Here is a bubble-popping definition related pastors groups and unity.

• Having read it, I would love to hear any thoughts.
• I pray many find this intriguing in its simplicity too.

If the end-goal suggested is correct – logically we then work this backwards to consider the discipleship process toward achieving it amongst ourselves as church leaders.

To quote some movie lines (for the sake of humour only):

• One ring to rule them all (Lord of the Rings)
• There can only be one (The Highlander)
• None shall pass (Monty Python)

Story: The current dynamics of unity in our city are intriguing! 

The intrigue is in the fact that Tauranga currently has no regular (monthly) wide-reaching pastors’ gathering. Yet I think many of us here in Tauranga understand the importance of unity. Some still meet to pray weekly too – connecting with Council and Iwi in particular. Others facilitate a quarterly topical gathering with a speaker on an area of Christian leadership. But there is no regular central connection-point.

Regarding filling what might otherwise seem a clear gap – none of us have risen to take the lead in re-establishing a regular monthly pastors’ gathering. In considering why I haven’t done this, while current health would be a factor, the reason for me is that I don’t feel prompted by the Spirit or personal circumstances I would expect to see before doing this, despite a vision for it and willingness.

What is intriguing is that I would be one of a number of pastors who can ‘see’ the city at some level, who believe in unity, and who likewise have not each felt prompted to do something. A number are capable of facilitating a group very well.

• This is an interesting ‘case study’, because the question has to be asked whether or not we are outside of God’s plan or ideal by not having a functional central regular gathering point.

As noted in another article on ‘What is the true measure of  unity?‘, I would maintain that the visible unity enabled by a regular meeting is not the measure of unity.

• Our ability to work together when needed is a better measure.
• An environment within which people can innovate for the city, and quickly find support for a united endeavor would be another measure.
• For a further boundary, the health of unity in connection with any Spirit-initiated endeavour is NOT measured by it receiving support from every church too. Each thing instead only needs enough support to thrive for the city (or nation if it’s a national innovation). This might be 2 churches, 5, 10 or 20 – and the Holy Spirit is capable of choreographing this, bringing enough leaders / churches to support each thing!

So, the visible unity of a central group really isn’t very significant to this picture – even though it is valuable.

If we can take this truth as a starting point – here are two challenging perspectives that arise:

If the above is correct, we are firstly wise to recognise that the existence of regular pastors’ group meetings an end in itself – because their existence isn’t the measure of health, even if they can be very useful. Something else is actually the ‘key’ we should be aiming for – which our gathers as church leaders are a conduit for (or toward).

As a follow-on statement, functional unity doesn’t therefore even necessitate relationship. This is a statement worth considering carefully. Functional unity DOES, however, need communication-lines! This is a significant ‘bridging thought’ to reflect on: While relationship amongst church leaders in a location is a good goal it therefore isn’t the primary or more important goal or factor. So, what is?

(As side-point, if we are looking at definitions, I’d suggest trust is more important than relationship – even though relationship is often the pathway toward trust. Consider a network of 120 churches and pastors. They cannot all know each other. Or consider 3000 church leaders nationally. Relationship isn’t, therefore, the necessary prerequisite of unity many have made it out to be. And the needed trust can be chosen!

It’s even possible to have a trusting culture – which is surely my point! Trust is what is needed for united action – not relationship (as valuable and beneficial as the relationships that are possible amongst various ones of us can be).

But there is something else…

…Submission to the Holy Spirit is the true need, along with a discerning heart, and a Kingdom perspective!

These are the actual keys.

There is something significant here to catch – which could easily be missed (because  “we know this already”)

The possible significance of this definition is this: If we pursue anything and/or everything else WITHOUT SUCCESSFULLY FOSTERING THIS, we WILL miss the mark!

I don’t know how to say that clearer – while I wish I somehow could.

To articulate some of the connected values and ideas:

• The true leader of the pastors group / churches of each city is the Holy Spirit – not any human structure, as useful as that structure might be. I’m sure we are agreed on this.
• So – to articulate the Biblical leadership paradigm of the united Church, when something needs doing, God’s Spirit works through individuals whom he calls to a given task.
• …which means the pastors’ group convenor doesn’t LEAD unity – nor even the pastors’ group!
• However, they ideally do facilitate / disciple a CULTURE (or platform) that could become conducive to unity.
• The test is what happens when God raises up an individual to initiate something necessitating some unity.
  • Can the wider body of Christ recognise and supporting someone raised up by God – whether their name be Gideon, Deborah, Sampson – or whatever it is?
  • …while – to remind of the boundary –  not everyone has to recognise or support any individual or initiative. (God may not call all to support or see every venture – and some individuals proposing things might actually be doing so from their own enthusiasm rather than God’s leading!)

Toward application: What if the discipleship of leaders’ hearts is therefore the key goal?

What if a culture that is conducive to unity is the goal for pastors’ groups? If we can accept this idea, what might that mean?

If true, ‘intentionally’ would then be a primary word deserving attention by those facilitating ‘unity groups’ – to ‘disciple’ our thinking.

And what are our hearts to be discipled in or toward? To articulate a possibility, how about humble discerning hearts – with a genuinely Kingdom (vs congregational) perspective. (Tell me what hindrance to unity is not overcome by these two things – including the challenge of denominational allegiance vs commitment to the Church in the geography each church is within – and the funding of necessary united endeavours in cities, towns and nationally – even where no formal funding or power structures exist).

If ‘how we think’ is discipled in this way, to hold truly ‘Kingdom’ vision and values, then with or without any unity meetings the ENVIRONMENT would exist amongst us for any united endeavour purposed by God to be recognised and supported – enabling it’s necessary united FUNCTION.

To explain the nuances of ‘unity things’ in a long sentence…

(Please forgive me for some quite direct words in this sentence – purposed for clarity and brevity).

While there are always be…

(1) personalities that are understandably difficult to engage with,

(2) young pastors understandably consumed in working out how to run a single local church,

(3) some (unknowingly) selfish pastors who don’t actually care about everybody else in the city who can be damned as far as they are concerned (‘not their responsibility’) because they have been taught that there role and responsibility is only to grow their own local church with its ministries,

(4) pastors with fast growing churches understandably consumed trying to keep up with the ‘fires’ that naturally arise from quick growth,

(5) and large churches understandably capable of and busied with much, who are therefore without capacity or emotional capacity to pursue unity merely for unity’s sake… Etc.

…my experience in Tauranga is that – without having regular meetings – we are able to work together easily when necessary, with SUFFICIENT support coming for endeavors in the unity space (even if not with the ‘feel-good’ of full rooms of pastors gathering).

There is a sufficient group here who genuinely have a united perspective of the Church (in the city) for things that arise to thrive – and this is as true of many church members as of church leaders!

Conclusion: Might the discipleship of leaders’ thinking, perspectives and values be the needed #1 goal for unity facilitators?

If so, the application point would be as follows: 

It’s culture first; programme second (and we need to consider HOW this discipleship takes place).

Our planning would therefore begin with this end goal in mind.

We would lead INTENTIONALLY, to disciple a discerning Kingdom mindset within local church leaders – considering all dynamics of what that might look like.

> Were a manual to be put together for the facilitation of a pastors’ group, were this  ‘discipleship’ the actual priority, all other united activities would therefore be ‘discipleship tools’ – just as Jesus taught his disciples through a combination of discussion, role modelling, involvement with him – and then through mission trips they were sent on (the 12 and the 72).

> The CULTURE amongst us is the goal – knowing that this can yield fruit with layers to it that never imagined!

I’d be keen to hear any thoughts any have in response to this.

Does this change anything for anyone? I’d love to hear.

This article might also need reading again from the top. For my closing comment: The intentional discipleship of church leaders in and for unity is rare in NZ’s pastors’ groups. We’re maybe too tired or busy to think about it – which is indicative of the problem: We cannot yet SEE how things could be different to what they are. When we can SEE differently, we’ll be interested!