218. Some linguistic implications from the word APOSTLE Part 2

In the previous post, we looked at the implications of the word APO for understanding how apostles are wired, and consequently, their approach to ministry. Pauline apostles tend to launch out (separate) from the center and pioneer something at the edge. Petrine apostles, however, tend to mobilize the center towards the edge to achieve missional impact.

So how does the impulse to APO show up in the Petrine form of apostolic ministry? If Petrine apostles tend to stay at the center, in what ways does the APO surface in their ministry? While there are many ways to explore this, I want to suggest that the tendency to "separate" shows up in Petrine forms of apostolic ministry through a decentralizing of the organization for missional impact. That is, Petrine folks will often seek to diversify the organizations efforts to reach as many people and places as possible. Rather than trying to attract as many people as possible to the center (a staple feature of evangelistic ministry), Petrine apostles will seek to build a strong center in order to resource the edge. For a Petrine apostle, the center is not an end in and of itself. It is a generative focal point to fuel the movement. In other words, Petrine apostles see the center as a tool for mission, and the mission will tend to be multi-cultural and city wide, often leaping into other regions and spheres of influence.

Both Pauline and Petrine apostles are entrepreneurial, but their entrepreneurial energy tends to gravitate towards two be applied in two different spheres. Pauline forms of apostolic ministry will tend to focus entrepreneurial energies at the edge, while Petrine apostles will tend to focus their entrepreneurial energies at the center, mobilizing the organization itself to be entrepreneurial. This is why we say in our book The Permanent Revolution that Petrine apostles are more aptly described as being intrapreneurs. They focus their energies within the organization helping to mine its resources and mobilize the organization for entrepreneurial ventures. This often requires an organization to diversify (APO - separate) its focus and resources.

217. Some linguistic implications from the word APOSTLE Part 1

It is amazing what kind of implications you can draw from the etymology of a word. I have been grinding over the word APOSTLE the past few weeks, and have had a few epiphanies about the word and its implications  about apostles and their  approach to ministry.

The word apostle is actually a conjunction of two words: APO = "to separate" or "withdraw" and STELLO meaning "sent."  Lets camp out on this word APO first. 

This notion of "separating" is a staple feature of apostles and how they approach their callings. Relationally speaking, apostles typically do not have a problem separating from the group. In fact, this separation from the group is often a prerequisite to being sent. Take Acts 13 for example. The Holy Spirit says "separate" Paul and Barnabas for the work I have called them to. In order to be sent, you have to make a break from the group. People who are wired as apostles typically adapt to this kind of separation from the group pretty well. In MBTI frameworks, most apostles tend to be a "T." That is, they have a penchant for creating distance between themselves and the people who will be effected by their decisions. Granted, this can be a vice if it is not tempered with love, compassion and wisdom. However, when it comes to being sent, this capacity to "separate" oneself and move forward is actually a strength. It allows the apostle to more readily make a break from the group and pioneer into new frontiers. This is more readily seen in the more Pauline type apostles who like to leave the center and pioneer something out on the edge. 

In the next post, I will look at how this impulse to "separate" shows up in the more Petrine types who tend to focus their ministry within the center in order to mobilize people towards the edge for missional impact.   

216. Forge America

It is only within the past few years that I have really come to realize the necessity of being part of a larger network. There are a lot of church planting networks and organizations out there. A lot of good ones, and some, according to who you ask, not so good. The great thing about a network is that it facilitates relationships. This may sound overly simplistic, but relationships 

can be a gateway to so many other things. Networks are a strategic environment where everyone gets to be influenced, as well as be an influencer. 

I recently had a great opportunity to hang out with a great network of missional practitioners. The Forge America team at Exponential is a blast. Not only do they know how to throw a good party. these folks are all about serving the missional movement in our day. They think grass-rootsy (a fettish of mine) and have real servant hearts. They really do champion the idea of ordinary people doing extraordinary things for God. In fact, after reflecting on the nature of their organization, it hit me one day that Forge is a lot like Android/Google. They don't mind you hacking in to their stuff and innovating with it, and actually design their organization and content to facilitate this very thing. They truly are a centered set kind of organization, I love it. 

After a few discussions with their leadership, it seemed like a great fit for me to link up with them and join their team. Really excited about the future possibilities of hanging out with them how I will be influenced by the great folks in their network. 

215. A peek into the Fuzzy Front End of the Permanent Revolution Part 4

In looking at the metaphors Paul uses to describe his apostolic function and role, it is an interesting exercise to think about how these terms relate to one another in the realm of authority. There is a certain social currency afforded to founders within the group by virtue of them being the founders. Whether they want to recognize it or not, founders have a certain level of authority within the organizations they found. The group looks to the founder with a certain sense of obligation and gratitude. The group exists, after all, because of the founders efforts. Without the founder, the group would not have formed, and those within the group would not have access to the life and resources that have emerged within the context of that group.

So founders, whether they like it or not, have a certain level of social currency within the groups they found. How and when they choose to spend this currency within the group will determine whether or not that currency increases or decreases in value (a topic for another post :-) My hunch is that Paul was aware of the social currency available to him as a founder. I think the metaphors Paul uses for his apostolic role within the communities he has founded points to a taxonomy of social currency that is made available to founders of new communities. I suggest the following framework as a heuristic for distilling the kind of social influence inherent within the apostolic function of planting new churches. See the picture below to the right.

The nature of metaphor, as Aristotle says it, is the similarity of dissimilarities. In other words, metaphors help open up new relationships of meaning. When Paul says he is an ambassador, he trying to open up the Corinthians mind to how his role as an apostle is similar to what they understand the role of an ambassador is. To say that Paul is an ambassador (2 Corinthians 5) is to say something different from saying he is a father ( 1 Cor 4). Yet each of these terms clearly point to a certain relational terrain Paul sees himself navigating as a founder of the Corinthian community. Some terms like father draw on certain facets of Paul's social currency, while other terms draw on other facets of that currency. Each term does something different. As such, these different metaphors affirm different facets of that social currency, as well as provoke within the Corinthian community various frameworks by which they are to perceive Paul and his role as a founder among them.

The diagram to the right was my first attempt to arrange these metaphors into a framework that accounted for the various degrees of social currency each metaphor may have evoked within the Corinthians. So for example, when you look into the metaphor Ambassador, you will find it connotes a sense of authority derived from the one they are representing. This is perhaps the most authoritative metaphor Paul uses with the Corinthians. I have sense rearranged this list into the following order.

1. Ambassador
2. Father
3. Slave
4. Foundation Layer
5. Planter
6. Partner

These are listed in descending order as to the perceived amount of social currency Paul wold have been leveraging when he used this term. To frame your role as an ambassador draws more social currency than to frame ones role as the foundation layer. There are notions of representative authority in ambassador that are not present in the metaphor of foundation layer. Ambassador points to a source of authority beyond itself, while simultaneously sharing in that authority from a representational perspective. Foundation layer points to a source of authority tied up in the skill, craftsmanship and wisdom of the designer and builder. The one who lays the foundation has a right to say how others should build upon it. their authority is inherent to their activity of foundation laying, not an outside source. This is why founding authority is not unique to Paul as an apostle. This kind of social currency is available to founders of all kinds, whether they are church planters, founders of non-profits, entrepreneurs of new businesses or whatever. It is a sociological phenomenon related to the group dynamics.

And just in case you think founding a new community is an opportunity to secure a new source of authority, take note of the kinds of difficulties Paul encountered in his efforts to found new communities. Founding authority is unique, but so are the challenges associated with the task of founding something new. The cool thing about Paul's letters is that they provide us a window into how to steward the social currency that emerges from founding new communities. In fact, I think 2 Corinthians is the largest window available to us in this respect.

214. A peek into the Fuzzy Front End of the Permanent Revolution Part 3

As I reflected on the metaphors Paul used to describe his relationship with others, I also came across language that was not so egalitarian. While Paul leaned heavily on egalitarian metaphors, he also recognized that by virtue of his role as a founder of new communities, there was a certain relational matrix that emerged from this kind of activity.

By virtue of being a founder, there exists a certain degree of authority built into the relationship between the founder and the community that was founded. It is built into the nature of founding things. Said another way, it is axiomatic to Pauline forms of apostolic ministry.

Paul frames the nature of this relationship with the of parent/child metaphor in I Corinthians 4:14-17 when he says:

I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

Paul uses this metaphor of father/child to describe his role as the catalyst of planting the seed of the gospel that gave birth to their community. Paul is a parent to the Corinthians in this respect. By virtue of Paul's role in the development of the community, he occupies a sphere of influence that only a founder(s) can occupy. This sphere of influence is, it should be noted, only reaches into the communities he founded. So Paul does have this kind of relational currency with those communities he has not founded. Looking at some of the metaphors Paul uses to describe his role in the communities, we can discern a certain relational terrain associate with the landscape of apotolic ministry. Some of these metaphors are:

1. Foundation Layer - I Cor 3
2. Father - I Cor 4
3. Ambassador - II Cor 5
4. Founder - I Cor 4
5. Worker - II Cor 6

It is important to recognize that while Paul occupied a unique sphere of influence in his communities, he did not lord it over them. So for example, listen to what he says in II Corinthians

Moreover I call God as witness against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand...

So while Paul is a parent to the Corinthians, he is not paternalistic. While he occupies a sphere of influential authority in the communities he founds, his posture towards them is not authoritarian. Paul was able to find, as Michael Gorman would say, a way of exercising authority in a cruciform way. That is, his authority in those communities originated in the gospel, and was expressed in alignment with the values of the cross - weakness, humility, sacrificial love etc.

The next post will attempt to outline how some of these metaphors relate to one another with respect to spheres of authority. 

213. A peek into the Fuzzy Front End of The Permanent Revolution Part 2

This is one of the earlier diagrams I was working on at the forefront of the project. I was fascinated by all the metaphors Paul used to describe his relationship with the communities he founded. This first diagram was centered around the metaphors that communicated a more egalitarian relationship. Paul had no reservations about referring to himself as a:

1. Fellow Worker
2. Brother
3. Disciple
4. Partner
5. Priosner
6. Soldier
7. Slave

All of these metaphors can equally describe any one in the body of Christ. You do not need to function apostolically to own these terms. This is important to recognize when looking into the nature and function of apostolic ministry. Paul is first a brother in the Lord, then a "father" in the gospel. Paul is first a disciple of Jesus, then a leader for Jesus. Paul is first a partner in the gospel, then a steward/custodian of the gospel etc.

There is an egalitarian nature to Paul's ministry as an apostle. He is not an elitist. He is a fellow worker in the gospel, right along side of the communities he plants. However, as we will see in the next two posts, he does use metaphors that help frame his role as an apostle among the communities he founds. 

212. A peek into the Fuzzy Front End of The Permanent Revolution Part 1

Warning: You are about to enter a "PLUG" zone. One of the coolest projects I have been a part of in the past 10 years was co-authoring a book entitled The Permanent Revolution: Apostolic Imagination and Practice for the 21st Century Church. It actually took about 2 1/2 years to collect all the ideas, synthesize them, and formulate them into a coherent format.

Alan helped out tremendously with the coherency factor. As an INTP (mbti) he is a more systemic thinker than I am. He is more prone to accuracy and symmetry. As an ENTP, I lean towards accuracy, but my sweet spot is in seeing things from multiple perspectives and scavenging for new ideas and information. Our strengths  turned out to complement each other quite well. Essentially, I populated the text with concepts and ideas, and Alan helped hone it into a coherent, systematic presentation. It made for a great partnership in producing the book in its final form.

Most creative projects start in what is often termed the "Fuzzy Front End." That is, they begin on a canvas cluttered with disparate, seemingly unrelated ideas and concepts.

My first canvas was this little green book that I found one Saturday on the side of the road as I delivered packages on my FedEx route. Clarksville is home to the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. This transient population sometimes produces piles of "junk" on the side of the road. When soldiers get PCS'd or get deployed, sometimes they leave things behind for their former landlord to "manage" for them. On that Saturday, a random soldiers G.I. notebook made its way from the curb to my little black duffle bag I carried with me on my routes. I ripped a few of the pages out that had writing on them, and from that Saturday on, I began to populate the canvas with all things related to five fold and the apostolic.

So this little green book marks the beginning of an epic journey for me. The graphic on the front is what I drew on my lunch breaks at FedEx. The next few posts will be snap shots of some content from this green book. Some of this content made it into the book, some of it didn't. Either way, it is a peak into the fuzzy front end. 

211. Apostolic Ministry and Legitimacy Part 4

In  II Corinthians 3, Paul is looking to contrast his style of ministry with the super-apostles style of ministry. Perceiving themselves as "agents of transformation," they couldn't help but position themselves as central focal points in the community.

Paul comes against this style of ministry not just because it is false, but because it hinders the community from accessing the transformative power of the Glory of the Lord. Their superior rhetoric, manifestations of power, and letters of recommendation may at first seem to be a necessary component of leadership. I mean, who doesn't want to communicate well, demonstrate the power of the Spirit, and accelerate the establishment of our credibility through organizational legitimacy?

Paul does not have a beef with any of these things in themselves, it is HOW the super-apostles are utilizing these things in the community. If your rhetoric, gifts/charisms, or reputation stands in the way of people developing a fascination with the Glory of the Lord, then your style of ministry will ultimately bring death. It is the Glory of the Lord that provides the dynamic power to perpetually transform.

Paul understood this as both a follower and a leader. Notice the "we" language in 3:18 so characteristically debated in the book of II Corinthians. Paul includes himself with the community as one who needs to look beyond himself onto a greater, more glorious object of affection. Both the leader and the follower are perpetually transformed "from glory to glory" by beholding the Glory of the Lord. Notice the diagram below.

Paul is both a leader and a follower. He is both disciple and rabbi. Paul puts himself in front of the Corinthian community as an object of imitation because he too orients himself towards the glory of the Lord. He too is transparent and weak. To imitate Paul is to learn how to look towards Jesus and be shaped by the patterns of the gospel. To imitate Paul is to learn how to develop the patterns life that focus our attention on the Glory of the Lord. To follow Paul as a leader is to pattern ones life after The Pattern which he himself patterns his life...the gospel. So Paul is not just inviting the Corinthians to follow a leader, he is also, simultaneously, asking them to follow a follower. In doing so, the Corinthians would learn how to both lead for, and follow after, Jesus. this is essentially what Paul did with Timothy.(I Cor 4:15-19)

Seeing this logic within the text, I have no problem with leadership, using the language of leadership, or training other people to be leaders. The catch to this is, what style of ministry are we modeling for other people to imitate? Paul knew that superior rhetoric was quick way to establish legitimacy in the Corinthian context. He intentionally scaled back his rhetorical devices so as to side step the Corinthians tendency to be more fascinated with the container than the content. (I Cor 2:1-4)

Paul was quick to deflect attention off himself by exposing his suffering and weakness. When it came up as a point of contention to de-legitimize his apostleship, Paul utilized the gospel to legitimize his ministry. He essentially says "The reason I am legit is because the patterns of my life mirror(imitate) the patterns of the gospel."(II Corinthians 4) Ultimately, it was the gospel that funded Paul's apostolic legitimacy.

So question: what do you tend to lean on when it comes time to "legitimize" your ministry? Numbers, rhetoric, invitations to speak at other churches, charisms??? How we seek to legitimize our ministries will shape the style of ministry we engage in. 

210. Apostolic Ministry and Legitimacy Part 3

In Part 1 and Part 2, we looked at how Paul, in chapter 3 of II Corinthians, contrasts the super-apostles “agent” style of ministry with a more gospel centered style ministry. Paul likens the “agent” style of with the ministry of Moses. At first, this style of ministry is appealing. It has a certain glow to it that attracts attention.

However, over time, as people get closer to the leader, they will begin to notice that the leader has weaknesses and inadequacies.  The “glory” of the leader begins to fade. In the eyes of the follower, they become all too human and mundane. Most leaders know when their followers begin to lose their fascination with as a leader. The leader can sense when their followers are no longer impressed with them.

In order to compensate for their fading “glory”, the super-apostles were putting a “veil” over their face to cover up their weaknesses. In an “agent” style of ministry, when you lose your glory, you lose your following. So in a James Bond like fashion, the super-apostles enacted the “secret agent man” lyrics:

“Ah, be careful what you say, you might give yourself away”

In an “agent” style ministry where the leader sees themselves as the source of transformative power, secrecy and distance become the key leverage points for the leader to secure their status of leadership and influence in the group. Eventually, their weakness and humanity will shine through, exposing themselves as empty vessels. In hopes of prolonging their gravitas, the super-apostles, have to conceal(veil) their fading glory and focus attention on external devices of legitimization (in this case letters of recommendation.)

In contrast to this “agent” style of ministry (which corresponds to the ministry of Moses) Paul says that there is a new style of ministry which finds it’s legitimacy in the new covenant. This new style of ministry can be framed around the concept of “agency.” The goal of agency is to bring source and recipient into a direct, unhindered relationship. [1] In order for an apostle to function as an “agency” they must find ways to divert attention away from her/himself and onto the transformative glory of the Lord.[2]

The difference Paul and the super-apostles is not so much found in WHAT they presented. Both Paul and the super-apostles talked about Jesus. The difference in their ministries is best located in HOW they presented themselves. What made Paul’s style of ministry different from the super apostles was that he positioned himself, not as an “agent” of transformation, but as an “agency” through which the power of the gospel could be mediated. In contrast to the “secret agent man” strategies of the super- apostles, Paul was transparent about his weakness, sufferings and inadequacies. Instead of “veiling” them, he openly discussed them. Rather than seeking to become the communities focal point of attention, Paul’s willingness to be open about weakness enabled him to redirect the communities attention away from himself and onto the glory of the Lord, the true source of transformative power.

Paul’s style of apostolic ministry mirrored the weakness and power, death and life, suffering and victory contained within the transformative power of the gospel. It was this mirroring of these patterns of the gospel within Paul’s life that authenticated his apostleship and ministry. In this way Paul could put himself in front of the community as a model to imitate, while simultaneously pointing people beyond himself to the transformative power of Christ.

It is crucial to understand the role of transparency in apostolic leadership because starting new communities from scratch throws us into group dynamics of power and authority. In the formative phases of a newly founded community, the apostle can become idealized as they shoulder the responsibility of infusing the community with vision and meaning. This makes the leader vulnerable to the often unspoken process of what some call “transference” in which individuals unconsciously project onto a leader their hopes and aspirations that often come with authority figures, particularly parents. [3] Like a Hollywood actor, apostles will unknowingly step into roles that have been pre-scripted and transferred onto them by the newly formed group, making them the repositories of unrealized hopes and expectations. [4] Not making good on these expectations can create significant disappointment in the relationship.

These expectations, while making the leader-follower relationship somewhat precarious and fragile in nature, also present a unique opportunity. Whenever a leader shows any promise of coinciding with these latent expectations, it provides the spark for charismatic authority to emerge.[5] Without pre-existing organizational structures to fund the apostle’s legitimacy, it is charisma that provides the initial currency for leadership to emerge and function. Because charisma primarily stems from the perceptions of the follower, the leader is limited as to how they can negotiate it’s emergence. Charisma neither exists in the follower or the leader, but rather between them. It is relational in nature.

Charisma can, however, be stewarded. When stewarded in the way of Jesus, it can empower both leader and follower alike. However, if stewarded poorly, the leader can nurture unhealthy dependency and frustrate the growth of both individuals and the community. As Heifitz notes, “The pitfall of charisma, however, is unresolved dependency. People can fail to move on, to discover their own ‘magic,’ their own capacity to flourish and lead. They may not realize their capability for self-governance…For the charismatic it feels good to be idealized. For his constituents, it feels good to have someone who assures deliverance in the long run, and in the short run provides direction, protection, orientation, the control of conflict and clear norms.”[6] Charisma brings certain benefits to the tasks of leadership. It can generate a following, but in the long run, it cannot generate a sustainable movement. 

The apostle’s leadership will, initially, foster a certain level of dependency in the embryonic phases of the communities development. This dependency is necessary and unavoidable. However, this dependency should be strategically (and carefully) dismantled over time.

When a leader is transparent about their weakness and suffering, in essence, they are refusing to put a “veil” on. Unlike Moses who, when he perceived his glory was beginning to fade, covered his face, genuine apostolic ministry (an all new covenant ministry for that matter) is characterized by a perpetual “unveiling” of the leader’s weaknesses and inadequacies.

Transparency from the leader forces people to negotiate their own God-given capacity to assume responsibility and take ownership of their own role within the development of the community. It allows the follower to reclaim the power they have vested in the leader and re-deploy it within their own sphere of influence.

In Part 4 we will look at how Paul can legitimize his leadership while still pointing the community beyond himself and onto the Glory of the Lord. 

---

[1] .” II Corinthians Anchor Bible Commentary Series Victor Paul Furnish p. 62

[2] Recognizing this aspect of apostolic ministry helps us solve the riddle of why the first person pronoun is virtually absent from the entire first section of II Corinthians. Paul is using a literary device to reinforce the concept that apostolic ministry is about directing attention toward the Agent/Jesus and not the agency/apostle. The focus of the discussion is on the apostolic vocation in general and not on specific apostles.

[3] Putting a New Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos by Bud A. McClure p. 96

[4] Leadership without Easy Answers by Ron Heifetz p. 247-488

[5] On Fire: Charismatic Leadership and Levels of Analysis. Katherine J. Klein & Robert J House. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 183-198. 1995 JAI Press

 

[6] Leadership without easy answers by Ron Heifetz p. 247

209. Apostolic Ministry and Legitimacy Part 2

In Part 1, we looked at the dilemma Paul faced in Corinth when it came to legitimizing his apostolic ministry. Without the conventional letters of recommendation from toher organizations, Paul faced a significant challenge of how to legitimize his ministry in the face of criticism and insult. 

Paul works with several metaphors in II Corinthians to bring clarity to what legitimate apostolic ministry looks like. However, before we look at those metaphors, it would be helpful to start with the work of Jeffrey Corfton. In his book The Agency of the Apostle, Crofton provides us with an initial framework to orient ourselves around the metaphors Paul uses to describe the nature of his ministry in 2 Corinthians. He makes the careful distinction between the concepts of “agent” and “agency.”

“An agent is one who acts; an agency is a means through which another acts. To name the apostolic ministry through the role of agent is to direct attention to the apostles themselves as actors; to name the apostolic ministry through the role of agency is to focus on the means by which God works through the apostle. An agent orientation assumes that apostles are the actors; that they are essentially in control as distinct entities. An agency orientation assumes that God acts through the apostle, that God determines the parameters, the scope, the purpose, the means of that ministry; it diverts attention away from the apostle as an individual to apostle as channel, a vessel, a window upon the divine character.”[1]

In this understanding of apostolic ministry(and ministry in general), God is the Agent and apostles are the agency. Apostles are merely the conduit, the empty tunnel that serves as a connection point between a powerful source and an open recipient. 

This role of agency is what causes the unique experience of feeling very weak and inadequate, and yet at the same time feeling a sense of powerful and authority. Paul frames his own apostolic experience with the similar metaphor of “treasure in earthen vessels.” In this metaphor it's important to recognize that the content is separate from the container. That is, the treasure is separate from the clay jar, but it is that very same fragile, weak, vulnerable container that provides the vehicle for the transformative power of the gospel to become mobile and accessible to others. So in this sense, authentic apostolic ministry is characterized not just by power, but by power in weakness, life in death, and victory in defeat (2 Cor. 4).[2] 

Paul introduces this metaphor of “treasure in clay pots” because there were “super-apostles” (the word super is 'hyper' in the text...a thought worth pondering) in Corinth that thought apostolic ministry was legitimized by the form and appearance of the container rather than the power of it's content.[3] Paul’s hang up is primarily with the super apostle’s style of leadership and ministry. 

To catch the surge of Paul's polemical discourse on the super-apostles, you actually have to reboot back to chapter 3 where Paul introduces the topic of legitimacy. This chapter is often a riddle for commentators. Contrary to the conventional understanding of this passage, Paul is not giving us an introductory lesson on the difference between the Old and New Covenants. He is making a contrast between two styles of ministry. In a typically rabbinical form of midrash, Paul levies his weightiest argument against the  hyper-apostles by correlating their style of ministry with the ministry of Moses!

In drawing attention to their written letters of recommendation, superior rhetoric and their supposed manifestations of spiritual power, the ministry of the hyper-apostles were essentially functioning like an Agent, the source of power and transformation. In effect, they were concealing the true nature of the gospel and obstructing the community from beholding the transformative power of the glory of the Lord. In essence, their style of apostolic ministry was diverting attention away from Jesus and onto their own "weighty" credentials.  Paul says that this style of ministry has more in common with the ministry of Moses than the gospel. It has an effervescent quality that is sensational at first, but fades over time and produces no lasting effect.

Paul is sharply critical of this style of ministry because it diverts the attention of the community away from the Lord and onto the apostle, obstructing their view. This essentially conceals, or as Paul would say, it veils, the transformative power of the gospel. When leaders draw more attention to themselves and their pedigrees, it is flashy and exciting on the front end. But just give it some time. Eventually, the people will become disenchanted with that leader. As the community begins to see their all too human weaknesses and deficiencies, the glory will fade and the people will begin to search for another leader who can dazzle them with their rhetoric and charisma. 

In Part 3, we will look at a framework for how Paul frames his relationship to the gospel and the community. 

---

[1] Agency of the Apostle by Jeffrey Crofton p. 61

[2] For an in depth discussion on how Paul’s Apostolic ministry mirrors the gospel, see Death in Us, Life in You: The Apostolic Medium by Steven J. Kraftchick in Pauline Theology Vol. 2 1& 2 Coritnhians p 156-181

[3] It is interesting to notice that Paul’s main beef with the super-apostles is not with their doctrine. “Looking back at the evidence overall, one is struck in particular by the fact that there is no direct information about the ‘doctrinal’ stance of the opponents, not even in 11:4. Whatever doctrinal basis the actions and attitudes of Paul’s rivals may have had, the actions and attitudes themselves are what Paul attacks, so the personal dimensions of the conflict are much more apparent than the doctrinal aspects of it.” II Corinthians Anchor Bible Commentary Series Victor Paul Furnish p. 53 

208. Apostolic Ministry and Legitimacy Part 1

Proximity to power has a way of skewing our perception. This is especially true when it comes to the task of leadership. And even more so when it comes to starting new communities centered on the gospel and mission. Confusing one’s role as a steward of power with being the actual source of power is possibly the most fundamental vice that leaders flirt with.

Every apostolic leader needs to be rooted in healthy metaphors and paradigms that can help them differentiate the power of the gospel from their own role as a representative of that gospel. The power in the gospel can be focused towards a particular goal through leadership, rhetoric, and even charisma. However, let's be crystal clear about this, that power does not originate in the leader. No, the leader merely focuses the power by functioning as a conduit through which it can travel. There is a difference between stewarding power and being the source of power, and this distinction weighs heavily in Paul’s mind as he writes to a church where his legitimacy as an apostle has been called into question.

II Corinthians provides us a window into a complex dilemma that Paul was confronted with in his ministry. Paul essentially broke ties with the Antioch church after his confrontation with Peter about table fellowship with the Jews. The ramifications of this incident in Antioch reached far into the future and across geographical boundaries. It would ripple outward all the way to Corinth and pose quite a challenge for Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle.

Once Paul essentially branched off from Antioch, he also made himself suspect in relation to the church in Jerusalem. This may not sound all that important, but it had social and political consequences or Paul’s mission. Without the Antioch or Jerusalem church, he was suddenly on his own. There were no institutions willing to sponsor or vouch for him.

This was not that big of a problem for Paul seeing he was breaking new ground in most places with the gospel. The nature of his message and the signs and wonders of his ministry afforded him a level of legitimacy on the front end of his apostolic endeavors that funded his initial leadership role in the communities he planted.

But what about when he left that new community and other people came in behind him, calling into question his legitimacy? Those looking to exploit a newly formed community as a platform for their own power base and agenda would either have to align with Paul’s pre-established role, or de-legitimize him as a leader. 

This is exactly what happened in Corinth. Leaders came in behind Paul with letters from other churches vouching for their legitimacy as apostles. They were superior in rhetoric, and according to their letters, they were superior in their organizational pedigrees. They came highly recommended by the leading churches of their region. These leaders were highly qualified, well networked, and had the resumes to prove it. They were sporting the “high pro glow” of organizational legitimacy, and were quick to point out that Paul had some serious deficits in this weighty area of leadership credentials. Their central claim was that Paul is not a legitimate apostle because he has no organizational legitimacy...no one would vouch for him (his style of ministry had no flare either, and this did not help matters). In short Paul's opponents said he is incompetent in almost every category of leadership that counts. 

Paul writes II Corinthians with the aim of legitimizing his apostleship. He cleverly frames an apostle’s relationship not only to the gospel, but to the community as well. In doing so, he provides a framework by which all legitimate apostolic ministry is to be tested and weighed. 

In Part 2, we will look into this framework and explore some of its implications. 

207. Discipleship and Mission Workshop in Lexington KY with 3DM

My friend Brent Barger called me this week and let me know about a really cool opportunity. If you live near Lexington KY and would like to expose yourself to some really good tools for being and making disciples, as well as missional communities, 3DM will be hosting a workshop November 7-9 at the Cross Roads Church. 

As someone who has personally been through their workshop and subsequent Learning Community process, I have no problem championing these events and their organization. These guys are excellent practitioners of disciple making and missional communities, with a track record of effectiveness to go with it. If you end up checking it out, look me up, I am actually hanging out at this one. 

206. The Role of Chemistry in a Discipling Relationship

In science, when two different chemicals come into contact, certain reactions occur based on the elements within those chemicals. The reaction can be good or bad depending on what you are trying to achieve. When we talk about chemistry in relationships, we are talking about a certain kind of reaction between people. We all know good chemistry when we experience it. You have a certain connection with someone that you do not have with other people. It could be personality, season of life, or some other factor. When good chemistry is there, you find yourself saying to yourself “I would enjoy spending more time around that person.”

CHEMICAL REACTIONS

So what does chemistry have to do with discipling relationships? Well, chemistry is actually one of the most critical ingredients to a successful discipling relationship. Discipleship is fundamentally about imitation. If this is true, then we are given our first clue as to what holds a discipling relationship together. Without a significant level of attraction between leader and follower, then a discipling relationship is not even likely to start. There has to be a positive reaction between leader and follower that makes them want to spend time around each other. They have to like each other and be open to each other.

You may be saying something like this to yourself right now: “That sounds right, but shouldn’t we be open to discipling everyone? It sounds like you are saying we should only disciple people we personally like. Doesn’t Jesus tell us to disciple everyone? Isn’t this chemistry thing a bit…well….selfish? Should this really be a part of the equation, or is this whole chemistry thing just an excuse not to engage people who are different from us?”

Well, this is a typical response, so let’s go a little deeper to substantiate the necessity of chemistry. Discipling relationships require frequent interactions. If the follower is going to imitate the life of the leader, then the follower has to have access to the leaders life. This means they will spend time with each other outside of the classroom, small groups, or bible studies. If there is not a significant amount of chemistry in the relationship, both people will experience relational fatigue. After fatigue sets in, then hanging out together in organic and spontaneous ways is not likely to happen.

Also, a discipling relationship is characterized by what we call invitation and challenge. If you already rub someone the wrong way (or if they rub you the wrong way), then imagine what introducing and ever increasing levels of challenge will do to that “rub” in the relationship. There will be some serious friction…otherwise known as conflict! Good chemistry is the permission structure that allows challenge to take place in a discipling relationship.

Jesus, as a wise leader and discipler, knew the critical role chemistry played in the discipling relationship. Notice what Mark says in his gospel about the criteria Jesus used when inviting the 12 to become apostles: ”And He went up on the mountain and called to Him those He Himself wanted. And they came to Him. Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach…” There are two things here worth noting.

1. Jesus had a preference for who he wanted to invite closer and invest his life into. We do not know what these preferences were, but those preferences were a determining factor in his method of choosing the 12. This runs counter to our notion of equality and treating everyone the same. The truth of the matter is, Jesus modeled for us the best possible way to choose people we will invest our life in.

2. Jesus chose the twelve that they might be with him. That means they would be around each other a lot! If there is no chemistry, then this can be a real problem….for both people involved, not to mention the rest of the group. Chemistry is the attractional force that holds voluntary relationships together.

Good chemistry is not always experienced the same way or at the same level between people. This can make the process of inviting people into a discipling relationship a bit tricky. A leader may not have a lot of chemistry with a potential follower, while that same potential follower may actually experience, on their end, a higher (sometimes unusually higher) level of chemistry with the potential leader. Chalk it up to charisma, gravitas, or whatever, but I think we have all had the experience of someone revealing to us that they really like us and we in turn think to ourselves “Really, because I thought you didn’t really like me at all.”

This can also happen from the leader’s perspective. They may think there is a high level of chemistry between them and another potential follower, when in actuality it is only the leader who is experiencing a positive reaction. Recognizing the various levels of chemistry that can exist between people helps us discern the potential for success in a discipling relationship. Consider the matrix below.

FLOP

Flop happens when the leader over estimates the level of chemistry in the relationship and invites someone into a discipling relationship. If the potential follower is not open to the leader, and is not able to receive an ever increasing scale of invitation and challenge, it can make it quite challenging for the relationship to stay together. This kind of relationship typically happens when we take an overly mechanistic approach to discipling people. Discipling relationships do not form like signing up for a small group. It is an entirely different kind of relationship characterized by high commitment and high accountability. Without significant levels of chemistry the follower and the leader, in the long run, the relationship will be a flop. In most cases, it either does not last the course, or becomes a significant drag for both the leader, the follower and the rest of the group.  The only exception to this scenario is if the follower has a significant level of maturity in their life.

STOP

When neither the leader or the potential follower have significant levels of good chemistry, then a discipling relationship rarely forms. When neither person says to themselves “I think I might like to spend some more time around that person” then cause and effect typically keep this kind of discipling relationship from happening. However, there are times when people try to force this kind of relationship into a discipling format and it can be a disaster. Steer clear when chemistry is hovering close to nill.

DROP

Drop happens when someone experiences chemistry with you as a leader and is open to being discipled by you, but you do not share the same level of chemistry with them, or you simply do not recognize their openness to you. A good way to limit the number of opportunities that you drop is to develop a routine of praying about people who are within your social reach. More often than not, we drop opportunities when we are not being sensitive to who the Lord is putting in our pathway. Sometimes someone may be open to you, but they may communicate it in ways that you don’t recognize. Jesus spent the whole night in prayer before he selected the 12. There are obvious spiritual implications to this, but I can’t help but wonder what kind of revelation he received during the night from the Father that maybe caused him to change course and select Thomas instead of …..Mathias? Jesus was sensitive to what the Father wanted to happen, and when it came to inviting people into discipling relationships, he spent a significant time observing the crowds, reflecting on his impressions, and discussing it with the Father.

A word of caution: It typically requires a certain degree of maturity in the leader to effectively disciple people he does not have chemistry with. This has to be discerned, just like Jesus, in reflection and discussion with the Father.

P.O.P. 

P.O.P. stands for Person of Peace and is taken from Jesus’ teaching in Luke 10. The basic definition of a Person of Peace is this: “You like them and they like You.” Stated positively,  peace is about harmony and synergy. Stated negatively, it can mean hostility or opposition. Jesus told the 72 in Luke 10 when he sent them out that when they came to a house they should say “Peace to you.” If a “person of peace” was there, they should stay at that house. What Jesus was essentially saying was this: A person of peace is someone who wants to hang out with you and invite you into their personal space. When you have a moderate to high level of chemistry with someone, this elevates the potential for relational capital to emerge and creates an environment in which a discipling relationship can flourish. If discipleship is about imitation, then the person of peace is somehow drawn to want to be around you. They demonstrate openness to you and may want to serve you and even follow you. This kind of relationship is teeming with potential for imitation, fruitfulness, and a lot of fun!.

I have experienced a FLOP and a DROP before, and each time, hind sight being 20/20, a good amount of observation, reflection, and discussion with the Father would have probably steered me into another course of action. As I mature in becoming a disciple maker, I find that I am more keenly aware of where I am in relation to other people, and where they are in relation to me as a leader/follower.

205. The difference between Coaching and Discipling Part 2

In Part One, we looked at the importance of imitation in relation to the pattern of the disciplers life and the process they use to make disciples.  In this post, we are going to take an even closer look at how coaching differs from discipling.

Coaching is primarily focused on developing competency and skills in relation to performing certain tasks. If we use sports as an example, a basketball coach is looking to help his players become better dribblers, shooters, passers, and rebounders, as well as better team players. The really good coaches look to develop the character of their players as well. However, as some of you may be able to attest to, a player rarely has access to a coach outside of “practice” and “game time.”  Despite a coach’s good intentions, without relational access to the coach’s life, the scope of imitation in the relationship will typically be limited to what is made available during organized times of “practice” and “game time.” The learner, then, in a coaching relationship, will be primarily focused on imitating the methods and practices which the coach uses to train the players during practice and game times. In this sense, coaching is somewhat one dimensional in that it is primarily task, or process oriented.

What makes a discipling relationship different from a coaching relationship is that the learners in a discipling relationship, in addition to participating in an organized process, will also have what we call “organic access” access to the leader’s life. Organic access includes regular times of interaction where the disciple shares in the rhythm and pattern of the discipler’s life. Things like eating dinner together, exercising together, or just plain hanging out for the fun of it. Basically, sharing life together.

Adding “organic access” to an “organized process” is what moves a coaching relationship to a discipling relationship.  The inverse is equally true. When access to the leader is restricted to an organized process, then the nature of that relationship will, by definition, shift away from being a discipling relationship and be characterized by other types of learning relationship. Without access to the leader’s life, the scope of imitation will default to the more narrow venue of the organized training environment.  Notice the diagram below.

While a discipling relationship is the ideal thing to shoot for when it comes to learning, distance and availability do not always afford this kind of relationship to take place. If time, distance or other variables pose a challenge to the disciple having organic access to the leader’s life, then a coaching relationship is possibly the next best thing to be involved in. As you notice from the diagram above, coaching still involves an organized process, but it lacks the kind of relational interaction to qualify as a discipling relationship.

The other two kinds of relationships where learning can take place are through spiritual fathers and mothers in Christ, and advisors. Fathers and mothers in Christ give us organic access to their life, but do not always provide an organized process of learning. It is typically on an as needs basis. Paul described himself as the father of the Corinthians because he helped bring them into existence through his seeding of the gospel. However, by virtue of his absence, Paul did not sustain an ongoing “discipling” relationship with them. This is not to say that imitation could not take place in the relationship. However, the scope of imitation was limited to their memory of his example via his absence, hence the need to send Timothy (I Cor 4:12-17.)

Spiritual fathers and mothers in Christ can be a source of encouragement and  accountability to us. They are there for us when we need counsel or encouragement, and they can also be there when we don’t want them to be, if they feel we need to be admonished or exhorted to pay attention to something we have neglected to pay attention to. They are people we often orbit in and out of our spiritual household (oikos) or extended family, or we orbit in and out of theirs.  

Advisers are people who we deem to have wisdom and discernment, but may or may not be a part of our “oikos,”(spiritual household) or extended family. It is advisers who, upon our request, offer occasional feedback and input into our lives.  Advisers could be elders or other spiritual leaders in your relational network.

A SQUARE IS A RECTANGLE, BUT A RECTANGLE IS NOT NECESSARILY A SQUARE

I always get this phrase mixed up, but it is a valuable phrase. A rectangle, like a square, has four right angles. But having four right angles does not make somethign a square. No, a square has another feature that puts it into a different category. A square has four right angles PLUS four sides of equal length. A square is more defined and therefore occupies a different category than a rectangle.

So to apply this to our discussion, discipling includes coaching, but not all coaching can rightly be called discipling. A discipling relationship, by definition, has additional features that set it apart from other learning relationships.

Clarity in this area is critical if we are looking to obey Jesus’ command to be and make disciples. Without access to the leader’s life, the relationship will not be able to supply the range of exposure and learning characterized by a discipling relationship.

This reality poses a dilemma. If we only coach people on how to disciple people instead of discipling people to disciple people, we essentially violate the principle of imitation. We end up saying, in part, “do what I say not do what I do.”

There really is no way around this dilemma. Coaching people on how to be and make disciples, by definition, will always possess this inherent contradiction. However, naming this distinction between coaching and discipling allows us to name the relationship for what it is, and thereby guard the generative nature of authentic discipleship. If someone walks away from a coaching relationship and thinks they experienced discipleship, then the coach has failed to adequately define the relationship.

204. The Difference Between Coaching and Discipling Part 1

If we are going to grasp what discipling is, we have to let Jesus be our example. Discipling takes place when we are invited into a relationship where we are challenged to imitate the life of another person. Jesus said it like this: every disciple who is completely trained will be like their teacher. (Luke 6:40) Notice he did not say the disciple will simply “know what the teacher knows.” He also didn’t say the disciple will simply be able to “do what the teacher does.” No, the fruit of a discipling relationship is much more than this. In a discipling relationship, you not only want to “know what the teacher knows” and “do what the teacher does”, you also want to “be who the teacher is.” You want to imitate the life of the one who is discipling you.

WHAT GETS IMITATED?

When we say that a disciple imitates the life of another person, contained within this peron’s life is the process they use to make disciples. In other words, the one being discipled not only imitates the leaders pattern of life, they also imitate the leaders process of making disciples. So in a discipling relationship there are essentially two basic focal points of imitation.

We see these two focal points of imitation coming to the fore when Paul explains to the Corinthians why he is sending Timothy to them. Paul says in I Corinthians 4:15-17 “For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I urge you, imitate me…(think pattern of life)… For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, …(think process)…as I teach everywhere in every church.” Paul spent 18 months in Corinth, and now in his absence the church has been turned away from the patterns of the gospel into ego-centric forms of leadership and ministry. Paul knew that in order for them to mature in Christ, they needed more than just a letter (information). They needed strategic leadership that could provide a tangible point of reference on how to put the principles of Paul’s teachings into practice. Timothy was sent to provide the Corinthians with the concrete example they needed to move forward and stay on course. The nature of Timothy’s task is reflected in Paul’s language when he says that Timothy will reminding them of his “ways” in Christ. That word in Greek is hodos which means “a course of conduct or pathway.” It carries with it the idea of a sequential flow or process, of moving forward along a pathway towards a destination. Timothy would essentially blaze the trail and lead the Corinthians back into the messianic pathway of cross and resurrection.

So why Timothy? Why not  Silas or someone else? Paul needed to extend his influence back into the Corinthian community. Timothy had been discipled by Paul, which meant he had been exposed to the pattern of Paul’s life. Not only this, but he also participated in the process Paul used for making disciples and planting churches. As such, Timothy was well versed in both the pattern and process of Paul’s life and ministry. If Paul could not be in Corinth, then he wanted someone there who would be able to represent his “ways” to the Corinthian community.  Timothy was definitely qualified to do this.

THE SCOPE OF IMITATION DETERMINES THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

If discipleship entails the imitation of someone’s life (pattern and process), then not just any learning relationship qualifies as a discipling relationship. In order for the scope of imitation to include someone’s pattern of life, there has to be a certain level of relational access (spatial proximity) to the life of the leader. This means interaction with the leader has to move beyond the controlled environment of the classroom/conference call and into a more experiential and practical setting where the follower can observe the rhythms and practices of the leaders life. This kind of learning relationship is often characterized by a certain degree of relational frequency and situational variety. In other words, there is regular interaction in multiple settings.

It is important to recognize that a discipling relationship is not the only relationship where imitation can take place. Imitation can also take place in a coaching relationship, but we have to be clear about what can actually be imitated in a coaching relationship. Once we understand discipleship as essentially being about imitation centered around pattern and process, we not only discover the essential framework for what a discipling relationship looks like, we also have a point of reference by which to understand the nature of other relationships, like coaching, in which learning and imitation can take place.

203. Discipleship and Missional Effectiveness

Karl Weick, in his book Making Sense of the Organization, says, “…whenever you have what appears to be successful decentralization, if you look more closely, you will discover that it was always preceded by a period of intense centralization where a set of core values were hammered out and socialized into people before the people were turned loose to go their own ‘independent, ‘autonomous’ ways.”*

Weick is pointing out an important ingredient here when it comes to decentralizing the church for missional ventures. As much as we would like to see the church decentralized for mission, we can not successfully de-centralize for mission until we first go through a period of centralization where the necessary foundations for movement are embedded within the community.

This is exactly what we see taking place in the life of Jesus, the revolutionary founder of a global movement. For 3 1/2 years Jesus discipled the twelve and modeled for them what discipleship, community and mission really looks like. When it came time for the disciples to launch out into a decentralized mission of disciple making and mission, they had the necessary training and tools to lead the movement. You can’t get to Acts without passing through the gospels. And you can’t make it through the gospels without passing through discipleship. The reality is, Jesus did not expect the 12 to know how to be or make disciples, live in community, or be on mission with God until he had modeled and trained them for 3 1/2 years.

Trying to catalyze a decentralized movement without laying a good foundation of discipleship is just trendy new-speak. In fact, if you try to decentralize without first going through a period of centralization where the core practices of being and making disciples along with living as an extended family on mission, you will not end up with movement at all. What you will end up with is a fragmented group of disillusioned people with no point of reference for how to move forward. To put it another way: Decentralization before discipleship equals diaspora. Decentralization after discipleship equals movement.

IMITATION AS THE MISSING LINK

Most churches find themselves stuck in a stage of centralization, but it is not the kind of centralization Jesus has in mind. Instead of centralizing around the core practices of being and making disciples, and living as an extended family on mission, the church often centralizes around teaching and information. In this model of centralization, discipleship and mission take a back seat to the centralized gatherings that are primarily focused on preaching and the band. If there happens to be any mission minded leaders in the bunch, they typically challenge the church to go and do mission, but in essence they are wanting people to spontaneously go out and do mission on their own.

The only problem with this approach is that people tend to do what you model for them. So if you give only give them information, then challenge them to do mission, they will most likely equate mission with giving people information…about the centralized gathering where you receive…that’s right….more information.

The missing link in this informational approach is discipleship; specifically, the principle of imitation. In order for me to learn how to be and make disciples, and live on mission, then I need to be invited into a relationship where I can have access to someone who actually lives it out in their own life. To get me going I need something to imitate. My friends at 3DM use this triangle to illustrate the proper relationship between information, imitation (discipleship) and innovation.

It starts with information, then leads to imitation, and finally moves into innovation. Centralization takes place during the first two phases. Decentralization takes place as you move towards the edge and innovate with new expressions of ecclesia. The order is really critical if you want to see a decentralized movement of disciple making and mission to emerge. The missing component, for most church plants (and churches for that matter), is the phase of imitation where a leader invites people into a relational process where they model for them how to be and make disciples and live like an extended family on mission. If the leader is aiming for decentralized mission where people move towards the edge and innovate new expressions of ecclesia within every nook and cranny of their context, then they need to invest the necessary time and energy to centralize around the patterns of Jesus’ ministry. Those who take the time, like Jesus, to build a discipling culture will always get what Jesus got……a movement. If we want a movement like the one Jesus started, then we need to do it the way he did it. There is just no way around this.

It is true that anyone can start a movement, but the sustainability of that movement will hinge upon whether or not the leaders of the movement can be and make disciples…that make disciples…that make disciples…  

*Karl Weick, Making Sense of the Organization, (Maine: Blackwell Publishing, 2001) p. 341