Isolation has no place in missions

An African proverb says, “If you want to go quickly, travel alone. If you want to go far, travel together.”
 
Technology has brought the world closer, yet in its shadow, there’s an insidious spirit of isolationism that seeks to divide individuals, fueled by fears and mistrust. Sadly, mission agencies can also shun cooperation that would advance God’s kingdom. An ‘us vs. them’ mindset might yield short-term gain, but eventually, it will be a lose-lose outcome. A sign of maturity is the ability to work together despite our differences. 
 
In missions, the practice of isolationism—going it alone, heedless of others—decimates potential and dampens advancement, never mind how others see it as raw competitiveness. The proliferation of denominations and personality-centred fads accountable to no one are a blemish on the gospel. Missions can and does fall into this deception that we can complete the task of world evangelisation on our own. 
 
Any cooperation has to have a solid foundation of purpose and values, and the broader and more inclusive we can make these, the greater the potential impact on society. The efforts of the Lausanne Committee and the WEA have been significant in establishing useful platforms to share. 
 
That said, the church throughout history has done very poorly in demonstrating unity and respect for one another. We can, if we are predisposed to do so, learn something valuable from any Christian group. But that presumes that we’re humble enough to admit this. Think of what the Chinese church, for example, can teach us regarding a theology of suffering, not as a debate subject but as a daily choice. Other groups can enhance our experience of God’s presence or the treasures deep within God’s Word.
 
One actual shared mission activity is worth more than a hundred Memorandums of Agreement, but we love signing such documents—and then forgetting them and carrying on as before. How do we stay credible when we talk of cooperation? Leaders need to set the example, and agreements to work together need to benefit every partner’s ministry. 

 
Let’s get on with it
Especially in the more remote areas of China, missionaries from various groups quite naturally work side-by-side, encouraging one another and providing essential fellowship—but also demonstrating genuine community. I once mistakenly asked which organisations they represented, and I was rebuked for asking. Such anonymity also enhances their security: if questioned by officials, they can reply, “We don’t know about that group; we are one here.”
 
To the contrary, I once witnessed ministry in a Western Hemisphere nation where 13 pastors and four mission workers carried on independently with no cooperation between them. They even would organise similar events in the same town, duplicating and wasting efforts—to say nothing of the impression they left. 
 
Thinking that OM alone could evangelise the world is ridiculous. We do give thanks that OM is widely respected for our readiness to collaborate with like-minded groups anywhere.
 
OM in Europe in the 60s and 70s would gather together and decide, ‘This year, it’s France; next year, it’s Italy.” All the teams would concentrate on the one objective for that summer, blanketing the country with literature and outreach. Wouldn’t it be amazing to attempt something like that again? Even two or three OM fields could do that on a smaller scale and knock on every door in one OM field. We’ve had worse ideas.