Whether we are cooking, repairing things, or solving life’s problems, we are always learning from each other. However, when it comes to certain areas, including church life, the interchange of experiences is lacking. Communities often keep their ideas, and especially their mistakes, to themselves. Can we rediscover the deeply biblical nature of knowledge sharing?
A community’s experience is not its private property. The Bible says so through the words of the Apostle Paul, who taught the believers in Rome that “each member belongs to all the others” (Romans 12:5). He also told the believers in Corinth that every gift of the Holy Spirit was given “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7). In the biblical sense, churches place themselves entirely at the disposal of the entire Body of Christ. When churches share their knowledge about ministry, organisation, or crisis response, their effectiveness in society increases.
Contemporary research in organisational management confirms this: knowledge sharing is essential for an organisation to develop trust and resilience. A lack of this exchange leads communities to repeat avoidable mistakes and waste resources. However, beyond building relationships and cultivating trust, the opportunity to learn from the experiences of others opens up the possibility of innovation that can propel the church’s mission into areas that would otherwise be unattainable. But are we truly willing to learn from each other, even if it means admitting that we don’t know everything?
Mutual learning
From a biblical perspective, the exchange of knowledge is a practical expression of the interdependence that God intentionally established within the body of Christ. The literature confirms that organisations that succeed in creating stable mechanisms for knowledge transfer become more resilient in the face of change.
For churches, knowledge sharing is another form of resource sharing. When we recognise past experiences, whether successes or failures, as valuable sources of information, we avoid reinventing the wheel and discourage small communities from feeling alone in the face of challenges.
Japanese management specialists Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka said that organisations that grow in learning recognise the importance of converting tacit knowledge (personal experience that is difficult to put into words) into explicit knowledge (methods, guidelines, and best practices).
In addition, the exchange of knowledge between churches implicitly teaches humility. Admitting that we need to learn from others’ experiences puts us in the position of disciples, which not only makes us more modest, but also more capable of teaching others what we have discovered ourselves. When we alternate between the roles of disciple and teacher in a reciprocal process, we are closer to the unity that Christ Himself desired for His church.
What hinders the exchange of knowledge?
Although exchange seems natural, there are factors that hinder it. Jeffrey Cummings pointed out that a lack of trust is the first obstacle. If a community fears being judged for its failures or its resources being used without recognition, it will remain silent.
Sheng Wang and her colleagues drew attention to the lack of institutional channels. Even in communities where leaders are open, the absence of clear meetings or common platforms causes information to circulate chaotically through personal and sporadic contacts.
Another factor relates to power dynamics. In research published in Frontiers of Psychology, YiFan Wang demonstrated that internal competition in many organisations leads to the concealment of information. In a church context, comparing success in terms of the number of members, events, and media visibility can fuel the same tendency towards isolation and protection.
How can we facilitate the exchange of knowledge between churches?
To counteract these obstacles, clear and repeatable mechanisms are needed to make the above standard an achievable ideal. Without such mechanisms, collaboration depends on personal relationships between leaders and may disappear when they change.
One such mechanism is to organise regular thematic meetings, in which each community presents a concrete experience from its work. These meetings could take the form of discussion evenings, short conferences, or even shared meals. The success of these presentations hinges on participants accepting that they are not at a parade of successes, but in a space where vulnerabilities take centre stage: what did not work, what obstacles arose, and how things could have been done differently.
A second mechanism involves the creation of shared resources. These could include an online library of documents, lesson plans, multimedia materials, or best practice guides. Even a simple, well-organised cloud platform can serve as a central repository from which each community can draw inspiration. Research on knowledge management shows that the accessibility and clarity of resources are as important as their existence.
A third, more relational mechanism is mentoring. Leaders or teams from one community can act as mentors for a period of time to a church that is just starting out in a particular type of ministry. This type of transfer is beneficial for both the quality of learning and the personal bonds of trust it fosters, which strengthen long-term collaboration.
Finally, the systematic documentation of projects is an often overlooked but extremely valuable mechanism. Each joint or individual action can be followed by a short, simple report detailing the objectives, concrete steps, results, and lessons learned. Over time, these reports become a collective memory, preventing the repetition of mistakes and inspiring new initiatives.
Conclusion
If the Church were just an organisation like any other, the above methods of sharing would also be simple management tools, useful for increasing efficiency and reducing the waste of resources. However, the Church’s calling is to be the Body of Christ, and the exchange of experiences and teachings has a powerful spiritual significance beyond its pragmatic value. From this perspective, sharing knowledge acknowledges that the gifts and lessons we receive are entrusted to us for the good of the whole community, not belonging to us individually. The exchange of knowledge is also a form of mutual service and a sign of solidarity and spiritual maturity.
Therefore, in church life, these practices must be understood as an expression of discipleship. Paul instructed Timothy: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2). This chain of transmission demonstrates that teaching loses its meaning if it remains with the person who receives it because it is intended to circulate and bear fruit in others.
