• Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Root of the Problem

    November 13, 2009

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem

    There is one sure fire way to undermine the character of Christian witness and mission – bind them to systems of coercive power. To the great detriment of the Body of Christ, this is precisely what has happened in the cultural phenomenon of Christendom.

    christendom

    To understand what this has to do with theological education, we must first see what it has to do with the Church out of which our current system of theological education was born.

    The dominant expression of Christianity in the West takes Christendom for granted.  We expect the average person to have familiarity, if not empathy, with Judeo-Christian morals and values.  We vie for our government to embrace and enforce Christian sentiments and practices.  We expect “going to church” to be received by others as a vitally, if not at least potentially, important thing to do.  We operate out of the assumption that our biggest problem is getting people to believe the right thing in the intellectual sense.  All of these expectations stem from Christendom as a social power structure within modernity and they have served to (mis)shape the Church as we know it.

    It is from this sort of Church history that our institutions of theological education have grown.  They are Christendom-shaped feeder systems for Christendom-shaped churches.  Assuming the centrality of Christianity in the broader culture, students are educated more as managers than missionaries.  Managers and missionaries are two different sorts of leaders.  Whereas managerial leadership is predicated on positional power marked by knowing more than others, missional leadership is predicated on Christlike character, marked by holistic discipleship.  Thus, the ultimate problem with our current system of theological education is that it is not designed to make holistic disciples.

    Discipleship is a life-long battle of allegiances.  For the missional church and for a missional vision of theological education, the battle is largely between Christendom, attempting to use systems of coercive power for good, and participation in the Missio Dei, a way marked by humble obedience, uncomfortable faithfulness, and hope in the midst of death.

    Like the ring from Lord of the Rings, many well intentioned Christians have sought to use Christendom for good, but it doesn’t work like that.  Without doing irrevocable damage to what it means to be a disciple, we can’t use systems of coercive power for good.  They are firmly and always in opposition and this is why trying to cultivate missional leaders inside of Christendom-shaped systems is a lot like trying to drink ocean water to quench your thirst.  The thing you need is there, but there is something which permeates it that ends up having the opposite effect.

    Like the wizard Gandalf refusing to take and use the “ring of power,” or Jesus refusing Satan’s offers to achieve his purpose in more convenient ways, missional churches do well to resist the temptation of leveraging the powers of Christendom ideals and systems to achieve their goals.  Though they would have the best of intentions, they know and submit themselves to the truth that there is no shortcut.

    That being the case, missional churches require different sorts of leaders – those shaped more by a missional vision of theological education than a Christendom one.

    In my next post, as a way of moving us toward this missional vision, I want to make some observations on what the fruit of this sort of Christendom-rooted system has been.  But for now, what do you have to add to this?  Where would you push back?

    Related Posts with Thumbnails

    Posted in: christendom, church, leadership, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theological education, theology

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Recent Comments

  • Josh Garrington said...

    1

    I decided some time ago that the greatest victory Satan has achieved in the last 2000 years was Constantine legalizing the church way back 1700 years ago.

    11/13/09 9:34 PM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    2

    I think the system will always naturally be an expression of the intended and desired outcome. Much of Christendom comes from an intellectual framework, thus a system that place intellectual belief at the highest level. It is of no small consequence that Jesus spent much of his time addressing the intellectual elite.

    Grace on the other hand is not an intellectual consequence to control or grasp. It is something to be experienced and received, and thus cannot reside in the intellectual framework. It is intellectual untenable because it doesn't make sense from our perspective.

    What this means is we have to begin with a framework that creates an intentional space of grace for people to wrestle with what it means that our actions and circumstances, or the things we use to judge, don't define us.

    What I find in the Gospels is a model for doing this: the Jesus model. It's gathering together a group of twelve and wrestling with the story of Good News together. It's small enough to be effective, and large enough to create momentum.

    Funny thing is, Jesus changed the world with that structure.

    11/14/09 8:53 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    3

    Then I bet you'll love this little parable. http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=477

    11/14/09 9:45 PM | Comment Link

  • brad/futuristguy said...

    4

    No push-back at the moment, JR … maybe more of a push-forward, perhaps.

    I worked in multiple departments at a theologically conservative/evangelical seminary from 1996-2007, and got to know a lot of the students, professors, and administrators. So, I had a birds-eye view to observe the culture clash between the managerial versus missional paradigms as you’ve begun to describe. I witnessed the effects on people when more of a business bottom line dominated over a concern for holistic discipleship and witness. And although I saw sincerity about the system moving into the future, and a (very slow) degree of change in that direction, the systems are – sadly – still overwhelmingly geared to an information-conveyance, power-directive approach.

    We can’t totally fault the seminary for this. It’s just manifesting what’s in the DNA of its management systems and its management-style leaders. I’m reminded of a quote I found in a leadership book at the seminary. It comes from Price Pritchett, in *The Ethics of Excellence.* He states: “The organization can never be something the people are not.” To change the seminary paradigm from Christendom/management to Misseo Dei/missional will require putting holistic people in positions of teaching and of “power.” (Now that’s a major irony!) And so, it may well take a minimum of two or three more generations of highly intentional decision-making and follow-through for a seminary to overhaul its system by grafting in holistic administrators and professors, and letting them change the organizational DNA.

    But this raises a whole other issue that I think may be THE major reason why this is difficult. And that’s the problem of how to collaborate across these two paradigms when the value sets of each are truly different – even if adherents of both say they are drawn from Scripture – and these two value sets inherently lead to two conflicting sets of strategies, structures, and methods. How do you find "unity" in the midst of two incompatible approaches to the entire way you see the world and interact with it?

    In my experiences with such attempts at unity, they typically veer off toward unification and conformity. Managers just want to manage; it’s who they are and what they do. But attempting to control information, power, and positions doesn’t work in a world that values open-sourced, shared-responsibility, and parity. That kind of world calls forth missional, not managerial. I’m not even sure there is any in-between paradigm that works very well, and I’ve been wrestling with that issue since the mid-1990s. And it makes me sad …

    It would make my heart glad to find a place where pro-missional collaboration is more possible. But in any case, for now my own path through that conundrum has been to "download" as much holistic, missionally-minded material as I can, so those who are ready to construct (or reconstruct after deconstructing!) in a missional paradigm have yet another voice available.

    11/15/09 12:36 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    5

    Thanks for the thorough comment Brad. Let me respond to a few things that happened to stick out to me. You said…

    "To change the seminary paradigm from Christendom/management to Misseo Dei/missional will require putting holistic people in positions of teaching and of “power.” (Now that’s a major irony!) And so, it may well take a minimum of two or three more generations of highly intentional decision-making and follow-through for a seminary to overhaul its system by grafting in holistic administrators and professors, and letting them change the organizational DNA.

    I haven't quite gotten there yet, but changing existing Seminary systems over the course of generations is not something that interests me. Even if we get differently thinking people in those positions of "power," I think there are other major obstacles in the way (to be addressed later).

    Perhaps this what you were saying as you went on. I have been a part of the same unity-as-uniformity phenomenon that you speak of and just don't have much patience for it.

    This is truly a wineskins issue for me. No interest in trying to refurbish the old wineskins anymore, we need new ones. Sadly, and man, this is a whole other can of worms, the larger Christian community hasn't built a Christlike "unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground" sort of mentality into our DNA. We are so hell-bent on our own preservation that we have little capacity for any real resurrection sort of hope.

    11/15/09 3:00 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    6

    Great words Jonathan, thanks. Absolutely, we need to come back time and again to the biblical pattern of God working in and then out of things otherwise considered small and weak to accomplish Kingdom purposes. As I said above, trying to use systems of coercive power (more! bigger! stronger!, etc.) for the sake of the gospel, which is most faithfully understood as something hidden, something small, something beyond our power to control anyway, will always distort the very nature of the gospel and lead us astray.

    Hope to get more of your feedback in future posts brother.

    11/14/09 9:53 PM | Comment Link

  • brad/futuristguy said...

    7

    I agree, it's a wineskins thing. And the best possible scenario, I believe, is to let those who live inside the new paradigm lead the way, and perhaps invite those from old paradigms to assist in ways that don't poke holes in the new wineskin. Otherwise, it's the colonization-by-Christendom problem yet again — the equivalent of the same old Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem issue, with the Jewish followers of Jesus insisting that Gentile followers had to convert to Judaism first. New cultures need new wineskins, and putting cross-cultural leaders over indigenous leaders always leads to difficulties.

    Never in the past 10+ years of church plants, mergers, and transitions that I’ve been involved with, have I experienced it working when modernistic/managerial paradigm people try to lead the way to a holistic/missional enterprise. And I have not seen them give up control and let the new insiders lead. It’s exactly what the father of all church consultants, Lyle Schaller, predicted over 10 years ago: “When the sequential [i.e., managerial model] church leaders do not accommodate the concurrent [i.e., non-linear, holistic] thinkers, the concurrent people lose hope.”

    If leaders within the old managerial paradigm want their seminary, church, or other organization to survive long into the future, at some point, they have to transition the leadership to the new insiders. They could either give it over all at once, or perhaps it works within their incremental-change method to have a two- or three-generation plan. I suspect there may be holistic-paradigm people that God would call into that role to accept the baton. I am not one of them, and sounds like that is not your calling either.

    So, for those like us, it makes more sense either to start something that embodies new-paradigm holism from the outset, or find and support those who have started something like this. That’s the route I’ve been taking …

    P.S. I always prefer to give as thorough and considered a comment as possible, never knowing if/when I’ll get back to blogs for follow-ups. And this is a vital topic, JR. Thanks for tackling it!

    11/15/09 10:26 PM | Comment Link

  • brad/futuristguy said...

    8

    I (re)discovered that I’d written on this topic of wineskins a year ago, in response to a post by Brother Maynard on how institutions sink collaboration. It applies aspects of grief to why it’s so hard to give up control. And there’s a section on how to help institutional church leaders move toward acceptance of paradigm death and transference of leadership and legacy. Might be of interest. http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/thoug...

    Also, since I have no idea when I’ll next get back to checking out blogs and the development of your series, here are several quotes that I find provocative on the subject of paradigm change, organizational cultures limiting new wineskins, and choosing continuance over conformity.

    “Many great organizations have launched ambitious sustainability initiatives only to see them wither away in a short time. The reason is simple. Your company is not defined by the initiatives it undertakes – it is defined by its culture. And to make sustainability work, it needs to be integrated into that framework.” ~ Green Canary, a division of EnviroMedia Social Marketing. http://www.greencanary.net/comms.php

    “From what has been told to me by elders, I’m not here to continue to try to be them, but I’m here to know their story which is the ancient oral tradition, the history of how I came to be here as a person of culture. My responsibility is to define myself based on that knowledge, and to include the experiences that I have in the world now as part of that history.” ~ R. Carlos Nakai, member of the Ute and Navajo tribes, in the world music compilation set, *Planet Soup*

    11/15/09 10:43 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    9

    Thanks for the links and quotes – all relevant stuff.

    11/16/09 9:31 PM | Comment Link

  • Jason Coker said...

    10

    I'm pretty late to the party. Sorry. It's hard to think of something to say when you agree. Keep it coming.

    11/17/09 3:15 AM | Comment Link

  • J.R. said...

    11

    Same name guy –

    Well done. Keep pushing this discussion. There is not enough of it (yet) in conversations within the Church. Grateful for your articulate and courageous thoughts.

    J.R.

    11/17/09 3:23 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    12

    Will do, thanks Jason.

    11/17/09 4:42 AM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    13

    Thanks – hope to have another post up in a day or two.

    11/17/09 4:43 AM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)