Congregationalism and the World Wide Web:
A Metaphor for Changing Times
Rev. Douglas L. Gray

Introduction
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Congregationalism is in an enviable position. Increases in societal diversity and technological connectedness demand more education and tolerance while concurrent increases in people’s spiritual interest and awareness of morality’s importance suggest a wave of new church goers may be swelling.¹ Coupled with decreasing denominational loyalty² and less willingness to believe something just because someone else says it,³ these trends are pushing churches in all traditions to be paradoxically both more independent and more connected to each other and their communities: Congregationalism (broadly defined) is on the rise as a way of doing church.

Yet the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches and its member churches have struggled in recent years to articulate and draw upon their Congregational identity. We need clear images that speak to those with whom we serve and suggest how we might effectively focus our energies for the future.
Congregationalism and the Web. In the final pages of his book, Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor,⁴ Tim Berners-Lee writes provocatively:

The parallels between technical design and social principles have recurred throughout the Web’s history. Walking into a Unitarian Universalist church more or less by chance felt like a breath of fresh air. Some of the association’s basic philosophies very much match what I had been brought up to believe, and the objective I had in creating the Web. People now sometimes even ask whether I designed the Web based on these principles.⁵

As many of you may remember, the Unitarian-Universalist Association has its roots in the same traditions as Congregationalism. Indeed, at the turn of the 19th  century, the Unitarian Controversy raged in many Congregational communities.⁶ To this day, the Unitarian-Universalist association is Congregational in polity.⁷  Thus; most of the parallels Berners-Lee draws between the World Wide Web and Unitarian-Universalism are ones that are true of Congregationalism as well.

The World Wide Web Defined
Before comparing and contrasting the World Wide Web with Congregationalism, a brief introduction to the World Wide Web may be helpful. According to Berners-Lee, the “The set of all information accessible using computers and networking, each unit of information identified by a URI [Universal Resource Identifier, a string (often starting with http:) that is used to identify anything on the Web].” ⁸  In his book, The Internet Church, Walter Wilson defines the World Wide Web somewhat less cryptically as “A graphical, user-friendly way to find information on the Internet through the use of hypertext linking. Hypertext consists of text and graphic objects that, when you click on them, automatically link you to different areas of a site or to related Internet sites.” ⁹

The Web has two critical elements: 1) it is information; 2) it is a way of linking associated bits of information. The Web requires four things in order to work: 1) addresses so that the computer can find the desired information; 2) simple rules (“language”) that enable very different computers to relate in constructive ways; 3) a person’s desire to gain information and 4) a person’s willingness to share information. Berners-Lee originally developed the prototypes for the Web as a tool for enabling and enhancing collaboration between scientists and administrators at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland.¹⁰  The Web is the primary way most people use the Internet.¹¹

Parallels of Congregationalism and the Web
What are the parallels between the Web and Congregationalism? Writing about Unitarian Universalist fellowships, Berners-Lee suggests:

Unitarians accepted the useful parts of philosophy from all religions, including Christianity and Judaism, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, and any other good Philosophies, and wrapped them not into one consistent religion, but into an environment in which people think and discuss, argue, and always try to be accepting of differences of opinion and ideas.
  …Peer- to – peer relationships are encouraged wherever they are appropriate, very much as the World Wide Web encourages a hypertext link to be made wherever it is appropriate. Both are philosophies that allow decentralized systems to develop, whether they are systems of computers, knowledge or people. The people who built the Internet and Web have a real appreciation of individuals and the value of systems in which individuals play their role, with both a firm sense of their own identity and a firm sense of some common good.
There’s a freedom about the Internet; As long as we accept the rules of sending Packets [of information] around, we can send packets containing anything to Anywhere. In Unitarian-Universalism [and hence, Congregationalism as well], if one accepts the basic tenet of mutual respect in working together toward some greater vision, then one finds a huge freedom in choosing one’s own words that capture that vision, one’s own rituals to help focus the mind, one’s own metaphors for faith and hope.
…an environment Unitarian-Universalists…would equally appreciate [is] one of mutual respect, and of building something very great through collective effort that was well beyond the means of any one person – without a huge bureaucratic regime. The environment was complex and rich; any two people could get together and exchange views, and even end up working together somehow. This system produced a weird and wonderful machine, which needed care to maintain, but could take advantage of the ingenuity, inspiration and intuition of individuals in a special way. That, from the start, has been my goal for the World Wide Web.¹²
 

Using the above and other information from Berners-Lee’s Weaving the Web, Congregationalism and the Web share three provocative similarities: information and links, simple rules, peer-to-peer diversity, flat and decentralized structure and scalability.¹³

Information and Links
Following Christ is about information and links. The early Christians talked about their faith as Good News, information they felt compelled to share as widely as possible. Indeed, their desire to share this information led them to seek out relationships (links) to people with whom they had previously been unconnected. The information of Jesus Christ crucified, for us, risen for us and reigning¹⁴ is the heart of the Gospel and the foundation in one way or another of all Christian faith. Christians are not only called to share the Good News, but also to embody the Good News in the world.

Yet we are not truly the Good News itself, only links to the one who is the Good News – Jesus Christ. As Christians, what sets us apart from non-Christians is a relationship, a “link,” with Jesus Christ.¹⁵ Just as a link on the Web has two aspects – the word/image on which you click and the address to which it points – so, too, do Christians – for (at our best) we are “images” that point to the Author of our faith.¹⁶ This link in turn connects us with others. These links lead us to greater information (i.e., knowledge) of God and how to live for God, and to further links which might never have been made except for that first link. Indeed, the more legitimate ways in which our lives are connected to each other and to God, the truer our information and the better our ability to point others to the Source and the Anchor of our faith.

Simple “Rules”
What are the basic “rules” that give Congregationalists freedom? Jesus was asked a similar question and responded, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:37-39)¹⁷ In general, Congregationalists believe these simple rules are best expressed in the following principles:¹⁸

1. Christ is Lord.  Jesus Christ is the reason our polity exists and the only Way it can continue to exist.  Individuals and churches seek to make this truth self-evident in their lives and their living together.

2. We are in this together.  We seek to build each other up in our individual and collective relationships with God through mutual respect, mutual sharing of knowledge and encouragement, and mutual burden-bearing. ¹⁹

3. Churches depend completely on God for guidance, and are independent of all other mandatory, external authority.  Beyond the first rule, churches do not presume to tell their members what is important.

4. Churches need relationships with each other in order to function effectively and as God intended.

5. All relationships between members are covenantal.

Peer-to-Peer Diversity
As Berners-Lee notes, the emphasis on peer-to-peer relations is critical to the Web. Each computer user is equal. On the Web, a person’s race or gender, appearance or disability, are irrelevant. What matters is the equality of a person’s ideas, the capacity of someone to learn, and the ability to communicate with others on the Web. In the same way, those who follow Christ are equal in their beloved ness and distinguish themselves only by the nature of their individual gifts. Paul writes “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all people.” (1 Cor. 12:4-6) Our connection with God is what individuals have in common: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free – and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Cor. 12:13) Our giftedness distinguishes us as individuals, and in part determines how we relate to the church body.

The differences in our giftedness also imply that diversity is important – perhaps essential – to any church fellowship. While Christ is present “wherever two or three are gathered in [His] name, “ (Matt. 18:20 ) the more gifts present in a fellowship, the better it can hear and follow God’s call to ministry.” ²⁰ In the same way, the Web was originally designed to be a tool of collaboration, linking people with questions and interests to people with answers and similar interests. Cultivating the ability to link people and gifts, passion for service and need for service is also one of the primary missions of the church in all its aspects.

Flat Structure, Decentralized Authority, Scalability
Inherent in this picture of peers in Christ relating through their giftedness is the flat, decentralized structure of Congregationalism. All have equal access to God and are equally dependent on God’s grace. Beyond the Headship of Jesus Christ, the authority in the Congregational tradition rests not in a hierarchical structure, but a decentralized structure in which all churches are equal in the same that individuals are equal within each fellowship. Local churches voluntarily participate (or not) in associations. The local church decides what language, music, traditions, programs and features to emphasize and how much (if at all) they will follow God’s leading. The authority on the web rests in the individuals who have websites or use the web. These individuals are voluntary participants in the cyberspace community and must decide what language to use, what features to include, whether or not to uphold the ethical principles on which the Web is based. This flat structure enables easy and multiple connections as well as the free flow of information.

Scalability
Congregationalism and the Web function on a number of different levels: individual, local, regional, national and international.²¹ This flat, decentralized structure means the design principles for both the Web and Congregationalism “scale:” principles true on one level hold true on all levels.²² We know instinctively that this is true of Christian faith in general and Congregationalism in particular for we see it all the time: the Exodus event reflected in the life of a young person who shakes an addiction, the crucifixion in a local church when it decides to live faithfully in an urban environment when the rest of the neighbors are fleeing to the suburbs, Pentecost in the enthusiasm present in a national or regional fellowship which catches God’s vision as it is made real through them. That Congregational principles (see “Simple Rules” above) are applicable for individuals in relation to a local church or a local church in relation to a regional, national, or international association means that Congregationalism “scales.” Moreover, as finite expressions of the infinite, the symbols, myths and experiences of our faith as individuals become vital tools for approaching life on all scales.

Altogether, the similarities between Congregationalism and the Web are suggestive if not compelling. Yet as we look more deeply at Congregationalism and the Web, four primary challenges appear: the ultimate value God attaches, the particularity of Christ, the threat of fragmentation, and the hope for the future. Because Congregationalism and the Web scale, one may quite rightly your own examples at other levels of organization based on the principles we have discussed.

The Ultimate Value God Attaches
The first and most obvious contrast between Congregationalism and the Web is that people are more than information and relationships. One of the primary principles in the Christian faith is that each person is of ultimate value to God. This principle rests on, among other things, Christ’s willingness to die on our behalf to make atonement for the sins of each and every person. (Romans 3:21-26) To say that a person is merely “information” or a “link” seems to minimize his or her value. Moreover, as information and links are becoming commodities of the Information Age, increasingly people will be seen not as individuals with souls and loves and joys and sorrows, but as commodities. As followers of the One who has numbered the hairs on our heads and who finds value even in the life of a sparrow, we must stand fast in our affirmation that individuals are more than the sum of their information and relationships.

The Particularity of Christ 
With the advent of the Web and the Internet, people have access to an amazing (and increasing) variety of religious and spiritual options. In such a pluralistic world, advocating particularity of any kind seems doomed. Yet this is not the first time that Christianity has seen pluralism of this kind. In the first century, much of the western world was polytheistic. What we could call curious even bizarre religious practices, cults and philosophies proliferated in nearly endless variety; the depth of people’s spiritual hunger meant they were interested and willing to try virtually anything. How, then, can someone say there is only one way? Where the web has a completely flat structure that accommodates – even advocates – the greatest pluralism possible and can only be hindered by bottlenecks of exclusive proprietorship, as Christians and as Congregationalists, we put ourselves under exclusive proprietorship as slaves to Christ. Jesus himself put it even more strongly, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) This will seem scandalous to some people in our time, but it was just as great a scandal in the time of the early church²³ and it became the passion of the Pilgrims and the Puritans during the Reformation.  Nevertheless, the scandal of the particularity of Christ and His servants is part of God’s plan:”…we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor, 1:23 -24)

The Threat of Fragmentation
One of the recurrent themes in Berners-Lee’s history of the Web is the danger of people putting up barriers of language and trust that would fragment the Web.²⁴ The reality is that fragmentation is as much a threat to continuing Congregationalism. More and more churches are satisfied with being islands unto themselves, with little or no commerce between. Some Congregationalists draw boundaries of language. They seem to say, “If you do not talk about God the way I do, I will not share your company or work with you.” Other Congregationalists raise barriers of “theology.” They seem to say, “If you do not believe as I do, I will not trust you with our church’s young people or other ministries.” The most popular of these barriers lies between the arbitrary and destructive terms, “liberal” and “conservative.” In no way am I denigrating the obligation of an individual or local church to follow the leading of God, a critical element of how we believe God works in and through us. Nevertheless, our covenant with Christ and with each other and the bonds of love with which we willingly bind ourselves, seem to preclude this. Under the Headship of Christ, pluralism is an inescapable part of Congregational fellowship. Any time a person, group or church refuses to participate in the shared life of worship, fellowship and mission, they preclude collaboration, fragment the community into which God has called us and weaken the Congregational Way. Perhaps most seriously, these barriers are contrary to the Gospel: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Romans 14:19)²⁵ Congregationalism depends on the web of trust between individuals and between churches, and this web in turn rests on the love of Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit to make us one.²⁶

Implications for the Future of Congregationalism
Comparing and contrasting Congregationalism with the Web strongly indicates where, as Congregationalists, we should be focusing our energies.

1. Increasing the amount of information (i.e., knowledge, capacity, skills, etc.)

2. Increasing the number of links (i.e., relationships) between people and God

3. Increasing the number of links between people.

4. Encouraging people's knowledge of and desire for the common good.

Local Church
The local church was the key to the early church; the key to early Congregationalism and it will become even more the key to the success of Congregationalism in the future.

Local churches can advocate even more strongly that every member is a minister. The local church increasingly will become an equipping center, where people come to gain the knowledge, tools and relationships they need to minister during the week. In addition to basic Christian education, churches will provide devotionals and Bible study helps for families, opportunities for talking about God with their co-workers, assistance in how to make God part of their daily life, and training in how to use their God-given gifts.

Local churches will need to become incubators for creative collaboration between members. In recent years, the traditional committee structure seems to encourage people to talk about ministry more than doing the ministry. New and creative collaborations will begin when one gifted person with a passion finds another with the same passion, but perhaps a different gift. Combining their gifts and buoyed by their enthusiasm for serving God in a particular arena, these people have the potential to be highly effective. What they from the church is not rules or procedures or permission (these are barriers that make ministry harder), but encouragement and access to more information or equipment than they might have individually. As the members follow God’s leading and their ministry grows, they will need others with more experience to avoid pitfalls and to add structure. Local churches then become advocates for more and more member-to-member links that will lead to more member – to - nonmember links which encourage nonmember – to - God links. The result for many churches will be an explosion of small (and large) ministry collaboration teams, with pastors and church boards equipping and supporting rather than directly leading or micro managing.  

For tackling community wide challenges, successful local churches will engage other local churches in collaborations congregational – to – congregation. Banded together, local churches multiply their effectiveness to rebuild neighborhoods, provide outstanding opportunities for ministry and fellowship, provide safe havens for children, feed the hungry, offer hospitality to the homeless and more.

In addition to building up the knowledge of God and connections between people and God, local churches will find themselves standing against the barriers and boundaries imposed by the world. Local churches will quite rightly perceive that these barriers and exclusion zones are not of God and interfere with the vision God has for God’s children. Barriers of race and economics, gender and language cannot stand when the Spirit of God moves in God’s people.

Worship then becomes a place where ministers allow God to recharge, re-equip, re-inspire and re-commission them for God’s work during the week. Worship is about re-connecting people not only to God, but to each other, and so experience the joy of being connected, enlivened, emboldened. Pastors help people to look beyond themselves, invite people to become impassioned servants, and encourage people as they grow in their knowledge of themselves, each other and God.

Associations
Associations will have similar goals as the local church. Just as the local church works with individuals to encourage and equip them for ministry, so the associations (regional and national) do the same. Just as local churches exist to meet individual needs, so associations exist to meet the needs of local churches and encourage ministries. Successful associations will endeavor:

1. to provide ways to link people and churches with passions with people with needs (service)
2. to provide ways to link people and churches with passions with others who share the same passions (collaboration)
3. to act as an equipping/training center for local churches and their leadership, and
4. to reduce barriers to the effectiveness and inclusiveness of those who seek to serve Jesus Christ. ²⁷

The National Association, for example, then becomes a way of linking geographically disparate churches and individuals together for fellowship, information sharing and collaboration. Collaborative enterprises could include ministry ideas, mission trips, Sunday School curriculum, sharing information on church structures and policies, and would be limited only by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and people’s desire to collaborate.

Are We Who We Say We Are?
In a sense, individuals, churches and associations will always fall short of the glory God has in store for us.²⁸ We are after all human. Nevertheless, as Congregationalists we affirm that God’s Spirit communicates to each and every disciple of Jesus and is at work not only in each of them, but is also at work in local churches and associations between churches both directly and through individuals. Moreover, we are in the process of being transformed by Christ so that we might in turn transform others.

On the one hand, we are a long way from where God wishes us to be, let alone becoming who we say we are. That divisions exist at the national level is evident to any who sit and observe a National Association Annual Meeting. Some regions are not keeping faith with their sister churches in the ordering of vicinage councils, or in calling a vicinage council with no intention of hearing or heeding its advise. Differences are not dangerous to us, but divisions and divisiveness are anathema for they split the Body of Christ which is meant to be one in Christ. Another problem is structural. Many of the traditional committee structures so common in traditional churches (and after which so many of the associations were patterned) are failing if they have not already done so. The NACCC’s wrestling with structure in recent years is indicative of what many churches encounter. A third serious problem is that some people have elevated Congregational polity to an idolatrous degree. Arthur Rouner reminds us that our Puritan forebears would be appalled by this.

Did they become Congregationalists just because they did not like the form and government of the established church? Not for a minute? Church polity was no sacred thing to them. Their concern was far different from ecclesiastical politics. Their concern was for Christ. ²⁹

Congregational polity is useful only insofar as it serves the faith of those who follow Christ.³⁰

Clearly, every layer of Congregationalism has work to do.
On the other hand, many of our fellowship (on all levels) have a strong sense of the Presence of God in their midst. The worship at association meetings is often inspired and inspiring. What is probably a quiet majority at every level is about the work of God, making connections, starting ministries, and reaching across barriers. We also have reasonably appropriate structures begun or already in place – locally, regionally and nationally – that the future requires. These structures scale reasonably well, despite the difficulties mentioned above. Vicinage councils and ad hoc local collaborations between churches are two kinds of associations particularly suited for the future. God is at work among us. The hope we have in the resurrection scales as well.

We are not who we say we are, but the explosion in the use of the Web and people’s increasing interest in matters spiritual suggests that the need for who we say we are, and more importantly, are becoming is enormous. Living and serving within the Congregational Way enables the ultimate mixture of responsiveness to God’s leading, creativity of faith expression, and support of mutual service. The Congregational Way stands at the threshold of exciting and potentially explosive growth and change.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.  Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.  Consider Him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. (Hebrews 12:1-3)

Excursus: The World Wide Web in “Real World” Terms
To draw on a geographical metaphor, if the Internet is the information superhighway, then our individual computer is like a car. The World Wide Web is the country to which we drive, going to homes or businesses or churches (i.e., websites) in the World Wide Web that are specified by addresses. In order to get from our starting point to our destination, we type the address of our destination into our navigator (i.e., web browser) and it takes us there. Let’s say that you go to a friends home (i.e., a personal website). When you arrive at someone’s home, you come into the foyer and look around. Imagine this foyer has lots of doors (these are really “doorways to other places) with labels (what Wilson called “hypertext”) on them. You can choose what door you want to go through by touching the label (i.e., clicking on it with the mouse). Some of these doors go to other rooms in your friend’s home (i.e., individual web pages of a website). But some of these doors might take you to your friend’s church or to your friend’s hair stylist or to your friend’s favorite mission projects in Mexico and the Philippines. By clicking on these labels, you ask your navigator to take you and your computer to these other addresses (i.e., websites). The speed of “movement,” the accessibility to all sorts of information we might otherwise not encounter, and the level of connectedness the World Wide Web facilitates are part of what makes the Web so exciting.

¹ George Gallup and Timothy Jones, The Next American Spirituality ( Colorado Springs , CO : Cook Communications, 2000), pp. 24-29 (Return to text)
² C. Jeff Woods, Congregational Megatrends (NY: Alban Institute, 1996), p. 66; also Loren Meade’s Transforming Congregationals for the Future (NY: Alban Institute, 1994), p. 85. (Return to text)
³ Gallup and Jones, op. cit., p. (Return to text)
⁴ NB: Al Gore did not invent the Internet or the World Wide Web! (Return to text)
⁵ Berbers-Lee, op. cit., p. 207. (Return to text)
⁶ Gaius Glenn Atkins and Frederick L. Fagley, History of American Congregationalism (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1942), pp. 122-134. The Unitarians and the Universalists merged in 1828. (Return to text)
⁷ ”Unitarian Universalist Association: Principles and Purposes,” available at www.uua.org/main.html, maintained by The Unitarian Universalist Association. (Return to text)
⁸ Berners-Lee, op.cit., pp. 218, 219. (Return to text)
⁹ Walter P. Wilson , The Internet Church ( Nashville : Word Publishing, 2000), p. 174. Wilson argues persuasively that Christians in the 21st century and the first century have access to extensive networks laid down decades before that pave the way for the growth of the Gospel. For those unfamiliar with the World Wide Web, see the attached “Excursus: The World Wide Web in ‘Real World’ Terms.” For other explanations of the World Wide Web, please see any of the veritable army of books about the internet and the World Wide Web. Virtually all of these offer a decent explanation. For a more technical explanation, try exploring a manual on HTML, “Hyper Text Markup Language.” Hereafter, I will use the term , “the Web,” in place of “The World Wide Web.” (Return to text)
¹⁰ Any further basic understanding of the World Wide Web is beyond the scope of this paper. Additional information from Tim Berners-Lee can be found at www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving. (Return to text)
¹¹ Please note that the Internet and the World Wide Web are not synonymous. The Internet is a much broader designation that includes a number of networking and connection possibilities. The Internet began in the 1970’s as a way to link several Department of Defense supercomputers. While the Internet encompasses and bears some similarities to the Web, the Web is a more manageable discussion area and has more clearly defined design principles. (Return to text)
¹² Berners-Lee, op.cit., pp. 208-9. (Return to text)
¹³ Four websites will be of interest to those wishing more information on the design principles of the World Wide Web. Tim Berbers-Lee, “Design Principles of the World Wide Web,” available at www.w3.org/DesignIssues, maintained by the World Wide Web consortium (which seeks to guide the future of the World Wide Web). David Gibson, Jon Kleinberg and Prabhakar Raghavan, “Structural Analysis of the World Wide Web,” available at www.w3.org/1998/11/05/WC- workshop/Papers/kleinberg1.html. Brian Carpenter, “Architectural Analysis of the Web,” available at ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1958.txt, maintained by the Internet Architecture Board. Tim Berners-Lee and other members of the Consortium, various presentations, available at www.w3.org/Talks. This site includes some video and audio resources. (Return to text)
¹⁴ See, for example, Acts 2:22-24; 1 Cor. 15:3-8, 12-29 (Return to text)
¹⁵ God is the Source and the Originator of this link. We respond to God’s desire for relationship and give it a place in our lives when we choose to follow Christ. (Return to text)
¹⁶ This would naturally lead to a comparison with the Orthodox ideas of “icon” and the ways in which “images” participate in the reality of that which they portray. A good introduction to icons is Jeannette Angell-Torosian’s, “Windows on the Holy,” The Complete Library of Christian Worship, edited by Robert Webber, (Nashville, TN: Star Song Press, 1994), Volume 4: Music and the Arts in Christian Worship, pp. 620-623. (Return to text)
¹⁷ One might argue this can be simplified even further, as in the prayer Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane : “Yet not as I will, but as you will…may your will be done” (Matt. 26:39, 42) (Return to text)
¹⁸ Good resources abound for these principles. One very accessible source is Arthur Rouner’s  The Congregational Way of Life (Milwaukee: Hammond Publishing, 1960), all of which is applicable, but the principles are summarized on pp. 29-36. Another excellent source is the pamphlet, Principles and Practices of Congregational Churches,  by Dr. Lloyd Hall and Rev. Karl Schimpf ( Milwaukee , WI :) Congregational Press, 1995. (Return to text)
¹⁹ The words of Fawcett’s lyric (Pilgrim Hymnal, #272) are particularly appropriate here:

“Before our Father’s throne
We pour our ardent prayers;
Our fears, our hopes, our aims are one,
Our comforts and our cares.”

  “We share each other’s woes,
Each other’s burdens bear,
And often for each other flows
The sympathizing tear.”   (Return to text)

²⁰ Of course, this is according to human logic. God’s Providence suggests that any church fellowship, founded and faithful to God’s glory, will have the gifts it needs to answer God’s call faithfully, and that as new occasions arise the require other gifts, God will draw people with these gifts into the circle of a fellowship. (Return to text)
²¹ Actually both function on many more levels than these, but these are representative. (Return to text)
²² The Web and Congregationalism also “scale” in the sense that adding or withdrawing units is a simple process. To add a network of 300 web pages to the Web is no more difficult that adding a single webpage or user; the additions will not necessitate reworking the structure of the Web. Similarly, whether we are adding one or many, large or small local congregations to our associations, including them in our circle of relationships is simple and straightforward, requiring little if any structuring of our association, even we were to add entirely new regions or incorporate another national association into the NACCC’s current structure. While this quality of scalability is true of Congregationalism in some limited ways, it is particularly valuable when applied to the Web. Perhaps additional steps towards scalability in this sense would be an asset to churches, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. (Return to text)
²³ See Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. (Return to text)
²⁴ Berners-Lee, op.cit., especially the chapters 9-13. (Return to text)
²⁵ Paul addresses a divisive issue in the early church – whether or not a Christian could eat food that had been sacrificed to an idol. Paul continues, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” (Romans 14:20-22a) (Return to text)
²⁶ The Savoy Declaration summarizes this nicely, “All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit and Faith, although they are not made thereby one person with Him, have fellowship in His Graces, Sufferings, Death, Resurrection and Glory: and being united to one another in love, they have communion in each others gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, publique and private, as do conduct to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward Man.” Williston Walker, The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism (NY” Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983), pp. 396-7. (Return to text)
²⁷ Loren Meade, op.cit., chapter, “The Role of the Judicatory,” should be required reading for any association leader. (Return to text)
²⁸ Romans 3:21 -26; Rom27ans 7:14 -24. (Return to text)
²⁹ Rouner, op.cit.,  p. 7. (Return to text)
³⁰ A more recent treatment of Congregational freedom may be found in “Freedom and Truth: The Congregational Way Meets the World,”  A Past with a Future: Continuing Congregationalism into the Next Millennium, edited by Steven A. Peay, (Wauwatosa, WI: The Congregational Press, 1998), pp. 49ff., where she writes, “…freedom cannot live on its own apart from the content and substance of our faith.” (Return to text