#157: On Riding My Hobby Horse about Partnerships and Associationalism Again
One more time.
Yesterday was one of those days when I was reminded that a particular hobby horse of mine isn’t merely a hobby horse; it’s true for anyone committed to the New Testament’s emphasis on ministry partnerships.
First, I was texting with two pastors in another association in my region about a funeral. One of my members had a family member who attended one of their churches. The funeral would be held at the church this brother pastors. We discussed a few of the details, times, and what not. I spoke to a different pastor about what florist he used for services in that particular area. He gave me a sound recommendation.
Within the same hour I spoke to a different pastor in my own association about our annual meeting of churches. We discussed how to best prepare to make it a positive experience for everyone, including how to advise our guest speaker on what to share with our people. We then discussed another matter in one of our churches we had been praying about from time to time. Finally, we discussed some other meetings and seminars that he anticipated on the subject of outreach, which led to a deeper discussion about discipleship and evangelism, and if there was anything we could do to help equip both our congregations on these areas better.
Within the same hour, I spoke to another ministry leader about various brothers we might be able to involve in a larger, future meeting that we were responsible for. We were trying to discern how to make our planning thorough so our eventual efforts would more likely be successful.
It would be easy for someone skeptical of my previous line of argument about the importance of partnerships, associations, and denominationalism to respond as follows: “Well yeah, but you’re an officer at two or three different organizational levels. Of course you’re having these kinds of conversations! Don’t try to impose your positive collaborative ministry experience on others. This isn’t what it has been like for everyone else.”
Respectfully, this dismissal of the portrait above fails on at least three grounds.
First, this sounds like the cancer patient who says to the skilled oncologist, “You know, I had a friend who once received this course of treatment. He didn’t end up making it, so there’s no point in me trying it. I know that my body will respond exactly as his did—even though no two cases are the same.”
The sad irony is that this person is using a negative, anecdotal experience as the basis for ignoring what could be effective. They engage in the same kind of argument they accuse me of: universalizing their experience. They’re simply doing it from the opposite perspective—a negative one.
Second, the fact that someone with a leadership role would be more apt to have conversations like those above is both true and false. In either case, it doesn’t support the critic’s argument.
They claim, “Denominationalism doesn’t work.” I say, “But you’re saying, ‘Of course moderators would be engaged in these kinds of discussions and collaborations’.” Well, yes. People with leadership roles have a special obligation to serve and support the entities (and ultimately people) for whom they’re responsible. I dunno. That sounds like normal, if not healthy, denominational life. But you aver, “Denominationalism doesn’t work.” I say, “I guess it depends on what ‘works’ means.”
If meetings are carefully planned, if people are prayed for and sincerely encouraged, if resources are strategically collected and allocated, that sounds like the semblance of healthy denominationalism.
Third, three of the four exchanges I mentioned above have nothing to do with my serving as a moderator, but merely the pastor of a local church. Moreover, I can imagine all three of those happening among non-pastors. In reality, informed, equipped, conscientious laymen (You know, disciples?) attend funerals and seminars. They try to figure out what other churches might be doing well that they can learn from. They try not to reinvent the wheel every time they start to do something.
Everyday church members benefit from being a part of churches which are themselves part of something bigger than themselves.
What’s the Alternative?
Let’s try to imagine an alternative.
Instead of speaking to fellow believers and church leaders about funerals and flowers, I’ll just Google everything. I’ll look it all up online, assuming the Internet has the specific answers I’m looking for.
Instead of being informed about needs and opportunities associated with a sister church, I’ll just limit myself to my own church. After all, all our problems (and their possible solutions) are unique to us. No one else in the world is experiencing these.
Instead of worrying about a meeting being planned well, I’ll just show up and hope for the best. Other people can take care of it. Or I just won’t waste my time going in the first place.
And since I really want to be consistent in my thinking, why do I really need to know what is happening in my own church with the various members and areas of ministry? I’m just going to give an account to God for myself and my own family. We’ll just hunker down, focus on our needs, preferences, and ideas. If it happens to intersect with other believers at some point, then we’ll worry about it then. In the meantime, we’ll just order our online groceries, connect online with people when we want to, and watch our streaming service all weekend.
Let’s Just Be Honest
I admit: I got a little snarky there at the end. But I’m simply trying to stress something that I don’t think we’re seeing. Much of the resistance toward collaborative ministry is both a microcosm and macrocosm.
In terms of the former, it reflects an inward focus that characterizes our entire way of life in the West. We increasingly turn inward, which has profound consequences. Social and voluntary organizations decline. Community engagement diminishes. Relationships among neighbors fray, or are non-existent. Our suspicion toward and ultimately rejection of denominationalism is, in so many respects, a smaller-scale example of what is happening throughout our part of the world. “Do your own thing,” in essence.
In terms of the latter, the rejection of ministry partnerships that resemble associationalism simply reveals what is happening on a day-to-day basis in our own churches and households. We get burned by a negative experience—whether it be divisiveness, controversy, or pure boredom. We then pull back from the churches, ministry areas, or people with whom we associate the negativity. That might be a fine short-term strategy to avoid frustration, but it’s a terrible strategy for cultivating virtue, finding common ground, and ultimately accomplishing anything in a fallen world.
Conclusion
I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the anecdotes I began with aren’t reflective of my daily experience. While they are more common than not, they aren’t what a day or even week in my ministry sound like.
However, the reason why such conversations and collaborations are possible at all is because I’ve opened myself fully for them. I believe in them. I am committed to them, despite the fact that they are imperfect. Moreover, God has graciously called me to them and provided them to me.
I’d be a fool to reject such a gift, and I’d be unfaithful to reject such a calling.
I’ve written about transgenderism more times than I care to count. I’ve written about it here and elsewhere.
These days, there is a slight vibe-shift. Lots of traditionalists are excited about the President’s executive orders concerning gender ideology. A helpful overview by a very thoughtful guy can be found over at the ERLC website. Theologian Gregg Allison has written an extensive review of the recent executive orders entitled, “President Trump’s executive orders on gender and sexuality.”
There’s a lot of good material here, but I’m left asking, “And we have nothing to say about the fact that no one took the time to try to pass any actual laws that will endure past Trump’s second term? This is SO important! You have both houses of Congress, and you didn’t even attempt to anchor any of these commonsense reforms into law?”
It’s startling and disturbing how many people don’t get why our system of government matters, and how to use it to do lasting good, as opposed to settling for the intoxicating highs of “owning the libs” in the next news cycle.
I am grateful for any short-term good that may be done by these executive orders. The insanity must stop. But we’ve lost sight of what good governing actually involves.
Worth a Look:
John Mark Comer is kind of the flavor of the moment right now among evangelicals—broadly defined. My exposure to him has been limited, though generally positive. However, early on I had some mild suspicion that I had seen this type of literary/spiritual approach before. Yet Samuel James has done us the service of pressing deeper into this aspect of Comer’s work. Namely, how his particular angle or project is shaped by the way in which he argues (writes).
In “The Ruthless Elimination of Paragraphs,” Sam James provocatively explains how a particular form of writing and argument isn’t conducive to the kind of deep reflection and understanding we want to engender, especially when it concerns the things of God.
The Super Bowl is a reminder of our weird, postmodern, late-capitalist, consumerized, digitized, in-it-together-whether-we-like-it-or-not-ness. Love it or hate it, we’re all gonna watch it. And we’re all gonna talk about it.
In the decades that I have followed I have learned much more about the fight against anxiety. I have learned, for instance, that anxiety is a condition of the heart that gives rise to many other sinful states of mind. Think for a moment how many different sinful actions and attitudes come from anxiety. Anxiety about finances can give rise to coveting and greed and hoarding and stealing. Anxiety about succeeding at some task can make you irritable and abrupt and surly. Anxiety about relationships can make you withdrawn and indifferent and uncaring about other people. Anxiety about how someone will respond to you can make you cover over the truth and lie about things. So if anxiety could be conquered, a mortal blow would be struck to many other sins.
John Piper, Future Grace: The Purifying Power of the Promises of God.
John Dickson, A Doubter’s Guide to World Religions.
Mark Addis, Wittgenstein: A Guide for the Perplexed.
J. Garrett Kell, How Do I Disciple Others?
There’s much to be said about the activities of the current presidential administration—some positive, some negative, and some in place between those two poles. I draw to everyone’s attention two items that (1) pro-life conservatives and (2) fiscal conservatives—and responsible, common-sense people!, should care about.
First, while the clean-up and reigning in of U.S.A.I.D. is a welcomed development, there are casualties of a using DOGE and other clean-up efforts as blunt instruments, instead of careful scalpels. Namely, the deaths of countless children abroad whose lives could be easily spared. I’m referring to the excellent work of PEPFAR, which has been taking place for over 20 years.
Read more about the call to preserve this form of foreign aid:
“As Fellow Pro-Lifers, We Are Begging Marco Rubio to Save Foreign Aid.”
Second, anyone concerned about the United States not going off a financial cliff and discovering some fiscal sanity that will benefit all should look at what is actually being proposed, and the short- and long-term implications of an unwillingness to address the drivers of short- and long-term debt: entitlement spending, defense spending, and the cost of treating preventable disease.
Instead, this is what’s on the agenda:
Make the math make sense. It doesn’t.