So, you (or your church) has decided to support a native preacher in another country. How much do you know about employer/employer expectations in that country?
“Well, he’s not an employee. He’s more like contract labor.”
Great. Does that concept exist in that country? Are their laws the same on that issue?
“We’re not in that country. We aren’t under their jurisdiction.”
But the church is. Are you setting up the local church for a future law suit? Are you sowing seeds of discord between brothers in the coming years? Are you discrediting the church in the eyes of the local community?
What about health care? No, I don’t mean Obamacare. I mean, what are the basic expectations as far as employer-provided health care in the country you’re wanting to help? While you may not see yourself as an employer, many others may see you that way.
What about retirement? The church has a long history of preachers struggling through their later years in this country; are we exporting that problem? In many countries, retirement is employment-based, much like Social Security. We support someone for twenty or thirty years, never making contributions toward their retirement, then leave them to fend for themselves when they are no longer “useful.”
What about survivor benefits? How many churches do you know that support the widows of native preachers?
I’m not against supporting preachers in other countries. It’s a very good thing in many cases. We just need to remember that it’s not always the bargain that it’s presented to be. We become outraged when we hear of large corporations exploiting foreign workers, outsourcing things because they can pay lower salaries and offer few benefits. Let the church not be guilty of the same sin.
If you’re not willing to treat your foreign ministers as well as your local ones, then you aren’t ready to support foreign preachers. You may not pay them on the same scale, due to differences in cost of living, but you should at least aim for the same proportion. Benefits included.
Or am I off base?
Most native preachers that I know refer to their support as “ayuda” (help). They don’t see their pay as a salary, so they really don’t know what to expect. I think, that maybe they see it as charity. Our preachers in the States are under the oversight of the elders and they know that they work for their respective congregations. If the congregations are dissatisfied with their work, they fire them. When our preachers began to work for their congregations, a work agreement is made.
Native preachers, for the great majority, do not enter into a work agreement. When get their “ayuda”, they have no idea of how long they will receive it. Some receive this help for a few years, for many years or until they die. The local congregations have no input on the arrangements made with the native preacher, and the supporting church and elders have no idea of what is happening in the native congregation.
My suggestion is that State-side (supporting) congregations should make an agreement with the (supported) foreign/mission church on the terms, and not with the local preacher. The terms should include the length and amount of support for native minister. It should also include short, intermediate and long term goals, and expect that at some point the local church will take over the full support of their preacher, and/or all programs of that church. There is no reason not to expect the local churches can support themselves. Other church Evangelical churches, businesses and families support themselves without United States funds. It’s a matter of having a good “business” plan.
Good observations, Pedro. I especially like the idea of churches in the States partnering with churches in Latin America, rather than sponsoring individuals. My home church has entered into one such partnership, funding their outreach rather than paying the salary of a preacher.
Pingback: Partnering with churches in other countries | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts