Blog

A Partnership of Two is Inherently Unstable

Author: David Hackett
Date: 21.03.2010
Category: Partnership

Rate (2)

Currently 5.00/5

Favorite (5)

Translations

Submit New Translation
About translation

These posts are meant to spark conversation and community reflection here on the Cape Town 2010 Global Conversation page. I welcome readers’ responses - and so allow me to come out straight away to my point.

I believe that partnerships of only two parties are inherent unstable. A story first, and then more on why I believe this is so.

I attended two weddings yesterday. One was at a Presbyterian church, the other, a Pentecostal church. At both of these, the presiding pastors emphasized that the Christian concept of marriage holds that marriage is a covenant between three parties: the man, the woman, and God.

Perhaps this point seems obvious, that marriage is more than between just a man and a woman. No Christian view of marriage would say that the couple is left on their own to make their marriage a successful union, a partnership that lasts and can well serve each other, the family, church and society.

The theological truth we hold across differing traditions is that a marriage partnership depends on a third party, the Lord himself, to survive and thrive. Moreover, a hopefully rock-solid marriage partnership depends on an even wider community, being well integrated into the nurturing and commissioning community of faith.

Can a marriage make a go at it with just the two? Sure. Is a partnership of two still a partnership? Yes. But does two make it sufficiently stable to stand against the inevitable challenges?

Ecclesiastes 4:12 counsels us about the dramatic difference of more-than-two: "A cord of three strands is not quickly broken." (New International Version)

Isn’t it interesting that the original community, the God-Community, was a partnership of three - Father, Son and Spirit -, not two?

I’ve witnessed many church-to-church and organization-to-organizational partnerships turn sour. Despite their good intentions, many have became inwardly-focused and sought mostly to benefit each other to greater and greater levels; the initial outward purpose of partnering was nearly lost.

On the other hand, most partnerships I’ve known that have made a point of starting out with a minimum of three ministries involved have discovered that this gave them a very positive dynamic.

With three, a community develops. Leaders in these kinds of partnerships say frequently that a community of three or more keeps them outward-focused and insulated from many of the dynamics that plague partnerships of only two groups.

I’ve seen this so reliably that I’ve arrived at my conviction, that partnerships of only two organizations are inherently unstable. Just having two in a partnership seems to leave open a "back door" for a host of ills to find their way in, to the detriment of the partnership.

Unfortunately, the most prevalent form of Christian partnership is probably that between two parties - say, between a church and another church, or a church and an organization, or one ministry and another ministry.

My point: Christian attempts at partnership are given a substantial boost toward a successful mission if they are multi-lateral, not bi-lateral.

Keywords: Partnership, Partnership Development, multi-lateral partnerships, stable partnerships, visionSynergy, PowerofConnecting, Dave Hackett, networks

Conversation Post Comment

: Reply Flag 0 Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Pete_Houston (6)
South Africa

So we’re debating about the size of partnership. There are lot’s of valid points. THREE - The Triune God is a partnership and community of 3. An ideal marriage is a partnership between 3 - husband, wife and God. A chord of 3 strands is not easily broken.

TWO - Jesus sent his disciples out in 2s on their first mission. Paul and Barnabas were set aside by the church to do the work of mission - 2 were sent, John Mark later made it 3 but Paul fell out with the 2... Moses and Aaron formed a strong team of 2 to go on the mission to rescue Israel from slavery, but God was highly present as THE 3rd person.

ONE - Some churches have the lone ranger mentality of 1. There is the 1 leader who is meant to hold it all together. I’ve seen it under two models of church. One is where the church has a very high view of Apostolic gifting, so that there is a Lead Elder who is next to God and above the people (and you don’t dare question his judgements - have friends in one such such). The other is in my own denomination where there is a high view of Ordination, so that there is a Priest who is better connected to God, more Holy, and the unfortunate locus of church life and ministry. End result - tend to crash and burn, because they are above community!

So partnership really does matter. Two, three, four, five strands... just not ONE!

30.08.2010

: Reply Flag 0 Thumbs Up Thumbs Down torvill (0)
Norway

Hey, Dave :-)

I´m not so sure I follow you fully. If you have a partnership of two and ONE leaves the partnership, it breaks the partnership. If there are five and one has to leave, or chooses to leave, the partnerships can continue with the remaining four. With only two, the stakes are higher, which of course also makes the dynamics a bit more polarized - which adds to what you´re saying I guess.

I´ve also seen partnerships of a little more than a handful where commitment was low since noone really owned it.

I think it comes back to what MJA says and gathering around a common purpose and vision that is different from the separate parties´vision and mission. That´s probably easier to do when there are more parties. When you are only two, you will more easily fall into "getting your way".

03.08.2010

: Reply Flag 0 Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Rinchen (3)
United States

I’m not so sure it is a matter of the number of partners here-- three partners can jsut as easily turn to a "what I can do for you & what you can do for me" mentality. I think the difference is based on what the partnership is there to serve. If it is fundamentally about codependency, it is bound to fail with 2 or 3 or 20 agencies. If it is essentially about an ethic of a shared responsibility for the messy world our people expereince daily, then the focus is outward, be it a partnership of 2 or 20. I’ve seen the difference come out clearly in partners response to sacrifice. Those in it for "you help me" take sacrifice personally and leave wtih a chip on their shoulders. Those in it to change the way their world works take sacrifice as part of the course and keep right on "plodding."

01.04.2010