Chapter 30 THE CITY AND THE GOSPEL ECOSYSTEM
How can a city’s churches become unified enough to be a movement of the gospel, even a movement of movements? They need to be part of a citywide movement of churches and ministries that exist in a supportive, mutually stimulating relationship. The assumption behind this idea is that no one kind of church- no one church model or theological tradition - can reach an entire city. Reaching a city requires a willingness to work with other churches, even churches that hold to different beliefs and practices - a view sometimes called “catholicity.”
Many evangelicals have been conditioned to cringe at the “holy catholic church” phrase in the Apostles’ Creed. The Greek word katholikos is not used to describe the church in the New Testament, but it certainly expresses a biblical teaching that, as Edmund Clowney put it, “the church as a whole is more than the local church.”1 In Acts, the various local gatherings of believers are constantly called the church in a city or region: “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers” (Acts 9:31; see 11:22; 15:3). In Acts 1:8, the task of healing the long-standing breach of the northern and southern kingdoms is given, and the summary statements at 6:7; 12:24; 19:20; and 28:31 demonstrate the “peace” described in 9:31. All of this communicates that it is the restored kingdom alluded to in 1:6 that marches into Rome. It is the unified people of God whom the Spirit uses to reach the far ends of the earth (1:8; cf. Isa 8:9; 48:20; 44:6; 62:11) with the gospel- even Rome! In other words, unity is not simply the work of the Spirit but the very instrument through which the Spirit works. This is why it is vital to maintain the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:3; Phil 2:1-4).
Catholicity-denying sectarianism results in unnecessary division. If two churches differ in their beliefs and practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, then two different churches they will have to be–but it doesn’t mean they cannot cooperate in other ways. To be estranged in ministry from other true believers who are members of the “wrong” denomination is to fail to welcome those whom Christ himself has welcomed. A movement needs the dynamic of cooperation that encourages people of different temperaments and perspectives to come together around their common vision and goals. In fact, part of what we see in the dynamism of a movement is people who “knock heads” and then come up with creative new initiatives because they share a vision and yet are very different in terms of denominations, temperaments, and personalities. If this bias for cooperation is absent in a city, the movement dynamic typically stalls or erodes.
Catholicity-denying racism reflects a lack of cultural flexibility and gospel humility. Embracing people of different races and cultures requires each cultural group within the church to flex as it serves the others. Cultural differences will range from the small (punctuality, for instance) to the great (music’s form and words or the illustrations and applications of the preaching of the Word).
Catholicity and nonsectarianism are important for an additional reason. Unlike the Christendom era that fostered a sense of Christian distinctives among Christian groups, it is much more illuminating and helpful today for churches to define themselves in contrast to the values of the non-Christian culture. As noted earlier, if we bash and criticize other kinds of churches, we play into the common opinion that all Christians are intolerant. If we are not united, the world writes us off, and perhaps, in light of Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17:23 (“May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me”), they have a right to do so! While we must continue to align ourselves in denominations that share our theological distinctives, at the local level our bias should be in the direction of cooperation with other congregations.
Because of this belief, Redeemer Presbyterian Church has for a number of years given money and resources to churches of other denominations that are planting churches. We have helped to start Pentecostal churches, Baptist churches, and Anglican churches, as well as Presbyterian churches. For our efforts we have received sharp criticism and a lot of amazed stares. We believe this is one clear way to practice the kind of catholicity that turns a city of balkanized Christian churches and denominations into a movement.
CHURCH MODELS AND MOVEMENTS
There is no single way of doing church that employs the right biblical or even the right cultural model. What the Bible tells the church to do - witness, serve the needy, preach the Word, disciple people, worship—is so rich and multifaceted that no church will ever do all of them equally well, simply because no single church has all the spiritual gifts in equal proportions. While no church should stop trying to do everything that God calls it to do, no one church will fulfill these roles perfectly. So the city as a whole needs all kinds of churches. Recognizing the reality of multiple church models humbles us - we see we can’t be all things to all people - and also encourages us to reach out and cooperate with other churches.
In our discussion of the need for balanced ministry fronts in chapter 23, we looked at the five models of church proposed by Avery Dulles: “the church as institution” (which we might call doctrine driven); “the church as mystical communion” (worship driven); “the church as sacrament” (community driven); “the church as herald” (evangelism driven); and “the church as servant” (justice driven). In a later edition of his book, Dulles offers a model called “the church as community of disciples” in which he envisions a church that combines all the elements in proper balance. 2 Naturally, I concur that all good churches include these five elements and emphases to some degree. This is why the healthy example of each model emphasizes its main element(s) while also giving some weight to the emphases of other models. An unhealthy version of each model emphasizes one or two of these aspects and virtually ignores the others. Above all, a church’s gift mix and context will dictate what it will do best in certain ministries and at certain seasons in its life.
CLOWNEY ON CATHOLICITY
Catholicity means that the church is Christ’s. We cannot exclude those whom he welcomes, or welcome those whom he excludes … Sectarianism denies catholicity, for by its refusal to recognize other communions as true churches of Christ, it denies the fellowship that Christ requires.
– Edmund Clowney, The ChurchRacism also denies Catholicity. Not long ago, white American churches stationed “color guards” to bar black worshipers, directing them to a suitable congregation on the other side of the tracks.
– Edmund Clowney, The ChurchThe catholicity of the church may also be denied, not out of prejudice but in order to facilitate church growth. It has been convincingly demonstrated that numerical growth takes place most readily when appeal is made directly to one “people group”-one unit sociologically defined… It has the effect of making the church a subset of secular society rather than the manifestation on earth of the kingdom of Christ.
– Edmund Clowney, Living in Christ’s Church
Not only is it important to enlarge your vision to see the necessity of all models in a city movement; it is vital to identify the features of the church model where you presently serve. Many problems arise if we minister as though we are in one particular model when we are really in another. When I was in college and seminary, I participated in fairly healthy churches that were closest to the doctrine-driven model. They stressed excellent public teaching and preaching and intense Bible study. After seminary, the first church I served was in a small, blue-collar factory town in the South. At that time, almost none of its members had attended college, and most of the older members had not finished high school. It had been a church of 100 to 150 people for thirty years and was relatively unhealthy. Although I had a strong notion of the difference between unhealthy/stagnant and healthy/renewed, I had no concept of different church models. I had only seen healthy churches within the framework of one particular church model worked out only in college towns filled with professors and students. My vision for this church’s renewal was great Bible exposition, seminars and classes on Christian subjects, and intense small group Bible studies.
Over the years I came to discover that this was a congregation filled with diaconal gifts (“priestly” gifts, not “prophetic” gifts of teaching, knowledge, and evangelism). It was fundamentally a community-driven model. Grasping this was a slow and frustrating process. As I look back, my emphases did help the church because they contributed to balancing its community model with better (but never excellent) teaching, education, and evangelism. Eventually, I stopped trying to force things and began to accept more of what the church actually was. I was very slow and stubborn, but in the end I gave in before anyone lost too much patience with me. A key to this process was staying at the church for nine years.
Years after I left this church, the congregation hosted a reception for Kathy and ine on the twenty-fifth anniversary of my ordination. At one point in the festivities, a number of people shared one thing they remembered hearing me say during my ministry among them. It struck me afterward that not one person quoted iny words from a sermon! Every single person shared something I had said during one-on-one pastoral care. This experience vividly illustrates the difference in church models. In New York City, people let me pastor them because they appreciate my preaching. In Hopewell, Virginia, people let me preach to them because they appreciated my pastoring. In a community-driven model, the pastoring sets up the preaching; it earns you the right to preach. In the doctrine-driven model of Redeemer in New York, the preaching sets up the pastoring and even the leading. People will let you into their lives and follow you if you demonstrate your expertise in communication.
Why is understanding church models essential in enabling a city’s churches to work together in unity? Without this understanding, there will be no catholicity in your city. Unless you accept the fact that there is not one exclusively biblical church model, you will not see the need for strong fellowship and connections to other denominations and networks, which usually embody different emphases and strengths than the ones that characterize your model. What’s more, there also will be no catholicity in your church, denomination, or movement. Without an acceptance of multiple biblical church models, your own movement and network may plant cookie-cutter churches in neighborhoods where that model is inappropriate or may employ leaders whose gifts don’t fit it. Your own movement would risk becoming too homogeneous, reaching only one kind of neighborhood or one kind of person, and fail to reflect the God-ordained diversity of humanity in your church. As inuch as we want to believe that most people will want to become our particular kind of Christian, it is not true. The city will not be won unless many different denominations become dynamic mini-movements.
GOSPEL CITY MOVEMENTS AND GOSPEL ECOSYSTEMS
We have seen the prerequisites for churches and ministers to contribute to gospel city movements - including an understanding and appreciation of various church models and a spirit of catholicity that is nevertheless doctrinally robust and sensitive. But what exactly is a gospel movement in a city?
When a church or a church network begins to grow rapidly in a city, it is only natural for the people within the ministry to feel that God is making a difference in that place. Often, however, what is really going on is “Christian reconfiguration.” When churches grow, they typically do so by drawing believers out of less vital churches. This can be a good thing if the Christians in these growing churches are being better discipled and if their gifts are being effectively deployed. Nevertheless, if this is the key dynamic, then the overall body of Christ in the city is not growing; it is simply reconfiguring. Reaching an entire city, then, takes more than having some effective churches in it, or even having a burst of revival energy and new converts. Changing a city with the gospel takes a movement.
When a gospel city movement occurs, the whole body of Christ grows faster than the population so that the percentage of Christians in the city rises. We call this a movement because it consists of an energy that extends across multiple denominations and networks. It does not reside in a single church or set of leaders or in any particular command center, and its forward motion does not depend on any one organization. It is organic and self- propagating, the result of a set of forces that interact, support, sustain, and stimulate one another. We can also call it a gospel ecosystem. Just as a biological ecosystem is made of interdependent organisms, systems, and natural forces, a gospel ecosystem is made of interdependent organizations, individuals, ideas, and spiritual and human forces. When all the elements of an ecosystem are in place and in balance, the entire system produces health and growth as a whole and for the elements themselves. 2
Can we produce a gospel city movement? No. A movement is the result of two broad sets of factors. Once again I’ll refer to the metaphor of gardening (see 1 Cor 3:6-8). A garden flourishes because of the skill and diligence of the gardener and the condition of the soil and the weather. The first set of factors-gardening- is the way we humanly contribute to the movement. This encompasses a self-sustaining, naturally growing set of ministries and networks, which we will look at in more detail below.
But the second set of factors in a movement - the conditions-belongs completely to God. He can open individual hearts (“soil”) to the Word (“seed”) in any numbers he sovereignly chooses. And he can also open a culture to the gospel as a whole (“weather”). How does God do this? Sometimes he brings about a crisis of belief within the dominant culture. Two of the great Christian movements - the early church of the second and third centuries and the church in China in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries- were stimulated by crises of confidence within their societies. The belief in the gods of Rome - and belief in orthodox Marxism in China-began falling apart as plausible worldviews. There was broad disaffection toward the older “faiths” among the population at large. This combination of cultural crisis and popular disillusionment with old ways of belief can supercharge a Christian movement and lift it to greater heights than it can reach in a culture that is indifferent (rather than hostile) to Christians. There can also be catastrophes that lead people of a culture to look to spiritual resources, as when the Japanese domination of Korea after 1905 became a context for the large number of conversions to Christianity that began around that time.
GOSPEL POLEMICS
All Christian movements must be characterized by a willingness to unite around commonly held central truths and to accept differences on secondary matters that—in the view of the partners - do not negate our common belief in the biblical gospel. To maintain a healthy movement over time, we have to engage in direct discussion about any doctrinal errors we perceive. Yet in doing so, we must show respect for the other party and aim to persuade them, not punish them.How can we do this? I suggest the following principles for “polemics”-contending over doctrine-seasoned in tone and strategy by the gospel itself. As I’ve read respected Christian authors over the years, I’ve distilled some “rules of engagement” to avoid polemics or pursue it in spiritually constructive ways.
1. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own. Nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Archibald Alexander realized that doing so would harden opponents in their views. “Attribute to an antagonist no opinion he does not own, though it be a necessary consequence.”4 In other words, even if you believe that Mr. A’s belief X could lead others who hold belief X to hold belief Y, do not accuse Mr. A of holding belief Y if he disowns it. You may consider hiin inconsistent, but this is not the same as insisting that he actually holds belief Y when he does not. A similar move happens when we imply or argue that if Mr. A quotes a particular author favorably at any point, then Mr. A must hold all the views held by the author. If through guilt by association we hint or insist that he must hold other beliefs of that particular author, then we are both alienating and misrepresenting our opponent. Similarly, take full responsibility for even unwittingly misrepresenting others’ views. When we accuse Mr. A of promoting view X, and someone observes that Mr. A didn’t mean X because over here he said Y, often we merely apologize - if that. Be sure you know what Mr. A believes and promotes before you publish.
2. Take your opponents’ views in their entirety, not selectively. A host of Christian doctrines have an “on the one hand/on the other hand” dimension—and without both emphases we can fall into heresy. What if we find Mr. A making what appears to be an unqualified, unbalanced statement? If that is all Mr. A ever said about the subject, it would be right to conclude something about his position. But what if Mr. A was speaking or writing to an audience that already believed certain things, and therefore he was able to assume those balancing points of doctrine without stating them? At minimum, we must realize that Mr. A simply can’t say everything he believes about a subject every time he speaks. We should not isolate certain statements by Mr. A while overlooking or even concealing explanations, qualifications, or balancing statements he may have made elsewhere.
3. Represent your opponents’ position in its strongest form, not in a weak “straw man” form. This may be the most comprehensive rule of all in polemics, because, if you adhere to it, most of the other principles will follow. Do the work necessary to articulate the views of your opponent with such strength and clarity that he or she could say, “I couldn’t have said it better myself.” Then, and only then, will your polemics have integrity and actually have the possibility of being persuasive-which leads to our next point.
4. Seek to persuade, not antagonize—but watch your motives! John Calvin was a Reformer in Geneva, Switzerland. His comrade in this work was William Farel, who was outspoken and hotheaded by temperament. At one point, Calvin wrote Farel a letter in which he urged Farel to do more to “accommodate people” — i.e., to seek to win them over. Calvin then distinguished two different motivations for seeking to be winsome and persuasive: “There are, as you know, two kinds of popularity: the one, when we seek favor from motives of ambition and the desire of pleasing; the other, when, by fairness and moderation, we gain their esteem so as to make them teachable by us.” 5 The Farels of the world believe any effort to be judicious and prudent is a cowardly sellout. But Calvin wisely recognized that his friend’s constant, intemperate denunciations often stemmed not from a selfless courage, but rather from the opposite-pride. Writing to Pierre Viret about Farel, Calvin said, “He cannot bear with patience those who do not comply with his wishes.” 6
So it is possible to seek to be winsome and persuasive out of self-centeredness-a desire to be popular-rather than God-centeredness. It is just as possible to be bold and strongly polemical out of self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. And therefore, looking closely at our motives, we must take care that our polemics do not unnecessarily harden and antagonize our opponents. We should seek to win them, as Paul did Peter, not to be rid of thein.
5. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology-because only God sees the heart. Much criticism today is marked by scorn, mockery, and sarcasm rather than careful exegesis and reflection. Such an approach is not persuasive. No one has written more eloquently about this rule than John Newton in his well-known “Letter on Controversy,” where he states that before you write a word against your opponent “and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing.” This practice will stir up love for him, and “such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.” Later in the letter, Newton writes:
What will it profit a man if he gain his cause and silence his adversary, if, at the same time, he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made? … Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” 8
Newton also reminds us that it is a great danger to “be content with showing your wit and gaining the laugh on your side,” to make your opponent look evil and ridiculous instead of engaging their views with “the compassion due to the souls of men.”2
In short, we cannot produce a gospel movement without the providential work of the Holy Spirit. A movement is an ecosystem that is empowered and blessed by God’s Spirit. 10
What is the ecosystem that the Holy Spirit uses to produce a gospel city movement? I picture it as three concentric rings.
FIRST RING-CONTEXTUALIZED THEOLOGICAL VISION
At the very core of the ecosystem is a way of communicating and embodying the gospel that is contextualized to the city’s culture and is fruitful in converting and discipling its people, a shared commitment to communicating the gospel to a particular place in a particular time. Churches that catalyze gospel movements in cities do not all share the same worship style, come from the same denomination, or reach the same demographic. They do, however, generally share much of the same basic “DNA”: they are gospel centered, attentive to their culture, balanced, missional/evangelistic, growing, and self-replicating. In short, they have a relative consensus on a Center Church theological vision- a set of biblically grounded, contextual strategic stances and emphases that help bring sound doctrine to bear on the people who live in this particular cultural moment.
SECOND RING-CHURCH PLANTING AND CHURCH RENEWAL MOVEMENTS
The second layer is a number of church multiplication movements producing a set of new and growing churches, each using the effective means of ministry within their different denominations and traditions. Many look at cities and see a number of existing churches, often occupying buildings that are nearly empty. It is natural to think, “The first thing we need to do is to renew the existing churches with the gospel.” Indeed, all of part 2 (Gospel Renewal) is dedicated to how this can be done. But as we saw in the previous chapter, the establishment of new churches in a city is a key to renewing the older churches. New churches introduce new ideas and win the unchurched and non-Christians to Christ at a generally higher rate than older churches. They provide spiritual oxygen to the communities and networks of Christians who do the heavy lifting over decades of time to reach and renew cities. They provide the primary venue for discipleship and the multiplication of believers, as well as serve as the indigenous financial engine for the ministry initiatives.
THIRD RING-SPECIALIZED MINISTRIES
Based in the churches, yet also stimulating and sustaining the churches, this third ring consists of a complex set of specialty ministries, institutions, networks, and relationships. There are at least seven types of elements in this third ring.
1. A prayer movement uniting churches across traditions in visionary intercession for the city. As noted in part 2, the history of revivals shows the vital importance of corporate, prevailing, visionary intercessory prayer for the city and the body of Christ. Praying for your city is a biblical directive (Jer 29:4-7). Coming together in prayer is something a wide variety of believers can do. It doesn’t require a lot of negotiation and theological parsing to pray. Prayer brings people together. And this very activity is catalytic for creating friendships and relationships across denominational and organizational boundaries. Partnerships with Christians who are similar to and yet different from you stimulates growth and innovation.
2. A number of specialized evangelistic ministries, reaching particular groups (businesspeople, mothers, ethnicities, and the like). Of particular importance are effective campus and youth ministries. Many of the city church’s future members and leaders are best found in the city’s colleges and schools. While students who graduate from colleges in university towns must leave the area to get jobs, graduates of urban universities do not. Students won to Christ and given a vision for living in the city can remain in the churches they joined during their school years and become emerging leaders in the urban body of Christ. Winning the youth of a city wins city natives who understand the culture well.
A GOSPEL ECOSYSTEM FOR A CITY
3. An array of justice and mercy ministries, addressing every possible social problem and neighborhood. As the evangelicals provided leadership in the 1830s, we need today an urban “benevolent empire” of Christians banding together in various nonprofits and other voluntary organizations to address the needs of the city. Christians of the city must become renowned for their care for their neighbors, for this is one of the key ways that Jesus will become renowned.
4. Faith and work initiatives and fellowships in which Christians from across the city gather with others in the same profession. Networks of Christians in business, the media, the arts, government, and the academy should come together to help each other work with accountability, excellence, and Christian distinctiveness.
5. Institutions that support family life in the city, especially schools and counseling services. Significant communities that inhabit cities—such as Jewish and Catholic populations - have long known the importance of having their own schools, recreational and cultural centers, and agencies that provide services to help people stay and raise their children in the city.
6. Systems for attracting, developing, and training urban church and ministry leaders. The act of training usually entails good theological education, but a dynamic city leadership system will include additional components such as well-developed internship programs and connections to campus ministries.
7. An unusual unity of Christian city leaders. Church and movement leaders, heads of institutions, business leaders, academics, and others must know one another and provide vision and direction for the whole city. They must be more concerned about reaching the whole city and growing the whole body of Christ than about increasing their own tribe and kingdom. When all of these ecosystem elements are strong and in place, they stimulate and increase one another and the movement becomes self-sustaining. How this happens, and what can happen as a result, is our final subject.
TIPPING POINTS THAT LEAD TO CHANGE
Isolated events or individual entities crystallize into a growing, self-sustaining movement when they reach a tipping point, a moment when the movement dynamics for change become unstoppable. A tipping point is a sociological term - “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point.” 11 For example, neighborhoods stay largely the same if new types of residents (richer, poorer, or otherwise culturally different from the rest) comprise less than 5 percent of the population. When the number of new residents reaches somewhere between 5 and 25 percent (depending on the culture), the whole neighborhood shifts and undergoes rapid and significant change.
An ecosystem tipping point is reached in a city when the ecosystem elements are largely in place and many churches have the vitality, leaders, and mind-set to plant other churches within five to six years of their own beginnings. If God blesses, at this point the movement has begun to be self-sustaining. Enough new believers, leaders, congregations, and ministries are being naturally produced for the movement to grow without any single center of control. The body of Christ in the city largely funds itself, produces its own leaders, and conducts its own training. A sufficient number of dynamic leaders is emerging. The number of Christians and churches doubles every seven to ten years.
The next threshold of the movement’s advance is a citywide tipping point. This occurs when the number of gospel-shaped Christians in a city becomes so large that Christian influence on the civic and social life of the city-and on the very culture-is recognizable and acknowledged. In New York City, minority groups - whether of the ethnic, cultural, or lifestyle variety-can have a palpable effect on the way life is lived when their numbers reach at least 5 to 10 percent and when the members are active in public life. I have heard it said that when the number of prison inmates following Christ reaches 10 percent, the very culture and corporate life of the prison changes. There is no scientific way to precisely determine a city’s tipping point- the point at which the gospel begins to have a visible impact on the city life and culture. In New York City, we pray for and work toward the time when 10 percent of the center city population is involved in a gospel-centered church. In Manhattan, this would amount to about 100,000 people.
Today, in a place like Manhattan, the vast majority of residents do not know an orthodox Christian believer (or at least one who has made their spiritual identity known). As a result, it is very easy for them to believe negative stereotypes. Evangelical Christians (as a stereotype) are as strange and off-putting to urban residents as gay people used to be to most Americans. As a result, Christianity isn’t even a plausible option as a way to live for most center city dwellers. But imagine what would happen if a place like Manhattan contained so many believers that most New Yorkers would actually know a Christian they respected. The strong attitudinal barriers that block many urban residents from the message of Christianity would come down. Tens of thousands of souls could be redeemed.
How likely is it that an urban gospel movement could grow so strong that it reaches a citywide tipping point? We know this can happen through God’s grace. The history books give us examples. We see how the exponential growth of Christianity changed the Roman world in the first three centuries AD and how it changed pagan northern Europe from AD 500 to 1500. We have stories of how the evangelical awakenings in the eighteenth century changed British society in the nineteenth. But we don’t yet know what it would look like for one of the great culture-forming global cities of our world today to become 10 percent (or more) gospel-believing Christian in its core, with believers playing key roles in the arts, sciences, the academy, and business, while at the same time using their power, wealth, and influence for the good of those on the margins of society.
Every city in the world needs Jesus Christ. But our cities do not merely need a few more churches and ministries here and there; they need gospel city movements that lead to citywide tipping points. So urban ministers enthusiastically and passionately give their lives to these goals, even though they may not see their consummation in their own lifetimes. As we wait with confident expectation and faithful patience, we keep pursuing our vision to see our cities loved and reached for the glory of Christ.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION
- Keller writes, “Reaching a city requires a willingness to work with other churches, even churches that hold to different beliefs and practices - a view sometimes called ‘catholicity.” “How have you partnered with other congregations that have historical traditions or theological distinctives different from your own? What led you to partner together?
- The sidebar on “Gospel Polemics” gives several guidelines for discussion with those who differ from you. Which of these guidelines is most helpful for you? What do you most struggle with when you engage in discussion with others?
- Take some time to envision what the gospel ecosystem looks like — and might look like-in your community. Which elements are strongest and weakest? How can you move beyond ministerial alliances you have made in the past? Which key leaders, congregations, and organizations would need to be on board?