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.