37. Organic Leadership

Trying to lead in an organic community is a different bag of tricks. I have the ghost of former leadership paradigms always creeping in. I love this new environment of leadership though. Such an adventure. Most of all I like how it allows me to be me without manipulating other people in the name of Jesus. Great freedom here, but great challenges as well. Right now I am learning the art of community engagement. I never did much of this before in my ministry career. This is too my fault of course. I am now learning to be in conversation with the people I am trying to "lead" and it is a beautiful process. No more depending on charisma and personality. God and discernment, community and gifting, and most of all calling are prerequisites to leading people. All of this is a gift, skill set and discipline.

In trying to put my thoughts together on this, I created a diagram to sort of help myself distill my thoughts on this new way of approaching leadership. The following diagram represents the paradigm I was both formally, and informally trained to lead in.

The leader goes off and spends time with God and gets a vision from God, that oddly enough would also align with his or her own values, giftings and passions, or shortly put, their spiritual DNA. In turn, they would develop a strategy of how to accomplish this vision and turn to the community and basically say, "Here is my vision, are you with me or not?" As you can see, this puts a lot of pressure on the community. Not to mention it basically treats the community as a support structure for the leader. In other words, the community is there to follow the leader and serve his or her vision. (The vision of course being narrowly interpreted by a few for the many.) In raw straight forward terms, the leaders in this situation ends up harvesting the members energy, time and gifts for "their" vision. It assumes that the leader knows what God wants the people in the community to do. I could say a lot more about this model and its limitations, but I will stop here for time purposes. I will say however that there are times and situations when this model of leadership is appropriate, so don't get me wrong here.

There is another way of approaching leadership however. I will use the trendy word organic to describe it, but it really is a good term to use when explaining this different approach. The following diagram illustrates this.

As you can see, it starts with people being in conversation about their individual values, giftings and passions in a community setting. On an individual level, this approach provides a pathway to discover what God is up to and how I fit in with it in my own situation outside of a group dynamic. Community is a great place to discover and affirm your spiritual DNA. However, what happens if God is brewing things together where a pattern starts to emerge in a community with peoples DNA? This in my mind warrants a process of discernment on what a group can do collectively for God. This sort of creates a group dynamic for collective ministry efforts.

In organic communities, often times people may not have a homogeneous passion or calling. People may be called to vastly different directions in ministry. This is what can make house church and simple church sort of challenging if you have a conventional church background. You are so used to operating primarily on the collective, group dynamic level that you skip the personal discovery of gifts and calling etc. This leaves you sort of wondering if we should be "doing more" on a group level. (There is of course a place for serving as a group etc) Leadership in an organic environment is more like facilitating people to learn their gifts and operate in them. Leadership is not telling other people what to do for God, as if any of us know that for other people! When you do this, you actually end up cloning people after your own DNA. Cloning is when you take one persons DNA and try to reproduce it in another person. Everyone has different DNA when it comes to ministry direction. You do not pick your DNA and you can not clone people or communities after your own DNA. TO try and do this ends up being manipulative at best and spiritually abusive at worst. A more healthy approach is to nurture the DNA that is already there into healthy expressions so it can flourish into life giving forms.

Another contrast to the top down approach is the vision and strategy are open ended in this organic model of leadership. They are not tied to one persons perception of the situation. You do not arrive at a destination here. It is a constant journey which feeds off of your DNA and calling of God in the context of community. Any feedback on this?

36. Breaking New Ground. Our group decided to have a "Where are we? " or "Who are we?" discussion last night. We wanted to sort of call out some things that we see happening in our group as it relates to our values. It was a great discussion and brought some good clarity. Our hope is to discover who and where we are collectively so as to locate our selves oin the map per se. Some one asked "what is the map of?" That is a good question. I would now say that the map is a journey of being missional/incarnational. At the time I did not know what to say.

God is defninitely brewing some cool stuff in the group as a whole. Not to mention our own individual lives. This is actually the first real attempt to sort of organize ourselves for mission. So far it has been organic on steroids! While we still don't see a need to be organized for organized sake, I think it is good to sort of map out the terrain and explore what it looks like for us to do something collectively. I am excited!

35. Liberation baby!

After working for the man for almost three years, I am about to be liberated. On July 4th of all days. Work is one of those under explored topics that doesn't receive a lot of attention in the theological world. It is one of those topics that people just assume is a natural part of life and there is not much to be said about it. "Everyone has to go to work, if you don't, you are one of the lucky ones." I hate to say it, but full time ministry is seen as one of those lucky ones. I can say this because I was in full time ministry for over 10 years.

I think this is another one of those gaps that clergy laity creates, that is, the gap between the working class and "the luck ones." Don't get me wrong, full time ministry is definitely work, but it is a different kind of work. It has a totally different dynamic that a 9-5, or even sales. really there is nothing else like it, especially if you are in a majorly dysfunctional church.

That being said, it is still perceived as being a cushy job, and in some ways it is. A theology of work is often passed over because the ones doing the teaching are primarily the full time ministry people. The Sunday school teachers are sort of assigned their materials a lot of the time, or have other topics they like to explore.

So is there anything to say about a theology of work? Or is it just one of things that can pass under the lens of scripture and not really reveal anything? I think the concept of work is at the core of our experience. We spend most of our time at work. (Maybe this is why no one wants to study it!) A large portion of our lives revolve around it. The entire world does it. Most people are jaded about it, or don't like their jobs.

But work is actually linked to the origins of humanity. Genesis 2 and three don't just vaguely mention it, they make it a pivotal theme in humanities purpose. God gave Adam a job, to work the garden. This means work is not a byproduct of the fall. It is in our human design to work, and transform the creation, subdue it etc. However, after the fall, work took on a different flavor. It became tainted by a fallen world,one that became hostile to us. Actually, this negative side of work is rooted in the fall. So what does that tell us about work? Well, if you are in Christ, then work is supposed to be a part of the new creation. We should no longer regard work as apart of the old way of doing things. It has become new.

Some of you are thinking, "Yeah right, there is nothing new about my job! It sucks!" Well, this is precisely where the concept of new creation comes in. First, we are being redeemed from the curse, so it is not necessarily the existence of work that changes, but our attitude and perception of it is being aligned with God's agenda for the world.

I guess what I am trying to say is, no matter what kind of work we are involved with, we are sent into that environment by God to be salt and light. This in and of itself puts a new spin on work. While it does not absolve work of it's cursed flavor, it repositions us to approach work in a new light. And isn't this part of what Paul means in II Cor 5:17 when he says, we no longer see people from a worldly perspective....new creation.

I am about to become self employed, and I tell you what, this was a hard learned lesson for me to learn in this past 3years working for FedEx. They micromanage your day, it is somewhat monotnous, and you have to be out in all kinds of weather. Not to mentioin it isnot very intellectually engaging. Still, I was forced to process that part of my life through new creation. I would like to say I passed the test with flying colors. The truth is, I bitched and moaned a lot and enjoyed some what cycnical moments through all of it. I am glad that God was in my life through all of it, because I could have easily become a corporate zombie.

34. Eschatology and the Environment

Just recently I have launched a curb side recycling venture here in Clarksville. I had no idea how much time or money it would cost. Once I get through this start up phase it will be smooth sailing I think, but the birthing process is always costly and at some points painful.

I was initially led to this interest in the environment through my study of eschatology. I do not get into the whole pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil discussions. I sort of thing those miss the point of eschatology. What will happen in the end can be discussed in a broader framework of God's activity and relationship with all of creation. either way you slice the pie, God will step in with fresh creative power and transform our cosmos into a new heavens and a new earth.

So what does that have to do with us today? Participating with God in the world means functioning as a sign or symbol of that very transformation. Our lives and our ministries should foreshadow the coming transformation of the cosmos. This of course includes the transformation of people into the image of God. (Romans 8:28-30) But it also means participating in the management of creation. Being a good steward of the earth is an element of discipleship. It is a moral issue. It is a systemic issue.

We can no longer live under that Platonic notion that spirit is good and material is inferior. God created the spirit and the body. He will redeem both in the end. This also includes the creation at large. Romans 8. I am wrestling with how to capitalize on this recycling venture for the kingdom. There was a great article in the paper that allowed me to point to God and his formative influence on my interests in the environment. IT is this kind of thing that gets me excited because it sort of shatters the perception that Christians are merely concerned about boosting their own kingdoms.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the environment is from God, to ignore it, abuse or misuse it is an assault on our divine purpose as stewards of the earth. Genesis 1-2. Maybe this whole GREEN element can be a great platform for us to step in on what is often seen as a secular issue and show that Christianity truly is Relevant to the issues of the world. Any thoughts out there?

33. Instituions....

With all this critiquing I am doing on the institution, I want to insert some objective thoughts about them along the way so I do not paint my self as being too short sighted. Withdrawing from the conventional church model and doing this organic church thing has given me the time and opportunity to reflect on all the negative dynamics that institutions can exert on people when it comes to life in general. But specifically, an application was intentionally being made to Kingdom stuff as well. These insights and applications are coming from several sources really.

First, there is my experience in the IC, along with the many experiences of other people I have had the privilege of conversating with along the way. As a person who has been employed by various IC's for 10 years, I have had the opportunity to see the institutional dynamics play themselves out on both ends of the spectrum's. Sort of a front row seat and a back stage pass if you will. Second, there is the book realm. I began to read books like The Social Construction of Reality, The Shaping of Things to Come, The Spider and the Star Fish etc. These books gave me a language to express a lot of the ideas running around in my head. They also served to open up new horizons, while at the same time focusing my attention on key elements of institutions.

Initially, I was all about critiquing the IC and institutions in general. I had the reactionary thing going on with a sort of cynical posture towards anything that smelled of institution. However, the more time I spend thinking about institutions, the more I am beginning to develop a more objective paradigm for the role of institutions in the Kingdom.

The foundations for this objectivity is, ironically enough, provided by the metaphor of The Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is to invade all aspects of life. It is an all encompassing action and presence in the world. Now think about this: Institutions are a reality of life and they are not going any where. They will always be around for a number of reasons. So if the Kingdom is to permeate all of reality, then there has to be something redeemable about institutions. As a neutral entity, they have the potential to be harnessed for Kingdom agendas.

So the real question becomes, how do we realign the institution to serve the needs of the Kingdom? This is a daunting question with many subheadings and footnotes. It is a necessary question none the less. We have to grapple with this if we are to be Kingdom people. We can not afford to withdraw into ideological communes where we mutually reinforce one another's ideas of organic, simple or house church ecclesiologies. We need to grapple with questions of organization, leadership and how these interact with organic systems, simple networks and the like.

My good friend Mickey has perceived God to have been taking us away from the institutional model so we can detox from the funk. He sees God doing this for the specific purpose of relearning what it means to be intimate with God and other people. After this crucial phase, we are ultimately repositioned in relationship to organization, structures, forms etc. Invested with new life from the Spirit, we can approach the "necessary evil" of organization with new eyes and new perspectives.

A sign of this new life can be seen in our struggle to find language to express what we see. We wrestling to find terms, phrases, and metaphors that adequately describe what this new angle we see. Really, what most of us are doing is taking concepts and principles found in sociology and anthropology and baptizing them into Christian dialogue. These concepts have already been plowed in the fields of sociology and anthropology. We just need to go and harvest them.

The institution and organization in general needs to be realigned and re framed from those who are already immersed in the organic model of being the church. It is out of a seasoned cycle of being in this organic environment that fresh, fruitful, and objective dialogue about this whole topic can be engaged. Everyone needs to detox and deconstruct the institutional beast within us. But after this tearing down has been done, we need to check out of the detox facility and re engage this vital topic of organization.

This engagement of organization will need to be in done in conversation with certain disciplines. Theological, ecclesiological, historical, along with anthropological and sociological fields need to be thrown into the mix for a well informed approach. This task will involve networking, a skill many of us are excited about developing and using.

32. Leadership Issues

I can remember the first time I started having questions about the leadership model of elders. Growing up in the Church of Christ, the elder/deacon model was all I was exposed to, and most of the time it just made sense to do it that way. In my tribe, elders (presbyters), Bishops/Overseers (episcopos) and Shepherds are all the same thing. They are functional words that describe the same position. Employing the "flat" approach to scripture, or should I say, fundamentalist hermeneutic, Titus 1, I Timothy 3, and the book of Acts were thrown together to make a unifying case for the elder model. The only problem with this is that there are some real inconsistencies with this approach.

For one, Cecil hook, in his book Free In Christ, highlights the fact that the two lists in Titus and Timothy are not identical. In Titus it mentions that an elder should have "believing children" but it says nothing about this in I Timothy. Neither one of them had access to each others letters, so we can assume that Timothy allowed men to be elders that did not have believing children while Titus did not. This scenario of the qualifications of elders should throw up some red flags to those who want to rush into a universalized approach to the leadership structure of the church. If the elder model was to be the only model for the church, you would think that there would be a little bit more clear and symmetrical listings of their qualifications throughout scripture.

Second, H. Von Campenhausen, in his book Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, makes an excellent point when he points to the diversity of models in the NT documents. He notes that Acts, I Peter, James and Revelation mention only elders but not Bishops nor deacons. Philippians mentions Bishops and deacons but not elders. I Corinthians mentions none of it at all. This should spark a curiosity about why, if the elder/deacon model is the only model to be used for the church, is there not a uniform presentation in scripture about it. Why such varied spotting's in the NT?

Third, the 1st century church was thoroughly embedded in a patriarchal society that gravitated towards men for leadership "positions." This is not to say that women did not have leadership positions in the 1st century church. (This is a whole nother discussion) It is merely to say that the presence of patriarchy should immediately caustion us when attempting to take narratives like the book of Acts, and Epistles, which are written with this same historical context, and Pastorals, which are highly contextual and occasional documents, as prescriptive for all times and places. Patriarchy had an enormous effect on the church and the course it took in organizing itself for the long haul.

Fourth, the elder model was recycled from the synagogue. There, men were endowed with dignity and honor by virtue of their age. Some elders were elected to carry specific responsibilites in the synagogue, but not all elders were elected to do this. The average elder enjoyed a certain status of respect and leadership within the community. But it was organically bestowed on him by the community, not through a democratic nomination and election process. Neither was there an official ordination ceremony to induct them into an "office". This would have been so in the church as well.

Fifth, it is interesting that the only place you see lists for qualifications of elders is in Gentile contexts where godliness needed to be spelled out for the new comers into the faith.

The early church adopted the synagogue model of elders in a natural organic way. For them it was a no brainer. Sort of a self organizing dynamic if you will, with certain apostolic impulses operating in the background. If this is true, then we instantly are thrown into the discussion as to wether or not the synagogue model of elders was divine in origin. I tend to think it was a cultural manifestation of the Israelite tradition and served as midwife to the church in the preservation and stabilization of the communities of the 1st century in all their turbulence with persecution and heresy. That being said, the elder model was the seed of hierarchy, as Clement portrays, which rapidly developed in the late 1st century and early 2nd century.

All of this is a dead give away that the discussion of leadership models for the church is not a cut and dry issue. Nort is it purely a matter of uncovering the "original model". We have to give proper attention to the socio-historical-cultural context of both the letters and the 1st century church as whole. There is not a unified voice for leadership structures in the NT. So where does this leave us? That is for the next blog!

31. The Role of Institutions in the Kingdom

The role of institutions in the Kingdom: A short philosophy.



Innovation is rarely embraced with eagerness within religious institutional contexts. This is because the nature of institutions are fundamentally predisposed to self preservation. The prophetic critique that often creates the combustible environment for innovation is often snuffed out by the aristo and bureau-crats of the institution. This has made for an interesting dilemma for the apostle. Often scorned or perceived to be a threat to the established order, they have no other choice but to launch out with entrepreneurial passion, founding new, and often more relevant, communities, ministries and churches. This bold and courageous venture is commonly entered into without the blessing of the institution, both in word and in resources. This makes for a difficult start. (But it sure empowers faith in the living God who supplies all our needs!)



It seems that when we approach this dilemma, we always assume the existence of the IC is a given. Sort of a taken for granted notion that the IC is always a part of the equation, that apostles always emerge from with in the institutional context. Almost as if the institutional church (IC) is the mother environment from which these giftings owe their emergence. It is true that the apostle is teased into action by the frustrating dynamics of the institutional context. But these vital gifts in the body do not have to have such a dysfunctional, reactionary beginning.

I want to suggest that apostles can emerge out of organic communities in a much healthier way. Simple Church is a great environment for the apostolic gifting to not only operate, but flourish. In my past experience with the IC, apostles emerge only after they are vomited out by the institution. This happens for various reasons, but primarily because the institution can not stomach the kind of innovation that apostles seek after.

An organic community is much more conducive for the apostolic function for several reasons. In an organic, simple community, there is no building to keep funded. There is no paid staff to keep. There tends to be less concern about self preservation of an entity or established order of things. In this type of environment, apostles are free to innovate, explore and pioneer new and exciting things for God without threatening every ones "stuff". Without the institutional dynamic of self preservation at work, new and innovative efforts can move forward without bureaucratic opposition from the powers that be. The institution is not there to call into question and frustrate the efforts of apostolic innovation.

So where does that leave institutions? Do they still have a place in the Kingdom? One of the major faults of the IC is it tries to embody the full spectrum of the Kingdom within the confines of an institution. This is impossible! Most of the metaphors used by Jesus to describe the Kingdom are organic. Fruit, Yeast, Seeds, Trees. As such, the Kingdom can be expected to find its most vibrant expression in organic environments.

That being said, the Kingdom, by its very nature as the rule of God, requires engagement with all aspects of life. Institutions are a reality that will never go away. This means that the Kingdom will interact and utilize institutions. So I am not promoting an anti-institution approach to Kingdom life. What I am promoting is a repositioning, a re-framing, or as my buddy Patrick would say, a re-aligning of the institution as it relates to Kingdom tasks.


Instead of viewing the role of institutions as the primal facilitators of the entire spectrum of Kingdom activity, they should take on a more focused role of specialization in Kingdom tasks. For example, starting a Hope Pregnancy Center, a Community Garden, a Youth Center for at risk youth etc. As institutions, they will be susceptible to all the trappings of institutional dynamics. But they key difference is that they are not trying to be the end all expression of the Kingdom. They are nor broadcasting themselves as striving to be the full embodiment of the Kingdom. They are specific, focused efforts to embody the Kingdom in specific ways.

What I am saying is that we need to turn the whole thing on its head. The spontaneous, organic, fluid environment of Simple Church can be a breeding ground for the birth of new and innovative communities, including institutions that have specific Kingdom tasks. Apostles do not have to be the step children of the IC, or the refugee poster children of missionary societies. Institutions do not have to be shunned or hopelessly tolerated by Simple Church. They can be an expression of Kingdom tasks, having their origins in the fertile evironment of organic communities.

30. The Process of Institutionalization

The Process of Instiutionalization (PI) is a complex phenomenon. While looking into this topic, there have been several times that I have sat back and wondered "How deep does the rabbit hole go?" This topic can be approached from so many different angles and has so many nuances that it is difficult to give a "one size fits all" description of the PI. For example, an individual may experience the PI on a personal level long before the group takes on an institutional feel or look. This personal dynamic requires a whole different diagram and discussion. (forthcoming hopefully.) This is also true from the other perspective. An individual can remain "uninstitutionalized" well into the life of a group that has been officially institutionalized.

Having said all of that, there are some fundamental elements to the PI that have a somewhat universal presence. This diagram is an overly simplified view of some of these elements in the process. The PI can happen on an individual level far before it manifests itself and is embodied in a group context..The pyramid is inverted to represent the small beginnings of a group of about 10-15 people. The increase in group size is represented by the expanding width of the pyramid as it moves upward. The next level would be 15-50 people. The next would be 50-200 and so on. Use your imagination.

The size of a group is critical to the development of the PI. As a group expands in size, it is propelled into the different phases of the process. This increase in the size of a group brings with it certain needs that demand a response from the group. Who is going to be responsible for __________? How will we accomplish __________? What about ____________? When the needs of the group reach this level of complexity, it forces the group to divvy out the work to preassigned roles. As a result, a hierarchy is either formally, or naively, informally created. As the group grows even larger, the needs of the group outweigh the capacity of the individuals to address them. (hi amanda) This is when the need for full or part time staff arises. This is usually accompanied with a central facility out of which to operate, if that has not already been acquired.

This process outlined above, though vague and lacking all the elements of this complex phenomenon, gives us a good framework to discuss the tipping point of institutionalization for a community. From a sociological perspective, once habits are formed by the group, with a certain degree of frequency, say once a week, then they are already flirting with institutionalization. Repetition is the fertile soil from which the seeds of institutionalism sprout. This is an important factor to keep in mind when we talk about the "institutional church" as opposed to the "organic church."

I would like to suggest a subtle, yet significant word to introduce into the conversation.

Instituionality.

This term acknowledges the fact that, despite our best efforts, there will always be an element of the PI in our communities. Because we will undoubtedly develop patterns, habits and even rhythms of behavior in our communities, we will always be flirting with institutionalism. There will always be, from a sociological perspective, an institutional element in our communities. This is true without even addressing the size issue and all the complex dynamics that surface when a house church goes from one group to three groups or goes from 10 to 20. I think we would all agree that when we say "The Institutional Church" (IC) we are coining a term to describe what churches have become as a result of the PI. For most of us, our experience with the IC has led us to encounter some of the worst repercussions of institutional dynamics. Hierarchical control, abuse of authority, money centered, self-preservation, ritualism, traditionalism, corporate-ized ethics and methods in discipleship and evangelism etc. To call this type of church an IC is exactly on target in my opinion. But my word of caution to us is that we not become naive to the fact that there are also elements of institutionality in our own communities. Naivety on our part in this area will make us susceptible to becoming the very thing we have fled. Instead of being a traditional IC, we will be an IC with a different look.

The discerning question then is not "Are we institutional?" but "What degree of institutionality is our group experiencing?" Or more specifically, "What is the tipping point, and how do we stay organic and fluid enough so that we do not fall prey to the monstrous demands of the institutional dynamics?" (Maybe some one needs to come up with a top 10 list of "You know your institutional if....) The real goal is to avoid the constraints and limitations that come from being institutional. This will of course mean that we will want to avoid becoming a full blown institution. But the distinction I am calling for has to do with identity and focus. Our focus and identity come from the gospel and embodying this gospel in the world, not from being "non-institutional." I may be stating the obvious, but it is worth saying none the less. Being organic and non-institutional is a tool for the mission, not the mission itself. There is a big difference.

This tipping point in the PI will be different for every group. It will not be a clear cut and predictable line that can be laid over top of random communities in a universalized fashion. It will ultimately need to be communally discerned through objective analysis, intuition, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Trust me, those who are phobics about institutionalism, of which I am one, will sound the alarm when we have begun to progress (or should I say digress) into heightened levels of institutionality. You know the deal.

As rule of thumb, staying small goes a long way in safe guarding the PI. I don't say this as a cry for huddling up in our own little worlds and not engaging the mission of God. But can't we be on mission with God and still be organic, fluid, flexible and free from institutional constraints? I would say yes! Thank God yes! This is what the Simple/House Church movement is saying at this moment. It is an experiment for us personally, and I am loving every minute of it!

29. The Bureaucratization of the Church

Check out this quote from Peter Berger's book The Sacred Canopy. This guy even fore casted the seeker sensitive movement and the "marketing" of religious goods by churches to a pluralistic society. He was writing in the 70's!!!!


"The contemporary situation of religion is thus characterized by a continual bureaucratization of the religious institutions. Both their internal and their external social relations are marked by this process. Internally, the religious institutions are not only administered bureaucratically, but their day to day operations are dominated by the typical problems and “logic” of bureaucracy. Externally, the religious institutions deal with other social institutions as well as with each other through the typical forms of bureaucratic interaction. “Public relations” with the consumer clientele, “lobbying” with the government, “fund raising” with both government and private agencies, multifaceted involvements with the secular economy (particularly through investment)- in all these aspects of their “mission” the religious institutions are compelled to seek “results” by methods that are, of necessity, very similar to those employed by other bureaucratic structures with similar problems. Very importantly, the same bureaucratic logic applies to the dealings of the several religious institutions with each other.
Bureaucracies demand specific types of personnel. This personnel is specific not only in terms of its functions and requisite skills, but also in terms of its psychological characteristics. Bureaucratic institutions both select and form the personnel types they require for their operation. This means that similar types of leadership emerge in the several religious institutions, irrespective of the traditional patterns in this matter. The requirements of bureaucracy override such traditional differentiations of religious leadership as “prophet” versus “priest”, “scholar" versus "saint,” and so forth. Thus it does not matter very much whether a certain bureaucratic functionary comes out of a protestant tradition of “prophetic” ministry or a Catholic tradition of “priestly” one – in either case, he must above all adapt himself to the requirements of his bureaucratic role." Berger, Peter. Sacred Canopy p. 139-140


Especially interesting to me is his observation about the nature of intstitutional demands for personnel. If we apply this to the gifting in the body of Christ, just think about how many gifts are being wasted and under developed in the institutional church. the very nature of the institution does not allow giftings to operate. It is a black hole that is concerned about self preservation and maintenance. Doesn't it strike you odd that an institution can pretty much function without ever drawing on the rich fund of APEPT giftings?

28. Paul as Interpreter of the Gospel

If we apply this definition of authority to Paul, the POWER would of course be the gospel, and the EMPOWERMENT would happen in the community which the apostle establishes through the preaching/teaching on the saving significance the GOSPEL. Paul, then, would initially be the link between the community and the gospel. This seen in Romans 10:17ff where Paul says that the link between the lost and the word of Christ is the preacher.




But Paul is no mere consultant. His concern and anxiety for his communities forbids him from exiting backstage for a quick get away. It is true that his role as link between the gospel and the lost only lasts until someone obeys the gospel. But at that critical point, the relationship between Paul and those who trust in the gospel is immediately transformed. His initial role of link mutates into that of a father




This synchronized shift from link to father happens as a result of the peoples new found relationship to the gospel. Once a person or group of people accepted the message of the gospel, their relationship to the gospel, and therefore to Paul, changed. This point is critical in framing the discussion about apostolic authority. While Paul retains his unique apostolic experiences as noted above, he is still simultaneously subordinated to the same gospel which he preached and which the new community has obeyed. Listen to Shutz on this:




The gospel is not an exclusive apostolic possession. On the contrary, the apostle is owned and authorized by the gospel. He does not stand as a unique and exclusive bridge between the gospel and the Christian, between the power he interprets and the goal of that interpretation, the Church. He mediates between the gospel and the Church to be sure; he links cause and effect. But all Christians participate directly in the gospel itself. They do not stand in Paul or some other apostle, but in the gospel. They were not baptized in him, but in Christ. This has specific implications for understanding Paul’s concept of apostolic authority. Just as the apostle must be understood in reference to his own autobiography and the relationship between his ‘self’ and that power which shapes it, so he must be understood in the context of a community in which every member has an autobiography which embodies his membership in Christ.Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority p. 249

THE APOSTOLIC ROLE IN RELATION TO THE GOSPEL AND THE COMMUNITY OF GOD

In this diagram, it is important to notice that the apostle and the community both participate and are subordinate to the gospel. Both parties receive power from the gospel while simultaneously being vulnerable to its demands. Paul is first a disciple, and then an apostle. To get this out of order is to overlook the rich context out of which Paul functions as an apostle. His vulnerability to the death and resurrection of Jesus as a disciple is the foundational paradigm out of which he functions as an apostle. There is no bureaucratic separation between discipleship and apostleship. Both are intimate expressions of dying and rising with Christ. In other words, it is Paul’s cruciformity that shapes the character of his apostolicity. As such, when it comes to his relationship with other disciples, and even the communities he establishes, he is equally accountable to the claims of the gospel. This egalitarian relationship to the gospel and its implications for discipleship sets a healthy framework by which the nature of apostolic authority can be discerned.


When apostolic authority is defined by the gospel, it has the ability to exert its own constraints on the fleshly tendencies of authoritarianism, egotism, imperialism, manipulation etc. The gospel is not only the paradigm for discipleship; it is the paradigm for leadership. Understood in this way, leadership is an extension of discipleship, both of which are to be cruciform in nature.

27. Authority as Interpretation of Power

27. Let’s begin with a definition of authority by Wayne Meeks from the introduction to Shutzs’ book Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority

The central point, which is the motif of this book, is that authority is best understood as the interpretation of power. That is, the authoritative person, in this case the apostle, calls upon the willing acceptance of his power by the followers by providing for them an interpretive framework, in the form of a master narrative or a pregnant constellation of metaphors, that makes sense of power that they themselves may experience or have experienced. In a sense, then, the interpretive process makes that power available to them. The interpretation of power is thus also an application of power. p. xxi.

An illustration of this definition of authority can be seen in the field of business consulting. When a company faces certain challenges and obstacles on their way to success, they tend to hire a business consultant to come in and help them through key phases of their development. The consultant will survey the business, conduct marketing analysis, study the business as an organizational entity, etc. When the consultant meets with the top dogs of the company, she will offer a successful model, plan or set of business principles for the company to implement.

In essence, what the consultant is doing is an act of interpretation. She is taking the wisdom and expertise she has gained from books, life experiences, collected data etc., and is interpreting this data in light of the companies unique circumstances. If the top dogs understand and ascribe to her proposals, she becomes an authority to their company. It should be noted however that, from the company’s perspective, this authority does not yet exist until they understand and decide to accept her proposals. This means that authority is a relational dynamic which is dependent upon the willingness of others to confer it.

This relational dynamic of authority gives it a sort of fragile quality. This is primarily due to it being dependent upon people’s willingness to accept another’s interpretation. Because authority is conferred upon an individual by another, it is within the ‘others’ ability to disrobe the individual of their authority. This divesting of authority would take place as a refusal to ascribe to the persons interpretations. A rejection of an interpretation, then, is invariably a rejection of authority. This rejection of authority brings with it a severing of connection to the source of power which the interpreter is trying to mediate.

Using Shultz’s definition of authority, power, in this consulting illustration would be represented as success for the company. What success would look like and how to get there is an act of interpretation by the consultant. Once the company subscribes to her interpretation, she becomes an authority to them. What this would look like initially can be seen in this diagram.

In this initial phase of the relationship, the consultant stands as a link between the company and success. From where the company sits, she is an exclusive channel to the access of power. This qualifies the relationship between the company and the consultant as that of giver and receiver. The company is in the position of receiving from the consultant by virtue of the consultants’ relationship to power. This places the consultant in a critical role. She must be able to both accurately interpret and fully communicate this power if the company is to 1. Ascribe to her interpretation and 2. Be empowered for success.

26. Pauline and Contemporary Apostles. What's the Difference?

26. What's the difference? As the apostolic role becomes increasingly utilized and referenced in the EMC, House Church, Simple Church, Organic Church etc., there are a number of questions that are emerging in my own mind about this indispensable gift in the body of Christ.

One of these questions has to do with apostolic authority. All would agree that the Apostle Paul is in his own league when it comes to being an apostle. This is true for several reasons.


1. His EXPERIENCE of the Risen Lord appeared to him on the Damascus road and personally commissioned him and sent (apostled) him to the Gentiles.

2. His PROXIMITY to the founding events of the gospel makes his situation especially unique. His social and historical location in reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with is relationships to the other 12 apostles point to a unique access to the Jesus tradition and the original historical witnesses.

3. His SIGNS of an apostle are spoken of as one of the identifying characteristics of his apostleship. No matter where you land on the spectrum when it comes to the miraculous giftings of the Spirit, Paul certainly occupies a unique position in this spectrum as it relates to the relationship between signs and apostleship.

4. His PNEUMATIC participation in forming the texts which later became canonized by the Christian community. This is a wholly different discussion, but for us it will do to say that Paul’s role in producing texts which later became a part of the canon make his apostolic role all the more complexly distant from our own.

These distinctions, while not exhaustive, should be kept in the background when referencing Paul as a paradigm for the apostolic today. While the tasks and roles of the contemporary apostolic do overlap with Paul's apostolic role, Paul nonetheless occupies a unique place, a penthouse suite per se, when it comes to being apostolic. Some more discussion needs to be had on this topic. I will see what I can come up with on this. Any suggestions out there?

25. Communities and Boundaries

So what exactly is it that forms communities? From the sociological perspective, a key ingredient to the formation of a community is a common ideology. In fact, this is probably the foundation of most communities. For example, most churches or denominations are formed around ideologies, or doctrines. Adherence to the ideology places one ion proximity to the group. In some communities, there must be a public recognition of the groups ideology in order to be admitted into the circle. If it is not true for initiation into the community, adherence may be a "staying feature" which secures ones status of "in" and not "out". there are of course varying degrees to which members have latitude to veer away from the ideology. A good example of this would be the political realm. While the political ideology of Democrats or Republicans have identifiable characteristics that distinguish them, you would be hard pressed to find unanimous agreement between Republicans on every issue, despite their fundamentally shared ideology.

If ideology is a foundational element that elicits community, then what are the implications of this for the body of Christ? It is my experience that when a group of people share the same ideology about things, they seem to gravitate towards one another. This happens for obvious reasons. There is comfort in being around people who think like you. There is also the broader interest of collaborating for specific tasks. Not to mention the discussions and learning that arise within a group who intentionally seek to press out the implications for their shared ideology on other part of their life.

You can see this in action with the EMC. There is a different ideology floating around out there about how to be the church, live as a christian and engage in mission for God. It is this different ideology that has elicited the EMC with all of its different tribal expressions. I am excited about this new move of God in the church. It is a breath of fresh air for me and a lot of other people.

What fascinates me about pioneering a community formation is the concept of ideology, praxis and boundaries. These elements are located close together, but I struggle to map their exact coordinates. I am inclined to say, in a linear fashion, that ideology leads to praxis, which then leads to visible boundaries. The only problem with this idea is that we do not live in an air tight, theoretical world. In between ideology and praxis is our culture, worldview, heritage etc. And in between our praxis and boundaries are flesh, hypocrisy, and imperfect knowledge. In other words it is a lot messier than we want it to be.

I have found some relief in the concept of bounded-sets and centered-sets which was first presented by a sociologist named Paul Heibert. Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost in their book The Shaping of Things to Come, discuss this concept at length. I like their metaphor about the wells and the fences. When it comes to herding cattle, you can either build fences to keep track of the cows, or you can build wells, which then become centers for cattle to gather around. The fences would be cultural norms, moral codes, external behaviors and even doctrinal confessions. The well would be a strong ideology that informs and shapes the above externals, but does not erect a barricade to those seeking water.






In the bounded set, it is easy to see who is in and who is out. The only problem is that it erects a barrier to those outside. Not to mention the enormous temptation for legalism. I mean, you could be standing right next to the fence, wishing you were on the other side the whole time. But to everyone else, you seem perfectly fine because you are adhering to the external code.

In the centered set, it is a lot harder to patrol the borders of the community. But really, the goal is not to get people "in the fence". It is to get them closer to the well! So they can drink and stay healthy. So, the question is, what is the well? It is most ambiguously an ideology. It is too simplistically Jesus. Is it more realistic to say that it is the gospel? I want to say that it is. The more I look at this Christianity thing, the more I see that the gospel, if understood and applied, is the foundational ideology for Christian existence and community. Within the gospel is the churches DNA, its ideology and its power. When people are facing this, seeking this and living this, they are drinking from the well.

So what do I mean by the gospel the scholar would say? I would point you to a book by a scholar Michael J. Gorman called Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. This book is dynomite! For me, it was the find of a decade. I found myself crying in awe of the cross and all the things I missed about the gospel in the Pauline writings. It is a must read. If the gospel is articulated and embraced, it becomes the governor of morality, relationships, spiritual formation, community, all the good stuff we try to facilitate with our own schemes. Paul does this by offering a pregnant constellation of metaphors. Could it really be this simple? Yes and no. The gospel is God's foolishness, but it is also a mystery. In other words, the well runs deep.

24. The Apostolic Realm

There are so many questions that surround the Apostolic Realm for me. For instance, what is the difference between the Apostle Paul and the ordinary apostle when it comes to "authority"? What is the task of the apostle? How does the apostle relate to the communities they have founded? what is the balance of power and authority between the community founded by an apostle and the community which is in turn founded by that initial community? Do apostles today appoint elders? (This would be a prescriptive question for Titus and Acts) When is an apostles work done? What is the measure of success? What is the DNA which he is supposed to embed in the community? and what about the other gifts? What is the apostolic role with the other gifts? Do you see what I mean? There are so many issues to discuss. So many angles to approach this from.

I can not find any good books out there addressing this in a theologically practical way. There is one book called Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority by John Schutz. This is the closest I have come to a book discussing these topics. But it really does not do the trick for me. it is a little too rabbit trailish on proving points which can be assumed from the get go. Although he does have a great section on the language of authority that Paul uses in his letters.

Do any of you have any books suggestions out there? Some of this needs to be explored because there is a minfield out there surruonding this apostolic idea. Mainly, the explosive potential of people claiing apostolic authority and power out of their own egos.

23. The Life of an Apostle

The following is taken from Margaret Wheatley's website

The challenges of paradigm pioneers.

While those who want to support new leaders are struggling with the dilemma of scale, individual leaders face very challenging conditions. They act in isolation, often criticized, mocked, or ignored by the prevailing culture. They have no way of knowing there are many more like them, pioneers struggling with new ways of leading. It is a constant struggle to maintain focus and courage in the midst of such criticism and loneliness. And, there are other challenges for these pioneers. These arise from the dynamics of paradigm shifts and how people generally behave when confronted with a new world view.

New leaders must invent the future while dealing with the past.

In speaking with these new leaders, it is very clear that they refuse to carry the past into the future. They do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past having, in many cases, personally suffered from ineffective or brutal leadership. They want to work in new ways, but these new ways of organizing, the new processes for implementing change, have yet to be developed. It is their work to invent them, and so they do double duty. They must simultaneously invent a new process or organizing form, and also solve the problems created by past practices.

It is difficult to break with tradition

It is not easy to invent the new. It is difficult to break free of the training, history, and familiar practices of the prevailing culture. New leaders certainly know that bureaucracy doesn't work, that corruption destroys communities, that aid administered from the top down most often fails. They refuse to repeat these practices, but they, like all of us, have been raised in these traditional ways. Past habits of practice exert strong pressures. When crises mount and people feel fearful and overwhelmed, we default back to practices that are familiar, even if they are ineffective.

Supporters want them to look familiar.

Those with the means to support new leaders often complicate their pioneering work by wanting them to use familiar and traditional leadership processes. Those with resources often feel it too risky to support experiments with new practices. It feels safer to ask for traditional strategic plans, business plans, measurements, and reports, no matter what the context of the initiative. On the surface these seem to be important skill sets, but there is now substantial research demonstrating the failure of these methods to produce desired results in the most traditional of organizations. Perhaps supporters are risk-averse, perhaps they are unaware that these methods don't work. Whatever the reason, sponsors insist that pioneering leaders conform to the past. Resources are not available unless new leaders can demonstrate competency in familiar leadership practices, even those that have consistently failed to achieve sustained change.

And when resources are scarce, and competition grows among different projects, it is easy for pioneers to lose their way. Against their best judgment of what works in their community, they agree to comply with procedures and practices they know can't succeed. Over time, they fail, not from lack of vision or willingness to experiment, but because they have been held back from those experiments. We destroy these pioneers by insisting that they conform to the mistakes of the past.

There is no room for failure.

As pioneers, it is impossible to get it right the first time. No one has yet drawn accurate maps--explorers learn as they go. The maps that pioneers create will make it easy for large populations to migrate easily to the future, but their own explorations require great sacrifice and constant learning. Our present culture doesn't support this kind of experimentation. We want right answers quickly; we ask people to demonstrate success early in their ventures. We evaluate them based on short-term measures. We seldom give adequate time for the explorations and failures that are part of mapping a new territory. Instead of offering additional resources to their explorations and experiments, we abandon them in favor of safer projects that employ familiar, flawed means.

We want them to fail.

This is the greatest, unspoken difficulty pioneering leaders encounter. Society does not want them to succeed. To acknowledge their success means we will have to change. We will have to abandon the comfort of our familiar beliefs and practices. People naturally flee from such changes and thus, even as the old ways fail, we hold onto them more fiercely and apply them more zealously.In his seminal work on paradigms, Thomas Kuhn described the behavior of scientists when confronted with evidence that pointed to a truly new world view. (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1996, 1974) When the new evidence clearly demonstrated the need for a change in paradigms, scientists were observed working hard to make the evidence conform to their old worldview. In defense of the old, they would discard or reinterpret the data. (This was always done unconsciously.) And in the most startling instances, they actually would be blind to the new information-even with the data in front of them, they literally could not see it. For them, the new did not exist.

When the paradigm is changing, it is common to experience each of these dynamics. How often do we see an innovative approach, and then characterize it as traditional? How often do we observe new leadership practices and deny their existence? How often do we treat their successes as anomalies or as exceptions to the norm? How difficult is it for us to acknowledge them for what they are, radical departures from tradition, the first trail markers of our way to the future?

Mohammed Junus, the founder of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and pioneer of micro-lending to the poor, tells the story of trying to get support from traditional bankers for his first loans to poor people. Dr. Junus wanted to loan very small amounts of money (often not more than a few dollars) to give Bangla people the means to start their own businesses. Whatever evidence he presented, the bank's reply was always the same: "The poor are not credit worthy." Frustrated, he then loaned his own money to the poor, and was paid back on time. But the bank's response was the same. Even after several years of successful lending to the poor, Dr. Junus was still greeted with the same old belief, "The poor are not credit worthy." He realized that no matter how much evidence he might accumulate to demonstrate the contrary, the banks would never see his evidence nor change their beliefs. (Grameen has since loaned millions to the poor, and developed a model for micro-lending that is used worldwide.) http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/supportingpioneerleaders.html

I couldn't help but think of apostles as I read this article.

22. Teacher

Excuse me...I have a question. The function of teaching in the traditional church has by far been the championed gift for the past 100 years. Think about it, what do you do the majority of the time while you are at a traditional style church? You sit and listen to someone teach. Now I do not want to come across as downplaying this important gift in the body of Christ. I have had life changing paradigm shifts from powerful teaching and teachers. But if I can repeat an age old saying "Too much of a good thing is not so good."

In the second movie of the fantastic four, these two heroes try to get married and have a happily ever after. The only problem is, the bad guy wont quit. I use Mr. Fantastic to represent the teacher because in the movie he is the genius in the group. (And...there is only four of them and there are five gifts!) He is the man with the information they all need. And while the biblical idea of teaching is more than just transferring information to another host, the institutional church has certainly narrowed this gift down to Sunday school and the sermon.

I chose this picture because it represents what has happened to the body of Christ as it pertains to the five gifts. Teaching and Pastoring have married each other and dominate the traditional style of church. (Although I would jokingly say that it is primarily a patriarchal relationship between the two. There is normally not much real pastoring going on in traditional churches.)

This unholy wedlock is partly due to a natural process of institutionalization in which organizations and communities solidify and turn inward to manage their identity and existence.

Institutionalization is usually seen when the organization begins marking off the borders of their group to clarify who is in and who is not. The establishment of boundaries is of course not necessarily a bad thing. There are idoelogical boundaries for the community of God. Like the gospel, the identity of Jesus etc. And there are praxis boundaries like the moral catalogues in the epistles etc. In fact, all communities have boundaries, whether they be ideological, praxis, images, locations etc. While boundaries are a necessary ingredient of community formation, they are not intended to function as barricades to outsiders.

So what does this have to do with pastors and teachers? When the functions of pastor and teacher enter into holy matrimony, to the neglect of the other gifts, (leave and cleave) this is exactly what the community ends up doing!

This is not necessarily because the pastor and teacher want to usher this in. It is really a byproduct of the apostolic, prophetic and evangelistic gifts being relegated as black sheep in the family.When the first three gifts of APEPT are missing, the Jesus community reflexively aligns itself with preserving the present order and patrolling it's borders.

I am not advocating that we do not need teaching and pastoring. I am merely saying that their needs to be a great divorce followed by a family reunion. In order for that to happen, at least three things need to take place.

1. Break up the incestuous relationship between pastor and teacher. Their union is natural in that they feed off of each other. But it is unnatural in that they are members of the same family! The gifts of teaching and pastoring are all to ready to pair up and sequester themselves off into a position of patriarchy in the church. Breaking up this disastrous duo means making space for the other gifts in the body.

2. Allow the teacher to teach the body about APEPT and their dynamic roles in the body of Christ.

3. Read Alan Hirch's two books The Shaping of Things to Come and Forgotten Ways. (This one is easy.)

There are a number of inhibitors to allowing APEPT to function in the body. but this is a start. Awareness is step number one.

21. Pastor

"Ummmm.......I need to speak with the pastor." Is it a title or a function? It is most often used as a title. In reality, it is a function, like the rest of the gifts in Ephesians 4. So why do we use it as a title? Well, the answer to this is multidimensional, bu t I think I will tackle this one from the institutional dimension. (Surprise right?) When a church becomes institutional in nature, the functions of the body tend to gravitate towards fixed and static processes. In other words, because institutions, by default, exert a tremendous gravitational pull towards self preservation, the people within the institutions tend to be forced into positions of maintenance within the institution. And the nature of these positions are more often than not dictated by the needs of the institution, rather than the giftedness of the individual. In short, the tail ends up wagging the dog.

This reversal of services is clearly seen in the institutional churches role of pastor. While there are varied examples and scenarios, I will be speaking to this situation as some one with an apostolic and prophetic orientation. This of course limits my perspective, but what other choice do i have?

Now then, what normally happens is that someone with an apostolic, prophetic, or evangelistic gifting comes into an interview with a group of elders, search committee, or some other group responsible for hiring a "pastor", and displays a visionary, evangelistic or apostolic dimension in the interview. As a result, the hiring committee is impressed and attracted to their natural passion for the Kingdom and sees them as the thing they have been missing in their church. As a result, the individual is hired for his gifting, but then forced to function as an administrator or pastor. This is extremely frustrating for the apostle, prophet or evangelist who does not possess the gift of administration or pastoring. Frustration and disillusionment sets in and the "pastor" starts looking else where, to another church for a new beginning where things might be different. All along, wondering why he can only stay somewhere 2-4 years at a time without being wooed into another "pastors" position with promising possibilities of using his gifts. Only to repeat the cycle again, or, worse, settle down and perform as "pastor", all the while neglecting their gifting.

So what is a pastor? The picture above of ? protecting herself and absorbing the attack of the enemy is a perfect metaphor. The pastor is a protector, carer, humanizer, preserver. They look inward to the needs of the community. They are loyal to its needs and concerns. Do not talk to a pastor about leaving the flock to go searching for the one. They will stay with the 99 every time. They are not thrill seekers or adventurous. They are the nurturers. Leave the 99 to the apostle or evangelist. Let the prophet and teacher stimulate the apostle and evangelist into going after the one. But the pastor would never dare leave his flock. He will protect them at a ll costs. Even if it means compromising his convictions.

In the institutional church, the pastors surface as the ones who are the preservers of community. They guard and value the homogeneous nature of community. I am of course speaking of the function of a pastor. The title of pastor, in the institutional church is sometimes altogether different. The "pastor" in an institutional church functions as the administrator and symbolic mediator of the organization. I say symbolic mediator because many times they are forced to mediate to the congregation a in a public way, or through preaching, a visual representation of all the gifts.

Because Sunday morning is the primary venue by which the "pastor" is seen and interpreted, there is a tremendous pressure for him to portray himself as a multi-dimensional persona. Instead of letting the apostles be the apostles, and the evangelists be the evangelists, the "pastor", either willingly or by unspoken expectations, attempts to gather with in himself the the other gifts, vindicating the church's decision to place him in the position of "pastor."

When the pastor does not effectively portray this, several things can naturally happen. First, the church can become disenchanted with the pastor, and look for a new performer. Secondly, and this is the more likely, the church begins to take on the personality of the "pastor." This clonoing bleeds through despitethe best efforts of the pastor to disseminate through example and teaching the other giftings. This involuntary cloning is inevitable because of the way the institutional church is structured and formatted. Thirdly, the "pastor" becomes disillusioned by their own inability to play the role they have been given, and sinks into depression, cynicism or apathy.

So after pointing out the negatives, is there anything good to be said of the function Pastor. Well, to start with, thank God pastor is something you do and not who you are. It is a function. and those with the gift of pastoring have a unique ability to facilitate community, nurture a community, and protect a community. They are the relational guardians of community per se. If we were to fit tem into the over all scheme of the 5 gifts in Ephesians four, it would be in relation to comunity.

1. Apostle: Elicits and Pioneers a community through the message of Jesus
2. Prophet: Stimulates and Ignites a community with the message
3. Evangelist: Emboldens and Adds to a community through sharing of the message
4. Pastor: guards and nurtures the personal and communal needs of a community

The gift of pastoring is an inward gifting. It is focused inward to the needs and empowerment of the community. This inward nature of pastoring is a two edge sword. It is extremely unhealthy when not held in check by the first three gift. with out the apostles, and evangelists, a community will gravitate into serving its own needs and eventually become a closed culture of self centered individuals. Conversely, the same can be said of the apostles and evangelsits. If you do not have any pastors functioning in a community, the needs of the comunity will go malnourished. This will happen right under the nose of the apostle or evangelist with out their atention. However, when you have godly pastors, and vibrant apostles and evangelists parntering in the body, watch out! You are o nthe verge of a healthy and vibrant community.

Too often, the apostles or the pastors have dominated with their own perspectives in leadership. Always wanting to reach more people to the neglect of the ones already in the community, or by pastors giving continuous attention to the community, with no regard for the culture around them that needs to be penetrated with the message.

So how do you solve this problem? In my experience, the only ay to solve this problem is to not have a sunday, preacher/"pastor" centered church. The current forms and structures of churches create a bottle neck of energy, information, perspective and chrisma through the pulpit. This needs to be decentralized into a setting where every person can use their giftings. The only way that I can see this happening is in some type of organic system.

20. Evangelist

Unlike Apostolic and Prophetic, which are taboo words in my heritage, evangelist is on the other extreme. It has been used as an umbrella to cover the other functions, and no doubt, as a verb to brow beat people into inviting people to church or doing one on one Bible Studies. Even as I think about what to write about this function, I am flooded with overlapping concepts and ideas, blurring into a discombobulated blob of ideas.

This word though is a power packed word and is actually a key function in the body. In fact, this function is low maintenance in that it does not need special circumstances to operate. The evangelist is one who loves to share with people what God has done. They may do this through witnessing, inviting, or prayer. Either way, they are oriented towards helping people transition into the Kingdom. When you tell them about an opportunity to help someone learn, experience or become exposed to God, it ignites a passion in them.

Do not confuse this function with a sales rep at a store though. It is not personality specific. It is much broader than the extroverted personality. The evangelist is the one who, by virtue of their interactions with people, penetrates their relational network with the aroma and message of the Good News. So it is not a cookie cutter style or presentation. It is a life lived so the message will have a crack at some one's life.

I love the web site www.offthemap.org It basically says that evangelism is doable, so don't package it as an elephant.

So what does evangelism look like? Here is a brief and limited example. Every Sunday, me, my wife, and two other kids along with their mom go to a skate park here in Clarksville and skate the ramps and concrete waves. What are we doing? We are skating. Is this evangelism? Some would say we are skipping church. I say we are bringing the church to where life happens! I am meeting some of the parents, kids and skater dudes. My goal in being there is to have fun skating and build relationships with people. This is doable. I am not trying to get them into a building. I am not trying to coerce them into talking about God. I am building relationships in public and praying intensely in private.

The apostle orchestrates communities of the message, the prophet critiques with the message, the evangelist shares that message to those in darkness. What a vital and critical function in the community of Christ!

My guess is that there are a lot of evangelists out there who do not know it. Laying dormant or operating in 007 mode. Let's ask the Lord of the Harvest to raise up workers for the harvest.

19. Prophetic

"The main task of prophetic thinking is to bring the world into divine focus." The Prophets by Abraham J. Heschel. Because of the transformation of words and the baggage they acquire through time, also referred to as etymology, discussing Biblical terminology often requires "redefining" words to align them with their original intent. The word "Prophecy" falls into this category. It is one of those words that has been infused with mystical, often magical connotations, conjuring up images of a psychic.
However, from a biblical point of view, Prophecy is more than merely telling the future. It goes deeper than just forecasting who is going to win the Superbowl. Prophecy has more to do with shaping the present. In the Israelite tradition, the prophet would be "caught up" into the heavenly council of God where he would receive visions of both the future and the present. Viewing the present from God's point of view created within the prophet an intimate connection with God. It fostered a compassion for God's heart for the people. The prophet would experience the world form God's angle and in a small fashion, enter into what scholars call the pathos, or, the suffering of God. He would receive insight into what God felt, his emotions and disappointment. In short, he would empathize with God.
In contrast to experiencing the present from God's standpoint, he would also gaze upon the future. He would be exposed to either the impending judgment or eschatological hope of the community of God. This combination of viewing both the present depravity of the people and their possible future judgment or deliverance would instill within the prophet an intense burden to represent God's heart to the people. He would "descend" back into his context with a burning passion to proclaim to the people what God had so clearly impressed upon his heart. Far from being a commercial about the future, prophecy is a calculated exposure of the status quo followed by a scathing rebuke.
As Abraham J. Heschel put it, "Prophecy, then, may be described as exegesis of existence from a divine perspective." It is an act of divine commentary on our situations. When a prophetic word comes into our lives, it manifests so much powerful because it lays us bare and exposes our true condition. It critiques our present state with such candid images and blunt language that we stand naked before God with no defense. It brings such a rare epiphane and clarity that it shocks us into attention. A prophetic word from God will often wound before it heals.
This brings me to the gift of prophecy mentioned in Ephesians 4. Those with the gift of prophecy are not modern day psychics handing out mysterious pieces of information for our paranormal amusement. They function as mouth pieces for God. And just as in the days of old, their messages are not primarily warm fuzzies. In fact, a prophet is often annoying. They are agitators and are often borderline negative. They critique the status quo and call for the people of God to live by a different standard. They expose the shallow and superficialness of our spirituality and rebuke our conformity to the surrounding culture.
Quite honestly, we do not want prophets around. The prophets were not the most popular people on the block. You did not crave one on one time with them. There were no lunch appointments with a prophet. Why? They are not your average social butterflies. Bottom line is.....they are a nag and tend to be critical. They are idealist on steroids. With their zeal for the Holiness and Justice of God they have a tendency to mess up our rhythm and shatter our fragile egos. And what gives them this courage? Quite simply, they are passionate about God and not our feelings. Their heart for God supercedes their desire for approval.
But the brutal fact is, as annoying as prophets are, we need them. We desperately need this gift to operate in the body of Christ today. Most of the paid staff members of church can not function in this role. Their job security does not allow it. Yet without the prophets, our vision of the world and our own condition is in danger of being blurred by our fleshly desires and thwarted values. Without prophets we can not see God or our situations with clarity. We drift into mediocre, sub normal lives, never noticing our gradual descent into lukewarmness.
The church not only needs to embrace this shunned gift, but it also needs to develop the discipline of thinking prophetically. We do not need to be afraid of being self critical. Examining ourselves under the microscope of God's message is a prophetic task for the church to adopt.
The challenge? If you are a prophet, use your gift! If you are wanting to lead the church, think prophetically. I leave you with this quote from Mr. Heschel.
"The main task of prophetic thinking is to bring the world into divine focus."