The COLLECTIVE-CHURCH

By Daniel A. Brown, PhD

This paper is a beginning attempt to introduce a type of ministry venture that gathers Believers and sends them on mission. It is both a local and trans-local church body, with features resembling neighborhood congregations and mission societies. Its members will be few, its physical presence in a community almost invisible. But it will provide connection and validation for longtime Followers of Christ who have benefitted greatly from their years ‘in church,’ but who feel themselves called out as streams in the desert. I have named this model the collective-church.

Another Model For Church (Part 1)
Let me be clear from the outset, I am not a deconstructionist. I celebrate the local-church, and over the course of my ministry career, I personally planted three churches. The last church I pastored planted an additional 37 churches, plus supplying five lead pastors to already-existing congregations. 
I love the local church, and if I was twenty years younger, I would plant another one. I am not twenty years younger, but neither am I done with church. Actually, I have felt like church was done with me!
A few years ago, when I stepped away from itinerant ministry, and sought to rejoin the ranks of Believers in a congregation, something didn’t fit. I saw how our church continued to develop and mature people in their walk with God, but it wasn’t having that effect on me. I began to ask, ‘Am I missing something? Is something wrong with me that I can’t seem to find my place within the very programs and activities I arranged for people when I was a lead pastor?’
I got no answer until I changed the question slightly: ‘Is the Church missing something? Could we arrange things differently in order to keep giving people like me a place?’ 
Instead of starting with the notion that people like me need to adapt themselves in order to fit in with ‘church’ as it is now, could we consider the reverse? In order to engage people like me, could we provide an alternative, slightly reconfigured ‘church’?
I believe we can. I doubt that we will get it right on our first few tries, but a group of us who have a shared history are starting a collective-church. We are still working out how it will work. We are determined to support and cooperate with local churches around us, so that no one mistakenly concludes we want to replace the vital ministry of more typical congregations. 
The church I planted and pastored for years was called The Coastlands. The new church I am planting stretches the edges of how we think about the word ‘church.’ It is called the Commended Collective.
Rather than focusing exclusively on the specific congregation I will be starting, this paper mostly tries to explain an additional model for ‘church’ called the collective-church. But our new church in Santa Cruz, CA is an example of the new model, so giving you some particulars about what we will be doing may help people better conceptualize the new model for churches everywhere.
Exploring this model of church will be an ongoing journey, but we expect many others in the Body of Christ to resonate with it, and improve our understanding of how to do it. I urge anyone who has a place of ministry in any expression of ‘church’ to remain in that setting. But if you find yourself only sitting, and can’t seem to find your ‘place’ to pass along lessons you have learned, it may be time to rethink ministry settings and possibilities.
Our goal is to add ministry opportunities for mature Believers who have passed the leadership baton to others in church, but who wish to make use of all they have learned to continue in vital ministry.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 2)
The name commended comes from Paul’s parting words to the ministry leaders in Ephesus, the ‘already-disciples’ whose past training had readied them for current and future ministry. 
No longer intending to gather them regularly for ongoing instruction, he commissioned them for ongoing Kingdom work: “And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).
The goal for ‘church’ has always been equipped people, not an endless process of equipping people. 
Jesus’ Church continues to grow because men and women carry on doing ministry even after their training ends. The actual work of the ministry isn’t done primarily by the equippers, and the Church functions best when all its members function according to design (Ephesians 4:12, 16). 
If a church has done its job well, and its leaders have effectively equipped members for ministry-work, what do those trained-ones do? It isn’t a trick question. Think of the numbers; in a church of one hundred adults, there are likely 10-15 people doing the equipping. The others are being equipped. Without regular and frequent transition among the other 85+ people—moving out from or into the community—what happens in five or ten years?
Those who have been doing the equipping will be more experienced and even better at equipping, and the other 85+ people will have grown tremendously from all the training. But unto what purpose? The traditional church model isn’t configured to change the number of equippers; its structure can’t accommodate—and won’t produce—50 or 60 equippers. 
Equippers need people to equip, so if more of the congregation become equippers, fewer people remain to be equipped. That’s the dilemma of a traditional local church. It is modeled in such a way that it maintains the small percentage of people doing ministry. It doesn’t have room for more equippers, and the 85+ eventually lose interest in perpetual equipping.
In the long run, if they are not deployed into ministry where they pass along lessons they learned while being equipped, they start asking the question, ‘What’s the point?’ Unfortunately, the 10-15 leaders remain excited about church because that is the setting in which they do compelling, unto-others ministry. They cannot understand why the 85+ aren’t as excited.
They would, though, if for 3-4 months they switched roles with their most well-equipped congregants: instead of preaching, the pastor listened to weeks of sermons; rather than leading praise time in service, the worship leader sang without a mic seated in the sanctuary; etc.


Why COMMENDED?
Commend has two basic meanings, both of which are central to the mission of our ‘church’:
(1) To commend people is to place them in the care and safe-keeping of someone or something we trust. Only by grace had Paul become the man he was, and he knew the Spirit of Grace would lead his friends just as Jesus promised (John 14:17, 26; 16:13-14). Additionally, Paul knew that Scripture is completely reliable; it is inspired by God for teaching, training and equipping people (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
The Commended Collective highlights the timeless truths of Scripture, as well as the way in which the Holy Spirit uses God’s word to give guidance and revelation for today’s needs. As ‘iron sharpens iron,’ we will encourage one another by sharing ‘words’ that come from His word. And we rely on grace to enable and empower us beyond ourselves.
(2) To commend also means to recognize and affirm people, acknowledging who they are and what they do. Paul understood the ministry of every Believer. Every Follower of Christ—not just leaders of groups—can be developed into more skillful and knowledgeable ministers according to their individual makeup and gifting.
The Commended Collective is an untraditional structure for ‘church’ based on the belief that God has made each member of His Church distinct and important. Rather than dividing Christ’s Body into two distinct categories of leaders/followers, we celebrate each GIFT-MIX and Body part equally. Depending on the situation, Mercy-Showers and Server-Helpers might be better ‘leaders’ than Teachers or Prophets.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 3)
We know ‘church’ is people not buildings. It is a body with members, a community that connects people to one another for mutual edification, and also for collaboration toward an end—making and multiplying disciples.
Through the centuries, ‘church’ has taken on various forms depending on many factors, and it has adapted according to need. Occasional and irregularly scheduled meet-ups in catacombs and side room gatherings in synagogues morphed into less clandestine and more frequent services in dedicated structures. ‘Church’ eventually became a magnificent structure in the center of a town. 
Later, the cathedral down-sized in many locales to become the parish or neighborhood church constructed of more temporary materials and at far less cost. These days local churches meet in strip malls and elementary schools as readily as in stone buildings shaped like a cross. 
‘Church’ cannot be defined by or confined to a physical address or construction, but our language is slow to give up the connection between a construction and the assembly it houses.
The usual patterns of ministry found in the local church—weekly worship services, children's ministry, organized programs and outreaches centered in or coordinated through a physical building—will remain the primary expression of Christ's gathered Church for years to come. 
But just as individual members of His Body don't all have the same function, neither do all fellowships of Believers. Missions agencies don't do the same work as Bible colleges; prison ministries aren't exactly like relief ministries, but all are doing Kingdom ministry.
As churches and faith-communities have adapted and changed, we have used adjectives to describe the different emphases, structures and patterns adopted by various congregations: neighborhood-, local-, lighthouse-, missional-, simple-, mega-, para-, attractional-, resource-, multi-site-, virtual-, underground-, etc. Could we add collective- as an additional arrangement for Christ’s Body?


Why COLLECTIVE?
A collective is a group of individuals who join their individual energies and unique styles in order to accomplish something beyond what they could manage on their own. The members of a collective retain their distinctiveness more than when those people join a ‘group.’ A collective is more than the sum of its parts; it is the sum and its parts. 
The Church is one Body with many parts; an eye and an ear are both parts of a body, but they function and contribute differently. 
In a collective-church the emphasis is on individual members doing unique and individual ministry, rather than, as it usually is in a local-church, members participating in ministries of the church. A collective-church is like an art show, highlighting each artist’s work; whereas, most local-churches gather the artists to paint a mural. Both are wonderful uses of artists.
‘Collective’ isn’t just a noun. It also describes things done by a group of people—a collective effort, for instance. Something that is true of an entire group, or something they all share, is also called a collective. As members of Christ’s Church, we share equally the responsibility to proclaim the gospel. No one is more or less responsible even though each person contributes differently.
As will be explained further, the members in a collective-church are already-disciples who accept that responsibility. It is a church that resembles Jesus’ group of disciples, more than the multitudes who heard Him teach. Every member is a sent-one—their lives are already on display, and they only gather occasionally at art shows. 
The work of the ministry is not for a few, but for every Believer. 
No one disagrees with the theology of every member’s significance, but traditional churches have difficulty putting that belief into practice. Unfortunately, full-fledged members of Christ’s Body aren’t always seen as ministers unless they head a group, teach sermons, lead corporate worship, prophesy at gatherings or oversee some aspect of church.
There simply aren’t enough leadership positions to allow every member in a traditional congregation to be identified as a minister (aka, leader). When these scarce, mission-critical leadership positions are the only options for ‘advancement’ in ministry, it can lead to discouraging experiences, where a willing believer says yes to an ill-suited role, only to conclude they must not be cut out for significant ministry after all.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 4)
The word ‘church’ is much like the word ‘school.’ Both can refer to a neighborhood facility, but also a training process. Schools educate and graduate students, and kids pass through elementary school in order to attend middle and high school. Hopefully, they go on to college. 
Schools equip students for their future, and that future is NOT to remain students in the school.
If high schools didn’t graduate seniors, they would soon run out of room for freshmen. They would need to build larger and larger facilities in order to contain a swelling population. But would we celebrate a huge school that rarely graduated anyone? 
The goal of school is to pass students along with the knowledge and experience they’ll need for the next grade. Unless a student has a significant problem or lack of ability to absorb the lessons in one grade, they aren’t held back to repeat those lessons. 
Once a youngster graduates from middle school or college, they won’t gain much by returning to elementary school.
Church, as it is traditionally structured, has a graduation problem. We forget that Jesus made disciples and sent them. He trained them to be able to do ministry after He was gone. Like a good teacher, He gave instruction and assignments that prepared them for what would come after graduation. 
He never intended His school to keep attracting more and more students to one or two locations; instead, He designed a school that is infinitely mobile, using its graduates as an endless supply of teachers.
Graduates were tooled by their training to become teachers wherever they went in the world. Their training wasn’t supposed to convince students that they would always need more training, or different gifting. 
If our ministry-schools (i.e., churches) do not graduate many students, they run short of teachers, and because the ministry-leadership positions continue to be filled with already trained Believers, there isn’t opportunity for newer/younger Believers to get much ministry experience.
Here’s a really challenging question I have asked myself for decades: If our equipping ministry fails to produce equipped-for-ministry saints—people who now need far less training because they are doing far more ministry themselves—isn’t something wrong with our equipping?
I've heard too many pastors explain that the reason they can't raise up more leaders is that they have been given congregations of impossibly needy people. I cannot accept that reasoning.
When I pastored The Coastlands, I realized that already-trained leaders actually hindered me from training others. As I pondered this dilemma, a picture of a large iceberg came to my mind. I puzzled over what God might be saying to me, and I discovered that roughly 25% of an iceberg is above water—much like the percentage of leaders in a church.
How could I get more of the submerged ice from the large iceberg to rise above the water? If I removed ice already above the water, simple physics would cause previously submerged ice to rise above the water line.
Unless they continually send already-trained ministers away, churches cannot continue to train more people for ministry. New leaders will not rise unless old leaders vacate their positions.
Over time, as people get trained in Kingdom dynamics, they find it difficult to fully express their ministry within churches that do not have enough ministry-leadership positions. Longing more to do ministry than to receive it, those already-disciples grow bored and disinterested. 
Could some of the decline in attendance and interest in the local church by longtime church attenders be due to our failure to truly graduate them to meaningful ministry?
And more to the point of the different church model I’m proposing, is there a way to engage already-developed and experienced Believers in meaningful ministry alongside traditional church, so that the leadership roles they served inside church can be filled with newer/younger people who are being trained?


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Interlude)
Let’s be careful. Please.
I have hesitated writing about an additional expression of ‘church’ for three years. I was, and am still, concerned that some people will misinterpret my excitement over another way for the Body of Christ to present itself to the world.
The Church doesn’t need more critics, and I do not believe the cause of Christ is advanced by Believers who air their grievances against the Church or a church. Until you have tried to lead a congregation of people like yourself with opinions and preferences that are at odds with those of others in the same church, I’m not sure you can add much to the discussion.
It reminds me of the time when a couple in our church complained to me about the lack of experience among the cell group leaders they knew. The couple had not been able to find a cell group with leaders who knew enough to lead this couple. When I suggested that it might be a signal to them that they should lead a group themselves, they balked.
Call me a mean guy, but I had very little interest in their supposed discernment and insight (being able to spot inadequate leaders) when they couldn’t or wouldn’t use what they knew to actually gather and disciple a few other people.
I’m very sorry for whatever disappointments anyone has had in church. But the grand miracle has always been that Jesus uses flawed and failed people like us to keep advancing His purposes in the world. Believers, even matured spiritual leaders, will continually disappoint themselves and others. If you hold yourself aloof from every body of Believers, and can’t find some form of meaningful, group life with other members of Jesus’ Church, are you certain the problem is everyone else?
I love the local church. I love my denomination of churches. I truly hope you will see that the additional model I’m experimenting with is a supplement to the local church, not a replacement of it.
If we start by talking about what’s wrong with church, I don’t think we’ll end up with a good alternative. Instead, let’s ask, “What else and what other could the church do/be in order to keep making and sending disciples into the harvest?”
If you feel disgruntled, nostalgic or critical, please find another champion…


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 5)
I realize that some of you are growing impatient with the slow roll-out of this new model. Though I do not want to frustrate anyone with too much backdrop or the many reasons why I believe an additional expression of church is needed in this era, neither do I want to contribute to a quick-fix mentality that stymies the Body of Christ.
We don’t need fads, gimmicks or slogans. 
I want to be part of a meaningful discussion on how the Church can do better at increasing the number of increasingly capable ministry-agents. Whichever model of church anyone follows, let us be convinced that it is making shepherds out of sheep and sending more workers into the harvest.
And now to more of the particulars of a collective-church, and how it differs from our usual model of church… 
It helps me to think of analogies, comparisons between things, when I try to describe something that doesn’t yet exist. For instance, I view a traditional church much like a train—the engine car(s) pull the passenger/cargo cars, and regardless of how many cars get joined one behind the other, there isn’t much need or opportunity for any of the passenger/cargo cars to become engine cars; if engine cars are added, they simply follow behind the lead engine. Wherever the lead car goes, all the others follow.
A collective-church looks more like an armada of ships. Instead of perpetually lining everyone up to follow the same track, it commissions all the able leaders to captain their own boats (and develop their own crews). Rather than traveling on the exact path of the lead ship, the captains are given coordinates and told to get there along whatever course they are led to take.
Let me offer another analogy to highlight a difference between a collective-church and a more traditional church. Think of the difference between a restaurant and a catering company. A restaurant invites people to its location to sit and eat what the cooks prepare. A catering company doesn’t offer seating at a fixed address; instead, it sends servers and food preparers to locations throughout the city. 
A collective-church provides advanced training for servers and chefs to become even better at bringing food to people; it doesn’t offer any training to people who merely enjoy a good meal out. This is why I say collective-churches can exist alongside more traditionally configured churches. Local church with its weekly services, ministry programs and defined vision for a growing group of Believers is vital to the whole Body.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 6)
A collective-church is more like a denomination of ministers than like a traditional local church. Ministers who are doing ministry in various locations can’t possibly also gather weekly with one another. 
A denomination doesn’t want to distract its ministers from their vital work to develop people in their communities, so it only gathers its ‘members’ occasionally. Between those denominational meetings, it supports and resources its members rather than insisting that its members come to denominational headquarters.
Collective-church ‘members’ do not all gather at a single location weekly. Instead, they are engaged in individual ministry endeavors where they live and work. Because they are caring for people and taking responsibility for doing ministry, they do not need as much input. 
Members of a collective-church do ministry weekly, and only occasionally meet as an entire congregation. That’s almost the exact opposite priority in most local churches.
This is not an ideal arrangement for new or young Believers—who need frequent and regular instruction. Local churches, planted and/or led by pastors, are the best environment for people to get equipped for ministry. Sunday school, adult ministries, sermon series, corporate worship, etc.—these are vital for spiritual formation. 
I planted and pastored local churches for decades, and for most Believers most of the time, a local church is their best option. 
Voices in the Church that tell us we don’t need churches, we can simply do ministry on our own without all the programs and demands of church weighing us down, invariably come from individuals who benefitted from the very kind of church they descry. Whatever its flaws ‘church’ is still the best venue to welcome seekers, draw people to Christ, train and equip disciples of all ages and give Believers a taste of ministry life.
If I feel so positively toward traditional local church, why am I suggesting an additional model for church? 
Because no matter how well local churches welcome and train Believers, they don’t seem to know how to make use of Believers, trained for years in church, who are ready to be sent to cater beyond the church walls. 
Those mature believers eventually become unsatisfied with their church experience because it is mostly geared to receiving rather than giving service. A collective-church gives mature Believers the opposite experience: putting almost all the emphasis on giving rather than receiving ministry.
A collective-church concentrates on meaningful exchanges between its members in-between occasional gatherings. How much or how often they get to meetings or locations isn’t as important as how much they get to one another—and to the people in their circle of influence.
*SPOILER ALERT* The members of a collective-church are all already-equipped and matured Believers. Those members do individual ministry in their own sphere, everything from leading Bible studies at their work to organizing relief supplies with others in their community. People will be brought to Christ through the members' ministry, but no one will be brought to the collective-church. The collective-church doesn't make disciples; its members do.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 7)
Even after decades of walking with the Lord, I am not always certain when He is leading me, as opposed to when I’m just having my own thoughts about something. In either case, it is best to proceed gingerly and unassumingly. Biblically speaking, it’s moving forward like Joshua and the children of Israel who were told not to crowd too close to the Ark—presuming they knew the way to go—because they had “not passed this way before” (Joshua 3:3-4).
I happily admit I don’t exactly know where all this is going.
Human nature is presumptuously self-assured. We almost always think we’re right. When others think about things differently than we do, we’re tempted to declare them ‘wrong.’ Disagreeing with others is one way we reassure ourselves that we’re right.
That is one of the big challenges in offering an additional model for church. I do not think a collective-church is more ‘right’ than a traditional church. The Church needs dozens of models to ‘clothe’ groups of Believers who work together. Any configuration, structure or arrangement that sends workers into the harvest is wonderful.
That is why I celebrate single-campus churches alongside multi-site churches. Mini-churches are as legitimate as mega-churches. Denominational churches are no better or worse than independent ones, and churches of 2-3,000 are no more legitimate than congregations of 2-3. 
Whenever Believers gather, Jesus is in the midst.
When I was the college pastor at ‘Church on the Way’ decades ago, I observed a large segment of the congregation (singles ages 25-30) that wasn’t engaged in much ministry other than attending the main service. I believed that if we collected them together in meaningful fellowship and equipping, they would become more active ministers.
We did, and they did. Years later, long after I had left and the group disbanded, one of the key staff members of the church told me they have never had such a surplus of volunteer workers like they did when that group existed. I started a church aimed at adults with particular characteristics.
*SPOILER* Collective-church targets a very specific population: men and women who have been active in ministry, utilizing the training and instruction they received in local churches, but who now find themselves without a local church that can use their ministry know-how. 
As I have said before, churches have a graduation problem. They struggle to find enough ministry work for all the people they train—unless they send their graduates out. Even if churches don’t intentionally send mature believers out and away into the harvest, something seems to happen unintentionally. Transitions, developments and new visions gather newer members to churches—and disperse older members. 
What if the scattering of saints isn’t the disaster we generally imagine? What if ‘in with the new and out with the old’ is akin to the persecution of the early church that scattered Believers “throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1-4)?
Can anyone point me to Scripture that even hints that Believers are supposed to forever remain in their church? As long as we are pursuing fellowship and intentionally gathering with other saints, what biblical argument can be made to suggest that we stay rooted in one body of Believers until we die?
Just as I observed those single young adults who needed to be gathered and utilized, I see a huge group of ‘reared and geared’ saints who could still benefit mightily by being gathered and validated as ministers.  They are not rebels or renegades; they love Jesus and His Church, and they want to continue serving the purposes and people of God.
They just don’t find connection or usefulness in an existing body of Believers. Perhaps they have moved somewhere where they cannot find a church that shares their perspective. 
Maybe their role within a church has been passed along to younger/newer leaders who need the experience that comes from doing things the older saint used to do; as I told leaders in my church long ago, “I cannot afford to waste a perfectly good role on someone who already knows how to fill it. I need your spot, so I can train others with it.”
It was no accident that we planted so many churches out from The Coastlands, the church I pastored; our mission statement was a promise to love, mend, train and send people (into more ministry than they ever imagined they could do). Jesus intends His Church to send more than to collect (Romans 10:14-15), so shouldn’t models for church focus on deploying ministers-to-the-world, rather than on gathering and keeping them?
Churches send people whether they intend to or not. If those churches support and encourage their sent ones, fantastic. But for the many mature, ministry-minded Believers who have been sent, intentionally or unintentionally, but are not being gathered and validated, the collective-church could be one answer.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 8)
Enough preliminaries and explanation for why I see the need for another model of church than the local church prevalent today—a form of corporate, congregational assembly that would have been completely unrecognizable centuries ago. It’s time for details—at least, what I envision for this prototype I’m calling a collective-church.
As far as I know, it doesn’t (yet) exist, so my first attempts to describe it will be clumsy, and as we live it out, likely many aspects will morph and change into things we don’t see today. I don’t even know if it will work. I don’t mind failing or being mistaken, as long as I’m doing my best.
One last story. In 1984 as I prepared to leave L.A. to go plant a new church in Santa Cruz, I eagerly sought books to read that would help my thinking about church-planting. I wasn’t interested in copying what others did, but I wanted their experience to be a reference for mine. In the Library of Congress (where we searched for all possible titles in the days before the internet), I found only three books about church-planting.
Following the Golden Rule for ministry, I compiled a small book about church-planting during the first two years of our new congregation, entitled “Delta Recourse.” The book wasn’t a 10-step formula for successfully starting a congregation; instead, it offered a different way of thinking about church planting.
I’m attempting to do the same thing now, explaining both my journey toward another form for church, and what I’m aiming at.
Regardless of which model of ‘church’ we participate in, or whether we are a member of a(ny) church, what matters most is if we are passing along lessons-learned on our journey with Christ.
The Collective-Church model differs from traditional church in several ways. In a nod to my pastor-friends who love 3-point alliterative sermons, I’ll group them under three headings: 
*Members
*Ministry 
*Meetings
I’ll explain each more fully in future posts, but here are highlights of the main contrasts to traditional church.
Members—Jesus described the Kingdom as a small seed that grows into a large tree whose branches provide rest and shelter for others (Mark 4:31-32). Members of a collective-church are like those branches who provide shade rather than seeking it. They are the disciples, not the multitude. They are experienced, long-time Believers who have lots of experience ministering to others. 
Because a collective-church is like a catering company, or a professional society of doctors, membership depends on qualification. This isn’t a place where people learn to become physicians. It is where doctors learn better practices from other doctors. A collective-church is a gathering of shepherds, not like the local church where sheep get turned into shepherds.
Ministry—As most of us know, ministry is just another word for service—something we do to/for others because of what Jesus has done for us. A collective-church celebrates the ministry of every Believer, recognizing that different body-parts function differently (1 Corinthians 12), and we shouldn’t treat public, church-centered ministers as more significantly spiritual than behind-the-scenes workers.
A collective-church resembles a kaleidoscope. Each piece of colored glass is shaped differently, and gorgeous patterns come from multi-faceted, multi-centered ministry, anywhere and everywhere members work in the harvest. We help each person get better at being themselves, and serving as they were designed to do. We don’t call some leaders and others not-leaders.
Meetings—The ‘early Church’ was built upon the Apostles’ teaching, but filled out by members who brought a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, etc. to their gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:26). Everyone could and did contribute to edify, to learn from and to support one another. The list of where and how we can speak into one another’s life is almost endless once we realize that a sermon isn’t the only way the Church gets tooled for ministry. Most of the affectionate encouragement, kind counsel and poignant exhortation we received as we grew in the Lord happened between the weekly meetings at traditional churches.
A collective-church doesn’t have a fixed meeting place for weekly gatherings of the entire church. Individual members might do what they do weekly, but the collective congregation gets together only periodically—usually every other month. In a collective-church, the strongest point of association (belonging) isn’t a location, or a set of scheduled meetings, but a shared perspective about the Kingdom of God, our place within it, and the individualized call to pass along to others what He has given to us.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 9)
As a way to introduce the sorts of people who become members of a collective-church, let me describe one of the biggest benefits of belonging to a local church body. The weekly gatherings, consistent instruction, ministry programs, youth groups, children’s ministry, mission teams, VBS, special events, cell groups, congregational worship and fellowship in local churches create a process and a momentum for developing people in Christ.
It’s popular to complain about all the programs and busy church calendar that can make local churches seem like institutions or businesses that grind people up. No doubt, some churches become so program-driven that they lose sensitivity to the realities of people’s busy lives. Nevertheless, the steady stream of events and service opportunities in local church provide ‘places’ for people to fit and be carried along by the motion created by something bigger than the individuals who attend.
One their own, without events to attend or groups to join, most Believers do not initiate much ministry activity, and they do not grow in the Lord as rapidly. The local church is still the best venue for maturing and engaging men and women in Kingdom enterprise. 
People gain experience ministering to others by what is modeled for them by more experienced members in church. Over time, they progress through many assignments—filling roles left by those who also advance to other responsibilities. Eventually, there aren’t many roles in the local church left to fill, and that is when the process slows or stops for longtime Followers of Christ.
After one generation passes along its experience to the next generation, what happens to those still-experienced ministry–agents who have been refitted and retooled to function in the Kingdom according to their God-intended design? 
When seasons end, and when these able ministers are no longer vital links or active body-members in a local church, should they conclude that they are ‘done’ with ministry? I don’t think so. The ready-harvest needs more workers, not fewer. 
Because the Church has tended to think about ministry primarily in connection with local churches (or para church groups), we have forgotten that God calls individuals. We ask people, “What church do you attend?” I’m suggesting we ought to change the question and ask, “What church attends you?”
Affirming that the most basic building blocks in the Kingdom are individuals rather than congregations, a collective-church sees the church as far less important than its member-ministers. A collective-church provides connection and validation for those who have benefited greatly from their years ‘in church,’ but who feel themselves called out as streams in the desert. 
They have already transitioned from being people who are cared for by others; they now accept responsibility for the care and nurture of others. 
For anyone considering if a collective-church might be for them, here are some challenging questions to ask yourself:

  • Am I hurt by or bitter toward church? 
    • If I have a pained reaction to past church experiences, I won’t benefit from or bring benefit to any church model until I forgive and resolve to love Jesus’ Bride.
  • Do I have mentoring connections with anyone? 
    • If I am not thinking about and caring for specific people—building credibility with them, so I can pass along Kingdom truths—changing church models won’t accomplish anything.
  • Is my voice, service and experience still wanted at my church? 
    • If the pastors/leaders of my local church actively use me to minister to others, I should stay right where I am.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 10)
A collective-church is both a local and trans-local congregation, with features resembling neighborhood congregations and mission societies. Its members will be few, its physical presence in a community almost invisible. But it connects long-time, already-equipped Believers, who have had years of training and experience in other, more traditional churches. 
In addition to their ministry capabilities, the most important aspect of membership in a collective-church is a common perspective. The members are of one mind and one accord. Through the years they have embraced a similar mindset for ministry, and they hold certain truths in common. 
They want to continue “in the things [they] have learned and become convinced of” (2 Timothy 3:14). Life has a way of wearing us down, and making us forget the truths that changed our life, and without fellowship, even long-time Believers grow stale and “weary of doing good” (Galatians 6:9).
Members of a collective-church no longer need the type of building-block instruction or programs that once were so necessary to mature them in Christ. But to stay on mission, they do need reminders and reinforcements that are provided by fellowship with like-minded peers. 
We all need encouragement to keep living and ministering with a legacy perspective. By 'vintage perspectives' I am referring to the lessons-learned by individual men and women decades ago--truths that have profoundly affected the way they live their life in Christ. I am not talking about the difference between the historic and contemporary church. 
Older saints are supposed to pass along those truths to newer ones and the 'ideal' is for that to happen in a local church. And it does--until older saints move away to where they are not known, or until a church can't find ways to use them. 
I love being a grandparent 'watching' my grandkids and offering thoughts to them along the way. But there is much more for me to keep giving to many people outside my family. Collective-church is for people still doing ministry outside the church. As I keep saying, if you have any possibility/place to minister within your local church, stay there.
If we look at the history of the Foursquare Movement, the collective-church model may be more understandable. Long before the Foursquare denomination acquired meeting-place properties, the Foursquare Gospel was a message. It expressed historic, biblical truths simply and in language that fit its era. Foursquare was not primarily a place for people to congregate; it was not (yet) an organizational structure. Rather, it was a perspective for people to communicate about Jesus our Savior, Healer, Baptizer in the Spirit and soon-coming King.
The emphasis was on training people to become better communicators of the message, and more effective ministry-agents who relied on the Spirit’s leading. The rallying cry was “Proclaim the Foursquare Gospel around the world.” The meetings and meeting places were geared to getting people to go—not getting them to stay.
That is also the perspective of The Commended-Collective. We are a Foursquare Fellowship for Ministry-Agents (near and far).

  • We believe the word of God defines good doctrine, but it also speaks counsel and revelation to Believers who read and reflect on it. No matter what culture or society, the Bible speaks truth to everyone. We believe in present-day miraculous works of the Spirit when the message of the Cross is proclaimed. 

  • We worship as the appropriate response to the King of Kings, and we believe God is enthroned on our praises (Psalm 22:3). During times of giving such glory to God with our lips, we expect to hear from Him; we open our hearts to Him in praise, and He opens His heart for us. Worship is far more than singing.

  • Journeying with God requires ongoing surrender. We give up our thoughts for His, we subordinate our will to His and we willingly die, so that His life can manifest in and through us (2 Corinthians 4:7-12). 

  • What remains of our earthly life is best spent for the sake of others. As Paul says, “I will most gladly spend and be expended for your souls (2 Corinthians 12:15). As Jesus’ disciples, our call is to imitate Paul, who was “poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service” of others’ faith (Philippians 2:17).
Because the primary point of affinity is a spiritual perspective rather than a physical address, our members can live in different locations in the world with vastly different life contexts.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 11)
Churches in the earliest years after Christ’s resurrection were meeting-up places of the called-out ones who passed along Kingdom lessons they were learning. Members-only meetings were highly restrictive, and new people were allowed to attend those early churches only after they were baptized and demonstrated genuine conversion. 
I am not arguing that all churches ought to go back to that kind of limiting protocol, but a church of members-only like a collective-church is not unusual. Each era has given rise to different expressions and iterations of Jesus’ gathered Body on earth. Its form isn’t as important as its purpose.
The apostles Paul and John both spoke to leaders and the ‘churches’ who gathered in their homes, so it hasn’t been difficult to accept ‘home groups’ that function like mini-churches. They gather and minister to people who may or may not ‘go to’ a church campus to worship and hear a weekly message from the lead pastor. 
As long as the small groups are led by someone ‘in’ the main church, the ministry they do to/with their members is considered part of the church’s ministry to its members and its community.
I ‘attended’ such a church in China years ago: 4x’s each year, the ministry leaders of this vast congregation gathered, surreptitiously (to remain under the radar of communist officials), to receive teaching and encouragement; the people who were ministered to and led by these ministry agents NEVER met with one another. 
It was a cell group church with no local footprint, no common gathering point. It was a ‘church’ because the cell group leaders each identified with the vision and ethos of the lead pastors, and their identity as members translated to the people in their small groups.
Such churches are not defined by weekly gatherings of the congregation at a central site to hear the lead pastor, but by lay-leaders’ participation in periodic training/tooling. The leaders ‘go’ to serve the people; the people never ‘go’ to church. There is no church building to congregate the congregation, so the congregation is defined by whoever receives ministry from the ‘leaders.’
Though it doesn’t fit well with our current description of a ‘local church,’ most of us would embrace a ‘church’ that never congregates the congregation—as long as it does gather the leaders as a proxy. 
Rather than collecting the energies and ministries of congregants to support programs and activities planned and overseen by designated leaders of the church, a collective-church resources its individual members to pursue self-directed ministry ventures that best match their unique design.
A collective-church is a combined flock of ministers who serve the people in their respective worlds like streams flowing from a river into the desert (Isaiah 44:3). As they carry water to the parched of the world, people will be won to Christ and discipled in His ways. The ministers who ‘go’ out from this new-style church will take responsibility for the ones they win to Christ—and then disciple them. 
Eventually, those won and discipled people may be gathered into congregations that are best served by becoming their own ‘church.’ 
Revisiting the analogy of a catering service rather than a restaurant, we fully expect that some of chefs and servers who bring food to various locations will develop into regular outings, and eventually become start-up restaurants. Collective-churches don’t say, “Bring your new friends back to our restaurant.” It says to its members, “Go, until you feel led to stay there among your new friends.”
Chefs and servers belonging to a catering company feed people at various locations in the community, but the people being fed do not become part of the catering company. They don’t have to join in order to eat. In the same way, the members of a collective-church are ministers who serve throughout the community. 
The people they minister to are not considered members of the collective. It isn’t restrictive elitism—just a recognition that there is more to catering a meal than to enjoy eating one.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 12)
“Every Believer a minister” is at the core of a collective-church’s vision. Leaders in every church model agree with that concept, and do their best to live it out. However, the structure and mentality of a collective-church arrange for everyone to “fulfill” their ministry more intentionally than in a traditional local church (Colossians 4:17).
The work of church is to build, train and release people to fulfill their ministry—not for people’s ministry to build the church. At what point do we release trained people to do their ministry? A collective-church offers one possible answer to that age-old question.
When my walk with Jesus got firmly established during my university days, I belonged to a student ministry group. Though we did elect officers to various roles, those elected leaders mostly handled administrative/organizational details; they didn’t really lead the ministry as the primary public voices. Nobody thought of themselves as ‘being in’ their church. 
Scads of us did evangelism, conducted Bible studies, counseled one another and did the “works of service” the whole Church is meant to do (Ephesians 4:12). It would have been ridiculous to imagine that just a few of us—who were already just a tiny minority among the many unbelieving students—could do all the ministry that needed doing.
Everyone was busy with classes and extracurricular activities; no full-time student could possibly be a full-time minister. We viewed each other as peers, but with different majors. We didn’t bisect our group into clergy/laity. Depending on which week it was in the quarter/semester, different ones of us might be available for some needed ministry. 
We were being built up by each of us doing our part. That is the vision for a collective-church. It begins with a redefinition of ministry.
As I hinted before, the Church has done a disservice to its members by confining the concept of ministry to activities done mostly in church. Instead of using church activities and programs as training opportunities to equip people to minister outside the traditional church, many leaders unintentionally restrict ministry to just a few activities done by a select few in the church.
We don’t mean to convey an elitist mentality, but church too often reinforces a false duality—people who preach or prophesy at a scheduled meeting are doing more ministry than those who prepare coffee and goodies for after the meeting. Leaders of groups tend to be viewed as doing ministry; whereas, those who hold the group together by frequent calls and texts aren’t seen as true ministers.
A collective-church sees all parts of the body as necessary. Believers don’t need a special ‘calling’ or a reserved-for-few anointing to do “the work of service.” 
The particular way in which each member ministers to others will be richly diverse, according to the grace given to each one (Ephesians 4:7). Exhorters don’t work the same as Prophets; Mercy-Showers are drawn to different needs than Teachers. But all are celebrated equally.
In a traditional local church, the programs and scheduled activities provide the perfect training ground for developing ministers. The whole congregation is asked to participate in and help those prescribed happenings by serving. Rightly so, because no one grows in Kingdom maturity without being a servant.
In a collective-church those people who have already been trained through serving for many years are fully released into doing whatever ministry they wish to do. Since a collective-church has no building, and no programs designed for the entire congregation, there isn’t anything for members to do unless they initiate ministry.
Ministry arranged by various members may be regular, even traditional-looking like a weekly Bible study or a shared meal with a small accountability group. Other members may elect to minister in ways in which no discernible pattern can be recognized. 
We want to help ministry-minded people become more effective ambassadors for Christ, serving others in ways that have traditionally been limited to designated clergy/leaders. Our aim is to promote already-disciples into greater fruitfulness in their current setting, consistent with the way God gifted them.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 13)
Another unusual feature of a collective-church is the lack of meetings. We don’t hold a church service each week. 
“Sounds like a great church,” I can hear someone say. “Nobody expects me to attend every week!”
A collective-church is NOT a less-demanding type of church designed for do-the-least-possible people. We love church, and we were the sort of people who attended whenever possible. We grew up in church and our lives were changed by what we experienced in service after service. 
But things have changed. Like adult children who celebrate their upbringing, it’s time to move out. The house and family routines that were so meaningful in our growing-up years don’t fit like they used to; it’s time to start our own life-practices for families of our own. 
Participating in a local church week after week establishes crucial patterns in Believers’ lives: they learn the value of God’s word and the power of worship; they grow through servanthood and fellowship. But because members of a collective-church have already spent years repeating those patterns—being loved, mended and trained,  they don’t need as much input and training as they did earlier in their walk with God. They are ready to be examples to the world around them.
Consequently—and here’s the most obvious difference between a local and a collective church—members of the collective aren’t expected to meet corporately in a church service for instruction and worship each week. 
Why? Because anyone who accepts responsibility for the spiritual development of others needs far less instruction themselves. In feeding others, they get fed; in serving others, they get served.
Besides, collective-church members know the value of being in one another’s lives. They don’t rely on the church to gather everyone because they initiate contact, accountability and partnership with one another. A collective-church is NOT for Believers who want to “separate” themselves from other Believers “against all sound wisdom” (Proverbs 18:1).
If we don’t meet weekly, all together at one or several locations, what connects us to one another? On what basis do we join together if we don’t often gather together? A traditional church relies on physical proximity and frequent teachings/meetings to produce like-mindedness. But congregations are fellowships of belief, practice and action far more than of location/place. 
Biblically speaking, oneness doesn’t happen just because people are in the same place at the same time; true communion results from us being ‘in’ one another’s lives, and being of one mind. Fellowship between the meetings will depend on each member’s initiative.
‘Every member a minister’ doesn’t mean everyone has the same level of spiritual maturity and experience. Depending on where and how we have journeyed with God, we have varied kinds of expertise. What we have never encountered, another member has likely dealt with—or both of us can learn a new lesson together. 
We develop others by sharing with them Jesus’ words to us. We make disciples by teaching what we’ve been taught. A collective-church puts its emphasis on teaching, rather than being taught.
The Commended Collective, the particular collective-church I will be starting soon, will meet corporately every two months on Sunday afternoons. Members who live at a distance can join those meetings via zoom and/or receive a report from members who were able to attend. Once each year in March/April, we will spend a weekend together.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Part 14)
In strictly physical terms, a community is a group of people who live in the same place (i.e., a town or neighborhood). Members of the community ‘belong’ because they reside in that named locale—whether or not they participate in community activities or socialize with other members. In the same way, churches, as ‘communities,’ are named locations, but no one really lives at a church address. 
So, we redefine ‘church community’ as a place to which people travel (and stay for short whiles), rather than a place where they live. Our ‘church home’ isn’t where we live, just where we meet our church family.
That shift permits us to describe a congregation as a ‘local’ church even though it no longer serves as a ‘neighborhood’ church (like the main model decades ago). People who live miles apart in completely different towns, identify as members of the same church because its perspectives are closest to what they believe. 
They belong to their faith community not because they live side by side with their spiritual neighbors, but because they fellowship with other people who travel to the same location for Sunday service.
Many churches have multiple services, and people can be part of the same church even if they never attend the same service week after week. “Being in the same church” no longer means encountering or even seeing other members of the community. Total strangers can legitimately claim to be part of the same church. They aren’t in regular fellowship with every other member of the community; rather, they enjoy a circle of relationships within the larger sphere of the whole church.
More recently, the concept of ‘church’ has been stretched again with the rise of ‘multi-site churches,’ who define themselves as “one church with several locations.” Rather than emphasizing a single location as the basis for community, these churches stress a common vision and a centralized staff/administration. The meeting-sites may be miles apart, but they are part of the same ‘church.’
The parameters for ‘church’ are no longer limited by when or where members gather. Church-as-a-community doesn’t necessarily meet up at a single address, or at the same service times. Multiple services and/or multiple locations are now normal expressions of ‘church’ throughout the world.
‘Place’ becomes even less relevant in our current world, where virtual communities exist alongside physical communities. Communication platforms can connect people who live far apart. Whether people access resources of a ‘church’ in real-time or on-demand, in-person or remotely, we consider them part of its congregation.
More and more, then, the church that people ‘go to’ is becoming the activities/resources of the church they access—whenever and however they choose.
What we call a ‘local church’ is quite different than a ‘neighborhood church.’ I remember the outcry against today’s typical church when people began migrating to congregations across town. Those bigger churches drew individuals away from churches with fewer programs; dynamic teachings and worship attracted Believers away from churches that relied on the loyalty of the congregants, rather than on providing them with vital ministry.
How many parents have switched churches because their kids needed a youth group to attend? How many families eventually choose to attend a church with a dynamic kids’ program? Believers with a heart for missions want to find a church with a world vision. A collective-church appeals to long-time, fruitful Believers who know they are to continue ministering, but who cannot quite find a nearby church that shares their perspective.


A NEW MODEL FOR CHURCH (Summary)
As I said earlier, the proposal I’m making for additional expressions of ‘church’ is a work in-process. I recognize that its incompleteness will frustrate people who want to ‘do’ a collective-church, or join one. But some things we learn by revelation, and others become clear through practice. This paper has been my attempt to clarify my own understanding—wrestling with concepts and components of ‘church’ that are rooted in personal experience, not necessarily in Scripture.
It reminds me of my first visit to South Korea where I had been asked to teach on thanksgiving. I assumed the pastor who invited me meant I should share scriptures about worship, praise and giving thanks to God. Imagine my surprise when I entered the sanctuary and observed the very large banners with pictures of turkeys, cornucopias and pumpkins celebrating Thanksgiving.
The American missionaries who brought the Gospel also brought their holiday calendar. I am not necessarily faulting them, but Thanksgiving services that are so much a part of one culture’s church experience are not actually crucial—or even spiritual. 
I’m asking, might there be other ‘meaningful’ aspects of ‘church’ (as we have known and experienced it) that could be adjusted, in order to expand the Kingdom by engaging more of its ministry-ambassadors?
Could some Believers benefit from slightly different patterns of instruction and fellowship at different seasons of their life? Could we offer additional ways for faithful Jesus Followers to stay on their assignment and be encouraged by having meaningful connection with other like-hearted saints?
I believe we have options. And I, at least, want to give it a try…


Questions & Answers
QUESTION #1: My question is, would I fit in this new model of church? Here is who I am: I left the church system to work in a mental hospital with suicidal teens. I decided to be very single minded about this and had a hard time balancing church responsibilities with work. That was in 2010. 
Secondly, I am not a pastor. After working in what I regarded as a missionary field - the hospital - I transitioned over to private practice as a counselor. But I basically am a gardener who has twenty plants to tend. I get down in the dirt and mire with them, I plant seeds, water them, weed them, dig up the stones, and provide splints to help them stand up. I have led many groups in church, but this is a very different work. 
When I have gone back to church, I don't fill like I belong. I feel like a spectator and I have never wanted to be that. If you do not think I would fit, I am okay with that. But I have been curious about your new model. Thanks!
ANSWER: The feeling of being a spectator, of no longer seeming to fit in a local church is exactly the felt-need a collective-church meets. Local churches are supposed to use their meetings/activities/programs to develop and equip people for the work of ministry. Like high school prepares kids for college, high schools are not a good fit for people who have graduated from college—unless they are teachers.
You are doing vital ministry, but that ministry isn't part of the vision of a local church. This is where a collective-church might help. The vision of a collective-church is determined by its members. A local church that does not share your vision for specific ministry often has trouble offering you fellowship. 
They are not uncaring or unloving; it is just that they are trying to move an entire congregation forward with a common vision. They're doing their job, and a collective-church can offer fellowship that is not connected with a common vision. The vision of a collective-church is to serve and encourage each member’s vision and ministry service.

QUESTION #2: Although I strongly believe that there’s more elasticity to be exploited in our concepts and practices regarding “church,” I’m struggling with identifying what you propose with that term. I’m specifically wrestling with the “members-only” aspect of it.
Throughout my Christian life I have frequently returned to the end of Acts 2 as a way of checking my thinking against that description of the church at its birth in order to keep my understanding within its parameters. And for me, one of the things that defined the church in the raw is described in verse 47: “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” I believe that the ongoing ingress of those “being saved” can be viewed as an essential part of what a church is.
Your proposal sounds more like a trans-local ministerial association than a church. I’m more comfortable with your description of it as a “collective.” So I just thought I’d offer these thoughts for what they’re worth.
ANSWER: I do realize that I'm messing with our commonly held concept of 'church.' For the record, I actually thought about calling this model a "collective" without trying to mess with 'church' concept. Ultimately, I'd be happy for it to get labeled a para church ministry...
But to address your specific scriptural question [knowing how much we both look to the Bible for all aspects of ministry], the collective-church is like the gathering of saints in the upper room; they would and did spill out into the streets speaking the high praises of God—each in a different language. It was only Believers who gathered in the upper room, but their whole purpose was to go out into the world.
Members of a collective-church know that their fellowship is not the center of their lives/ministry. Its sole purpose is to gear them up for getting back to the harvest field. They do not confuse ‘church’ with the field of their harvest assignment.
The twelve disciples did not stick together in one large church for the rest of their lives. They each went out on a particular assignment. The ministry they did eventually turned into converts and churches. That process is what I’m trying to address with a collective-church—solely Believers attending infrequent gatherings, but each member doing his/her own ministry activities to draw unbelievers.
I would say to collective-members, "Lead your Bible study, bring people to Jesus and develop them into strong saints. Don't bring them to us because we won't really be able to help them."
A collective-church is much like a trans-local fellowship of ministers. But most are not typical ministers in the way the church uses that language to describe leadership in a church.
A collective-church stands alongside local and para church groups, and even if people cannot see it as a 'church,' it will still provide meaningful fellowship and encouragement for seasoned Believers who are not yet finished with serving the world. 
If they cannot find a local church that shares their ministry vision, I don't think they should have to choose between their vision and the local church's vision.

QUESTION #3: For us, the biggest isolation is geographic. After we retired from vocational ministry 5 years ago, we felt that we weren't finished reaching our little city of 4500, so we opened a coffeehouse/shave ice shop on Main Street with the vision of becoming a redemptive presence as well as a catalytic influence for the heart of our city - Main Street. Over the 5 years we've been doing this, we have become our city's "living room" where we have a unique opportunity to reach those who have been hurt by church, are afraid of church, won't walk into a church and just plain will not walk into a church. 
After 5 years, we have become isolated spectators because we're not "in the ministry" now. We don't have people to talk shop with. It really isn't anyone's fault, and people are supportive of our business and us but when it comes to being included in our denominational stuff, geography often isolates us as well as the necessary mission of denominational leaders to resource the pastors they are charged with to care for. 
So, we go to church seldom as our ministry is weekend evenings at our shop where we gather and build relationships with people, and let's face it, we don't have the energy we had 20 years ago to "do the work of the ministry" until late at night and then get up early to go to church to be spectators. 
We love the pastor and his staff, and we love the people there, but when one sits in a row like birds on a telephone wire listening to good preaching, it's hard to visit. And, we've got to work that evening. Whew! 
You probably know more than you wanted, LOL, but the question is, how can friendships - true, real, do-life-together friendships where we are there for each other - be built over Zoom? There have to be local, or at least close-to-each other geographic "pods" where we can gather over lunch occasionally without having to drive 4-5 hours to do so and at great expense. Your thoughts? Thanks so much for the courage to put the "collective-church" idea out there! Just reading your posts have been super encouraging as we don't feel so weird and "back-slidden."
ANSWER: You and your situation are exactly what is in my heart when I propose an additional model for fellowship/church. 
The only particular that isn't an exact fit is the fact that you are retired ministers. Of course retired ministers (like me) are welcome in a collective-church, but we want to elevate ALL ministry (like your shave ice shop ministry), and serve/support anyone who is serving God's purposes in any way. 
'Everyone a minister' replaces the idea that only a few people leading in a church are ministers. 
Secondly, the lack of close fellowship cannot be fully addressed by zoom, but you might develop connection with others in similar situations, and your conversations one-on-one with one or two others in the collective may at least provide you with some of that wonderful fellowship. 
I would also encourage you to start a collective-church yourselves, by considering your disciples through the years; are any of those whom you have shaped and built also alone in their ministry settings? Could you speak to them individually about teaming up with you?
A collective-church is based on a shared perspective—and the desire to continue encouraging people we have influenced through the years. It assumes that those disciples/friends wish to keep living and ministering where they are. A collective-church can start with just a few people, so please think and pray about those who would love to stay in closer touch with you.

QUESTION #4: If a Collective member isn’t affiliated with a local church, how would they respond, in a short 2-3 sentence elevator-type speech, to someone asking, “Where do you go to church?”
ANSWER: It's difficult for me to give short answers... 
"I am part of an interesting new-style church. We are more like a catering service taking the Kingdom to people—not inviting them to come eat at our restaurant. The church I’m connected with actually goes to me—and to the others in our church. I feel like a missionary in my world, and I'm so glad to have the support of my church on the front lines where I minister.
By the way, isn't it interesting how the expression "going to work" is changing? Many people no longer go to work, not because they are unemployed, but because they work virtually."

QUESTION #5: Where do you get this idea in Scripture?
ANSWER: 
"Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed? Does he continually turn and harrow the ground? 
Does he not level its surface and sow dill and scatter cummin, and plant wheat in rows, barley in its place and rye within its area? For his God instructs and teaches him properly. 
For dill is not threshed with a threshing sledge, nor is the cartwheel driven over cummin; but dill is beaten out with a rod, and cummin with a club. 
Grain for bread is crushed, Indeed, he does not continue to thresh it forever. Because the wheel of his cart and his horses eventually damage it, he does not thresh it longer. 
This also comes from the LORD of hosts, who has made His counsel wonderful and His wisdom great." ~Isaiah 28:24-29
I am not suggesting that the collective-church model can be found exactly in Scripture, but neither can the local church model be seen. However, this passage reminded me that different approaches and activities are appropriate for seed/seasons. There is more than one way to harvest...
And, I am reminded that if we keep threshing, we eventually damage the grain God intended for bread-making. THAT counsel comes from the Lord. Early in our walk with Jesus, it's important that we walk closely with a Body of other Believers, so we rub shoulders with and learn lessons from those who have walked a bit longer than we have. 
As time goes along, we are led to lead other walkers--and become catalysts for others' growth. Is there another, legitimate phase for older Believers who once were vitally involved in local churches, small or large? I think so. 
We don't necessarily need weekly contact/fellowship, and we don't fit easily back in local churches that are busy raising up newer leaders with their own older leaders. In the mercy of God, we get pointed outward with our ministry skills, making inroads in the world around us--rather than curling back inside local churches. 
Challenging to know how to think about our assignment at this stage in life, when we are still advocates for the local church for most people in their stages of life...

QUESTION #6: We have been closely following your posts about the Collective - it’s really caught our interest! It is important to us to know what you believe about tithing. We are currently faithful and tithe to our current church. Will the Collective be collecting tithes from its members? Thoughts? Blessings!
ANSWER: Tithing is a BIG issue—not so much financially but as a touchstone to consider what it may mean to join a collective-church. 
Since collective members are longtime, mature Believers who have learned to live in counter-intuitive Kingdom ways, they have been faithfully tithing for years. They know that Believers will live best if they return the tithe to God—and give offerings often, as well.
Our tithe belongs to the Lord, and we ‘return it to sender.’ God declares, “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse” (Malachi 3:10). The perspective I was taught and have lived in for decades is that the ‘storehouse’ is where people receive their main feeding, and where resource flows out to help others. 
The tithe belongs in the storehouse, however you define and identify it. 
Pamela and I have stopped tithing to the church I planted almost 40 years ago, and we are waiting to give our tithe to the new collective once it is a legal entity (next month). Once the old church was no longer “our church,” we didn’t see it as the ‘storehouse’ for our tithe.
If people feel they want to continue tithing to a local church, I'd say, 'Great.' But I would also suggest that the local church might still be the best place for them to remain—and do ministry within and out from it. 

QUESTION #7: If we tithe to the Collective under the umbrella of its 501(c)3 status, is it possible for the individual Collective members to receive funding for local ministry-related expenses and/or projects?
ANSWER: The whole point of a collective-church is to encourage people like you to keep doing ministry. 
We won't have a building, and the only 'staff' will be a part-time administrative person. So our church won't have many financial needs. But tithing is an act of wise obedience to the ways of the Lord, and it shouldn’t necessarily be tied to financial needs of an earthly institution. 
Because the collective model emphasizes people doing ministry in their own setting, we want to find a clear path to enable 'members' to use their tithe to support their local ministry. So, perhaps we'll encourage people to send the Commended Collective the portion of their tithe that they didn’t use for their ministry. 
But I am still trying to work all this out. There are legal issues, of course, but also enough ambiguity in Scripture about how, exactly, the tithe is used. It seems to me that people doing ministry always live in a challenging balance of wanting to increase their ministry resources but also wanting to live in selfless obedience.
A new model for church will likely lead to new ways to balance our life in Christ.

QUESTION #8: What is the difference between a Collective Church and a Para Ministry like Inter-Varsity whose mission is still to gather, equip, and send people into various forms of ministry inside and outside of the traditional church structure?
ANSWER: It is very similar. A para-church usually does something that local churches could do, but aren't doing as much as needed. For instance, local churches near a university could sponsor a campus ministry to do what Inter-Varsity does. But not enough local churches reach out to their nearby campuses to meet all the need. 
The same is true of YWAM: it reaches into the world, and is the largest missionary society in the world. Local churches could send scads of trained people on mission teams and then inspire those people to stay on the mission field, but most local churches don't do that. A collective-church gathers and encourages long-time Believers to keep doing the individual ministry they have been led into by the Lord. Local churches could do that, but they are usually more focused on maturing new/young Believers.
Generally, parachurch ministries arise to fill gaps left by traditional local churches. 
That isn’t a criticism, but when we focus on the needs of our existing structures, rather than on the ‘needs of the harvest,’ we miss much. Perhaps because I have been involved in both para- and local- ‘church,’ as well as micro- and mega- ‘church,’ I don’t struggle much with new expressions of ministry.
The questions I have asked for more than 40 years are: “Where is the need? What more, what other could we do to engage more people more fully in Kingdom work?” The collective-church model came from those questions.
It may sound silly, but in the Church, I think ‘structure’ should be a verb—something we do to respond to need—rather than a noun—what we created in response to a previous need. My concentration is on framing people and building them into God-glorifying disciple-makers. I want church to be structured as a response to people’s needs, not vice-versa.
Years ago when I did lots of pastor-training seminars, I asked church leaders to picture a large block of marble and a sculptor with a hammer and chisel. Then I inquired, “Is your church the marble or the tools?” I have observed lots and lots of confusion through the years. Ministry leaders of any church model sometimes forget that their church structure is supposed to shape people; people don’t exist to build churches.
A collective-church is my attempt to address the needs I see in the Body. If local church pastors get inspired by all this to find additional ways within their traditional structures to release and resource long-time Believers in ministry that doesn’t center around their church, I would be very happy.