didn't sound like I was saying Americans ought to try and maintain American economic standards of living when they live in other countries. Foreigners (of any kind) have different legitimate needs (compared to locals) because they are stretched between two countries and two cultures. That translates into extra expenses. But I'm not saying this means they shouldn't live as close to the local living standards as possible.
Regarding Americans attempting to be incarnational, there has to be a synthesis of "becoming all things to all people" with "being authentic." In the process of identifying with the locals, we can't pretend that we aren't foreigners. We (foreigners) shouldn't attempt to be people we're not (nationals) - but we should attempt to be a certain kind of foreigner. I can sacrifice my living standard and still be true to who I am.
Rather than raise the pay of local US-supported ministers to American levels, I'd rather see the American's lower their living standards closer to national levels.
You also said, "we’re not to be a michael moore of the CoC, guys!"
Ouch - but you're right. An accurate and Christlike response to the situation won't be venomous. We should acknowledge how in debt we are to our predecessors because it's to a very substantial degree. And we should realize that we want the generations after us to improve on whatever legacies we hand down to them... hopefully they'll do it with more grace and maturity than much of our post-grad school generation.
Missiologist Dr. Gailyn Van Rheenen has some valuable insight at http://www.missiology.org/mmr/mmr13.htm regarding the dangers of paternalism in missions and finances.
He lists several questions including:
* Do supported national leaders expect to be supported by their own people in the near future?
* Are national leaders supported on a level consistent with the local economy or on the economic level of members of the supporting church?
Thanks, Tom. The three of us all studied under Dr. Van Rheenen.
Along with your questions, I'd want to add these:
* Does the American-supported national family have special expectations (and thus expenses) placed on them that are created by the cross-cultural nature of the arrangement?
* What criteria should determine the degree to which foreign missionaries live above average local economic standards?
Post a Comment
<< Home