Partners Who are Not Partners

Background:

The Church Mission Society (CMS) is an Anglican mission agency, founded in 1799, with a history of both cooperation with Orthodox churches in mission and mission engagement in Islamic contexts. In the period immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union CMS was invited by Orthodox Churches to work in several countries of the former Soviet Union , one of their first partnerships being with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Having worked with evangelical Orthodox leaders for several years CMS began to built links with emerging Christian communities in the southern ( North Caucasus ) republics of Russia . Most of these republics are substantially Islamic. Although a few Russian Orthodox Churches exist in this region they mainly serve ethnic Russians whilst the emerging churches were composed primarily of people from the many ethnic groups native to the region – almost all of them Muslim background believers. CMS initially sent one missionary to the region and supported the ministry of one local church in the most strongly Islamic republic.

Identifying the need :

One of the primary needs identified in this initial period (the mid-1990s) was for the training of leaders for these new and emerging churches. The one missionary from CMS was working with a group of pentecostal churches which were being born out of drug rehabilitation ministries and was already doing leadership training on a small scale with them.

A partnership opportunity :

In the same North Caucasus city where CMS had their missionary three North American mission agencies and one Russian partner agency had, at that time, just established a very effective centre for training Muslim-background church leaders. Rather than seeking to develop its own training programme CMS sought to establish a relationship and hopefully a partnership with this already establishing venture. The motives for this were basically to avoid duplication, and a lack of resources within CMS to act alone. CMS was already working in partnership with one of the American agencies in Pakistan and had worked with them elsewhere previously. All the agencies were evangelical and at first it seemed as if a partnership would meet all our needs. The already established training centre were looking for additional staff and funding and it was anticipated that CMS would be able to supply these in addition to a wider network of mission contact. It should be added that three members of the North Caucasus church which CMS was also supporting were already enrolled at the training centre.

Theological complexities in partnership

The regional director of CMS having visited the training centre on two occasions, an exchange of documentation began which it was envisaged would lead to a formal partnership. It was at this stage that two theological difficulties were raised by one of the existing North American partners in this venture. Although both were theological they were of a rather different nature. Firstly questions were raised as to whether it was possible to have within the partnership an agency, CMS, which, although clearly Evangelical itself, was working with Orthodox churches in mission in other parts of Russia . (Interestingly this issue had never been raised by Orthodox Church partners who were aware that CMS also worked, within Russia , with Pentecostal, Baptist and Lutheran churches.) The second question arose around the question of the understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit and particularly the exercising of the Gifts of the Spirit by believers beyond the apostolic period. CMS was sent a detailed theological statement on this matter and was unable to clearly say that all its personnel would abide by this specific interpretation – particularly as the one missionary already in the region was from a pentecostal church tradition. After considerable debate, and with some sadness, it was decided that CMS could not participate in this formal partnership.

Partnership continues:

Despite difficult exchanges (at least at a theological level) between mission headquarters, relationships between the CMS regional director and the mission personnel of the other agencies serving at the training centre remained very good. As a consequence it was decided that CMS would offer funding and staff to the centre and assist in whatever other ways were helpful, whilst remaining outside the mission ‘partnership’. In other words CMS was to ‘partner the partnership’.

The first year’s grant was paid, visits were made, help was given with the procurement of some equipment and with advice to two particular students, and a search began for a suitable staff person whom CMS could offer.

More theological challenges :

After prayer and a concerted search CMS accepted for training a candidate whom they were hopeful might be very suitable for this work. The person selected was an Evangelical with several years of previous experience of work in Russia with a student organisation, spoke Russian, was a trainer and was also engaged in research into attitudes to faith amongst youth in Russia . This person seemed to CMS to be God’s candidate for this work! The challenge was that she was female and from a pentecostal background! Although initially interested in this possibility, and with the creative suggestion from one member of staff at the training centre that she might use their materials to develop a ‘parallel’ training for Pentecostal leaders, the partnership eventually declined CMS’s offer. Although hurt by this ‘rejection’ the missionary involved did eventually go to the North Caucasus with CMS to serve in a different capacity.

Partnering the Partnership :

Now, some years on, CMS continues to partner the partnership. We have acknowledged our theological difficulties but are more concerned to effectively meet the training needs of leaders in these young churches in a most challenging context for mission. CMS had not only contributed to the partnership (financially, through support for publications, with staff time and advice, and with support for individual students) but has also benefited greatly by participating in the development of an innovative model of training for missional church leaders. CMS has reflected on this model within its wider ministry and is considering how it might be adapted in other contexts around the world, especially those that are Islamic. This month (September 2004) CMS begins supporting the training (in the US ) of a graduate from the centre who will return as a member of staff.

Pragmatism and Theology can live side by side :

The primary lesson that CMS has learnt from this experience is that partnerships do not necessarily have to be formal partnerships to be effective. A signed document might have given more security, especially if key staff had changed (as they did not) during this period, but it was not essential. We also learnt that :

Whilst rigorous theological debate is important it must not be allowed to prevent effective mission praxis.
Good personal relationships with a sound spiritual basis, and regular communication, are essential. This was backed by regular pray for each other and the exchange of prayer requests.
Care needs to be taken when bringing mission personnel too quickly into the middle of unresolved partnership challenges
Even when things go wrong God has other ways forward – the CMS missionary who could not ‘fit in’ to the partnership at the training centre went on to have a different but effective ministry in the same city.
Mark Oxbrow

International Mission Director, CMS , UK

The vision of the Shangba partnership initiative is for the Body of Christ to focus on the Shangba people group to learn together and collaborate appropriately in the demonstration of God’s love in order to see a sustainable, reproducing church planted among this people group.

The social circumstances of the Shangba were defined within a caste system. They were a very low caste people group within their larger society and had few recognized rights. Their spiritual context was one of Buddhism mixed with shamanistic practices. Rituals, magic, and manipulation of the spirit world were constant concerns for them, and affected every part of their lives.

Partnership Development

It is hard to say when the partnership started because there were so many converging stories of how God had been leading people toward greater participation. In discussing the need for more cooperation, Tom, Sharbu and myself decided to take on a “coffee shop diplomacy” and listen to people about the vision God had laid on their hearts. In the process, we planted the idea of more intentional coordination between groups. The major block we ran into was a vague fear of loss of organizational identity and the fact that cooperation between organizations represented a new mindset. This got quite discouraging at times—seeing the blank looks on faces when we talked about collaboration. A passive mindset was a significant problem we encountered, and we tried to counter it by setting an example in our own behavior and relations.

After the exploratory stage, we called for a meeting to talk about working together as a group. Our first action step was a relatively easy win: Set up a small water project together in a local Shangba village. In the process we learned that communication between the members, even those who are not directly involved, was key to making people feel part of the group. We also learned that expectations about how this actually works out can be very unrealistic and should be made clear on the first day

Most people involved were leaders of their own ministries, teams, or churches—with often more than one representative from a given group at the table. Local and foreign churches and ministries were involved, and generally the ministries had a specific activity/skill they did best. The churches provided the community into which new believers could be invited.

Partnership Structure/Objectives

We are a loosely structured partnership, with decisions based on consensus when we were deciding on larger projects that concerned everyone. But we also used the forum as a chance to learn together about the needs and opportunities for demonstrating God’s love in this context. Task forces sprung up spontaneously within the group and collaboration began to happen more as a mindset than as a structure. However, it was clear that personality differences, a high need for closure, fear of authority within one’s own organization, and other factors consistently threw rocks into the ideal of how smoothly a given structure was supposed to work. But we are taking a long-term perspective on this.

Our primary objectives are to learn together about the culture, needs opportunities, and “redemptive analogies” of the Shangba; to work together on projects that could not be done by a single organization, and to coordinate our individual efforts by ensuring we can articulate how our own ministry fits. The primary objective is to see a church planting movement happen among this people group, and for this church to have a mindset of cooperation and fellowship with others in Christ. If we are pursuing these objectives we must model them so that we will be better equipped to disciple the Shangba.

We did our first evaluation last year, which was our second meeting. The water project went well, but we need to work on our communication and clarifying expectations of each role and how success is measured. We found that trust was lost among some of the participants in the process of working together. We are trying to better understand how we can build a mechanism for regaining trust in our cooperative work. We are looking at this less in terms of product and more in terms of process. From this perspective we are successfully in the process of learning to cooperate as the Body of Christ. We are also working on a more systemic communication network between churches and agencies in the area. Some have left the partnership after feeling betrayed or ignored. But we see this less as a failure and more as a decision to stop learning in exchange for personal safety. It is still successful if there is a back door built into the exit process by which they can rejoin the partnership and be welcomed in the future.

Kingdom Impact

Our most important achievement was the recognition by the Shangba village that this was an act of love done by Christians from their own country and abroad. The only way they can make sense of it is from our description of God’s love binding us together with a common purpose: to show them that God loves them and invites them to be part of His family. The opposition accused us of trying to buy them, but this didn’t make much sense when they heard from the nationals how much both the foreigners and locals had given up in order to participate in this effort. No one became a Christian, but the village as a whole has moved up another step on the journey towards a church planting movement.

We understand that God built the groundwork for the partnership long before we came along, and that this partnership is just a part of the converging stories that God is taking each of us through. We need each other because no single person/ministry knows enough, has enough resources, or can control for enough contingencies to reach any vision in isolation. Partnership is a very human enterprise and that the biggest obstacle to partnership is often “me.” Personally, I have become more aware of how very mixed my motivations are as leader of a large organization (a position which gives me a very real sense of significance). At the same time, I learned that at the root of it all, I love Jesus with all my heart and I want to cast aside every weight that hinders while not losing the organizational capacity I steward in His Kingdom.

In the future, we need to improve our communication system by distributing the responsibility for communication to the network of participants rather than making the coordinator responsible for keeping everyone appraised of everything that is going on lest someone feel ignored and offended. We also need to develop a means of determining if the partnership is becoming too introverted and concerned primarily with its internal relations and workings than it is with its vision and objectives.

“an ethno linguistic group with a common self-identity that is shared by the various members. There are two parts to that word: ethno and linguistic. Language is a primary and dominant identifying factor of a people group. But there are other factors that determine or are associated with ethnicity. There is a sense of common identity of individuals identified with the group. A common history, customs, family and clan identities, as well as marriage rules and practices, age-grades and other obligation covenants, and inheritance patterns and rules are some of the common ethnic factors defining or distinguishing a people.”

If we have to reach the whole person for Christ, then there should be partnership between different ministries like Radio, Literature, Bible Translation, correspondence courses, to name a few and also the local churches. There is a Biblical mandate for working together. Passages like Romans 12, I Cor 12, and Ephesians encourages the Body of Christ to work together in unity. Our impact for the Lord is minimized because the world sees a fragmented Body rather than a united Body!.

In order to reach a particular people group (like Marwaris, Sindhis, Lingayats) etc, a coordinated strategy to work together will be very useful. We call this working in partnership. Partnership could be defined as “A close working relationship between individuals and or organizations, who agree to work together for a specific purpose because they can achieve more together than by themselves.”

There are at least 3 stages in developing a partnership. Partnerships do not come naturally – they take time and effort to develop.

Stage 1: Exploration:

If you decide to reach a particular people group, you need to research the following:

People Group: Where are they located What is their economic, political and religious situation, spiritual openness etc.

Ministries working with the people group:

Who is working among the people group?
Who is planning to work among them?
What work is being done that is having an impact?
What tools are available? Scripture portions, films, radio, audio cassettes etc.
What churches have “adopted” the People group for prayer support or for other forms of support and involvement?

Stage 2: Formation Stage:

This is the activity of bringing people and ministries together to plan and work in partnership. After doing the above research, you identify people, ministries, churches who are sympathetic towards reaching the particular people group and invite them for a meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to build relationships, develop trust, to see how each ministry fits into the bigger picture of ministry, to see if there is an interest in working together, to identify specific ways of working together.

When the members present at this meeting agree to work together to focus on reaching this particular group which some action plan, then it could be said that a partnership is now formed.

Stage 3: Operation Stage:

This is the stage of working together, implementing joint strategies and objectives and developing the partnership to its fullest potential.

In the recent past, some “people group” focused partnerships have been started. These include peoples such as the Lingayat’s, Sindhis, Banjaras, Coorgi, Bhojhpuri, Kashmiri and others. God is using these partnership efforts to draw more people to Himself. The advantages of working together are:

We can be better stewards of resources God has given us.
We can focus on our strengths and not on our weaknesses.
We can do more together than we can do on our own (greater synergy)
When we work with others, it is more encouraging for us.
Partnership is therefore, not a choice for the 21 st century church, but it should be a way of life in order to enhance our witness for Christ.

Prem James
Director, Interdev-India

“Effectiveness through Partnership”

Prem James is the National Director of Interdev-India, an organization that encourages development of strategic partnerships, especially to reach the unreached people groups in South Asia . Prior to joining Interdev, Prem was the Associate Director of FEBA Radio in India . Prem is married to Rita, who runs a school for Special Needs Children in Bangalore, India.