Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology 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.
Some weeks ago,
I raised the question of what features of the world and its various
contexts in the 21st century might constitute new areas of mission, in
the same way that features of the world 50, 100, or 150 years ago led to
areas of mission work that we now consider central: education, poverty
relief, healthcare, etc.
This week, I suggest another new area of mission work: support for entrepreneurs, especially social entrepreneurs.
This new area of mission work would bring together two threads in the church: First, the church has long engaged in various forms of economic development mission, especially in developing countries and in American cities. Second, in the United States, the church is facing the question of how to deal with unused and underutilized church buildings, as Monday's Recommended Reading indicated.
One solution to the problem of empty church buildings has been to re-purpose them. The Missional Wisdom Foundation, highlighted in the recommended article, has been engaged in this sort of work with local congregations. There are a variety of ways in which empty church buildings can be repurposed, though. They can serve as community centers, homes for non-profits, converted into housing, sites for church-run businesses, even as climbing gyms.
Certainly, any time a church building is put to use for the good of the community is a missional success and should be celebrated and replicated. Yet there are reasons why churches may want to give special consideration to one possible use for their space: as free or low-cost space for start-up businesses, especially those pursuing a model of social entrepreneurship.
To the extent that churches care about the economic well-being of their neighborhoods, supporting entrepreneurs is a promising way to boost that economic well-being. Entrepreneurs and other small businesses create many of the jobs in the US, but support for entrepreneurs and the number of new entrepreneurs has been on a thirty-year decline. Space is one of the basic needs for early-stage new businesses, and churches thus could make an economic impact by offering their space to new businesses on favorable terms.
Moreover, engaging in support for new businesses also gives the church a say in what sorts of businesses get developed. This is an opportunity for the church to exercise some moral influence on the world of capitalism, influence that has been significantly curtailed in most other ways (and probably never existed to the extent popularly imagined).
That moral influence can come in not supporting businesses which the church finds morally offensive: alcohol, gambling, weapons, etc.
But it could also come in supporting businesses with a positive moral and social dimension as well. One of the hot topics in both the business and social service worlds is "social entrepreneurship" - the practice of starting businesses that both generate profit and benefit those in the communities around them in some tangible way. There's even a special type of incorporation (B Corp) that puts this goal of social benefit into the very foundational documents of a business.
So, what if the American church sought to use its space as a resource to benefit social entrepreneurs? What if it took something it had in abundance and was able to use that for the betterment of the neighborhood and the world around it? Wouldn't this be a form of joining in what God is doing?
As with pretty much all other areas of new mission work I have suggested in this series, this sort of entrepreneurial support is not something a church can likely do successfully on its own. There are, however, a host of other organizations out there with which churches can partner, from colleges and universities to economic development agencies to business associations to government entities. The availability of other partners is not the question; the question is whether the church is willing to be one of these partners.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label social entrepreneurship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social entrepreneurship. Show all posts
Friday, December 14, 2018
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
William Taylor, reconsidered
Today’s post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott. It is the fourth of a four-part series on money and relationships in the global church. Dr. Scott is Director of Mission Theology for the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent official positions of Global Ministries.
Over the past few weeks, I have been raising the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. After looking at asset-based approaches to sharing resources and reducing the amount of structure poorer branches of the church need to pay for, this post will look at means by which poorer United Methodists can generate their own resources, thus reducing long-term dependency of the poor upon the rich.
As it turns out, United Methodists have one of the best exemplars of such an approach to church economics in our own history: Bishop William Taylor. You may never have heard of William Taylor. Yet he was one of the most influential architects of nineteenth century Methodist mission and the global nature of the church that is with us today.
Taylor came to prominence as a frontier preacher in California, global evangelist, and originator of Methodist mission in many countries around the world. He was also well-noted as a proponent of what he called self-supporting mission. Taylor thought that Westerners should not pay for missionaries or new churches around the world. They should be financed through local resources. Essentially, Taylor favored implementing the self-financing pillar of three-self mission theory from the very beginning, not when new churches had reached a certain level of development. Self-support for Taylor was about more than giving by congregations on the mission field, though. It also involved entrepreneurial approaches to church and church-run businesses, so-called tent-making.
Taylor based his theory of self-supporting mission both on the tent-making apostle Paul and on his own life experiences. Neither Taylor nor the dozens of missionaries he recruited and deployed ever practiced this theory in a pure form, but Taylor was the most significant proponent of this approach in his day. He and his missionaries influenced the development of Methodism in India, Southeast Asia, Angola, the Congo, and South America.
There are risks to this approach. The participation of the church in the economy may create moral hazards – opportunities for the church to end up on the wrong side of business ethics. Businesses can and do fail, and church-run businesses are no different. Successful church-run businesses require a good deal of expertise and effort that could go into other aspects of the church. Moreover, this approach requires the local economy to be sufficiently developed to provide sufficient resources and opportunities for successful tent-making businesses. Some of Taylor’s own missions failed for lack of sufficient tent-making business opportunities.
Yet this self-supporting approach undoubtedly gives churches that take it greater autonomy than would be offered by outside funding. The independence of Taylor and his missionaries often created headaches for the mission board, which wanted to exercise tighter control over its missions, but in a post-colonial world in which we seek greater equality between branches of the church, that independence and autonomy are positives. Autonomy need not be antithetical to accountability to the broader church, even as it is opposed to control by outsiders.
Taylor’s ideas and approach were largely marginalized and forgotten in Methodism after his death. They lived on in the approach to mission taken by faith missions. Faith missions, however, became increasingly associated with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism. Current business-as-mission models, popular in many evangelical circles, are in part heirs of Taylor.
Yet West African United Methodists today are creating some projects that would undoubtedly make Taylor proud. Through church-run office buildings and agricultural projects, these churches are seeking to generate revenues for themselves and reduce their dependence on Western partners. And although such UMC countries as Liberia are poor by global standards, the economy in much of sub-Saharan Africa is growing quickly, meaning there are economic opportunities that the church could seize if it were able.
Where does this financial model leave wealthy Westerners who want to partner with their poorer fellow United Methodists? How can they support other’s efforts at self-support in ways that don’t undermine that very self-determination? Providing financing, including microcredit, and business consulting are certainly two important ways to do so. These must be done, however, in ways that leave the initiative, ownership, and control with locals and ways that respect locals’ own business skills and knowledge and don’t presume that Americans know business best.
Beyond direct support of tent-making endeavors, this approach also suggests the importance of supporting peace-building efforts and infrastructure development as an approach to mission partnerships, as these create the bases for sustained local economic growth. Again, locals must take the lead, but there are still opportunities for the rich who are willing to listen and be led by the poor.
Indeed, a willingness by the rich to listen to and be led by the poor must be at the heart of any attempt to deal with the problem of economic inequality in The United Methodist Church. Yet if the rich are willing to do so, they will find that the rewards include not just a more equitable global church but spiritual blessings for themselves as well.
Over the past few weeks, I have been raising the question of how United Methodists can face the problem of vast economic inequality in the church in a way that preserves relationship between rich and poor without turning those relationships into ones of dependence solidifying inequalities of power. After looking at asset-based approaches to sharing resources and reducing the amount of structure poorer branches of the church need to pay for, this post will look at means by which poorer United Methodists can generate their own resources, thus reducing long-term dependency of the poor upon the rich.
As it turns out, United Methodists have one of the best exemplars of such an approach to church economics in our own history: Bishop William Taylor. You may never have heard of William Taylor. Yet he was one of the most influential architects of nineteenth century Methodist mission and the global nature of the church that is with us today.
Taylor came to prominence as a frontier preacher in California, global evangelist, and originator of Methodist mission in many countries around the world. He was also well-noted as a proponent of what he called self-supporting mission. Taylor thought that Westerners should not pay for missionaries or new churches around the world. They should be financed through local resources. Essentially, Taylor favored implementing the self-financing pillar of three-self mission theory from the very beginning, not when new churches had reached a certain level of development. Self-support for Taylor was about more than giving by congregations on the mission field, though. It also involved entrepreneurial approaches to church and church-run businesses, so-called tent-making.
Taylor based his theory of self-supporting mission both on the tent-making apostle Paul and on his own life experiences. Neither Taylor nor the dozens of missionaries he recruited and deployed ever practiced this theory in a pure form, but Taylor was the most significant proponent of this approach in his day. He and his missionaries influenced the development of Methodism in India, Southeast Asia, Angola, the Congo, and South America.
There are risks to this approach. The participation of the church in the economy may create moral hazards – opportunities for the church to end up on the wrong side of business ethics. Businesses can and do fail, and church-run businesses are no different. Successful church-run businesses require a good deal of expertise and effort that could go into other aspects of the church. Moreover, this approach requires the local economy to be sufficiently developed to provide sufficient resources and opportunities for successful tent-making businesses. Some of Taylor’s own missions failed for lack of sufficient tent-making business opportunities.
Yet this self-supporting approach undoubtedly gives churches that take it greater autonomy than would be offered by outside funding. The independence of Taylor and his missionaries often created headaches for the mission board, which wanted to exercise tighter control over its missions, but in a post-colonial world in which we seek greater equality between branches of the church, that independence and autonomy are positives. Autonomy need not be antithetical to accountability to the broader church, even as it is opposed to control by outsiders.
Taylor’s ideas and approach were largely marginalized and forgotten in Methodism after his death. They lived on in the approach to mission taken by faith missions. Faith missions, however, became increasingly associated with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism. Current business-as-mission models, popular in many evangelical circles, are in part heirs of Taylor.
Yet West African United Methodists today are creating some projects that would undoubtedly make Taylor proud. Through church-run office buildings and agricultural projects, these churches are seeking to generate revenues for themselves and reduce their dependence on Western partners. And although such UMC countries as Liberia are poor by global standards, the economy in much of sub-Saharan Africa is growing quickly, meaning there are economic opportunities that the church could seize if it were able.
Where does this financial model leave wealthy Westerners who want to partner with their poorer fellow United Methodists? How can they support other’s efforts at self-support in ways that don’t undermine that very self-determination? Providing financing, including microcredit, and business consulting are certainly two important ways to do so. These must be done, however, in ways that leave the initiative, ownership, and control with locals and ways that respect locals’ own business skills and knowledge and don’t presume that Americans know business best.
Beyond direct support of tent-making endeavors, this approach also suggests the importance of supporting peace-building efforts and infrastructure development as an approach to mission partnerships, as these create the bases for sustained local economic growth. Again, locals must take the lead, but there are still opportunities for the rich who are willing to listen and be led by the poor.
Indeed, a willingness by the rich to listen to and be led by the poor must be at the heart of any attempt to deal with the problem of economic inequality in The United Methodist Church. Yet if the rich are willing to do so, they will find that the rewards include not just a more equitable global church but spiritual blessings for themselves as well.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Social Entrepreneurship in the Cote d'Ivoire UMW
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
Social entrepreneurship is an emerging trend within both the business and nonprofit worlds. As a colleague of mine who teaches social entrepreneurship explains it, it's "doing good while doing well" - using business skills and tactics to solve social problems and generate revenue for charitable purposes. There are a variety of examples of what falls under the umbrella of social entrepreneurship, everything from microlender Kiva to shoe-retailer TOMS to solar lamp manufacturer KARIBU. The Ashoka Foundation is a great place to learn more about social entrepreneurship for those who are interested.
Now, it seems, United Methodist Women in Cote d'Ivoire are getting in on the game. United Methodist News Service published an article recently on how members of the UMW in Cote d'Ivoire are partnering with social entrepreneur mobile phone company Pubcell CI to earn money for the UMW. Members sign up for the mobile phone service, which then shares revenue from ads that are displayed on users' phones.
The UMW is looking to take the money it has earned and turn around and invest it in additional social entrepreneurial endeavors. The UMW is using the money earned from Pubcell plus an additional $1,000 grant from Pubcell to support women who want to start business endeavors to provide a source of income so that they can lift themselves out of poverty.
A couple of generations ago, missions-led development in Africa looked like Western experts coming in to plan and execute large-scale infrastructure projects. This story, though, represents the future of mission-led development in Africa: African women banding together to conduct their own small-scale social entrepreneurship projects.
Social entrepreneurship is an emerging trend within both the business and nonprofit worlds. As a colleague of mine who teaches social entrepreneurship explains it, it's "doing good while doing well" - using business skills and tactics to solve social problems and generate revenue for charitable purposes. There are a variety of examples of what falls under the umbrella of social entrepreneurship, everything from microlender Kiva to shoe-retailer TOMS to solar lamp manufacturer KARIBU. The Ashoka Foundation is a great place to learn more about social entrepreneurship for those who are interested.
Now, it seems, United Methodist Women in Cote d'Ivoire are getting in on the game. United Methodist News Service published an article recently on how members of the UMW in Cote d'Ivoire are partnering with social entrepreneur mobile phone company Pubcell CI to earn money for the UMW. Members sign up for the mobile phone service, which then shares revenue from ads that are displayed on users' phones.
The UMW is looking to take the money it has earned and turn around and invest it in additional social entrepreneurial endeavors. The UMW is using the money earned from Pubcell plus an additional $1,000 grant from Pubcell to support women who want to start business endeavors to provide a source of income so that they can lift themselves out of poverty.
A couple of generations ago, missions-led development in Africa looked like Western experts coming in to plan and execute large-scale infrastructure projects. This story, though, represents the future of mission-led development in Africa: African women banding together to conduct their own small-scale social entrepreneurship projects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)