Masthead-Indigo-02

Koinonosis: A Practical Theology for the Process of Missional Partnerships

Author: Alan Howell
Published: May 2026
In:

MD 16

Article Type: Peer Reviewed Article

Christian missions are dependent on healthy partnerships, but unfortunately, that reality is complicated by history, assumptions, and even theology. After briefly summarizing the challenges to meaningful missional relationships, this paper explores a vision for a practical theology of partnerships. Drawing on the concepts of kenosis and theosis to coin a new term, koinonosis, for the process of cultivating covenantally grounded relational partnerships, this study roots a vision for partnership and fellowship in 2 Peter 1:4. Becoming partners or participants in the divine nature can frame the rest of our relationships as well. To reinforce this concept, we examine how the Transfiguration, along with the trellis metaphor, can be useful for a koinonotic approach, helping us update even outdated yet treasured theoretical missiological concepts such as the Three-Selves (or Four-Selves). The exploration of koinonosis concludes with brief case studies to explore how this practical theology of partnerships might function in real-life scenarios.

Introduction

What does it even mean to “partner” in missions? Our relationships with mission and ministry partners are very frustrating, and it is hard to understand what is going wrong. It feels almost impossible to get a handle on all the cultural, colonial, and church factors that make things so complicated. What could it look like to develop a common approach to practicing real, healthy, God-honoring partnerships?

Questions like these regularly appear in my conversations with American church leaders, cross-cultural missionaries, and indigenous kingdom workers. Partnerships can be a source of joy, but they are often filled with frustration and fallout. The term ‘partner’ in English is a useful and often appropriate one; unfortunately, partnership language has been used to describe relationships that seem one-sided and unconcerned with mutual benefit. How can we redeem that word from its misuse and reinforce the concept to make it sturdy enough to bear the weight of kingdom concepts and expectations effectively? The Greek word κοινωνόν (koinōnόn), translated as ‘partner,’ ‘sharer,’ ‘companion,’ and ‘participant,’ is a good candidate. This word links with the more broadly familiar term, koinonia, which also reinforces that idea of partnership with the relational depth of communion and fellowship.

A practical theology for the process of missional partnerships is needed, and 2 Peter 1 is a powerful place to ground it. To develop this well, we will mix the crucial ingredients of theosis and kenosis to coin the term koinonosis.1 Kenosis is the process of self-emptying or “pouring out” as demonstrated by Christ. Theosis is the transformative process into the likeness of or union with God. And our new term, koinonosis, refers to the process of cultivating covenantally grounded relational partnerships.2 Koinonotic partnerships flow from God’s initiative in partnering with human beings from the very beginning of the biblical story. By following God’s partnership and partner-seeking example, we can practice true collaboration in our missional participation. This shift to koinonosis offers a needed corrective, especially for those steeped in Western individualism, particularly as this individualism relates to participation in global missions.

In this paper, we explore how Christian missions can benefit from trading up to a more valuable and viable approach to theologically-robust global partnerships. In conversations about this topic with people from around the globe, I hear the refrain that “partners participate, but not all participants are partners.” At some level, that is to be expected, but there is significant room for improvement for everyone involved. The approach to partnership explored in this paper can deepen our engagement, enrich our relationships, and improve our overall effectiveness for collective kingdom expansion. We start by looking briefly at the way partnership is used in mission discourse. Second, we dig into a rich theological grounding for our key term from 2 Peter 1:4 to see how being partners or participants in the divine nature can frame the rest of our relationships. Third, we look at how the Transfiguration story (2 Peter 1:16-18) and a trellis as a metaphor can be useful, as well as how a koinonosis approach can help us update even outdated but treasured theoretical missiological concepts like the Three-Selves (or Four-Selves). Finally, brief case studies to explore how koinonosis can shape real-life scenarios conclude this paper.

For missional partnerships to function well, we need to find deeper resources for grounding them theologically and practically. 2 Peter is a useful, albeit a potentially surprising place to find common, fertile soil for moving beyond surface-deep, ministry relationships. Embracing a koinonosis approach to partnerships can encourage all parties to flourish in faithful relationships with one another.

The Purpose, Peril, and Power of Partnerships in Mission Discourse

A complete history of partnership language in mission discourse is outside the scope of this article. However, Evertt W. Huffard, in a recent paper, “Partners in the Mission of God,” effectively surveys the terrain and offers useful perspectives on how such partnership language includes dangerous pitfalls.3 Throughout the history of Christian missions, practitioners tell stories of effective partnerships as well as arrangements that failed to live up to that label. That is tragic because, as Huffard notes, “the mission of God depends on real and meaningful partnerships with God, with sister churches, with (and within) mission teams, with local church leaders, and between those who give support and those who receive support.”4 Interestingly, while churches in the U.S. often reference their partnerships, Huffard notes, in comparison, the global church rarely uses that label to describe the experience of working together.5

So, although partnership has become a widely popular term in Western spheres, expectations can vary widely regarding what that concept means.

The term ‘partners’ may include a range of assumptions from co-workers with a shared task to shared relationships, as in a marriage. If the partnership is predominantly task-oriented, then power, finances, control, and outcomes assessment will prevail. If partnership assumes more of a relationship, then listening, sharing values, and respect will influence the dynamics of the mission.6

That potential confusion should lead us to question whether a given partnership is actually more like a purchase (a one-way flow of money) or something truly shared by all parties involved.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mission Resource Network took advantage of the global “pause” from much of the mission-related activity and hosted virtual listening groups. We wanted to learn from African and Asian church leaders who had experience with short-term mission groups and Western missionaries.7 Huffard summarizes five major findings from those listening groups that can help leverage the hopes and expectations for partnerships in missions, learning from the global church about how to practice them well:

  1. Healthy partnerships balance tasks and relationships.
  2. Joy in partnerships will be found in everyone making meaningful contributions to shared goals.
  3. In global missions, lasting partnerships will be developed between groups (churches) and not one or two individuals from each group.
  4. Financial support always changes the equation, and
  5. Healthy, cross-cultural partnerships need mediators to develop the relationships, define the expectations, and manage conflicts.8

Recognizing these touchpoints helps us navigate real differences in partnership expectations. For example, Westerners often define partners based on tasks and results, while Africans tend to frame partners more relationally. Those differences in usage will shape the character and flow of information and resources between either side.9

Differing cultural expectations should be acknowledged and addressed, and in Scripture we find instances where kingdom workers crossed those kinds of differences. For example, we see how the Apostle Paul navigated different cultures through co-laboring with multiple people and how he worked at cultivating God-honoring partnerships:

From Acts and Paul’s letters, we can identify thirty-eight co-workers involved in his ministry and mission. He used nine different terms… for his fellow workers with God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Working together with others became a fundamental value for the mission ministry of Paul. He also sought the collaboration of churches in the mission of God.10

Paul balances both relationships and results with Timothy, Titus, and others. One potentially surprising example, though, is how Paul frames and forges his relationship with Philemon, using the term partner (1:17–koinōnόn) to leverage deep values of fellowship (1:6–koinónia) toward restoring Onesimus.11

Given the feedback from the listening groups, the insights from Paul’s letters, the popularity of partnership as a concept, and the difficulty in finding a better term, Huffard concedes “that we just need to find a better way to define, develop, and execute partnerships in mission, acknowledging that our relationships find purpose and definition in our mutual partnership with the God of mission and fellowship (koinonia) in Christ.”12 This is the objective for the rest of this paper. To redefine and reshape this conversation, we explore this topic from three different angles to find handholds for missional partnerships: theological reinforcements, theoretical reconsiderations, and teleological redirections.13 And while Huffard’s exploration focused on the Apostle Paul, this paper draws on 2 Peter to examine how partnership and fellowship are crucial ingredients in a koinonotic process for developing and maintaining robust kingdom partnerships.

Theological Reinforcements for Partnership: 2 Peter and Partners in the Divine Nature

I am proposing koinonosis, defined as the process of cultivating covenantally grounded relational partnerships, as an antidote to the all–too-common practice of ill-defined and perilous partnerships. In practice, this will look like God’s people collaborating in fellowship and faithful work to produce holy, kingdom fruit that feeds holistic transformation. Koinonosis builds on theological foundations found in 2 Peter. To unpack that, though, we first need to appreciate the historical context and the dynamics of the biblical text.

Broadly speaking, 2 Peter is a type of farewell speech that calls the church to remember who they are and not to follow influencers who deny the second coming of Christ by living blatantly in sin.14 This letter contains elements that cause it to stand out to modern-day readers of the New Testament. These include similarities to Jude, comments on false teachers, a reference to First Enoch, and some fiery comments on the final reckoning. 2 Peter is complex with “some twenty-six metaphors in play” and “a barrage of tropes: hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, onomatopoeia, and others.”15

In 2 Peter 1:4, the author refers to followers of Jesus as those who become partners in the divine nature (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, theias koinōnoi physeōs). In this section, we briefly unpack this concept in context to see how it might serve as a theological center of gravity (when aligned with both kenosis and theosis) to shape our perspective on what partnership with God and God’s people should resemble.

After 2 Peter’s introductory comments and a prayer of blessing for the recipients (1:1-2), Peter then grounds those greetings in some powerful convictions (vv. 3-4).

Accordingly, his divine power provides it all for us, everything given for (our) life and godliness, by means of the knowledge of the One who called each one of us by means of his honor and virtue, through which he has granted to us his precious and magnificent promises, so that through all of these you all may become partners of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption of worldly desire and decay.16

Following this thesis, the author unpacks the necessary qualities for this type of life in the present (vv. 5–9) and what that means in light of our future, hearty welcome into the eternal kingdom (vv. 10–11).17 Recipients are encouraged to look to the past for confirmation, as they are exhorted to remember the truths that they were taught (1:12–15). Next, Peter moves from reminders to radiance. He references two bright, beautiful visions: the Transfiguration (1:16–18) and the day dawning with the morning star rising inside of us (1:19). Christ’s majestic glory and God’s word as revealed through the prophets serve as the confirmation for God’s covenant people to continue in the truth together even when we are pulled in other directions.18

Given that overview, we now focus on our key terms. The issue that has garnered the bulk of the attention in 1:4 is determining what is meant by “divine nature.”19 Commentators and theologians have rightfully turned to this text to explore the concepts of theosis and divinization: the transformative process into union or likeness with God.20 For our purposes, we will concentrate on an underexamined part of the phrase. While the word koinōnoi in 1:4 can be translated as ‘partner,’ ‘sharer,’ ‘partaker,’ or ‘companion,’ the constellation of meanings points us to a theologically-robust vision of unity and community with the divine, whichever translation we choose.21 Viewing the whole section (1:3–11) through the lens of participation in the divine nature grounds the themes of God’s great promises and endurance in the midst of suffering. And this reference to partnering links to the previous letter (1 Peter 4:13), where there is an exhortation to rejoice, because the recipients “shared” (κοινωνεῖτε) or participated in Christ’s own suffering and therefore their joy will overflow in the glorious revealing of Jesus.

What does this mean for missional partnerships and the koinonosis proposal? To address that question, we point towards a few related elements. The first one concerns just how crucial partnership is and how being “partners in the divine nature” fits with the whole narrative of Scripture and serves as our common starting point. This concept is a key through-line in the overarching biblical story. From the very beginning, we find God partnering with humanity. As we move from Adam and Eve in the Garden, to calling Abraham to form a new family to bless the nations, to working with Moses to deliver the people, we recognize that God has always been looking for and working with human partners.22 Continuing through the biblical narrative, the incarnation (and kenosis) of the Son and the indwelling of the Spirit move this partnership to even deeper levels of intimacy with humanity as God seeks to fulfill the divine vision and mission.

2 Peter 1:4 helps us frame partnerships as part of that overall trajectory of Scripture. We find ourselves not in a story of striving but of something we are supplied with, as “sharing in divine nature is not something 2 Peter’s readers achieve but something they receive” through connection to Christ.23 When we follow God’s partnership and partner-seeking example in the biblical text, we work towards flourishing and collaboration among all parties for robust missional participation in different contexts. God’s koinonosis with us moves us toward each other in fellowship and partnership. This comprehensive vision for grounding our own actions and attitudes towards partnership in an expansive understanding of how God acts as a partner can serve us all well. We can now see long-term missional partnerships as a sign of coherence with God’s commitment to partner with us even beyond the grave.

A second important element for a koinonosis vision of partnership has to do with the interplay of relationships and results, including our affections, our actions, and mutual accountability. Witherington notes that the primary thrust in 2 Peter is ethics, not ideas or doctrine,24 so we should see 1:3-4 as foundational for the ethical summary that follows in v. 5-11. Sharing in the divine nature leads to the practice of virtues in our lives and in the world around us. This ethical commitment bears fruit relationally (1:7, brotherly affection), and it also means that we pay attention to results (1:8, not being ineffective or unproductive). To rephrase this concept, our divine partnership with God shapes how we interact in partnership with others in ways that are faithful to both tasks and relationships. Applying this concept to missional partnerships emphasizes the moral imperative to care for one another while holding one another accountable for God-honoring action.25 We could say then that a koinonosis partnership is concerned with a dual focus: producing fruit and reflecting the fruit of the Spirit together.26

A third element of koinonosis has to do with how our common starting point and synthesizing connections between kenosis and theosis reframes power dynamics in partnerships.27 This element is crucial and must be reckoned with. One African church leader, for example, told the Western mission agency he was working with, “You are too powerful to be good partners.”28

Here we need to see what light koinonosis shines on power dynamics as it draws energy from the two key and sometimes controversial concepts of theosis and kenosis.29 To frame power in kingdom partnerships well, we recognize that all parties involved, a kenotic God and theotic humans, are meeting one another in koinonosis: covenantally grounded relational partnerships.30 Kenosis claims that Christ reveals a God who pours out power and authority on behalf of others even to the point of death on a cross (Phil. 2).31 Theosis is an organizing principle in Orthodox theology and experience.32 Louth notes that, “for the Orthodox tradition… the aim of the Christian is to become once again truly human, to become the human partners of God as we were originally created, and as human partners to share in the divine life.”33 Theosis is not about removing our humanity, but about finding our true humanity in partnership with the God who uses power in kenotic ways. I propose that koinonosis offers a mode of leveraging power in fellowship and partnership for impactful kingdom collaboration that potentially energizes missiology.34

Theosis must go alongside kenosis, otherwise we would fall prey to power’s “diabolical temptation (Genesis 3:5).”35 While Panikkar links kenosis to humanity, the notion is better linked to divinity (Philippians 2).36 That move (seeing kenosis as a sign of the divine nature) allows us to see theosis as a sign of our true humanity. To be clear, God’s partnering people are to imitate both of these movements in covenantal connection with one another (koinonosis), that is, mutually pouring ourselves out like Christ (kenosis) while growing up into the image of God God gave us (theosis).37 Panikkar notes that 2 Peter 1:4 shows that, “we become participants in the divine nature by entering into communion with it… It is more than a participation. It is a koinonia (‘communion’).”38 Koinonosis holds both of those together as we exist in divine and human partnership with one another. In fellowship with God, we learn the right ways to ‘play God’ and how to use our power in partnerships well.39

Readers of 2 Peter may focus on the reference to the “divine nature,” but what if Peter’s main point was ultimately about the “sharing” or “partnership”? In 1:3–11, he talks about covenantally shaped ethics as well as the ends or eschatological vision. In chapter 2, he deals with the dangers of partnering with preachers, prophets, or people who have bad orthodoxy or orthopraxy, and in chapter 3, he unpacks the call to live in light of an appropriate eschatology. Peter is certainly concerned with whom the readers will partner and how that will shape their shared future trajectory. Reading this letter with an awareness of how power is at play in kenosis and theosis explains why 2 Peter may be more about koinonosis and how a framework for partnership that includes fellowship (koinonia) and working together (koinon) serves us well.

To summarize, in this section, we reflected on 2 Peter and the theological reinforcements we find for a koinonosis process for cultivating partnerships. Partnering with God is a major theme that fits well within the whole narrative of scripture. 2 Peter helps us see partnership in ways that focus our attention on ethical relationships and end results. Finally, theologically robust partnerships reframe power dynamics when they are infused with both kenosis and theosis. By rooting koinonosis partner-ships in this rich soil, we avoid turning them into a ‘partner-shop’ (focused on money) or a ‘partner-shape’ (focused on control) and can truly work together powerfully as companions and co-laborers.

Theoretical Reconsiderations: Transfiguration and Trellis as Partnership Metaphors and the Selves

Biblical stories provide rich, imaginative space and common language for framing theological and missiological engagement. The Transfiguration of Jesus, for example, has been an important orienting story for theosis.40 That story also serves as a great intersection for kenosis, theosis, and koinonosis. 2 Peter demonstrates the connection between these ideas as the text takes readers from “partnering in the divine nature” (1:4) to the story of Jesus’ Transfiguration as Christ interacts with his disciples in that transformational space (1:16-18).41 Here are nine potential touch points for koinonosis, a theology of partnership, found in the Transfiguration story:

  1. No matter who is present in a partnership, Christ is the one who is honored and glorified (Mark 9:2-4).
  2. Doing the first thing that comes to mind, like a building project (shelter, tabernacle, or otherwise), may not be the right response (Mark 9:5–6).
  3. Both our relationships and tasks should be in accordance with Christ’s teachings. The voice from the cloud tells us clearly: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7).
  4. We should expect both conversation and correction in the koinonia we experience on the mountain and in missional partnerships (Mark 9:5–7, 9–13).
  5. The bookends of the Transfiguration (what happened before and after their mountain encounter) teach us to expect suffering and service. We will also certainly need correction (for our misunderstandings) and we will need Christ to be present (Mark 8:31–9:1; 9:14–32).
  6. Individual experience is not the focus. We are on the mountain with other disciples and the Christ, not alone (Mark 9:2, 9).
  7. Experiences of the covenant people of God from the past, both ancient (like Moses and Elijah) and contemporary (other disciples), may be important in interpreting our journey (Mark 9:4, 10).
  8. Conversations about exit strategy and long-term legacy are welcome here (Luke 9:31 tells us that what Jesus talked about with Moses and Elijah was his upcoming departure or exodus).42
  9. A koinonosis mountain partnership should then reframe how we think about multiple relevant topics: who is the greatest, sectarianism, caring for little ones, and being at peace with one another (Mark 9:33–50).

Inspired by 2 Peter’s linkage of “partnering with the divine nature” (1:4) and the Transfiguration story (1: 16-18), the above touchpoints for koinonosis help us encounter and engage with one another well. Since “the Transfiguration operates as a kind of matrix for theology” as we experience communion with God,43 this story helpfully serves as a powerful and productive framework for engaging in missional partnerships, as well.

Another image Mission Resource Network has used to discuss healthy, creative partnerships is the trellis and vine. This fruitful fellowship framework has been particularly useful for collaboration involving foreign nationals in global partnerships, so they can be sent to a new location for kingdom impact. Inspired by John 15, we imagine a vine spreading across a trellis, providing a pathway for fruitfulness by allowing them to reach out and generate seeds and bear fruit in a new area. A fruitful, proven worker who developed as part of the vine in his or her home country (Vine Church in country A) is branching out and being supported by a trellis (Trellis Church partnering with them from country B) who is sent out to country C to “bear much fruit,” spreading the Gospel and making disciples in a new context. In this framework, Mission Resource Network functions like a ‘watering can’ providing worker care and strategic coaching.44 We have found this image to be useful for painting pictures of the roles that the vine church, the trellis church, the field worker, and our organization have to play in order to have a fruitful missional partnership.45

The analogy of the Transfiguration, paired with the metaphor of the trellis, points us towards flourishing koinonosis partnerships and beyond, missional frameworks from a previous age. The Three-Selves paradigm of establishing indigenous churches that are Self-Propagating, Self-Supporting, and Self-Governing (later including Self-Theologizing as a Fourth “Self”) has been influential in shaping the “end goal” of Protestant missions. While this paradigm-oriented missions towards independence, the stated objective was still shaped by Colonial ideals and had significant pitfalls.46 Shifting from the goal of independent “Selves” to an interdependent posture of “One-Another-ing” (or “Belonging”) is an important corrective. The phrase “one another” (ἀλλήλων, allēlōn), occurs one hundred times in the New Testament and has the potential to resonate even better with the global Church today. In a separate paper, I propose a “One Another” framework that moves beyond the language of mere autonomy (Selves) to that of relationship and mutuality. This transition would certainly be a paradigm shift. The four-part vision of Interdependence or hospitable accompaniment as a goal for mission that I propose is:

  1. Respecting one another’s agency
  2. Honoring one another’s authority
  3. Mutual sharing with one another by means of all forms of assistance
  4. Long-term commitment to one another’s advancement (i.e., flourishing)47

Following this “one another” vision for reframing outputs, goals, and objectives fits well with how koinonosis reframes the starting point.48 So, grounding stories like the Transfiguration and the orienting image of the trellis can buttress a koinonosis pathway for missional partnerships. These ideas replace outdated frameworks that continue to pull mission agencies, churches, and kingdom workers into anemic partnerships with insufficient goals and outcome expectations.

Teleological Redirections: Case Studies and Conclusions

In this section, we will explore some of the practical ends that need to be addressed to handle the differences between the ideal and the real of partnerships. As we conclude, I want to revisit Huffard’s summary of the current state of missional partnerships and engagement:

The gap between the ideal and the real in the life of most churches seems the greatest when it comes to fulfilling the mission of God. Churches I have been blessed to consult with usually show more vitality in spirituality and relationships, while their inadequacy will likely be in organization and mission/vision. I would venture to guess that 10–20 percent of congregations effectively execute their mission within their community and the world. The majority seem to survive, accept mediocrity, and focus on keeping everyone happy.49

That is an important reminder. A high level of buy-in for churches to change their approach to partnerships will be required, and this change can certainly be intimidating if we go it alone. But as Borthwick notes, “In a relational view of partnerships, I don’t need to have all the answers, all the money, or all the ideas. We come together as a family to chart the way forward. We need each other.”50 The multi-ethnic, covenantal family of God leans on the shared partnership with the Holy Spirit indwelling us and empowering us to represent God’s Kingdom well.51

To explore how koinonosis (the process of forming covenantally grounded fellowship partnerships) can work in practice, we briefly look at three case studies and questions that can spark conversations from reflecting on those scenarios:

  1. An American church has been supporting proven disciple-makers from Cuba to work among people from a Muslim background in North Africa. Members from this US congregation consistently talk about what they are learning from their Latin American partners. They do not see themselves as leading from above; instead, they see themselves as learners. They celebrate stories of how the Cubans are using their Spanish to cross-cultural divides in their new, yet complicated context. The deepening relational connection and fellowship with these kingdom workers has caused one American to develop his Spanish language skills to both improve the communication and fellowship with the Cubans, as well as increase his ability to connect missionally and follow their example in connecting with those in his own community. Partnerships like this one certainly involve risk, as we try to figure out who should be involved in building the trellis and how to do that work in a way that allows everyone to flourish. This approach can open partners’ eyes to options and opportunities around them. What are some other ways that this trellis church can deepen its fellowship and celebrate fruitfulness both among the nations and their neighbors?
  2. The translation of partnership language among the Makua-Metto people opens up additional avenues of discovery and layers of meaning.52 For example, in 2 Peter 1:4, the key phrase is translated as “nipanke mphantte o makhalelo oottakattifu awe.” This translation encourages a contextualized reading and helps hearers perceive the connections to the ethical dimensions referenced in the next few verses. We are sharing in God’s sanctified character. That ethical commitment will both bear fruit relationally (1:7, “brotherly affection”) and make us pay attention to results (1:8, “not being ineffective or unproductive”). What are some additional ways that the language of partnership can help us be faithful to both tasks and relationships?
  3. In the United States, a church plant and a campus ministry partner together to reach those in their community. After some initial successes, the relationship begins to strain as the theologically-trained leaders pursue different opportunities and juggle different priorities. Neither group wants to exist on its own, but they are looking for ways to frame their collaboration more effectively. How could kenosis, theosis, and koinonosis help these two ministries establish common ground? What would it look like to meet each other in the Transfiguration story?

This paper has explored how a theologically robust and practical vision of koinonotic partnerships can move us together and move us forward. A koinonosis approach shaped by 2 Peter teaches us to lean into the process of developing and maintaining covenantally-grounded fellowships and partnerships. That approach will challenge us (as we will be called to see ourselves as part of the global body of Christ and move to a focus on one another), but it also has the potential to lead to greater joy and fulfillment. Leveraging imagery like the transfiguration and the trellis can reinforce that vision for all parties involved. In doing so, we will be drawn into deeper partnership with a covenant-making God who fellowships and partners with us and shows us the path for doing this well.

Alan Howell is the Director of Equipping and Training for Mission Resource Network, equipping congregations and kingdom workers for service (mrnet.org). He and his family resided in Mozambique from 2003 to 2018 as part of a team working among the Makua-Metto people. From 2019 to 2023, he taught undergraduate and graduate courses in Bible and Missions for Harding University.

  1. 1 For more on theosis or deification as a metaphor and its development through historical reflection on biblical texts, see Paul M. Collins, Partaking in the Divine Nature: Deification and Communion (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010), 9–10, 31, 38.

  2. 2 The words “covenant” and “relational” may seem redundant in this working definition. But, since many partnerships lack a deep commitment to one another that flows from God’s covenant love that binds us all to God and to each other, those words are included for emphasis.

  3. 3 Evertt W. Huffard, “Partners in the Mission of God,” Journal of Christian Studies 4.1 (2024): 7-22.

  4. 4 Huffard (2024), 7.

  5. 5 Huffard (2024), 8.

  6. 6 Huffard (2024), 12. For an interesting visualization of the complexities of partnership, see https://missionexus.org/degrees-of-partnership/

  7. 7 Those results are available in a downloadable handbook entitled, “Partnering with Indigenous Leaders” at https://www.mrnet.org/partnerships.

  8. 8 Huffard (2024), 13–21.

  9. 9 Huffard (2024), 14. For more on the survey from fourteen different countries, see Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Leading Cross–Culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 45.

  10. 10 Huffard (2024), 21.

  11. 11 Huffard (2024), 22. For more on this, see Alan B. Howell, “‘Old Man’ as Cipher: Humor and Honor-Shame Rhetoric for Reading Philemon in Mozambique,” Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Practice 11 (2020).

  12. 12 Huffard (2024), 22.

  13. 13 Works that have shaped my thinking on missions and partnership over the last few years include, Mary T. Lederleitner, Cross-Cultural Partnerships: Navigating the Complexities of Money and Mission (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2010); Al Tizon, Whole & Reconciled: Gospel, Church, and Mission in a Fractured World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018); Bennett Hunter Farrell with S. Balajiedlang Khyllep, Freeing Congregational Mission: A Practical Vision for Companionship, Cultural Humility, and Co–development (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022); and especially, Deborah Ajulu, Holism in Development: An African Perspective on Empowering Communities (Monrovia: MARC, 2001). Ajulu shares helpful analogies for partnerships: a horse and rider, cow and milker, and two oxen (171– 72). In some scenarios, Western partners are like the rider, in others the cow, but being yoked together for the same goal is the ideal.

  14. 14 Witherington states, “Without question, 2 Peter is the most difficult New Testament book to deal with in terms of the basic authorship, date and composition issues.” Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 2: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 260. While New Testament scholarship generally takes the position that it is improbable that Peter wrote this letter, many Christians around the globe (including the Makua-Metto churches in Mozambique) assume authorial authenticity. In light of that assumption and since the letter’s authorship and pseudonymity would have little impact on the purposes of this paper, we retain Petrine authorship as an open question and for simplicity’s sake refer to Peter as the implied author. For more on this topic see Witherington (2007), 269–71 and Richard Bauckham, Jude-2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, 50 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 158–163.

  15. 15 Witherington (2007), 273, summarizing Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. SBLDS 104 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 123-25.

  16. 16 2 Pet 1:3–4; my own translation.

  17. 17 Bauckham breaks down this section into 3 parts: “(a) a historical (or theological) section, recalling the acts of God in salvation-history: vv. 3–4. (b) ethical exhortations, based on (a) and with (c) in view: vv. 5-10. (c) an eschatological section, in which salvation is promised or judgment threatened: v.11.” Bauckham (1983), 173.

  18. 18 While covenant may not be an explicit theme in the letter, covenant certainly frames the counsel and reflection given to God’s people in 2 Peter.

  19. 19 Starr comments on whether 2 Peter means deification: “The answer to that question is that it depends on what is meant by deification. If the term means equality with God or elevation to divine status or absorption into God’s essence the answer is no. If it means the participation and enjoyment of specific divine attributes and qualities, in part now and fully at Christ’s return, then the answer is–most certainly–yes.” See James Starr “Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of Deification?” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, eds. Micheal Christensen and Jeffery Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 90.

  20. 20 The terms theosis, deification, divinization, and Christification, are often used interchangeably as well as distinguished from one another in different ways depending on the author; to find consensus on the use of terms is challenging. So, for our purposes here, I will use those terms as cognates while making primary use of theosis in this paper. For distinguishing the theosis word cloud from the real critiques, criticisms, concerns, and dangers often commented on, I will contrast the word theosis with apotheosis. For example, Lenz notes that Peter (and Plato) would certainly disagree with a “previous Greek notion of an apotheosis” which “entailed the promotion of a mortal being to divine status through a special and rare heroic dispensation.” See John R. Lenz, “Deification of the Philosopher in Classical Greece” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Micheal Christensen and Jeffery Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 52. For our purposes, apotheosis is the heterodox version of the concept of theosis. Theosis warps into apotheosis because of the addition of one or more of the following ideas: 1. Lacking a covenantal or ecclesial connection with God as revealed in Christ; 2. Achieving a level of divinity through personal heroic deeds; 3. Assuming absorption into the divine reality that obliterates one’s human identity; 4. Overemphasizing special knowledge and information as the main element in the process of divinization; 5. Framing this in a way that compromises the ultimate transcendence of God and assumes that humans will completely overcome all divine unknowability. For summaries of the history of theosis and how different authors see its alignment or misalignment with the idea of divinization or deification, see Myk Habets, “Theosis, Yes; Deification, No.” In The Spirit of Truth: Reading Scripture and Constructing Theology with the Holy Spirit, ed. Myk Habets (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 124–149. And Robert V. Rakestraw, “Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis.” JETS 40.2 (June 1997): 257–269 and Paul M. Collins, Partaking in the Divine Nature: Deification and Communion (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010).

  21. 21 For a resource that lists translation options in this order: “Partner, Sharer, Partaker,” see Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 581. For more on κοινων– terminology, see Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 551–554. Also, see J. Y. Campbell, “ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ and Its Cognates in the New Testament.” JBL 51, no. 4 (1932): 352–80.

  22. 22 Starr notes that, “beginning in the creation account, humanity is called to multiply (i.e., procreate), have dominion, tend the garden (Gen. 2:15) and rest on the Sabbath with God, so that humankind is a partner with God already in creation.” James M. Starr, Sharers in Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 in Its Hellenistic Context. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series, 33 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2000), 79. It is instructive to see examples of how ancient authors, like Philo, use partnership language to describe Moses’ relationship to God. “Moses constitutes for Philo the archetypal human being whose knowledge of God and assimilation to God are unsurpassed. As such, Moses enjoys an unparalleled communion with God, often described with κοινων– terminology.” See James M. Starr (2000), 113.

  23. 23 James Starr “Does 2 Peter 1:4 speak of Deification?” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Micheal Christensen and Jeffery Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 88.

  24. 24 Witherington (2007), 276, 278, 297–98. Bauckham notes that the letter’s author in considering sharing in the divine nature “uses ideas and language which had a long history in Greek philosophical and religious thought” (Baukham, 179–80). He sees the reference to the divine nature in 2 Peter less through something like theosis and more as being tied to our immortality: “Although v. 4b has been a classic prooftext for the Greek patristic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification, in its own historical context it does not refer to a participating in the life or essence of God himself, but to the gift of ‘godlike’ immortality” (Baukham, 193). While there certainly is some truth to that, we do not have to choose one or the other. We have already noted how Peter is speaking poetically, layering multiple metaphors, and given the context, the author seems to care deeply in this section about how sharing in the divine nature shapes their actions in the here and now. This is not about something merely eternal or ethereal, it is about transformed living in the current age. Bauckham believes that given the context, there are two essential questions: in what sense do we become divine? And when does that happen? “In view of the background… it is not very likely that participation in God’s own essence is intended. Not participation in God, but in the nature of heavenly, immortal beings is meant… To share in divine nature is to become immortal and incorruptible.” (Bauckham, 181). That debate is outside the scope of this article, but one thing Bauckham seems to neglect is the practical ethical concerns that immediately follow 1:4. In the very next section, Peter writes about virtues, ethics, and being honorable to one another. Peter was not merely interested in sharing in the divine nature in the age to come, but also very much in this age as well. And that certainly has implications for partnerships.

  25. 25 It certainly includes a future dimension as well as a present one. As Starr notes, “Building our case solely from 2 Peter’s own statements, we find that participation in the divine nature follows from knowing Christ as salvific sovereign, that participation has a present component in the readers’ progressive assimilation to Christ’s virtue or moral excellence or righteousness. And participation has a future component in the readers’ entry into the incorruption of Christ’s eternity.” See Starr (2007), 84.

  26. 26 Instead of an “either-or” approach to navigating relationships and results, what is needed is a “both-and” outlook. One way to imagine this is to contrast the single focal point of a circle with the two focal points that form an ellipse. Healthy partnerships will be more like an ellipse (with a focus on both tasks and relationships) than a circle (giving attention to one instead of the other). That way of picturing the potential tension of the “being and doing” elements in partnerships frames it in ways that allow us to cover more surface area for a broader scope of participation in mission together.

  27. 27 Christensen helpfully summarizes “the problem, promise, and process of theosis” in 2 Peter 1:4, but I believe giving more weight to what is indicated by the idea of partnership would give greater clarity to the process and minimize problematic aspects. Michael Christensen, “The Problem, Promise, and Process of Theosis” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Micheal Christensen and Jeffery Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 23-31. For an exploration of how theosis links to the recapitulation model of the atonement and its application in missional contexts, see Alan Howell and Logan Thompson, “From Mozambique to Millennials: Shame, Frontier Peoples, and the Search for Open Atonement Paths,” International Journal of Frontier Missiology, vol. 33, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2016): 157–165.

  28. 28 Lederleitner (2010), 122.

  29. 29 For important resources on the intersection of kenosis, theosis, and Christian missions that have shaped my thinking, see Michael J. Gorman, Abide and Go: Missional Theosis in the Gospel of John. The Didsbury Lecture Series (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018) and Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019).

  30. 30 For more on covenant as a key element in deification and how corporate and collective dimensions for the metaphor come into play, see M. Collins, Partaking addresses the dangers of partnering with preachers, prophets, or those with in the Divine Nature: Deification and Communion (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010), 29, 48.

  31. 31 For a strong theological vision of missional partnership centered on Philippians 2, see Lederleitner (2010), 181-88.

  32. 32 Andrew Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Micheal Christensen and Jeffery Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 32–44.

  33. 33 Louth, (2007), 39. For an exploration of mission as participation in the Triune God from the Orthodox tradition, see Stephan B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 286–304.

  34. 34 Another example that is potentially useful here is Philippians 1:5, 4:15–20 where koinonia is used to describe how a church partners financially and fellowships with a kingdom worker.

  35. 35 Raimon Panikkar, Christophany: The Fullness of Man (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 120.

  36. 36 Panikkar (2004), 137–8.

  37. 37 I am grateful for Dr. Laura Callarman for framing this succinctly.

  38. 38 Panikkar (2004), 95.

  39. 39 The phrase ‘playing God’ is often used to refer to the ways that dictators, kings, leaders (and even missionaries) pridefully act in ways that are destructive and disastrous. They fail because they play the roles that gods like Mars, Venus, and Mammon model for them. Christians, however, are to embody Jesus’ practice of power, since he “is the God we are meant to play.” See Andy Crouch, Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 281.

  40. 40 The Emmaus Road, for example, is a useful theological shorthand for narrative theological grounding and an inspiring setting for embarking on constructive interreligious dialogue. John Dudley Woodberry, ed. Muslims and Christians on the Emmaus Road (Monrovia, CA: MARC Publications, 1989).

  41. 41 Given that early Christian tradition suggests that Mark wrote his Gospel based on the testimony of the Apostle Peter [See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.1 (ca. 180) and Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.13–15 (quoting Papias, ca. 110–140), 6.14.5–7 (referencing Clement of Alexandria, ca. 180], specific references to the Transfiguration story will mostly follow Mark’s Gospel.

  42. 42 This is an important reminder that even good things can come to an end but they can still have a long-lasting impact. Wrapping up a partnership does not necessarily mean failure, it may mean finishing well.

  43. 43 Collins (2010), 107.

  44. 44 The trellis metaphor could certainly be applied to domestic ministry partnerships as well.

  45. 45 While the vine as a root metaphor for partnership is certainly appropriate, in talking through this concept with people from the USA another story about a different plant has been particularly illustrative. Many are familiar with The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein (New York: Harper Collins, 1964). In that book, the boy takes more and more from his friend, the tree, until it seems like there is nothing left for the plant to give except a place for him to sit. This one-sided arrangement, where only one of the parties will benefit is certainly not a viable long-term vision of partnership. We could even argue that it is a toxic vision of partnership. Far from a generative vision of collaboration, in this story, one partner receives all the benefits while the other is reduced to a stump. Topher Payne offers an alternate ending to this tale. In his updated version, the tree and the boy form a fruitful, sustainable partnership where both share their abilities and expertise in ways that allow flourishing that lasts for generations. When we are able to practice koinonotic relationships, we follow the pattern of a giving and partnering God. Koinonosis offers a productive pathway that honors Christ and his worldwide body, the church. For Payne’s “The Tree Who Set Healthy Boundaries,” see https://www.topherpayne.com/_files/ugd/91bb14_622b75781da64356bcb9112b3ce069f0.pdf

  46. 46 Alan Howell, “From ‘Selves’ to ‘One Another’: A Hospitable Proposal for a Post-Colonial Missions Paradigm of Interdependence,” Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies 39, no. 3 (July 2022): 181–192.

  47. 47 Howell (2022), 187.

  48. 48 The “one another” vision also helps resist the dangerous individualistic distortions of theosis named earlier in the paper.

  49. 49 Huffard (2024), 8–9.

  50. 50 Paul Borthwick, Western Christians in Global Mission: What’s the Role of the North American Church? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 154. For a recent exploration of stories of the challenges involved in real-life partnership, see Shawn Tyler, A Cultural Mosaic: Thriving in Our East African Partnerships (Amazon Book Publications, 2024).

  51. 51 An area for future exploration outside the scope of this paper would be to consider more carefully the role of the Holy Spirit in koinonotic partnerships. Another topic would involve helping churches develop a deeper understanding of the term covenant, since it is a crucial ingredient in the definition we are using for koinonosis. And a third fruitful area of research, could be to see how this approach could lay the groundwork for healthy conflict resolution between partners.

  52. 52 Or in the alternative spelling, Makhuwa-Meetto.
Facebook
Twitter
Envelope
Rss