PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN UNEQUALS—MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?

Structures and theology In 1987, Eugene Stockwell, the then director of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME), noted that Whenever a major deliberative assembly takes place, bringing together persons deeply committed to Christian mission, it is likely that sooner or later the discussion will turn to -- and perhaps founder on -- issues of structure. (1) Clearly this has changed. The structures of mission are no longer at the top of the agenda of missiologists' or mission practitioners' meetings. "There is so personal and quiet a face to Christian mission that we can be excused some impatience with talk of structures. " (2) But nonetheless they remain highly relevant, since the situation that triggered these discussions from the 1950s to 1980s is still prevalent. If some kind of equality (often termed "partnership") between Western and third world churches in the light of Galatians 3:28 is perceived as a major challenge for Christian mission in a world increasingly torn apart by economic, cultural, religious and other diversities, then adequate structures for interchurch relations are of utmost importance. It is relatively easy to develop new theological ideas, but their ultimate value lies in their practicality, and this is where structures must be taken into account. A church's annual budget says more (and often something very different) about its theology than its verbal declarations of faith. In the same way structures say a lot about the inherent theology of mission organizations (and churches). Structures can facilitate the overcoming of unequal (sometimes unjust) relationships, or they can make it impossible. The fundamental issue can be stated in this way: Can one speak in credible terms of partnership between the dominant and the dominated, the powerful and the powerless, the large and the small, the rich and the poor, the black and the white, and the oppressor and the oppressed? (3) The touchiest but not the only issue in this field of inequality in power is the question of money and the might that goes with it. As Konrad Raiser said: In the long run there can be no real partnership in regard of a lasting worldwide inequality in power, e.g. between rich and poor, donors and receivers. Material dependency destroys human relationships elsewhere, too, however hard one may try to achieve partnership. (4) Although noting this is not much more than a commonplace, theologians are often somewhat reluctant to reflect too much upon the role of "mammon". Unfortunately this does not keep money, and its unequal distribution, from playing a major role in inter-church relations. Therefore the following reflections will concentrate on the sharing of resources, viz, money, people and ideas, even if this is not meant to say that other areas of inter-church relations (equal access to information and education, for example) are not also of great importance. It would be wrong to overlook that there have been bold attempts to draw structural consequences from missiological insights. Notably in Europe, some former mission societies have restructured over the past three decades in an attempt to create structures to enable rather than hinder equal relations between churches in North and South. (5) The prime examples are the Communaute Evagelique d'Action Apostolique (CEVAA, today Cevaa) with 47 member churches and formerly known as the Societe des Missions Evangeliques de Paris (SMEP), the Council for World Mission (CWM) with 32 members, formerly the London Missionary Society (LMS), and the United Evangelical Mission (UEM), with 32 members, and Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft and Bethel Mission (RMG), from Wuppertal. They restructured in comparable ways in 1971 (CEVAA), 1977 (CWM) and 1996 (UEM). They have become much acclaimed ecumenical partnership models, and thus a lot has been published on them, most of which does not need repeating here. …