Several dangers can be attributed to unwise spending of money in less developed countries, especially when it involves support of preachers by churches who can barely know them:
(1) An over dependence on outside help with a resulting lack of growth. Jerry Rankin, president of the International Board of the Southern Baptist convention said, "One thing inevitably occurs when North Americans subsidize the work of churches and parishes on the mission field: potential growth is stalled because of a mind set that it can't be done unless an overseas benefactor provides the funds." Robert Allen in his book, "Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours?", written in 1912, laments that even in his time there was almost a welfare-like dependence established in some areas because of massive infusions of foreign money by denominations.
Mainline denominations began preaching in Korea about a hundred years ago. All but one, the Presbyterian church, sent money to build meeting houses and support native preachers. The Presbyterians decided to send only teachers and insisted that Koreans build their own buildings, as humble as they might be and support their own preachers when able. As a result, the Presbyterians became the most established of the mainline denominations in Korea.
Among brethren, a positive example of avoiding dependence can be found in Zimbabwe. There, Foy Short and others have worked to establish independent congregations without appealing to American churches for support for native workers. As a result, though the work is not nearly so well known to American brethren, there is a thriving group of independent Christians who support their own evangelists and grow without constant appeals for support and subsidy. Sadly, in many other countries, such self sufficiency has been hindered through well meaning, yet dependency-building subsidies from American churches.
(2) Misunderstandings between preachers and supporting churches. Churches need to know the men they support, like the Philippians knew Paul (Philippians 4). It is legitimate to ask if a sufficient level of confidence can be reached between a supporting congregation and evangelist if support is established and maintained solely on the basis of the recommendation of an evangelist, especially when the preacher and supporting congregation are of different cultures, languages and economic backgrounds. Questions about the amount of work being done, legitimacy of raise requests and doctrinal purity will always be more prevalent the greater the cultural, language and economic barriers.
(3) Over support: Some well meaning but naive American congregations support men in less developed countries without doing proper investigation about the amount that should be sent. I know of a native brother being supported by American churches who probably receives three or four times the salary of most professional workers in his country. As a result he has become imperious, puffed up and is probably not only the richest Christian in his country but probably in the entire continent on which he lives. Such abuse would not be tolerated in this country because of the irreparable harm that would be done, and yet American churches sometimes think little of the damage they do by such over support in foreign countries.
(4) Fraud, greed and "public relations" manipulation. Most of us are aware of stories of shady characters who succeed in receiving support from sincere but naive American churches while living "high on the hog" in adultery and other vices. While such stories may only illustrate the worst of the abuses, there is no doubt that great sums of money in the third world can also foster less dramatic but equally harmful attitudes.
Robertson McQuilkin points out that preachers in countries where the work is largely subsidized from the States become preoccupied with raising North American funds. He stated that on a trip to India, "I was overwhelmed by the many church leaders who 'worked' me for a dollar connection. Such a ministry orientation inevitably weakens faith, corrupts pure motives and compromises leadership integrity." Most preachers who visit countries where North American dollars flow, including this writer, have experienced the hints, the nudges, the "sad tales" and other tactics used to try to obtain dollars. Exaggerated reports, carefully posed photos of baptisms, bombardment with Email and other P.R. tactics are other symptoms of this problem. Such can't be healthy for the work of the Lord.
(5) The appearance of an unofficial "hierarchy:" Though such is completely undesired by all faithful and sincere brethren, at least the appearance of this kind of arrangement can come from a fully developed "recommendation system."
At the top of the apparent system would be the recommender. A preacher who has a number of men who depend upon his word for their daily bread and welfare can be quite powerful. When congregations hardly know those who they support, they depend upon the word of the recommender to decide whether support should be maintained, raised or cut. When such an arrangement exists, a recommender may genuinely want to help those evangelists whom he has recommended by sending them advice on how to deal with problems. They, however, know where their bread is buttered and thus they take his words not as mere advice, but practically as an edict. The recommender thus becomes almost a kind of unofficial bishop, at least in the eyes of others, even if such is not his intention.
Below the recommender, would be those preachers who receive American dollars. McQuilkin says that in this system, "an independent, higher class of Christian workers arises whose lifestyles are envied by 'unconnected' believers." Though these paid workers will be consistently submissive to their recommenders and supporting churches, they often feel superior to those workers in their country who aren't connected to the pipeline.
Below those who receive American dollars would be other workers. McQuilkin says that those "who can't get connected with the pipeline become demoralized. The work can't be done without outside assistance so why try?" They decide to leave much of the work up to those who receive the foreign money and the work stagnates.
It has always been acknowledged among faithful brethren that monetary connection between a church and evangelist needs to be direct, without dependence upon an intermediary. The question also needs to be asked if connection of confidence shouldn't also be direct and without dependence upon an intermediary.