







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Toop/Slimbach, Tough Questions on Faith and Field Partnerships: A Reflection  142 

 

 

Tough Questions on Faith and Field 

Partnerships: A Commentary 
 

Katie Toop and Richard Slimbach 
 

 

The following is a response by Katie Toop (senior director of transformational development with 

World Concern) to the three questions Richard Slimbach poses on faith and field partnerships in his 

article “Asking Tough Questions About Transformational Development,” published in this journal in 

the summer of 2023 (Slimbach 2023). A follow up comment by Slimbach appears at the end.  Both 

of these contributions were part of a webinar on June 27, 2023 discussing that article; the rest of the 

webinar content, consisting of two other responses and discussion around them, is published in this 

issue as well. The full recording of the webinar can be found at 

https://vimeo.com/844345288/e970fe8826?share=copy. The specific questions to which Katie Toop 

responds are: 

 

1. Does Danladi Musa (2012) accurately portray typical NGO-local church relations? How should 

Christian NGOs from the Global North relate to local churches in the Global South? What are 

the best ways to approach such partnerships? What are the major pitfalls? 

2. Why do many Christian congregations and development agencies tend to shy away from 

partnerships with non-Christian faith communities, non-sectarian grassroots NGOs, municipal 

government agencies, and non-violent protest movements? How accurately does James Davison 

Hunter diagnose the problem, and what implications might it have for the work of Christian 

NGOs?  

3. What missiological, theological, sociological principles (“theory of change”) are implicit within your 

organization’s external relationships (partnerships, networks, alliances, etc.)?   

 

 
Katie Toop 

Like Philip and Ravi, I also appreciate Rich's work 

in writing this article and highlighting these issues. I 

love tough questions when they produce rich 

conversation, and these questions do just that. I have 

the privilege of working on the third topic of faith and 

field partnerships. The first question is really sneaky, 

with four great questions all in one. I will not 

exhaustively respond to any one of them, but I will 

spend probably the majority of my time on question 

one and then touch briefly on questions two and three. 

Question one asks if Musa accurately portrays 

typical NGO-local church relations, and in part he is 

portraying a local church that is on the receiving end of 

kind of a pre-cooked vision and plan that carries out 

assigned activities and leverages their relationships for 

organizational goals. Like the other respondents, I 

answer only from my own experience, but I would say 

yes, much of this rings true with what we encounter in 

the field. The power imbalance that Musa is depicting 

between INGOs and the local church or between the 

national or denominational agendas in local churches 

is real and tends to lead to a fragmentation of vision, 

and often of the team itself, that is serving in the 

church. Gratefully, there has been a growing awareness 

of this in recent years, specifically among Christian 

NGOs, and there are models and tools that actively 

seek to rectify that power imbalance. But yes, these 

dynamics are at play, and the default narrative or the 

kind of historical role models of benefactor and 

beneficiary are still very much alive in these 

relationships.  

The second part of the question is how Christian 

NGOs from the Global North should relate to the local 

churches in the Global South. In some ways, I do not 

want to fully grant the premise of the question, because 

depending on how one reads it, it could seem to 

presuppose that people in a Christian organization are 

sitting at a desk in the Global North and directly driving 

relationships with the local church in the Global South. 

And that speaks to the need for a larger shift in a 

rebalancing of power within the organizations 

themselves, if we are going to reflect God's design. That 

is part of what Richard's article touches on in terms of 

https://crdajournal.org/index.php/crda/article/view/547
https://vimeo.com/844345288/e970fe8826?share=copy


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Toop/Slimbach, Tough Questions on Faith and Field Partnerships: A Reflection  143 

 

the next generation's disillusionment with ministry. 

They are ready for a shift in the balance of power. My 

response is that Christians and others from the Global 

North need to be receiving direction from their own 

leaders in the Global South to guide and inform 

strategies for local church engagement, which will be 

and must be highly contextual.  

In the third part of the question on how we 

approach these partnerships, much could be said. I 

appreciate the perspective of the late Dr. Richard 

Twiss, a member of the Lakota tribe, and a theologian, 

author, and pastor, speaking on the relationship 

between the First Nations or Indigenous Peoples and 

the church in the US, which really parallels in many 

ways the dynamics between the Global North and the 

South. At one point, referring to members of the First 

Nations, he says: 

We would hope…that the church would see us  

as co-equal participants in the life, work and 

mission of the church...Out of a sense of 

mutuality can come legitimate Christ-

honoring partnerships and relationships and 

then we can say together: “what can we do to 

advance the understanding of people of what 

it means to really authentically walk with Jesus 

in the context of who God created them to 

be?” (2008, 1:52, 2:44) 

Perhaps part of the how is the establishment of co-

equal partnerships in life, work, and mission with the 

local church. We have to wrestle with what mutuality 

looks like. We need to ask ourselves not only what we 

offer in service to the church, but where are we also 

being led by her? How can we both serve the church 

and serve alongside her? In terms of how, there is a lot 

to consider as well, in structure, transparency, and 

myriad other issues, but beyond the mechanics of 

partnership, we also need to seek to discern 

organizationally what the Spirit is inviting us into.  

I served for several years in a creative access 

context and spent the first two years evaluating different 

people's approaches to engagement with the local 

church, trying to figure out who was doing it right and 

who was doing it wrong. Then, after about two years of 

being tied up in knots and pretty tired from all the 

judging I had taken upon myself to do, the Lord kind 

of tapped me on the shoulder and said, “you know, has 

it dawned on you that I may be calling different people 

with different gifts to serve in different ways? And do 

you want to stop worrying about what everyone else is 

doing and know what I have for you to do?” I am not 

suggesting that we all just pull the God card and do 

whatever God tells us to do without listening to the 

wisdom and counsel of others. I am simply 

encouraging us to invest time and energy as 

organizations to discern the role that God has for us, 

because it very well might look different than the role 

he has for our neighbor, and perhaps that is going to 

be okay.  

In the last part of this question about the pitfalls, 

we have recently been asking that of our teams and 

church partners, and there are a lot of items on the list. 

Again, I cannot be exhaustive, but here are some: 

 

• Denominationalism. How do we help overcome 

denominationalism, yet also work within it?  

• Inter and intra church politics that create a bit of a 

minefield for workers who may not be aware of 

them.  

• Navigating theological differences, especially for 

staff who are not theologians. 

• Lack of training on how to engage churches. 

• How to speak the language of a church, or of a 

pastor.  

• Hidden agendas at times, and the desire for control, 

which can show up on both sides of passionate 

partnerships like this that are so linked to our 

central mission.  

 

I want to talk just briefly about question two, the 

question about why many Christian NGOs shy away 

from partnership with different types of non-Christian 

actors. Again, there is no simple response, because it is 

a really complex topic. Still, the first reason that comes 

to my mind is fear. We all have a fear of what we do 

not know; it is human nature. There are strong 

narratives that have turned flesh and blood actors into 

enemies in place of the powers and principalities that 

Scripture tells us we are at war with. The most common 

command in Scripture is “Do not fear.” It is easy to see 

its purpose in preparing for battle, but could it also be 

a command that is relevant in preparing for 

partnership? Maybe “Do not fear!” is a good starting 

point for considering our partnerships. I am not saying 

“Do not discern!” or “Do not be wise!” or “Do not 

have conviction!” but “Do not fear!” The reality is fear 

of the unknown, fear of losing funding, or fear of the 

enemy we have created. All of these can stand at the 

root of a lot of what we avoid. And this phrase “shy 

away from” that is in the question does kind of paint a 

picture of avoiding. At the same time, there are many 

who would not characterize their decision as “shying 

away” but as a thoughtful act of obedience to how they 

believe God calls us to live. They may point to the 

guidance of Scripture as their reasons for not entering 

into partnerships, particularly with non-Christian faith 

communities. I imagine many would cite 2 Corinthians 

6 and Paul's exhortation not to be unequally yoked to 

unbelievers, or Proverbs 13 about walking with the 

wise, or James 4 about friendship with the world that 

makes us an enemy of God. There is a lot that people 

might bring into this. Both fear and theological 

conviction can be powerful drivers in decision making 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Toop/Slimbach, Tough Questions on Faith and Field Partnerships: A Reflection  144 

 

around some of these partnerships, among, of course, 

many others.  

In terms of the question about Hunter's diagnosis, 

he has definitely spent a lot more time thinking and 

writing about cultural change than I have, and I have 

only read a little bit more than what was put in the 

article in terms of what Hunter has to say. I can only 

respond with humility. I can agree with him that 

cultural change is complex and slow and made up of 

many factors. But I do not know if I can agree with his 

statement that changes in the hearts and minds of 

ordinary people are insignificant factors in cultural 

change. We see in the history of the early church 

people whose compassion and sacrificial love impacted 

the hearts and minds of their neighbors and 

transformed significant aspects of culture in the Roman 

Empire, in ways that were thought impossible without 

battle or without a military overthrow. And we should 

not be too quick to decide who is ordinary and who is 

extraordinary. Remember that the people of Jesus’s 

day wondered what good could come out of Nazareth. 

Our perspective on what is ordinary or insignificant is 

often skewed.  

Part of the point being made in bringing up 

Hunter is that there is more to be done at levels other 

than the individual. And with that, I do not disagree, 

and Philip touched on that as well. Systems and 

networks and the depravities that they carry are 

significant drivers to entrenched poverty in the cultures 

that we seek to influence, both in the global North and 

the South. As organizations, we must wrestle with our 

role in systemic reform. Are there ways that we are 

uniquely positioned to raise awareness or to advocate? 

Are there issues that we ourselves are being called to 

lead in awakening and repentance and lament? We 

cannot allow fear to keep us from asking costly 

questions. We need to be careful not to idolize our 

own presence in the country, which can lead to us 

trading our opportunity to speak or pursue justice for 

the sake of self-preservation.  

And, in my last fifty seconds, on the third question 

of missiological, theological, and sociological 

principles, we are not going to do a deep dive there. 

The challenge is for each of us to ask these questions 

of ourselves. Does a belief in common grace impact 

how and with whom we partner? Would outsiders 

looking in know that we believe that there are uniquely 

beautiful expressions of the image of God in each 

community by the way we forge our field relationships? 

Are partnerships a means to mission or a mission 

strategy themselves? And is that answer universal or 

contextual? I would just share in closing one aspect of 

our journey as World Concern. We have done a lot of 

work in considering our why, and there are a lot of 

great transactional reasons to pursue partnership. But 

ultimately for us, the local church is a distinct partner. 

We call ourselves a Christ-centered organization, and 

if we believe the church is the bride and the body of 

Christ (Eph. 5:25-32 and Eph. 1:22-23), then our 

commitment to her has to be of an entirely different 

nature than that of a partner who is merely strategic, 

because the church is the beloved of the one at the very 

center of our identity. We are compelled to remain 

faithful to her even when the projected ROI does not 

land in her favor. We just pray that we will do that with 

faithfulness. Thanks so much.  

 

Richard Slimbach 
In terms of Katie's comments on Hunter and 

Ravi's mention of structures and systems, when we have 

this fourfold repair of alienations, toward God, self, 

others, and the earth, the “others” seem to be conflated 

with institutions. They need to be separated, such that 

institutions, structures, and systems are better 

theorized. What Hunter was saying is that ideas are 

very important. To give some negative examples, ideas 

like individualism, white supremacy, male dominance, 

meritocracy, unlimited progress, and consumerism as 

a pathway to happiness are important because they 

have consequences in history when they penetrate the 

mythic fiber and fabric of the social order in school, 

music, film, etc. They reorganize the structures of our 

consciousness and guide our desires, our impulses. 

Hunter would say that without a fundamental 

restructuring of the institutions of cultural formation 

and transmission, what we hope to be the result of 

evangelism or, in the larger case, revival, will be 

neutralized. They will have a negligible effect on the 

reconstruction of the culture. His call, and the call of a 

rising generation, is for the church to provide a more 

thorough and courageous critique of the culture-

forming institutions of our society, which are laden with 

mythological meaning and are oftentimes co-opted and 

co-opt the church's consciousness. That kind of critical 

capacity is one of the great challenges for the church 

today. 

 

References 

 
Twiss, Richard. 2008. “Hope for the American 

Church.” YouTube video, 3:11. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtDoKo

D80.  
 

 

Katie Toop is Senior Director of Transformational 

Development at World Concern, and one of the 

Accord Network Fellows for 2023. She has served in 

disaster response and community development work 

internationally for 18 years. Her current role focuses 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtDoKoD80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKtDoKoD80


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 5(2), Winter 2024  

Toop/Slimbach, Tough Questions on Faith and Field Partnerships: A Reflection  145 

 

on staff capacity building and strategic approaches to 

community engagement. 

 

Author email: katiet@worldconcern.org  

 

Richard Slimbach is Professor Emeritus of Global 

Studies at Azusa Pacific University. He founded 

APU’s Global Studies Program and co-founded the 

MA in Transformational Urban Leadership 

(MATUL), which focuses exclusively on the planet’s 

one billion slum dwellers. Slimbach holds a PhD in 

comparative and international education and is the 

author of Becoming World Wise and The Art of 

World Learning. He lives with Leslie, his life partner 

of 40 years, and their two children in Monrovia, 

California. 

 

Author email: rslimbach1@gmail.com  
 

about:blank
mailto:rslimbach1@gmail.com

