An Organizational Proposal

Based on some recent conversations, I (Ryan) want to share some of the re-thinking I've done in answer to the question, "What is The Core?"

First and foremost, The Core is flexible. We cannot pretend to know what it will be in 10 years or even 2 years. We must hold true to the vision and direction God has given us in the present, but we do not want to set up rigid structures that will make it impossible to flow and evolve as the Spirit leads us. God never changes, but people do. The head of the Church is Christ, and that will remain constant. But a church (or better yet, a fellowship) is comprised completely of people, and must be fluid in nature. Otherwise you end up with people propping up the structure, rather than a structure that props up and equips the people as they minister.

But apart from that, we must determine how we will answer the question at hand in the "here and now." I believe there must be a simple answer, and a detailed answer. The simple answer would be useful for legal and logistical purposes, or with those who have no real interest in our ministry philosophies or the inner workings of The Core.

The Simple Answer

So when those people ask "What is The Core?" the simple answer is: "The Core is a new (non-denominational) church serving the people of Center-City Springfield."

If they want just a little more information, we can say that it is a church comprised of small groups. This is not a foreign concept to many people, and it will explain to them why we don't have typical "big-event" church services.

The Detailed Answer

When it is apparent that we are talking with someone who is really wants to learn about The Core in-depth, we can give them the detailed answer, which might be: "The Core is an organized Community of Christ-followers endeavoring to live out His message in a missional and relational way in Center-City Springfield. Our methodology is manifested in various venues, primarily including the Front Porch downtown, and a network of semi-autonomous Home Fellowships." (Of course I would not expect anyone to learn or recite this verbatim.)

This explanation would effectively strip the word "Fellowship" from our name, and identify us more as a "Community." Then the word "Fellowship" would be freed up to refer to "Home Fellowships" which is a better term than "Home Churches".

Ramifications of the Detailed Answer

I believe that some of the ramifications of this shift would be as follows:

1) Team Members would not be required to belong to a Home Fellowship in The Core Network. Although, they must understand that joining The Core Team is a commitment to be a vital part of its vision and ministry, and not simply a membership card to stick in your wallet. It should probably also be stated that a Team Member is expected to be committed to some specific group of Christians for consistent worship, fellowship and discipleship.

2) Team Leaders might also have the option of continuing to belong to another local church entity, again with the understanding that there is a very serious commitment involved... even moreso when being a leader of a particular area of ministry. Daniel Keeslar (our Front Porch General Contractor) is one example of this. I have no sense from him that he plans to leave Second Baptist, but he has shown tremendous commitment to the specific ministry of The Core.

We might go an extra step with Team Leaders, and expect them to see the importance of intimate spiritual relationships with their brothers and sisters. This could take the form of a) belonging to some kind of regular small group, accountability group, or Bible study, or b) meeting consistently with an accountability partner or mentor. I think it's very important that anyone leading a ministry with The Core have some unity with us in this area, because we believe so strongly that anonymity in the body of Christ is not conducive to spiritual maturation.

3) Coordinators and Directors (together known as "Overseers") would probably need to belong to a Home Fellowship in The Core Network. Since Overseers are responsible for the overal vision, direction and maintenance of The Core, I don't believe it is practical to expect that they can also maintain a commitment to an outside church body. Either the other church would keep them from focusing on the work of The Core, or The Core would keep them from any relevant involvement in the other church. And we should not be guilty of encouraging or condoning a lifestyle of empty commitments, either to The Core, or to any other organization. (By that token, we should also be careful that our expectations of leaders do not jeopardize their commitments to their spouses, children, jobs or personal health.)

Conclusion

Please be aware that this proposal is just that... a proposal. I am posting it here to start the conversation, not to end it. But I do believe that the ideas presented here dramatically alter some of the ways I have seen The Core in the past, and that may be true for you, as well. As if we were not "revolutionary" enough already, this proposal would make us look and operate even less like any organization I've ever known. So there are steep challenges involved. But the challenges are not only for us... because I think this mode of operation would also challenge the larger Body of Christ to really re-think what it means to be the Church. We could set an example for people to see that there must be an increased openness and cooperation among Christ-followers if His Kingdom is truly going to be manifested among us.

Please add your comments here. I would like to get everyone thinking about this, and discussing it prior to our meeting on Tuesday. And thank you for hearing me out... I know this is heavy stuff.