• Archive of "individualism" Category

    A New Era of Theological Education May Be Dawning

    March 1, 2012 // No Comments »

    OK, that title might be a little over the top, but a guy can hope right?!  Time, as it always does, will tell!

    Last summer I started to talk about a partnership that was brewing between Northern Seminary and 3DM (Part 1, Part 2).

    Well, at long last that partnership has been officialized as Northern now offers a masters emphasis in Discipleship & Mission as well as a DMin in Discipleship and Mission, while 3DM is able to offer those who journey through their Learning Communities as part of a “Scholar Track,” seminary credit for doing so.  You can read Northern’s announcement here and 3DM’s here.

    I think this partnership embodies an important and concrete step toward one way to get at the new models of theological education that I’m convinced we so desperately need.

    While it’s not a full program – the masters emphasis is equivalent to 9, 3 credit-hour courses and the DMin track leaves only 3 additional “core courses” – what is being presented here seeks to make theological education…

    more accessible - through regionally, or ever nationally accessible intensive courses

    more affordable - by bringing the support of churches and ministry organizations more centrally into the mix and allowing students to remain where they live and work

    more integrated - as all learning is structured around its relevance for and application to actual ministry contexts and diverse subject matter (biblical studies, theological reflection, and ministry training) is interwoven amongst all modules as opposed to segmented out into their own courses

    more sustainable - as these options are deigned for those who take a longer-term view to their theological formation

    more formational - as students aren’t just offered content, but are invited into mentoring relationships with content experts who are also ministry practitioners

    more robust - as students root their education in a community of learning as opposed to simply tackling it primarily on an individual basis

    These are the sort of advances and initiatives that those of us who launched thefutureoftheologicaleducation.com and contributed to the production of the video and white paper hosted over on that site get really excited about!

    Of course I hope that this partnership and these program options are fruitful.  But even more, I am anxious for what will be learned as schools like Northern open themselves up to models of theological education that are simply better suited for preparing men and women to serve the Church as reflective practitioners, missionary leaders, and Kingdom citizens.

    Posted in 3DM, christendom, church, discipleship, individualism, kingdom, leadership, missiology, missional, missional theology, Northern Seminary, post-christendom, sustainability, theological education, theology

    Alan Hirsch – Making Missional Marketable

    March 31, 2010 // 22 Comments »

    I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Alan Hirsch.  The book he co-authored with Mike Frost, The Shaping of Things to Come, was the first I read that began to help me understand the angst I felt with the attractional model of church so prevalent in the US.

    This is why I was so thrown a few days ago when I read that Alan Hirsch had asserted that American Christianity is the great hope for the Church in the West.  He made comments to this point in the opening remarks of his talk at a conference called “Verge” in Texas.  You can view the video (Session 2) here.  At one point he said,

    If we don’t win the battle of the decline of the church here in the states, then it’s not going to come from anywhere else.  We will win or lose the battle over here in the states.

    His rationale seemed to be that 1) the Church is the rest of the West is all but dead and 2) that Americans have a built-in entrepenurial (apostolic) sort of spirit.

    On this count, I was surprised and disappointed on 2 levels.

    First, he seemed to communicate a latent assumption that “the West” maintains a position of superiority in terms of global Christianity.  He admitted that Christianity is growing in non-Western parts of the world, but never suggested that our hope might lie in learning from what God is doing there.

    Secondly, he referenced the American entrepreneurial spirit as the key factor in our ability to “win the battle of the decline of the church.”  I was blown away!  I was immediately reminded of a quote by Einstein, which, even more surprisingly, he referenced later, but totally misused,

    We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

    It is American entrepreneurialism that got us into the mess of creating a church system predicated on the cultural values of individualism and consumerism.  Relying on the same characteristic is hardly a promising solution.

    Over and above all these disappointments comes a more biblical/theological one, namely, that putting our hope in anything except for a willingness to sacrifice what is most dear to us, to listen to the voices of those on the margins, and to trust God with our future (which may very well mean the increasing marginalization of the church), is, in any sense, in keeping with God’s desire for the Body of Christ.

    There was a 2nd major part to Hirsch’s presentation that really made me nervous.

    He made the claim that the dominant expression of church in America, that of the seeker-sensitive/attractional model, has a market appeal to about 40% of the American population.  This yields what Hirsch called a “strategic problem” and a “missionary problem.”

    The “strategic problem” is that 95% of the churches in the US are seeking to become the kind of church that appeals to this same 40% of the population.

    The “missionary problem” is that 60% (and growing) of our population is being virtually ignored.

    So far so good, but at one point Alan was commenting on attractional types of churches that are “reaching” the 40% of the American population and said, “Those who do this well should strive to do it better.”  Not change what they are doing, just do more of the same, better.

    In affirming an attractional (or what he is now calling ex-tractional) model of church simply because it succeeds in drawing a crowd, he fails to critique the most devastating reality, namely, that these churches, on the whole, don’t make disciples. By and large, they facilitate the already pervasive nominal christianity that pervades at least 40% of the American population.

    Let me try to summarize my push back on what I am hearing and seeing from Alan Hirsch as of late.

    1) Putting our eggs in the basket (Easter week!) of the American church is futile, if not sinful.  This is exactly how we got where we are and trying harder ain’t gonna cut it.  It may very well be that God is at work killing off a defunct ecclesial trajectory and we would do better to repent and ask for mercy than to rely on any ability we think we possess to save the day.

    2) Alan is right, there is a descent portion of the American population that has some natural affinity with the sort of church which thrives in Christendom.  But, merely because people will respond to an attractional model of church does not make it ok.  A pragmatic victory is almost never a biblical one.  Attractional models of church are built on the cultural values of individualism and consumerism and, save for the grace of God, are incapable of yielding the sort of disciples the world desperately needs.

    I have a serious and growing concern regarding the temptation to make missional marketable.  The temptation is especially seductive to those who, like Alan, have a deep love for the church as the Body of Christ and want to see it thrive.  But, if God means for missional theology/ecclesiology to benefit the church, it will remain an invitation to repentance, sacrifice, and death.  This sort of invitation has never had much market appeal, especially in the US.

    Posted in christendom, church, consumerism, culture, discipleship, individualism, missional, theology, western culture

    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

    Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Fruit of the Problem

    November 17, 2009 // 6 Comments »

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem

    In my last post I made the claim that our current model of theological education, in assuming a Christendom context, is better-suited to train managers of Christian religious institutions than it is to prepare missional leaders.  If the root of the problem is Christendom, the binding of Christian witness and mission to systems of coercive power, we do well to ask what the fruit of the tree of our current system of theological education has been?

    The version of Christianity which is bound to systems of coercive power within modernity has been powerless to resist the trajectory of that era.  Thus, features like individualism, consumerism, and reductionism have been uncritically adopted by local churches and systems of theological education alike and have had mutually related effects.  On top of this, there has emerged a rift between theological education and the ministry of the local church.

    I’ve talked up a storm on this blog about what this has meant for the structure and ministry of local churches, but what about our systems of theological education?

    Individualism.

    For the most part, people make individual decisions to attend seminary and they are trained as individuals.  I’m not saying you can’t experience community in seminary education or benefit from peer interaction, but largely, you choose your courses as an individual, study as an individual, get assessed as an individual, and then decide where to go and what to do as an individual.  Not very good training for people who will then go on to be part of a staff team!  Even less conducive to a truly missional ecclesiology in which the theology, spiritual practices, and Christan life are all rooted in community.

    Consumerism.

    Seminary is freaking expensive!  I know I got some amen’s on that!  That’s because there’s a market for it.  Think about that for a second… There is a market (a system of coercive power if there ever was one) for being trained as a Christian leader.  Now, make sure you’re not hearing what I’m NOT saying.  I’m not saying it’s wrong for people to earn a living from educating others.  Nor am I saying that buying and selling is in and of itself a bad thing.  I am saying that this business of people needing to spend (or worse, go into debt) huge amounts of money to get a religious credential at an accredited institution is not only unsustainable as Christendom unravels, but has a negative effect on Christian leaders and those they lead.

    Reductionism.

    There are a number of ways we could go with this dimension of modern Christendom, but what concerns me the most is how we have reduced theology to information and the leadership of local churches to those best able to convey it.  How else are we able to account for a theological system so heavily slanted toward lecturing, book reading, writing, and testing?  It’s nearly all about the grasping and repeating of concepts.  I’m not saying at all that there’s no place for this, but this feature of Christendom-based theological education has resulted in a form of Christianity that lives as though it’s possible to really believe something without embodying it.  The Bible knows nothing of disembodied belief, but this is the very thing that our current system of theological eduction allows for.

    These are a few of the most obvious fruits of theological education rooted in Christendom that I am thinking of.  Are you thinking of more?  What are the angles and nuances that you see from your perspective that I’m missing?

    In my next post, I aim to take a stab how a missional vision of theological education differs from one rooted in Christendom.

    Posted in christendom, church, community, consumerism, culture, discipleship, individualism, leadership, missional, modernity, reductionism, spiritual formation, sustainability, theological education, 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

    Missional vs. Attractional Equipping

    February 21, 2009 // 3 Comments »

    As a pastor, I spend a lot of my time thinking about and actually attempting “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up,” – equipping.

    Sadly, the extents to which ministry has been professionalized, consumerism and individualism have distorted our notions of the gospel, and Christendom has undermined the nature and purpose of the church, often serve to confuse us as to what this actually means.

    In attractional models of church, many are satisfied with merely finding people to fill slots so that stuff gets done.  Others lay guilt trips on people for not serving enough.  But even when we do the right thing of helping people discover their giftedness and passions and then inviting them into opportunities where those life-giving things might find expression, we often have a view toward the external mastery and refinement of skills and talents so that their use of them will “attract others.”

    I would never say that getting better at what you enjoy doing is a bad thing, but I would say that missionally, the equipping of others has mainly to do with cultivating spiritual maturity so that gifts and passions may be stewarded well not with being polished and excellent by socio-cultural standards.

    Case in point…

    Last night I and several others of my house group had the opportunity to serve at Calvary Rescue Mission in downtown Memphis.  This is an organization that serves homeless and displaced men by providing food, substance abuse recovery, and the deep love of Jesus.  When we go, we get to help serve food and one of us is invited to share a message.  Last night, my friend Sam had the chance to share.

    On Thursday I called him and we talked a bit about what was on his heart and what he was planning on sharing.  He expressed some nervousness about feeling “qualified to teach form the Bible.”  To which I replied with something like, “That’s probably the very thing that actually does qualify you to do this.”

    Sam doesn’t have a Bible degree.  He’s relatively new to the whole church scene.  And he’s certainly not accustomed to preaching regularly.  But, Sam shared from his heart last night what God has been teaching him through his study of the book of James and the ways in which Jesus is becoming more and more real to him everyday.  Sam (and I’m sure he’s cool with me saying this) is not the sort of speaker that your average church community would put up on stage week in and week out, but sadly it has nothing to do with his not being spiritually equipped to teach.  Rather it’s on account of his inability to entertainingly capture the attention of celebrity-driven, linear thinking, consumer-oriented folks (I don’t excuse myself from often falling into this category).

    sam-preaching

    In the same sort of vein, one of our friends from the mission sang a solo.  His voice was not good.  He had absolutely no stage presence.  And he wore a sweatshirt that read, “Jesus is Awesome.”  Again, this is not the sort of guy your average church would want leading others in worship, but is has nothing whatsoever to do with him not being spiritually equipped to do so and everything to do with our misconceptions of what it means to be equipped.

    guy-singing

    Despite their cultural-defined techincal inabilities, grace, hope and love overflowed from both Sam and our soloist friend.  All those present left encouraged and changed as Jesus met with us through the ministry of these two guys.  It grieves me to think of how often we miss out on the ways in which God uses those we would never expect (or perhaps more shamefully, prefer).

    Posted in christendom, church, consumerism, culture, friends, individualism, memphis, missional, preaching/teaching, spiritual formation

    « Previous Entries