





































Ecclesial Futures
2025 – Volume 6 – Issue 2

19
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

a r t I c l E

DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

“Bringing the Gospel to the City together”: 
Interconfessional Cooperation in Missionary 
Church Development in Vienna

Thomas Kräuter and Jack Barentsen

abstract
In the changing context of Western Europe, many churches and denominations aim to 
reach non-Christians with the gospel through new missionary ecclesial forms. From the 
perspective of missional theology the mission and unity of the Church are inherently 
connected. This raises the question how interconfessional unity might be expressed 
in the praxis of missionary church development. However, there has been very little 
research on this issue. Thus it remains unclear what ecumenism in missionary church 
development looks like in practice, what promotes and what hinders it. Therefore, an 
empirical investigation among seventeen Christian leaders from different confessions 
involved in missionary church development in Vienna was conducted. The study found 
that ecumenical cooperation is very limited, with some exceptions. This seems due 
to both theological factors, like diverging interpretations of mission and the gospel 
or different stances on issues of sexual ethics, and non-theological, like lack of time 
and resources. Building on these insights, the paper suggests the establishment of a 
regional ecumenical church planting hub and outlines possible steps toward its real-
ization. This platform might foster relationships and exchange across confessional 
boundaries and thus help new forms of church in Vienna to express the ecumenical 
unity of the Church and to complement each other toward a faithful participation in 
the mission of God in the city.

Keywords: Missionary church development, Missional theology, Ecumenism, Regional 
cooperation, Urban church planting, Austria

1. Introduction
The socio-religious context of Western Europe has changed significantly due to 
processes of pluralization and secularization. In light of these dynamics, there has 
been a renewed interest in the missionary dimension of ecclesial life in the traditional 
churches (e.g. Elhaus and Kirchhof 2020). Consequently, various attempts are being 



20
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

20

made in almost all confessions to find new ecclesial forms to reach non-Christians 
with the gospel through church planting, innovation or experimentation (Philipp 
2020; Schlegel and Kleeman 2021). This article deals with ecumenical cooperation in 
missionary church development, for “there is a growing realization among churches 
and Christian mission organizations” that stronger interconfessional collaboration in 
mission “has become more important and urgent than ever before” (Kafwanka 2014: 
154–5).

So far this topic has not received much scholarly attention, which is somewhat 
surprising for several reasons. Not only does the shared concern for missionary 
church development evoke the practical question if and how churches in Western 
Europe might cooperate in these efforts. There have also been important recent 
missiological developments towards the realization of what Bosch called an 
“ecumenical missionary paradigm” (Bosch 2011: 377). Thus, the twentieth-century 
rift between ecumenicals and evangelicals has largely been overcome. In fact, there 
are now “significant missiological convergences” between all Christian confessions 
(Keum 2014: 397), as evidenced by recent missiological documents from different 
traditions (cf. Bevans 2015).

Most centrally, this ecumenical missiological consensus includes the convic-
tion that mission is primarily the act of a missionary God. The Church originates in 
this mission of God and is therefore missionary by its very nature (Franke 2020: 6). 
Moreover, God’s mission and consequently the Church’s as well is understood to 
be holistic, including but not limited to evangelism, discipleship, social engagement 
and creation care (Franke 2020: 27–30; Bevans 2015). According to Keum, general 
secretary of the Council for World Mission, the time is thus ready to “shift gears from 
convergence to cooperation” (2014: 398). Shouldn’t this imply promising precondi-
tions for interconfessional collaboration in missionary church development as well?

Furthermore, in the missio Dei paradigm the mission of the Church and the 
Church’s unity are intrinsically connected. Because all churches originate from and 
participate in the one mission of God, the call to mission is always also a call to 
ecumenical unity (Bosch 2011: 474–5). Must research on missionary church develop-
ment then not also ask how this unity can find expression in these efforts?

Some scholars have recognized this and accordingly appeal for an ecumenical 
extension of the mixed-economy concept (Herrmann 2020: 91) or for the formation 
of regional interconfessional networks in church development (Eiffler 2020: 496–7; 
Herbst and Pompe 2022). However, the discussion so far has not gone beyond these 
initial impulses and hardly any research has been done in actual church develop-
ment practice. Current insights are limited and point toward a discrepancy between 
the missiological ideal of ecumenical missionary unity and lived church practice, so 
that the described missiological consensus has “little to do with what happens on 
the ground” (Währisch-Oblau 2016: 165). The reasons for this are not sufficiently 



21
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

21

researched, but both remaining significant theological differences (Franke 2020: 5) 
and more mundane aspects like lack of time and resources (Brinksma 2018: 196–201) 
might play a role.

It consequently remains unclear how ecumenical missionary unity happens in 
urban church development as well as what promotes and what hinders it. To answer 
these questions, this article reports an empirical study among practitioners in the 
Austrian capital Vienna.

This city offers a fitting research context, for here not only various free churches 
but also the traditional churches, most notably the Catholic Church, are highly active 
in church development. Over the last decade, the archdiocese of Vienna under-
went a developmental process, in which all activity was to be “reoriented around 
the missionary nature of the church” (Schönborn 2015: 3), as part of which several 
church plants and revitalizations were started (Flachberger 2020: 25–62). These new 
forms of church are characterized by scholars as “charismatic-evangelical-catholic”, 
because they often combine typical aspects of evangelical spirituality like personal 
conversion to Christ and discipleship with Catholic features like strong Marian devo-
tion and high eucharistic spirituality (Sandler 2022: 160–3; Hinkelmann 2022: 200–9). 
Because of this they are on the one hand more easily compatible with evangelical1 
and Pentecostal free-churches. On the other hand, previous research has shown that 
cooperation in mission with Catholics still represents a challenge for many Austrian 
evangelicals (Miller 2010: 341–7). Thus, these new Catholic missionary forms of 
church inhabit “a confessional field of tension” (Hinkelmann 2022: 195) and demon-
strate the complex conditions of lived ecumenical missionary cooperation in Austria.

In the rest of the article we will first describe the research design of the study, 
then present the key findings and finally discuss them in light of relevant literature.

2. Methodology
The empirical investigation aimed to contribute to a better understanding of inter-
confessional cooperation in missionary church development in the tension between 
theological ideal and lived ecclesial practice. As part of that “lived theology”, the theo-
logical convictions informing said practice were of special interest (cf. Ward 2017: 
62–7). Thus, we used an explorative research approach with qualitative empirical 
methods to explicate the “deep meanings about the nature, purpose and intentions 
of the actions and assumptions of particular individuals or communities” (Swinton 
and Mowat 2016: 22).

1 In Austria, “evangelical” refers not only to the cross-denominational evangelical movement, but also 
to one free-church denomination, the “association of evangelical churches” (BEG). To distinguish 
these, when referring to the denomination, this article uses the capitalized “Evangelical”.



22
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

22

2.1 research Method
The objects of investigation were projects of missionary church development in 
Vienna. These could be church plants or revitalizations, fresh expressions, “Erpro-
bungsräume,” or church development processes. The selection criteria were 
purposely kept broad due to the explorative nature of the study.

To understand how and why cooperation does or does not take place between 
these projects, from February 2023 to February 2024 Kräuter conducted seventeen 
semi-structured interviews with project leaders from seven different confessions. 
Five Catholic priests and theologians, four Evangelical free church pastors, three 
Lutheran ministers, an Anglican minister, a Baptist pastor, a house-church pastor 
as well as one Pentecostal and one Reformed pastor. Most of them were directly 
involved in church planting or church development in Vienna, while three were 
guiding regional or national initiatives in their denominations. The interviewees were 
deliberately selected through theoretical sampling to include those most likely to 
provide insights relevant to the research questions. The final number was reached 
via data saturation.

The interview  guide centered around two main topics: (1) the interviewees’ 
conception and practical embodiment of mission and gospel as well as (2) their 
experiences with interconfessional collaboration. To make different emphases in 
missional practice apparent, we used the Anglican “five marks of mission” inspired 
by a recent study on the soteriology of Dutch pastors and church planters (Paas, 
Stoppels and Zwijze-Koning 2023). The five marks differentiate mission into evange-
lism, discipleship, loving service, societal transformation and creation care and can 
be considered as one of the most common explications of the ecumenical consensus 
on the integrality of mission discussed in the introduction.

2.2 Data analysis and reflexivity
All participants gave informed consent on their data being used for this study. The 
audio recordings were securely stored and deleted after transcription. The tran-
scripts were anonymized and sent to the participants for review. Once approved 
they were analysed using template analysis (King, Brooks and Tabari 2018), which 
organizes the relevant data sections in a hierarchical thematic template through 
subsequent rounds of coding.

The final template encompassed three overarching themes: “mission”, “gospel” 
and “experience with missionary cooperation”. These included several layers of 
subthemes and codes. For example the theme “mission” contained the subthemes 
“understanding of mission”, “goal of mission”, “strategies of mission” and “context of 
mission” (see table 1 for a list of themes, subthemes and codes). The template was 
then used as basis for data interpretation. The important themes were reflected 
according to the study’s epistemological interest and connected to each other. Thus, 



23
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

23

for instance, different understandings of mission were linked with corresponding 
soteriological convictions.

The epistemological potential of this study was limited by both our personal situ-
atedness and the research design. As our own evangelical convictions influenced 
the entire research process, this project can be seen as an evangelical reflection on 
the possibilities of missionary ecumenism in Western European church develop-
ment, nevertheless aiming to serve the whole Church (cf. Franke 2020: 85). Further-
more, the research method and sample affected the results. The data is grounded 
only on the reflections of a single leader per project and thus includes neither other 
diverging perspectives nor directly observed lived practice. Also, the interviewees 
only included one Pentecostal pastor, no orthodox priests and no representatives 
of migrant churches.

Table 1 Sample List of Themes, Subthemes and Codes

Themes Mission Gospel Experience with 
missionary cooperation

Subthemes  – understanding of 
mission

 – goal of mission
 – strategies of 

mission
 – context of mission

 – what is the gospel
 – meaning of salvation
 – meaning of lostness
 – different 

understandings of 
gospel

 – theological criteria for 
cooperation

 – motivations for 
cooperation

 – examples of cooperation
 – factors promoting 

cooperation
 – factors hindering 

cooperation

If necessary, 
more 
subthemes

in the subtheme 
“understanding of 
mission”:
 – a disputed term
 – different 

dimensions

in the subtheme “factors 
hindering cooperation”:
 – lack of resources
 – theological differences
 – bad experiences
 – ecumenical thinking 

underdeveloped

Codes in the subtheme
“a disputed term”:
 – negative 

connotation
 – narrow and broad 

definitions
 – variously filled

in the subtheme
“meaning of salvation”:
 – fullness of life
 – reaching heaven
 – new earth
 – justification
 – access to kingdom
 – community with god

in the subtheme “factors 
promoting cooperation”:
 – shared theological profiles
 – personal relations
 – trust
 – spiritual community
 – humility
 – generational differences



24
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

24

3. Results and Analysis

3.1 Missionary cooperation in Vienna: Pluriform and limited
The main research question was how interconfessional cooperation happens in 
church development in Vienna. To do justice to the complexity of lived ecclesial 
practice, the terms “cooperation” and “collaboration” were only loosely defined to 
capture multiple forms of interaction as reported by the respondents, varying in 
intensity, duration and purpose.

One of the chief insights gained was that generally the closest missionary cooper-
ation happens within the respective denominations. Thus, Evangelical, Pentecostal, 
Reformed, Catholic and Lutheran leaders connect in inner-confession regional 
or national networks for spiritual fellowship, strategic partnership, the sharing of 
resources and further training. At the local Viennese level, only the Catholic diocese 
entertains a cooperative network between its practitioners.

Additionally, there were also several instances of inter-confession cooperation 
observable. The Roman-Catholic archdiocese and its church development initiatives 
are most actively seeking ecumenical cooperation. They partner with the Anglican 
Church, especially its centers for church planting and multiplication as well as the 
HTB network2 (Catholic theologian interview 16). Furthermore, priests and deacons 
are regularly sent on study trips or internships to Anglican or free-church church 
plants and representatives from other confessions are consulted as external experts 
(Catholic priests interviews 2, 4 and 17). Moreover, all interviewed Catholic leaders 
were well-acquainted with evangelical church planting literature and some recounted 
how they sought help from free churches in their start-up phase.

There were also a number of regional, national and international church planting 
networks between primarily evangelical and Pentecostal leaders from different 
denominations as well as international church development networks between 
leaders from the traditional churches. Most of the interviewees were attached to 
one or several of these. On the local level, ecumenical collaboration mostly remained 
limited to particular events organized together or sporadic networking meetings.

Altogether, with few exceptions, interconfessional cooperation in missionary 
church development in Vienna was quite sparse. Many even stated that they were 
hardly in contact with or completely unaware of any initiatives from other denomi-
nations (e.g. Reformed pastor interview 6, Lutheran minister interview 9, evangelical 
pastor interview 13).

2 Churches planted by the London Anglican church Holy Trinity Brompton and their plants.



25
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

25

3.2 three Kinds of cooperation
Research participants identified three main aspects of cooperative praxis. The first 
and most widespread was mutual learning. In exchange with other practitioners, “we 
can show each other how to proclaim Jesus in our context”, a Catholic priest noted 
(interview 4). Similarly, an Evangelical church planter stated that he wants “to learn 
from the experiences of others who previously planted churches here” (interview 1). 
In most cases, however, this exchange happens primarily within denominations or 
theological traditions.

At the same time, many of the respondents told of cross-denominational learning 
experiences. Several Catholic leaders explained how they gained a new apprecia-
tion for the cross and the Bible from their evangelical colleagues, as expressed for 
instance in expository sermon series through Bible books. On the other hand, some 
Evangelical leaders mentioned how they adopted liturgical elements from Catho-
lics or were inspired by Pentecostal boldness and the house-church emphasis on 
communal discipleship. Still, there were significant differences in the respondents’ 
readiness to learn. While some believed that they “could learn something from 
everyone” (Catholic theologian interview 12), one participant differentiated between 
“theological and logistic aspects of church planting” and stated that “theologically, I 
don’t think I could or would want to learn from others” (Reformed pastor interview 6).

The second often-repeated kind of cooperation was support and aid. For some, 
this help took the form of collegial counselling, “where we can carry each other” 
(Catholic theologian interview 12) or “where we sit together, one recounts a situa-
tion and asks for insights. What would you do differently?” (Evangelical pastor inter-
view 13). Others mentioned the sharing of tools and resources.

The third kind was spiritual fellowship with colleagues. Many noted how impor-
tant it is to regularly have the opportunity to “open one’s heart”, pray for and 
encourage each other (Evangelical pastor interview 13).

3.3 Diverging Interpretations of “Mission” in church Development 
in Vienna

Differences in the respondents’ conceptions of mission became apparent. Concerning 
the five marks of mission, the majority of the participants professed a holistic under-
standing including “both word and deed” (Anglican priest interview  8) or both 
“proclaiming the gospel” and “co-shaping the world out of the gospel” (Catholic theo-
logian interview  12). However, on closer inspection the relationship of these two 
aspects was assessed quite differently.

Most evangelical pastors clearly prioritized gospel proclamation in evangelism 
and discipleship in their missionary praxis. Referring to the Great Commission, 
they repeatedly argued that it was “the primary task” or “highest goal” of mission 
to preach the good news of Christ, so that people become his disciples. This did not 



26
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

26

at all mean that they disregarded the social responsibility of the Church. However, 
they considered these efforts a “pre-stage” to the “real” mission, namely evange-
listic action (Evangelical church planter interview 13). Hence, the Reformed pastor 
recounted how they gave a Ukrainian refugee visiting their church money for food 
and housing, but also evangelistic tracts. “We told him ‘We want to help you, but 
what you really need is not money, but something deeper’” (interview 6). Further-
more, marks four and five, the transformation of society and creation care, were 
not included in the mission interpretations of most interviewed evangelical leaders.

On the other hand, only one Baptist pastor prioritized acts of service, societal 
engagement and creation care over evangelism and discipleship. Her motto was, 
“you don’t need to talk about your faith a lot, live so that people ask you” (inter-
view 15). Similarly, a Lutheran minister remarked, “the people don’t look where the 
finger points, but who the pointer is. Primarily it is about setting an example and 
not preaching” (Lutheran minister interview 9). These respondents further distanced 
themselves from the evangelical mission interpretation described, which would 
patronizingly perceive the world as mission objects.

These different conceptions of mission are vividly illustrated by the following 
example. Three projects described how they sent or handed out Christmas cards 
to locals. The card of one evangelical church plant included a QR code, which led to 
an evangelistic sermon where the pastor explained the meaning of Christmas. The 
two other initiatives instead invited passers-by to themselves write down a prayer or 
wish to the Christ Child. Their aim was not evangelistic but simply to “give somebody 
a treat, no strings attached” (Lutheran minister interview 9).

3.4 the Gospels of Personal redemption and complete 
restoration

These diverging mission interpretations corresponded with different understand-
ings of the gospel. Many leaders from different confessions emphasized the notion 
of “personal redemption” for sinners through the sacrificial death of Jesus in their 
gospel presentations. Everyone who trusts in Jesus gets saved from divine judge-
ment. These included the majority of evangelical participants but also other leaders. 
Thus, a Catholic priest characterized redemption as “being freed from sin and eternal 
death. Christ tore down the dividing wall between God and us on the cross. Now 
we can freely access God through Jesus” (interview 4). Similarly, a Lutheran minister 
remarked that the gospel included “showing people that God loves them, but that 
we are separated from him because of our wrongdoings” as well as explaining that 
“because of Jesus’ death and resurrection the way to God is open” (interview 5).

In contrast, others understood sin not so much as a transcendent personal 
problem warranting redemption, but rather highlighted its immanent and social 
dimensions, requiring restoration. In Jesus, God reconciled the world to himself. 



27
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

27

Therefore, the gospel enables us to “accept that humans are not perfect”, because 
God loves us despite our mistakes (Catholic theologian interview 12). It “frees from 
the brokenness of sin and leads into freedom as a person and fullness of life” 
(Catholic priest interview 2). Furthermore, ultimately God will not judge, but instead 
completely restore creation from its brokenness. He will “fix everything” – a word-
play made by a Lutheran minister (interview 9) on the German “richten” (meaning 
“judge” or “fix”) of the Apostles’ creed’s article seven. Consequently, most represent-
atives of this gospel of “complete restoration” also rejected the notion that non-Chris-
tians would be separated from God in hell. This was either seen as “too exclusivist” 
(Baptist Pastor interview 15) or “incomprehensible with the loving nature of God” 
(Catholic priest interview 2).

Generally, those advocating for the “personal redemption gospel” tended to give 
precedence to evangelism and discipleship in their mission interpretation and prac-
tice. On the other hand, the representatives of the “complete restoration gospel” 
either prioritized demonstrating the gospel by acts of service, societal engagement 
and creation care or practised their evangelism and discipleship in a decidedly 
less-confrontational manner. In addition, a minority of the respondents embraced a 
third “holistic” understanding of mission and gospel (described below).3

3.5 Factors Hindering cooperation
The different soteriological and missiological convictions clearly negatively affected 
collaboration. For evangelicals, a shared gospel interpretation was a precondition for 
missionary cooperation. Still, the evangelical respondents assessed the other tradi-
tions differently. While one Evangelical church planter continuously differentiated 
between those “who have the gospel in the centre” and those who don’t; in his view 
a local Catholic parish met these requirements, because “they really follow Jesus” 
(interview 1). For others, gospel agreement with Catholics signified an oxymoron.

That said, a key insight of this study is that interconfessional cooperation also 
remained limited in the presence of broad soteriological and missiological agree-
ments. Although many spoke about the importance of “a kingdom perspective” or 
“bringing the gospel to the city together” (Catholic theologian interview 16) this was 
not reflected in much of the praxis. Often, projects with very similar concerns in close 
proximity didn’t keep in touch or weren’t even aware of each other. It thus seems 
that generally, “missionary ecumenical thinking is still underdeveloped” (Lutheran 
minister interview 3) in Vienna.

3 These types are simplified models highlighting important similarities and differences in the 
responses. 



28
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

28

A second inhibiting factor was reservation and distrust against other traditions. 
Evangelical and Pentecostal free churches still often deal with suspicion from main-
line churches and thus “always first have to wait and see what others think about 
them” (Pentecostal pastor interview 11). While evangelicals are often suspected of 
fundamentalism, Pentecostals face allegations of spiritual abuse or manipulation. 
On the other hand, almost all Evangelical leaders spoke of a negative bias against 
Catholics in their denomination due to past experiences of discrimination and exclu-
sion.

Thirdly, sexual ethics, particularly the evaluation of homosexual practice, are 
highly divisive. These “ethical sexual-moral topics currently are to ecumenism what 
baptism or the Lord’s supper were before,” a Baptist pastor opined (interview 15). 
In fact, the question of homosexuality seems to have reached almost confessional 
status. Four of the first five interviews raised the issue by themselves and multiple 
representatives on all sides of the debate stated that cooperation with those disa-
greeing was difficult to impossible for them.

Nevertheless, the fourth and by far most-repeated hindering aspect was simply a 
lack of time and resources. In the eyes of many leaders, interconfessional networking 
requires more resources than available besides other pastoral duties. Consequently, 
it is frequently perceived as an “additional burden that drains the energy of the local 
congregation” (Pentecostal pastor interview 11).

3.6 Factors Promoting cooperation
Besides shared theological profiles, three other aspects promoting collaboration 
were discovered. The first can be described as “a theology of generosity” (Lutheran 
minister interview  3), “the ability to differentiate between foundational and 
secondary issues, paired with humility and readiness to learn” (house-church pastor 
interview 10).

Secondly, the age of practitioners also appears to play a role. According to an 
Evangelical pastor, “postmodern” young people “are well aware that there isn’t always 
black and white, that there are grey areas and tensions in the bible that you can’t 
resolve” (interview 14). Similarly, a Catholic respondent observed that “young people 
attend youth vigils at Heiligenkreuz abbey and then afterwards go to a worship night 
at ICF” (interview 16).4

Thirdly, ecumenical collaboration across theological differences seems to be 
more successful when grounded in personal relationships and spiritual community. 
For most interviewees, encounters or friendships with Christians from other confes-
sions helped to overcome prejudices and initiate cooperation. “A short while ago, I 

4 Heiligenkreuz is a local Cistercian monastery, ICF is a neo-charismatic free church.



29
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

29

met the local Catholic priest and was astonished by seeing how he hurts that so many 
people don’t know Jesus personally. That completely changed my outlook on Catho-
lics”, an Evangelical pastor explained (interview 7). Similarly, a Catholic participant 
remarked that ecumenism must happen “while we pray and do mission together” 
(interview 16).

4. Discussion and Theological Reflection
The interviews showed that interconfessional cooperation in missionary church 
development in Vienna happens diversely but only in a limited fashion. More-
over, it is set in a “confessional field of tension” (Hinkelmann 2022: 195), marked by 
different mission and gospel interpretations as well as diverging views on sexual 
ethics. Together with the described time constraints, it is easily understandable why 
close collaboration generally tends to stay within inner-confession or inner-tradition 
boundaries.

Nevertheless, from a missional perspective the question still remains how the 
unity of the whole Church can be expressed in church development in Vienna. The 
interviews showed that missionary ecumenism is often experienced as an additional 
burden for local practitioners. Therefore, in this section, we will discuss what form of 
interconfessional cooperation might avoid this and thus make sense in the context 
of Vienna.

4.1 the Power and Problem of Diversity in cooperative Networks
A crucial element of practical theological research is incorporating insights from 
other relevant disciplines into the interpretation of observed practice (Osmer 2008: 
93–4). For this study it makes sense to learn from research on cooperation in urban 
development and planning, for like church development the development of cities 
also happens in the midst of change processes and necessitates collaboration 
between various stakeholders sharing a similar concern in a region (Görgl, Döringer 
and Herburger 2020: 378–87).

In such cooperative networks “network power”, the ability to achieve things 
together that are not possible alone, emerges when three factors are present 
(Booher and Innes 2002: 225–31). First, a diverse array of actors “consistent with 
the full range of interest and knowledge relevant to the issues at hand” jointly works 
on a common problem. Secondly, these agents are aware how they themselves can 
profit from what the others bring to the table - experiences, insights, resources or 
contacts. The third requirement is “authentic dialogue” about the shared concern, 
where all divergent perspectives are valued and maintained. Only then creative solu-
tions and options for action in complex situations can be found. At the same time, 
too much diversity can harm cooperative networks. If the different perspectives 



30
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

30

prevent the development of common goals or a shared vision, a network becomes 
incapacitated (Payer 2008: 35).

Thus, in cooperative networking it is crucial to find the right amount of diversity 
that enables mutual benefit but does not thwart productive collaboration (Barentsen 
2024). In missionary church development in Vienna it would not be reasonable to 
encourage leaders holding diverging mission and gospel interpretations to partner 
closely, as the diversity would be too high to set shared goals. Nevertheless, the 
different theological traditions and missionary approaches provide valuable insights 
from which the whole Church can benefit. In the words of Dutch missiologist Stefan 
Paas (2014: 188):

Unity in mission is extremely important, because the missionary challenge in Europe 
is so immensely complex. Co-operation, networking, and constant interaction are 
crucial to open up the hermeneutical space that we need for a better understanding 
of this challenge.

It is a profound conviction of missional theology that every tradition has “some-
thing that can be shared with others” for mutual enrichment and the building up 
of the church to “the fulness of Christ” (Kim 2016: 263). Therefore, cooperation in 
missionary church development needs to enable both close collaboration with those 
of similar missiological and soteriological convictions as well as truly ecumenical 
exchange with practitioners from all traditions. As one church planter succinctly 
remarked: “I believe that you need a strong shared theological direction for coopera-
tion in church planting. At the same time, we still need the big picture, to learn from 
one another, share synergies, and connect” (Evangelical church planter interview 7). 
In our opinion this necessitates complementing forms of cooperative networks. That 
way the missional demand for ecumenical unity can be met while remaining missio-
logical, soteriological and ethical differences are also taken seriously.

Almost all of the interviewed practitioners already participate in regional or 
national cooperative networks within their respective traditions or confessions. 
Furthermore, existing international church planting networks connect similar tradi-
tions like evangelicals and Pentecostals. Still lacking, however, is a broader ecumen-
ical regional Viennese network that connects diverse church development actors 
in the city. This vision matches Eiffler’s proposal for an ecumenical network of all 
new forms of church in a place (2020: 460–1). Such “collaborative hubs” already exist 
elsewhere and facilitate “connection across a broader ecclesial ecology through 
partnership, education, and leadership development” (Benac 2022: 4.118). We will 
now further discuss the inception of such a network for Vienna, “The Vienna Church 
Planting Hub”.



31
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

31

4.2 the Vienna church Planting Hub
The German theologians Herbst and Pompe try to flesh out the practical implica-
tions of the missiological togetherness of mission and ecumenical unity in their 
concept of “regio-local church development.” They want to aid churches and new 
ecclesial expressions to see their action as part of a collective, cooperative practice, 
namely the mutual participation in the one mission of God in their context, instead 
of ignoring or competing with each other (Herbst and Pompe 2022: 10.31).

To that end, participants should realize their respective strengths (profiling), 
complement each other in their shared responsibility (complementing), coordinate 
common tasks and reciprocal duties (cooperation), and practically support each 
other (solidarity) (Herbst and Pompe 2022: 24).5 These dimensions can be connected 
with the three aspects of cooperative praxis discovered in the interviews: support 
and aid, mutual learning, and spiritual community.

In terms of Herbst and Pompe’s cooperation and solidarity: material, personal, or 
social resources could be shared and common projects undertaken (cf. Kim 2016). For 
complementing and profiling, contextual learning from and with each other could be 
fostered in learning communities, training events or visits. Moreover, church planter 
training could be contextualized for Vienna in cooperation with seminaries, mission 
organizations and church governance boards, encouraging students of theology to 
do internships in local initiatives.

Such initiatives would need to be embedded in spiritual community, a wish 
expressed by many leaders in church development in Vienna. The Church Planting 
Hub could support this community by enabling encouragement, comfort and inter-
cessory prayer through periodic meetings for exchange, worship and prayer or a 
yearly conference.

What might concrete steps towards such cooperative networking in ecumenical 
plurality look like? First of all, network research points to the necessity of establishing 
trust between the diverse partners, which requires authentic dialogue about simi-
larities and differences (Payer 2008: 35; Benac 2022: 110). In the Viennese context, 
the soteriological and missiological diversity of the potential partners needs to be 
addressed. One suitable theological framework for this exchange could be Tomlin’s 
“Generous Orthodoxy”. Based on the Nicene Creed, he attempts to lay down the 
essentials of orthodox Christian faith, while also pointing out how different tradi-
tions can learn from each other in their witness (Tomlin 2022: 125–70).

Moreover, Herbst and Pompe highlight the importance of reconciliation for eccle-
sial cooperation (2022: 20; cf. Avtzi 2013). The interviews revealed the enduring 

5 It must be noted that this model has not been empirically tested and is situated in the German 
regional church context. Further research is needed to assess the practicability of our inferences.



32
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

32

negative effect of past hurtful experiences as well as continuing prejudices in collab-
oration between different denominations. These need to be addressed, acknowl-
edged and forgiven. If a cooperative network like the Vienna Church Planting Hub is 
to succeed, its beginning must be strongly rooted in the establishment of relation-
ships and trust.

Secondly, the development of networks requires different roles (Payer 2008: 
45–6; Zimmer 2017: 173–4). For instance, forerunners initiate networking by estab-
lishing first contacts and cooperations. Gatekeepers generate new impulses and 
partners through their social capital and providers support the network adminis-
tratively, financially or logistically. Furthermore, existing research suggests that the 
establishment of collaboration depends on the initiatives of both church governance 
and individual local leaders (Eiffler 2020: 451; Zimmer 2017: 174; Benac 2022: 20–1, 
93). Consequently, both local and regional Christian leaders in Vienna need to invest 
in relationships with representatives of other confessions. On the local level, fore-
runners could begin to meet for prayer with colleagues in their district and jointly 
invest in the neighbourhood. At the same time, church governances could aid inter-
confessional cooperation by providing resources and developing support structures. 
For instance, each confession could employ one suitable leader on a part-time basis 
to help develop the Church Planting Hub.

Thirdly, a network needs moderators. These lead the participants in the develop-
ment of a shared vision and transparent decision-making processes. They also take 
steps to promote the relationships and trust needed for the network to properly 
function (Hucht 2017: 141–7). To avoid intergroup conflict, the diverse Vienna Church 
Planting Hub should be moderated by a team of leaders from different confessions 
and theological traditions. These moderators should be respected in their own 
denominations and share a commitment to missional ecumenism in the city. With 
their interactions they can then prototypically model interconfessional cooperation 
and exchange for the network participants.

4.3 the theological Vision: Participating Faithfully in the Mission 
of God in Vienna

Pursuing ecumenical unity in missionary church development in Vienna through 
the Vienna Church Planting Hub will be challenging and require time, resources and 
dedication. However, it is worth the effort. To faithfully participate in the mission of 
God in the city, all churches and traditions are “in need of the witness of the other” 
for complementing and correction in their missional practice (Franke 2020: 165). In 
closing, this is briefly illustrated with the two dominant gospel interpretations and 
corresponding missionary paradigms observed in the interviews.

From the perspective of missional theology, the redemptive and restoring mission 
of God in which the Church participates needs to be understood as holistic. It brings 



33
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

33

about personal redemption as well as restoration for society and all creation (Wright 
2006; Keller 2012: 267–71). However, it seems that many Viennese practitioners fail 
to maintain this integral vision.

Missional theology hence reminds those holding to a personal redemption gospel 
that human sin has societal, economic and ecological dimensions that manifest them-
selves in unjust structures, oppression or the destruction of creation. These imma-
nent expressions of sin are addressed in the gospel just as much as its transcendent, 
spiritual effects and therefore require confrontation and transformation through 
the missionary church. At the same time, representatives of the complete restora-
tion gospel must not miss the fact that the mission of God is at least as concerned 
with the transformation of the human heart. Because the horizontal consequences 
of sin are intrinsically connected with the disrupted vertical relationship with God, 
the Christian engagement for justice, peace and reconciliation ultimately cannot do 
without reconciliation to God through personal repentance and faith.6

The Vienna Church Planting Hub could be one important way to foster such 
ecumenical missional correction and complementation and thus help new forms of 
church to faithfully participate in the mission of God in the city.7

5. Conclusion
This article sought to contribute to a better understanding of interconfessional coop-
eration in urban missionary church development. To that end an empirical study 
with 17 practitioners from seven different denominations was conducted in the 
Austrian capital Vienna. The study showed that despite the ecumenically shared 
missionary concern, interconfessional cooperation as of yet remains rather limited. 
Only the Roman Catholic Church actively seeks to collaborate with and learn from 
the Anglican Church as well as from various free churches in its efforts to revitalize 
old and plant new churches.

Part of the reasons for the limited amount of ecumenical cooperation are theo-
logical differences, such as diverging mission and gospel interpretations or contrary 
positions on sexual ethics. However, the most mentioned factor simply was a lack 
of time and resources that often leads to ecumenical networking being seen as an 
additional burden.

6 In the interviews three participants, a Baptist pastor, a Catholic priest and an Anglican reverend 
(interviews 8, 10, 16) embodied this holistic gospel and mission interpretation. 

7 James (2018), in his study on church plants in Seattle, shows much more extensively how this 
correction and complementation between different missionary ecclesial types can look like in 
ecclesial praxis. 



34
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

34

Based on these insights, we discussed what form of missionary ecumenism might 
be suitable in the observed tension between the missional mandate for unity and 
the contextual factors complicating that quest. Hence, we suggested the formation 
of a regional ecumenical network, the Vienna Church Planting Hub, complementing 
existing inner-denominational cooperative activities. This platform would deliber-
ately bring together the diverse theological perspectives present in church develop-
ment in Vienna to correct and complement each other in their joint participation in 
the mission of God in the city. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen in further research 
whether this theoretical proposal could work out in actual ecclesial practice.

About the Authors
Thomas Kräuter, Th.M., assistant pastor of Evangeliumsgemeinde in Vienna, ORCID 
0009-0007-3907-9114. Contact: tom.kraeuter@evangeliumsgemeinde.wien.

Jack Barentsen, Ph.D., professor of practical theology, Evangelische Theologische 
Faculteit Leuven, Belgium; Extraordinary Researcher in Practical Theology, Faculty of 
Theology of North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, ORCID 0000-0003-
2197-7163. Contact: jack.barentsen@etf.edu.

This article represents the publishable summary of Kräuter’s Master Thesis at 
the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven (2024), “Gemeinsam für die Stadt: 
Wie geschieht interkonfessionelle Zusammenarbeit in der missionarischen Kirch-
enentwicklung im urbanen Kontext? Eine qualitativ-empirische Untersuchung in 
Wien,” supervised by Barentsen.

Declaration of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or 
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in 
this paper.

References
Avtzi, Kyriaki. 2013. “Ecumenism as Reconciliation”. In Schreiter, Robert, and Knud Jørgensen 

(eds), Mission as Ministry of Reconciliation, pp. 30–6. Oxford: Regnum Books.
Barentsen, Jack. 2024. “Deep Learning in Liminal Situations: Bridge-Building Leadership in 

Faith Communities.” In Barentsen, Jack, and Cees Tulp (eds) Bridge-Building Leadership in a 
Polarizing World, pp.177–98, Leuven: Peeters, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.14170600.

Benac, Dustin D. 2022. Adaptive Church: Collaboration and Community in a Changing World Waco: 
Baylor University Press.

Bevans, Stephen. 2015. “Life, Joy, and Love: Together towards Life in Dialogue with Evan-
gelii Gaudium and The Cape Town Commitment.” International Review of Mission 104 (2): 
193–202, https://doi.org/10.1111/irom.12095.

mailto:tom.kraeuter@evangeliumsgemeinde.wien
mailto:Jack.barentsen@etf.edu
https://doi.org/10.1111/irom.12095


35
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

35

Booher, David E., and Judith E. Innes. 2002, “Network Power in Collaborative Planning.” Journal of 
Planning Education and Research 21: 221–36, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301.

Bosch, David. 2011. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 20th Anniver-
sary Edition. New York: Orbis Books.

Brinksma, Piet. 2018. “Becoming God’s Ecclesia in Amsterdam: Mobilizing Leaders of Churches 
and Ministries to Work Together as a Collaborative Ecosystem for Kingdom Impact in the 
City.” DTL Dissertation. Dallas: Bakke Graduate University, 2018.

Eiffler, Felix. 2020. Kirche für die Stadt: Pluriforme urbane Gemeindeentwicklung unter den Bedin-
gungen urbaner Segregation. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht.

Elhaus, Philipp, and Tobias Kirchhof (eds). 2020. Kirche sucht Mission: Kirchenentwicklung in 
missionarischer Provokation. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Flachberger, Hannah. 2020. “Churchplanting: Beitrag zur Ekklesiogenese im katholischen 
Kontext.” Master Thesis, University of Vienna.

Franke, John R. 2020. Missional Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Gibaut, John, and Knud Jørgensen (eds). 2014. Called to Unity For the Sake of Mission. Oxford: 

Regnum Books.
Görgl, Peter, Stefanie Döringer and Johannes Herburger. 2020. “Miteinander statt nebenein-

ander! Strategien für die Weiterentwicklung interkommunaler Kooperationsstrukturen 
in der Wiener Stadtregion+”, Raumforschung und Raumordnung 78 (4): 377–95, https://doi.
org/10.2478/rara-2020-0018.

Herbst, Michael, and Hans-Hermann Pompe. 2022. Regiolokale Kirchenentwicklung: Wie 
Gemeinden vom Nebeneinander zum Miteinander kommen können. 5th ed., Berlin: Ev. Arbe-
itsstelle midi.

Herrmann, Maria. 2020. “Warum auch noch Ökumene? Mixed Economy und die komplexe Vielfalt 
der Konfessionen.” Pastoraltheologie 109: 91–9, https://doi.org/10.13109/path.2020.109.1.91

Hinkelmann, Frank. 2022. “Religiöse Ambiguitätstoleranz im konfessionellen Spannungsfeld 
zwischen charismatisch geprägten neueren römisch-katholischen geistlichen Gemein-
schaften, Freikirchen und Evangelikaler Bewegung.” In Deibl, Marlene, and Katharina 
Mairinger (eds) Eindeutig Mehrdeutig: Ambiguitäten im Spannungsfeld von Gesellschaft, 
Wissenschaft und Religion, pp. 195–214. Vienna: Vienna University Press.

Hucht, Barbara. 2017. “‘Vertrauen und Verantwortung’: Die Idee der Netzwerkmoderation im 
Zukunftsbild des Erzbistums Paderborn.” In Zimmer, Sellman and Hucht (eds), pp. 135–66.

James, Christopher B. 2018. Church Planting in Post-Christian Soil. New York: Oxford University 
Press.

Kafwanka, John. 2014. “Partnership in Mission: An Anglican Perspective.” In Gibaut, and 
Jørgensen (eds), pp. 154–72.

Keller, Timothy. 2012. Center-Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-centered Ministry in Your City. Grand 
Rapids: Zondervan.

Keum, Jooseop. 2014. “Beyond Dichotomy: Towards a Convergence between the Ecumenical 
and Evangelical Understanding of Mission in Changing Landscapes.” In Marrgunn Serig-
stadt Dahle, Lars Dahle and Knud Jørgensen (eds) The Lausanne Movement: A Range of 
Perspectives, pp. 383–98. Oxford: Regnum Books.

Kim, Dong-Sung. 2016. “Partnership and Resource Sharing.” In Ross et al. (eds), pp. 259–70.
King, Nigel, Joanna Brooks and Saloomeh Tabari. 2018. “Template Analysis in Business and 

Management Research.” In Cieselska, M. and D. Jemielniak (eds), Qualitative Methodologies 
in Organisational Studies. Volume II: Methods and Possibilities, pp. 179–206. Cham: Palgrave 
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65442-3_8.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100301
https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2020-0018
https://doi.org/10.2478/rara-2020-0018
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.13109%2Fpath.2020.109.1.91&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc5bf738ea7ff45c1c66d08de1e08077c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638981216990958131%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0GleT9Mj9V6dYMFmgYx%2BLUcTCD2OuJ%2BxNaxmbbXEWWA%3D&reserved=0


36
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef23483

36

Miller, Paul. 2010. “Evangelical Mission in Cooperation with Catholics: A Study of Evangelical 
Missiological Tensions.” PhD Dissertation. Cardiff: University of Wales.

Osmer, Richard. 2008. Practical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Paas, Stefan. 2014. “Experimenting with Mission and Unity in Secular Europe: Networking for 

Mission, Client-Based Mission, and Ecumenical Mission.” In Gibaut and Jørgensen (eds), pp. 
186–99.

Paas, Stefan, Sake Stoppels and Karen Zwijze-Koning. 2023. “Ministers on Salvation: Soteriolog-
ical Views of Pioneers and Pastors in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands.” Journal of 
Empirical Theology 35 (2023): 119–39, https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-20221434.

Payer, Harald. 2008. “Die Kunst des Netzwerkens.” In Bauer-Wolf, Stefan, Harald Payer and 
Günter Scheer (eds), Erfolgreich durch Netzwerkkompetenz: Handbuch für Regionalentwick-
lung, pp. 23–46. Wien: Springer-Verlag, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-73127-7_3.

Philipp, Alexander. 2022. Klassische Gemeindegründung: Ein Handlungsinstrument für Kirchen in 
Transformationsprozessen? Eine explorative Studie zur Gemeindegründungszene in der Church 
of England mit Überlegungen zu einem Transfer in den deutschen landeskirchlichen Kontext. 
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Ross, Kenneth R., Jooseop Keum, Kyriaki Avtzi and Roderick R. Hewitt (eds). 2016. Ecumenical 
Missiology: Changing Landscapes and New Conceptions of Mission. Oxford: Regnum Books.

Sandler, Willibald. 2022. “Evangelikal und katholisch: Chancen und Risiken eines neuen ökume-
nischen Phänomens.” In Datterl, Monika, Robert Deinhammer, Wilhelm Guggenberger and 
Claudia Paganini (eds), Wofür es sich zu leben lohnt. Zum Verhältnis von Ethik und Spirituatliät, 
pp. 145–63. Innsbruck: Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät.

Schlegel, Thomas, and Juliane Kleeman, eds. 2022. Erprobungsräume: Andere Gemeindeformen 
in der Landeskirche. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Schönborn, Christoph. 2015. Hirtenbrief: Apg 2.1. Wien: Erzdiözese Wien.
Swinton, John, and Harriet Mowat. 2016. Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. 

London: SCM Press.
Tomlin, Graham. 2022. Navigating a World of Grace: The Promise of Generous Orthodoxy. London: 

SPCK.
Währisch-Oblau, Claudia. 2016. “Evangelism.” In Ross et al. (eds), pp. 151–166.
Ward, Pete. 2017. Introducing Practical Theology: Mission, Ministry, and the Life of the Church. 

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Wright, Christopher. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Nottingham: 

Intervarsity Press.
Zimmer, Miriam. 2017. “Beziehungsprofile und Positionsanforderungen: Rollenbewusstsein in 

sozialen Netzwerken entwickeln.” In Zimmer, Sellman, and Hucht (eds), pp. 167–87.
Zimmer, Miriam, Matthias Sellmann and Barbara Hucht (eds). 2017. Netzwerke in pastoralen 

Räumen: Wissenschaftliche Analysen – Fallstudien – Praktische Relevanz. Würzburg: Echter 
Verlag.

https://doi.org/10.1163/15709256-20221434
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-73127-7_3



