Mike Moran :: Friends blog

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/340212077/

How does this grand cosmology relate to our experience of the local church? One of the reflections arising out of my 15 years experience at SMRC is that as we grew and began to operate in the classic church growth mode it became increasingly harder to find God in the midst of the progressively more machine-like apparatus required to ‘run a church.’ With numerical growth, it seemed that we increasingly being drawn away from the natural rhythms of life, from direct ministry, and our roles seemed to become more managerial than ever before. But this mechanization of ministry was not only felt by the leadership of the church, the people in the church were increasingly being programmed out of life and therefore less engaged in active relationships with those outside of the faith community. Given my broader ministry, I know that this experience is endemic to many contemporary expressions of church. All this led to a personal quest to find a more life-oriented approach to mission, ministry and community, and eventually led to the discovery of what has been called the living systems approach (see addendum ‘a crash course in chaos’.)

A living systems approach seeks to structure the common life of an organization around the rhythms and structures that mirror life itself. In this approach we seek to probe the nature of life, we seek to observe how living things tend to organize themselves, and then try to emulate as closely as possible this innate capacity of living systems to develop higher levels of organization, to adapt to different conditions, and to activate latent intelligence when needed (emergence.) This quest for a more sustainable way of life is not just limited to the church. Leading proponents of this view explicitly propose ‘a science of sustainable living’ based on the study of, and respect for, life (Fritjof Capra, Margaret Wheatley, Richard Pascale, et.al.) In these books I have found new metaphors and perspectives that have profoundly inspired me in my search for more life-oriented, organic, less programmatical, approach to our task. Some of these include…

• That all living things seem to have innate intelligence. Living systems, whether they be organic in form (e.g. a virus, a human being) or systemic organizations (e.g., the stock market, a bee-hive, a city, or a commercial enterprise, even crystal formations), seem to have a life of their own and possess an inbuilt intelligence which involves a aptitude for survival, adaptation, and reproduction. This capacity for developing higher life forms life has been linked with what is called ‘distributed intelligence’ by theorists in the field. When applied to organizational theory the task of leadership is to unleash, harness, and direct distributed intelligence by creating environments where it can manifest.


• Life seems to be profoundly inter-connected. The primary operative idea is that of relationships arranged in a dynamic network—a web of life and meaning. Living systems theory recognizes that we are always part of a larger system; we belong to an ecology comprised of internal and external systems with which we are constantly relating. Disturbances in one part of the system set a chain reaction which affects all the elements in a system. Capra calls this ‘the web of life’ and some of the implications are as follows: (1) Small things can have system wide consequences, sometimes called ‘the butterfly effect’ (The idea that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon can cause a hurricane in another continent.) We should never underestimate the power of seemingly insignificant things to affect a system even if they seem unrelated at first. (2) That a system is functional or dysfunctional to the extent that all of its parts are healthy and relating to each other in an organic way. (3) That the way to develop a healthy learning/adaptive system is to bring disparate elements into meaningful communication with each other.


• Information brings change: All living systems respond to information. In fact they seem to be able to sort out information based on what is meaningful or useful to it. Information is therefore critical to intelligence, adaptivity, and growth. The free flow of information in the system is vital to growth and adaptation.


• Adaptive challenges and emergence: That by constantly interacting with its environment, the living system will catalyze its inbuilt capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. Failure to do so results in decline and death. Emergence (new forms of organization) happens when a living system is in adaptive (and therefore learning) mode, all the elements in the system are relating functionally, and distributed intelligence is cultivated and focused through information.

While all this might seem to be a little esoteric and conceptual, just stop for a moment and consider a living system approach as it relates to Christian community. Following this approach we firstly need to assume that any particular group of God’s people, if they are truly his people, have everything in themselves (latent mDNA) to be able to adapt and thrive in any setting. We must assume that given the right conditions, the community can discover latent resources and capacities that it never thought it possessed. The task of missional leadership here is simply to unleash the mDNA that is dormant in the system and help guide it to its God intended purpose. .

Secondly, the task of missional leadership here is to bring the various elements in the system into meaningful inter-relationship. This will require that the leader focuses on developing a relationally networked, as opposed to an institutional, structure for the church. We must become an effective expression of the ‘body of Christ’ (1 Cor.12:12-27 is not just a metaphor after all—it’s a description of the church in its inter-relationship with each part to its Head.) It is critical to share information and ideas and to cross pollinate in terms of gifts and callings around common tasks (Eph.4:1ff.) We must bring all necessary parts of the body into the missional equation if we want to truly function as a body. In non-ecclesial settings, this would mean getting the various departments and specialists to relate meaningfully and share information functionally around common tasks thereby bringing diversity into a functioning unity. It seems that in living systems, the real answer is always found in the grander perspective—when diverse gifts and knowledge rub up against one another new forms of knowledge and possibilities will arise.

Thirdly, we need to move the system towards the edge of chaos…that is, it needs to become highly responsive to its environment. The assumption here is that if it will not deal with real issues facing it, the system will not adapt and will thus perish in the context of any significant adaptive challenge. Burying the head in the sand never did help the ostrich when there is a predator in the area. We need to disturb the system that is in equilibrium in order to activate a learning journey and missional mode. The community needs to become responsive and response-able. Aligning elements in a system into a healthy network will inevitably involve dealing with dysfunctions that, due to the falleness of all things, are inevitably in the system. Failure to deal with dysfunction will always undermine the organization or community’s health. Here conflict will arise (I promise) and the task of good leadership in this situation is to manage it and creatively translate it into a significant learning experience.

Fourthly, because systems exist in a mass of disordered information the task of leadership here will be to help select the flow of information and focus the community around it. Not in order to dominate and try and predetermine the outcome, but rather to supply accurate and meaningful information into the system so that it can in-form itself in response to it. This aspect has sometimes been called the management of meaning because it is through the engagement with meaning-ful information that systems will respond, change, and thrive. Missional leaders must know how to handle meaning in order to motivate a group of people from the inside out. Focusing the flow of information requires a good handle on theology, psychology, as well as sociology because it will involve focusing information based on the Church’s primary narratives (the Scriptures, and particularly the Gospels), information about the core tasks of the church, and essential data about our cultural and social contexts, etc. If we get all these elements right, the whole church is activated, motivated, responsive, and informed, and the mission of God will flow naturally through and out of the mix.

What is most exciting about this approach is that things seem to flow effortlessly because one is not going against the grain of the universe. The resultant ambience in the Jesus community is one that feels natural and therefore closer to the actual rhythms of life itself—in fact it is based squarely on these rhythms and relationships—they are its starting point as well as its ongoing sub-structure. When we look at networks, which are an essential aspect of organic structures, we will see that church must structure itself around the natural ebb and flow of the believer’s life. Existing relationships with believer’s and non-believers alike become the very fabric of the church. There ought to be nothing artificial about it. Planting a new church, or remissionalizing an existing one, in this approach isn’t primarily about buildings, worship services, size of congregations, and pastoral care, but rather about gearing the whole community around natural discipling friendships, worship as lifestyle, and mission in the context of everyday life. As a living network ‘in Christ‘ it can meet anywhere, anytime and still be a viable expression of church. This as a much more organic way to plant a church or to revitalize it.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/335173332/

This new series of posts will explore the next critical element in mDNA, the inner structures and systems that embody Apostolic Genius and thus enable metabolic growth (growth that takes place exponentially and organically.)  In this series we will probe as to how the church in its most phenomenal form (when it genuinely manifests Apostolic Genius) organizes itself as a living organism that reflects more how God has structured life itself, as opposed to that of a machine which is the artificial inorganic alterative to a living system. And here we are on fertile Biblical ground because organic images of the church and the Kingdom abound in the Scriptures: images like body, field, yeast, seeds, trees, living temples, vines, animals, etc.. These images are not just verbal metaphors that help us describe the theological nature of God’s people, but are actually go to issues of essence.  Therefore they will need to be re-discovered, re-embraced, and re-lived in order to position us as Jesus’ people for the challenges and complexities facing us in the 21st Century.  We must find a new way to experience ourselves beyond the static, mechanistic, and institutional paradigm that predominates over our ecclesial life.

It should not surprise us that organic images of the church should draw their primary theological funding from the Biblical doctrine of creation, (cosmology) from an ecological, and an intrinsically spiritual view of the world rather than from any of the other disciplines that have conventionally informed leadership and the development of organizations.  Cosmology must guide us into a deeper understanding of ourselves and our function in the world. 

And why would we not look to creation itself for clues as to how God Himself has intended for authentic human life and community to manifest?  All of life bears God’s creative fingerprints and He has filled every aspect of it with intrinsic vitality and intelligence.  The cosmos itself seems to operate in a profoundly intelligent way, the more we find out about it from science, from the structures of atoms, patterns of weather, the migration of birds, the human psyche, the more stunningly ingenious it all seems.  From quarks to supernovas, the universe seems to vibrate with living potency that causes us to be filled with wonder and awe at the sheer omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator-God.

This Cosmic Creator should be no stranger to us. The Scriptures clearly teach that is was the Trinity that was fully involved in the inception of the cosmos and in the maintenance all life.  God the Father speaks the cosmos into being with creative words (Gen.1).  As Father, He is the genesis, the source, of all life.  Christ is portrayed in the Scriptures as the instrument of creation (“by him all things were created”) and is its organizing principle (“in him all things holds together”) (Col.1:15-20, John 1:1-3, Heb.1:2-3.)  The Holy Spirit is described as the essence of life/spirit: it was He who brooded over the chaos of the pre-formed universe and brought forth form, and it was He who has filled every atom of it with design and vivacity.  From atoms to stars, every aspect of creation points to an unbelievably intelligent and utterly powerful Being and looks to him for its ongoing reality and existence (called continuing creation by theologians.) The universe declares the glory of God and is a constant stream of knowledge of, and revelation about, God (Ps.19:1-4.)

Furthermore, this triune Creator-God cannot be divided. God’s presence is found in every part of his universe.  As J.V. Taylor, in his remarkable book, The Christlike God points out that…

“Wherever God exists he exists wholly.  In his infinitude he cradles the universe, yet he knows every atom of its structure from within (italics mine). The truth of God transcendent and of God immanent, his mystery and his availability, must be held together as a single reality, dialectical to human thought but indivisible in itself. The God who is within things is not secondary or less than the God who is beyond. his unfathomable otherness addresses each of us with an intimacy surpassing all other relationships.” 

The doctrine of God’s transcendence informs us that God is beyond his creation…He is far greater than it and that it exists in Him.  But the related doctrine of God’s immanence reveals to us that He is also fully present in even the smallest atom.  He fills the universe as well as transcends it. This means that the whole cosmos, and life itself, is directly connected to God and is therefore filled with the sacred mystery of divine life.  As a means of revelation, Creation can teach us much of the mind of God as to how life ought to be lived.  And because it is the Trinity who creates this world, this does not distract one iota from the truth of God and his redemption as revealed in the Scriptures.  And it is from both creation and Scripture that an organic understanding of the God’s people is gleaned.  

All this is to say that an organic image of church and mission is theologically richer by far than any mechanistic and institutional conceptions of church that we might devise.  This is because it is funded by a sense of God’s intimate relation and investment in his creation.  Followers of Jesus who seek to base their communal life in organic ways find in Scripture, as well as Creation, a rich theological resource to fund and sustain it.  To find a pattern of church closer to life is to move closer to what God intended in creation in the first place. For instance, it turns out that the seemingly obscure and insignificant yeast has much to teach us about working of God’s Kingdom (Matt.13:33.)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/333516465/

We are just about to get to discussing organic system and how they work, but I couldn’t resist posting this about a little know aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as a starter. These principles underlie the organizational life of AA and they are genuinely chaordic. This organization was so far ahead of its time and its impact has been remarkable. Part of the reaon is that they have an organizational system that allows for autonomy and interdependence whist maintaining international identity and achieving their mission. This is no small feat. Look in wonder… Its called The Twelve AA Traditions

1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.


2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.


3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.


4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.


5. Each group has but one primary purpose-to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.


6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.


7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.


8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.


9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.


10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.


11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio and films.


12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/330224198/

Around 2000 at South Melbourne Restoration Community, we restructured our leadership team on this principle and it led to significant movement towards being a missional church. We restructured leadership so that we could ensure that all five ministries were represented on the team, each in turn heading up a team related to the respective APEPT ministries. So we had a apostolic team which focused on the translocal, missional, strategic, and experimental issues facing the church. We had a prophetic team which focused on listening to God and discerning hiswill for us, social justice, and questioning the status quo of an increasingly middle class church. We had an evangelistic team whose task it was to oversee and develop evangelism and outreach. The pastoral team’s task was to develop community, cell-groups, worship, counseling, and to enhance the love capacity of the church. The teaching team’s task was to create contexts of learning and develop the love of wisdom and understanding through bible study, theological and philosophical discussion groups, etc. All were represented by a key leader on the Leadership Team. Whilst at times it creates significant debate on what the key issues facing the church were, it was thoroughly stimulating.

At Leadership Team level we operated this model on the idea of open learning system which allows the team to “fit and split” and to “contend and transcend.” The term “fit” refers to that which binds an organization together (unity). It is the group’s common ethos and purpose. “Split” happens when we intentionally allow for a great diversity of expression in the team (diversity). “Contend” is the permission, even encouragement given by leadership to disagree, debate, and dialogue around core tasks (duality). “Transcend” is the collective agreement everyone makes to overcome disagreement in order find new solutions (vitality, ‘reaching unity in the faith’).

So on just about any ministry issue, the Leadership Team would be pre-committed to the common mission of the group. We were covenanted to do ‘whatever it takes’ to see our mission fulfilled. And given healthy relations within the team, this meant that we allowed for the divergent opinions of each member without being offended. We had lived together, struggled together, faced issues together and our bond to Jesus and this particular expression of his people was strong. It was this sense of ‘fit’ that gave permission for each member to operate out of their own ministry biases and represent their perspectives on the issue at hand. The apostolic person would present or critique in light of the need to galvanize the community around mission. The prophetic types would challenge just about everything and ask irritating questions about how God fitted into our grand schemes. The evangelist would always be trying to emphasize the need to bring people to faith and how what we suggested would achieve that. The pastoral type expressed concerns about how the community could healthily engage the issue sustainably and the theologian would try discerning its validity from scripture and history. The ‘split’ therefore allowed for significant divergence of interests and there were many debates, even arguments (contend). But we would not try resolve debate and disagreement too quickly (this would drive the pastoral types nuts.) But we would sit with the problem until we had assessed all options and had through dialogue and debate arrived at the best solution. An outcome which was likely to be more true to calling, more faithful to God, sensitive to the needs of the not-yet-believers, sustainable and mature, and theologically well grounded.

APEPT, if well led and directed, can operate in a very invigorating way indeed. Most churches seem to prefer more hierarchical structures with a chain-of-command approach and are most often lead by people gifted as pastors and teachers. Such ministry types can tend to avoid conflict or focus primarily on ideas and not action. The resultant organizational culture struggles to find fit and split, contend and transcend. In the operational model decisions are made at the top and filter down to the grass roots. There’s little room for any real interaction and participation around central tasks and ideas. As a result, in many denominational structures and churches the members at the ‘bottom’ of the system can tend to feel silenced and resentful.

A bottom-up approach to APEPT creates a healthy learning system: The dynamic nature of the whole matrix will ensure that an open learning system results from an organization built with such leadership structures. The more outward looking, non-status quo types (in this case A, P & E) will ensure incoming information from outside the system and guarantee a dynamic engagement and growth with the organization’s environment. The more sustaining ministries (like P’l & T) will ensure that the church is not overextended beyond its capacities. All in all it makes for a good balance of church health and missional fitness.

Take the APEST test here. Its great for team dynamics and empowering the people of God.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/328428841/

Moving from the more theological perspectives on Eph 4 ministry, let us take a quick look at the church as a social system to explore further the impact of differing leadership styles based on APEST. When we do this, we discover that Paul’s basic template for ministry and leadership is affirmed by current best practice in leadership and management theory and practice.

“In most human leadership systems it is acknowledged that there may be one or more of the following leadership styles:”

• The entrepreneur, innovator, and ground breaker who initiates a new product, or service, or type of organization


• The questioner or inquirer who probes awareness and fosters questioning of current programming leading to organizational learning (agent provocateur)


• The communicator and recruiter to the organizational cause who markets the idea or product and gains loyalty and allegiance to a brand


• The humanizer or people oriented motivator who fosters a healthy relational system through the management of meaning


• The systematizer and philosopher who is able to clearly articulate the organizational purpose and goals in such a way as to advance corporate understanding

In The Shaping of Things to Come, we comment that the

Various social scientists use different terms for the above categories but recognize that these represent vital contributions that different types of leaders bring to an organization. In most leadership management theory it is assumed that the conflicting agendas and motivations of the above leaders pull them in different directions. However, imagine a leadership system in any setting (corporate, government, political, etc) where the entrepreneurial ground breaker and strategist dynamically interacts with the disturber of the status quo (the questioner). Imagine that both these are in active dialogue and relation with the passionate communicator/recruiter, the person who carries the message beyond organizational borders and sells the idea/s or product/s. These in turn are in constant engagement with the humanizer (HR), the carer, the social cement and the systematizer and articulator of the whole. The synergy in this system would be significant in any context. Clearly the combination of these different leadership styles is greater than the sum of its parts. (174)

These reflections on the dynamics of ministry callings takes us directly to the model proposed by Paul in Ephesians 4; Here we are presented with a dynamic synergy involving diverse interests and motivations held together in a profound harmony aimed at the building up of the whole. A possible socio-dynamic view of the APEPT matrix can be represented as follows:

Just as the various systems in the human body (e.g. the circulation, nervous, digestive, systems) work together to sustain and enhance life, so too in all living systems the various elements in the system inter-relate and serve to augment each other. Dysfunction is the result of a breakdown between various components or agents within the system. When each component operates at peak and harmonizes with the other components, the whole system is enhanced and benefits from synergy—that is where the sum result is greater of the individual parts. So it is with APEPT. When all are present and inter-related in an effective way, the body of Christ will operate at peak. To use Paul’s terms in Eph 4, it ‘grows’, ‘matures’, ‘builds itself up’, and ‘reaches unity in the faith’.

Furthermore, in living systems theory the way to move an organization into adaptive organic mode requires that we (1) develop and enhance relationships, (2) cross pollinate ideas from different specialties and departments, (3) disturb equilibrium by moving to the edge of chaos and, (4) focus information according to organizational mission. Developing a fully functioning APEPT system in a local church, mission agency, or denomination will go a long way to achieving these ends.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/327689726/

Just a note on Rex Miller’s new website. Rex is a respected leader to both the church and business world. His book, The Millennium Matrix, provides a great roadmap for navigating the digital era. The website is full of resources and is updated weekly. The daily blogs provide leading edge insights on digital culture and tools along with thought provoking questions and links to interesting thought leaders. Enjoy.

Today I had the privilege of taking a friend to his fathers funeral.  He didn't know his father well and in many ways I feel like I am fathering him. Josh is one of the most loving people I know.  He has his challenges just like most of us, some would say more than his far share.  Today we talked about how we serve each other, most of the time by just being with each other.  Being with each other in the high and lows of life.  Being there to serve, love and support each other.  Today I thought I would be serving Josh, but in many ways he has helped me see I need him too.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/325990972/

In Matthew 29:29-32 Jesus blasts those who are determined to maintain the illusion that they represent Israel’s righteousness (the pharisees) because of their failure to acknowledge the role of the prophetic in their midst. Here is a powerful series of comments on this text by Stanley Hauerwas in his fantastic commentary on Matthew (highly recommended).

This is a sobering list of failure and judgment, with descriptions of hypocrisy and failure in which we cannot help but see ourselves. It is surely the case, for example, that many are kept from entering the kingdom by the lives we lead as Christians. Our problem is very simple–we simply do not know how to live as a people who believe that Jesus is the resurrected Lord. the joy and freedom that should name the lives of those freed from the demons become lost amid attempts to make our difference depend on matters that do not matter. We become adept at praising the prophets of the past, having lost the ability to discern the prophets among us.

Jesus describes the scribes and the Pharisees as “blind guides”. That they are blind is not unrelated to their desire to be guides. Those who would lead others often fear those they lead, and in particular they fear hurting those they lead. They think it is their task to make the life of those they lead secure. Yet a people who depend on prophets can never live lives of safety. A people required to remember that they area people whose forebears have murdered the righteous cannot live lives of safety. Those who would lead too often must hide from themselves what they know to be true because they think that those whom they lead cannot bear the truth. The blindness of the Pharisees and the scribes is a blindness that threatens the church no less than any people. The only difference between the Pharisees and those who would lead Jesus’ people is that the latter lead a people who have no reason to fear the truth.

Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees is sobering, but we dare not overlook the fact that the criticism Jesus makes of the scribes and Pharisees assumes that the people he is calling to be his church will need to be a people like the Pharisees and scribes. He even says that he will send prophets and scribes to the synagogues and towns of Israel. The church will need persons called to positions that help the church avoid hypocrisy through agents of direction to keep before the church the vision of the kingdom; the church will needs agents of memory to help the church read its scripture and tradition; the church will needs agents of linguistic self-consciousness to guard the church from mental laziness; the church will needs agents of order and due process to isnure unity and encourage participation in the decisions of the church (quote from Yoder, 1984,28-34)

Each of these agents will be tempted to hypocrisy. There is no guarantee that ensures we will lives lives of integrity. Hypocrisy can be avoided only if the church is a community capable of truthful speech. If such a community is missing, then those who would lead are doomed. Jesus’ condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees is severe, [but his]…description of how those called to help Israel live faithfully have come to lead false lives is suffused with pathos. His condemnations are harsh, but what could be worse for the scribes and Pharisees, like any of us, to get the lives they think they wanted.

Stanley Hauerwas, Matthew: Brazos Theological Commentary of the Bible (Brazos; 2006) 199-200

Last night a small group of us helped an elderly lady.  Her basement wall gave way due to the flooding we recently experienced here in Fond du Lac.  Fran is a sweet lady and had no way of getting the mud out of her basement. It's our desirer to continue a relationship with Fran and help her in any way we can. This brought to mind how are disciples made and how are lives transformed for the sake of Christ. For most of us I believe rolling up our sleeves and being the church to the world around us will help us become more Christlike than listening to a pastor teach or by reading a book.  I believe teaching needs to happen and book need to be written, but more than that we need to act our way into a new way of being.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheForgottenWays/~3/323703240/

Missional church requires a missional ministry and leadership system.  For the most part, the Christendom church obscured the need for a fully fledged missional leadership system because the self understanding of the church became fundamentally non-missional. Because all citizens were deemed to be Christians all what was really needed were the pastoral and teaching ministries to care for and teach the congregation. These were eventually instituted as offices in the church and became the principal metaphors for church leadership. The net effect is that the whole system weighted itself in favor of maintenance and pastoral care and that these became hegemonic in practice and therefore and both fragmented and distorted the total mission and ministry of the church in favor of only part of its calling.

A direct consequence of this was that the apostolic, the prophetic, and the evangelistic, ministries and leadership styles were marginalized and effectively ‘exiled’ from the church’s official ministry and leadership. This is not to say that these ministries have totally disappeared. Far from it: many within current and historical church life have exercised these ministries without specifically being tagged ‘apostles’ or ‘prophets’, but by and large these lacked formal legitimacy and recognition and they have tended to be exercised outside of the context of the local church, denominational systems, and seminaries. This ‘exiling’ in part gave rise to the development of parachurch agencies and missional orders, each with a somewhat atomized ministry focus. E.g. the Navigators arose out of a calling to evangelize and disciple people outside of the church structures because the church was not effective (or interested?) in this. Sojourners emerged to represent the social justice concerns that the church by and large ignores. World Vision as an Aid and Development agency, etc. But in these were generally initiated and maintained the APE type leadership styles. This divorce of APE from PT has been disastrous for the local church and has damaged the cause of Christ and his mission.

In order to understand the different nature of each of these ministries we need to briefly explore the core task/functions of each, the effect when it monopolizes and dominates in isolation from the others, and the effect when it is integrated with the other ministries. The easiest way to do this is within a comparative table. It is as follows…