1. Historical development of mission-church relations In the history of mission, the ongoing paradigm change in the development of mission-church relations can be classified into four stages: (1) pioneer, (2) parent, (3) partner, and (4) participant. The first stage, pioneer, required, among other things, the gift of leadership. Since there were believers in the so-called non-Christian world, missionaries had to lead and do much of the work themselves. However, this stage was closely related to Western expansionism into the non-Western world, which was based on the subject-object way of viewing the world. The second stage, parent, required the gift of teaching and nurturing. The so-called daughter churches were in a growing child's relationship to the so-called mother churches. However, the parent could not avoid paternalism, and collaborated suspiciously with Western colonialism. At this stage, christianization was generally perceived to be the most important part of the civilization project, that is, of westernization. The third stage, partner, requires a change from a parent-child relationship to an adult-adult relationship. Although it is difficult for both to change, this is essential to the church becoming a mature adult. However, to a certain extent, the reality of the partnership, even after the historical and geographical colonial structure has been demolished, still maintains a neo-colonial, discursive and dependent nature. The fourth stage is that of participant. Every church throughout the five oceans and six continents is identified as the subjective participant of God's mission, particularly in its own local area. In this stage, networking and sharing have become the most important principles of doing mission. Missionaries need to work constantly to accept their marginal and ambiguous status. Missionaries are no longer, if they ever truly were, primary movers but collaborators, assistants, and servants. The primary agent of mission is the Spirit of God. Missionaries must not muzzle the Spirit or try to wrest initiatives from God. If missionaries presume too quickly to be the mouthpiece of God, they may overlook the still, small voice with which God likes to animate the silence. 2. Partnership matters: mutuality and power sharing After the colonial era, the term partnership has become part of the standard vocabulary in mission and development circles. It has been very convenient for agencies and churches in the North to speak of the churches and groups in the South with whom they have a relationship, as their partner churches and groups. The meaning of the word partnership suggests the relational quality of a pair who have freely and objectively chosen to work together for a common cause. In reality, in many instances the economic disparities are such that it is hard to see how choices could be made in an objective manner. The concept of partnership is therefore still ambiguous, and it is not appropriate to disregard those ambiguities by an uncritical use of the word partnership, particularly in the context of globalization. Being partners can only be incomplete and tentative, so that it becomes a goal, not an acquisition. It is something to be constructed, patiently, step by step. We should allow sufficient room to question one another. There can be failures, and nothing is taken for granted. Partnership in mission requires mutuality, and not just the mutual recognition of gifts but also of needs. The former mother churches are beginning to learn that their former daughter, now partner, churches have particular gifts to offer, although they have, as yet, to learn enough to expose their own needs. Mutuality in mission relationships is a necessary step in moving away from the one-directional flow of the past. Partnership in mission also requires openness or transparency. Transparency means the removal of certain obstacles that make it difficult for partners to perceive one another as they really are. …