Transforming Church

Canon:

Early church (1st to 4th centuries) – Oral traditions, wide variety of writings, lack of consensus on reliability/authenticity, writings collected to support beliefs of local communities instead of worldwide church.
Developing church (5th to 16th century) – Canon in the hands of the few: acceptance of the canon, translation to Latin, used/controlled by clergy, not in the language of the people, expensive
Modern church (16th to 20th century) – Canon in the hands of many: printed instead of handwritten, translated into the language of the people, increasingly inexpensive, addition of interpretive and study notes (20th century)
Connected Church (21st century) – Canon and commentary in the hands of all: access to the Bible in most languages electronically, electronic translation tools, millions of commentaries (both good and bad) available on Internet for free in text and increasingly video format. Reliance on commentary more than original text, authoritative sources become increasingly lost in the electronic noise, risk of consumer-driven selection of “what fits for me.” Complete democratization of information and disintermediation of clergy as sources of authority (“googling” replacing sermons/teaching). Challenge: How to make sense out of all of the information available to seekers/believers (what guides are needed to navigate the world of information?)

Creed

Early church – Answering heresies: Rudimentary affirmations (baptismal) developing into full creeds, developing orthodoxy along basic tenets of Christianity (nature of Christ, Trinity)
Developing church – Development of tradition and sacraments, rituals move to the center of church life, tightened control over orthodoxy within the church
Modern church – Affirmation of basic tenets, explosion of diversity/fragmentation in doctrinal areas (beginning with Reformation), significant conflict in early years giving way to more tolerance over time, doctrinal differences often lead to increasing fragmentation (down to a ‘church of one’ at the most extreme), remaining sense of a worldwide community but still relatively divided, control over doctrinal correctness by church becomes increasingly difficult (few options to enforce “right belief”)
Connected church – Doctrinal differences vary within single churches, denominations wane as sources of authority on doctrine, information abundance results in lack of clarity on what is essential and what is not, popular culture drives variation. Challenge: how to affirm (and define) the core, but accept diversity where it does not challenge basic teachings?

Clergy

Early church – Establishment of authority: first through disciples and apostles confirming leadership, then bishops, then more elaborate church hierarchy
Developing church – Power in the hierarchy: consolidation of power in the hierarchy of the church (both theological and political)
Modern church – Rising power of the laity: priesthood of all believers (Reformation) to lay leaders across a wide spectrum of responsibilities (even within the Catholic church), shortage of priests/pastors gives rise to more activity by laity with sacraments and core rituals of the church, decline of seminaries as the source of church leaders
Connected church – Elimination of hierarchy: interchangeability of laity and clergy possible in virtually all roles, increasingly influence-based leadership/abandonment of “command and control”, equipping leaders moves from “formal” instruction (classroom) to “informal” (experiential), roles are often temporary instead of permanent, leadership dispersed rather than centralized. Challenge: How do we develop many leaders, instead of a few? How does the clergy navigate what is essential in their leadership (in their situation) vs. what can be delegated or dispersed? What happens to the hierarchy (synods, denominational authorities) in the emerging church?

Why “Connected Church?”

The church has developed over the past two centuries as a centralized structure with each church “reporting up” through a hierarchy. With the forces at work today, the hierarchy is being replaced with interconnections among churches (a flat organizational design).

The historical structure looks a bit like a wheel with a bishop at the hub of a number of churches. Each bishop, in turn, is connected to the next layer in the church hierarchy. The relationships in this model are mostly vertical (church to bishop). In the connected church, the relationships will be primarily church-to-church with the former hierarchy (bishops, central staff) serving in new roles such as:
· Facilitating relationship building among church leaders (both clergy and laity)
· Providing centralized repository of information useful to the churches (contact names, knowledge/network management, “best practices”)
· Ensuring teaching and leadership development capabilities are well developed across the network (but not acting as the sole source of teaching and leadership development)
· Affirming a central doctrinal and evangelical core set of beliefs and practices that the churches share in common

The decentralized model will probably develop in phases, e.g.:

The “mother church” phase – A handful of leading churches will begin the networks by sharing information, ideas, people, and experiences among themselves and/or like-minded smaller churches (e.g., Willow Creek, Saddleback)

Emerging leadership phase – More churches begin to find natural areas where they have a passion and distinguish themselves along one or more dimensions (e.g., preaching, teaching, music, leadership development, local/global missions, children/women/men/couples ministries, prayer). Leaders emerge in many congregations along one or more dimensions. For example, a congregation may have a great passion and gift for inner city ministry. The natural next step is for these leaders and their teams to look around and see who else they can learn from and share their experiences. This leads to the next phase.

Connected leaders phase – Leaders from various churches begin to network in the specific areas where they have gifts, sharing their experiences, visiting each others’ congregations, codifying information, and beginning to hold occasional gatherings where they share what they are learning and how God is working through their ministries.

Connected church phases – In this phase, the churches have grown to a point where they do not rely solely on a handful of gifted leaders to continue to grow in service. Instead, the “bench strength” of the church has improved to the point where continuity of mission is independent of the specific individuals involved at any one point. In addition the following are occurring:
· Information on “how to” is easily accessible through the various networks (e.g., music network, prayer network, men’s ministry network, global missions network)
· Experiential learning is at the core of how leaders share information
· The churches “leading the way” vary from network to network
· The bigger, more established churches participate in most or all of the networks; smaller or less established churches have a voice, leaders come from churches of all sizes and situations.
· New church plantings are cooperative ventures between two or more churches with each church contributing according to its gifts
· Technology is used to effectively link churches and networks together (common/shared databases, audio/video broadcasts, conferencing).
· Churches do not have to be in the same time zone or even on the same continent to participate effectively in a network.
· It is easy for a church to tap into any network and get what they need, ranging from basic information to contacts to experiential learning to leadership development
· Many (or all) networks cross denominational boundaries

In summary, in the connected church, “ownership” of the gifts of the church are not hoarded within individual congregations or the church hierarchy, but shared and enabled across the body of Christ. The interconnections between churches promote a shared mission, broadened fellowship, and joint ministries, missions, and outreach. While individuals will still have a “home” church, they will feel increasingly at home and accepted across the network of connected churches. We often use Romans 12:4-8 as a foundation for the relationships of the members of a single church (“Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us…”), these words apply equally (if not more strongly) to the relationships of churches to one another.

Lutheran Church of Hope in West Des Moines, Iowa is one congregation positioning itself to play an important role in developing this more “connected” church. By recognizing that the interconnections among churches must be strengthened and having a vision of how that may take place, they are beginning to build bridges to other churches in areas where they have much to share as well as areas where they have much to learn.

Steve Keay is a lay leader at Lutheran Church of Hope in West Des Moines, Iowa.