After the holidays we'll be heading into a season of heavy emphasis on communal prayer. Thanks for the well-thought out response JR. I really do appreciate it.

I wonder if the "answer" lies in a carefully constructed process of communal discernment. I am thinking in terms of collecting an ad hoc group of seasoned and spiritually mature folks to engage in a process of prayer, fasting, and question asking, and listening and then making a decision based on what the Holy Spirit seems to be communicating. Perhaps there is something to be said for the exercise of "power under" playing out as a submission to what the community discerns even if you might not think it's for the best. Not sure this is a universally applicable posture, but perhaps the appropriate one given timing and circumstances.

All that to say simply this: I'm wrestling with the tension : )

Correct, I'm not thinking of local churches shipping their leaders off to a traditional seminary. Without spelling out in detail what I think the full spectrum of training missional leaders ought to entail, I am saying if and when there is cost involved, those communities who have identified emerging leaders should relieve the financial burden.

On your second point – hmmm. I guess I take the priesthood of all believers for granted and suppose that within that paradigm, the church still bears the task of identifying leaders that God has supernaturally & specifically gifted to equip the body of Christ. I think the involvement of the body in identifying these folks would go a long way to communicate how these two realities coexist. This issue probably goes deeper into the overall life of the community and plays out through a new host of practices and structures. For instance, cultivating an environment in which everyone (teachers, city workers, engineers, artists, etc.), not only emerging church leaders, are missionally commissioned. However, I do think that the church bears more responsibility (and therefore should make more investment in) for identifying and training local church leaders. I also spend several posts detailing the how's and why's of bivocational leadership which I think serves to alter our perception of a divide between clergy and laity as well.

1) Two things to day here. First, I'm not familiar with the names you mentioned, but if they are specialty sorts of people, then chances are that few, if any, people have any real access to them anyway aside from information they dispense, which I am willing to bet they do in book form – thus wisely making their work widely accessible. Second, in a missional vision of theological education, as I mentioned above, the faithful practice of communities is far and away more important to the formation of leaders than the expertise of individuals.

2) I haven't gotten there yet, but to a degree, I share this same concern. Ben intimated at a way forward in the comment above and I will go further in a future post. The reason I say, "to a degree," is that no matter how hard you work, this will always be a reality and that is not a bad thing. Again, faithfulness to the way of Jesus in any tradition is more important than a diversity of exposure to theological traditions that are impossible to simultaneously live in to. I am not advocating a posture toward theological education that allows for provincialism, but I am saying that if we are successful in helping people live more and more like Christ, who cares how theologically diverse they are!? There is something about Christlikeness that transcends theological diversity I think.

And, I would add, can affirm their character.

Concerning funding, I have one question and one concern: I'm assuming based on earlier posts that you're not talking about sending leaders to seminary…is that correct? Relying on the old system would be philosophically self-defeating and financially prohibitive, even if a missional group was only funding one student. You're talking about whatever the (presumably less expensive) "new educational wineskins" costs, yes? Also, I'm concerned about steering clear of the old clergy/laity split if we maintain some kind of class separation (complete with tuition privileges) between the leaders and the non-leaders. How do you envision protecting the priesthood of all believers int his proposal?

1) Lack of access to 'experts in the field'.
I actually think this is a realatively minor issue, but if you're training is coming in a church you probably won't have the same exposure to people like a Dan Wallace or Peter Enns who have made a specific area of Christian studies their life's work and who's knowledge in that field is unparalled.

2) Lack of theological diversity.
This is my biggest concern. If you are converted in a church, discipled in that church, training in that church, and serving in that church (or a daughter/sister congregation) the entire limit of your formal theological exposure will be the point of view of that congregation. This seems like a (in?)breeding ground for predjudiced positions and a major handicap to any productive eccumenical activity.
And yes, I realize that denominational seminaries can be just as bad with this.

I think this could very easily be developed into something a missional church planting network could adopt as a template for theological education from within its own churches.