Thursday, August 26, 2010
Mission - Partnership in Mission
Introduction:
Reginaldo de Melo
Pastor/Preacher/Writer
BD BTh MTh
The main objective of this paper is to outline and evaluate the main views of partnership in mission. The concept stresses the importance of attaining a complete understanding of how cooperation may work at its best, as long as the parts involved delineate the foundational structures appropriately. The term is not a biblical one, but has its origins in Theology of Missions. Our approach to this will cover the following areas:
•Partnership, its origins and development
•Negative and positive aspects
•Accountability
•Proposing a model
•Researching before involving
•Definition of strategies
•Conclusion
Partnership, its origins and development:
I propose that the concept of partnership in mission finds its origins in the Godhead. Pate reminds us that of all God’s attributes, his love is undoubtedly, which underpins the relationship between Him and the humanity. All his creation is important to God, but the human has been chosen to be the recipient of his undeserved grace.1 Even though the term is not found anywhere in the Bible, the principle of cooperation between the three persons of the Trinity working out mankind’s salvation is detectable (cf. John 3.16; 16.5-15). In support of this view Fox states; “The work of the Godhead in effecting redemption and establishing the Church is a study in divine partnership, where the Father sends the Son and the Son sends the Spirit, all with mutual goal of a harvest in mind (cf. John 15).”2 Relying on the above universal view, Verkuy agues that, the abolition of the pseudo concept, which prevailed from the time of Constantine in which the world was divided into two sections, namely, the Christians and non-Christians, created the right conditions for Westerners and non-Westerners to engage in missions together.3 Verkuy says that, in the first world missionary conference in Edinburgh (1910), this obsolete distinction was yet present, being then replaced with the six-continents concept (Mexico city 1963), cautiously and provisionally indicating, in the process, a few consequences of this call to mutual assistance.4 Thus, we observe that there is an intrinsic link between partnership and mutuality. Allen notices that the churches in the New Testament were member of one another in virtue of their baptism, and by the communion in one Spirit. All were united by common dangers and common hopes.5
As we have already seen, mutuality and partnership walk together, hand in hand. The church’s mission will make no sense, unless she realises the need she has of sharing with a dying world, God’s purpose of having a separated people, distinct from all the other people. Klaus suggests that Ephesians portrays such a Church, which centralizes its attention on missions.6 Ephesians does away with any attempt of conceiving the church’s mission as a mere program, which suggests: that the national and intercultural missions are to be looked at as merely symbols, without the priority being numbers or programs.7 Partnership implies that all Christians are called to go forward in this task together. The delegates in Mexico City issued the following message; “We believe that the time has now come when we must move onwards to common planning and join action. The fact that Christ is not divided must be made unmistakably plain in the very structure of missionary work.”8 By doing so they were recognizing that the present structural missionary methods were not working at its best, but on the contrary, they were concealing it. In conclusion, the concept of partnership in mission was renewed at Mexico City’s conference, and church’s leaders in a worldwide scale, were convinced that new patterns of relationship between Westerners and non-Westerners should be established, and goals and objectives should be traced together. Then, that mentality became the order of the day.
Negative and Positive aspects:
As already established, the conference in Mexico City broke through the anti-biblical concept, which divided the world into two categories, Christians and non-Christians, replacing it with the six-continents formula, from everywhere to everywhere (cf. Acts 1.8), which is completely antagonistic to that former corrupted mentality. However, we need to be aware of the positive and negatives aspects of developing a good partnership. Verkuy remarks; “The slogan ‘Missions is Six Continents’, was invented not only to acknowledge the fact that the established churches in the West are losing their dominant position in society, but also because the young churches in Asia and Africa objected to the demeaning phrase ‘daughter churches’.”9 This prejudiced paradigm has to be done away once for all if there is to be a fruitful partnership in mission. He adds that non-Western churches have acquired their own identity, and they are proud of it, therefore, they are willing to divest themselves of the vassal status, which Western invasion imposed upon them.10 At the Last Supper Jesus prayed: “That all may be one as you Father, are in me, and I in you” (cf. John 17.21), the very ultimate in unity! Luzbetak asserts: “…A genuinely community was meant to be as perfect a community as possible. It was meant to be profoundly unique in concept, unique in its oneness and solidarity, unique in its source of life and strength, and unique in its purpose.”11
Another very important factor to take into consideration is a cultural one. Rickett comments; “Succeeding at intercultural partnership requires at a minimum some understanding of the world-view, ways of being, and interacting, used by members of partnership.”12 Therefore, partnership has to carry the interest of building up relationships, without which ministry would be inconceivable. This involves spending time with people, sharing your stories, exploring differences, and taking on tasks together.13 These issues have to be discussed head on, because in this way trust and mutual understanding will be built. Fox argues; “A westernised understanding of the final goal of church development leads to a wrong understanding of the proper place for partnership.”14 As we have said, mutuality is the key to a successful partnership, and mutuality involves egalitarianism. Thus partnership involves working together in spite of our differences. Having said that, Western agencies and organizations should not impose their own ideas, customs and style on non-Westerners.
Accountability:
We now turn our attention to the practical side of partnership in mission. Bush suggests the following biblical definition of partnership; “An association of two or more Christian autonomous bodies who have formed a trusting relationship and fulfil agreed-upon expectations by sharing complementary strengths and resources to reach their mutual goal.”15 Clearly, we have to define what we mean by partnership in missions. Above all partnership does not mean ownership, but it is collaboration and interdependence. Panya Baba has a two-fold view on accountability. He says missionaries do need to sacrifice their identity and relinquish decision-making mechanism to the Church. He also calls on the national to voluntarily involve the missionary participant in the decision-making process.16 Fox agrees with Baba, and thinks that it is necessary to allow latitude for the Spirit of God to lead missionaries and nationals to understand their role and judge how best to work together.17 Thus, we understand that partnership also involves concession, given that there will be differences of opinion. Fox gives the remedy to overcome this; “The principle of mutuality, equality, and reciprocity is the issue in whatever form is applied.”18
Proposing a model:
The model proposed for us is a Bible establishment. However, in proposing a model of partnership in missions there are subtopics that require development. They are as follow:
•Defining strategies
•Researching before involving
Defining Strategies:
After further research, it came to my knowledge that there are four models in use, namely the personal support, the indigenous, the partnership, and a mix between the indigenous/partnership models. In view of this, I have arrived at the conclusion that, the model which best illustrates my understanding of partnership in mission is that which is embraced within the concept of, the indigenous/partnership. Rheenen states; “In their partnership they seek to develop structures of continuity to nurture existing fellowships and train evangelists to enable this to become a mission-sending movement.”19
Therefore on this basis, we can avoid the excessive paternalistic mentality that exists within the personal support model. The Bishop of the Methodist Church in Kenya, Zablon Nthamburi says; “The African Church will not grow into maturity if it continues to be fed by Western partners. It will ever remain an infant who has not learned to walk on his or her own feet.”20
The indigenous/partnership model therefore, seems to be the most appropriate approach to partnership in mission for various reasons. For instance, an intrinsic working element of the indigenous/partnership model is that, the nationals and missionaries on the field work together in collaboration with the agencies and sending churches. This as a result, can develop structures of continuity, which will enable the national Church, to not only stand on its own feet, but will also cause the movement to expand.21 Given the ultimate objective however, is the expansion of the Kingdom of God, the personal support model seems to fail here. This is because this model is typically used to support pastoral, rather than apostolic ministries. In other words, local preachers are supported to the detriment of church planters.22
Researching before involving:
Having set the basis of the strategic/model, and given the nature of our proposal, we have to research to see what kind of factors will suit that culture, or even an area within that culture. Hull explains; “The task facing religious education in developing its curriculum today demands that the psychology of religious development, the philosophical and theological problems, and the pluralistic context should be taken into account.”23 In other words, the curriculum offered must take into account of what we call contextualization, being able not only to cover things related to the theological forum, but also in the social, cultural and anthropological sphere. Nevertheless, “…the mastery of the Bible in the vernacular language is central to the curriculum. Whatever additional fields of study the schools in this tradition may offer, a major in Bible is invariably required.”24 This is a matter of principle, once the training offered will place its focus on the development of the spiritual abilities. To conclude Mulholland offers a very practical definition of what a Bible establishment is about. He says: “…In a Bible college, training occurs not only in the academic program, but in all those experiences which contribute to the preparation of students for effective Christian living and service.”25
Conclusion:
It has be shown that, though partnership had its begin in the Godhead (cf.John 3.16) its outworking at the human level is not so simple. It demands accountability from both sides and a mutual respect of cultural differences. Hiebert reminds us that the Gospel has to be communicated in ways that people understand. We need to avoid the ethnocentrism of a mono-cultural approach and take cultural differences seriously by affirming the value of all cultures.26 In conclusion, the New Testament is a prime example of contextualization, and in line with the arguments proposed in this paper, it is the pattern in the New Testament, that give us direction as to the nature of accurate contextualization.27
Reginaldo de Melo
Pastor/Preacher/Writer
BD BTh MTh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
