Voices: Institutions and emerging networks can work together

Can real momentum be manufactured? Can a true movement be started artificially? Maybe, maybe not. But when something has to be artificially manufactured, it tends to have a short runway.

In reality, you can only hope to steward both momentum and a movement, but not really start one.

Several years ago, the late pastor and theologian Tim Keller arrived in New York City and was overwhelmed by the vacuum of gospel influence in arguably the cultural epicenter of the world.

Wanting to remedy the lack of gospel influence, he reasoned he would have to begin collaborating with pastors from different theological flavors across the city. Those pastors became friends, and a movement was launched organically to reach their city together.

I have thought about that relationship quite a bit over the last several years, especially as I have watched new ministry networks emerge across Texas and around the nation. I am not observing this phenomenon from a distance but from courtside.

My experience with collaboration

I am one of the founding leaders of The Pastor’s Common since its inception in 2019, helping shape a network that grew primarily through relationships among pastors, so we could help pastors become the best versions of themselves.

Since its start, we’ve been able to influence Baptist life across Texas by being a space where we speak transparently about the weight of pastoring, as well as cultural issues that fall before us.

On a more local side, I have served on the advisory team for Plant Dallas since its inception in 2025. Plant Dallas is a network developed around a shared burden for church planting and the flourishing of the local churches in Dallas County.

I have also traveled to learn from others doing similar work, including connecting with the Houston Church Planting Network and the Metro Atlanta Collective, where I have seen how pastors can collaborate around a shared vision.

What I have repeatedly discovered is some of the most fruitful networks are not born because someone decided, “Hey, we need another organization.” They are born because friends look at one another and say: “Something needs to be done. Why don’t we do it together?”

Recently, pastors from West Texas reached out to me to talk through their idea for what they described as a “Revitalize West Texas” network. They hope to bring together pastors who share a burden for revitalizing churches across their region.

The recipe was familiar. Pastors were talking to pastors. Friends were identifying a common challenge. Most importantly, relationships were creating the possibility for collaboration and greater gospel impact.

How they can work together

Those experiences have given me a perspective of both the opportunities and limitations of both emerging networks and well-established institutions.

One thing is clear to me: Emerging networks and institutions are at their best when they do not view one another as competition, but as necessary opportunities to collaborate. Of course, that collaboration assumes a shared vision, agreement on primary theological convictions, and a common commitment to the mission.

Some of the healthiest institutions in the coming years will be those that learn how to leverage the energy of emerging networks rather than compete with them.

Institutions possess things young networks often do not: resources, infrastructure, institutional memory, credibility, and funding. Networks often possess things that simply can’t be manufactured institutionally: grassroots trust, speed, experimentation, relational energy, and momentum.

Maybe another way to think about institutions and networks is through the bloodstream. The human body needs both white and red blood cells, but they serve distinct, complementary purposes.

I see denominations and their institutions functioning much like white blood cells, protecting the body and safeguarding what has been entrusted to them. Networks, on the other hand, function more like red blood cells. They carry oxygen to the muscles, bringing the vitality and momentum that help the body move.

When everything flows well, one preserves what is essential, while the other helps animate what is possible.

Institutional reframing

Instead of denominational institutions asking how they get these pastors into their programs, they might ask, “What is God already doing among these pastors, and how can we jump on that ship?”

Partnership does not somehow require institutional ownership. Instead of needing to be at the forefront of new ideas, perhaps an institution can resource the networks already doing the innovative things. Instead of recreating its programming, perhaps the institution can provide funding, connections, theological resources, meeting space, coaching, or encouragement.

This is where I believe the gospel should fundamentally shape our posture toward one another. The church does not belong to us, and the kingdom of God is not a market in which Christian organizations compete for market share.

Paul told the Corinthians, who were themselves tempted to organize around personalities and allegiances, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6). Paul could celebrate what Apollos was doing, because Paul understood who actually owned the mission. That is wonderfully freeing in my eyes as a network leader.

Freedom to bless each other

I think this is where the gospel frees established institutions to celebrate movements they did not create, and it frees emerging networks to honor institutions they did not build.

We do not have to receive credit for everything God chooses to bless. We do not have to put our logo on every good thing happening in our city or state. Sometimes, faithful leadership means recognizing where God has already created energy and asking how the resources entrusted to us might help it flourish.

Let me be clear: There will always be a need for strong institutions. We need organizations capable of stewarding resources responsibly, preserving theological convictions, remembering our history, and sustaining ministry across generations.

We also need space for three pastors to sit around a table, recognize a common burden, call 10 friends, and decide to do something about it.

So, maybe Keller’s insight helps us see these are not competing visions of ministry at all. Institutions provide strength and continuity; networks provide energy and renewal. At their best, each can give the other something it does not naturally possess. And maybe that’s where a gospel movement can begin.

Perhaps the question for institutions isn’t, “How do we compete with these new networks?” The better question is, “How can we help?” Because if God is already stirring relationships, momentum, and gathering pastors around a shared burden, our first instinct should not be to protect our territory. It should be to join him.

David Foster is a founder of The Pastor’s Common and continues to serve in ministry networks. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.