November 1 is the due date to submit proposals to the Brotherhood Cooperation Proposal Group.  See the previous story and details published on DisciplesToday.net: 
 
Process:  We request that all proposals be sent by November 1, 2005 to:  unity@chnts.net.  We will prayerfully review all proposals, synthesize the best ideas from them, and by February 1, 2006, submit a recommended proposal for brotherhood consideration to our family of churches. 

Maintaining Connection
We ask all willing and able disciples to pray and fast with us on November 1, 2005 for the Spirit’s guidance and wisdom.  We ask that you continue to pray that the Spirit will work together through us so that the resulting proposal by February 1, 2006 is fruitful in answering the main questions as to how we will connect and cooperate maintaining the Spirit’s unity in the future.  We are committed to using the Bible as our standard and guide.  The New Testament reveals churches sharing their correspondence (Colossians 4:16, Revelation 1-3), working together to solve an inter-congregational problem (Acts 15:1-4), financially supporting missionaries and mission work (Philippians 4:14-18), cooperating in helping the poor saints in Judea (2 Corinthians 8:16-21), etc.   Although many of our congregations currently enjoy association with other sister congregations through cooperative mission efforts, historical ties and geographic proximity, there unfortunately remain others that feel isolated and unsupported or unsure as to how to proceed into the future.  Let us consider how to help all parts of our family.
 
The recent Seattle conference revealed the sincere, widespread desire for togetherness and cooperation in our fellowship.   There was a desire in the fellowship for new visions and improved plans to help our lost world receive the salvation of Jesus Christ.  Truly God has blessed our family of churches to now be composed of mature churches, young adult and very young churches. As we let our Heavenly Father lead this family, the overall mood of our fellowship indicates that the vast majority of our churches desire unity, cooperation, coordination while renouncing selfish ambition and competition.
 
Updates
All proposals should be sent to unity@chnts.net by November 1, 2005.  Watch www.DisciplesToday.net for updates from this proposal group.  We solicit your prayers.
 
In Christ’s service,
 
Andy Fleming
Mike Fontenot
Scott Green
Philip Lam
John Louis
Sam Powell
Steve Staten
Mike Taliaferro
Bruce Williams

In the next month or so, a Unity Proposal will be presented for consideration by the brotherhood of churches known as the International Churches of Christ. It seemed necessary to send out an article in advance of the upcoming Unity Proposal due to a prevalent disconnect among many of our churches. Following this paper we will publish a four page set of suggested group Bible studies that can be discussed among evangelists, elders and teachers and between regional church leaders. That series will also be published on www.DisciplesToday.net.

Introduction
The current state of relationships between individual congregations in the International Churches of Christ ranges on a sliding scale from strong and collaborative to expectant but underdeveloped to neglected and even non-existent. Although many of our third world churches are still well connected and enjoying community in the first category, many of the other churches seem to fall in the middle categories and are currently exploring the possibilities of healthy and mature trans-congregational relations–an interdependence on each other as members of the body of Christ.

There is clear evidence in the New Testament that mature churches were intended to be led locally and maintain responsibility for their own affairs through either a team leadership (Ephesians 4:11-16), the elders (Acts 20:28-31), local evangelists (2 Timothy 4:2-5), or whatever form of local leadership was available in the church (Acts 13:1, Hebrews 13:7, 17 and 24). At the same time it is obvious from the very writing of the epistles that the early churches were influenced by spiritual leaders from outside their local congregation. For the most part, that influence on their local ministry was according to their spiritual maturity (1 Corinthians, etc.) but established churches were not intended to be directed about most of their personal matters by those from a distance place.

Though the word never appears in Scripture, the locally directed model is sometimes described as self-governing, or "autonomy." However, this word evokes a plethora of negative emotions for a number of disciples because of their previous experiences with mainline churches of Christ and other groups. And some groups have taken this concept to mean far more than mature responsibility. They have taken it to the level of "hyper-autonomy" — an isolated lack of connection with other churches.

Our churches have learned much from our shared trials, we have a unique opportunity at this hour to reevaluate and renew our relationships on the healthiest, biblical basis. We know that unity is largely about humility and relationships, not just a set of beliefs. In the New Testament, we see the strong bond which existed between the congregations and reputed leaders for solving problems when an impasse existed (1 Corinthians 4:14-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-3), answering trans-congregational issues (Acts 15:1-5) or cooperating on widespread needs (Romans 15:25-29). This is commonly called "connectionalism" or interdependence.

It is apparent that many of the International Churches of Christ have, in the past few years, abandoned much of our positive connectional history as a reaction to the previous hierarchical model that was too often exclusively top-down, overly commanding and often out of touch with the local churches who were being dramatically affected by the decisions being made in another location detached from the situation. However unintentionally, in the 1990’s the family of God and the body of Christ models were supplanted by a corporate model that did not allow for maturation and natural growth of leaders and churches to take on more of their own responsibilities.

A process for change was initiated in November of 2002 with the disbanding of the World Sector Leaders group and the suggestion to reorganize and reconvene a representative council in May of 2003. Unfortunately, during extraordinary circumstances, the reactionary call to become completely autonomous was being heralded by some church leaders without the needed reflection and study. A tempered evaluation would have outlined both the strengths and weakness inherent in this radical shift of thinking and practice. The pendulum swung. In many cases we went from not allowing churches to grow up to assuming that "maturity" meant churches should be left on their own. This reaction led to what may be termed as "hyper-autonomy." It is more a description of lack of relationship with other churches than it is an expression of maturity of the local church.

When any concept is emphasized repeatedly, and emphasized without context, without other principles to provide balance and in a world of turmoil and suspicion, that concept can easily take on a distorted meaning. Every dogma, no matter how correct, can be exaggerated. For instance, if we only emphasize Christ’s divinity and not his humanity, we have heresy.
With the rise of hyper-autonomy (which also has historical associations of Western individualism), we have seen a rise in self-sufficiency and pride. Furthermore, many disciples have felt equally hurt by the kind of decisions or indecisions made in isolation as they did during the last years of the hierarchical model. Switching between extremes does not lead to health and maturity. (For instance, Disciples Today previously posted an article, How Far the Pendulum Now?)

Hyper-autonomy has undesirable and unintended consequences. In some cases, leaders who want their church to be autonomous from other influences end up being overly directive or controlling with members in their own congregations. Some of the leaders of our churches who declared their autonomy from outside influences were shocked when the people they led declared themselves autonomous from their self-sufficient elders or evangelist.

Decisions we make about the relationships among churches actually indicate our convictions about the church being the family of God and the body of Christ. Interdependence is a concept that puts in perspective a view of the church as the body of Christ. In fact, the apostle Paul helped the Corinthians with their self-sufficiency in 1 Corinthians 12. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don’t need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don’t need you!" (1 Corinthians 12:21) Just as in the local church, a member cannot say "I don’t need you!", one church cannot say to another church of same beliefs and heritage "I don’t need you!" How strongly do we truly believe "we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body." (1 Corinthians 12:13). And consider the example of 2 Corinthians 8, where one church helps out saints in another church. Examples such as these serve as powerful reminders of our belonging to one body.

Rather than using the term autonomy, which has come to mean self-reliance in practice, maybe we should strive to be self-responsible or self-conscientious. These terms imply that when a local leadership has an ongoing problem, they are then responsible for obtaining help rather than just solving it within their own congregation. The concept of responsibility continues when a matter cannot be resolved from within. After all, we are one body. The hyper self-governing approach observed over the last few years implies we have to figure this out ourselves. However, it has become clear that a notable number of congregations have become exasperated and stuck in their efforts to move forward in a positive way.

"But We Have No Apostles!"
Various churches have adopted different models of leadership based on convictions, culture and needs. The hermeneutics (i.e., the science and methodology of interpreting texts) of the mainline Churches of Christ heritage hinders most interdependence of their congregations — from organizing or recognizing representatives, to interceding and, when needed, an interventionist role that the apostles obviously fulfilled in the first century. The apostles are not here today. But the needs are still there.

In the mainline churches various other means have developed to try to meet these needs — often by Christian colleges, journals, people with specialized skills, lectureships, missions organizations, etc. Yet the fierce theological commitment to autonomy hinders even the noblest of efforts. Many will privately acknowledge the limitations and problems with being so strongly separated.

The Unity Proposal Group surveyed numerous religious bodies to see what others had learned from years of experience and from the Scriptures.1 Nearly every model we found rightly stated that much of the service the apostles performed still needs to be filled–usually by a collective approach. This approach involves a group of qualified people with moral and relational authority acting as representatives and working in consensus to meet the same existing needs that were once met by the apostles and their first century coworkers (i.e., prophets, evangelists, and shepherd-teachers — Ephesians 4:11-13). Of course, today’s representatives could not have positional authority associated with the office of an apostle, nor does there exist anyone today with the same prophetic gift able to give us new revelation in addition to the already revealed Word of God — the Bible.

In the case of meeting the same needs met by apostles, we should state the obvious–we no longer have the apostolic ministry in our day. There were The Twelve, Matthias (who replaced Judas) and later Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. These were the apostles of Christ and they each met certain stringent qualifications in regard to their personal association with Jesus (Acts 1:21-22, Galatians 1:15-17, 1 Corinthians 15:7-9). They held an office, they were to be obeyed and it was authority from Christ. Perhaps even a greater number held this office, but those who did would have to be proven legitimate through "miracles and wonders" (2 Corinthians 12:11-12).

It is certain that we do not have the office of the "apostle" today. But that does not mean that many of the same needs do not exist in churches today. There is no reason that respected Christians cannot be helpful to each other through their experience, expertise, inspiration, moral authority and spiritual depth. Through personal relationships, preaching, teaching, mentoring of church leaders, spiritual books and other written materials, brothers and sisters can be quite helpful in strengthening many congregations. The Bible is full of examples of regional bonds.

Regional Bonds in the New Testament
What can we learn from the New Testament relationships about congregational interdependence and a congregation’s relationship to certain commended disciples?

First, we can publicly circulate responsibly written letters containing insight about our strengths and challenges.

"After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea." (Colossians 4:16)

The circulation and sharing of letters implies trust, regional association and even camaraderie. Of course, there is obviously additional wisdom contained within documents authored and reviewed by more than one person. Now consider the following Jerusalem-Antioch bi-regional connection of Judea and Syria.

27 "During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29 The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11:27-30)

Second, we need to know more about each other. Even though we do not have prophets, we do have Agabus types who can provide information that is useful from a global perspective. We need to know about our brother who was recently shot in Haiti and the tens of thousands of orphans due to AIDS in the African churches in our fellowship. We can be strengthened through trusted emissaries, and this should come as no surprise because we have seen how helpful this has been on so many occasions in the past.

Well-known disciples who are commended by God and the fellowship can be helpful in various ways. Missionaries help us stay encouraged and focused on our mission by giving reports broader than a church’s individual area and enlightening us on all that God is doing.

In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. ?2? While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." ?3? So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts 13:1-3)

Barnabas and Saul went to many places and experienced great victories, as the following chapter in the Book of Acts revealed. Can we imagine the suspense and doubt that would have transpired if that particular follow-up visit had never occurred?

From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long time with the disciples. (Acts 14:26-28)

Have we not felt the same sense of awe in the past when we were able to see videos of disciples giving their contribution in vegetables in Russia and seeing people baptized in Papua New Guinea? Reports on what has happened in various ministries helps to inspire and reward the faith of disciples. The mission supporters are comforted by the fact that their prayers, preparation and funds given to that cause really meant something. We can relate to the episode in Acts where disciples heard the impact that the gospel was making, and how having an extended visit from a particular missionary must have really bonded the Gentile churches.

Third, we can solve problems that are bound to happen similar to those in the first-century. The Jerusalem congregation (made up primarily of Jews and including believers who were Pharisees) and the Antioch congregation (made up primarily of Gentile believers) could have easily collided on many fronts. Fortunately, the Jerusalem and Antioch churches, key churches for the regions of Judea and Antioch, already had strong relationship ties through a brother like Barnabas who ministered significantly to both congregations.

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ?2? This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ?3? The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. ?4? When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. (Acts 15:1-5)

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. ?23? With them they sent the following letter: (Acts 15:22-23)

More could be said on regional bonds. It is striking that nowhere does the New Testament record affirm or infer regional a spirit of ambivalence, hands off, or self-sufficiency. For even when the saints in one place were spiritually competent (Rome, Romans 15:14) surely congregations in other places tended to struggle perpetually (i.e, Corinth). The Bible neither hides these realities nor indicates that churches were just on their own. There was clearly an emotional, spiritual and physical link (connectionalism) within the early church that did not sacrifice local respect and an individual church’s need to manage their local affairs. This undoubtedly was driven by the fact that they were aliens in this world and knew that they needed each other.

Conclusion
Using the term autonomy is only technically correct in referring to a church’s distinct affairs but otherwise is utterly incomplete because it overlooks inter-church relations. It is inadequate by itself to simply speak of self-government because the church is more about being a body and being a family than about being a government.
A commitment to enthusiastic connectionalism and interdependence will correct much of our recent and detrimental isolationism. It will lead us away from the phenomenon called groupthink, when a group is so familiar with itself its members can’t appreciate ideas beyond themselves. Brothers and sisters from outside our own congregations can then help us, where appropriate, to mature and advance, but not because of titles and authority. Instead their influence will be a function of reputation: are they commended for their example? As brothers (and sisters) with high standards of authenticity and spiritual gifts are commended for various roles and tasks. Others who compromise the Gospel or who exhibit various forms of favoritism (cronyism, nepotism, etc) will rightly be corrected or marginalized. Those who live in the light, demonstrate a love for the brotherhood, respect others and are determined to build up the body of Christ will be invited and welcomed more frequently.

The possibilities from developing more healthy ligaments among our fellowship of churches are then endless. There are clearly regions in our fellowship where the connection between disciples, their leaders and nearby congregations is very healthy and functional. The body of Christ is being built up to maturity. Let us learn from them. At this hour, we are in need of a new, loving and respectful Declaration of Interdependence.

See the article Stimulating Healthy Interdependence for Regional Elders and Evangelists: Discussions for Regional Evangelists and Elders

1 We studied and discussed various forms including Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian and Episcopalian models and others.

Related to the 2006 Plan for United Cooperation

1.  Why do we need a statement of belief?

The use of belief statements can be both positive and negative, but our heritage tends to focus on the negative.  This sincere posture seems to be derived from times past when religious America was so convicted about many things, and matters of opinion people divided over trivial points.  At its inception, the Restoration Movement took on creedalism, by rightly championing the Bible as the ultimate authority.   We hold, however, that early-on a posture of suspicion about all things written has become a significant liability in this post-modern, stand-for-little world.  There are many more of us who have greater concerns of the consequences of not stating our convictions than we do of putting them in writing.  There are also many brothers and sisters who are wondering where different congregations stand on specific issues of practice and doctrines.

While no one is suggesting a creed, we are therefore advocating a break from the anti-statement thinking and encouraging our churches to be consistent and clear on their most pertinent convictions.  To help with this, we have included statements that are in agreement with our shared beliefs.  The following reasons indicate why we advocating such statements.  1) The apostolic church and succeeding generations expressed core convictions whenever it was called for.  2) We live in a time that requires greater clarity, and the anti-creedal DNA of our heritage actually makes it harder for us to stand for something in this age.  3) Others will misrepresent us if we do not represent ourselves.  4) Declaring them in advance hinders those of hidden belief systems from rising up in times of uncertainty.  5) The consensus among our fellowship is for us to stand together for greater truths and cherished values and to express them honestly.

2.  What exactly are you asking us to sign up for?

We are simply calling for those churches that are unified on the statement of beliefs, general practices and connections to begin the process of functioning as a stronger and more unified brotherhood. 

3.  Do you have a plan for meeting needs and challenges that go beyond a church’s regional grouping?

Yes, each regional group will send representatives to resolve those needs and challenges that will arise (through prayer, Bible study and discussion).   A chairman and an agenda committee would be selected by those representatives to serve in that capacity for a period of two years.

This committee would organize and prioritize the ideas and concerns and facilitate the coordination of smaller subcommittees that would then make presentations to the general assembly.

6.  How would those needs and challenges be put on the agenda? 

Any representative from a participating church could submit a proposal to the Agenda Committee.    Currently so many needs have gone overlooked or been neglected that it will take some time for this group to catch up, so to speak.

7.  What if a church decides later to join or not participate?

The door should never be closed for a church to later join or withdraw their association at anytime for any reason.

8.  How should those churches be treated that choose not to sign up? 

There may be many different reasons why some churches may not sign up.  They are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we need to continue to respect, love, and cherish one another in the Lord.

9.  Would our church ever be coerced to give up leaders, people, or money to other  churches or mission efforts?

No.  These coercive practices are not respectful, loving, and considerate and must never be tolerated.  Great respect and love must be freely given between congregations that both give and receive training and input. 

10.  Would churches ever be required to give a specific amount to mission’s support?

No, we do not believe that any amount should ever be given under compulsion (2 Corinthians 9:7).    Certainly appeals would be made as needs come up, strategies are formed and consensus is formed.

11.  Does our commitment of the older women training the younger women mean that the women must be paid staff?

No.  Although that may be preferred and encouraged, the commitment is not one of compensation, but believing that women have a God-given ministry with other women—one of training, counseling, and studying with other women. 

12.  Does “remembering the poor” mean that our church must give to a particular charity such as HOPE Worldwide?

Not necessarily.  While we encourage our churches to remember the poor around the world and appreciate the tremendous impact of HOPE Worldwide, those decisions remain with the leadership of the local congregations.

13.  Are you saying that this fellowship is against members being romantically involved with and marrying non-Christians?

Yes, because God has made it clear that he is against it.   

14.  What if our church supports most of the shared beliefs, but not all?  Should our church, then, ratify this plan?

No, that would be problematic and even nullify the purposes of having a plan.   There are many Protestant denominations that could state that they agree with most of these shared beliefs.  Part of ratifying this proposal is to recognize those congregations that still share these long-held beliefs and convictions and are committed to carrying the gospel message to every person in every nation. 

For the past three years, most of our churches have taken painstaking and sober inventory of our past leadership deficiencies and failures, striving in general to replace hyper-authority, over-control, and rigid hierarchy with something new and prayerfully, more Biblically mature.  Clearly this has meant questioning not only the role of authority between congregations, but within congregations.  We understandably ask, were Evangelists (who led in most churches) the problem?  Should elders and/or teachers be the answer?  Was the problem the “one man model?”  Is the answer “consensus leadership?” Who exactly has what authority and how should it be exercised?

In the context of disappointment, confusion, or bitter experience, it may even be tempting to abandon these questions altogether and decide that human authority itself is the enemy.  We would be wise, though, to resist that temptation. We would be wise to reject inadvertent anarchy in our churches and wholesale fear of authority, because the Scriptures conspicuously and unmistakably affirm authority as a fundamental emanation of God’s will and nature.  It is clear that God has all authority since he gave it to his son Jesus (Matthew 28:18), and that all human authority comes from Him (Romans 13:1-2)-not meaning that all authority is virtuous.  In fact, all human authority is flawed.

In Israel, God gave authority to various leaders, including what we might in parallel today call “lay leadership,” (Numbers 27:20, Deuteronomy 1:15).  In those days, the people tithed to support the Levitical tribe-those devoted full-time to preaching, studying, serving God, temple sacrifices, etc.  .  In the first century God gave authority to leaders to preach the word (Matthew 10:1), to build up the body of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:8, 2 Corinthians 13:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:2) and expected disciples to submit to that authority (Hebrews 13:17, Titus 2:15).  Moreover, all disciples have authority to proclaim the gospel, to make disciples, to mature in Christ, to obey and realize the Scriptures in their own lives, in the fellowship and in the world (Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 4:14-16). God clearly gave authority to secular kings and rulers (Daniel 7:6, 14), expects our general submission to it (Romans 13:1, 1 Peter 2:13), and has power to completely take it away (Daniel 4:31).  Authority itself, clearly, is not the problem, but rather in how it is exercised (Matthew 20:25).  We should correct authority problems while seeking godly character, affirming godly authority principles, avoiding quick fixes and reactionary swings which are likely to need correction themselves.

For example, until recently, strong “Lead Evangelists” have, for the most part, had the greatest authority or influence within our congregations.  This was true even in churches with mature men serving as elders-in many cases, the evangelist would direct the affairs of the congregation without the elders’ and/or lay leadership’s serious consultation.  Predictably, this created alienation in the leadership as a whole.  In reaction, several, perhaps many churches have swung to the opposite extreme, with elders assuming leadership of the congregations in a way alienating former Lead Evangelists and marginalizing the ministry staff. In some extreme cases, elderships have relegated the evangelist to the role of employee, ignoring their particular gifts and experiences in ministry and church building.  Indicative of this overreaction is the complete rejection, in some corners, of the biblical title “evangelist.”

These conflicts can engender weariness, and when we tire, it may be tempting to rush to overly simplistic judgments about what leadership should look like.  We ought to pause, however, in the face of the broader sweep of church history, and stand in awe of just how old these questions and conflicts really are.  From the New Testament times until today, Christians have struggled with the boundaries of church governance.  Since the Reformation, early Episcopal forms featuring hierarchical executive decision-making (i.e. Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal denominations) by Bishop-leaders were followed by reactionary Presbyterian forms that promoted more group leadership-bodies of elders locally, then regionally, then nationally.  (One might argue that while Presbyterian structures were more pluralistic, they still were essentially Episcopal/hierarchical in philosophy between “levels” of elders.)  Still later in the Reformation came Congregationalism (i.e. Baptist movements, Restorationist Churches of Christ, and others) which kept the Presbyterian form locally while severing it from regional or national obligations & hierarchies.  Within this tradition yet another evolution has come:  the emergence within the Baptist movements of a leader/Pastor-a kind of “Elder of elders” charged locally with preaching, teaching, and shepherding.

We rightly seek the Scriptures for clarity and resolution:  what are the Biblical patterns of congregational governance?  What are the clear New Testament commands?  As we ask these questions, one conspicuous caveat bears timely heeding:  “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters” (Romans 14:1).  Without being exhaustive, the following list summarizes our common prominent observations about congregational leadership, especially the eldership:

1. Old Testament tribes were led by elders; that is, the “elders” were simply the leaders of their people-spiritually, but also in administrative, legislative, and judicial milieus.
2. In addition, these elders looked to various men with leadership gifts -to Moses, Joshua, the judges, and then the kings of Israel.
3. Moreover, these elders were supplemented by specialists:  priests, “rulers” and teachers of the law, for example.
4. The elders of Israel collectively comprised the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day.

   Probably, these relationship observations should have some bearing on how we view elders in the New Testament.

5. New Testament elders were apparently to be appointed in each church as men became qualified, and apparently by apostles and evangelists who were often traveling in the early days of the churches. (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5)
6. At the Jerusalem council, the leaders of the Jerusalem church were identified “the apostles and elders,” who met to consider the question of the Gentiles and who apparently made the ultimate decisions.
7. Before Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, he made a moving “farewell” address to the elders of Ephesus.
8. From 1 Timothy 5:17-18 we know that elders “direct the affairs of the church,” or, as the KJV puts it, “rule” the church.  Those who do well and preach and teach are worthy of compensation and “double honor.”
9. From 1 Peter 5:1 we learn, among other things, that elders are admonished not to lord it over the flock, but to lead by example.
10. We see other leaders in an executive role (Paul, Titus, Timothy) appointing, advising, and leading elders under some circumstances.
11. We see beachhead ministries established apparently not by groups of elders but by apostles, evangelists, and sometimes teachers (such as Philip).
12. We see deacons (servants) appointed in the local churches to expand the leadership net within the congregations.  (1 Timothy 3)
13. It seems obvious, then, that the manifest will of God is to bring about unity and maturity in His church by utilizing a plurality of variously gifted leaders in local churches and in the kingdom overall (Ephesians 4; Romans 12).  Leaders are to lead by example and by faith, not by lording over the flock.  They are to shepherd and oversee.  Some are called to be full-time-some in preaching and teaching, some in other fields.

And that’s pretty much it.  The patterns and examples do not seem to be all that many or all that complicated.  There is no detailed blueprint here.  In fact, one of the most striking things about leadership patterns in the Bible is not how much is revealed, but how much is left unrevealed-the area of “disputable matters.”  Consider these questions and observations that cry out for more information:

1. When Timothy lived in Ephesus, who led with the highest authority?  Was it Timothy, as an evangelist, who might have to rebuke an elder? (1 Timothy 5:20). Was it the elders, who laid hands on Timothy?  Was it neither?  Is it clear?
2. When Paul called together the elders of Ephesus, did he have authority over them?  If he did, was it because of his unique apostolic (and now obsolete) role in revealing God’s inspired word, or because of his more common (and not obsolete) “father-in-the-faith” relationship in having taught them in the past?  Can we know the answer to this for sure?  If he did have a kind of authority, was it just the authority to inspire, to remind, to exhort, or was it the authority to dictate detailed actions in their city?  Again, how can we know for sure?
3. In local churches, did elders appoint a chairman, or “quarterback” elder?  Is it an open question, a “disputable matter,” or does the Biblical example prohibit any kind of “lead elder,” even if temporary?  How much freedom do we have here?
4. In our own movement, did “Lead Evangelists” exercising strong authority generally get the job of maturity done?  If not, will a group of elders exercising strong authority get the job done?  If so, will it be because of their number?  Or will it be because of their age and wisdom?  Has this kind of leadership paradigm produced growing churches in the past, and if it was working, why did the Lead Evangelist paradigm get traction?  Why do churches that are elder-led rarely ever dramatically grow or plant churches?
5. How did the Jewish based understanding of leadership change through the principles and practice of the New Testament Church and then lead in incredible different cultures around the world?
6. How do we navigate these complex leadership interactions and dynamics?  Surely the Scriptures can shed bright light on vigorous and harmonious church leadership.  Surely God does give us adequate counsel on how to proceed.

Perhaps we have not been looking at all the evidence. Relying too often on “patternism” as our hermeneutic, we have perhaps created a philosophy, even a doctrine, of church leadership akin to speculating anthropologists who sculpt whole primate creatures out of just a few fossilized jaw fragments.  Perhaps the key is in understanding not just New Testament patterns of leadership, but in combining these with clear and abundantly referenced New Testament principles of leadership. What, then, are these principles?  Surely they include the following:

1. All righteous authority comes ultimately from God.  He has ordained leadership and authority as a way to organize groups of people to do His will in this world.  It is obvious that any group needs some practical structure and some human leadership to function.
2. Biblical church leadership pursues honoring God and serving others – not authority in and of itself. (John 20:20-27)  Our only authority comes from God.  We come to serve.  God’s authority is total.  Any authority we have draws simply from what he has done in our life and his Spirit’s gifts in our life. Gifts matter, but character matters most.  We have seen in our movement that talent, politics and personality may accomplish quick results, but ultimately they fail without the character of Jesus.
3. Leadership must be effective.  Revelation’s letters to the seven churches in Asia describe God’s basic expectations of the church.  The church must purge sin, must find its first love, and must never tolerate lukewarmness.  The beautiful picture painted in Ephesians 4:11-16 portrays a model of maturity, security, and unity, all clearly engendered by appropriate, effective leadership.  The entire book of Acts shows the most prominent leaders in NT history shepherding the flock and leading that flock to striking evangelistic fruitfulness.  The letters of Peter and First and Second Timothy admonish leaders to fulfill their charge and call.  No matter what titles we bestow upon our leaders, and no matter what configuration they assume, the Bible is clear that leaders must be equip the church to continual growth and maturity; if not, God is ultimately not pleased.

   In our own time, for example, we may have often relied on youth, vigor, and talent more than proven effectiveness.  We should take care to avoid putting the partner attributes-age, deliberation, and wisdom-on the same pedestal.  The question is still one of combining godliness, spiritual gifts, competence and proven effectiveness – “Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15; Hebrews 13:7).  No matter what we propose, leadership must actually lead effectively lead people to Christ and equip them to mature in Christ.  This should be clearly felt and seen by all leaders and the congregation as a whole.

4. Natural influence and natural authority come from example, not title.  In the early days of our movement appointment to serve in certain roles was done by identifying those who obviously had the gifts for those roles and were already serving in those capacities in their daily life because of their heart for God and people.  Later, in our need for more leaders, we tended to compromise our principles and began appointing people simply on the basis of their talents and not their spiritual lives.  God’s discipline revealed this folly.  Also in the past, most will agree, we relied too much on titles-especially the title of Evangelist. Will we repeat this same phenomenon with different titles-Minister, Deacon, Elder, Teacher? Will different titles save us from the same mistakes?  Paul spoke of those “reputed to be pillars,” (Gal 2:6 NIV). This reference strongly suggests even first century struggles with real versus perceived leadership.

   Jesus made it clear that effective, godly leadership is first and foremost an issue of example (John 13:15-16).  Paul told a young and perhaps unconfident Timothy to take his stand by setting “an example for the believers” (1 Tim 4:16).  The pantheon of elders’ qualifications in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 has everything to do with proven example.  It is clearly a character description of a mature man of faith, not a job qualification checklist. Thus, if we want the church to be evangelistically effective, we must allow those who have set a proven example in that area-practically, motivationally, and spiritually-to lead with authority in that area.  The same is true for nurturing the body of Christ, for administration, and in areas such as marriage and parenting.  Such examples are easily commended, then, by the body in the spirit of Acts 15:40.

   The reality of this principle can get obscured by misunderstanding the role of “overseer,” a term used interchangeably with “elder” (Titus 1:5-7). In any other organization-business, military, non-profit, sports-the concept of overseeing cannot be separated from the concept of expertise.  We oversee what we have already thoroughly experienced or intimately understand. We sometimes miss this evident point when we have our eyes focused on a different lens-such as the need for men of general maturity (including age) in leadership. It’s crucial to refocus on the larger point of overseeing-the ability to train, correct, and demonstrate how something ought to be done.  By contrast, if by “overseeing,” we mean primarily the role of critic, or dissenter (not that we don’t need to sometimes wear those hats too), we will tend, with such overseeing, to hamper, discourage, and muffle those who have and can set the example in the area being criticized.  Genuine overseeing, as in overseeing an engineering firm, implies experience, expertise, and, again, example.  It is a logical mistake to attempt, in the name of overseeing, to control the decision-making in an area with which we lack real expertise. The alternative is to insist that every elder must oversee every action that goes on in the church-a terrible and impractical burden. To illustrate, in the past, we had problems with evangelists overseeing budgets they didn’t understand.  Shall we now have elders overseeing church planting and ministry they don’t understand?

5. Full-time leadership carries implicit special authority.  This is an issue of clear thinking.  If we commission someone to enter the full-time ministry, regardless of field-administration, evangelism, teaching, marriage and parenting-we do so because we believe them to either be an expert in the area or especially gifted with potential in the area.  If this were not so, why on earth would we hire them?  Once hired, we ought not, then, to muzzle their leadership, whether financially or administratively.  When we want to commission a party to be responsible for an area, we must give them commensurate authority in the area.  Anything else is a contradiction and will frustrate the very person who has been commissioned.  No one can thrive while being micro-managed.  If we respect them enough to hire them, we must respect them enough to attempt to follow their lead in the areas of expertise for which we have hired them.
6. In spiritual men and women, gift sets transcend titles.  That is to say, the appropriate order is to give spiritually gifted & exemplary men the appropriate title rather than bestow title and hope for gifted leadership. The Bible speaks volumes about how God has deliberately set up the body of Christ to have various gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-31; Romans 12:3-8).  This is the clear and enthusiastic will of God.  His vision demands the careful and conscientious employment of appropriate skill sets to leadership, in order to lead the church to effective maturity and effective missions (Ephesians 4:11-16). Moreover, the gifts of leadership itself (no matter what the milieu)-powers of motivation, vision, skills of goal-setting, training,  and delegation, bold and clear preaching and teaching-seek genuine expression in God’s church. We should let those Spirit-gifted leaders lead and take care to not repeat our past mistake of focusing so much on titles that we lose the forest for the trees.

These, and other leadership principles, are to be studied and obeyed just as much as Jesus’ admonition (Mark 10) to not lord over others and Paul’s delineation of elders’ characteristics
(Titus 1).  We simply are not free to ignore these basic principles of leadership that God has ordained among groups of people and specifically his church. When we do, we fall into the trap of placing the leadership cart before the horse. The consequences are significant, creating frustration and often paralysis within leadership circles and the body at large.  These symptoms are not “normal” but rather dysfunctional, and ought not to be accepted by leaders and members alike, anymore than they would be accepted in a physical family structure.

In the end, no matter what titles (elders, deacons, teachers, or anything else) or configurations of them we contemplate, we must put God first, following the example of Jesus who came not to be served, but to serve.  We should acknowledge, in addition, the priority of relationships over raw authority (as in family), example over position and title, and gift-based, even full-time leadership, over traditional seniority.  The results will be obvious, harmonious, and blessed.  In this context, we will have effective elders, evangelists and teachers, some of them full-time (some of them not), leading with vision and inspiration, and working as a team with other exemplary leaders/ministers, building a culture of humility and appropriate deference, within and without the eldership, to exemplary, godly, and God-gifted leaders.

We have not made our last mistakes as leaders.  As we stay in view of the truth of our weakness and in awe of his grace, God will mature each of us in Christ, raise us up to lead in many different capacities according to the gifts the Spirit has given and bless us with lives that people prayerfully will want to follow.  Above all, let us remember it is the Lord Christ we are serving, and that it is His body we are serving on earth.

Many have lost track of the proposal. Here’s my take on the last 24 months. Mike Taliaferro — San Antonio, Texas

It was two years ago that nine brothers were asked in Seattle to pen a Unity Proposal. At the time, confusion was rife among our churches and there was no viable way that churches could cooperate internationally to accomplish mutually shared goals. We were in the midst of many changes, many good and some bad. Many began to ask, “What do we believe?” “How can we cooperate?” “What’s happening out there?” International churches wondered how the US churches were faring, and whether the mission support money would continue. The Unity Proposal, which is now called the Unified Plan for Cooperation (now called the Plan for United Cooperation), has been helpful over the last two years for several reasons. First of all, it presented a simple statement of beliefs. Many disciples were wondering if we had changed our beliefs about core doctrines like discipleship, baptism, and repentance. While the cooperation plan did not attempt to be a creed for the ages, it did address the issues that were important to us at the time. Beyond that, the UPC gave individual churches a chance to raise their hands and confirm that, yes indeed, we still hold to these core doctrines that have united us for the last several decades. We were happy in San Antonio, for example, to review the document and notify the other churches of our affirmation (no one actually “signed” anything). To date over 360 churches have affirmed the proposal, or roughly 70% of our churches. Disciples were encouraged that we were still holding to our core beliefs around the world.

Another aspect of the proposal was that it asked churches to draw close to other nearby churches. These “circles of churches,” or “church families,” were already in existence for the most part. Approximately 30 circles of churches formed around the world, each with anywhere from 10 to 20 churches. Texas is a circle of about ten churches. The US has several circles. For the most part, families of churches were already up and functioning in Mexico and Central America, Russia, Europe, India, China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and other areas of the world. These 30 circles of churches help, cooperate, and encourage one another in their regions. The UPC recognizes and encourages this.

We are not a movement of autonomous churches. We interact, encourage, correct, and love one another. While it was obviously time to put aside the structure of the 1990’s where one man was in charge world-wide, most of us did not want to revert to total separation and autonomy. We have functioned for years as circles of churches. The current arrangement of a brotherhood of churches looks promising.

A third aspect of the UPC is that it asked these “circles of churches” to choose and send delegates once a year to our World Leadership Conference. There are roughly 70 delegates who attend (two or more from each family of churches world wide). These 70 delegates meet to decide pertinent matters of cooperation on a world scale. Topics include our International Conferences, benevolence, mission coordination, our presence on the web, etc. In the past, it was the World Sector Leaders who addressed these kinds of issues. Today, delegates from around the world meet and make these decisions. Personally I am very glad for this kind of inclusive format. Instead of decisions being made in back rooms, issues are brought out into the open for broad discussion and action. In Virginia Beach last year, the discussions were mature and respectful. Virtually every vote became unanimous after a period of discussion. It was a joy to see brothers from around the world participating in the process of cooperation.

An example of this inclusive spirit is the choice of venue for our international conferences. Instead of a small group of people, the current structure in place allows the 70 delegates from all over the world to decide on conference venues. This collective process has brought Christians from around the world into the decision making process. Two years ago in San Antonio, the attendance at the first conference was just 400. This year we had 1500 people attend our campus and teen leadership conferences. We are excited to see greater numbers of people involved every year. I wish to commend the Planning committees for the Campus and Teen conferences. Working behind the scenes and without fanfare, they have put on some first class conferences.

The UPC also called for the creation of a steering committee of nine disciples, elected from among the 70 delegates. The nine are first and foremost servants of the delegates. This committee of nine builds the agenda and moves the discussion forward. It has been a joy to serve with these brothers for the last two years.

Each year, half of the steering committee stands down. Last year we elected four new steering committee members. This year we will elect five new members. (I myself will leave the steering committee in October). These term limits help to insure that the will of one individual does not dominate the agenda. While it has been a lot of work, it has been a great experience. Still, we have made our mistakes. We all wish that there had been more communication between the nine and the 70 delegates during the year. I am sure that this (and other things) will be improved in the coming months. I wish to thank the San Antonio church for allowing me to take away a bit of time from my duties in San Antonio to serve the greater good. I also want to thank the steering committee who served tirelessly.

It has been a great two years of progress on many fronts. The Cooperation Plan has played a small but meaningful part in helping our churches to move ahead through stormy times. It is a document that has reassured, confirmed, and encouraged. It has been a platform to launch cooperative efforts. Let us continue to pray for unity and growth among our churches.

Mike Taliaferro
San Antonio, Texas

"The church sent the delegates . . . " Acts 15:3 NLT

Dear brothers and sisters,
This past year has been an exciting and productive one for our cooperating churches. More and more congregations are joining this cooperative effort aimed at coordinating our mutual trans-congregational interests–such as 3rd world missions funding and planting strategy, regional leadership fellowships to sharpen and train full time and lay leaders in a face-to-face context, and national and international conferences.

In accordance with our United Plan for Cooperation, the churches last year, by geographical region, selected delegates to attend a series of meetings before and during the 2006 ILC. At that time, the delegates made various conference location decisions and appointed a committee of nine–a Steering Committee–to oversee the progress of our cooperative effort.

Last week, at the 2007 ILC hosted by Los Angeles, the Steering Committee initiated a series of suggestions which were adopted by the worldwide delegates. These suggestions replaced the past year’s Steering Committee with ten different committees, each with a more clear and specific charge, and chaired by commended brothers (and a sister) who have the willingness, maturity, ability, and passion to move such committees productively forward. The delegates selected each committee chair for a two year service term. They will select committee members as needed. In addition, the delegates elected all six members of a new Strategic Building Committee, whose charge is to bring the voices of expert builders from around the world to the fore–in the form of web articles, interviews, and news updates. So many churches have expressed a need for more teaching on how to build with gold, silver, and costly stones and prayerfully this particular committee can boldly and effectively meet this need.

Together, all of the committee chairs constitue a new Coordinating Committee which will handle the worldwide delegates’ agenda each year and help coordinate needed input for each ILC program.

Here is a summary of the new committees and their respective charges:

1. Teen Conference Committee (chair: John Porter)–charged with shaping the spiritual program for teen conferences & synergizing on how to build stronger teen ministries.

2. Campus Conference Committee (chair: Mike Taliaferro)–charged with shaping the program for international campus conferences and synergizing on how to build stronger campus ministries

3. Singles Conference Committee (chair: Todd Asaad)–charged with synergizing regarding singles’ needs and developing singles’ conferences

4. Shepherding and Advisory (chair: Sam Powell)–charged with giving profile to the needs and issues of shepherding and with helping resolve trans-congregational problems and conflicts

5. Missions Coordination (chair: Andy Fleming)–charged with evaluating the funding needs of our mission churches and making any appropriate recommendations

6. Women’s Ministries Committee (chair: Robyn Williams)–charged with discussing and making recommendations regarding our worldwide women’s ministries to meet needs

7. Strategic Building Committee (chair: Mike Fontenot)–charged with bringing voices of expert church building and our best practices to the fore and formulating appropriate recommendations to the churches as they have need.

8. Communications Committee (chair: Roger Lamb)–charged with facilitating communication opportunities, especially via the web, for our worldwide cooperating churches and their leaderships

9. HOPEww & Benevolence Committee (chair: Mark Templer)–charged with updating our worldwide churches regarding the needs of the poor and our best opportunities to meet those needs

10. Teaching and Ministry Education Committee (chair: Steve Staten)–charged with encouraging and promoting the continual learning of the Bible and other spiritual studies among our ministers and members.

Each committee is charged simply to serve. There is no authority vested in them, yet prayerfully, their efforts to serve the greater body of Christ will bear much fruit and make every congregation’s work smoother and clearer.

Also, the Delegates decided on the following dates for future international conferences:

July 3 – 6 2008 Intl. Campus Ministry Conference — New Orleans, Louisiana — Hosted by the San Antonio Church of Christ

August 29 – 31 2008 Intl. Singles Conference — Dallas, Texas Hosted by the Dallas / Ft. Worth Church of Christ

October 8 – 12 2008 Intl. Leadership Conference "The Edge" — Kiev, Ukraine Hosted by the Kiev Church of Christ

April 14 – 17 2009 Intl. Conference of Youth Ministry — Chicago, Illinois Hosted by the Chicago Church of Christ

July 2009 Intl. Campus Ministry Conference — North America: Hampton Roads, Virginia and Seattle, Washington: Other Continents: TBD

October 2009 Intl. Leadership Conference — Denver, Colorado Hosted by the Denver Church of Christ

On behalf of the now dissolved Steering Committee,

Mike Fontenot
Shawn Wooten
Dinesh George
Sam Powell
Mike Taliaferro
Scott Green
Mark Templer
Al Baird
Bruce Williams

For further observations and comments on the International Leadership Conference:
http://www.disciplestoday.net/
http://www.laicc.net/
http://www.icochotnews.com/

About a year and a half ago, Steve Staten and I co-authored an article entitled “Observations Regarding the Unity Proposal.” It was a combination of a letter I had written to answer questions about the proposal (now called the United Plan For Cooperation) and Steve’s very relevant comments about various types of written documents in religion.

About a year and a half ago, Steve Staten and I co-authored an article entitled “Observations Regarding the Unity Proposal.” It was a combination of a letter I had written to answer questions about the proposal (now called the United Plan For Cooperation) and Steve’s very relevant comments about various types of written documents in religion. Over 350 churches have affirmed the Cooperation Plan. Many others are prayerfully considering it. In the months since that article was published, many of us have continued to answer questions and clarify issues as some among our movement of churches have continued to express reservations and raise questions about affirming the proposal. (Note that I use the term affirm rather than sign, which is more accurate.) In re-reading that earlier document, I feel much the same now as I did then, but I do have additional observations I would like to share, given the nature of the reservations expressed and questions asked since then.

A Brief History

But before proceeding, let me go back to the beginning of the upheaval in our movement several years ago. As soon as it began, I had immediate concerns for its impact especially on smaller churches and less mature disciples. The foremost of these concerns at the time was about how mission churches that were dependent on outside support were going to fare. Unfortunately, some of my worst fears were realized. One example that is near and dear to my heart is what happened to the churches in the Philippines (which my home church in Phoenix helps support).

Before the firestorm hit our movement, Manila had been one of the fastest growing churches among us. They had about 4300 members and had planted 14 other churches in the Provinces of the Philippines. They had over 100 people on staff in Manila and another 28 in the Provincial churches (men and women). They had an annual budget of $420,000 a year. One year later, due to rapid loss of financial support, they had only 8 brothers on staff in Manila (no women) and 8 on staff in the Provinces (one of which was a woman). They were devastated by the rapid loss of staff and financial support − which dropped to $150,000 for that year. Thankfully, their support has gradually improved, more are being put on staff and they are growing once again. They have planted four new churches and plan to plant another four in 2008. Churches in developing nations have suffered more than most of us can imagine unless we have been there to see the situation with our own eyes.

They need more financial support, to be sure, but that alone will not solve their problems. Sometimes we assume that the main thing lost was finances, which is not true. Last year, the Philippine leaders asked that some of us come over to teach and encourage them − by taking money for travel out of our special contributions designated for them. This meant that they would rather have emotional and spiritual support through personal visits from supporting churches than more staff, which the money would have enabled them to hire. Some of us went to encourage both leaders and disciples, and the results of that were more than we could have imagined. Suffice it to say that scores of churches in the developing nations suffered similar fates in loss of support of all kinds. They felt isolated and abandoned. The Cooperation Proposal encouraged them tremendously by restoring their hope of a united brotherhood, who would once again wrap their arms around them.

My next biggest concern was that our congregations would swing from the end of the pendulum in our interrelationships (of dependency on “Big Brother”) to the other end (of independence and isolation). This concern has also become reality in many cases, although good progress has been made, thanks in part to the Cooperation Proposal itself. The proposal has caused us to examine more closely what we once took for granted. We have been moving from a forced type of unity to a forged unity, and the forging has not always been easy nor the results ideal. But thankfully, we are in process and are making progress.

The Unity Proposal was designed to address these two concerns of meeting needs on the mission front and promoting congregational relationships. Additionally, it was also an attempt to help clarify the beliefs and practices that we shared in our past history. Probably this part of the proposal was the most controversial initially. A number of people were concerned that putting these things in writing would produce some sort of creed that would take on a life of its own. I don’t think this has proved to be the case, but I understand the concerns. (You might want to see Steve’s relevant comments in this regard in the aforementioned April 2006 article in the archives of Disciples Today.)

The Present

At the present time, the concerns I continue to hear are about the second part of the proposal regarding congregational relationships, but perhaps most concerns are still about the third part of the proposal regarding commonly held beliefs. The concerns about the congregational relationships and grouping of churches in geographical settings are largely that one congregation will exert an authority over another against their will. No one will argue that this was not a problem in the past, but the question is whether we will revert to the old ways in time. All I can share on this point is what I have experienced. The churches in the Southwest part of America were grouped together in the proposal with former “Big Brother,” the Los Angeles Church. In Phoenix, given the history of sending people and money to the West coast, we were apprehensive − to put it mildly. I expressed this apprehension to Bruce Williams, congregational evangelist in LA, and to Al Baird, one of the elders there. Bruce, Al and John Mannel (another elder) made a trip to Phoenix to meet with our elders and staff brothers. Concerns and hurts were expressed and questions were asked by us, all of which were met with sensitivity, gentleness and apologies. The humility of these three men dispersed our fears in one fell swoop. We suggested that they also take trips to at least two other SW churches that had an eldership, which suggestion that were happy to follow.

Since that time, we have enjoyed a very harmonious relationship. I’m not concerned in the least that we are somehow going to revert to practices of the former days. I believe the brothers in the larger churches have truly changed, and I know the rest of us have changed as well. I am not going to have another church dictate what we in Phoenix are going to do, but I very much want their input and help, have asked for it and have graciously been given it. Relationships among congregations need to be viewed with a good dose of common sense. Church plantings need to be very submissive to the church that planted them until they reach a reasonable level of maturity. Then they and the more mature church should have a relationship much like we older folks have with our grown children. We want to have a close relationship, and because of that relationship and our added maturity, we still want to give input − but the decisions they reach are their own decisions. Period. Surely that should describe relationships between more mature churches and less mature churches. Where the maturity level is similar, brotherhood should mean that we provide mutual help to one another. Just as disciples need other disciples in their lives, church leaders need other church leaders in their lives. Independence and isolation is a curse. Interdependency and cooperation is a blessing − for individuals and for churches.

Some brothers have expressed the concern that organizations tend in the direction of more and more centralization and control. This is likely true overall − unless the organization is aware of that trend and intent on functioning in a way that avoids it. Truthfully, organizations can start well and degenerate, while others can start poorly and make positive changes. Again, all I can share is what I have experienced. One year ago at the International Leadership Conference, we delegates from the affirming churches selected a group of nine well respected brothers to continue attempts to help us become more unified and effective in our collective efforts. This year, the group of nine, by their own recommendation, was replaced by ten committees, with a chairman chosen for each committee. (That’s called decentralization, I believe.) The chairmen were asked to form their own committees, and no stipulations were given for those choices. Committee members could be chosen from churches who had affirmed the Cooperation Proposal or from those who had not. Before the committee idea was approved, those from the group of nine kept restating that they were in no way a governing board, but only a serving group to facilitate what the larger group wanted to do. When someone says repeatedly that they don’t desire or intend to act as from any authoritative position, I believe them − especially when their entire demeanor and speech is clothed with humility, as theirs was.

What about the concerns of the other category in the Unity Proposal − the statement of shared beliefs and practices? My religious background was in the Mainline Church of Christ. We prided ourselves in not having written creeds. Our oft-stated battle cry was “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible.” But that group took division to a whole new level. Did they avoid creeds simply because they didn’t write them down? Hardly. They divided into many different flavors and had quite well defined unwritten creeds − but creeds nonetheless. Some of my friends who have not affirmed the Cooperation Proposal are worried that we will devolve into something akin to the Catholic Church. I am much more worried that we will devolve into the independent, highly autonomous churches from which we originally evolved. Even with my Mainline church background, I don’t understand the fear of written statements of shared beliefs. In our techno age, everything stated verbally can quickly be put into print. When our leadership in Phoenix delivers messages regarding sensitive areas (finances, church discipline, etc.), we often print them, and hand them out and then put them on our web site. I would far rather people know exactly what we said than embellish and distort it into gossip and slander. In actual fact, this part of the proposal has received a lessening emphasis, as the other two parts about cooperation in mission efforts and intra-congregational relationships have received the most attention. Said another way, the Unity Proposal has evolved into the Cooperation Proposal for good reasons.

Why did those who collaborated to write the original Unity Proposal believe that the beliefs and practices section needed to be included? One, Kip McKean was saying and writing that we had lost all of our convictions in these areas, and he was having a very negative impact on younger disciples and churches. With our mature leadership in Phoenix, it wasn’t a problem for us − we dealt quickly and decisively with Kip’s Phoenix satellite church in our city. But the large majority of our churches outside the US (which outnumber those in the US) do not have the same maturity of leadership and thus were being influenced negatively. They needed the more mature leaders and churches to state what was true and untrue regarding Kip’s allegations. They needed clarification and assurance. Two, these same less mature churches were full of disciples whose world was shaken by the upheaval we experienced. They were asking (often with tears) if we were still a movement and if we still had convictions about these issues addressed in the proposal. These disciples in these churches (and they do constitute a majority) were relieved at the offering of the proposal. Most of them affirmed the proposal quickly, because it addressed directly all three areas of concern that they had. Further, they were (and are) puzzled when this was not done by a number of our more mature leaders and congregations.

The Future

Now for the toughest question: why have 30% of our churches not affirmed the proposal? For reasons noted already, to be sure. Others are focused on very basic needs in their own churches and some are difficult to contact. A few will probably not cooperate in the near future. But I believe that something more subtle is involved as well. I would call it unintentional myopia. We tend to see the situation of others from our own perspective, in spite of the fact that our situation may be quite different from theirs. Some time back, I wrote an article entitled “Self Starters and the Rest of Mankind.” The gist of it was that self starters don’t need as much structure and motivation as others do. Better stated, non-self starters (who comprise the majority of humans) need more structure and outside motivation than do self starter types. But it is the self starters who tend to judge the needs of others by their own needs. As one insightful person pointed out to me recently, it is the self starters who are basically insisting that every Christian be a self starter. In an unintentional way, they are essentially saying “You should be like me.” Well, maybe they will be in time, but we must meet them where they are presently and keep helping them to grow in this direction. Anything less suggests a lack of humility and genuine care for others, whether or not we intend it or realize it.

Applying this to the Cooperation Proposal, the more mature may well insist that they agree with everything (or nearly everything) in the proposal, but don’t feel the need to have their name on a list of affirmers. They don’t see the need for any defined structure in a movement of sister churches. I understand that line of reasoning on a personal basis. I’m 65 years old now, and I know what I believe and what I am committed to. I don’t need to sign or affirm anything, for myself − but I think others need for me to have my name on that list. They need the reassurance of knowing that someone with my history in this movement wants to cooperate in every way possible to keep our churches working together as closely as possible. To me, it’s a simple matter − why not publicly assure them in a way that all know where I stand, whether they live in my state or in the southern tip of Africa or of South America? And by the way, if I had written the proposal, I would have worded a few things differently, and I’m sure most of us would say the same. However, my focus is on the general tenor of things relating to the purpose of promoting healthy unity and cooperation, rather than on a few details that I might have said differently. If we have to agree on every last detail to have unity and cooperation, we will be frustrated and unhappy in every relationship known to man, including marriage!

I know that some will inevitably feel that articles like this one are an attempt to force them to put their name on the list of affirming churches. Let me assure you that such is not my intention. Forcing anyone to do anything is counterproductive and unbiblical. However, I am unashamedly trying to persuade you to reconsider your position if you have not affirmed the proposal by giving your heart to cooperation with brothers and sisters around the world and having the name of your congregation added. My love and acceptance of you as members of God’s family is not in question. But I do believe we need to think seriously about the impact of our example on less mature disciples and churches. What I may think I need is not the key issue here − it is what others need of me. Please think and pray about these things. Call or write me if you want to discuss it further. And please forgive me if my intentions were not expressed in the best way, in spite of my goal to do so! May God help us all to work hard in continuing to forge the unity for which Christ prayed and died!

Gordon Ferguson
Phoenix Valley Church of Christ
Gordon_Ferguson@icoc.org

Posted by Cooperation Service Team

Eight more churches from six countries have committed to working together. These are the most recent churches to commit to the Co-operation Churches.
Banjul Christian Church — The Gambia, Africa
Amsterdam Church of Christ — The Netherlands, Europe
Christian Church of Albania — Tirana, Albania, Europe
Georgetown Church of Christ — Guyana, South America
La Paz International Church of Christ — Bolivia, South America
Northern Marianas Christian Church — Saipan USA, Pacific
San Diego Church of Christ — California, USA
Fresno Church of Christ — California, USA

Click on the Church Directory link for more information about these churches.

Send a message to the Co-operation Service Team at mailto:unity@chnts.net

Please notify us if your church is missing from this list or has decided to commit to co-operate.

This is the first quarterly report from the Cooperation Service Team that was appointed at the Delegates meeting at the recent International Leadership Conference in Anaheim, California .
I am finding the learning curve is steep in our first months of the Cooperation Service Team but at the same time, it is encouraging to see that our new simple structure is both flexible and working. 

Building Service Teams
The Cooperation Service Team is composed of the chairmen of the eleven service teams which are listed on http://www.icocco-op.org/ and published on DisciplesToday.org . They are based in service, not authority. Over the last three months we have been assembling these new teams based on criteria similar to what we what would want from a deacon.

Click this link for a list of the 2008 members of the various Service Teams .

Click this link for a further explanation of the service teams. Service Teams FAQs .

We believe that God is working among us to bring more substance to the unity we share among our churches. And with the new Cooperation Service Team that the Delegates appointed in October, we are seeing more servant-leaders from around the world coming together to identify needs of our churches and work together to help meet those needs.

The spirit and process of cooperation necessary to get to this point is great evidence that as a movement God is blessing our response to his discipline and we are beginning to reap a harvest of righteousness and peace.

It has been helpful that the Cooperation Service Team is serious about applying the Gospel to our relationships by developing a “from this point forward” model concerning the past, whenever possible—especially regarding pre-meltdown sins and being quick to resolve new matters as they arise (Matthew 5:25). And, fortunately, the Shepherding Team can assist us when conflicts develop. With various needs being addressed, it appears that each team will be able to develop and launch greater initiatives to the glory of God.

Initiatives and Articles
As the new teams form, a new culture for developing quality plans and for improved communication and connection is emerging. Disciples are being encouraged to use their gifts on these teams and those teams accountable to others with that gift (1 Corinthians 14:32).

The decisions that are being made in these service teams and among them are subject to input and cooperation with each other. Unlike a one-voice hierarchy, this process involves a number of mature brothers and sisters that represent the wide scope of cultures and countries that we are reaching with the gospel. This helps us reach new ground with the ligaments of love, trust and experiences of a variety of those who can provide special guidance. We expect to see meaningful initiatives and articles from each of the service teams who are being asked to report to the Delegates and the members every quarter.

Initial Team Reports

HOPEww & Benevolence Service Team
As a result of the great hearts and work of disciples, HOPE worldwide has been asked by the Red Cross to be a national and international partner for "Disaster Preparedness" and "Disaster Response". This is a great honor and encouragement. HOPEww will distribute information to churches describing how they can participate in great local service opportunities if they so wish.
The members of this team are giving great feedback and ideas to HOPE worldwide on how they can better serve the needs of the churches, communicate, and create opportunities for disciples to serve. This team will coordinate with the Communication Service Team to more effectively communicate to our members.

Women’s Ministry Service Team
Robyn Williams proposed some kind of opportunity for various women to come together to discuss women’s issues. In order to offset the financial issue for the churches, the team would encourage women leaders to meet centrally, in conjunction with other meetings and/or create a chat room scenario.

Communication and Administration Service Team
The new DisciplesToday.org website was released on December 1st and has technology for translation into eight languages. In November Mike Taliaferro and Mike Fontenot sent letters requesting churches to make financial commitment for 2008. Members of churches that subscribe will receive one year free membership to DisciplesToday.org and free licensing of the DToday Videos for 2008. Since the focus of the Disciples Today is for our members and others interested in our churches, Disciples Today has been asked to develop a new ICOC Co-op Churches website for church leaders. They are also exploring the possibility of coordinating the various international conference websites to make them more effective and efficient.

Reports from the Service Teams will be posted on both the ICOC Co-op site and on DToday.net. As well, we hope to see an early 2008 update article on new churches committing and affiliating with the Co-operation Churches. Disciples Today and Mission Memo will continue to perform an annual survey of information from churches and publish results while continuing to maintain a published Church Directory , Events and Links. Disciples Today is cooperating with ICOC Hot News and Mission Memo to provide surveys and information that is relevant and helpful to our ministries and history.

The Communication and Administration Service Team is looking for ways to improve communication among churches and from the Service Teams to the membership.

Missions Service Team
It has become increasingly evident that we need to be sure that overlooked regions are being helped and addressed. To meet that need, a survey for small churches is being prepared. The best model in many places is where we are building healthy self-supporting churches.
K. Hahn is assisting Andy Fleming with updating Missions information to the DToday Info Church Directory database. Disciples Today will continue to cooperate with the Missions Team to coordinate this vital information.

Shepherding Service Team
This team is beginning with two missions. First, the formulation and development of sound conflict resolution paradigm is needed for leaders and churches. This will include input from trained mediators. Secondly, the team will address how to assist our churches in the training of more men who desire eldership.

Church-Builders Service Team
While only the chairmen of all the other teams were appointed in October, the Delegates selected all of the members of this Service Team. They already met with an ad-hoc group of evangelists from large churches in San Antonio in November. Their two main quests, in conjunction with providing material for the Co-op website is to write articles to describe or define a healthy church from a biblical perspective in our current world, and, present analysis material of examples of healthy churches using biblical criteria. These articles will begin to appear with the release of the new website February 1, Lord willing.

Ministry Education and Teaching Service Team
The first phase is to develop more ministry education among our churches. Six of the eight members of our team will focus on comparing notes from our main education efforts around the churches. We hope to eventually develop a plan that will benefit a larger audience as well as examine the benefits of onsite teaching: both seminar and extended, online and other combinations.

We recognize we need more experience. For instance, Gordon Ferguson is moving further along helping to develop the Asia / Pacific Leadership Academy (See the DToday article, Fergusons’ New Adventure Begins in 2008 ). Douglas Jacoby, though declining to be on the team because of the pressure he is experiencing from his publishers—has agreed to serve as an advisor. He developed the AIM program used by many Christians. In Chicago we are launching a five year effort in February in a unique format designed to focus on competency on a broad range of topics. In Mexico City Arturo Elizarraras developed a Latin America Diploma program in use for the last five years and is using online teaching for multiple sites with multiple teachers from around the world.

A second phase for this service group is the development of teaching material for Christians. Fred Faller in Boston, Tom Jones and others from the team will focus on this effort. It is clear that both feeding the flock and the teaching of Christians to be self-feeders is vital. (Ephesians 4)

Campus Service Team
The 2008 International Campus Ministry Conference between July 3rd and 6th will be in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Click here for the invitation for campus representatives to attend the planning meeting in Baton Rouge on January 25 – 26. The ICMC will include opportunities for participants to serve with HOPEworldwide and the Red Cross in New Orleans in conjunction with the conference. This group is encouraging campus conferences on every continent and continued teaching at the International Leadership Conference.

Teen & Family Service Team
This year we are encouraging Youth Leader meetings to be held regionally on every continent where possible. The development of a resource website for youth workers is in the works as well as a discussion over the feasibility of a website for teens to connect worldwide (like facebook). Details for the 2009 International Conference of Youth Ministry in Chicago are forthcoming.

Singles Service Team
The 2008 International Singles Conference released their new website. Large numbers are expected August 29-31 in Dallas, Texas. This team will assess needs of singles and how to meet them. We would like to encourage articles to be submitted to www.DisciplesToday.org to encourage and challenge singles around the world. They have a category under Ministries/Singles just for us.

International Leadership Conferences
The 2008 ILC is in Kiev and the dates and venues are secured. Click here for the announcement about the October 8th to 12th event "The Edge." The 2008 ILC team led by Shawn Wooten will consult with previous ILC planners for continuity and consider the feedback from previous programs and then make suggestions to the CST for the program.

The 2009 ILC is set for Denver, Colorado and the church there is already securing facilities and dates. Wade Cook is the coordinator.

Conclusion
Please pray for our first year as a Coordination Service Team. It is our prayer that God guides all of our churches and the entire bride of Christ. Perhaps more than any other time in history the words of the Apostle Paul are applicable in this year.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to acknowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

Steve Staten
Cooperation Service Team Chairman, 2007-8

Click here for the messages from the 2007 International Leadership Conference .
Click here for a listing of future International Conferences.

Robyn Williams proposed some kind of opportunity for various women to come together to discuss women’s issues. In order to offset the financial issue for the churches, the team would encourage women leaders to meet centrally, in conjunction with other meetings and/or create a chat room scenario.

The new DisciplesToday.org website was released on December 1st and has technology for translation into eight languages. In November Mike Taliaferro and Mike Fontenot sent letters requesting churches to make financial commitment for 2008. Members of churches that subscribe will receive one year free membership to DisciplesToday.org and free licensing of the DToday Videos for 2008. Since the focus of the Disciples Today is for our members and others interested in our churches, Disciples Today has been asked to develop a new ICOC Co-op Churches website for church leaders. They are also exploring the possibility of coordinating the various international conference websites to make them more effective and efficient.

Reports from the Service Teams will be posted on both the ICOC Co-op site and on DToday.net. As well, we hope to see an early 2008 update article on new churches committing and affiliating with the Co-operation Churches. Disciples Today and Mission Memo will continue to perform an annual survey of information from churches and publish results while continuing to maintain a published Church Directory , Events and Links. Disciples Today is cooperating with ICOC Hot News and Mission Memo to provide surveys and information that is relevant and helpful to our ministries and history.

The Communication and Administration Service Team is looking for ways to improve communication among churches and from the Service Teams to the membership.

This team is beginning with two missions. First, the formulation and development of sound conflict resolution paradigm is needed for leaders and churches. This will include input from trained mediators. Secondly, the team will address how to assist our churches in the training of more men who desire eldership.

While only the chairmen of all the other teams were appointed in October, the Delegates selected all of the members of this Service Team. They already met with an ad-hoc group of evangelists from large churches in San Antonio in November. Their two main quests, in conjunction with providing material for the Co-op website is to write articles to describe or define a healthy church from a biblical perspective in our current world, and, present analysis material of examples of healthy churches using biblical criteria. These articles will begin to appear with the release of the new website February 1, Lord willing. 

The first phase is to develop more ministry education among our churches. Six of the eight members of our team will focus on comparing notes from our main education efforts around the churches. We hope to eventually develop a plan that will benefit a larger audience as well as examine the benefits of onsite teaching: both seminar and extended, online and other combinations.

We recognize we need more experience. For instance, Gordon Ferguson is moving further along helping to develop the Asia / Pacific Leadership Academy. Douglas Jacoby, though declining to be on the team because of the pressure he is experiencing from his publishers—has agreed to serve as an advisor. He developed the AIM program used by many Christians. In Chicago we are launching a five year effort in February in a unique format designed to focus on competency on a broad range of topics. In Mexico City Arturo Elizarraras developed a Latin America Diploma program in use for the last five years and is using online teaching for multiple sites with multiple teachers from around the world.

A second phase for this service group is the development of teaching material for Christians. Fred Faller in Boston, Tom Jones and others from the team will focus on this effort. It is clear that both feeding the flock and the teaching of Christians to be self-feeders is vital. (Ephesians 4)

This year we are encouraging Youth Leader meetings to be held regionally on every continent where possible. The development of a resource website for youth workers is in the works as well as a discussion over the feasibility of a website for teens to connect worldwide (like facebook). Details for the 2009 International Conference of Youth Ministry in Chicago are forthcoming. 

Robert Gempel noted in one discussion, “HOPE worldwide desperately needs the input of the churches as we move forward.” This is a little update on what we have been doing so far, as well as results of our survey.

HOPE worldwide and Benevolence Committee Update

As a result of the ILC meeting in Los Angeles a number of committees were created to address needs that our fellowship faces together.

Robert Gempel noted in one discussion, “HOPE worldwide desperately needs the input of the churches as we move forward.” This is a little update on what we have been doing so far, as well as results of our survey.

HOPE worldwide and Benevolence Committee Update

As a result of the ILC meeting in Los Angeles a number of committees were created to address needs that our fellowship faces together. We have formed a committee involving the leadership of HOPE worldwide as well as a number of church representatives committed to the cause of helping the poor. First of all, the Committee wants to say “thank you!” Thank you to all the saints and churches who are helping the poor locally. Thank you to all the disciples and congregations who are giving to specific international programs to help others, far away from home. And thanks to all the Christians and fellowships who are contributing to the global effort, flexible “unrestricted” funds that allow HOPE worldwide‘s team to build partnerships and meet needs around the world.

The Committee has met three times so far for conference calls lasting about 75 minutes, as well as having frequent email communications between members. Each call begins with a prayer and a mini-lesson from the Scripture about God’s perspective about helping the poor and the ministry of Christ. Another regular feature of our calls is good news about the churches’ giving and serving of the poor (and how to connect with churches in local regional opportunities). Each call also includes a discussion on how HOPE worldwide can better understand and meet the needs of the churches. As a result of one such discussion, a survey was sent out to the delegates of the “cooperation churches” as well as representatives of other congregations, asking their thoughts about what the churches would like to see from HOPE worldwide and this committee. The survey results are attached here.

HOPE worldwide helps children one at a time in this Delhi school

The Committee discussed amongst itself what it would like to achieve this year, and we agreed that it was to promote re-engagement of the churches in helping the poor, and communication about the churches involvement with helping the poor. We will measure ourselves at the next ILC by considering

• number of local churches supporting the poor locally;
• number of local churches supporting specific national and international efforts for the poor;
• number of local churches supporting the global work of HOPE worldwide with their members giving $1 per week.

The Committee has discussed many specific opportunities for two-way interaction between HOPE worldwide and church leaders, as well as members at multi-church conferences. The new dynamic partnership between HOPE worldwide and the Red Cross has been a regular topic of discussion, with regular updates on each phone call. The upcoming Campus Conference (July 2008) in New Orleans has also been a focal point.

Many members of the committee have been engaged in their local areas in appealing to congregations to consider supporting the work of HOPE worldwide at the level of $1 per member per week (equivalent to sacrificing something like a nice Starbucks drink every month). Many churches are increasing their giving to the poor, and a number of others are re-engaging in helping the poor, “the very thing I was eager to do,” as Paul said in Galatians 2:10.

As a committee we want to encourage disciples and congregations interested in doing more for the poor to feel free to offer your thoughts or service. The members of the committee include:

Agenda Items Covered So Far:

Agenda for January 14, 2008

1. Fellowship followed by Scripture sharing/prayer by John Causey.
2. Follow-up on communication with churches–good news sharing about commitments.
3. Discuss survey results, actions to be taken as a result?
4. Red Cross update (Antonio Boyd)
5. Setting of next conference call for Monday, February 18th, 2008 at 11AM EST, 8AM PST.

Agenda for December 17, 2007

1. Fellowship followed by Scripture sharing/prayer by John Brush.
2. Follow-up on communication with churches–good news sharing about commitments.
3. Follow-up on communication with churches–key communications that need to occur.
4. Shall we survey the delegates to ask them what this committee should achieve?
5. What would you like this committee to achieve by Kiev?
6. Comments from group members on what the churches would like to see from HOPE.
7. Setting of next conference call for Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 11AM EST, 8AM PST.

Agenda for November 19, 2007

1. Fellowship followed by Scripture sharing/prayer by Mark Templer.
2. Brief discussion of member responsibilities. Setting regular time for calls (11AM EST, 3rd Monday of every month; Monday, December 17th, 2007 11AM EST is next call).
3. Identifying potential key people who might join us. These are people who might represent “unrepresented” regions, or bring interesting perspectives/networks into the group. Vice Chairman John Causey has already been working on this.
4. Considering any special XMAS messages from HOPE to the churches.
5. Identifying who from the churches could at the Global Summit receive an award thanking the churches.
6. Encouraging follow-up with churches concerning 2008 budgets. This discussion might include some talk about key churches in each region. Establishing communication plan about this.
7. Discussion of the Red Cross service opportunity and how this could be rolled out to the churches (Antonio Boyd).

Potential Future Agenda Items:

1. Study/consider the long-term strategic relationship between HOPE worldwide and the churches, particularly the long term funding model that will be sustainable and win-win for all involved.
   • How do we use church funds to help the poor locally, directly in the third world, and support the global organization which raises such money for work in the US and abroad?
   • If we do find a desirable “long-term” model, how do we transition to such a model without creating problems for HOPE worldwide and the churches in the short and medium term?
   • What is the process we should use to figure this out?
2. Discussion: Is generosity in the area of benevolent activity a strength of our movement? Does every church in our movement accept the basic theology that Christ calls us to serve the poor and needy as one of our core beliefs? Is there any way we can help?
3. Discussion: Do US churches all know how to launch a sustainable local benevolent effort? What can HOPEww do to equip them?
4. How do we more effectively communicate with the churches and their members?

HOPE worldwide & Benevolence Committee
Mini-Survey Feedback

Suggestions for Committee

Facilitate greater engagement of the churches in:

1. Giving to HOPE worldwide on an unrestricted basis ($1/member/week)
2. Serving the poor locally

Study/consider the long-term strategic relationship between HOPE worldwide and the churches, particularly the long term funding model that will be sustainable and win-win for all involved.

• How do we use church funds to help the poor locally, directly in the third world, and support the global organization which raises such money for work in the US and abroad?
• If we do find a desirable “long-term” model, how do we transition to such a model without creating problems for HOPE worldwide and the churches in the short and medium term?

Strengthen the sense of engagement between the churches and Hww

• Appeal to ministry leaders to send in write-up’s about what their ministries are doing to support HWW/poor. We need to support HOPE in highlighting its work, but it should be our responsibility to bring to the attention of the churches what great things different churches/ministries are doing in their involvement with HWW
• Ask ministry leaders to promote HWW through their websites more
• Encourage leaders to highlight HWW’s Charity Navigator ranking
• Coordinate a domestic or international collective effort/event. A suggested example: “Would it not be possible for us to have a worldwide marathon? All churches who would like to take part in it can come forward. We can select a date (or different dates) and do this together. We can have thousands of runners, and this can be an excellent way of raising funds and getting united. Our church did one in 2007, and it was smashing success.”
• Discuss volunteer organization. It might help to create direct connections between churches and specific HOPE programs

Suggestions for HOPE worldwide

Enhance communication/interaction

• The HOPE WW website should highlight more of the works going around all over the world, many places are left out. Not all HOPE sites are listed on the webpage.
• Highlight 1st world HOPE work to inspire 1st world churches to do more than give money
• Highlight 1st world work outside of US
• Give the churches that support HOPE a powerful monthly story to be used in the monthly HOPE contribution (for those of us who have one). Communicate needs and victories
• Establish more direct connection between 1st world churches and specific 3rd world HOPE programs, perhaps by creating volunteer opportunities that link certain churches to certain programs

Help us find a nice blend of local efforts and involvement in the global effort

Involve participants from non-US churches in HYC/HVC

Assist disciples who are trying to establish relationships with potential donors

• Publishing how much main sponsors give
• Sample letters on how to write to companies that can be downloaded to help disciples approach this matter with respect and with useful information that may tip their decision to helping us. There should be various different ones, some for supplies, some for donation etc.

“After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church.”
        —Ephesians 5:29

“But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.”
        —1 Corinthians 3:10-15

What does a “healthy” church look like?  For church leaders and builders, it is the fundamental question of our time, deserving sober thinking and wide-open, undefensive discussion.  With most of us having spent the last 4-5 years identifying and extirpating unhealthy patterns and practices in our congregations, we now have a pretty good idea of what doesn’t edify the church and what doesn’t lead it to maturity.

But we need more.  As cooperating congregations, most of us now seem able and zealous to take the spiritual offensive against Satan’s schemes.  As we do so, we need a clear and hopeful picture of what does bring maturity and edification in the church.  Extending God’s own metaphor, we need to know what keys and catalyzes a healthy body, what constitutes “vital organs” and their maintenance, and what we should look for to prevent acute or chronic disease.  This really matters because our good and painstaking reforms have not exempted us from spiritual attack.  Are we, in 2008, ready and fit to fight?

Go See the Doctor

Recently in Seattle, we began a multi-week series on the book of Revelation.  As much as we were looking forward to exploring the symbolism of the book, we found ourselves, predictably, preoccupied with the startlingly concrete letters Jesus sent to the churches of Asia.  There we learned again that Jesus was walking among the churches (Revelation 1:20-2:1), seeing what we do and don’t do, where we stand and don’t stand, what we’ve suffered and what we need.  He is the Great Physician who not only heals the lame and the lost, but examines the churches and alternatively offers them stiff medicine and soothing balm, depending on the need.

Most of us don’t like to go see the doctor.  It’s an emotional issue: an annual checkup offers the possibility of bad news.  We might prefer to just “let life happen” and take our chances.  Yet logically, it’s obvious what a difference regular checkups with a skilled physician can make—in fact, it might make all the difference between life and death.  We need to take care, then, not to define ourselves by our freedom from accountability.  Pretending isn’t health.

Some of us love to see the doctor—it’s called hypochondria.  We affirm ourselves by our possible illnesses and hope the doctor will confirm.  It’s a control issue.  We keep checking:  “Am I well?  How am I doing? How about tomorrow? How about now? How about five minutes from now?” We seek too much evaluation and define ourselves by accountability.  Obsessing with our “health” isn’t health either.

Healthy people measure their fitness in reasonable ways and at reasonable intervals.  So do healthy churches.  Church leaderships need to take subjective inventory by reading their Bibles and applying scriptural examples and principles in every way they can.  They also need to approach more objective inventory by periodically having other leaders from outside their church culture give them a “checkup.”  Seeing the doctor is a good thing.  Without it, we tend to deceive ourselves, perhaps fatally.

Vital Signs

The other day, I went in for my annual checkup and my doctor sat me down, looked at my toenails, checked behind my ears, listened to my ipod for a minute, rubbed my kneecaps, shook my left hand with the secret handshake, threw my shoes up to the ceiling, looked at tea leaves, ordered me to spell all the planets in our solar system, and asked me 3 questions about my favorite red wines.  He then pronounced me fit as a fiddle. 

Of course I’m being ridiculous.  Doctors have a logical and scientific algorithm for determining where you and I are on the health continuum.  It’s a serious exam.  For good reason they check blood pressure, heart rate, reflexes, and run appropriate series’ of blood tests.  If symptoms warrant, they order more tests, all they way up to an expensive MRI.  The goal is to evaluate and respond to the prime indicators of health.  There are particularly concerned with vital signs that speak of our vital organs.

And what are these prime indicators for our churches?  Last week the full time leaderships of all the northwest churches met for three days to share our best practices, sharpen one another, revel in our transparent fellowship, and address this crucial question:  “What is health?”  All experiences and opinions were welcome and it was remarkable, after breaking down into four small group discussions, how much of a consensus emerged:

1. Health means growth—individually and as a church.  All healthy living things grow, but not out of control (we call that “cancer”).  God, in His wisdom and timing, “makes things grow” as they should (1 Corinthians 3:7).  This means the church grows both in maturity (Ephesians 4:13ff) & numerically (Colossians 1:6).  Let me emphasize that healthy churches feature both.
2. We grow in our walk with God—in intimacy and imitation (Ephesians 5:1).  How does this become manifest congregationally?  We might look for a congregation’s joy, zeal, willingness to serve, and its ability to raise up leaders according to their gift sets.
3. We grow in our spiritual relationships.  Whether or not you call it “discipling,” “faith partners,” “the one another way fellowship,” or something else, the reality is that healthy churches preach and train Christians to practice the familiar “one another way” scriptures:  encouragement, depth, confession, “seeing to it” (Hebrews 3:12-13, 12:15ff), spurring, and more.  In Seattle we have “discipleship partners/faith partners”—every member agrees to commit to at least one relationship in the body with whom that member can be transparent or “real.”  We also seek out specific mentoring, as appropriate, in areas such as full time ministry training, parenting, and marriage skills.  The “fellowship” ought to be primary, vibrant, stimulating, comforting, encouraging, full of love in fact, and full of magic in feel.  Remember our relationships when we first came to Christ?
4. We grow in our love for the lost.  Jesus came to seek and save what was lost (Luke 19:10) and commissioned each and every Christian to go and do likewise (Matthew 28:18-20).  Historically, we have been a family of churches who have given heart, mind, soul, and strength to this worthy cause!  God has blessed that commitment abundantly and miraculously over the years.  We have, however, sometimes confused commitment with evangelistic results.  Now we know better:  we cannot control the decisions of non-Christians.  (Read that 10 times in a row).  But we can control what we do, that is, our part.  Healthy churches preach a passion for the mission and challenge every single Christian to be “in the game” rather than on the sidelines.  In Seattle, we challenge everyone to pray about and work towards bringing their neighbors to church or Bible Talk, but especially to be involved in a bible study with non-Christians.  These are things ALL of us can strive to do.  It’s not a matter of talent, but of commitment and understanding my role.  It is not my role to manufacture evangelistic fruit; that’s between God and the non-Christian I love and serve.  It is my role to sow and water to the best of my ability.  By faith, we know God will eventually bring the increase, because he loves the lost even more than we do.
5. We grow in our service to the poor. The brevity of this statement is enough because there’s nothing to clarify.  May we individually and congregationally, locally and globally love and serve the poor!

Of course, there is much more to a vital church than these few vital signs, but no church will be healthy independent from them!  We want to give attention to any need in the body, but not all body needs are vital organs.  I may have the world’s best manicure, but if my liver isn’t functioning, I’m not healthy and I need to get help as quickly as possible.  I’d rather have the good liver and bad nails.  May we urgently attend, then, to vital organs!

Taking Stock versus Taking Aim

Vital signs aren’t the same thing as living itself; they are a mere snapshot of life, meant to inform changes that may be needed in my health trajectory.  I, for example, have many meaningful long-term goals in my life but a measure of low blood pressure isn’t one of them.  When I review and renew my life’s mission statement and goals, I don’t list, “low blood pressure” as one of them.  Of course, if my blood pressure is too high, I will certainly need to do something about it.  But BP represents something deeper and more meaningful:  perhaps my body needs more exercise and better food, less stress and more time with best friends—goals I wouldn’t mind listing with my mission statement at all.

It is the same with the body of Christ.  We can and should look at meaningful measures of body life.  We can and should, for example, learn something important, if not urgent about our evangelism by noting church attendance patterns, numbers of souls saved, churches planted, and more.  We can similarly measure the quality of body experience by interviewing or taking surveys of our members:  are you using your gifts to serve God and the church?  How would you rate that service—is it growing?  Is Christianity a joy to you or a burden?  In what ways?  How are your Christian relationships?  Have they grown or declined?  These measures of church experience aren’t necessarily the same thing as church goals.

In Seattle, we want to take aim and believe that setting meaningful goals is a spiritual practice (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).  But what kind of goals?  Christian Schwarz, in his groundbreaking Natural Church Development, exposes two common fallacies about goals and structure.  The first, called “technocratic thinking” over-emphasizes the value of practical strategies and programs; the second, called “spiritualistic thinking” under-emphasizes the value of practical strategies and programs. Because of these tendencies, Schwarz advises the setting of “Quality Goals” in place of quantitative results.  In evangelism, for example, a quantity goal might be, “baptize 100 people this year,” but a quality goal might be, “encourage and pray for every disciple to start a new study with a non-Christian this year.”  Good quality goals are informed by knowing what is and is not “my part”—a basic distinction of spiritual maturity.

Let me point out that sometimes Schwarz has been misunderstood by Christians who have spent too much of their lives being technocratic.  Burnt-out from too many detailed, sometimes legalistic goals and programs, they over-rebound towards the spiritualistic side, wary of planning and goals, and suspicious of basic leadership processes in the church.  I have certainly succumbed to this reaction myself from time to time.  I had to realize that ultimately, becoming spiritualistic is just as big a mistake as being too technocratic.  God brings the crops, but steward-farmers must use their wits as well as their faith, and are expected by God to have a vision, make a plan, get the right equipment, work diligently, and pray for rain!  Let me emphasize that Schwarz’ approach is very interested in growth—both internally and in numbers, including the multiplying of church plantings!  He differs, though, from purely results-driven movements in separating quality goals we can sow and quantity results which God will bring.  These subtle differences are worth understanding; church building isn’t rocket science, but neither is it child’s play.

Healthy churches, then, know how to measure what has happened (or not) in the church (Did new leaders rise?  How many were baptized? Did most stay faithful? Did our programs meet the needs of the disciples?) without confusing or conflating it with appropriate quality goals.  I need my MRI results, but they do not constitute my meaningful goals for tomorrow.  We need to both take stock and take aim and they are often not the same thing.

Health and Faith

I grew up in a church tradition that seemed to have drifted from effective leadership.  I remember my Dad being frustrated by endless meetings in which almost nothing was decided.  One of the great reforms/restorations of our family of churches from the 60’s through the 90’s was what we might call Faithful Leadership.  We made decisions and got things done.  We were not afraid of authority and raised up, perhaps with unprecedented speed, vast numbers of full-time and lay leaders of tremendous ability and faith all around the world.

It’s true that this model became, for the most part, authoritarian, but this is not surprising considering the youth of the movement.  Today we are much older and prayerfully much wiser.  We recognize the need for process in decision making, for respect, for patience in hearing many views and opinions, and for give and take.

Yet bold decisions are needed and must be made.  Are we bold?  Are we decisive?  The portrait we know of Jesus and of the first century church is one of courage, faith, risk, and action.  How do we reaffirm our commitment to bold decision-making while upholding mature process?  Such a topic may deserve its own article, but for now, may we embrace this foundational step:  encourage spiritually gifted leaders to lead—especially full time leaders (after all, we are paying them to lead!).  When leaders hesitate in the name of consensus, the whole church becomes a waiting church and not an active church.  Full-time leaders should realize that the default of busy, pressured lay leaders tends to be sincere skepticism and hesitation, not boldness.  This is precisely because such leaders simply do not have the time to research and facilitate bold measures.

Healthy churches’ full-time leaders consult, facilitate, encourage process and dialogue, but do not wait for consensus to develop within groups; rather, as faith-leaders, they lead their groups to mature unity and action.  Group process is essential for creative thinking, for emerging wisdom, and for “buy-in” to a plan, but healthy leadership must step up and supply the faith and boldness needed to move the church forward.  May God raise up generations of elders, teachers, evangelists and the like who are not only empowering and consensus-building, but also brave, visionary, and bold.  Will the son of man find faith on earth?  We all want the answer to be “Yes!”

Onward

In the end, only Jesus will judge the churches.  Yet we want to be worthy of His faithful judgment and do our best to fulfill His will on earth while we yet have time.  If we shrink in this life from clear thinking about health—personally & congregationally—we invite surprise and possibly disappointment at the end of our days.  If we embrace maturity—fearlessly taking stock while conscientiously taking aim—we have an opportunity to learn from the past while boldly claiming the future for Jesus.  As He walks among our churches, may we pray for sensitive hearts to hear what the spirit says to the churches!

Some practical suggestions

Do:

• Bring in outside eyes at least once a year to offer an objective “checkup” of the church.  Have these ministers/consultants interview a broad spectrum of your membership and leadership.
• Affirm growth vital signs to your congregation.  Christians need to know what our mission or missions are in a clear way.  Evaluate those vital signs with lay leaders at least once a year.
• Encourage members to set goals:  in personal growth, in relationships, in evangelism, in serving the church and the poor.  Goals are not our Master but help orient our spirits and should be prayed about with humility.
• Encourage your leaders to lead with process but also with boldness and faith

Don’t:

• Be legalistic about goals; they are to serve not to enslave.  We all miss goals, so what?  G.B. Shaw put it this way: “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp.”
• Confuse goals and results.  Instead, use results to shape future quality goals—goals that resonate. Help disciples distinguish between what “my part” is and is not.  Quality goals help bring godly growth results, but in God’s time and way.
• Confuse maturity with hesitant leadership
• Be either technocratic (over-controlling) or spiritualistic (irresponsible)

With more love and respect than an article can convey,

Scott Green
Seattle, Washington
January, 2008

On behalf of your brothers and sisters from Europe and Eurasia, we invite you to come and worship God and train together before Him, to reach the edges of the earth with the Gospel!

Click here for the invitation from the Kiev Church. Feel free to download and distribute on websites, in bulletins and any other means to get the word out.

CLICK HERE for Online Registration to the 2008 ILC  

The newly formed Shepherding Service Team targets needs to develop more relationships, more elders and help with conflict resolution.

At the 2007 International Leadership Conference in Los Angeles the Shepherding Service Team was one of ten service teams to be formed at the request to the delegates. Sam Powell (New York) was asked to be chairman of this team. Along with Sam, Al Baird (Los Angeles), Wyndham Shaw (Boston), John Brush (Miami), Sam Laing (Athens, Ga.), Jeff Balsom (Chicago), Bill Hooper (Dallas), and Ron Brumley (Seattle) are the brothers who make up the Shepherding Service Team. 

After a meeting via conference call on January 31 we wanted to make brothers and sisters aware of our desire to be a helpful resource.

Without question one of the greatest needs in our brotherhood is for more qualified elders to serve in our churches. Even in churches with an eldership there are times when we need advice, counsel and input from shepherds and leaders in sister churches. This committee was born out of the awareness and acknowledgement of this need. We want to encourage and initiate more elder interaction and have stated our mission as the following:

· To build relationships and ongoing communication between elders and churches in the brotherhood
· To provide assistance, counsel and teaching to help churches raise up and prepare more elders for works of service
 
· To provide an objective and unbiased resource for conflict resolution in relationships and in churches
 
We do not believe we have authority over churches outside of those in which we personally serve. Yet we do believe we need one another and that God’s plan is for churches and elderships to be supporting ligaments in the worldwide Body of Christ (Eph. 4:16). Our hope is to use the experiences, talents and resources God has given us to help build and strengthen elderships in churches throughout the brotherhood. We are volunteering our services to those who wish to call on us for assistance.
 
So here we are; eight brothers who want to work with fellow elders and church leaders to help make our family of churches stronger. Let us know if we can be of assistance to you.
 
With sincerity and humility,
 
The Shepherding Service Team

Unity – John 17:20-21 –  “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

The great desire of Jesus for His church was and is unity.  Words and expectations of Jesus for unity in His church however, and the historical reality of church history are miles apart.  This is not a debatable interpretation of doctrine or history, but a stark fact lamented by all.

We know clearly what Jesus says in John 17, written as his earthly farewell address, his last teaching before his arrest in the Gospel of John.  It is,  also,  written in a Gospel almost all place as the last written Gospel in the New Testament.  Written, I believe, both historically and redactively to meet Jesus’ awareness of the future and the church’s experiences even to that point in history.  Is "Unity" meant to be no more than an ideal with no binding application or expectation?  As Jesus say in John 17:23, is our lack of unity (complete unity as the text says, teteleiwme÷noi ei˙ß eºn) the real reason our mission efforts have slowed down).  This disruption goes back further than 2003 in our brief history.  Were the cracks of unity already seen in unhealthy competition, isolation, and unresolved conflicts? Will we settle for little "a" autonomy rather the unity directed and described by Jesus?

How do the  influences of our cultures and our sinful natures affect our view on the questions of unity and interaction? Unfortunately there  are other words that practically seem to influence even more than unity – words such as: independence, self-determination, liberty, sovereignty, autonomy, self-rule, self-determination, self-government, and self-sufficiency.  In some of our historical cultures, these words have the weight of sacred tenets that have shaped our history and drawn our blood in battle.   And it is no small task to separate ourselves from our historical cultures.

Independence – "freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state." These can be literally be "fighting words."  They also seem to be the thoughts in the Garden of Eden towards God at the fall of mankind.  These parts of our sinful nature get morphed  into cultural values and spiritualized in our churches as doctrines.  Not everyone who has ecclesiastical reservations concerning structures that tie us together operate from a sinful motivation.  But we all need to recognize our common human tendencies and cultures.  People can and do have sincere convictions, yet at the same time our sinful nature and personality traits can be camouflaged by genuine theological concerns.  Unity is not easy!  

In matters of our own personal family, we are rightly alarmed of any structure that threatens our right to function as "family unit."  This genuine ordained protective nature, translates into a broader areas of cultures, states, and regions.  But is the church one family, or is it just a multitudes of families joined by a common head, Jesus?  Is there one body of Christ, or numerous bodies of Christ?  Is there a combination of these concepts?

Although some of the "body" passages in the NT  – I Cor. 12, Eph. 4, Romans 12 have application locally, do they have any application beyond the local church?  
Practically speaking there is not doubt of our influence on one another.  But are there theological issues that we must face?  Let’s consider three points.

I.    New Testament Evidence of  both independence and interdependence

II.    Historical Issues

III.    Practical Applications and Suggestions

I.    New Testament Evidence Part I
Connecting Ligaments
Eph. 4 : 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,  12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14  Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.  15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.  16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

There seems to be general agreement that Ephesians is not an epistle written to one specific congregation, but more likely to the group of churches in Asia Minor.  The word "Ephesus" in 1:2 is not in some our best early manuscripts (The earliest and most important MSS omit "in Ephesus" (∏46 å° B° 6 1739 [McionT,E]).  There are very little personal references in the letter, an unlikely event since Paul spent the most time there of all his efforts (compare Romans where we know he has never been and see his list of greetings in chapter 16).  There is also the practice of Paul writing letters to that particular region that he intended to be passed among the churches  (Col. 4:16  After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.).

From these scriptures what are some general principles:

1. Certain spiritual gifts are used to equip and unite the saints.  Apostles/Prophets (scripture), evangelists, pastor-teachers are gifts that are meant to help the church reach the unity in the faith and maturity.  They are meant to be connecting ligaments that bind the church together throughout regions and the world.  Either those gifts are being used for unity, or by their same power they are being used to keep people apart.   Either evangelists and elders/teachers are working at connecting churches, or  they are working at keeping churches at a distance.  We have seen this in our history.  Most members have a great desire to be connected.  It was true in the New Testament Church as well.  Paul’s relationship with even churches that he planted was often undermined by new leaders who came in and turned the church away from it founding father, Gal. 1:6-7,  II Cor.(almost the whole letter).  III John 9 describes the disruption when a leader separates the church from outside leadership(it wasn’t just Paul’s problem).
2. Paul’s instructions to evangelists/ministers like Timothy,Titus, Tychicus, Epaphras, and others  illustrate how he used them to function as "connecting ligaments" to the churches.  Titus is sent to Crete, Corinth, Dalmatia.  Timothy ministers to Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica as examples.  They were keeping all the new works connected and cared for by mature brothers.  Could these works choose another direction.  Yes – 2Tim. 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.  But is that not an example of dysfunction rather than innate rights?
3. The Restoration movement in general has only emphasized the gifts of apostles and prophets (their gift of the scriptures) as the only active gift to unify us, not any ongoing gift of evangelists and elder/teachers who work out the practical aspects of unity.  Their gifts, the latter,  are meant to be giving flesh and blood applications of the biblical principles.  The scriptures by themselves have never practically united   the Church. There has always been the need for a life lived for Christ, the added factor, that brings the truths of God to people’s hearts (Col. 1:24).  Without these specific leadership gifts working, the broad unity of the church is diminished.  There were roles that went beyond the local church in the New Testament.  And if we going to stay connected,  we  still need these gifts today.
4. There was no head of the 1st century Church.  Jesus served as that head then as He does now.  But there does seem to be leaders in key geographic areas.  Paul has his sphere of influence, James his, Apollos his, and Peter his, to name a few.  Yet tremendous effort was exerted to keep unified.  The Jerusalem meeting in Acts 15, the contribution for the poor saints in Jerusalem,  the earlier response from the  disciples in Antioch to the brothers in Judea, and many other efforts demonstrate their hearts.
5. Although Paul used the title of "apostle" to describe his office, it did not carry the same weight then as it does now in our lives.   This seems to be reflected in the lack of respect that was at time shown him.  As with most of God’s prophets, they were honored more after their death than during their lives.  Paul  would send others not just because he was an Apostle, but because he was trying to oversee the works he had begun.  The pattern was meant to be applied to others as in II Tim. 2:2,  empowering others to continue to service the churches that he had begun.

II.    Historical Examples in Acts and the Epistles, Part II
The methodology of Paul was to group churches regional to insure support and connection.  There are regions that Paul specifically mentions.  In addition, other regions are mentioned by Peter and others.  For example – Judea, Galilee, Samaria, Phrygia, Galatia, Achaia, Pontus, Cappadoica, Asia, and Bithynia are listed and addressed as regions(Acts 9:31, 13:49, 16:6; 2 Cor. 11:10; I Peter 1:1).

In addition to regions, Peter, Paul, and James (and others) served in some capacity supervising over regions.  There are regional responsibilities exercised by commended brothers.  They seem to work together and influence each other though not without some tension.  Paul, Peter, and James sharpened one another’s perspective and stretched each other’s spiritual understanding.  They all worked to forge unity against the forces that would naturally separate.  Paul’s collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem surely was Paul’s attempt to not only meet their physical needs but to  keep the Jewish and Gentile disciples tied together as well as portray to his Jewish brothers the impact of the Gospel on the Gentiles.  They took each other’s counsel to insure that they helped unify rather than divide and make sure they were not running in vain (Gal. 2:2; Acts 21:22ff).  Whether it is Paul correcting Peter in Antioch, Gal. 2, or James advising Paul in his last trip to Jerusalem on reducing the tension caused by his mission trips, they were very much involved in that great task to keep unified.

Financially, the different regions would aid each other as well.  The Achians supported Paul while he was in Corinth.  I am sure many would have had to support Paul while under house arrest in Rome with the tremendous expense of being housed and feed in the most expensive city in the world at that time, Rome.  Mission trips would require great amounts of funding to go from place to place in the Roman world.  Travel was not less expensive in the 1st Century, but more.

III.    Practical Suggestions and Considerations

1. We must keep the same resolve to work at unity in our day.  There is no doubt that the New Testament Church was spread across a broad geographic areas that prevented good communication and fellowship.  If Thomas made it to India and Paul to Spain, I am sure they had little contact.  In our day, to use a phrase coined by Thomas Friedman, "the world is flat."  If the NT church could have communicated as we can, would they have used those tools?  We are all a day’s travel from one another and available instantly to interact verbally and visually.  What would have taken  traveling evangelists in the 1st century weeks and months, for us it only hours(and we complain about that!).
2. Though we are fairly comfortable in supporting a formal benevolent organization to coordinate our help to those in need, which has no NT precedent, we are uncomfortable supporting a supra church organization that does the same in regard to the mission of the church.  Is it possible to have some commended brothers who can have some regional responsibilities and financial support to help encourage and connect the churches.  Shouldn’t these brothers particularly make sure they stay in contact with other regions to help bind the church together world wide?  II Cor. 10:15 Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others. Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand,  16 so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you. Though the Apostle Paul supported himself on occasion, there is no doubt that he was generally supported from the outside.  
3. Although there is at least one example of a localized evangelist, Philip, that seemed to be the exemption not the rule.  In our day that practice seems reversed where exception has become the rule.  Traveling evangelists were the practice and example in Acts and the Epistles.  Do we need some who travel to connect the churches as in the 1st Century?  The question is not so much have we "gone beyond what is written", but are we "practicing what is written?"   Our movement is still kept together by brothers and sisters who travel to connect.
4. We cannot be controlled by the past.  The abuses of authority may have been in the hands of the few on occasion in over organized and controlled groups or in the hands of the many  on occasion where autonomous churches function with little or no  input from any outside their local church.  Positions of authority reveal hearts, they do not by themselves corrupt.  If as the common proverb says "absolute power, corrupts absolutely", then how is Jesus explained if he is truly man.  He was absolutely powerful but not corrupted.  Positions of authority only reveal hearts – thus there were good kings as well as bad.  It was the role of king that was the problem; it only revealed the heart.  This is not advocating a King(we have one – Jesus), but it is encouraging us to empower leadership rather than being paralyzed by what might go wrong.  Things go wrong in every setting.  Thus we need structures that help us guard our hearts and keep us focused on the values that Christ would desire.  

These are just some thoughts and observations, not a new proposal for a supra church structure.  Yet we must examine the scriptures and diligent pursue a unity that is demanded and expected by our Lord.  

Church Builders Committee
Mike Fontenot, Scott Green, Dinesh George, John Louis, Douglas Arthur, and Shawn Wooten