Billions of dollars in public and private international aid has gone to Africa and other “Third World” nations like Haiti. Tens of thousands of people working in hundreds of aid and development groups have been working for decades in these regions. What are the results? Many lives have been saved, but at the cost of making these peoples dependent on foreign aid and without much structural change at the political, economic, and cultural levels which is necessary for long-term, independent flourishing of native peoples.

I suggest that long-term and deep change can only be accomplished by Christians moving–for life–into these regions of the world, building churches and communities that reject aspects of the existing culture which are destructive, and ministering with their whole lives for the long haul. Simply sending money, medical aid, and even economic development and infrastructure cannot provide the spiritual core at the center of any culture which brings flourishing through sacrifice. We learned that lesson with welfare reform in inner cities in the U. S.; why expect more money and economic aid to do more than save lives that will then be fed into the corrupt political regimes… unless Christians have bought into the secular mythology that “religiously neutral” democratic capitalism (where we outsource our labors of love to specialized aid experts and bureaucracies) will save the world apart from the incarnational mission of Jesus and his Church?

Is it possible that by becoming part of the African people, becoming local, and giving them one’s political, economic, spiritual and social loyalty (going “all-in”), Westerners might avoid the charge of colonial exploitation, whether economic (for resources/cheap labor) or psychological (by making ourselves feel better by “helping”)?

One point to keep in mind is that the relationship has to be approached as Christians bound together in community, first and foremost. If that understanding of Christian unity is not in place first (before we get to aid questions), we’re going to do more harm than good. Within that understanding of unity, we should approach our service toward each other (and if we aren’t seeking African aid for our own weaknesses, there’s a problem) on an assets-based model rather than need-based.

My fear with your proposal is that no matter how well intentioned, it could encourage affluent western Christians to simply go to African Christians and say “What do you need? Here, let us fix it.” To an African, that’s just imperialism. So the relationship has to be premised on Christian unity and must be reciprocal in nature. There’s a great number of areas where the African church is far healthier than the American church and, if we really want to bless our African brothers and sisters, we’d ask them to teach us. We’d willingly submit ourselves to their authority and guidance. And if we do that, then offers of economic aid will be better received and the aid itself will be more effective.

Do I have more experience and intelligence than organizations like World Vision and Compassion? If the answer is yes, then your decisions about how allocate your money will be superior. If the answer is no, then most of your resources will probably be spent repeating the mistakes that World Vision (for instance) has spent 60 years learning not to repeat.

If a foreigner gave my pastor $2 million, would my pastor come up with a program that would create an economically sustainable impact here in America? If the answer is no (and for every pastor I’ve ever had, the answer is no), then I would think more carefully about how resources are invested.

I recognize that “adopting a village” in Africa creates more of an emotional connection than does donating money, even if you can designate how that money has been spent. It also makes it seem that the church is having more of an impact. I would really encourage any church looking at this, however, to focus more on doing good than feeling good. Perhaps the personal connection could be made by designating funds to go to a single country, for instance.