I have been fantasizing lately about founding a network of churches for one simple reason: the unity that Jesus prayed for in John 17:21-26. I’m going to do a little dreaming out loud here about what such a network might look like.
First of all, I can’t imagine moving on this for at least a year. I’ve got to get my own two feet underneath me first, as pastor of The Core. Nevertheless, I can’t get this off my mind, so I’m going to throw out a few ideas, and let you respond to them, either positively or negatively.
“One In Christ” Network (needs a better name)
1. It will not be a denomination, as evidenced by the following:
a. Other memberships will be permitted, and not monitored whatsoever
b. It will not attempt to be set apart from other groups by a unique doctrine, except to be known for its commitment to the unity of those who follow Christ, and subscribe to basic, historic, orthodox Christian beliefs.
c. It will seek to connect and “network” Christians and churches together, rather than divide or control them.
2. Member churches will agree to the following beliefs:
a. The 66 books of the Bible are completely true and reliable, designed to govern us, and not be governed by us.
b. God is all-powerful, sovereign, and triune, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
c. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and our only means of reconciliation to God by his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead.
d. Although we cannot earn our own salvation through works, we are called to a life of righteousness and a heart of obedience, as prescribed in Scripture.
e. God himself is the owner of all truth, and calls us to develop our theologies with the utmost humility, always listening respectfully to the perspectives of others, and never belittling our ridiculing our brothers and sisters.
3. Member churches will be characterized by the following values:
a. a recognition that all Christians are indeed ONE as we are found IN CHRIST.
b. a commitment to actively love and pray for others, regardless of their beliefs.
c. a latitude in regards to secondary doctrines, realizing that the most important concepts of Scripture are marked by clarity, and secondary concepts are often marked by ambiguity, leaving room for honest, intelligent Christ-followers to disagree.
d. a desire to seek out partnerships and collaborative opportunities with those from differing Christian traditions
e. a rejection of all divisive actions and attitudes (with an understanding of the difference between divisiveness and mere division.)
4. The Network will be characterized by the following initiatives:
a. conferences, workshops and gatherings to promote unity and inter-denominational reconciliation.
b. support for new churches who wish to minister missionally and non-denominationally.
c. mediation in specific circumstances of denominational antagonism.
d. ecumenical projects to care for the poor and needy.
e. general work to represent Christianity to the world as a body unified in Christ.
That’s all I can think of for now… what do you think? Is this something Christianity needs? And is it feasible?
The Core Revisited 
Sounds good to me. Absolutely vital to the witness and mission of the Kingdom, that’s for sure.For a name, how about ONEtwork? Looks good, but maybe a little too tongue-twisting. Just brainstorming. ;-)Waiting a year definitely sounds like a good idea.
Sounds good to me. Absolutely vital to the witness and mission of the Kingdom, that’s for sure.For a name, how about ONEtwork? Looks good, but maybe a little too tongue-twisting. Just brainstorming. ;-)Waiting a year definitely sounds like a good idea.
I think that networking is very important. It just might be the one thing that truly allows “one-ity” to exist. Back home, we networked with other churches all the time, and I loved it. It got “us” out of our boxes, and realize that there are others that have the same ambition and drive. Along with that, a 3 cord robe isn’t easily broken. The more that you have going towards your vision, the stronger and more powerful you will become.
I think that networking is very important. It just might be the one thing that truly allows “one-ity” to exist. Back home, we networked with other churches all the time, and I loved it. It got “us” out of our boxes, and realize that there are others that have the same ambition and drive. Along with that, a 3 cord robe isn’t easily broken. The more that you have going towards your vision, the stronger and more powerful you will become.
Our church as been doing this sense we left our denomination back inthe ’80’s.I will be interested in this also. But I suggest you seek out others doing the same thing. Then seek the Lord on joining, starting a new one, or both.
Our church as been doing this sense we left our denomination back inthe ’80’s.I will be interested in this also. But I suggest you seek out others doing the same thing. Then seek the Lord on joining, starting a new one, or both.
I like ONEtwork, except people would probably mispronounce it constantly, either O-network, or Wunt-work, depending on how it’s presented graphically.I can’t get away from the phrase “One In Christ” because it says it so tersely, and so accurately. We cannot be ONE unless we are IN CHRIST, and we cannot be IN CHRIST unless we are unified, ONE.Wayne… can you identify a network like this that exists already? I would love to know.
I like ONEtwork, except people would probably mispronounce it constantly, either O-network, or Wunt-work, depending on how it’s presented graphically.I can’t get away from the phrase “One In Christ” because it says it so tersely, and so accurately. We cannot be ONE unless we are IN CHRIST, and we cannot be IN CHRIST unless we are unified, ONE.Wayne… can you identify a network like this that exists already? I would love to know.
If you want to keep the “One in Christ” theme, how about “Chr1st”? :)
If you want to keep the “One in Christ” theme, how about “Chr1st”? :)
If our name was THAT clever, everyone would know it was your idea, not mine. ;-)
If our name was THAT clever, everyone would know it was your idea, not mine. ;-)
You could always throw the word “missional” in there and people will be chomping at the bit to sign on. It’s the popular buzzword these days, even for people who have no idea what being missional entails, much less a commitment to being missional. If the goal was just to get people together and get them talking, that may be a route to getting there. But you’re shooting for a higher goal than mere dialogue.This begs the question, What will be the incentive for such collaboration? “Unity” is such a broad and vague concept that it is useless for all practical purposes. You outline 5 “orthodox” tenets (the source from which you gleaned them, more or less, I would be curious to discover… I am on a hunt for a historic delineation of basic orthodoxy myself, outside of the various ecumenical creeds. As Tony Jones said in a paper at a relatively recent Wheaton Theology symposium, “Orthodoxy is an event”. The question is, which event?) on which all believers and churches must maintain unity, as well as values. But doesn’t that merely insure that only churches and organizations presently holding those beliefs and values will join the network? If so, the network isn’t really accomplishing your vision. Or am I missing something? Do you simply want those who agree on essential doctrine and values to get along better and work together more?Back to incentive… I believe it will take more than a simple declaration of Christ’s concern for the Church’s unity to actually stimulate it. It will take a compelling purpose… a mission to be accomplished that can only be accomplished in tandem. Secondly, it will require faith on the part of all parties that participation in this collaborative effort is likely to actually accomplish the mission (that is, whatever part of the mission that is relegated to particular churches and partnerships). What basis will they have for this faith? That is something you will need to discern and articulate. In plain terms, what assurance do they have that you in particular are a qualified facilitator of this type of thing? You’ll need to have a well-developed and clearly-articulated answer to this question forthright. It’s one of the very first questions you’ll have to answer. In fact, people will almost certainly supply their own answer if you don’t answer it for them as soon as they catch wind of the initiative.That’s about the best contribution I can put on the table. Hope it’s useful to you in accomplishing your vision, which I fervently share.Much love.
You could always throw the word “missional” in there and people will be chomping at the bit to sign on. It’s the popular buzzword these days, even for people who have no idea what being missional entails, much less a commitment to being missional. If the goal was just to get people together and get them talking, that may be a route to getting there. But you’re shooting for a higher goal than mere dialogue.This begs the question, What will be the incentive for such collaboration? “Unity” is such a broad and vague concept that it is useless for all practical purposes. You outline 5 “orthodox” tenets (the source from which you gleaned them, more or less, I would be curious to discover… I am on a hunt for a historic delineation of basic orthodoxy myself, outside of the various ecumenical creeds. As Tony Jones said in a paper at a relatively recent Wheaton Theology symposium, “Orthodoxy is an event”. The question is, which event?) on which all believers and churches must maintain unity, as well as values. But doesn’t that merely insure that only churches and organizations presently holding those beliefs and values will join the network? If so, the network isn’t really accomplishing your vision. Or am I missing something? Do you simply want those who agree on essential doctrine and values to get along better and work together more?Back to incentive… I believe it will take more than a simple declaration of Christ’s concern for the Church’s unity to actually stimulate it. It will take a compelling purpose… a mission to be accomplished that can only be accomplished in tandem. Secondly, it will require faith on the part of all parties that participation in this collaborative effort is likely to actually accomplish the mission (that is, whatever part of the mission that is relegated to particular churches and partnerships). What basis will they have for this faith? That is something you will need to discern and articulate. In plain terms, what assurance do they have that you in particular are a qualified facilitator of this type of thing? You’ll need to have a well-developed and clearly-articulated answer to this question forthright. It’s one of the very first questions you’ll have to answer. In fact, people will almost certainly supply their own answer if you don’t answer it for them as soon as they catch wind of the initiative.That’s about the best contribution I can put on the table. Hope it’s useful to you in accomplishing your vision, which I fervently share.Much love.
All excellent questions. I’ll receive them in the rhetorical spirit, for the purpose of pondering, not answering forthright. Especially since this is an idea on the horizon, not on the threshold.But I will answer one question, to say that yes, the point is to get those who agree on the orthodox points of faith to get along better, and exhibit unity and reconciliation to a lost world. I can’t put a value on the importance of achieving that together.
All excellent questions. I’ll receive them in the rhetorical spirit, for the purpose of pondering, not answering forthright. Especially since this is an idea on the horizon, not on the threshold.But I will answer one question, to say that yes, the point is to get those who agree on the orthodox points of faith to get along better, and exhibit unity and reconciliation to a lost world. I can’t put a value on the importance of achieving that together.
Certainly a more unified front is better than a less unified one. I still wonder, though, how much impact a unified/united evangelical Church would have on the unchurched world’s perception of the overall unity of the Church, considering that orthodoxy, as defined by evangelical Protestants, excludes many sects claiming membership in the Church (‘orthodox’ Catholicism, liberal mainline denom’s, fringe groups). The biggest barrier will always be the great rift between Protestants and Catholics, and neither is anywhere remotely close to “giving in” to the other, much less fizzling out on a global scale (both are growing at tremendous rates in the Global South).I’m having coffee this afternoon with an evangelical who is in the process of converting to Catholicism. Perhaps we can bridge the divide one relationship at a time.Grace,
Certainly a more unified front is better than a less unified one. I still wonder, though, how much impact a unified/united evangelical Church would have on the unchurched world’s perception of the overall unity of the Church, considering that orthodoxy, as defined by evangelical Protestants, excludes many sects claiming membership in the Church (‘orthodox’ Catholicism, liberal mainline denom’s, fringe groups). The biggest barrier will always be the great rift between Protestants and Catholics, and neither is anywhere remotely close to “giving in” to the other, much less fizzling out on a global scale (both are growing at tremendous rates in the Global South).I’m having coffee this afternoon with an evangelical who is in the process of converting to Catholicism. Perhaps we can bridge the divide one relationship at a time.Grace,
Actually, I’m not sure that the 5 basic tenets I’ve laid out would exclude any mainliners, or even Catholics.
Actually, I’m not sure that the 5 basic tenets I’ve laid out would exclude any mainliners, or even Catholics.
When you start talking about the nature and extent of the authority of the Bible, the wording you use will always be politically scrutinized to the nth degree. So the intentional vagueness of your statement will certainly cause conservatives and liberals to press you from both sides into providing a more precise definition of terms such as “completely”, “true”, and “reliable”. You also would need to clarify “govern” to Catholics, because they essentially believe that Scripture <>is<> more or less “governed” by the Church (i.e. by the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops). That continues to be one of the major disharmonies between C’s and P’s. P’s believe in the priesthood of all believers, which includes not least personal interpretation of Scripture, whereas Catholics do not believe any interpretation outside of official Vatican-authorized doctrine is acceptable, nor do they encourage the practice of personal interpretation. Additionally, orthodox Catholics would have trouble with point d., because they have a definite theology and system of works salvation. It’s “Christ + works” and in many cases, + the works and prayers of others (i.e. praying for the souls of the dead to escape purgatory, the Treasury of Merits, etc.).A good place to start researching the possibilities for P-C reconciliation is ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), though certain members have come under significant scrutiny, particularly when making claims that all <>basic<> differences between P’s and C’s have essentially been dissolved with Vatican II. It seems, though, as if some in the Catholic community are increasingly willing to diverge from official Catholic doctrine, as evidenced by the joint declaration “< HREF="http://www.seekgod.ca/ect2.htm" REL="nofollow">The Gift of Salvation<>“, published over a decade ago. It’s definitely worth a read, but keep in mind that parts of it don’t (to the best of my knowledge) jive with official Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, I do find the process of interdenominational dialogue incredibly exhilarating when done in the right spirit.Peace.
When you start talking about the nature and extent of the authority of the Bible, the wording you use will always be politically scrutinized to the nth degree. So the intentional vagueness of your statement will certainly cause conservatives and liberals to press you from both sides into providing a more precise definition of terms such as “completely”, “true”, and “reliable”. You also would need to clarify “govern” to Catholics, because they essentially believe that Scripture <>is<> more or less “governed” by the Church (i.e. by the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops). That continues to be one of the major disharmonies between C’s and P’s. P’s believe in the priesthood of all believers, which includes not least personal interpretation of Scripture, whereas Catholics do not believe any interpretation outside of official Vatican-authorized doctrine is acceptable, nor do they encourage the practice of personal interpretation. Additionally, orthodox Catholics would have trouble with point d., because they have a definite theology and system of works salvation. It’s “Christ + works” and in many cases, + the works and prayers of others (i.e. praying for the souls of the dead to escape purgatory, the Treasury of Merits, etc.).A good place to start researching the possibilities for P-C reconciliation is ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), though certain members have come under significant scrutiny, particularly when making claims that all <>basic<> differences between P’s and C’s have essentially been dissolved with Vatican II. It seems, though, as if some in the Catholic community are increasingly willing to diverge from official Catholic doctrine, as evidenced by the joint declaration “< HREF="http://www.seekgod.ca/ect2.htm" REL="nofollow">The Gift of Salvation<>“, published over a decade ago. It’s definitely worth a read, but keep in mind that parts of it don’t (to the best of my knowledge) jive with official Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, I do find the process of interdenominational dialogue incredibly exhilarating when done in the right spirit.Peace.
Some excellent thoughts.Like I said, this is not in my near-future, and may not be in my future at all. So there is definitely time to ponder the particulars.I’m still interested in your thoughts regarding Mainline Christians, since your whole comment dealt only with Evangelicals vs. Catholics.I’m thinking that this Network would probably have membership opportunities for both local churches and individual Christians. My guess is that it would comprised mostly of Evangelicals and Mainliners. Probably 1/2 or 2/3 Evangelical, 1/4 or 1/3 Mainline, and a fraction Catholic. And my guess is that most of the Catholic representation would probably be individual memberships, rather than church memberships.I think one of the features of this Network would be to help Christians of varying backgrounds cooperate in the areas they share in common. There would be a ready understanding among members that there are many differences among them, but when they do share a vision or conviction, that they should take advantage of that as an opportunity to collaborate, and not worry a great deal about the differences.One possibility might even be to stage round-table discussions to work through the differences, rather than ignore them. This would be a great opportunity to set an example to the world of the best way to handle our differences, with respect and love.Certainly I think Protestants and Catholics should get along, and love one another, and even cooperate together. But apart from that, I’m really not that worried if the world sees us as two different bodies that get along. Because you’re right that there really are substantive differences between us. So I would not worry about it if there is not a significant representation of Catholics. Just so long as everyone is aware that they are welcome.
Some excellent thoughts.Like I said, this is not in my near-future, and may not be in my future at all. So there is definitely time to ponder the particulars.I’m still interested in your thoughts regarding Mainline Christians, since your whole comment dealt only with Evangelicals vs. Catholics.I’m thinking that this Network would probably have membership opportunities for both local churches and individual Christians. My guess is that it would comprised mostly of Evangelicals and Mainliners. Probably 1/2 or 2/3 Evangelical, 1/4 or 1/3 Mainline, and a fraction Catholic. And my guess is that most of the Catholic representation would probably be individual memberships, rather than church memberships.I think one of the features of this Network would be to help Christians of varying backgrounds cooperate in the areas they share in common. There would be a ready understanding among members that there are many differences among them, but when they do share a vision or conviction, that they should take advantage of that as an opportunity to collaborate, and not worry a great deal about the differences.One possibility might even be to stage round-table discussions to work through the differences, rather than ignore them. This would be a great opportunity to set an example to the world of the best way to handle our differences, with respect and love.Certainly I think Protestants and Catholics should get along, and love one another, and even cooperate together. But apart from that, I’m really not that worried if the world sees us as two different bodies that get along. Because you’re right that there really are substantive differences between us. So I would not worry about it if there is not a significant representation of Catholics. Just so long as everyone is aware that they are welcome.
Sounds pretty solid. To take something you said just a tad further, it make be effective to put your feelers out to a variety of pastors/churches/laypeople and see if and how many of them already have a conviction to see something like this started, as well as glean ideas about any particular initiatives that have been burdening their heart. It may be that several would actually be interested in both interdenominational mission <>and<> theological discussion, modeled on the ECT initiative. ECT may be a reference point from which to stimulate interest in ecumenical dialogue in general.Regarding mainliners, my keyword was “liberal”. The PCA is staunchly conservative, and some Lutheran as well as a small but growing number of Anglican congregations are maintaining evangelical convictions. And when it comes to moral and ethical issues, Catholics have recently been on the front lines at least as much as evangelicals, particularly when it comes to bioethics.Another important consideration is taking advantage of what God’s already doing in pockets around the region. Rather than gather a group together and throw the question on the table, “So, what should we do?” (a typically unpleasant experience), it would be more productive to contact leaders of already established initiatives and see how they could be integrated with/supported by the network. That way, you already have your “committee leaders” and in many cases, teams, and it’ll provide opportunity to get involved in something tangible right away, which can only help build trust and cohesiveness (love?) within the group. Some examples would be pro-life advocacy, economic development, substance abuse prevention, adoption/foster care (pushing for more church and Christian family involvement). If there aren’t local or regional initiatives already in place to address these needs, there certainly are state, national, and global initiatives that would be relatively simple to tap into.Anyway, when you get around to thinking about this seriously, go back through these ideas and see what God lays on your heart.P. S. Researching and contacting organizations is a perfect job to offer up to someone on the Core team who’s interested in helping coordinate the network, if you find yourself swamped when the time comes. You obviously know this, but remember that the more you can delegate to others, the more you will empower them for ministry and the more stake they will have in your ministry. It’s the essence of leadership development, accompanied, of course, by ongoing support as assistance is needed.
Sounds pretty solid. To take something you said just a tad further, it make be effective to put your feelers out to a variety of pastors/churches/laypeople and see if and how many of them already have a conviction to see something like this started, as well as glean ideas about any particular initiatives that have been burdening their heart. It may be that several would actually be interested in both interdenominational mission <>and<> theological discussion, modeled on the ECT initiative. ECT may be a reference point from which to stimulate interest in ecumenical dialogue in general.Regarding mainliners, my keyword was “liberal”. The PCA is staunchly conservative, and some Lutheran as well as a small but growing number of Anglican congregations are maintaining evangelical convictions. And when it comes to moral and ethical issues, Catholics have recently been on the front lines at least as much as evangelicals, particularly when it comes to bioethics.Another important consideration is taking advantage of what God’s already doing in pockets around the region. Rather than gather a group together and throw the question on the table, “So, what should we do?” (a typically unpleasant experience), it would be more productive to contact leaders of already established initiatives and see how they could be integrated with/supported by the network. That way, you already have your “committee leaders” and in many cases, teams, and it’ll provide opportunity to get involved in something tangible right away, which can only help build trust and cohesiveness (love?) within the group. Some examples would be pro-life advocacy, economic development, substance abuse prevention, adoption/foster care (pushing for more church and Christian family involvement). If there aren’t local or regional initiatives already in place to address these needs, there certainly are state, national, and global initiatives that would be relatively simple to tap into.Anyway, when you get around to thinking about this seriously, go back through these ideas and see what God lays on your heart.P. S. Researching and contacting organizations is a perfect job to offer up to someone on the Core team who’s interested in helping coordinate the network, if you find yourself swamped when the time comes. You obviously know this, but remember that the more you can delegate to others, the more you will empower them for ministry and the more stake they will have in your ministry. It’s the essence of leadership development, accompanied, of course, by ongoing support as assistance is needed.