God can do more with churches who work together than with churches who work in isolation.I don't know of a single Christian who would disagree with that statement.
Then the obvious question is - "Why aren't our churches working together?"
- It's not like we've all been doing such an excellent job of making new disciples and helping them become fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ that we don't need all of the other churches.
- It's not as if all of our churches combined have been making a significant impact in our communities, our country, and our world for the Kingdom of God.
- More and more, the church is losing its voice, and the Christian world view is both the unpopular and the minority view.
Wouldn't it make more sense for churches with common mission, vision, and ministry styles to combine their resources of time, talents, finances, facilities to have greater impact for Jesus Christ?
Yet, if you look at the church's constitutions and by-laws, it makes it all but impossible for churches to work together.
Why should the Wesleyans purchase a building and get stuck with all the payments, when there are less than full churches within five minutes driving distance who share a common ministry, mission, vision, and ministry styles? Why couldn't our ministries come together to do greater ministry for God? The combined resources time, talents, and finances of could have far greater impact for Jesus in this community than any of our churches in isolation. This is just smart kingdom stewardship.
This is all good in theory, but when it comes to dollars and cents, that's when the denominations start presenting problems. What denomination would this new church be? Who owns the assets?
The real simple answer is Jesus Christ!!!! Not the PC(USA), not the Wesleyans. It's Jesus Christ. And if this can further ministry, then denominations ought to release their stranglehold on property and assets.
This is the type of flexibility needed in for a missional church.
3 comments:
Preach, brother! In our presbytery, we have dozens and dozens of little churches that cannot afford a pastor. And yet, even though many of these churches are only 5 miles or so from each other, when asked if they would entertain the notion of strengthening their witness and ministry by joining up, "nothing doing." The change would be too painful/costly. We have made idols of our places and our "families" and left the Holy Spirit and kingdom stewardship in the cold.
But not only do I agree with working together, but when I was in high school, I attended a Presbyterian church and youth group on Sunday, but also went to a Wesleyan youth group on Wednesdays! And I can say that both experiences formed me equally!
Thank you for your comment.
Wouldn't that be something? Where the mission of the church actually took precedence over the location, name, and the building of the church?
It's even already plainly stated in our constitutional documents:
"The Church is called to undertake this mission even at the risk of losing its life, trusting in God alone as the author and giver of life, sharing the gospel, and doing those deeds in the world that pint beyond themselves to the new reality in Christ"(G-3.0400).
Oh! That we would just live this out.
James <><
Amen and amen.
Post a Comment