Title:

Is it possible to adhere to Western ethical and cultural standards regarding financial accountability without fostering neo-colonialism in this next era of global mission partnerships? -

Thoughts and reflections for broader dialogue

Abstract:

This next era of global missions is ushering in an unprecedented number of cross-cultural partnerships between funding churches and organizations in the West and indigenous organizations and churches in the majority world. One missiologist cites that in the United States alone, between the years of 1998 and 2005 there was a 6900% increase in the number of organizations that said partnership was a primary strategy for how they plan to engage in global missions (Moreau 2007).1 Because of the advancements in technology, travel, communication, theological training in many cultural contexts, and the extensive wealth of evangelical Christians in many parts of the world (Weber and Welliver 2007), 2 it appears God has given the global church all the resources it needs to see the gospel of the kingdom extended to the very ends of the earth.

Despite these positive developments, there is a formidable obstacle standing in the way of seeing the realization of their full potential for the kingdom. Ever growing financial regulations and requirements are a serious hurdle for organizations in countries like the United States and Canada when funding is sent abroad (IRS 2009; Van Cleef 2003; Canadian Revenue Agency 2009). Often these seemingly intense fiduciary requirements and regulations are being imposed in the very mission contexts where colonialism once reigned and past injustices have never fully healed.

Is it possible to adhere to Western ethical and cultural standards when funding is sent abroad without fostering neo-colonialism in this next era of global mission partnerships? Is it possible to partner as “equals” when one group has such vast sums of money and requires such in depth accountability for those resources? This session raises compelling thoughts for further dialogue.

Introduction

This article is the outcome of an eclectic mix of academic research in the area of cross-cultural conflict, formal accounting training, intercultural training, theological reflection, personal experience and many heartfelt dialogues which have occurred over the course of the past decade.

____________________1 Scott Moreau shared this research statistic at the 2007 COSIM (Coalition on the Support of Indigenous Ministries) Conference. The increase is staggering. At times when people hear this statistic they think it is a mistake. However, this is the rate of increase and the statistic is not a misprint.2 This book highlights the known mission agencies in the United States and Canada involved in global missions. By looking through the whole of the text the reader begins to absorb the magnitude of the contribution. Chapter one, authored by Scott Moreau, helps to capture the level of funding being channeled into the global mission movement from just these two nations. In 2005 alone protestant organizations channeled over five billion dollars into overseas ministries (p. 21).

I have spent a great deal of my ministry life having to straddle the worlds of missiology and financial compliance. I have felt the internal distress of trying to conduct my life and ministry in a way that is true to both disciplines. Instead of using finance as the trump card to shut down discussions and demand compliance, I have tried to understand if the heart of God who values both relationships and accountability might have answers that can serve us in this next era of global missions. I would like to say that I have emerged from this journey as an “expert,” ready to answer all the questions and once and for all settle all the debates. That however has not been the case. Instead, I provide this paper today as an opportunity to raise thoughts and questions that have been churning in my heart for some time. There are important technical issues of financial compliance that often must be addressed and I do not minimize these realities. However, as I have wrestled with the competing tensions, I often wonder if the problem is far deeper. If we examine the issue through the broader ethical lens of the Word of God, I wonder if we might find a more solid place of agreement. I wonder if from that place of deeper agreement we might finally access the grace and capacity needed to deal with the global challenges we are facing.

What Do I Mean By Neo-Colonialism?

There appears to be an unending supply of research and documentation about issues related to colonialism and the myriad of effects it has had on cultures and people groups. For that reason, it seems helpful to have a shared meaning of the concept of “neo-colonialism” for the sake of clarity. Before moving forward I would like to explain what I mean by the term.

Almost since the beginning of time, foreign governments have conquered regions of the world and ruled over them. Even our Lord had to deal with this phenomenon (John 19:12-15). Often the invading governments brought with them new laws and different practices. Under colonial rule some forms of progress occurred. At times roads were built, infrastructure was established, and schools were formed. However, the development usually came at the cost of people’s freedom. Many who were indigenous to the area being “colonized” lost their voice and their ability to make decisions about what would happen in their own homeland.

A concern in missiology is how there can be effective cross-cultural partnerships, with vast sums of wealth coming from affluent donors and nations, without fostering a new form of colonialism now known as “neo-colonialism” (Rieger 2004; Cooper 2005; Schwartz 2006). Neo-colonialism implies that although there is no physical occupation by a foreign power, wealth and resources are given in ways that still dominate others. Some on the receiving end of mission funding feel demeaned and controlled by the process. For these partners there is a sense that they are losing their right to make their own decisions and they are losing their voice. Because of this there is a concern whether true partnership, the kind that models genuine mutuality, can ever take place given such a vast disparity of wealth.

What Happens In The Dialogue?

As I have sat and listened to people engage in these debates and conversations over the past decade, it is not uncommon for two polarizing views to take shape. When concern about control or neo-colonialism is expressed, wealthy donors often respond with irritation and defensiveness. There is frequently a sense that they are not appreciated. There is also a tendency to stereotype fund recipients by assuming they must not be trustworthy, otherwise they would be willing to be “accountable.” For the partner receiving funds, I often see a different, almost instinctual, response. When funds are received with all kinds of fiduciary requirements they will often say that this is “just another form of colonialism” or “evidence of neo-colonialism.” To them it feels as though once again they are merely being controlled by elite foreign powers.

Attribution theory explains a great deal about why these misunderstandings are occurring (Elmer 2007; Gilbert et al. 1988, 733-740; Gilbert and Malone 1995, 21-28; Jones and Nisbett 1998; Miller et al. 1978, 598-607; Mitchell and Green 2005; Nickerson 1998). When people come from different cultures and when ministry leaders are juggling so many different responsibilities, it is easy to attribute negative motivations and character traits to others (Bassili and Smith 1986, 239-245; Gilbert et al. 1988, 733-740; Mitchell and Green 2005; 189-198; Nickerson 1998, 175-220; Tetlock 1985, 227-236). It becomes an almost automatic response to assume ideology from the past is the cause for current behavior. However, this is not always the case. If we automatically impose past meaning on current circumstances without taking time for adequate inquiry or critical reflection, “yesterday’s meaning becomes today’s dogma” (Senge 1996, x). When that occurs, we find ourselves in a vicious loop from which we cannot escape.

The Role Of Meaning

As I reflect upon this tension in the global church surrounding the issue of money and financial accountability, I often feel that “yesterday’s meaning is becoming today’s dogma.” There seems to be inadequate space for true inquiry, dialogue and deep reflection. As I consider the broad picture, the barrier seems to be a general lack of awareness regarding the tacit meanings assigned to financial accountability. In actuality, it is the meaning assigned (Berger 1967, 3-28; Hiebert 1985, 141-169; Mezirow 1991,1-36), and not financial accountability itself, which determines if it will be a destructive or constructive force in missions. Yet, as a whole, the global body of Christ seems anesthetized about its own contradictions (Bohm 1996, 5) with regards to this specific issue. Financial accountability has somehow been assigned, especially by Western cultures, as being a “neutral” issue when it is anything but neutral.

Critically Examining Financial Accountability

Critical thinking is essential if we hope to get to a better place in global missions. When “habits of mind go unexamined, they create limitations and form boxes” (Cranton 2006, 28) which entrap us. We need to discover “how and why our assumptions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel about our world” (Mezirow 1991, 167).

Joerg Rieger begins to highlight this phenomenon when he writes, “Failure to consider our colonial heritage may result in failure to understand who we are today” (2004, 202). “Reading the histories one gets the strong sense that the missionaries meant well…. So why did Christian mission end up as part of the colonial enterprise?” (2004, 205). Rieger explains that this happened because colonialism became, for all practical purposes, simply the natural backdrop for life. For many missionaries there seemed to be an inability to differentiate between “what was” and “what ought to be.” Complaints and resistance often only arose when there were flagrant abuses by those in power (2004, 206).

In David Maranz’s superb work entitled African Friends And Money Matters (2001), he examines money and culture through the lens of cultural anthropology. The book is rich in description about the reasons why Africans and Westerners view money differently. He also explains the process of financial accountability under colonial rule. He writes that “during the colonial period African leaders were not accountable to the people under them, but to their colonial masters. These in turn were accountable only to their home governments. The local people were there to be controlled, not informed. Surely this colonial pattern left indelible marks across the continent” (2001, 39).

Current Worldly Standards

Some might say, “Colonialism is long gone. It was another era. It no longer impacts me or how my mission organization operates.” Americans like to quickly put the past behind us and say we are working in “new” and “cutting edge” ways. However, how does financial accountability work in our current world? Is it not often a power issue? Someone with wealth gives someone with less wealth money, often for altruistic reasons. The person with less wealth is now “held accountable” by the person with greater wealth. The accountability most often still flows in only one direction. Accountability in our current culture is most frequently “upward” to those with financial means and not “downward” to those who have fewer resources. As a result, those with greater resources call the shots. Those with greater resources set the standards. Proverbs such as “beggars can’t be choosers” (Nussbaum 2005, 58) or “the one who pays the piper calls the tune” become the proverbs which unwittingly guide behaviors. Those with significant financial resources have “voice” and the greatest ability to determine outcomes. This value system is the foundation upon which most of the western legal requirements regarding financial accountability are based.

Biblical Standards And Values

Scripture paints a very different value system. Although we see that Jesus used parables about people being held accountable for resources entrusted to them by others of greater financial means (Matthew 25:14-30; Matthew 20:1-15; Matthew 18:23-27; ), He also emphasizes that there will be eternal consequences and we will be held accountable for our actions towards those with fewer financial resources (Matthew 25:40). The book of James gives a scathing admonition that we should not show partiality to the wealthy, or we will transgress the law (James 2:1-12). It teaches that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. The Body of Christ should

function in a way that models mutuality and interdependency (1 Corinthians 12:1-31). Paul explains that we are all part of the same body and Christ is the head. By use of this imagery he forcefully shows that one part of the body cannot say it has no need of the other. In a human body, every part has a voice and can impact the whole. In the end, God will hold us accountable for all our actions. The searing depth of His judgment will even apply to “every careless word” (Matthew 12:36). 3

Why Are We Surprised?

The secular values of financial accountability currently present in Western funding policies quite often reflect a very different set of values than those we see in scripture. Why then are we surprised that our brothers and sisters in Christ feel demeaned by our financial accountability requirements? If we step back and look at the bigger picture, it would be odd if they did not feel demeaned by the process. If accountability only goes upward to those with greater financial means, how can we think that our ministry processes will ever model mutuality, dignity, interdependency or voice for all?

Can We Begin To Redeem Accountability Processes?

We know that we have to comply with Western financial regulations. If we do not adhere to these requirements ministry leaders will incur criminal charges, some will face jail time, there will be a profound loss of credibility with our donors, our ministries will come to an abrupt halt, and we will severely hinder the witness of Christ in our midst. The news media will highlight stories that will cause only greater cynicism in the hearts of unbelievers and believers alike. We have to adhere to the Romans 13:1-8 admonition to obey governmental laws regarding accountability. However, I believe love compels us to go further and to do more.

Where Do We Begin?

Essential to the act of “redeeming” is trying to discern God’s true purpose for something. Before we can move forward, we need to begin to uncover the positive “meanings” for accountability. If we start to address the blockages, one of which I believe is the negative or secular meaning of accountability, we can begin to replace them and “create something new between us” (Bohm 1996, 5). I believe dialogue with our partners is the pathway to finding redemptive meanings.

We see in the cross-cultural conflict currently present in the global church surrounding legal compliance and accountability for outside funding that Satan has distorted accountability. He causes us to think it can only “mean” that those who are wealthier hold those without wealth accountable. Yet, what other meanings does accountability have? Social science research

___________________3 All scripture passages are from the New American Standard Version.

indicates that accountability is totally necessary for the growth and maturity of individuals in the workplace (Goleman 1998, 268-274), and there are also strong parallels to the growth and development of cultural intelligence (Peterson 2004, 89-90). Research indicates that accountability is a critical component in adult transformation (Mezirow 1991, Cranton 2006, Taylor 1994, 2000). Accountability also prepares us for the final day when we will stand before God and give an account of our lives (Luke 12:35-48). Do we want work environments that will foster deep maturity, growth in cultural intelligence and lasting transformation? Do we want to prepare one another for the day we will meet God face to face?

Other helpful ways to begin uncovering better “meanings” about accountability are to discuss different types of questions. As we look around in the world, in government, in companies and in the church- does a lack of accountability tend to bring good or bad outcomes? What happens when there is no accountability? If a person has ever seen or been involved in a setting where theft or fraud has occurred, he or she knows the extreme damage it does to a community of believers and to Christ’s witness in a ministry. How can accountability be seen in light of these things?

The reason I believe this dialogue is so important is that accountability has to be everyone’s idea. Financial accountability will not work if one partner assumes it is a helpful thing and other partners believe it is only oppressive and controlling. If left to the dogma of our own societies, we will never see accountability in its proper light. Without better meanings, it will be impossible to ever move forward.

Can Accountability Processes Model Scriptural Values?

The amazing answer to that question is a resounding “yes!” Western governmental requirements indicate we have to be able to confirm that funds are being used to accomplish the task or help the people for which the funds were raised. We all in theory agree to this or we would not be working together. Despite theoretical agreement and assent to this overarching value, meeting only that one objective of financial accountability will not likely model mutuality for it tends to be one directional. However, we have within our power the ability to create a web or system of overall accountability within our partnerships which holistically can model mutuality.

Covenant/ Presbytery Model

What might such a system or approach look like? It needs to be developed and designed to fit each situation. John Rowell talks of utilizing a covenant relationship process in his partnership with Bosnians. In his partnership they have mutual accountability and mutual voice through a Presbytery (2006, 160-161). This model can be helpful for smaller church-to-church or smaller church-to-agency partnerships. It gets more complicated to use this model in a large multi-national mission organization that has hundreds of diverse partnerships around the globe. However, it is feasible that although there are some required and overarching policies regarding financial reporting in larger agencies, the individual regions working closely with indigenous

partners can create a more comprehensive and God honoring accountability structure that in its totality facilitates mutual respect and voice.

I think the key to building accountability processes which model mutuality and foster transformation are those which level the playing field so to speak. In these accountability processes, every person has positions of strength and positions of vulnerability. That means that if one party is bringing funding, he or she needs to also be accountable in areas of great vulnerability as well. This might include personal needs for maturity in various areas, or growth in a professional capacities that the person does not already possess. This broader network of holistic accountability can then keep everyone honest, and remind everyone in the partnership that all parties are being stretched and being held to a standard that at times is quite difficult to keep. It is in that area of vulnerability and weakness that partners can pray for one another and stand together as brothers and sisters before their heavenly Father, all in need of growth and maturity.

Mutual Pledges

Partners International does great work in cross-cultural ministry partnerships in many parts of the world. Daniel Rickett, in his book Making Your Partnership Work, helps to outline some aspects of setting up and working through partnerships which have been helpful over the years (2002). At the end of his book he highlights a pledge that Partners International makes to its partners overseas (2002, 131-138). It is a strong step in the right direction in that Partners International is trying to clearly convey that it does not see accountability as a one-directional dynamic. They need their partners to be accountable with finances but they are also willing to be accountable in many ways as well. This step is an excellent one. Having interacted with some of the leaders of Partners International over the past few years, I know any pledge is developed in a context of rich and engaging dialogue.

The caveat or concern I have is that other ministry leaders in the United States will take this pledge and use it to largely dictate terms to their partners. Instead of creating mutual accountability pledges together it might, if not used carefully, again seem like the wealthy partner dominates the relationship and sets all the terms. Dialogue is so critical to mutuality. Documents like this can sometimes be a helpful way to start conversations and design mutual pledges. However, it is only as we sit and truly begin to listen and hear one another that we will find Christ in our midst, giving us new ways to solve this complex issue.

A Voice For The Most Powerless

Bryant Myers does a superb job highlighting the need for accountability in all directions in his book entitled Walking With The Poor: Principles And Practices Of Transformational Development (2007). He explains that we “mar the identity of the poor” (2007, 130) if there is no way for them to give voice to the process. He highlights this issue as he talks of evaluations. By nature, evaluations are part of accountability processes. In this way, I believe it is essential that the poorest impacted or affected by any partnership need to be able to hold others

accountable. If we do not build this into the process, we can easily deceive ourselves that our ministries are more impactful and fruitful than they truly are. And, by including them in the process, we better prepare ourselves for the day when God will hold us accountable to how we have treated “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40).

How Do We Contextualize Processes?

If the field of intercultural communication has taught us anything (Hall 1959, 1966, 1976, 1983; Hofstede 1980, 1991; Hofstede & Hofstede 2005; Elmer 1993, 2006; Gudykunst 1991; Lingenfelter & Mayers 1986; Lingenfelter 2008, Ting-Toomey 1985, 1988, 1999; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998), it is that the same practice in one setting can have a very different meaning in another. We cannot “plug and play” one set of policies or practices designed for one cultural context and assume they will work effectively in another. “One of the goals of cross-cultural training is to alert people to the fact that they are constantly involved in a process of assigning meaning to the actions and objects they observe” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, 201). Direct and indirect communication, status issues, implications regarding the loss or building of face, tolerances for ambiguity and the like all impact the meaning ascribed to certain behaviors. Individual personalities, leadership styles and organizational cultures also vary greatly among partners.

If past behavior is any indication, invariably ministry leaders will want to cut this process short, copy what is done somewhere else, and just “get on with things.” The problem with this mindset is that it circumvents dialogue and it substantially increases the likelihood that any new process introduced from the outside will not work or be sustainable over the long haul. In missiology we seem willing to invest a great deal of time to ensure that our ministry programs or church planting efforts are contextualized. However, as a whole there seems to be little patience or awareness that the processes by which we “do business” or “achieve financial accountability” also need to be contextualized if they are going to foster good meanings and outcomes.

Developing culturally contextualized processes for each partnership will take more time. For instance, in some partnerships it might be possible for partners to speak directly to one another. In other partnerships, it might be wise to have many third-party go betweens in place so voices from people with differing levels of power can truly be heard. In some partnerships western accountability processes might be the best solution. In others, these same processes will most likely encourage fraud because they are largely based upon paper receipts which are worthless in many parts of the world.

It is much more likely that mutually developed and contextualized processes will have redemptive meanings and sustainability. It will not be a quick process. Things will need to be tried, evaluated, adapted, tried again, tinkered with and adapted further. However, lest we tire of the process of dialogue and building accountability structures together, we need to realize that we are establishing a process that has the potential to foster genuine unity and profound growth and maturity for all involved. It is far more than a money issue. It is changing the way we work so the very processes themselves model the values of the One we follow.

What Can Jesus Teach Us?

The passage in Matthew 17:24-27 teaches some incredible lessons that can enable us to weather what at times seem to be unreasonable and illogical financial requirements. In this passage people begin questioning Peter as to whether or not Jesus would be paying the temple tax. Our Lord uses the incident as a teaching moment with His disciple. Jesus inquired of Peter, “What do you think Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” (Matt. 17:25) Peter responds correctly and truthfully. He explains that this tax is for strangers. Jesus affirms that this is indeed the case. The requirement is illogical and should not apply to them. It is what Jesus says afterwards that is so amazing! “But, lest we give them offense, go to the sea, and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for you and for Me” (Matt. 17:27).

Jesus could have responded in so many ways. He could have railed against the people who were requiring the financial compliance. He could have said, “I don’t have to pay the temple tax! I am God! The temples were made to worship God! This is so stupid!” He also could have ignored the requirement and dismissed it with passive aggressive behavior. He could have said, “I am too busy to be bothered with this!” After all, He was training a group of people who would be leading a global movement. He was healing the sick and raising the dead. He was also preparing to become the sacrificial lamb and die for the sins of all mankind. For heavens sake, He was legitimately too busy to deal with this! Yet, how did He respond?

Jesus did not let this government regulated accountability requirement shake his confidence. He did not give the external financial requirement the power to cause Him to feel demeaned or disrespected. Jesus stopped what He was doing to address the issue. He seemed to take extra care to “not give offense.” Yet, we see in earlier chapters Jesus had no concern or worry about offending others in different circumstances (Matthew 15:12-14). He did not seem to waste a moment worrying if He was offending the Pharisees. When His disciples asked if He realized He had offended the Pharisees, His response was “they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14). He seemed indifferent as to whether or not He had offended the Pharisees. Yet, when it came to a crazy and unreasonable financial accountability requirement, He took care to not give offense?

What does such a passage mean for us? Can knowing who we really are (1 Corinthians 12:1-31) enable us to have a new and greater capacity to deal with frustrating fiduciary requirements? Can an understanding of our connectedness help us realize that if anything we do hurts our partner, it also hurts us and the work of the Kingdom? Do financial requirements by governments, in and of themselves, have the ability to demean us? What role does having our identity rooted in Christ play in this overall debate? How might Christ’s actions guide us as we seek to work together? What implications do they have with regards to what is worth fighting over and what is not? In the end of this story we see that God provided a special act of grace by providing what was needed. I often think we approach this thorny issue of financial compliance without seeking God’s grace and provision. In light of such a passage, I think this gives us hope that Christ understands our struggle and can help guide us through it.

Conclusion

I can say with all honesty that I do not see Western governmental accountability and fiduciary requirements lessening any time in the near future. I do not think they are going away. We are living in a post 9-11 era. There is a global war on terrorism and funds crossing national boundaries are being scrutinized. We have an unfolding economic crisis that is rocking the global financial world. It was caused by unethical business practices predominantly in the United States that were not caught because of massive deregulation. For this reason, it is very likely that regulation will increase rather than decrease in the near future. I do not see any scenario in the near future where it will be possible for nonprofit organizations and ministries in places like the United States and Canada to give large amounts of funding across national borders with no accountability.

If that is the reality of our world, how should we respond? As I consider the situation, I again find myself asking all kinds of questions. Should we just stop sharing financial resources? Is that what God wants, one part of His Body to be rich with financial blessings and other parts lacking even their most basic needs? How does that option sync with Psalm 67 which says that God blesses us so the ends of the earth may know Him? How does that option sync with our call in 1 Corinthians 12 to be the “Body of Christ.” Even the earliest of believers seemed to understand that resources should be shared to meet needs within the body (Romans 15:26). I then think of the debate from other parts of the globe. Does a good relationship mean no accountability? If so, what does that mean if we say we have a close relationship with Christ yet He is holding us accountable? Does trust grow with no accountability? Or, does trust grow as we are all accountable and faithful to God and to one another?

I keep wondering if the way forward might be to begin to redeem accountability processes so they no longer mirror worldly values but instead reflect the reality of our own relationship with God. Everything in all of our cultures must be brought to the foot of His cross. If we take our secular methods of financial accountability and “ways of doing business” and simply thrust them into cross-cultural partnerships, partners will continue to feel demeaned by the process and they will lose their voice. Secular patterns of accountability will not mirror the values and principles found in scripture.

If our Heavenly Father values accountability and relationships, can He give us the capacity to value both as well? Isn’t it possible to design and contextualize accountability processes that give everyone a voice and a say in the process? Isn’t it possible to develop accountability structures that go in all directions? Can we build these processes with an eye not only towards meeting Romans 13:1-8 requirements but as a means to better prepare all of us for the day when we will give that final account to our Maker face to face? Are we willing to redeem accountability so it can serve as a tutor to help us all grow in godliness and maturity in Christ?

These are the thoughts that have been churning around in my heart as I think about the issue of financial accountability and neo-colonialism. I keep wondering if at this deeper level we might find agreement. If we implement these types of changes, might it be possible to finally begin to resolve the issue of neo-colonialism in global missions once and for all?

Reference List

Adeyemo, Tokunboh ed. 2006. African Bible commentary. Nairobi, Kenya: Word Alive Publishers.

Bassili, J. N. and M. C. Smith. 1986. On the spontaneity of trait attribution: Converging evidence for the role of cognitive strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 239-245.

Berger, Peter L. 1967. The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Random House.

Bohm, David. 1996. On dialogue. New York: Routledge Press.Brookfield, Stephen D. 1987. Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to

explore other ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Butler, Phill. 2005. Well connected: Releasing power, restoring hope through kingdom

partnerships. Colorado Springs, CO: Authentic Publishing.Canadian Revenue Agency. 2009. Charities in the international context.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/ntrntnl-eng.html.Cooper, Michael T. 2005. Colonialism, neo-colonialism and forgotten missiological

lessons. Global Missiology, no. 1:1-14.COSIM website resources. Available from http://www.cosimnet.org; Internet. Cranton, Patricia. 2006. Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide

for educators of adults. 2d ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Deutsch, Morton. 1973. Conflicts: Productive and destructive. In Conflict resolution

through communication, ed. F. E. Jandt. New York: Harper & Row. Doyle, Charles. 2002. The USA Patriot Act: A legal analysis. CRS Report for

Congress. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service- Library of Congress.ECFA. 2009. Available from http://www.ecfa.org; Internet.Elmer, Duane. 1993. Cross-cultural conflict: Building relationships for effective

ministry. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. __________. 2006. Cross-cultural servanthood: Serving the world in Christlike

humility. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.__________. 2007. IMCO Conference. Saskatchewan, Canada.Enright, Robert. 1994. International Forgiveness Institute. Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin. Esala, Nathan. 2008. Projects and power relationships. LBT e-Journal 3, no. 1:36-42.Evangelical Joint Accounting Committee. 2001. Accounting and financial reporting

guide for Christian ministries. Rev. and exp. ed. N.P.: Evangelical Joint Accounting Committee.

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Funder, D. C. 1987. Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment.

Psychological Bulletin 101, no. 1:75-90. Gilbert, Daniel and Patrick Malone. 1995. The correspondence bias. Psychological

Bulletin 117, no. 1:21-28.Gilbert, Daniel T, Brett W. Pelham and Douglas S. Krull. 1988. On cognitive

busyness when person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 5: 733-740.

Goleman, Daniel. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Gudykunst, William B. 1991. Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hall, Edward T. 1959. The silent language. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ___________. 1966. The hidden dimension. N.Y.: Anchor Press.___________. 1976. Beyond culture. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.___________. 1983. The dance of life- The other dimension of time. N.Y.: Anchor

Press.Helmick, Raymond G. S.J. and Rodney L. Peterson eds. 2001. Forgiveness and

reconciliation. Philadelphia, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press.Hicks, Donna. 2001. Chapter seven: The role of identity reconstruction in promoting

reconciliation. In Forgiveness and reconciliation, ed. Raymond G Helmick, S.J. and Rodney L. Peterson. Philadelphia, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press.

Hiebert, Paul G. 1985. Anthropological insights for missionaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Ho, D. F. E. 1976. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81: 867-884.Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture’s consequences: Internationall differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw-Hill Book Company. Hofstede, Geert, and Gert Jan Hofstede. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software of

the mind. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Holt, Jennifer, and Cynthia James DeVore. 2005. Culture, gender, organizational role,

and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29: 165-196.

IRS. 2009. Tax information for churches and religious organizations. Available from http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.htm; Internet.

Isaacs, William. 1999. Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Doubleday.

Jones, E. E. and R. E. Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Larkin, Richard F. 2009. Not-for-profit GAAP. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Lederach, John Paul. 2001. Chapter ten: Five qualities of practice in support of

reconciliation process. In Forgiveness and reconciliation, ed. Raymond G Helmick, S.J. and Rodney L. Peterson. Philadelphia, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press.

Lederleitner, Mary. 2006. The theology of internal controls. Evangelical Missions Quarterly 40, no. 4: 516-521.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. 2007. Plenary Sessions. COSIM Conference. COSIM web resources.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. 2008. Leading cross-culturally: Covenant relationships for effective Christian leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. and Marvin K. Mayers. 1986. Ministering cross-culturally:

An incarnational model for personal relationships. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Maranz, David. 2001. African friends and money matters. Dallas, TX: SIL International and the International Museum of Cultures.

Mezirow, Jack. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Miller, D. T., S. A. Norman and E. Wright. 1978. Distortion in person perception as a consequence of the need for effective control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 598—607.

Mitchell, Terence and Stephen Green. 2005. Chapter eleven: Attribution theory- Managerial perceptions of the poor performing subordinate. In Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk: New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Moreau, Scott. 2007. Mission trends and implications for partnership. COSIM Conference.

Moreau, Scott. 2007. Chapter one. Mission handbook: U.S. and Canadian ministries overseas. Wheaton, IL: EMIS.

Morris, Michael W., Leung Kwok and Sheena S. Iyengar. 2004. Person perceptions in the heat of conflict: Negative trait attributions affect procedural preferences and account for situational and cultural differences. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 7, no. 2: 127-147.

Myers, Bryant L. 2007. Walking with the poor: Principles and practices of transformational development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2: 175-220.

Nussbaum, Stan. 2005. American cultural baggage: How to recognize and deal with it. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Perlow, Leslie and Stephanie Williams. 2003. Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business Review 81, no. 5: 52-58.

Peterson, Brooks. 2004. Cultural intelligence: A guide to working with people from other cultures. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

Pocock, Micheal, Gailyn Van Rheenen and Douglass McConnell. 2005. The changing face of world missions: Engaging contemporary issues and trends. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Prahalad, C. K. and Kenneth Lieberthal. 2003. The end of corporate imperialism. Harvard Business Review 81, no. 8:109-117.

Rickett, Daniel. 2002. Making your partnership work. Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing.

Rieger, Joerg. 2004. Theology and mission between neo-colonialism and postcolonialism. Mission Studies 21, no. 2:201-227.

Rowell, John. 2006. To give or not to give: Rethinking dependence, restoring generosity and redefining sustainability. Atlanta, GA: Authentic Publishing.

Schwartz, Glenn. 2007. When charity destroys dignity: Overcoming unhealthy dependency in the Christian movement. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Senge, Peter M. 1999. Forward. In Dialogue and the art of thinking together, by William Isaacs. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, Peter M. 2006. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Shriver, Donald W. 2001. Chapter 8: Forgiveness: A bridge across the abysses of revenge. In Forgiveness and reconciliation, ed. Raymond G Helmick, S.J. and Rodney L. Peterson. Philadelphia, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press.

Struch, N. and S. H. Struch. 1989. Intergroup aggression: its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56, no. 3: 364-373.

Taylor, Edward W. 1994. Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly 48, no. 1:34-59.

__________. 2000. Chapter eleven: Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tetlock, Philip E. 1985. Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly 48, no. 3: 227-236.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. 1985. Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In Communication, culture, and organizational processes, ed. William B. Gudykunst, Lea P. Stewart, and Stella Ting-Toomey. Beverley Hills: SAGE Publications.

___________. 1988. A face negotiation theory. In Theories in intercultural communication, ed. Y. Kim and William B. Gudykunst. Newbury Park, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

___________. 1999. Communicating across cultures. New York: The Guilford Press. Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner. 1998. Riding the waves of culture:

Understanding diversity in global business. New York: McGraw Hill. Van Cleef, Carol R. 2003. The USA Patriot Act: Statutory analysis and regulatory

implementation. Journal of Financial Crime 11, no. 1: 73-102. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Weber, Linda and Dotsey Welliver eds. 2007. Mission handbook 2007-2009: U.S. and

Canadian protestant ministries overseas. Wheaton, IL: EMIS.Weiss, Jeff and Jonathan Hughes. 2005. Want collaboration? Accept and actively

manage conflict.” Harvard Business Review 83, no. 3: 92-101.Wood, Ed and Les Willis. Paternalism, accountability, responsibility and transparency.

2007 IMCO Conference. Saskatchewan, Canada.

About The Author:

Mary Lederleitner is a Researcher, Author, Trainer and Consultant for Wycliffe International. Her focus is best practices related to cross-cultural ministry partnerships. She has recently written a book entitled Cross-Cultural Partnerships & Money: Growing In Cultural Intelligence For More Effective Ministry. It has been accepted for publication by InterVarsity Press and will likely be published in early 2010. Prior to serving in this role she was the Asia Area Finance Manager and Head of International Audit. She has traveled extensively overseas and has been called upon to assist a wide range of Christian non-profit ministries and churches. Before entering ministry she was a Certified Public Accountant and a Tax Examiner for the Internal Revenue Service. She is pursuing a Ph.D. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and she holds a Masters Degree in Intercultural Studies from Wheaton College. She is on the advisory board for EMIS, the organization which publishes EMQ (Evangelical Missions Quarterly) and Lausanne World Pulse. She also serves on the board of Faith and Learning and the steering committee for COSIM (The Coalition on the Support of Indigenous Ministries) and MLN (Mission Leadership Network).