Compartmentalization & Designated Funds
Compartmentalization & Designated Funds
Explaining American Culture to Global Partners III
“Don’t bring Jesus into this! Jesus has nothing to do with this!”
– an American elder in a church leader’s meeting.
It’s hard to believe that this was ever said by a Christian leader, but I was assured by a minister who was in the room that it was. The subject under discussion was how to use the congregation’s new building expansion designed for enhanced education, youth, and fellowship ministries. The minister who related this event had suggested they open the new building expansion to serving the poor in the community. The elder in question was arguing that good stewardship required they not let it be worn out quickly by opening it to every group who wanted access to it. When the minister asked, “What would Jesus say about the use of the building?” the elder tried to shut that question down by saying Jesus was not relevant to the conversation.
I’m confident that this elder knew better and would regret making that comment when he had time to think about it. But the story reveals something about American culture that is most unusual: compartmentalization. Many Americans see our lives as broken into separate compartments that don’t touch each other. We have our family life, our personal life, our work life, our political life, and our religious life, all of which can operantly relatively freely from each other. And the strange side-effect to that is that we often assume that Christ’s authority is broken up as well. While we think Jesus has rightful domain over the religious life and some other areas where he lays claims, like family life, other areas of life can seemingly operate relatively free of considering his teaching and model. Different domains require different rules, or so it seems.
Perhaps the most confusing thing about the majority American culture to our global brothers and sisters is the degree to which we divide life into separate world with separate operating systems. This is a huge area that touches far more than we can explore in one brief blog post, so I’ll have to stretch this sub-topic into more sub-topics. Some of those include the following:
Obsessive concern about obeying scripture in religious matters while ignoring what Jesus says about “the real world” where Jesus’ teaching seems “unrealistic” and therefore optional if admirable.
Public faith v. Private character
Business ethics v. Christian ethics
Designated funds v. All money is God’s money
The “Missing Middle” between God’s transcendent reality and our material world (leaving no place for others spirits or powers to operate)
But, as one simple illustration of compartmentalization, let’s talk about a common place it creates tension between Americans and our global family: designated funds.
Many Americans have a future orientation about funds, so conversations about money involve planning and budgeting for the future. Once we have created a fund for a designated expense and we put money in that fund, spending it on anything else is considered improper if not unethical or illegal. This is especially true if people donate money for a certain project. Once the money is given to that project, it cannot be spent for anything else without getting explicit permission from the giver of the funds to change where the money goes.
There is a lot of wisdom behind this practice. It keeps people from deceiving others about where money goes by secret shifting around of funds. It keeps people from raising money for some good project and spending on some self-serving purpose. It is designed to prevent corruption and deception.
However, this view of designated funds can create real problems in cultures who don’t compartmentalize money this way. It can make our global partners look uncaring or even cruel to their neighbors and destroy their reputation at times.
Imagine, for example, if a church in the USA gives $10,000 for a $50,000 building in sub-Saharan Africa. Before the rest of the money is raised and while the cash is in the bank, just sitting there, imagine there is a flood or famine in that area that kills many and devastates many homes and farms in the area. If the African leaders who have access to those funds spend them on relief efforts, they will probably be seen as unethical by their American partners. The reason is that was not the purpose for which that money was given. The church in America asked their people to give toward the building and the ministry that would happen in that building. From the perspective of many in the USA, that money doesn’t exist for any other purpose.
However, if the African leaders keep the money in the bank and don’t use it for relief effort to provide help to people harmed by the disaster, those leaders will feel like they have been immoral. Anyone in the community who knows they have those funds but won’t use them to take care of hurting people in the wake of the crisis will conclude they are evil people. They will have no credibly as righteous people if they withhold resources in the name of some idea of designated funds.
The African leaders in this scenario have to decide if they want to lose credibility in their own eyes and the eyes of their community or risk losing the trust and support of their American supporters. Which way do you think they are likely to decide?
The problem comes back to the way Americans create compartments in our thinking that are not shared by our global family in Christ. These kinds of problems can be overcome where they are recognized and communication remains open. But that is more rare than you might imagine.
As you can see, many of us in the US context need help, shattering our compartmentalization by helping us see how interconnected things are. I would ask you to be patient with American partners who may be blind to this but also hold us accountable to the truth that Jesus should be involved in all things.
I also would offer this suggestion - when something happens that causes you as a global church leader to need to spend funds on something different than what it was intended for, the best move is to call a trusted American partner and explain the situation and let them know that you are considering this move before doing it. Getting perspective or in some situations a level of tacit permission ahead of time by an advocate on the American side can smooth this complex compartmentalized situation.