Simon often tells the Nepali leaders
of UMN “projects” that working for UMN is comparable
to living the life of a Nepali child adopted into a foreign family.
Although they have Nepali faces and live in Nepal, they do not
grow up with Nepali values, customs, and relationships. Going
from church-supported institution to independent organization
(mostly non-governmental organizations, or NGOs) is like leaving
home and starting a Nepali family of their own. It is no surprise
that they find it hard to adjust to the society they lived in
all their lives because suddenly there’s a whole new set
of rules. It’s a frightening experience for them.
When missionaries hand over control of a program to Nepali leaders,
or any indigenous people group, three distinct changes occur:
Credibility loss—Whether deserved or not,
missionaries enjoy the deep trust of the supporters and the people
we serve. Supporters like you are always ready to give us the
benefit of the doubt when our accounting or reporting is not clear.
Services provided to the poor and marginalized are always perceived
as being proper and of high quality. When missionaries are not
on the scene, the perception of quality and integrity is reduced,
at best. Supporters and beneficiaries and governments demand a
higher standard of accountability and demonstrated quality. Demand
for accountability and quality is not a bad thing, the problem
is that the level demanded is higher than what was asked for before.
Capability loss—Nepali leaders do not
always possess the technical and administrative capabilities of
the professional missionaries. Most of the governments insist
that the doctors, engineers, and administrators entering their
country bring a level of competence not readily available in their
population. Most missionaries try to transfer their technical
knowledge and professionalism to their colleagues. It is rare
for the national (indigenous) leaders to have acquired these qualities
fully by the time they assume responsibility for the institution.
While we are not advocating a delay in transfer until the national
leaders are fully developed, we should recognize and plan for
this loss. The mission and the complexity of the programs should
be adjusted to take into account the technical and managerial
capabilities of the new directors.
Visibility loss—Another inevitable result
is that the locally managed programs do not enjoy the same level
of visibility among overseas supporters than they did when they
were managed by missionaries. Overseas contributors no longer
receive regular reports from folks they admire and support. While
most missionaries do not want to be seen as a source or channel
for funding, it is a fact that the correlation between the presence
of missionaries and the amount of financial support from overseas
is extremely high, even when the missionaries do not actively
raise funds for the programs. Contributors from overseas find
it easier to identify with programs to which their family members
or friends are devoting their lives; it is natural for them to
direct funds to these projects, which may not reflect relative
needs. Furthermore, communications with overseas supporters were
traditionally left to the missionaries, and this remains one of
the most difficult areas for the national leaders.
We describe these effects in detail to share our concern with
our mission work. The PC(USA)’s method of ministry is one
of partnership. Our goal is to assist our partners to establish
their vision and ability to own and manage programs to serve God’s
children with love. In the case of development programs, we need
to provide more human and financial resources during the first
stages, with a goal of turning over the project to national leaders
as they develop. This transition process is a long one, and the
process must start right from the beginning. That is, our primary
goal in administration and health care should be to help build
the capacities in national leadership. Secondly, we must design
and develop programs suitable for management by the national leadership,
not by missionaries. Otherwise, these programs are not sustainable
as growing institutions; they can only survive by permanent life-support
systems, overseas funding, and monitoring. We will revisit this
issue in greater detail next month.
We are not discouraged by past results, as we see the people
of God have unlimited sources of determination and dedication
in their faith in God. Jesus also showed us creative ways to overcome
difficulties by relying on God’s wisdom and love. Our experience
with Nepali and African leaders is that when they understand some
of the reasons for their difficulties and uncertainties, they
are resilient and make proper adjustments in their objectives
and ways of doing things. What they still need is the assurance
that we will be with them as they work through the challenges.
Is it not what our Lord asks of us? Charles was patient with us
as Jesus was with him, probably. Thank you Charles, thank you
Jesus. Pray that we would be patient with others and continue
our journey alongside the people who need us.
We are beginning to hear from some of you regarding our interpretation
plans. We plan to be in Hollywood, California, during the first
weekend in March; We’ll be in Hastings, Nebraska, from 29
March through 4 April, and in Iowa City, Iowa, on May 1. We hope
to update you with more plans next month.
In His grace,
Haejung and Simon
The 2004 Mission Yearbook for Prayer & Study, p.
203 |
