• Archive of "bi-vocational" Category

    The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Missionary Leaders

    December 5, 2011 // No Comments »

    As part of their forum on, “The Future of the Seminary,” the 3rd of 4 articles that I’ve contributed to, Ministers are Mobilizers, Not Managers,  went up the other day.  You can find the previous articles both here at lifeasmission as well as over at Patheos…

    Shaping Students w/ the Character and Competency of Jesus (lifeasmission | Patheos)

    Missionary Pastors for a Missionary God (lifeasmission | Patheos)

    Again, this is some edited content from a more comprehensive white paper that I worked on.  You can find the whole paper here as a resource at thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com.  Hope to see some helpful conversation emerge there, here, and over at Patheos as well.

    In terms of our particular contribution to this forum, we began by suggesting that while we passionately affirm the important role that seminaries play educationally, from a Kingdom perspective, the more important ‘accrediting factor’ is their ability to graduate students who have increasingly taken on both the character and competency of Jesus.   Given those aims and the ways in which our systems of theological education have been corrupted by the (non-missional) assumptions and characteristics of Christendom, we suggested that the central task before us is identifying educational principles guided by a theological vision of the missio Dei as it relates to both the Gospel and the Church that can help us re-imagine and re-shape our processes of theological formation.

    In our second post we sought to outline the central features of the first of three of these educational principles, that of being praxeological.   This praxeological orientation to theological education would result in the cultivation of reflective practitioners – leaders for whom the practice of mission and ministry and critical theological and missiological reflection always go hand-in-hand.

    Here, we’d like to provide a sketch of a second educational principle, again drawn from the life and ministry of Jesus, that we feel must inform our processes of theological formation, that of being mobilizational – geared toward the training of missionary leaders.

    One of the most disastrous effects of Christendom upon our systems of theological education has been the unhelpful assumption that the Church does and should exist at the center of our society.   Under this vision, seminaries have equipped leaders who would excel at managing and maintaining this system.   However, as the missio Dei and its implications for the Gospel and the Church come back into focus in Post-Christendom, we submit that our systems of theological education must be re-imagined for the purposes of training missionary leaders.  These will be leaders whose concern and skill-set revolve not around managing churches as part of a culture believed to be “Christian,” or even further, around church growth, but around mobilizing the people of God for participation in God’s mission in the world.  We submit that a truly mobilizational system of theological education will be, among other things, affordable, accessible, designed to prepare leaders as cultural pioneers, and judged on its ability to cultivate leaders who are competent to make disciples and mobilize others for faithful participation in God’s mission in the world.

    Affordable

    Unless you happen to live in a certain place, going to seminary requires the time and expense of uprooting your life and moving to another location.  In addition, the vast majority of seminary students are completely on their own to figure out how to pay for a seminary education.  A staggering number of students carry an enormous amount of debt for years, if not decades, following the completion of their program.   Not only is this problematic because of the current costs of seminary education, but increasingly, attaining a seminary degree does not translate into a proportional ability to get any job, let alone one that will alleviate students of their debt.   Moreover, because seminary degree programs remain, in large part, shaped by the assumptions of Christendom, students may quickly discover they are ill equipped to faithfully engage with the practical realities of ministry in Post-Christendom.  In order to be truly mobilizational, it is incumbent on us to re-imagine systems of theological education that are vastly more financially sustainable.

    Accessible

    Lack of proximity to the kinds of formational education that we are talking about isn’t just an affordability problem; it’s also an accessibility problem.  While we applaud the efforts of the increasing number of seminaries that value distance and
    distributed learning opportunities, we would suggest much more innovation is required.  Increasingly, seminaries need to embody in themselves the kind of character they should be instilling in their students.  In other words, just as we need to mobilize leaders, we also need to imagine what it might mean to mobilize theological education itself.  Institutions of theological education that are truly mobilizational will happily release power and control as they give their time and energy to initiatives that make quality theological education more accessible even if they don’t directly benefit.  The future of theological education belongs to those groups and institutions who care more for the work of God’s Kingdom than they do their own.

    Prepare Cultural Pioneers

    The ecclesial vision of Christendom provided for a system of theological education that mainly had in view the creation of Christian leaders who might well be described as managers or custodians of the church at the center of culture.  But, with the significant shaking occurring as we move from Christendom to Post-Christendom, the maps we previously used for theological education prove unhelpful and misleading.  In direct juxtaposition to a Christendom-shaped reality, a missional understanding of God and the Church compel us to give our time and attention to the equipping of missionary leaders capable of pioneering in a world without maps.  This will require the re-imagining of structures and programs that are designed to impart to students, missionary, as opposed to managerial, skill-sets.

    Cultivate Disciple-Makers and Mobilizers

    A final aspect of theological education that is mobilizational is the central importance of equipping leaders to be disciple-makers and mobilizers of God’s people for mission.  However, a particular person might be individually gifted, their ability to leverage that giftedness in concert with the biblically unifying commission to “go and make disciples of all nations,” is a fundamental marker of their fit for Kingdom ministry.  Said another way, we suggest that a profound understanding of one’s giftedness and a correspondingly profound track record of the exercise of that giftedness as a means of making disciples and mobilizing people and communities for mission ought to be seen as a basic requirement for the completion of any seminary program.

    In short, as the Church is increasingly pushed to the margins of society, it has (we have!) the opportunity to rediscover the missional nature of God, the Gospel, and the Church that was eclipsed within Christendom.   Among other things called for by this rediscovery is the complete restructuring of our systems of theological education as we seek to equip leaders who can serve the Church out of missionary rather than managerial perspectives and skill-sets.   We offer additional thoughts along these lines in the full paper, available here and check out the video and other resources at thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com.

    Posted in 3DM, anabaptist, bi-vocational, christendom, church, church planting, culture, discipleship, God, gospel, Jesus, kingdom, missiology, missional, missional theology, post-christendom, salvation, spiritual gifts, theological education, theology, western culture

    The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Training Reflective Practitioners

    November 22, 2011 // 1 Comment »

    The post below (edited slightly) was offered as the 2nd in a series of 4 articles on the “Future of the Seminary” forum over at Patheos (1st article here).  If you haven’t already seen it, this video will give you a good introduction to the basis for the perspective being offered.

    Based on this perspective, we suggest that the task before us is to identify educational principles guided by a theological vision of the missio Dei as it relates to both the gospel and the Church that can give shape and substance to processes of theological formation that are able to help students develop Kingdom-oriented character and competency.

    We will explore two additional missiological principles that we believe ought to guide this vision of theological education in forthcoming posts, but here we would like to suggest that a vision of theological education that is guided and shaped by a missional vision of God, the Gospel, and the Church will be praxeological – given to the training of reflective practitioners.  While other changes are surely called for, we suggest that theological formation that is praxeological calls for elongated programs, training by missionary theologians, diversified learning environments, a high degree of attention to contextualization, and an emphasis on creating learning communities.

    Elongated Programs of Theological Formation

    Whereas many seminaries seem to be spending their energy trying to find ways to help students achieve degrees more quickly, a praxeological orientation calls for more integrated, and therefore elongated, programs. Obviously an elongated program delays the conferral of a degree, but under the vision of theological education suggested here, the idea isn’t getting a degree so that you can begin to do ministry, but beginning to do ministry so that you are rooted in the proper context for theological education and formation in the first place. If the end goal is not the conferral of a degree but actually becoming a certain kind of person, there simply are no shortcuts to be taken.

    Training by Missionary Theologians

    A praxeological orientation toward theological education will require a faculty composed not mainly of traditional academic scholars, but of missionary theologians – those whose ability to guide and shape others flows from their own praxeological formation. Again, we are not suggesting that scholarship does not have its place; we are simply saying that the right kind of scholarship will always be driven by and focused on its implications for the life and ministry of the Church. As Karl Barth has famously said,

    There would be no theology if there were no ministry specially committed to the witness of the word… If we abstract its origin in the ministry of the community, all its problems are either irrelevant or they lose their theological character… (CD 4.3.2, 879)

    Thus, we are compelled to ask whether or not those who are trained and formed by traditional PhD programs are the best candidates for the kind of mentors/teachers needed to equip those who embrace this vision of theological education.

    Diversified Learning Environments

    Learning theory suggests there are three ways we learn: the passing on of information, apprenticeship to learn certain skill-sets, and immersion. The best learning experience occurs when there is a dynamic interplay between all three. Driven by Christendom presuppositions, our current systems of theological education are designed to do the first, pass on information, but give no real attention to issues of apprenticeship or immersion experiences. A praxeological orientation to theological education will require that our seminaries create all three kinds of learning environments for their students. The issue here isn’t merely the lack of second and third environments, but the fact that that apart from them, the relevance of time spent in the first environment loses the impact it ought to have.

    Issues of Contextualization

    Ministry never occurs in a vacuum. Students don’t just need to learn what to apply to their ministry context, which under the current paradigm of theological education they may not even have; they need to learn how to apply it to their ministry context, which we are suggesting as a prerequisite. This implies not only the need for missiologically-driven advances in models of distributed learning, but calls for a greatly enhanced focus on the part of instructors and the designing of programs with regard to the application of theological learning to specific ministry contexts.*

    *Living into this sort of vision will mean that increasingly, centers of theological education will see having a ministry context as a prerequisite for admission into its programs. In addition, this value should compel centers of theological education to put significant amounts of time and resources into establishing truly meaningful relationships and partnerships with local churches and ministry organizations in which students who don’t have their own ministry context might not just do occasional internships, but root the entirely of their educational process.

    Learning Communities

    A core component of a praxeological orientation to theological education is the importance of learning in community. Whereas we wholeheartedly agree that there is a unique and important place for those regarded as experts in their field who can offer their wisdom, experience, and insight as they guide students in their formation as Kingdom leaders, there is an equally important and formative dimension to theological education that is rooted within a community of learning. In line with the realities of Kingdom ministry, which always call for a collaborative approach to tasks and problems, seminary students should increasingly develop a capacity to embody an open and discerning posture towards the insights and critiques of their peers. Flying in the face of traditional assessment criteria that are nearly exclusively predicated on one’s individual academic performance, a core component of assessing the formation of Kingdom leaders will have to do with their posture toward and interaction with others in a learning community.*

    *We suggest that where theological schools continue to offer residential options, they will do well to structure them around a more monastic model where students come to be immersed in an integrated program of sharing life, resources, learning experiences, and diversified endeavors in ministry and mission.

    At the heart of the particular suggestion is the simple observation that, “this is how Jesus did it” – calling disciples to him “that they might be with him and that he might send them out…” (Mark 3:14)

    Read the full white paper, The Missiological Future of Theological Education, here and join in the conversation below and over at thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com.

    Posted in 3DM, anabaptist, bi-vocational, christendom, church, culture, discipleship, God, gospel, Jesus, kingdom, missiology, missional, missional theology, post-christendom, spiritual formation, theological education, theology, video, western culture

    The Missiological Future of Theological Education – Introduction

    November 9, 2011 // No Comments »

    It’s been a few weeks since I posted about the groundswell of conversation that seemed to be happening around the topic of the state and future of theological education. Since then, a lot has happened.

    1) I joined Doug Paul and Mike Breen of 3DM in hosting a forum on this topic at Northern Seminary.

    2) We’ve launched a website that is hosting the white paper and video we produced as contributions to the conversation.

    3) A number of people have begin conversations in the discussion forums on that site.

    4) Dr. Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, offered a response to the paper that is posted on the resource blog

    5) A slew of new posts, including the 1st of 4 from our perspective, have appeared in the online forum over at Patheos.

    6) And we have received a couple dozen emails from people who are asking everything from, “Can you keep me informed on how this goes forward?” to “Can you come and help lead a discussion on this in our context?” Which we are more than excited to do! (inquire here).

    I am actually quite a bit more interested in driving traffic over to thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com as a place where we can try and centralize some conversation and garner insight from as broad a population as possible, but just to generate some interest, I thought I would try and peak your interest with a few words from the introduction of the paper and the video that goes along with the initiative…

    The American Church finds itself in a precarious position. Based on current statistics, each year 2.7 million people cease to be part of a local church community and 4000 churches close their doors. Beyond this, 85 percent of all our churches are classified as stagnant and dying…

    …while we wholeheartedly agree that we are indeed in the midst of a cultural earthquake, we believe that these statistics are better read as symptoms of a deeper problem. Rather than working toward solutions aimed at helping the Church maintain or regain its position of power and privilege at the center of society, our contention is that a more faithful posture, in the midst of this cultural earthquake, is pausing to ask what God is saying and doing and how God is calling us to respond?

    The missiological crisis of Christendom not only affected the Church, but also bore corresponding implications for seminaries and indeed our systems of theological education in general. As such, we believe that a massive re-imagining of the nature, purpose, and practice of theological education is in order. Simply put, the guiding thesis of this paper is that to the extent that our current systems of theological education have been shaped by Christendom presuppositions, they have lost their missiological bearings and are wholly inadequate to prepare Kingdom leaders. Incremental changes and clever adaptations to these current systems only serve to distract from the opportunity we have before us to develop a Kingdom, and therefore missional, vision of theological education. At the heart of this vision is the conviction that the proper telos of theological education is an “accreditation” of students based not merely on the degrees they earn, but on the development and fit of their character and competency for life and leadership in the Kingdom of God.

    And here’s the video… Hope to follow up in coming weeks with other blurbs from the paper.

    Posted in 3DM, anabaptist, bi-vocational, christendom, church, culture, discipleship, God, gospel, Jesus, kingdom, leadership, missiology, missional, missional theology, Northern Seminary, post-christendom, spiritual formation, theological education, theology, video, western culture

    Two Battles of Emerging Missional Leaders

    May 19, 2011 // 8 Comments »

    In the midst of this reflecting and writing that I’ve been doing about missiology and theological education (The Emerging Guild of Missionary Theologians, The Missiological Future of Theological Education: Part 1 and Part 2), it occurs to me that I personally exist in the midst of the tension between two major battles that beset many emerging missional leaders.  They are not unrelated battles, but they are truly different.

    Battle 1: Seeking a Sustainable Vocational Life


    The scenario is darn near worn out.  Sincere and devoted youth pastor finds himself increasingly disaffected by the theology and/or ministry philosophy of the church in which he serves.  To the tune of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, said youth pastor leaves that church (and maybe ministry altogether) for the greener pastures of seminary where he can get a handle on things.  In the midst of study and reflection, this poor soul either soon discovers that increasingly their theological education has rapidly diminishing market value, or, for missiological reasons, decides that full-time, paid, professional ministry is simply not an appropriate choice for them.  Either way, they have just invested years of their life and lots of money into an educational decision that actually led them away from gaining the standard return on that sort of investment.

    In many ways this is my story and I’ve stopped counting the number of times I’ve heard others tell me the same or something very similar.  And thus, the battle begins.  In the realization that I can’t get or reject the value of a FT, paid, professional ministry job, and with a couple Christian/theological degrees under my belt and a hefty load of debt that I am responsible for, what do I do?

    I won’t actually go into this now.  For more on this, go see Dave Fitch’s post here.  I simply want to name this as one of the main battles of emerging missional leaders.

    There is another major battle facing emerging missional leaders however.  This is actually an older battle for me, one that has shaped me and my direction in life even more profoundly than the battle I just described – significant at it is!

    Battle 2: Bridging the Gap Between Church and Academy

    In one sense this is like the other battle in that it still has to do with vocation – how are you going to spend your time, earn a living, dare I say, “live out your calling?”  But, in another sense it is a much different battle.  There are different concerns, different questions, and different factors to consider. (see a couple good posts by J.R. Daniel Kirk on this subject here and here).

    Even though I would say that the former battle is actually primary – a battle that every missional leader must contend with as opposed to this one which is more specific – it is this battle that began to shape and direct my life first.  Jarred by the glaring gap between my Christian education and my experience in the Church, I decided/felt called pretty early on to give myself to the bridging of this gap.  Ideally, I envisioned a life in which I would mainly be rooted in a local church context as some sort of a pastor and then I would teach on the side.  Granted, this is not an overwhelmingly creative idea.  At the same time, it is one that hasn’t seemed to find nearly enough expression.  By and large, those serving in the realms of church and academy do so on a FT basis in one camp or the other.

    Now, I’ve gone ahead and complicated things for myself by choosing to do a DMiss rather than a PhD.  Cause anyone will tell you, if you think you want to teach, you need to get a PhD.  Competition is stiff enough without throwing a non-traditional degree into the mix.  Be that as it may, I’ve never been one to be driven by what “conventional wisdom” says.  In this instance, I did my best to wrestle with what I believe the needs of the church in Western culture are and are becoming, how God has seemed to be guiding and directing me personally, and the realities of ministry and life as they actually are right now (not some idealized future), and came to the conclusion that given all that and my lingering sense of calling to the battle of redeeming the Christendom-inspired rift between church and academy, doing missiological work at the doctoral level was an appropriate next step.

    I may have indeed made things more difficult for myself in terms of my engagement in the first battle I described, but (and I hope that you can read this in its non-cliched intent) this is simply something I am attempting to trust God for as I try and remain faithful to what he has been and is doing in me. While I wholeheartedly agree that we need way more followers of Jesus willing to seek both an advanced theological education as well as a bi-vocational lifestyle in which they work a “real job” (ala Fitch), there is another battle raging that I am convinced is worth fighting that seems to mitigate against a full-scale engagement in this other battle.

    Am I reading/thinking about that right?  Anyone else find themselves caught in one or both of these battles?  What’s your thinking?  Plan?

    Posted in anabaptist, bi-vocational, christendom, church, DMiss, Fuller Seminary, missional, missional theology, post-christendom, theological education, theology, western culture

    The Missiological Future of Theological Education (Part 2)

    May 16, 2011 // 6 Comments »

    Alright, so at the beginning of March I offered some thoughts on what I’m calling, “The Emerging Guild of Missionary Theologians.”  Then, a full month later, I followed up w/ “The Missiological Future of Theological Education,” which was little more than an attempt to say that my thoughts on this subject are largely tied to a series of posts that I offered at the end of 2009 entitled, “Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education.”  I’ve finally got a little bit of breathing room and wanted to flesh out some further thoughts I’ve had.

    Perhaps the best way for me to encapsulate my perspective here is to say…

    I’ve come to a point where I so thoroughly understand the church in missional terms that by implication, I see no point to theological education other than its ability to come alongside the Church as it attempts to identify, educate, train, and mobilize disciples for mission.

    Let me briefly pick that statement apart and clarify what I mean.

    Come Alongside the Church…

    In a sense, theological education, as a stand alone enterprise, is a modern novelty.  Theological education/formation has always been (theologically if not experientially) the responsibility of the Church.  I’m not compelled to spend time here delving into the merits or detriments of the Church farming out the bulk of this responsibility to Christian colleges and seminaries.  Rather, I just want to indicate that where and when this has happened, there is still a fundamental sense in which it has been “the Church” doing this work.  A central problem in my mind, is the newer reality of theological schools educating those who have self-selected themselves for theological training.  This ought not be the case.  Rather, we increasingly need to see centers of theological eduction become full partners in the Church’s corporate task of cultivating disciples for mission.

    Identify…

    While I wholeheartedly believe that one of the greatest needs in the Western church is the recovery of a missional vision of discipleship (every follower of Jesus is called to inhabit a reality in which they exist as resident aliens… ambassadors of the Kingdom… missionaries!), I still believe that there exists a simultaneous responsibility of identifying those who will serve others by advanced theological study and honing the skills and abilities that befit the (always servant-oriented) tasks and responsibilities of leading and equipping others within the Church.  This is the case even when (perhaps especially when!) there are fewer and fewer opportunities for people to be paid to do this sort of work full-time (see an important post by Dave Fitch on this here).  There is a way in which these responsibilities need to be taken up by a community, but there is another sense in which God has, does, and will continue to use communities to identify people/teams to lead these efforts as well. 

    Educate…

    As these people are identified, the task of educating them remains.  The study of Christian history and theology (to name just a few key areas) is no small task.  It takes focused time and attention as well as resources that typically extend beyond those of one particular congregation.  It bears noting that serving others in Christ-like humility, perhaps the most fundamental aspect of discipleship, doesn’t require an advanced theological education.  More than that, it has often been accused of undercutting this very thing.  But this doesn’t have to be the case.  Christian education, when done in conjunction with the life and ministry of local churches, can serve, rather than subvert, the aim of cultivating missional disciples.  To do this, however, will require the development of new delivery methods, paradigms of faculty involvement, and program designs.  Centers of theological education will need to abandon an isolated existence (the erosion of denominational fortitude poses another problem here) in favor of one in which they are intimately connected to the lives of local congregations. 

    Train…

    Another major problem facing seminaries is that by and large they have become one-trick ponies. They offer classes.  That’s it.  Ok, ok, sometimes they require internships or Clinical Pastoral Education, and these can be positive experiences, but more often they’re not, and this is to say nothing of the way in which they make up the periphery of a program as opposed to its core.  Bottom line, apprenticed ministry experience in local church contexts should be the focal point of a missional theological education.  But, like education, incredible amounts of value and perspective can be added to this sort of experience when external resources are brought to bear.  The faculty of many seminaries is comprised of people with not just advanced degrees, but decades of ministry experience.  Where this exists, we need to find ways to unleash and tap into the work of God in these peoples lives by bringing students into not just their classrooms, but their lives!

    Mobilize…

    This is an area that churches and centers of theological education are equally guilty of neglecting.  Not only do we often fail to show proper intentionality in the identification and support of future leaders – allowing them to self-select, but we seldom prioritize (if we even have!) strategies for mobilizing them.  Wouldn’t it make quite a bit of sense to develop programs of theological education, not only in conjunction with existing churches and ministry organizations, but around the actual practice of ministry so that when students “finish,” they not only hold some sort of credential, but also have been mobilized into the sphere of service that they were interested in to begin with? Beyond this, it seems reasonable to conclude that partnerships between centers of theological education and churches/organizations will result in the creation of  exponentially more ministry opportunities for which each party will have a share in the responsibility of producing disciples to help lead.

    This is the sort of stuff getting me excited nowadays and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to be investing in some of these dreams at Northern Seminary (see here for a vision of Missional Theological Education that we are working toward).  Doubtless, many centers of theological education will find ways to tweak and shift this and that in order to maintain institutional viability – they’ll stay alive, maybe even grow.  But that’s not really the issue is it?  We don’t want centers of theological education that find a way to just “make it” in our emerging Post-Christendom context.  We want centers of theological education that invite, even welcome and advance, the demise of Christendom along with its assumptions and values and lead out into the missiological future of the Church by following that simple gospel pattern of listening and responding, seeing and following, repenting and believing.

    Posted in bi-vocational, christendom, discipleship, missiology, missional, missional theology, Northern Seminary, post-christendom, spiritual formation, theological education

    Reflections on the Missional Learning Commons

    January 18, 2010 // 1 Comment »

    Amy and I had a great time at the Missional Learning Commons in Ft. Wayne two weekends ago.

    The theme of the weekend was,”Deeper Church.”  Essentially what that meant was having discussions about certain topics which surface when we stop thinking about church as a worship service with a host of corresponding programs and begin to embrace church as a way of life in which we are joining God in his mission of reconciliation and the restoration of all things.  Some may want to try and explain how these are really two ways of saying the same thing, but for the vast majority of people who have been involved in this conversation for any length of time, the differences are too real and too important to dismiss with semantic gymnastics.

    On Friday night there were maybe 30 people in attendance to discuss Soong-chan Rah’s book, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity.  This conversation was continued as the topic of the final session on Saturday.  Both conversations were engaging and helpful.  While the book had clear shortcomings and oversights, it served as a springboard for us to ask the question, “Why are missional congregations so white?”  We see this as a problem because implicit in missional theology is the value for listening to voices from the margins of society – something which should be a no-brainer to those of us who regard Scripture (a book authored by those speaking from the margins of society!) as our guiding text.  Those who live on the margins of society have much to teach those of us who don’t and the longer our congregations remain socio-economically and culturally homogeneous, the more the Body of Christ, and by implication, the world to which we testify of an alternative reality, suffers.

    In light of that, we had discussions about the practices of deeper churches, what sharing the gospel means and looks like for deeper churches, and whether or not these deeper churches should have paid staff.  This session was led by a 3-person panel: Matt Tebbe one of the pastors of Life on the Vine who is bi-vocational, JR Woodward, who raises all of his support, and Bob Havenor, who was advocating for an up-paid approach to church leadership.

    Thanks to Ben Sternke who put the missional commons site together, you can find audio from all of the sessions here.

    If you are in the midwest and interested in the missional conversation, I hope you’ll consider joining us next year – details TBD.

    Posted in bi-vocational, books, christendom, conference, LOV, midwest, missional

    « Previous Entries