What Keeps Sincere Leaders From Collaborating With Other Churches

We're all in the same body of Christ, on the same team, right? Our churches are facing the same cultural challenges, all working for the same goal--spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and bringing glory to God. So why are churches collaborating with each other?

Think about it. How many of your church's ministries include another church? How many of the food drives? How many of the evangelism efforts? How many of the youth events or Christmas programs involve Christians in your area that are members of another church?

The answer for the vast majority of churches in America is: NONE. Not a single ministry effort includes cooperation with another church. (By the way, I'm very curious to see if this problem happens in other countries.)

Think about how many times churches duplicate the efforts of other churches; how many extra items are purchased when they could be shared; how many times churches are struggling to have enough people or money to make an event happen. And think about the powerful message to a community when churches do collaborate. It elevates the attention to Christ, not our particular congregation or our particular pastor.

So why aren't churches in America doing this?

Some churches disagree strongly over doctrine, including substantial biblical issues. That does make it harder to work together. But that still doesn't explain the lack of collaboration. Most churches in the same denomination in the same town do only the required minimum of collaboration. And that's usually giving a portion of their income to the denomination at large and attending an annual gathering of leaders--not actually doing any ministry together.

I've don't ministry in a town with a 1st Baptist Church, 2nd Baptist Church, and 3rd Baptist Church--all within 10 minutes drive of each other, none of whom collaborated on a single ministry event. And don't think it's limited to Baptists. I led a parachurch youth ministry project in another town and on a major intersection found four churches--one on each corner. These churches were all fairly large and successful. And not one staff member at any of the churches had ever even met another staff member from any of the other churches. They could see each other from their front door and didn't meet. Oh, and while they weren't all the same denomination, they were all from mainline denominations with very few doctrinal differences.

They weren't enemies of each other. It just hadn't occurred to them to meet the other church people, let alone work together.

In fact, what's much more likely is for a typical church to be in active competition with other churches. Their leaders work to convince their people that their church is the best church in this area, trying to get their attendees to commit to their church as their church home (and not any of the others).

Think about the mailers you get (or the ones you just sent out). Boil the advertising down and here's what the vast majority of churches are saying to their communities:

Our church isn't like all the other churches you've been to--we're better (i.e. more casual, more open to non-believers, or more spiritual, or more friendly, etc)

I don't think churches compete (vs. collaborate) because their leaders don't love Jesus or are a bunch of hypocrites. In fact, in my encounters with hundreds of church leaders across dozens of denominations I find church leaders to be overwhelmingly sincere and truly committed to serving God.

So why are these sincere followers of Jesus not working together? I think it's actually driven by the system of modern church life--and the economics built into the system.

Typical churches are dominated and defined by their Sunday services. Not only is it the central element of their Christian duty ("being a Christian means attending church"), Sunday services are the venue for collecting income (call it "tithing" if you like, it's still the income stream for the church). And no matter how much we believe in the abstract that we're all in the body of Christ, the typical church measures it success by: 1) how many people come on Sunday morning;  and 2) how much those people give during the Sunday services.

And that creates a zero-sum game for churches. If a person goes to another church on Sunday morning at 9am, then they can't also be at your church at the same time. If they give their tithe to that church, they can't also give it to your church. One church's gain is another church's loss. So collaboration is dangerous because the attendance and giving get muddled. If you hold a joint service, how do you split the offerings received? If you hold a joint community outreach program, where do you tell the new believers to come to on Sunday morning--and who will get the tithe we will tell them God requires?

As long as Sunday service attendance and 10% tithes are the core definition of being a Christian, then churches will always be driven to compete with the other churches in their area. In this environment, the ministries you offer aren't just a method for reaching the world (though they are that, too). They are also your unique features that are used to convince customers to plug into your church--and not the others.

It's just the natural consequence of their system.

However, when you don't have services at the same time and don't require a tithe to a general fund (see my earlier posts on tithing and a simple weekly schedule) the freedom to truly collaborate is amazing. Our church has done this from the start. The amount of shared ministry projects has gone up or down over the years, but we've never had a time when we didn't have at least one shared project--where we were either sending people and money to support another church's ministry efforts or having them join something we were leading.

It's not because I am more holy than the other leaders. Not even close. It's because I didn't have anything to lose--no money I was counting on. We've had members attending multiple churches (our and another) almost continuously since our founding. Because our system makes it easier to do.

What does your church system encourage? How dependent are you on the tithes of your members? What if you weren't?

Typical Church Leadership Is More Like Obamacare Than We Realize

In March, 2012, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented three days of arguments on whether the government can make citizens do what's "best" for themselves--i.e. pay for healthcare, eat low salt foods, etc. In late June, they announced their ruling: Obamacare is constitutional--because it really is a tax, that is. This leaves that big question somewhat unanswered.

What does that have to do with church leadership? At the core, the question was about the government's right to force people to do the right thing. And this question is very pertinent to church leaders. The argument goes something like this...

ON ONE HAND...

Our government was not designed to give our leaders great power to effect great change. The Framers designed government to limit the damage leaders can do.  They believed in the fallen nature of man and feared what fallen men in power would do. Most of all, they feared another monarchy, saying, "A government capable of doing great good quickly is also capable of doing great harm quickly." Limited government, based on an educated and mature citizenry.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

If you have the power to make people's lives better, shouldn't you? Don't parents make their kids eat their vegetables? I do. My 2 year old daughter doesn't get to choose whether she eats green beans at dinner.

And those same Framers also said, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

We already have to drive the speed limit. I live in a neighborhood association that requires us to keep our house presentable. (I'll refrain from discussing the picture sent to me of our offending overgrown vine trellis...that had to have been taken from within my back yard! Nothing quite like petty tyrants, eh?)

This is a fundamental leadership question--not just a governmental leadership question. Maybe we should also require everyone to go to church? In Austria, where my brother lived up until this past December, if you register as a church member your tithes are automatically deducted from your paycheck--government enforced. Isn't that good? They're helping people make the choice they're supposed to make anyway. It just makes it easier for them to do what's right.

MY OPINION...

My position depends on whether we're talking short-term or long-term--oh, and there's a crucial assumption required.

CRUCIAL ASSUMPITON…

We're assuming that the government will choose well, when it tells us what to do. We're assuming that our leaders won't enforce the wrong thing. No, I'm not about to suggest that Obama and his party are out to destroy America. That's as immature as blindly accepting their judgment. I think they're doing their best. But government leaders aren't any more free of the struggle with sin than the rest of us--complete with the blind spots and miscalculations we all have. But, for the sake of our argument, let's make this HUGE assumption and move on.

In the short-term, it's very good for people to have their leaders require them to make wise choices. Good behavior increases and lives are improved. Success!

But in the long-term, there's a terrible price to pay. The more leaders decide for their people, the more they remove the need for people to learn how to make good decisions. The wisdom of the people will atrophy. Yes, I do require my toddler to eat well, but if I continue to treat my children like toddlers as they grow up, I will stunt their ability to think and choose wisely when I'm not around.

From Awake From Atrophy:

Jacob frowned back and leaned forward intently. “I would agree that most of the believers in a typical church wouldn’t know what to do if you said, ‘Go minister to each other.’ But I believe members’ inability to minister without being told exactly what to do is an indication of immature or selfish leadership, not immature or selfish members.”

Drew’s eyebrows rose skeptically. “How is that the leader’s fault? We’re wearing ourselves out trying to get them to grow up!”

“It’s kind of like bad parenting,” Jacob explained, unfazed by Drew’s outburst. “You may have seen parents who did so much for their children, who worked so hard, but allowed their children to do little, so that their children became adults in name only. The adult children remained dependent on their parents. It’s like always making your child drink from a sippy cup, even into their teens, to be sure they don’t spill anything. Instead, as every good parent knows, as children grow they need increasing opportunities to make their own decisions. Yes, they will make mistakes. Yes, when you take the lid off the cup, they will spill their drink sometimes. And, no, it’s not wise to leap from zero responsibility to total life responsibility. I wouldn’t move from sippy cups straight to crystal goblets. But to never take the lid off their cup is even worse.

“When pastors decide that members will never be able to minister as mature adults because they aren’t ready, it usually comes from one of two postures. In the best case, they have no idea there is another option, which I think describes the great majority of pastors. But, in the worst case, there are probably a few pastors who also crave the sense of importance that comes from having members so very dependent on them—just like poor parents.”

CONCLUSION…

Most churches have more of an Obamacare-approach to leadership than empowering the individual. They're deciding for their people. On giving: they advocate a 10% tithe left up to the staff to manage. On music and teaching: the staff (and a few key volunteers in small churches) decide what happens--and then do all the execution on Sundays. Even in small groups, the rare opportunity for members to minister in a typical church--they're given step-by-step curriculum. Typical church leaders choose everything that needs to be done, then they teach, cajole, and pressure their members to do what exactly that. When do members get to make any decisions?

The more policies like Obamacare that are enacted, the less individually mature our citizens will become. If you want a preview of an immature nation, over-dependent on their leaders, just look at a typical church--at the prevalence of "cultural-Christians" and the edge-of-burnout lifestyle of the staff and few volunteers.

No Tithe-No Offering Plate (Value & Practices: Part 14)

You may need to sit down before you read about our next defining practice, Member-Driven Funding. We don't collect a tithe. We don't pass an offering plate/bag/bucket around. We don't even collect money for a general fund.

Instead, we post a list of the basic needs of the church, including building rent, children's supplies, staff salaries, etc.  That list also includes all the needs our church members and also some needs from outside our church body. (The elders coordinate what goes on that list.)

Our members then choose how much to give to whom, as the Lord leads them. And they don' t need to give it to the leaders first. In fact, I discourage people from just giving me undesignated money. Yes, there have been times when the Lord leads people to give to the church, and I'll accept it. There's no command in the Bible against giving undesignated funds.

So, if there's no rule against it, why aren't we handling our giving like everyone else? Why not the 10% tithe and why not the general fund?

First, why not promote the number 10%. I mean, that's in the Bible, right?

It is. But only in the Old Testament. It's clearly a part of the Levitical system God established with Moses. The tribe of priests were not giving a plot of land to farm or ranch. They were to focus on being priests for the nation. The other tribes were asked to bring a tenth of their supplies to them as sacrifices to God (that the Levites got to keep and eat). And God promised to bless them for faithful giving. But it's not mentioned after Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament).

We don't require any other element of the sacrificial system, today. Why this number?

The New Testament does call us to give. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying giving is only for Old Testament times. There are many verses urging us to give in the New Testament. But the 10% standard isn't in any of those verses. Instead, as usual, the New Testament ups the ante.

In the Old Testament, you just had to follow specific behaviors: don't eat pork, don't commit adultery, give 10%, etc. But the New Testament moves beyond behavior only and makes it about the heart. You can eat any meat--but you have to pay attention to the weakness of your brother and decide meal by meal what you should or shouldn't eat. Adultery isn't limited to physical behavior, but happens in your heart even when you lust. And we should give how much the Lord leads us to give. It may be less than or much more than 10%.

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 NASB

Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Second, how about the general fund? Isn't that in the New Testament stories?

Actually, there's plenty of examples of church leaders collecting money from many believers--but not for an undesignated cause. Some early churches gave money to Paul to help the church in Jerusalem, for example. But it was a response to a specific request for Jerusalem. Paul does urge people to put some money aside each week so they're able to give when the need arises. But that's a general savings plan, not a general fund giving plan. In fact, that's much more like what we do. We urge our members to save up their own money and spend their month in prayer thinking about how God wants them to use their money. They can even use their own tithe to fund their own ministry efforts. I don't make them give it to me and then ask for it right back to do the ministry project God has laid on their heart.

I want to be clear--the general fund issue isn't required one way or the other in the Bible. They didn't have 501(c)3 bank accounts in the days of the early church. So I do accept checks from members who say God told them to give the money to our church's general fund (we do have a bank account).

But I found that our decentralized process, where money often doesn't even pass through my hands, produces better growth than the general fund plan.

In the typical model, members give a fixed amount to a general fund and they're done. Aside from once or twice a year when a special offering request is made, they don't need to think much or pray much about it. The message is simply: obey. Obedience isn't wrong (and sometimes requires prayer and thought). But our approach requires them to hear from God on how much to give to whom.

It inspires a closer walk with God and a more personal connection with the ministry efforts of their church. And isn't what we're trying to design church to do?