The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Autor: Jim Thomas
Fecha: 24.02.2010
Category: Asociación
To facilitate a truly global conversation, we ask Christian leaders from around the world to respond to the Global Conversation’s lead articles. These points of view do not necessarily represent Christianity Today magazine or the Lausanne Movement. They are designed to stimulate discussion from all points of the compass and from different segments of the Christian community. Please add your perspective by posting a comment so that we can learn and grow together in the unity of the Spirit.
Valdir Steurenagel is right to stand with many others who call for equitable relationships between churches and organizations of the West and those of the global South. Western cultures are notable for their self-assuredness, assertiveness, and belief that there is nothing they can’t fix. Non-Western cultures are more often deferential to guests, especially wealthy ones. The pairing of these two worldviews is a set-up for misunderstandings and unequal relationships.
Partnership sounds like a good alternative. The term evokes images of equality and shared goals. Or does it? I receive appeals in the mail on a regular basis from Christian and other nonprofit organizations, asking me to partner with them as they attend to some social need. What they envision, though, is a relationship in which I give money and they do work. That is hardly a partnership. It’s a transfer of funds, with the return of good feelings, occasional reports of the group’s achievements (with requests for more money), and a calendar at the end of the year. There are times when that is exactly the kind of relationship I want. But it’s not my idea of a partnership.
The word partnership, then, can hide as much as it reveals. It can confound as much as it clarifies. I now rarely use the word. Through my church and an organization I founded (Africa Rising), I have worked to build and nurture relationships between churches and organizations in Africa and the US. I have seen how using the term partnership early in a relationship can create misunderstandings that stymie the development of a genuine relationship. Two parties can have very different ideas of what partnership means. I prefer to talk instead of relationships and the virtues that enable good and healthy ones. Virtues like respect, honoring one another, giving the benefit of the doubt, and persistence — or, hanging in there when things get tough. These are the virtues that we talk about in friendships and marriages. The same should be true for international relationships. Valdir Steuernagel affirms such virtues when he speaks of listening well.
Practical Advice
Steuernagel avoids suggesting there is a formula to listening well or developing a good relationship. But he also demonstrates that experiences he and others have had can be helpful to others. To put flesh on the lofty idea of equitable relationships, we need to share these experiences and insights. I’ll mention a few here.
The Goal
All cultures have insights into God’s kingdom and all cultures have blind spots. By developing relationships across cultures and listening well to each other, we all stand the chance of more fully experiencing God’s kingdom. For Westerners and non-Westerners alike, the goal of our relationships is that our own lives and the lives of others might be transformed toward the likeness of Jesus. Christians of different cultures sacrificially serving each other are also a testimony of the unifying love of the Holy Spirit.
Jim Thomas is an associate professor of epidemiology and director of the Program in Public Health Ethics at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He is also the founder and president of Africa Rising, an organization that enhances the impact of effective African organizations by extending their networks (africarising.org).
Palabras clave: partnership, relationship, Africa Arising, equality, shared goals, listening, sharing resources, transformation, Christlike
Opiniones: 11387
Comentarios: 11
Recomendaciones: 1
Conversación Publicar comentario
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
You are all asking the right questions. We need to remember that money represents a kind of power. The body of Christ puts other forms of power first. And we have a troubled history with money as a source of power. Even so, I do not believe that bannishing exchanges of money from our relationships gets rid of the power imbalances in them. More than anything, what we need is trusting relationships where we can have conversations full of honesty and grace about the challenges to our relationships. Money is one of them. To have those conversations face-to-face, someone is going to have to buy a plane ticket.
08.10.2010
Brasil
@ jthomas:
Peace, a great evil that plagues not only friends but also people is corruption in our nation in our nation are evolving on this issue mainly through education and teaching the word of God, but mainly issues related to money, trying to prevent us from continue to make new friends, without whom we would not have new life experiences fostered by relationships, so discernment terms of what the real intentions of the person approaching them is important in giving us more opportunity to mine the treasures in earthen vessels is essential .
12.10.2010
Países Bajos
Love the provocative style of this article - the ethicist has arisen :-). It has been a blessing for me to serve alongside and inside partnerships for the coming of the Kingdom in many cross-cultural contexts around the world over the past twenty years. Helpful tools for the process of developing kingdom partnerships were found in the writings of the Relationships Foundation by Michael Schluter "money is a wonderful tool for building relationships if used in an ethically correct way" http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org and in a publication by Ernie Addicott "Body Matters: A Guide to Partnership in Christian Mission". Some more helpful resources at http://www.powerofconnecting.net/ These publications have helped to clear up the mists of misunderstanding about issues of relationships, networking and partnerships that I had. Working through them together with potential partners is most useful for establishing a mutually acceptable framework of collaboration for His glory. What can I say? If our Master thought it a good idea to fit all of us into His Body, we better learn how to function as one also in the areas of mission and finance - uncomfortable as it might be at first.
29.07.2010
Nigeria
It seems to me as if we are dealing with a commercial word - Partnership. I quite agree with the suggestion to be careful with its use ie use it less often. I completly disagree with Jim as else where - he is simply over-reacting.
I agree that money should never be the base of any relationship for several reasons but it should NOT be left out in our commercial world.Jesus had a treasury and some of the money may have been given to the poor as suggested by Judas. Jesus watched and never condemned brother Zakky when he shared half of his wealth to the poor...
Commerce and economics have several kinds of parnerships for several ends as should the Church. The advice given above would help and if love is the driving force in our relationships, we will have less pains.
12.07.2010
Kenia
I guess I would like to elaborate on Jim’s suggestion above as follows: “On the other hand, we shouldn’t aim for a relationship in which money is never exchanged — especially with such global wealth disparities.” Although I agree with him in the absolute sense, such a bottom line can, I fear, be destructive in terms of building relationships.
There were poor people around at the time of Jesus. We are aware that he had a certain treasury. Did he hand out a ‘bit’ of money to all he met? Did he hand out any money to anyone at all? I think it is not recorded. The notion that Christian ministry is about handing out funds does not arise from Christ.
Other will of course point to Paul’s collection for ‘the poor’ (i.e. those who were so devoted that they sold all they had and gave it to the church (Acts 4:32)). Without going into great detail in this ‘comment’, let me suggest that the collection was to bring unity between the Gentile and the Jewish church.
I have piles of relationships with Westerners, some of them much better off than I, in which money is never exchanged. Why must it be between Westerners and the so-called ‘poor’ of the world?
A ‘little’ money in one part of the world, can be a lot in another. Someone giving their neighbour in Sweden $5.00 is unlikely to make them subservient – but that may not apply in other parts of the world. Are we wanting to ‘buy’ all our Christian partners?
For an individual not to give, is not to cease to give overall. If I do not want to hand out money myself, then why not give it to World Vision, Tear Fund, Compassion etc. etc. etc. Let them do the money thing, and allow ‘me’ to minister to people as a brother in Christ and not a ‘donor’.
It’s time we sidelined money in the whole missionary equation, for many more reasons in addition to those mentioned above …
13.05.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ Jim_Harries:
A quick reflexive comment: I appreciate Jim H’s passion on this subject, but I disagree that money should never be exchanged between people. There are numerous instances in both the OT and NT when charity and help for the poor is commanded. The early church under Peter for example ("holding all things in common & giving to anyone who had need"), Paul’s collection for the poor (which I think is as much about helping the poor and hungry as it is unity), Jesus’ command to the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor, the commands to take care of widows and orphans, etc. To say that we who are richer should never give to those who are poorer is a bad generalization. But we should do so in ways that promote humility, charity, kindness, gentleness, meekness, etc. And to pass off a responsibility for handling a gift properly by giving it to an intermediary (e.g. World Vision) is, I think, to shirk the character development necessary to give properly. What if at Christmas time I were to pass off my gift giving responsibilities to third parties?...
21.05.2010
Kenia
@ justinlong:
See also
http://conversation.lausanne.org/conversations/detail/10287
Where I have dealt with this topic in more detail.
I appreciate Justin’s temperament. I would love to agree with him whole heartedly ... I also love to ’give’ and to be known to be the ’giver’ with all that this implies. Of course we also have the other Biblical direction, not to let your right hand know what your left is doing ... But one main reason I write what I do, is the incredible situation in Africa in which mission has become dominated by money in a way that is apart from anything else extremely racist and destructive of local initiative ... Then when I look back at the Scriptures, I do not find the organised donor activity that we are involved in today, at all ...
22.05.2010
Canadá
Most agree that effective partnership is built on relationship. The basis of all successful business is not money, it is trust. Relationship and trust is built upon the common experience of one another. The best common experience is common adversity - whether it results in success or failure but certainly with the huge potential of failure. Faith walked together is the best building block of effective partnership (better word, "collaboration"). In 25 years of cross-cultural work, my best times are those when we deal with a common external situation together. If we don’t have respect and trust and value one another, it is only utilitarian. This type of cooperation comes best when we ’grow up in mission together’. It doesn’t come with heads of churches and missions in strategic think tanks. It comes when 20 year olds get together to attempt something impossible for God. When they annoy each other, when they misunderstand and irritate. When they pray and work and cry and fail and succeed. When they sin and repent together. Real relationship is based on this over time..not overnight by signing of papers and committees and strategic theological papers.
24.04.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
@ Mobile: Task and relationship are like the meat and the gravy, the oil and the engine-- better together :-). I’ve seen partnerships plateau at the relational level and never make it to strategic thinking/action-- people eventually get tired of an "all gravy" partnership. Those partnerships that do make it beyond there are more fulfilling for everyone concerned, which enriches the relationships. Strategic thinking and action gives us a meaningful context for relationships. I guess I also see value in the conferences and statements-- as it gives us a chance to come together, integrate our experiences/perspectives and then move the game forward rather that constantly reinventing the wheel. How have you seen this work out in your area?
24.04.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
I can well appreciate the lessons here, Jim, and have experienced both frustration and satisfaction in resource-based partnerships (which include deep relational elements, as all partnerships must).
At the same time, I would not say that I experience the outcome of my gift as good feelings, etc. My desired and experienced outcome is a changed world.
I make the decision to give or not based on my assessment of whether or not it is strategic, whether or not it makes sense to do this here and now. I experience the outcomes vicariously through the people my gift helps to serve. I guess I do see the supply chain relationship above as a form of partnership, much as Paul did with the churches that sent him funds on occasion for his ministry. Like Dave was saying here, the common vision between me and the agency I fund is what binds us together.
Will be interested to follow the feedback on this post. Thanks Jim!
02.04.2010
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
I want to affirm what you have written. All too often the concept of partnership is trotted out when it is no more than a request for money and the promise of a quarterly letter.
I prefer bringing people and organizations into contact with each other around shared ministry visions, as a network. Then, from within that network we begin to learn of those with whom we can initiate joint projects (as equals) and labor together for the Lord. These are partnerships. As I write elsewhere, I recommend that all ministry and mission partnerships take place between at least three organizations so that they are themselves a community.
And yes, a sustained period of getting to know one another, learn each other’s hearts and purposes, and gain clarity on ministry is a prerequisite for partnering together.
Thanks for your reflection!
23.03.2010
Usted debe iniciar la sesión para publicar un comentario. Si no tiene una cuenta, regístrese ahora (¡es gratis y sencillo!)