Money corrupts

I mentioned in an earlier post the corrupting influence of money as illustrated by the government's attempt to encourage families. But there is another danger in money: missionaries who wish to employ nationals as preachers of the Gospel. Usually it occurs something like this. The missionary believes that nationals can do a better job than he can at preaching the Gospel. (While this is a axiom in missions, it does not follow that foreigners must pay the Mongolians to preach the Gospel.) Armed with this belief, he arrives in Mongolia with money.

The first obstacle is language: he can only choose from those Mongolians who speak his language. Without knowledge of the language, he lacks hard-won knowledge of the people’s culture. He meets someone who speaks English and is impressed with their teachability. But his lack of language knowledge and cultural understanding prevents him from knowing whether the people whom he wishes to employ are truly teachable or just have a mercenary attitude.

Suppose that the missionary is speaking English. He finds a man who can speak English to some degree and launches into a theological conversation. The national listening to him has a perverse incentive to act as if he understands and appear to agree even if he does not understand or despite disagreeing. The truth is that if he disagrees the missionary will find someone else who appears to agree. If he constantly is telling the missionary, “I don’t understand what you just said. Could you explain that again?” the missionary is likely to find someone who acts as if he understands. After all, the missionary cannot understand what is preached on Sunday.

In my country, missionaries have sat in a translated service and listened as a fellow missionary preaches in English and his words are poorly translated into Mongolian. How does the foreign preacher know that he is being mistranslated? And what incentive does the translator have to stop the foreign preacher with the money in the middle of his sermon to explain that he does not understand some theological concept? Would not the translator rather translate as he understands the sermon even if he is understands incorrectly?

Because the translator has a perverse incentive to appear as if he understands and can accurately translate everything the foreigner says, the man with the money is often unaware of deep misunderstandings or disagreements.

A fellow missionary once became aware that a certain national preacher was engaged in activities that he personally could not condone. When he approached the national to ask if his foreign employer would approve of such activities, he was surprised to be told basically that what the foreigner did not know would not hurt him.

Another time, two of us asked a national pastor if he was a Baptist. After all, his foreign employer was raising money in the United States by claiming that he was planting “Baptist” churches in Mongolia. He responded that he was a Baptist. We asked him the reason that he was a Baptist. He stated that he was a Baptist because he used more sedate music than the Charismatics use.

By the way, I am not claiming that the only true churches in Mongolia are Baptist churches. I have found that there are some called "Baptist" with whom I cannot associate; and conversely there are some who do not call themselves Baptist who are far more Biblical than some who do call themselves Baptist. But to misrepresent that one is planting “Baptist” churches in an effort to raise money is deceptive. Simply telling people that you are planting non-denominational churches, if such a statement is accurate, is more Biblical than telling people one is planting Baptist churches when the pastors of those churches cannot articulate the reason they are Baptist other than the fact that they are receiving money to plant “Baptist” churches.

I intend to post more on this subject in the coming weeks.

Money corrupts part one

A few years ago, the government of Mongolia experienced a small windfall from mining operations in Mongolia. That year’s election campaign issue became how to best spend that extra money. Some politicians promised one thing, other politicians promised another. After the election was done and the votes were taken, the government passed a bill giving about $400 to each newly married couple. At the time, that amount of money was equivalent to about two months wages in Mongolia.

I am certain that the government had the best intentions. For example, second marriages were not allowed to obtain the bonus which was reserved only for first marriages. The thought was that the money would provide newly married couples with new opportunities. The marriages were required to be properly registered.

Despite the government’s best intentions the program was severely abused. The number of marriages in the first year of the program were three times as many as the previous year. We had Mongolian friends who had been living together for years—had two children together—who “got married” and asked the government for their $400.

A few years after this government program, a lady began coming to my church. She surprised me one day with the question: “Can I divorce my husband?” As I probed as to her marital status and problems, she told me that her and her husband had never loved each other.

“Then why did you get married?” I asked.

“To collect the $400,” she responded without any hint of regret. “We split the money $200 a piece.”

My point is this: any time the government offers to give away money, it will affect people’s behavior. Someone might say, “But don’t we want to see young people married to each other rather than living together?”

Yes, we do. However, in too many cases in Mongolia, young people were “getting married” merely to collect $200 each. Such is not a Biblical purpose for marriage. Rather than strengthen the institution of marriage in Mongolia, the offer of money only encouraged frivolous marriage. The overall effect was to weaken the institution of marriage in Mongolia.