Church Unity & Merger Expectations
"10 Now I encourage you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Agree with each other and don’t be divided into rival groups. Instead, be restored with the same mind and the same purpose." - 1 Corinthians 1:10
I wonder what Paul would think about our many denominations?
I know he could never conceive of the way our churches are divided. And I do not even mean that we cannot or do not get along. I intend only that the separate denominational structures would have been beyond his comprehension.
What we do know from Paul's writing is that he believed in unity among Christians. In the book of Corinthians, Paul is encouraging those who follow Jesus to do everything they can to agree with each other and not divided. He then explains that part of the argument the people of Corinth were having was over whether someone followed Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Jesus.
Paul then asks, "Has Christ been divided."
The answer to that question is supposed to be No.
But 2000 years later, the answer is yes in so many ways.
It has been that way for a long time.
Acts 15, is the best scriptural example of a church disagreement and how it was resolved. The final decision went like this:
"19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” - Acts 15:19-21
The Apostles and elders involved in making this decision were clearing roadblocks (Isaiah 57:14) so that the Gentiles who had their lives changed by Jesus could continue to grow in their faith. Sometimes we take the gospel to people, and they experience the Good News of Jesus Christ, they are saved, and show signs of the Holy Spirit, they bear fruit, and then we (well-meaning as we are) cut them off from the means of grace and growth. We do this for a myriad of reasons, some more biblical than others.
But, I wonder how many of us were saved and sanctified in one day, or even one year? The journey of becoming like Jesus takes a lifetime. Yet, so often in our limited thinking, we want to see change instantaneously, or we impose a preset date that we formulate in our minds. With that said, It is worth noting that the Gentiles were given standards to live by. The Jerusalem Council's decision was not to go and live any way the people want to live. There is tension surrounding how we view these standards, and how much grace we extend that makes it difficult to remain united as Paul tells the Corinthians.
At the end of Acts 15, you will notice that Paul and Barnabas even went their separate ways. Perhaps we learn here that Paul, as well as Barnabas, were perfectly flawed human beings. In my opinion, both men come off poorly in this disagreement. Paul appears especially petty, but I know I have made similar choices about working with people. I must be perfectly flawed too.
Whether Paul and Barnabas had good reason or not to divide over their disagreement, Paul certainly comes across as a hypocrite. While I am sure he would offer a convincing argument that would leave me looking silly if he ever read this, I am sticking to my opinion. Read Acts 15 for yourself and make your own determination. Paul is guilty of creating exactly what he warned against in 1 Corinthians 1:12, i.e. "I belong to Paul, I belong to Barnabas."
However, it would take another 1500 years and the Protestant Reformation before denominations formed as we see them today.
Paul and Barnabas set a (negative) standard that I believe Christians have followed ever since. It is in our DNA. Yet, God worked through the division of Paul and Barnabas, and God works through our divisions to reach a wider variety of people. That is how I have always justified and understood denominations.
But it is not God's ideal for Christians or for the church to be divided.
And just because God can work all things to good (Romans 8:28), does not mean we should not strive for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven; we should strive for unity. While I can see how God has worked through the division, I feel compelled to believe we could do so much better/more if we worked together.
So should all of the churches merge?
Maybe? But not necessarily, and certainly not if the merger means a dying church attaching itself to a healthy church, and thereby dragging both churches down in the process.
One example I am familiar with was a vibrant smaller congregation that was bringing new people in regularly (also doing discipleship well) and outgrowing their building that merged with an older shrinking congregation that had done well financially. The older shrinking congregation incorrectly thought because they had all the money they should be the primary leadership in the merged church. This is an unfortunate way of thinking that has permeated our churches and even drives our denominational systems and decisions.
At the same time, the smaller vibrant, and growing congregation correctly thought they should be the primary leadership in the merged church because they were the ones who were growing. You read that correctly, I said the growing congregation should have been the ones who had the primary leadership role. Not only were they growing, but they were also doing discipleship well.
Most people reading this right now are thinking why not share the leadership equally. While I consider that a viable middle-of-the-road option that will appease some of the people, we know from decades of experience that in the end if you merge two churches of 100 you will get one church of 100. That is called merger math. No matter what we do or do not do, people will be mad and will leave.
If the church that was struggling and shrinking makes up half of your leadership and has an equal voice, then there is a good chance your church will continue many of the unfruitful practices of the struggling shrinking church. The once vibrant church now becomes a stagnant congregation with a larger building. We witnessed this time and time again with church mergers beginning in the 1960s until recent times.
But recently, we have witnessed a change in the success of mergers.
So what has changed?
For one, we have witnessed healthier (often larger) churches partnering with smaller struggling churches and coming along beside them to help them become a healthy church. In these cases, it is clearer who should carry the primary leadership role, which does away with one of the initial struggles of merging two churches of comparable sizes. If the struggling church is willing, the healthier church will teach them what they need to do so that they can become a vital ministry.
It is like the TV Show The Profit, where entrepreneur Marcus Lemonis helps struggling businesses become viable. One of Marcus' rules is that he is 100% in charge (no matter how much of the company he buys, for example, if he becomes 40% owner of the company, he still says he is 100% in charge of the decisions the company makes going forward). That is what our struggling churches need, an injection of fruitful DNA. This process takes a lot of humility from both churches. And both churches must put their love for Jesus and His mission at the forefront of everything they do and before their personal preferences.
The second change in recent years that works well with partnering churches is the innovation of the multisite church. The multisite church movement has made merging churches a practical and even advantageous option for many churches, especially for smaller struggling congregations. The multisite movement has put a new spin on how a merger should look. Instead of two churches combining into one building, the multisite movement has created the option for two (or more) churches to become one, but in two (or more) locations. There is a shared vision and mission and shared leadership. The multisite merged congregations now have double the capacity to help them reach more people and to disciple the people already in their community.
All mergers and church partnerships require humility. They require all parties involved to put Jesus' mission at the forefront of all of their decisions. And it takes constant work to live out Paul's words to the people in Corinth, to be united, and not divided, and where division exists to be "restored with the same mind and the same purpose."
Maybe merging is not the answer for your church, but being united should be. Working together should be. Putting all of our differences aside so that Christ's body is not divided should be one of our top priorities. Even if we do not share the same local church leadership or the same denominational structures we should desire the best for our brothers and sisters in Christ and support their ministries. I know it is easier said than done, but it is what the Bible tells us we are to do.
So how do you know if your church should consider partnering with or merging with another church (or multiple churches)?
Would partnering/merging with another congregation help improve your church's ability to make disciples?
Would you be a stronger church, and will your church help strengthen the ministries of the partnering church?
Number three is connected to number two: Is your church willing to change and do you have the humility to default to best practices and the proven experience of the partnering church?
Would your community most likely be a better place if your churches had a shared vision and mission? And shared resources?
Could more people hear about Jesus and learn about Jesus because of your partnership?