Networks - what you think

In February/March 2017 we carried out a small-scale survey to find out more about the networks you, our Vista readers, are involved in. 31 people responded, identifying a total of 83 different networks.

You are from a variety of countries including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Regional or denominational networks you identified reflected these locations, and we are aware that there may be other equivalent regional or denominational networks in countries not represented by this survey.

On average, you each belong to 3 networks although some of you are involved in many more. The majority are international or regional, with ‘special interest’ and church planting coming just after. Many of the church planting networks named could also be considered mission organisations or agencies e.g. CMS, SIM or ECMI, however they possibly are thought of as networks because they have a more decentralised structure than other agencies.

Denominational networks are identified less frequently – is this perhaps a reflection of the move towards post-denominationalism? Of those that are, some are specific denominational networks (e.g. Baptist) while others are groupings of independent churches with similar theological viewpoints e.g. FIEC (Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, UK) or FIEIDE (Federation of Free Evangelical Churches in Spain).

Fewer of you belong to virtual or age related networks. It could be said that age related e.g. youth networks could be classed as special interest, although a youth network could include a variety of streams such as leadership development, evangelism and social action.

And given that as the majority of you feel that meeting face to face is a key ingredient for building a successful network, it is no surprise that not many of you are member of virtual (e.g. online) networks.

Advantages and disadvantages of networks

Where a network is international, you feel it ‘gives a global view of God’s mission’ and allows cross-regional co-operation and worldwide contacts.

Where you feel isolated in your day to day role, being part of a wider network may bring encouragement, friendship, inspiration and support. For some, membership of a network also brings legitimacy to your ministry, for example one respondent explained that “Our Union of Churches is a full member of Fédération Protestante de France: Advantage is national recognition by French authorities.”

While specialist networks allow a specific focus on a particular area of ministry (for example Refugee Highway Partnership or SAT7), you generally see networks allowing the sharing of different perspectives, ideas, best practice and information. “It brings resources together, making possible what would otherwise be impossible,” said one respondent.

Take this one step further, and depending on the type of network, they allow the pooling of resources, training or advertising job vacancies or sharing the cost of events among organisations within a network. They are also perceived to enable creative solutions through access to people and know-how. Indeed, for one respondent, this has resulted in significant culture change:

“Our church’s contacts with other Free Churches in Germany and USA in particular, has led to changes in our Union, to help us change our fundamentally traditional and stagnant culture into one of healthy missional churches.”

However, all of this takes time – which you cite most frequently as a disadvantage of belonging to a network, particularly when face to face meetings are involved: “Finding dates people can do, getting everyone there and following up when all work is pretty much voluntary is challenging.”

Alongside this – and perhaps particularly when membership is voluntary, if one or more members lack commitment to the network, it can be frustrating for everyone else and slow things down. It can also take longer to reach consensus and move forward.

With so many networks, there is also the risk of duplication. “We have to work together with other networks to ensure complementarity rather than duplication,” explained one respondent.

So what makes for a successful network?

‘Relationships, relationships, relationships’ commented one of you, while another said ‘relationships that are respectful, compassionate and which honour the Lord’. This includes other elements of good relationships which you identified: trust, openness, the ability to listen, sharing unselfishly and good communication.

“In 1 Corinthians 12, God’s people are likened to a ‘body’ – we independently and as groups play a part in God’s purposes
”

But in order to make this happen you highlight the need for some organisational structure (no matter how organic). Organisationally there are three broad categories that your responses fitted into

1. Shared vision and values

‘Without vision the people perish’ it says in Proverbs, and for a network to thrive, there needs to be a clear aim and shared vision for why the network exists. Otherwise, as one of you observed, it is a ‘waste of time.’

Some of you felt ‘meeting like-minded people’ or even a ‘common theological framework’ was required, and cited difficulties in belonging to a network which was not evangelical in focus. This may be more of a requirement in some types of network e.g. denominational, than in others which are predominantly focused around an issue. It is also possible to have differences of opinion within the framework of common values, and several of you felt that a ‘plurality (to a certain extent)’ and ‘using the diversity of members’ gifts’ were key ingredients. The phrase ‘iron sharpens iron’ comes to mind, and if your relationships within the network involve mutual trust and respect, it can be strong enough to allow a frank exchange of views and the ability to agree not to agree.

2. Facilitation / leadership

While a network may begin as one or two people’s ‘good idea’, you’ve already said that it takes time and focus to make them happen. You identified leadership as an important factor – although this is most likely not ‘command and control’, rather facilitation, and providing direction to the group. Depending on the size and reach of the network, you felt that having a team to carry out some of the administration for network events and to be a central contact point would enable smooth functioning.

3. Good communication

Any relationship rises and falls on the quality of its communication. As already stated, you prefer networks allowing face to face meetings. Where this takes the form of conferences or events, your preference is for annual or six-monthly events, with expert input and plenty of time to network and meet people in the programme.

Between times, you want to be kept up to date with relevant and useful resources – either through a regularly updated website or newsletter or where appropriate or phone/Skype Calls, WhatsApp messages etc.

Of course, networks are not a new idea – Paul’s letters were written to networks of small groups across Central Asia and Southern Europe – creating vision and shared values, giving leadership and fostering good communication.

In 1 Corinthians 12, God’s people are likened to a ‘body’ where we need one another, and each of us – independently and as groups – play a part in God’s purposes. Being part of a network allows this to happen – as one of you summed up so succinctly: “There is so much more that we can do together that none of us could do independently.”

Joanne Appleton