Pedro Villa made a very good comment on yesterday’s post; I hope you’ll take the time to look at what he had to say.
I’ve talked some about the concept of partnership in terms of local outreach, but it’s a concept that I think needs to be expanded internationally. There is an undeniable shift in today’s world, as belief in Christ shifts southward. We can fight that tendency, or we can work with it. I think a shift in our world perspective can help us see this trend as a very good thing.
Churches in the north (particularly Europe, Canada, and the United States) tend to have more material goods. Churches in the south, at the moment, seem to be showing a greater evangelistic fervor and a better concept of community building within the church. If we let each group provide what it has, both talents and resources, the resulting work can be far greater than either can do alone.
The problem is, our world tends to associate money with power. If you are paying the bills, you feel that you have the right to decide how things will be done. And decide who will get your money. There is a fine line between showing good stewardship and using money to manipulate people.
That’s where partnerships come in. Churches in wealthy areas need to look for churches in less privileged areas that would be willing to work with them. Not be controlled by them. Not be dictated to. Churches to partner with.
This is a healthier model than funding an individual. Our support of preachers has hindered the development of other leaders in many situations. The preachers are beholden to their supporting congregations; they feel no need to listen to the local church. One preacher told a group of us that he had no desire to see elders named in his church; elders, he explained, would want to know about his finances and question how he used his money. That attitude is exactly what has weakened the church in many areas.
The key, as all good leadership, is to find people you can trust, then trust the decisions they make. In missions, that means an acceptance of the fact that they will at times do things differently than we would. Sometimes they’ll be right; sometimes they’ll be wrong. But they are the ones “on the ground,” the ones living out their faith in that context. We can offer advice and guidance, but it must be seen as exactly that. It must never be, “Here’s what you’re going to do or you won’t get any more money from us.”
More thoughts coming on this. I’ll take a breath and listen to your reactions.
Brother, along the same thought of church partnership, just a few more thoughts. I wish that we could develop counselors that could visit growing churches and help evaluate the resources at their disposal and also help that church make good use of them. Any mission minded church willing to help would do so only in those areas needed to help the local church become independent, self sustained, and self governed. Set Goals! Set Objectives!
We don’t have to duplicate our American style churches to the point that for communion they have to use plastic cups, silver or gold trays and even Welch’s grape juice.
Let’s not feel that we have to do everything for those “poor ignorant” souls.
Our training methods have focused on preparing qualified individuals for ministry who we then employ. They have been given training –with implied (or direct) promises of professional employment to follow. It has been only “natural” for them to move into the receivership roles of support. Therefore, it seems that our training system flows against these considerations.
Is there a way to change this model in order to work with a congregation and help build its leaders–those who are so designated by the congregation? I know this question has also been addressed in various ways. Most often, the training schools only receive students who have been recommended and partially supported by their local congregations. Yet, the students are taken to the training centers for 2-4 years. And, upon graduation, they have been the attention focus of our efforts… complete with professional support expectations.
I am not “against” that system. Many good families are doing sacrificial ministry in the name of the Lord as graduates of those programs.
Yet, the focus of this conversation is the US-international congregation relationship. We will have to overcome some of our tendencies and systems in order to think in terms of congregational relationships. That is a pretty big challenge.