The Shaping of a Network: How A Post-Denominational Connectional Church Is Being Formed (Part II)
Bob Hyatt
February 8, 2012

The Practices of a Network:  Church Planting – From Centralized Function to Collaborative Mission

One of the primary reasons for any church network to exist is to facilitate the more rapid development of church multiplication.  Almost all of the new forms of church networks have this as their original goal and many of our historical denominations could attribute this kind of work to their original intention in formation.  Indeed, most of those that have developed traction and momentum have kept this as their organizing goal (Acts 29, Redeemer, ARC) and even those that were once stagnant and returned to church multiplication as a collaborative goal, have experienced new life and energy (Baptist General Conference/Converge, The Christian Church)..  Clearly, this focus aligns with the sentness of the church in community with one another. There is no shortage of studies to remind us that the starting of a new community of faith is the greatest evangelistic tool that the church has in its repertoire (even though the forms those new communities should take can morph over time).

In established denominational circles (again, the church “networks” of the past), church planting has been one of several departments housed in the denominational office or hierarchy.  There were professionals assigned to the task of starting a new denominational branch in an area that was lacking one at the time.  In general, the pattern of organizing and developing the church was similar in every circumstance.  Churches within the association understood that it was the central office’s job to start new works.  They may need to act as a sponsor congregation or to send a few people to help initiate the new start, but this was rarely at the initiative of the congregation.

In the network philosophy, church planting will occur as the leaders of various churches in the network collaborate with one another, both in leadership and finances, to initiate new communities of faith. The post-denominational network will equip and facilitate church-planting and church-planting partnerships between churches.  While there could be avenues and possibilities of funding for church-plants coming through the centralized network, the majority of resources for church planting in the post-denominational network will be derived from church partnerships and relationships. Just like dax realtime it will also lead to greater investment in the project and relationship on behalf of both the church plant and the sponsoring church.  The network could provide leadership to recruiting, assessing, and training potential church planters as well as providing ongoing coaching and skill development during the planting process.  Yet, the majority of this work will be accomplished by pastors and church planters within the network.

In general, this is how the Ecclesia Network has developed in relationship to church planting.  Unlike many denominations, there is no centralized pot of money from which a project can draw support or a salary.  Funds generally come from partner churches within the network, from funds raised by the planters themselves, from a core team, or from some form of bi-vocational work by those planting the new community.  Often, all of these avenues are necessary in putting together a viable financial plan for planting.

Through Ecclesia, a number of the critical components of planting new communities are offered.  Each year we sponsor our church planters training.  We have always offered coaching in Ecclesia, but now coaching for church planters is becoming more organized and required if planting with Ecclesia.  In many places, regional meet ups are available to connect with other ministry leaders and when they are not we are working strengthening relationships and connectedness through phone and Skype.  Practitioners are the ones involved in developing and guiding all of this and we are constantly seeking to bring more recent church planters into the church multiplication work of Ecclesia because they offer a critical perspective along with those who have involved in planting work for or 10 or 20 years.  In addition, because there are no one (or even two or three) models of church planting within Ecclesia, it is even more critical to show a varied approach.

Our next steps in this realm could be summed up in two phrases – more new communities of faith and better new communities of faith.  I use the phrase “communities of faith” because I expect (along with several others) that the shape of new churches in the future may look less and less like “church planting” as we’ve known it in the past.  Or, at least it will take longer for these new communities to look like a “church plant” that we are used to.  Our increasingly post-Christian culture in many places is a primary factor in that development – calling for more and time needed to cultivate a new community in context.

Tithe.ly is Partnering with Ecclesia!

By Bob Hyatt • September 15, 2025
A New Ecclesia Network Benefit! 

An Ethical Response to Violence

By By Jim Pace • September 15, 2025
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, social media has been filled with perspectives, as is typically the case. I am reluctant to add mine as there seems to be no lack one way or the other. To be clear, this is not just about Charlie Kirk, this is about violence across the board. I did not feel led to write this because it was Charlie Kirk specifically, but rather another in a long and winding line of acts of violence, that my ministering at Va. Tech gives me a bit of personal experience with. But as I have just finished teaching two classes on Christian Ethics, and as I was encountering again the spread of responses from my Christian sisters and brothers, I felt led to look at this event through that lens. Ethics, at its base, seeks to answer the question, “What is better or worse? Good or bad?” As a follower of Jesus, this is what seems right to me… 1. We never celebrate harm. Whatever our disagreements, rejoicing at a shooting violates the bedrock claim that every person bears the imago Dei (Gen 1:27). Scripture is explicit: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Prov 24:17); “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44); “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). I don’t love blasting verses like this, but you cannot get away from them if you are reading the scriptures. 2. Moral responsibility sits with the shooter—full stop . Saying “his rhetoric got him shot” smuggles in a just-world logic that excuses violence. As a contextual theologian, I have an enormous amount of respect for the impact our various narratives have in shaping our understandings of the world around us. They are inescapable. But that is not what I am talking about here. Ideas can be wrong, harmful, or worth opposing vigorously, but vigilante ‘payback’ is never a Christian category. My primary gig is that of a consultant for churches and non-profits. Today, in my meetings and among friends, I have heard some variation of “He got what he deserved,” and “I vote for some very public justice for the shooter.” Both of these views speak of revenge; the follower of Jesus is called to lay these down as our Messiah did. Not asked to, told to. 3. Grief and outrage about gun violence are legitimate; schadenfreude is not . Channel the pain toward nonviolent, concrete action (policy advocacy, community intervention, survivor support), not dehumanization. Here are four thinkers who have had a profound impact on the Christian ethic I try to work out in this world. As I share them, three things are worthy of mention. One, I certainly do not claim to follow their guidance perfectly, and at times I do not even do it well, but they have all given me what seems like a Jesus-centered and faith-filled direction to move in. Second, I do not claim to speak for them in this particular matter; I am merely showing how my ethical lens has been formed. Third, clearly I am not dealing with all the components of our response to these types of violence, this is not a comprehensive treatment, merely the reflections in the moment. Stanley Hauerwas : “Christian nonviolence is not a strategy to rid the world of violence.” It’s part of following Jesus, not a tactic we drop when it’s inconvenient. Stanley Hauerwas, Walking with God in a Fragile World, by James Langford, editor, Leroy S. Rouner, editor N. T. Wright : “The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love.” Simply Good News: Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good. In other words, we answer evil without mirroring it. David Fitch : Our culture runs on an “enemy-making” dynamic; even “the political rally… depends on the making of an enemy. Don’t let that train your soul.” The Church of Us vs. Them. Sarah Coakley : Contemplation forms resistance, not passivity. For Coakley, sustained prayer trains perception and courage so Christians can resist abuse and give voice against violence (it’s not quietism). “Contemplation, if it is working aright, is precisely that which gives courage to resist abuse, to give voice against violence.” Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self. Coakley would say that far too often we react before we reflect. This is the problem that Fitch is getting at in much of his writing, that our culture actually runs on antagonisms, the conflict between us. We need to find a better way.