It seems that we are seeing a significant shift in how we view partnerships because of the greater involvement of local partners. I wonder if you share the same or similar thoughts as the ones I express below.

 The current missions partnership trend was born of some realities, one of which is the expatriate community of missionaries. These are people who leave their usual life context behind and dedicate themselves to their mission objectives. Their presence on the field is shaped and structured around their ministry relationships and priorities. This means that they leave behind the rich web of relationships to persons and institutions that they call home country. Most of these relationships are put on hold or delegated to friends and relatives while they dedicate all their attention to the mission. When these people enter into partnerships on the field, they can do so with greater focus and less distraction.

For some years now local leaders have become more involved in these partnerships. While initially locals might have been drawn in as junior partners, more and more they are assuming greater leadership in mission partnerships in their country or region. Partnering relationships reorganize themselves so that expatriates are increasingly playing a supporting role to local leaders. This is a healthy development welcome by most expatriates.

How does this desirable rearrangement affect the nature of mission partnerships? It affects them in three significant ways:

1.      Culture – Shifts will emerge along different perspectives on time, tasks, relationships and other factors;

2.      Style – Each society develops its own way to manage life. Indian society, for instance, has developed its own way of formally documenting relationships and agreements; Brazilians tend to be informal and casual in style.

3.      Life Context – The expatriate missionary has left behind the details of family and church life and is dedicated almost exclusively to his/her mission objectives. The local leaders faces exactly the opposite situation. They are seeking to partner with the expatriate while still balancing the whole web of relationships and responsibilities that are naturally part of his lhome ife.

Let us explore this in more detail. As an expatriate, I can focus on things related to my mission more fully because I left many of the routine, though important, relationships back home. My siblings will look after my aging parents, my friends may manage my bank account or take care of any property. Formal and informal demands and expectations of the home church are minimal or put on hold. This means that I am generally more readily available to pursue mission activities, including partnership concerns. I may more easily attend meetings and follow up on agreed assignments. Apart from my immediate family, most or all of my relationships are mission-related.

My local partner, on the other hand, still has all the types of relationships and responsibilities that I left behind in my home country. His/her mission relationships and responsibilities are a smaller percentage of his overall life demands. There are demands of family, church and society that cannot be easily ignored or postponed. For him/her, participation in partnering activities requires more flexibility, and often greater immediate sacrifices.

The differences are often exacerbated by lesser access to resources. The local partner often must walk or use public transportation, may inadequate access to email and cell phone; he/she may be less likely to be able to stop by the stationery shop to pick a supply of name tags or flipchart paper on the way to a meeting, and less able to replace printer ink and burned projector bulbs.

The foreign partner is blessedly removed from local church politics back home, while the local partner cannot easily escape it. His/her involvement in a partnership often involves compromises that the expatriate need not make. Credibility among his country peers carries greater weight concerning the local’s effectiveness in ministry than the expatriate’s.

It should be no surprise, then, that as locals assume a greater role in partnerships, partnerships themselves will begin to change in significant ways. Timetables may be shifted or stretched; projects may be less ambitious; concessions may need to be made to influential church leaders whose commitments to the partnership may be marginal at best, but whose moral support is essential for the effectiveness of the local partner.

Quite often, these peripheral relationships will need to become part of the objective of the partnership. Before we can focus on the specific targeted population segment we may need to help develop a spirit of cooperation among the local believers, denominations, churches and ministries.

In some cases, once the partnership came more and more under the leadership of locals, it has focused increasingly on development of a network of Christians while more specific mission objectives have been postponed. This might seem, on the surface, a detour from the original purpose. Yet, how can we pursue the expansion of the one body of Christ if the body is not one? The long term kingdom objectives may be better served by this shorter term investment on the unity of the national church even if the initial objective of the partnership has to be delayed.

How have you, as a partnership practitioner, experienced this shift from expatriate leadership to local? What lessons have you learned that could be shared with others? What corrections and critique can you contribute to what I am saying?