**What follows is a condensed excerpt from an extended research paper written to complete my seminary work, posted in hopes that the content is beneficial.
Most of my friends know that one of my favorite movies is
the 1984 classic “Red Dawn.” The cast
included many future stars in their earliest roles; including Patrick Swayze, Charlie
Sheen, Jennifer Grey, Lea Thompson, and C. Thomas Howell. I was only two years
old when the movie was released, but I remember being fascinated by the story
when I discovered the film years later.
In the opening scenes, we see paratroopers fall from the
sky in small Colorado town as
the Russians and their allies begin an invasion of the United States. High school students watch the in horror as the
soldiers open fire before our protagonists escape the attack and gather a cache of
supplies to ride out the invasion in the mountains. Before long though, they cross paths with an
enemy patrol and end up killing the soldiers. A series of events unfolds that leads
them to become a sort of guerilla force attacking the military presence
occupying their home. This group of young people, mostly high school age, take
on the name of their school mascot: “WOLVERINES!” You really have to watch it
to get it, but I'm worked up just writing about it. .
As you might imagine, the group are far from seasoned
soldiers, but help soon arrives in the form of an Air Force Colonel (Powers
Boothe) who is forced to eject from his fighter jet. He gives them information about
the state of the nation at war and trains them to take on larger targets. Yes,
help literally falls from the sky. He tells them about enemy plans to send Special
Forces into the mountains to find them and eventually convinces them to make
their escape to “Free America.” I won’t tell you what happens from there, but
know that it doesn’t do much to support my use of this example.
This group of young, untrained soldiers was on the run –
short on food, information, and hope. Help from the outside is exactly what
they needed. The Colonel mixes up their group dynamic, provides essential
information and experience, and partners with them to head in a new direction.
As I’ve read, discussed, and written about building alliances among smaller,
rural churches, I’ve discovered that this type of assistance is likely what
many churches need in order to redirect and reinvigorate their ministry. They are stuck
in a rut, short on the productive experiences and relevant insights that could
help break them loose. They may have other paths to revitalization, but having
a recognized authority parachute in to share and partner might be the most
effective course.
Independent
Facilitator
The
complexities relating to navigating the dynamics present in interchurch
relationships leads us to consider the value of an outside individual or
organization to the cooperative efforts being considered. A leader from a
parachurch organization seeking to partner with local churches to expand their
ministry noted that this approach has helped previously unfeasible partnerships
thrive. Having an unaffiliated facilitator helps groups come together for a
project because it means the effort isn’t “owned” by any single church.[1]
Issues of ego are set aside and gifted individuals with unique ministry
approaches are able to come together as the facilitator works to match their
diverse gifts with a distinctive role in the combined work. This allows us to
retreat from the desire of many leaders to claim credit for victories and lay
blame for failures.
This
approach begins to overcome some of the greatest obstacles to collaborative
efforts. The presence of an effective leader in the facilitator role helps to
overcome the lack of vision and spiritual maturity on the part of many local
leaders. Whether on an official, full-time basis or in an informal, improvised
role, such a leader could serve as the needed catalyst for partnership.
Utilizing relational skills to build bridges and organizational skills to match
needs, such an individual could go a long way to connecting churches and
leaders in ways they never would have considered themselves. They could
demonstrate for doubtful congregants that there is hope for their church to
survive and thrive. This person or group could educate and mentor other leaders
and ministers, providing the tools they need to enter into fruitful
relationships themselves and to lead their congregations on a similar path. Further,
this type of leader could speak directly to the congregation on behalf of a
cooperative, encouraging right attitudes towards the association among
Restoration Movement churches and inspiring them with the truth of their
potential for bearing fruit and growing where they are. When the local
situation is dire, the success of an outside effort could produce hope and
excitement.
Multiple ministers who were interviewed noted that
smaller congregations are often insulted by the offer of help from another
congregation. This third-party approach offers an opportunity to deal with the
insecurity often found in rural leaders. Rather than a larger church
“condescending” to them, they are being invited to join as equal partners in a
way that may be impossible in a direct relationship. The central organization
removes “yours” and “mine” from the vocabulary being used, and replaces them
with “ours.” It can alleviate the fear that the larger group will simply take
over and change everything, and it allows local bodies to completely retain
their autonomy and identity. A minister who was at one point preaching in two
locations noted that the smaller congregations never accepted him as their
minister and always viewed him as the minister of the second location who also
came and preached for them.[2]
Utilizing an independent mediator among participating churches can work to
eliminate that type of thinking and allow the partnership to move forward and
become productive. It may also work to overcome historical conflicts between
congregants.
This outside advisor would serve as a sort of depository
for the shared resources and responsibilities. They could keep track of the
resources available from each church or library and facilitate the exchange and
safe return of these materials. They could serve as the purchasing agent when
two or more groups come together to buy materials and supplies, or even to
share staff. In the case of a shared vehicle, the organization could own,
register, and insure it with pooled money rather than having churches struggle
to develop a clear and fair arrangement. The same is true for any number of
potential tools for ministry; portable sound and projection, inflatables for
youth and community events, media subscription services, and more. Staff
members such as a youth minister shared between two locations could be formally
employed by the facilitator, ensuring fair treatment of each participant.
A
third party could provide ministry assistance and administrative help of a
quality that individual churches could hardly hope to attain. In the place of part
time staff at each location, several churches could share one individual
skilled in the technology required to design produce quality media that
includes everything from bulletins and newsletters to websites and promotional
materials. Such an individual could provide insight and assistance in areas in
which these churches are often helpless such as sound, projection, networking,
and church-related software. By pooling resources to address needs, partner
churches could enjoy benefits often limited to larger churches in this specific
area and many others.
An
outsider could work alongside the preexisting events and organizations to
continue and deepen collaborative relationships. They could host and direct
ministers’ meetings in different areas and work to connect ministers through
them. They could partner directly with camps or other ministry organizations to
enable sharing with and through the existing partnership. They could help host
church gatherings for the purposes of fellowship, training, and exploring of
possible connections among churches. The possibilities are only limited by the
willingness of participants and the creativity of the organizer. Such an
individual would, by the nature of their role, be the most informed and
up-to-date individual on cooperative concerns and would be a natural consultant
for churches seeking to enter into formal partnerships and even church mergers.
The more time an individual spends in this role, the more they would learn
about the most effective practices for implementing a strategy for cooperative
efforts and shared leadership to the benefit of smaller, rural churches.
Such
an outside organization and its efforts could be funded by partner churches
paying what is essentially a membership fee for access to all that the tools and
resources available. Such funds could be supplemented by churches who share the
vision of the organization and consider it a mission worthy of their gifts.
This could potentially include larger churches sharing a desire to partner with
the third party to serve and support smaller congregations.
Large and Non-Rural Churches
While
much of this project has focused on the concept of cooperation among smaller
and rural churches, we would be remiss if we didn’t acknowledge the potential
of including larger churches in our networks, partnerships, and mergers. These
churches often have access to a vast pool of resources; whether it is finances,
teaching resources, ministry tools, gifted individuals, or specialized ministry
staff. The advantages of including a large church in a network or partnership
are readily apparent. Moreover, a larger church may be an essential element in
the success of potential mergers.
In spite of the obvious advantages to this inclusion, we
can recognize several substantial obstacles. A minister of a larger church
identified common attitudes among peers and congregants that short-circuit
these imbalanced relationships. He stated the larger churches often choose to
expend energy on producing higher “quality” for their own members, suggesting
that many small churches would be better off simply closing their doors and
joining them.[3] Another large church minister indicated that
any such alliance requires a kingdom vision among the leaders of the larger
church that overcomes the inclination towards protecting their own interests.[4]
“We want to send, but if we’re honest, we’re worried about the impact on our
church.”[5]
For the large church leader, it is difficult to see beyond the required
sacrifices to the potential benefits.
In
their book, “Sending Potential not Seating Potential, J.D. Greer and Mike
McDaniel claim that “not only is sending possible; it actually helps, not
hurts, the sending church. Altogether we have sent out 555 people from our
congregation. And at the end of the day, we can tell you that we have gained
far more than we have lost.”[6]
“When you send out your best leaders, God raises up new leaders to take their
place.“[7]
These ideas can serve as great motivation for larger churches to participate in
sharing with smaller congregations. Their sacrifices create a “leadership
vacuum”[8]
which encourages new leaders to advance and participate in discipleship. By
giving of themselves in any way, a larger church creates a deficit for their
members to fill and, as a result, those who stay experience spiritual growth. A
larger church must see a mission that expands beyond their immediate reach, and
recognize the potential benefits of helping a rural church for their local
body. In this way, they could recognize a mutual benefit in sending talented
and mature church members to serve temporarily in partner churches or even to
become permanent members tasked with helping their new church thrive.
While a larger church must be able to embrace a specific
mindset to enter into fruitful relationships with a smaller rural church, the
adjustment is not theirs alone. A minister from a larger church with experience
working alongside smaller congregations noted that in many circumstances, a
small church reaching out to a larger church is not looking for a substantive
relationship, but merely for the finances or other resources they require to
continue on their current path.[9] A seasoned small-church minister noted
that smaller churches often struggle to overcome their sense of inferiority and
their suspicions that a larger church may simply be seeking to take over.[10]
Not all of the considerations stem entirely from the
attitudes of these churches. One minister noted that the size imbalance he
experienced while working with smaller churches made cooperation difficult in a
practical sense. As one church grew and the others shrank, the smaller churches
had less to offer to shared events. It got to the point where they would
provide a prayer or communion devotion, but simply blended into the much larger
group unnoticed and ended up feeling like a tag along rather than a partner.[11]
Shared ministries among churches with a large numerical disparity have to keep
these concerns in mind. A large church minister who grew up in a rural church
noted that the leadership dynamics in play are so different that it is
difficult to translate between the different sizes of church.[12]
Regardless of the hurdles, the potential involved is
exciting. Any strategy for cooperation to benefit rural churches must consider
how larger churches and churches located in non-rural areas could become
involved. When discussing strategies for how collaboration among these churches
can be implemented, this dynamic is one that can play a prominent role in many
of the possible approaches to realizing a vision for cooperative efforts and
shared leadership to benefit rural churches in places like central Nebraska.
[1] Interview Subject #5,
Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 18, 2016.
[2]
Interview Subject #2, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken
Bow, NE, March 4, 2016.
[3]
Interview Subject #3. Interviewed by Seth Bates. Personal Interview. Broken
Bow, NE. March 5, 2016.
[4]
Interview Subject #1, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken
Bow, NE, March 3, 2016.
[5] Greer
and McDaniel. Sending Capacity Not
Seating Capacity, Location 169.
[9] Interview Subject #1,
Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 3, 2016.
