Cross-Cultural Partnerships

Navigating the Complexities of Money and Mission

Mary T. Lederleitner

• Publisher: IVP
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780830879298
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Ministère chrétien

One of the biggest challenges in global mission work is money?not merely the need for it, but working through cross-cultural differences surrounding how funds are used and accounted for. Cross-cultural missteps regarding financial issues can derail partnerships between supporting churches and agencies and national leaders on the ground. North Americans don?t understand how cultural expectations of patronage shape how financial support is perceived and understood, and Western money often comes with subtle strings attached. So local mission work is hampered by perceived paternalism, and donors are frustrated with lack of results or accountability. How do we build financial partnerships for effective mission without fostering neo-colonialism? Cross-cultural specialist Mary Lederleitner brings missiological and financial expertise to explain how global mission efforts can be funded with integrity, mutuality and transparency. Bringing together social science research, biblical principles and on-the-ground examples, she presents best practices for handling funding and finance. Cross-cultural partnerships can foster dignity, build capacity and work toward long-term sustainability. Lederleitner also addresses particular problems like misallocation of funds, embezzlement and fraud. This book is an essential guide for all who partner in global mission, whether pastors of supporting churches or missionaries and funding agencies.

Part One

CORE CULTURAL CONCEPTS

1

Is It “Mine” or “Ours”?

At the level of symbols one also finds money. Money has no intrinsic value, nor an intrinsic meaning, other than that which is attributed to it by convention. It also means different things to different people.

—Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede

As I work with people involved in cross-cultural partnership, I have often heard North Americans say things like, “Well, you know—they are into that collective thing! They do not care about financial accountability and integrity!” Majority World leaders have expressed at times their own sentiments to me, “Well, you know, those Americans are totally obsessed with money! That is all that matters to them! They just don’t care about people!” What amazes me as I hear these comments is each time, the person making such statements believes he or she totally understands the cultural issues involved. Time and again the person making the comments believes he or she is the seasoned cross-cultural worker. Yet as the words roll off their lips, I realize they still do not genuinely understand. How can I make such a claim? I can tell because their comments are not seasoned with respect.

Paul Hiebert was a deeply respected missiologist whose writings have had a significant impact on many engaged in missions. He wrote that people tend to think “their culture is civilized and that others are primitive and backward.”[1] Few of us realize how ethnocentric we really are. It is only when we encounter people with different beliefs and attitudes that we realize how intensely we hold certain views. Hiebert writes, “We often see the basic assumptions underlying another culture better than we recognize our own. . . . Similarly, foreigners often see our assumptions more clearly than we do, and we need to listen to what they say about us. Our initial reaction is often to reject their observations as overly critical. On further reflection, however, we often find them to be true.”[2]

In order to work together well we need to listen to one another. We need to not only deeply grasp how our partners feel and what they believe but also take the additional step to understand why such feelings and beliefs are wholly logical within a given context. If we can see the logic of a person’s worldview, if we can value it as being wholly reasonable given a unique cultural heritage and history, from that place of mutual respect and dignity we can find new and creative ways to overcome obstacles and work together. If we never take that step, at some level within our hearts we will continue to demean how others think and function in the world. When it comes to money and cross-cultural ministry partnerships, a misunderstanding of individualistic and collectivistic worldviews is often at the heart of our most destructive ministry conflicts.

What Do the Terms Mean?

It is impossible to talk about any one nation or culture and say that everyone within it functions exactly the same way. To make such an assertion would be too simplistic. However, with regard to money and worldviews, there is a spectrum. People tend to fall either more on the side of individualism or collectivism as they interact with people and the world around them. If partners are coming from one worldview and they begin working with partners functioning from another place on that continuum, it can cause a great deal of conflict and confusion.

Understanding individualism. Geert Hofstede is an organizational anthropologist who has spent much of his life studying how culture affects people’s ability to work together. Years later his son Gert joined him in this research. They found that in individualistic cultures “everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family.”[3] Children “learn to think of themselves as ‘I’ and neither practically nor psychologically is the healthy person in this type of society supposed to be dependent on a group.”[4] Money is one of the ways people define maturity and success in individualistic cultures. If a person “manages money well,” he or she is deemed to be wise. Within a church or Christian setting, such a person is seen as being a “good steward” of God’s resources. As such, he or she is often granted more responsibility and authority. For instance, in the United States it is common for people like this to be elected as elders or trustees of churches and ministries. If a person acquires a lot of money in the broader secular culture, he or she is often admired by others since that wealth will likely ensure even greater autonomy and security from hardships.

Understanding collectivism. The problem that arises is that researchers have uncovered that the “vast majority of the world lives in societies in which the interests of the group prevail over the interests of the individual. We will call these societies collectivistic.”[5] Of these cultures the Hofstedes write,

Personal opinions do not exist—they are predetermined by the group. . . . A child who repeatedly voices opinions deviating from what is collectively felt is considered to have a bad character. . . . The loyalty to the group that is an essential element of the collectivist family also means that resources are shared. If one member of an extended family of twenty persons has a paid job and the others do not, the earning member is supposed to share his or her income in order to help feed the entire family. On the basis of this principle, a family may collectively cover the expenses for sending one member to get a higher education, expecting that when this member subsequently gets a well-paid job, the income will also be shared.[6]

Researchers have shown that “members of collectivistic cultures learn different major values (e.g., harmony, solidarity) and acquire different preferred ways to conceive of themselves (e.g., as interconnected with others).”[7] In this worldview it is understood that putting the group first is the way to ensure security from future hardships. A person who is saving resources when others around are in need is viewed as being a bad Christian.

How does it work? Sometimes we do not grasp how implicitly and deeply these distinct values have been ingrained in us. It starts from the time we are babies and toddlers. In the United States it is common that one of the first words a child learns to speak is mine! A Korean friend of mine explained the implicit nature of collectivism. In the Korean language there are no individual possessive pronouns. She explained that if her mother came from another region to visit her in college, my friend would introduce her to everyone as “our mother.” If entire languages do not even acknowledge individual possession, is it any wonder that cross-cultural partners frequently view financial resources differently?

Why Did These Distinct Worldviews Develop?

In the book African Friends and Money Matters,[8] David Maranz illustrates the validity of the two different worldviews. He explains that the most important consideration in African economies is “the distribution of economic resources so that all persons may have their minimum needs met, or at least that they may survive.”[9] While he was writing the book, the employment rate in Dakar, Senegal, at the time was about 30 percent. That meant that approximately 70 percent of the adults living in the capital of that country did not have a full-time job. He wrote that “in the midst of these seemingly permanently impossible conditions people continue to eat, are clothed and housed, and they survive. Those who have even meager means share with kin and close friends. There are no riots. People live their lives with, it seems to me, at least as much contentment as Westerners do in their home countries. Of course, they all hope for better days, but in the meantime, they make the most of their situations.”[10]

Maranz explains that the unemployment rate in France at that same time was 11 percent and this was a catalyst for riots and all kinds of unhappiness. During the Great Depression in the United States, the unemployment rate was only 25 percent, and it seemed as though the entire country was going to collapse. For these reasons, it is helpful to see that the collectivistic way of viewing money does foster good outcomes in many situations.

Maranz explains that the primary economic consideration in individualistic cultures is “the accumulation of capital and wealth. . . . The average Westerner lives, in many material ways at least, better than most kings of the past.”[11] This accumulation of personal wealth has enabled many Christians to donate large sums of money to fund cross-cultural partnerships. In many individualistic cultures, the higher standard of living means that there is often an extensive infrastructure and all kinds of support mechanisms in place. For this reason, people can “cultivate friends solely for emotional ends. They separate emotional needs from economic needs as the two are met in such different ways.”[12] Money and wealth, not relationships, form the foundation for personal security.

Maranz’s insights can keep partners from individualistic cultures from feeling smug or superior. We are able to separate money from friendships only because we have an infrastructure that permits such a thing. It is not the way the world has normally operated. If we realize this, we are more able to face the differing expectations with grace and kindness.

Even in my own life I see the power of infrastructure on individualistic and collective behaviors. I live on a little street with about ten other families. We get together once a year for a block party. We talk occasionally as we cut our grass or work in the yard. However, most of the time we go about our own individual lives not very aware how each person is doing or what struggles they are facing. All of this can change in an instant though.

As soon as there is a blackout, we all start going outside. We begin asking, “Do you have electricity? Do you have water? Is your basement flooding?” We transition quite quickly from incredibly independent neighbors to a little collective community that carefully watches out for one another. We share snow blowers or generators or whatever else someone might need. But as soon as the power comes back on, we go back to our independent lives. Individualism is a luxury that can only be maintained if there is a healthy, growing economy and a well-developed national infrastructure. Since many people take those things for granted, we misunderstand others who approach life without those safety nets.

What Does the Bible Say About These Worldviews?

What is fascinating to me is how we can find support for both worldviews in Scripture. When it comes to personal accountability and individualism, there are parables that teach these themes. Jesus explains the story of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 and the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. Amidst the plot lines, individuals were held accountable for specific resources, and they were rewarded or disciplined depending on the results achieved. Scripture also provides teaching about saving and leaving an inheritance in Proverbs 13:22. With regard to a collectivistic worldview, we see passages supporting that way of thinking as well. In Matthew 6:19-34 Jesus tells us not to lay aside treasures in this life as an effort to protect ourselves in the future. Second Corinthians 8:13-14 and Acts 2:41-47 indicate that we should share so all believers have their basic needs met. We see this same theme in James 2:14-17.

Perhaps the most stunning aspect is how God admonishes people in both worldviews. As I have reflected deeply on both perspectives, it appears to me that each way of viewing life has an innate bent toward sin. To the individualist Christ admonishes us in Matthew 6:24 that we must love God more than money. To the collectivists Jesus says in Matthew 10:37 that if we do not love him more than our family members, we are not worthy of him. What does this mean? I think it indicates that we all need to keep growing and maturing. Perhaps the answer is not an either-or philosophy that applies across the board but rather something that needs to be assessed in each unique situation. Neither worldview causes us to be immune from making idols out of things in our cultures that foster a sense of security.

Implications for Cross-Cultural Partnerships

How do these different worldviews interact when we come together to form cross-cultural partnerships? What are key areas most prone to tension? How do these two differing dimensions of culture create misunderstandings?

How we “do” partnership. In a presentation about cross-cultural ministry partnerships, John Watters from Wycliffe International outlined two key areas where there is a common disconnect. He said, “Africans define partnership as a long-term relationship, extending even beyond one’s death. Metaphors like marriage, and older brother–younger brother are used to describe the relationship. The first order of business is “courting,” getting to know one another, assessing whether or not the relationship holds promise. Expatriates define partnership as a business contract for a specified time period—and the first order of business is writing up a memorandum of understanding.”[13]

In more individualistic cultures we tend to confuse our nomenclature. We do things like form “partnerships” with “sister churches.” We like the family nomenclature. It makes us feel warm and connected. Then in the next breath we will draw up our ten- or fifteen-year partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding to outline the relationship and confirm that at the end of a certain period there will no longer be any financial support. Those from individualistic cultures rarely sense the disconnect, yet the term family is supposed to mean forever. So we need to be careful not to confuse our partners with language that says one thing and actions that indicate another.

Loans function differently. I had a friend who was managing an office overseas, and one of his cross-cultural ministry partners, who had taken out a loan a few years earlier, finally paid it off in its entirety. That partner never missed nor was he ever late with a single financial payment. My friend said he was so glad that his partner was now out from under the debt. Two weeks later this same person approached him to take out a much larger loan.

My friend, trying to persuade him in Christian love, began sharing Scriptures with him to explain why he should not be living in debt. The national partner looked extremely annoyed, and thankfully my friend picked up on this and asked for his partner’s perspective on the situation. His national partner said something that has always stuck with me. He said, “I am borrowing a large sum of money from you to show that I am committed to being your partner for many years to come and to show that I respect you. If my debt is paid off, it means I can leave this partnership at any time. There is no obligation any more and therefore no commitment. I am asking for this loan to show you how committed I am to this ministry.” I asked my friend, “So what did you do?” He said, “Well, initially I sat there for a few moments, feeling like a total idiot. Then I gave him the loan!”

Loans do not always function the same way abroad. I know of another instance where two partnering organizations took extensive care to draw up loan agreements and repayment schedules so the Majority World partner could purchase a much-needed asset for the ministry. However, when the partner delayed in making payments, the Western partner got upset. The Majority World partner did not understand the problem. The issue was not that either side had been deceitful or dishonest. ...