01.15.07
the forgotten ways VII
“Purpose and principle, clearly understood and articulated, and commonly shared, are the genetic code of any healthy organization. To the degree that you hold purpose and principles in common among you , you can dispense with command and control. People will know how to behave in accordance with them, and they will do it in thousands of unimaginable, creative ways. The organization will become a vital, living set of beliefs.”
This quote from Dee Hock is an intriguing way to open the 6th chapter. It smacks of Buber’s “the wise man will become a teaching,” as well as some fundamental emergence theory. It also recalls some fundamental ideas about leadership in a chaordic system.
What is the fundamental task of leaders? Some of us would argue that task is to create culture, or to shape environments. Alan quotes Max DePree, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.” I like the rest of the quote… “The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader must become a servant and a debtor.”
The title of this chapter is “Apostolic Environment.” It seems that Alan has a dual interest here: one is to talk about leadership, and the other is to talk about environments. Alan will connect both of these elements to his own thinking about apostolic ministry in the postmodern world.
Along with many of you, I consider the word “apostle” to be loaded with cultural bias, historical distortions and aberrations, abuse, and general theological ignorance. Alan and Mike, in their earlier book together, did some good work on unloading and de-gnosticizing the word. They worked at removing the over spiritualized connotations, and the various connections with authority and control, and set it back in the real world. Others have added their own brush strokes, like Alan Roxborough in his recent work “The Sky is Falling.“
Alan opens with an echo of the earlier argument: it will take more than pastor-leader types to get us where we need to go. “God gave some apostles” for a good reason. These people tend to be creative, entrepreneurial, and living on the creative boundaries of the church and culture. They have a passion for the gospel, and a passion to see a vital church living in a missional mode. Alan is interested in describing function here, and not an office. Apostles are interested in the growth of the gospel both physically and theologically. Alan suggests three primary functions:
1. to embed mDNA through pioneering new ground for the gospel and the church
2. to guard mDNA through the application and integration of apostolic theology. Alan appears to include the “poetic” function here when he references maintaining the web of meaning.
3. to create the environment in which the other ministries emerge. Alan reacts specifically to authority conceptions when he says that the foundation setting work of apostles is to shape the environment and provide a reference point for the other gifts.
Alan points out that the APEPT ministires (Shaping, 165ff) provide for the maturing of the body, maintaining a healthy mDNA. A good word that references this dynamic at work is “empowerment.” When command and control and top-down authority is at work God’s people are restricted rather than empowered. Apostolic ministry releases freedom, growth, and health. Alan reaches for some good metaphors: farmer (gardener?), midwife and generally organic and ecological concepts. Alan notes that networks that are non-hierarchical need another organizing principle: meaning. Webs of meaning connect people who share a common dream and a common conception of their purpose. Networks grow up spontaneously, with leaders who embody and articulate the mDNA.
Next Alan shifts to a rehearsal of APEPT and some organizational theory. There are definable stages in organizational life. Young movements are full of prophets and visionaries, people with little vested interest in old forms and lots of energy for risk and experimentation. But as movements become organizations, the builders and synergists take over.. establishing relational connections, consolidating the group. The visionaries and questioners are marginalized. Next teachers and administrators standardize roles and functions and systematize a system of understanding and the builders and synergists are marginalized. As time passes the adminstrators rule, and as they manage the organization it shifts to maintenance mode. Finally, authority is encapsulated in an office and the bureaucrats rule with a rod of iron. Little change or growth is possible, and the organization dies.
So the apostles and prophets are always strongly in evidence in the birth of new movements, but then are thrust aside as the movement becomes established. Charism gives place to charisma.. pastors and teachers rule .. humanizers and systematizers. Movements become institutions in part because they push aside the innovators and visionaries, they lose touch with context and become frozen in time. Life and passion gives way to “hardening of the categories.”
The way to recapture a missional movement from the perspective of APEPT is to find and empower those apostolic types. But that means destabilizing a system, disabling the homeostatic mechanisms, and that is inevitably an uncomfortable process. Alan relates his own experience at SMRC, where they restructured their leadership team on the APEPT principle. Leadership was adapted so that all five ministries were represented on the team. The apostolic team focued on translaocal, missional and strategic issues. The prophetic team focused on listening to God and discerning his will, social justice, and questioning the status quo of a middle class church. The evangelistic team focused on overseeing and developing outreach. The pastoral team worked at community, worship, counseling, etc. All this worked within an open learning model which allowed the team to “fit and split” and “contend and transcend” (175).
Next: organic systems.
Robert Campbell said,
January 16, 2007 at 6:50 am
Really liked this section. Alan presented enough chaos to thrill me and enough form to calm my concerns. I too pastored a young and vibrant church, as Alan did, and long for much of the spontaneous good that came out of it. At the same time, the chaos became very destructive at times. Sin and deceit too readily found a home in such chaos.
His description of the Apostolic calling/ personality is interesting. I know that I am not it. I cannot use the term as he does because I see the biblical picture of “apostle” very differently. I have never accepted the present tendency toward apostolic functionalism.
I do worry that such a position might tend toward top down abuse in the name of God and “apostleship.”
With that said, Alan clearly tackeled that fear by calling such leaders to servanthood.
len said,
January 16, 2007 at 9:18 am
Rob, I wonder if there is any way to avoid certain risks when we work with any functional concept of authority? So much of this depends on our own balance of brokeness, wholeness.. Parker Palmer is helpful here.. remember his work “A Hidden Wholeness.”
Tell me why you don’t like the “functional” approach?
len said,
January 16, 2007 at 9:18 am
btw, do you think Alan narrows the apostolic too much? Surely it will look different across different genders, ages, maturity…?
Mike O said,
January 16, 2007 at 9:55 am
Help me again – “mDNA” – it’s not mitochondrial DNA?
what is it?
Robert Campbell said,
January 16, 2007 at 10:16 am
Mike, mDNA is “missional” DNA. It is what Hirsch is argueing as belonging to the fundamental nature of the church.
Len, I see the apostolic role in the NT as a technical description of the 12(13) foundational leaders in the “liminal” time of the early church. They had specific criteria and specific characteristics as well as specific function. Their place endowed them with a unique and irreplacable authority in the establishment of the missional community.
I have no problem with people playing the functional role in these liminal times (am I using that correctly?) but think a different word would be appropriate for our day. Today’s leaders do no meet the NT criteria and do not carry the same authority. The authority that one would/could claim with the funcion is my concern.
Again, I wonder if Alan would place a heavy authority type leader under his title of “apostle.” Or would that be contrary to his definition?
len said,
January 16, 2007 at 11:36 am
Rob, ah ok, I see. I’m in such a weird personal space with this issue. On the one hand, I know the word is wrecked, totaled, burning in a heap at the side of the road. On the other hand, I see a shiny new car waiting for us once we get the license. The five (ascension) gifts of Eph 4 were never withdrawn and never unneeded.. tho abused, neglected, misunderstood. So, because the word is so connected to history and wrong conceptions of leadership and authority, some of us major on the functional aspect. Find these people who work like this and you have some apostolic people. Let God build them into a relational team with you and watch good things happen. But granted, we are all still human and broken. When this stuff gets mixed with hierarchical practice and charismatic authority things often so south. OTOH, You may know apostolic people who are serving coffee at Starbucks. It doesn’t always come with flash and glitter and the more flash is often the less substance.
When people use the label to establish control, even if they do carry apostolic gifting, they are abusing their call. The word was not a title or office in the first century…it meant “one who is sent” and was generally an elder who carried a trans-local calling. Like everything God gives, there is a right use and a wrong use.. but failing to appropriate the gifts of God for fear of abuse doesn’t bring us to the maturity the Lord desires.
Alan Hirsch said,
January 16, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Guys, it always fascinates me that the word ‘apostle’ seems to become a focal point of so many fears in relation to ecclesial life. I always find myself asking the question ‘why?’ when obviously they play such a critical role in both the early church and in missional movements throughout history. And why have almost all forms of mainstream church de-legitimized the apostolic (along with the prophetic and oft-times the evangelstic) roles by theologizing about their demise with the coming of the canon? There is something deeply wrong about all this.
I am also reminded that all forms of concentrated power lead to abuse and pain in social systems…not the least what we might call ‘priestly’ forms of power (i.e. those associated with the more traditional and theologically acceptable pastor and teacher roles.) Man! When those dudes went wrong, people died in their hundreds of thousands! Think of the Inquisition here if that seems an overstatement. Why do we only think abuse locates itself around the apostolic function?
len said,
January 16, 2007 at 3:37 pm
A good analogy for right use.. let’s say our buckets are leaky.. let’s say they have a habit of being heavy and we drop one on a foot. We decide that buckets are too dangerous and we eliminate them from the village. Everyone has to cup their hands to scoop water and carry water, and now we have a lot of work to do to make a meal. Its understandable that someone might develop a mystical reason why God decided not to bless buckets and has called us to use only our hands. But the answer is to rediscover safe and right use.
Alan, fair point. If 1 out 5 pastors abuse their power we haven’t saved ourselves any grief. But perhaps there is also the intuitive recognition that someone with more authority can do even greater damage, and at least in the context that is rapidly passing away power was often concentrated higher up the ladder. Maybe now that we are recognizing we don’t need those ladders.. (remember Yurtle the turtle) maybe there is an opportunity to do it differently, even though sin continues to plague us.. until Jesus returns.
Robert Campbell said,
January 16, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Do we need to go back and define authority. I would contend that authority that can be abused is not Christian/ biblical authority.
I look back at over a decade and half of ministry and must admit that I have abused power. I must admit that I was given power that I never wanted.
I remain with the conviction that apostles were an estbalishing role/ office/ function. To call it “theologizing” does not despair it for me. I would hope that some good theologizing is part of all our discussions, plans, paradigms and whatever else we do.
Call people “apostolic,” while maintaining the disticnction between then and now and I think we also separate some of the possability of abuse.
I hope that I have not implied anything but respect for Alan and praise for the book. Thanks so much for the heart, time and energy into writing it. I am praying for its fruit throughout our world.
len said,
January 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Rob, agreed, no one is apostolic in the same sense as Paul. Yet again.. there are intriguing parallels in times of reformation. I think Luther was apostolic, and I think we are in need of such men and women again. The Lord is alive in His people, so if the need is there, I believe the provision is also there.
Alan Hirsch said,
January 16, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Rob, no need to apoligize my friend. I take no offense. I remain intriqued about this though. I have always thought the variations of cessationaist thinking as fundamentally flawed. If taken seriously, it undermines its own argument. INO, why do we accept the offices of pastor and teacher and not the others? The same text legitimizes them all. Other energies and motivations are at work in cessationism…and if I may say, things that have deeply undermined our effectiveness in the world. We can’t fully be the church without a complete ministry. Thanks for your affirmation about the book.
Len: I agree entirely with your point, an apostolic person is what apostolic person does. I actually think Luther was more prophetic. But a Wesley is fully apostolic.
len said,
January 17, 2007 at 9:29 am
Alan, intriguing… I tend to slot Luther more apostolically because of his intense rooting in the word. But of course that assumes that prophetic types are not well rooted there, and this is more by my own observations in the current charismatic movement. And even then its only a generalization. You might be right about Luther.
Robert Campbell said,
January 17, 2007 at 9:40 am
You may be placing me in a context that I dont really fit in. I am not a cessationist, though much of my education did come from the system.
At the same time. I see the NT descriptions of the apostolic office as distinct and non-repeatable. The fact that it is combined in a passage with other office/ gifts/ functions doesnt change that fact. I think it would do injustice to the whole of the NT to allow the one passage to trump the others. Especially when we cannot say that the Eph. passages teaches the contunuance of apostolic office any more than it teaches cessation.
I am not talking about a gift ceasing, but a role only ever given to a few who..were eyewitness, performed miracles, etc as in mentioned several times as defining that lot.
thanks again
len said,
January 17, 2007 at 11:28 am
Rob, to throw another wrinkle in the picture, what would you do with men and women who had had a personal experience of Jesus, not unlike that of Paul, and were then “sent” in a variety of ways into the church and culture. I know two of these personally. I’m guessing there are thousands worldwide. They don’t talk about that experience or use it as a basis of authority. But their influence and ministry reflects both the power of the Spirit, a deep immersion in the Word, and lives of service. Neither of them claim to be in the same category as the early apostles, but I think both are apostolic.
Robert Campbell said,
January 17, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Dont know what to do with it. Would have a hard time dismissing it and a hard time accepting it. To be honest.
I do not doubt that God can/maybe does such things. But see no reason to expect that God will call/guide folks in that way. 22 NT Epistles and no comment on other such commissionings. I do think Paul was unique.
Again, to be honest. I have only met one person who claimed similar experience but hers was not a verbal/ visual prophetic interuption as Paul’s but some non-verbal in the head sort of thing which I dont know what to do with becuase the bible gives no category for such and I cannot give full credibility for experiences that I have no biblical authority to give credence to.
I think we are getting sideways from the original discussion. I am all for these dynamic leaders who are visionary and gifted. I also expect that such will be servant leaders, exalting Christ rather than self and are able to control their temperments so as to be a functioning part of the community rather than mavericks.
len said,
January 17, 2007 at 9:00 pm
rob, you’re right we are getting off track. One strong point from all this is that authority is authenticated by love and service. A friend of mine once said to me, “Never give anyone authority over you who has not washed your feet.”
Mehr Cafe, mehr Gespräche, mehr Connection – Missional Münster « siyach said,
April 27, 2008 at 1:33 am
[...] Mittags disktutierten wir Leitung und unsere Herausforderung. Alan ging ausführlich auf APEPT ein und forderte heraus, nicht in Addition sondern Multiplikation zu denken. Ich habe auch schon einiges darüber gelesen und kenne Alans Gedanken dazu. Hier in Münster kamen die Ideen mit einer ganz anderen Schärfe und Relevanz rüber. Vielleicht weil wir den Input von Alan im Kontext von einem Gespräche eingebaut haben (es wäre auch eine Verschwendung gewesen, so viele hochkarätige Praktiker einfach nur Rumsitzen zu haben, Alans Monologe abzuspielen und in den Kaffeepausen zu fragen: und was denkst du). [...]