Why Missional Leaders Need to Get Over White Man’s Angst

Over the past 5 to 10 years, I have kept encountering a problem with young white missional leaders. At the risk of stereotyping, I find many young white missional leaders inflicted with a kind of white man’s angst inherited from the American post 60’s generation. Ever since the seventies (and probably a little earlier), once education opened up to everyone and the industrial society morphed into a service economy, middle to upper middle class families (majority of whom are white) have bred children to believe they could choose their careers. They could go to college, get some grad school, get good at something, and then choose a satisfying career path from which they would get their identity and prove their self worth. Many of this generation think that they have to have this figured out by the time they are say thirty.

This drives me nuts when these pressures are applied to ministry. Missional church planters/pastors viewing a life in ministry simply can not think this way. Not only is the economy NOT like this any more (no one has one job for a lifetime anymore), but ministry in general is not as well. We are caught in the shifts of post Christendom. Outside of the Christendom south (U.S.), and its enclaves in the north, ministry can hardly be viewed as the secure career path it once was. Even when there is this possibility, ministry is a poor long term career offering low pay, extremely long hours (in Christendom structures that is), susceptibility to lack of satisfaction (ministry as profession is hardest job I ever had) and good possibility of getting fired (or the pressure to keep everybody happy in your church so you keep a pay check). The only real career in ministry that works along these former ways of thinking is “the mega church pastor.” The “mega church pastor” is a limited skill-set (not many have it). And I wouldn’t wish that life on anyone. And yet, on and on it goes. Young white males, coming out of seminary, can’t deal with the identity crisis they get when they are asked to pursue another skill or vocation alongside the pursuit of ministry. Somehow, to dive in and learn another vocation for the long term that shall feed into one’s vocation of ministry – is a compromise.

Fellow pastor Geoff Holsclaw and I were talking about this yesterday and he called it “the white man’s place of privilege.” We (white males) are used to being masters of our own destiny. We are told we can do anything if we work hard enough. So to pursue a vocation other than ministry that shall be part of ministry is a compromise. It detracts from a singular focus on ministry. It throws open the future. It disrupts the question “will this job fulfil me?” because there is no way this question makes sense anymore when we enter into Kingdom life in this way.

And yet this is exactly the path I believe many of us are called into when looking at the church through the eyes of post Christendom.

In my experience, women and minority people in general have less of this angst for many reasons. The angst of the young white male is a recent development in history (where I grew up, in Hamilton ON, everybody’s dad was a steelworker, and everybody’s son was expected to be a steelworker, unless they became a pastor/missionary). Most people, prior to the 60’s were too busy responding to the immediate task of providing for family and needs. Planning a job/career was not on most people’s minds. Only the wealthy had this angst. Yet years later, as culture morphed into the service sector offering more choice, middle class white males felt the pressure first. “What career path will you choose?” “What are you going to make of yourself?” Then Caucasian women fell into this in the 80’s. Then various second generation immigrant groups coming into the country to fulfil the American dream felt this pressure. Other minorities, to the degree they have begun to enter into the economic mainstream of N America (including the black middle class), have also begun to feel this pressure. To all these groups, the temptation is to look at ministry as a career achievement track. On the other hand, minorities still caught within America’s poverty cycle, including much of Hispanic immigrant culture, still is driven by the need to find a job and take care of families much like it was in the early days of Euro immigration.

There’s a real sense that we are returning to these minority postures as far as the missional leader is concerned. We are in Newbigin’s words in a “missionary culture.” Christendom is shrinking. The established church culture is getting harder and harder to work in. Devoid of a secure career path in ministry, new missionaries must think in terms of “how am I going to feed my family?” They must be open to what lies in front of them, and respond to job opportunities openly, NOT FROM A POSTURE OF HOW WILL THIS AFFECT MY LONG TERM CAREER IN MINISTRY. Instead, take a job locally, band together in groups, and work out ministry in local contexts. And when, the demands of ministry require it, be prepared to go full time. But don’t think about that right now. You’ll get to that when you get to it.

I was sitting around a living room this past Friday with some people in our missional order dinner group and I told my story. It is a winding swerving crazy story from all counts. I weaved through a financial services occupation in which I became very good in the financial services industry. I engaged a wide open future knowing I would need to get very good at one thing where I could earn a living, and that would serve me well in the rest of my life in ministry. These jobs provided not only a salary but a vision for understanding the world. Yet, as I look back, I was basically put in a position to discern what God was calling me to do each step of the way. There was no master plan. I rejected the singular career in ministry early. I did not have the luxury of choosing a career path in ministry or teaching. Instead God led in and through many different journies. I was involved in church ministry when God led us to start a community. I pursued a PhD when I applied and it was largely paid for.  One thing led to another. By placing one foot in front of another each step along the way, God led to the shape of ministry he had for me. I think this is the way of the future, because the established church and seminary teaching are shrinking as options by the day.

The missional movement needs to come to grips with the young white man’s angst whether we are white, male or not. It is probably too late for the older generation. But the younger generation needs to reconceptualize what ministry will look like. We need to understand seminary differently. A whole new world of ministry is opening up, a revolution of sorts. And the next wave into the missionary context of the West demands flexible bi-vocational cultivators of the gospel. They will inhabit locales for many many years as missionaries leading missionary communities.  I’ve done it. It is not only possible, it is a wonderful intense way to live the gospel driven life .

What say you? Is the missional movement got white male angst in it? Have you got this white male angst? Even if you’re not white? if you’re not male? Can you relate? Is this angst holding the movement back? Holding you back? How? Comments please!!

___________________________________

NOTE ON THE WHITENESS OF MISSIONAL MOVEMENT: In this piece I am discussing the angst of many white young leaders. Truth be told, much of the leadership in the missional movement is white (Caucasian). There are reasons for this. Over here I have argued (against Soong Chan Rah who to my knowledge- has never really addressed this issue) that the missional movement is a rejection of the consumerism, individualism and affluent Christianity most associated with the white evangelicalism of the post WW2 generations. This is where most of the missional movement originated from in N America. Most minorities, having yet to enter that mainstream economy, and in many cases coming to the United States for the express purpose of participating in this American affluence, can hardly see this affluence etc. as something to be resisted. They cannot relate to the terms as laid down by the missional movement for a new economics. This I admit is changing. The recent downturn in the economy is causing many to at least rethink the anti-Christian formation within the promise of United States capitalism.

19 Comments

Hangin Out at The National Church Planting Congress of Canada

I thought I’d have some time to post this week. Ain’t gonna happen. I’m here in Winnipeg at the national church planting congress of Canada put on by Church Planting Canada. I’ve been thinking through with several people these days what forms church-planting must take if we are not to repeat merely cannibalizing the church. In other words, much church planting is updating church for the Christians who grew up in older forms of church. How do we do church planting so we actually engage people outside the gospel? I hope to post some of these thoughts maybe in the next couple days. If not this week, I’ll get to it next week.

Meanwhile, I’m speaking on this topiv here at the Congress. My topic for the Wednesday night plenary (here at the CPC) is “The Ideological Cycle: How Not To Plant a Church.” My topic for the Wednesday afternoon plenary session is  “Planting a church thru Missional Practices: How “SENTNESS” Extends His Authority.” Come join us if you’re in the neighborhood.

3 Comments

Scot McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel: Has The Gospel Coalition Caved?

A whole lot has been written about Scot McKnight’s latest book King Jesus Gospel. We probably don’t need another review of it. Nonetheless, since I received a free copy (in full disclosure) I need to say something :) . (Again in full disclosure, before I requested a copy, I already knew I would like it. I had a early preview).

I think pretty much everyone knows by now Scot McKnight’s contention that evangelicals equate the word “gospel” with the word “salvation.” Hence, according to McKnight, we evangelicals are really “soterians” not “evangelicals”. According to McKnight, the NT gospel should not and cannot be reduced to “our plan of salvation.”(39). Scot shows in King Jesus Gospel that the gospel according to the NT is best defined out of 1 Corinthian 15.  Here the Gospel is the telling of the whole Jesus Story as the completion of the Story of Israel, the lordship of Christ over the whole world. It is the summoning of people to respond to the completion of the promise to Israel in Jesus Christ as Lord.  Through the proclamation of the gospel, we are invited to enter into this grand work of God in history in Christ. Out of all this, we are saved and redeemed (here’s where salvation is part of the gospel but not to be equated with the gospel). Without the Story (of Israel), Scot says, there is no gospel (36). So Scot singularly does one thing in this book, he shows how “individual salvation” is part of the wider gospel. It is not the whole gospel. The salvation we as individuals receive is something we receive as we participate in the wider work of God in the world to bring in His Kingdom in and through Jesus Christ. Even this “personal” salvation is much bigger than “justification by faith” although it certainly includes that!

Scot does a good job unfurling this gospel as it appears in the Bible focusing on the apostle Paul’s 1 Cor 15, the four gospels themselves and the preaching of the apostles in the book of Acts.  He gives his quick take (and it is a quick one) on how the gospel culture of the first three centuries turned into what we have now, a salvation culture obsessed with individual salvation and getting people out of hell into heaven. It is all nicely done

I think this is a landmark book because it summarizes and communicates the important issues of New Perspective, NT Wright and the Kingdom/Paul debate for everyday Christian life in a way the average adult Christian can grab hold of. That’s a feat! I have been trying to teach New Perspective on Paul, NT Wright on God’s “making all things right,” for years. I have been trying to teach how the gospel is not an either/or – kingdom or justification. It is bigger than both and includes both. This book does what I couldn’t do. My student’s light bulbs have been going on this quarter and they are using this book with elders in their churches.

Of course, if there is one lack here in McKnight’s book, it is the thin offering on ecclesiology at the end of the book (ch.10). To me, the redescribing of the gospel according to the New Testament changes how we gather as a people in the world. It changes the way we “proclaim the gospel” at Sunday gathering, “proclaim the gospel as witness in our everyday lives”, how we engage everyday life as the places where God is at work to complete His Mission, how we pray and how we inhabit the world in Mission, how people are baptized into the kingdom (we return to some of the ancient rites). It’s probably too much to ask, but the last chapter on “Creating a Gospel culture” leaves us asking for much more. But this is a short book. I chalk it up to that.

So, all this leaves me with the one question that headlines this blog post. Has the Gospel Coalition caved in all of this? These friends, who have taken on the name “Gospel” and sought a re-invigoration of it (“the gospel”) as “justification by faith,” seem largely absent in challenging McKnight’s book. There are some good reviews out there by Reformed types. Michael Horton, for instance basically argues (here) with Scot over the innocence of Luther and Calvin on the individualizing of salvation. He himself seems to fall into the trap of saying McKnight is marginalizing “salvation” as the forgiveness of sins (just like many seem to accuse NT Wright of). See McKnight’s response here. But Horton is a classical Reformed theologian. He’s not in the Gospel Coalition/Neo-Reformed camp. Where are the serious disagreements from the Gospel Coalition/Neo Reformed bloggers? Even Neo-Reformed blogger Trevin Wax seems to demure to McKnight by subordinating (unintentionally?) “salvation” into part of what God has accomplished in Christ’s Kingship over the world. Is this not what Trevin is saying when he says here “I see the announcement of 1 Corinthians 15 as the gospel presentation by which we are being saved.” But even aside from Trevin, where is John Piper, Al Mohler, or Don Carson in response to this book? (I couldn’t find reviews by them?) Why the silence?

So my question is: is this silence real? (I could have missed some reviews – please help me here) Or maybe, just maybe, has Scot McKnight done the impossible? Has Scot given us the bridge to bring together – the “NT Wright-ests” with the “John Piper-ites”? -  for a re-invigoration of the gospel of the Kingdom in our times? Is this what is happening? or am I hearing crickets chirping in “the Gospel Coalition camp? Just asking :)

22 Comments

“The Fifteen Hour Rule”: A Challenge to All Church-Planters – Quit Working More Than 15 Hours!! (on your churches)

The idea of the singular professional pastor running a church doing all 18 spiritual gifts (depending on how many you read in the NT etc.) has fallen out of favor. No one believes this is possible any more. This is a relic of the hierarchies of Christendom where such consolidation made organizational sense (if not ecclesiological sense).  Any pastor trying to do this will expire from burnout. It is a denial of the Holy Spirit’s work in the body (I Cor 12). (Should we then get rid of the M Div degree as well?)

Of course mega churches are able to keep the hierarchy going by building massive staffs which employ full time specialists in each gifting, and then they employ huge cadres of volunteers for massive programs which they then call “gifts.” (which is a complete misnomer – but that is a subject for another day. On this kind of false volunteerism read Bill Kinnon here and Jamie Arpin Ricci here). But this is another story of the prolongation of Christendom past its time.

Why then, WHY WOULD WE think about planting a new missional church with a singular leader/pastor at the head of the ship?  The only reason is if we are comfortable with the notion that we can recruit enough already existing Christians to be subservient to said singular leader and form a Christendom organization for managing and distributing Christians goods and services to them. But is this church planting or church reconfiguring? Is this Mission or Marketing?

This is why, when planting a missional church/community I prefer the leaders implement “the 15 hour rule.” The “15 hour rule” says that NO PASTOR/LEADER CULTIVATING A NEW MISSIONAL COMMUNITY SHOULD WORK MORE THAN 15 HOURS A WEEK ON MISSIONAL COMMUNITY ORGANZIATIONAL FUNCTIONS (including preaching, organizing, leadership, etc.).

Of course, this is heresy in the traditional world of evangelical church plants. Most assume the new pastor works 15 hours per week just on the sermon.  Over against this traditional model I believe “the 15 hour rule” works to do the following:

 1.) It says no one pastor/leader can nurture a Christian community. It requires a minimum of 3 pastor/leaders who know the inter-relationship of their giftings according to the Eph 4 APEPT schema – Apostles/Prophets/Evangelists/Pastors/ Teachers. These pastors must work together in mutual submission to one another modeling the life of submission one to another in Christ. I’m of the mind, you put three mature leaders who know their giftings in one place for ten years who can lead out of mutual submission to Christ and His Mission, and you will have a fresh expression of the gospel (not dependent upon already existing Christians) in that place 10 years later.

2.) It promotes bi-vocationalism. This is obviously a bi-vocational model where each pastor has a job sufficient to provide a level of support which can sustain these three pastors together in the work for 10 or more years to come. Yet this also reinforces the idea that to do bi-vocational ministry as a singular pastor is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE!! To do bi-vocational ministry – 15 hours a week max – requires at least three leaders together on the ground, praying, discerning, leading.

3.) It prevents any pastor from thinking the work of the Kingdom is dependent upon how hard he/she work. Instead, I have 15 hours to give and that’s it.  It is God who will do this work not me. I do not have to worry about results, people in the pews, offerings because by and large I am being supported in and through a job and a community. I can exercise the patience necessary to see God work among new and unreached peoples.

4.) It promotes an active body dependent upon the Spirit discerning what God is doing. Because every one in the community sees “the body” modeled by the pastorate, this kind of leadership automatically fosters a “body mentality” in the rest of the church that regularly depends upon the Spirit. We become participants in the rhythms of God’s grace in His Spirit, no meglamaniacal leadership that has predetermined goals (financial and otherwise). The community therefore becomes the arena in which and around which the Spirit can work. Leadership does not control the organization. It fosters an organization of a different kind, an organization that post facto the Spirit facilitates what God is doing.

5.) It says that there should be more than one preacher, teacher. If it is true that it takes 15 hours of prep for a good sermon, then we need to rotate it among the three pastors (and others gifted as well) so that theoretically the fifteen hours are spread out over a longer period of time than one week. This keeps the mission from being centered around one personality.  It keeps the preaching grounded in the mission and life of the community (not a single person studying 20-30 hours a week for the most brilliant exegesis).

NOW LET US BE SURE TO RECOGNIZE that there will be times when “the fifteen hour rule” must go by the wayside. As the church grows, as one’s gifts become more fully recognized, as the fruit of one’s ministry dictates more devotion to the work on the ground in fostering the Kingdom, more hours will be appropriate. This happened all the time in the NT. But, I’m of the mind that every pastor, no matter how much he/she is working within the structures of the church, must always have the ability (i.e another job skill) to go back to “the fifteen hour rule.” Because it simply re-disciplines the church to be the arena of the Spirit from which it can participate in God’s Mission in the world.

Your thoughts on “the 15 hour rule”? Outrageous? Impractical? This Can’t Be Done?

42 Comments

Webfonts HTML & CSS provided by FontsForWeb.com - free fonts download. See this Wordpress fonts(webfonts) plugin here