The one of the things, several years ago, that concerned me about the Emerging Church Conversation was that for all its concern for the body (exhibited in holistic medicine, organic food, and even body prayer), I saw a gaping exclusion of, dare I say, the literal ministry of healing prayer (not of just emotional healing) but of the actual body.  Sickness often seems to be the crucible that the American Dream breaks up against, and as much as the Emerging/Missional Church rails against the American Dream we are often ill prepared for ministering to people in this place of utter need.

At the same time as this I was beginning my journey into my current church ministry at Life on the Vine (about 9 years ago) which is part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  One of the commitments of the C&MA is that Jesus is the healer of the body.  From Is. 53.5 (“By his wounds we have been healed…”), to Mark 2 (“The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…I tell you get up and go home”), to Acts 3.6-9 (“Silver and gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk!”), and James 5.14-17 (“The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well.”) we see the healing ministry of Christ, and its extension to the Apostles (Acts 3) and then to the Church (James 5).

I think one of the main things keeping us from this ministry is a simple failure of nerve, or faith, or both (“If I tell people that I actual believe Jesus can heal people physically, not just emotionally, they might think I’m wierd…”).  Another reason I have noticed is theological.  Certain theological systems tend toward fatalism regarding the body by either having such a high view of God’s sovereignty that faith is merely the coming to terms of what God has done (which means just believe that something good will come of the sickness if we can just embrace it).  While in some circumstances this is the right posture, often this just drains the ability to pray that God would heal someone (maybe even a miraculous healing).

But I think a main reason for the lack of healing ministry might be just a simple lack of know how.  And I want to address this right now.

These are the principles we aim at here at Life on the Vine when it comes to a situation of sickness.

1. Bring the presence of Christ into the situation.
   • We must realize that we, by ourselves, cannot change people or heal the sickness.  If people are not open then they are not open, and no amount of arguing, urging, or convincing will help.  We can not attempt to grasp control of the situation.
   • But we can bring the presence of Christ in and see what happens.  We bring ourselves, hopefully filled with the Spirit, testing and responding to what the Spirit is doing in this person and situation.
   • This is basically our trusting in the Lordship of Christ in all things, being open to and joining what He is doing, knowing that His desire is to overcome suffering and sickness.
2. Focus on Spiritual Formation, not Supernatural Manifestation.
   
   • If we focus on the supernatural for its own sake we will run into immediate problem as we minister, and tempt those we are ministering to in think that God is here to meet their needs.  While we need to fervently believe that God can do the miraculous, that supernatural events happen (the lack of which is often the reason we don’t pray for healing and just pray for acceptance of God’s will), this isn’t the goal.
   • The goal is the sanctification and healing of the whole person, body/soul/mind/spirit.  As we minister the “presence of Christ” and his Lordship we must listen and discern how the Lord in the Spirit is seeking to form/transform the sick person.  In regarding to healing ministry Scripture links the issue of healing physical sickness to the healing of sin sickness (see Is. 53, Mark 2, and James 5).  This is the link between confessing your sins and praying for healing (James 5:16, “Therefore confess your sins to each other and prayer for each other, so that you may be healed.”) [Of course I'm not saying that all sickness is cause by sin, but I'm not going to nuance that right now].  So the goal is holistic spiritual formation, not mere manifestation.

   This leads to the next point.

3. Discern the place of Sin and the state of Faith.
   
   • Have those seeking to be healed confessed/acknowledged sin? And do they believe that Jesus is at work to heal them?  These questions ask if the sick person is open to the healing work of Jesus.  Of course not every person is, and you can’t force them to be (see point 1 again!).
   • While the above texts are good places to turn in a particular situation, Matthew 9 is convenient because it contains both the story of the healing of the paralytic concerning sin (parallel to Mark 2), and the healing of the centurion’s servant concerning faith.  So you just need to remember one passage for both.
   • The goal in seeking out sin and testing faith is not to merely condemn and convict the person in need, but to remove obstacles blocking the flow of grace from Christ.

This then, in brief, is the theory and posture behind our practice.

But what, then, is our practice, roughly?  Glad you asked!

Healing Liturgy (for a hospital/home vistit)

1. Enter Situation listening to person (seeking their heart in the situation).
2. At appropriate time, open with Scripture (typically Ps. 103 [at least vs.1-5, if not entire Psalm]).
3. If through continuing conversation the person is not overly open to the healing ministry of Christ, then close with a prayer over them (use wise discernment).
4. If through continuing conversation the sick person is open to healing ministry, turn to Matt. 9 and James 5 to discuss the link between Christ’s ministry of forgiveness of sins and healing of the body (also Is. 53 is good for this).
5. After confession of sin (if needed) and affirmation of faith (always needed), anoint with oil and pray.
   • Bless/Consecrate/Set Apart (make holy) the oil.  Something as simple as, “Lord Jesus, set apart this oil to be a sign of your healing presence and power among us now.” Or consult your prayer book.
     • Regarding oil: you can buys vials for this purpose.  But you can use veggie/olive oil in any useful container in a pinch.
   • Anoint the sick person by placing oil on your thumb or index finger, and then apply the oil to the forehead in the sign of the cross, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   • Pray over/against the sickness for as long/short as needed as led.
6. Close with a blessing/benediction.
7. Leave (no need to linger or overstay your welcome.  Better to leave early than late, as appropriate).

I would love to hear how you all have journeyed into the spaces of Jesus’ healing ministry and how you go about it.

Anything you would add?

(Reposted from last year).

Last week I attended a conference in D.C, missing the Ash Wednesday service at our congregation in Chicago.  Instead I attended one offered by the conference.  The service was beautiful and well thought out.  Some words were offered by Dallas Willard, but the only phrase I remember is when he said, “The Cross is the only way home.”

Of course Ash Wednesday is the day we are physically marked by the cross (on the forehead), as a sign that during Lent we are entering into a particular time of repentance of and purification from sin and temptation.  So, at the end of the service we all went forward and receive the mark of the cross.

But about an hour later I noticed that everyone’s crosses had disappeared from their foreheads, mine included.  “This is not how it is supposed to be,” I thought, “What kinda of cheap ashes did they use?”  It seems that there was more oil than ashes, and that my skin absorbed everything.  At first it felt like everything was invalidated, but as I reflected more it seems that this is really what Lent is meant to be, a time where the Cross of Christ is fully absorbed into our bodies and our lives that it is not not seen as a visible sign, but as our every way of living.

My hope and prayer for myself and you is that the Cross would be absorbed into us, that we could say with Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ and it is no long I who live by Christ who lives in me.”

A bunch of blog time is being spent on leadership these last couple of days (see Darryl, Bob, Bill, Todd, Dave, Scot), and I thought I would add my unique, white-male voice… Actually this is from a talk I gave at Verge, LA last year.  It is a bit longish, but I believe gets to the heart of the issues.  If you would prefer the video, see below)

The Death of Leadership: Christ, Co-Leading, and Missional Living

In these postmodern times we are used to hearing of the death of the author, the death of the text, and even the death of the book (unless you have a Kindle).  Well, today, it is the death of leadership, for Christ our leader is the Crucified One, and what servant is greater that his master?  But many have not heard of this death.  It has been drowned out by the dearth of leadership books, even Christian leadership books, and I’m sure many of us, and myself included, have read them.  But while these leadership books, and conferences, and seminars tell of many helpful things, but they do not know of the Crucified Christ.  And this makes all the difference.  They lack a leadership that lives through the cross.  According to the pattern of the Crucified Christ I believe missional leadership must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who will lead through living and dying in Christ.

Philippians Hymn

Few turn to the hymn of Philippians 2 as a leadership model, so hopefully we are on the verge of something indeed.  Here we find a pattern, or model of Christian leadership and community.  It is the narrative of Christ, of the incarnation, of the gospel.  And if leaders do not practice it, then the community will not follow it, and then the lost will not see it, and they will not get it even when they hear it.

Philippians 2:5-11

⁵ In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had:

⁶ Who, although being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; ⁷ rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. ⁸ And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! ⁹ Therefore God exalted him to the highest placeand gave him the name that is above every name,¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,¹¹ and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There is a three part pattern to this passage.  It is the pattern of although—did not—but. Although Christ has the very status, or being, of God, he did not take advantage of his status and use it selfishly.  But rather humbled himself in his incarnation (“being made in human likeness”) and crucifixion (“by becoming obedient to death–even death on a cross”).  And the result is that God works, God exalts, God saves in Christ.  This hymn to Christ reveals the pattern of our lives, the pattern by which we related with one another.  It is the pattern by which we learn the death of leadership.

Indeed, the apostle Paul who uses this hymn to exhort the Philippians to Christ-likeness.  But Paul did not leave them without an example, but rather understood and practiced his own apostolic ministry according to this same narrative pattern.  In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul speaks about the rights of an apostle to receive funds for their ministries.  But Paul did not exercise this right, but worked to pay his own way.  And he also claims that while he has the right of freedom in all things, he does not exercise this right selfishly, but rather became a slave of all for the sake of the gospel.  What does that sound like?  It sounds exactly like Christ in the Philippians Hymn.  And even within the very contentious issue of slavery Paul did not lay down the apostolic hammer on Philemon so that he would release Onesimus.  But instead he acted in love toward Philemon, seeking his consent on the matter.  This, then, is the death of leadership that Paul points us toward when he speaks of Christ, a cruciform leadership that lays down it rights and its status in love and becomes a servant to all.

At Life on the Vine

Because of this pattern in Christ I believe missional leadership must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who will lead according to Christ’s example.  At Life on the Vine we try to live this out.

For us, leadership at the highest level is structured as a co-pastorate.  There is no ‘senior’ or ‘lead’ pastor where the buck finally stops, where the decisions are finally made, where final authority resides.  While our community was planted by one person, David Fitch, he very quickly brought me on as a co-pastor.  And then later we brought on a third co-pastor to balance out the giftings among us.  We did this in order to spread out the ministry, offer opportunities for younger leaders to grow, but most importantly, as a structured model of shared leadership.  As co-pastors we had to practice the pattern of although—did not—but.  Although we were called as pastors and therefore elevated by a certain authority, we did not, we could not practice unilateral power, but mutually submitted to one another as we lead the community.  This was embedded in our pastor structure because Christ-like leadership is not merely servant leadership.  It does not function on top but then not act like it.  Rather we have given up having a ‘lead’ anything at all by creating an alternative structure.

In addition to having a structure of co-leadership, we practice various processes of communal discernment that hand leadership to the entire community, or parts of the community.  For example, according to the same pattern, although all the pastors were in complete agreement regarding how we should move forward concern the issue of women in church leadership, and we had the authority of make a decision, we did not lead from position and privilege.  But instead we submitted to a year long process where different members of the community presented biblical perspectives on the issue, culminating in a 2-month long council to discern the issue.  In another case, an issue with someone on our shepherd board, the pastors were again in complete agreement in how to proceed, but the person involved was not receiving things particularly well.  So we brought the whole issue to our shepherd for their discernment, trusting that Christ would lead through this process and that all involved would both be formed into Christ-like character and that the issue would be resolved not through the imposition of a position, but through the constant relational work of the Spirit opened by practicing the death of leadership.

And while these types of processes are bolstered by a structure of co-leadership, it really comes down practicing the death of leadership on a personal level.  This is living without having to justify yourself, without having to constantly defend yourself to others.  It means not needing everyone to always understand you.  In the midst of arguments it means just sticking to the issues without getting personal or taking things personally.  It involves actively creating spaces for other to flourish while not receiving any credit and minimal appreciation.  It means giving over tasks and responsibilities that you really enjoy to someone else so they can grow.  It means submitting to others in the little things even when you have a sense they are wrong, and then only forcing issues when it is essential for the group to move forward.  In all these ways following Christ through the death of leadership entails overcoming personal insecurity and immaturity, so that one can rest in the work of Christ in the community rather than seeking to manage and control everything that is going on.

Now, you might be thinking that every Christian leader should exhibit these characteristics, the characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.  Of course!  But it is much easier to hide immaturity and insecurity, to mask a lack of the Spirit’s work in your life in a hierarchical leadership structure which does not demand processes of communal discernment.  When someone knows exactly who is their superior and who is under them, then they know exactly how to get whatever “ego” fix they need, whether it is seeking approval or asserting authority, even while masking it as servant leadership, even while they excelling in various ministry results.  It is for these reasons that missional leadership, under the sign of the Cross, must nurture new structures, new processes, and new people who live, lead, and die, laying down their rights and status in love and becoming a servants to all.

Missional Leadership

So, then, how is the death of leadership also missional leadership?  First, the structure of co-leadership, the processes of communal discernment, and the practice of personal cruciformity are all ways of saying the same thing, namely, that this community is marked by the gospel, by Christ-likeness.  As I said before, if leaders do not it, then the community will not do it, and then the lost will not see it, and they will not get it even when they hear it.  Second, communities marked by the death of leadership will always be marked my brokenness growing into life.  When you lead this way it is impossible to put leaders on a pedestal, which opens the door for everyone to lead out of brokenness and into life.  When everyone is emptying themselves as Christ did, it has the strange effect of raising everyone up as they are deployed in creative expressions of the gospel.  Lastly, this is missional leadership, at least for us, because God moves in mysterious ways.  It is funny.  There are people in our congregation who literally say time and again to me, “I don’t know why I stay at Life on the Vine.  I don’t fit here, I’m not even sure that I like it hear, and I don’t like they way you do things.”  But it is those exact people whom God has used to bring others to Christ, and those people feel at home with us.  Isn’t that weird?  One man told me two years ago that he was discerning leaving our community.  But he had started a letter writing friendship with a man who was in prison for breaking into our sanctuary.  He eventually received Christ and was baptized on Easter Sunday.  There are at least two other stories I could share about people who really are upset with the leaders at Life on the Vine, but God is using them to bring people to Christ and then those people are finding a place among us.  I believe it is because the leaders at Life on the Vine have embraced a missional leadership of the cross, and out of that death the Father is exalting Christ and bringing others to life.

Conclusion

Some much more could be said, but my hope is that the next big thing the church is on the verge of will be the death of leadership as an expression of the gospel, as living in Christ-likeness, as a bearing the cross, not only personally, but structurally and procedurally.

This kind of leadership is certainly not from the top-down as in a hierarchy, nor is it merely from the bottom up, as some form of leaderless organization, nor is it a leading from the front as those who have gone before, as some missional books describe it.  But it is leading from below while running forward, as if one were trying to fly a kite when there is just not enough wind.  You are down on the ground, down below, yet moving forward, for the whole purpose of the church rising up on the breath of the Spirit, roaring high.  And people don’t watch the person holding the string, they watch the kite in its glory, rising to new life and love, and at the center of its frame it bears the sign of the cross.

—

My reading of Philippians is based on Micheal Gorman’s Inhabiting the Cruciform God.

Gifts often obscure the giver, when we are more interested in what we are receiving.  This is never more clear than in our lives of faith, when we celebrate the grace and gifts of God, but often we never move back toward the giver.

Can we learn again to say, with Tagore,

…raise me from
the still-gathering heap of your gifts
into the bare infinity of your uncrowded
presence.

Here is the entire poem (by Rabindranath Tagore [trans. from Bengali], in Fruit Gathering, XXVIII).

Time after time I came to your gate with raised hands, asking for more and yet more.

You gave and gave, now in slow measure, now in sudden excess.

I took some, and some things I let drop; some lay heavy on my hands; some I made into playthings and broke them when tired; till the wrecks and the hoard of your gifts grew immense, hiding you, and the ceaseless expectation wore my heart out.

Take, oh take–has now become my cry.

Shatter all from this beggar’s bowl: put out this lamp of the importunate watcher: hold my hands, raise me from the still-gathering heap of your gifts into the bare infinity of your uncrowded presence.

So I’ve been reading Scott Boren’s new Missional Small Groups, not a book I would normally pick up because, well, let’s face it, anything with “Small Groups” in the title is suspect.  But after I got over that bout of snobbery I dove in, and it’s been quite compelling.  I found chapter three very helpful, not just for understanding my own small group, which we call ‘Missional Orders’ here at Life on the Vine, but for understanding the different stages or places of groups all over our community, and for understanding what different people are looking for when they want “deeper” community.

Scott says that when you listen to people, they typical are telling one of four stories regarding their own community life.

1. The Story of Personal Improvement
2. The Story of Lifestyle Adjustment
3. The Story of Relational Revision
4. The Story of Missional Re-Creation

Let me explain what he means by these.

The Story of Personal Improvement: This is the story where we are all coming from tough and busy lives, we are all short on time and energy, but we know that it is good to gather every once in a while (doesn’t it say that somewhere in Hebrews? [Heb. 10:25]).  Really, nothing essential changes about the rhythms of our lives except that we go to the group, but only when it is convenient and beneficial to ME, only when I see it contributing to the improvement of my life. I’ll attend when I like the leader, when the material is good, when it’s interesting.  If not, then I’ll probably fade away.

Now we may sneer at a such a conception of communal life, but this is where many are coming from, and really, this is what our culture trains in us.

The Story of Lifestyle Adjustment: Community has become a priority for me.  I actually change the rhythms of my life and commit to a group, to a place.  Room has been made in my life for community, for a weekly meeting.  Rather than thinking of my own improvement or health, I’m adjusting to a life in community and organize around it more, at least I’ve organized to a weekly gathering, even if the rest of my life is unchanged.

This communal story is more prevalent for those actually committed to community.  But is this really community?  No, not really.  I feel it is either a bridge to deeper relationships, or the slippery slope back to mere personal improvement.

The Story of Relational Revision: In this phase, or story, my meeting with a group is really just the culmination of the rest of the week that I have spent in community.  I’m already regularly in the lives of those in the group.  Here I’m actively learning to life a different rhythm of life together with others.  I’m beginning to wonder how I ever thought of community before this, and now there is no going back.  Nothing less will do. It is not just that I’ve added something to my life.  Now I’ve totally changed what is central to life.

This communal story is rare and precious.  And if we haven’t experienced it, we probably seek after it without being able to put this longing into words.  I think this is actually the kind of community people usually long for, they either just don’t bother to pursuit it enough, or they just haven’t found a group who also shares that deep of a vision.

The Story of Missional Re-Creation: Moving pass just revising my daily relationships, I have not intentionally re-created my life around a community, a place, a people for mission.  I and another family decide to move into the same apartment complex, next to a neighborhood when another group member lives.  We start having block parties, or just begin to minister to the people around us.  We don’t need to organize around ministry, we just live together and out of that flows God’s mission through us.

This type of missional community is indeed rare.  Many don’t even have the imagination for it…isn’t that Jesus People kind of stuff? some might think.  But really, when you read about what Jesus did with his disciples, isn’t this story of missional creation what we find?

If you were honest, those of us leading church, ministries, or groups, were does our group fall?  And how do you feel about it?  Are those involved frustrated because they don’t see the improvement the group offers their lives (Story 1), or do frustrations point to a deeply long for community (something more like Story 3 or 4)?

I know for myself, I get frustrated with people lacking commitment, thinking they are just stuck is the first story.  But is it possible they too are sick of thin community and don’t bother with anything less that story three or four?

What do you think?

(Part Two will discussion how you move a group/community forward toward Relational Revision and Missional Re-Creation.)

“On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies’ straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. For the sleeping god may wake someday and take offense, or the waking god may draw us out to where we can never return.”
[Annie Dillard, Teaching a Stone to Talk]

No matter your view on evolution, this is an amazing artistic feat. The time and execution are outstanding in this urban artistic adventure from blu.

Too often the efforts of church planting and evangelism in unreached places, goes by the term ‘missions.’  But when a group of believers is sufficiently gathered, we then say that a ‘church’ has been established.  The linking of terms in a before-after type of relationship has often been propagated by mission agencies themselves.

But is this a good way of talking about things? When mission grows up, does it become a church?

The problem with this is well considered by Hoedemaker’s summary of a missiologist from the last generation,

“Can a development of mission into church really be considered a maturing? Is it not, rather, a betrayal of the fundamental missionary meaning of “church” (the church happens as the Gospel of the kingdom is brought to the world)? “The Legacy of J.C. Hoekendijk (International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 19 no 4 O 1995, p 166-170)

Don’t many of us feel that way now, after the explosion of the missional church, after the critique of the inward focused church?  It’s the church really always already mission?

But it seems Hoekendijk, and others who follow him, overreact.  Not in their criticism, but in its result.

The criticism is right.  We ought not separate the church from mission, and mission doesn’t create a church entity, but rather the church is such as engaged in mission.

But the result of this theological emphasis tends to absolutize, or abstract, from the real, historical processes of, dare I say, actually planting a church.  While mission isn’t some great big arrow that points toward a church building (like the picture above), there is a necessary process of maturation and development.  It is this process, that while unfortunate, mission agencies hope to convey in describing a shift from a ‘mission’ to a ‘church’.

We must understand that while everything is mission, or that the church is missional, there still is the initial planting, the reaping, and the sending out to plant some more.  In the past the first part was considered missions and the latter parts a maturing church.  Does this mean a selling out to institutionalism?  Maybe.  Does it always mean this?  No.

It just means that some plant (a missionary, an evangelists, one gifted with apostolic fervor), and others reap (a shepherd, a prophet, a teacher).  All the gifts are used toward the maturing of the church for mission.  And at some point, a new church will begin to send out mature missionaries to plant somewhere else.  But to affirm this process is not to deny the missionary nature of the church.

Indeed, as Hoedemaker states concerning Hoekendijk,

there may be traces of an original evangelical spirituality in this suspicion, akin to the revivalistic mistrust of all ecclesial establishment.

I’m all for revival and pray for them myself, but I too worry of this too oft knee-jerk reaction against the establishment as a pietistic impulse.  And certainly, while John Wesley was saved by pietists, he also organized his movement and changed English-speaking ecclesial landscape.

I think not. But that is the buzz that I’ve been hearing?  And it get’s me all rankled up.  Really?  Are people beginning to think this.  I’m probably hot and bothered because I’m part of a team planning the next Missional Learning Commons here in Chicago in a couple of weeks.  I just don’t get it.  But if I were to guess, here are some of the reasons why some a concerned that the unconference is becoming the next Big Conference.

An unconference is a facilitated, participant-driven conference centered on a theme or purpose. The term “unconference” has been applied, or self-applied, to a wide range of gatherings that try to avoid one or more aspects of a conventional conference, such as high fees and sponsored presentations.~wikipedia

1) The unconference is becoming more common and more common: Anti-Cool Reflex. I think for many on the edges of the church, who for good reason engaged in the emerging church conversation or are interested in missional theology, we have created an anti-cool reflex, or dare I say, hipster reflex, that says once something starts catching on we must immediately distance ourselves from it.  Now that unconferences are catching on, many people just hit the cynical button and start poo poo-ing. So I’m calling this the Anti-Cool Reflex.

2) The unconference is connected to some ‘sponsor’: Anti-Sellout Reflex. Yes, note the scare quotes.  This I believe is a very selective knee-jerk reaction.  Just because an unconference is sponsored by something doesn’t mean it is selling out.  Sure the sponsor is hoping to gain something by sponsoring, but often they are also interested in helping, and maybe are themselves acting out of certain values or convictions.  I believe this is a very selective (self-righteous?) criticism because the money/marketing potential for a missional/emergent sponsor of an unconference is so minimal compared to the money/marketing info racing in/around/through all the technology that these critics are probably using (FB, Android/Google, Twitter, Apple, MS, etc…).  If we are so worried about being ripped off or controlled then logically we would need to unplug from most social networking and the internet. “But those things are essential carriers of my anti-sellout message!”  Yeah, exactly.  Case closed.  Can we please put the Anti-Sellout Reflex to bed.

3) The unconference takes so much organization: Anti-Institutional Reflex. Now, if you couldn’t tell, I have no time for the previous two reasons to be against the rise of unconferences.  But this one does have some merit.  There is certainly a link between business/organizational models and how one plans a conference.  And I’m all for have a different organizational model when it comes to being the church, and therefore you would think this would roll over to how one plans an unconference.  But having a different organizational model doesn’t mean not being organized.  Sometimes it is good to be anti-institutional, but that can’t be a general rule, and it certainly shouldn’t be a reflex that one throws around without first investigating.

The real question for me is, What are we for?

Well, moving from the abstract to the concrete, I would say the unconference I’m helping to plan (Missional Learning Commons) is attempting to be

1) for families.  Most church conferences are not geared toward having entire families participate.  Well, this is taking quite a bit of organization, but we felt the need to offer some form of childcare because we believe the missional church should engage families, not just men who typically leave their family to attend a conference. For this reason we have actually attached a fee (kryptonite for unconferences) to this year’s MLC. But the fee doesn’t go to speakers of rental fees, but toward offering childcare so that entire families can participate.  So if we are selling-out by charging a fee because we want families to come then we are guilt.  Of course I’d like to think it is us being innovative in sharing the cost of participants.

2) for places. We believe that place and embodiment are important, so when Northern Seminary offered use of their conference center we accepted.  Certainly Northern is hoping to associate their brand to the missional movement and maybe attract students, but they are accessibly located by several Chicago freeways, have local hotels, and other conveniences.

3) for hearing from ordinary people. I think the biggest benefit of the unconference is the typical use of local, engaged people rather than big names.  The unconferences I’ve been part of seeks just to hear what God is doing on the ground in and through ordinary communities.  The age of disconnect big names who ride in to inspire the masses are over.  Let’s learn from each other.

4) for relationship and networks. The MLC is also connected to Ecclesia Network because we believe in the formation of organized movements, of creating a web of local/regional/national relationships for the furthering Christ’s kingdom and the reformation of the church in North America.

Basically, if you are not for these thing, the please feel free not to come to the MLC or any other unconference.

But if you are for these things, and many others, we would love to see you on Oct. 29-30, and I would love to hear of your unconference too.

—

This post sponsored buy some caffeine (homemade double-shot), air, a desk, a comfy chair, electricity, Ben Sternke (donated the poster and MLC site), fb, twitter, google, wordpress, wikipedia, apple, Wadle and Silvy Show (radio) and other people and stuff.

Ok, yes, it might sound extreme.  But let’s be sober-minded.  As Todd Hiestand (and the comments) notes in his great post, “10 Suggestions/Thoughts on Bi-vocational Ministry”, being a missional bi-vocational pastor is hard, it takes commitment, it takes faith.  But in this post-Christian context (or at least outside of the ever shrinking Christendom pockets), the option to be a bi-vocational is not an option at all, it is a missional necessity. I want to frame the discussion here with this image of guerrilla warfare exactly because I don’t want bi-vocational ministry to sound merely like a life-style choice, good for some, but not for others, or some kind of fashion accessory for missional pastors.

But I want to clear up one thing.  I’m not taking about guerrilla warfare against the more established church, or mega-churches or anything like that (although I think they perpetuate bad pastoral habits, or better, addictions).  But to think narrowly that way is just not helpful.  I’m thinking that our battle is within post-Christian, post-modern, consumer-theraputic-individualistic culture.  The warfare is in the terrain of our neighborhoods and families, our calendars and wallets.

So, to start this off, here are five thoughts.

Bi-vocational ministry is necessary:

1) not because missional churches are poor, but because they are rich. Some of the literature on bi-vocational ministry point to it being an option when churches are little, too poor for a full-time pastor.  In this scenario church finances are the determining factor.  Well, it know many missional churches that are small, and probably too poor for a full-time salary plus health insurance.  But the missional church is rich in resources, resources that are flowing outward into the neighborhoods and communities.  They are rich in leadership and talents that would go untapped if they was only one person (a man usually) who did everything and got paid for it.  My own community is actually big enough to support a full-time pastor, but we choose not to do that because we believe it would make us poorer as a community.  This is, then, is to use what the culture sees as a weakness (money, resources) as a strength, and therefore is a necessary attribute of missional guerrilla warfare.

2) not because missional churches have little work, but too much work. Sometimes you hear the complain from a bi-vocational pastor that there is so much work and too little time (oh, wait that was me!).   But we all know what the truth is.  There is always too much work.  No matter what.  But instead of allowing ourselves to believe (which doesn’t really happen), or worse, allowing our congregations to believe (which almost always happens) that one or several “full-time” people can basically cover the work of the kingdom, missional churches know that there is always way too much work for one (or even some), but that all are engaged in the mission of God’s kingdom.  Bi-vocationalism is an automatic safe-guard against thinking the work is manageable when really it is totally unmanageable outside of all entering the fields to bring in the harvest.  Therefore, missional churches use another perceived weakness (lack of impact or results by a visible few) as a strength because the mustard seed is growing.

3) not because we battle outside, but within ourselves. This one gets tricky, but follows from #2.  Too often people, organizations, nations, and yes, churches, come to think that the battle is outside, that all those in must conform to a certain image or idea, and then move outward and attack (this happens even for laudable causes).  Many churches have implicitly or explicitly adopted this organization/operational structure, and even for those churches that haven’t it is a constant temptation perpetuated by full-time ministry.  But we must always remember that the battle is within our churches, and within ever leader (I referred to it before as a power addiction).  I’m reminded of the lyrics from U2′s “peace on earth”: “And you become a monster / So the monster will not break you.”  Ministerial bi-vocationalism is the necessary spiritual discipline to ward off this temptation toward consolidation, and not just spiritual discipline, but relational, financial, and temporal discipline befitting those on the front lines (which are never front but always shifting) of the missional battle. In this sense you don’t fight fire with fire.  We must creatively resist.

4) because the culture is already fighting a guerrilla style war against us. Advertising, opinion polls, new television shows, iPhone apps, American Apparel, and on and on it goes.  They culture is an ever evolving parasite on others beliefs and practices, always moving toward how to make a dollar off you (see kinnon’s post regarding FB), or spin something a propoganda.  So it is necessary for missional churches to be just as nimble and creative, culturally creative even.  In this way it is necessary to fight fire with fire, guerrilla warfare again guerrilla warfare.

5) not because the missional church is against formal leadership, but because we seek to form proper leadership. I will not as much time on this because de-centralized leadership has been a common enough theme, especially in regard to actual guerrilla warfare, cell groups, and house churches.

So, those are five reasons off the top of my head that missional bi-vocational ministry is not a cute lifestyle decision, or something that we try for a little while but then abandon, or a missional accessory that so like an others don’t.   But I truly believe that if the kingdom is to fruitfully gain ground in this post-Christian context that we must adopted strategies for the long run.  Anything less will perpetuate the stagnation of the American church.

(p.s. I know I could qualify this a little and mention all those in larger churches who are legitimate following God’s call in a full-time ministry and such [many whom I know and love]…but I prefer to just let this start out more black and white without fading everything to gray too quickly).