What is a key consequence of dependency on outside funds for church movements?

• A. Dependency on outside funds fosters rapid local giving.
• B. Paying national pastors with outside funds nearly always stifles spontaneous reproduction and creates a dependent spirit.
• C. External funding has no impact on church reproduction.
• D. Dependency on outsiders ensures better leadership.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that relying on outside funds for church movements tends to undermine local ownership and multiplications. When money comes from outside sources, local leaders and communities can become dependent on those donors rather than developing self-sustaining practices and initiative. This especially shows up when national pastors are paid with outside funds: the salary from outsiders can shift focus away from planting new churches toward maintaining the donor-supported structure. Local leadership may hesitate to pursue aggressive reproduction or might align its priorities with donor expectations, not with the movement’s own growth needs. The result is a stifling of spontaneous reproduction and a “dependent spirit” where growth is driven by external resources rather than by indigenous vision and accountability.

Contextually, movements that emphasize indigenous leadership and self-reliant funding tend to reproduce more effectively because the ownership and accountability stay with local communities. External funding can distort incentives, create power imbalances, and delay or dampen the motivation for local stewardship and expansion.

Others options overlook how deeply funding dynamics shape behavior and outcomes. External funding does influence reproduction, and dependency on outsiders does not guarantee better leadership; more often it hinders authentic, sustainable growth.