Bolivia and the Challenges of Church Financing

Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.

The Swiss UMC published a profile of the recently-elected Methodist bishop of Bolivia. The Evangelical Methodist Church in Bolivia is an autonomous Methodist denomination with historic connections to The United Methodist Church and on-going partnerships with Swiss United Methodists through the Swiss mission and development agencies, Connexio hope and develop.

One thing in particular struck me about what Bishop Medardo Vedia Gutierrez said about his vision for the future of the church in Bolivia. He argued that the church needs to become less financially reliant on its school system to pay for the ministries of the church.

Some background is important here. Methodism in much of South America was heavily influenced by William Taylor, a Methodist world-traveling evangelist, missionary, and eventually bishop. Taylor recruited most of the missionary personnel that forwarded the development of Methodism in South America in the later nineteenth century.

Taylor was a strong proponent of self-supporting mission. That is, he wanted mission to be primarily funded by local sources, not by donations from the United States. In South America, the main source for local funds to support Taylor missions was operating schools. Taylor missionaries made running schools (especially English-language schools) a primary focus of their work.

When leadership of Methodism in South America passed from missionary to local hands, these schools continued and continued to be an important part of South American Methodism, both as a source of revenue and as a marker of identity.

Thus, Bolivian Methodism's reliance on income from its school system has deep historic roots.

There have been real advantages historically to this system of church financing. It has made churches, even those serving poorer groups, less financially dependent on the United States, which has meant more freedom to make decisions locally.

But every strategy has its limitations, and the pandemic exposed the limitations of this strategy for church financing. During the COVID shutdown, income for Methodist schools in Bolivia fell sharply, which means that money to support the church in Bolivia dried up as well. That put a pinch on both the schools and the church.

Hence, Bishop Gutierrez would like to cultivate more congregational giving and more members and congregations to give and thus reduce the church's financial dependency on the schools. The challenge with congregational giving, however, comes when congregational members themselves have limited financial resources to share with the church.

This example from Bolivia is a good reminder: there is no perfect model for financing the activities of the church. Churches have had varying means of paying for the work they do throughout the centuries, and each of these means have had advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps the goal, though, is not to find the perfect model for church financing that can apply universally, but rather to do the work of discerning what model can best support the mission and ministry of the church in a particular context at a particular time.

Running schools has had real advantages for Methodism in Latin America, but COVID caused a shift in the context. That calls for a rethinking of financial models, as Bolivia is doing. May God bless Bishop Gutierrez and the Bolivian church as they seek to continue to be faithful and wise in shifting contexts.

Recommended Reading: Robert Harman on EUB vs. Methodist World Mission

Several years ago, Robert Harman, retired head of the World Division of Global Ministries and occasional contributor to and regular commenter on UM & Global, wrote a piece on the differences between EUB and Methodist traditions of world mission. The piece, entitled "Reflections on World Mission in the EUB, Methodist, and United Methodist Traditions," ran as the Summer 2012 issue of the Telescope-Messenger, the newsletter for the Center for the Evangelical United Brethren Heritage.

While the piece touches on several differences between the Methodist and EUB traditions, much of it describes the differences between how the two traditions thought about the relationship between their missions and the church in the US. This set of differences has implications for how autonomy, connection, and dependence played out in the former missions of each tradition. Harman also argues it has implications for how we think about The United Methodist Church as a global body. The piece is worth reading, even several years later, as the UMC reconsiders its global nature, especially if autonomy for some parts of the church becomes a part of the answer to current questions.

Recommended Viewings: SAIH Norway videos

After last week's Nordic-inspired reflections on giving, here are some more Nordic-originated thoughts on how to do mission well:

SAIH Norway (the Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund) has put out thought-provoking and entertaining videos meant to cause Westerners to question the stereotypes they have of Africa and aid to Africa. These funny videos could be quite effective at provoking important mission conversations in classroom settings.

First are several videos promoting a non-existent "Africa for Norway" aid campaign for Africans to sent heaters to Norway:
Africa for Norway
Radi-Aid - Warmth for Christmas
The Radi-Aid App

Second are a couple of videos skewering the types of attitudes and practices that go along with Western aid to Africa:
Let's save Africa! - Gone wrong
Who wants to be a volunteer?

The Nordic Theory of Giving

I recently read Anu Partanen’s book, The Nordic Theory of Everything. One of the arguments she advances in the book is something she calls “the Nordic theory of love.” According to this theory, relationships between people represent the truest expression of love when they are not encumbered by any form of dependency of one party on another. Dependency is seen as introducing power dynamics that negatively affect both giver and receiver. Moreover, it shifts the basis of the relationship from love to need or power.

The alternative to this type of dependency is to guarantee certain things as a right within society so that people are not dependent on family, other individuals, companies, municipalities, etc. to provide them. This “Nordic theory of love” is operationalized within society by creating social and government systems that emphasize the autonomy of individuals and provide basic needs for all through collective programs so that people are not dependent upon one another. Certainly, many Americans are uncomfortable with the state playing such a role in people’s lives, but my point is not to argue for an active state; it is to use Partanen’s ideas about dependency to reflect on the UMC.

To give a few instances of how the Nordic theory of love plays out in the Nordic countries, college students are not required to report their parents’ incomes on financial aid forms, since college students are presumed to be financially independent of their parents and should not be forced to rely on parental assets to determine their futures. The government runs health programs so that people are not dependent on their employers for health insurance and thus forced to continue to work at jobs they hate just to keep their health insurance. Married couples file tax forms separately to avoid fostering financial dependency of one spouse upon the other.

Let’s see specifically how this theory works out with the imaginary example of Wi-Fi. The American system is that everyone should pay for their own Wi-Fi. For those with the resources to do so, that works out great. If someone doesn’t have enough money to pay for Wi-Fi, then they would have to rely upon a neighbor or friend to share their Wi-Fi password with them, perhaps, or go without. The neighbor or friend may ask for favors in exchange or set conditions on the gift – the password recipient may not watch Netflix in the evenings or must wash the password-giver’s car, perhaps. The recipient thus becomes dependent on the giver. As a consequence, they are not free to use their internet and other resources as best they see fit.

The Nordic solution would be to provide Wi-Fi through a municipal utility, as some cities in the US have done. Thus, everyone gets Wi-Fi – the poor are not left behind, but no one is dependent on another person for their Wi-Fi access, since it is a basic service provided to everyone. Note, that this is not charity Wi-Fi for the poor; it’s Wi-Fi for everyone that the poor can use along with the middle class and rich. Moreover, under the Nordic theory, everyone contributes to the Wi-Fi, to the extent they are able (and barring severe temporary circumstances such as loss of a job), through their taxes. Wi-Fi is thus not an issue of charity; it’s a basic public service.

I was thinking about this system as I was thinking about dependencies that are created through mission giving in the UMC. There are many instances in which American or European United Methodists share generously with their fellow believers in Africa and the Philippines. Yet, like the person giving out his or her Wi-Fi password above, American and European giving can come with conditions or expectations of return favors. These conditions may range from naming rights to restricted uses of donated gifts to expected support for polity positions. When such conditions or expectations are attached to them, the gifts create dependency. As a result, the receivers are not free to use the gifts or their other resources as best they see fit.

There are several ways to move beyond such dependencies. One way is to revamp giving along the lines of the methods described in When Helping Hurts, Toxic Charity, and similar books. This is an important approach to overturning dependency-creating models of mission, and readers are encouraged to explore these books if they have not already.

Yet I wonder whether it would also be possible to institute some Nordic theory of love solutions to the issue of dependency in the UMC. What common services would we want as guarantees for all churches, regardless of location? What services would we want our general agencies to provide to ALL churches or annual conferences – rich or poor, Western or Southern? Construction assistance? Disaster relief coordination? Technical assistance for annual conferences? How could we structure contributions to the World Service Fund or other means such that all annual conferences can contribute to these basic public services, to the extent they are able and barring severe temporary circumstances?

Such a shift would require significant changes in mindset and sacrifice of privilege by American and European churches. It’s nice to be the donor and to be able to dictate the terms or call in favors when needed. There are advantages to being the patron in a patron-client relationship, and Westerners would need to self-sacrificially give up those advantages for the sake of striving toward the gospel equality to which Jesus calls us.

Yet Methodists are supposed to be known as a people of love. It’s worth thinking, therefore, about what Anu Partanen’s Nordic theory of love might have to say to us as we seek to better love our Methodist neighbors as ourselves.