Archive for the ‘The Church’ Category

« Older Entries

New Wine for New Wineskins (revisited)

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 by Art
It is VERY hard to divorce from our heads all that we “know” about the church already from experiencing what we have grown up with, and to NOT read into the scriptures reinforcement for these (mis)understandings by twisting scripture, pulling single verses completely out of context, etc.
Tellingly, Titus was told to appoint elders in every city, not in every congregation or home where they met. Paul did the same when he revisited churches that he previously founded. A plurality of elders, then, serves the local church delineated by a locality. This statement raises many functional questions:
1. Does the local church really mean a geographically “local” church in an area (the only biblical usage I can find, never do I see multiple churches in one locality in scripture)? Or, does it mean a group of people who organize themselves together separately from all other Christians in the same locality (the common practice throughout Christendom)? Are such divisions in a geographical location the kind of thing Paul railed against in the immature, Corinthian church? Is it the kind of activity Paul called hereticks–those seeking to draw followers off to follow them separately.
2. If “local” church means a self-identified sub group of Christians who band together ACROSS localities (the common practice throughout Christendom) as a separate “church” apart from all other Christians in all of those local areas, then where in scripture do we see this pattern even once?
So then, hierarchies and authority structures become immediately necessary if we want to consider it now “one church” in that locality, but YET continue to maintain the current authoritarian, positional leadership in multiple congregations that we now have. Leaders would have to work through who is in charge of what, where, when. Most leaders would feel like someone was stepping on their turf; some would be interested in expanding their influence (let’s assume to do good). It would be likely the layered clergy/denomination varieties of organization (presbyterian, congregational, or episcopal) would emerge if leadership remains in the current model(s). There would be much pressure for “leaders” to be somewhere near the top, in charge of everyone else. And, who will still get paid, how much? Who decides?
In other words, rediscovering biblical patterns for the church also requires rediscovering biblical patterns for leaders; in fact, biblical patterns for all believers. The “new” wine for “new” wineskins, or it will burst.
This doesn’t begin to address the substantive issues and objections the “laity” would have with all this. They are comfortable separating the secular from the sacred and enjoy the freedom from substantial spiritual responsibilities to serve others, to function as ministers along with holding jobs. The design we are discussing presents huge impositions on both clergy and laity.
3. If rediscovering biblical patterns for the church finds that all those in a locality are considered the church in that locality (as we have in the epistles, Acts, and Revelation), then we are left to understand how that functions–and we have the scriptures to aid us in that, but very little experience or extant models to draw from.
I think one of the things complicating this is the difficulty we have in divorcing our thinking that leadership in the church is positional/hierarchical, organized generally the same as any leadership structure the world uses (but, of course, benignly dictatorial by a single leader or a group of leaders).
One important step in rethinking the local church from a fresh biblical perspective, is to go back to a biblical leadership model–one that eschews hierarchy, position, and authority, and embraces instead relational experience over time to provide trust and persuadability among one another. To consider a community of saints that foundationally begins with mutual submission and mutual ministry expectations among all the saints as normative.
NT leadership resides in Jesus Christ. His leadership is spread throughout the saints, so that leadership on the physical level doesn’t come from above or beneath, it comes from within. Elders (overseers, pastors, bishops) are those who, by their manner of life and by the experiences of the saints over time, have earned respect by their care and service. They are then in a position of public influence and persuasion, but not of positional power of an office like we have in the world.
Who is then “in charge?” The same person who was always (supposed to be) in charge — Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. But remember, a core foundation is that we all endeavor to be in responsive submission to Him who loved us and died for us, and therefore to each other and with recognition that God has engifted every saint to be of mutual service to each other. In that scenario, elders have substantive influence, but not control: not the power to decide on behalf of some laity subgroup, nor to serve in lieu of the saints functioning. So, elders will have much influence, and they should be wiser, more experienced in following Him in difficulties and in sacrifices. But no one becomes a child in the community–a “laity.” Consensus needs to be built, not commands issued.
In the end, unless the Lord dramatically turns the churches–the saints–upside down, the best we will achieve is some hybrid, where the worldly infused church models are accommodated in some way by those who are set free to follow Jesus and feel connected to all saints everywhere, but especially those in our locality, and especially those with whom we have frequent interaction and influence. It will take real trust in the Head of the church to begin to live out NT church principles in the midst of chaos and foolishness.
Impossible? Yes, without Him. We can still strive to hear, “Well done…”

It is VERY hard to divorce from our heads all that we “know” about the church already from experiencing what we have grown up with, and to NOT read into the scriptures reinforcement for these (mis)understandings by twisting scripture, pulling single verses completely out of context, etc.

Tellingly, Titus was told to appoint elders in every city, not in every congregation or home where they met. Paul did the same when he revisited churches that he previously founded. A plurality of elders, then, serves the local church delineated by a locality. This statement raises many functional questions:

1. Does the local church really mean a geographically “local” church in an area (the only biblical usage I can find, never do I see multiple churches in one locality in scripture)? Or, does it mean a group of people who organize themselves together separately from all other Christians in the same locality (the common practice throughout Christendom)? Are such divisions in a geographical location the kind of thing Paul railed against in the immature, Corinthian church? Is it the kind of activity Paul called hereticks–those seeking to draw followers off to follow them separately.

2. If “local” church means a self-identified sub group of Christians who band together ACROSS localities (the common practice throughout Christendom) as a separate “church” apart from all other Christians in all of those local areas, then where in scripture do we see this pattern even once?

Next, integrating existing hierarchies and authority structures becomes immediately necessary if we want to consider it now “one church” in that locality, but YET continue to maintain the current authoritarian, positional leadership in multiple congregations that we now have. Leaders would have to work through who is in charge of what, where, when. Most leaders would feel like someone was stepping on their turf; some would be interested in expanding their influence (let’s assume to do good). It would be likely the layered clergy/denomination varieties of organization (presbyterian, congregational, or episcopal) would emerge if leadership remains in the current model(s). There would be much pressure for “leaders” to be somewhere near the top, in charge of everyone else. And, who will still get paid, how much? Who decides?

In other words, rediscovering biblical patterns for the church also requires rediscovering biblical patterns for leaders; in fact, biblical patterns for all believers; and all gladly and trustingly under His active leadership. The requisite “new” wine for “new” wineskins, or all attempts to return to biblical models will burst.

This doesn’t begin to address the substantive issues and objections the “laity” would have with all this. They are comfortable separating the secular from the sacred and enjoy the freedom from substantial spiritual responsibilities to serve others, not imagining or expecting that they could function as ministers along with holding jobs (as should all). The design we are discussing presents huge impositions on both clergy and laity.

3. If rediscovering biblical patterns for the church finds that all those in a locality are considered the church in that locality (as we have in the epistles, Acts, and Revelation), then we are left to understand how that functions–and we have the scriptures to aid us in that, but very little experience or extant models to draw from.

One of the things complicating this is the difficulty we have in divorcing our thinking that leadership in the church is positional/hierarchical, organized generally the same as any leadership structure the world uses (but, of course, benignly dictatorial by a single leader or a group of leaders). “We all know” someone has to be in charge “at the top” to get things done. Right? Well, Jesus didn’t think so in Luke 22:25-27:

“25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”

One important step in rethinking the local church from a fresh biblical perspective, is to go back to a biblical leadership model for the church–one that eschews hierarchy, position, and authority, and embraces instead relational experience over time to provide trust and persuadability among one another. To consider a community of saints that foundationally begins with mutual submission and mutual ministry expectations among all the saints as normative.

NT leadership resides in Jesus Christ. His leadership is spread throughout the saints, so that leadership on the physical level doesn’t come from above or beneath, it comes from within. Elders (overseers, pastors, bishops) are those who, by their manner of life and by the experiences of the saints over time, have earned respect by their care and service. They are then in a position of public influence and persuasion, but not of positional power of an office like we have in the world.

Who is then “in charge?” The same person who was always (supposed to be) in charge — Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. But remember, a core foundation is that we all endeavor to be in responsive submission to Him who loved us and died for us, and therefore to each other and with recognition that God has engifted every saint to be of mutual service to each other. In that scenario, elders have substantive influence, but not control: not the power to decide on behalf of some laity subgroup, nor to serve in lieu of the saints functioning. So, elders will have much influence, and they should be wiser, more experienced in observably following Him through difficulties and in sacrifices. But no one becomes a child in the community–a “laity.” Consensus needs to be built, not commands issued.

In the end, unless the Lord dramatically turns the churches–the saints–upside down, the best we will achieve is some hybrid, where the worldly infused church models are accommodated in some way by those who are set free to follow Jesus and feel connected to all saints everywhere, but especially those in our locality, and especially those with whom we have frequent interaction and influence. It will take real trust in the Head of the church to begin to live out NT church principles in the midst of chaos and foolishness.

Impossible? Yes, without Him. We can still strive to hear, “Well done…”

(NOTE: This post was a response to a question on my friend Alan Knox’s blog, “I think the key to this entry (besides the lack of distinction between “clergy” and “laity”) is this: “All Christians are called upon (and expected) to minister.” That would it take for churches and Christians today to move towards this way of life in Christ?” His question was prompted by a post from an entry in “Dave Black’s un-pseudo-blog-type-thing. (See entry #2 from Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.)”

Posted in Church Planting, Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Leadership by Position or Loving Servants?

Thursday, December 9th, 2010 by Art

Alan Knox’s blog post prompted me to post this. I very much appreciate his perspective on and practice of biblical church leadership.

We hear it said, “respect the office, even if you don’t respect the person.” In the world, this is a “true statement, and worthy of all acceptation” (Rom 13:1-7). Simply being in a position gives one power and authority. But, biblically, this cannot be said of a Pastor or Elder. If we do not have respect for the person, for their example, for our experiences with them, then they have no ability to lead us by their example and their service to us. There is no other power offered them by God.

Yukl (1998) defines power as “an agent’s potential influence over the attitudes and behavior of one or more designated target persons.” Others define power as influence, and that being the effect of one party on another.

Generally, the person (agent) trying to influence others (target) is trying to deal with one of the outcomes of the influence process:

  • commitment—the target person agrees with a decision and makes a great effort to carry it out.

  • compliance—the target is willing to do what the agent asks but is apathetic about the request.

  • resistance—the target person is opposed to the request and actively tries to avoid carrying it out. The target can respond in several ways but ultimately will be against accomplishing the request.

Yukl (1998) provides a table summarizing the general categories of power researchers use to understand how power impacts leadership. They are:

1. Positional power

  • formal authority

  • control over reward

  • control over punishments

  • control over information

  • environment control

2. Personal power

  • expertise

  • friendship

  • charisma

3. Political power

  • control over decisions

  • coalitions

  • co-optation

Essentially, since followers tend to relate to leaders as parents through symbolic status, in the relationship between leader and follower, one can think of positional power as a parent-child relationship, and personal power as a parent-adult child relationship (Hawthorne and Martin,1993. p.657; Hirschhorn, 1988, p.154).

Positional Power Corrupts

We also have Yukl’s (1998, p.195) warning, “The notion that power corrupts is especially relevant for position power.” In an experiment by Kipnis (1972) where leaders are given high positional power, related by Yukl (1998, p.195), the dangers of excessive position power were borne out. As a result of using high positional power, these leaders:

1. Perceived followers as objects of manipulation
2. Devalued the worth of subordinates
3. Attributed subordinate efforts to their own power use
4. Maintained more social distance from subordinates
5. Used rewards more often to influence subordinates

These are not the attributes desirable in leaders among the saints, nor are they descriptive of biblical leadership practices. Paul (I Thess. 2:7,8) told the Thessalonian church: “But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.”

In studies to consider whether effective and ineffective leaders have and use the same types of power, Yukl (1998, p.188) concludes, “Overall, the results suggest that effective leaders rely more on expert and referent (personal) power to influence subordinates.” Yukl (1998, p.188) relates that studies by Warren (1968), Thambain and Gemmill (1974), and Yukl and Falbe (1991), indicate that the use of positional power usually produces compliance. Since the church is a transformational organization seeking to induce high levels of commitment among members, this outcome of positional power is undesirable. Personal power, however, is summed up by Yukl (1998, p.188) as having results that “positively correlated with subordinate satisfaction and performance.”

Servant leadership/Lateral leadership

Robert Greenleaf (1970, p.7) coined the term, “servant leadership” in describing a model very similar to what Jesus proposes. Greenleaf (1970, pp.22, 32) similarly sees positional power as at best producing compliance (at worst, resistance), and recognizes the superiority of personal power, “Leadership by persuasion has the virtue of change by convincement rather than coercion. Its advantages are obvious.”

Current leadership research has provided a good amount of support for Jesus’ servant-leader proposition. Leaders in Jesus’ servant leadership model are left with what Jay Conger (1998, p.vii) calls “Lateral Leadership,” calling it a “revolution in how we manage others,” a model based purely on personal power.

Biblical NT Servant Leadership

Jesus gave in Luke 22 what on the surface seems to be an impractical command about leadership in the church:

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.”

This statement rips from the arsenal of leadership the use of positional authority to influence other believers. The Apostle Peter (I Peter 5:1-3) reiterated this relinquishing of positional power for leaders with, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage (positional power), but being ensamples to the flock (personal power).”

Biblical NT Leadership is not decision making

Leadership being service to others and not decision making for others is really a profound distinction. It highlights the qualitative difference between leadership within the church and leadership in the world.
Fundamentally, among the saints there is no authoritarian power over others based on position. There is only a resultant, voluntary influence based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity. No one can “command” respect and obedience because they ARE an elder (etc.). Instead, they may appeal to their acts of past and ongoing love and sacrifice for you–which we see Paul doing on occasion.
While a person in a community can be recognized as this kind of person over time (variously referred to as pastor, elder, bishop, but usually as elder), they never “arrive” or “achieve” an authority based on position. It is based on ongoing service (not education, wealth, gifting, knowledge, ability to speak well, etc.).

Leadership being service to others and not decision making for others is really a profound distinction. It highlights the qualitative difference between leadership within the church and leadership in the world.

Fundamentally, among the saints there is no authoritarian power over others based on position. There is only a resultant, voluntary influence based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity. No one can “command” respect and obedience because they ARE an elder (etc.). Instead, they may appeal to their acts of past and ongoing love and sacrifice for you–which we see Paul doing on occasion.

While a person in a community can be recognized as this kind of person over time (variously referred to as pastor, elder, bishop, but usually as elder), they never “arrive” or “achieve” an authority based on position. It is based on ongoing service (not education, wealth, gifting, knowledge, ability to speak well, etc.).

Being a servant is the aspiration and the most highly respected role among the saints, where submission is as mutual as is ministry to one another.

Being a servant is the aspiration and the most highly respected role among the saints, where submission is as mutual as is ministry to one another.

Jesus’ most profound example and encouragement of this style of leadership occurred on the night He last shared the Passover with His disciples. The disciples that day had been arguing who among them would be the greatest. In a household, the least of the servants was tasked with washing the feet of visitors. None of the disciples had been willing to do that. At the end of the passover meal, Jesus rises from the table, removes his outer clothes, wraps a towel around His waist, and picks up a basin from the corner. So, Jesus becomes the least servant among them, and washes their feet, one disciple at a time, and drying them with the towel. Finished, He explained (John 13:12-15):

“Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” In John 13:1, just before the passover meal, we are told concerning the servant Jesus, regarding His disciples, “he loved them unto the end.”

This example was not only about servant leadership, but about loving those we lead; indeed, demonstrating and giving example that we love all men (Rom 13:8-10). That is the true secret of servants.

Conger, Jay (1998) Winning ‘Em Over.
Greenleaf, Robert (1970) The servant as leader.
Hawthorne & Martin (1993) Dictionary of paul and his letters.
Hirschhorn, Larry (1988) The workplace within.
Kouzes & Posner (1995). The leadership challenge.
Yukl, Gary (1998) Leadership in organizations.

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Discipleship? Speaking about Christians versus Speaking to Christians

Saturday, November 20th, 2010 by Art

In the book of Acts, Luke is speaking about Christians as he continues to “set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us” to Theophilus.  The chart below identifies the most frequently used words that refer to Christians. These are the words that the Holy Spirit chose to describe Christians to others.

believers in Acts-2

The next chart shows the words used when speaking directly to Christians in the epsitles. These are the words we use among each other. There is a glaringly missing word in this chart: discipleship.

believers in Epistles-2

It is interesting to note that the word disciple is never used when speaking to each other in the epistles. Is this significant?

While we have each other as living examples, we are together disciples of Jesus Christ. So, maybe it is not so much “who are you discipling” as it is “who is your brother with whom you are laboring alongside?” The “discipling” language has a tone that in our western culture has a sense of an expert teaching an apprentice. But, we are all apprentices of Jesus Christ, together.

We are a family working together, not employees working for one another. All relationships among the saints are mutual; there is mutual edification, mutual encouragement and mutual exhortations. Every one of us are to submit to one another, to esteem the other better, to defer to the other when speaking–we are all to be examples of humility and servanthood.

We are the church, fellow saints, but foremost brothers—family—praying for and seeking fellow-laborers.

Posted in Discipleship, Saints, The Church | 1 Comment »

Variations in Service Focus and Time Spent

Friday, September 24th, 2010 by Art

itinerants_elders_saints3

Posted in Church Planting, Discipleship, Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Humpty Dumpty has a King

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010 by Art

Humpty Dumpty sat on the fence,
fractured and fell as a consequence.
All the big churches,
and all the big men,
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

But the King has a plan,
with which He can,
Put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Unity is exercised relationally,
not organized hierarchically.
Unity flows connected to Him,
From whom the whole body
fitly joined together and compacted
by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working
in the measure of every part,
maketh increase of the body
unto the edifying of itself in love.

Posted in Saints, The Church | No Comments »

The Seven Themes of Unity in Acts and the Epistles

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 by Art

For those of you who follow Alan Knox’s blog with me, you know he has been challenging us to consider unity, and especially to consider how we mistakenly build or break unity based on (often emotionally laden) doctrinal differences. *sigh* Me, too.

Thinking about this, I’ve noticed that God took extraordinary measures to maintain unity in the early church. I’m planning individual posts on the seven themes of unity found in Acts and the Epistles. They are:

  1. Acts 2-6 Hellenist Widow Division – Unifying the Jew
  2. Acts 8 The Samaritan Division – Unifying the Half Jew
  3. Acts 10-15 The Gentile Division – Unifying those Cut Off
  4. Acts 19 The Disciples of John Division – Unifying those Left Behind
  5. I Cor The Divisions Based on Men and Doctrines – The False Unities
  6. III Jn The Independence Division of Diotrephes – The False Leaders
  7. Rev 3 The Division Between the Church and Jesus Christ – The False Members Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in The Church | No Comments »

On Mobility (and the vision for CTF)

Monday, April 26th, 2010 by Art
In discussion with a friend, the question about mobility came up. I wanted to share some of that on the blog.
> 1. What does it mean to be mobile?> Mobility should be considered in regards to the work, and not the worker.> The work involves temporarily assisting churches being planted or temporarily assisting churches working through change/issues. The core of that work also includes developing elders locally and other itinerants in the process (deeply OJT disciple-making at heart–see II Tim 2:2). Being mobile means we can live with existing or developing elders and with other itinerants for a season, to provide both us and them intense, mutually discipling relationships. Being mobile means we can help more than one person and the church in more than one place often, and these in turn, others, to produce a multiplicative effect.> In regards to the temporary nature of the work, we are engaged in any one place only for a relatively brief time (ranging in the biblical accounts we have to consider, from 3 weeks on the short side, probably 3 to 6 months typically, and on the outside a year or two). see http://churchtaskforce.org/resources/pauls-methods for an outline of this in Paul’s life. By defining the mobility based on the work and not the worker, we focus on the purpose and nature (which are helping and developing temporarily), and not the fact that this often, but not necessarily, means a transient existence for the workers.> It may be that you will find yourself moving from city to city, country to country, to pursue temporarily helping plant or strengthen churches in parallel with mutually developing servanthood in others (disciple-making together). But, it may also be, that there are so many hurting churches in just the area or region where you live that in your lifetime you could stay within an hour or two of home to do your work.> In fact, back in 2000, that was the conceptualization I started working through with the idea of “Church Task Force.” If itinerants are normative (and I’m convinced they are), then God has called people to this work. And since most people today live in or near large cities (worldwide), then there are also concentrations of these itinerantly-gifted folks (apostles, prophets, evangelists) in these locations, and there are concentrations of STRUGGLING, CONFUSED churches in these areas. For example, there are 1,600 hundred evangelical churches within a two hour drive of Raleigh, NC. If there were several teams of itinerants here, and each team could help a church for an average of 4 months, each team could only help 3 churches a year. Say, five teams. 15 churches a year. Say, for the next 10 years. 150 churches could be helped/planted. That is less than 1% of the churches, at least 80% of which (we’re told over and over) have plateaued or are shrinking (and there are worse sorts of statistics, like very little life transformation in this present unhealthy church environment, very few new souls reached with the gospel, large segments of society completely ignorant of the gospel, and having little evidence of God based on those around them who say they know Him.> If we had 5 teams of itinerants in every major city in the world today, we could effectively reach and serve 1% of the churches in the world in the next ten years. Seems paltry. This is what faced our Lord, and what faced Paul, but they both chose to start with a small group to get an immensely big job done. Remember, each church reached becomes a bright light in the community for other churches to follow (see I Thess 1:7-10). The multiplicative effect of this–if you can imagine just some of the churches these folks helped or planted would grow and mature, would see the church restored and transforming lives and lifestyles, if sacrificial living and joyful sharing of hearts were to begin to infect communities and workplaces–well, we might see again what we saw in the NT, and once again the church might turn the world upside down, everywhere being spoken about, filling it with the news and evidence of Jesus the Lord.> That is, in fact, the vision behind Church Task Force. To see these teams emerge across major cities and yet reach into the smaller towns in the region. To help them understand their calling. Especially to understand the flexibility in differences for each church in the how, where and why as they fulfill the what and why (or, the the unchangeable principles and functions vs the flexible practices and forms). To help them understand how we fit with and yet become a contrast to the surrounding culture. To help them connect with each other and with struggling churches. So, in terms of mobility, defined by the work, you could fulfill your calling throughout your lifetime without ever moving your home once. You may well move out from your region, and travel more widely. Many will as He leads. But you MUST move where you are serving frequently to do the temporary work of itinerants in helping and developing.> Since today, the work of itinerants is misunderstood or not even considered an option for most of these people, they are stuck trying to fit their triangular little selves into square pegs. They either don’t fill those spaces well, or they don’t fit at all. They are distorted in many ways as their drive to serve tries to fit into what is available. They start “para church” organizations, they go into missionary work, they start churches and remain as “founding pastors” (by the way, a biblical oxymoron), they go to seminaries, they drop out of the church world, they rail against the church–in short, they do not fulfill their calling, and the church is crippled, losing a key component of its design.> One of the missing links has been a way to effectively provide the biblical foundation for those catching this vision–and Tim’s manual, “God’s Plan for Church Planting” very well fits that bill. We have a four day workshop to “turn the lights on” for those with this calling. We have the material online, but that needs to be condensed and used as an intro to whet the appaetite for the workshop. And, the workshop needs to whet the appetite for working together with others as itinerants in planting new churches and in helping struggling churches. To effectively train ourselves, we need to spend time together in the work, not just in transferring information.> After 25 years of study, pondering, fussing and frankly fuming at times, the idea of Church Task Force emerged in 2000. So, you can see, it has been 10 years in getting to this point, where a few people are talking together about these things, where the workshops are set to go, where the website is building content on the topic, and where those with itinerant callings are connecting. The site content is really a first draft of material for a book on the itinerants. I’m hoping several of you will be contributors to that material and book.> The current state of the church, I believe, is in part due to this lack. Itinerants are like the white blood cells of the Body, rushing to the scene of an infection, fighting it, and then dissipating. They help keep the Body healthy. They lay solid foundations for new churches, who themselves contribute to the example given to other churches in the areas of practical faith, sacrificial love and endurance-enabling hope (more on this when we discuss measuring effectiveness).> So, “Church Task Force.” What if we could find ways to connect with these folks? What if we could help them understand the nature of their calling, see the church differently (especially understanding principles vs the variety of practices to fulfill the principles) and begin to function the way itinerants function? What if we could begin to work together to temporarily assist churches and develop servant workers in and among the churches?> 2. How do you develop a self supported ministry that allows one to be mobile?> If you are thinking paid ministry, I don’t think this is what God is wanting from us. By your term, “self-supporting,” I’m assuming you are asking about how to support yourself as you work itinerantly.> I think each worker needs to be willing to live on a lot less than our society expects. The first steps to mobility are to lower debt and lower needed income. This is much easier when your children are raised or you are single. The next step is what work you do.>> If you reach into a region from your present base, this might be a less difficult question. But I still would not choose a career that laid heavy responsibility on me, such that I spent evenings, weekends, and mornings worrying about the business or institution where I work. I simply need some where I can earn enough money to support myself and others. If I were picking a career over again, I would think of nursing, or IT. In both of these, part time work will support you well.> We can live and serve on so much less than we imagine. Always rethink anything you do that takes money to function. Do you need a loudspeaker system and tents to have a picnic ministry, or just a lawn chair and a grill? Do you need to rent a building to hold meetings or lay out your living room differently? Don’t let finances drive your ministry needs, or it won’t be reproducible and it will hinder your reliance on the Spirit of God to bring results and to lead you.> yours,
1. What does it mean to be mobile?
Mobility should be considered in regards to the work, and not the worker.
The work involves temporarily assisting churches being planted or temporarily assisting churches working through change/issues. The core of that work also includes developing elders locally and other itinerants in the process (deeply OJT disciple-making at heart–see II Tim 2:2). Being mobile means we can live with existing or developing elders and with other itinerants for a season, to provide both us and them intense, mutually discipling relationships. Being mobile means we can help more than one person and the church in more than one place often, and these in turn, others, to produce a multiplicative effect.
In regards to the temporary nature of the work, we are engaged in any one place only for a relatively brief time (ranging in the biblical accounts we have to consider, from 3 weeks on the short side, probably 3 to 6 months typically, and on the outside a year or two). see http://churchtaskforce.org/resources/pauls-methods for an outline of this in Paul’s life. By defining the mobility based on the work and not the worker, we focus on the purpose and nature (which are helping and developing temporarily), and not the fact that this often, but not necessarily, means a transient existence for the workers.
It may be that you will find yourself moving from city to city, country to country, to pursue temporarily helping plant or strengthen churches in parallel with mutually developing servanthood in others (disciple-making together). But, it may also be, that there are so many hurting churches in just the area or region where you live that in your lifetime you could stay within an hour or two of home to do your work.
In fact, back in 2000, that was the conceptualization I started working through with the idea of “Church Task Force.” If itinerants are normative (and I’m convinced they are), then God has called people to this work. And since most people today live in or near large cities (worldwide), then there are also concentrations of these itinerantly-gifted folks (apostles, prophets, evangelists) in these locations, and there are concentrations of STRUGGLING, CONFUSED churches in these areas. For example, there are 1,600 hundred evangelical churches within a two hour drive of Raleigh, NC. If there were several teams of itinerants here, and each team could help a church for an average of 4 months, each team could only help 3 churches a year. Say, five teams. 15 churches a year. Say, for the next 10 years. 150 churches could be helped/planted. That is less than 1% of the churches, at least 80% of which (we’re told over and over) have plateaued or are shrinking (and there are worse sorts of statistics, like very little life transformation in this present unhealthy church environment, very few new souls reached with the gospel, large segments of society completely ignorant of the gospel, and having little evidence of God based on those around them who say they know Him.
If we had 5 teams of itinerants in every major city in the world today, we could effectively reach and serve 1% of the churches in the world in the next ten years. Seems paltry. This is what faced our Lord, and what faced Paul, but they both chose to start with a small group to get an immensely big job done. Remember, each church reached becomes a bright light in the community for other churches to follow (see I Thess 1:7-10). The multiplicative effect of this–if you can imagine just some of the churches these folks helped or planted would grow and mature, would see the church restored and transforming lives and lifestyles, if sacrificial living and joyful sharing of hearts were to begin to infect communities and workplaces–well, we might see again what we saw in the NT, and once again the church might turn the world upside down, everywhere being spoken about, filling it with the news and evidence of Jesus the Lord.
That is, in fact, the vision behind Church Task Force. To see these teams emerge across major cities and yet reach into the smaller towns in the region. To help them understand their calling. Especially to understand the flexibility in differences for each church in the how, where and why as they fulfill the what and why (or, the the unchangeable principles and functions vs the flexible practices and forms). To help them understand how we fit with and yet become a contrast to the surrounding culture. To help them connect with each other and with struggling churches. So, in terms of mobility, defined by the work, you could fulfill your calling throughout your lifetime without ever moving your home once. You may well move out from your region, and travel more widely. Many will as He leads. But you MUST move where you are serving frequently to do the temporary work of itinerants in helping and developing.
Since today, the work of itinerants is misunderstood or not even considered an option for most of these people, they are stuck trying to fit their triangular little selves into square pegs. They either don’t fill those spaces well, or they don’t fit at all. They are distorted in many ways as their drive to serve tries to fit into what is available. They start “para church” organizations, they go into missionary work, they start churches and remain as “founding pastors” (by the way, a biblical oxymoron), they go to seminaries, they drop out of the church world, they rail against the church–in short, they do not fulfill their calling, and the church is crippled, losing a key component of its design.
One of the missing links has been a way to effectively provide the biblical foundation for those catching this vision–and Tim’s manual, “God’s Plan for Church Planting” very well fits that bill. We have a four day workshop to “turn the lights on” for those with this calling. We have the material online, but that needs to be condensed and used as an intro to whet the appaetite for the workshop. And, the workshop needs to whet the appetite for working together with others as itinerants in planting new churches and in helping struggling churches. To effectively train ourselves, we need to spend time together in the work, not just in transferring information.
After 25 years of study, pondering, fussing and frankly fuming at times, the idea of Church Task Force emerged in 2000. So, you can see, it has been 10 years in getting to this point, where a few people are talking together about these things, where the workshops are set to go, where the website is building content on the topic, and where those with itinerant callings are connecting. The site content is really a first draft of material for a book on the itinerants. I’m hoping several of you will be contributors to that material and book.
The current state of the church, I believe, is in part due to this lack. Itinerants are like the white blood cells of the Body, rushing to the scene of an infection, fighting it, and then dissipating. They help keep the Body healthy. They lay solid foundations for new churches, who themselves contribute to the example given to other churches in the areas of practical faith, sacrificial love and endurance-enabling hope (more on this when we discuss measuring effectiveness).
So, “Church Task Force.” What if we could find ways to connect with these folks? What if we could help them understand the nature of their calling, see the church differently (especially understanding principles vs the variety of practices to fulfill the principles) and begin to function the way itinerants function? What if we could begin to work together to temporarily assist churches and develop servant workers in and among the churches?
2. How do you develop a self supported ministry that allows one to be mobile?
If you are thinking paid ministry, I don’t think this is what God is wanting from us. By your term, “self-supporting,” I’m assuming you are asking about how to support yourself as you work itinerantly.
I think each worker needs to be willing to live on a lot less than our society expects. The first steps to mobility are to lower debt and lower needed income. This is much easier when your children are raised or you are single. The next step is what work you do.
If you reach into a region from your present base, this might be a less difficult question. But I still would not choose a career that laid heavy responsibility on me, such that I spent evenings, weekends, and mornings worrying about the business or institution where I work. I simply need some where I can earn enough money to support myself and others. If I were picking a career over again, I would think of nursing, or IT. In both of these, part time work will support you well.
We can live and serve on so much less than we imagine. Always rethink anything you do that takes money to function. Do you need a loudspeaker system and tents to have a picnic ministry, or just a lawn chair and a grill? Do you need to rent a building to hold meetings or lay out your living room differently? Don’t let finances drive your ministry needs, or it won’t be reproducible and it will hinder your reliance on the Spirit of God to bring results and to lead you.

In discussion with some friends, the question about mobility came up. I wanted to share some of that on the blog.

1. What does it mean to be mobile?

Mobility should be considered in regards to the work, and not the worker.

The work involves temporarily assisting churches being planted or temporarily assisting troubled churches. The core of that work also includes developing elders locally and other itinerants in the process (the work is deeply OJT disciple-making at heart–see II Tim 2:2). Being mobile means we can live with existing or developing elders and with other itinerants for a season, to provide both us and them intense, mutually discipling relationships. Being mobile means we can help more than one person and the church in more than one place often, and these in turn, others, to produce a multiplicative effect.

In regards to the temporary nature of the work, we are engaged in any one place only for a relatively brief time (ranging in the biblical accounts we have to consider, from 3 weeks on the short side, probably 3 to 6 months typically, and on the outside a year or two). See Pauls methods for an outline of this in Paul’s life. By defining the mobility based on the work and not the worker, we focus on the purpose and nature (which are temporarily helping and developing), and not the fact that this often, but not necessarily, means a transient existence for the workers. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Church Planting, Itinerants, The Church | No Comments »

In Search of the Right Way

Monday, April 12th, 2010 by Art

The church today is filled with new models and new ventures, new approaches and new theories. We know the church is broken and we are groaning for change. In our desperation, we are turning everywhere to seek the right path. Logic, pragmatism, social theory, leadership theory, business models, marketing methods. Some, in their desire to find the right way, are re-examining the scriptures. Where better to turn? T. Austin Sparks well said, “The whole New Testament (Bible, if you like) is concerned with how things ought to be.”

It is not a difficult matter to ask how things should be when we read scripture. Nor is it difficult to see how far we are from the way things should be. While it looks deceptively simple to move from one to the other, it is enormously difficult to do so, because we rely on ourselves for a work that is foremost spiritual in nature. For example, in I Chron 13 God finds fault, not in David’s desire to move the Ark from where it should not be to where it should, but in how he chose to do so.

The Ark should be in Jerusalem, but it lay in the house of Abinadab for twenty years after the ill-conceived plan to use it as a weapon against the Philistines. David consulted with the leaders and with the people and all agreed it should be brought home.  This was the simple part, much like the task facing the churches today. It isn’t that we don’t know what is wrong. So what does David do next (and what will we)? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Itinerants, Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Where is this going? What am I doing?

Monday, March 29th, 2010 by Art
What am I doing?
I’m seeking to be faithful, at last.
I have no illusions that I have all this stuff right, that I have finally figured out the key to all things, or that I have some secret knowledge or power or calling. I do not for a moment think that I will change the church or the world, or that finally I will be the one to have the last word on these matters, or even that I will plant even one church that will be ideal. I am, rather, convinced of the truth of I Cor 1:25-27 and this gives me reason to go ahead and seek to be faithful in spite of every reason why I should not bother to try.
Presently the church is stirring herself; the Wind is blowing. It seems the Lord is moving circumstances that will re-inforce the deep changes coming in the church. I can say that I am convinced of these truths about the church, about the saints, about the equippers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers), and about the itinerants (apostles, prophets, evangelists). I think the preponderance of scripture supports these views. I also understand they were at one time really outside the realm of common understandings (though some voices saw these things much as I do, and have helped me see them–Roland Allen, Alex Hay, Watchman Nee, Gene Getz, and even Tim and Sherman (at least, one some of these issues). That is changing. There are today many voices seeing these same issues, some describing them differently, some calling for different solutions, but many who are saying very similar things.
I think to be faithful I need to share what is on my heart as clearly as I can. The tsunami of change rolling towards us is made up of many, many drops of water. My great hope is to be one of those little, powerless, insignificant drops of water that together will sweep the shores clean.
The information on the website and on this blog are my working draft (sometimes in an extended outline format) for what I think I need to say for me to be faithful to Him. It might in the end be of no help to anyone else and I don’t think that matters. He is bringing the changes I hope for in the church. It doesn’t depend on me.
But, I earnestly desire your help. As you can, let me know how these things do or don’t make sense to you, what am I missing, where have I headed down the wrong trail, what am I leaving unsaid? What needs better clarification, where is my argument from scripture weak or lacking or off base?
yours,
-Art

I’m seeking to be faithful, at last.

Even after over 35 years, I have not the slightest illusion that I have all this stuff right, that I have finally figured out the key to all things, or that I have some secret knowledge or power or calling. I do not for a moment think that I will change the church or the world, or that finally I will be the one to have the last word on these matters, or even that I will plant even one church that will be near ideal. I am, rather, convinced of the truth of I Cor 1:25-27 and this gives me reason to go ahead and seek to be faithful in spite of every reason why I should not bother to try. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Personal Note, The Church | 3 Comments »

The Church in a Locality

Sunday, March 28th, 2010 by Art

Understanding the church in a locality is among the “Defective and Undone,” things that need “Straightening Out,” that are “Out of Order” and that are “Lacking” in the church today. (see Titus 1:5) The misunderstanding of the nature of the local church as an independent, autonomous, seperated grouping based on doctrine, personalities, practices, areas of focus, or “distinctives” affects our unity, our ability to minister to one another, and our example of love to the world.

Most of us think of the church as bounded by a group of people who have joined themselves together. But this joining together also purposely serves to separate ourselves from other saints because of disagreements of one sort or another. We are “us” and right (or righter); they are “them” and wrong (or not as right). It is up to us to choose the best church, the one we most agree with. Most think you become accepted as a member of this defined church formally (by actively agreeing to  join this group); others think this is done informally (or passively, simply by frequent attendance). If you ask most active Christians what church they belong to, they can give you the name of their church. They may live quite a distance away; they may drive past a dozen other churches on their way, but this particular group of saints is “their church.” Unfortunately, this is the house that Joe builds.

The house that Jesus builds is different on several levels. Suspend for a moment what you “already know” about how to define/bound a church as we take a fresh look at the scriptures. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in The Church | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries