Deliverance Ministry in an African Cultural Perspective, by Jim Harries
Acquiring Contextual Knowledge
It has become normal for Western missionaries in Africa to invest money from ‘home’ into their ministries. In a ‘poor’ continent such as Africa, this has contributed to the flourishing of whatever ministry has outside links, and the neglect of truly indigenous activity. Perceiving the inequity of this neglect, some funds have started to seek to support indigenous ministry. Unfortunately the strings with which money are tied being ever-present. ‘Indigenous’ ministries can become Western oriented to ensure the ongoing flow of funds. The same funds tend to corrupt indigenous ministries.6
Dependence on foreign funds creates ministries no longer dependent on Jesus.
In both the above cases, dependence on foreign funds aligns ministry to the context of the origin of the finance concerned. I have considered the question of whether strings can be removed in Harries (2006b). In essence I conclude: they cannot be. While donors can make some efforts at aligning funds with what is ‘truly indigenous’, such alignment is of necessity very limited. In much of Africa recipients and potential recipients of donor funds have discovered that what is important in order to succeed in today’s donor-dependent world is not their aptitude in the recipient (i.e. their own) culture, but the ability to relate to the donor culture. It is the ability at writing a proposal, relating amicably with Westerners, English comprehension, computer literacy, and enhancing the feelings of esteem and self-importance of Westerners that differentiate success from failure in Africa today.
Many questions asked by the West in relation to the rest of the world’s people pertain to how to use the West’s abundance of resources to benefit the rest of the globe. But as has been noted, there are some real difficulties in this process.
Is there another way? I suggest that there is an important need for some Westerners to become ‘vulnerable’ missionaries. To start with, they must flatly refuse to enhance their ministries using resources that come from the West. Such missionaries reject the privileged status of bountiful funding for their ‘projects’. What they gain instead includes:
In due course, the cessation of expressions of interest in one’s project by those who are really only after money.
Setting up of an activity that from the beginning is rooted in local resources. This will ensure that it will remain sustainable in the absence of foreign subsidy.
Not having to be oriented to please donors, participants in a project can give genuine priority to local concerns and sustainable, culturally-aligned ways of resolving problems and building capacity.
The absence of donor funds does away with the fighting, disputes, jealousy, gossiping, discord and ‘witchcraft’ often associated with donor money (Harries 2009). Putting aside the option of ‘buying success’ has various implications for missionary service. Whereas the availability of finance can compensate for a lack of local wisdom, if finance is not available, an alternative means of drawing attention to one’s activities must be found. On a level playing field the foreign missionary is forced to compete on equal terms with local actors. The latter are by default closely integrated into their communities. A missionary will have little choice, but to also acquire skills in communication and understanding that pertain to the context being reached. This requires, at the very least, knowledge of local languages.
How does the Western church acquire contextual knowledge of other cultures where we are called to help?
Category: Ministry, Pneuma Review, Winter 2011
Followers
Fans
