if you want missional church, then…

On with the series of posts on the mDNA of apostolic environment; It is worthy to note again at this point that the church in the West is facing a massive adaptive challenge: positively in the form of compelling opportunity and negatively in the form of rapid, discontinuous change. These twin challenges comprise a considerable threat to Christianity locked as it is into the prevailing Constantinian (Christendom) form of church with all its associated institutional rigidity. We are in a situation of what Roxburgh calls ‘liminality’. Liminality in his view is the transition from one fundamental form of the church to another necessitating the apostolic role. Environments of discontinuous change require adaptive organizations and leadership. As the apostolic role is responsible and gifted for the extension of Christianity, so too the missionary situation requires a pioneering and innovative mode of leadership to help the church negotiate the new territory in which it finds itself. This is clear enough when we consider the Emerging Missional Church which relies heavily on an innovative pioneering spirit and is therefore fundamentally apostolic in nature. But it is equally true for established churches.

The apostolic person’s calling is essentially the extension of Christianity. As such he/she calls the church to its essential calling and helps guide it in into its destiny as a missionary people with a transformative message for the world. All other functions of the church must be qualified by its mission to extend the redemptive mission of God through its life and witness. The apostolic leader thus embodies, symbolizes, and re-presents the apostolic mission to the missional community. Furthermore, he/she calls forth and develops the gifts and callings of all of God’s people. Without apostolic ministry the church either forgets its high calling or fails to implement it successfully. Sadly, in declining denominational systems, such people are commonly ‘frozen out’ or exiled because they disturb the equilibrium of a system in stasis. This ‘loss’ of the apostolic influencer accounts for one of the major reasons for mainstream denominational decline. If we really want missional church, then we must have a missional leadership system to drive it—it’s that simple.

I am well aware of the various reactions that this subject can evoke. This is so partly because of the confusion between the unique role and calling of the original apostles and that of present day apostol-ic ministry i.e. a ministry gifting that further extends and substantiates the original apostolic work but does not in any way alter it. But another reason for negative reaction has been because many who have claimed ‘apostleship’ do it no justice and in the end discredit this vital role. Sadly church history is littered with false apostles.

The only conclusion from the research and study undergirding this book is that apostolic ministry is a distinct element of Apostolic Genius and because of this we need to find a way to understand and re-embrace it if we want to become a genuinely missional church. Quite simply; a missional church needs missional leadership and it’s going to take more than the traditional Pastor-Teacher mode of leadership to pull this off. Leadership always provides a strategic point of leverage for missional change and renewal. If this is conceded, then the question is what type of leadership is naturally follows. The natural answer is missional and therefore must include the idea of the apostolic. We simply have to get over our historical cringe in this matter if we are going to grow and mature as a missional movement (Eph.4:11ff). It no mere coincidence that all the historical denominations have by and large have rejected apostolic leadership find themselves in long term, systematic, decline in every context in the West. This chapter will therefore focus on why apostolic ministry is needed and why it is a irreplaceable aspect of mDNA.

May 13, 2008 | Filed Under apostolic environment, the forgotten ways |  

Comments

20 Responses to “if you want missional church, then…”

  1. Brian Hofmeister on May 14th, 2008 11:25 pm

    I think apostolic leadership is often underutilized because people cannot tell where the apostles are going. Sometimes is looks like they start things just to start things. Apostles that spread the mDNA ideology in addition to their new projects will probably find a larger platform.

  2. Matt Stone on May 14th, 2008 11:43 pm

    One of the questions that comes up for me here is how do you suggest we negotiate the clergy-laity gap? In particular (completely hypothetical of course) where apostolic laity sit under pastoral clergy in the institutional hierarchies?

  3. alan on May 15th, 2008 1:22 am

    Good question Matt. My feeling is that there are a lot of very frustrated individuals in the prevailing system. As for the clergy laity gap. I believe that the separation has its roots in demonic sources. It is a perfect strategy to emasculate the church’s ministry. We need to recover, with full force, the priesthood of all believers.

  4. Lucy J on May 15th, 2008 3:30 pm

    Have to concur with all three posts so far!
    There is a clergy-laity gap and I truly think that a variety of people like us, for example, are standing in it… there are a few references to the ‘error of the Nicolaitans in the Book of Revelation, and I at present am of the opinion that what was present in the early churches in that ‘department’ has only gained momentum and maturity in its outworking over the centuries. I read something interesting about problems today which I found to be very encouraging… not exactly new news, but well expressed by Dr Michael Hall of the Neuro Semantics fame… not a Christian (I’ve met him in person and chatted about spirituality), but a very eminent psychologist anyway (Watch out world when he puts Christ at the centre of his universe!!!)

    Lucy J

    Quoting Dr Michael Hall…
    That which is won easily and without a struggle is seldom valued, let alone treasured. It is what we win through struggle, effort, discipline, and team work that we value, that calls for a celebration. It is the problem that matters, that makes a difference, that opens up new possibilities and new worlds—those are the problems that are worth solving, worth devoting yourself to, worth a full commitment for a lifetime.

  5. Gert on May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm

    Dear Alan,
    I studied at Stellenbosch (South Africa) where you will be having a one day seminar on Monday (12th May). I haven’t read the book, and have only been reading on the website after receiving the notice of Monday. Unfortunately I won’t be able to make it, but I’ll get a copy of the book and continue the conversation online…
    As far as apostolic leadership is concerned. We have at the moment a great example of how someone from a non-denominational background is giving vision and new impetus to christians in as far as they should see the church as missional movement. I pastor a congrgation in the country side - only farmers - we’ll removed from the city environment. But Angus Buchan is changing the way people look at the church and he will, I beleive be a apostolic leader in the sense that you decsribed above. But he’ll come from outside the city, showing in real simple terms, what the truth of the gospel can be in a modern world, despite not being a city soul. History will tell…Looking forward to be part of a conversation via the internet…as we’re physically removed from the city..(yet not spiritually)

  6. Justin Mayfield on May 17th, 2008 12:25 pm

    Well said, Alan: “As for the clergy laity gap. I believe that the separation has its roots in demonic sources. It is a perfect strategy to emasculate the church’s ministry. We need to recover, with full force, the priesthood of all believers.”

    I have had that sense, as well (demonic sources). Not to make it too B&W but I sometimes feel that way about the Constantine shift all together. I think most questions about leadership in mainstream church (submission, women in leadership, etc) are usually framed in the clergy-laity terms. It’s interesting to think about an apostolic woman taking seriously ‘the last shall be first’ (missional leadership doesn’t have the rock-star appeal of its attractional counterpart) and being a catalyzing missional force. Nobody’s fighting to be the ditched-in-prison-planter-of-small-incarnational-churches Paul. Most want the-writer-of-the NT Paul, but, unlike Paul, they don’t want to wait until they die to see it come to pass.

    I guess it takes an imagination that sees the possibilities of New Creation and a heart willing to be surprised by the joys of God’s dreams for His Kingdom. Which is less sexy but far more grounded in sustainable joy.

  7. Matt Stone on May 17th, 2008 5:14 pm

    For an essay I have been reading “The Other Six Days” by R Paul Stevens, a book which addresses the clergy-laity gap question, and, while I think it could have done with some lay input (nark) he has some very interesting points.

    One is the question of ordination: “The practice of ordination is critical to maintaining the distinction of clergy and ministry.” Another guy Ive been reading, Richard Broholm, affirms the same thing: “unless we are prepared to suggest the calling of the religious professional is a higher calling than that of the laity … we must either be prepared to do away with the ordination of the clergy or move to provide for the ordination of all Christians to their ministries of service in the world.”

    Now, as we laity can’t de-ordain clergy, or even stop them ordaining to their hearts content, as laity there is only one option I have bring matters to a head: ordain / commission people with a proven mission in society “with as much seriousness as we ordain people to the pastoral ministry of the church”. Who’s game? Who’s up for action?

    Now, in all of this I note John Stott’s distinction between “anticlericalism”, which denies gifting, and “aclericalism”, which affirms gifting and is closer to what I am advocating here. I fully acknowledge the role of pastors as “overseers” of the church equipping process. But in restricting ordination / commissioning to a select group we undermine the unity of the body, we perpetuate a two-class system. If we are do achieve anything we must delegitimize it first. We can only delegitimize it if we are prepared to act and wear the consequences. So, who’d like to dethrone some powers and principalities?

  8. Janet on May 17th, 2008 11:09 pm

    I don’t personally support taking a hatchet to absolutely everything we now have… there are people in local churches who are quick to change, people in churches who are slow to change, and people who will only change when they die! God loves people from the latter camp just as much as from the former… it wouldn’t shock me to imagine God would call those with pastoral gifts to journey alongside “slow to change” people… a process which has to go one step at a time rather than in a giant (and often hurtful and traumatic) leap.

    There are some “institutional” churches who are doing mission very well… and they make good use of “institutional baggage” by doing a terrific job with people from the community who want a church wedding, or a funeral, or a baby christening, or even a traditional Christmas service. Now it may be an historical quirk… but some people want a church wedding, and denominations are given the right by governments to give a certain number of marriage licenses to their ministers… they can’t legally give marriage licences to every church member.

    If our aim is to reach everyone, I think there needs to be a place preserved for those whose personality / wiring leans toward “institutional spirituality”. I know institutional church limits exponential growth… but it still caters well to a “niche market”. Long live diversity I say.

    I think we are seeing growing numbers of people doing emergent-styled mission, who realise there are a growing number of people who (miraculous revival excepted) are unlikely to be reached by traditional expressions of church. I’d like to see these “Christians streams” as parallel and cooperative (ie behaving maturely) rather than
    antagonistic and competitive. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me over-much if there developed an interchange between more (and less) traditonal expressions of Christian community depending on people’s life stages and personalities.

    I’d love to see denominations embracing a “both/and” approach to church and mission, and be willing to bless emergent expressions of church with godly mentors, and cooperative use of resources, and financial support where possible… not to mention issues like insurance etc. which are nightmare areas for individuals in a litigious society. (It’s on the radar at least where I work… no small measure due to Alan’s footprint).

    As a slight aside…Al and I have both worked with Churches of Christ (I’m still there!) who strongly value lay ministry, and have lay teams of elders as leaders of the the church (rather than ministers… which can cause some different kinds of problems!) I did a tally of the stats the other day and found more lay people are employed in ministry positions than ordained people. I think in many independently governed churches a growing number of lay leaders are called to ministry… it’s an interesting trend which may have more to do with a shortage of ordained ministers than a theological belief in lay ministry… but it has the same effect!

    Gosh that was a ramble… I’m getting tired. Good night! (and good morning to all you U.S. bloggers!)

  9. Justin Mayfield on May 18th, 2008 3:25 am

    Matt - “We can only delegitimize it if we are prepared to act and wear the consequences. So, who’d like to dethrone some powers and principalities?” haha, I’m game. And I totally agree that we need to accept the consequences. I don’t think it’s just an institution or clergy that perpetuate the system, but a silent agreement between clergy and non-clergy. I think a lot of us don’t want to accept the responsibility of the leadership we’re called to as disciples. Our whole western world seems to be set up to obscure the impact and responsibility we have as humans on those around us. I can’t even tell you the difference walking has made in my life to being aware of my responsibility in the world (vs driving everywhere). Any way, that’s a whole ‘nother convo!

    Janet - I love both/and! I’m glad you said that. I think context matters a lot too to how we apply it. In my context, I have a hard time with having both institution and incarnation because the institutions around here seem to be stuck in this regional/attractional thing (even emerging ones). It think there is room for both but I think the former should be a compliment to the latter. So, for now, I let those friendships be what they are, but as for me and the collective of missionaries I am incarnating with, we can’t take a lot of energy and give it to a system that seems to be a poor stewart of its context. (I wrote a posts on both of these topics. Here is one: http://www.jmayblog.com/2008/03/breakfast.html). I’m glad there are people in other contexts, maybe on the institutional side, that are finding ways of bridging gaps without sacrificing the mission.

  10. Janet on May 18th, 2008 5:18 pm

    Great post Justin… and I agree too that it’s generally more productive to begin incarnational missional ministries outside of (or parallel to) institutional churches, rather than trying to transform institutional churches… this is hard slow slog suited to particular types of people… those willing to think and act in “decades” and “generations”. Those who hunger to get things done now are better off leaving institutions be (in grace) and get on with mission outside. Both/and… according to gifts and calling.

  11. Matt Stone on May 18th, 2008 9:11 pm

    Ah, but Janet, if I were to take that as read it would commit me to the path of anticlericalism, not aclericalism.

    You see, as non-clergy I have no power to set up parallel churches, unless of course I completely renounce the authority of clergy over me altogether and plant something in total contravention of my home institution, in this case the Baptist union. This of course is not beyond my imagination, but as stated above, I have come to see an aclerical approach that affirms gifting and “oversight” as the more Biblical. So, despite your intentions your advise would ironically commit me to just the sort of hatchet job you would seek to avoid. These are no idle words, believe me.

    What I am trying to draw out here is the practical implications of “apostolic environment” talk for apostolic laity who have no apostolic clergy amongst them, whom they can partner with. If we accept leadership oversight as Biblical then our only option is work within churches as we find them, doing what we can to transform from with. Neither of the alternatives, sitting in impotent frustration waiting an apostolic clergy to emerge (the clerical approach) or splitting from authority (the anticlerical approach) really cut it. There is a power issue here and the less empowered have fewer options. Transformation from with by setting apostolic example is all that is left.

    For those who have apostolic leadership who empower them, my blessings go with their church planting efforts, but not all of us have that, we have to think smaller scale.

  12. Justin Mayfield on May 19th, 2008 3:31 am

    Good words, Janet.

    Matt, I’m not envious of your situation. I can see your struggle. In my context, I look to past examples from post-reformation to guide me a bit. Luther tried to reform from within but couldn’t agree with clergy that he felt contradicted God. The pietists did reform from within by just adding to the requirements of Lutherans (extra meeting and disciplines). Wesley seems to have tried to stick to his roots but the movement of God behind his willingness to step out was too powerful. In most cases I thankfully haven’t run into a situation I personally was hindered from seeking the best of the Kingdom in my leadership. I used to be a sales manager and we’d say about reps, “grow ‘em up or grow ‘em out.” I guess I try to grow the institutions up or grow myself out. From what you’re saying, that might be anticlerical, though. I guess I might be anticlerical in that sense. Again, I’m not envious.

  13. Justin Mayfield on May 19th, 2008 3:36 am

    Oh and Janet, I’m not envious of you if you are one of those people willing to go through that slow slog. Takes a lot of strength!! I’m glad you liked my post :-)

  14. Matt Stone on May 19th, 2008 10:51 am

    Justin, the thing with Luther was that he was kicked out; he didn’t chase a split and reform from within did seem to be his preferred option until that became untennable. My situation is not so exteme that this is likely to occur. It is uncomfortable at times but not untennable. Only this week I was given the go ahead to start up a “missional prayer network” across the ministries of our church which I see as a potential foundation for nurturing a more missional focus across the whole church. I have already had a number of people respond to it, people with both more liberal and more fundamentalist backgrounds. It is sure to be an interesting ride. But in summary, despite my personal leanings towards church planting, I have accepted that this is not God’s plan for me at this juncture, that working for transformation from within is my present call.

    Now of course, I could go chasing for more missional church leaders elsewhere in the city, but two things stop me. Firstly, the fact there is plenty of local mission work and if we more missional types abandon the suburb what then? Secondly, I think there is enough Christian consumerism without me chasing the latest and greatest leaders who suit my needs. Do not the more missional churches resist transfer growth? I have learned to be cautious when transfer urges arise, to check myself as to their origin. I think missional means not only working with the world as we find it, but also sometimes working with the church as we find it.

  15. Lucy J on May 19th, 2008 3:09 pm

    Yeah, people-of-this-thread, thanks for your insights and experiences… variety is one of the most piquant spices in my life… and I must say, I felt quite liberated one day at a local FORGE intensive, when the facilitator of the session said something along the lines of “maybe you might be a person who finds that their mission field IS the church, and that’s OK”!!!! I’d been fighting that realisation for decades… something in me (prison bars of an obsolete approach from an institutional church past?) had invalidated one of my gut feelings about myself in terms of who I am and what is my ‘call’. I always thought that REAL mission was outsid the boundaries of the church/Body of Christ. I feel a lot better and more focused now. I still love engaging anybody anywhere in a God-exploring, God-acknowleging conversation and trust that God would bring the whomsoevers to salvation, but I’m really happy working on APEST resurrection projects in whatever network context I find myself.
    Thanks again, all,
    Lucy J

  16. Matt Stone on May 20th, 2008 11:54 am

    On the flip side of this Lucy I have had some people who ARE involved in church planting express frustration at how they have at times, unintentially, carried along their institutional baggage along for the ride in their church planting efforts; that there is still a “transformation from within” that needs to occur even there. Sometimes we can pose to strict a dichotomy between emerging and established churches I feel. Sure there are massive differences between emerging and establishment extremes but I find there are many like myself who are in a messy space in between, in churches not extremely missional, but not extremely isolationist either. On the positive side I do think there are some things lay Christians can do in any context, and that is model the future in the present, so those who don’t quite get it yet can at least see it. My wife has been doing some fantastic work lately with a very troubled family and the congregation is finally starting to notice. And only yesterday, on my walk home from work, I was approached in the street by a friend of this family and introduced to another local, and was able to share this with some of the other congregation members at a Bible Study last night. And they in turn have been motivated to give and write a few letters of encouragement. Bit by bit we are trying to model to the congregation that this missional living isn’t just some pie in the sky thing.

  17. Lucy J on May 21st, 2008 4:00 pm

    ‘messy space in between’ resonates for me… I’ve been meditating a lot on the concept of The Trinity being the centre of the universe… and a quote by La Cugna about everything emanating from God and everything returning to God. It made me think that somewhere between the going out and the coming in is where we live in our efforts to experience and usher the Kingdom of the Heavens into our earthly situations… AND the Ephesians passage that talks about the world being peripheral to the church, not the current pop culture idea of the church being peripheral to the world. That has helped give me more confidence, peace and perspective on what my life and mission is all about.

    Lucy J

  18. Deacon & Usher on May 27th, 2008 12:15 am

    Deacon & Usher were here….

    Love most of what you write…

  19. Lucy J on May 28th, 2008 3:05 pm

    I don’t know who you are, Deacon and Usher, but like you, I find the musings of bloggers (e.g. Alan, Janet and Matt Stone) very thought provoking. This has helped me on my journey with developing a more authentic practice of my Christian faith and also assisted me to discover more about the deep deep deep radicalism of Jesus’ example and teachings
    Lucy J

  20. Janet on May 28th, 2008 5:25 pm

    I’ve just re-read this and… yes Matt, that did sound too harsh, and I don’t advocate the “dummy-spit” approach to ministry in the first instance (My church don’t get me, so I’ll go off and do my own thing.) That too often comes out of immaturity and lack of grace, and hasn’t helped the reputation of the “emerging” church in some places.

    Nor would I say one should never leave a local church… there are sometimes good reasons to do so, especially if it’s really unhealthy.

    I’d love to see C of C’s become increasingly a “mixed economy” with missional groups alongside more conventional congregations, and very “out there” missional groups being connected to the wider body… and it is starting to happen in my network. A ways to go of course!

Leave a Reply




Comment spam protected by SpamBam

Copyright © 2008 The Forgotten Ways • Linear WordPress Theme • Powered by WordPress • Maintained by Noble Design