Please use the "comments" link under this blog post for your own posts from now on. I welcome comments on any topic this week. Some suggestions are more thoughts about teams in the missional church and the relevance of the missional church for Aotearoa New Zealand.
As I said in the audioconference on Monday, I'm going to count everyone's posts and let you know how many I think you have (by putting a slip of paper in the envelope with assigment 2 when I send it back). On May 23 at 9 a.m. I'm going to do the final count of blog posts and your mark will be based on the number of posts you have made by that time.
Thanks so much for all your interesting comments. I have really enjoyed reading the blog posts. Be sure to read all the posts under my April 28 post because they're quite interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Susan Gill writes:
I've found the comments re being missional and overlaps very interesting. Craig says that good discipleship incorporates an element of the other. Jan writes that Anglican's poor performance in discipling has resulted in consumer parishioners. Kingsley raises the question whether the discipleship process is complete without the “sending aspect”. Grahame says that " the problem with discipleship as the overarching theme for the incarnational life is that it so often relegates mission, when mission is the goal of discipleship." and "the language of discipleship is far to one-dimensional." He also raises rightly issues of denominational control.
I agree with these comments. It seems the problem is with our poor discipleship in the past. Discipleship includes 3 aspects, all equally important and interwoven. In, up and out is the way it's often expressed - a bit simplistically. My interpretation of the 3 elements: self understanding, God worship and relationship, others. That is not a priority order. So i reckon our discipleship needs to be much more thorough and much more outward focused. I love the book: "The Externally Focused Church". Because every aspect of our church life ought to be God and other-ward. OK the book in some parts focuses on a narrow view of salvation but the principle is missional/good discipleship in my view.
I love some of the new language we've been learning but i worry about introducing it to some of our parishioners, especially those who have been around for the church growth stuff. I can seem just like the latest terminology. I'm not sure whether its better to extend the language that is already in use or use new language.
Tim Pettengell writes:
Either I need a new tune for my harp or a different instrument, if I am going to make the point that there is nothing new about ‘missional church’ except the desire to keep the church – as we know it, sacrosanct.
I found Roxburgh’s article titled – “Liminality: A model for Engagement: (reading 16 in course book, pg 249-266); intriguing – because it offered an alternative model to that of paradigm and various postmodern theories, but I did find it complex and difficult to understand. But again, the preservation and continuation of the church as we know – all be it in another guise, was central to the reading.
I think Mark’s Gospel provides a simple but through model with which to understand change and therefore to make a response so as to move forward, that provides the same outcome or objective as the concept of the ‘missional church’ does. For Mark 16:7 reads - “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”
Accepting that Mark is the earliest Gospel, the resurrection story has Jesus followers being told to return the beginning and start over. There is no church at this point! That is future. There is just confusion, fear, disillusionment and uncertainty. “So they [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)] went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).
Yet, they are being told, to begin again. To rethink the importance and significance of not only who and what this Jesus was – as they had experienced him through there journey with him; but also by implication, what this answer meant for them! What duty, obligations and responsibilities did the teaching of Jesus - as they both witnessed and experienced his life and work, impose upon them both in the here and now and into the future without Jesus? Was his life meaningful and significant or irrelevant and meaningless?
For the disciples and followers of Jesus, his crucifixion shattered there understanding, there complacency, and there perception of who and what Jesus was and what they thought he represented and meant. Likewise, it could be said that the dramatic changes in our culture brought about by many factors, has shattered our understanding, our perception and our complacency about our understanding of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, to proclaim a Christian faith, and have an allegiance to the church.
As Kitchens points out in his book - “The Postmodern Parish – new ministry for a new era” (The Alban Institute, 2003); we live in a culture that no longer supports or gives credence to a Christian framework. In such a context, Church is just another leisure/lifestyle choice.
Therefore, in the twenty-first century, this indifference to the Christian framework is our Gethsemane, our Golgotha. That is, how we – Christians, perceive things, how we do things, no longer touches, is relevant, or meaningful to the majority of people in our society!
So the author of Mark’s Gospel is saying to us – return to the beginning. Reengage with the Gospel Story and let it fire the imagination. Let it challenge and inspire us to think about not only what the life and work of Jesus means for us, but what it might mean to incarnate this story into our culture, our society, our context.
Is not this the quintessential message of the concept known as ‘missional church’?
Throughout the material and debates on the Missional church, mention is made that one of the reasons for the need to explore new forms of church or fresh expressions or new ways to connect with people, is the fact that congregations are getting old and will, to put it bluntly, eventually be no more. In much of the Missional talk there is an urgency around the issue of churches having to revive themselves, that I almost expect some older voices to pipe up “Excuse me, I am still here, there is still life here!”
Recently I attended a Gideons meeting and at the meeting some old photo albums were on display with pictures of some 25 to 30 years ago. In many of the pictures I saw men who were in their 20's when the pictures were taken - involved, making their contribution to God's work. These same men are still serving God today in the congregation, 25 years on. There is tremendous value in that for me and an example of faithfulness and a solid witness in service of God, that should be admired and celebrated as an example for the younger generation to follow. Instead, these older folk are seen as the last of a dying breed, referred to as “Silvertops” and not valued by the younger generation as they ought to be. If it was not for these men and women and their faithful witness and support of the church, there would be no church. It also creates a feeling of solidity in an age where everything is fluid. The witness of one of these folk is a hundred times more solid than the person who attends church for a while but then fades away because his needs were not met. The fact that these folk are still around is a testimony to God's sustaining hand. Human effort cannot sustain one over such a long period of time. It testifies of God's strenghth and care for His church.
I would like to see more of a celebration of these people with resulting praise to God and for them to be given prominence in the congregation rather than being sidelined as the generation which is passing away. Some platform needs to be created for this in a true Missional church.
From Graeme Flett:
The other night (in the conference call) Bonnie reminded us that without the Holy Spirit’s work (upon the individual – forming one’s inner perspective and priorities) little might be gained in having great ideas about missional church. On reflection Bonnie raises a good point. What role does the Spirit have? Moreover if the Spirit’s presence is vital, how might this inform and enrich the conversation about missional Church? As a Pentecostal I come from a tradition which emphasizes the work of the Spirit. Within our short history the role of the Spirit has had a formative dimension in shaping the individual and as well as pointing church communities of this tradition into mission (Acts 1:8). Given that …this at times has lacked a sound theology – (has been fool hardy and triumphalistic), there is still something to be said of the emphasis given here. For Pentecostals the emphasis on the Spirit and his empowerment of the believer for mission is formidable. While I say this, the tendency (for Pentecostals in the West at least) has been to frame one’s understanding of the Spirit’s work around individual experiences of the Spirit power and overlook the need to discern the Spirit’s leading and direction within a gathered community of believers. The result has been hierarchal leadership and power plays inhibiting the extension of God’s kingdom rule.
The other night Lynne mentioned Adam Dobbs’ research and spoke of mission as our participation in the trinity – Perichoresis. She said something like, “in mission we enter into the relationship of the Trinity.” On this point Van Gelder argues in his book - The Ministry of the Missional Church that “it is crucial to understand the Spirit’s role in the creation of the church if we are to correctly understand its nature.” [1] To speak in relational terms of the trinity would be to recognize the significance of koinonia “as having absolute significance for our understanding of the essential life of God.”[2] As Macchia argues, “koinonia helps us understand why the church is vital to God’s redemptive plan.”[3] It connects us with humanity and creation itself. At a practical level, koinonia then is the relational dynamic by which a group of believers (a church community) are bound together, and together are mutually empowered to discern the Spirit’s leading in making decisions. The Spirit, I would argue, is central in this process. By inference then, our participation in the life of God means a diversely-interactive charismatic structure of church that witnesses to the kingdom of God. The challenge is in achieving this ideal.
What kind of structures? What reforms are required? What are the processes toward this kind-of discernment?
1 Craig Van Gelder, The Minsitry of the Missional Church, Grand rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007, 19.
2 Frank, D. Macchia, Baptised in the Spirit – a Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, 165.
3 Frank, D. Macchia, Baptised in the Spirit – a Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, 165.
Dellwyn Moylan writes:
I want to respond to Stuart’s comment about 'the church existing for those inside as well, where not only can they be encouraged, strengthen and challenged to grow in faith but where they can share their faith with others.' I think that not only can they but indeed this for me is a major reason to attend church, as a person involved in ministry part of the reason I attend church is to have my ‘spiritual energy’ replenished for the week ahead. As I give out to others I need also to take in for myself and this happens through attending and being part of the worshipping life of my faith community. I agree with Stuart about the church needing 'to engage more with the workplace' and I guess this one reason why more workplaces are engaging the services of workplace chaplains/support people. Many in a large number of parishes personally have no idea what their fellow pew sitters do for a living. I liked the suggestion of having people talk about what they do. For many people they are defined by what they do for employment but they are a whole lot more than that. As a member of a mainly older retired congregation many of our parishioners undertake huge amounts of community work. A couple of years ago for another paper I surveyed 52 members of my parish about their community work, between then they belonged to 80 different organisations, in total they belonged to 133 groups and gave 883 hours per month of voluntary work to the community . When I asked them why they did it the majority said it was a response and extension to their faith. In other words as a person of faith their mission was to help others and here they were doing it.
I respond to what Ruth wrote – “how many of us already have teams in our fellowships without recognising them? eg. AAW, APW and whatever any others call the equivalent.” From a Presbyterian perspective our APW began as a mission movement the Presbyterian Women’s Mission Union and continued this mission focus for many years and involving Busy Bees it has only been in the last few years that the focus has not been so mission orientated but it has not dropped this altogether with a Mission Convener and regular mission updates. Our parish believes everything they do is missional. When discussing this with my Minister for the interview I learnt that recently a meeting had been held regarding vandalism in the CBD which is where our parish is situated. The parish felt it was a concern not just for them (two Sundays in a row while we were in church the hall was entered) but to the whole area which is part of their parish boundaries and therefore part of who we as a parish pastorally care for to send representatives to this meeting, for me this was missional. I liked Ruth’s comments on what she and the other women did but how it was not just them but it was the concern of her home group which cares and nurtures it members. While my parish does not have home groups I can see that it clearly does have ‘teams’ of people who care and are concerned for others and not just their ‘spiritual stuff’ either.
Roly Scott writes:
I was very much taken with the article on teams in the readings for last Monday night. Over the decades years I have been in pastoral ministry I have come up against the very issue Ott addresses where someone’s ministry becomes a little fiefdom, where it is dependent on them and them alone and where nobody is willing to take up the ministry when they find it is ‘time to say goodbye’. I find it hard to go beyond Ott’s description of the power of ministry teams – the benefits he mentions – the power to build fellowship, to develop leaders, to provide continuity of leadership and to mobilize people for ministry all speak strongly of what I would like our teams to accomplish. I am not sure that discipleship so easily fits into this model much as i would like it to. At different times have been reasonably successful at building teams for youth ministry, team teaching in the Christian Education programme, outreach to boys and in running a club for children from unchurched homes. We’re not quite so successful at developing a team among our ministry leaders. Nor have we been able to see our elders functioning as a team. I think at this stage such thinking may be beyond them. It is not however what you call them that is the decisive thing. It is how they function. I found it so challenging in the grasp it has on the possibility of teams functioning well; it will become a major discussion document at our ministry leaders’ meeting.
In relation to the missional church I feel this is they key – in this sense I guess I am borrowing heavily on military and sport models. Teams have a task to do, a measurable outcome or measurable outcomes and a vision of what could be. I would like to think one or two of our teams are functioning this well; especially the ones that have a missional focus. But we have got a long way to go.
Roly Scott writes:
It seems no-one else has commented on Peter Wagner’s ideas of apostleship. I don’t know what it is but I find anything Peter Wagner writes these days somewhat irritating. I used his earlier book ‘Your Spiritual Gifts can help your church grow’ and found it was a more than useful tool in teaching on that subject. Because I felt uncomfortable about some of the issues raised by this chapter though I thought I would see how others felt about his thinking and writing. He writes about the New Apostolic Order coming out of the New Apostolic Reformation under the terminology of Vertical Apostles and Horizontal Apostles. Under each of these headings there are four different types of apostles. And each is based on a particular view of the church. You can find this stuff on websites associated with him and in quotations from articles he has written. If you want to start at the ground floor you have to be the congregational apostle of a growing church of more that 700-800. And here I was thinking it had to be 144 000. I could say more but it does seem to me that when Wagner writes about apostleship his definitions and understanding go far beyond the simple expression Paul gave to this role and how he lived it out.
Wagner sees himself as a Horizontal apostle (don’t we all from time to time). He’s exercised this role in a number of places and someone recorded what he said at the ‘anointing’ or commissioning of Todd Bentley at the height of the Lakeland revival – the one with gold dust etc. ‘This commissioning represents a powerful spiritual transaction taking place in the invisible world. With this in mind, I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley, your power will increase, your authority will increase, your favour will increase, your influence will increase, your revelation will increase.’ Well the revelation (revelations) certainly increased but it was not quite what Wagner had in mind, where was the discernment open the part of the ‘apostle’ about a guy who had a number of personal and relational issues that ultimately surfaced and quickly following the impartation of this ‘powerful spiritual transaction’.
I write these things after having read the chapter by Wagner his overall thrust is dictated by this sense that this is something new and different. Gibbs and Coffey take a far more generous view of Wagner. They note there has been a ‘welcomed, renewed emphasis on the apostolic calling of the church’. Is it just another hierarchy that we are speaking about here? Gibbs and Coffey record Wagner’s sense that this is a transition from ‘bureaucratic authority to personal authority, from legal structure to relational structure, from control to co-ordination and from rational leadership to charismatic leaders.’ It feels very much like Animal Farm but time alone will tell.
Chris Ambrose writes:
Humour and the Missional Church
One of the signs of acceptance of any new initiative within the church is for me to find somebody poking fun at the new initiative.
In a very recent issue of Christianity Today (March 2009) there is a cartoon of a man in a tie holding a handle (of beer?) talking to the bartender who is wiping a glass. Two guys are either side, one with rings in the ear and the other bearded and both casually dressed. The punch line is “Wait … you mean this isn’t one of those new Emergent churches?”
I believe that I have also seen cartoons poking fun at the new missional churches in Leadership which is a sister publication of Christianity Today. (Leadership has had a number of articles on missional/emergent churches in recent years and Brian McLaren is a frequent contributor).
I also reflect that in the late 1980’s in Adelaide, Australia, a “radical” Anglican priest John Hannaford (I think that was his name) developed a new outreach and style of church. This was copied in a number of places but gradually disappeared. A quick google of “pub church” turns up over 27 million hits and much of this is linked to emergent/missional churches. (Nothing new under the sun?)
I have been reflecting on our discussion about ministry teams. I was struck by some of Cladis’ comments on the empowering team. He talks about teams needing the permission to take risks and to empower others by giving away responsibility (page 389). It has been my experience that everyone talks about risk taking but few are prepared to really support or empower the risk takers. So many books on leadership talk about empowering others but few seem to be able to do it.
This reminds me of what Riddell mentioned when commenting on the faith of the middle class (page 62). He pointed out that we are adverse to risk taking and latch on to the cultural bias of the need for security. If teams are going to function them team members need to check their cultural baggage at the door.
Consumerism, individualism, careerism and security are just some of the areas (Riddell) that need to be constantly challenged if empowering teams are going to operate. Any team needs to be a missional team. That is that need to understand that the grand narrative of Scripture is not about them but about partnering with God to reach others. It’s easy to speak about serving others but once in a team revert back to controlling and individual behaviours. The key leader needs to model the kind of team behaviours they want operating. They also need to challenge and coach team members about how to operate in this environment. So often, they are the ones with control issues viewing this as ‘good leadership’. While in actual fact, no one else sees it that way. Teams will function well if they see the egoless leader at work.
In response to Chris’s query, “Nothing new under the sun?” I admit I have been wondering the same thing. During the first audio conference Lynne did raise the question, was missional church something of substance or just another trend? As the course has progressed I have begun to wonder how possible it is to assess such a thing when one is “inside the church bubble” so to speak, as many taking the course appear to be. I have this suspicion that if we were to lead and live and encourage communities of faith according to the principles of missional church we might not recognise or be comfortable with church in that guise. Not that we are unwilling but it may be so different from what we recognise as church that we may not wish for it to be known by the same name. One way or another there is something in the way the church is that has drawn us, in whichever form of church or gathered faith community we participate. In some way that is a place where we experience God and feel some measure of community that sustains, supports, challenges and allows us to grow in God and go forth in God’s name. There is in all of us an attachment because, for all their shortcomings,through these places we are discovering our identity in God. I can’t help but wonder if we are able to shift the focus a bit, to encourage our communities to have courage in their discipleship, to reveal that mission is the heart of living out the good news in daily life, talking about and celebrating that, but actually less able to radically transform the shape and ethos of the communities. Would this not require our own radical transformation in word, deed and identity?
In talking about different gifts of leadership I was reminded of something I’d read by Douglas Hall on vocation, which I thought others might enjoy, “Vocation, in the biblical and theological understanding of the term, does not equate to function, task, office, or profession. Voco – vocare means to be summoned, and even in secular Latin, it is intimated that the summons comes from beyond the self. In its biblical use, the concept, the concept is definitely associated with the summons of the speaking God; it has indeed the quality of an “appointment”. Moreover, if we pay strict attention to the actual instances of this calling in the Old and New Testaments, we shall have to put to rest for good and all any idea that the ministry is a career choice. Far from involving the choice of the path, the typical stories of being called in the Bible show how consistently the summoned persons resist the call, refuse to hear it, or, having heard it, wish they had not. With more than a little hint of such resistance, the apostle to the Gentiles confesses that his calling is a matter of “necessity” – in Greek anangke – a term used in classical Greek to mean compulsion with a hint of distress.”
Ruth Johnston writes:
Lynne asked me some questions as a result of my last blog about teams - basically how do we convert the groups we have into functioning teams?
I think we have to go back a step or two and start by asking "Why do we want/need teams?" one of the readings we had earlier on mentioned that we shouldn't just pick up and run with a good idea - it may not be the right idea for us at that time. So why do we want teams?
Teams have a goal in sight, they work together to bring about that goal. The illustrations are not hard to find in a sports-mad country!
The goal/vision which might be right for one group will probably not be right for another one - but through combining the individual goals a fellowship should (I think) come close to putting legs on it's mission statement, if it has one.
Suggest that a start is made from the mission statement - how are we going to work together to fulfil it? Ask/challenge each group to look at how they function in the light of the statement. Discussion and prayer - spend time - lots of it with each group - listen to them, especially the quiet voice which hardly ever gets a word in edgeways. Once they find their specific goal, resource them, commission them, get them to tell you how they are doing.
Keep a diary as to what is happening - encouraging when things seem to go stale.
Ministry leadership - model team work and let everyone know how it is going.
Then, of course, there is the unseen, unwritten goal.
But we were asked to keep these short.
Chris Ambrose writes:
In reading for my final essay I started on Ray Anderson’s An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Oxford, The Bible Reading Fellowship, 2007) and came across the following quote in the Introduction:
“In my view emerging churches represent a contemporary expression of the first-century church’s existence and mission in a postmodern world.” (p.14).
I reflect that two of the influences on my Christian growth (Christian Brethren and Churches of Christ) both had similar understandings of re-establishing the first century church in the culture of the time of their establishment.
Some of the material on Lutheranism also would make that type of claim as do some of the other Protestant denominations e.g. Methodism.
With the growth of emergent or missional churches will we in a future generation see an established denomination that is struggling with relevance to the culture of the time and community within which it is seeking to be the church?
The theme of restorationism was also one that had strong calls within the Charismatic movement in the UK in the 1980s.
I suspect that it will always have a number of people within Christianity calling for a “fresh expression” of the New Testament church in its purity and in its astonishing growth down through history.
Spoken like a true monastic, Catherine mentions in her recent musings, ”there is in all of us an attachment because, for all their shortcomings, through these places [faith communities] we are discovering our identity in God.” This for me is the essence of missional community; a place... space if you will... of discovery, identity... a warm fire to come home to... a place where the day to day experience of complex urban life can find rhythm and meaning shaped by a good few centuries of Christian thought and practice. I share a worry of some writers that for all the sabre rattling, the missional church movement may end up just playing louder while the ship goes down, like a fixation with re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. What I sense is needed to engage meaningfully with postmodernity is a really hard look at the evangelical love affair with authority and power. There has, as Murray so aptly suggested, always been a Christian community he calls the “dissident tradition” (nice!) willing to stay away from power and focus on the little people at the margin (Murray 2004, 162). These “marginal mission movements” have ended up being called all sorts of nasty things by the powerful Christian centre, but some of them seem to have kept the main thing the main thing; church as a place where someone knows your name and there’s always one more setting at the table (Ibid.). The missional church movement is helpful to critique church structures regarding participation in the mission of God, but it must also be prepared to suffer critique regarding its use of polemic and authoritative language (the “best thing since sliced bread” thinking). For me thriving in the liminoid of postmodernity, the church will function more as Roxburgh’s poet than prophet, starting further back in its discipleship, staring further back in its communication (Roxburgh 2005, 163). It will learn to appreciate that postmoderns care little for propositional abstracts like sin, redemption and atonement and are more interested in finding safe places of socialising and sharing the complexities of living in a socio-cultural world in flux. For me, new urban monastic communities seem to best capture this postmodern praxis, and funny enough, most of the ones I have seen so far have emerged out of very liturgical and tradition church forms.
Chris Ambrose writes:
A reflection on the Gibbs and Bolger reading (Reading 28 Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic 2005.)
I was happy to agree with the basic theological understanding they presented of a theology of creativity and to start with “the affirmation that we are made in the image of God and that God is by nature creative” (page 175).
The struggle I had on reflection was on the need for us to be open to the creativity of all participants and the need for that also to be a collective. On page 174 they state; “Creativity without full participation has minimal value for the worshiping community. Creativity by a few instead of the many, although it may inspire, does little for the priesthood of all believers, and the development of gifts across the body of Christ.”
Whilst there is definitely a need for community and for some type of agreement amongst each other I also see a need for a variety of styles, particularly in areas that could come under the category of creative.
In New Zealand today we have a number of styles of churches that often appeal to different sectors within the community. Often these are on style of worship which can include creative style. However if missional/emergent churches are to shape their creative input into worship by consensus then they will fall to a lower common denominator that in the end will satisfy no one. Yet how will thewy allow creative activity and expression that works towards full expression.
I was reflecting on this when one of the members at Linwood Ave remarked about an evensong service we had attended in the Christchurch Cathedral last year. She had enjoyed the choral singing and remarked that this was her vision of heaven. I had not particularly been inspired or challenged by the service and remarked that in my view it was more like hell! We have vastly different views on musical style in some areas but can agree on others in working together.
All areas of creativity can evoke different strengths of emotion in people. How can the missional churches harness this and be effective in larger communities rather than just being the church for a very small sub-culture?
Jan Clark writes:
Blogpost Week 11 May.
Of the authors we have read over the course of this semester I think I found the reading from Roxburgh and Romanuk (R18) one of the most helpful. The image of cultivating an environment within which God’s people can discern God’s directions and activities in them and for the communities in which they find themselves. (p 282 of the reader)
This week in the parish I shared communion with an 80 something year old lady who has just moved into a rest home. Just before Easter I had been called to the hospital by her family because the Dr’s had advised them that she was seriously ill and wasn’t expected to live until the morning. As I visited with her she told this story.
When she was young she lived in London, her family owned a piano and she had lessons for many years, she was quite an accomplished player. However as she got into her late teens she played less and less, so her father said that if the piano wasn’t being used it would be given away to someone who could play. The piano was given to a neighbour and greatly enjoyed. This the war years and during the blitz the neighbour’s house was bombed. If people were caught in an air raid they were told to get down low against the wall of the house, on the night the bomb hit the neighbour’s home he had crawled in against the wall in the kitchen, on the other side of the wall in the sitting room was the piano. In the blast the piano absorbed much of the impact and although it was destroyed the man survived. His family kept the keys of the piano as a reminder of the near tragedy.
Gladdy went on to tell me that all through her life she has felt that good comes out of things – like the piano being given away to a new home with the result that the man survived the bomb blast. She felt that her own survival after her recent illness and the way she had moved to this new residence was an opportunity to do something more. She felt God had something left for her to do she just wasn’t sure what it was yet, she would need to listen awhile.
Another chapter in Roxburgh and Romanuk develops the idea of “Forming a Missional Environment and Culture.” An example is offered from the experience of Southside Community Church in Vancouver whereby the church formed a number of congregations built around missional groups in specific communities. They are acting on the principle of being incarnationally present in neighbourhoods taking this to the extent that no one in their larger church community will drive more than a few miles on a Sunday morning but will worship in the community they live in. I think maybe this is the concept that Gladdy has grasped about her new home, she is looking at belonging, being part of the community in the home she is in and finding ways to love and serve where she is.
I find this quite challenging but I think it connects with some of what we have talked about recently, the consumer culture within our churches for example. Being incarnationally present requires commitment and sacrifice as we love the people in our neighbourhood. The authors go on to talk about the difficult task the leaders of the church face in keeping the church missionally focused. There is often pressure for them to allow the church to focus on meeting the needs of those within the fellowship rather than focusing on the community they are planted in but they work hard at every level to integrate people around their common vision, commitments and values.
I look at many of our Anglican churches here in Dunedin, most would have people who travel across town or from further a field to attend the church that meets their needs. I wonder what challenge and possibility there is in considering the implications of incarnational presence which keeps us in our local community as we listen, love and serve in Christ’s name. Maybe it would be easier to discern God’s direction if we were locally situated because we would know our community, it’s pain and its needs more clearly.
Susan Gill writes:
Catherine says that “through these places [faith communities] we are discovering our identity in God.” and Craig agrees: “This for me is the essence of missional community; a place... space if you will... of discovery, identity... a warm fire to come home to...”
I’ve been thinking about this and the place of teams, also in the light of what Craig said about stipended ministers during our Audioconference. As a stipended minister, how do I truly develop a team where we are all discovering our identity in God, in a way which is truly unrelated to one or more person’s power?
There has been one very recent sign of hope:
Over the last 3 or 4 years our church has held a day of prayer twice each year. It’s been pretty boring, to put it mildly – open the church for a day, have a great long list of things to pray for and the older and devout only have come. At the end of last year we included several prayer stations, which were much appreciated by those who participated. This year we are opening the Church to the wider community and to people from other churches.
The most exciting thing though, is that several people are really getting on board – one lady came and said “the chap” (God) had told her that the bench seat outside our church building would make a really good prayer seat and so we will use it as a prayer station. Other people are praying and coming forward with suggestions and willingness to be involved.
The prayer day seems to be becoming missional – and becoming team run. It wasn’t particularly intentional that this would happen. Opening the day to others and broadening the understanding of what prayer is just seem to a God-idea and people are responding. There has been nothing particularly strategic about it. It’s just happened – God at work. It seems one way to shape an effective team is to let God lead the way. That is probably a bit simplistic really.
I’m very conscious of the power dynamic. I am an Assistant Minister and will become an Associate soon. Will the change in title make any difference? One of the leaders from our Diocese has suggested the area for us in this church is to shape more of a team culture. I agree as does my current “boss”. Practically how we do that, will be very interesting. He is male – I’m female. He has a PhD. You will all have picked up by now, I am so not academic. We have different gifts and get on very well. Will I be able to be an “equal” team member? It will depend as much on me as it will on my team member. Time will tell.
And really that is only a tiny part of the picture of teams. Our whole church is one huge ebb and flow of teams, working together for various projects and foci. How can we all be equal without any one person or small group being controlling?
I sometimes wonder if I am an incurable optimist. I find myself looking around at what I have experienced and I think that for all its failings and screw-ups and general foolishness the church is actually doing OK. Yes there are declining numbers, but is that a function of less faith, or is it a function of more honesty in those who cease attending? Yes some churches are closing their doors, but is that just an indication of the need to better use our resources?
I think the idea of the missional church is something that has always existed in one form or another. The struggle we seem to have is the age-old pendulum. We tend to go from one extreme to another, from urgently engaged in missionality – whatever that means in our context – to deeply committed to discipling or some other inward focussed effort. It is always a correction to having gone overboard on something else. For example, teams have always been a good idea, different terminology often, but still there, or reaching people in their context – that has always happened whether deliberately or not is not the point. What we really need is the ability to build theology that draws these things into a coherent whole.
For me the beauty of post-modernism being thrown into the mix is that there is the possibility of a ‘moderator’ that could reduce the wild fluctuations of the swings. Maybe we can find our way through to that theology that brings all these things together, not as either/or but as both/and.
I wonder if that was what God was about in the Garden when he created light and dark, night and day, plants and animals, man and woman?
Graeme Flett writes:
This is my last blog so I guess some reflective comments about missional church are fitting.
Thanks Craig for your last posting. I found your take on missional church stimulating and inviting. “A warm fire to come home to, … a space … a place where the day to day experience of complex urban life can find rhythm and meaning is shaped by a good few centuries of Christian thought and practice.” While I’d be a taker I can’t help wonder about the stranger and all the nomads who for one reason or another cannot find a place, or more to the point do not have a place or space? Don’t get me wrong, I think you have a point but I wonder whether the concept of missional also includes us going to the place or space of another as the stranger. It seems to me that the mission of Jesus’ disciples was challenged and changed by their reliance on the hospitality of others. I am thinking here of Luke 10:1-12 and perhaps Matt 25:43. In Luke 10 it appears the Christian is the one who is “lost”, even homeless. This is indeed a discomforting thought but one that might keep our aversion to power and authority in check as we imagine ourselves as the stranger – the one vulnerable whose only offering is to listen.
On another note, in coming to grips with missional church, I wonder whether the heart of the debate about being missional needs to begin firstly as a theological one. I am thinking about how we define church, salvation and mission. I’m also thinking that a prior task of mission for a congregation might be to do some theological ground work on how they see these concepts working in their setting. This is easy to suggest but difficult to execute. How do you get congregants to engage? Roxburgh states “beginning with lived experience, a congregation cultivates its participation in the emergence of imagination. Participation does not mean involvement in something already planned for their leaders, but involvement in action emerging from among them.”1 All this is to say that the creation and cultivation of an environment that fosters engagement and dialogue with imagination is essential. All this would suggest a high level of relationship in which openness, clear boundaries and hospitality are part of the landscape.
[1] Alan Roxburgh & Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader, San
Chris Ambrose writes:
An often quoted statistic in business is that around 90% of all new businesses do not survive past the first year of operation. I wonder if that statistic will be even worse in an economic meltdown that we are currently undergoing.
I then reflect that many of the expressions of missional church that we have been reading about are small and often struggling. The success rate of start-up churches under old models is not very high. What about the future of missional churches that are being established?
I have had contact over the years with a number of the Australian examples that were given in some of the readings. The vast majority of these which I knew about in the last 10 years no longer exist or are still struggling.
I was also interested to see that the initial UK example (I believe that it was called NOS) which was held with an alternative worship experience in an Anglican Cathedral eventually imploded with accusations of sexual misdeeds by the leadership and it took a large amount of time and effort in counselling to help people after the experience. One of the issues was the lack of structure and accountability of leadership.
Three weeks ago I learnt of the death of a friend in Australia. During the 1980s and into the 1990s he was involved in a ministry that would today be seen as missional. It was within the high-rise flats of Melbourne and with others they developed a church that had significant influence and effect on the lives of people. Many moved on and became great church people in more traditional churches. The high-rise church eventually folded. My friend Ian for the last nine years has not been able to minister because of debilitating migraines. It is believed that the stress from that ground-breaking ministry was never released properly and this was the way that his body coped. Ian had great support and good ways of handling stress at the time and yet eventually the toll of the work (which he did in an extensive team) caused his health problems.
I wonder how well those in leadership in these new ministries will cope?
Chris Ambrose writes:
Roly in his blog of May 15 asked if anyone had found Peter Wagner irritating. We had a discussion off mike in Christchurch where we were sceptical of Wagner’s definition of apostleship.
My impression without being able to back it up is that Wagner has endorsed a number of Christian leaders over a long period of time and that the track record of a number of them has been disastrous. There has been a scandal in the US over the most recent in Florida last year.
There is also a hint that it has to be large and successful for it to be apostolic. I wonder how this fits with Jesus telling his disciples that they will struggle and face oppression at different times.
I have also struggled with the self-appointment of many of the new “apostles” and what I would see as a lack of accountability of these people (God will be the final judge!).
Jan Clark writes:
Like Andrew I think I am incurably optimistic about the church, this is despite the experience of working with some serious issues including misconduct by clergy, battles over the use of resources, structures etc. I admit at times wondering what possible use God could have for the church and moments when I have felt discouraged, however in the end I feel a call to serve.
Amongst Anglican’s in this southern diocese we are facing issues of declining numbers, based on census figures a report recently suggested a 26-42% decline in numbers of people describing themselves as Anglican. 26% was in urban areas and 42% was in rural Southland covering I think a 10-12 year period. A decline in numbers means a decline in the funds as well as people available to enable mission and ministry in its usual shape, but maybe this just gives us an opportunity to look at something different.
We have choices, we can focus on trying to reclaim what was or we can look to the new thing God might be doing. I think this is where my optimism springs from - the signs of God moving within the community. Like Susan’s sign of hope in the prayer ministry, if we are willing to listen and take risks we discover God working.
If I try to think about words that would allow me to describe a missional church I would include; God present, incarnational, listening to the cry of the community, carrying the treasures of the tradition(not the baggage), hospitality, being steeped in prayer and using the gifts of this age ( technology, art, creativity that was appropriate in the context you are in), engaging with the scriptural narrative. The purpose; to fulfill the mission of God that all people might know the profound love God holds out to everyone in Jesus Christ, to work for justice, peace, reconciliation and healing.
Even just typing what I understand of the mission God calls us to I feel inspired, this is why I am here doing what I am doing. So long as we as members of the body of Christ- the church, try to live into this mission, remember who we are and the call on our lives the pendulum (Andrew’s metaphor) will probably swing as we try to understand how mission is worked out effectively in a changing environment. It may just be a sign that we are learning to listen more deeply.
Tim Pettengell writes:
With regard to Audio Conference five, I make four comments.
First, with regard to apostleship, I was intrigued that there was no reference back to or discussion of apostle as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. For it is in the life and work of Jesus – not in the life and work of Paul, that this word emerges. For example, Mark 3:13-14; and 6:7-13, 30. Therefore, apostle has nothing to do with the “church” but about being a disciple or follower of Jesus!
Second, there is a claim of being Gospel based, yet the discussion was extremely non-Gospel. It was in fact very Pauline, which is post ‘Jesus’. So just how much does the life and work of Jesus – the first century Palestinian Jew who’s life and work we read in the Synoptic Gospels –admittedly written with a clear purpose and agenda, inform, challenge, inspire and transform the ‘church’ of today?
Thirdly, the preference is to talk about the “Christ of Faith” as opposed to the “Jesus of History”. Therefore, what of the “Christ of Faith” is being read back into, ascribed to, and assumed as belonging or being a part of the life and work of Jesus of History that is actual not so?
Finally, I was left with a feeling that this audio-conference occurred in isolation or within a vacuum. The metaphor that immediately came to me at the conclusion of the conference was an island surrounded by water. There was more interest in focusing on describing and knowing the Island – apostleship as described by the course readings, than by looking at the water and the horizon! There was no reference to history or hermeneutics (the horizons) or to the relevancy of apostleship or of alternatives or of dissenting viewpoints (the water that surrounds the island).
Tim Pettengill writes:
In Audio Conference six, the question was asked – “What was the relevancy of the concept of missional church for the New Zealand context - specifically, for the context that I find myself in?”
As one who is: a) well outside of the current “Church;” b) is disillusioned, critical and despairing of the current “Church,” yet sees a relevancy and a place for the “Church” – ‘but not as we know it’, within New Zealand society (with apologies to Spock); and c) disagrees with and takes exception to every reading in the course book; this is an important question.
In my opinion, there is a great opportunity, great potential, great challenge, yet also great danger!
Opportunity: - if the quintessential message of the concept known as the missional church is the need to rediscover and embrace the concept and essence of discipleship – of what it might mean to be a follower of Jesus within our context, then there is hope for the future.
Potential: - if opportunity raises awareness and consciousness of what it means to both be as well as to proclaim to being a follower of Jesus, then our neighbour will be loved as ourselves! By so doing, the Kingdom of God will be made a real within our context and thus “missio dei” realised.
Challenge: - is to recognise the impediments, barriers, and obstacles that will inhibit, prevent and sabotage the realisation of the Kingdom of God here on earth. Primarily this will come from our current thought, perceptions and practice concerning what it means to have a faith and the ‘sanctity’ of the “church”.
Danger: - is apathy! This could be from the perspective of adopting or having a fortress mentality that says – “This is the way it has always been done, and will continue to be done!” or “This is God’s Church! Who are we to tamper with this?” Through to a failure to grapple with the questions that both society and history ask concerning relevancy and applicability of both faith and the “church” for today’s context.
My suspicion is that apathy will win! Simply because the majority cannot conceive yet alone accept that context - time place and circumstances, created the “church.” “Church” is not God given! That is, the “church” is a historical accident and construct. Thus if context created the “church” in the past, then surely context can create the “church” in the future.
Furthermore, I suspect that this realisation is both our greatest fear (letting go of what is familiar, comfortable, known, safe and accepted) and our greatest hope (embracing a journey of discovery of what it means to be a follower of Jesus that will lead not only to a renewal of intimacy and connectedness with God, but also a relevancy of faith for today that will find it own unique communal expression – i.e. church).
Kingsley Ponniah writes:
I have been enjoying very much the material from Guder in our course book. They have offered many useful and throught-provoking perspectives. One such perspective comes from the reading with the heading Missional Community: Cultivating Communities of the Holy Spirit (R22). In this reading Guder contends that the aim of the church is to “shape a people into an alternate way of life ”. This requires helping people “unlearn old patterns and learn new ways of living that reveal God’s transforming and healing power”. Reflecting on this in the light of the church’s missional responsibility I wonder whether we are being challenged to view mission not as an activity or a church programme but rather as a way of life. This requires a radical shift in mindset to embrace the notion that we are “missionaries” our whole lives regardless of where we are and what we are doing. But this idea could create a problem in that it might appear to diminish the sacrifice and the enormous struggles of those who move into the mission fields overseas and work under very difficult circumstances. I do not think it does for two reasons. First, at the heart of mission is the call of God to share the Biblical story of his love and grace. We can tell that story wherever we are. For some, that may involve leaving our homes to take that story to “distant” places. Yet for others it may mean telling that story at home. Both situations are equally important and equally valid expressions of God’s mission. In both situations there will be the need to tell that story, not just in words, but also in action. Both situations also will bring their own distinct set of challenges and opportunities. Secondly, in mission we are called to partner with God, to discern and to then be involved in what he is doing. Surely God is at work, both at home and abroad and he requires partners in both places. Those that go to mission fields abroad make it possible for others to stay and concentrate on mission fields at home and vice versa.
I think there is also a benefit that arises from viewing God’s mission as “an alternate way of life”. If God’s mission involves all of a person’s life, it challenges us to look for opportunities to tell that story as we go about our daily lives. Picking up our children from school, a challenging work situation, a visit to the supermarket, dinner with friends could provide the opportunities to tell that story. The most mundane of life’s activities has the potential for us to “reveal God’s transforming and healing power” in our lives. I wonder if this is what Jesus had in mind when, Matthew 5, he says, “You are the salt of the earth” and “You are the light of the world” as he speaks of our Christian witness in the world and our involvement in God’s mission. These words of Jesus suggest that, if we claim to be Christian, we are his witnesses, whether we like it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not. It is not something we choose to be or not be. We simply are. The only issue is whether we are a good witness or a bad one. The same is true of mission as a way of life. Perhaps we can resolve, as we grow in our understanding of God’s mission, to become good at discerning and responding to those opportunities for mission that come up as we go about our daily lives?
Footnotes for Kingsley's last post:
1 Darrell L. Guder, Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 152
2 Ibid
Kingsley Ponniah writes:
I thought I would explore the subject of leadership for my final essay and have been going through again the readings for Audioconference 5. In the reading from Roxburgh and Romanuk, it is suggested that the church needs to cultivate biblical imagination. What the writers appear to be proposing is that we need to allow the biblical narratives to fuel our imagination. This leads to an awareness that God is at work in his world and that church leaders and congregations need to align their expectations with God’s. There is then a need also to discern what God is doing and direct our attention and energy to being involved in that. I thought what the writers were suggesting seemed to connect with the words of the prophet Joel, that Peter quoted when he spoke to the crowds on the day of Pentecost. “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams” (Acts 2: 17). Visions and dreams capture our imagination. They enable us to see potential and possibilities. They excite and enthuse. They give birth to fresh expressions and new ventures. In this context, visions and dreams are also the evidence that God’s Spirit is among God’s people. And as we see examine the mission endeavours of the early church and Paul, we see the results of Spirit inspired visions and dreams. These enabled those early Christians to be aware of what God was doing (or where he was leading) and to then get involved. The story of Peter’s vision and his subsequent visit to the home of Cornelius (Acts 10) is one example. For Peter, this involved having long held perceptions challenged, stepping out of his comfort zone, possible backlash from his faith community and the courage to initiate a new mission venture. It was a risky move but one that paid off. When we explore church history we would find evidence of the Peter story repeating itself – that new directions or ventures both in the ministry and the mission of the church began with a Spirit inspired vision or dream that created an awareness of God’s expectations and led to the recipient making an appropriate response despite (and in the midst of) the challenges involved. Perhaps that story needs to be repeated in the church today as we find ourselves in a state of liminality with its challenges and opportunities. Let us heed the call to cultivate Biblical imagination so that we too can see Spirit inspired visions and dream Spirit inspired dreams in our changing environments and cultures in order to discern what God is doing and respond accordingly. Surely this is what it means to be a missional church.
I was reflecting on Roxburgh and what he writes about Liminality first of all and then about the Missional leader as Prophet who assists people to find their place in God's narrative in Scripture. What came to mind was the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and the situations that they faced. Notwithstanding the fact that God showed them many miracles along the way, the moment they encountered a major obstacle or problem such as no food or water, they defaulted to complaining to Moses that he had brought them out into the desert to die and that God has abandoned them and that they longed for the fleshpots of Egypt. However, as we see in scripture, God was trying to teach them to trust him for everything they needed. So, far from having abandoned them the very God they are crying out to, is the one sending the calamity of no water or no food, in order to teach them to trust him. A better response from them would have been "What are you trying to show us Lord?" This is like a Liminal moment where they remain on the threshold with no forward movement - actually going backward and not finding their correct place in God's narrative. I see the Missional leader as Prophet doing exactly this. Taking people through that Israelite doorway and helping them find their place in God's narrative in Scripture by asking the question "God, what are you trying to show me?" and not to immediately complain and think that they have been abandoned.
With reference to what Frost and Hirsch writes about all members of the church being involved in ministry and having to play their role in spiritual leadership and ministry, I was reminded of a church where a good friend of mine is the minister. For many years the members of the church council were elected by way of votes cast by the congregation. Inevitably, those who ended up on the church council were men with a high profile in the community, high profile jobs and businesses. These men were seen by the congregation as men who would "get things done" Unfortunately of course, these men were highly versed in the ways of the world and the church council was just another committee they served on, even serving to complete their standing and profile in the community. Then my friend was convicted by God to change the model of leadership in the church in that all "leaders" in the church had to lead spiritually, say a Bible study or a class or whatever. This caused great dismay among the men on the parish council. Firstly they were very busy men and there was no time in their busy schedule for such things. Secondly, the parish council which added to their status in the community was suddenly dissolved and now they had to be part of the ministry team so to speak! This caused many of them to resign and leave the church, which was interesting and very revealing. Even more interesting was the fact that the church grew tremendously after this event as if a burden was lifted from it.
Ruth Johnston writes:
This is a mixed bag: firstly, Werner, thank you - I am one of the older ones _I currently inhabit the church office so - normal office type work for which I am not trained, the church is open so there is also chat with parishioners dropping in and out, this may or may not include praying with them , counselling them or 'telling then where the best price for butter is". there are also the occasional other droppers in which involves making coffe/tea, providing biscuits and a listening ear, offering prayer when appropriate. As I live close to the church I have offered to be available should someone drop in when our music man is there researching music for us in the evening. However as I have yet to hit 80 I am still waiting, like Caleb to take the land which is mine to take!
Susan, I think it was you who was concerned about working with a man with a PHD - remember God loves you just as much as he loves him -no more, no less - so you start on an equal footing in God.
Re new language learned - experience says do not use academic language when preaching/teaching - translate it into everyday terms -that's pretty well what Jesus did in his teaching.
Finally, very seriously, reading the blogs, participating in audioconferences I am concerned that we seem to be leaving God out of the equation --- we have to create a missional church, we have to do this or that - NO - we have to be available, we have to be intentional and honest in our relationship with God - BUT - it is Jesus who will build HIS church. Quite often despite our own efforts.
Over and out, blessings to all.
Chris Ambrose writes:
I have just had a quick flick through most of the blog posts and I did not notice much comment on the importance of the theology of the Trinity for missional churches.
In a large number of the readings we have had either set or I have picked up elsewhere the major theological statement concerns the place of the Trinity in forming the thinking regarding missional churches.
It certainly has a significant contribution to the understanding of the church and the relationship of Christians to one another. All the discussion here starts with an understanding of the inter-connectedness of the Father, Son and Spirit.
Much of the discussion on leadership again looks at models that are based in some way of an understanding of how the Trinity works.
The heavy emphasis on connectedness and on a flattened structure starts with the Trinity.
I don’t recall any other extended discussion on the church and its nature that has this emphasis.
After all the reading we have done in this course, I think the missional church is 'messy'. I concluded in my last essay that God works in the middle of that mess. I am not saying that we need to push aside professionalism or hard work or excelling but what I am saying is that I am glad that God is in control. One thing I have learnt about living and working overseas is that some things just don't go the way we plan, and somethings work out better than we could have thought.
I remember talking with a friend of mine who went to a church where the majority of the congregation were on medication for mental illnesses. He said that he had never in his life seen or heard anything so different and so loud. But the most amazing thing that he found in the time of worship was a closer presents to God that he had felt in a very long time.
After all we have talked about the last few months it can seem overwhelming as we continue to try and lead in a church that is now on the margins of society. However I am encouraged that in all our discussions and our questions and our frustrations that God will work it out, in the middle of the mess, God will work it out I'm sure for the better. All we can do is try our best and go where he calls just as Abraham did. May you all go will in your ministries, God Bless.
I can understand Craig Braun’s frustration when he wrote in the introductory paragraph of his blog comment on 4 April 2009; ‘…the nonsense which is the incarnational/ attractional dichotomy.’ Having completed an interview with a minister (for assignment two) who expressed desperate frustration on using missional/attractional techniques, I think there is value in separating the church’s missional response into attractional and incarnational.
I think this is a very similar situation to missional as opposed to maintenance from module one. While missional churches share maintenance functions and vice versa, this symbiosis can diverge in the core values, heart or spirit of a church’s missional response. Stetzer offers such an example of the difference in spirit of a missional/incarnational approach (as opposed so missional/attractional) when he writes ‘By incarnational we mean it does not create sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel…rather it disassembles itself and seeps into the cracks and crevices of a society…’[1].
In drilling behind Stetzer’s comments, there is an intentional centripetal quality to a missional/incarnational approach. Inherent within this is a willingness to create space to actively rather than passively embrace the other on the other’s turf. The disempowerment which can be present when we invite someone into our space is reversed; we are the guest and they are the host. This reversal of power between guest to host is a key component of incarnationalism.
Contrast this, for example, with a church around the corner where I recently received an invitation in my letter box to attend an Alpha course. This approach is intentionally centrifugal and, in my opinion, attractional/incarnational in spirit. Should I attend, I come as a guest on their turf and with all the disempowerment that is inherent in this role. The experience may be all the great things Craig expressed in his blog, but I come to experience Christ walking a road that, at the outset, is unfamiliar and where I am stranger. This leaves me vulnerable in using the wrong language, etiquette or customs in a place that is not my own.
A church that has a missional/incarnational ethos is willing to incarnate itself as the stranger; to take upon it self the garbs of the unfamiliar, the guest and the disempowered. This heart, I don’t believe, is shared in a missional/attractional ethos.
[1] Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 162.
I was delighted to read Roxburgh and Romanuk’s comments on our pursuing God who calls ‘the wrong people onto a bus that isn’t expected to arrive.’[1] In becoming a Priest in Charge to a tiny Anglican congregation of around twenty just over two years ago now, it would be all too easy to think the bus had gone. For some in the congregation, I am their fifth minister in the church, and for them there must’ve been a sense of ‘here we go again’.
But our Missionary God knows all about mustard seed starts. For the first six months I did nothing other than take the time to get to know the congregation and for them to get to know me. Over that time I simply surveyed the soils to continue Roxburgh and Romanuk’s analogy of the cultivating leader.[2] This surprisingly involved little work other than listening. During this time, I became aware of the deep and contagious faith of the Silvertops, as Werner so colourfully notes in his blog comment on the 14 May 2009. Despite the church being small and vulnerable, they remained steadfast and hopeful in new beginnings in the Spirit.
After six months, one person came up to me and talked about wanting to start a ‘walking around the streets’ ministry for the church. After two months of fleshing out the ministry and making sure they were resourced, the ministry started and is now flourishing. This simple act reinvigorated the tiny congregation; there was a growing sense of them being ‘the centre of God’s activities’.[3] My only involvement in this process was listening and walking alongside. Just one month later, another person wanted to commence a similar ministry but focus on children and schools. Again, after two months of fleshing out and assisting them with resources, the ministry started and is now thriving. My only involvement again was listening, assisting to flesh out and walking alongside.
What has surprised me in all of this is how light my role has felt and been. Referring to Roxburgh and Romanuk’s leadership model as cultivator, I am very aware that all I ever do is work the soil. Sometimes you hit clods of conflict that need to be broken up and restored, add compost to reinvigorate the gospel, or fertilizer to booster missionality. But the rest is up to the Trinitarian God; Jesus provides the vine, the Spirit the fruit, and the Father walks around in His gumboots pruning, spraying (organic sprays only of course) and keeping His plants in good health. The yoke I’ve carry, which places me dangerously close to the analogy of an ox, has been delightfully gentle and light.
[1] Alan J Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach and Changing World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 18.
[2] Ibid.,27.
[3] Ibid., 31.
I was fascinated by the life cycle diagram Frost and Hirsch outlined of a local church or denomination.[1] This diagram also picks up Guder’s gospel reductionism and Roxburgh’s liminality. For example, nostalgia, questioning and polarization are all aspects of gospel reductionism as a congregation yearns for stability or consistency with its surrounding culture.[2] Roxburgh’s liminality is seen in the height of missions, but inevitably can either return back to what was secure or, in the context of a communitas, be prone to polarization; whether it be sectarianism, excessive spiritualization or decontextualization.[3]
Chris Ambrose’s blog comment on 20 May 2009 makes for somber reading as he outlines the extraordinary stress it takes to lead a new church, let along a new model of church. I believe if we ignore or reduce the breadth of church leadership generously provided by the Spirit i.e., prophet, apostle, evangelist, pastor and teacher, then new churches will continue to collapse, no matter what model or missional ethos they are birthed in. To remain missionally healthy requires daily leadership in creating, questioning/reviewing, resourcing, structuring, enabling and encouraging.
In audio conference five, Lynne shared how frustrating it was that mainline churches major in the pastor/teacher model of leadership (which is also noted by Frost and Hirsh).[4] This is certainly true of the Wellington Anglican Diocese. There is no formal recognition of apostle or prophets, but evangelists are licensed through the lay minister license process (even then however, the evangelists are not recognized as part of the leadership team but rather as someone who needs to get out and evangelize). Consequently the invaluable synergy evangelists, apostles and prophets offer to lead a church from dreaming into missional is missing, or placed on a leader(s) who is already stretched and may already be operating outside of their gifting.
Frost and Hirsch’s comparison of churches to early pioneering is an excellent analogy. Not only in that it picks up the difficulty of the environment and the odds pioneers faced, but how it needs infrastructure experts to make a settlement. Churches also face incredible odds and difficult environments as they combat internal forces such as gospel reductionism or external forces such as secularism. The church desperately needs it pioneers, builders, reviewers and encouragers to operate synergistically and symbiotically. Imagine a church led by people gifted across the spectrum of leadership, formally recognized, with each understanding their unique and important role in the lifecycle of a church. I look forward to the day in the Wellington Anglican Diocese when we embrace what the Spirit began in Pentecost!
[1] Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 2003), 177.
[2] Darrell L Guder, The Continuing Conversion of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 153.
[3] Alan J Roxburgh, The Missionary Congregation, Leadership and Liminality (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 55.
[4] Frost and Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come, 179.
Ruth Johnston writes:
I'm back again. I'd like to pose a couple of questions
1- are we meant to re-create the past - or allow God to do a new thing through us to bring about the future?
2) is part of the difficulty we see the fact that some of us either don't know or have forgotten what a precious gift we have been given?
3) if we do know has it become so precious that we hang onto it - "my precious"
4) the above ties into "Jesus is mine" - frankly I hope it is the other way round and "I belong to Jesus".
Jan, you wrote about people travelling across town - yes I was one of those - and I've known many - most of us travelled to be somewhere to be where we were "fed" and/or encouraged to use the gifts we had been given. Those that travelled to be comfortable usually left quite quickly and kept on travelling. I agree we should live and worship in the same community - sometimes that is a growth point - sometimes it spells spiritual dying. Neither of which is a reflection on the local church but an acknowlegment of where the person is at.
Tim Pettengell writes:
What if we are all wrong!
What if in all this talk of missional church, we once again place emphasis on the “church” and loose sight of the fact that what we are called to is discipleship. As the author of Mark puts it – “Follow me and I will make you fish for people!” (Mark 1:17) Seen from this perspective, we do not need the “church” as mediator, as representative of God or as inheritor and successor of Jesus life and work. Just people prepared to live out the Good News – to love your neighbour as yourself, within their context.
What if in all this talk of missional church, we once again place emphasis on historical and theological correctness and loose sight of the fact of community – not as “church”, but as a sociological phenomenon. People of like mind who, having common shared convictions and beliefs – the love your neighbour as yourself within your context, congregate together for mutual support and affirmation. And in the process, create a “church”!
What if God is somewhere within the bounds created by these two scenarios? What if God has gone ahead of us – as God did for the Exodus people, and by so doing is calling us “to life, faith and justice” (from the Iona Hymn – “In a Byre by Bethlehem), within our context.
Thus I think that Andrew and I could have a very interesting and profitable conversation (see Andrew’s blog of 18 May). The difficulty we would have is finding a common agreement of language, definition and usage. But, we would be both speaking of – as I understand it, of the God who goes before us and calls us “to life, faith and justice”.
Therefore, in the words of Fred Pratt Green,
Sing, one and all a song of celebration,
Of love's renewal, and of hope restored,
As custom yields to ferment of creation,
And we, Christ's Church, make real the living word.
Rejoice that still Christ's Spirit is descending
With challenges that faith cannot refuse;
And ask no longer what is worth defending,
But how to make effective God's good news.
We need not now take refuge in tradition,
Like those prepared to make a final stand,
But use it as a springboard of decision,
To follow Christ's whose call sounds in our land.
Creative Spirit, let your word be spoken!
Your shock of truth invigorates the mind;
Your miracles of grace shall be our token
That God in Christ is saving humankind.
Hi Susan I agree with your reservations about introducing " missional church" to our Anglican congrgation. However I have thought about our own congregation and I can see aspects of the missional church have been quietly introduced naturally without a big splash as "the latest thing".In this way the congregation is 100% on board.
Issues of dicipleship, although initially foreign, can also be introduced initially amongst the pastoral team. I am excited about the missional church movement, and look forward to the transformation .
The process of cultivation is a long one. It undergoes many seasons: and those who sow the seed opr till the ground are not necessarily there to reap the harvest. Guder's thoughts on the process of Biblical cultivation were interesting.I enjoyed the quote from Tertilliun that Christians are made not born, however I thought that we were all chosen by God?
Intentional cultivation and discipleship could be seen as just another set of programmes under a different name. However the process is percieved, I welcome the return to ecclesia, the arts and to spirituality.
How is worship Missional?
I thought we struggled with this topic tonight with probably the most diverse answers to any of the points raised in the Audio conferences. I did like Susan’s point that worship is abandoning oneself into the sacrament of worship (I think that is what was said). I also could not get away from Labberton’s point (in talking about worship) that nothing is as dangerous as encountering the true and living God. Because when that happens, we come face to face with the living God it redefines everything we call normal and demands everything of us – to abandon ourselves into the sacredness of the moment. This is because worship surrenders the self to God. I agree with Labberton’s point that self is the most popular idol about. I would think also that Labberton’s point hits a raw nerve – that really the church avoids the kinds of transformation that a real encounter with God brings and suggests that we actually choose to live something other than we confess. So far he is leading us on because he is yet to define what that encounter with God is, which I think he means worship. I do agree with him that an encounter with God is life changing. But I also think that a lot of people encounter God outside the realm of worship, and are transformed, at least the type of worship he seems to be proposing.
However I agree also with Susan’s analysis tonight that this is not a very good reading. While making some wonderful points, Labberton loses me with being flippant: “The real danger of encountering the living God is like the difference between the gentle wind of our imagination and the whirlwind of God’s unmatched power of authority,” and “The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, making up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning (quoting Annie Dillard),” etc. etc.
What I think Labberton would agree with Susan’s definition that worship is abandoning oneself to God in sacred way. It may involve prostration (I think Labberton would like that) and total submission of the self to the divine will. If this is what Labberton intends for worship to be then I would say Amen too! It is an Isaiah-like experience where one’s real worth is exposed – “Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips,” (Isaiah 6:1-7). Within worship there is an act of purification – we confess our sins because we are being found out and the blackness of our sins are exposed against the brightness of God’s holiness. At this moment, we are enabled again to be God’s representatives in our situations and context. We, like Isaiah and the Apostles in the Upper room, are forgiven of our failings and sins, and we can’t help but proclaim God’s goodness to everyone. It swells up inside of us from our innermost being. Such an experience results in the act of being Missional under the power of God. Worship then is vitally important to being Missional.
Two things stand out. First worship remains undefinable to a distinct definition after tonights audio conference. I got the impression it is a dangerous thing and we may be shy of it like it is TNT. If Labberton who was writing about it can't define it then we can only stab at it too. Secondly, I think worship is a vital ingredient of our Christian experience. Perhaps the fact it is directly related to an encounter with God may mean that we are a bit more shy of it.
(Readings: Mark Labberton, The Dangerous Act of Worship: Living God’s Call to Justice (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2007), 61-77 )
Is creativity and the arts a reflection of self (and is that what comes through when creativity is used in Church)?
What a great question. There are two answers and they are Yes and No! Firstly the yes part – creativity is self imaging when used in church services. A lot of the arts are used in worship during services – from singing, dancing, drama and acting, interpretive readings and other forms. Many times I have been to services where musicians are at the front of the congregation leading the people in energetic worship. In those circumstances I have come away many times with a feeling that the message I have just received is a compromised one. The same goes for a lot of the dance acts in churches. Particularly when it comes to the more exuberant variety, I fail to see how any of it could be for the purpose of drawing attention to God. Some of the acts, including worship teams and singing, invariably fall into the entertainment value and not the worship criteria. That would be ok if the directive was specifically spelled out as spiritual entertainment for the edification of the saints. If the acts are incorporated into the worship and counted as worship, the danger of the self peeping out in the performances is very real.
This is the key, when we go to church we want to see Jesus. And what a wonderful thing it is when those leading us do exactly that. When those leading us are not seen or heard because they lead us past themselves and away from everything else directly into the throne room of God then that is heaven. It happens a lot. When the arts and creativity are used in such a way where the performer becomes a vehicle of God’s presence where we see Jesus and not the actors then that is using creativity in a selfless and imageless way.
I would like to believe Gibbs and Bolger’s proposal that creativity is not ego driven. I have seen it less so. But I am not sure that creativity is in itself worship. Primarily because worship is not defined by Gibbs and Bolger. Their conclusion is that we give back worship to God as a gift through our creative expressions. I can come to terms with this to a degree. However, it depends on the definition of worship. If worship means an acknowledging of God in a public and corporate way then it may fit. The problem is creativity can be an end to itself. We can be so impressed by a performance that we clap the performers and not God.
Reading: Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 173-190.
How would I describe MINX405?"
It is difficult, as I heard many of my colleagues try to do tonight, to try and summarise this paper in a few lines. If I were to be pressed for a two-line answer I might manage it and it would be: MINX405 is a relevant and necessary paper in order to understand the nature of God’s mission in the changing cultural mosaic of today. It defines the purpose, breadth and application of that mission, underlines the message and best practice methods of delivering that message in a fast changing and confusing landscape. I would add at the end, by doing this paper, one is only starting to be aware of our task ahead.
The scary thing is the there is a huge guesswork element that is still there. There is no exact science as to what we can do from here. We indeed find ourselves in a tunnel, between the old and the new. We don’t quite know what the new looks is yet and our best efforts are trying to predict the future outline of our task.
Despite the guesswork, the current setting is defined (Tom Sine; Frost & Hirsch); key issues are addressed such as leadership (Roxburgh; Otis; Guder , Wagner, McNeal and Cladis); key functions are (attempted) defined and addressed (Hospitality, Worship and Creativity). The idea of Emerging church poked its head every now and again but it was not the focus of this discussion. That is how wide the scope is of the our current situation and why a final conclusion continues to be a work in progress. Aside from Hobbs, I particularly liked Christopher Wright’s paper (The Misison of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Nottingham: IVP, 2006) and Ray Anderson’s (Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2006). I like things that are earthed in God and where their source and flow can be traced back to foundational aspects of our faith.
Having said that I, like Roly, find Hobbs’s twelve indicators to a Missional manifesto if there is to be one, useful and necessary. I like it because it is wholesome, foundational and can be built upon. It is also presentable and is accessible (in reading) to many readers. The others like Guder, Newbigin, Roxburgh and many of the Course authors at the very base have at a combination of Hobbs’s 12-points somewhere as the foundation of their respective proposals.
I will come away from this being able to identify the Missional outlines in the at play. It seems that we are all doing it separately and individually the best way we know how. I take courage to think that Missional Church is a current topic of discussion in Campuses around NZ today. We have a diverse cultural mallais. All cultures of the world are found here in such a small place. This cultural melting pot presents a unique Missional opportunity to the Church in Aotearoa, NZ. This paper has helped me prepare and has equipped me for the missional encounter that is here now. Tomorrow may be different again.
Post a Comment