One of the most striking paradoxes of China’s church is the exponential growth that took place after foreign missionary support was removed and the church was cut off from the outside world. Stripped of its institutional resources, financial support, and formal leadership, the church not only survived, but went on to experience an astonishing revival, becoming one of the fastest growing Christian movements in church history.
In a post on Facebook, Pastor Andrew Chiang picks up on this narrative of the Chinese church’s utter reliance on God during the Mao’s reign, which he sees as a significant break from the dependence on foreign dollars that characterized much of the modern missionary era.
Relating his own experience of being brought up in the tradition of “faith missions,” Chiang reflects on the ambivalence he later felt as he watched other servants of God invest financially and then use the returns to support their ministry. Was this “backup plan” biblical, he asked?
Radical Faith
Chiang traces the origins of the faith mission tradition back to Anthony Norris Groves, a dentist turned missionary who served first in Baghdad and then in India during the first half of the 19th century. Known as the “father of faith missions,” Groves promoted the radical notion that missionaries should possess only what was necessary for their daily living; any surplus belonged to the Lord’s work. Bringing Groves’ concept forward into the present, Chiang contrasts organizations that support missionaries through corporate funds with those that require individual workers to raise personal support. One is a model of institutional stewardship and stability; the other, Chiang says, “carries Groves’ original torch of radical spontaneity.”
Applying Groves’ principle to the church in Taiwan, Chiang says the Christian movement that emerged in the mid twentieth century became a model of prioritizing spiritual life over institutional structures. This dependence on God resulted in self-supporting ministries and helped to maintain a sense of urgency in carrying out the work. Most importantly, says Chiang, the faith model provided a vaccine against the stigma of Western imperialism, dismantling the “rice Christian” stereotype and insulating the Chinese church from the economic and political vicissitudes of the West. Chiang points to the house churches and independent churches that emerged in the Mainland after 1949 as a testimony to the wisdom of Groves’ approach.
“Lacking ‘golden chains’ to the West, they relied on the Lord alone,” says Chiang. “This indigenous resilience allowed the Chinese church to survive the twentieth century and emerge as a leader in global missions.”
A Bigger Story
While the church’s ability to thrive in isolation is undeniably a miracle of God’s provision, the story does not end there. Once China again opened up to the outside world, the foreign support returned. These investments would help to train a new generation of pastors, satisfy the need for Bibles, and birth myriad forms of outreach in society and among China’s unreached peoples. The growth—and the partnership—continued as the church, swept up in the tide of an historic urban migration, took on new forms in China’s burgeoning cities.
Looking back on the history of China’s church, Chiang makes a convincing case for the “faith missions” model (although he also allows that it has been “disastrous at times).”
Yet to assume one method of support is spiritual, while others are not, risks oversimplification. The contrast between these two eras—one of separation from foreign support and one of continued growth in partnership with the global church—points to the diverse ways in which God chooses to provide for his people.
Reframing the Question
To pose the question as a binary choice between faith and investing, or between spiritual life and institutionalism, seems to set up a false dichotomy. Scripture certainly contains strong warnings against hoarding. It challenges God’s people to live by faith. But it also has much to say about wise financial stewardship. These two are not necessarily in conflict. Likewise, while relying too much on institutional support could weaken one’s dependence on God, institutions are not inherently unspiritual.
Focusing solely on the question of whether support comes through personal donations or through institutional funding, investments, or cross-national partnerships obscures God’s role as the ultimate provider.
As Chiang states in his conclusion, “I think much depends on the faith of the missionary and their calling. We need fearless trailblazers and cautious planners in the kingdom of God.”
Whether through manna in the wilderness, Elijah’s ravens, Paul’s tents, or the generosity of the Philippian church, Scripture is replete with examples of God using any and all of these means to provide for his people. So is the history of China’s church.
