Commonly Held Reasons to Adopt Missional Living
A review of the literature clearly documents a call for the church and its programs to change. The call for change most commonly begins from one of three starting points: contextual change in the West, the institutional crisis facing the Church, or a personal crisis of faith (Junkin, 1996). Though not as common as the previous three starting points, a missional hermeneutic is also beginning to gain ground as a foundation upon which the need for change is established. (see Wright, 2006). Though each of the four starting points are distinct, they are often connected and interdependent as they form one powerful argument concerning the need for the church to change in the West.
Argument from Contextual Change
The notion that the world is changing is certainly nothing new to most contemporary people. It might seem, then, that the call for the church to change that arises from an analysis of contextual change in the world is unnecessary. However, the authors from whom the contextual analysis come claim that the change currently taking place in the world is abnormal, “discontinuous change” (Roxburgh, 2006, p. 7). Roxburgh (2006) categorizes discontinuous change as “disruptive and unanticipated” (p. 7) and claims it always challenges commonly held assumptions.
Though no one seems to be able to define, list, and name the discontinuous change in precisely the same way, the same general culprits of change are often repeated: globalization, religious and cultural pluralism, relativization or democratization of knowledge, advances of science and technology, the collapse of Enlightenment and modern principles and worldviews, growth of postmodernism, secularization of the West, dominance of capitalism and the continue presence of a huge gap between the rich and the poor, and the loss of confidence in primary social structures and relationships (Bosch, 1991; Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994; Hirsch, 2006; Roxburgh, 2006, 2008; Turnipseed, 1998; Van Gelder, 1996, 1998). Summarizing these changes, Wright (2006) says the Enlightenment Tower of Babel built in modernity has collapsed into the fragmented world of post-modernity.
Within the new, fragmented, and confusing world, the position of the church in the West has been drastically altered. Religious diversity has created an environment for individualized faith to flourish and true religion to fade in the light of uncertainty (Turnipseed, 1998). Secularization has de-Christianized the West, leading to a commonly held belief throughout the world that Western theology is suspect at best (Bosch, 1991). It is in this light of a new world and a new position for the church that the call for a missional change comes. The church must realize the West is a “mission field” (Roxburgh & Boren, 2009, p. 75) and should see itself with “exilic eyes as ‘resident aliens,’ an adventurous colony in a society of unbelief” (Hunsberger, 1996, p. 18).
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Missional Literature Review - Part 1: Introduction
As part of an Action Research Project being done for the completion of my M.A in Ministry degree, I am researching churches that are transitioning to a more missional identity and structure, particularly in the area of small groups. Over the next several days, I will post short sections from the literature review portion of the paper. If you would like information on any of the cited references, I would be happy to assist. Also, I would love to hear your response to what the literature seems to be saying.
INTRODUCTION
Criticism of the small group movements of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s is growing increasingly strong. For instance, Boren (2007) writes, “In short, good old American pragmatism [has] turned small groups into a modernistic program that leaders could control and produce growth. … Most of us bought into a set of small-group myths that resulted in growth but little radical transformation” (p. 10). Hirsch (2007) is another example, claiming small groups were used as nothing more than “prop-ups to the ‘real-deal,’ weekend-based church” (p. 4). Smith (2007) is perhaps most scathing of all, saying small groups quickly became “protective, hoarding, territorial and inwardly focused” (p. 15) in the old system.
In addition to this critique of small group movements, Paul M. and Inagrace T. Dietterich (1994) comment on the nature of the church of recent history in the West and call for a missional transformation, claiming the church is caught in “the trap of success” and suffers from “success syndrome [emphasis in original]: a pattern of organizational thinking, behavior, and functioning” (p. 5). Symptoms of the syndrome include insular thinking, parochialism, complacency, and belief in infallibility (Dietterich, 1994). Churches caught in this trap rely on what worked in the past when confronted with new challenges and are unable to be open and creative or accept new ideas and insights. Such churches need a “dramatic shock” to challenge and change the “theological self-understanding” of the church body and bring it into an “entirely new frame of reference” (Dietterich, 1994). Many authors contend that a transition to missional living in congregations is the needed corrective for the problems facing both small group ministries and the institutional church (see Barrett, 2004; Boren, 2007, 2010; Carter, 2009; Dieterrich & Dietterich, 1994; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal 2009; Rouse & Van Gelder, 2008; Van Gelder, 2007).
The critique levied against the small groups and the institutional or “Established Church” (Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994) by missional scholars and authors is pointed and clear. Less clear, however, are the solutions offered or the changes proposed. Roxburgh and Boren (2009) admit that the missional concept is hard to define and avoid limiting their thinking to models and structures, leaving many pragmatists wondering how to do missional living in their churches. The missional concept is compared to a flowing river (Boren & Roxburgh, 2009), “not a what but a who,” [emphasis in original] (McNeal, 2009, p. 20), and a Spirit-led initiative unique in every local context (Van Gelder, 2007). Trying to identify clear proposals and solutions to problems in missional literature can be much like grasping at air. Those who write in this field not only recognize this difficulty, but also celebrate it as a move away from the rigid programs in recent church history and toward a more contextual ministry (e.g. Roxburgh & Boren, 2009).
Though writers at times attempt to refrain from limiting missional concepts to definitions and models, a review of the literature seems to show commonalities among scholars, authors, and practitioners alike. The commonalities occur in the areas of why the church needs to live missionally, what missional living looks like, and how Christian communities can begin the missional transition process.
INTRODUCTION
Criticism of the small group movements of the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s is growing increasingly strong. For instance, Boren (2007) writes, “In short, good old American pragmatism [has] turned small groups into a modernistic program that leaders could control and produce growth. … Most of us bought into a set of small-group myths that resulted in growth but little radical transformation” (p. 10). Hirsch (2007) is another example, claiming small groups were used as nothing more than “prop-ups to the ‘real-deal,’ weekend-based church” (p. 4). Smith (2007) is perhaps most scathing of all, saying small groups quickly became “protective, hoarding, territorial and inwardly focused” (p. 15) in the old system.
In addition to this critique of small group movements, Paul M. and Inagrace T. Dietterich (1994) comment on the nature of the church of recent history in the West and call for a missional transformation, claiming the church is caught in “the trap of success” and suffers from “success syndrome [emphasis in original]: a pattern of organizational thinking, behavior, and functioning” (p. 5). Symptoms of the syndrome include insular thinking, parochialism, complacency, and belief in infallibility (Dietterich, 1994). Churches caught in this trap rely on what worked in the past when confronted with new challenges and are unable to be open and creative or accept new ideas and insights. Such churches need a “dramatic shock” to challenge and change the “theological self-understanding” of the church body and bring it into an “entirely new frame of reference” (Dietterich, 1994). Many authors contend that a transition to missional living in congregations is the needed corrective for the problems facing both small group ministries and the institutional church (see Barrett, 2004; Boren, 2007, 2010; Carter, 2009; Dieterrich & Dietterich, 1994; Halter & Smay, 2008; McNeal 2009; Rouse & Van Gelder, 2008; Van Gelder, 2007).
The critique levied against the small groups and the institutional or “Established Church” (Dietterich & Dietterich, 1994) by missional scholars and authors is pointed and clear. Less clear, however, are the solutions offered or the changes proposed. Roxburgh and Boren (2009) admit that the missional concept is hard to define and avoid limiting their thinking to models and structures, leaving many pragmatists wondering how to do missional living in their churches. The missional concept is compared to a flowing river (Boren & Roxburgh, 2009), “not a what but a who,” [emphasis in original] (McNeal, 2009, p. 20), and a Spirit-led initiative unique in every local context (Van Gelder, 2007). Trying to identify clear proposals and solutions to problems in missional literature can be much like grasping at air. Those who write in this field not only recognize this difficulty, but also celebrate it as a move away from the rigid programs in recent church history and toward a more contextual ministry (e.g. Roxburgh & Boren, 2009).
Though writers at times attempt to refrain from limiting missional concepts to definitions and models, a review of the literature seems to show commonalities among scholars, authors, and practitioners alike. The commonalities occur in the areas of why the church needs to live missionally, what missional living looks like, and how Christian communities can begin the missional transition process.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Gracious Intrusion
Genesis is an absolutely fascinating read. The author of Genesis, traditionally believed to be Moses, used a literary device to clearly mark ten headings (like chapter titles) throughout the book. The Hebrew phrase ‘elleh toledot occurs eleven times in the book of Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1 [36:9]; 37:2) and has been translated in many ways including “these are the generations of,” “this is the family history of,” “this is the history of the descendants of” and “this is the account of.” When these headings are in view, the structure of Genesis is seen as follows: a prologue describing the significance of creation, followed by ten stories of the people of God.
As the ten stories (or chapters) of Genesis are read, a pattern becomes evident. One author described this pattern as the sovereign and gracious intrusion of God into human history. God did not simply create humans and then step back and allow them to do their own thing. Instead, God worked to ensure humans would fulfill his purposes, despite their obvious sinfulness and short comings. This is most clearly seen with Abraham and his descendants.
In Genesis 12, God promises Abraham that He will give him a land, make him a blessing, and grow a nation or people through him. The rest of the book of Genesis details God building the nation/people. Constantly God is forced to overcome threats to this promise created by human sinfulness or stupidity. For instance, Abraham and his descendants are constantly taking matters into their own hands, instead of seeking out God's plans. Abraham sleeps with his maidservant to have a child, believing Sarah to be barren. God intervenes to build the lineage through Sarah. Threat solved. Then God tells Abraham to kill his only son, Isaac. This is an obvious threat to the lineage. God provides a ram - threat solved. One day Abraham thinks it would be a good idea to tell a foreign king Sarah is his sister. The king takes Sarah as one of his lady-friends. Again, God has to act, sending a sickness until the king figures out what has happened - threat solved. Surprisingly, Isaac will do the same exact thing with his wife. Jacob steals the blessing of Esau, causing enmity between the two brothers. Jacob's father-in-law later tries to hunt him down. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery. Enslaved in Egypt, Joseph is falsely accused and thrown in jail. Meanwhile, his family is about to start starving due to a famine. What does God do? He graciously intervenes each time his people are threatened and builds them into a great nation.
Through the story of Joseph, Jacob's people, the descendants of Abraham, end up in Egypt. Once in Egypt, they are incubated for about 400 years until God releases his huge nation from their captivity to fulfill his purposes in the world. God graciously intrudes into human history to ensure his purposes are realized on this earth.
God still graciously intrudes into this world to see his purposes fulfilled and he continues to build his people to carry out these purposes. The church is one mechanism of God's gracious intrusion into the world. Therefore, I contend it is the responsibility and role of every Christian and every Christian community to graciously intrude into the lives of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, sports teams, social clubs, etc. In recent history, a growing number of voices are calling for the church to begin to refocus on graciously intruding in the lives of those in the community. I agree, and often find myself asking, Who's life am I intruding with the grace of God? My guess is we should all be asking this question.
As the ten stories (or chapters) of Genesis are read, a pattern becomes evident. One author described this pattern as the sovereign and gracious intrusion of God into human history. God did not simply create humans and then step back and allow them to do their own thing. Instead, God worked to ensure humans would fulfill his purposes, despite their obvious sinfulness and short comings. This is most clearly seen with Abraham and his descendants.
In Genesis 12, God promises Abraham that He will give him a land, make him a blessing, and grow a nation or people through him. The rest of the book of Genesis details God building the nation/people. Constantly God is forced to overcome threats to this promise created by human sinfulness or stupidity. For instance, Abraham and his descendants are constantly taking matters into their own hands, instead of seeking out God's plans. Abraham sleeps with his maidservant to have a child, believing Sarah to be barren. God intervenes to build the lineage through Sarah. Threat solved. Then God tells Abraham to kill his only son, Isaac. This is an obvious threat to the lineage. God provides a ram - threat solved. One day Abraham thinks it would be a good idea to tell a foreign king Sarah is his sister. The king takes Sarah as one of his lady-friends. Again, God has to act, sending a sickness until the king figures out what has happened - threat solved. Surprisingly, Isaac will do the same exact thing with his wife. Jacob steals the blessing of Esau, causing enmity between the two brothers. Jacob's father-in-law later tries to hunt him down. Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery. Enslaved in Egypt, Joseph is falsely accused and thrown in jail. Meanwhile, his family is about to start starving due to a famine. What does God do? He graciously intervenes each time his people are threatened and builds them into a great nation.
Through the story of Joseph, Jacob's people, the descendants of Abraham, end up in Egypt. Once in Egypt, they are incubated for about 400 years until God releases his huge nation from their captivity to fulfill his purposes in the world. God graciously intrudes into human history to ensure his purposes are realized on this earth.
God still graciously intrudes into this world to see his purposes fulfilled and he continues to build his people to carry out these purposes. The church is one mechanism of God's gracious intrusion into the world. Therefore, I contend it is the responsibility and role of every Christian and every Christian community to graciously intrude into the lives of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, sports teams, social clubs, etc. In recent history, a growing number of voices are calling for the church to begin to refocus on graciously intruding in the lives of those in the community. I agree, and often find myself asking, Who's life am I intruding with the grace of God? My guess is we should all be asking this question.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Cultivating Imagination
If there is one concept about missional leadership that has been in my mind lately, it is the idea of cultivating the missional imagination of the Christian community. I believe God appoints leaders and does give them vision and inspiration to lead. However, I also believe God can do the same in and through the followers, or members of the community. Good leaders, I think, will help their community travel down a certain path God has revealed to them WHILE inspiring the community to find unique ways to actually go down the path.
To explore this further, maybe it is like the TV Game Show, Amazing Race. The leaders of the show reveal and explain the destination to contestants, but do not tell the contestants exactly how to get their. Clues are given, aides are provided, and the teams are never completely abandoned to the extent where they could be hurt. This all adds up to empowering each team to find their way to the goal. Some make it more quickly than others, but all eventually make it. My guess is the experience is much more memorable and powerful (both positively and negatively) than it would have been if they were simply given directions to follow.
Leadership in the church, I believe, can empower people to use their imagination to follow the path God has in store. The innovations, ideas, and inventions the Christian community might come up with could quite literally change lives and change the world. Those who are speaking into my life - authors, practitioners, friends, family, teachers - are cultivating within me a missional imagination. As the imagination is ingited by these outside sources, the Spirit of God within me adds fuel, leading to a blazing fire of imagination just waiting to burst forth into my life. Now, my job is to spread the imagination to others. Imagine this: 100 committed Christians imagining how God could use them to be missionaries to their own context and dreaming about how they can help others imagine the same. I imagine that would be quite the powerful community.
Imagine if...
To explore this further, maybe it is like the TV Game Show, Amazing Race. The leaders of the show reveal and explain the destination to contestants, but do not tell the contestants exactly how to get their. Clues are given, aides are provided, and the teams are never completely abandoned to the extent where they could be hurt. This all adds up to empowering each team to find their way to the goal. Some make it more quickly than others, but all eventually make it. My guess is the experience is much more memorable and powerful (both positively and negatively) than it would have been if they were simply given directions to follow.
Leadership in the church, I believe, can empower people to use their imagination to follow the path God has in store. The innovations, ideas, and inventions the Christian community might come up with could quite literally change lives and change the world. Those who are speaking into my life - authors, practitioners, friends, family, teachers - are cultivating within me a missional imagination. As the imagination is ingited by these outside sources, the Spirit of God within me adds fuel, leading to a blazing fire of imagination just waiting to burst forth into my life. Now, my job is to spread the imagination to others. Imagine this: 100 committed Christians imagining how God could use them to be missionaries to their own context and dreaming about how they can help others imagine the same. I imagine that would be quite the powerful community.
Imagine if...
Monday, January 18, 2010
Conversation over Coffee
While having a cup of coffee with a friend the other day, he shared with me a frustration with his church. My friend used to be on the worship team at his church, but was told he wasn't really good enough to have his mic turned up high enough for people to hear him. Obviously, my friend quit. Not many people would want to sing into a silent microphone and just be a body on stage.
During our conversation, the extent of the pain inflicted by this event came out. I heard how my friend longed to be able to be a part of worship and to lead people in worship. The frustration was that church was just a show where stars are needed to sing, to preach, and to do the Christian act on stage.
This was a harsh observation to be sure, but my heart broke while we talked. Honestly, tears were coming to my eyes as I listened to a fellow Christian share the hurt caused by a church model designed to attract people in with high quality worship services. Now, I am not one to say this model is all bad. I believe in worship and I believe God has gifted people to lead in worship. But I also believe the church has to find a way to allow for greater levels of participation and expression our worship gatherings. Worship does not need to be perfect, it needs to be genuine. Voices do not need to be the most beautiful in the world, they need to be heartfelt. Preaching does not need to always come from the experts, it needs to come from the people of God. One person does not need to do all the talking at a worship gathering.
God certainly deserves excellence in worship. Sometimes I wonder if God and the church define excellence the same way. One thing I do know - a community that stifles the voice of one of its members longing to sing out the praises of God has some serious examination to do.
During our conversation, the extent of the pain inflicted by this event came out. I heard how my friend longed to be able to be a part of worship and to lead people in worship. The frustration was that church was just a show where stars are needed to sing, to preach, and to do the Christian act on stage.
This was a harsh observation to be sure, but my heart broke while we talked. Honestly, tears were coming to my eyes as I listened to a fellow Christian share the hurt caused by a church model designed to attract people in with high quality worship services. Now, I am not one to say this model is all bad. I believe in worship and I believe God has gifted people to lead in worship. But I also believe the church has to find a way to allow for greater levels of participation and expression our worship gatherings. Worship does not need to be perfect, it needs to be genuine. Voices do not need to be the most beautiful in the world, they need to be heartfelt. Preaching does not need to always come from the experts, it needs to come from the people of God. One person does not need to do all the talking at a worship gathering.
God certainly deserves excellence in worship. Sometimes I wonder if God and the church define excellence the same way. One thing I do know - a community that stifles the voice of one of its members longing to sing out the praises of God has some serious examination to do.
The Discerning Community
While reading Craig Van Gelder's The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit over some coffee this morning, one sentence sent me on a tangent of thinking. Van Gelder made the observation that Jesus taught his disciples a lot about the nature of the church/people of God, but never really said much about how it would be structured or how it would be modeled. Instead, Jesus told his followers the Spirit would come and lead them to be the unique community.
Church leaders of all kinds--missional, emerging, denominational, traditional, pastoral, etc.-- talk a lot about models. I, too, am often captivated by ideas and dreams of ways a church might be modeled or structured. Van Gelder's, point, however, reminded me that God does not always reveal models to leaders. God does send the Spirit, though, to equip the people of God for ministry and mission. Those who lead the church would be wise to remind themselves that the ministry of the Spirit within the church is to empower the people of God. The role of the leader is to help the people of God hear the voice of the Spirit and to create spaces for dialogue to take place. When God's people together listen for the Spirit's voice and are constantly sharing what they are hearing, a missional model can emerge. This model won't be shaped by the church down the road or by consumerism or prevailing church strategy. Instead, this model will be shaped by the Spirit.
Church leaders of all kinds--missional, emerging, denominational, traditional, pastoral, etc.-- talk a lot about models. I, too, am often captivated by ideas and dreams of ways a church might be modeled or structured. Van Gelder's, point, however, reminded me that God does not always reveal models to leaders. God does send the Spirit, though, to equip the people of God for ministry and mission. Those who lead the church would be wise to remind themselves that the ministry of the Spirit within the church is to empower the people of God. The role of the leader is to help the people of God hear the voice of the Spirit and to create spaces for dialogue to take place. When God's people together listen for the Spirit's voice and are constantly sharing what they are hearing, a missional model can emerge. This model won't be shaped by the church down the road or by consumerism or prevailing church strategy. Instead, this model will be shaped by the Spirit.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
I am missional...hear me roar
For some strange reason, as a young lad I loved to listen to my oldest sister's cassette tape of Helen Reddy's greatest hits. My father must be so proud! Reddy's first #1 hit in the U.S. was "I am Woman." The song which became an icon of the feminist movement in the 1970s, opened with the line, "I am woman, hear me roar." According to a Wikipedia article (see here), Reddy wrote the song to reflect "the positive self-image she had gained from joining the women's movement." Proud of her new found hope and pride in feminism, she let her voice ring out to the world, making it clear where she stood and what she believed.
If you could hear me now, I am doing my best impression of the first line of "I am Woman," slightly changing the words to "I am misisonal, hear me roar." Over the last few years I have been on a journey that has been changing the way I think about and do ministry. During this time, I could not articulate clearly what was happening and so often failed to speak up about it or communicate it to others. I lacked the confidence in my beliefs and ideas to run them by others
As I continue to read and study missional theology and missional living, I am finding a voice for all of the thoughts and feelings I have experienced the last few years. Having come through my "dark night of the soul" I am now ready to proclaim, I AM MISSIONAL! HEAR ME ROAR! In my roaring, I don't want to offend others who think or live differently. I also do not want to tell them they are wrong. My hope is I can challenge, inspire and create dialogue so together we can move forward to more fully be who God wants us to be.
My first roar shall come straight out of a book titled, The Missional Leader by Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk. Early in the book, the two authors compare contemporary pastoral models of leadership to missional models of leadership. (Note - they do not argue that the pastoral model is wrong. Instead, they claim the pastoral model was necessary in the 20th century, but due to cultural change, the missional model may be more effective in the 21st century. For more on their perspective, see my forthcoming blog on Discontinuous Change and the Missional Church). A table comparing the two styles of leadership is found on pages 12-13 of their book. Since I cannot do columns, I will first list the qualities of a missional leader. You can find the similar quality of the pastoral leaders numbered below.
MISSIONAL LEADERSHIP
I don't always track with the pastoral leadership they present, but I think the chart is helpful in highlighting some trends and differences nonetheless. My hunch, is most church leaders are a combination of both. My passions and gifts are leading me in the direction of missional and I pray for the chance to challenge others to do the same.
If you could hear me now, I am doing my best impression of the first line of "I am Woman," slightly changing the words to "I am misisonal, hear me roar." Over the last few years I have been on a journey that has been changing the way I think about and do ministry. During this time, I could not articulate clearly what was happening and so often failed to speak up about it or communicate it to others. I lacked the confidence in my beliefs and ideas to run them by others
As I continue to read and study missional theology and missional living, I am finding a voice for all of the thoughts and feelings I have experienced the last few years. Having come through my "dark night of the soul" I am now ready to proclaim, I AM MISSIONAL! HEAR ME ROAR! In my roaring, I don't want to offend others who think or live differently. I also do not want to tell them they are wrong. My hope is I can challenge, inspire and create dialogue so together we can move forward to more fully be who God wants us to be.
My first roar shall come straight out of a book titled, The Missional Leader by Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk. Early in the book, the two authors compare contemporary pastoral models of leadership to missional models of leadership. (Note - they do not argue that the pastoral model is wrong. Instead, they claim the pastoral model was necessary in the 20th century, but due to cultural change, the missional model may be more effective in the 21st century. For more on their perspective, see my forthcoming blog on Discontinuous Change and the Missional Church). A table comparing the two styles of leadership is found on pages 12-13 of their book. Since I cannot do columns, I will first list the qualities of a missional leader. You can find the similar quality of the pastoral leaders numbered below.
MISSIONAL LEADERSHIP
- Ministry staff operate as coaches and mentors within a system that is not dependent on them to validate the importance and function of every group by being present.
- Ordained clergy equip and release the multiple ministries of the people of God throughout the church
- Pastor asks questions that cultivate an environment that engages the imagination, creativity, and gifts of God's people in order to discern solutions.
- Preaching and teaching invite the people of God to engage Scripture as a living word that confronts them with questions and draws them into a distinctive world.
- Metaphor and stories
- Asks new questions
- "Pastoring" must be part of the mix, but not the sum total.
- Make tension OK.
- Conflict facilitator.
- Indwell the local and contextual; cultivate the capacity for the congregation to ask imaginative questions about its present and its next stages.
- Cultivator of imagination and creativity.
- Create an environment that releases and nourishes the missional imagination of all people through diverse ministries and missional teams that affect their various communities, the city, nation, and world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- Expectation that an ordained pastor must be present at every meeting and event or else it is not validated or important.
- Ordained ministry staff functions to give attention to and take care of people in the church be being present as they are needed (if care and attention are given by people other than ordained clergy, it may be more appropriate and effective, but is deemed "second-class."
- Pastor provides solutions.
- Preaching and teaching offer answers and tell people what is right and wrong.
- Telling
- Didactic
- Reinforcing Assumptions
- Principles for living
- "Professional" Christians
- Celebrity (must be a "home run hitter")
- "Peacemaker"
- Conflict suppressor or "fixer"
- Keep playing the whole games as though we are still the major league team and the major league players. Continue the mythology that "This staff is the New York Yankees of the Church world!"
- "Recovery" expert ("make it like it used to be")
- Function as the manager, maintainer or resource agent of a series of centralized ministries focused in and around the building that everyone must support. Always be seen as the champion and primary support agent for everyone's specific ministry.
I don't always track with the pastoral leadership they present, but I think the chart is helpful in highlighting some trends and differences nonetheless. My hunch, is most church leaders are a combination of both. My passions and gifts are leading me in the direction of missional and I pray for the chance to challenge others to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)