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