After the 1960s and 70s, when more and more countries gained their independence from colonial powers, so too, young churches began to receive more autonomy from their parent mission organisations. While some perhaps gained it too early and others too late, all faced new tensions in their mission/church relationships. Eventually, the tensions built to the extent that a moratorium was called on missions, largely by churches in the Majority World.

When first used, moratorium meant that western missionary involvement should be deferred for a limited time of five years, but others argued that missionaries should be withdrawn completely.

Ever since, missions and churches have wrestled with determining and understanding what conditions are needed for missions to move from the parent stage to the partner stage. A great amount of lip service has been paid to the idea of partnership between mission organisations and their daughter churches, but it has been quite a different matter to undertake effectively. This is particularly the case when such divergent ideas exist regarding what partnership really entails.

As a black clergyman, I have observed in countries such as Angola, Zambia, South Africa, Madagascar, Seychelles and Guinea that the local church has not been self-governing and independent of foreign missions since their inception in the late 1800s, even through to today, and the work of missionaries within the churches is still being directed by foreign mission bodies.

When I was growing up, it was common to see the schools and institutions involved in mission under boards of directors controlled by foreign mission organisations. This included an imposed work budget and vision by the expatriates. Whether deliberate or not, this form of white saviourism resembles colonialisation every bit as much as it did 200 years ago.

Recent church-mission conferences have deliberated on how to improve the mother-daughter relationship that many mission organisations have with their partners overseas. However, the new resolutions we are seeing are simply adding further steps to what has already been accomplished when it comes to the transfer of authority from foreign mission agencies to the churches and institutions they control overseas.

While relinquishing control is the right step, it should have never been about control in the first place.

For true mutuality to take place, there must be a genuine give-and-take from both sides. The Church needs to be heard and taken seriously by the Mission, and the Mission will need to take considerable initiative to see that it happens. Both the Mission and the Church (but particularly the Mission) will need to bear in mind the two most common models used in approaching partnership, consciously moving from the 'sponsorship' or business model to the 'family' model.

This is why we at Langham Partnership (Langham) aim to equip and resource indigenous leaders from majority world nations to multiply disciples in their families, churches and communities. Climaxing 45 years of some of the most fruitful work in the history of modern missions, Langham uses the 'family' model to come alongside the global church and equip God's people with God's Word - through our Langham Scholars, Langham Preaching and Langham Literature programmes.

White saviourism can be combated by moving from the 'sponsorship' model to the 'family' model, as seen in the chart below.

However, both those who send missionaries and those who receive them have scars of suspicion and distrust due to the underlying question, 'Do we really believe that we are, or can be, partners?' This keeps both mission and church groups from seeing objectively how God has gifted each.

Therefore, even where funds are involved, the following two governing principles are vital. The first, "the principle of the giving of life," outlines the balance in partnership which characterises the sharing of resources in an equitable way. The second, "the principle of stewardship," emphasises self-support. This underlines the continuing importance of enabling the Majority church to become mature.

Because of this, Langham does not send missionaries abroad. It is important to recognise that though our brothers and sisters in the majority world live in places of poverty, pressure, and persecution, they are also places of great potential.

Moving beyond the 'problems'

Rather than dwelling on the negatives of the past, it is imperative that national and expatriate church workers establish a let's-go-and-build-together attitude for the good of the church as a whole, recognising that they are here to positively benefit the growth of the body of Christ.

It is high time that ministry strategies need to be either introduced or strengthened to propel the Mission and the Church in certain new directions. Neither the Mission nor the Church have anything to gain by repeatedly laying the blame at each other's door for either past or present situations. Each needs to take its own responsibility now and move forward. Dwelling on the difficulties or misunderstandings of the past will only give bitterness an opportunity to spring up and cause trouble (Heb. 12:15).

Rev. José Laussu is supporter development officer for Scotland at Langham Partnership.