224. The Gospel and the Apostle: movemental through and through

This article by Paul Bowers is perhaps one of the most profound articles on the movemental nature of the gospel. It is rare to find a missiologist in the academy that makes this link between the gospel and movement. The great thing about Paul Bowers is that he also integrates this insight into Paul's view of his mission. If you are into church planting, or the missional conversation in general, then this will be a stimulating read for you. Link HERE

218. Some linguistic implications from the word APOSTLE Part 2

In the previous post, we looked at the implications of the word APO for understanding how apostles are wired, and consequently, their approach to ministry. Pauline apostles tend to launch out (separate) from the center and pioneer something at the edge. Petrine apostles, however, tend to mobilize the center towards the edge to achieve missional impact.

So how does the impulse to APO show up in the Petrine form of apostolic ministry? If Petrine apostles tend to stay at the center, in what ways does the APO surface in their ministry? While there are many ways to explore this, I want to suggest that the tendency to "separate" shows up in Petrine forms of apostolic ministry through a decentralizing of the organization for missional impact. That is, Petrine folks will often seek to diversify the organizations efforts to reach as many people and places as possible. Rather than trying to attract as many people as possible to the center (a staple feature of evangelistic ministry), Petrine apostles will seek to build a strong center in order to resource the edge. For a Petrine apostle, the center is not an end in and of itself. It is a generative focal point to fuel the movement. In other words, Petrine apostles see the center as a tool for mission, and the mission will tend to be multi-cultural and city wide, often leaping into other regions and spheres of influence.

Both Pauline and Petrine apostles are entrepreneurial, but their entrepreneurial energy tends to gravitate towards two be applied in two different spheres. Pauline forms of apostolic ministry will tend to focus entrepreneurial energies at the edge, while Petrine apostles will tend to focus their entrepreneurial energies at the center, mobilizing the organization itself to be entrepreneurial. This is why we say in our book The Permanent Revolution that Petrine apostles are more aptly described as being intrapreneurs. They focus their energies within the organization helping to mine its resources and mobilize the organization for entrepreneurial ventures. This often requires an organization to diversify (APO - separate) its focus and resources.

217. Some linguistic implications from the word APOSTLE Part 1

It is amazing what kind of implications you can draw from the etymology of a word. I have been grinding over the word APOSTLE the past few weeks, and have had a few epiphanies about the word and its implications  about apostles and their  approach to ministry.

The word apostle is actually a conjunction of two words: APO = "to separate" or "withdraw" and STELLO meaning "sent."  Lets camp out on this word APO first. 

This notion of "separating" is a staple feature of apostles and how they approach their callings. Relationally speaking, apostles typically do not have a problem separating from the group. In fact, this separation from the group is often a prerequisite to being sent. Take Acts 13 for example. The Holy Spirit says "separate" Paul and Barnabas for the work I have called them to. In order to be sent, you have to make a break from the group. People who are wired as apostles typically adapt to this kind of separation from the group pretty well. In MBTI frameworks, most apostles tend to be a "T." That is, they have a penchant for creating distance between themselves and the people who will be effected by their decisions. Granted, this can be a vice if it is not tempered with love, compassion and wisdom. However, when it comes to being sent, this capacity to "separate" oneself and move forward is actually a strength. It allows the apostle to more readily make a break from the group and pioneer into new frontiers. This is more readily seen in the more Pauline type apostles who like to leave the center and pioneer something out on the edge. 

In the next post, I will look at how this impulse to "separate" shows up in the more Petrine types who tend to focus their ministry within the center in order to mobilize people towards the edge for missional impact.   

215. A peek into the Fuzzy Front End of the Permanent Revolution Part 4

In looking at the metaphors Paul uses to describe his apostolic function and role, it is an interesting exercise to think about how these terms relate to one another in the realm of authority. There is a certain social currency afforded to founders within the group by virtue of them being the founders. Whether they want to recognize it or not, founders have a certain level of authority within the organizations they found. The group looks to the founder with a certain sense of obligation and gratitude. The group exists, after all, because of the founders efforts. Without the founder, the group would not have formed, and those within the group would not have access to the life and resources that have emerged within the context of that group.

So founders, whether they like it or not, have a certain level of social currency within the groups they found. How and when they choose to spend this currency within the group will determine whether or not that currency increases or decreases in value (a topic for another post :-) My hunch is that Paul was aware of the social currency available to him as a founder. I think the metaphors Paul uses for his apostolic role within the communities he has founded points to a taxonomy of social currency that is made available to founders of new communities. I suggest the following framework as a heuristic for distilling the kind of social influence inherent within the apostolic function of planting new churches. See the picture below to the right.

The nature of metaphor, as Aristotle says it, is the similarity of dissimilarities. In other words, metaphors help open up new relationships of meaning. When Paul says he is an ambassador, he trying to open up the Corinthians mind to how his role as an apostle is similar to what they understand the role of an ambassador is. To say that Paul is an ambassador (2 Corinthians 5) is to say something different from saying he is a father ( 1 Cor 4). Yet each of these terms clearly point to a certain relational terrain Paul sees himself navigating as a founder of the Corinthian community. Some terms like father draw on certain facets of Paul's social currency, while other terms draw on other facets of that currency. Each term does something different. As such, these different metaphors affirm different facets of that social currency, as well as provoke within the Corinthian community various frameworks by which they are to perceive Paul and his role as a founder among them.

The diagram to the right was my first attempt to arrange these metaphors into a framework that accounted for the various degrees of social currency each metaphor may have evoked within the Corinthians. So for example, when you look into the metaphor Ambassador, you will find it connotes a sense of authority derived from the one they are representing. This is perhaps the most authoritative metaphor Paul uses with the Corinthians. I have sense rearranged this list into the following order.

1. Ambassador
2. Father
3. Slave
4. Foundation Layer
5. Planter
6. Partner

These are listed in descending order as to the perceived amount of social currency Paul wold have been leveraging when he used this term. To frame your role as an ambassador draws more social currency than to frame ones role as the foundation layer. There are notions of representative authority in ambassador that are not present in the metaphor of foundation layer. Ambassador points to a source of authority beyond itself, while simultaneously sharing in that authority from a representational perspective. Foundation layer points to a source of authority tied up in the skill, craftsmanship and wisdom of the designer and builder. The one who lays the foundation has a right to say how others should build upon it. their authority is inherent to their activity of foundation laying, not an outside source. This is why founding authority is not unique to Paul as an apostle. This kind of social currency is available to founders of all kinds, whether they are church planters, founders of non-profits, entrepreneurs of new businesses or whatever. It is a sociological phenomenon related to the group dynamics.

And just in case you think founding a new community is an opportunity to secure a new source of authority, take note of the kinds of difficulties Paul encountered in his efforts to found new communities. Founding authority is unique, but so are the challenges associated with the task of founding something new. The cool thing about Paul's letters is that they provide us a window into how to steward the social currency that emerges from founding new communities. In fact, I think 2 Corinthians is the largest window available to us in this respect.

203. Discipleship and Missional Effectiveness

Karl Weick, in his book Making Sense of the Organization, says, “…whenever you have what appears to be successful decentralization, if you look more closely, you will discover that it was always preceded by a period of intense centralization where a set of core values were hammered out and socialized into people before the people were turned loose to go their own ‘independent, ‘autonomous’ ways.”*

Weick is pointing out an important ingredient here when it comes to decentralizing the church for missional ventures. As much as we would like to see the church decentralized for mission, we can not successfully de-centralize for mission until we first go through a period of centralization where the necessary foundations for movement are embedded within the community.

This is exactly what we see taking place in the life of Jesus, the revolutionary founder of a global movement. For 3 1/2 years Jesus discipled the twelve and modeled for them what discipleship, community and mission really looks like. When it came time for the disciples to launch out into a decentralized mission of disciple making and mission, they had the necessary training and tools to lead the movement. You can’t get to Acts without passing through the gospels. And you can’t make it through the gospels without passing through discipleship. The reality is, Jesus did not expect the 12 to know how to be or make disciples, live in community, or be on mission with God until he had modeled and trained them for 3 1/2 years.

Trying to catalyze a decentralized movement without laying a good foundation of discipleship is just trendy new-speak. In fact, if you try to decentralize without first going through a period of centralization where the core practices of being and making disciples along with living as an extended family on mission, you will not end up with movement at all. What you will end up with is a fragmented group of disillusioned people with no point of reference for how to move forward. To put it another way: Decentralization before discipleship equals diaspora. Decentralization after discipleship equals movement.

IMITATION AS THE MISSING LINK

Most churches find themselves stuck in a stage of centralization, but it is not the kind of centralization Jesus has in mind. Instead of centralizing around the core practices of being and making disciples, and living as an extended family on mission, the church often centralizes around teaching and information. In this model of centralization, discipleship and mission take a back seat to the centralized gatherings that are primarily focused on preaching and the band. If there happens to be any mission minded leaders in the bunch, they typically challenge the church to go and do mission, but in essence they are wanting people to spontaneously go out and do mission on their own.

The only problem with this approach is that people tend to do what you model for them. So if you give only give them information, then challenge them to do mission, they will most likely equate mission with giving people information…about the centralized gathering where you receive…that’s right….more information.

The missing link in this informational approach is discipleship; specifically, the principle of imitation. In order for me to learn how to be and make disciples, and live on mission, then I need to be invited into a relationship where I can have access to someone who actually lives it out in their own life. To get me going I need something to imitate. My friends at 3DM use this triangle to illustrate the proper relationship between information, imitation (discipleship) and innovation.

It starts with information, then leads to imitation, and finally moves into innovation. Centralization takes place during the first two phases. Decentralization takes place as you move towards the edge and innovate with new expressions of ecclesia. The order is really critical if you want to see a decentralized movement of disciple making and mission to emerge. The missing component, for most church plants (and churches for that matter), is the phase of imitation where a leader invites people into a relational process where they model for them how to be and make disciples and live like an extended family on mission. If the leader is aiming for decentralized mission where people move towards the edge and innovate new expressions of ecclesia within every nook and cranny of their context, then they need to invest the necessary time and energy to centralize around the patterns of Jesus’ ministry. Those who take the time, like Jesus, to build a discipling culture will always get what Jesus got……a movement. If we want a movement like the one Jesus started, then we need to do it the way he did it. There is just no way around this.

It is true that anyone can start a movement, but the sustainability of that movement will hinge upon whether or not the leaders of the movement can be and make disciples…that make disciples…that make disciples…  

*Karl Weick, Making Sense of the Organization, (Maine: Blackwell Publishing, 2001) p. 341