Whither partnership? Reflections on the history of mutuality in mission 1

Theme 1: The home base

First, the issue of the home base, or those that make up the constituencies of the Global churches, is crucial for understanding the limits of partnership. From the late eighteenth century when mission societies were first formed, international mission was the interest and purview of a small minority of Global Christians. In 1874, Rufus Anderson wrote that “the apparent insensibility of so many real Christians to the enlargement and glory of their Redeemer’s kingdom on earth, is not because their hearts are really cold and dead to the interest of that kingdom, but because they know so little about it.” ⁷ Anderson hoped that educating church members about world mission would solve this problem. Increased efforts at educating church members by the mission societies did not significantly change the situation, however, so in 1900 John Mott could still write that “[the] greatest hindrances to the evangelization of the world are those within the Church.” ⁸

By the Jerusalem meeting of the International Missionary Council (IMC) in 1928, the idea of partnership between Global and World churches had emerged. But when looking at the growing World churches and their calls for autonomy, A. M. Chirgwin noted that “the man in the pew is scarcely aware that they [the World churches] exist. In so far as he is thinking of the missionary matters at all, he is thinking in the old terms.” ⁹ For Chirgwin, if the movement made towards greater freedom for the World churches was going to be successful, the support of the general membership within Global Christianity was essential:

Most missionary societies nowadays are trying to hand over authority to the indigenous Churches. That passage of responsibility is of the first importance to the strong fresh growth of the Churches that have been planted. But the transference cannot for long go any faster or further than the home boards permit; and the action of the boards is conditioned by the informed interest of the Churches they represent. They in turn cannot for long go faster or further than the Churches allow … The man in the pew is therefore the man who matters. Everything depends upon whether he is hostile, indifferent or intelligently zealous. His goodwill is not enough; his informed goodwill is essential. ¹⁰

Despite the implementation of broad based educational programs for the Global churches over the next couple of decades, many church members continued to think of mission in the “old terms.”

The Whitby meeting of the IMC in 1947 still noted serious problems in this area. Although those involved in ecumenical leadership continued to advance the paradigm of partnership, Whitby stated that “[the] propaganda which will ensure support on these new terms has hardly begun … The missionary education movement of a previous generation which produced admirable material, yet somehow failed, must be recast in a new mould and given a new strategy.” ¹¹ The Willingen meeting of the IMC in 1952 also stated that “the twentieth-century mission of the Church is mainly being supported by people who still think in nineteenth-century terms … [One] of the large unfinished tasks lies at the ‘home base.’” ¹² To address some of these issues, the New Delhi Assembly of the WCC (1961) initiated a study entitled “The Missionary Structure of the Congregation.” The study’s official report, received at the WCC Assembly in Uppsala (1968), noted that “in this world we need to meet others, across all the frontiers, in new relationships that mean both listening and responding, both giving and receiving. This necessitates … a continuing re-examination of the structures of the church.” ¹³

Thirty years later, however, despite all of these efforts, a consultation on ecumenical relationships held at Bangalore in 1996 noted that one of the most serious impediments to realizing partnership was the “traditional and ever-present understanding of mission that we find to be based on a nineteenth century missionary agenda of building outposts of sending churches, agencies and organizations.” ¹⁴ To address this issue, John Brown stated the continued need to educate Global church members on the meaning of partnership, for “[often] the understanding of mutuality and sharing of needs and gifts has been at a mission-board level, and the understanding of mission in congregations remains ‘something we do for people over there.’” ¹⁵

One hopeful sign in seeking to change the concept of mission as simply sending people or resources “over there” is the growing emphasis on churches being “missional.” This concept gained currency in 1998 after the publication of Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, edited by Darrel Guder. According to South African scholar Willem Saayman, “[the] sub-title … A vision for the sending of the church in North America … seems like nothing new: after all, the church in North America has been a ‘sent church’ for more than a century … On reading the book, however, one discovers that a completely new ‘sending’ (mission) is meant: sending the church in North America to North America—and this is quite new (and quite exciting)!” ¹⁶ Yet, Saayman goes on to critique what he sees as a major flaw in missional theology, namely the fact that it gives churches “a very introverted countenance … [and] I have the uncomfortable feeling that what is happening here … may be an over-correction of a previous one-sidedness, when Christians in the North Atlantic were convinced that they were called to be witnesses ‘to the ends of the earth.’” ¹⁷ Although granting that this phenomenon is quite new (compared to the history of international Protestant missions), because of its emphasis on understanding one’s local context it seems that this movement may, at present at least, have very little effect on how Global and World churches relate to one another.

One clear example of the divide between how local and international mission is understood can be seen in the issue of immigration. Christianity is growing exponentially in the global South (in general, defined as Africa, Asia, and Central/South America) and, because of immigration, each year thousands of Christians migrate from the global South to North America and Europe, bringing their faith with them. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson notes, however, that “most congregations in North America have little awareness of how these global changes are arriving at their own doorstep … The contours of World Christianity are changing in ways that plead for the radical attentiveness of congregations in North America. As global shifts create new local realties, the church can discover fresh pathways for fashioning a vital missional presence within the culture.” ¹⁸ Unfortunately, it seems at present that for many churches, making the connections between one’s local context and larger trends and changes taking place globally is a difficult task. As Jehu Hanciles notes, “the idea of ‘missions’ as a Western prerogative and privilege remains entrenched … Very few perceive the newcomers as partners and co-collaborators in ministry. All too often, in fact, a homegrown church might spend thousands of dollars sending a mission team to Ghana and completely ignore the Ghanaian dominated church down the road.” ¹⁹ Although missional theology may enable Global Christians to minister locally, for it to have any bearing on international partnerships it must also develop an understanding of mission first put forth at the Mexico City CWME meeting in 1963; mission is both to (and from) all six continents.

Looking back over the history of partnership, it seems clear that the issue of the home base continues to be the most imperative to address. Putting Chirgwin’s words from 1928 into today’s more inclusive language, partnership can advance no faster or further than the churches allow. The people in the pew are the ones who matter. Whether addressing the following issues of humanitarianism and development, authority, or the implementation of policies to make rhetoric become reality, without a much broader understanding by those in the pew of partnership and God’s call to live in community and solidarity across lines of difference, both locally and globally, very little progress or change can be expected in the way Global/World church relationships will be lived out in the future.

Theme 2: Humanitarianism and development

From the beginning of the modern missionary movement, humanitarianism and development have played a part in the motivation of missionaries and their supporters. Neta Crawford, in Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention, notes that humanitarianism has historically been lived out in two ways, namely, aggressive and reformist. First, she defines aggressive humanitarianism as that which is “exercised through discipline, socialization (eliciting compliance by instilling in the other a coincidence of interests and beliefs) and surveillance.” ²⁰ On the other hand, reformist humanitarianism focuses on the excesses of colonialism/neo-colonialism and the exploitation of the colonized, with calls that those in power should not simply seek profit but also work for the benefit of all. While the practice of reformist humanitarianism would seem to have the potential to be less imperialistic, Crawford notes that although it seeks to mitigate the excesses of aggressive humanitarianism, the efforts of reformist humanitarianism also contain latent paternalism. For example, while reformist humanitarians historically spoke out against colonialism, their intent was not to question the colonial system itself but abuses inherent within the system. ²¹ In the current partnership discourse, although reformist humanitarianism has dominated the development discussions within the ecumenical movement for almost four decades, this does not negate the fact that Western paternalism still exists in these relationships. As Maria Eriksson Baaz notes, “[what] is perceived by some as solidarity is experienced by others as hypocrisy.” ²²

During the first half of the nineteenth century, known as the Age of Humanitarianism, both forms were clearly present. Unfortunately, within both forms, paternalism and feelings of cultural superiority were rife within the Protestant missionary movement. David Bosch states that “Christians did not, on the whole, have any doubt concerning the superiority of their own faith over all others. It was therefore, perhaps, to be expected that their feelings of religious superiority would spawn beliefs about cultural superiority.” ²³ On the other hand, however, Wilbert R. Shenk notes that “humanitarians viewed the process of social transformation as conversion. They emphasized the importance of tapping the potential within an individual or a people. Such transformation had to be based on a voluntary, willed response from those being assisted.” ²⁴ Bosch agrees that respect for others’ selfhood was important, noting that during this time “the missionaries regarded as brothers and sisters the people to whom they felt God was sending them … The principle theme was that of empathy and solidarity.” ²⁵ A perfect example of this dichotomy can be seen in the life of Rufus Anderson. Anderson had little respect for the indigenous cultures of non-Western peoples, writing that “[one] obvious and most important fact in modern missions to the heathen is, that they are prosecuted in the less civilized, and to a great extent uncivilized, portions of the world … India is partially civilized, the rest are in a state of barbarism, and most of them … are absolutely savage.” ²⁶ Yet, even with these views he refused to equate sharing the gospel with the imposition of Western civilization, culture, or ecclesial traditions, believing that “[as] soon as the mission church has a native pastor, the responsibilities of self-government should be devolved upon it. Mistakes, perplexities, and sometimes scandals, there will be; but it is often thus that useful experience is gained, even in churches at home.” ²⁷ Although Anderson, along with Henry Venn of the Church Missionary Society, are exceptional examples of early missionary strategists who sought to protect the agency of indigenous converts, C. Peter Williams notes that “[it] is not … an exaggeration to claim that the ideal of an indigenous church was accepted by most Protestant … missionary thinkers for the greater part of the Victorian era.” ²⁸ Throughout modern Protestant missionary history, these two powerful currents, namely strong feelings of cultural superiority and paternalism on the one hand, and concern for protecting and respecting the autonomy and agency of non-Western peoples on the other, have continued to exist in tension.

After World War II, with the beginning of decolonization, the term “development” replaced talk of humanitarianism; although terminology changed, paternalistic tendencies were still present, however. For example, a report from the WCC Assembly in Uppsala in 1968 entitled “World Economic and Social Development” notes that “[today] … the rich countries surround themselves with protective tariffs and quotas so as to prevent exports from the third world entering their countries. We have to face the fact that a responsible policy would involve serious changes in all our countries, in our economic systems, involving painful social sacrifices during the transition period.” ²⁹ The same report, however, also states that “[in] order to help these people to emerge from their poverty it is not enough to send them food … [The] people of the third world do not need food so much as fertilizers, selected seeds, irrigation, technical instruction … They need our support in order to get rid of their feudal agrarian system [italics mine].” ³⁰ In other words, although the West may need to reform its systems of trade, what others really need is a partner to come and teach them the “right” way to do things. The ecumenical movement, through the WCC, started programs such as Inter-Church Aid and Joint Action for Mission to enable churches to become involved in development. Interestingly, although designations such as “older” and “younger” and “sending” and “receiving” had, by this time, fallen out of favor, the development era brought about new designations: “initiating” and “supporting” churches. Although mission was understood by this time to be “to six continents,” Global churches still sought to distinguish between those in need and those who felt called to meet those needs.

From the 1970s until the present, with both the noted failure of Western-style development as well as the increased call for the churches of World Christianity to direct and control their own affairs, reformist tendencies have, by and large, directed the ecumenical movement. In the past three decades, the WCC has challenged organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund because of policies such as “structural adjustment programs.” Focus has instead been put on issues of sustainable development, the application of “appropriate technologies,” and development as increasing people’s ability to live a meaningful life. For instance, in 1980, delegates at Melbourne noted that “missionaries who do work among the poor must not be content to dole out charity. Nor can they engage in that kind of ‘development’ that allows for only a limited number of the poor to join the middle-class elite without working to overcome societal injustice for the many.” ³¹ Despite this change, Melbourne also stated that many in the Global churches, especially in the United States, “still have not abandoned the image of missionary activity as one-way traffic. From us to them … From developed to underdeveloped countries.” ³²

Notably, too, over the past three decades there has been a movement in ecumenical circles away from speaking of development to an emphasis on diakonia (service). In 1980, as a result of a WCC initiated study on the Ecumenical Sharing of Resources, a study guide was released entitled Empty Hands: An Agenda for the Churches. The document began by addressing Global Christians, stating that “[when] people approach one another with their hands full of gifts for each other, they cannot shake hands or embrace in greeting … First, they must set these gifts aside in order to greet each other with empty hands. Given our constant struggle against insidious temptation to incur gratitude and gain influence over others with our gifts, what better place on which to put these gifts … than the altar at the foot of the Cross?” ³³ Later, during the Harare Assembly of the WCC in 1998, although focusing on the biblical concept of jubilee (Lev 25), the WCC sought to help Global churches emphasize working with the marginalized, especially through capacity-building, along with networking and advocacy, so that World Christian communities might speak for themselves. ³⁴ By advocating for a diakonial approach, the WCC continued to separate efforts of service and mutuality from Western style development with its unavoidable dichotomy between “donors” and “recipients.”

Today, humanitarianism is still an important motivating factor for those involved in mission. And although the recent shift towards reformist humanitarianism and diakonia should be celebrated, it is important to acknowledge that in our globalized world, both aggressive and reformist tendencies are still part of the churches’ humanitarian response. Although the last three decades have seen partnership discussions focus on mutuality, solidarity, and concepts such as koinonia, Valdir Raul Steuernagel, at the Athens meeting of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) in 2005, stated that in Global/World church relationships, “paternalism keeps being a practice. [A] paternalism … working with an agenda which lacks more self-criticism and willingness for conversion while enjoying to evaluate the life and problems of ‘those others down there.’” ³⁵ For Christians from the Global churches, although many positive changes can be seen in how churches relate to one another on this issue, paternalism and feelings of cultural superiority continue to hinder the ability to experience true partnership.

Theme 3: Authority

Because the concept and usage of the term “partnership” began and evolved in a colonial context, the issue of authority, especially in regard to finances, has plagued Global/World church relationships. Although Rufus Anderson and Henry Venn advocated that churches should be self-supporting from the beginning, Hogg noted that many of their contemporaries, as well as those who followed them as the leaders of mission societies, did not put this principle into practice: “When any enthusiast suggested devolution or missionary withdrawal as being shortly feasible, his voice was drowned out by a crescendoing chorus of caution. Missionary work was a long-time enterprise.” ³⁶ This view was heightened during the era of high colonialism, during which racism and denominationalism were rife. ³⁷ Although most agreed that the World churches were allowed to administer funds raised locally, when it came to funds raised in the Global churches, the Ecumenical Conference on Foreign Missions in 1900 stated that the missions “are not obliged … to make the native church their partner in … administration.” ³⁸ Although Asian delegates at Edinburgh in 1910 argued for the right of the World churches to have some control in how monies received were used, leading up to the Jerusalem IMC meeting eighteen years later, the dispute was far from settled. When discussing the oversight of funds, Arthur Judson Brown stated that

[about] nineteen-twentieths of the money now expended on the foreign field comes from Europe and America. It is a sound principle that money should be administered by those who are selected by the representatives of the donors and who can be held to accountability for its use. The mission, being composed of missionaries, can be held to this accountability … The native Church cannot be … Men who have had little or no training in business methods and who have never handled more than one hundred dollars a year in their lives, are not men to administer wisely several hundred thousand dollars of other people’s money. ³⁹

Over time, the arguments specifically relating to the control of finances were, to a certain degree, mitigated by a number of historical events including the financial depression—which caused the World churches, by necessity, to be more self-reliant—as well as growing nationalism and calls for independence by colonized peoples. As a result, new understandings and structures for sharing funds were implemented at meetings after World War II, especially at Whitby in 1947.

Far from ending paternalism, however, arguments simply shifted from who administered foreign funds to whether the Global churches actually listened to and trusted the churches of World Christianity. At the Accra meeting of the IMC in 1958, it was noted that “[one] essential requirement of partnership is that the partner must be a true partner … Is the partner from Asia and Africa really heard? … [The] churches in Asia and Africa must be taken much more seriously; partnership means listening to the partner, to what God is saying through him to [the] church.” ⁴⁰ One way the ecumenical movement attempted to promote trust and mutuality was the program Joint Action for Mission. Yet, the Mexico City CWME meeting in 1963 recognized a number of problems with JAM, including “the really radical demands for sharing of information and pooling resources … with the consequent need for change in existing [program] and relationships, and disturbances to vested interests of congregations, churches, and mission agencies.” ⁴¹

In the early 1970s, many leaders from the World churches, including John Gatu, Emerito Nacpil, and José Miguez-Bonino, confronted issues of authority directly. As a result of their protest, in-depth studies were initiated, including the Ecumenical Sharing of Personnel in the 1970s and the Ecumenical Sharing of Resources in the 1980s. Nonetheless, in 1989 at the San Antonio meeting of the CWME, delegates could report that, despite the recent studies on the sharing of personnel and resources, obstacles to achieving mutuality persisted, including “psychological resistance to change of any kind; bilateral relations which exclude any ecumenical dimension; paternalism in all its forms … [and] the priority given to financial factors, with the resulting consolidation of the power of the rich to the detriment of the poor.” ⁴² Seven years later, at the previously mentioned Bangalore meeting, it was stated that the vested interests of Global churches were at least partly responsible for the lack of change in relationships: “the language of our basic principles—mutual accountability, transfer of power, sharing of resources—are frightening to many who have held power.” ⁴³ In a more recent critique, Samuel Kobia, former General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, stated at Porto Alegre in 2006 that almost one hundred years after Edinburgh, “to a very large extent our disunity as churches is due to our incapacity to [practice] a genuine sharing of gifts.” ⁴⁴ Finally, Together Towards Life, the statement on mission approved at the most recent WCC Assembly in 2013, notes that “mission, money, and political power are strategic partners. Although our theological and missiological language talks a lot about the mission of the church being in solidarity with the poor, sometimes in practice it is much more concerned with being in the centers of power … This poses particular challenges to reflect on what is the good news for people who are privileged and powerful.” ⁴⁵ Although today we rightfully celebrate living in a post-colonial age, in many instances inherited issues of power, paternalism, vested interests, and control still dictate how Global churches relate to World churches in their ecumenical partnerships.

Theme 4: Rhetoric and reality

From the earliest ecumenical discussions related to partnership, many resolutions have been made and policies passed seeking changed Global/World church relationships; these resolutions and policies have rarely been followed up with actions, however. At the Jerusalem IMC meeting in 1928, the first such meeting to openly discuss partnership, J. H. Franklin of the American Baptist Mission stated that “[the] hour has come for the passing from paternalism to partnership. It is something more than even [co-operation], it is partnership that is required.” ⁴⁶ At that same meeting, John Mott shared his hope that decisions made would be more than just words and that they “would do more than all other influences combined to usher in or accelerate the coming of the day characterized by the new and true conception of the Christian missionary undertaking as a shared experience. Then all the churches will be regarded as sending churches; and all the churches will be regarded as receiving churches.” ⁴⁷

Today, we can be sure that Franklin and Mott would be disappointed, for the history of Global/World church relations has been fraught with unmet expectations. Twenty years after Jerusalem, delegates at the Whitby IMC meeting in 1947 recalled that although partnership had been advocated two decades earlier, relationships had not adjusted to this new paradigm; they noted that “[there] is perhaps no aspect of missionary policy and practice which has been the subject of more missionary discussion in recent years than that of the relationships of the older and younger churches. Nor is there any question which has been a more fruitful source of controversy and frustration.” ⁴⁸ Still, the controversy and frustration continued, for despite resolutions made at many subsequent conferences and assemblies, little substantive change took place. For example, owing to pressure from World church leaders during the moratorium debate, delegates at the Bangkok meeting of the CWME in 1973 could state that

[the] issues we are dealing with are not new. We are working on an old agenda about which much has been said but too little has been done. We could produce a fine report by simply lifting paragraphs from the reports of previous world and regional meetings. Our basic problem is how to break free from the frustrating cycle of repeated statements which are received, filed and not acted upon. ⁴⁹

Later, at a meeting concerning the Ecumenical Sharing of Resources in 1979, the consultation stated that “[the] basic assumptions and the fundamental issues … are not new”; however, “as in other areas, our practice has not kept up with our professed commitment.” ⁵⁰ Throughout the 1980s, churches were encouraged to use the examples of restructuring undertaken by both CEVAA and the Council for World Mission (CWM). Also, during this same time the studies on the Ecumenical Sharing of Personnel and Resources were completed and many resolutions were put forth on how to restructure for more equitable relationships. When delegates met at Salvador in 1996, however, although acknowledging that much had changed, they still had to admit that much more remained to be done. ⁵¹ Unfortunately, today this is still very much the case; the rhetoric of partnership too often does not reflect the reality of our relationships.

Does partnership have a future?

At the International Missionary Council conference in Jerusalem (1928), James Endicott, a delegate from Canada, closed the discussions on the relations between the Global and World churches with both an assessment of the current situation as well as a hope for the future:

We must not be misled into thinking there are no serious difficulties in the relations between the younger and older churches. The people of other lands are quite aware of the difficulties, and I have not gone anywhere without realizing the sense of the need for deep changes … The time has come for action. I hope that we shall deal with this subject in such a way that it will be impossible to raise this question in a council of this kind again. ⁵²

Unfortunately for Endicott, as well as for us today, although his assessment was correct, it became clear very quickly that his hopes for the future would not be realized. Despite the fact that partnership has been a pronounced goal of the ecumenical movement for at least eighty years, the four themes of the home base, humanitarianism and development, authority, and rhetoric and reality have continued to make the realization of mutuality and solidarity impossible to achieve.

When seeking to find the reasons for this, as well as a possible way forward, I believe that Sanneh’s typology of churches as either Global or World can assist us. A review of the history of partnership, especially since the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh (1910), makes it clear that the differences undergirding both Global and World Christianity have had, and continue to have, detrimental effects on the ecumenical relationships. At Edinburgh, the recorded discussions show that the majority of Global church delegates had condescending and paternalistic attitudes towards the emerging World churches. In response, V. S. Azariah stated that although the first missionaries were seen as fathers by their converts, “the second and third generations, through the success of missionary work, have risen to the position when they do not any longer care to be treated like children.” ⁵³ Azariah, while acknowledging the sacrifices made by missionaries to bring Christianity to India, told Global church delegates that World Christians wanted more out of these relationships, stating that “[you] have given your goods to feed the poor. You have given your bodies to be burned. We also ask for love. Give us FRIENDS!” ⁵⁴ From Edinburgh until the present, many conferences, resolutions, and individuals have followed Azariah in calling for relationships of mutuality and equality.

It is also evident from the historical record that from at least Jerusalem (1928), major efforts were put into education programs to try to bring a new understanding of mission to Global Christians—a new understanding that would allow for changed relationships. The findings of ecumenical meetings during the last few decades, however, illustrate that even after eighty years of various educational efforts, Global church attitudes have not changed significantly. For instance, at Melbourne in 1980 it was stated that “American Christians still have not abandoned the image of missionary activity as one-way traffic. From us to them. From North to South. From Christendom to the heathen. From developed to underdeveloped countries. This image falsifies the realities of our time. It fails to recognize that the churches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have matured.” ⁵⁵ Sixteen years later, delegates at the Bangalore Consultation noted that, in most instances, Global Christians still adhered to a “traditional … understanding of mission that we find to be based on a nineteenth century missionary agenda of building outposts of sending churches, agencies and organizations.” ⁵⁶ At the Salvador meeting of the CWME in 1996, Musimbi R. A. Kanyoro declared that the “former missionizing countries need to rethink their superiority complex.” ⁵⁷

Given this long history of paternalism, it seems clear that partnership between Global and World churches will continue to be unattainable, for Global Christianity’s worldview, how it sees itself and others, is linked to the idea of “Christendom,” power, and control. So long as this is the case, the issues discussed in this article will all continue to be problematic. For partnership to have any future, the churches of Global Christianity must stop seeing mission as expansion and give up the desire to remake others in their image. They must also understand that the lands of Global Christianity are no longer the center of the Christian faith, for, as Bediako has noted, the “southward shift of the church’s axis has … given … Christianity … new ‘centres of universality.’” ⁵⁸ In short, for efforts at partnership to have any chance of succeeding in the future, the churches of Global Christianity will need to become, in their worldview and ethos, World churches. Although this may seem like an impossible task, a similar call was made almost two decades ago at the Salvador CWME meeting in (1996), where delegates hoped for a

shift in mission thinking and practice from colonial to post-colonial and from Eurocentric to polycentric … dramatically [portraying] as never before that churches around the world have reached a critical point in the movement from being more or less homogeneous in faith, worship and life to a situation of theological and liturgical heterogeneity, rooted in a profound commitment to express Christian faith and witness in terms of particular local and cultural idioms. ⁵⁹

If this hope is to be realized, it should be obvious by now that it will not be through the educational efforts and agency of the Global churches alone, including efforts to be missional in one’s own context. Instead, only through the building of relationships and friendships across cultural, racial, economic, and ecclesiastical lines can Global Christians be led to see their faith in a different and new light, one that recognizes that Global Christianity is not the universal standard by which all others are judged, but is in fact simply another indigenized, local expression of faith. Ironically, just as World Christians were able to indigenize their faith through the agency of Global Christians, especially in vernacular translation, it is now the Global churches that need the agency and assistance of World Christians as we seek to understand the gospel in new ways. Recent ecumenical gatherings, realizing this, have started to focus on creating “space” for interaction and the building of relationships between Global and World Christians, understanding that it may well be easier to “act people into new ways of thinking than to think people into new ways of acting.” ⁶⁰ And although one can find voices noting the importance of relationships between Global and World Christians throughout the historical narrative, “the fact that the southward shift in … Christianity’s center coincides with the epochal reversal in the direction and flow of global migrations” ⁶¹ has the potential to open up “space” that has previously been unimaginable. One example of this is the fact that, as Hanciles notes,

new immigrants have transformed America into the most religiously diverse nation on the planet … [The] majority of … new immigrants (at least 60 percent according to one survey) are Christians (from Africa, Asia, and Latin America) who are expressing their Christianity in languages, customs, forms of spirituality, and community formation that are almost as foreign to Americans as other religions. The new immigrant Christian communities are effectively “de-Europeanizing” American Christianity. ⁶²

While creating “space” for Global and World Christians to meet formerly necessitated a long flight overseas, now World Christianity is, in many instances, right down the street. Because of these shifting demographics, Global Christians not only have the opportunity to worship with World Christians, but to socialize, build relationships and friendships, and to find common cause on issues of social justice that affect all in the communities in which we live.

In addition to these ecumenical efforts, the results of current and ongoing shifts in world economics can also open “space” for creative sharing and partnerships. Although poverty is not a new phenomenon in the North American context, belief in American exceptionalism and the American Dream have served to create the illusion of a center/periphery relationship in international partnerships. However, when looking at recent economic trends, most notably the recent “Great Recession,” the belief that our North American/Western context is somehow the “rich center” that relates to a “poor periphery” is becoming more difficult to hold. For example, when looking at the distribution of private wealth in the United States, the Economic Policy Institute’s brief entitled “The State of Working America, 2015” notes that “from 1983-2010, 38.3 percent of the wealth growth went to the top 1 percent and 74.2 percent to the top 5 percent. The bottom 60 percent, meanwhile, suffered a decline in wealth.” ⁶³ As the domestic wealth gap continues to increase, so do the number of people and places suffering from material poverty. Chris Hedges refers to these places as “sacrifice zones,” which he defines as “those areas in the country that have been offered up for exploitation in the name of profit, progress, and technological advancement.” ⁶⁴ He notes that what colonialism historically and, more recently, late capitalism have done to other parts of the world “is now finally being done to us.” ⁶⁵ More and more, the North American context is beginning to resemble the “sacrifice zones” in which many international partners and organizations have worked for decades. Pamela Brubaker says that this reality should cause all of us to ask hard questions: “Where will we stand? With whom? For what purpose? Whether we are part of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 20 percent, or the 99 percent, will we stand in solidarity and work for the common good of all people and the earth?” ⁶⁶ If we are open and humble enough to receive the gifts that partners have for us, international partnerships can create the “space” for us to see our universal faith lived out in its myriad of local and cultural expressions, including our own, as well as gain ideas for transformational ministry in dealing with increased material poverty and social degradation. As Sanneh notes, “cross-cultural friendships … are destined to influence the nature and character of international relations.” ⁶⁷

As the ecumenical movement now looks well past Edinburgh’s centenary celebrations in 2010, the most hopeful sign that ecumenical partnerships may have a future can be found in the desire, expressed at the WCC Assembly in Port Alegre (2006), for transformed relationships between churches. As Samuel Kobia noted then, “it is … necessary to understand that emerging … Southern Christianity is not just a transplant of Christendom of yester-centuries … What … this challenges us to do is to see our faith in a radically new perspective. This we could do if we consider Christianity … with new eyes and not just with the eyes of one particular region or theological perspective.” ⁶⁸ In addition, Together Towards Life, a mission statement approved at the most recent meeting of the World Council of Churches in Busan, Republic of Korea in 2013, states that “[we] affirm today mission movements are emerging from the global South and East which are multi-directional and many faceted … We need to develop further mutuality and partnership and affirm the interdependence within mission and the ecumenical movement.” ⁶⁹ If Global Christians can begin to see their faith in a “radically new perspective,” it may be possible for a new ecumenical World Christianity to emerge—an ecumenical Christianity where we can be not only partners, but friends.