A friend attended a Canadian church conference last week. He
posted the following during the event.
“A survey of 1,400 respondents that shows that
congregational budgets are clearly reflecting a 'domestification' of
priorities.”
A day later, he sent out another post.
"The secularization of Canadian society has caused most
pastors in the survey to view the funding of international witness as a
misallocation of funding. We funded international mission to the neglect of our
own neighbourhoods."
“Domestification” is a new word. But it aptly describes what fundraisers
at many church-related NGOs already know: More Canadian churches are keeping
money at home and sending less to agencies that work overseas.
One main reasons for this is that churches have caught a
vision for helping their neighbours—a good thing.
In this, denominations must accept some of the credit—or blame.
For decades they encouraged their churches to respond to
local needs, to do mission at home.
Good news! Churches caught that vision. For this, denominations can be grateful.
But there's also bad news. The dollars churches used to send to denominational agencies
for national and international programs is being kept at home to support food
banks, homeless shelters, kid’s clubs and many more important things.
Ideally, churches would want to support good work at home and
abroad. But when money is tight, the first place to be cut is funding for
outside agencies and work far away.
And for many churches, money is tight these days.
Added to this is the immediacy and strong personal connections that
result from addressing local needs.
When money is given to an international agency, it goes far
away. The only way to know if it made a difference is when the agency sends
back a report—which may or may not come and, if it does, may come months or
longer after the donation was given.
Contrast that with supporting a local project. Givers can see
the results right away.
Better yet, they can be personally involved, too. This is something that is increasingly hard to do with international agencies.
(And for good reason, I might add—it's much better to employ local experts to operate programs than unskilled Canadian volunteers.)
Local projects don't pose those constraints; almost anyone can be involved. This provides a strong emotional connection for
donors—they can meet the people being helped, personally hear their stories, and maybe even become friends.
Another reason for greater interest in
local needs maybe growing mistrust about international relief
and development work.
There are too many stories about waste, misallocation of
funds and corruption in the media, such as about
the Red Cross in Haiti.
Scandals like this are the exception, but they receive a lot
of attention—and negatively colour the work of all NGOs.
When money is kept closer to home, it is easier to track it
and make sure it is spent well.
Then there is just general donor burnout; needs in Africa, Haiti, and Syria go on-and-on without end.
When someone has only a few dollars to give, maybe it's better to give locally and see some progress, if only in a small way.
Personally, I am not unhappy to see churches responding to
local needs—that’s a good thing. Denominations should celebrate it.
But for international church-related NGOs, and other national and international agencies, it means more challenging times ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment