Rural Church Alliances: 7. Outside Help

            **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.

[6] Ibid., Location 71.

[7] Ibid., Location 274.

[8] Ibid., 287.

[9] Interview Subject #1, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 3, 2016.

            [10] Interview Subject #2, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 4, 2016.

            [11] Interview Subject #3, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 5, 2016.

            [12] Interview Subject #1, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 3, 2016.

Rural Church Alliances: 6. Implementation

 **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. 

At different times in the past few years, I have become fascinated with various television shows that focus on the idea of salvage. I watched shows about antique picking and salvage, storage locker auctions and pawn shops,   home renovation and antique restoration - all for those moments when they found use in something that had essentially been thrown away. 

Out of all those shows though, one stood out for redeeming parts and pieces of old structures to be put to use again - a show called "Salvage Dawgs." The stuff they were able to redeem for future use was amazing; bathroom tile, fireplace mantels, wooden wall panels and trim, plumbing fixtures, windows, doors, and more. Everything from small decorative bits to entire structures was carefully taken apart, cleaned, repaired, and installed anew. They saw value in something that would be heading to a dumpster, often bidding to have to opportunity to salvage from condemned buildings. Sometimes, without even refinishing or repurposing the item, they were able to identify a buyer and sell it for eye-popping amounts. 

This, to me, may be the best analogy for describing the goals behind the establishment of alliances among rural churches. Many small towns are thought of as sinking ships and their churches are on board. They have aging congregations, deteriorating facilities, and dwindling funds - what could they possibly contribute? My response should not be a surprise at this point. God specializes in redemption, in making use of that which has been cast aside, finding value where no one else bothers to look. It may well be that the structure needs to come down, but there is almost certainly a great deal to be salvaged even then. 

Collaboration and shared leadership among rural churches begins with an assessment of what one already has. In the beginning, entering into cooperative efforts will likely require a more individual approach. If an individual believes rural church alliances are a viable option for their circumstances, they must embrace the endeavor personally. Nearly every resource consulted for this project indicated that the success or failure of any cooperative effort lies in the leadership. If the leaders are unwilling or ill-equipped in any number of ways, they will not be effective collaborators. On the other hand, if the leaders are effective they can often guide the congregation through even the most difficult barriers. There is a trailblazing element to the type of endeavor being described here, so it is important to personally become the type of  leader who is willing and able to participate in the trial and error nature of the path these efforts will take and identify others who share the character, vision, and other attributes needed for success.  

In seeking to develop relationships with an eye towards working together, one should continually be on the lookout for these essential ingredients for any partnership: need, opportunity, and congruity.[1] As Christians, we are often charged with being aware of the needs around us. In a more corporate sense, we ought to seek needs that can be effectively met by a partnership among churches. Furthermore, we ought to pay attention to specific opportunities to meet these needs and partners who would be a good match for such collaboration. If one can identify other leaders who share a heart for these efforts and together recognize places where need and opportunity align, they have fertile ground to work in. Whether these leaders and congregations work to help one another or to meet an external need, the cause of Christ is advanced.

When seeking out compatible leaders, it is worth keeping in mind that ministers’ groups in their various forms can be places for partnerships to germinate. Your partnership may need to start with just “three or four pastors agreeing to meet once a month for prayer and fellowship. Allow God to build the relational foundation for the ministry efforts that will come later.”[2] Even in an imperfect situation, the time investment required to make regular participation in such a group can bear great dividends with the right approach. Without ever openly broaching the idea of partnerships, one can naturally enter into personal, informal networks with fellow church leaders through such meetings simply by asking questions and listening.

One must be willing to both offer and accept help from others to initiate these relationships. Genuinely seeking to meet the personal and congregational needs of fellow church leaders builds a foundation for reciprocation and greater depth of commitment in future cooperation. One is unlikely to jump directly to a merger or even a formal partnership before first engaging the minister, leadership, and even the congregation of another church in simple fellowship. Even though such an unstructured, ad hoc approach may seem chaotic, “it represents an opportunity to look at the deeper structures on which the organization has depended. It provides an opportunity to rethink, redirect, reorganize, reposition and rebuild,”[3] and is an essential step in the process of deepening relationships for collaboration.

The authors of Leading Through Change note that “through,” as it is used in their title, is a process word and that the process of change is vitally important and must not be shortchanged.”[4] In a similar vein, William Bridge says that “Change is an event, something that happens. Transition is the emotional and psychological processing of the change.”[5] Carefully working through the process of change is an essential component of any network, partnership, or merger. Any leader seeking to lead their congregation into shared efforts must first address the health and preparation of their own congregation. Many local churches struggle with pessimism, having never experienced fruitful ministry. The local leader must share a clear vision of a better future, creating excitement and hope. The minister must demonstrate that vitality and growth are possible through concrete examples; they want proof. They must work to alleviate the attitudes that lead a church to enter survival mode through preaching, teaching, and guidance. This is a slow, but essential part of moving towards cooperation.

Utilizing Existing Institutions

In contrast to an approach that seeks to simply start over with entirely new churches and organizations, cooperative efforts are redemptive in nature. They are built on the conviction that existing churches can experience revival and become vital, thriving arms of the body of Christ. In that same spirit, we find great wisdom and opportunity in the engagement of existing institutions for the purpose of continuing and expanding our collaborative efforts. We have already discussed the intrinsic potential for partnership found in area ministers’ meetings, but most areas offer other similar opportunities.

In my context, these opportunities come primarily in the form of area ministers' meetings, Pibel Bible Camp, and the Rural Church Conference sponsored by Nebraska Christian College. In their current state, the ministers’ meetings, camps, and other gatherings may not be designed to support collaborative efforts, but the cooperation-minded leader can begin to leverage these structures for those purposes. Each already lends itself to interactivity among churches and Christians of a specific area, so it doesn’t take much to steer them more directly towards such efforts without commandeering the vehicle entirely.

           

After identifying compatible leaders, one must initiate relationships and partnerships outside and in addition to the meetings or events listed. To influence the substance of the organization or event, one must first become involved with serving consistently among those leaders before trying to make changes. One must be committed to the stated mission of the organization they are hoping to lead towards cooperative efforts and not merely seek to hijack it for their own purposes. In most cases, such an organization is well-suited towards the joining together of local groups of Christians if the proposal fits with its existing purpose. 

In a ministers’ meeting, one could begin by suggesting opportunities for fellowship gatherings among the staff, lay leaders, and congregations of participating churches. Such a leader could offer their own resources for others to use in order to introduce the idea of such sharing. They could promote the idea of sharing ideas for sermons and programs or invite others to pursue the idea of providing leader training opportunities together.

The approach to any organization or event that is already drawing churches together follows this same pattern: invest yourself in the group and its existing purposes before identifying and promoting opportunities for cooperation that fall within the natural bounds of the group. A camp could sponsor events for youth or ministry leaders using the camp facilities or on location at a partner church. The rural church gathering could take on a theme aimed at partnering or plan workshops aimed at developing sharing networks, offering ministry training, and promoting collaborative efforts among rural churches.

If a minister lives in an area without the type of groups described, they would do well to seek opportunities to found their own area minister’s meeting and church gatherings. In any instance, whether in a personal approach to collaboration or as a part of existing organizations, one must continually keep an eye out for more sharing opportunities. By engaging other ministers and leaders in conversations about both the shortcomings and assets present in their local context, one can begin to identify prospects for working together, or even be able to direct a contact to a third person with whom they may be compatible for cooperation.

Church Mergers as a Case Study

The idea of merging churches is an example of an alliance of the highest order. In looking to the patterns involved in implementing a merger, we can take away lessons for cooperative options from the full range of purposes and commitment levels. Like the congruity sought for cooperative efforts in general, for a merger to be successful there must be sufficient similarities in culture, doctrine, mission, and organizational structure.[6] Additionally, mergers depend on effective leadership for the success of the process.

One great lesson to be learned from church mergers involves timing. The genesis of many mergers involves a vacated ministry position in at least one church in addition to the proper combination of identity. Cooperative efforts require good timing. Forcing network involvement or a formal partnership when the leadership or congregation is not prepared for the jump is likely to end poorly. Each group involved must be prepared to do the work together. This often requires extensive groundwork being laid through preaching, teaching, and conversation. Preparation for entering into deep involvement with another congregation can take years, so we must start this work immediately in order to be ready when the opportunity presents itself. To quote an old Chinese proverb, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."

The circumstances in which a successful merger could be made among Restoration Movement churches in this area extends beyond timing to a set of circumstances that could well be described as logistics; essentially, how would it work? Even with the right timing and a flawless integration plan, one has to consider factors such as the distance between locations, the financial status of the joining church and the condition of their facilities, and the technological limitations of the secondary location.  In all collaboration, we must nurture healthy conversation and experimentation; learning from success and failure equally.

Tomberlin and Bird offer a helpful set of terms for describing the process of merging which, again, can be used loosely to describe the broader process involved in entering into sharing relationships with other churches and leaders:

We find it helpful to view the merger as happening in five different stages and then to estimate the speed of each stage based on your circumstances: Exploration is like dating as you assess the possibility of merging. Negotiation is like courtship as you determine the feasibility of a merger. Implementation is like engagement as you make a public announcement. Consolidation is like a wedding as the union takes place, typically including a new name for the church. Integration is like a marriage as the two congregations begin the hard work of learning how to live together as one church.[7]

Diversity in Churches and Approaches

We are reminded that our strategy for implementing these ideas is a process, not an event. Each church has a unique culture, environment, and set of resources, and every leader has a unique philosophy, personality, and skillset, so there is no “one size fits all” approach. To be effective, one must appreciate the diversity found among churches and use those differences as a benefit.

It is helpful to understand that different churches are equipped and accepting of different purposes and levels of commitment in cooperative efforts at different times. Exploring these relationships and beginning negotiations will begin to expose the feasibility of their involvement in any level or purpose of collaboration. 

This process includes the difficult task of identifying those churches and leaders that are not candidates for participation in a healthy partnering relationship due to a lack of spiritual maturity and vision. Doing so may condemn them continue a path towards permanently closing their doors, but it also protects other churches from the spread of damaging and divisive actions and attitudes. Such churches may bear fruit in a network, and should not be excluded or abandoned entirely, though they may well choose that path themselves.

The hope in shared leadership and cooperative efforts is that any church can turn the corner and grow to a place where they can become contributors and not merely consumers. Healthy cooperation requires both sides, and allowing a church to withdraw regularly without ever making a deposit creates a lose-lose situation. While some churches may take time before being able to share significantly, they should regularly be encouraged to give what they can and continue to identify new and creative ways in which they can continue to participate.

[1] Bruno and Dirks, Churches Partnering Together, Location 2215.

[2] Ibid., Location 2200.

[3] Long, The Leadership Jump, Location 305.

[4] Wells, Guise, and Klassen, Leading through Change,  62-63.

[5] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 2320.

[6] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 703.

[7] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 1657.

Rural Church Alliances: 5. What It Looks Like

 **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. 

After taking a great deal of time establishing the reasons and justifications for introducing shared leadership and collaborative efforts as a strategy for growing effectiveness in rural churches, we have come to the point where we can actually begin discussing the potential forms such efforts may take. When this information was compiled for my research project, the material presented here was engaged more deeply and more attention was paid to examples of these forms of collaboration, but I have decided to pare down the content for this format.

As I prepared this information, I struggled with how to best describe the different manifestations collaboration could take until I realized that they were operating on two independent planes. I found that the different forms of collaboration fell within certain areas of purpose and could be described in that way, but that even within those areas the expression of the collaboration changed dramatically depending on the level of commitment required of the participants. To present my research, I needed to go into details concerning both levels. To present my idea, however, I can spare you all (both?) a few minutes of reading.

For the purpose of this project I am focusing primarily on efforts to partner with ministers from churches that share a common heritage. Such churches share enough history, ideals, and theology to facilitate deep and lasting partnerships that might otherwise be derailed by differences. Even after narrowing the focus to churches with a shared heritage in the Restoration Movement, we could hardly hope to cover the full spectrum of potential approaches to cooperative efforts and shared leadership. Instead, we will endeavor to identify a handful of the primary purposes behind such efforts; fellowship, mentoring, resource sharing, and mission while examining the degree of commitment required of networks, partnerships, and mergers.

To begin defining terms, we can start with the concept of a merger. A merger carries the greatest commitment requirement and amounts the participants sharing in identity. In a merger, at least one of the preexisting churches or groups dissolves and something new is created. When it comes to distinguishing between a network and a partnership, the definition provided by Chris Bruno and Matt Dirks in their book “Churches Partnering Together” is enlightening.

A network is about sharing information, expertise, and inspiration; a partnership is about sharing responsibility…  A network is focused on individual churches/leaders; a partnership is focused on the kingdom. In a network, I help you accomplish your own goals, expecting you’ll do the same for me. In a partnership, we work together to accomplish kingdom goals that we couldn’t achieve by ourselves.[1]

     

The forms, as described according to purpose, fall within this spectrum of levels of commitment required. These purposes include fellowship, mentoring, sharing of resources, and mission. In presenting my research, I chose to separate the distinctions between purposes and levels of commitment; here I will make an effort to assimilate the two as much as possible.

Networks

As stated, networks involve the sharing of resources, in contrast to a partnership which includes the additional element of shared responsibility. In surveying our list of purposes of shared leadership and cooperative efforts among rural churches, we can easily recognize that a network is limited to relationships built on fellowship, mentoring, and shared resources. A shared mission would quickly elevate the commitment level to a partnership or merger. A network consists of interconnected relationships among multiple individuals or organizations, but does not necessarily require a contribution from any individual.

           
Networks are a great entry point for cooperation, even including churches that are hesitant to enter into such relationships on principle. Most collaborative efforts begin with this low level form of association. Formal and informal meetings among church leaders and members for both fellowship and mentoring generally fall under this umbrella, at least at their inception. Many of the options for the sharing of resources are also networks; including the exchange of teaching resources, ministry supplies, ideas, and advice. Area ministers’ meetings are another prime example of a networking opportunity where information and resources may be exchanged, but the buy-in is very low. 

Even though they don’t require much in the way of mutual obligations, networks are incredible tools for shared ministry. Beyond the direct benefits, they also help develop trust among participants and provide opportunities to discover shared values, needs, and goals. Without the relational equity developed through network opportunities, it is difficult to deepen these connections to the point of sharing responsibility or identity.

Partnerships

Partnerships represent the next level of commitment in cooperative ministry efforts. In addition to the exchange of information and resources present in a network, a partnership introduces the element of shared responsibility. In most cases, partnership requires an agreement on a set of policies and procedures as the partners move forward with their efforts. Turning to Bruno and Dirks, we see a partnership defined as “a gospel-driven relationship between interdependent local churches that pray, work, and share resources together strategically to glorify God through kingdom-advancing goals they could not accomplish alone.”[2]

       

If we consider the idea of two or more congregations sharing the resource of a large capacity vehicle. In a network, those churches may communicate to carpool to an event. With the added component of responsibility, a partnership could be represented by these same churches pooling funds to buy a vehicle to share. This agreement would likely require a shared understanding concerning the use, upkeep, and expenses related to the vehicle. This responsibility increase is a risk for all involved, and must be built on trust among their leadership.

         

An organization such as a bible camp would also fall under this umbrella. In such a partnership, each church maintains their local autonomy and identity, but there is an understanding that as they send students, they also help provide for the operation and leadership of the camp. In this way, the camp is less of a separate organization and more a manifestation of this church partnership. As such, the health of the camp is dependent on the health of the churches involved. Using this reasoning, the contributions of partner churches do not return empty. As each church grows healthier, all of the other churches benefit from their relationship.

            
When churches get to the point that they are sharing staff or even facilities, the need for health among those involved becomes more pronounced. One minister familiar with churches sharing staff indicated that the poor health of one church and its leadership quickly has a negative impact on the other church. In his experience, even when the two groups came to a decision together, it was often only in place until one group reconsidered its implementation at their location.[3] A minister who leads a Spanish speaking congregation in a rural area as a “church within a church” indicated that the health of the leadership is what makes their arrangement work. The senior minister of the overarching church body practices a great deal of humility, creating an environment where mutually beneficial ministry is possible.[4]

Mergers

A merger requires a great deal more commitment from participating churches than networks or partnerships and amounts to the sharing of identity. The idea of merging small congregations is not a new one and the creation of cooperative parishes in rural areas is common among many denominations. Our focus is not on mergers aimed at simply keeping the doors to declining churches open though, but on intentional unions based on a unified mission. While networks are limited to efforts that do not share a mission, common mission is essential in a merger.

            

The simple combination of dying churches almost never produces a successful merge, but “mission-driven church mergers have tremendous potential to exponentially expand the impact of strong, vibrant churches as well as to revitalize plateaued and declining churches.”[5] The merging of identities cannot be entered into tentatively. The participants must relinquish their history to embrace their future. Their decisions cannot be couched in a desire for survival, but in the hopes of joining resources and efforts to do Kingdom work.

           

In their book on mergers, better together, Jim Tomberlin and Warren Bird provide us with an excellent description of the four types of church mergers.  

Rebirth mergers: A struggling or dying church that gets a second life by being restarted under a stronger, vibrant, and typically larger church Adoption mergers: A stable or stuck church that is integrated under the vision of a stronger, vibrant, and typically larger church Marriage mergers: Two churches, both strong or growing, that realign with each other under a united vision and new leadership configuration ICU (intensive care unit) mergers: Two churches that know they’re in trouble and try to turn around their critical situation but are more survival driven and often fail.[6]

In each case, two or more churches assume a single identity and in the successful efforts, they join for a purpose. Few Christian churches in this region are strong and growing, many are on the verge of having to close their doors, and others are simply stuck. For a merger to bear fruit among these churches, at least two will need to find a common ground, set aside their reservations, and take a bold step in faith.

          

While these authors outline a variety of mergers, they also make it clear that for the merge to succeed “one church must take on the role of joining church, relinquishing everything from authority and staff to a name and resources, to the lead church. They acknowledge that the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing.”[7] This highlights what may be the primary obstacle to mergers, specifically in this context. There may not be a clear lead church, and a joining church may not be able to overcome their pride to relinquish enough of their identity to make the merge work. The imbalance of size or influence in a merger creates impediments to their completion. This reality identifies an additional element worth considering in this chapter: the commitment of larger churches, even those not based in rural areas to the benefit of smaller and rural churches through shared leadership and cooperation.

---

[1] Bruno and Dirks, Churches Partnering Together, Location 529.

[2]Chris and Dirks, Churches Partnering Together, Location 199.

[3] Interview Subject #2, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 4, 2016.

[4] Interview Subject #4, Interviewed by Seth Bates, Personal Interview, Broken Bow, NE, March 18, 2016.

[5] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 497.

[6] Ibid., Location 907.

[7] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 968. 

Rural Church Collaboration: 4. Identifying Collaborative Leaders

         **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. 

           The Curse of the Group Project

Every time I visit my home church there are a handful of people I seek out, if only to at least say hello. One such person is Mrs. Hauxwell. When I was in high school, she taught English and literature classes, but I was never lucky enough to have one of her classes fit into my schedule naturally. When I was a Senior though, I twisted my schedule a bit so I could take a Junior-level English Literature class I didn’t need just so I could have her as a teacher at least once. Even though I didn’t need the credits and I was used to something a bit more challenging, I really enjoyed being taught by Mrs. Hauxwell and have a few great memories from that class.

         
One such memory is a group project on Beowulf. It’s now been over 15 years since I took that class, but my teacher still remembers my group’s project and tells me about how she still has the video and used it as an example for classes until she retired. I don’t recall the specifics of our project, but I remember my group had a lot of fun conceiving and filming a project that may have had something to do with a foot odor spray. It was apparently the rare exception to the curse of the school group project.

           
The school project: loathed by the academically inclined, loved by the slacker. It is amazing that these projects are such a mine field that a success story is so remarkable. It seems like unless you get to pick your group, these projects are generally doomed to fail. Navigating the intricacies of group dynamics is difficult enough for adults with training and experience; for a student it a sure path to a B- at best. It takes a group of like-minded students with the right blend of temperaments and abilities to work out well. That group for Mrs. Hauxwell’s Beowulf project wasn’t comprised of all the best students in class, but we were unique in that we worked well together, had fun, and still produced great results… on time.

         
I will never forget another group project I was assigned in my final year of college. In a sort of capstone course for ministry degrees, we were placed in groups to create a hypothetical church. We were to make up demographics and describe our mission and ministries together with our (assigned) partners; each taking on an position on staff. Though I was a youth ministry major and we had a pastoral ministry major on our “staff,” I was selected for the role of Senior Minister. Even in this fictional church with a name that referenced either a tree or body of water (don’t they all?), I had issues with a youth minister who couldn’t get it together. Typical.

           
The pastoral ministry major in the group competently completed the work related to his role as an associate minister of some sort. Another on staff who was pursuing a degree in missions went above and beyond in her work. The youth minister turned in his portion of the project at the last minute and it - to describe it with kinder words than deserved - did not match the quality of work put forward by the rest of the group. I worked several long hours with the missions major to “edit” the youth minister’s work and bring it into alignment with the ministry of our church so we could present a quality product.

          
Eventually, we turned in the project and anxiously awaited our grades. The project itself received high marks, but I was surprised to find that my personal grade was considerably lower than the others in my group and scheduled a meeting with the professor to find out why. It turns out a part of our grade was based on the feedback of our partners. While I received high marks from two members of the group, the youth minister gave me an even lower score than I had given him. As the group leader, I bore the brunt of his resentment for the rewriting of his portion of the project even though our revamping of his work ensured a higher grade for the group as a whole.

           
The professor admitted that my efforts had drastically improved the product the group presented, but offered me an invaluable lesson on group dynamics when he allowed the disgruntled employee to adversely affect my grade. In any collaborative effort, whether hypothetical or real-world, the makeup leaders involved is integral to the success of the undertaking.

           
Many of the challenges presented for cooperative efforts and shared leadership for the benefit of rural churches in the previous blog entry were related to the leaders involved. Lay leaders in the rural church are often untrained and their vocational ministers often hope their stay is impermanent. A lack of humility and vision in either ministry staff or lay leadership can short-circuit an attempt at collaboration before it even begins. Like in our group project experiences (they are almost universal aren’t they?), a leader who is unable to produce results on par with the rest of the group, for whatever reason, will mar the efforts of the whole - even if efforts are made to accommodate for their shortcomings.

           
In addressing the implementation phase of shared leadership and cooperative efforts, one of the first steps is to identify compatible leaders for cooperation. Even before strategies are discussed, even before any possible collaboration is conceived, one must first identify the traits required of the leaders involved if those efforts have a legitimate shot at success. This may seem self-evident, but the temptation is to seek to be all inclusive. There ought to be a path towards collaboration offered to every leader and congregation with a desire, but when establishing core leaders on any network or collaboration, a certain level of exclusivity is essential to avoid the project being dead on arrival.

Distinctive Leadership

The first aspect to consider is the ability and quality of work of prospective leaders. Many of the ministers and lay leaders involved with the churches in an area may simply not have the tools to competently contribute. An individual could lack essential organizational, interpersonal, or intellectual abilities. Laziness, a lack of focus, and deficiency in any number of skills related to general ministry could spell trouble for a collaborative effort. When an alliance of any sort is being conceived of, one must take a realistic view of potential partners. Don’t merely look to their potential contributions, but to their actual involvement and production in their current areas of ministry.  

          
We often tend to seek out dynamic personalities, impressive titles, and talented individuals; but merely gathering a team of gifted individuals will rarely bear fruit without also applying a few other criteria. When building a connection with a nearby church, it would be advantageous to pay close attention to who is already serving in various ways and demonstrating an ability to work well in collaboration with others regardless of title or individual aptitude. In seeking such leaders, one must pay close attention to the motivation, character, and ministry philosophy of any prospective partner, in addition to their demonstrated leadership abilities.  

Motivation

In speaking specifically to church mergers, the authors of “Better Together” identified the following improper motivations: preservation, denial, personal gain, solely financial motivation, and personal glory.[1] Within those improper motivations, one can easily recognize that they can be boiled down to the desire to either maintain the status quo or to pursue selfish ambition. In either case, such a motivation would derail the effectiveness of any collaborative effort.

One cannot effectively practice collaborative leadership simply out of a desire to keep things the same. In such a situation, the worst case scenario would be that they succeed! Likewise, the desire to simply expand one’s personal authority or notoriety would prove counterproductive if achieved. If the leader’s personal agenda is nothing more than to become known and respected, their goals will stand in stark contrast to those of the group at large. It would be foolish to join with such a leader, regardless of their potential contribution. It may seem attractive to team up with a talented and charismatic leader, but if they carry this motivation, doing so would invite that leader to hijack the efforts of the group as a vehicle to personal advancement.  

In speaking about partnerships between churches, the following motivations can be identified as the beginning of a successful partnership: “fellowship and unity, evangelism, and compassion.”[2] These are “kingdom” partnerships. They have a clear purpose outside of the improper motivations highlighted above. They are aimed at producing fruit, and “the primary goals for change should be effectiveness and fruitfulness.”[3] The collaborative leader must be primarily motivated by the desire to bring fruit from the works of the congregations involved in the work.

Character

***SPOILER: The key word here is “humility.”***

There is a need for a catalytic leader with strong character in a partnership: “Kingdom partnerships don’t ignite on their own. God typically uses a few key pastors or churches to provide the first few sparks.”[4] Catalytic leaders are respected, radically dependent on God, role models, selflessly humble, hard workers, and passionately committed to people.[5] Many of these character traits echo what we saw accorded to the leaders of the early church, specifically that they were selflessly humble hard workers.  Authors describing individuals who had successfully led churches through a merger painted a similar picture:

Top of Form

Top of Form

Kingdom minded, mission driven, strategic thinking, get-it-done individuals. They are able to rise above their specific circumstances and help others see the bigger picture of possibility. They are strong leaders but not overbearing. They know how to motivate people and build teams. They are bold but gracious. They exude confidence without being arrogant. They are able to keep a calm head in the midst of chaos. They are tough skinned enough to endure the criticisms, but tenderhearted enough to love the people regardless. They not only lead the people but genuinely love them through the process.[6]

By nature, collaborative efforts require a humble, egalitarian leadership. In any circumstance where collaboration is sought among churches, leaders must emerge beyond the formal. In many cases, the natural fit may be senior ministers and elders, but new and exciting areas of ministry may well inspire new leaders. New and young leaders taking on prominent roles in a shared leadership situation may easily disturb or even offend those who currently hold influential positions. Osborne notes that “One person’s emerging influence is always another person’s waning influence. That’s why making room for the young eagles is a hard sell, especially to those who already have a place at the table.”[7]

            
Andrew D Clarke speaks to this humble, deferential style of leadership as practiced by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul refuses the idea of Christians aligning themselves with Apollos, Peter, or himself, saying in verse 6 (ESV), “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” He did not allow for them to elevate one leader over another. Clarke additionally indicates that “Paul in writing to the Corinthians urges them to submit to Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, as well as those like them.”[8] Paul didn’t see authority as something to be claimed and hoarded, but as something to be shared by those who have demonstrated work within the congregation. An effective collaborative leader must seek out capable servants and effectively empower them to lead. The long term efficacy of a collaborative effort relies on leaders with the humility, the depth of character, to carry out this strategy.

Philosophy of Ministry

As I read and researched for the project from which these blog entries are sourced, this final characteristic required of leaders in effective alliances remained on the indeterminate edges of my thoughts. The issues of motivation and character were core discussions in almost every leadership and ministry resource I came across; I could just have easily cited a dozen more sources saying essentially the same thing: selfless humility. I found though, that there was something more that was a little bit more difficult to pin down. Many humble and effective, Kingdom-minded, high-integrity ministry leaders would struggle to take part in what will be proposed as a solution to the obstacles I’ve identified. The difference, it seems, is in their way of thinking; their general approach or philosophy of ministry.

            
Many small, rural churches are struggling for legitimate reasons, having lost touch entirely with their purpose while keeping their traditions ever in arm’s reach. Many are well-meaning, but facing the same fate as their dwindling and dying community; hopeless and hopelessly out of date. The immediate temptation is to simply throw the whole thing out and start anew. The simple truth is that most instances of struggling rural churches experiencing renewal that I’ve read or heard about are the result of just that approach. The heritage of the church is sacrificed on the altar of newness. The price paid by existing members in years of long service is cashed in for tokens to fund rebranding. Very often, what you find is an entirely new church taking up residence on the existing property, with the former tenants left out in the cold.

           
I, of course, understand the necessity of allowing old attitudes and approaches to pass away. I have experienced the need to sacrifice a few “sacrificial calves” in order to move forward in a healthy direction. This whole concept of collaboration, however, is built on the conviction that our small, rural churches can and should be saved. Before a leader can take the first steps in cooperation, they must adopt a strong redemptive stance. At some point, these churches were likely healthy, thriving faith communities – our intent must be to utilize whatever methods necessary to revitalize that vigor in the local church. This approach requires a specific mindset; one that takes into account more than what looks good or “works.” One that aims for the redemption of what already exists, not merely the establishment of what will be effective; even when it is the harder and longer path.

It seems that the rural minister who is in such a community as a matter of choice may already take this view of things. The shorter and easier path to effective, established ministry is most often at home in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, where a corn field is driven past, not driven through. Such a leader does well to bring this aspect of their personal philosophy to the forefront, if only for their own sanity. In the midst of such change, when it seems all is lost, it is important to remember that you really do believe in a redemptive ministry. Even beyond the leadership, it is an essential step to develop a similar understanding within the congregation.

Mark DeVine describes such a realization: “God had not called me to bully a proud little flock down a path of my choosing. They needed to see what I saw.”[9] Even in the best of situations, one can expect both pain and conflict, so this path requires a leader who understands why they are convinced of this approach themselves and who is prepared to illumine a clear vision to everyone involved.

Ministry within the rural church has a unique set of demands, and requires a leader who can develop a viewpoint on ministry that addresses those demands effectively. “In order to lead the town and country church through change, we must first understand the forces that cause change and what kinds of change they are causing.”[10] Rural leaders must keep tabs on the changing demographics of their community, noting the emergence of a new rural poor that exhibit similarities to the inner city.[11] They must also acknowledge tension between lifelong rural residents and those moving to the rural setting from a variety of contexts. These emerging cultural dynamics must be understood for a collaborative leader to be effective in a rural context.

            
Answering these leadership needs begins with the careful selection of leaders to be included in any collaborative effort. They must meet the baseline standards regarding ability, motivations, character, and philosophy to enter into an alliance. Those with shortcomings in these areas, will need to submit to the training and mentorship of an established leader before being invited into share authority in a project or association. The aim is not exclusivity at the expense of the redemptive nature of such a ministry in general, but rather at maintaining healthy ministries and relationships in the process.

Not all leaders are immediately qualified for this work, so the establishment of associations to provide learning opportunities is essential to building the type of ministers, elders, and ministry leaders required for cooperative work. There is no perfect leader, so providing avenues for those with different perspectives and styles to find common ground and mutual understanding is essential to beginning shared work.

            
As we work to change the mindset and effectiveness of rural leaders and churches, we can begin to influence the negative perception of both. Recruiting and retaining quality leaders while providing them training and an environment where they can thrive as they share a leadership works to reverse the trends associated with the negative views of rural ministry. Sharing leadership may also build an environment where the weaknesses of our leaders are balanced and their strengths are emphasized. We must believe the rural church can become a place where ministry can bear great fruit and where talented leaders can thrive. Creating a vital network of churches works to rally together still more like-minded ministers and lay-leaders that may otherwise shy away from serving in a rural church.

---

[1] Jim Tomberlin and Warren Bird, Better Together: Making Church Mergers Work (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012), Kindle Edition: Location 1200.

[2] Bruno and Dirks, Churches Partnering Together, Location 331.

[3] Wells, Guise, and Klassen, Leading through Change, 13.

[4] Bruno and Dirks, Churches Partnering Together, Location 975.

[5] Ibid., Location 992-1081.

[6] Tomberlin and Bird, Better Together, Location 3254.

            [7] Larry Osborne, Sticky Teams: Keeping Your Leadership Team and Staff On the Same Page (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), Kindle Edition: Location 1639.

[8] Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church, Location 1808.

[9] Mark DeVine and Darrin Patrick, Replant: How a Dying Church Can Grow Again, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2014), Kindle Edition: Location 788.

 [10] Wells, Guise, and Klassen, Leading through Change, 21.

 [11] Ibid., 45.