• Archive of "bi-vocational" Category

    Cultivating Missional Communities (& the Rozko’s)

    January 1, 2010 // No Comments »

    In a new book, Fresh + Re:Fresh: Church Planting and Urban Mission in Canada Post-Christendom, Dave Fitch offers an introductory chapter entitled, “Fifty Years of Church Planting: the Story as I See it…” in which he summarizes the dominant approaches to church planting over the last few decades and discusses some of the major differences within Post-Christendom.

    In speaking of the differences in the multiplication of church communities in Christendom vs. Post-Christendom, Fitch says,

    Among the new missional leaders, church is the name we give to a way of life, not a set of services. We do not plant an organized set of services; we inhabit a neighborhood as the living embodied presence of Christ.

    In agreement, I’d say that “cultivating missional communities” might be a better way to describe what we have more often known as “church planting.”  In that vein, Fitch goes on to talk about the sorts of leaders necessary to cultivate missional communities suggesting that…

    – they will be survivors

    …the new missional community leaders must have patience, steady faithfulness and the ability to live simply. They must be able to get jobs and not see the ministry as a privileged full time vocation. They must have a mental image of how they are going to sustain their lives financially, relationally, spiritually and personally.

    – they will be communal shepherds

    They are not starting and managing an organization. They may not even be good at organization. Instead they are cultivating a communal sense of mission identity among a gathering people ‘for this time and place.’

    – they will be interpretive leaders

    Interpretive leaders do not dictate from the pulpit a list of do’s and don’ts and solutions from God for every problem. They interpret the Scriptures to open our eyes to what God is doing and where He is taking us. In other words, they cultivate other interpreters/listeners.

    – they will be directors of spiritual formation

    We must ever navigate against putting on a show that will attract; rather we must develop a liturgy that is simple, accessible and Scriptural and that guides our lives into Christ and guards us from the distractions that would take us away from Mission. …there will be no missional community of people formed and shaped for mission if we just preach Mission as a legalistic requirement. Mission requires patience, a sense of vision and a level of self-denial that can only be formed inwardly in living bodies, trained in the simple organic disciplines/liturgies of the historic church.

    – they will be leaders who give away power

    Hierarchy is the product of Christendom. It hails to a day when Christianity still held power in society…  It is my belief therefore that missional leadership needs always to be multiple. Most missional pastors/leaders need to be bi-vocational (bi-ministerial) for their own survival. Such leaders must learn to mutually submit to the other leaders as they guide the journey of the community. They must mutually learn to mentor leaders and give away power.

    A final insight from the chapter is this little gem,

    This kind of leader often does not come from our (all too often) modernist seminaries. They are grown in a community which gathers to worship the Triune God so as to discern Him at work in our midst. (my thoughts on that here)

    Beginning the year with this post is no coincidence.  Amy and I have committed to serve alongside others from Life on the Vine to help cultivate a new missional community in 2010.  There’s a lot more questions than answers at this point, but we’re excited to see what God might do as we make ourselves available.

    While I am sure to offer tid bits on this process on the blog from time to time, if you would like to get the inside scoop on a regular basis as someone who would commit to be praying for us, leave a comment or let us know through the contact page. Peace to you in the New Year and thanks for your prayers & support.

    Posted in bi-vocational, chicago, christendom, church, community, leadership, LOV, missional, theological education

    Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: Community Rootedness

    November 30, 2009 // 11 Comments »

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem | Fruit of the Problem | New Soil

    A hallmark of theological education within Christendom is the primacy of the individual.  Individual choice, individual abilities, and individual achievement; these are the prized marks of Christian leaders within systems of coercive power.

    This conflicts however with a missional vision of Christian leadership in which community is the most basic point of reference and choices, abilities, and achievements are all products of the Holy Spirit’s working amongst a community of people on mission together.  Thus, I am firmly convinced that the most faithful and helpful forms of theological education will be those rooted in missional communities.

    Think for a moment about how our current system of theological education favors the individual.

    1) While others may be consulted, basically, individuals make up their own minds to pursue theological education.  They choose the school they find most desirable and go through the academic motions as individuals (a class does not a community make!)

    2) More often than not, whether by working, soliciting random scholarships, or taking out loans, individuals are on their own to fund their education.  They bear enormous amounts of responsibility for not only their finances, but their own decision to embark on an often terrifying and difficult educational venture.

    3) These individuals have only their individual experience and knowledge as a grid through which to process the new information being thrown at them.  They may enter into dialogue with other at a superficial level, but again, this is a personal choice with no real consequence if not practiced.

    4) Once students have made it through the process of theological education, they are once again basically on their own in terms of deciding what they want to do with their degree (mine is hanging on my bathroom wall!).

    That theological education favors the individual is only 1/2 of the issue.  The other 1/2 is that those leaders who go through this process are formed by it – they will have a bent toward leading individualistically and lack the skills to help form missional communities.

    My Proposal:

    If helping people learn how to make decisions, live their lives, and find their identity not on their own, but in the community of the Body of Christ, is central to the task of Christian leaders, then their training must take place in that same context. This has implications for how we identify potential leaders, how we commit to and support them, the nature and structure of how we train them, and for what follows the completion of the training.

    Identifying Missional Leaders…

    Rather than being self-selected, in this vision, our pool of missional leaders are identified by people who have known them over the course of years of personal experience and can affirm their areas of giftedness.

    This is part of the reason that missional communities embrace sustainable sizes – for this to work, people need to be known.  When this is the case it is much more realistic for those entrusted with leadership responsibility to be looking for others that seem gifted and inclined toward leadership.  Once they are, they can be shepherded toward a more intentional process of leadership formation.

    Commiting to and Supporting Missional Leaders…

    I cannot underestimate the importance of local communities committing to and supporting leaders in training.  Leadership training is (if it’s any good!) hard.  There is just no substitute for a leader in training having the constant reminder that what they are a part of is no mistake; it’s not just their idea, but an entire of community of people has affirmed their giftedness and potential and they have said publicaly, “whatever you need, we are here for you.”

    More than this, the local church should bear 100% of the responsibility for funding whatever aspects of theological education are necessary for the leaders they themselves have identified. It is a great sin that any church should say to a young man or woman that they God has placed a call on their lives to leadership in the local church and then not say, “we’ll do whatever it takes to help you pursue that dream.”  Please keep in mind I say all this in light of what I have already said about the practice of bi-vocational leadership.

    Training Missional Leaders…

    Leaders in training become part of a community within a community. There is the local church community that has done its job of identifying future leaders and committed themselves to those people, and a smaller community of gifted leaders, committing themselves to each other and the larger body that has committed to them.

    The various aspects of leadership training within this vision would all be rooted in community.  From reading and writing to praying and serving, the point of each and every dimension of leadership development would be suited to helping those who participate in it understand its place in the formation of people in community.

    Commissioning Missional Leaders…

    Modern church leaders graduate, missional church leaders are commissioned.  At the end of the more intentional process of leadership formation, it is the discernment between the leader and community, not the desires of either alone, that serves as the vehicle through which the leader is commissioned into leadership.  Commissioning is inherently relational.  It is a community saying, “As we have identified you as a leader, committed ourselves to your formation and supported you, we now send you affirm a calling on your life and support you in it.”

    In the next post, I aim to address character formation as a second central mark of a missional vision of theological education. Looking forward to your questions, comments, etc. till then.

    Posted in bi-vocational, christendom, church, community, individualism, leadership, missional, spiritual formation, theological education, theology, western culture

    Bi-Vocational Ministry & Theological Education

    November 6, 2009 // 4 Comments »

    I think this will be my last post in a series on bi-vocational ministry.  If you’re looking to catch up, feel free to check out the earlier ones:

    1) Bi-Vocational Ministry

    2) Bi-Vocational Ministry & the Missional Church

    3) Bi-Vocational Ministry & Spiritual Formation

    4) Bi-Vocational Ministry & Support Raising

    Thinking on this topic has stirred up a number of thoughts, ideas, and connections that I think will take shape in a next series of posts, so I won’t say too much here.

    What I will say is this…

    In 2004 when I began my education at Fuller Theological Seminary, I was on the fence about doing an MDiv.  I wasn’t sure that my future was going to be in professional, paid, church staff ministry.  I also wasn’t so sure that the structure of the degree was all that well equipped to prepare people for that sort of ministry given the trajectory of the Western church anyway.  To my utter shock, I soon discovered that these sentiments were widely shared and many of the people who would have been the best candidates for MDiv’s were opting for less traditional and more flexible routes. (FYI – Fuller has since done some major and commendable course correcting regarding all their programs, including the MDiv!)

    My hesitations confirmed by the sentiments and decisions of my peers, I chose to do an MA in theology which gave me the ability to take 1/2 my classes out of Fullers’ School of Intercultural Studies enabling me to craft a degree that explored a missiology of Western culture.

    In contrast to the average School of Theology student, many of the students doing degrees in the School of Intercultural Studies had widely marketable skills and trades.  Whereas the average SOT student was there to get an academic credential in order to get a job, the average SIS student was in school to learn how to be better a better missionary or to do more study regarding a particular area of interest.  Unlike their SOT counterparts, they weren’t looking for a degree to get a job.

    Now, Fuller as a school didn’t create this reality per se, they were merely filling two different needs, augmenting on the one hand, and preparing on the other.

    If, as I have tried to say, churches being led by a team of bi-vocational leaders is more sustainable, healthier for leaders and congregations alike, and all-around positively spiritually formative, then theological schools would do well to intentionally structure themselves for the sort of education that Fuller’s SIS was offering de facto.

    There is a lesson to be learned here from Christian Liberal Arts schools (yeah Malone!) which prepare men and women of God for service in all areas of life… AS FOLLOWERS OF JESUS.  That people would “graduate” from this sort of education to one of specialized, professional theological training is a regrettable reality.  I say this as one with the highest of value for theological rigor and advanced training.  But, I also say it as one who thinks these things should never come at the expense of extending to Christian leaders the opportunity to lose touch with “the world.”

    A missional ecclesiology calls for a missional approach to theological education that would be best described in terms of formational training.  This is what I hope to explore further in my next series of posts.

    Posted in bi-vocational, church, Fuller Seminary, leadership, malone, spiritual formation, sustainability, theology, western culture

    Bi-Vocational Ministry & Support Raising

    October 29, 2009 // 4 Comments »

    Earlier this month I began a series of posts on Bi-Vocational Ministry.  I talked about Bi-Vocational Ministry and the Missional Church and then the relationship between Bi-Vocational Ministry and Spiritual Formation.

    For the last few days I have been participating in a seminar on “Ministry Partner Development,” led by my friend JR Woodward through Ecclesia, a missional church planting network.  So, naturally, I have been thinking about the relationship between bi-vocational ministry and support raising.  I am coming away from the seminar with 2 firm convictions.

    1)  Support raising is a ministry in and of itself.  As a nation, we give 1-2% of our annual income to charitable causes.  As a subset of American Christians, conservatives slaughter that statistic at a whopping 3%!  Sad, really sad.  Those who raise support to do works of ministry are ministering to those that they ask to be partners simply by saying, “Hey, would you actually like to do something of eternal significance with your money?”  For a people that ought to be known for our generosity and our refusal to store up for ourselves treasures on earth, we’re pitiful and I am all for more and more and more people who have the courage to take steps of faith and ask others to financially support them.

    2) Inasmuch as it is a ministry in and of itself and because I think our current model of theological eduction is largely missing the mark in truly preparing Christian leaders for the future landscape of the Church in Western culture, I think support raising is a necessary consideration. Leave aside for a moment the idea of support raising as a ministry to those who choose to partner, what other choice do people whose training is theological and ministerial in nature have if they want to practice bi-vocational leadership?  They aren’t really marketable in most of the non-church world and it will take some time if they are to acquire additional skills and training.  Perhaps worse, they take jobs in churches that are spiritually dead, but have some money, or they cave into the forms of church that are successfully marketing religious goods to a quasi-religious, Christendom population.  This is where I think support raising comes in.

    Aside form the personal benefits of learning how to humbly depend on others, being able to pursue what God has put on your heart rather than choosing from the given options, and developing the disciplines necessary to do the work of support raising, developing a team of ministry partners can be a great way to free someone up to minister to those who have no concept of supporting pastors or those who, even if they “get it,” don’t have the means to do so anyway.  And it should go without saying that cultivating a ministry team that is supporting you not only through finances, but by diligent prayer and accountability is a blessing that far too many are missing out on.

    When it comes to church ministry, I think support raising makes the most sense for apostolic and prophetic types of people.

    Apostles are always on the move, charting new territory and plowing new ground.  Having a ministry team that sees and affirms that and says, “Here, we’ll pay your bills, you just keep on following where God leads!” are saints in my book.

    Prophets get stoned and killed.  The quickest way to short circuit the ministry of those who God has called to point out how the Church is failing her calling, is to make them dependent on the giving of one congregation.  Like apostles, they do well to cultivate a team that acknowledges the church’s need for prophetic voices and says, “Here, be free to speak truthful words how the Lord leads.”

    When it comes to bi-vocationality, I think one of the marks of a healthy church is its desire to financially support its leaders.  So, while I think support raising is a good idea in general for many and an excellent idea for some in particular, ultimately, for all the reasons I mentioned in my first post, I still think church leaders working in the community where they minister while being supported by the church they serve is something great to aspire to.

    Posted in bi-vocational, christendom, church, consumerism, leadership, missional, prophets, spiritual formation, theology, western culture

    Bi-Vocational Ministry & Spiritual Formation

    October 24, 2009 // 5 Comments »

    togetherIn my last post about bi-vocational church leadership, I tried to make the point that this approach derives its theological significance from a truly missional approach to theology and ecclesiology.

    I wanted to winnow that thought down a bit further and suggest that the biblical appeal for a bi-vocational approach to leadership (and in my opinion, the biblical appeal for anything that has to do with the church and Chirstian life!) has to do with spiritual formation.

    Far too often people seek to defend their church structures and practices because of their supposed ability to, “grow the church,” “meet people where they’re at,” or “reflect people’s cultural expectations.” These have a ring of nobility to them but are far off the mark biblically speaking. Far worse is when we are forced to admit that we do what we do because, “that’s how it’s always been done,” “if we try to change things people will leave,” “so and so will stop giving if we stop doing things that way.”

    As the Body of Christ, we should have a singular defense for everything we do, namely, its power to spiritually form people and communities into Christlikeness.*

    Here’s why…

    There’s a battle going on. The Church, as a foretaste of the Kingdom of God, through its formational practices and structures, wages war against the principalities and powers at work in the world which seek to “steal, kill, and destroy” all that God would have us be and do.

    In Christendom, the Church equipped itself to fight the wrong battle. Within Christendom, so much is assumed about the nature and purpose of the church, that we tend to ask pragmatic questions. Does it work? But, for those of us who realize that Christendom is crumbling and/or think that it was never a good thing to begin with, these questions aren’t good enough. We need to ask deeper questions.

    Biblical faithfulness is about mission, not models. As one helpful commenter pointed out ;) in a previous post, the Bible does not prescribe one way to lead churches. There are several examples of what that looked like in the New Testament, but even these are not simply models to be copied as if we could then say, “We just do it like they did in the Bible.” The better way to understand biblical faithfulness is as an honest pursuit to join God in mission, not copy models. The Church is charged with the task of making disciples and is not given an exact blueprint for how to go about it.

    This brings us full circle. Those churches whose structures and practices mainly serve the ends of church growth, cultural relevance, and even conversion, miss the mark. They are fighting the wrong battle biblically speaking.

    I am advocating for a bi-vocational approach to church leadership, not because I can defend it as THE RIGHT biblical model or because it’s most effective (Christendom approaches), but because the tendencies in our culture toward consumerism and individualism are so thick that faithfulness to the mission of making disciples, forming people and communities into Christlikeness, make it the most appropriate option (missional approach).

    Hopefully that serves to clarify my thoughts and intention some.

    *I was greatly encouraged today while viewing this seminar online to hear Dr. Darrell Guder comment that, “It was not the mission of the apostolic church to save souls! The apostolic mission was the formation witnessing communities.” This is a far cry from how we commonly envision the role of church leaders, but something we badly need to recover.

    Posted in bi-vocational, christendom, church, community, consumerism, culture, discipleship, individualism, kingdom, leadership, missional, spiritual formation, western culture

    Todd Hiestand is My Hero

    October 21, 2009 // 7 Comments »

    It was just over 3 years ago that I “met” Todd. I was in Norway studying and writing my masters thesis. In my search for resources, I came across Todd’s blog and was excited to find someone else who was thinking about missional living in suburban contexts. We developed a collaborative friendship in the blog-o-sphere and I finally got to meet him face to face when his church community, The Well, in suburban Philly, was hosting a small seminar with Al Hsu regarding “The Church & Suburbia.”

    Through our respective church communities, Todd and I are both affiliated with Ecclesia, a missional church planting network which gives us even more opportunity to interact.

    Todd is living the dream as a bivocational (or bioccupational as he prefers) pastor and draw some income from doing web design. I have always admired his work with crafting wordpress themes and when I saw some of his latest work on the blog of one of his friends, I jokingly told him to send me the zip file. He took me seriously and 30 minutes later, I am enjoying the beautiful goodness you see before you (unless you’re reading this through a reader – if you are, do yourself a favor and click through to check it out).

    Anyway, Todd didn’t ask for any money, but I am gonna give him some anyway cause he’s my hero!

    For the sake of your own soul, you should get to know Todd. For the sake of your blog, you should hire him to rock your world.

    Posted in bi-vocational, blogging, church, missional, suburban

    « Previous Entries
    Next Entries »