mDNA - apostolic environment
Time for another mDNA episode?
Alan Hirsch argues that any time the Church has had an effect on its social environment in which it was operating there was always an apostolic nature to the leadership and the environment that they created. What does this mean? In his first book the shaping of things to come, Alan Hirsch, together with Michael Frost describes the APEPT model of leadership. In this model there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. It is model that is drawn from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph 4). The apostolic leader is described as one who is an entrepreneur, pioneer, strategist, innovator, and visionary leader. It is this leadership and the resulting apostolic environment that Alan argues is essential if we are to recover our missional movement impetus. This argument is something that I agree with completely.
Our churches need to recognise that leadership that takes risk develops a culture of experimentation and allows for the possibility of failure will not arise in a institutional mindset. For too long our churches have been led with survival as the main motivating
factor. This is understandable in a time of uncertainty and struggle for the western Church and yet it is exactly the opposite type of leadership and environment that we require in order to chart these strange and different post-modern waters.
In his book on leadership, Lovett Weems Jnr writes that the elements for effective leadership are:
• Vision (discover and articulate a shared vision)
• Team (build the team without whom the vision cannot become a reality)
• Integrity (make sure the vision is a reality for the leader(s) and the
organisation)
• Culture (communicate and symbolise the vision throughout the
organisation’s culture)
The role of the apostolic leader is to encourage and mould these four elements. Alan Roxburgh remarks that the role of the leader is to ‘cultivate the missional imagination of the people of God’. To achieve this, apostolic leaders mush influence and shape a range of areas of the organization. Alan writes on his blog that:
Cultivation is an ancient word taken from agricultural practices. It is an organic metaphor rather than one of management or warfare. A gardener or farmer understands that the life and purpose of plants or crops is not something over which the farmer has a great deal of control. And so, leadership as cultivation is not about people fitting into your strategy; it is about providing the environment in which missional imagination buds and develops and in which the farmer may well be astonished by the results.
I believe that this role is intuitively understood by apostolically gifted people. When people that are gifted in the other areas (prophet, teacher, pastor) are tasked with the primary leadership of the church, control rather than cultivation may be encouraged. At nccc, we have attempted to create an environment that allows risk and experimentation to occur. As mentioned previously, we have repeated to ourselves, almost in mantra form that ‘real failure is actually not trying’.
July 24th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
A shame that we are told that the leader is the bishop or overseer and his leadership is by serving the assembly.
Jesus chose his Apostles so unless you are into apostolic succession this ‘leadership is a bit silly.
Just leave it at bishops and deacons. They both need the same requirements so it isn’t hard to know who they are.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Phil, just to clarify; you said that you agree with Alan’s comment
“that any time the Church has had an effect on its social environment in which it was operating there was always an apostolic nature to the leadership and the environment that they created. What does this mean? In his first book the shaping of things to come, Alan Hirsch, together with Michael Frost describes the APEPT model of leadership. In this model there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. It is model that is drawn from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph 4). The apostolic leader is described as one who is an entrepreneur, pioneer, strategist, innovator, and visionary leader. It is this leadership and the resulting apostolic environment that Alan argues is essential if we are to recover our missional movement impetus. This argument is something that I agree with completely.”
Are you able to specifically point to times that such leadership has occurred and how apostolic leadership had a direct influence on the ministry/mission of the church? Thanks.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
If I look at the ministries/churches that I have personally seen and experienced in my life I see the apostolic function (as defined by Alan) present.
One example for me would be the Kensington Christian Network where Ian Corlett certainly played this role. Another would be UNOH with Ashley Barker.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Missional DNA… Describing Foundational Missional Concepts
…
July 26th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate them. I agree that church leadership (regardless of which title you give it, apostolic etc) needs to help create an environment that allows entrepreneurial experimentation with mission. My only question mark to what you said related to your comment that a culture of experimentation is the best. You used the “cultivation” metaphor to make a great point that leadership cannot control “natural” growth. In Luke 13, Jesus speaks the parable of the unproductive fig. In this parable the gardener persuades the master who wants to uproot the unproductive fig to allow him to “ ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’” The gardener indicates that while they are not responsible for growth they are responsible for creating the right conditions. You indicated that part of those right conditions, is in creating a culture of experimentation. I believe that part of those “right conditions” is also defining some healthy boundaries to be put in place. Acts 15 and the counsel of Jerusalem, whilst reducing the “law” that the gentile church had to follow, still gave some boundaries that they believed would enable healthy growth. In creating a culture of missional experimentation I believe a part of the “healthy environment” that church leadership is responsible for is in defining a common set of values that will help guide and direct the missional entrepreneurs towards the best possible growth. Whilst we want to allow people to fail, we also want to set them up to succeed. I believe a common set of values, owned by a church can help the best natural growth to occur.
July 26th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Thanks Phil.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Hi Dave,
I don’t disagree with any of that and I think you put it very well. The risk taking mantra is simply to overcome the often frozen state of organisations. Does that make sense?
P.S Is this the David Rock that used to run a school program at Doncaster Secondary College?
July 26th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Dear Phil,
Yes that does make sense. Your right about the “frozen state.” The great thing about the missional movement is that the Spirit is providing some great opportunities for thawing! And yes this is the Dave Rock who ran the S.F. at Doncaster Secondary. I got onto your site through friend of mine, which Phil is this? This will be intriguing…
July 26th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
It is Phil McCredden. I was on the ministry team at Doncaster Church of Christ when I first met you.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:05 am
I thought so, send me you email address phil and I’ll drop you a note. obviously there has been some interesting turns in the road for you since i saw you back in about 96. Be great to catch up on them.
Dave
July 27th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Hey Dave I tried sending an email to the email address you left in the comments but it returned to me saying it was undeliverable.
My email is phil@signposts.org.au
July 28th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Entrepreneurial, pioneering, strategic, innovative, and visionary leadership has been vital for enriched the church in its mission - and we would be all the poorer if this kind of leadership was not cultivating a missional culture in the church. Absolutely.
What I don’t buy, is that this is by definition Apostolic.
Its not that any of these things are un-apostolic or that no apostles were called and gifted in these ways. It is just that to my mind none of these things are the defining factor of Apostleship. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians certainly doesn’t define an Apostle in this way. Paul quite clearly thought the Apostles were a finite number of people ending with him.
The other day Phil asked me what I thought did define an Apostle and the answer I came up with on the fly was “the first witnesses”. On further reflection this definition still sits very well with me. There is a natural synergy between being a ‘first witness’ and being a ‘pioneer’ or a ‘visionary’ or even a ‘guardian of the church’s DNA’ but they are not quite synonymous.