Healthy Partnerships Part 3: Inputs and Accountability

As we touched on in the previous article, money isn’t always the way God wants to work through outsiders. It can be helpful in larger projects (typically given to an established organization with a great track record), but it should never be for things that the local church can do themselves. So what inputs should the outside partner bring? What actually serves to strengthen the local church so that she—through God’s power—can transform the community? There are two we would suggest:

Expertise

Outside partners need to bring people who are experts in a field relevant to the program. For example, one partnership brings pastors who have at least 10 (but usually 20 or more) years of experience to teach Majority World pastors how to better prepare sermons. The local pastors appreciate the training and feel respected that these pastors are teaching from a place of experience. This example is a stark contrast to another common model of “short-term missions.”

Often, churches from wealthy nations see sending teams as a way to disciple their own people, and, indeed, team members often learn much and have a memorable, faith-building experience. Yet, if it is not clear from the outset—to both partners and all team members—that these teams are there to learn from their hosts and to be discipled, this model of “short-term missions” can cause a lot of harm. Without meaning to, they send the message “Our group of youth are better than your group of youth (or pastors or others). We have more resources and can do more. We can paint the orphanage, and you can’t.” 

There are ideas for creating a mutually-beneficial short-term team program in the free booklet Partnering with Churches. The main point here is that one of the most helpful inputs an outside partner can provide is people who are truly experts in an area where the local partner has a need.

The right training content

No matter how experienced and trustworthy the trainer, they will only be as effective as their training content. That’s why the second input outside partners can bring is teaching materials that are:

• Well tested in similar settings.

• Appropriate to the audience – Do participants have theology degrees? Or are they from rural areas with little access to new ideas? What have they already learned? What topics are of greatest interest?
• Biblically-based – If you’re seeking to change beliefs, rather than to teach a specific skill, scripture is the standard of truth we can all agree upon.
• Participatory – Lots of interaction helps the trainer know what ideas are actually sticking.
• Concrete and practical, with immediate application – Ideas without application have little impact.

The most important inputs for an outside partner to bring are experts and excellent training. The local partner also needs to contribute significantly—for instance, by organizing the work, providing facilities and meals for training, and inviting the right people to participate.

Healthy partnerships are mutually accountable 

Along with bringing appropriate inputs, partners need to be accountable to one another. Accountability for follow-through puts the burden on both partners to do what we have promised. Accountability for use of funds safeguards against some of the problems that money can cause. And accountability for results puts responsibility on the outside partner to bring programs that work.

Accountability for follow-through

Many Christian leaders on both sides of the ocean will say that one of the frustrations of cross-cultural partnership is when the partner doesn’t actually do the work they had committed to. Churches in the Majority World have had too many experiences of outsiders coming, committing to a training or project, and then not returning or finishing what they started. As ministry leaders and practitioners, are we clear and careful about what we are and are not able to commit to? 

Ministry leaders, too, complain of church partners saying they will do something but never following through. When that happens, we need to look for the why? Did the local partner not replicate the training because it simply wasn’t useful? Does the plan require too much sacrifice from the local partner? Is the project plan doomed to fail, but the local partner didn’t feel able to directly challenge it? 

Accountability for Results

Local partners should be able to hold outside partners accountable for results. The inputs and outcomes of a project should be laid out clearly from the start—whether it’s a savings program, income-generation project, or Bible training. What sacrifices will the local partner be expected to make to participate, and what can they expect to happen as a result? As the project goes on, there need to be many opportunities for local partners to share what is actually happening, if it aligns with the original plans, and if they are happy with the results so far. If the program isn’t working as intended, both partners need to seek to understand why so that changes can be made. 

Accountability for use of funds

Money is Satan’s favorite tool to destroy church leaders in the Majority World. Outside partners can help safeguard their local partners by making sure that financial contributions come with appropriate accountability. There is an article on accountability for use of money under Mobilizing Local Resources. The topic is given even deeper consideration in the booklet Mobilizing Local Resources, which is available for free download. 

How to hold a partner accountable

When we read “accountability,” most of us automatically think of written reports. But is that truly what’s best? Many godly leaders in the Majority World are frustrated that their partners require written reporting that they feel forces them to lie—to tell the outsiders what they want to hear in order to maintain the partnership. Written reports rarely reflect the reality of the situation on the ground. Indeed, the best accountability happens face-to-face, over cups of tea. In the context of relationship and conversation, the truth comes out, stories are shared, understanding is reached, and there is an opportunity to decide together on course corrections. 

Conclusion

Partnerships can be difficult. It’s not easy to find the right partner, develop appropriate roles, share decision-making, contribute appropriately and sacrificially, and hold one another accountable. There are many hurdles to overcome if we want healthy partnerships that bear fruit that lasts. And yet, the Bible teaches that we are one body and one family. As we work together in unity, we will be built up together in Christ and will see God bring transformation to vulnerable communities.