Zambia Hunt

There are many serious criticisms that can legitimately be raised about missionaries. Those of us who have served cross-culturally know this firsthand, even if we do not always want to admit it. The frustrations carried by some of our local brethren are not imaginary, and they deserve more than a defensive response.

I was traveling between Ndola and Kitwe with a couple of local brothers. As we passed a large open market, I overheard a conversation that revealed this mindset: “We should plant a church here,” one brother declared to the other. My initial joy at hearing these words quickly faded as he continued: “It’s easy, we just need an amplifier and speakers for singing and dancing.”

Two weeks later in Northern Province, when our Kitwe Church elders asked a local pastor about his church’s involvement in planting new congregations in their city of 200,000 souls, his response was equally revealing: “No, we’ve never planted, we don’t have speakers or a sound system.”

These voices represent a prevalent mindset that has confused the essence of Christ’s church, His gathered people, with programs, equipment, and infrastructure.

Fairness, however, requires two truths to be held together. First, despite real failures, God in His sovereignty has used missionaries in their weakness to advance His redemptive plan. Second, these problems are not unique to one group. This is not the fault of a single tradition; it is a challenge inherent to the missionary task itself. Every generation must grapple with them anew.

What follows is not an indictment but an attempt to name necessary questions that provoke thoughtful discussion and lead to answers that strengthen the good work already underway. Faithful missionaries must wrestle with them, because the answers shape whether the churches we plant ever truly become their own.

Money and Dependency

Should a missionary ever provide financial support to a local pastor? Does this help his ministry, or does it hinder it?

Paternalism occurs “when missionaries and their sending churches and agencies assume, sometimes unconsciously, that they possess superior knowledge, experience, and skills. As a result of these assumptions, they exert control over local Christians and their leaders. This control usually involves financial arrangements and the implicit authority of money.”

Many churches, individuals, and mission agencies send money directly to national preachers and evangelists without collaboration and oversight by mature church leaders on the field. This breeds dependency: foreign support creates a platform where local leaders wait for external resources before initiating new churches, and often leads to jealousy between those who receive support and those who do not.

Who determines a pastor’s standard of living? Should it reflect the missionary’s level of support, or that of the local congregation? What are the criteria?

At what point should a church support its own pastor? If a pastor is maintained at a level the congregation cannot sustain, will the church ever function as a truly independent New Testament church? 

Some mission efforts have addressed this well by tying support directly to what the congregation can bear rather than to outside subsidy. To develop healthy relationships between Western and local workers, reciprocity must replace dependency. This means establishing mutual respect, sharing, and giving of oneself. As Van Rheenen wisely notes, “as they communicate and model the Christian message, missionaries serve as mentors of movements rather than fathers or founders.”

Should missionaries live in a way that widens the financial gap between themselves and the people they serve? Should there not be a willingness, for the sake of the gospel, to lay aside certain rights?

Authority and Timing

In a cross-cultural church plant, what should shape who we trust and invest in as leaders?

It is worth remembering the tongue-in-cheek warning one African pastor gave about the “stampede” that might happen if a call went out for missionaries to the West, motivated less by calling than by a desire to upgrade one’s standard of living. Every culture has its own version of that temptation, and cross-cultural workers have to reckon honestly with what’s actually motivating the people stepping forward.

Why are decisions, especially financial ones, sometimes made without consulting mature believers? And where such believers do not yet exist, what accountability is in place?

Are we moving at the pace of the people’s spiritual maturity, or at the pace of our own plans? 

Through years of training and discipling leaders, I’ve observed a consistent cycle. The new convert learns from the mentor. As spiritual maturity develops, the relationship becomes reciprocal, a genuine two-way street of mutual learning and growth. Then the mentor goes to the disciple with questions, seeking his counsel and advice. This third stage is where true friendship in ministry is born. It is built on mutual respect, on acknowledging God’s work of grace in one another, and on the kind of humility that says, “I need your counsel, brother.”

If missionaries operate independently, should they not expect careful questioning from discerning brothers and sisters?

Let me be direct about another pitfall: ownership. If you feel ownership because you’ve done all the work or invested all the money, you will struggle to hand off leadership, and your struggle will make it harder for the one receiving it. You must intentionally walk through a process of transferring ownership to the godly men and women you’re discipling.

When God raises up mature leaders, we must be ready to release responsibility, either moving on or stepping into a Barnabas role of encouragement rather than continuing in a primarily pioneering role. 

Once a church is established and self-governing, who should have the final say: the local church or the missionary? Who should own the property: those who funded the development, a mission agency, a missionary, or the local church itself? 

Ownership of property is the right of the mature and independent assembly, regardless of what funds were used for the initial purchase.

Culture and Posture

Where possible, should missionaries first seek counsel from spiritually mature local believers when difficulties arise? And what happens when no such counsel yet exists?

Have missionaries learned to appreciate what is good in the cultures we enter while holding firmly to Scripture where correction is needed? Are we importing our own culture as if it were the biblical standard? 

In cross-cultural ministry, unbiblical separation among missionaries over non-essential issues sends a harmful message to local leaders: that they cannot be trusted to apply God’s Word to their own culture.

Ideally, missionaries should position themselves as fellow disciples and brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than assuming a paternal role. But some missionaries and ministers actively encourage or exploit the power this cultural dynamic affords them. The signs are recognizable: fostering relational dependency among those they serve, reluctance to submit to the advice and leadership of local partners, and domineering attitudes when faced with disagreement or delay. This not only contradicts the essence of Christian service but hinders the development of mature, self-sustaining local churches.

Where This Leaves Us

This is not a caricature of missionaries, nor an excuse for the real harm that has occurred in some contexts. It is a call to honest reflection.

These questions will increasingly confront the African church as we send our own missionaries. The temptations are not uniquely Western; they are human. We will face them as well.

Naming them now gives us a better opportunity to act wisely, or at least to fail more humbly and to listen more carefully when we do.