Why do some Christian churches remain trapped in an “economic market” paradigm, where success is measured in comparison with others? And how can they move toward the paradigm of the Kingdom, where success means working together for the good of people and for the glory of God?
“I pray… that all of them may be one… so that the world may believe” (John 17:20-21). With these words, Christ prayed for His disciples shortly before His crucifixion. Their unity was meant to be the visible proof of the Gospel’s authenticity—a Gospel that transforms the heart so profoundly that people become able to embrace differences and turn disagreements into opportunities for strengthening fellowship.
Looking honestly at today’s Christian landscape, it becomes clear that such unity is more of an ideal than a constant reality. Faith communities too often see each other as potential rivals. Some compare membership numbers, others measure success by the scale of their events or their media visibility. Resources are carefully guarded like strategic treasures, while partnerships give way to “territoriality.” Influence itself becomes more important than collaborative success. Changing this requires a profound transformation of organizational and relational culture—how we see one another and how we make decisions together.
But how can this be done?
How can a church marked by rivalry transition to a culture of genuine partnership?
Research on interorganizational collaboration shows that shifting from competition to cooperation involves multiple layers of an organization’s culture: from inner attitudes to practical behaviors and even institutional mechanisms. When these layers align, collaboration ceases to be an obligation and becomes a deliberate choice—one with strategic value and a significant positive impact on mission. But what if collaboration were viewed not only as a strategy, but as a natural expression of the Gospel itself?
From “territory” to shared mission
Any change must begin with understanding the premises of the current situation. What prevents us from working together? Often, a church’s territorial mindset may stem from a legitimate desire to safeguard its activities and preserve its identity. Yet these intentions can all too easily turn into barriers against collaboration.
When the focus shifts more toward “how to protect ourselves” than “how to complement one another,” communities stop negotiating their roles and objectives. In other words, they fail to do exactly what interorganizational experts such as Hardy, Phillips, and Lawrence identify as essential for genuine collaboration.
The instinct to “guard one’s territory” can arise for several reasons. On the one hand, there is the fear of losing influence. Leaders may feel that openness could diminish their visibility or even their authority. On the other hand, past negative experiences can reinforce reluctance toward collaboration—whether from fear of being taken advantage of or suspicion that a partner will fail to deliver on commitments, causing the project to collapse. Another contributing factor is the lack of clear communication channels. When parties fail to maintain open, ongoing dialogue, each side constructs its own version of the other’s intentions.
From the perspective of the Kingdom, territory does not belong to us but to the Lord. Success, therefore, is not measured by human standards, but by how much ground God’s Kingdom gains in people’s hearts—a “variable” beyond human measurement.
When churches work within this Kingdom paradigm, they recognize that they share not only doctrinal points but also challenges and aspirations. As a result, if they also share the resources needed for mission, authentic collaboration becomes possible. The absence of collaboration is often due to the fact that community leaders have not sat down to discuss, in concrete terms, what they could actually accomplish together. Too often, invitations to collaborate are political (“let’s do something together for the sake of appearance”) rather than missional (“we face a problem we can solve together”). The difference between these two approaches lies in the relational context, as Jeffrey Cummings and colleagues observed. Put simply, building something meaningful together requires knowing what concerns the other party—and caring about those concerns.
Concrete steps forward
A first step toward genuine collaboration is organizing exploratory meetings without a rigid or prescriptive agenda. Such meetings provide a framework for open-ended questions: What major challenges do we see in our community? In what areas would we like to see change? These relaxed dialogues pave the way for unexpected ideas and lay the foundation for trust.
Another valuable initiative is creating a shared “map” of local resources and challenges. Through this process, participants can identify areas of need—such as vulnerable families, lack of educational support, or the loneliness of the elderly—as well as available resources, including volunteers, spaces, equipment, and expertise. The map provides a clearer picture of how each community can contribute.
The success of such meetings depends on active listening. Every community must have the chance not only to speak but also to be heard. It is crucial that no one dominates the conversation and that all voices are respected. Careful listening demonstrates genuine concern for the other’s perspective and lays the foundation for authentic collaboration.
Building mutual trust requires a series of shared experiences in which each side shows a willingness to contribute and follows through on commitments. Large-scale projects are not necessary. In fact, the process is best initiated through small, well-designed projects. What matters most is that these actions are repeated and give rhythm to collaboration, rather than remaining isolated events.
The indispensable ingredient
Transparency in resources and decision-making creates a framework in which all partners have access to essential information and feel included in the process. It is vital for any collaboration because, in practice, it is the lack of clarity—rather than lack of goodwill, as is often assumed—that most often blocks cooperation. When it is unclear who contributes what, who makes the decisions, or how resources are being used, suspicions arise. And once suspicion takes root, it slows down any joint initiative.
Of course, transparency can also be misunderstood as unnecessary exposure of every administrative detail. In its effective form, however, it simply means having a project budget that is known and discussed by all involved, providing a concise report once an activity is completed, and clearly defining responsibilities before the actual work begins.
Continuous evaluation and adjustment of collaboration
From Edgar Schein’s perspective, the culture of an organization is shaped through collective learning from shared experiences. Evaluation, then, becomes the moment when communities reflect on what they have learned together: what worked well, what obstacles emerged, which values were reinforced, and where inconsistencies appeared between stated values and actual behavior.
The literature on collaboration management (see Kotter and Heskett) shows that performance depends not only on achieving objectives but also on the quality of the process. A project can therefore be considered successful not only if it fulfills its immediate goal (such as organizing an event) but also if it strengthens trust and develops new skills for teamwork between communities.
Debrief meetings after each joint project provide an effective method of evaluation. Their impact is greatest when the discussions are honest and the questions straightforward. If the responses are then summarized in a short shared report, the evaluation becomes a valuable learning resource for the future. And if organizational culture theory holds true, a group that learns together grows not only in performance but also in resilience to change.
The shift from a culture of competition to one of cooperation cannot happen overnight. It is a process that requires intentionality, patience, and sustained effort. The key to success lies in two elements: a clear framework of shared values and objectives, and the repeated practice of collaboration in concrete projects. But everything begins with one simple question: “How can we serve together?” If that question has found its place in our everyday conversations, it is a sign that the paradigm shift is already underway.