futuristguy@missionaltribe


Redemption and Restoration Part 2-The Restoration of the Powerful


Mar 16

Posted: under Missional Paradigms and Practices, Profiles of Missional Disciples.

And now as I review my memorial article for Lanny (see Part 1) 10 years later, I would add some other lessons I’m currently distilling from the life of Lanny, his story of restoration, and contemporary situations in the Kingdom. One of the things not mentioned earlier was that Lanny came from a ministry family. And, as I have discovered over the years, many times MKs (missionaries’ kids) and PKs (pastor’s kids) end up not OK. They frequently suffer spiritual wounds, whether through actual neglect by parents who are more committed to “ministry” than to their own families, and/or through unreasonable expectations of congregations, and/or through their own faulty perceptions about their parents. Whatever the sources, the damage can go deep. It did with Lanny. He felt like a “throwaway” - unwanted and unworthy of love. His convoluted self-condemnation perverted one of his greatest qualities: his kindness. It turned inside out his genuine desire to act for the benefit of others, into a twisted offering of himself for misuse by others.

It saddens me immensely that destructive wounding can happen in our churches, and not just “in the world.” That is more than a sidenote in Lanny’s story. But, just as the wounding can go from church leaders and congregations to an individual, so the gift of restoration in the life of a damaged disciple does not remain a personal gift. Its benefits cross back over into the church, and raise the level of health in the Kingdom.

What are some of the gifts that those being restored offer to the community? I spoke of one already: that a real measure of success for a church is found in how they treat their most fragile and apparently “least-contributing” members. Such children and teens, women and men hold the power to offer a huge but intangible gift of grace to a body of disciples. They give us a mirror to how we embrace our own limitations, our own fears of uselessness and abandonment, our own prejudices to prefer the best, the beautiful, the bright. Where some would see a throwaway, we should see a thermometer that measures our level of unconditional love and the strength of our spiritual structures. Will we receive what God gave them to offer us? Will we value those who seem to hold neither high potential or high profile?

For inspirational stories of families and communities who demonstrate this very vulnerable kind of love, get a copy of The Power of the Powerless: A Brother’s Legacy of Love by Christopher De Vinck. He is an amazing writer, with powerful things to write about …

It seems contradictory to suggest that those who are powerless offer a powerful gift. And yet, to quote from the Code of Dinotopia, the illustrated children’s book with good systems principles for all ages: “One raindrop raises the sea.” In a consumerist model organization, the contributions of only certain people are welcomed, or only those contributions of certain types or sizes. All others are unwanted, as they are, ironically, considered unproductive. Yet what does Jesus say about the issue of giving? It’s the heart attitude, not the amount. And it is accepting what God sends, not only embracing what we desire. I believe this ties in with ways we choose to work together, and shapes the messages we broadcast about who/what we value. This may be especially true of those in leadership roles - something that I find of growing concern these days.

For instance, Lanny was not a leader in the usual sense, either before or after his restoration process. He had no role of authority over the lives of others. And yet, I would suggest that he held a unique power in the lives of others, through his very powerlessness - yet the possibility to experience restoration in community. That was his best gift to the Body of Christ. It allowed those of us around him to embody God’s perspectives on embracing human dignity, avoiding judgmentalism, and exercising perseverance.

Which brings me from the theoretical and the past to the present and the practical. It’s no secret that I have written extensively - and as carefully as possible - on issues related to spiritual abuse and recovery. There is much going on right now that causes me concern. And lesson about restoration and power that I learned from Lanny are relevant to contemporary situations.

At this time - the end of winter 2009 - several leaders previously prominent in the North American Christian community are apparently seeking public “rehabilitation” from relatively recent indiscretions, immaturities, and failures. But it appears that the actual goal of themselves and their handlers is relocation into the same public role of authority, or its near equivalent. Might I suggest instead that the authentic goal should be restoration while remaining in a position of powerlessness? I’m not saying their past actions make them Disqualified For Life from leadership roles. However, real restoration in biblical accounts is seldom about ending up in the same place spiritually as before, as if nothing bad happened, but in a different place precisely because something bad did happen. I don’t think, from biblical evidences, we can expect that restoration of leaders always means the exact same positions are open to them - just as it doesn’t  mean they must be forever blocked from them. So the bigger question is about spiritual health, not ministerial activity.

So, here are some things I’m looking for and questions to ask as signs of genuine restoration, versus a counterfeit relocation under the garb as reinstatement to leadership:

  • When candidates and/or their advocates lobby for their reinstatement as leaders and make demands about their return to power, that’s a probable sign for discerning that the reinstatement is premature - and in fact, that the possibility may need to be removed as an option permanently. In genuine restoration, I expect instead to hear no unilateral moves, no one-sided demands, no quick timetables.
  • When there is genuine repentance and a process of restoration, I also expect to hear about the realities of their newfound powerlessness, taking responsibility for their own failures, and insights they’re learning about personal problems that led to their needing to be removed from leadership roles. And, if they are never, ever returned to a position of leadership, will they now still follow Jesus faithfully? What demonstrations of this attitude of humility are in their life, both in words and deeds?
  • Perhaps an individual’s temporary lack of position reveals a long-term lust for power. Such a “fatal flaw” is at the core of those who seek to be overlords. And overlording - demonstrating spiritually abusive/legalistic leadership that attempts to dictate and control the actions of others - is a strong biblical indicator of current disqualification from service, is it not? And this perhaps could prove a permanent disqualification unless the person deals with the tendencies and overcomes the activities. What evidences are there for whether corruption by power was/is present in his/her life? Has it been dealt with? How? Are those in an appropriate position to evaluate and restore subject to the same issue?
  • As with all of us in all things, our own “tone” is a guide to our heart attitude. Are those seeking restoration to leadership too busy to be bothered by responding to legitimate criticisms of their efforts at reinstatement? If they don’t really have time to explain things in a civil, respectful manner, however can we trust that they will (re-)lead others in a civil, respectful manner? Do they consider all criticism to be illegitimate by definition? Are they too closed to listen to voices of reason and discernment within the community and without?
  • Do they display a lack of conscience in how they treat others? Are they “respecters of persons”? In this regard, J.K. Rowling challenges us through her character, Sirius Black: “If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals” (Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire). If a supposed leader shows contempt for underlings and deferential treatment of those above them and peers, what do New Testament scriptures have to say about their ability to lead others?

I wish such things would not even have to be voiced, and yet, the North American church seems dominantly undiscerning on such issues. This is as constructive and hopefully redemptive a response as I can find to ongoing rifts in the Body of Christ caused by questionable “restorations.”

This series is cross-posted on my futuristguy blog.

Comments (3)

Redemption and Restoration Part 1-The Power of the Powerless


Mar 16

Posted: under Missional Paradigms and Practices, Profiles of Missional Disciples.

The past few days, I’ve been thinking about restoration, what it means for someone to return to a functional life after deep brokenness, how that comes about, and what it means for the Kingdom. This turned my thoughts to my friend Lanny, who passed away a decade ago.

The last few months of Lanny’s life, he spent at his parents home in the Southeastern U.S. When he died, his sister contacted various friends of his in California to ask us to contribute our remembrances of Lanny for his memorial service. His whole family knew some important things had happened in Lanny’s life out here, but they wanted to hear it from those who knew it firsthand. This is what I wrote, to share in honor of my friend. I have added a few other details to complete the portrait, and to suggest what Lanny’s life could mean for us in understanding the real restorative and healing power in a gathering of disciples.

I met Lanny in January of 1990 at a mutual friend’s apartment in Manhattan. He was quite a character - kind, quirky …naive about some things and yet world-wise and weary on others. I remember he had several self-etched tattoos on his hands and neck, including one of a cross he’d injected onto a prominent section of his neck. He talked about the story of that one especially. To him, it was a literal marker of returning to the faith in Jesus Christ that he had known as a child. More recently, Lanny had come out of a difficult background that included living on the streets in New York City, drug addiction, and working as a male prostitute. That was likely when he’d contracted HIV, and in 1990, he was just beginning to experience the advance of symptoms from this disease.

Our first meeting was somewhere in the very early stages of Lanny’s journey to address root issues underlying his difficulties and addictions. But I really got to know Lanny better starting in 1992 when he moved across country to participate in a year-long, recovery-oriented residential program and we attended the same church. As with any relationship, there were highs and lows. I remember one of the low points, after Lanny decided to radically abandon his walk with Christ (thankfully, that lasted for only a few months). We happened to end up sitting near each other on a local bus, and could only manage small talk for a few minutes. With the spiritual dimension of our friendship not in sync right then, there wasn’t much to discuss except the weather, the 49ers, and a few other superficialities. Lanny ended our uncomfortable conversation by zipping on his Walkman and zoning out to some tunes.

But that isn’t the essence of Lanny that I want to distill for you today. It just shows the down side. Much of the remainder of his time in California was on the up side. But first he had to come to end of himself. Here’s what happened. A while after our bus incident, Lanny completely disappeared for a few months and NO ONE heard from him. Friends from his old church were worried, and with good reason. Turns out that he’d plunged into one of the most vile subcultures of San Francisco for a while, where leech-people who know how to take advantage of others saw someone ripe for use - and they abused Lanny to the max.

Finally Lanny came to his senses and re-emerged, despite fear that the church he’d gone to would reject him. They didn’t. They welcomed him back. I don’t know that I’ve ever, ever seen someone so emotionally broken and spiritually spent as Lanny was. Yet, a whole household of Christian guys from that church took him in, and sacrificially loved him back to life. Steve, Bob, and the others helped Lanny through their acceptance and with their boundaries. They weren’t out to rescue him, but to help him reconstruct a life on following Jesus Christ. They didn’t impose legalistic rules, but helped Lanny restructure his use of time and renew key spiritual disciplines. To give Lanny an opportunity to break his patterns of isolation, they re-engage him in activities that would connect him with people who saw beyond his guilt and self-loathing.

I watched as month by month, this crushed and hurting brother began to mend through the genuine love, perseverance, and care of his Christian brothers. From them all, I learned the astounding lesson that a Christian community is truly only as strong as its commitment of unconditional love to its most fragile members; though broken, these individuals serve as the barometers, measuring the atmosphere of love in a church’s environment, or the pressure toward change that is needed.

Anyway, gradually, I began to see a renewed Lanny that was more robust in spirit than in his health, which was continuing to decline, due to the effects of AIDS. His zest for life returned, and he always wanted to make appointments to do things with people. He and we and they went to movies, art displays, parties, trips out for coffee, tennis - all kinds of things. Life!

The one event I remember most fondly is when Lanny and I went to see an exhibit on Anne Frank and the Holocaust … at his request. But this was no morbid experience, even though the subject matter was our inhumane treatment of one other, and genocide! Lanny and I talked as we walked along the exhibit corridors. He was so full of questions and observations and comments about this painting or that poster. And he stopped to chat with people here and there throughout the exhibit rooms.

Afterwards, as we sat nibbling almond cookies and sipping lattes, it seemed I was in the presence of a man so transformed from Satan’s attempts at annihilating him, that I could see Jesus shine through everything he said and did. Amazing to think of how far Lanny had returned in those slow-going months of spiritual defrosting and holistic healing. He was a walking miracle of restoration, and the other men of his household were a testimony to Christ’s care for the brokenhearted.

Lanny died within a year, his body decimated by AIDS but his spiritual life restored. Vibrant, smiling widely, engaged in life. Grateful for the smallest of kindnesses. Always sending little thank-you notes that expressed his joy in time spent with a friend. Occasional phone calls just to say hello and see how I was doing. A more gentle and humble man, I’m not likely to meet until we are reunited in heaven. And those snapshots of life form the collage of “LanMan” that I cherish. The fruit of restoration … life!

This series is cross-posted on my futuristguy blog.

Comments (1)

The Meanings of Missional Part 2-Seven Critical Value Factors for Proving Your Paradigm is Missional


Jan 02

Posted: under Missional Paradigms and Practices.

The previous post, The Meanings of Missional Part 1-Responses to Frank Viola’s Three Questions, dealt with what the term missional means to me, whether I think it’s a good/useful term, and what constitutes the differences between missional and non-missional churches. This post picks up on his third question, giving more detail about what distinguishes or differentiates missional from non-missional. Part 2 was originally posted November 1, 2008, on my WordPress futuristguy blog.

Seven Critical Value Factors

for Proving Your Paradigm is Missional

The rest of the stuff on missional/non-missional is pretty technical, and I still don’t have a way to translate this down to everyday language easily yet. Sorry about that. I’m still learning on that front, and working on it. I’ll use a metaphor to try to fuse some of the concepts and concrete realities together, but at this point, it is what it is. Hopefully it contributes something to an advancing dialogue about the meanings of “missional.”

In my research writings, I’ve suggested that missional and non-missional spring forth from “deep” paradigms that are ultimately different. It’s not just that they present different “surface” methods. By this, I mean that the underlying paradigm for some models of church is inherently incompatible with missional ways of processing life, incompatible with the critical values of a mission-shaped perspective, and incompatible with its guiding theological principles, strategies, ministry structures, methodological models, and activities.

I know we don’t all agree on a definition of missional, or even on a description of what constitutes missional activities. However, I’d suggest that if advocates of a particular church or ministry state that they are “missional,” but their systems display numerous features that don’t really fit - or clearly block biblical requirements of being church - that should set off our paradigm analysis alarms.

Warning Sounds from the Walk

In fact, there’s a great illustration of exactly that from the film Anastasia. (Sorry I cannot pinpoint whether the following comes from the film version (1956), animated version (1997), or TV mini-series (1986), or some combination. But it’s there somewhere! If you figure out which, please help me out and leave a comment.)

Here’s the illustration: Years after the Russian revolution, a number of women claimed to be Anastasia, one of the daughters of the Tsar. Supposedly, all the children of the Tsar were executed when he was overthrown. If someone could prove she were the Grand Duchess Anastasia and therefore the only remaining and rightful heir of Tsar Nicholas II, she would be restored to the remainder of her family and to what wealth of inheritance had been kept outside of Russia. A woman named Anna Anderson appeared on the scene and seemed to have many possible and puzzling details that would suggest she just might indeed be Anastasia.

How would anyone be able to tell the genuine heiress from a lookalike, or from an outright fraud? Surely the telltale marks would be in the details …

A former military officer in the Tsar’s court hoped to produce an Anastasia, win acceptance for her among the remnants of Russian nobility, and with her, claim the inheritance. A specific way he coached Anna Anderson was in her posture, and grace in walking, as these skills were reared into the royals from their youth.

As a test of whether she would pass muster, he had gotten details of Anastasia’s measurements from the former dressmaker to the royal family, and had a metal template made. This panel featured a life-size cutout of what the real Anastasia’s outline would be if she were wearing a formal gown and crown. Encircling the entire cutout was a series of holes, each with a small bell hung across it. If Anna could pass through the template with princessly posture and noblest strides, the bells would remain silent. If she were not the real Anastasia, her failure would be obvious to all: If she could not carry herself well, she would not be able to carry it off with the ruse, and the bells would ring.

Fitting the Missional Template

Back to the issue of what makes a ministry model missional or not, I’d suggest that the missional paradigm template is surrounded by the warning bells of critical values. Critical values are those perspectives that are so core to the system they identify, that if they are absent, it proves the claimant to the inheritance is not genuine. If we don’t fit the missional template, these “bells” will chime in to let us know. In streetwise terms:

Every time we ring these bells …

… we prove we ain’t so mission-ell.

And so, from a paradigm analysis perspective, here’s my initial systems checklist of seven critical missional values - the “bells” that separate missional from non-missional. They are in no particular order, as they are all interconnected and all critical to proving a missional paradigm:

  • Disciple-leaders
  • Spiritual producers
  • Personal presence
  • Everyday activity
  • Gift-based
  • Indigenous context
  • Kingdom collaboration

I’m sure I’ll eventually figure out more. However, if a model for being/doing church calls itself missional but does not integrate at least these seven elements throughout their systems, I’m pretty certain it is a misappropriation of the term.

Disciple-Leaders. Missional integrates around holistic discipleship, which includes worshipping, ministering, fellowshipping, and evangelizing. Other integration points lead to a far less comprehensive profile of following Christ. For instance, if a church integrates around evangelism, its mission has probably been hijacked by people with the gift of evangelism, sincere as they might be. This turns a church primarily into a preaching or witnessing outpost for sharing the faith to convert non-Christians, not maintain it as a place for equipping, empowering, and encouraging Christians to live their faith and share their life in their own spheres of influence.

Spiritual Producers. Missional views all disciples as spiritual producers, and expecting all of us to grow up in the faith and be learner-leaders. A church produces religious consumers if it overfocuses on meeting the felt needs of people, and/or does not challenge people to become who they were designed by God to be and to serve through church/community. If we look at consumerism with a long-view perspective, we’ll see that it basically keeps people babies. Being fed with milk is appropriate for babies. But spiritual adolescence is, in part, indicated by spiritual strength, the Word living in us, and overcoming the Evil One” (1 John 2:14). Spiritual maturity is, in part, indicated by knowing the Father deeply (1 John 2:14) persevering through adversity, and a host of other character qualities acquired by engaging in the practices, not just by hearing of the theories.

Consumerism basically trades on professional replacements for personal responsibility, attendance for participation, and preprocessed scriptural applications for critical reflection and devotional development. If we fail to challenge people to use their maturity and God-given creativity to become spiritual producers, we will end up with continuity (until our organization implodes from professional burnout or paradigm blunders) and we may not see continuance. (The theme of continuity versus continuance is one I’ll likely pick up again soon, as I think it deals with a potentially critical aspect of whether or not a culture or organization find sustainability.)

Personal Presence. Missonal disciples are consciously present with the people in their family, their neighborhood, their work, and their leisure. Missional relationships require more from us than being a referral resource. So, discipleship means being with people in the muck and mire of everyday life, at their level, not being (or pretending to be) above them. It is not sending people away to professionals to get fixed, as if that is the answer to all problems (and I’m not putting down the seeking of professional help for important needs). It is advocating for people, not just sending people to advocates. It is lending our own time, listening ear, and wise counsel based in biblical prescriptives and principles. It is sticking with people for the long haul, neither entering nor exiting relationships lightly.

Everyday Activity. Missional relies on an incremental approach to making a difference in the lives of people. This means “success” is measured in qualitative terms, not in quantitative terms. So, the question is never “How many people did you give a witness for Jesus, and they made decisions?” but, “What kinds of differences have you witnessed happening in the lives of people you are connecting with?” This does not mean missional-minded people are unconcerned about conversion. We’re not addicted to the conversation or to the journey. However, we refuse to treat people as drive-by targets for “The Gospel,” turning them into objects and dehumanizing them, or reducing them to a simplistic set of demographics. That would deny the image of God in them, and thus, deny their inherent humanity and worth to God and to us.

Gift-Based. Missional seeks to connect disciples with meaningful ministry that is appropriate both to their God-ordained spiritual giftedness and to their current spiritual maturity level. That requires development through training, some experiences and experimentation, supervised/mentored opportunities to serve, and continual learning once areas of ministry match are identified and entered. In my perspective, each spiritual gift is the equivalent of an espresso shot of a “one-another” commandment in the New Testament. At this point, I call the diluted one-another forms “spiritual disciplines.” (For instance, “welcome one another” is the discipline form, and hospitality is the gift form. If we don’t have the gift, we can still learn/practice the discipline form - and in fact, are commanded to do so, even if it’s a stretch for us.) I know this terminology may be confusing, since we often talk about the “spiritual disciplines” of prayer, fasting, worship, etc., but at this time I don’t know what else to call them.

Anyway, missional focuses on living into and living out BOTH spiritual gifts AND disciplines, but avoids organizing around roles and jobs. For instance, there is no spiritual gift of parking lot attendant, or of child check-in clerk. Those are roles, and helpful ones, but they are not spiritual gifts. Almost anyone could fill them, based on generic disciplines of serving. A system that is generic-discipline-based and not spiritual-gift-based typically lacks development of gifts for specific service. Which means only certain people get to use their gifts. Which means some (most) people are blocked from being spiritual producers in the very area God intended. So if it is not gift-based, it is not missional. In his book, Are You Committed? Connecting God’s People with Meaningful Ministry, my friend Jay McSwain suggests we should spend 80% of the time we serve in gift-based activities, and 20% in discipline-based activities. If we reverse that approach, perhaps we’ll still be doing “good” works, but will it be the wisest and best use of our providential giftings for service?

Indigenous Context. Missional integrates around local people, local cultures, locally produced materials, local applications of scriptural principles. It shies away from relying on outside people with their generic programs and universal thoughts on biblical principles. At best, local disciples produce their own Bible studies and resource materials and ministry partnerships - and they can do that because they are committed to each disciple developing his or her giftedness. If that is not currently possible, then at least the local people adapt materials produced by others, with a critical eye toward ensuring the results are holistic and fit local cultural circumstances without compromising Scripture. (In short, if the global conceptual platitudes don’t fit the local cultural platform, then something needs to be adjusted.)

Kingdom Collaboration. Missional involves trust-based collaboration - covenant, if you will - instead of forms of unity or partnership based in simply being together, believing together, or serving together. It’s far more than doctrinal statements or doing projects. We could consider Kingdom collaboration as a communal form of wrestling with the Spirit together and “working out your salvation [together] with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12-13). This makes sense in light of Philippians 1:6 where the you is plural, not singular, if I remember correctly. That means we need to understand the disciples at Philippi being in partnership with Paul for the gospel and “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you [i.e., you all together as a Body] will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (NIV).

Kingdom collaboration is a community parallel (fractal) form of Body life as found in individual churches. Each gathering of disciples is to the Kingdom what each spiritually gifted individual is to the Body. If a partnership or association lets one person or church or perspective dominate, or refuses the appropriate gifts each gathering could bring, then that is dictation - not collaboration. And there are organizational forms disguised as collaboration among decentralized groups of disciples, but they are in fact are something else.

And again, an important disclaimer: I do not mean to diss all forms of church. In paradigm analysis, I’m looking at the consequences of underlying assumptions and systems. If people are being harmed outright, or harmed indirectly through gaps and excesses in their congregation, that should ring some bells - even if it’s not the missional bells. And, often, a methodological model creates spiritually harmful - though unintended - consequences that keep people from being disciples, or from being spiritually productive, or from giving their personal presence to others, or from developing their God-given spiritual gifts, or from living both peaceably and provocatively in their context. It is not enough to look at the apparent blessings and growth on the surface, and excuse away the harm being done underneath.

So, to me, this is all about connection and sustainability instead of irrelevance and toxicity. I am trying to get us to look at the systems that any church operates in, what its underlying paradigms is, and what inherent consequences - good and bad - come from that particular synergy of paradigm, culture, and context. If there are “genetic predispositions” to church systems diseases in our paradigm, wouldn’t we rather know what they are and how to fix them, if possible? If I didn’t believe we should change and could change, I would change and spend my time on other endeavors. Why waste precious time and effort on something that couldn’t make a difference?

A few final questions for all you do-it-yourselfers out there:

  • Does our current ministry model “ring the missional alarm bells”?
  • How many of these seven bells will be clanging on the missional template, and which ones?
  • How loudly does our bell ringing clash with our claim of being mission-shaped?
  • What are some other possible critical values of being missional that should be added to this list? How are we doing on those missional practices?

© 2008 Brad Sargent.

Comments (0)

The Meanings of Missional Part 1-Responses to Frank Viola’s Three Questions


Jan 02

Posted: under Missional Paradigms and Practices.

Introductory Note. This was originally posted October 31, 2008, on my WordPress futuristguy blog under the title, Frank Viola’s Three Questions on the Meaning of Missional. It led to a follow up post the next day, The Meanings of Missional Part 2-Seven Critical Value Factors for Proving Your Paradigm is Missional.

Frank Viola’s Three Questions

on the Meaning of Missional

It’s been a domino couple of days. Rick Meigs of The Blind Beggar, one of my Missional Order friends, posted that Frank Viola had asked some questions on the meaning of missional. Rick picked up the lead from Kingdom Grace, and maybe she got it from being an Ooze Select Blogger who reviews books and so had read Frank’s newest one, Reimagining Church. And then I had a great conversation on multiracial, multicultural urban church ministry with my decade-long friends Gary and Barbara from Richmond, California. They get it about missional, because they are all about living into their context and intentionally preparing the way for the next 50 years and several generations of indigenous leaders. A wonderful and energizing day of missionality! Dominoes - how much of life is about picking up a trail of “divine dominoes” or playing our piece in a trail so the next person can play there’s?

Anyway, nobody wants to miss out on conversation among friends! And Rick and Grace are people I like and whose Kingdom work and thinking I respect, so I expected something important was goin’ on down over at Frank’s place. They were right. Some excellent insights to learn from, as posted by both newcomers and oldgoers in the missional conversation. Check it out when you get a chance …

However - well, I should know better than to think, Oh - guess I could make just one last blog visit for the day before I shut down the computer. Umm … yeah, right. That was 11 PM. When next I looked, it was, like, 12:30 AM. Anyway, below are the three questions Frank asked, and my responses. As soon as I get a chance, I’ll finish an add-on I didn’t post in his comments section, and paste it in here. It’s a summary of examples about what is non-missional.

1. What does “missional” mean to you?

I found the link on The Blind Beggar and came over here to see what was happening. The post and comments generated a lot of thinking … thanks for an opportunity to synthesize some of what I’d already been pondering for a long time.

After thinking about the meaning of “missional” for at least a year, I think I’m finally getting a handle on the “what,” “so what,” and “now what” of it all. And as it turns out, it’s a much bigger picture than I realized!

To me, “missional” means everyday discipleship that brings our personal presence into all venues where we have influence. This is both individual and corporate - living out and the character of Christ as individuals and Kingdom culture as a community of sojourners among our neighbors and neighborhoods. There will always be a dynamic tension or paradox between missional individuals and community. We cannot sustain being missional on our own, but if we are not being missional individually we cannot sustain being mission-shaped corporately.

Being missional involves being both contextual (relevant in our engagement with these cultures) and countercultural (resistant and challenging to the anti-biblical aspects of these cultures). It neither colonizes (attempts to control the culture or make it conform externally) nor syncretizes (lets the culture control us). Mission-shaped engagement with our neighbors and our/their cultures calls forth expectancy, creativity, and responsibility. It also challenges us to advocate for those who have been victimized, to call out those who perpetrate evil and injustice, and to be present with people in the midst of the mundane moments, pains, and joys of their life.

Living this kind of intentional, mission-shaped life requires us to practice regularly the disciplines of:

GIVING (sharing, blessing, praying),

RECEIVING (listening, asking, thanking), and

PERCEIVING (Who/What did I notice that was a surprise? What do I wish I’d done differently/more Christlike just now? How was the Triune God providentially at work in it?)

Persevering in these disciplines develops our missional consciousness and our conscience.

The practices of giving, receiving, and perceiving help transform us from religious consumers into spiritual-cultural producers. Missional attitudes and actions make an incremental difference in the lives of ourselves and others over time, as we root ourselves into the locales and spheres of influence God providentially graces us with. As Tolstoy said, “True life is lived when tiny changes occur.” So, being missional is about living out an incarnational life of gradual changes in the commonplace activities of each day together. It is about sacrificial obedience that costs, not seeking for super-spiritual or super-supernatural or self-serving experiences that we think will pay off.

2. Do you feel that this is a good word - why or why not?

“Missional” is a fairly good word to use … when applied with understanding of it as a term of spiritual production, not religious consumption. However, many now seem to want to USE the term WITHOUT LIVING by the terms of the term. I have to wonder if their name-it-and-claim-it approach relates more to marketing promotion than to missional paradigms. If they don’t want to use the word appropriately, then they should not use it at all.

This misapplication is very naughty behavior, even if driven by sincere desires to reach people for Christ. Purveyors of missional emptiness ought to be sent to theological time-out until they have repented of their dilution of the term’s terms, meanings, and methods!

3. To your mind, what is the difference between a “missional church” and a “non-missional” church? Give examples if you like.

Oh, oh …now there’s The Big Question: differences between missional church and non-missional church. I’m a researcher on paradigms and cultural systems, so I’ve got a lot of technical blah-blah-blah ideas and reasons on that subject. Let me say the relatively non-technical stuff here, and leave the rest for my blog or somewhere else, sometime else.

I like what Brother Maynard said in his summary of the Missional SynchroBlog in June 2008: “Live your faith. Share your life.” That keeps things integrated and holistic - and that’s the essence of the missional paradigm. The reverse: “Live your life. Share your faith” is reductionist. The essence of non-missional is compartmentalizing - it divides evangelism and missions and discipleship and etc. away from the rest of life.

I’ve blogged about the differences this way:

What makes mission and missional different? Mission requires “incursion” - people commute into the community, and then return to their home turf when they are finished. Missional requires “incarnation” - people root into the community, because that is their home and they never finish.

I also think a key difference lies in the realm of being collaborative producers instead of passive consumers. In non-missional churches, there are deep-level paradigm assumptions that set up surface-level operating systems that block people from being discipled as spiritual producers; they keep people immature religious consumers. And while creativity is definitely a reflection of God’s image in us, I’ve yet to figure out what aspect of God’s personhood or character consumption reflects …

Continued in The Meanings of Missional Part 2-Seven Critical Value Factors for Proving Your Paradigm is Missional.

© 2008 Brad Sargent.

Comments (1)

Missional SynchroBlog 2008-Paradigm Profiling in the Missional Zone


Dec 31

Posted: under Missional Paradigms and Practices.

INTRODUCTION

This is probably one of the longest and most technical posts I ever wrote for my regular futuristguy blog. But, it was what I wanted to write for the Missional SynchroBlog opportunity in June 2008, and so I did it. I’d only been into the so-called “missional movement” less than a year at that time. Before that, I was more missional than not in my overall outlook, but didn’t even know it. Blogging helped me realize where I fit in the confusing world of contemporary post-Christendom life. So, here is the post, basically as originally presented for the SynchroBlog on June 23, 2008.

Paradigm Profiling in the Missional Zone

Missional SynchroBlog 2008

Welcome to the Missional SynchroBlog on “What is missional?”

I have a lot that I would like to say on that topic. A huge amount, in fact … which will not come as a surprise to anyone who’s delved into futuristguyblog before. Unfortunately, I have been ill the last few days. I simply could not finish what I really wanted to do, which was to present a tutorial on culturology that would detail the background to what I’m about to say that critiques multiple aspects of missional, with suggestions for transitioning to missional or beyond.

I thought doing a paradigm analysis would be the most positive and constructive thing I could contribute to this Missional Synchroblog, given my studies on culture and my passion for helping God’s people understand and pursue God’s “Kingdom Culture” best within their local cultural context. But alas, and I lack … but okay. It’s the providential situation I find myself in, and I’m goin’ with it! At least I got the tutorial partway done, and I trust I’ll be able to finish it up and post it sometime. Anyway, I learned long ago that you do what you can when you can. I’m not sure my Plan B post will come out sounding constructive, but at least I am going to try. When there’s a historical “Esther Moment,” it could be that one of the most important things is to show up and do at least something, not to opt out until you get it perfect because that day will never come.

So, here it is.

[Postscript: Okay, so this entry isn't exactly what I wanted, but by cutting, pasting, and editing chunks of text from other materials I've written, it's almost turned into the tutorial I wanted. Go figure ... guess that was what was meant to be! But ... ummm ... it turned out reeeeally long, so you might want to just download it for later ...]

VEXATIONS AND HESITATIONS

What is “missional”? Now, I am known as a pursuer of questions. (In fact, I was once introduced as someone who was “working on answers to questions that no one else was asking yet.” It was the late 1990s and I was there to give a lecture on emerging postmodern cultures.) But What is “missional”? is one of many questions I find quite vexing these days. Seems like the real question that some North American churches, ministries, and agencies are fighting over is WHO is “missional”? As if we are all Dogs Who Love the Lord and are trying to mark our territory.

Well, that’s not exactly productive, yet there seem to be ever so many more turf wars over terms these days to be dragged into (e.g., emergent-emerging, missions-missional-missionary, seeker-disciple). I do believe it’s legitimate to profile a paradigm so we can be intentional in contextualizing ministry within a given cultural setting. However, sometimes the discussions focus on getting the definition wording exactly right - and actually, that’s more a manifestation of a modernist philosophist drive to achieve perfection in our conceptual understanding than a call to ministry. The philosophist approach builds a new Babel, only with words instead of bricks.

But if someone is pursuing the missional question out of genuine attempts to lead God’s people to the absolute fullness of what He intended us all to be and to do, then that’s worth the effort.

PREPARING FOR PARADIGM PROFILING

It vexes me when I sense there’s been apparent misappropriation of terms - hijacking them, if you will - and acting as if it is being used accurately. I’ve seen it over and over since the ’70s, and I believe that it’s happening now with the term missional. So, instead of wrangling over rarified abstractions of the term, how about doing a concrete analysis? What would we find if we conducted a content and concept analysis of the blogs and books and teachings of people/organizations whose MAIN approach is self-proclaimed as missional? What do they demonstrate as being the essence of “missional”? I suspect we would find vastly different word choices and lifestyle activities than where missional seems to be a MINOR approach or a ministry add-on.

You may know from previous visits here that I’ve been working for about 15 years on a curriculum to train people for cultural interpretation, ministry contextualization, and social transformation. What you may not know is that I’ve been studying various elements of paradigm systems, culture, and contextualization for over 30 years. In recent days, I’ve applied some of this knowledge to an informal “content analysis” of what makes missional what it is. (Check out this post for an overview of what a content analysis entails.)

Some of my questions of interest were:

  • How do we interpret the “appropriate” boundaries of missional as a full paradigm?
  • What are the “barometer issues” (info processing and critical values especially) that help differentiate the clusters of groups that claim to be missional?
  • Where does this missional paradigm stand in relation to fully integrative, holistic paradigm and the comprehensive Kingdom Culture that would result?

Of course, I’m not neutral in this endeavor. I would consider myself more of the missional-incarnational tribe than not. However, there are areas where I don’t think what’s typically considered “missional” goes far enough toward a holistic paradigm. And certainly there are areas of my own perspective and lifestyle that truly missional people would find as not meeting commonly accepted understandings or standards for what missional means.

This process involved studying surface behaviors and statements of people and groups that say they are missional (or that don’t say so, but come across that way anyway). Then I approximated the underlying paradigm system. In other words, I gathered a set of relevant data, then analyzed it to “backcast” and see what “deep structures” would inherently and consistently serve as starting points and processes that lead to such a specific set of surface behaviors in culture and organizations. It also included figuring out what “differentiates” approaches that may sound or look similar to missional, but actually aren’t … or aren’t yet. This is an art, and you’ll have to decide for yourselves whether I’m an artist, an artiste, or just fakin’ it while drawin’ stick-figures …

Anyway, here’s how my cultural interpretation theory organizes the layers in a paradigm.

PARADIGM FRAMEWORK

A paradigm system is a multi-layered system of ways that a group of people deal with life. Each person functions from a paradigm, and cultures hold a paradigm in common. In my current model for analyzing cultural systems, paradigms include seven interconnected elements. (I’m still beta-testing and refining my approach, but this seven-layer approach seems to work.) Going from the deepest to the most surface layers, they are:

  1. Information Processing Modes
  2. Critical Values
  3. Critical Theology, Religious Perspective, or Philosophy
  4. Organizational Strategies
  5. Organizational Infrastructures
  6. Methodological Models
  7. Surface Style and Lifestyle.

A paradigm is integrated at the deepest level by the primary way people process information. These processing modes represent a combination of things I have learned from technical studies on comparative logical and rhetoric in language (i.e., cross-cultural discourse analysis), learning styles and perception, epistemology, and hermeneutics. Our information processing mode colors how we perceive everything. They are the “logic” by which we categorize information, decide what we find valuable, create a philosophical worldview, consider how to interact with other cultures, and attempt to maintain power over how people behave.

My framework of five information processing modes is based on an important quote from a now-mostly-forgotten pastor-preacher-theologian-author, A.J. Gossip (yup, that’s his real last name). Gossip passed on the following idea: “A basic trouble is that most Churches limit themselves unnecessarily by addressing their message almost exclusively to those who are open to religious impression through the intellect, whereas … there are at least four other gateways - the emotions, the imagination, the aesthetic feeling, and the will - through which they can be reached.”

I have “essentialized” what I know into a set of four distinct information processing modes related to Gossip’s terms. I’ll spend a bit of time on these, because they are the primary integration points for paradigm; they determine everything else that flows upward toward the surface of actions.

The Mind focuses on analysis. Analytic “logic” is about creating discrete pieces of information, and reducing large amounts of material into a singular principle. It involves sifting through a set that includes multiple pieces of data, and boiling down the similarities in the data, or dissecting all the differences, until you can extract out one principle or pattern from that set. It also typically expresses itself in lists of items, “either/or” rules, and segmentation of items into categories. From it we get an emphasis on hierarchical order, procedures, and strategizing. Examples: Atheism, agnosticism, and philosophical postmodernISM (but not cultural postmodernITY) rely on analytic skepticism to process information.

The Imagination focuses on synthesis. Synthetic logic is about putting several things together to create something new. It begins with a single idea or principle or parameter, and combines it with one or more other ideas, in order to expand the new approach out into multiple applications. Synthesis is all about options, variation, and choices. We could do this, or that, or the other … From it we get an emphasis on creativity, arts, and entrepreneurship. Example: The “Lost Generation” of 20th-century artists (for example, Gertrude Stein) could be viewed as espousing amorality, an internally consistent belief set where every option is equally valid, acceptable, and tolerated.

The Emotions focus on symbiosis. Symbiotic logic is about bringing multiple things or people together into a new kind of organism, where the original distinctions become blurred or lost because of the new combination or cooperation. For instance, the lichen is a form of symbiosis between two types of plant; they co-exist for the benefit of both. Parasites are a form of symbiosis where one “partner” benefits, to the detriment of the other. In its extreme forms, symbiotic logic moves beyond “infusion” where various elements support each other, to “fusion” where all distinctions between elements are collapsed into non-distinctions. From it we get an emphasis on community, justice, and mentoring. Example: Religious monism (e.g., Hinduism, animism, pantheism) asserts that everything in the universe is joined together as an extension of one another. Things may seem temporarily distinct, but ultimately they are not separate.

The Aesthetic Feeling (soul) focuses on analogies. Analogic logic is about holding two seemingly contradictory principles together simultaneously. This creates a paradoxical, dynamic, “both/and” tension, as when light is comprised of both waves and particles, even though that doesn’t seem to “make sense.” Or when Scriptures declare that Christians are both sinners and saints. But don’t view paradoxy like walking a tightrope where you might fall off this side or that side if you don’t “balance” correctly. Paradoxical tension works more like a violin string, which is anchored at one end and then cinched up from the other end so it can sing. (This allusion is from Klyne Snodgrass in his excellent but unfortunately out-of-print book, Between Two Truths: Living with Biblical Tensions.). From it we get an emphasis on ecological/organic systems, interpretive reflection, and mysticism.

And yes, I know there is the fifth term from Gossip: The Will. In my system, The Will focuses on integrative processes - doing what it takes to bring together two or more of the other logics in combinations that bring about a more comprehensive, holistic paradigm. From it we get an emphasis on righteousness, reconciliation, and complementarity. In fact, the profile I’ll present later as missional is actually closer to what I think is the ideal integrative paradigm that uses all five processing modes in dynamic balance.

I know this may seem awfully esoteric, and you may be wondering, How can this have any practical value? Stick with me, and hopefully you’ll see. This set allows me to develop four “pure types,” each of which presents a substantially different approach to interpreting the world around us. If I’ve done my theorizing well, this set should explain sources of conflict that are based in various aspects of paradigms. (So, again, information processing modes prove a most critical element to understand.)

So, that way of integrating information and directly related ways of life inherently flow upward and manifest themselves in a consistent set of ways of how we view being individuals and organizing our communities, and of dominant philosophical/theological systems. As these interact, out flow our end-state values (the way things should be, our purposes, what goals we are moving toward), and our instrumental values (the ways we should treat people, our means, what legitimates our purposes). Core values are qualities held by any number of paradigms, but critical values are the dominant characteristics that differentiate it. Critical values are the heart-pulse of a specific paradigm - take those away, and you’ve removed its very life force.

To give an oversimplified example, both the Celtic monastics and the Eastern desert monastics could be said to hold CORE values for spiritual formation and personal reflection. The CRITICAL value difference is demonstrated by Celtic monasteries generally establishing themselves at the crossroads of societies, while Eastern monasteries generally set themselves in areas apart from society. One embraces connection, the other isolates. When two things have similar names, differentiation between them requires interpreting their underlying core values in light of overt activities to find the critical difference.

Deep-level information processing mode and critical values lead to the operational systems we typically use to achieve our goals. Operational systems consist of our strategies and structures. These lead to methodological models, which I would describe as a clear cluster of specific goals and routine means for implementing them, consistent with the prescriptions of our underlying strategies and infrastructures prescribe. Examples of methodological models: mega-church, missionary shadow team, house church, seeker-sensitive. And perhaps some people even use emerging and missional more as a methodological model instead of as their paradigm. Now, there’s something to think about …

The very surface level consists of style (how people present themselves) and lifestyle (how people act). This includes both personal and social behaviors, social groups and their distinctive lifestyles, and acceptable objects and activities. That is where a paradigm seems most apparent, but the easily observed level of concrete actions does not always tell you where that comes from. Vastly different paradigms can potentially support very similar looking style and lifestyle elements, but it comes from wholly distinct integration points.

So, what about changing a paradigm? All of these factors and layers together interact as a system, governed by the key integration points indigenous to the paradigm’s information processing mode and critical values. This means that sustainable change requires transformation at the deepest level in order to effect long-term changes at the surface level. It also means that the opposite approach does not work - significant changes (i.e., rearrangements) at the surface level do not automatically reorient our operational systems, our modes of social organization, our values, or our epistemology.

IDENTIFYING PARADIGM ELEMENTS

WITHIN “THE MISSIONAL ZONE”

Okay, so we’re finally here. An overview of some key deep-level aspects of “The Missional Zone” Paradigm! I don’t think it would’ve made much sense without all that background, and I hope it makes some sense with it! I know this is dense stuff, however, if we say we really want to engage in dialog about the essence of what it means to be missional, I believe we have to take a deep-level look at what drives our paradigm. If we don’t, we’ll end up in frustrating arguments over surface-level issues like methodological models, styles, lifestyles, and vocabulary usage. No, we need to look at the deep issues, because those are what differentiate paradigms.

Before you read this section, two important notes:

  • You may want to take a moment to think through and perhaps jot some notes about what you would say are the distinctive features of the deep- and middle-levels of a Missional Paradigm.
  • I do not necessarily agree with the overall substance or particular nuance of any statement that appears in this section. I am attempting to present my best approximation of a Missional Paradigm.

Deepest level - information processing modes and critical values.

The Missional Paradigm involves a relatively holistic perspective based on a process of intentionally choosing (the will) to integrate the processing modes of analysis (mind), synthesis (imagination), symbiosis (emotions and relationships), and analogy (aesthetic feeling or soul). The imagination, emotions, and aesthetic feeling are likely stronger than mind/analysis. Followers in a Missional Paradigm apply the resulting perspective as consistently as possible to a comprehensive range of life-categories, academic domains, and spiritual disciplines.

Some of the critical values for followers in a Missional Paradigm are these:

  • We value integrating all systems for biblical, theological, and cultural study for us to learn how best to interact in ways that allow contextualization to any culture. In part, contextualization means letting the everyday issues and concerns and needs of people in our neighborhood or other social setting create the agenda for our responses. However, within that, we will seek to empower instead of rescue, show compassion without compromise, and come alongside instead of control.
  • We value ongoing relational-incarnational presence within our neighborhoods over occasional event-attractional possibilities at some other location.
  • We value setting all theological divisions and disciplines in a larger framework of redemptive transformation. This requires us to develop strategies, structures, models, and methods with sustainability, anti-toxicity, and cycles of change and rest involving persons, cultures, and the earth.
  • We value setting all lifestyle issues in a larger framework of respect and mutuality where individual and corporate participation are always held in dynamic tension. This includes sustaining our community by considering the potential consequences for future generations of our current decisions. Also, as a learning community, we seek to listen to one another, discern as a body, and learn to interpret together the observations and perspectives of all members.
  • We value God’s providential provisions to use through the gifts of both individuals and the community. Every person “leads” through their spiritual gifts, though not all are called to be leaders. The contributions of any individual are never quenched by the group for the sake of conformity, and the actions of any individual are never allowed to lead to chaos in the group for no good reason.
  • Life is meant to move toward Christlike transformation as individuals, and Kingdom Culture as groups. Therefore, discipleship is the largest framework for transformation because it includes and leads to evangelism and social activism.

Deep level - guiding theological or philosophical perspectives.

Some of the guiding principles for followers in a Missional Paradigm are these:

  • Choose organic principles over programmatic approaches.
  • Choose to create a culture of producers instead a culture of consumers.
  • Choose the contextual local approach over generic universal materials.
  • Choose the intentional and strategic over the experimental and pragmatic.
  • Choose gradual change and impact, unless the Holy Spirit presses for urgency.
  • Choose corporate participation over institutional ownership.
  • Choose an external/Kingdom focus over an internal/Christendom focus.
  • Choose narrative theology over systematic theology.
  • Choose mentoring systems approaches to multiplication discipleship over informational program approaches to discipleship.
  • Choose words of Jesus over those of other biblical authors.

Middle level - operational system - our strategies, infrastructures, and “methodological models.”

Here is a sample of what an operational system could look like in a Missional Paradigm.

  • In general, our strategy involves extended (even multigenerational, when seems indicated) response for gradual but sustainable impact on important community projects and issues. We should use unique local perspectives and resources whenever possible in the short run and absolutely so in the long run. Sometimes there should be an immediate response for an urgent need, but that is more the rarity rather than the standard.
  • This strategy requires structures involving teams (not individuals) that lead us. We will use intentional compositing of teams according to individuals with complementary gifts and strengths. The teams will work together to “cast the vision,” and they will become our vision carriers in those endeavors, embodying the attitudes and actions we need to see in order to become more like Jesus. Participants will work together to develop clear written descriptions of their community or ministry, and clear written descriptions of what constitutes qualitative “success.” They will consider how to make appropriate adjustments to “imported” materials developed elsewhere, based on local cultural studies and contextualization. They will establish intergenerational mentoring to make their community or ministry sustainable, and engage in periodic evaluations and course corrections.

CASE STUDY

Learning Trail Values and Vision - January 2007

The following statement of values comes from the Tessera Learning Trail. I posted it a few months ago in the second part of the history of this innovative network. At that time, I said of it: If you’re looking for a decentralized network model for creative missional start-up of holistic Kingdom enterprises - contextual ministries, micro-businesses, social transformation movements - the Tessera Learning Trail has one of the best track records I’m aware of.

The following Values and Vision Statement was drafted by a six-member “Design Group” on behalf of the 30+ participants of the larger international workgroup at “Houston Summit” in November 2006. They produced the first draft at the end of a week of meetings, and refined it over the next three months. The Design Group consisted of: Mark Berry (SafeSpace, UK), Karen Campbell (UBA, Houston), Daniel Ehniss (Kubik, Germany), Shannon Hopkins (Walking Missional Incubator, UK/US), Mark Reichmann (Kubik, Germany), and Brad Sargent (Superhero Sidekick, US).

Here is the introduction to Tessera’s values statement. Consider this as a case study in a well-developed deep-level and middle-level missional paradigm. It presents their 12 core values. What do you think could be considered as critical missional values in this statement - those items that, if they were missing, would mean that Tessera was not really function from a missional paradigm?

This values statement is much more than some list of 12 items. It represents the providentially interwoven stories of dozens of people over several decades. It is not a manifesto of what we think we or others should do, but is a snapshot of what we are already being, doing, and becoming. It represents the integration of our heads and hearts, our imaginations and emotions, our spirits and our will …We love being part of this thing, because we find God is before and behind it, beside and above it, guiding us onward, step by step together. Perhaps you will find yourself led to join in our journey of transformative living and learning!

We Are …

1. We are an international network of communities and individuals engaged in transformative learning and creative partnerships for discipleship. We know what it feels like to be missional pioneers, and have found ourselves in providential relationship with one another.

2. We are committed to continue developing each other and the next generations of missional practitioners. Our participants provide transformational, reciprocal learning experiences that include the following (but are not limited to):

  • Self-directed learning.
  • Learning in missional community.
  • Learning with mentors.

3. These kinds of transformational, reciprocal learnings apply to individuals and to communities. They experiences include general spiritual disciplines and healing needed by all who follow Christ, as well as specific skills for applied ministry.

We Value …

4. We value holistic learning. Transformational learning impacts the whole person. It’s not just about a series of courses with content, it’s about experiencing ourselves in a context and in community. When we engage our whole self in active learning in a cultural context, we find it affects our physical, emotional, spiritual, and social aspects of personhood.

5. We value just inclusivity. We seek to treat each other as colleagues to learn from each other in a community of disciples, where each individual brings multiple perspectives based on gender, generation, family of origin, racial background, national ties, socio-economic status, and many other factors.

6. We value accessibility with responsibility. We show our trust by sharing life together. We are intentional about including others in our network of relationships, listening to one another, participating in learnings and activities that will change us, and opening ourselves for truthful accountability.

7. We value reciprocal learning. Everyone’s learning needs and contributions providentially overlap with the needs and contributions of others eventually. This is mutuality in action: What I have right now to share matches what someone else needs, and vice versa. Also, we value the wisdom of those who have experience and we also value the contributions of those who are new to our network. SO there is reciprocal learning in an environment of trust that allows for risk,

8. We value fluid leadership. No one leader or team directs, speaks for, or oversees our network. We do not expect every network participant to be involved in every function that happens. Instead, leadership in any given event, project, or partnership is based on giftedness, expressed in humility, in response to invitations based on the Spirit’s leading in whoever catalyzes a function, and often with surprises based in God’s provision for whom He wants to participate.

9. We value entrepreneurship. We desire our lives to have Kingdom impact that leads to personal and social transformation. Such ministry that is both appropriate yet challenging for a given cultural context calls forth an entrepreneurial spirit. This involves the freedom to be creative and take bold risks, as well as the responsibility to engage in critical reflection and exercise community discernment.

10. We value being independent and interdependent. We value what we learn and do independently as individuals and communities, but we are not about individualism. We also value interdependence among network participants, but we are not about conformity. We see the need to strengthen each other by sharing our resources and relationships, and by keeping connected and accountable. We are especially concerned that we maintain dialogue among disciples from “established” and “emerging” cultures.

Our structures and our commitments …

11. Our structures flow out of these values, and we work intentionally to have them embedded and embodied in all we do as a decentralized network. Many of our “structures” are actually individuals or communities who carry specific giftings, and who are passionate to serve in ways that facilitate our remaining as organic a system as possible.

12. Our purposes, relationships, networks, and lifestyles reflect God’s missions and the ministry of Christ incarnate. So, we are committing ourselves not only to be accountable, but to pursue spiritual formation, holiness, ethical and just living, with honesty and integrity, with humility and respect. This is who we are, and who we strive to be with God, each other, and the world. We do not enter or exit relationships lightly, and our promise with each other is to help each one be, become, and do all that God intended.

Endnote about Tessera … If this statement of what’s at the core of the Tessera Learning Trail intrigues you, be sure to check out my “Training Trail” category for the history leading up to the creation of this statement!

DO-IT-YOURSELF SECTION

If you have visited futuristguyblog before, you know I regularly interject a “do-it-yourself” section. After I completed The Missional Zone Paradigm Profile section, I decided to include one here. If you’ve been willing to read 50 Missional Synchroblog posts on the subject of What is Missional?, I assume you’re serious enough about the topic to tackle some questions that may raise your hackles.

Here’s the framework: Assume the Paradigm Profile I presented is relatively accurate. Apply these two questions for each statement below.

First, why do you think I would make each of the following statements about what is NOT missional, what is NOT NECESSARILY missional, and where missional needs to BECOME EVEN MORE holistic?

Second, in each case what suggestions for transformation could you give to disciples who want to journey toward missional, toward being more consistently missional, or beyond missional to even more holistc?

I will state up front that I believe any church, ministry, or Kingdom enterprise could transition toward a holistic, missional paradigm profile. However, it will be harder for those from some paradigms and methodological models than for others. The cultural distance may be so much, and the change process so intense, that it will cause enough culture shock to send them into culture cardiac arrest.

I will also state up front that I believe this transition is what needs to happen anyway. It’s a whole ‘nuther topic, but I believe the churches of Western civilizations really don’t have more than 25 years to do this - if even that long - if we want to become viable and sustainable. We’ve got to choose …

[ADDED LATER: This transition from Traditional and Pragmatic Paradigms to a more Holistic Paradigm is an absolutely critical issue for us. Even if we want to make that change, I'm not sure we know how. And yes, I certainly believe change can happen just in response to listening for the leading of the Holy Spirit - yet every command in Scripture is an appeal to intentionality. It's both/and, not either/or. So, part of my reason for this extensive post on paradigm analysis is so that eventually I could write on some of the intentional HOW to make that paradigm shift. But, it really doesn't make any sense to talk about "paradigm shifts" when we don't have language or framework for "paradigms" first ... So, thanks for your patience in slogging through this. There is a point to the many words therein!]

This is one of the rare do-it-yourself sections that I will plan to come back online sometime and share my responses and reasonings to the questions I posed. Can’t promise when, but I will make every effort to do so sometime.

  • If our church uses a chaplain pastor model or a CEO-manager model, that is inherently NOT missional.
  • If our church is staff-led, that is inherently NOT missional.
  • If our church uses a program-based model, that is inherently NOT missional. (By program-based, I mean it uses organizational modules, projects, and/or curriculum that is supplied by outside publishers, agencies, or providers.)
  • If our church is a mega-church or multi-campus church, that is inherently NOT missional.
  • If our church uses a seeker model, that is inherently NOT missional.
  • If our church, ministry, or agency advocates “church planting movements,” it is NOT NECESSARILY missional.
  • If our church or ministry relies solely on the leading of the Holy Spirit to connect us with other people, that is NOT NECESSARILY missional.
  • If our leaders and teachers say that we need to be a Gospel/New Testament church and do everything like Jesus and His disciples did, that is NOT NECESSARILY missional.

What other issues come to your mind that address the distinctives of what is and is not missional? If you’d like to add them to the comment section. That will give others a chance to consider your do-it-yourself questions …

Meanwhile, thanks for your efforts in reading this post and thinking it through. I hope it was of help and a blessing to you.

© 2008 Brad Sargent.

Comments (0)