Neighbours and Partners: relating to Local and Likeminded Churches


Neighbours and Partners: relating to Local and Likeminded Churches


What responsibilities do we have towards other churches? Keeping abreast of the relationships in our own congregations is absorbing enough. When we’re at full stretch we need a really good reason to invest precious time and energy in relationships with other churches. Why bother?

I think that we have two different kinds of responsibility when it comes to other churches:

  • We have a responsibility to like-minded churches to seeks unity as partners in the gospel. The gospel that we share unites us in Christ as brothers and sisters, with a common bond and a common task. My litmus of a partner ministry is that ‘if I were there, I’d be doing what they’re doing; and if they were here, they’d be doing what we’re doing’. We have a responsibility to like-minded churches to find the greatest degree of partnership in the gospel.
  • We have a responsibility to local churches at least as neighbours. We share a postcode, and our responsibility to know and love our neighbourhood extends to knowing and loving the other churches and church leaders. Whatever we may think of them and their ministry, the locals think of them as churches and church leaders.
If you like graphs, we can show these different responsibilities with two axes, Neighbours running horizontally, and Partnership running vertically:
NewImageThe ‘Churches Together’ model assumes that every local church is also a likeminded church, which is to confuse the categories of neighbour and Partner. In practice there will often be a degree of  partnership and locality. For example:
  • A Regional Gospel Partnership has a high degree of common gospel. We are united by a common faith and a common task, despite our denominational distinctives. But the Region can be a large area: it takes me 1 ½ hours to travel to our regular Gospel Partnership meetings. So the Gospel Partnership scores high on Gospel, and not so high on Local.
  • A local project such as a Foodbank on the other hand scores high on the local end because it serves our town. Churches in the area join in serving the neighbourhood but have modest theological common ground. We’re mainly neighbours.
  • Our real joy would be to see Local Partners, churches that are both local and like-minded. We have a clear responsibility to work with them to reach our local area for Christ. Or work out how to plant churches that will.

We can add them to the graph:


In our town, we have replaced the‘Churches Together’ group with a Church Leaders’ Forum, whose sole purpose is to get church leaders to meet. We are local and accept a low threshold for what counts as ‘Church’ and ‘Leader’. There are some benefits of working this way

  • First, as mentioned already, we don’t confuse partnership and neighbourliness.
  • Second, the Forum is the seedbed for any joint initiatives. If we needed to write to the local council about parking on a Sunday, then most churches could join in. If on the other hand one of the churches wanted to invite a Christian band for a gig, only those who are interested in joining in need to opt in. It’s the coalition of the willing. What we attempt together is a function of what he have in common.
  • Third: if and when we need to oppose positions taken by other local churches, the Forum allows us to do so in relationship. I believe that I should be able to address my opponents’ arguments as if they were in the room with me. And even better if I have already expressed them to my opponents. There will be issues that divide us. But consider two Christians in a workplace. They may go to different churches, and hold very different theological views, yet they must find a way to work together for joint Christian witness to a hostile workplace. We do not serve them well by publicly tearing chunks out of other church leaders. Neither of course do we serve them well by remaining silent on important issues. Even if other church leaders are more Neighbour than Partner in the gospel, we have a responsibility to treat them with integrity:

…the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.  (2 Timothy 2:24–26)

First published on the Gospel Partnerships’ Blog


Battle at Kruger Park (or, a parable of church membership)


Over the summer a friend pointed me to the clip on you tube called ‘Battle at Kruger Park‘. It’s eight minutes shot on a wobbly phone.

Some use it as a parable of conflict: the poor buffalo is fought over by the other animals, and that is what it can feel like to be caught up in a conflict.

However I think there is a much more positive story being told: the story of a herd of herbivores coming to the rescue. They return for the calf because it’s one of theirs. It is the calf’s cry that brings the herd back.

If we consider church membership as the church’s “Welcome to the Herd” statement, then the herd has a responsibility to look after its own. When the lions attack, we return to rescue!

Watch and enjoy. Battle at Kruger park (edited)

Here’s the link typed out