working with churches by PrismaCPOE

Working with Churches External Review of International NGOsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Experiences of Partnerships with Churches

Commissioned by World Vision International

Rick James February 2008

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Rationale...........................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Aim...................................................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................2 1.4 Agencies interviewed .......................................................................................................................................2 1.5 Limitations........................................................................................................................................................3 1.6 Structure of the report.......................................................................................................................................4

Faith in the aid context? ....................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Resurgent donor interest in faith ......................................................................................................................5 2.2 Concerns in mixing faith and development ......................................................................................................5 2.3 Shifts in donor policy .......................................................................................................................................6 2.4 Current donor attitudes to FBOs.......................................................................................................................7

Why do INGOs work with churches in development? ...................................................................................8 3.1 ‘Secular’ reasons for working with church.......................................................................................................8 Grassroots reach..........................................................................................................................................8 Long term....................................................................................................................................................8 Legitimate ...................................................................................................................................................9 Motivated and voluntary .............................................................................................................................9 National voice.............................................................................................................................................9 3.2 Faith-based factors for working with churches...............................................................................................10 Global mass movement with spiritual base...............................................................................................10 Church focus on values and attitudes........................................................................................................10 Able to reach spiritual needs.....................................................................................................................11 Able to engage spiritual power .................................................................................................................11 The church as a goal of mission................................................................................................................11

How do International NGOs work with churches?.......................................................................................13 4.1 Who do INGOs work with as ‘churches’?......................................................................................................13 4.2 How do INGOs appraise who to work with?..................................................................................................14 4.3 To what extent do INGOs partner with churches? .........................................................................................15 4.4 How do INGOs work with churches?.............................................................................................................15 4.5 How do INGOs work in restricted contexts?..................................................................................................16 4.6 What policies and materials do INGOs use for churches? .............................................................................17

What has been the impact of working with churches? .................................................................................19 5.1 The challenge of measuring impact ................................................................................................................19 5.2 Assessment of impact .....................................................................................................................................20 5.3 How does working with churches affect children?.........................................................................................21

What are the common challenges for INGOs in working with churches....................................................22 6.1 Challenges in the Church................................................................................................................................22 6.2 Challenges in INGOs......................................................................................................................................24

What are the good practice principles for INGOs working with churches.................................................26 7.1 Be clear yourself ‘why’ supporting churches...................................................................................................26 7.2 Identify ‘who’ to work with based on purpose and values...............................................................................27 Find the appropriate ‘church’ type for your purpose in that context.........................................................27 Develop relationship from shared values..................................................................................................27 7.3 Listen and let the church lead ..........................................................................................................................28 7.4 Start with vision for church mobilisation.........................................................................................................29

7.5 Ensure leadership shares the vision .................................................................................................................30 7.6 Take a church-specific strategy .......................................................................................................................30 7.7 Develop and support local facilitators .............................................................................................................32 7.8 Invest in CB/OD ..............................................................................................................................................34 7.9 Adjust INGO goals and systems ......................................................................................................................34 7.10 Pray................................................................................................................................................................35 8.

What are some possible implications for World Vision?..............................................................................36 8.1 Listen and learn ..............................................................................................................................................37 8.2 Clarify why WV wants to work with churches...............................................................................................37 8.3 Take a church-specific, good practice approach.............................................................................................38 8.4 Try church and community mobilization model.............................................................................................38 Create a different profile...........................................................................................................................39 Adjust systems to fit .................................................................................................................................40 Find flexible resourcing ............................................................................................................................40 Collaborate with others .............................................................................................................................40 8.5 Work on own organizational character...........................................................................................................40

World Vision International commissioned Rick James (rickandcathy@talktalk.net) to undertake this study and write the report. The author is responsible for the content.

iii

Executive Summary World Vision’s relationship with churches is a core part of its identity. Recent strategic decisions have re-affirmed the role of the Church in its future programming. To increase its understanding in this area, WV commissioned an external review of international NGOs’ experiences of working with churches. The scope of work asked three main questions: 1. To what extent does partnering with churches, particularly at community level, assist you to achieve your mission? 2. What principles of good practice for working with churches emerge from your experience? 3. What challenges have you encountered in working with churches? If these have been overcome, how? The data gathering methods used were structured telephone interviews with 12 benchmark INGOs from North America and Europe; semi-structured interviews with 10 experienced key informants; and a literature review of books, journal articles and ‘grey literature’ from INGOs. Faith in the aid context The literature review revealed that the attitude of the broader aid environment is becoming more open to faith-based organizations (FBOs). While official aid donors (like USAID, DFID, Sida, World Bank, UN bodies) have previously ignored or deemed negative the role of religion in development, they are now actively investigating the contribution of faith to development. They are recognizing the reach and credibility of FBOs in poor communities and, post-9/11, the power of faith to motivate action (for good or ill). For the most part, however, this interest has not translated into increased funding for FBOs (except in the USA where political factors have played a part). Most government donors still want a clear separation between church and state. They fear using public money for propagating a particular religious faith. They want to engage with faith organizations, but avoid the spiritual dimensions of that faith. Why do INGOs work with churches? The interviews with INGOs and literature review of official agencies revealed that they believe churches have the potential to: • reach the poorest at the grassroots; • have a long-term, sustainable presence; • are valued and trusted by people; • elicit motivated and voluntary service; • articulate a voice of the poor at local and national level. But INGOs in this study also supported churches because of factors specific to their Christian faith. They include that the church:

• • • • •

has the potential to be a global, spiritually-based movement; focuses on values and attitude change; is able to reach spiritual needs; is able to engage spiritual power; is an important goal of mission.

Whom did INGOs work with? Respondents identified a variety of institutions they worked with under the label of ‘churches’. 1. Local church congregations 2. Development department of the denomination/church, 3. National denominations or regional dioceses – the religious institution directly 4. Associations of Churches/Umbrellas – National Councils of Churches; Evangelical Fellowships, Ecumenical Umbrellas, 5. Theological colleges, bible schools, Christian student unions 6. International mission agencies or missionary orders 7. Christian Hospitals 8. ‘Para-church’ Christian development agencies – independent of the ‘institutional church’ (e.g. Christian NGOs, Mothers’ Unions, or missionary orders) 9. Associations of Christian NGOs (e.g. Viva with street children’s NGOs) Some INGOs used a narrow definition of church being the religious institution alone; others included para-church agencies, Christian NGOs and associations in their definition. This research focused on the more narrow understanding of church as the religious body. Some agencies worked exclusively with churches, but most also worked with other partners or also implemented their own programs. One INGO commented that working with churches involved 15% of their budget, but 40% of their effort. INGOs varied in the ways they appraised who to work with. Some were at pains to ensure that they appraised churches with the same standards as any other NGO partner. Others believed the particular idiosyncrasies of church and the particular purpose of supporting churches required a tailored approach. How did INGOs engage with churches? INGOs play a mixture of different roles in working with churches. These are different for different agencies, vary over time and with context. They are often used in combination. Five main roles are: (a) Consulting with the local church and using their structures and people (but INGO implements). (b) Mobilizing the church through training church leaders (this may or may not lead to funding). It can also extend to church and community mobilization. (c) Funding the local church to implement (this may only be limited seed funding or be more substantial and on-going). (d) Capacity Building: this may vary from providing training, accompaniment, process consultancy, technical advice, missionaries, exposure visits, and networking for shared learning.

(e) Advocacy: This may be done jointly, or through facilitating local networks, or through contact with broader structures, or simply the INGO supporting the church’s work in this area. Responding INGOs worked with churches in restricted contexts where Christianity was a minority or persecuted faith by: clarifying their Christian identity; putting extra time and effort to understand the local context and attitudes; and working more closely with national and local government. Few INGOs have policies specifically aimed at churches – at best they are old or in draft form. INGOs like Tearfund are an exception. Not only do they have well-developed reports, strategies and policies, but they also have excellent internet-based materials for working with churches. What has been the impact of working with churches? The research findings were not clear about the extent to which partnering with churches assisted INGOs achieve their mission because the impact is unclear. Respondents asserted that although measuring impact is extremely difficult to do, they generally have not done well in trying. As a result, there is limited hard evidence of impact. The overall impression from the majority of respondents is that churches are poor at managing shortterm results oriented projects, but have much greater impact in the area of longer-term attitudinal change (the crux of transformational development). They had plenty of stories to back up these assertions, but no systematic analysis and empirical evidence. This study revealed little information about how working with churches affected children. Most respondents did not consider working with churches to have a particular impact on children. What are the challenges of working with churches? INGOs face a number of challenges in working with churches. These issues were common to almost all respondents – no denomination appears immune. Respondents experienced that churches can have: • welfare-oriented approach to development; • hierarchical leadership and organizational cultures; • unprofessional staffing; • weak systems, particularly financial; • a ‘competitive’ or ‘entitlement’ attitude to resources. However, INGOs also contribute their own problems to this relationship. INGOs are handicapped by: • the need to spend resources quickly • short-term project funding mechanisms • secular funding courses • attitudes of superiority and dominance

What are the principles of good practice? In the light of these challenges, respondents identified ten good practice principles for INGOs to partner effectively with churches. They link the critical questions of why, who and how to work with: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

Be clear yourself why supporting churches Identify who to work with based on purpose and values Listen and let the church lead Start with vision for church mobilization Ensure leadership shares the vision Take a church-specific approach - build on church strengths - no funding (or limited) - encourage other relationships - phase support - diversify and cluster Develop and support local facilitators Invest in capacity building/organization development Adjust INGO goals and systems Pray

What might be some implications for WV? Respondents in this research were enthusiastic about WVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposed shift to working with churches more. They believed it was the right way to go. They were impressed by WV efforts to listen and learn from others. Half of the respondents spontaneously offered further support to WV. They believe there is real potential for WV to become a major player in a global movement for church mobilization. If World Vision is to successfully develop the central role of churches in its future programming, it will need to apply these principles of good practice. WV could do more harm than good. The approach required challenges engrained attitudes and traditional ways of working. It requires World Vision to scale down, slow up and let go of control - foolish ideas in the current development management world. From their own experiences of working with churches, respondents advised WV to: 1. Continue listening and learning, to WV, others and God 2. Clarify why WV wants to work with churches 3. Take a church-specific good practice approach 4. Try the church mobilization model - Creating a different profile to World Vision - Ensuring flexible resourcing - Collaborating with others 5. Work on World Visionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own culture and character

vii

1. Introduction 1.1

Rationale

World Vision’s relationship with churches is a core part of its identity. Recent strategic decisions have re-affirmed the role of the Church 1 in its future programming. To increase its understanding in this area, World Vision commissioned an external review of international NGOs’ experiences of working with churches. World Vision’s early years (between 1950 and 1980) were characterized by a close relationship with churches. Churches were the primary World Vision partners in development work. Over time however, ‘relationships became strained and fraught with increasing difficulties’ 2 . As a result and with the development of the Area Development Program approach in the early 1980s, World Vision began to operate more independently of churches. Awareness of three issues has led World Vision to re-examine this situation and to develop a more inter-dependent relationship with the Church: • Working with churches offers greater potential for long-term sustainability in communities. • Transformational development 3 has a spiritual dimension to which churches contribute. • The Church is a global body with an exceptional denominational and geographic diversity. World Vision has emphasized the importance of this relationship with the Church in recent strategic decisions. One of the six foundational commitments in its mission statement is that: ‘Partnerships with churches to contribute to spiritual and social transformation’. A ministry policy on church partnerships exists. World Vision now speaks of churches as ‘indispensable partners’ 4 . The Integrated Transformational Programming Models Development Project (now called IPM) has the task of developing the next generation of models for its Christian, child-focused, community-based development work globally. This project affirms that: 1. churches and faith-based organizations have an essential community-based role in building their community’s capacities to sustain the well-being of children and families, and 2. redeveloping the range of models for WV’s integrated transformational development includes a redevelopment of its special partnerships with churches and FBOs to address and sustain the well-being of children within families and communities, as part of a wider range of collaborations with partners including government and community-based organizations In redeveloping its special partnership with churches, World Vision is keen to learn from others. 1 The Church can be used broadly as a gathering term for all Christians in the world or more narrowly referring to particular religious institutions. INGOs need to be clear about how they are defining church. We have used the narrow definition except where stated. 2 World Vision’s History with Churches from Strengthening our Bridges 3 Transformational development is the process through which children, families and communities identify and overcome the obstacles that prevent them from living life in all its fullness. 4 Dearborn 2005

1.2

Aim

The aim of this consultancy is to review the experiences of other international NGOs in working with churches to inform World Vision’s thinking and practice in this area. It addresses three main questions: 1. To what extent does partnering with churches, particularly at community level, assist you to achieve your mission? 2. What principles of good practice for working with churches emerge from your experience? 3. What challenges have you encountered in working with churches? If these have been overcome, how?

1.3

Methodology

The study used the following methods: • Selection of sample benchmark NGOs, interview and key informant protocol with iTDPM team. • Structured telephone interviews with 12 benchmark INGOs in the survey (see list below). • Semi-structured interviews with 10 experienced consultants and researchers. This brought Southern perspectives from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and North America as well as mixing practitioner and academic perspectives. • Literature review of journal articles and ‘grey literature’ (INGOs’ relevant documents) • Analysis of data from key informant interviews and literature review • Feedback to WV and responding agencies

1.4

Agencies interviewed

The responding agencies were prioritized based on known experience of working with churches; commitment to community development and where possible taking a child-centered approach and sponsorship as a funding stream. They were selected to ensure geographic and denominational diversity. Lutheran World Relief Compassion International World Relief CRWRC Mennonite Central Committee Tearfund UK Salvation Army International Christian Aid Kindernothilfe Swedish Mission Council Bistandsnemnd Stromme Foundation

USA USA USA USA Canada UK UK UK Germany Sweden Norway Norway

The study also drew on information from past consultancy work with Emmanuel International (Canada), CORDAID (Netherlands), ICCO (Netherlands), IMRS (Ireland) and secondary literature. The response of the agencies interviewed was extremely open. Senior managers invested considerable time. In some cases, two senior managers wanted to be part of the interview. They were extremely open in sending what internal documents they had. These benchmarked agencies were positive both, about WV’s proposed shift towards churches, as well as WV’s desire to learn from others. Many respondents spontaneously offered further assistance to WV if needed.

1.5

Limitations

Resource constraints mean that this study can only be a small contribution to an on-going dialogue within World Vision. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of a highly complex and diverse field. Only 12 agencies were interviewed. Although the geographic diversity was achieved, by default there was no response from the Catholic agencies approached (although CORDAID and IMRS were included by means of prior consultancy work and email communication). Some agencies with considerable experience in this field were not part of the sample due to time, such as Church World Service, Disciple Nation Alliance and Food for Hungry International. Given that there were at most two respondents from each agency, their views may not capture the full richness of that organization’s global experience. The 12 agencies interviewed were very different to WV as well as each other. As expected, only 2 were working directly with local churches at congregational level. Most worked with national church partners. This makes direct comparison with WV more difficult. The findings are less easy to apply to the IPM community-focused process. This also makes it impossible to disaggregate findings about working with churches on a local, national and global level. The INGOs were also highly diverse in terms of their religious identity, denomination, theology of development, understanding of church, the importance of church to their mission, their ways of working with church… Even the language of ‘church’ means different things to different people. The interviews revealed the considerable cultural and contextual differences between agencies in different European countries as well as with those from North America. Yet despite this diversity, many of the issues emerging were broadly similar. This research did not intend to look at WV’s own experience of working with churches. That is part of another process. This work solely focuses on other INGO experiences. Consequently, it highlights general learnings from diverse agencies that may or may not be applicable to the unique context of WV.

1.6

Structure of the report

This report starts by looking at the broader aid environment in Chapter 2. It explores how official agency (e.g. USAID, DFID, World Bank, UNâ&#x20AC;Ś) attitudes to faith-based organizations (FBOs) are changing and what implications this might have for INGOs who work with churches. Chapter 3 outlines why INGOs in this study worked with churches. Many of these reasons reflect the broader donor shifts outlined in Chapter 2. However, there are also specifically Christian reasons for working with churches. Chapter 4 identifies who the INGOs interviewed worked with â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the types of church agencies. It goes on to analyze how they work with churches: How they appraise whom to work with. What sort of support they give and the materials have they developed or found useful. Chapter 5 explores how INGOs have experienced the impact of working with churches. It asks to what extent the aspired benefits of working with churches are realized in practice. Chapter 6 analyses the main challenges INGOs have experienced in working with churches. These challenges arise from problems in the churches themselves as well as INGO systems that make working with churches difficult. Chapter 7 identifies the principles of good practice that have emerged from INGO experiences of working with churches. These largely address the challenges outlined in the previous section. The final chapter explores, in the light of these good practice principles, what might be some of the implications for WV.

2. Faith in the aid context? 2.1

Resurgent donor interest in faith

Faith now matters in development 5 . During the last decade, government skepticism about the integration of faith and development has altered considerably. It is no longer taboo. Most aid departments of governments in North America and Europe are now actively trying to understand and engage with the faith dimension to development. They are particularly interested in the local religious institutional expressions of faith, such as churches, temples or mosques. They see the potential for them to reach the poorest communities. Some donors, like the US, have significantly increased their support to faith-based organizations (FBOs). Others, especially in Europe, are more open in their thinking, but their funding practice remains ambivalent. Concerns about separating religion from the state (and therefore development) remain strong. Government donors do not want to use public money for propagating a particular religious faith. They want to engage with the institutional aspect of faith (the religious institutions), but are concerned about the spiritual aspect of faith (the belief in God). Secular donors would like a sanitized separation between the institutional and the spiritual elements. This chapter outlines: • common donor concerns with mixing faith and development; • shifts in public policy towards greater engagement with faith-based organizations; • current donor attitudes to faith.

2.2

Concerns in mixing faith and development

Until very recently, official aid donors have viewed religion with skepticism. The connections between faith and development were ‘fragile and intermittent at best, critical and confrontational at worst’ 6 Religion has traditionally been seen as: • Divisive – a rallying point for division and conflict. • Regressive – maintaining (if not indeed promoting) injustices such as slavery, colonialism, apartheid and gender inequalities. • Irrelevant – development being an autonomous technical discipline, about which religion has nothing valuable to say. • Insensitive - exported in culturally highly insensitive ways. • Proselytizing – seeking to convert others to their faith.

5 Clarke 2007 6 Marshall and Keough 2004

2.3

Shifts in donor policy

In the last few years, however, this picture has been changing 7 . There has been ‘a resurgence of interest in the developmental role of faiths, even in such non-spiritual organizations as the World Bank’ 8 . (Although this interest in faith is not limited to the Christian faith and churches.) In 2001 the World Bank invited representatives of nine of the world’s religions to make a ‘fundamental contribution to the thinking behind’ the World Development Report 9 . They have set up a ‘Directorate on Faith’. According to Katherine Marshall, its director, the World Bank now recognizes: “We cannot fight poverty without tending to people’s spiritual dimension and its many manifestations in religious institutions, leaders and movements.” 10 Such statements have been echoed at a variety of international conferences in the last fifteen years. Governments at UN Conferences have committed themselves to: • ‘spiritual development’ UN Conference on Environment and Development 1992 • ‘initiatives that require a spiritual vision’ (Habitat Agenda 1996) • ‘addressing spiritual needs’ (Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development 1995) • recognizing that “religion, spirituality and belief play a central role in the lives of millions of women and men” (Platform for Action 1995) Bi-lateral donors also exhibit new interest in engaging with faith in development. There is a ‘growing interest among DFID departments for a more systematic understanding of the role that faiths play in achieving the Millennium Development Goals’ 11 . Consequently DFID launched a five-year, £3.5 million research program on faiths in development in 2005. It now prioritizes faith as one of its eight strands for research. The UK Government’s Commission for Africa report also recommended that donors channel increasing funding for service delivery through FBOs 12 . Other government aid departments are also seeking to develop their understanding in this area. In 2004 SIDA convened a workshop to explore the ‘Role of Religion in Development’. Similarly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands has created a policy platform on this same theme. The US Government has gone the furthest. President Bush has almost doubled the US foreign aid dollars going to faith-based groups. In 2001 it amounted to 10.5% of aid, by 2005 it had reached 19.9% 13 . The 2001 Faith-based and Community Initiatives Act (also known as the Charitable Choice Act) loosened some of the rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state. Now church groups can use religious structures and have religious symbols on display in places where US aid is distributed. They are

7 Bakewell and Warren 2005 8 Edwards 2002:46 9 WFDD 2002:2 10 Marshall 2003 11 DFID 2005:14 12 2005:306 13 Stockman Boston Globe 2006

only encouraged, but not required, to make clear to recipients that they do not have to participate in religious activities. The 2004 USAID ruling on ‘Participation by Religious Orders in USAID programs’ reinforced this. It stated that USAID cannot discriminate against organizations which combine development or humanitarian activity with ‘inherently religious activity, such as worship, religious instruction or proselytization’.

2.4

Current donor attitudes to FBOs

Official donors are now more interested in FBOs now because they can: • Provide efficient development services • Reach the poorest • Be valued by the poorest • Provide an alternative to a secular theory of development • Ignite civil society advocacy • Motivate action The tipping point for official donor attitudes to faith came with 9/11. It showed in a violent way the power of religion to motivate extreme action. Prior to that, Jim Wolfenson then President of the World Bank was unable to interest the World Bank board in engaging with religions - indeed it was completely ruled out - but after 9/11 the Board reversed their decision. Faith was a powerful motivating force, for good or evil. The previous donor strategy of ignoring faith as irrelevant in aid was clearly defunct. There is undoubted greater donor acceptance of the importance of faith, but this is not yet matched by greater funding (except in the USA). Donor attitudes still largely ambivalent. Most governments still view development as a secular enterprise. They are interested in the institutional forms of faith, but concerned about the spiritual dimensions of faith. This spiritual element of faith can alter both the ‘means’ (spiritual power) and the ‘end’ (spiritual growth) of development. They believe: ‘It is alright for faith groups to be inspired by the love, compassion or sense of justice or moral obligation their faith bring them, but they should not use it to proselytize or influence the content of development’ 14 . In addition, prestige still comes from the size of budgets disbursed. FBOs close to the grassroots are not able to absorb large budgets easily. Most donors have little time or inclination to engage themselves with religious networks and establish trust necessary for effective development 15 . The donor emphasis on demonstrating quick, visible and measurable results is a powerful prevailing force. This encourages many international agencies to become more operational. Partnerships, particularly with FBOs at community level, are more difficult in the prevailing aid environment. From this broad overview of faith in the context of official government aid, we now need to examine how Christian INGOs are operating with churches, what impact they are having, what challenges they face and what they have learnt about good practice. 14 Thomas 2003 15 ter Haar n.d.

3. Why do INGOs work with churches in development? The INGOs interviewed in this research articulated a number of reasons for why they worked with the Church in development. These reasons are aspirational. They are obviously not always fully realized in practice. Many of the reasons resonate with the broader secular interests of official donor agencies in working with all faith-based groups. These include that the church is: • Grassroots • Long-term • Valued and trusted by people • Motivated and voluntary • A local and national voice But other factors are specific to the Christian faith. These are would not be shared by secular aid donors. They include that the church: • Has the potential to be a spiritually-based global movement • Focuses on values and attitude change; • Is able to reach spiritual needs • Is able to engage spiritual power • Is the goal of mission

3.1

‘Secular’ reasons for working with church

Grassroots reach Respondents highlighted that churches are present in remote areas, including areas riven by conflict. They have a reach and a rootedness in local communities. Their membership is likely to consist of the poorest and most marginalized. ‘They are not only of the poor, they are the poor’ 16 . This gives them a first-hand understanding of the context and peoples’ problems.

Long term Churches are always there. As one respondent heard one church leader say post-Hurricane Mitch in Central America: ‘We were here before the disaster, during the disaster and after this disaster’. They are not transient, like many NGOs. Gladys Wathanga of Tearfund encapsulates this: ‘I know that when I go back to Kenya my church will still be there, but I don’t know if my development organization will be’ 17 .

16 Chester 2002 17 Chester 2002:12

Legitimate Poor communities are largely faith-based communities. A World Bank study concluded that ‘religious leaders and institutions were often the most trusted institutions in developing countries’ 18 . INGOs in the research believe churches are trusted and respected. They are embedded in the fabric of people’s social worlds. They are seen as an insider in communities. This enables them to be essential agents for influencing the attitudes and opinions of followers. Churches also are influential in urban or peri-urban areas. As Tearfund point out: ‘Studies indicate that churches and religious organizations are among the first and most important organizations and networks to which migrants, including poor migrants, gravitate to when they move to new and unfamiliar areas’ 19 .

Motivated and voluntary Hilary Benn, the then UK Secretary of State for International Development wrote: ‘As I visit communities around the world I am always struck by the extent to which it is faith which inspires people to do something to help their fellow human beings’ 20 . For many people logic alone does not lead to decisive action as effectively as values and beliefs. Religions therefore have a ‘high coefficient of commitment’. Religion can be a powerful motivating force in development through emphasis on concepts like compassion and service; unity and interconnectedness; justice and reconciliation. Faith can bring hope and courage to overcome their fear and powerlessness. The INGOs surveyed work with churches because churches can, not only mobilize large numbers of volunteers, but these volunteers are motivated. Church members are used to volunteering – this is part of their ministry. They see their volunteering as an outworking of their calling by God. They are motivated by service to others and at best inspired by values of selflessness, service and compassion – for example with home-based AIDS care, and work with orphans and vulnerable children. According to Headley, for example, one third of all AIDS patients in the world are served under the auspices of the Catholic Church 21 .

National voice INGOs work with churches because they have an influential voice in the village and in the nation. As one respondent said: ‘In East, Southern and Central Africa churches play a big role in political and social justice issues’. History demonstrates the church at the forefront of the civil rights movement in the US; in the democratization process in Latin America; and in the Solidarity movement in Poland. Churches have an enduring and extensive network of congregations, affiliates, organizations, and individuals. These large national constituencies (social networks) offer the potential to work powerfully in advocacy and reconciliation. These horizontally and vertically organized networks constitute highly effective

18 Narayan 2000 19 Raistrick 2005 20 DFID 2005 21 Headley n.d.

channels of communication as well as human and financial resources. This is important in the context of civil society’s role in providing social accountability through budget monitoring.

3.2

Faith-based factors for working with churches

As well as these generally accepted ‘secular’ reasons for working with churches, there are also distinctive factors that are more specifically faith-based.

Global mass movement with spiritual base As well as providing a national voice in advocacy, churches the potential to mobilize a global mass movement. As David Evans of Tearfund states: ‘The most compelling reason (to work with churches) is that the scale of the problem is so huge. It will take a mass movement to change the situation with regard to children at risk, HIV/AIDS… The church is the only global movement with the potential for changing things’ 22 , due to its spiritual base. As Jim Wallis argues: ‘only a new moral, spiritual and even religious sensibility can underpin the struggle to eliminate the world’s worst poverty. It is social movements which change history and the best movements are the ones with spiritual foundations” 23 . The church has the spiritual foundations which enables it to spawn effective mass movements. This is because the international links of churches provide ‘layers of binding and understanding’. They are rooted in local communities, but with global reach, gives them great potential for international advocacy and voice. For example the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA) is currently made up of more than 85 churches and church-related organizations which have joined together to develop a common work of advocacy of more than 100 million people of faith worldwide.

Church focus on values and attitudes A people-centered approach to development asserts that values and beliefs play a central role in influencing human behavior. As one respondent said: ‘Long-term change comes from the inside, from people’s consciences.’ Others emphasized that they worked with churches, primarily because churches focused on values and attitudes. One said: ‘Values and attitudes must change for transformational development – and values and attitudes are the core business of the church’. The message of the church is all about compassion and hope – key ingredients to any development intervention. Another respondent asserted: ‘The church is uniquely positioned to make sure there is a values transformation in peoples’ hearts and minds because it has regular weekly meetings in which the pastor preaches about values and putting them into practice’. As well as having the opportunities to address people’s values, the church has the development message. A startlingly successful church mobilization program in Malawi, called Eagles Relief and Development, focuses on attitudes - the responsibility to care for the poor. The program leader related: ‘We ask the local church “What do you have?” We use the stories of the Shunamite widow and the Feeding of the 22 Evans 2002:2 23 Wallis 2005

5000 to illustrate this. Jesus said: “You give them something to eat”. We show from the story of Gideon that although weak, with God’s help you can achieve great things.’

Able to reach spiritual needs Many development needs, such as a lack of hope and sense of powerlessness, may have spiritual roots and therefore require spiritual solutions. A holistic development approach integrates the spiritual. This is important, because as one respondent pointed out: ‘To work effectively in Africa you have to integrate spirituality into the implementation of all development programs’. Working with the church should ensure that there is a closer linkage between the spiritual and physical aspects of development. Another respondent pointed out that prayer was so often needed in HIV voluntary counseling and testing that his Government’s health services had started referring patients to the local church pastor for support. Churches assist in development by addressing spiritual needs. Compassion International has witnessed a dramatic impact in spiritual ministry if they work with churches. This has a knock-on effect for development due to the inter-relationship between spiritual and physical needs. As one respondent noted: ‘Spiritual and relational experiences can raise the self-regard and confidence of previously excluded poor people helping them benefit from new opportunities’.

Able to engage spiritual power Arguably, the most important reason for working with churches is that church tends to engage God’s spiritual power in development more intentionally. As Swedish Mission Council said: ‘Churches can ask the congregation to pray. This is unique. There is a great and underestimated potential for change through prayer’. One respondent related an event with a church-based street children’s NGO she was working with: ‘Many of the older children showed no intention of leaving the “temporary” night shelter. They were in danger of becoming institutionalized. We tried everything. Eventually we just stopped and spent some time as an organization praying for this situation. Within two months all but one of the children had either returned to live with extended families or had started living independently on their own’. As Alfred Lord Tennyson said: ‘More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of’.

The church as a goal of mission Ultimately, some agencies work with churches from a theological commitment to the church as the ‘bride of Christ’. They assert that the church is more than just an agent of change, but in fact is a goal of development. Bryant Myers encapsulates this view when he says: “A church full of life and love, working for the good of the community in which God has placed it, is the proper end of mission. Transformational development that does not work towards such a church is neither sustainable nor Christian... It is impossible to imagine a transforming community without a transforming church in its midst.” 24

24 Walking with the Poor, Bryant Myers, 1999

Tim Chester reinforces this when he argues that working with churches is a distinctive feature of Christian development. It is at the heart of integral mission 25 , 26 . Compassion International (CI) reflects this theological stance. They work with the church because they believe this is a mandate from God. They state that: ‘Our commitment to work with local churches is rooted in our understanding from the Bible of the critical role given to the Church of holistically addressing human need… We believe in the church, rather than seeing it simply as a means to our ends in children’s ministry.’ 27 For some INGOs, therefore, an important goal of working with the church is to help it become more of what it is meant to be. By assisting the church listen to and engage with the poor in their communities, this helps the church become more relevant and outward focused. CI commented on a child survival program that: ‘forced the church to go out and identify high risk children. This broadened the church’s relationship with the poor and helped it become more of a change agent in communities.’ Similarly, the Salvation Army finds that ‘a greater understanding of integral mission and experience in development projects, gives pastors confidence. They are released to serve the community in a tangible way’.

25 Chester 2003 26 The terms integral mission, transformational development and holistic development are used interchangeably throughout the report reflecting their loose use by INGOs. See http://en.micahnetwork.org/integral_mission 27 Bassett 2007

4. How do International NGOs work with churches? This section outlines the findings of the research in terms of the critical questions of: • Who do INGOs work with and how to they appraise them? • To what extent do they work with churches? • In what ways do INGOs support churches? • How do they work with churches in restricted contexts? • What policies and materials do they use?

4.1

Who do INGOs work with as ‘churches’?

Who is a ‘church’ partner is a critical question for INGOs. It raises the question of how an INGO defines church – whether as a specific religious institution or as the wider ‘body of Christ’. The respondents in the survey identified a broad range of ‘church’ partners. The first ones on the list are accepted by all as ‘church’ – the latter ones are sometimes not: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Local church congregations Development department of the denomination/church, National denominations or regional dioceses – the religious institution directly Associations of Churches/Umbrellas – National Councils of Churches; Evangelical Fellowships, Ecumenical Umbrellas, Theological colleges, bible schools, Christian student unions International mission agencies or missionary orders Christian Hospitals ‘Para-church’ Christian development agencies – independent of the ‘institutional church’ (e.g. Christian NGOs, Mothers’ Unions, or missionary orders) Associations of Christian NGOs (e.g. Viva with street children’s NGOs)

The types of church groups INGOs chose to work with depended on the: • purpose – some of these groups are good for advocacy, others less so. Some are good for service delivery, others not. • INGO approach –‘donor’ agencies tended to work with national partners, whereas operational agencies worked directly with local congregations. In the study only Compassion International or World Relief directly engaged congregations themselves. • local context – some said that the level of their engagement depended largely on how local church wants to respond • degree of autonomy desired from the religious institution. Many INGOs were keen to ensure a measure of separation between the religious institution and the development work. Respondents agreed that experience shows that development work is often

better managed outside the direct control of the church, at least in a ‘semi-autonomous’ way. This is a complex balancing act that differs in every context. One responding INGO said: ‘We must walk a tightrope, fully involving church leaders in the program – its vision, implementation and impact – but at the same time, separating management of finances and strategy from official church structures. This helps keep clarity of focus on the needs of the poor and protects resources from being diverted to other church programs, especially where pastors have limited understanding of the importance of financial systems and those systems are weak’. The danger of this was pointed out by a key informant who said: ‘You often find that INGOs end up working with some form of organization that is related to the Church, either within it or parallel to it, but one with which the general congregation may not necessarily regularly identify. This is a key fault line that either makes or breaks the relationship’.

4.2

How do INGOs appraise who to work with?

Responding INGOs used a number of methods to appraise partners. At the most basic level, they used the element of shared church identity, whether they be Anabaptist, ecumenical, Lutheran, Catholic or evangelical. For some agencies, the values inculcated in such identity were strong enough to guide the relationship positively. Some INGOs went no further than this shared identity. One respondent admitted: ‘85% are “natural” partners, so we do no appraisal’. Most others described more formal appraisal processes. Some involved elements including: • Situation analysis of who is doing what in the country • Awareness raising activities for churches to see who is interested (or becoming interested) • Looking at the track record • Initial contact and dialogue to discern the church’s vision and level of leadership commitment. One INGO framed the question as: ‘Are the churches willing, able, and ready to respond?’ • Taking references from existing partners in other countries • Asking the community to recommend which churches • A pilot project of one year to see whether the relationship would work out in practice The extent of this appraisal process varied between agencies. For some of the agencies new church partners went through the same appraisal process as any other new partner, such as a secular NGO. They were at pains to treat both types of organization exactly the same. They made it a point of principle not to differentiate between them or give churches special status. Others felt that the particular strengths and weaknesses of churches in development required a church-specific approach in which church partners were treated fairly, but not exactly the same as other civil society partners. They believed it was important to be more flexible with churches in appraisal. Their experience was that ‘if we are too demanding then only big, urban, educated churches or para church agencies will be selected. These may be out of touch with the real poor’. In this way, they might miss the very benefits the church being at the grassroots and trusted by local communities.

4.3

To what extent do INGOs partner with churches?

The research revealed a large spectrum of how much Christian INGOs work with churches – from 15% -100% of their portfolio of work. Given the nature of the research, it was not possible or attempted to get hard and fast global figures from just one or two respondents. It appeared from the interviews that the more ‘mainline’, official church agencies (like LWR, Christian Aid, KNH Stromme, CORDAID) estimated their level of support for churches as about 25 – 40% of their partners. This was stable in most cases, but declining in some. The members of the Scandinavian mission council agencies like SMC and BN predominantly support churches (probably about 85% of their partners). Other agencies like Compassion International and the Salvation Army focus 100% on churches. Two of the agencies interviewed, Tearfund and World Relief are in the process of giving greater emphasis to church partners. Both have made a major strategic shift to focus on church mobilization. Although it still represents a small proportion of their total portfolio, it is central to their future strategy. Some of the factors influencing the degree of support to churches are: • • •

•

4.4

Mission - some agencies have working with the church as part of its mission and vision (WR, MCC, TF, TSA, EI), others not. Definition of ‘church’ – for example some agencies included para-church agencies like Christian NGOs in their definition of church, others did not. The importance of an INGO’s faith base – one responding agency for example said ‘cooperation is more on the basis of shared values, than shared faith of partners’. Not surprisingly, they worked with churches less than most. Leadership – the emphasis given to working with churches differs depending on the particular leadership. For example, changes in leadership in World Relief’s President and CORDAID’s general director brought a new insistence on working with churches. Funding source – for example, INGOs found government funding from NORAD brought with if much stricter criteria than Sida for working with FBOs. Where INGOs raised considerable resources from secular sources, the flexibility in working with churches was restricted Cultural context – in more secular societies such as the UK and Netherlands, INGOs found it harder to work with churches than in Germany which one respondent deemed ‘more Lutheran’.

How do INGOs work with churches?

INGOs play a mixture of different roles in working with churches. These are different for different agencies; they vary over time and with context. They are often used in combination. The main options can be broadly categories into five main roles: 1. Consulting with the local church and use their structures and people (but INGO implements) 2. Mobilizing the church through training church leaders (this may or may not lead to funding). It can also extend to church and community mobilization 28 . 3. Funding the local church to implement (this may only be limited seed funding or be more substantial and on-going) 4. Capacity Building - providing training, accompaniment, process consultancy, technical advice, missionaries, exposure visits, and networking amongst other partners for shared learning. It can often include leadership development and organizational change for church structures. 5. Advocacy - This may be done jointly; through facilitating local networks; through contact with broader structures; or simply the INGO supporting the church’s work in this area.

4.5

How do INGOs work in restricted contexts?

Most of the responding INGOs worked in contexts where Christianity was a minority or persecuted faith. To do this well, they emphasized the value of: Clarifying their Christian identity. They emphasized that they were not there to discriminate and proselytize. As a result, MCC find that although they point out they are people of faith: ‘we are more trusted in Islamic countries than secular NGOs’. This is illustrated by MCC being asked to host a US dialogue with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in September 2007. Putting extra time and effort to understand the local context and attitudes. INGOs said they worked with greater care and sensitivity. There were extra safety and security issues to be aware of, as well as specific legal requirements (such as in Egypt where they were only allowed to work with Christian groups). They also had to accept restricted information flows. Working more closely with national and local government. This gives the INGO more legitimacy in the eyes of the government. This is often assisted by employing people of different faiths. In many places, INGOs found that their legitimacy enabled them to work with and provide some international protection for the local church. INGOs found that today there are only one or two 28 Tearfund has done considerable thinking in this area, outlined in its ROOTS Guide to Partnering with the Local Church (Blackman 2007). It outlines the strengths and weaknesses of different strategies

countries where the local church does not exist or is impossible to work with. In these cases, INGOs might even become a focal Christian community, as a nascent local church. Tearfund for example has formulated an organizational policy on ‘establishing sustainable Christian communities’. In some contexts, INGO then avoided working with the underground church in order to avoid overwhelming it.

4.6

What policies and materials do INGOs use for churches?

Few INGOs interviewed have policies specifically aimed at churches. More than half responded along the lines that: ‘we have no specific documents or policies on working with churches’. Some added that they were ‘working on that’ or that the documents they did have were ‘old, in draft’ or ‘in our heads’. Despite World Vision’s history with churches, World Vision’s own resources e.g. Strengthening our Bridges are more considered than most INGOs. In addition, some of the respondents said how useful they had found Bryant Myers WV book ‘Walking with the Poor’. Some have also found the World Vision PEP tool remarkably useful in mobilizing churches. Tearfund is the ‘market leader’ in this regard. In terms of studies and reports, they have undertaken a: • Strategic thematic review on the role of the local and national church in international work • Review of the role of the local church in disaster risk reduction • Report on church leadership development and Tearfund: recommendations for a strategic framework They have produced excellent materials, which can be downloaded from http://tilz.tearfund.org/. They are also finalizing an internet home page on church mobilization. This analyses 40-50 case studies of church mobilization, more than 100 other documents (reports, guidelines, learning) and should be online by February 2008.

Tearfund Church Mobilization Home Page Looks at process of church mobilization: 1. Envisioning 2. Church mobilization 3. Church and Community mobilization 4. Leadership Development 5. Establishing sustainable Christian communities The site describes each element in the process. It provides four to six models which can be used with each approach in each stage. Each stage is illustrated with case studies from experience and identifies good practice. It will also allow focus by sector – church and gender; HIV; disaster, children and youth, advocacy…

Other agencies like BN and SMC have also produced some useful materials from a church context, though not exclusively tailored to churches. These include: • Enabling Organisations J Lemvik • The OD booklet

• Creating Space for Grace SMC have also developed a tool for assessing organizational capacity, called the Net. Compassion International have developed a manual for working with churches called: They have also a simple capacity building tool that looks at outcomes each with three indicators: Outcome 1 Vision and Leadership Outcome 2 Mobilizes resources Outcome 3 Efficient structures and management Outcome 4 Reflects local ownership One key informant found these methods useful in working with churches: 1) WWVA-Wholistic Worldview Analysis 2) CTI-Community Transformation Initiative 3) RCSP-Rapid Church Strategy Profiling CRWRC have eight documents taking people through the theology of development. In working with churches they find that simple open questions, such as ‘What would this community look like if it were more like the Kingdom of God?’ engage people’s imagination and faith in creative ways.

5. What has been the impact of working with churches? In contemplating the implications of working more with churches, WV is keen to learn from INGOs the extent to which partnering with churches, particularly at community level, assists them achieve their mission. Given that the responding agencies are all quite distinct from WV, they provide different points of comparison, but do not give a definitive answer. It is clear that measuring impact is difficult to do, but most INGOs have not attempted this well yet. As a result there is limited hard evidence of impact. The interpretation largely depends on the definition of impact. If impact is defined by the ability to manage short-term results oriented projects, then the church does not have a good track record. If impact is defined by longer-term attitudinal change, then the church performs better.

5.1

The challenge of measuring impact

Measuring development impact is notoriously difficult to do at the best of times. Respondents emphasized that: ‘Impact is difficult to prove’. It may be even harder with churches. As one respondent put it, ‘the church is a presence, not a program’. It is not easy to measure changes in hearts and minds, compared with activities. INGOs admit, however, that they have not excelled themselves in rising to the challenge of this difficult task. A number of respondents admitted: ‘We have not done this well’… ‘We do a very poor job of measuring the holistic impact’... ‘We have not data, only plenty of personal opinions’. As another said: ‘Evaluations look at the easily measurable indicators of change such as income generation or health, but not at the changed mindset or internal transformation that we believe is fundamental’. Some confine themselves to evaluate more the partnership approach than the impact. Many rely on their partners to do the monitoring and evaluation, but accept: ‘We do not take sufficient responsibility on our part to ensure that partners can show impact’. Some are making progress, however. For example, CI has recognized the need for monitoring and evaluating impact and is now embarked on an ongoing program of impact assessment. Overall, many agencies are unaware of the positive impact they are having. As one key informant related: ‘SAMS are all but completely unaware of the immense impact they have had on social development as a result of supporting indigenous churches here in Argentina. To a very large extent, the whole issue of indigenous rights is now on the government agenda here as a result of the Church´s work over the past four decades or so’. As a result, INGOs have limited evidence to answer the ‘tough questions’ of impact. Key informants were not aware of any well-documented research in this field. Some of the church-focused INGOs have

evaluations that do point to impact, such as the Salvation Army’s recent Global Evaluation. Others have more individual evaluations of church-related projects. None of the agencies had enough raw data to measure the differences in impact between working with church and non-church partners.

5.2

Assessment of impact

The answer to the question of impact depends on whether and how impact is defined. Some INGOs have not really defined what is the impact they are looking for in their work with churches. Others are not sure whether they really want short-term project results or long-term attitudinal change. The respondents were unanimous in saying that churches are poor at managing short-term, results-oriented projects, but have much greater impact in the area of longer-term attitudinal change – the crux of transformational development. Many respondents felt that churches were not good at managing development projects. They did not perform well with pre-determined outcomes. They did not have any good experiences of churches successfully taking over NGO projects. Many felt that churches face particular organizational challenges (see next chapter). As a result, some felt that churches ‘tend to be weaker, less open, with greater problems of accountability and transparency’. Some felt they were ‘less technically competent’. But other respondents disagreed and said that their other partners faced the same challenges and churches were no worse. Some strongly believed that churches are not a good instrument for development if churches are merely a means to a development end. The supporting organization needs to have wider purpose and believe in church development as end in itself. Otherwise the inherent challenges may outweigh the costs. In the words of one respondent: ‘If they were not who they were, we would withdraw’. Yet if impact was defined more in terms of transformational development, then respondents had more confidence in churches. As one said: ‘Churches may look less sophisticated, but they are ultimately more transformational’. Development is only transformational in as much as it is grounded in the values and conscience of the individual. Another, reflecting on a long history of working with NGOs, stated: ‘Even evangelical NGOs are not able to pull off the spiritual impact, even if they have a heartfelt desire to minister to the spiritual dimension. By partnering with the church, despite its obvious imperfections, discipleship is possible’. This was echoed by key informants from Africa who stated: ‘transformation of the person is not happening by implementing NGOs. The heart, mind and spirit are left untouched by aid supplies. In fact they often create greater dependence’. Respondents were able to describe a number of examples, such as the use of the WV PEP tool (by ex WV staff!) with 12 dioceses in East Africa that transformed churches and communities. The experienced evaluator commented: ‘The scale of the impact is staggering. I have never seen anything like it.’

Other examples come from Malawi where a Pentecostal church, Living Waters, has mobilized its local congregations to respond to the needs of the community with ‘God’s heart for the poor’. Two short training sessions, meetings, field visits and seminars at conferences have resulted in more than 67 local congregations starting up some form of community development work. Just two examples of these sorts of initiatives include: • One pastor has catalyzed 92 villages to set up 21 community-child care centers for the under fives where they are given health, nutrition and educational inputs. This is all completely voluntary and self-financing. • Another pastor has worked with 10 pastors from other denominations in his area to successfully force a sugar company to return land they had illegally taken from communities All this church mobilization work has been done by one full-time staff person and a total spending of only about $25,000 in 2007. As one of the agencies that has dedicated most time and energy to considering how to work with churches, concludes: ‘If you are looking for evidence of hard data then “no”, but there are plenty of stories that make up a compelling case’.

5.3

How does working with churches affect children?

This study revealed very little information about how working with churches affected children. Most respondents did not consider working with churches to have a particular impact on working with churches. Those responding agencies without a child-focus had not really considered this question before, but did not see any obvious difference. Of the child-focused agencies, most found that churches, with their biblical mandate to care for orphans, were particularly well placed for child-survival and child development work. The onslaught of HIV in Africa meant that many churches were already beginning to think through how they could respond to the growing orphan issue. One agency, however, did find disadvantages of working with churches to reach children. They found it hard to shift church partners’ approach to working with children ‘from Sunday school to child rights’.

6. What are the common challenges for INGOs in working with churches Churches and INGOs are two very different entities – distinct species. Relationships between them are never going to be ‘like with like’. In an organizational sense, they are not natural partners. Respondents were forthcoming in describing a number of challenges common to their work with churches – thinking specifically of the religious institutions, rather than independent para-church NGOs. All INGOs described relationships with churches that varied somewhere between: ‘not without its spot or wrinkle’ to the ‘traumatic’. No denomination appears immune. But these challenges certainly do not apply to every church. Nor to they apply only to churches – many NGOs face similar challenges. But they do represent frequent issues that need to be considered and constructively managed in relationships between INGOs and churches. As well as these issues within churches straining the relationship between INGOs and churches, there are issues within INGOs that make it difficult for this relationship to work effectively.

6.1

Challenges in the Church

Approach to development

Respondents lamented poor development thinking amongst some of their church partners. They found that some churches tended to separate the spiritual from the material. Theological training of church leaders across the world tends to emphasize the spiritual role in society. There is rarely a focus on integral mission. As a result ‘the local church may not understand integral mission and has a weak commitment to development’ according to one respondent. They think that the government or the INGO should do everything and that the church has no role in addressing social or political issues. Historically churches have gone even further than this and simply become closely aligned with and supportive of the political structure of state. If churches do get involved in social action work, then sometimes there is the problem of churches misusing aid to entice people to convert to Christianity. This may be done by requiring making church attendance a criterion to benefit from a program – something secular donors describe as proselytizing. Many churches, particularly as they begin to get involved in development work focus on their members. They justify this because they are also poor themselves, but the development work is self-interested rather than serving the community. The exhortation to love your neighbor may be tightly defined as neighbors sitting next to you on the pew. Again, if churches do get involved helping the poor, they may do this in a ‘welfare’ or paternalistic way. They can give handouts of aid which appear to help in the short-term, but in the long term may rob people of dignity and undermine their own responsibility for addressing their own problems. They

emphasize certain Biblical verses about looking after widows and orphans, but play down verses about justice and rights. Many churches tend to get involved in development in a top-down manner. Respondents described how: ‘Churches tend to impose their way of thinking’. They give the impression that we know answers. We know what people need. We know right from wrong therefore we know about community development. Churches are used to preaching – they tend not be good at listening. Many fail to listen to communities, nor learn from other actors (such as secular NGOs or even other church groups). Leadership and Culture

Leadership and the resulting organizational culture are common challenges for INGOs in working with churches. Many church leaders behave in what INGOs describe as an ‘autocratic manner’. Some churches also have naturally hierarchical structures. The spiritual authority of church leaders may give them even extra power compared to leaders in secular organizations. Church members may feel that to disagree with the church leader is disagreeing with the will of God. The spiritual authority of church leaders can give them considerable power to manipulate. Such leadership and followership behavior causes problems for churches in development: • such leadership style creates bottlenecks with church leaders overwhelmed with queues of people waiting to speak to them every day. Insufficient delegation or acceptance of responsibility from others creates stagnation and frustration. • the lack of accountability puts temptation in the face of many church leaders. The ‘lack of peer pressure can release a multitude of sins’. As one respondent said: ‘Poor reporting and accountability (even corruption) discourages us from working with churches’. • such autocratic leadership and followership relationship contradicts and undermines an empowering and transformational approach in communities. For example, one respondent described how church leaders in Tanzania (who were witnessing quadrupling of church growth as their congregations became more involved in development work in their communities), preferred to stifle and close down this work as they felt their authority was threatened by members who were beginning to articulate alternative opinions to the church leadership. In some denominations, the leadership transition process can prove counter-productive for INGOs and development. Some respondent commented how many of their larger church partners ‘easily get caught up in internal politics’ as the election of the new Bishop distracts energies and even motives. Many church cultures do not deal well with conflict that is inherent in any group of people. As one respondent said: ‘Churches fear conflict and have no competence to deal with it. They deny conflict which leads to relationship problems’. Staffing Churches also face problems in staffing. Churches constantly grapple with difficult questions such as: should we hire our members first? What if the church leader suggests one of his family members? Is loyalty, faith or competence more important?

Respondents noted that in many cases, churches may lack capacity to engage with integral mission. They lack skilled personnel, particularly in contexts of poverty and low literacy levels. Professional staff find the low salary levels of churches unattractive and often move on. Systems Systems are a challenge for many churches. There are few examples of churches having well-developed and implemented financial, human resource and monitoring and evaluation systems. They do not have the income to hire professionals in these areas. Even if they did, church commitment to such systems may be lukewarm. Some church leaders, for example, might argue that budgets ‘quench the Spirit’. Resources Respondents found that aid dependent churches can behave in jealous and competitive ways with other churches – almost like a starving person scrabbling with others for scraps of food. Where churches were able to sustain themselves internally, this was much less of an issue. Some churches also behave as if they were entitled to support (particularly if the donor is linked to their denomination). This expectation can undermine the sense of church responsibility and the relationship with the INGO.

6.2

Challenges in INGOs

But churches are not the only source of problems in this relationship. INGOs admitted they themselves had caused much of the problems. INGOs own internal challenges in working with churches are: The need to spend resources quickly. As one respondent said: ‘If you undertake large scale development work, it is easy to kill the service work of the church. Churches begin to look for project money, rather than mobilizing the congregation for holistic mission’. Some respondents felt that INGOs needed to admit that they were guilty of ‘overloading church structures with money which led to corruption’. Short-term, project funding mechanisms which do not fit the pace, nor rhythm of a church. INGOs need quick results – 100 m.p.h. development, but churches may only move at five m.p.h. Churches know they are there for the long term. They are long-distance runners, not sprinters. The pace of churches rarely fits well with the deadlines of donors such as USAID, DfID, or the Global Fund. Because many INGOs have tied themselves to donor agendas and contracts, this can severely compromise INGO capacity to engage with churches appropriately. Secular funding sources: Because many INGOs solicit and accept money from secular donors who may not be in agreement with the spiritual work of churches, then this creates a dualism and separation within the INGO. The INGO often simply passes this onto their church partners who are then forced to artificially separate (dis-integrate) their approach to integral mission. It also forces them to wear

different masks – one respondent complained about ‘Pentecostal hallelujahs upsetting their corporate donors’ during field visits. Responding INGOs admitted they were used to their dominance and power. According to one Tearfund article: ‘One of the biggest challenges Christian organizations, including Tearfund, in empowering the local church for integral mission is to give up the power we have over local churches and communities in terms of our resources, contacts and technical ability. It is tempting to use the church for our own purposes’ 29 . An evaluation of another INGO, whose mission is to ‘strengthen the local church’, found that in practice it was easy for the INGO to dominate. The INGO ‘has all the power and makes all the decisions’, especially as the church at community level was ‘quiet and meek’. This was echoed by one interview respondent who said they found the ‘challenge to overcome our inherent tendency to dominate easier in Latin America then Africa or Asia’. Certainly working with churches is no easy task. It is not a soft option for any INGOs. We have seen there are inherent challenges in both churches and in INGOs to making the relationship work. But the research also showed that there were many instances and examples of this partnership working well. It is to these experiences and the principles of good practice that underlie them that we now turn.

29 Musa n.d.:5

7. What are the good practice principles for INGOs working with churches In the light of these challenges, INGO respondents and key informants identified from their experience the following ten principles for INGOs to partner effectively with churches. These principles link the critical questions of why, who and how to work with churches: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

Be clear yourself why supporting churches. Identify who to work with based on purpose and values Listen and let the church lead Start with vision for church mobilization Ensure leadership shares the vision Take a church-specific approach - build on church strengths - no funding (or limited) - encourage other relationships - phase support - diversify and cluster Develop and support local facilitators Invest in capacity building/organization development Adjust your own systems Pray

While some of these echo good practice principles for partnership (Hoksbergen 2005, Brehm 2004, Cheung 2004, Lemvik 2001) – many are specific for working with churches.

7.1 Be clear yourself ‘why’ supporting churches The respondents who were most committed to working with churches were emphatic in saying that to be effective in working with churches INGOs first had to clarify why they were working with churches. As one African church pastor put it: ‘The Why must determine the How of the INGO-local church partnerships.’ MCC emphasized how essential it is to ‘work from your own identity. Like it or not, this is us. We believe the church is the primary, but not the sole channel of God’s purpose. He works through the church, but not exclusively’. Another respondent put it graphically: ‘The church may be hopeless, but it is the only hope we have’. A key question to resolve is: Are churches a means to a development end or is strengthening the church an end in itself? Compassion International makes their own stance clear: ‘We are not committed to the church because of their impact, but because we believe the role of the church is ordained by God. We start from that assumption’.

As well as clearly articulating the role of churches as an organizational priority, respondents highlighted the need to build this commitment as a part of organizational culture. Policy statements have to permeate the culture of the whole organization. One respondent from an INGO that focused on churches mentioned that desk officers, though Christians, still much preferred to fund Christian NGOs, as the churches were so much slower and more complex for them to work with.

7.2 Identify ‘who’ to work with based on purpose and values Find the appropriate ‘church’ type for your purpose in that context INGO respondents felt that it was important to identify the appropriate type of church agency that fitted with their purpose in a particular context. There were examples of bad practice with INGOs using the wrong sort of church organisation for a particular purpose. For example, some respondents mentioned INGOs trying to use church umbrella groups, such as Evangelical fellowships, to channel funds to their members on behalf of the INGO. This has not generally proved successful. Responding INGOs often worked with church agencies at different levels in a specific context. For example, those that engaged directly with the local church found it important to also relate to the national leadership of that denomination. One INGO did this by insisting that any Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the congregation or development department and the INGO were also counter-signed by the institutional church leadership. Even INGOs with a strong focus on working with church felt there was an important role for parachurch agencies. One key informant noted how important it was for INGOs to support para-church NGOs that were able to mobilise the churches (even if they themselves were structurally separate from the church). Another advocated that ‘INGOs should look to support existing structures that local churches are already linked into, such as international mission agencies. This gives the potential to influence a larger number of churches and at the same time avoid many of the pitfalls that plague a more direct approach to working with small churches at a local level’.

Develop relationship from shared values Just because the partner is a church, does not mean appropriate values are reinforced and practiced. One respondent lamented that ‘many church partners have less Christian character than secular NGOs in Africa’. There are all too many stories of churches failing to live up to values of honesty and integrity. Respondents highlighted the importance of building the relationship on shared and understood values. This was a process that takes time and goes way beyond simple aspirational values statements. CRWRC described one staff member working for two years with a local church in Honduras to develop a partnership – as a result ‘20 years later we are still reaping the benefits’. In another case, a Tearfund staff member spent a full week with Baptist church leaders in Burma exploring their different values and what the implications and consequences of basing a relationship on these values would be. It is vital to get below the official line and understand what beliefs really influence

behavior. These are not as obvious as may appear at first sight, because they are interpreted in different cultural and organizational contexts. Such values will come to the surface later when expectations are not met, so it is important to come to shared understanding of areas of potential difference at the outset. It may mean discussing sensitive issues such as: - Beneficiary selection (which some INGOs have to report to their own back donors about) - Recruitment policies to avoid common church failings (respondents suggested involving teams for recruitment, bringing the community into the process) - Having community-led committees to build accountability (one INGO suggested having representatives of other faiths on the teams) - Financial probity, use of funds for designated purpose (KNH for example believe in the value of random audits of partners, which needs to be understood by partners at the outset) - Reporting requirements One local church respondent said how strange, but beneficial, it was for their donor to name their fears about working with churches at the outset. Another respondent highlighted the importance of using other external benchmarks to assist define expectations. They pointed to the use of external codes of conduct, such as the Word Council of Churches International Financial Reporting Standards or the Red Cross Code of Conduct for working in humanitarian responses. No INGO or church will be perfect, but it is important to get to know them well–enough to trust them. But INGOs have to be as open themselves as they demand of others. They have to mirror and model values. Relationships will not go well if INGOs espouse the principle of simplicity but are perceived to behave with extravagance. Respondents pointed out the need for both sides to be committed to the relationship. They spoke of ‘patient, non-time bound communication’ or ‘intense engagement’. MCC even when suspending funding, ‘reassures partners of our long-term interest and relationship’ CRWRC sees commitment as long-term which is why they embody the principles underpinning the relationship in a ‘covenant’, not a contract.

7.3 Listen and let the church lead The importance of INGOs listening to churches was a frequently mentioned principle of good practice. This requires INGOs to ‘take time. Do not hurry’. LWR, for example, intentionally tries to listen authentically to the voice of the local church by asking churches for their interpretation of the political situation in a country and what an appropriate church response might be. They were at pains to listen and not inflict their own advocacy objective onto a local church. Respondents pointed to the need to take time to understand the church history and how that affects local understanding of the role of church in society, their stance on social justice, their structures and decision-making processes. Another INGO described an NGO partner in Peru, which started by doing a survey of 430 small churches outside Lima. The aim was to find out what they were already doing in the community and how they viewed integral mission. For the first time, slum churches were taken seriously. This process

meant that the NGO responded to churches’ and communities’ priority - family breakdown – rather than the more conventional urban program. INGOs highlighted the need to ‘let churches lead’. One respondent described it as: ‘interventions that build upon the gifts and commission that God has already given churches, rather than see churches simply as a community-based group that enables us to reach our goals. We do not start a program through churches and then try to “turn it over.” We have the churches or pastors’ and congregational networks own the congregational ministries from the beginning’. Many interviewees warned: ‘You can’t transfer an NGO project to the church. Churches are not mini NGOs. They will never run a project like an NGO. It will do the church a huge disservice. It will put financial temptation in their way; even manipulate their identity’. For some INGOs this meant they were now struggling to reform their practice of ‘merely sub-contracting the local church to implement our sponsorship program’, learning to relate to them as partners. Hoksbergen’s evaluation of CRWRC's work concluded: ‘Like many Northern NGOs, CRWRC has tried to build community development organisations from the ground up, hiring local people to do community work, training them and then trying to build up national membership organisations around them. It hasn’t worked. Some 30 years after this effort began, not one such organization has developed into a firmly rooted, locally owned and locally supported membership organisation. On the other hand, some of CRWRC’s strongest partners today were founded by groups of local people who had a vision…’ 30

7.4 Start with vision for church mobilisation For many of the respondents, church mobilisation was a critical first step in INGO relationships with churches. This is a core part of the strategies of INGOs such as Tearfund, World Relief and Compassion. They had learnt the importance of ‘designing interventions and strategies specifically for church mobilization and enablement’. The Salvation Army highlighted the need for ‘strong education of the church into integral mission. While this is intuitively acknowledged, all pastors are trained in the Western mindset of “preach and pray”’. Other informants spoke of the ‘need to put the holistic approach (e.g. integrating the spiritual and material aspects of development) much higher and earlier on the agenda’. Another said: ‘There are no short cuts. You have to get people to understand holistic development first’. Church mobilization is about changing the hearts and minds of the church, not the bank account. INGOs recognized the value of investing time in envisioning local church leaders and members about the benefits of empowering the community to respond to its own problems. This often involved training in using participatory tools, using Bible studies and finding local examples of integral mission to visit. This understanding of integral mission is important, because it means that the church sees its work with the poor as part of their calling. They are being obedient to God in responding, not implementing a project for someone else. One respondent described how this became embodied in a church ‘Social 30 Hoksbergen 2005:22

Action Policy’. Another key informant said: ‘Congregation understanding and identification with the social work of a church is a key indicator in this regard’.

7.5 Ensure leadership shares the vision All respondents mentioned the importance of church leadership in the success of the INGO-church partnership. One of the defining characteristics of all the stories of the most effective church development work is the commitment of the church leadership to the process. This is why investing time in envisioning with church pastors is so critical. Where the religious leadership, such as the Bishop, was not fully on board initially, INGOs responded in different ways. If they were working at community level, some INGOs felt that “no objection” from the Bishop was adequate. Most, however, put considerable effort, usually through informal meetings, to develop the top leadership commitment to the work. One INGO said that they sometimes got American Bishops to assist dialogue directly with the in-country church leadership. For some agencies this gradual taking of ownership by the leadership meant ‘We largely work without formal partnerships negotiated with church hierarchies. It is generally easier to create these partnerships, if needed, somewhere midway through a partnership than at the beginning’.

7.6 Take a church-specific strategy Although some INGOs were at pains to treat both types of organization exactly the same as secular NGO partners, many respondents advocated the need for INGOs to follow a church-specific strategy. What is organizationally different about working with churches? Churches share many of the same organizational opportunities and challenges as other civil society organizations. The author’s experience in Malawi, however, suggests some critical areas of difference: • The relationships between the development partner (program/department) and the church structure – both in formal governance and informal relationships. Where does power lie? How is this played out? • How the faith of the church influences the development strategy. Does it affect why and how they work? Does it affect who they work with and for what ends? • How the perceived dimension of ‘spiritual authority’ affects leadership and cultural norms. • How the faith affects staffing in terms of motivation, recruitment, line management and behavior. • How the faith affects the commitment to developing and maintaining systems, in particular financial and reporting.

As we have seen, churches offer particular advantages and face particular organizational challenges. Clearly, churches are not the same as NGOs. A church-specific strategy involves building on the church strengths; avoiding funding; phasing support; and encouraging other relationships.

Build on church strengths Churches are extremely familiar with the Biblical command to visit the sick and care for widows and orphans. Many are already doing this. All churches have compassion at their core. The Tearfund example from Peru showed the important step of respond and build on what churches already doing – playing to their strengths, not weaknesses. Successful church mobilization programs say to the church: ‘Start with what you know you can do’. The church is good as a catalyst for social action, but less frequently as an implementer. Respondents pointed out that community were often in a better position to manage its own development. The pastor can inspire and guide, sit on committees. This does not mean that the church has to manage the money and people involved. As CRWRC said: ‘Community development work should not be managed by the church institution or by the pastor, but by church members. It needs to be at least semi-autonomous of the church’. Tearfund conclude from their experience that the empowerment model works best if an INGO: • Acts as a catalyst where the local church needs envisioning • Acts as a facilitator to enable the local church to carry out integral mission • Stands back from the community and allows the local church to do, and be seen to do, the work at community level. • Provides advice, training and support when required by the local church to develop its capacity 31 Avoid funding ‘No money’ is a major reason for the success of local church mobilization according to a number of respondents. One program in Malawi starts from the core developmental question, ‘what resources do you have?’ As soon as churches perceive that there is money on offer, the development work becomes tainted by expectations of someone else solving the problems for you. Empowerment is compromised. Good practice involves: ‘Begin and remain with the relationship without introducing material and monetary resources early, if at all’. Never get involved in paying pastors’ salaries. According to World Relief: ‘We begin by mobilizing churches and key pastors to learn what their needs are and what is already being done. We do not fund churches to do programming. We are the enabler, walking alongside, training the ministry team, the youth groups, the pastors’. World Relief accepts that this nonfunding strategy results in an initial attrition of interested congregations. This will also limit the nature of the interventions that churches undertake within the constraints of their own resources, which may not be a bad thing for sustainability and manageability. Hoksbergen’s study of CRWRC found that there was a greater sense of equality and ownership the less money that was involved from outside (2005). Some believed that an important way to avoid being trapped into a funding relationship was to stress to the local church the importance of relationships with local government. This could frequently unlock unused local resources. Other respondents felt that church support can involve judicious, small amounts of seed funding or in-kind inputs. 31 Blackman 2007: 21

Encourage other relationships. Respondents felt that a key element of a church-specific strategy should be encouraging churches to relate more with other stakeholders. Churches have a tendency to work in isolation. One INGO said they had learnt the importance of ‘building interdependent relationships between churches and other helping agencies in the communities, especially government’. This also enabled churches to engage in the policy arena more explicitly at a local, regional and national level. Phase support Respondents said that the relationship should develop gradually. Funding, if given, should be in line with track record. Good practice meant avoiding over-ambitious growth and phased support. In programmatic terms, Tearfund usefully differentiated church response to integral usefully into two phases. The first phase of church mobilization (which aims at the church doing things for the community) sometimes led to more welfarist and church-centered projects than were ideal. But rather than ‘despise these small beginnings’, Tearfund built on this by supporting church and community mobilization (the church doing things with the community) – a more community-centered, longer and challenging phase. Diversify and cluster Respondents highlighted the value of INGOs working with a diversity of denominations. Compassion for example, supports 56 different denominations and sets a limit of no more than 20% of support to any one denomination in a country. This avoids some of the problems of jealousy and also encourages the richness and strengths of different denominational traditions. Yet while promoting diversity of denomination, they also highlighted the value of geographic clustering. This enabled Compassion to be able to support each church more intensively and offered the considerable potential for churches learning from each other. This cross-pollination of experiences between churches could also lead to cooperation and synergy. But at the same time, geographic clustering may favor urban churches and inadvertently discriminate against dispersed churches in remote rural areas.

7.7 Develop and support local facilitators INGOs recognised the core process in their partnership with churches as the relationship between their staff member and the church (or between a local partner/consultant and the church). At a local level, respondents described this relationship as one of ‘facilitation’. It is the critical interface. Every successful church mobilization program boasts remarkable people this role. In some cases INGO staff, in other cases local consultants or partners, play this facilitation role. Compassion now calls this role ‘Partnership Facilitator’ and it has 300 such staff (graduates from a variety of disciplines) around the world. World Relief now has a team of three to four church mobilizers in each country office. These are largely pastors, due to the credibility this gives with church leaders.

Good facilitators with churches need to be able to hold back from taking decisions themselves, but inspire others to act and take responsibility. They echoed what McLachlan and Carr said: ‘In our previous studies of critical incidents in international aid work, process skills have been rated as the most important skills to have – above and beyond technical skills’ 32.

The Role of a Facilitator Tearfund compares a facilitator to a midwife ‘who helps bring into being something that is new and wonderful. They do not create life, but they provide support and help at a crucial stage. Facilitators can be involved in: • Envisioning pastors about integral mission • Envisioning church members about the importance of integral mission • Training church members in relief, development and advocacy methods • Training church members in facilitation skills • Helping relations between local churches and communities • Providing on-going facilitation and support (Blackman 2007:72)

Facilitator Character and Skills Respondents expressed the importance of the attitudes and underlying character of these staff. Respondents pointed to: ‘They need to have an empathy with the church and a commitment to it’. Ultimately, they have to believe in the role of the church. As one person said: ‘If they do not believe in the church, it is better they do not get involved’ Character Humility Willingness to learn Compassion Values others Sociable Flexible Patient Accepting, affirming, inclusive Confident (from Tearfund ROOTS Manual, Blackman 2007:73)

Skills Ability to ask appropriate questions Conflict resolution skills Listening skills Ability to quick gain understanding of the local situation Ability to summarize others’ ideas Encourager, motivator, enabler Good communication skills

Character was ultimately the most important factor. They obviously had to display Christian character outside work, if people were to see them as people of integrity and listen to them. According to respondents, these people need patience and humility – a commitment, not just to ‘active listening’, but also to ‘listening endlessly’. They needed to have deep respect for local church leaders and communicate with them in culturally sensitive ways.

32 McLachlan and Carr:33

7.8 Invest in CB/OD A further principle of good practice emphasized by many respondents was the need to invest in capacity building and organization development (OD) with churches. Respondents found that working with churches was ‘more labor intensive than other partners’. They found it necessary to focus more on OD and leadership development. Some of the commonly used capacity building methods include: • Training to develop capacity and confidence amongst churches to engage with integral mission. Some found that reaching pastors pre-service in their theological colleges was extremely successful in shaping their future ministry towards integral mission. • ‘Accompaniment’ or coaching and mentoring, whereby staff or external consultants accompanied (walked alongside) church partners over a period of years. • Exposure visits for church partners have been used by INGOs to great effect. When leaders saw the difference that others, ‘just like them’ had made to communities they were inspired to do more themselves. Respondents found it valuable to integrate Bible studies and biblical principles to communicate learning. Some of the commonly addressed topics – the key issues – were: • integral mission (or holistic development) • leadership development • strategy development • systems – particularly financial management

7.9 Adjust INGO goals and systems One of the critical areas for INGO good practice in working effectively with churches was to simplify and lighten INGO requirements. Compassion have spent considerable time pruning policies that exceeded 1000 pages into a more workable Program Manual of 80 pages. Although requirements were eased, Compassion argues that at least now they can deliver on them. Churches cannot bear the burden of highly complex and sophisticated INGO systems that are based on the INGO’s own needs (not on the churches’ needs). The INGOs who are now working more intentionally with churches have also altered their goals for working with churches (from an instrumental ‘means-to-an-end’ sub-contracting role to a partnership); they had to change what they measured. If the purpose of supporting churches shifts, then the indicators of impact must also shift. INGOs, like MCC, now evaluate the ‘quality of the partnership’, rather than the ultimate impact at grassroots. They emphasize the importance of simple systems that enable MCC to be accountable to the local church partner. Working with churches requires flexible funding source – a different fundraising system. INGOs closely involved with mobilizing churches tended to have these aspects of their work ‘privately funded’.

7.10 Pray A number of INGO and key informant respondents emphasized the centrality of prayer as a core element of good practice in partnering with churches. SMC spoke of the need to ‘discuss and value the spiritual dimension with church partners. We need to remind each other that God is around’. Others highlighted the importance of God’s power in any transformation development experience. They pointed out that it was not simply a question of praying to encourage God to support their activities, but of stopping, listening and ensuring that they were on God’s side, not the other way round. As one church mobilizer in Africa said: ‘We always go to the mountain to pray’ One respondent pointed that fundamentally, transformation development is a spiritual battle. We have to accept that the spiritual has a bearing on the material. He argued the need to pray for healing of the land ‘curse’ and confront the ‘Powers of Darkness’

8. What are some possible implications for World Vision? This consultancy has looked exclusively at other INGOs experience of working with churches. It has not attempted to explore WV’s own rich and varied experiences of working with churches. Thus the good practice guidelines that emerge need to be adjusted and applied to WV’s reality. But in conclusion, it may be worth outlining what some of these possible implications might be for WV. The 25 or so informants in the research were asked to highlight two or three pieces of advice for WV as they contemplate working more intentionally and intensively with churches. These suggestions are offered humbly based on their own experience of their own very different organizations, NOT on an intimate knowledge or study of WV. Respondents were extremely positive about WV intended shift towards greater engagement with churches. There appeared no sense of competition. This was demonstrated by the senior management time, preparation and enthusiasm they invested in the data gathering process. They were excited about the enormous resource and potential that WV offers to strengthen the global church. They felt that this reorientation back to churches ‘was the only way to get to genuinely transformational development work’. They believed it was more about WV mobilizing the global church to be more involved in integral mission, than simply fine-tuning the existing ADP approach to integrate churches in WV programs a bit more. Instead they believed it needed a ‘change from direct involvement with communities to building the capacities of local churches to carry out holistic development programs. This should be the main role of Christian INGOs’. As one said, ‘it is the hard way, but the right way to do development’. But they also pointed out that making this shift will be a massive undertaking for WV. They emphasized the importance of not underestimating the implications of the change envisaged. It will be messy. It will be less controllable. It will be harder to monitor and evaluate. It will mean World Vision ‘scaling down’ and ‘slowing down’ to walk with at churches at their pace. If WV found it hard to work with churches 20 years ago, when they were much smaller, they will find it much harder today, Other agencies that are in the process of making similar strategic shifts, such as World Relief and Tearfund UK have much less far to go. They are smaller; they lack child-sponsorship funding mechanism; they have not made a significant split with churches in the past; they are not tied into an ADP system; and Tearfund in particular has more experience of partnership… Yet these agencies are finding making the shift easier said than done. World Relief talks of it taking 15% of the budget but 40% of the effort to work with churches. In outlining potential implications for WV, respondents highlighted that this might mean: 1. Listening and learning, to WV, others and God 2. Clarifying why WV wants to work with churches 3. Taking a church-specific good practice approach 4. Trying the church mobilization model

- Creating a different profile to World Vision - Ensuring flexible resourcing - Collaborating with others 5. Working on World Vision’s own character

8.1

Listen and learn

The research on other INGOs’ experience of working with churches revealed that World Vision already has considerable experience itself. For example, WV’s church-based peace training in Rwanda is lauded by the US Institute of Peace 33 . The WV ‘Strengthening our Bridges’ report shows that WV has thought about working with churches more than most INGOs. Respondents mentioned in passing a number of examples from different parts of the world where WV has been working with local churches in creative and effective ways. Interestingly some of the best practice examples of church mobilization described by responding INGOs were from ex-WV staff using WV tools! Taking this process forward will involve intentionally listening to and learning from WV’s own experience. Not only is this vital for learning, but it is also necessary in building up an internal coalition of support for this shift amongst WV staff. As one respondent said: ‘It must not be simply about a group of people in Monrovia deciding this is the way forward’. There is potential for an internal discovery process in this area (perhaps similar to the one being conducted for community based civil society partnerships), with on-going learning groups reflecting on and drawing lessons from WV experience. Already respondents are asking WV, ‘please share and document your own change process so that we can learn from this important shift’. Respondents were keen for WV to continue this initiative of listening to others. Spontaneously about half the interviewees said at the end of the conversation, something along the lines of: ‘if there is any way we can be of further help to WV in this area, we would be only too pleased to help’. Some suggested WV organizing a meeting or conference to share ideas. Clearly it will be important for WV to listen to churches in this process. This will require time, resources, patience and humility. WV will need to demonstrate that it has the humility to let others lead. According to some respondents, currently ‘churches do not think that WV cares about them’. Ultimately and yet practically it will involve listening to God. Space needs to be created throughout this change process for God to retain leadership of it. This might involve elements such as prayerful visioning events of listening…

8.2

Clarify why WV wants to work with churches

Current WV policy documents highlight the importance of churches to WV’s mission. But on the ground this is less clear. It may be that it will take time for these strategic commitments to become 33 Smock 2001

operational. Given the inherent challenges and therefore resistance to working with churches, WV will need to be extremely clear as to why and how they will work with churches. Ultimately it depends on how central church is to WV’s understanding of transformational development. This is not yet clear. Respondents advised that it will only work if WV does not treat churches as a means to implement WV programs. They said WV will need to ‘respect and value the church for who it is, not just what it can deliver’. WV needs to have a wider purpose and believe in the church as end in itself. To what extent is WV committed to church theologically? Given the diversity of the WV family, reaching such a firm coherent view may prove challenging.

8.3

Take a church-specific, good practice approach

Respondents warned of the need for WV to ‘do no harm’ to the church. Unless WV was able to support churches well, it may be better not to get involved at all. The potential for damaging churches and church leaders is high. Instead of bringing unity, WV could foster jealousies and division in the church. If WV does work more with churches it will have to proceed with great care. Respondents advised WV to invest time and thought in the process to ensure that it ‘religiously’ follows the good practice outlined in the previous chapter. This involves implementing the exhortations to: • Carefully identify who to work with – chose partners wisely based on purpose and values. This might include partnerships with local para-church agencies or international mission societies that enable WV to multiply their impact. • Build on church strengths, go with their initiatives. • Listen to the church, find out what is already happening. • Build relations slowly for the long term. • Avoid funding churches if at all possible, especially in the early stages. • Invest in capacity building through training and accompaniment /coaching support. • Phase support, encourage other relationships diversify and cluster, • Adjust WV goals, systems, expectations to fit this approach

8.4

Try church and community mobilization model

Respondents suggested that WV experiment with the church and community mobilization model. They felt that working in new geographic areas gave the opportunity for WV to take a different approach. ‘Give opportunities to committed staff to experiment and trace what emerges’. They felt such experiments needed 3-5 year budgets, supported by intentional reflection and learning processes, so that the strategy could evolve. They advised not to try and centrally manage this initiative too tightly, but to see what emerges from practice. Respondents accepted that such a church and community mobilization approach may only ever be one small element in a portfolio of WV work. Some believed it could be the most effective, but would prove

the most challenging to WV’s current systems and practices. It would require WV to accept a higher risk, a slower pace and a smaller scale. Quite how this would work out might take a variety of forms. Brainstormed ideas include: • Training in church mobilization for WV staff. • WV staff, most of whom are members of local churches (often with some lay leadership responsibility) could go to see the leadership of their own church and enthuse them about being involved in transformational development. • WV providing church and community mobilization training for pastors. • Integrating and adapting existing materials into bible schools, theological training (even WV accredited distance learning). • WV support church facilitators (including WV staff, external consultants, local pastors, local faith-based organizations which focus on church mobilization). • Signposting local churches to local resources and relating effectively to local government to promote social accountability. This shift towards church mobilization might well involve using WV staff as church facilitators. As so much depends on the attitude and skills of the facilitator, WV will need to support the development of good church facilitators, inside and outside of WV. This might involve intentional recruitment for new posts, a training of facilitators program, on-going support and supervision of staff…

Create a different profile WV will have to think carefully where such a church mobilization initiative would best fit - inside or outside of its structure? Given the image of WV in the minds of many churches of being ‘laden with resources’, it will be necessary to creating a different profile for a church mobilization initiative. Church mobilization does not spend money so easily as large scale grant-making or implementation. Indeed it is easy to undermine one with the other. Church mobilization needs staff who are passionate about churches, with the flexibility to respond at the pace of the church and not being measured on financial disbursements. Existing staff are already overloaded with current responsibilities and activities. They may not be able to make the massive adjustments necessary to shift from implementation to facilitation. WV experiences from Uganda illustrate this challenge: World Vision and Churches in Uganda Celia Donald’s 2007 report from Uganda found that: •

‘The expectation of churches is unrealistically high and the scale of possible funding assistance is low, which has caused tension over a long period’. • ‘ADP bears the burden for the churches in the entire Gulu district, with only the same budget as any ADP in Uganda’. Churches requested that: There should be a coordinator at the office so we know who to be in contact with. WV could provide facilitator for church visioning process

Food for the Hungry International has created a separate organization (together with Harvest) called Disciple Nations Alliance (DNA) to lead its support for church mobilization. Tearfund considered this route when it put church mobilization at the centre of its new strategy, but like World Relief chose to keep church mobilization within its own organization. Yet both then face the challenge of ensuring that church mobilization does not become a ‘silo’ and a marginal one at that. WV may need to consider setting up the church mobilization work as a separate unit (even organization ‘Vision Church’?) as they have with the enterprise fund. The need to create a non-funding profile and a facilitative approach may require sufficient distance from the current image of WV if it is to succeed.

Adjust systems to fit To make this work, World Vision will need to adjust their expectations and systems. They will need to define the outcomes they are looking for in the shorter and longer terms through their relationships with churches. They will have to work out ways to monitor the development of church work with communities and the partnership with World Vision. This might mean a ‘church well-being’ indicator.

Find flexible resourcing Such an initiative requires flexible resourcing. Donor funding for church mobilization is difficult. It may not be possible to fund with sponsorship money, nor government money. WV’s enormous strength in fundraising needs to turn its creative energies to raising resources for church mobilization.

Collaborate with others There is considerable potential for collaborating with others in this work. Globally there are a number of agencies already committed to such work: Tearfund, World Relief, DNA, Samaritan Strategy Africa, Compassion International, and Micah Network. Some of the traditional mission agencies have been involved in this for many years. WV can support and work with these existing initiatives. There is the possibility of creating synergies through learning groups, pooling resources (some already have databases of resource people), and training together. In time this could develop into a network of church mobilization INGOs, or even better a global church movement. It might become, like the Viva network, a collaboration between a large number of local church mobilization networks. Such collaborative ventures with WV fostering and funding networks of organizations committed to church mobilization offers much more than simply a WV program.

8.5

Work on own organizational character

Ultimately greater commitment to working with churches will require WV to work on its own organizational character. The African respondents in this small survey saw WV as: ‘big, brash, know-all and extravagant’. In shifting to work more with churches, ‘WV will need to acknowledge their ignorance. They need to have the humility to genuinely listen without thinking they have all the answers’. One INGO’s experience demonstrates that merely having a stated commitment to strengthening churches in their mission statement, and documented policies to assist that take place, does not make

much difference if the INGO still takes decisions primarily based on its own interests of growth. This INGO talks of church in their mission, but in reality implements massive aid programs increasingly separated from the local church. According to some respondents, some churches felt abandoned by WV in the 1980s. This broke trust and relationships. Re-engagement with churches will be uncomfortable for WV as it will involve repentance (as Tim Dearborn 2005 points out) This shift needs WV to become characterized by virtues of humility, genuine listening, patience. It requires WV to scale down, slow up and relinquish control. Foolish ideas in the current development management world. Does WV have the courage to take this difficult path? The challenges must not be under-estimated. They will not be solved by cosmetic change. But neither should they paralyze action. This shift to working with churches is so consistent with WVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s beliefs, values and strategy and probably with the calling of many of its staff that working with churches deserves to be at the core of what WV does. If WV rises to the challenges there is real potential to be a driving force in a global movement. There are many of us willing to assist WV make it happen.

Bibliography ACT (2006) A Guide to ACT Development http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wccmain/2006pdfs/ActDevelopment/ACT-Dev-Guide-Eng-Optimised.pdf Ahmed, E. (2005) A dangerous mix: Religion and development, from Challenging Fundamentalism. http://www.whrnet.org/fundamentalisms/docs/issue-aid_religion0507.html Bakewell, O. and Warren H. (2005) ‘Sharing Faith with Donors’ Informed http://www.intrac.org/docs/Sharing%20faith%20with%20donors.doc accessed 12.9.07

Vol.

12,

INTRAC.

Barron, M. (2007) ‘The Role of Pastoral Care in Development – is it really development?’, IMU Report, March-May Bassett (2007) Practitioners and FBOs and Global Development work: Responses from Doug Bassett April 2007 (downloaded from internet 10.10.07 http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/BL%20FBO%20Bassett%20Interview%204%205.doc Blackman, R., (2007), Partnering with the Local Church, ROOTS Guide No. 11, Tearfund. Downloaded from internet http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/ROOTS/Partnering+with+the+local+church.htm 30.10.07 Belshaw, D. (2005) Enhancing the development capabilities of CSOs with particular reference to FBOs Global Poverty Research Group, WPS 35. Berger, J. (2003) ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations: An Exploratory Analysis’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14(1): 15- 39 Bonney, R and Hussain, A. (2001) Faith Communities and the Development agenda, DFID Research Paper, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/faithdevcomagenda.pdf Bradley, T (2005) ‘Does compassion bring results’ Culture and Religion Vol. 6, Issue 3 Nov pp 337-351 Brehm, V (2004), "Autonomy or Dependence? North-South NGO Partnerships". INTRAC Chester, T (2002) ‘What makes Christian Development Christian?’ Paper presented at the Global Connections Relief and Development Forum. Cheung, V (2004), Christian development as meaningful partnership, Micah Network, December. Downloaded from internet: http://www.micahnetwork.org/eng/index.php/home/partnership/partnership_literature Christian Aid (2004), ‘Faith-Based Agencies and Development: a Christian Aid Contribution’, London, June. Clarke, G (2007) ‘Agents of Transformation? Donors, FBOs and international development’, Third World Quarterly, Vol 28 Issue 1, pp 77-96 Clarke, G (2005) ‘Faith Matters: Development and the Complex World of Faith-Based Organizations’ Journal of International Development Vol 18 Issue 6. pp 835 - 848 Commission for Africa (2005) ‘Our Common Interest: Report of the Commission for Africa’, March Compassion International, 2006, Program Field Manual Crooks, B. and Evans, D. (2001) OD and the Church, Paper presented for OD and Churches Consultation, Uppsala, Sweden Dearborn, T. (2005) Indispensable Partners: World Vision and Churches, Consultation on the role of the church in peacebuilding, Croatia

Donald, C (2007) A study on the partnership between Emmanuel International, a Christian NGO, and its Southern Partner churches in Uganda and Malawi DFID (2005) Faith in Development. https://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/RD-20051207-BennFaithinDevelopment.pdf DFID (2005) Research Program Consortia, Expressions http://www.dfid.gov.uk/procurement/researchprogconsortia-bg.pdf

Interest

Background

Document,

Dicklitch, S. and Rice, H, (2004) The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and faith-based NGO aid to Africa, Development in Practice, Vol 14, No. 5 August Edwards, M. and Sen, G. (2001) ‘NGOs Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationships: A 21st Century Civic Agenda’ in Edwards, M., and Fowler, A.. (Eds.) (2002), The Earthscan Reader on NGO Management, London: Earthscan. Evans, D (2002) The Strategic Role of the Church for Children, Presentation at the Cutting Edge 4, Holland Ferris, E (2005) Faith-based secular humanitarian organizations, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol 87, No. 858 June pp 311 – 325 http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/review-858-p311/$File/irrc_858_Ferris.pdf Goold, L. Ogara, W. and James R.. (1998) Churches and OD in Africa, INTRAC OPS 20, Oxford. http://www.intrac.org/docs/OPS20final.pdf ter Haar, G. and Ellis, S. (nd) Religion and Development: A New Perspective on Africa, Harvard International Review Accessed http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/print.php?article=1477 Headley, W (n.d.) ‘Faith-based Relief and the “Value Transfer”: A Catholic Perspective’. Downloaded from http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/publications/report/r-fea77a.htm17/7/07 Hoksbergen, R. (2005) Building civil society through partnership: lessons from a case study of the CRWRC, Development in Practice, Vol 15, No. 1 Feb Hovland, I. (2005) ‘Who’s afraid of religion? The question of God in development’, Paper presented at DSA Conference, Milton Keynes 7-9 September James, R. (2004) Creating Space for Grace: God’s Power in Organizational Change, SMC, http://www.missioncouncil.se/download/18.5b4c3f30107c27e2cd580007929/04_2_space_for_grace.pdf

Stockholm.

Laban, M (2003) Faith-based NGOs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, Vol 6, Issue 1, Sept. http://www.icnl.org/JOURNAL/vol6iss1/rel_lebanprint.htm Lemvik, J. (2001) Partnership – Guidelines for a new deal, Norwegian Church Aid, OPS No. 6 Lemvik, J. (2005) Enabling Organisations: Stories and Tools, Bistandsnemnda MacLachlan, M and Carr, S, (2005), The Human Dynamics of Aid, OECD Policy Insights No. 10 Marshall, K and Marsh, R Eds. (2003) Millennium Challenges for Development and Faith Institutions, World Bank. Washington Morgan, P. (2005), The Idea and Practice of Systems Thinking and their Relevance for Capacity Development, ECDPM, March Musa, D., (n.d.) The Local Church as Primary Development Agent, downloaded from http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Topics/THE%20LOCAL%20CHURCH%20AND%20WHOLISTIC%20DEV ELOPMENT.pdf

Naidoo, K (2000) Alliance, CAF 5,1 Narayan, D. (2000) ‘Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us?’ Washington OUP, World Bank. Orrnert, A. (2006) The heart (and soul?) of international development: The role of faith in global poverty reduction, Public Administration and Development Vol 26, Issue 2, pp 185-189 Plant, S. (n.d.) ‘Does faith matter in development?’ Accessed from http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/vhi/fis/dfmid.pdf Plant, S. (n.d.) ‘Freedom as development: Christian mission and the definition of human well-being’ Henry Martyn Centre. Accessed from http://www.martynmission.cam.ac.uk/CPlant.html Porritt J. (2005) in Foreword to ‘Sustainable Development and UK Faith Groups’, A report from World Wide Fund for Nature and SD Commission http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDandUKFaithGroupsv2_1.pdf Raistrick, T (2005) The Role of the Local and National Church in Tearfund’s International Work: A Strategic Thematic Review for the Tearfund International Board Committee, Tearfund, May Ridell, R. (1993) Assessing the Role of Theology in Discerning the way together, a report on the work of Brot fur die Welt, Christian Aid, EZE and ICCO. Smock, D. (2001) Faith-Based NGOs and International Peace building, Special Report for USAID. http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr76.html Stockman, F. et al (2006) Bush brings faith to foreign aid, Boston Globe Oct 8 2006, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/08/bush_brings_faith_to_foreign_aid/ Thomas, S. (2004) ‘Building Communities of Character: Foreign Aid Policy and FBOs’ ver Beek, K. (2000), ‘Spirituality: a development taboo’, Development in Practice, Vol. 10 No. 1, February. Wallis, J (2005) God’s Politics Harper Collins, New York World Faiths’ Development Dialogue, (2002) Key Issues for Development, Occ. Paper 1, Oxford. World Vision, WV History with Churches from Strengthening our Bridges report

Benchmark Organizations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lisa Negstad and Tim McCully Doug Bassett Meredith Long and Allison Schroeder Tom Post Tulo Raistrick Ted Horwood Alison Kelly Karl-Erik Lundgren Ron Matthies Joern Lemvik Karl Pfahler John Nathan Past consultancy work with and literature from:

Key informants 1 Liz Goold 2 Bill Crooks 3 Andrew Leake 4 William Ogara 5 Victor Mughogho 6 Cuthbert Gondwe 7 Vincent Moyo 8 Ravi Jayakaran 9 Cathy James 10 Sarah White

Organisation

Country

Lutheran World Relief Compassion International

USA USA

World Relief CRWRC Tearfund UK Salvation Army International Christian Aid Swedish Mission Council Mennonite Central Committee Bistandsnemnd Kindernothilfe Stromme Foundation Emmanuel International, CORDAID, ICCO, IMRS

USA USA UK UK UK Sweden Canada Norway Germany Norway Canada, Netherlands, Ireland

Independent consultant Independent consultant Asociana CORAT Africa Eagles Relief and Development Eagles Relief and Development Tearfund (ex WV Malawi) Consultant with WV Founder of two FBOs Bath University

UK UK Argentina Kenya Malawi Malawi Zambia/Malawi Cambodia UK UK

Working with Churches Structured telephone questionnaire World Vision is seeking to increase its capacity to understand and partner effectively with churches. I am undertaking a brief external review of other international agenciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences in working with churches to contribute to this. World Vision will very much appreciate your insight and learnings on engaging with churches. If you wish to share any information in confidence, I will assure that it will not be attributed to you or your organisation. A copy of the findings from this survey will be sent to all respondents. Many thanks in advance.

1. Would you describe your organisation as: (please tick)

Committed to community development

Child focused

Using sponsorship as a funding stream

Working with other local partners as well as churches

2. How do you classify the types of faith-based organisations you partner with? (a working typology)

2 b. What percentage of your partners are churches? 2 c. At what level are you working with them?

100-75%

75-50%

50-25%

25-0%

Do not know

Majority

Some

Very little

None

Do not know

Umbrella bodies (e.g.

national associations of churches) National/regional churches (e.g. Synods, denominational bodies, etc.) Development departments of churches Independent faith-based organisations (Christian NGOs) Local churches/ congregations in communities Mothersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Unions, Youth Groups within congregations

Other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; please specify:

2 d. In what ways are you working with churches? (please tick)

Mobilizing them

Capacity building, technical advice

Networking, information sharing

Advocacy

Fund them to implement integrated programmes

Resource them to implement â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;spiritualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; programmes

3 How does working with churches help you achieve your mission?

relationship of Christian spirituality, church engagement in holistic ministry and sustained transformational development?

4 a. What evidence of impact do you use for supporting your choice of working with churches?

4 b. Does working with churches have any positive or adverse impact on the well-being of children? If yes, what evidence

is there of this impact? Probe for any studies/documents that can be shared

5 a. Who engages directly with congregations in communities?

We do

Our partners

Neither (explain)

Do not know

5 b. What skills do development workers need to work effectively with churches at community level?

5 c. What INGO support do

these staff need to work effectively with churches at community level?

6 a. What challenges have you faced in working with churches?

6 b. How have you sought to overcome these challenges?

6 c. How do you appraise or discern which churches to work with?

6 d. Are there any tools or methods you have found useful?

7. What principles of good practice have you learnt in working with churches?

8. How do you work with churches on holistic ministry in contexts where Christianity is a minority faith?

Many thanks indeed! We would be extremely grateful if you were able to send us any public reports or policies on your work with churches.

KEY INFORMANT QUESTIONNAIRE 2. What are the benefits of international NGOs partnering with churches? 3. Do you know of any evidence that working with churches has more impact

than with non-church partners or implementing programs? 4. From your experience what is relationship of Christian spirituality, church

engagement in holistic ministry and sustained transformational development? 5. What challenges do INGOs face in working with churches? 6. How can they involve churches in holistic ministry in contexts where they are

minorities to other faiths? 7. What principles of good practice exist in partnering with churches? 8. How can INGOs overcome the challenges of: • churches using development/relief work as platforms for evangelism-• • • •

thus the accusation of proselytism churches placing the priority on hiring their own members, families churches focusing development work on their own members manage development/relief programs/budgets that were beyond their leadership capacity—thus unprofessionalism churches using money to respond to needs they perceive that may be different than the donor - thus financial mismanagement'

9. How can you appraise/discern which churches to work with? 10. In working with churches are there any typologies you find useful?

1) Church typologies 2) Methods of INGO engagement 11. What good reports and literature do you know about? 12. Are there any tools or methods you have found useful in working with

churches?

13. What specific challenges do you think World Vision will face as it seeks to

implement its strategic decision to work more closely with churches? 14. How might it overcome these? 15. Any other suggestions for World Vision in working with churches?