Reclaiming the Mission » Missional Leadership

davidfitch on August 3 2011

Pastoring as Mutual Submission: On Putting the Power Relationship Back into the Hands of God

Kurt Fredrickson and Cameron Lee of Fuller Theological Seminary are coming out with a new book on Cascade Books in a few months. It is entitled What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew (Good title eh?). Kurt asked me along with several other pastors to write a letter in response to the book. All of these letters will be published at the end of the book. I enlisted Matt Tebbe, a former co-pastor with me and Geoff Holsclaw at Life on the Vine Christian Community, to write it with me. We exchanged a few ideas and below is what we came up with. I thought the finished piece reveals well what went on between us all in the development of a multiple pastorship in mutual submission at Life on the Vine. I think it helps flesh out alot of what I’ve been writing for years on this blog about multiple bi-vocational pastoring. Matt did alot of the “good” writing on this piece. You can tell . I hope it helps others who are also seeking to pastor out of “mutual submission one to another.” Your comments and questions are welcomed as always.

———————————————–

Letter by David Fitch and Matt Tebbe – co-pastors together with Geoff Holsclaw at Life on the Vine Christian Community – to the readers of What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew.

We (Matt Tebbe and David Fitch) have pastored together and feel like we have learned first hand many of the things Cameron Lee and Kurt Fredrickson write about in What Pastors Wish Their Congregation Knew. We co-pastored the Life on the Vine Christian Community in Chicago’s northwest suburbs together with Geoff Holsclaw. Matt was the preacher and the pastor. Dave preached and pastored too, but was more often the apostle – gatherer – prophet. Geoff was the teacher-administrator. From our different perspectives, we learned first hand the importance of nurturing healthy relationships as pastors. As Kurt and Cameron articulate well (in ch. 8), this means handling conflict incarnationally: i.e. taking a posture of being among, with, and in submission to those we live the gospel with. We learned this first, however, through cultivating our relationships as pastors with each other. Only in working out our own co-pastor relationship did this truth work its way into the many relationships with and among the congregation of Life on the Vine.

For a church to be healthy, the pastors must be healthy. Often (not necessarily) church structure can calcify unhealthy emotional systems of pastors – especially senior pastors. The senior pastor in particular can set the “temperature” of the congregation; as the main leader, the congregation (and associate pastors) will submit to his or her decisions and way of handling difficulties and conflict. But this means that the emotional health of a congregation is tied to one man or woman; they are subjected to his or her character deficiencies, weaknesses, and blindspots. His or her reactions to conflict, ways of discerning, sensitivities and approaches to handling crisis become how the church operates in those capacities.

When we first started co-pastoring together we brought to our relationship a complex arrangement of ideas, visions, agendas, hopes. Throw in another co-pastor as well (Geoff Holsclaw) and it was a recipe for a power struggle. Two dominant leadership options were available to us: Geoff and I (Matt) could submit to Dave as the lead and founding pastor of Life on the Vine. We could give him input but he would make final decisions. Or – we could have a democracy – There were three of us and each of us could have an equal vote – or – discreet areas of ministry where we took each other’s input but ultimately we had the final say. We all knew, based on previous church experience and a growing sense of self-awareness, that there existed in us a capacity for self-deception, egocentric leadership, and our own unhealthy emotional responses setting the temperature of our church. So – with Dave’s encouragement and careful leading – we decided it was better for our church to enter into a relationship of mutual submission as co-leaders as the means to invest in the health of our congregation. This was the most difficult and most fruitful relationship I (Matt) ever entered into. There were two characterological postures we learned in this relational commitment: 1.) Trust of the Spirit vs. Self-willfulness of me as pastor and 2.) Conflict as sanctification vs. something to me minimized, managed, or leveraged for “health” of church.

Trust vs. Self-willfulness

Because of our experiences and spiritual giftings, Dave and I would often see the same situation in two completely different (and sometimes in competing) ways. Training leaders, leading meetings, scheduling and planning church events, how to handle conflict – all of these created tension and brought into focus our divergent personalities. The relational matrix of mutual submission between us as pastors became the means God used to “strengthen our congregational immune system” (ch. 8).

Dallas Willard is oft quoted as saying, “What God gets out of me isn’t what I do, it’s the person I become.” We would say that what God got out of us as pastors was the people we became – in mutual submission to his work in each other. The same goes for the entire congregation at life on the Vine. As we lived into the reality of mutual submission in co-pastoring we found it to be best for our congregation and for our spiritual formation as pastors. But how could we tend to the kind of persons we were as pastors and not become self-preoccupied, egomaniacal narcissists? The answer, we discovered, was trust – submitting ourselves to each other in love and vulnerability. We learned to trust that the Spirit speaks and works not just in each person individually but in His church. We learned to test our agendas, preferences, opinions and sensitivities based on giftings to the Holy Spirit. Through the discipline of mutual submission we found ourselves becoming the kinds of people who increasingly trusted the Holy Spirit and each other. This vulnerability and trust became the posture and attitude out of which we sought to lead our congregation into health and wholeness.

Conflict as Sanctification vs. something to be minimized, managed or leveraged.

“In the end, what makes for a healthy church is not just how we respond to the conflicts that erupt, but the kind of relationships we cultivate before an eruption happens.” (Cameron and Lee, ch. eight ) Conflict – among the three of us and by extension in our congregation – went from something we sought to manage or minimize to an opportunity to grow, learn, submit, love, die, and rise to new life. Conflict became ground zero for the seed to find fertile soil in our pastoral relationships – and then with that imagination – in the life of our church.

We have learned that conflict is the means by which God moves a congregation deeper into His mission. In order for conflict to be used by God however, we as pastors cannot control it. Instead we as pastors must become vulnerable, carrying a posture of submission always as a model to one another following Matt chapter 18. In so doing, we allow conflict to ferment in the Spirit. If the conflict is about us (which as pastors it will be many many times) we must listen and submit. We must reflect back what we have heard, and then give our observations and then submit by saying “is this how you see it?” We might describe how we see the way forward, how we see Scripture on this or what we hear the Spirit saying. But we will always then submit these affirmations to the one we sit with. What do you see? In your prayer what are you hearing God say to us? In this place of mutual submission a coming together happens. Jesus becomes present and a binding and loosing” is shaped where we discern together where to go from here? (Matt 18:15-20). It is the very Kingdom of God breaking in.

When we as pastors find ourselves participating in such relationships, the burden of managing conflict is taken from us. The power relationship is put into the hands of God. The act of submission places one into God’s power, what the Spirit is doing… and asking everyone else to test it. This is at the very heart of what we have learned together about pastoring in Christ’s authority not our own, what Kurt and Cameron call “healthy relationships.”

May God bless this book in guiding many pastors, leaders and disciples of all kinds to this place of putting the power relationship into the hands of God. In so doing, God’s power will be unleashed in His church.

Filed under Missional Leadership 12 Comments

davidfitch on July 13 2011

There’s A “Good Tired” and a “Bad Tired”

There’s a good tired and there’s a bad tired, a good (discontent) and a bad discontent, and yeah, I believe there’s a good depression and a bad depression. Every Christian seeking to live in mission has got to discern between these two paths regularly.

A “good tired” results from one exerting oneself out of one’s passion ordered into the work God has given him/her. It is the result of offering up one’s body to the work of the Lord. It is the result of seeing whatever tasks God has given me for the day – whether it be work, parenting, prayer, ministry, housecleaning – as work done unto His glory for His purposes. Out of a posture of dependence upon God the Holy Spirit, the opening of our hands to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling power, we work with joy and then get tired. We end the day tired but deeply satisfied. I love days lived like this.

But there is a bad tired which is debilitating. It comes from being overwhelmed by all that lies ahead. It comes from seeing I have too many things to accomplish and it’s all on me to get it done. I am trying to do all this in my own energy. I am sighing. I am sighing.

I must learn how to order these tasks and then most importantly I must learn how to walk daily in dependence, hands open, to the infilling of the Spirit. It is not my work. It is participating with God in His work for the day, whatever that work might be.

There is also, I believe, a good discontent and a bad discontent. The good discontent is a holy discontent born out of a desire to see God’s Kingdom come. When one sees people around him/her blocked by fears and obsessions that hinder the coming of God’s reign, there is a discontent. This discontent can be carried with grace. We, in Christ, can speak truth gracefully and leave space for God to work. The bad discontent however is a rut of always finding things not up to one’s own standards of perfection. The resulting disgruntled state is impervious to grace. It is always unhappy. This state of mind kills life if not nipped in the bud.

Lastly, I believe there is a good depression that all pastors/ministers have to go through to be used by God. This is the deep sadness that one must go through which enables each one of us to give up things we somehow became attached to as central to our own identity, but really these things are not essential to God’s Mission. In ministry, there are things like “I’m a great preacher” or “I will lead a certain kind of change in this neighborhood for Jesus” or “I will show my worth by being a mega church pastor executive” that somehow have been allowed to become pat of my identity. I hold onto to these things. Being freed from these identity markers will allow us to become the instruments anew of what God is doing in Mission. I fear, most pastors never allow themselves to die to their ministry ego markers (whatever they might be) because this requires a good period of depression. As a result, ministries shrivel and churches die.

Bad depression is when we lose purpose in life and allow ourselves to go into complete despair and disavowal of all belief. We lose connection to the reality that God has called us into His life and His Mission. This is when depression is bad and should not be nurtured. If we end up here, I believe we must go to the place where we can open ourselves anew to the mysteries of God (a spiritual director might be good here too) and see the deep mysterious purposes of God at work in the world in His Mission for the world. Somehow, we must see again our place within God’s extraordinary Mission. I believe this kind of renewal happens to people all the time. Many however never have the wherewithal (the spiritual direction) to resist it by the Spirit so as to get to the place of receptivity.

The words of Jesus from The Message Matt 11:28-30

Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me – watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly.

Blessings on the journey. DF

Filed under Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 17 Comments

davidfitch on June 21 2011

James MacDonald’s Lost Vision For the Body of Christ?

One should be careful in criticizing another pastor, especially one in the neighborhood (we both serve in the Northwest suburbs). So I am engaging James MacDonald – not criticizing him – because he invites engagement in his post provocatively titled Congregational Form of Government is From Satan. This post caused a good bloga-stir last week. Like a grenade thrown into the room, it cleared the debris and asked the core questions “Wherein lies authority in the church? How is that authority exercised?” Pastor James answered by arguing that the authority of Christ in His church is best carried out in a hierarchy composed of a senior pastor surrounded by a group of elders, the form of church government otherwise known as “elder rule.”

I’m not much interested in the argument for “elder rule” over congregational forms of church government. Instead, I think pastor James’ post reveals much about his attitudes and understandings of what it means to be body of Christ in N America, and serve that body as a pastor. “Elder rule” is certainly one valid form of church government that has its roots in the Majesterial Reformation. It has made sense in many cultural contexts related to Christendom over the past 500 years. What I am more concerned about however in this post is the apparent loss of a very important part of the NT vision of the local body of Christ. My big question is – are we seeing a loss of vision for the active living organic body of Christ in the world. I offer 3 questions/observations.

1.) Is there Submission of the Leader(s) to the Body (in this post)? Jesus said “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first must be the slave of all. Because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45. The NT church built its understanding of church leadership upon these words. This is why the NT uses the term diakonia (servant, slave) far more than any other term to describe leadership in the church. I take these words of Jesus to be an overthrow of all authoritarian leadership in the church. Instead we pastors are to be yielding, serving the local Body in submission to each other out of mutual submission to Jesus as our Lord and reigning King. We are to trust together that God the Holy Spirit is working in the arena of His people where Jesus is Lord (1 Cor 12). The pastor, prophet, teacher, even apostle or elder always serves in this pattern. I could go on how this pattern is evident everywhere in the NT but instead I refer you to chapter 3 of my 2005 book The Great Giveaway.

What I hear in pastor James’ post is an account of church government that puts one man (or woman?) in charge in a top-down authority alongside a set of elders as support. This form of church government, he says, “frees the pastor from the tyranny of the untrained and the untrainable.” Huh? Where then is the submission of the pastors to the body as servants one to another? To me, the servant nature of leadership, driven by the mutual submission one to another in reverence to Christ is the very foundation of church life (Eph 5:20). How does the pastor lead in submission to the body with a statement like this? How are the elders chosen from among several thousand people church except as they are handpicked by the pastoral authority? How does this form of government not become a single personality driven church where the body has little or no voice?

When we give up the submission of the pastor to the body, I suggest we have lost Christ’s vision of the body of Christ. Has pastor James lost this vision of the body of Christ?

2.) Is There a Body of Christ Active Here in Discerning the Future? In Matt 18:15-20 Christ gives us an account of discernment (“binding and loosing” is a Rabbinic term for discerning disagreements and conflicts). Here the community of Christ, from ground up, discerns disagreements and sin among themselves by going to each other and speaking truth and confessing in love. From these on the ground conflicts we see key issues in the church rising up to communal wide discernment. Together we gather and a council forms, and we discern together (1 Cor 2:16) the mind of Christ. We engage new territory for the gospel together. Pastor James seems to think all division is bad. It is “good people being held hostage to bad people.” On the contrary, I suggest, conflict is ground zero for moving the church into mission (see this link here).

This way of being a people is admittedly untidy, often inefficient (although I don’t think it needs to be). But frankly, this is (one of the places) where Christ inhabits the church (“there am I with you”)and the future is discerned. But under “the elder rule,”as pastor James describes, it seems as if one man should dictate which way to go. The one senior pastor goes up to Mt Sinai, gets a word from the Lord, comes down and delivers from God the way we are to go. You as a parishioner can then decide to stay or go. I don’t think we should trust one man or a group of men (notice it’s mostly men) because I think any one man or woman is too narrowly constrained to see where God might take us. We need the body to discern, and as we engage new and different cultural challenges that we’ve never seen before, we need the body fully activated to discern. Admittedly this is impossible when you get over 200 people.

A top heavy organization run by “elder rule” naturally moves its people in and upward. The people are always looking to the one man and his elder rule for rulings on matters of “should we do this?” or “how do we reach these people, needs in our community?” The community becomes inward focused and centered on a single voice who unilaterally drives the vision of the church. I believe a church loses its dynamism and its flexibility under these conditions. It is driven by one man’s vision for a single time and place. The body of Christ created in Christ by the Spirit for mission (John 20:23) becomes static. When this happens, churches run this way via “elder rule” have lost the vision for the active living body of Christ?

3.) Is There an Alive Body Engaging Fully in the Ministry of the Kingdom? 1 Cor 12, 14 give us a vision of the body of Christ functioning in all its gifts. Eph 4 shows how 5 gifts are prominent. This fully alive body is discussed in Rom 12 and elsewhere. It is called by the apostle Paul “the fullness of Christ” Eph 4:13. This is where the body comes to life to bring forth the fullness of life in Christ.

Where does this full participation in the body of Christ take place in a church governed by “the elder rule” polity he proposes. For pastor James, the “priesthood of all believers” refers to the protestant denial of any mediator between the individual and God. He grieves the “eldership of all believers” where each person, regardless of training,” considers their thoughts about the future to be of equivalent value” (to those with training?) Huh? Again?

The true pneumatocracy of the church relies on the plurality of the gifts all recognized within the body. Is there a place for this in James McDonald’s “elder rule”? Too often, in an “elder rule” church, I fear “gifts” and “gift inventories” turn into another organizing matrix to train volunteers to sustain a top heavy organization. The gifts become internally focused. They are not mutual participants in what God is doing in the church and the church in the world. This to me is the real tragedy of the lost vision of the body of Christ this kind of church polity represents. You tell me, have I missed something?

Conclusion

In summary my three concerns can put in the following three statements for discussion.

A. The Elder Rule form of church government (as outlined above) is prone to work for Christians who want minimal involvement in church life and want to be spoon-fed Scriptural teaching/spiritual upliftment as a regular product on Sunday morning Yes? No?

B. The Elder Rule form of church government (as outlined above) is prone to encourage pastors to function as dictators versus participants in the flowing life of God’s Kingdom at work in the living Body of Christ. Yes? No?

C. The Elder Rule form of church government does not work to develop a dynamic flexible externally focused social body that can engage new cultural challenges easily (without first getting approval from the hierarchy) Yes? No?

To those who see these things regularly occur in this form of church, who seriously wonder if there is any other way to be church, I encourage you to read this link, and then look for a missional community being birthed in a neighborhood near you.

OK, thanks to pastor James MacDonald for spurring on the conversation. That’s it for now … just putting all these questions out there … over and out …

Filed under Missional Ecclesiology,Missional Leadership 43 Comments

davidfitch on June 18 2011

Me and Max on Father’s Day via Twitter: 5 Reflections on Leadership in 140 Characters or Less

To all the fathers and mothers out there, on this Father’s day, here’s 5 tweets recording some conversations between me and my 6 year-old son Max (yes I know I don’t look young enough for that). They reflect some hard won lessons on leadership as well as some of my better moments as a father. I admit I have much to learn eh? So please add your own tweets to these … to help push us all forward into raising our children into God’s inbreaking Kingdom! (FYI the inserted picture is of all three of us having just got out of bed this past Christmas morning in Indiana).

Tweet 1: Just told Max: You don’t tell people what to do. You invite them to do something with you. Leadership lesson #1 accomplished

Tweet 2: To Max whining about being 1st in line: Go to the back of the line. The 1st shall be last. U can’t lead if u can’t follow. Leadership tip #2

Tweet 3: Max:”But I don’t want to” Me w/ love: Son, do it anyway. u can only grow up by doing the things u don’t want to. Leadership lesson #3

Tweet 4: To Max: You are an amazing little man, God created you, loves you and has big plans for you in His mission. The foundation of leadership

Tweet 5: Max complaining “I can’t wait, I can’t wait” Me: What is patience? Max: Waiting and trusting Daddy (and Mommy). Leadership lesson # 5

Filed under Missional Leadership No Comments

davidfitch on May 17 2011

The Important Task of Cultivating Missional Rhythms in a Community

I’m heading off to Toronto this week to be at the Presentensions Event. Before I go I thought I’d post this piece (with slight revisions). It has been a popular blog post over the years. I’d like to hear from anyone who has been involved in such cultivating and what you have learned! Comment if you can. Peace!

————————————————————————-

Over the years now, I’ve come to understand the important task of nurturing communities into missional rhythms. Especially in the early stages of a community’s formation, we must resist the community’s desire “to do something!!” and instead cultivate missional rhythms among our people’s lives together for God’s mission. I think leaders need to walk along with and among people being a “missional therapist” helping people imagine God at work in and around their daily lives. Along the way, they lead by consistently (and kindly) rejecting some old habits and directing the imagination towards other possibilities. This is the never-ending work of cultivating missional habits of imagination among a people. Here’s my list of what to reject (slowly put to death in a congregation) and what to direct (nudge people forward) a congregation’s imagination toward. I’ve learned a lot of these things from missional thinkers/practitioners but have found all these things to be surprisingly simple and possible in my own life.

1.) Kindly Reject doing Outreach Events. Instead direct imagination towards ways of connecting with people where they are. Outreach events take up much time, planning and enormous “congregational capital” (if I may put it that way). In post Christendom outreach events rarely “work.” And you simply cannot compete with the local Park District or Megachurch event planning neutral site events. Instead, with little effort or cost, direct the people’s imagination towards seeing the ways you can connect with people in their everyday situations by going to the same place at the same time every week. Stoke imagination for the way ordinary life is the stage of God’s working. Visit the same places at the same time every week (this is easy for me because I am pathetically boring and love doing the same thing everyday). This has revolutionized my missional life with not a single ounce of extra-expended energy spent on my part. I believe the same could be true for every member of our church Body. Thanks to Alan Hirsch for teaching me about this.

2.) Kindly Reject evangelism as a one time hit on a target with a preconceived outcome. Kindle imagination toward seeing mission as part of regular daily, weekly and monthly life rhythms where out or regular life God works to use your life to impact people for the gospel in unforeseen ways. There is no precision strike technique, instead we need to train our eyes to pay attention to our life rhythms and be ready to minister out of everyday life, where God is already working to bring people to Christ.

3.) Kindly reject building multiple use buildings as if by building a gymnasium on the church campus we can bring people into the orbit of the church. Instead stoke imagination for what can happen when we go inhabit the gyms already in the neighborhoods. We should build less third spaces, and inhabit more the ones already there.

4.) Kindly reject one-on-one evangelism and the techniques associated with such apologetic persuasion. Instead direct imagination for inhabiting places in two’s or three’s or more. Hospitals, PADS Centers, the school systems, the park districts and places of hurt and pain too numerous to mention are all places where there are forces at work that can take under any one isolated saint. But two or three Christians together become an undeniable force for the kingdom under the Lordship of Christ.

5.) Kindly reject the Sunday morning gathering as an evangelistic event for it cannot be that in the new post Christendom cultures. Instead fire up imagination for the formation that comes from a communal encounter with the living God in Jesus Christ. As we hover around the altar, in silence, in prayers of submission, in affirmation, in confession, in healing prayers, in the hearing of the Word, and the Table, as we sing in praise and thanksgiving at what He has done, and then as we are sent out by God in the Benedictory challenge, we are shaped for His Life in Mission. It is simple, organic, takes a lot less planning than a mega show, and alot less money. And if any non-believers do happen to come, they won’t confuse this with a Tony Robbins event.

6.) Kindly reject coercive persuasion and argument in our witness. Instead stoke the imagination of your people for seeking “one person of peace” (Luke 10) among the lost of their neighborhoods. Look for that one who, though never having heard the gospel, is dispositionally ready (been readied by God) to receive. (Thanks to Mike Breen for this idea).

7.) Kindly reject presumptuous postures of power as we live our lives among those who do not yet know Christ. Instead direct the imagination towards the way Christ always enters the human situation in humility. So don’t come to your neighbors as the one with the answer, but as the one searching for the answers that always point you towards Christ. Come to your neighbors humbly and in need. Instead of offering them a meal, find ways to participate in a meal with them. If you’re in the suburbs ask them if you can borrow their lawnmower.

8.) Kindly Reject Surveying the neighborhood – Direct the imagination toward exegeting the neighborhood. Surveying looks at the neighborhood as a place to market our church, find out what they are looking for and appeal to it so that they are attracted to the idea of coming to church. Exegeting a neighborhood requires inhabiting the neighborhood, seeing the neighborhood as a place for redemption, discovering where the hurting are and the unjust structures are. See the possibilities for ministering the gospel to those who are lost and through the gospel (over time) seeing that very culture transformed.

9.) Kindly Reject problem solving – instead direct the imagination towards “appreciative inquiry.” We often approach church and the world through problem solving. What is wrong with our programs? What needs are we not meeting? How can we solve this problem in the nieghborhood? What are we not doing right? This is negative, mechanical and lifeless. Instead, let’s direct our community’s imagination to noticing where God is working among us and around us, to recognize it, praise God for it and participate in it through the gifts we have been given. Thanks to Mark Lau Branson for this insight.

These are just a few of the ways we can lead our congregations to make our whole way of life a participation in God’s mission. There are many more I am sure. What others do you have?

Filed under Evangelism,Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 36 Comments

davidfitch on May 3 2011

5 Excuses Seminarians make for NOT Getting A (“Real”) Job

OK, so don’t take me too seriously on the title here (the “Real” part) because I do believe full time ministry is a worthy and awesome vocation. But times are changing. Many seminarians aren’t interested in ministry within the structures of large established churches. And denominations no longer have the money it takes to fund a full time salaried pastor to plant a “competing” church in a locale. The only option for many is to lead a missionary venture into a place in need of the gospel. This sounds good right? The problem is that this approach demands (most of the time) that the church planter get a job and be bi-vocational. And this is a hurdle for most people coming out of seminary (not that seminarians are the only people who can do this).

Bi-vocationalism is attractive to many seminarians. For them, the vocational full time pastor job in a church can separate you from Mission. You work and hang out with mostly Christian people all day (and night). Today, there are more and more seminary students who find the structures of the larger churches incompatible with their vision for on-the-ground mission and ministry. The culture is not a churched culture anymore and this form of church is not reaching that culture. The role of the established pastor seems to be like caretaking existing Christians. More and more seminarians therefore come out of seminary feeling like THEY JUST DON’T FIT.

As a result, more and more seminary grads are looking to an alternative option to ministry – the option to take up residence in a neighborhood and “inhabit” it for ministry. We seek a neighborhood nearby where the need for the gospel is especially evident. We seek God and His call to move there and take up residence. We get normal jobs, live life together, get to know our neighbors, hang out in the coffee shops, the laundry-mats, the McDonalds (wink wink), the bars, the local school meetings, the civic association, the places where hurting people are. Learn to be intentional in the way you organize your life, so that nothing is a burden, just a rhythm. Gather a people into the rhythms of God (worship, fellowship, conflict discernment, serving the poor, prayer for the sick, eating meals of fellowship, etc. etc.). We learn how to come alongside the poor, vulnerable, broken, hurting. We learn how to minister, pray with, supply support to, encourage and even disciple and be discipled by the poor in the process. We lead by coming alongside other leaders who also move in and together we use all our leadership skills, and spiritual gifts as well as preaching and teaching to lead this community. Each of us puts in 10-15 hours of work (the equivalent of on full time senior pastor). We do all this as part of a regular sustainable rhythm of life for years and watch God transform people and neighborhoods in Christ. NONE OF THIS IS A PROGRAM!

OF COURSE THERE IS ONE HURDLE FOR MOST SEMINARIANS TO THIS PLAN – YOU HAVE TO GO GET A JOB.

Seminarians, and I am primarily talking to seminarians here, for some reasons have a mental block about getting a job. Here are five bad excuses for NOT getting a job and some comments regarding each excuse.

1.) EXCUSE NO. 1 – I CAN’T GET A JOB. I’M NOT TRAINED FOR ANYTHING. For some reason 3 years in a seminary seems to make graduates unemployable except in anything but professional church work. My comment is, and I worked in the marketplace for years, is that seminarians are well schooled in reading, writing, thinking, reading texts critically, appropriating text material, speaking well in front of people. In addition, they should have an acquired spiritual formation that lends itself to kindness, generosity and patience with people. There skills are in demand and much appreciated in our service economy.

2.) EXCUSE NO. 2 - I CAN’T TAKE A JOB FOR 6.50 AN HOUR AND SURVIVE. But the fact is that anyone who starts in any field has to start at the entry level. And it is here where you learn about being poor. It is here where you also gain the entry point to build relationships, learn a skill, and prove yourself as a person with all of the above skills. As far as surviving, missional community planters I know often move in with other people at the beginning. They live 2 or 3 families in a house. Pay much less or even no rent. This allows for the time to get established and take that entry-level job that connects one to living rhythms in the neighborhood.

3.) EXCUSE NO. 3 – I WILL BE SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON A JOB THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO MINISTRY. Seminarians think that spending many years in something not ministry related will stunt development of ministry skills. This is mind blowing to me. I suggest that working in the marketplace in whatever capacity is transforming and every pastor should do it in some way. It is also incredible how having a well-honed skill in your back pocket gives enormous freedom in ministry even when more full time ministry is forced upon you. You are no longer locked into the insecurity of having to keep a church going (because you know you can get a job) that can constrain you from acting prophetically.

4.) EXCUSE NO. 4 - IT WOULD BE BETTER TO RAISE SUPPORT FROM CHRISTIANS AND THEN HAVE MORE TIME IN MINISTRY. My comment here is that fund raising is great if you have a ready network of support that you can call on. Go for it!! This will free you up to take time and get a job BTW. The problem with fund raising however is that it is often a full time job. It takes a year making 1000 phone calls, making 200 visits. This is the equivalent man-hours of starting a self-sustaining business. Fund raising of course takes hours to keep up those contacts year in and year out. You are basically spending your time with Christians. Fund raising, therefore, in a sense, takes you out of the neighborhood and into the Christian ghetto. It is also Christendom based. It depends on already committed Christians who are a shrinking commodity in the developed West.

5.) EXCUSE NO. 5 – I SPENT 3 YEARS (OR MORE) AND A LOT OF MONEY ON A SEMINARY EDUCATION. NOW THIS WAS A WASTE OF TIME! No it wasn’t. It hopefully prepared you for ministry. Some of the best missional communities I know have been founded by seminary graduates. They are using their education to the fullest in ways never imagined. And if you’ve got loans, that’s unfortunate. But, I suggest, most of the people following the course of bi-vocational ministry make more money (eventually) than in ministry and pay back their loans faster. On taking out loans for seminary, I suggest the right kind of praxis oriented seminary education (that encompasses Biblical studies, theological studies, cultural studies, church practice studies, leadership studies) is important for bi-vocational missional leaders. But I would suggest you do it slowly and in ways that don’t stretch the finances. At Northern we’re working on an M.A. CM in Missional Studies that can be accomplished one night a week for five years at a very low cost monthly.

OK I know this isn’t for everybody. I’ve seen this work mostly with twenty-thirty somethings. But the times a re changing. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived all this myself and seen it take shape in many different ways in missional commuinities. What are your biggest hurdles? Do you know of any other excuses? Is this totally out of the question for you? Blessings on the journey!!

Filed under Church Planting,Missional Leadership 44 Comments

davidfitch on April 6 2011

We’re Asking For a Different Kind of Leadership

Recently I was talking with a guy who was attempting to lead a missional community. He had come from an established church setting. He was used to understanding church in terms of already established structures. He was constantly tempted to lead by edict. “We need to do this!” “These elders should be doing this!” “We need to ensure that everybody leading local house groups is at this meeting and learning “such and such.” So I tried to tell him this kind of leadership won’t do in the process of gathering and nurturing a community of mission. We need a different kind of leadership from you.

1.) We need a leader who puts forth ideas, vision by I saying “This is where/how I see God working. This is where I hear God calling us” and then ALWAYS submits that to the other person(s) asking – what are you seeing? Where are you going? Is this the way you are being called as well? NOT SOMEONE WHO SAYS “OK THIS IS THE VISION GOD HAS GIVEN ME FOR THIS CHURCH – CAN YOU FOLLOW ME? OR DO YOU NEED TO GO TO ANOTHER CHURCH?

2.) We need a leader who leads by listening and then knows when to ask (out of relationship) “can I speak truth into your life?” NOT SOMEONE WHO TELLS PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED TO HEAR/DO BEFORE HE/SHE EVEN LISTENS

3.) We need a leader who never presumes authority but whose very presence and life makes people want to trust him/her and follow him/her. NOT SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE ACTING OUT OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE, EXPERTISE OR PERCEIVED OFFICE.

4.) We need a leader who serves first by example, who embodies the disposition of being in everyday ministry/service to the hurting and then asks someone “can you join me on this?” NOT SOMEONE WHO RUNS THE CHURCH AS IF HE/SHE IS A CEO

5.) We need a leader who can unfurl the reality of the Lordship of Christ in the world and in each one’s life via Scripture, and then invite/challenge people to live there. NOT SOMEONE WHO USES SCRIPTURE TO PREACH A PRE-SCRIBED PRE-DETERMINED AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE ORGANIZATION OF THIS CHURCH.

6.) We need a leader who can cultivate the Kingdom in people, who can sit down with people over a cup of coffee, ask questions, and help each person see that God is “breaking in” through Jesus Christ working for the salvation of this person’s entire life and the people around him/her. And then ask, “how do you respond, how can you be faithful, how will you join in?” NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS A SET OF PRE DETERMINED PROGRAMS THAT HE/SHE WANTS EVERY PERSON TO VOLUNTEER FOR.

7.) We need a leader who can teach many more leaders how to be this kind of leader. NOT THE KIND OF LEADER THAT RECRUITS MORE LEADERS UNDER HIM/HER TO CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS.

I freely admit, that this kind of leadership is most often different than the leadership we have become used to. The other ways of leadership work within an established church systems where there are Christians already compliant and simply content to acquire some necessary Christian goods and services. I should adamently say that there will still be “programs” that develop within a church as a result of this “missional” kind of leadership. These programs however will always facilitate, indeed embody, the rhythms of life with God in His Kingdom/mission. Once we deviate from this, the other kind of leadership habits start to become default. The kind of leadership proposed here however creates certain kinds of habits, certain kinds of dispositions that open the way for God to work His Kingdom among us and around us. There is something of a renewal of this kind of leadership happening among missional communities. I believe it is a recovery of the way Jesus speaks about leadership (did he use that word?). Matt 20:17-28. Read it and take it in. It is the foundation for the revolution (i.e. the Kingdom of God coming).

Perhaps you have an addition or two to the kind of leader we need (this list could be a lot longer!). Please tell us!

Filed under Missional Leadership,Neo-Anabaptist,Uncategorized 38 Comments

davidfitch on March 23 2011

For All the Big Dreamers in the World – Start Small On The Ground and Let the Rest Take Care of Itself

“I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” Woody Allen

I’d like to direct this post to the many people seeking advice these days on book writing and getting Ph D education and stuff like that.

————————-

I am a pastor, church planter, nurturer of missional communities and a full-time professor at a seminary. I regularly receive inquiries from people seeking advice on how they too can follow my path. It seems there are a lot of young men and women who find the dual task of teaching in a seminary and pastoring appealing.

I don’t exactly know what’s going on but I am always prompted to ask these good people why they would find my life appealing? I sometimes think people want to teach because they find the influence and admiration that comes with these dual jobs appealing. Perhaps they find speaking engagements enticing because of the acclaim that can give someone. I AM NOT SAYING I HAVE EITHER. But think about all that for a minute. I don’t think you should gain influence in the church apart from what God has being doing in, through and around you within a circle of community relationships in Christ. i.e. in the church. And you can’t plan that. Right? You should start therefore from wherever you are living in ministry and pursue faithfulness and take opportunities for influence ONLY with the greatest of care. Lest you be elevated falsely as part of a media campaign or some other untoward hype. (I recognize this can be read as arrogant – but I seriously am not assuming I have any of this influence or authority).

It seems at one time there was a path to influence within Christendom. Do well in your seminary studies. Practice and become a polished public speaker. Go get a Ph. D. at a premier school and write and think on the highest levels competing against the best. I did none of this BTW so maybe I’m not the one to ask. Yet from my perspective, that world is shrinking. The days of gaining influence from positional achievement in Christendom are (gladly) waning. Today this kind of (Christendom) influence is largely generated in large conference venues. For me, these venues try to sell too much. Again, because Christendom has its problems, I strongly suggest none of us go this route. The best thing for anyone is to put these temptations towards influence aside, and start with the ministry God has given you. Seek faithfulness and allow God to use you in the world. Seek additional education as it seems a natural extension of your life – the life God is working in and through you already. If influence comes, it comes from God and you should submit to it humbly and in service to His Kingdom.

The allure of fame seems to be everywhere these days. I talk to at least two or three people a month who want to write a book. Everybody wants to write a book, be a speaker at conferences, or affect the national conversation (what national conversation?). It seems like nothing matters unless you’re starting a new movement to end global poverty in our lifetime (or something like that). It seems everyone is starting a blog, a new church, a twitter account, all to gain a following so they can do something national or transnational. Why this chase for national significance? To me this is counterproductive to the Kingdom and works against one’s own personal development in Christ.

Notoriety has a way of screwing with your mind. I say if it happens to you keep your head down and be very intentional on your spiritual disciplines. I’ve seen it happen a hundred times. A pastor or a leader becomes nationally known, gets asked to speak at conferences, quits his/her day job and starts appearing on stage as the supposed “expert.” He/she becomes separated from his/her ministry that kept him grounded, that kept her work generative and in touch with actual life issues in church and ministry. Before you know it, he/she’s got to appear in Metro Somewhere to say something to help people he/she does not know about a problem he/she hasn’t dealt with in ten years. And yet we listen to people like this eh?

Worse, something happens to said person (I’ve experienced this personally) when this dynamic starts to shape one’s life. You start appearing as someone you’re not, someone people now expect you (and pay you) to be. And I’m sorry, at this point something huge has been lost by both the person speaking and the people listening. The only way this can work for either the speaker or audience is if the speaker pays attention to his/her spiritual formation in a live Christian community in Mission and is actually invested there, being shaped there, being called out of sin there, and participating in real life mission there.

In the end, I contend that every movement that changed the world started with relationships. It started on the ground. Most non-relational ways to change the world only end up either preserving the existing order or worse sustaining an injustice hidden beneath the ideology. Their effect might be big initially but almost always short lived. We raise huge sums of money that in the end do very little because the social redemptive reconciliation only happens painstakingly on the ground. And yet we are tempted to contribute to the big (it makes us feel more significant?).

I remember sitting around a church leadership meeting one night talking about a proposal to contribute to a national campaign by some famous musicians to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I asked if anyone knew what percentages of the money would go to the cause, to whom and where. No one knew. Meanwhile we had a relationship with a missionary hospital in the rural area of Africa dealing with 100’s of AIDS patients a year, whom we knew well (my sister ministers there). The other more famous option was more appealing. Uh why do we do this? For me, revolutions work for change on the ground in the raising up of repentant and resistant communities (Read Ched Myers on this).

I admit I have a blog. I started to tweet a year ago. I speak at conferences. I admit I have an agenda. It’s driven by what I see as the way forward in post-Christendom in America. Call it Neo-Anabaptist Missional Christian life. I admit to trying to make my case, often in large settings.

I have discovered however that my blog, twitter feed, facebook and speaking must be part of my life, not a calculated strategy to make a wider case. Stangely, my blogging, tweeting etc. have become part of my personal spiritual disciplines. They have become part of me developing my theology from the ground up. And I go to conferences to get challenged and put forth ideas and contribute to/support grass roots organizations I feel committed to. But I need to take the warning, that the minute I try to architect all this into some national exposure, I find my material disqualified as something not real but manufactured. I must be grounded in the proving of God’s truth amidst vibrant missional communities living among the everyday rhythms of post Christendom. This is where any authority/gifting I have is recognized and authenticated. In real relationships. This is where I think true gospel/kingdom work begins because, in the words of Gil Scot Heron “the revolution will not be televised.”

So here is my very best advice to all of us who would be used by God in whatever context, yet have big dreams – to get a PhD, become a seminary professor, write a book and speak at conferences. Put aside your big plans, put aside your well devised managed future where you think if I get said degree, start a blog, write a book and plant a church, I can find my role in the church. No go the other way. Sell everything, abandon all personal ambition to the life of following Christ into the local mission of God. This will most likely mean inefficiency, getting down and dirty, getting a job and working alongside others in realm life community. It will demand that you devote energy and time to getting good at stuff which doesn’t seem immediately germane to becoming a national church leader. But that’s ok. Spend time in cultivating a community life, partnering with several others, learn your gifts and start cultivating the Kingdom in a neigbourhood. And then see what happens. See what God does. Listen for what God is saying and respond daily. Out of this place, when money – time affords, pursue a graduate theological education that will deepen your understanding of the Scriptures, theological trajectories and culture. If teaching opportunities come, book contracts and speaking opportunities come – praise God! Use them to further the gospel of His Kingdom. But always, I REPEAT ALWAYS, treat them carefully – submitting one’s ego to the Kingdom lest you too become a statistic on the scrapheap of fleeting fame.

____________________

To anyone attracted to this way of thought – I’d like to recommend this conference. EPIC Fail. Check it out here. I love this kind of meeting place to discern what God is doing among us instead of listening to people we’ve exalted as experts. Read what Bob Hyatt has to say about national conferences here. I agree with everything he says. And if I have offended anyone with this post – tell me what I need to hear. I’m always ready to repent from hubris or whatever … Blessings as we pursue on the ground ministry together!!

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 27 Comments

davidfitch on March 18 2011

No SuperStars Here: Places I’ll Be in the Upcoming Months

On Fridays – I’ll be highlighting (occasionally) places where I’ll be participating and/or speaking at. I only travel once a month. For me it’s about commitment to the local organic Kingdom of God on the ground. I think many times good things happen at conferences. But when I become a conference speaker first, and pastor/nurturer of the Kingdom second, everything gets screwed up for me. I can’t live there. For me, therefore I need to choose wisely the conferences I speak at and/or attend. As Bob Hyatt says about many conferences( in one of the best posts on conference attending I’ve ever read – click here) – “because of the very nature of the big stage, the inaccessible superstars, the cutting-edge everything, the end result is often men and women who leave thinking “If only I could speak like that. If only MY church was like that.” So, on the occasional Friday, I hope you won’t mind if I report on some conferences I’m speaking at. I’d like to let people know because I’d like to hang out with friends, get to know new friends, hear what God’s doing whenever I travel. With that in mind here’s a churchplanter training I’ll be at in May. See below!

—————————————————

The Ecclesia Net Church Planter Training Week
A theological and practical trajectory for missional church planting

Called Aggelos this is a unique church planter training opportunity.
As Bob Hyatt says (here) there will not be hundreds of people here. More than likely, there will be somewhere between 20-30. This means plenty of room for dialog, conversation, and questions amidst all of the planned training.
Everyone stays, eats, and prays together for the week. Most people leave with better friendships, some of which will be life-long, because they started the church planting journey – in this way – together.
There will be a host of different equippers with unique planting stories that ARE NOT SUPERSTARS. This gathering is real life every day church planting. You’ll hear from a variety of planters, both seasoned and new, and learn from their experiences and approaches.
Finally, we hope to provide a good balance of theology, theory, and practicality. Each component is vital
This all happens May 9-13, 2011 in Richmond, VA at the Richmond Hill Urban Retreat Center (www.richmondhillva.org). Richmond Hill is a former monastery, located in the heart of the city of Richmond. Most people will be sharing a room with one other person throughout the week. All meals are all included as part of our stay and will take place on the grounds.
For registration info: check out here.

Filed under Church Planting,Missional Leadership 4 Comments

davidfitch on December 14 2010

Is “Leadership” Biblical? A Few Reasons to Say “No.”

There’s been much ranting and raving on the inadequacies of leadership in the church. See Darryl here, Bill Kinnon here, and the man who started it all, Scot McKnight here. I must admit I recoil whenever I hear people say “Leadership is Biblical.” For alot of reasons, I find it eronious to say “leadership is Biblical.” When I say “leadership” I am talking about the way the term has become adopted into the vernacular of evangelical leadership conferences and books (most recently exhibited in this article). Last night at our “leadership meeting” (wink wink) I went off on a rant on this very topic (I have since had to repent of said rant – to me repentance is the best way of leading I know). I posted something on facebook and a lot of brothers and sisters set me straight. So, after learning much on facebook (see it’s good for something), I feel like I need to put out there why I think leadership in this mode “is not Biblical,” why we might need to find a new word when we are talking about what leaders do in a church, why if we are ever going to truly “lead” a gathering community into the Kingdom it simply requires a skill quite a bit different than what many in the church have come to describe as “leadership.” Here’s five comments on why “Leadership is not Biblical?”

1.) THE WORD “LEADER” ITSELF IS GENERALLY AVOIDED IN THE NT within the context of the church (with the notable exception of Hebrews 13:17,24). Likewise, the NT writers generally avoid using secular or Old Testament (LXX) titles for authoritative office (See Hans Kung, The Church, 496-497; E Schweizer, Church Order In the New Testament, 174-176; E Kasemann, “Ministry and Community in the New Testament,” in Essays on New Testament Themes, 63-64). The NT instead uses the term diakonia (servant, service) to label people in leadership far more times than any other term in the NT (for example, Rom 11:13;16:1;1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6;6:4; 11:23; Eph3:7;6:21; Col 1:7,23; 4:7,12; 1Th 3:2; 1 Tim1:12; 2 Tim 4:5,11). The NT writers therefore used a word to describe leadership in the church which contrasted violently to the current secular notions of office. Hans Kung outlines how the NT writers saw that any words which suggest a relationship of rulers and the ruled were unusable in the new community context (The Church 498-502). The NT on this reading appears to carefully avoid the models of authority available in surrounding society for defining leadership in the church. All this suggests that using the word “leader” as has been defined by the business culture of the N America is highly dubious for the church and, dare I say, “unbiblical.”

2.) WHENEVER THE WORD “LEADER” IS USED IN THE NT – IT IS SUBVERTED BY THE CHURCH so that “leadership” takes on the element of leading by character not coercion, by submission not hierarchy in reverence for the Lordship of Christ. See for example Heb 13:7 “Remember your leaders …consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.” Wisdom, age, maturity, as well as gentleness and self control “not lording over someone are the signs that someone is leading. This pattern, I would argue is present throughout the whole NT in the way the term “elder” and “overseer” are interchangeable (see for example Titus 1:7) revealing that for the early communities, age, wisdom and maturity were the recognizable traits of “leadership” in the community (elder means older mature person). Even the way “leader” is supposedly translated in Romans 12:8, it is placed within a total communal relationship of the gifts where each person exerts the authority of his/her gift in submission to the others. I would argue then that LEADERSHIP IS NEVER SOMEHOW A POSITION OF AUTHORITY/SKILL PLACED SOMEHOW UNILATAERALLY ABOVE THE CONGREGATION but always in submission to the body. Once again, the word “leadership” as used in the common parlance of business appears to be unbiblical.

3.) JESUS HIMSELF SUBVERTED THE TERM “LEADERSHIP.” The NT was so careful with its use of the words for leadership because the NT church carried the consciousness of Christ’s words, “If any one wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:35). “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. Because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many”(Mark 10:42-45 par Luke 22:25-27). The NT church bears the image of Christ modeling servanthood when he washed his disciples feet (John 13: 13-17). They remember his words from Matt 23: 9-11 “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher and you are all students, And call no one your father on earth, for you have one father, the one in heaven, and do not be called leaders, for One is your leader, the Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant; and whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted”(NAS). Jesus commands his disciples to refuse any titles of the secular authorities including religious (Rabbi), family (father) or group style leadership (leader). Though we may argue how to implement Jesus commands on authority and leadership within the church, we must surely conclude that Jesus instructs the church to resist modeling its own leadership in any way on secular notions of leadership existing outside of the church.

4.) CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP IS DEFINED BY THE POSTURE OF SUBMISSION- TO THE WORLD THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP All of this does not discount the need for leadership just a different kind of leadership! This is why I had to repent of my rant last night. I believe we need leaders who lead from below allowing God in Christ through the Spirit to exalt Himself in the midst, leaders who always act out of the authority of his/her gifts as received from Christ (Eph 4:7), who exercise authority as received only in dependence upon Christ. This is the leadership of Christ. We still need this kind of leadership. In fact, we need theological leadership sufficient to guide doctrine and practice in the church (we need ordination which is recognition by the community for this gift). Yet all of these gifted ones “lead” out of submission to God in Christ by the Spirit always offering what God is giving to the body IN SUBMISSION TO ONE ANOTHER. Dare I say, any other kind of leadership is unbiblical?

5.) THE BUSINESS MODELS OF LEADERSHIP WILL HANDICAP US FROM LEADING INTO MISSION. Because business style leadership works top down and often works in only already established authority structures, because business styles of leadership work to passivize the congregation negating participation, because business styles of leadership work well with people who already are acclimated to church and its Christendom structures of leadership, my general prejudice is that the kind of leadership most often taught in our evangelical churches/institutions is poorly suited to lead our churches into post Christendom engagement, i.e. into Mission. I don’t know how biblical this reason is (it may be sociologial?), but it’s another reason to be cautious about traditional “leadership” language,

No doubt this post will raise more questions than it answers. There are thousands of pages to be written on how the submissive (radically subordinate) leader is actually the revolutionary leader. But for now, I’m ready and willing to hear objections and ways this has played out in your own lives.

_______

UPDATE: Bob Hyatt has responded to this post right here. Go over there and set him straight! – humbly and in submission to the Lordship of Christ

Filed under Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 41 Comments

« Newer Entries - Older Entries »