Ed Stetzer on the future of denominations and networks

Recently I completed a book on church planting with Stadia's president, Marcus Bigelow. The book is called, Together: Church Planting and Networks. There is a chapter in the book on networks and the future of denominations. We believe Ed Stetzer has unique insight into both networks and denominations; perhaps he is more capable than anyone in North American Evangelicalism to comment on this topic. He wrote an influential cover article on the value of denominations for the magazine Christianity Today recently and, other than Todd Wilson (Exponential), he spends more time with networks than anyone we know.

Question: Is it a wise move if denominations can become more like networks?

Stetzer: I think you’re talking about denominations becoming more network-like, and I think that makes sense. I think denominations are a lot bigger deal than networks right now. Networks are kind of the sexy thing, but the reality is that the vast majority of church planting is done by denominations, not by networks. Now, in my view, I’m a pro-network-guy and I’m a pro-denomination-guy. For me, I’m a pro-cooperation-guy and both of those are expressions of cooperation. A recent study of the Washington D.C. corridor demonstrates the point: 81 percent of the churches planted were planted by denominations, 11 percent by networks, and then the rest had some connections between the two. So you’re talking an 8 to 1 ratio between the two. So I think I’m certainly pro-networks but I am also pro denominations.

Question: How can denominations become more network-like?

Stetzer: I think we have to look at what are some of the things that networks have done. Well, first let me say, that denominations can’t become networks in some ways, because for example, you know denominations are going to have a generally more defined theological center than networks will have. Now in the case of where you guys are in Stadia — Stadia is a (and you hate the term) but it’s an intra-denominational network. You have a confessional identity that drives you and it lines up with the confessional identity of the independent Christian church movement. And so when you do that, you’re a network within a family (in your case, it’s a non-denominational denomination), but you’re a network within a family of churches. So that’s not dissimilar—it’s just really an extension of the partnerships within denominations.

Question: Can denominations embrace diversity the way many network embrace it?

Stetzer: Most denominations have more concerns about secondary and tertiary issues than networks. For example, Acts 29 has what they call an “open-hand” on issues like baptism. Well, I don’t know any denomination—well that’s not true, there are a couple—but there are no major denominations who have an open-hand on issues like baptism. I mean Baptists like baptism so much, they name their denomination after it. And so they’re not going to say, Hey let’s plant churches that baptize infants. Presbyterians follow a covenantal view of infant baptism. So I think networks tend to have more broad theological persuasions, and thus, if you look at primary issues and secondary issues and tertiary issues, denominations are going agree to disagree on tertiary issues—how you worship, how you dress, what time you meet—that kind of stuff. Whereas networks are more easily going to agree to disagree on secondary issues, like the egalitarian-complementarian dialogues, whereas denominations tend to agree on both first and second order issues.

Question: how can denominations act more like networks?

Stetzer: I think that denominations can be network-like, but they’re not going to be as broad as networks. I think that the way they can do that is to create affinity fellowships within their denominational community that are network-like. Now, by affinity fellowships, I think that one of the reasons networks work—lets take Stadia—Stadia is largely a connection of contemporary churches within the independent Christian movement that tended to launch large, using teams, and those are all values that under gird the movement (I recognize that there are exceptions to that). Acts 29—primarily younger, indie-rock listening, urban church planters; and GlocalNet tends to be driven by certain values. But they all have certain affinity with one another, but denominations have an affinity generally based on theology. Whereas networks tend to have an affinity based upon methodology or socio-cultural focus or things of that sort. Now there are exceptions, but in networks people end up getting together with people in networks that are like them, doing similar things, and they can relate to well. When denominations get together, you have the guy with jeans with the untucked shirt next to the guy in the suit and tie, next to the Latino pastor who barely speaks English, next to the African-American pastor in a three-piece suit, who are all gathered together because of the same theological affinity. It is harder to build relational bridges in a denomination than it is in the network because the networks tend to look more like. It’s easier to be friends with people more like you. Now, that has some negatives, too

Question: because much of the pull of networks, as you describe, is being with people who are like you, how can denominations embrace this kind of thing?

Stetzer: First they can recognize that churches are going to network, whether or not the denominations like the idea of networks. Churches are not asking for the denominations permission to form up a network. When a Presbyterian Church of America church is joining Acts 29 network, they’re not calling their Presbytery and saying, “hey is this okay with you?” As a matter of a fact, I would guess their Presbytery would rather not, because their presbytery is likely to think, “hey, you’re taking all that energy and you’re putting all that energy into Acts 29 when we’d like you to put all your energy into the Presbytery.” And so I think that denominations have to first recognize that churches can join networks without the permission of the denomination in almost every denominational setting. Take the appeal of the Association of Related Churches (ARC). They are Pentecostal/Charismatic friendly—which is very attractive to many Pentecostal church planters. Many Assembly of God (AG) leaders will be drawn to a network like that, so they’ve got to realize in the AG is they will want to be network like, so it would be good to create affinity groups within that denominational family. So for example, if I want to bottle some of the network energy, I need to get my—those who see themselves as missional-incarnational-organic-church-plant-types—I need to get them in a common learning community together. And if I want to make that intra-denominational, within the denomination, it would be good. Within a denomination, I would want an affinity group of Purpose Driven, an affinity group of new reformed, an affinity group of missional-incarnational, and so on.

Question: how can denominations self-consciously promote networks?

Stetzer: I would partner with churches that are creating networks. I think that is one of the things that the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) did well. They got out of the driver’s seat of a support role for church planting. They actually got behind their churches while their churches were forming networks. So for example, the Redeemer network (based out of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, in New York, with Tim Keller as lead pastor) is a network that is supported by the infrastructure that denominational leaders have helped to foster and create. And so they work with the denomination in assessment, in coaching, and so forth. The denomination, instead of being afraid of the formation of networks, has actually said that if our churches want to plant this way, we’re going to partner with them. Likewise, the Foursquare denomination made similar moves. When they asked me to come and be the coach and consult with them for a while (and I still am), one of things we talked about is how they could become a network of networks. So the denomination has said, “the end goal is not the advance of the denomination but the work of the kingdom as expressed through the local church.” And if local churches have determined that the best way they can do that is to form networks, then denomination is wise to create space and create resources so they can be a network of networks. Now, there are challenges with that because if you ask the typical pastor, “where’s your loyalty?” sometimes their loyalty is more to the network than to the denomination but I think if you can work and say that this is a partnership between the two it is good. We want to be part of a bigger family of churches, so lets embrace the affinity energy that’s there, but at the same time I’m connecting to a large denominational family.

Question: how can church leaders help in this process?

Stetzer: I would say is that you want to let local churches lead on this, and again I think you can’t create a network because you think it’s a “cool idea” and you’re a denominational leader. I think you can help churches, and I think churches will be more likely to stay in the family when they’re recognized and affirmed as part of the family, even as they’re creating some networks along the way. So I think that, once again, it comes back to what I said a minute ago—denominations provide a supporting role—letting local churches lead out. Too many denominations are afraid of the mission strategies of their local churches and networks are one of the missions strategies that is going to grow. I think networks are not going away. I think you’re going to see more and more networks forming, but I think what’s happening is people are rethinking them.

Question: what can denominational leaders do?

Stetzer: I think you need to be willing to rethink denominational structures. I think most denominational structures were created during a time when we rode horses to our meetings and we met once a year and that’s the only time we saw each other. I think one of the things you see in networks is they have created communities that were unimaginable and impossible when most denominations were formed. Thus, you often have multiple levels or layers (depending upon their polity) that probably now overlap and are doing the same thing, and if that’s the case, you need to ask the hard question, “Are we being a good steward of the resources that the churches give us?” Networks are often providing resources and relationships which used to be gained from the denomination. Perhaps we can ask, “Is this denominational structure the right structure for the twenty-first century?” When I consult with denominations, I’m always fascinated that they are having the same conversation—they’re talking about networks, they’re talking about how they are not doing as well as they should. They often feel like their denomination is falling apart—every denomination does—they feel all of those things. So, you know, I would say that it’s not an uncommon question—“how do we relate to networks?” The answer has to be, “What are local churches looking to do and how can we reorder our strategy?” And I think too many denominations are too focused on the maintenance of the system, and they need to sometimes re-ask the question, “Is the system accomplishing what we intended it to do?” It may have accomplished that when people rode horses to the meetings. Does it now accomplish that when people go to meetings online, virtually and actually create communities and share resources together?

Question: why do so many denominations feel like they are falling apart?

Stetzer: You know, I would say that every denomination I work with thinks that it is in some form of a crisis, though the level of the crisis might be different. I was meeting with the leadership of the Foursquare and I said, How many of you think you’re denomination is in a crisis? Raise your hand right now. And I’d say the strong majority did. I did the same thing with a group of Baptists, How many? Raise your hands. It was a strong majority.

I think part of it is that denominations have lost something that really drew them together and it was tribal loyalty. There was historically a tribal loyalty along the way that denominations felt and in the process they were, you know kind of, I mean, if you were Baptist, you went to a Baptist church and you kind of connected with that. Pentecostals would hang with Pentecostals. I think some pastors are post-denominational than people because they think, I don’t want to just be identified with just one denomination. So I think that denominational loyalty is declining. Part of that is because churches are learning from other churches. A Methodist church might way, “I don’t need the Methodist publishing house for resources. I get them from Purpose Driven.” I think that, at the end of the day, people are looking to other places on how to do ministry. And, we often are loyal to those from whom we learn. That concerns many denominational leaders.

Question: are there other reasons for denominational decline and increased interest in networks?

Stetzer: I think the lack of tribal loyalty is part of it. Increasingly, people don’t like to be identified denominationally. People used to say, “I am a Presbyterian.” Then a few decades later, “I’m a Christian, first, and a Presbyterians second.” Soon it became, “I’m a Christian primarily.” So part of it is a cultural issue.

Yet, I do think that a lot of reason you have networks getting traction is because churches feel that it enables them to engage in what God has call them to do at a sharper and more focused level. I think one of the things is that people feel denominations, true or not, have become focused on the wrong things.

People say, “Well, I give to my denomination,” and they often see their denominational giving as a tax that they don’t know where it goes. So if I give, for example, two percent to the national office, the question is: “What is it paying for?” They’re not sure. Whereas when they give to the network, they know the people involved, they know the plants that it’s sponsoring.

In a network, people perceive that there is: 1) a higher connectivity with where the resources are being spent, and 2) a higher confidence that it’s being spent on things that it should be spent on and in the process of spending that their resource dollars are going to where they want them to be.

I think what you find is—and I don’t have scientific evidence to back this up—but I think what you’d find is that churches involved at the network level are often involved financially and personally in the activities of that network because they see it as more lined up with their DNA and their values and they tend to see the denomination as more distant and perhaps doing other things than primary things. Now I think that there’s a mistake to that process, as well, because ultimately like if there were only a church planting networks, then what about the orphan and the widow? I think if you’re only a church planting network, where are you going to do theological education? Acts 29 didn’t have a school, so they forged partnerships with seminaries. Then, they started a school (Re:Train). So, you have to ask, at what point does Acts 29 actually become a denomination? When it creates its own seminary, for example?

Question: can denominations become focused, as networks are focused, on church planting?

Stetzer: I think in some ways, yes, and in some ways, no. I do believe that denominations will be smaller and more focused in the years to come, and I’m not afraid of that. I think right now denominations are in a time of rethinking, and the fastest growing segment as a percentage of Protestant Christianity in America today is non-denominational. So I think you’re going to find that denominations are going to think hard about their mission—and I think this is a good thing. It’s forcing denominations to think about who they are and what they’re doing. And I think they’ll be better in the long run because of that process.

Question: is one of the things that is going to scare denominations, as they think about shifting to a network focus, going to be the finances?

Stetzer: Yeah, it’s a tough one, because I think one of the things you have to consider. Part of the challenge within a denominational family is that, depending up how you do things, some can direct their giving where they want to. See, you all come from the same kind of tradition I do—what we call a low-church, evangelical denomination. You know a lot of evangelical denominations can’t do that. So in other words, if you’re Lutheran, you’re not supposed to give money to other directions. But when you’re in a tradition like mine, you know they can give some here and some elsewhere.

If you are a denominational leader, I would say that the case has to be made that giving to the denomination is actually better stewardship. I think the competition will force the denominations to prove that they are the most efficient and effective way to give, and I tend to think that they often are from what I have seen. Now there’s always waste in every system and there’s always bureaucracy in every system. Of course, one man’s system is another man’s bureaucracy. So there’s always those issues along the way. But, in reality, many denominations do really well with their resources.

I remember a few years ago, my denomination put out a brochure showing what giving to the common mission fund in our denomination supported. They showed that it supported a certain number of seminaries, a certain number of colleges, a certain number of chaplains, missionaries, and so forth. Then they compared that giving to several major para-church ministries Using the same amount of money). These were good ministries, but it took a much larger amount to support the para church ministries to equal the systems and the structures that were in place with our denominational structures.

Question: so you think a lot of the denominational structures should stay intact?

Stetzer: I believe that churches should decide, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, what is the best way to support God’s mission through their church. And if they think a network is to do that, I think a network needs to be the way to do that. In my observation, I’ve seen denominations to be an effective way to do that. Denominations are getting a lot done, often without notice.

When you go overseas and you go to the last frontier of the ten/forty window you don’t often find, I’m sent out by such and such network. No… you find PCA missionaries, Assemblies of God missionaries, SBC missionaries, and the like. I’m pro-networks and have spoken to dozens of network meetings, but I think we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time and that both networks and denominations need to exist and both need to be valued and both need to be working together for the gospel and the kingdom.

Question: What are some things that networks can do to make themselves more friendly to denominations?

Stetzer: The cooperative and collaborative attitude does need to go both ways. As we have said, there are things that denominations do that networks don’t. Networks have to allow people who are in their network to support and be connected to their denominational system and their denominational obligations. I think if I’m a network, I should say, “you need to first give to your denominational connection and support your fair share, and then anything you give above that should go to the network.” So I think helping denominations to see that you’re not trying to undercut them. I will tell you my experience is that most network churches are also denominational churches and the denomination is often giving more money to the church plant than the network is. Now that’s not always the case, but it’s very common that it is the case. And so what I would say is that I think you’ve have to respect that process and that strategy.

Second thing is I’d be very careful not to demean denominations. Denominations are not the dinosaurs of the past. Denominations are very much engaged in mission in the present. And again, that’s not cool to some, that’s not sexy, but that is statistically accurate. I would say if you’re going to be partners, you’re going to have to act like partners. And doesn’t mean kind of secretly or privately demeaning the partners as well. And that goes both ways, because I hear denominational leaders demeaning networks at times as well.

Question: What do you see for a possible path into the future?

Stetzer: I think it would be a fascinating thing to engage the networks in partnership with the denominational strategy to focus on certain mission projects and endeavors that require a higher level of involvement. For example, let’s say there’s a network in Houston that forms of contemporary church planters in Houston, that’s a part of the Assemblies of God or some other denomination. I would say, I think the wise denomination would invite that network and say to that network, We’re so glad you’re there, you’re planting churches in and around Houston, but as a network, why don’t you adopt this certain people group in Turkey and we have missionaries on the ground there too.

I think the future involves multiple partnerships. I think the future may look in some ways in churches like Nascar—where you have kind of a series of logos on your car. I think church planters are very entrepreneurial and very smart and I think you know that they sometimes wear the logos to get the funding—but that’s not why you should be in a denomination or a network.

Church planters need to have integrity to only join networks and denominations that they can actually be involved and engaged with along the way. But if they join a denomination and a network—it would be hard to join more than that with intergrity—I would encourage them to be involved in both.

For example, most church planting networks are local, not all, but most are going to be U.S.-focused or even regionally-focused. And so to be involved with a denomination at the same time gives you some global opportunities as well that aren’t there within the network. I think denominations should not see networks as threats but I think networks need to work to be less threatening.

Question: If you had a guy in a room—he’s young, wanting to plant a church—what would you tell him to give him to inspire him to work with both a network and a denomination?

Stetzer: I think I would say to him that unless this network is comprehensive, much like more of a denomination is, the network is probably not going to be the only way that this local church is going to connect in God’s global mission. But, if that pastor wants to be in both, I would encourage ways to find partnerships in both. But what I would mostly say is to remember that God has called that pastor and that church to be engaged in God’s mission globally, and by globally I’m not just talking about internationally, I mean everywhere—here, there, everywhere. If that’s the case, if God’s called us to be involved globally, then they need to be a steward of the resources that God has given them.

And, would want my people involved at a higher level. I think is that one of the reasons that people are being attracted to networks is that they want a higher level of involvement. If I was pasturing in Cleveland, I’d be open to getting involved in a network there so my people could also be involved. ,

For me, it boils down to what God is calling that local church to do. Denominations and networks are tools, not the goal. The advance of the gospel is the goal. I think we need to discerningly use those tools to accomplish that scriptural goal.