Category: md-6-2

Scott A. Bessenecker. Overturning Tables: Freeing Missions from the Christian-Industrial Complex. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014. 201 pp. Paperback. $16.00.

In his challenging book Overturning Tables: Freeing Missions from the Christian-Industrial Complex, Scott A. Bessenecker confronts what he sees as the “corporate, culturally white, individualist paradigm” from which the modern missionary movement operates (185). He desires to see a new day in missions, creating different attitudes and approaches, which include those traditionally marginalized by what he calls the “Christian-Industrial Complex.” The author is the associate director of missions for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Therefore, he is not standing on the outside of the system offering disconnected criticism but rather he speaks out of his own ministry’s struggle in “deconstructing the industrial complex and reconstructing the ancient, lighter form of church and mission” (185). Bessenecker provides historical context for modern missions by showing the corporate, market-driven environment in which it was birthed. He is bold in critiquing the present situation while providing biblical teaching and examples from those who are seeking to live out alternative approaches.

Bessenecker sees Adoniram Judson’s story as the birth of the Christian-Industrial Complex’s influence in missions. Judson is often presented as the first American missionary to serve overseas, first arriving in India in 1812 and later ministering in Burma. Judson, along with three other “boys,” sought counsel from clergy and Christian business leaders of the day. Having been influenced by the developing colonialism and capitalism around them, the Christian leaders formed the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) to finance and oversee the new mission. He contrasts this approach with a relatively unknown earlier missionary, George Leile. George, a former slave, was given his freedom before the beginning of the Revolutionary War and began to preach to the slaves in South Carolina and Georgia. George and his wife, Hannah, were called to the mission field of Jamaica. In order to pay for his family’s passage to Jamaica, Leile indentured himself to a wealthy landowner. With this sacrifice, Leile began a long ministry as the first American missionary to a foreign land. He was self-educated and self-supporting. He served for all of his life as a bi-vocational missionary, supporting himself, his wife, and four children through any work he could find. Bessenecker points out that Judson and his colleagues were perhaps the first college-educated American missionaries sent out and supported by a mission society. However, he emphasizes that Leile and his family served in the spirit of the early disciples, who were “ordinary and unschooled.” The first three hundred years of Christianity spread across Europe, Asia, and North Africa through the efforts of the marginalized with very little money or structure. This tale of two missions sets the spirit behind the author’s call for a new paradigm for missions today.

Overturning Tables is well researched and written in a style accessible to both missiologists and practitioners. It offers both a description of missions greatly influenced by capitalism and suggested practices to bring about healthy change. This pattern of exposing the problem and offering ideas to promote new approaches is woven through each chapter. The chapter titles provide insight into both the problem and the principles for change. For example, “From Corporation to Locally Owned,” “From Solitary to Solidarity,” “From Mainstream to Margin,” and “From Independent to Interdependent” reveal a description of missions freed from the corporate structure. The author exposes the problem of limiting mission involvement to only the middle and upper classes because of access to financial resources through the corporate system. He illustrates that in his own ministry they seek to foster indigenous expressions of ministry and provide access to poorer or less-connected people. He advocates a move away from a product focus and a patron-client model toward a more holistic, interdependent model. He challenges the assumption that solutions to missions problems must involve a large infusion of cash by encouraging the return to a more biblical model of gathering in both public and private spaces as the church sharing a meal, teaching each other, praying, singing, and addressing the needs of the body of Christ. The book exposes the rise of a Western individualism influenced by capitalism and advocates the practice of interdependence involving both the mainstream and the marginalized on an equal plane of communal leadership. Bessenecker envisions people rooted in the dominant culture walking alongside of, advocating for, and ministering together with those on the fringes of the mission and societal community.

Perhaps the most challenging shift that has to take place as mission liberates itself from a corporate-style capitalist paradigm is determining how to measure success. Overturning Tables exposes the difference between solely measuring numerical growth and recognizing the signs of kingdom health brought about by the reign of Christ. As a consumerist culture began to invade the work of the church, the primary measurements of success became the counting of attendance, baptisms, and contributions. Through a study of biblical texts and the nature of God, Bessenecker concludes that God is not as obsessed with productivity as we are. He offers some ways to measure kingdom health, such as evaluating co-laborers’ growth in spiritual maturity, recognizing times of Sabbath rest, evidence of growing disciples and transformed lives, focusing on long-term growth as opposed to immediate results and accountability in the use of financial, material, and human resources.

Overturning Tables is a prophetic and challenging read yet greatly needed among all those involved in shaping the future of modern missions. Scott Bessenecker gives a gift in the form of a prayerful and prophetic critique of our present mission practices. He attempts to start a discussion by asking his readers to question whether our structures are overly influenced by what works in the capitalistic kingdom of this world but are damaging to the good new of the kingdom of God. He challenges his readers to create fresh structures and new ways of understanding money, people, the church, and missions in the kingdom of God.

Jay Jarboe

VP of Ministry Operations

Missions Resource Network

Bedford, Texas, USA

Partnership is a way of describing the goal of mission, not a strategy for reaching a mode of mission in which collaboration is no longer necessary. This vision of partnership is essentially relational. As an introduction to the multifaceted missiological conversation about partnership, the authors narrate their experience in order to reflect upon the characteristics of the relationships that true partnerships in God’s mission comprise.

One Story about Partnership (Greg)

“Didn’t you say you wanted to work yourself out of a job?”

I had just asked Jeremy, my coauthor presently, if his newly formed mission team would consider joining our existing work in Arequipa, Peru. The two families that had been sent to Arequipa initially were beginning to imagine what our next step might be, and it had suddenly occurred to us that God was providing a path we hadn’t pondered: a second wave of Team Arequipa field workers.1

Jeremy’s question was the response to our invitation that I had been hoping for. We were looking for coworkers who would be sensitive to the concerns about dependency and sustainability that had guided our mission work from the beginning. And since Jeremy, along with a few other prospective teammates, had visited Arequipa as students shortly after our arrival, they had heard us speak passionately about our intentions: to foster Peruvian leadership from day one, to prioritize the sustainability and reproducibility of the church on the basis of exclusively Peruvian resources, and, ultimately, to work ourselves out of a job as quickly as possible.

Yet, at that moment, though I was hoping for the question, I was not quite ready to answer it. Instead of working ourselves out of a job in about ten years, as we had projected, we had begun to imagine a transition at about six years that would move the church’s relationship dynamics toward an even stronger emphasis on partnership than we were able to achieve as “pioneer” missionaries. At the moment Jeremy asked me what had changed, all I knew was that working ourselves out of a job was no longer the goal. In fact, the idea seemed strange. It was the deepening of partnership, not the end of partnership, that would mark the maturation of new Peruvian Christians.

There are good reasons for thinking the way we did at first, not least that we were trained to cultivate indigenous (“four-self”) churches. This ideal involves financially, organizationally, evangelistically, and theologically independent churches—because dependency is its abiding concern. As well it should be. Nonetheless, the Western church’s need for repentance and caution in cross-cultural missions is compatible with a biblical theology of partnership, in which independence is not the end game. We’ll say more about this below; for now, back to the story.

The first few years of work in Arequipa were marked by strategic decisions meant to serve the sustainability and reproducibility of the local church’s life. We imagined the new Christians carrying on faithfully should the foreign missionaries suddenly (or eventually) depart, and we attempted to develop the habits and expectations that would serve that vision. We opted for a simple church lifestyle that would be feasible without the ongoing injection of foreign money and ministry: home or public-space gatherings, inclusive deliberation and decision making, hospitality- and family-oriented evangelism, and active recognition of all the gifts of the body. But the most important decision was not strategic. It was the result of a gift given to us by those who trained us—those who had participated in an anguished, decades-long discussion about the paternalism and ethnocentrism that shaped the attitudes of Western missionaries. That gift was a different starting place, a different disposition, a presuppositional humility rooted in keen self-awareness. In short, we are privileged to be the spiritual children of people who had already repented. The most important thing we did, therefore, was decide to be completely transparent about our dependence on our new brothers and sisters. We decided to be sincere as missionaries who knew that what once was considered strength—money, options, and US Americanness in general—was actually our weakness.

Of course, we were subject to the same cross-cultural difficulties as anyone else. The gift we inherited as young twenty-first-century missionaries was not immunity to our own cultural blindness or even better techniques for dealing with it. It was, rather, a disposition of confession: we were not only aware of and struggling with the implications of implicit US imperialism, economic disparity, and basic ethnocentrism; we also shared these difficulties openly with the Peruvians who heard us speak the gospel. We confessed our concern for the power dynamics that typically exist between Peruvians and North Americans, wealthy and poor, uneducated and educated. We confessed that our initial decisions and preferences as church planters might be detrimental to the church in the long run. And we confessed that we knew no other way to navigate such treacherous waters except by dependence on our Peruvian family.

Cross-cultural encounters engender awkwardness, even for the most adept communicators. Transparency, which is uncomfortable even in one’s own culture, adds a considerable complication. Therefore, openness about our uncertainty and vulnerability made for some disconcerting conversations, to say the least. Calling attention to the social dynamics in the room (and in the city and country) was sometimes like airing a family secret that everyone was trying to forget, as if ignoring it would make it untrue. Altogether, it was a trying way to make disciples and form churches. But it made possible something our strategic decisions could not: sincere spiritual friendships.

The power dynamics and social scripts that dominate our lives are as good as inevitable in most mission contexts, be they cross-cultural or not. These are the realities of our complicated relationships. Although we can grow in perceptiveness and learn to exercise wisdom, there are no strategic switches that, once flipped, free us from such complications. Nonetheless, in the frenzy to find the most effective practices, missionaries can overlook the fact that these issues are about relationships at root. God forbid I be taken to say that we should all just befriend each other. Best practices are the best we know to do, and we should do our best—unquestionably. But it was not a strategic insight that led to our decision to invite more foreign missionaries into the Arequipeño church despite our initial intentions. Sincere relationships changed our minds.

Our dear Peruvian friends, on whom we depended and who depended on us, were not abstractly a church on the way to indigeneity and self-realization. They, and we, were the church in Arequipa—a mixture of gringos and Peruvians, local and global, urban and urbanizing, with different gifts and different stories of God’s grace. We were partners in the kingdom, all of us, and it was no longer possible to imagine that the ideal somewhere beyond our faithful friendships and turbulent shared life was an artificial notion of “the Peruvian church” uncomplicated by the presence of foreign Christians.

So when Jeremy asked why we weren’t trying to work ourselves out of a job any more, what I didn’t have the words to say was that it had turned out the church wasn’t a project deemed to be complete once it was wound up and running on its own; the church was my friends and partners in the kingdom. The invitation was not to come take over “the missionaries’ job” but to become members of the church in Arequipa—spiritual friends with the disciples there.

The Rest of the Story (Jeremy)

About a year later, I arrived in Arequipa with my wife, Katie, for a two-month stay. We had a long list of questions. Answering them meant doing some of our own research. It meant asking the Team Arequipa field workers lots of questions. It also meant talking to the existing church about a future partnership.

The church was meeting as three groups in three different homes at the time, so we met with each group over the course of three Sundays. My question on behalf of the new families thinking about moving to Arequipa was simple: Do you want us to come? With one followup question: If you invite us to Arequipa, may we partner with you? I explained that we had been invited to consider moving to Arequipa by the missionaries, but that in the long-term we would be working with the Peruvian church. It would start with a slow learning phase, adapting to the culture and becoming functional in the language, all the while depending on friendly Peruvians to guide us through this new city. It would mean bearing with us through all the early bumps and missteps as we inched our way to making actual contributions to the work. It was only right to ask the Peruvian church if they wanted this.

They said yes.

Our transition began in 2014. Four new families moved to Arequipa over the course of the year. In early 2015, the original two missionary families moved away. As my wife and I approach our one-year mark in Arequipa, it strikes me just how dependent we’ve been on the Peruvian church for our entire learning phase.

Our relationship dynamics with the church are different from those of the original missionary families, because we came in as learners not only in terms of language and culture, but also in terms of church. The Peruvian church members are the experts when it comes to the Spanish language and Peruvian culture, and they are the experts when it comes to the life and mission of the Arequipeño church. We have the advanced theology degrees, and our sending churches designate us as “missionaries.” The Peruvian church, however, has a years-long head start on what it means to be a Christian community in Peru’s second-largest city. Despite the intentions and great effort of Team Arequipa’s first field workers, this is not a dynamic that they could have experienced. The power dynamics inevitably leaned in the missionaries’ favor. After six years, they had begun to experience interdependence and partnership, with unavoidable limitations. Their departure and our arrival set the stage for a deepening and maturing partnership—one we got to start experiencing during year one.

It strikes me just how natural the move toward interdependence has been. While some inevitable power dynamics still exist, our dependence on the Peruvian Christians up to this point is undeniable. As we build relationships with the local church, we are recognizing one another’s giftedness and reflecting on mission in light of who is a part of the church. We shared in vision-casting as a church. We wrote a mission statement together. Now we are partners, dependent on one another to live out our piece in the story of God’s mission in Arequipa. This is partnership. And we are just getting started.

Partnership in our story means being a member of the church in Arequipa and sharing a mission. We are experiencing partnership within our first year on the mission field, with plenty of years left in our commitment to see how it plays out. That’s the gift this transition has given us. There are and will be growing pains. What we’re experiencing on a small scale with just a few Peruvian church leaders will require patience and perseverance as the church grows. Relationships are beautiful and messy. This beautiful messiness is at the heart of God’s mission, and we look forward to sharing in it as interdependent US American and Peruvian Christians for years to come.

An Emerging Vision of Partnership

At times partnership seems like a way of discussing a cluster of issues in missions including sustainability and dependency, colonialism and globalization, long-term and short-term strategies, contextualization and indigeneity, and the professionalization of ministry. Each of these issues merits our undivided attention in its turn, but does integrating them as partnership contribute something more to our understanding? Reflecting upon the implications of our limited experience as Millennial missionaries, our essential observation is this: partnership is about relationships, so the character of our relationships in mission is what matters. Partnership is a relational category that forces the church to place each of its constituent conversations in the context of real relationships. We would like to suggest five relational characteristics that describe an emerging vision of partnership: such relationships are missional, organic, sincere, psychologically interdependent, and enduring.

Missional

God’s mission is the foundation of Christian theology. Churches build on this solid ground when they envision partnership as the intersection of the universal church’s participation in God’s mission and a trinitarian understanding of relationship. The sending of the Son and the Spirit that extends to the sending of the church constitutes our basic understanding of participation in mission. Concomitantly, the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit into which the whole church is drawn by the reconciling love of God for the world constitutes our basic understanding of collaboration in mission. Two major conclusions about partnership emerge from the intersection of participation and collaboration.

First, all Christians are equal participants in mission. This is the essential truth of partnership. The mission being God’s, no participant claims ownership, and all participants stand on level ground. Furthermore, all participants are gifted by the same Spirit. Charles Van Engen states it beautifully:

In mission we are all co-workers—co-workers with God and co-workers with one another—on a global scale. Think of what this perspective could do to change church and mission relationships between older churches and newer missions in areas like Latin America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Africa, the Pacific—and places like Los Angeles, where I live. Regardless of how long our churches may have been present in the land, if we truly saw one another as mutually gifted co-workers in God’s mission, our perceptions of each other and our partnership relationship with one another could be transformed.2

Second, all collaboration in mission—the purposes for which God sends the church—is partnership. Long-distance, intercongregational (or interinstitutional) relationships are usually in view in the missiological conversation about partnership. The relationship of long-term missionaries with the church members they disciple (as in our narrative) is rarely construed as partnership—much less the relationship of one church with another or one disciple with another in the same local context. Our difficulty seeing foreign missionaries as partners with national disciples is a vestige of paternalism, both a symptom and a continuing cause. But our difficulty recognizing partnerships as partnerships within a single, monocultural context exposes the theological mistake at the heart of the whole discussion: we do not see these relationships as partnerships, because partnership is a missiological concept, and we fundamentally do not understand these relationships as collaboration in mission.

Our narrative in the present article highlights the extent to which partnership in our experience has been about our collective gifts shared humbly in local mission, despite the cross-cultural complexities of our relationships. In this situation, we also mediate another type of partnership—that of our sending churches with local Peruvian churches.3 These two partnerships are practically very different, and it is reasonable to ask if the same sorts of relationships are in view. In turn, this question implies an even sharper one: do local, monocultural partnerships really belong in the same discussion with international partnerships? To hint at the underlying apprehension, we can put it like this: If everything is partnership, maybe nothing is partnership.

For those who deny the missional nature of the church, this apprehension must linger. But for those who affirm both that all Christians are equal participants in mission and, consequently, that all collaboration in mission is partnership in the missiological sense of the word, our narrative accentuates two implications. One, insofar as cross-cultural missionaries identify with their host culture, they become partners with disciples in their mission context by humbly sharing gifts in the same way that disciples in a common “home” context become partners by humbly sharing gifts as collaborators in mission. In other words, the ways that foreign missionaries deal with paternalism and relational complexity in cross-cultural situations turn out to be the same ways that Western churches must deal with the failure to see themselves as God’s missional people: by reimagining all of their relationships as fully mutual collaboration in mission and transforming them through practices of self-awareness, vulnerability, sincerity, submission, confession, repentance, and forgiveness. Two, insofar as partnership rightly entails the kinds of relationships that long-term, cross-cultural missionaries have the opportunity to form, the types of partnerships that are unable to foster such relationships deserve serious scrutiny. In other words, affirming that the same sorts of relationships should be in view across the spectrum of partnerships, the church must ask whether a given partnership qualifies as collaboration in mission according to its theological sense—and if not, whether it can be transformed or must be dissolved.

A lesser implication also deserves mention: partnership is not best limited to a discussion of financial arrangements. Money, to be sure, complicates relationships, especially cross-cultural ones formed in the aftermath of colonialism. Yet, the church’s theological imagination does not begin with money and resources. We need to relocate the important conversation about money in missions within a robust missional theology of partnership. Only then can the priority of God’s purposes guide our financial decisions.

Organic

Relationships do not develop simply because a mission strategy document says a missionary should build relationships or because two churches structure an agreement carefully in a memorandum of understanding. These sorts of structures can serve partnerships. Indeed, they have been the substance of many. Formal arrangements can, however, only imitate the kind of relationship that God’s life reveals and inspires; they are artificial. Relational partnerships are characterized by a process of growth; they are organic.

Relationships can mature, but like all organic life, they need time to develop. An artificial partnership, by contrast, attempts to put into place mechanisms that will ensure it starts and runs smoothly. The mechanistic metaphor is not inherently bad, of course, but it exposes the expectation that partnership will function as a whole (perhaps requiring adjustments) rather than maturing and eventually bearing fruit.

Furthermore, for partnerships to develop organically, partners must set aside their predetermined agendas so that each others’ input can set the course of the relationship. An organic relationship does not simply conform to preconditions, even theoretically sound ones. It is like the legend of the wise university architect who waited for students to wear paths in the grass in order to pave the sidewalks along those naturally occurring routes. It does little good to plot out the sidewalks in advance, even if they would be more linear, more logical, more cost-effective, or more timely. Often partners in mission attempt to plot the way forward without walking together for a time in order to discover the path. The journey along that preconceived pavement ends up being an exercise in insincerity. It is not the way the partnership would have gone had it been allowed to find its way organically.

Taking interdependence as one coordinate for organic partnerships and sincerity as another, we can depict the degree to which a partnership is organic as a correlate of the two:

Figure 1

This invites a fuller understanding of what sincerity and interdependence entail in a missions partnership.

Sincere

The practice of identification, rooted in an incarnational theology of ministry and an increased anthropological acuity, remains one of the greatest gains of twentieth-century missiology. The burden of acculturation rests upon those who are sent, whose purpose is to relate meaningfully. Communication is one dimension of this purpose, but it is too limited to speak only of cross-cultural communication. While the observation that “everything that people do communicates”4 is comprehensive enough to get us to relationships through the back door, it is better to reorient the idea: relationships depend on good communication. Identification serves a relational end. The limits of identification, then, also have to do with our cross-cultural relationships—namely, their sincerity.5

William Reyburn wrote a classic essay entitled “Identification in the Missionary Task,” in which he explores the limits of identification.6 Reyburn does not see these limits as cause for despair, of course, but as part of an apologetic for closing the relational gap as much as possible: “The basis of missionary identification is not to make the ‘native’ feel more at home around a foreigner nor to ease the materialistic conscience of the missionary but to create a communication and a communion.”7 This communion—koinōnia in New Testament terms—is the relationship of reconciliation that we seek. An important question remains, however: If identification serves the relationship, doesn’t sincerity about the limits of identification characterize the authentic relationship rather than signaling its inability to overcome some sort of obstacle? We do not approach mutuality by dissolving otherness but by embracing it.

Partnership, then, should be characterized by the identification that cultivates communication, but that communication ultimately serves the relationship by virtue of its forthrightness and transparency. Sincere partners do not attempt to communicate an image of themselves that hides their weakness (or their strength). It is a basic relational failure to feign invulnerability:

When missionaries don’t allow others to help them, they deny those others their dignity. In refusing to admit that they hurt and need help and support, missionaries effectively deny those of the host culture the chance to see themselves as people who have something to offer the missionaries. Relationships developed with this weighing them down will be one-dimensional because the missionary only gives and the indigenous people only receive.8

Beyond this essential mutuality, it is especially important for Western Christians not to downplay the dynamics their cultural identity entails. They carry (whether they wish to or not) a latent imperialism and a great deal of privilege. Their confession and dependence on Majority World partners’ advice about how to deal with these complications not only affirms the partners’ dignity but creates a relationship that can deal with its complications openly and directly (in culturally appropriate ways). Where this sort of authenticity exists, a space opens for “sincere love” (1 Pet 1:22; philadelphian anupokriton) to do its work.

Interdependent

The view of foreign missionary presence that looks forward to the exit and absence of foreign resources, be they human or financial, often seems like a gradual (less abrupt), local version of the infamous “moratorium on missions” advocated in the late twentieth century.9 Robert Reese has recently shed light on the intention of the call for the moratorium. It was not, contrary to popular belief, a call for the end of Western participation on global missions. The author of the call for the moratorium, John Gatu,

recognized that independence was the way to true interdependence. Gatu saw the moratorium as allowing space for African leaders to take the reins of leadership without oversight. This was not, as some feared, an escape into isolationism, but a means of creating true interdependence.10

The Western claims of interdependence at the time were deeply problematic, and Gatu believed a period of independence (free of “partnership”) was necessary for African churches to achieve the ultimate goal of interdependence with Western churches, a goal he shared with many who reacted against his proposal.11 This is a helpful clarification, but the question remains whether this sort of “independence” is a necessary precursor to authentic partnership.

Various streams of developmental psychology have theorized a three-stage progression in human relationships: dependence, independence, and interdependence. If cognitive and psychosocial models of relationship are an apt analogy for partnership in mission (as the language of interdependence in missiological discourse suggests), then we should understand the progression through independence to interdependence on those models’ terms. The bottom line of a sprawling interdisciplinary conversation is this: dependence, independence, and interdependence are a matter of self-construal (a view of the self in relation to others).12 Independence is not a matter of breaking free from the dependent relationship in order to exist apart from it but of a changing perception of the continuing relationship that results in new attitudes and behaviors. Because partnerships are human relationships, it is right to understand independence as a prerequisite for interdependence, but it is wrong to suggest that independence consists of the temporary dissolution of the relationship.13

One particular insight from these psychological understandings of relationship is vitally important. The self-construal that leads to a developmental transition is not one-sided. Both parties must see the relationship differently, and it is especially the responsibility of the non-dependent party to perceive the dependent party’s emerging independence. Likewise, it requires leadership in an independent relationship to initiate a transition to interdependence.14 The implication for missions partnerships is that the Western church’s failure has not been its presence but its inability to construe itself differently in the relationship, as other than the provider of otherwise nonexistent abilities and resources.15 A missional theology of partnership, in which all God’s people are mutual partners, can heal this relational disease:

Paul’s concept of the gifts of the Spirit calls us to encourage an environment of mutuality and complementarity among the members. This involves a climate in which all members of the body together may participate in God’s mission of world evangelization. The concept of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, looked at globally, moves us toward wanting to foster healthy forms of interdependence, avoiding the creation of unhealthy dependencies. As David Bosch writes,

The solution, I believe, can only be found when the churches in the West and those in the Third World have come to the realization that each of them has at least as much to receive from the other as it has to give. This is where the crux of the matter lies. . . . We know that in ordinary human situations, genuine adult relationships can only develop where both sides give and receive.16

Understandably, when Western churches fail to perceive themselves and their Majority World partners as independent, much less truly mutual, the reaction will be a call for the end of the relationship. This is a psychologically normal reaction in a developmentally stunted relationship. Furthermore, when this happens, it is unfair for Western churches to claim that all they want is interdependence and to criticize the reaction as isolationist. The call for a moratorium (in the broad sense or in the local strategic sense) is a response to the experience of an entrenched relationship. To borrow biblical language for one specific relationship, it is akin to divorce as a response to hardness of heart, which is an essential unwillingness to change (Mark 10:5).

Nonetheless, although the reaction is understandable, it will not do to redefine independence in these terms or to imagine that the temporary dissolution of missions partnerships is a step toward truly interdependent partnerships. That is not the way healthy relationships develop. Independence is a matter of mutual psychological development rather than literal isolation, and this process is what gives meaning to the relational descriptor “increasing interdependence.” The church should therefore capture a vision of partnerships as characteristically developing toward interdependence and seek to initiate the mutual changes in self-construal that will lead through independence to interdependence. Only then will partnerships bear the fruit of sharing all our gifts one with another for the sake of God’s mission.

Enduring

The final characteristic of our emerging vision of partnership is its enduring nature. Churches have too often treated partnership as merely a means to an end, such as planting churches or overcoming dependency. Indeed, some find it important to emphasize that “partnership per se is not the point.”17 And perhaps the missional characteristic of our vision aligns with this idea. Yet, even to say partnership is a means to God’s ends does not quite communicate the most wonderful thing about it.

Partnership is the reconciliation of God’s image bearers and, therefore, is itself the end. God’s purposes are not abstract tasks to be completed but a state of reconciliation with God and one another as participants in enduring purposes. To speak of partnership in mission, then, is to envision the reconciled body of Christ fully engaged in mission. This is what God is ultimately after—his reconciled image bearers carrying out together the work for which they were made. Partnership is eschatological. As such, it invites our present participation in a future reality. At present, it is a foretaste, not the consummation we await. We fitfully struggle for sincerity and slowly grow in maturity. But we do not give up hope, because our partnerships are born of God’s mission and in turn herald God’s enduring promise of renewed relationships.

From 2008 to 2015, Greg McKinzie served in Arequipa, Peru, as a partner in holistic evangelism with Team Arequipa (http://teamarequipa.net) and The Christian Urban Development Association (http://cudaperu.org). Jeremy Daggett joined the work in 2014. Greg and Jeremy are both graduates (MDiv) of Harding School of Theology, editors of Missio Dei, and fanatics about amazing Peruvian coffee (http://drinkluminous.com). Jeremy continues to collaborate in Arequipa, and Greg is a PhD student at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Bibliography

Cross, Susan E., Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris. “The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, no. 4 (April 2000): 791–808.

Drath, Wilfred H., Charles J. Palus, and John B. McGuire. “Developing Interdependent Leadership.” In The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development, 3rd ed., edited by Ellen Van Velsor, Cynthia D. McCauley, and Marian N. Ruderman, 421–27. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Gaines, Stanley O., Jr., and Deletha P. Hardin. “Interdependence Revisited: Perspectives from Cultural Psychology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships, edited by Jeffry A. Simpson and Lorne Campbell, 553–72. Oxford Library of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Greenfield, Patricia M., Heidi Keller, Andrew Fuligni, and Ashley Maynard. “Cultural Pathways through Universal Development.” Annual Review of Psychology 54 (2003): 461–90.

Guignon, Charles. On Being Authentic. Thinking in Action. London: Routledge, 2004.

Hodgins, Holley S., Richard Koestner, and Neil Duncan. “On the Compatibility of Autonomy and Relatedness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, no. 3 (March 1996): 227–37.

Johnson, Jean. We Are not the Hero: A Missionary’s Guide to Sharing Christ, not a Culture of Dependency. Sisters, OR: Deep River Books, 2012.

Komives, Susan R., Felicia C. Mainella, Susan D. Longerbeam, Laura Osteen, and Julie E. Owen. “A Leadership Identity Development Model: Applications from a Grounded Theory.” Journal of College Student Development 47, no. 4 (July–August 2006): 401–18, http://stophazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LID-Model.pdf.

Lindholm, Charles. Culture and Authenticity. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

McKinzie, Greg. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Partnership.” Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis 6, no. 2 (August 2015): 5–10.

Moreau, A. Scott, Gary R. Corwin, and Gary B. McGee. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Encountering Mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Rev. and updated Kindle ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011.

Pocock, Michael, Gailyn Van Rheenen, Douglas McConnell. The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends. Encountering Mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Reese, Robert. “John Gatu and the Moratorium on Missionaries.” Missiology: An International Review 42, no. 3 (July 2014): 245–56.

Reyburn, William D. “Identification in the Missionary Task.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, 3rd ed., edited by Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, 449–55. Pasadena: CA: William Carey Library, 1999.

Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Van Engen, Charles. “Toward a Theology of Mission Partnerships.” Missiology: An International Review 29, no. 1 (January 2001): 11–44.

In light of decades of experience in African missions, the author examines dependency in international partnerships. After briefly considering some examples and explanations of this problem, the article concludes with six solutions.

The Problem: Dependency

Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19, “go and make disciples of all nations,” are imperative. What is the best way to carry out this evangelistic command? Should more Americans be sent out who have been trained and encouraged for such work? Should missionaries partner to train local evangelists who could evangelize? Or should money only be sent to national workers in foreign countries? Is there a problem with American churches or individuals supporting national preachers and works in other countries?

What is best for the kingdom of Christ should be at the heart of all that we do in missions. A true partnership of foreign and national brothers is essential if we are to take the gospel into all the world. We don’t do it for them, we do it with them. Sending churches, missionaries, or individual Christians with honest and good hearts must not bypass national Christians or churches by doing for them what they should be doing for themselves, including making decisions unilaterally, building a church house, or paying a local preacher. The work may appear to move more slowly, but in the long run it will have been built on a much surer foundation that will endure long after missionaries have gone. Christians of all nations must share equal responsibility for kingdom growth.

Gailyn Van Rheenen, veteran missionary to Kenya, former professor of missions at Abilene Christian University, author of Missions: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies, and founder of Mission Alive, lists four models of US/foreign use of finances in missions:1

1. In the “American Support Model,” US Christians and churches support and oversee national preachers. All that is required is to write a check and perhaps visit sometime. Because of language and cultural barriers, American Christians are not able to discern the true church situation in a foreign culture. Most of the abuses of finances fall under this model.

2. The “Indigenous Model” occurs when a US church supports American missionaries to plant churches, mature young Christians, and equip leaders who are supported by their own churches and resources. Sometimes nationals view this model as the missionary being stingy.

3. Under the “Partnership Model,” a mature American church networks with a mature national church to mutually oversee and support local missionaries establishing new churches. A fault of this model is that the American church can become paternalistic, by making most of the decisions for the national church because of the great separation of the two churches in maturity, level of wealth, and geography.

4. In the “Indigenous Partnership Model,” an American church supports American missionaries to plant churches and nurture growth. They then partner with maturing national leadership to develop structures of continuity that include the ability of churches to select local elders, develop evangelistic teams, train lay evangelists, and so on.

In order to accomplish Christ’s Great Commission there must be a partnership between foreigners and nationals. But what kind of partnership can sustain growth? Luis Bush defines partnership as “an association of two or more Christian autonomous bodies who have formed a trusting relationship, and fulfill agreed-upon expectations by sharing complementary strengths and resources, to reach their mutual goal.”2 Partnership is two sided.

Steve Saint, missionary, businessman, and founder of I-TEC (Indigenous People’s Technology and Education Center) says:

When, in the name of Christ’s commission, we do for indigenous believers what they can and should do for themselves, we undermine the very church that God has sent us to plant. It is understandable that we make mistakes, but it is inexcusable that the mistake of creating dependency has become the rule and not the exception.3

He distinguishes between dependency and interdependency. Dependency is bred by a donor contributing all planning, financing, and fulfillment of a project. Interdependency occurs when both parties contribute time, resources, and work responsibilities to accomplish a stated project.

Using the New Testament as our guide, we see that Paul never stayed long with a new church. He did not financially support them. Rather he encouraged indigeneity by correspondence, prayer, and by occasional visits. He helped them choose local leaders, gave them advice, answered questions, and sometimes rebuked them for error. When Jesus sent out the 12 and the 70, he directed that they not take any support but be totally under the care of those they were teaching. His thesis was that the laborer is worthy of support by those he ministers to (Matt 10:9–13; Luke 10:4–9).

Decades ago, J. C. Choate gave unheeded advice about the dangers of perpetuating dependency:

Hiring local preachers destroys the initiative of the local members. They will sit back and allow the missionary to tell them what to do and not to do, for after all he is responsible for all of the financial support for the work. Then why should the congregation feel any responsibility in giving since all of their needs are already cared for? People are human enough in any part of the world to let the other fellow support them if he will do it.4

Dale Meade, who spent 23 years in Colombia, South America, maintains that the paying of national evangelists by American churches deprives the local church of its responsibility for proper oversight of its paid employees, creating “crippling dependency.” The evangelist does not answer to the local church leadership but rather to those who support him from outside. His allegiance and teaching will align itself with those who pay his salary. Meade concludes:

As a general rule, paying of national workers is a dangerous and a destructive policy. We should not be paying them to do what the local church can and should be doing on its own. . . . Let us not be guilty of destroying the future of the Lord’s work by trying to buy our way to the quick or cheap success.5

Choate further warned that careless financial support of foreign evangelists could actually cause harm:

Why is it that we hardly have a self-supporting church anywhere in the world outside of the United States? . . . Not only have we made a sad mistake in going in and hiring a lot of preachers, but we have made even a greater mistake in encouraging congregations in America to directly support them. How can a congregation in America intelligently support and direct a man that they have never seen . . . in most cases they don’t know the difference in economies of the two countries . . . doing more harm than good for the cause of Christ there.6

Examples of the Problem

In 1973 our team was barely on the ground as new missionaries. We were busy learning culture and language and trying to begin churches. One day a young man came to my house and said that he was presently preaching for another mission group. But, if I would pay him more than they were paying, he would be happy to preach for me.

We attended the annual national meeting in Kisumu, Kenya, in December 1999. This meeting is attended by missionaries and national Christians from all over Kenya. In fairness to the many people who wanted to attend this meeting but would have to travel by public means, I required those riding in my car to pay an equivalent amount for transportation, plus their own course fees. When we arrived, I paid the fees for my wife and me only. The African hosts said, “We thought you would pay for those who came with you too.” They thought that it was the missionary’s responsibility to pay for the transportation and meeting costs of the nationals they work with.

When American churches or missionaries continuously pay for things that the local Christians and churches should be doing for themselves, they cripple those people. This is a serious problem we missionaries often develop because of our desire to see things done immediately without looking further down the road to see how it might adversely affect the national church.

Roger Dickson, founder of the International School of Bible Studies in Capetown, South Africa says:

It is not good to provide any outside financial assistance for conducting a seminar. One purpose of the seminar is to provide the occasion for leadership responsibility. By providing the financial necessities of the seminar, one is actually defeating the purpose for the seminar. . . . I have found that when African brethren understand that there is no source for outside support for a seminar, they do just fine in providing all that is necessary. I think some foreign sources are too quick to offer help, and thus, steal from local brethren the opportunity to do for themselves.7

My wife, Janet, and I teach marriage and family seminars across Africa that are funded by the local churches. We expect the seminar hosts to plan the meeting and supply the food and sleeping arrangements for the guests. We pay our own transportation costs, often pay for our own lodging, and we provide teaching materials for the course participants. By using this form of partnering or interdependence, we successfully train couples throughout Africa.

On Mt. Elgon, where we lived and worked for sixteen years, the churches plan and fund their own meetings by themselves. The fact that the churches have learned that they have the ability and strength to do it without outside help will ensure that they will continue to do it. These people, who are some of the least privileged in Africa, are now funding their own work, which strongly indicates that all African churches are capable of doing the same. We partner with them in building church buildings—they secure the land and put up the structure, and we help roof the building. It would be easier to give in to the pressure to pay for it all. But, by doing everything for them, we would rob them of the chance to grow and become mature. We would steal the Christian’s spiritual self-esteem and initiative by doing the work for them.

Reasons for the Problem

In 1997, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in conjunction with the World Bank, suspended donor aid to Kenya because of misappropriation of funds and other issues. This caused Kenyans to begin asking questions about how they were going to survive. The government began calling in outstanding debts from government officials. It began to cull redundant employees and streamline government agencies and privatize government-owned corporations. This in turn caused the populace to begin to demand transparency and accountability in the government.

Mutuma Mathiu, editor for one of Kenya’s leading newspapers, shed more light on the reasons for this dependency:

Africa on the one hand, sent out an impassioned plea: Please make the debt burden lighter. It was a typical case of Africa confronting the world, cap in hand, begging bowl extended. . . . To some in the West, it is a psycho-ideological “sorry” for the “injustices” committed against the continent in the past. They believe that by extending loans to the continent, they are “helping” Africans. . . . Others view it as an extension of Africa’s dependency, justification for the contempt they feel for a lazy, generally hopeless continent, . . . the continuity of colonialism.8

Dickson reasons that foreign governments colonized Africa and did for the people what they had no knowledge to do for themselves: provide infrastructure of all kinds—roads, medical care, schools, court systems, and government. They launched Africa into the twentieth century with the “crutch of colonial support.” The effect of that was that Africa developed a mentality that they needed to be taken care of. The colonialists left in the 1960s but the mentality of “foreign aid” and “we can’t do it by ourselves” remains even today.9

Dickson believes that this mentality has greatly affected the church:

Churches in many areas believe that if any mission work is done, it is to be done by foreign workers, or at least, supported by foreign funds. Local preachers are continually supported by foreign sources. . . . The local church stopped growing a decade or so ago, but the comfortable arrangement continues. Multiply this many times over and the “foreign aid” mentality is thus perpetuated throughout the continent. Africans still have their hand out for foreign aid.10

In an article in The East African newspaper, entitled “How Religious Leaders Exploit Social Tensions,” John Githongo reported that in 2000 there were more than 600 registered denominations in Kenya and several hundred others which are not registered. This mushrooming of the number of church groups often has monetary foundations. Githongo said that “today even Kenyans who are not that cynical admit that many of the new sects and cults are actually vehicles for greedy evangelists to enrich themselves. Indeed religion in Kenya is big business.”11

But there seems to be a new wind blowing among many African Christians who feel that it is time they carry the baton of evangelism to their own continent. They can clearly see the problem of complete foreign financing of their own works. They want to provide most of the support for their own efforts, and they truly must if they are to succeed in evangelizing Africa. They are waking up to the need to teach their own churches at home about their responsibility to financially support their own work and to obey the Great Commission. The oldest churches of Christ in Kenya are now fifty years old. There are many such churches throughout the continent. Many of them are now shouldering their own loads.

In April 1992 Sunday Ekanem from Nigeria addressed 200 participants from 15 African nations at the first Africans Claiming Africa conference in Kenya. The theme was, “We can do it financially.” In his speech he said:

We Africans can do the work of Christ; that we can convert those on this continent and finance it on our own. . . . It is estimated that about 2000 missionaries have been sent out by the African indigenous churches to Africa and Europe. Churches who start in Africa, and Africans support those missionaries. . . . Friends, giving is a test of love . . . we need to demonstrate that love to the lost, to the orphans, and to the widows. We need to sacrifice to maintain them. Therefore, we could do it friends. . . . Let us not deceive ourselves. We are rich. We can support the gospel so that our people can be saved.12

In the same conference, Washington Mhlanga from Zimbabwe stated:

I really believe that we have to do it financially. We have no option but to do it ourselves. . . . Brethren we need to recognize that we have a problem in Africa. . . . We can recognize the problem, resolve to do something about it, but if we are not committed to the cause nothing will be accomplished. I may go so far as to say that if we are not prepared now to change the title of this session from, “We can do it financially” to “We have to do it financially,” we might as well pack our bags and go home because brethren, we don’t have a choice.13

On Mt. Elgon, Kenya, where we lived, we partnered with the local community to build a primary school. In 2000 this school had classes for kindergarten through the seventh grade and had an enrollment of seven hundred fifty students. About two hundred parents were represented. That year all these parents combined paid more than $4,162 in building fees, $4,900 in general fees, plus $530 in lunch fees. Each year the school conducted a large fund raiser in which money was donated from the parents, the community, and invited special guests. Because the Church of Christ is the sponsor of the school, we also contributed to this fund drive and solicited funds from friends and churches in the US. In addition, Janet served as the unpaid principal, and both she and I served on the school committee.

This type of partnering with the local church and community helped them build a strong indigenous church that will be capable of carrying out its full responsibility by itself. It may not be the easiest or quickest method of growing a church, but we are convinced that it is the most lasting and durable.

Some Solutions to the Problem

I offer the following thoughts for US churches and missionaries concerning partnering with foreign national churches:

1. Never make a hasty decision to support a foreign mission effort. Give the decision prayerful consideration. Do a thorough background check on the individual who is requesting the financial assistance.

2. Insist on contacting the overseers responsible for the individual requesting funds. Talk to them personally to know their feelings about the individual and the requests he is making. Ascertain their goals and visions for the work that is being undertaken.

3. Make sure that all US funds be sent through the overseeing body. This may be an eldership, committee, or board. Never give money to an individual. This will help avoid the misuse or the temptation to misuse those funds. It also encourages accountability.

4. Don’t allow your feelings to get in the way of wisdom in these matters. Pouring money into a mission effort may not be the wisest choice for sustained church growth.

5. If you are presently supporting a foreign national preacher or congregation, you should dialogue with those individuals about their roles in evangelism and their obligations to themselves and those they serve. You should begin a phased withdrawal of monetary support, with the full understanding of those being supported, to encourage them to support themselves. Until that withdrawal is complete, some type of accountability system should be put in place through an independent body who can make unbiased reports.

6. Be careful about establishing or perpetuating works that local Christians cannot support on their own or, at least, in a partnership arrangement.

Mission work should always be carried out with the goal of creating a work that will stand on its own. It should be indigenous. Missionaries, their supporters, and other interested churches or Christians should ask the question, “Will what we are putting into this work cause it to be strong and able to stand and continue long after we discontinue our support of it?” If the answer is no, then we had better rethink our approach to missions. If foreign churches are made dependent on missionaries or US monetary support, they are being robbed of their rights and obligations as a church of Christ. Evangelism and church growth is hampered if it is being propped up and sustained by outside sources when it is capable of propagating itself through God’s strength. As we pray about these matters, may God give us the wisdom we need to make the best possible decisions about how and to what extent we get involved in foreign missions.

Fielden Allison has been in Africa since 1972 serving as a missionary and teacher in several countries. He and his wife, Janet, both from Arkansas, have been at Africian Christian College (http://africanchristiancollege.org) since 2009, teaching part time and continuing their traveling Marriage and Family ministry three months out of the year. Fielden has a master’s degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University and teaches Bible and leadership courses at ACC. He also co-directs students in evangelism.

Bibliography

Bush, Luis, and Lorry Lutz. Partnering in Ministry: The Direction of World Evangelism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.

Choate, J. C. Missionary Problems. Winona, MS: J. C. Choate Publications, 1970.

Dickson, Roger. Preaching through Africa: A Journal of a Seminar Safari through Africa. Bellville, South Africa: International School of Biblical Studies, 1998.

Ekanem, Sunday. “We Can Do It Financially.” In Africans Claiming Africa: Claiming the Vision, ed. Sam Shewmaker, 21–24. Queensland: Drumbeat Publications, 1998.

Githongo, John. “How Religious Leaders Exploit Social Tensions.” The East African, March 27–April 2, 2000, 11.

Mathiu, Mutuma. “Why ‘Donors’ Refused to Waive African Debt.” Daily Nation, September 5, 1999.

Meade, Dale. “The Power and Peril of the Paycheck.” Christian Standard, August 25, 1996.

Mhlanga, Washington. “We Can Do It Financially.” In Africans Claiming Africa: Claiming the Vision, ed. Sam Shewmaker, 25–27. Queensland: Drumbeat Publications, 1998.

Saint, Steve. The Great Omission: Fulfilling Christ’s Commission Completely. Seattle: YWAM, 2001.

Van Rheenen, Gailyn. Missions: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies. 2nd ed. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2014.

Some of the articles in this issue of Missio Dei were designed to deal with the vexed issue of partnership in Christian missions. Other submissions were not, yet they seem to be on topic. This is possibly nothing more than happy coincidence, but the fact is that the issue of partnership encompasses many matters. There are few discussions in contemporary missiology that have nothing to do with the practice of partnership. Is this because partnership is a catch-all category, ultimately too nebulous to delimit a precise set of concerns? Or is it the case that partnership is broad enough to provide a framework for integrating disparate questions? It is up to the reader to decide.

The present articles deal with issues including:

• Lessons Western leaders have learned about relating to Majority World partners in mission.
• The importance of cross-cultural partnerships for developing sustainable, reproducible missions endeavors that help rather than hurt.
• The possibility of international collaboration between local elderships.
• The relationship dynamics that partnerships entail.
• The nature of absolute poverty in one context and the local resources that can address it in a way foreign resources cannot.
• The foreign missionary’s self-imposition of economic strictures in order to ensure the use of local resources and change the relationship dynamics with locals.

There is a diverse set of interests and concerns among the authors represented here. Some key themes interweave their work, however. Like a tapestry, these themes together give shape to the question of partnership. The picture that emerges here is one of complex relationships fraught by cultural differences, a heritage of Western paternalism, economic disparity, unrelenting hope and goodwill, repentance and forgiveness, and the need for fearless innovation.

It is not clear, though, which relationships are in view: those of congregations, organizations, individuals, or all of the above in every combination? Indeed, the discussion of partnership at large lacks precision in this regard. At times it seems this is due to a certain insensitivity to the substantial differences between the diverse kinds of relationships involved in global missions. The way that a long-term cross-cultural missionary relates to local partners is radically different than the way short-term mission teams do (here is another of those missiological discussions that partnership encompasses!). Yet, a long-term cross-cultural missionary’s relationship with local partners differs so much more from that of, say, a US church “partnering” financially with a Majority World minister that it should be measured by a different order of magnitude altogether. Add inter-congregational partnerships and the role of parachurch organizations to the mix, and the effect is dizzying.

At other times it seems there is a lack of appreciation for the fundamental sameness of partnerships at home and abroad, as though partnership were a term reserved for international, intercultural entanglements. This is, of course, clearly not the case in highly globalized urban centers (globalization being another of those issues connected with partnership) where partnerships in the neighborhood can be every bit as complicated as those on the international stage. Even so, to limit partnership to such culturally conflicted relationships misses the point of the analogy with other types of collaboration in mission: a theological point about the way we relate to each other in Christ. The implications of local, intracultural partnerships for international, intercultural partnerships, and vice versa, may be more significant than the present limits of the discourse would suggest. At the very least, the analogy of these partnerships calls for more clarity about what type of partnership is in view in any given discussion. To that end, I offer a matrix for locating partnerships in relation to other types.

A Typology of Partnership

Two basic types of relationship are in view when we talk about missions partnerships: local and nonlocal. These are defined in terms of proximity: a scale of distance. Partnerships may be specified as regional, national, international, and so forth, but the point is not to assign an adjective. What matters is the effect distance has on the relationship.1 The bottom line is that distance makes meaningful relationship difficult.

Two more basic variables further delimit partnerships. One is cultural dissimilarity: a scale of difference.2 It goes virtually without saying that cultural differences make collaboration difficult. Nonetheless, it is fair to claim that partners in Christian mission often act as though such differences are superficial or that love and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will inevitably overcome these barriers. We need to recalibrate our expectations, and one way to do so is to clarify the significant differences between types of partnerships in a visual way:

Diagram 1: Distance/Difference Matrix

The scales of distance and difference are not technical measurements. There is nothing to gain by drawing a line at a certain number of kilometers and declaring we have reached low proximity. That would be arbitrary and inconsequential. Likewise, while we might utilize the methods of measuring cultural difference that do indeed exist—and the value of these is not to be underestimated—the diagram does not attempt to represent a definitive definition of similarity or dissimilarity. The diversity of analytical tools and the irreducible complexity of our cultural differences would make that, too, a futile exercise. What is not futile, however, is the evaluation of a partnership in order to appreciate what type of collaboration it is. To recognize that a potential partner is both very distant and very different allows one to form appropriate expectations. This will be a profoundly complicated relationship that will likely entail substantial misunderstanding and practical difficulty. If our approach to such a partnership looks essentially the same as our approach to other types of collaboration, we have likely underestimated the implications of distance and difference.

Most of the partnerships at stake in the current discussion are marked by considerable distance and difference, and even those that fall somewhere else on the matrix are complicated enough to merit the careful consideration of their unique challenges in contrast with other types of partnership. But locating a partnership in this way does not represent the complete picture. A third variable adds another layer of complexity.

The final variable is mediation: a scale of advocacy. Mediation refers to the involvement of an agent who works on behalf of the partnership. As an advocate of the partnership, the ideal mediator is one with the skills to help both parties deal with the complexity of their relationship by facilitating communication and mutual understanding. In nonlocal, intercultural partnerships, this is someone with the ability to be present with each party in lieu of partners’ proximity to each other and to communicate cross-culturally on behalf of each party. Skillful mediation can, therefore, reduce the difficulty of the relationship. This is also the case in other types of partnerships. Even local, intracultural partnerships often lack the skills necessary to communicate well, manage conflict, or carry out the work in which they seek to collaborate. Mediation, then, can add a vital third dimension to an otherwise two-dimensional partnership. Adding this dimension to Diagram 1 looks something like this:

Diagram 2: Distance/Distance/Advocacy Matrix

Mediated partnerships, though they still entail distance and difference, constitute an essentially distinctive type of partnership. They not only entail better-cultivated relationships in most cases but also involve additional relationships with unique dynamics. This model suggests the following eight basic types of missions partnerships.

Two-Dimensional Partnerships

• Local, Intracultural, Unmediated: culturally similar Christians/churches collaborating directly in a city or region. For example, various area congregations funding and supplying volunteers to a local soup kitchen or to an evangelistic endeavor.
• Nonlocal, Intracultural, Unmediated: culturally similar Christians/churches working together directly at significant distance from each other. For example, a US church financially supporting a US international charity.
• Local, Intercultural, Unmediated: culturally different Christians/churches collaborating directly in a city or region. For example, an English-speaking church sharing its facilities with an immigrant church in order to partner in serving the immigrant population of their common neighborhood.
• Nonlocal, Intercultural, Unmediated: culturally different Christians/churches working together directly at significant distance from each other. For example, a US church directly supporting a national minister in another country.

Three-Dimensional Partnerships:

• Local, Intracultural, Mediated: culturally similar Christians/churches collaborating locally in conjunction with a third-party advocate. For example, area churches collaborating in a local church plant under the guidance of an organization that specializes in church planting.
• Nonlocal, Intracultural, Mediated: culturally similar Christians/churches working together at significant distance from each other in conjunction with a third-party advocate. For example, a church relying on an international development consultant in order to evaluate and understand the work of a US international charity.
• Local, Intercultural, Mediated: culturally different Christians/churches collaborating locally in conjunction with a third-party advocate. For example, an English-speaking church collaborating with an immigrant church by supporting and depending on a bicultural minister.
• Nonlocal, Intercultural, Mediated: culturally different Christians/churches working together at significant distance from each other in conjunction with a third-party advocate. For example, a church supporting a cross-cultural missionary in another country.

Any given essay on partnership is unlikely to speak to every type of partnership, even though the tendency of the broader discussion is to generalize about partnership as a whole. Thus, while the typology indicates the diversity of relationships that can exist in missions partnerships, its immediate purpose is to help the reader situate the discussions engaged in this issue of Missio Dei. Of course, plenty of work remains: comparing and contrasting various types of partnership, nuancing best practices for specific applications, and ultimately forming more conscientious partnerships. Our present task, however, is to explore the insights these authors have already offered, remembering that what we talk about when we talk about partnership is complex and worthy of careful consideration.

Soli Deo gloria.

The strength of the church has shifted to the global south following the rapid growth of Christianity outside of the Western world. This reality is challenging mission servants in North America to rethink our role on the global mission stage. This article examines several lessons Western mission leaders have learned by listening, failing, and seeking to be better partners with others in the mission of God. The author suggests that collaborative relationships are the environment through which the gospel will spread in a new global missions landscape.

“I have never heard an American ask that question before.” This statement from a church leader in Southeast Asia began our journey in rethinking how we as American leaders work with our international counterparts. The question posed to this Asian leader was, “What is your kingdom vision for your region of the world and how can we help you with that vision?” His initial response came after a long pause. He responded somewhat out of shock: “You Americans come here with your visions and your strategies and ask us to join you. We are happy to do so, but no one takes the time to ask what are our visions and strategies for our country.” This response from a national leader led the team at Missions Resource Network (MRN) to amazing conversations and a huge shift in approach to our global partnerships. MRN is a mission ministry created in 1998 to assist Churches of Christ to accomplish their mission vision locally and globally. We equip churches and church leaders to make disciples, send and nurture their missionaries, network and partner with others, and vision strategically. In an effort to learn how to work globally, we have listened to national leaders in Singapore, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Rwanda, Russia, and Croatia, among many others. Our learning began by asking the right questions and then doing nothing else but listening.

At a Churches of Christ lectureship, the MRN staff gathered national leaders from various places around the world. We began to explain our desire to listen as they share their visions, victories, and challenges for their churches and their people. One sister, an African ministry leader came to one of our team members, took both of his hands, and said, “Thank you, thank you. I was converted and trained by American missionaries and I will always be indebted to them. But I have never heard an American speak as you speak with a desire to listen and know our dreams for the kingdom in our region.” These experiences with international partners grew and multiplied. It took time to develop enough trust in our relationships for them to be convinced that we truly wanted to listen. It also became a humbling experience to hear not only of the victories in American partnership around the globe but more often about the failures, the arrogance, the control, and the insensitivity the Christian world has experienced from their American friends. Of course, the great majority of US mission workers have very good motivations and intentions. We mean well, but a lack of cultural sensitivity has frequently been evident in our foreign mission efforts. Don’t hear these international leaders as saying that they do not appreciate kingdom partnership with the West, nor hear them saying that they do not want the US churches to continue joining the world in our global mission. Instead the American church needs to hear that our challenge is to learn how to best work with others in a world mission. What are the best practices we need to apply in a new global missions landscape? At MRN we are still listening and learning; however, here are some lessons we are striving to live out in our international relationships.

Lesson 1: Remember We are All Involved in God’s Mission

God has called his people to join him in making disciples of every nation, tribe, language, and people (Matt 28:18–20; Rev 14:6). We are to join God in his mission by planting and watering the seed of the good news and trusting God to provide the growth (1 Cor 3:6–9). God is at work around the globe and not just through the Western church. Global missions does not originate solely from North America. God is on mission, and our role is to join him in his mission. For too long we have asked God to bless what we have planned rather than ask him to involve us in what he is blessing. Dependency upon God through prayer is a mission principle that receives lip service but, in my experience, little obedient attention. Any movement of God is preceded by confession, repentance, and pleading for God’s presence. It has taken me years to recognize that prayer and faith belong in the same conversation. I have been impressed with what we call the Parable of the Persistent Widow in Luke 18:1–8. It is one of the few parables where the purpose of the parable is so clearly stated in the text. Luke records, “Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up” (Luke 18:1).1 The direct relationship between a consistent prayer lifestyle and perseverance is unmistakable. Yet, Jesus concluded this parable with a perplexing question: “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). If the subject was persistent prayer, why bring up the issue of faith? Is the topic prayer or faith? The answer is that faith and prayer are one and the same. If you are praying, you are faith-filled; if you are not praying, you are faithless.

How does prayer to and faith in God relate to our global relationships? We are mission-less without God. We have no reason for existence without God. We have no power, purpose, or mission without God’s leading. This realization helps us to understand our proper place. It is not our mission but God’s. Therefore, we don’t arrive on a mission site with quick-fix strategies dependent upon our skills. We rather arrive with humility and submission in dependent prayer to the God of mission. We first join the leaders in a region in unrelenting faith-filled prayer to the sovereign Lord who leads and empowers his people.

Lesson 2: Listen, Learn, and Build Relationships

We tend to be good at telling, teaching, and giving a lot of information. Of course, there are always significant moments for preaching and teaching. Jesus went about teaching, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing (Matt 9:35). However, when we are joining our brothers and sisters in their land, we first need to listen and learn. Jane Vella in her book Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults describes the steps in the development of a cross-cultural mutual learning process. One basic assumption she makes is that “adult learning is best achieved in dialogue. Dia means between and logos means word. Hence, dia + logue = “the word between us.”2 She also points out that the dialogue is not just between the teacher and student but also between the students themselves.

At MRN we have learned that our role is often the role of a facilitator, a coach, one who is creating the environment for transformational learning to take place. This learning environment is based upon relationships. We are not just developing projects or plans, but we are ministering in relationship with God and his people. Trust becomes the common denominator in these relational connections. Of course, time and ministry together is required to develop trust in any working relationship. Moreover, in some cultures, a relationship of trust is more important than a formal document (e.g., a memorandum of understanding) that spells out roles and expectations. I remember sitting with an African leader feeling a desire to refer to our MOU to make sure we were moving toward accomplishing the stated goals of our partnership. My good brother smiled at me as if to say, “you poor American, so rushed and driven by so much activity.” I cannot remember exactly all of the words spoken after that smile. But what I received was an encouragement not to worry so much about the piece of paper that describes our relationship, but rather focus on the relationship itself. I confess that I have often had to resist the temptation to feel that we are going too slowly in our partnerships and “not accomplishing enough.” My African brothers and sisters have shared their view of the importance of trusting relationships through a proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” The art of listening and maintaining good communication and relational trust becomes vitally important to any international joint venture.

Lesson 3: Respect God’s Work Among National Leaders

One of the greatest blessings that I have received in my experience with our international partners has been to see God’s work through national church leaders. When traveling to listen, learn, and share with churches around the globe, a thought constantly rings in my mind: “I feel like I am walking on holy ground.” God is accomplishing amazing things through his people. I have been with South African leaders who have a vision for planting churches throughout the continent of Africa, in Pakistan, and in India. I have listened to servants in Singapore with a dream of seeing disciples made throughout all of Southeast Asia and beyond. They are willing to give of their resources, their time, and their very lives to see the good news of Jesus shared locally and beyond their borders. I have sat with disciple-makers in Rwanda and been amazed by a powerful forgiving spirit. Their focus on the transformation of broken lives is being blessed by God in the multiplication of hundreds and even thousands of Jesus followers. I work side by side with men in Mexico who are committed to change the culture of absent fathers and spiritually weak men. Good partnership practices demand that we first see where God is at work among these amazing servants of God. Jean Johnson describes the mistakes we make when we begin to implement our dreams and visions rather than respecting God’s work taking place among local leaders:

When Western missionaries use their ethnocentric influence and economic affluence in ministry, they inevitably birth ministries that are carbon copies of their expensive, Western forms of Christianity. This action makes it nearly impossible for local disciples of Christ to implement effective evangelism, discipleship, worship, acts of compassion, leadership training, and church planting by mobilizing their own local resources and cultural expressions.3

By not respecting God’s unique work among our international coworkers, we often impose our methodology upon a different culture, thus creating dependency or transplanting an American church and mission. When we seek first to listen and learn from national leaders, we are amazed at the power of God that is at work among them. As a result we are humbled and better able to discern the role to which we are called in a global mission.

Lesson 4: Adopt a “Learner-Servant-Story teller” Posture

Thomas and Elizabeth Brewster have adapted a well-known article from Donald Larson entitled “The Viable Missionary: Learner, Trader, Storyteller.”4 They encourage a model of ministry that does not operate from a position of privilege or expertise but rather from a ministry model that can be emulated. The learner-servant-storyteller posture is rooted in the teaching and incarnational ministry model of Jesus. Jesus’ early disciples were in fact “learners.” Jesus told these original kingdom learners, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt 28:18–20). For years I correctly quoted what we call the Great Commission, but I lived as if Jesus said, “teaching them everything I have commanded you,” instead of, “teaching them to obey [or observe] everything that I have commanded you.” More information does not necessarily bring about more transformation. Information and teaching are vitally important. Nonetheless, we must become fellow students together with our partners as we listen to the word of God and learn to obey the teachings of Jesus. We must renew our trust in the power of the word of God and the Holy Spirit’s ability to lead others into the truth as they apply the word of God in their lives, culture, and context:

The Learner-Servant-Storyteller posture provides a model of ministry that can easily be multiplied by others. To have a discipleship ministry in postures other than Learner, Servant, and Storyteller is to minister from the platform of a privileged, ascribed status. The model of ministry that is then provided may be perceived as out of the reach of those who are ministered to. They may not view themselves as having the necessary credentials or resources to carry on the ministry, and may therefore feel that the responsibility of making disciples or leading the ministry is something that only the expatriate missionary can do.5

Jesus challenges us to take the posture of a servant by following his example. “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who . . . made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” (Phil 2:5–7). The importance of listening is directly related to being a servant. We must develop a trusting environment where honest conversations can take place about true needs and healthy ways to serve one another. Continuing to follow the example of Jesus leads us to the role of a storyteller. Matthew states, “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable” (Matt 13:34). We are finding that creating an environment of discovery around the word of God with our international brothers and sisters empowers our mutual growth. We often use the Discovery Bible Study process, where together we are listening to the word of God, sharing what we are hearing from the text, and then exploring how we are going to obey Jesus within our specific setting. Discovering together keeps the foreigner from assuming the role of an expert and allows Jesus to be the teacher. As fellow learners of Jesus, we all join together as disciples seeking to obey all that Jesus has commanded.6

Included in this storyteller role is sharing the lessons we have learned from past successes and particularly past failures in global missions. As MRN was invited into a partnership with an Asian church actively involved in missions in their region, one local leader stated one of the reason they wanted a partnership with us. “You [Americans] have made so many mistakes, there is no need for us to make the same ones ourselves.” They want to learn from our mistakes. Missiologist Paul Borthwick suggests that one of our greatest contributions to the world as Western missionaries is the mistakes we have made in missions:

Someone once described an expert as a person who has made every possible mistake and tried to learn from them. In this regard, it is possible that the history of crosscultural mission over the last two hundred years has rendered North American experts. We’ve made (and are still making) the mistake of bringing too much of our Western cultures with us as we have gone out to serve.7

Another aspect of this storytelling role may be sharing how God is at work in other regions of the globe. In our global travels, we are often asked, “What is happening in God’s kingdom in other places around the world? What successes and failures do you see other churches experience? How can we learn from others?” Developing cross-cultural conversations and partnership is one service North Americans in global missions can render.

Lesson 5: Identify Our Best Contribution to the Partnership

So what do Westerners have to offer global partnerships today? With all of the mistakes we have made, surely global church leaders do not want our involvement. Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. The solution to global partnerships is not removing ourselves from the equation but rather engaging in a healthy way. Jean Johnson suggests that to create healthy global partnerships we must take on the posture of serving in “someone else’s shadow.” Living in someone else’s shadow is normally an unhappy thought, yet Johnson has identified working under local leadership as the best role for Westerners in cross-cultural contexts.8 Perhaps we need to renew the spirit of John the Baptizer in his relationship with Jesus: “He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30). Learning to serve in the shadow of another is essential as we identify our best contribution to global partnerships.

One of the most important steps in growing as a healthy disciple and a spiritual leader is increasing our self-awareness. Reggie McNeal argues that one way we develop ourselves as servant leaders is the pursuit of greater self-awareness or self-understanding. Likewise, those who partner in global missions have a responsibility to pursue greater self-awareness, learn greater self-management, and commit to self-development.9 The spiritual exercise of self-awareness can help mission partners ask difficult questions: “Why are we involved in this mission? What is truly motivating us? Is it for our benefit or for the benefit of the kingdom of God? Is what we are bringing to the partnership requested, helpful, and needed?” Unfortunately, one’s involvement in a mission enterprise can be self-serving, in which case false motives drive the agenda rather than healthy kingdom commitments. Global partners must remain constantly aware of the spiritual dynamics that motivate us and determine our actions and role in the mission. Recognizing our strengths and weaknesses as Americans is an important aspect of growing in self-awareness and developing trusting partnerships.

We have already discussed several of our weaknesses; however, one deserves special attention as we seek greater self-awareness. Majority World Christians have the perception that American Christians are unwilling to live with the difficult problems faced in their countries. We want to fix everything and fix it our way. Jean Johnson tells the story of Steve Saint, who was developing a DVD series called Missions Dilemma: Is There a Better Way to Do Missions? Saint interviewed Christian leaders from around the world. He asked, “If there is one piece of advice you could give to North Americans about how to do missions better in your part of the world, what would it be?” Steve’s first interviewee, Oscar Muriu, a leader in Kenya, responded with these words:

You have an amazing capacity to resolve problems. Now, it’s a great thing about Americans: the ability to innovate and to resolve problems. The downside of that is that when you come to our context, you don’t know how to live with our problems. You see our poverty. You see our need. You see the places we’re hurting. And, you have a great compassion to come and solve us, but life can’t be solved that way. Many times well-intentioned Americans will come into our context and they try to fix my life. You can’t fix my life! What I need is a brother who comes and gives me a shoulder to cry on and gives me space to express my pain, but doesn’t try to fix me. When Jesus comes into the world he does not try to fix all the poverty, all the sickness, all the need, the political situation. He allows that to be, but he speaks grace and he speaks salvation and redemption within that context because there is a greater hope than this life itself. Now, this tendency to fix it has become a real issue so that some of the reserve we feel as Africans or as two-third worlders is so many people have come to fix us that O’ Lord, please don’t bring another person to fix us. We have been fixed so many times we are a real mess now. Please allow us to be us. Allow us to find God and to find faith in the reality of our need.10

Our American desire to fix everything often leads us to an assertiveness that unwittingly fosters dependency and exports Western institutions and structures that cannot be maintained by the local people with their own resources. One such example, provided by Neil Cole, challenges us to think about the difference between planting institutional churches and planting the presence of Jesus within a community:

Our mission is to find and develop Christ followers rather than church members. There is a big difference in the two outcomes. The difference is seen in transformed lives that bring change to neighborhoods and nations. Simply gathering a group of people who subscribe to a common set of beliefs is not worthy of Jesus and the sacrifice He made for us. We have planted religious organizations rather than planting the powerful presence of Christ. Often, that organization has a very Western structure, with values not found in the indigenous soil. If we simply plant Jesus in these cultures and help His church emerge indigenously from the soil, then a self-sustaining and reproducing church movement would emerge, not dependent upon the West and not removed from the culture in which it grows.11

Therefore, our best contribution may not be the exportation of Western institutional structures, but rather partnering to see the good news of Jesus planted, watered, and spread through the power of God.

Paul Borthwick, in his insightful book Western Christians in Global Mission, speaks honestly to the North American church as he identifies some of our best contributions to a global mission.12 One our greatest strengths is our experience in leading missions worldwide. Even though we have made many mistakes, the Majority World still sees the West as having the ability to bring various nations, world leaders, and churches together to empower a global mission movement. With this leadership comes our North American optimism and belief that change is possible. Many churches and church leaders are stuck in the past, fighting old battles and disbelieving that any type of positive change is possible. Our “can do” attitude tempered with a humble listening spirit can be a gift to the global church. This optimism leads to another strength which is our generosity and economic wealth. However, it is vital that we realize money alone is not the solution to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Nor is it always the most helpful resource to empower the Majority World church to share the good news among its peoples. We must become aware that this strength, if not used wisely, can create dependency and become our greatest weakness. Missionaries have experienced too many stories of good-hearted Americans who visited the mission field and began to provide financial help to one in need without consulting the national church leaders and ended up hurting rather than helping. Giving God the glory for our strengths and using them wisely while recognizing our weaknesses and submitting them to God, who accomplishes the impossible through his people, is vital to identifying our role in the mission of God in a diverse world.

Considering these lessons, strengths, and weaknesses, MRN has identified three of our best contributions in global mission partnerships:

(1) Sharing Equipping and Training Resources. Americans offer resources for equipping and training, particularly in the area of leader development for a global mission. We have been blessed with theological depth in our training programs, which should be shared and transferred in appropriate ways. The Western world can also provide certain technical skills and expertise in areas such as the medical field, water well drilling, business, and accounting. Borthwick interviewed one Majority World church leader who calls the American church “to help train and mobilize the indigenous church in areas such as governance, church planting, orality ministry, organizational development and discipleship training.”13

I recently had similar learning experience both in Asia and in Africa. We were asked to share team-building processes with leaders on both of these continents. One African leader said that their form of leadership is similar to a pyramid or a “top down” leadership model. He described his impression of an American model of leadership as being more “flat” or allowing leadership to come from a team rather than just one person. As we created an environment for them to experience team-building principles and discover body-life principles from Romans, 1 Corinthians and other biblical texts, together we were able to explore various leadership styles. MRN wants such equipping processes to create an environment where participants can learn from Scripture and the experiences of others who have struggled with similar issues. On this basis, local leaders identify core principles and possible models, which they can contextualize for their unique environments. The training provided must empower our international friends to follow the call of God in ways that engage their world and their people. In Acts Paul’s statement as he said farewell to the Ephesian elders at Miletus reveals such an empowering spirit. He reminded the elders of his service among them with great humility and tears. He taught them publicly and from house to house. However, as he said goodbye for the last time he entrusted them to “God and the word of his grace” knowing that it was God who would build them up and give them an inheritance among those those who are sanctified (Acts 20:32). Providing equipping and training opportunities, which empower and embolden national leaders to trust God and his word, can be one of the best contributions the Western church can make to a global mission movement.

(2) Coaching and Mentoring. Christian coaching is an ongoing conversation that empowers a person or team to live out God’s calling in their life and ministry. Coaching is the process of coming alongside another servant of God, listening well, asking appropriate questions, and journeying together with them as they discover their next step in following Jesus. It is amazing how active listening can truly empower another leader. MRN was asked to do some basic leadership coach training, again in Africa. The training focused on using coaching skills rather than just providing information about coaching. One of the group’s first assignments was to divide up in pairs and take turns just listening to one another for thirty minutes. They were to share what was on their heart regarding struggles, joys, and desires for the future. As the group reassembled there was laughter, smiles, and a joyful mood. We debriefed regarding what they learned and experienced through the listening assignment, and I was amazed to hear what had come out of their conversations. They used descriptive words like energizing, empowering, powerful, comforting and helpful. I realized that I was looking at leaders who are constantly listening to others. However, they usually don’t have anyone outside their context whom they trust to listen well as they struggle through challenges, plans, and action steps. Coaching is described as “pulling out” what God has placed in a servant’s heart in order to empower them to discover options and action steps to help them move forward. Mentoring is often described as “putting into” the life of a servant leader by sharing wisdom, experience, and advice. Coaching and mentoring should not control or create dependency. They are tools that empower another to live a life being transformed into the image of Christ and fulfill their ministry in the kingdom of God. We are finding that our international partners are hungry for coaching and mentoring relationships from those they trust and believe will help them grow to be a disciple who makes other disciples.

(3) Stimulating Partnerships to Expand a Global Vision. Jesus prayed not only for his apostles, but also for those who would believe in him through their message. Jesus prayed for us: “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). Often, though, we fail to utilize resources and manpower for a shared vision in a particular region or area of ministry. In the Western world we have experience and relationships which enable us to draw people together, stimulate vision, empower the development of global strategies, and share past successes and failures. Therefore, one valuable role that North Americans can play on the world mission stage is to serve in the background and bring brothers and sisters together to share resources for kingdom purposes. MRN strives to facilitate conversations between people in similar ministries with common passions in related regions around the world. Americans like to receive credit, so it can be difficult not to be center stage. But we trust that God will be glorified when his people come together for a world mission vision.

Conclusion

As I leave new friends in foreign countries to return home after listening, learning, and serving with them, we often talk about follow-up. What can we do for one another to further the kingdom of God. I have sensed a shared desire in both of us that says, “Let’s keep in touch. We cannot forget one another.” Unfortunately, some American missionaries (both short term and long term) have been characterized by short attention spans, often forgetting about the ones they have served with in foreign lands. Borthwick tells of a translator seeing him off at the airport who said, “Please, don’t forget us.” Reflecting upon that fear, Borthwick shares an important principle from Gary Haugen, the founder of International Justice Mission. Haugen advocates what he calls “compassion permanence”: the ability to stay focused on the specific needs of others and to work until we make a difference:

Compassion permanence is distinguished by two words. Compassion means coming alongside of people in pain, in an effort to serve or empathize or relieve the suffering. Permanence implies duration; we stick with this ministry even after the need is no longer publicized and long after our tearful emotions have worn off.14

Developing healthy reciprocal kingdom relationship across boundaries is not an easy task. We have failed often, as well as enjoyed encouraging successes. Yet, we must not let our few successes and multiple failures hold us back from listening, learning, and engaging our brothers and sisters worldwide. We must be willing to make mistakes as we help and receive help. Compassionate presence demands that we continue to learn and grow together as God uses his people to bring transformation and renewal to a world in search of his reign.

Jay Jarboe is VP of Ministry Operations and Director for Church Equipping at Missions Resource Network (MRN), a global network equipping the body of Christ to steward the mission of God. Before joining MRN, Jay served as the Lead Minister for the Sunset Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas. During his twenty-five-year ministry with the Sunset Church of Christ and Sunset International Bible Institute (SIBI), Jay served as the Director of the Adventures in Missions (AIM) program, an apprentice missionary training program, as the Dean of Missions at SIBI, and as an instructor in the Sunset International Bible Institute. He is married to Sherry, and they have two children, Meagan (26) and Ryan (22). Jay and Sherry were missionaries in Mexico City and now they work with missionaries and churches around the world. Sherry works as the Project Site Coordinator for “Let’s Start Talking,” a ministry that sends out hundreds of Christians around the globe to share their lives and Jesus by reading the Bible with those seeking to improve their English. Jay holds a BA from Texas Tech University, a Masters in Missions and a Masters of Divinity (MDiv) equivalency from Abilene Christian University. His passion is seeking to be transformed into the image of Christ and helping others in that same quest.

Bibliography

Borthwick, Paul. Western Christians in Global Mission: What’s the Role of the North American Church? Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.

Brewster, E. Thomas, and Elizabeth S. Brewster. “Language Learning Is Communication—Is Ministry!” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 6, no. 4 (October 1982): 160–64, http://www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/1982-04/1982-04-160-brewster.pdf.

Cole, Neil. “Organic Church.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, edited by Ralph Winter and Steve Hawthorne, 4th ed., 643–47. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009.

Johnson, Jean. We Are not the Hero: A Missionary’s Guide for Sharing Christ, not a Culture of Dependency. Sisters, Oregon: Deep River Books, 2012.

Larson, Donald N. “The Viable Missionary: Learner, Trader, Story Teller.” Missiology 6, no. 2 (April 1978): 155–163, http://mis.sagepub.com/content/6/2/155.full.pdf.

McNeal, Reggie. A Work of Heart: Understanding How God Shapes Spiritual Leaders. Updated Kindle ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Vella, Jane. Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults. Rev. ed. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Churches of Christ have a rich missions heritage. We have been instrumental in taking the gospel to many places in the world, planting churches, and doing relief work. But why have our planted churches often been ineffective at reproducing themselves? Why has our financial support lingered so long in one place instead of moving on to new locations where Jesus is not known? Could it be that our strategies have been lacking? Could we actually be doing harm to the churches we have planted? It is the author’s intent to introduce the reader to some concepts, principles, and considerations that can make mission efforts more sustainable and reproducible.

Helping Can Hurt?

During the last years of my career in forestry and timberland investments, I spent most of my time investing in eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. I helped my investors purchase thousands of acres of cattle grazing land and convert the pastures into intensively cultivated eucalyptus plantations. In the state of Minas Gerais, we could grow and harvest eighty-two-foot-tall eucalyptus trees in seven years. This kind of growth required intensive silvicultural operations that enabled us to produce a lot of value for the investors while also protecting the environment.

Yet there was not much about these plantations that was native to the region. Eucalyptus grows very well in much of Brazil, but it is native to Australia. The eucalyptus species that we planted had been genetically improved for rapid volume growth. The seedlings were clones so there would be uniformity—each tree looked and grew just like the one next to it. The native vegetation was mowed down and grasses were sprayed with herbicide to kill this competing vegetation. Fertilizers were brought in to augment the soil’s productivity. Pesticides were used to control the native leaf-cutter ants. Everything grew well as long as all these non-native resources and practices were applied. But, if our management were to stop these intensive practices, the results would have been very different, and it would have been impossible to duplicate the level of productivity we achieved.

What does this have to do with Christian missions? Planting churches can be the same. An American church that brings in a lot of outside resources to plant a church on foreign soil can get quick growth for its investment. The American missionary can bring in food to feed the hungry, medical supplies to heal the sick, money and people to build a church building, and preachers to teach the people. Generally people in need will be drawn to these resources. People will be fed, the sick will get well, children will be taught, individuals will be baptized, pews will begin to fill, and the church plant may look like a success. But is this a sustainable church plant? Are the people coming for a relationship with Christ, or are they coming to get their physical needs met? Are lives being transformed from sinful, destructive patterns, or are people dressing up their outside so they can sit in the pews and receive outside physical resources? Will this church plant be able to reproduce itself? Our experience tells us that it will not be sustainable. We teach freedom in Christ but unwittingly we promote psychological and financial bondage to an outside source. What does a sustainable mission look like and how can we fix these unsustainable situations?

What Is A Sustainable Mission?

I define a sustainable mission as an indigenous church that:

• Builds a Christ-following community that is consistent with its culture.
• Develops and supports its own leadership.
• Recognizes and develops its local resources to do the work of ministry.
• Uses its resources to take care of the truly helpless in its fellowship and its community.
• Reaches out and multiplies in other communities using its own resources.

Do you know of any mission churches like this? Is it even possible?

What Is The Issue?—How can helping hurt?

Before we can know how to really help, we need to understand how our helping can hurt. We will look at four issues that have hurt and continue to hinder our mission efforts:

• Man’s Broken Relationships
• Dependency
• God Complexes
• Disconnected Mission Efforts

Broken Relationships

In the beginning (in the garden) God created man with four relationships: with God, himself, others, and the rest of creation (the natural world).2 Before the fall, man was dependent upon God and all these relationships were in balance and in harmony. But man, in his desire to become equal to and independent from God, disobeyed God (sinned), and all these relationships became broken. In man’s effort to become self-sustainable, he became unsustainable. Man immediately experienced the shame of his separation and the consequences of his sin. He began to experience the difficulty of being independent from God—the hard daily requirements of living in a broken world. So in man’s desire to become independent of God, he finds himself becoming dependent on others and on things in unhealthy ways.

To fill the void that man experiences in his broken world, he turns to systems: religious, social, political, and economic.3 These are not evil in and of themselves. Scripture indicates that these systems are created and ordained by God.4 But man creates institutions within these systems and has used these systems in ways that God did not intend. They have become a substitute for the relationships that God created us to have and we expect them to perform social good they are not equipped to accomplish. Jesus’ work of reconciliation is to bring all of these four relationships back into harmony. It is in the church, the community of Christ followers, that God wants us to experience the four relationships in harmony again. We cannot develop resource-sustainable missions without addressing our brokenness in these relationships and embracing the healing that Christ came to bring. The more the church takes care of its responsibility to heal broken relationships, the more effectively the systems can work. Conversely, the more the church abdicates its healing role, the more man seeks to make the systems to fill the gap, but the systems do not have the tools or power to take care of the heart of the problem—the problem of the heart. The systems can provide law and order and take care of symptoms, but the systems cannot heal the cause of broken relationships.

Since the systems are God-created, the institutions that man has created within them are a part of our reality and should not be avoided. In fact, the more the church permeates its community with its healing work, the better these systems can work in providing law and order, developing and providing resources, and addressing some of the symptoms. I believe that as missionaries we should seek to engage these systems and let them work with us and for us where they can. In the area of resource sustainability, the economic principles that are consistent with the kingdom of God can work for us and be tools for supporting our mission efforts. Through resource stewardship and Christian businesses we can help reconcile man to the rest of creation and have an impact on developing more sustainable mission work. It is important that sending churches and missionaries understand these principles and plan and apply mission strategies that are consistent with them.

Dependency?

One typical result of these broken relationships is unhealthy dependency on outside resources. A definition of dependency is: “The unhealthy reliance on foreign resources that accompanies the feeling that churches and institutions are unable to function without outside assistance.”5

“Unhealthy dependency includes a material, psychological, and spiritual component.” These become chains of bondage keeping Christians inside a box that they cannot see out of. “All together, it creates a faulty self-perception that is death to effective indigenous church growth.”6

When individuals and churches become dependent on outside resources rather than discovering their own God-given talents and the resources in their own communities, they remain spiritually weak and immature. In their external dependency, they become irrelevant and ineffective in reaching their communities.

Bob Lupton, in his book Toxic Charity, succinctly outlines the progression of how one-way giving, outside of emergency situations, leads to dependency:

• Give once and you elicit appreciation;
• Give twice and you create anticipation;
• Give three times and you create expectation;
• Give four times and it becomes entitlement;
• Give five times and you establish dependency.7

God Complexes

A God complex is defined as “a subtle and unconscious sense of superiority” in which we believe we have achieved our superior position through our own efforts and have been anointed to decide what is best for those we have come to help.8

If we come to help without an awareness of our own brokenness, we may unintentionally abuse those we seek to help, and we will be blind to their capacity to address their own needs.

Consider the story of George Asimba and JohnKeen. My wife and I met JohnKeen while living in Kisumu, Kenya, in 2012. He was an elementary-age student with an infectious smile, loving eyes, and bright mind. But JohnKeen had a handicap. Besides being small for his age, he had a severe curvature in his spine that made it difficult to be as physically active as the other boys his age. But John more than made up for his handicap with his character. One day, while we were in Kisumu, JohnKeen’s spine suddenly snapped; the pressure on the curvature had become too great. In a moment he was paralyzed from his chest down. We were distraught and wondered how we could help. As soon as it could be arranged we took him to a specialist at a mission hospital nearly a day’s ride away. The specialist confirmed that the damage was irreparable. JohnKeen’s parents refused to believe that their precious son would never walk again. They went to many doctors and to faith healers. Many promised (for the right amount of money) to bring healing to JohnKeen’s broken spine, but the money was not available and the faith healers could not reverse the damage.

I also met George Asimba about this same time. George is an exceptional young man and Christian with a similar background. George’s spine broke from a similar deformity when he was in the seventh grade, and he became paralyzed from the waist down. After some time grieving his situation, he determined to not to give up on life. He realized that God still had a plan for him. So he enrolled in a special school for the handicapped and completed high school with high grades. When I met George he was enrolling for college. We wanted to help JohnKeen and his family through the process of grieving their loss and to begin to think maturely about how to move forward, but we did not know how. So we turned to George. George went with us to visit JohnKeen and his family and gave one of the most beautiful testimonies about his life and about the man born blind from John 9 that I have ever heard. Furthermore, George has continued to follow up with JohnKeen and his family. JohnKeen and his family are moving forward.

Our first reaction to JohnKeen’s situation was to use our American financial resources to solve JohnKeen’s challenges. But we realized that we are not God, that we are broken people too, and that we did not know what was best for him and his family in their culture. By engaging the local people and being careful in our involvement, and patient with God’s provision, both young men have grown in their trust of God and ability to develop their own resources.

Disconnected Mission Efforts

Within the autonomous Churches of Christ there are many amazing, wonderful mission efforts around the globe. We believe in the authority and responsibility of the autonomous church, but we must also believe in the brotherhood of the kingdom of God. Without more communication and more sharing of ideas and resources, the successes of those who are applying sustainable missions principles cannot be broadly replicated. Coordination is a key to stewarding the resources God has given us. Missions Resource Networks (MRN) works to bring individuals, churches, mission organizations, and businesses together to share ideas, successes, and resources. I have been cataloging mission agencies related to Churches of Christ, where they are working, and what they do. MRN has been working to connect agencies like Healing Hands International and Christian Relief Fund to share resources and work strategically to expand the kingdom at overlapping locations.

How Do We Extend God’s Grace?

The book When Helping Hurts has created a lot of discussion and interest about how best to help people. Some have objected to this book on two points:

1. Tell us not what hurts (we are aware of that). Tells us what helps.
2. God’s love is full and unconditional. Are we to “qualify” our love and help for people based upon their resources and ability to use them?

Regarding the first objection, I give some tips later in this article. The second objection is a valid concern. We need to make a distinction between God’s grace through his forgiveness of sins versus his grace (or provisions) for meeting people’s physical needs. God is love. His love and his grace for sins are full and unconditional. We must learn to reflect this kind of grace. A study of Jesus’ acts of helping the needy and helpless around him does not reveal any “qualification” for the healings and provisions of grace he gave. Although Jesus healed many people, relief of people’s physical pain was not the focus of his ministry. It was, rather, to seek and to save the lost, and that must be our focus too.

We are called to be conduits of God’s blessings. But I believe the question is not whether to give but rather what and how best to give. As I study Jesus’ examples of giving, it is clear that when he gave, he gave fully and without qualification. But he did not always give; sometimes he walked away from a village before all were healed in order to preach in another village. And he did not always give what was asked for but rather what was really needed in that situation. Therefore as we serve those in need we must respond thoughtfully. We must not ask for those we serve to qualify for our attention, but we must be discerning, as Jesus was, in order to respond appropriately. Life is messy. Helping people requires time, energy, and relationship. We Westerners like to help, but we like simple solutions, quick fixes, and moving on to the next problem. We like to be the hero. But this is not how Jesus did things. He walked with his disciples. He moved among the people, where they lived. He experienced their hunger and their pain. He moved slowly and intentionally. At his crucifixion, all his work appeared to be a failure. Even those he had poured his life into had deserted him. But he had equipped (developed) them in foundational ways that they had not yet understood. They wanted to sit beside him, on his left and right, on an earthly throne, but he had not given them what they asked for. He had prepared them for a different kingdom that they were about to understand. So also our giving must be with the eternal kingdom in mind and a long-term strategy for its expansion.

Are There Categories of Help?

Not all needs are equal. Different situations often require different types and durations of response. I have found it helpful to categorize help into three types:

Relief is “the urgent and temporary provision of emergency aid to reduce immediate suffering from a natural or man-made crisis.”

Rehabilitation “seeks to restore people and their communities to the positive elements of their precrisis condition. [A key feature is working with the affected population] as they participate in their own recovery.”

Development “is a process of ongoing change that moves all the people involved—both the ‘helpers’ and the ‘helped’—closer to being in right relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation.”9

If I can discern which of these three categories I am dealing with, I can better provide a response that is appropriate and helpful. Relief situations are disasters such as an earthquake, typhoon, tsunami, or severe famine. The need is urgent and immediate or more lives will be lost. The situation is often such that the local resources are either unavailable or insufficient for the crisis. Nevertheless, as much as possible, relief providers should partner with local leadership and local resources.

Rehabilitation is what happens after the crisis of a relief situation has passed. Some relief assistance might be needed, but once the situation has stabilized and people are no longer dying, rebuilding should start. At this point local leadership should begin to take control of their situation, make plans for the rebuilding, and start directing the efforts. They may need partners if they are not experienced in the relevant areas, and they may need some outside physical resources where their own are insufficient, but they are no longer just victims. Relief service is not what was needed in New Orleans a year after Hurricane Katrina. The most helpful form of aid at that point would have been rehabilitation.

The reality is that most needs in the world fall into the third category: development. Much of the needed resources, if not all, are locally or regionally available, but they may not be immediately identifiable or accessible. If they have been identified and accessible, they may need further development to be usable. For example, bodies of water may be available, but knowledge of how to make it potable may not be. Or there may be plenty of water in aquifers in the ground, but villagers may not know it’s there or how to drill a well. There may be leaders in a community, but they have not been asked to participate.

It is common to mistake a chronic issue for a relief situation. Starvation from severe, abnormal famine is a relief issue; chronic hunger is a development issue. Giving relief resources when rehabilitation or development is most needed takes away the dignity and initiative of the local people and inhibits the development of local resources. “There is a time and place for relief—at times of disaster. But relief given at times other than a disaster, creates a disaster.”10 For more information on this subject, see the books listed in the bibliography.

What Are Some Principles/Practices for Helping That Really Help?

1. Appreciate and Acknowledge the Cultural Factors

Culture matters. It is the lens through which we see our world and those that we seek to help. It is also the lens through which they see their world, including our help. Aside from this practical consideration, we also have a biblical basis for appreciating culture. Jesus came, lived, taught, died, and rose in the context of the first-century Jewish culture. Jesus “is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3), but that representation was expressed in a Jewish culture.11 The nature of God and the principles of truth that Jesus taught are true everywhere, but their application is culturally defined. One of the challenges that Paul faced as he moved across Asia Minor and into the Macedonian and Achaean provinces was how to represent Christ’s teachings to a Gentile culture.

Culture has to do with the common beliefs and behaviors of a group of people or a society expressed in its language, customs, and arts. It is born out of the people’s history and worldview. The American experience is vastly different from the rural Tanzanian or Cambodian experience. Should it be a surprise that our cultures are different? And if our cultures are very different, should it surprise us that there will be some difference in the application of the gospel in each of these cultures? If culture is so ingrained, then how can a North American missionary divorce himself or herself from his or her own culture and present the gospel in a way that is understood in another culture and then applied appropriately in that culture? That is a difficult question.

Vincent Donovan, a catholic priest, describes his struggle with that question in his book Christianity Rediscovered.12 From 1955 to 1973, as he lived and taught among the Masai tribes in Tanzania, he observed that the mission practices of the West and of his fellowship were not working. Donovan realized that he had to find a new way to bring the gospel to this illiterate, pagan people group and that the message of the gospel had to be rediscovered and communicated in ways they could understand. Each step of the way he had to evaluate how best to communicate this truth or principle in a way that would be understood in their culture. For example, cattle are the Masai’s greatest possession. Much of their life revolves around taking care of their cattle. Farmers are seen as a lesser people to the Masai. Therefore, the Bible’s message must be interpreted and understood within the context of that culture. This makes understanding the story of the first farmer, Cain, murdering the first cattleman, Able, very difficult for the Masai. In their understanding, “Cain got away with it, just as farmers do today, and always have with the government backing them.”13

Certainly, much more can be said about culture, but it would be impossible to over-emphasize the importance of a proper understanding of cultural issues. Many resources are available for studying cultural matters.14 Workers concerned about specific areas can also find significant help. For example, African Friends and Money Matters, by David Maranz, is a practical book for learning about African culture.15 Missionaries who fail to appreciate and work within the local culture will likely provide harmful help.

2. Focus on Possibilities and Available Resources, not on Needs

When we focus on people’s needs, we focus on their weaknesses. By focusing on what they lack we foster a feeling of helplessness and dependency. But focusing on what people have and what is possible creates hope, opens eyes to resources that have not been seen, and fosters a “building” mindset.

The North Atlanta Church of Christ has been supporting a church in Almaty, Kazakhstan, since 1998. In the beginning, most of the resources came from the US. After two years the decision was made to partner with another US church to send an experienced American missionary. He brought in additional missionaries from Russia (native Russians that he had discipled while living there). While that influx of outside resources could have hindered the church’s development, fortunately these missionaries taught the local church to take responsibility for itself. Although the American missionaries have returned to the US, the church has continued to grow and impact its community. For a time they employed a native Kazak as a minister, whom they paid from their local resources. Now they are developing leadership from within their young adult membership. These men and women are volunteering their time to lead new ministries to meet the needs of people inside and outside the church community.

In 2013 the North Atlanta church began to wonder if the Almaty church was strong and self-sustainable enough to move forward without external financial support. My wife and I went to Almaty and spent ten days with the church and the leadership. During that time I led them through a visioning and goal-setting process. They identified the gifts, talents, and resources of their church and community and also named their dreams for the church over the next three years. Additionally, they developed goals that would lead them toward accomplishing those dreams. Now, on their own, they have been developing the specific application of these goals, and we have partnered with them, when requested, to help them leverage their local resources. North Atlanta has begun discussions about gradually reducing support for their local working fund and saving those funds to assist a future church plant. This again is a process of building mindset, leadership, partnership, and local resources. The process has not been perfect, but there has been a strong culture of partnership from the beginning, and a shift is taking place to lean on more local resources.

3. Develop Resources through Empowering Partnerships

• Work with and develop the local resources.
• Partner with other helpers.

Some take a hard line on this issue of dependency by refusing to bring in any outside resources and requiring that all needs be addressed organically and locally. I do not believe this is reasonable or biblical. We would not treat our own children this way, and thankfully God has not treated us this way. I believe that we start with helping people discover their own resources: their talents and gifts. If we bring in our resources before they have had a chance to discover their own, they have no incentive to discover their own resources, and their resources may look inferior to our Western material abundance. Their resources will be more culturally appropriate and in the long run more powerful and effective.

But we must also recognize, as they will, that there may be limits to the resources possessed by the small family of believers in the beginning of a church plant. God owns everything, and there are always more resources in their community that God would like to make available if we ask for them and learn how to access them. American missionaries must learn how to engage their target communities and must disciple native Christians to do the same. The same is true with host country resources. If the church, in partnership with the local community, begins to have a positive impact on societal issues, the government will begin to take notice. In some cultures, this attention will result in persecution, but often times this community service results in the local community and government joining hands with the work of the church.

Finally, there are the resources of the global Christian community. We are all a part of the same kingdom of God. At MRN, we recommend that the resources of the global Christian community be provided in partnership with local resources and then only as the local resources have been developed or as needed to help develop and empower local resources. We aim to help individuals and churches see outside their box, discover their God-given resources as well as the resources of their communities, and assist them to make the plans and connections necessary to develop them. This progression of resource discovery, development, and deployment is:

• Resources of Native Christians
• Resources of Native Community
• Resources of Native Country
• Resources of Global Christians.

In summary, our goal is to partner with local Christians in discovering local solutions and local resources for local issues.

This year I had the opportunity to visit with Jacob Randiek and the Rabour Church of Christ in Migori County, Kenya. As a young man, Jacob, a native of that region, went away to a preacher training school in the capital of Nairobi. After graduation he spent several years as a missionary in Tanzania. Upon returning home, he asked himself and God what he should do. His conclusion was that he could be a missionary in his home community. So he began to teach friends and neighbors what he knew, and people began to come to Christ. A small church formed. Unmet needs surfaced. So again he asked, “What shall we do and how shall we move forward?” Instead of seeking foreign support from people he did not yet know, he trusted God to provide. One of his first disciples had experience in sugarcane farming, and the area had a good sugarcane market. So together they rented a small plot of land and began to grow a crop. God blessed their efforts, and they used profits to begin to build a small church building. As the church membership grew they realized that there were many orphans in the community who were not getting an education. So, using what they had, they started a small school. Some of the church members adopted orphans and raised them as their own. Pretty soon the community began to notice what they were doing and began to join in. And after some time the local government began to partner as well. They continued on this path of trusting God to provide, using what they had, and involving their community.Now, a number of years later, there are five churches in the area. All of them have some form of church building. There are two primary schools with over two hundred students in attendance. And now the local government is paying for some of their older students to go to the same preacher training school that Jacob attended. Local resources that had not been available, or even recognized, are being developed and applied. Is every need being met? No. Have there been struggles and will there continue to be? For sure. Could they do more and develop more resources with some outside partnerships? I believe so. But the activities and fellowship of the Christians at the Rabour Church of Christ are sustainable, they are reproducing themselves, and they have learned that they can move forward with what God provides.

4. Develop and Implement Kingdom-Centered Plans

In business, any partnership or investment should start with a good plan. Developing resources in another country for kingdom work is no different. The elements of a sound plan, listed below, are essentially the same, but how they are developed and the extent to which they are developed is dependent on the nature of the project, the level of foreign involvement, and the culture of the target country. Typically, plans are developed by Americans and delivered to the local people. This is not sustainable mission planning. The locals who will execute the plan should play a central part in developing it. Otherwise, they will lack ownership, and execution will be poor.

Here are some essential elements of a good plan:

• Start with the end in mind.
• Define the objectives and goals.
• Identify who is going to do what, when, and how.
• Ensure participants have appropriate skills.
• Define funding/budgeting.
• Favor loans over grants when development funding is needed.
• Define who is accountable.
• Plan for shared responsibility.
• Identify the expected, measurable outcomes and how they will be measured.
• Provide for local onsite oversight.
• Follow up.

5. Trust and Adjust

Remember, plans are just that—plans. A plan is not law; it is a map to a destination. Obstacles may come up along the way, and detours may be necessary. New information may be discovered, or God may reveal additional opportunities or redirect the path. Therefore we must be prepared to trust God and adjust our plans.

• Recognize that there are no quick fixes.
• Be committed for the long term.
• Make plans but adjust with God’s guidance.
• Stay open to learning as you go.
• Create opportunities to fine tune projects.

6. Keep it Simple, Affordable, Sustainable, Reproducible

Westerners are good at making plans. Some of us, like me, tend to get unnecessarily complicated. However, if we partner with the local people, stay true to the local culture, and commit to developing local resources, then kingdom projects are more likely to be simple and affordable. And if they are simple, designed and led by local leadership, and affordable in the local economy, they are more likely to be sustainable. And if they are simple, affordable, and sustainable, then they are reproducible, and the kingdom will grow. That is bringing change from the inside out.

Conclusion: So What?

Remember the eucalyptus plantations at the beginning of this article? If you are investing in serving others, planting churches, and living the great commission, then ask yourself a question: “What kind of investment do I want to make?” One that grows fast from the input of many “foreign” resources and makes a lot of quick return for you, but then withers away when you have tired of investing? Or would you rather invest in something that is more natural and native and continues to grow for generations regardless of your future involvement? When I was charged with making financial returns for my timberland investment clients, intensive management and quick returns were good. But now I am investing for God, for the growth of his kingdom, for eternal returns. I want to invest in work that will last beyond me. How about you?

Does any of this ring true to you? Have I shed any light to the questions that I raised in the beginning? Have I sparked any new ideas about how to do missions more effectively, more sustainability? Did this article make you want to dig deeper? I hope you can answer “yes” to some of these concluding questions. I hope that you will dig deeper, and if you do I would love to hear about what you find.

Greg lives in Norcross, Georgia, with his wife Suzy but works for Missions Resource Network (MRN) headquartered in Bedford, Texas. In his role at MRN as Facilitator for Sustainable Missions he promotes resource sustainability across MRN’s global footprint, promoting the development of local resources for funding of local ministries. Before coming to MRN, Greg had a thirty-four-year career in forestry involving work with state government and commercial banks. He has been involved in international missions since 1992. During that time, he participated in fourteen short-term mission trips to Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Mexico, Guyana, and Kenya. He is passionate about developing people and organizations that incorporate godly principles to produce sustainable results for the kingdom of God. Greg can be reached at greg.williams@mrnet.org.

Bibliography

Corbett, Steve, and Brian Fikkert. When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself. 2nd ed. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Donovan, Vincent J. Christianity Rediscovered: An Epistle from the Masai. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978.

Johnson, Jean. We Are not the Hero: A Missionary’s Guide for Sharing Christ, not a Culture of Dependency. Sisters, Oregon: Deep River Books, 2012.

Lederleitner, Mary T. Cross-Cultural Partnerships: Navigating the Complexities of Money and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010.

Lupton, Robert D. Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (and How to Reverse It). New York: HarperOne, 2011.

Maranz, David. African Friends and Money Matters: Observations from Africa. Publications in Ethnography 37. Dallas: SIL International, 2001.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Rev. and exp. ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011.

Rogers, Glenn. The Role of Worldview in Missions and Multiethnic Ministry. N.p.: Mission and Ministry Resources, 2002).

The article overviews a fifteen-year partnership between a Ghanaian and a North American congregation. The reflection provides a model for partnership based upon a structured proposal and considers five lessons learned from the experience.

The evangelistic partnership between the Nsawam Road church in Accra, Ghana, and the North Boulevard church in Murfreesboro, TN, emerged when several components converged. First, in the 1990s, workers in Ivory Coast had developed a number of contacts in Bamako, the capital of Mali, Africa, through French Bible correspondence courses and visits. Sustained follow-up was needed. Second, at the 1999 World Missions Workshop hosted by Oklahoma Christian University, Doyle Kee, long a worker in French-speaking Europe and beyond, approached me looking for a good church to take the lead in evangelizing in Mali. He suggested supporting three West African preachers at a school-teacher’s wage and furnishing each a motorbike for transportation. Third, most seasoned missionaries and readers of missionary research are aware of the numerous risks involved in direct financial support from one country to national workers in another country, so an alternative arrangement was sought. Surely some way existed for North American churches to steward their wealth so that it helps the kingdom rather than harms it. Fourth, by that time I had met Samuel Twumasi-Ankrah and learned something about the Nsawam Road church (approximately 1,400 members with impressive elders) in Accra, Ghana, and its history of sending out missionaries both nationally and in neighboring English-speaking countries. Fifth, this led to my developing a proposal that involved a North American church’s financial and spiritual support with the management or shepherding of the work by a West African church.

The Proposal

Samuel Twumasi felt the Nsawam Road (NR) elders would give serious consideration to working in a French-speaking, predominately Muslim country. With that in mind, I wrote up a proposal for the initial consideration of Samuel and the North Boulevard (NB) missions committee. Since the proposal was favorably received, slight alterations were made, and it was sent to the elders of the Nsawam Road church. Initially, the proposal assumed in principle that Nsawam Road should provide partial financial support, but when the proposal was made the Accra congregation was already fully committed to various ministries: evangelizing, helping refugees from Liberia, liaison with the government for water well drilling, and so forth. As developed, therefore, the proposal stated that North Boulevard would provide

all of the financial support, part of the prayer support, and limited personal contact with the Nsawam Road church; and that the Nsawam Road church select the appropriate personnel, decide on a just financial support level for the evangelists and their families, administer any working funds, supervise and evaluate the workers, and eventually bring the work to a conclusion.1

The proposal had focus:

We have in mind the financial support of these workers until such time as they establish several growing churches which can take up their support. In other words, we do not have in mind to continue support of the evangelists and their families unless they and we (NB and NR churches) agree upon their going to new territories to repeat the same process. It is not our intention, because we feel it unhealthy, for new churches to have someone at a distance provide support for preachers (like Samuel Twumasi-Ankrah, your preacher) for their work with churches large enough to provide their support.2

The intention was to teach churches from the beginning to accept financial responsibility as a part of their development.

The proposal also included the use of a working agreement or ministry covenant between Nsawam Road and the workers, spelling out precisely what they were to undertake in the initial stages of their work. A similar agreement was to exist between North Boulevard and Nsawam Road for the sake of clarity and understanding.

Worker Selection and Initial Work

The NR elders accepted the three families proposed by Doyle Kee and brought them to Accra to establish relationships. Those families spoke French and came from three different countries: Benin, Ivory Coast, and Ghana. Two of the families had attended the same Bible training school. Their assignment was to work as a team for evangelization and church planting in the capital city.

Contacts for study were easily made, even among Muslims, and all three evangelists seemed to be competent in teaching. It did not work out, however, for the three families to live in the same large living quarters. There were too many differences, some cultural and some personal. Besides, serious efforts had not been made in team-building among the three families. Africans, like many North Americans, do not easily and automatically become life-sharing teams, especially when they come from different tribes.3 Because Bamako’s nearly two million inhabitants populated a large area and its public transportation was poor, the evangelists decided to have two assemblies and divide their work geographically. That decision further hampered a team effort, but conversions to Christ continued. Bamako was being evangelized. Peter Ofori of Ghana began a radio broadcast with World Radio, a work that continues.

In time, the group noticed that many of their contacts were located in Kati on the outskirts of Bamako. It was a developing area that seemed to hold great promise. Thus, one of the evangelists decided to move there to work. It was not a group decision, but the NR elders approved it after considering the situation. It proved to be a good move, and the congregation has grown both numerically and structurally. Several conversions were realized, and among them were several siblings who had good jobs with entities like the United Nations and local businesses. People with leadership potential became believers.

While the three evangelists knew their financial support was coming from a North American church (deposited into a Mali bank account), they had to learn that the administration and direction of the work was to come from Accra. Time and again, the workers had to be told to discuss matters with the Nsawam Road elders. Having that arrangement prevented many of the classic blunders in cross-cultural relationships between foreign supporters and national workers.4

One evangelist had to be sent back to his home country because of morals and money problems. The problem was discussed in Mali when representatives from both churches met for a scheduled evaluation. Subsequently, the NR elders brought the brother down to Ghana, spent several days with him, and eventually decided he was not ready for that work. NB was happy for NR to handle the matter, and they did so with wisdom and justice superior to what any congregation in North America could have done.

The work undertaken by this partnership has been going about fifteen years (2000–2015). The relationships between the partnering congregations have been pleasant and fruitful, even though at times they had different perspectives. According to the initial proposal/agreement, representatives from both churches jointly engaged in evaluations of the work and revised “job descriptions.” Currently, there are six congregations in and around Bamako that are maturing in an encouraging manner—happy results in a predominately Muslim country. Additional workers have moved in to help. A Congolese family works with 200 children in five villages on one afternoon per week. A new worker from Ghana is now teaching rhetoric in English (for translators) on Saturdays at a local University, using the Bible and other works with about 40 graduate students who are Muslims.

Perspectives

What have the two churches learned about partnership in global evangelizing?

1. This has been a fruitful partnership. The six congregations are growing, though at different levels; the numerical growth varies and the nature of the members varies with the location of the work. Conversions to Christ continue. An encouraging number of members are maturing in their faith and developing into leaders.
2. Such a partnership as this is possible only when the supervising/shepherding church is strong and mature enough to carry out the responsibilities. While it is desirable and necessary to evangelize broadly and plant many small churches in new territory, it is also important to develop a few churches with sufficient size and maturity to carry out different levels of ministry, as in a partnering arrangement. NR already had considerable experience in sending out workers and supervising them in other countries.
3. In retrospect, both partnering churches agree that it would have been desirable for Nsawam Road to select its own workers or spend more time with the workers selected by someone else. Clearly, more time needed to be spent in team building since that likely would have forestalled some of the relationship problems between workers and unhealthy individualism. North Americans need to recognize the culturally conditioned tribal and national differences among Africans. Those differences often can be managed constructively through Christian commitments, sensitivity, and good communications; they will be ignored to the peril of the work.
4. One evangelist had to be dismissed and eventually sent back to his home country. The NR elders handled that in a manner superior to anything that could have been done by a church several thousand miles away in a very different culture. The African elders prudently exercised disciplinary action while affirming the worth and potential of the disciplined evangelist.
5. Partnering as described here involves cross-cultural church relationships. The NR church had previously attempted a partnership with another Western church that backed out of the arrangement, so NR was understandably cautious. Good front-end agreements and good on-going communications are vital when churches from different cultures partner in work. It is important to listen to each other’s perspectives, since both sides have strengths.

All in all, this has been a fruitful partnership. The participating representatives from both churches have enjoyed each other’s fellowship, especially as they engaged in evaluations and planning for the ongoing work. Variations on this partnership arrangement would seem promising in many parts of the world.

C. Philip Slate is a missions consultant for Churches of Christ worldwide and an adjunct teacher at Harding School of Theology. He holds a DMiss from Fuller Theological Seminary and has authored and co-authored numerous popular and scholarly works. Dr. Slate was a missionary in Great Britain for over a decade. He has also served as the dean of Harding School of Theology and subsequently as chair of the department of missions at Abilene Christian University.

Bibliography

Bonk, Jonathan J. Missions and Money: Affluence as a Western Missionary Problem . . . Revisited. Rev. and exp. ed. American Society of Missiology Series 15. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007.

Missions Resource Network. “Resources and Suggested Reading.” http://mrnet.org/library.

Slate, C. Philip. “Proposal for Partnership between North Boulevard and Nsawam Road Churches.” Working paper, North Boulevard Church of Christ, Murfreesboro, TN, 2000.