It’s taken nearly a week since the Allelon “Missional Order” summit at Seabeck, Washington, to get my initial processing together. I suspect a significant amount of off-loading of thoughts is about to occur, so brace yourselves! Also, I’ll need to preface my comments so you can better understand the context from which I write.

Okay … here goes.

These kinds of events always seem to be difficult for me in some way or another, and the Allelon summit was no different in that regard. Perhaps these things are emotionally painful and physically exhausting because the way I’m wired is to analyze details and interpret contexts. Constantly. Rarely does the processing seem to shut off, often, even when I would like it to or “command it to be so.”

What can make such meetings so painful is that my entire being is engaged as the instrument by which I take in mountains of information. All five senses are going (usually overtime) – and I’m not even an “S”/sensory on the Myers-Brigg Temperament Indicator (MBTI), which means as a high “N”/intuitive I’m constantly reading between the lines of what I’m observing, and attempting to “gestalt” the holistic system of it, despite being only a slight “P”/perceiver. Plus I’ve learned the importance of trying to stay in touch with “gut feelings” as an important source of input – and I’m only a slight “F”/feeler on the MBTI, though people would probably suspect I’m an more of a “T”/thinker. And don’t even get me started on the fact that as an “I”/introvert, being with people wears me out. And then, there are always “flights of imagination” (sometimes known as daydreaming, whether in an engaging response to someone who is speaking or in an effort to disengage).

[Sidenote: Other learning style factors tend to balance out what could be seen as gaps in my MBTI. For instance, the very analytic Cognitive Style which counterbalances the “P” with “J”-like features, and the predominantly Concrete Random and Abstract Random Mind Styles boost the low levels of “S”/sensate and “E”/extravert. Which means, I end up with sort of a tie on everything in MBTI. No wonder I experience so much cognitive dissonance, emotional ambivalence, and interpretive irony!]

[P.S. I know few people needed that much detail, but some will, in order to understand what follows.]

Conflicted, pained, and exhausted or not, I long ago learned that God often uses our persevering through difficulties in order to bring about some redemptive purposes in His plan. So, I do try to discern whether the Holy Spirit is leading me to attend an event, even while knowing the toll it will take. And I know it will generally take me at least a few weeks to process everything. It’s a costly proposition, one that I can currently only do a couple times a year. Still, since we are each a “providential package” of learning styles and spiritual gifts and natural abilities and passionate biases, it isn’t all about us anyway. If we’re led to go, as disciples practicing the discipline of followship, then we go, eh? That’s one thing that helps move us as individuals forward in Christlikeness, and moves us corporately forward in Kingdom Culturosity. Sometimes our presence may be more for the benefit of those we meet instead of for ourselves, or perhaps it’s about planting seeds that will sprout sometime in the future rather than when we want them to sooner.

And so, to use an analogy, my going to a conference is kind of like signing up to be a human MRI scanner. By going, I commit myself to create as rich as possible of a three-dimensional snapshot of what I sense is going on in a system.
As in all situations, the fuller truth is found in the video, not in a snapshot. Only a SERIES of snapshots over time can tell us where someone or something is headed … whether the trajectory is moving toward Christlikeness and Kingdom culture, or away from them. That’s why I try not to enter or exit relationships lightly. (In other words, I affirm a type of covenant in relationship.) Also, that being the case, I really do seek to grant people the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are sincere in what they are hoping to present and/or accomplish. It takes multiple times together – for me, at least – to get a more clear sense of what the trajectory truly is: toward the Kingdom, away from the Kingdom, or just being in orbit around concepts of the Kingdom.

And it is clear that leaders from Allelon have been moved by the Holy Spirit over several years toward the point of catalyzing this summit. They’ve sensed the Spirit’s shaping in their own lives, and found confirmation from others worldwide who believe some kind of rule of life and missional training system is needed. It seemed to be the fullness of time, I was glad to be able to participate, and I hope my observations and opinions will be of help in pulling the movement forward.

That said, there were several things that I found hard to deal with because of my own biases, passions, giftings, experiences, learning styles, whatever. These primarily revolve around issues of culture – which, if you know me at all, you know that this seems to be what my life’s purpose revolves around, in terms of ministry. Specifically, I wrestled with (and continue to wrestle with) three interwoven issues of dynamic tension:

  • Letting the Spirit unfold things AND being intentional in our shaping of things.
  • Self AND other, as seen in gender, generations, race, place (country of origin), and mindspace (virtual tribe).
  • Creating a new culture AND transforming an existing culture.

A last caveat: I’m known as offering a cautionary voice – asking questions that no one seems willing or able to ask – as well as offering a constructive voice with, hopefully, a stance of persevering with the saints as our journey together sometimes seems more a trudge than not. I don’t perceive myself as a respecter of persons, though I try to be a respectful person. I know what I will say will likely irritate some, and relieve others. So be it. With that in mind, here are some thoughts on my experience of the Allelon event …

First steps are a big deal precisely because they are creating a new culture – implanting the “DNA” of a group or movement. It’s a critical moment. And it’s not that we must be perfect (how modernistic!) in order to ensure survival and sustainability. However, in my studies of human genetics, I’ve noted there is a crucial pattern to reproducibility, which is significant part of what the Missional Order and training missional leaders are all about. When the gender genetics of an unborn child have either an X or Y chromosome that is missing, extra, or broken, if the child survives, it generally is sterile, or at least has reduced fertility.

For example, in Turner’s Syndrome, there is an XO combination instead of XX. (The “O” stands for a missing or abnormal second X chromosome.) These children have a female body type, but rarely go through puberty, are almost universally infertile. Or, in Klinefelter’s Syndrome, there is an XXY combination instead of XY. These children have male reproductive organs, but generally have difficulty reproducing. Also, the double X makes their body develop female-like fat deposits in their hips, thighs, and breasts.

In the past 13 years, I’ve been part of about a dozen ministry pioneering and church planting experiences. In at least three situations, I realized in retrospect that the initial DNA was incomplete or “got messed with.” One was a church plant that had the potential to go from a highly diverse, multicultural team to an “postmodern-friendly,” intercultural body; it faltered in part because the leader could not stretch culturally any more, and he pulled things back to his default setting of modernistic. One was a church-within-a-church where the sponsoring church leaders eventually pulled the reigns of control and from there, all passion was lost and it was shut down shortly thereafter. One was a student ministry which was probably too far ahead of its time and did not have enough support from the staff member who was supposed to supervise it. The staffer did not share the practitioner team’s vision, and this once-vibrant ministry eventually imploded.

In all three cases, you could have captured a specific, “decisive moment,” to use the term applied by the world-class photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson. He is quoted as saying, “To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression.” In that amazing moment that is presented on the run by life events, and intuitively organized by a perceptive eye, it seems clear enough what action the subjects are about to undertake, what trajectory they are about to embark upon or disembark from. For NONE of these three churches or ministry did their decisive moment come at their first meeting, but the roots of their eventual crisis point did build up from earlier issues. (Those are other lengthy stories for some other time or place.)

My sense of things is that Allelon’s Missional Order and missional training are not yet at their decisive moments. However, there are culture-implanting genetic issues that need to be addressed if this is indeed to become a sustainable movement, as all those of there seemed to hope for. Here are some of my key concerns.

Suppose for a moment that this Allelon meeting was a church plant, and I was attempting to project into the future what this Missional Order would look like, based on its “Spiritual DNA of Origin.” From all I witnessed before and during it, this organization would appear to predominantly welcome Caucasian male disciples with a decidedly Celtic theological and spiritual perspective, who are engaged in vocational ministry. There was no racial diversity, although there was some diversity represented in gender and generations, with five women and about five men age 40 and under. There was little diversity in vocations, as there were only a few (from people’s stories, perhaps just 2 or 3?) who are not paid by a church, parachurch ministry, or non-profit agency. And yes, not all of us were Celtically inclined.

As best I can recall, Allelon facilitators shared that the summit was purposely advertised minimally in order to be relatively off the radar. They picked a time and place that might not be very convenient to attend, and which facilities limited the total to 50. They also prayed for people of the Spirit’s choosing to find out, register, and show up. Therein lies the tension for me between letting things unfold, and being strategically intentional.

It’s my observation from life in multicultural settings that genuine inclusiveness does not happen naturally, and rarely via supernatural intervention only. Inclusiveness takes our intentionality, and it’s hard work! The same applies to integration from multicultural into intercultural; just because we are surrounded by multiple nationalities and races, both genders and multiple generations, that does not make us integrated. It seems to me that the ways chosen to structure this summit almost guaranteed that the people who DID show up were nearly the only kinds who COULD show up – vocational Christians whose jobs allowed the time and/or funds to go, and those are still primarily men.
In reading blog posts from various participants, and comments from both those who attended and those who didn’t, it’s apparent that gender is an exceptionally sore issue. If we can’t get through the structural issues that tend to shut women out of such formative events, how will we validate our stated goal of training missional leaders from next generations?

Months ago, I invited three women to consider coming to Seabeck for the summit. All three function as church planting/missional strategist-practitioners. One attended and, by her own account, gained significant perspective on her work. Another felt like from my best-effort description that this was going to be yet another emerging/missional “bound set” sort of event, and she opted out. The facilities really didn’t make it feasible for the third to attend, though she was interested – this rock-out, already-missional-order mom happens to be nursing a child … and I did ask in advance specifically if/how the set-up of the facilities would work for her situation.

Whenever I see an event of interest, it is my practice to pray, discern, decide, and invite. Sometimes that invitation goes out as widely as possible, other times to just a few specific people. However, I always am aware of the need for bringing together perspectives of both men and women at strategic gatherings. I mentor both men and women, singles and couples, in their 20s and 30s. In the presence of men and women, I raise questions about the gender balance, if that seems necessary. (And although I occasionally talk about “old white guys,” I am one myself, and I generally feel little if any remorse that I apply that label in a way that some find agitating, if it appears to me that some challenge is warranted.)

I tend to agree with the notion that women may ask but cannot demand to be included; men must take the initiative to ensure the inclusion of our sisters. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with “political correctness.” No, it’s an intensely theological issue. In my understanding, the scriptural reality is that healing from relational wounds most deeply occurs when steps toward reconciliation are initiated by an agent of healing who parallels the kind of person who inflicted the damage.

For me, this provocative truth for transformation arises from Romans 5:9-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. These state that by one man (Greek: andros – MALE), the First Adam, sin entered the world and death came as a result of sin. The Second/Last Adam, Christ, resolved the issues of sin and death both by taking upon Himself the penalty for sin and by removing the separation caused by sin. Jesus Christ is a representative male agent of healing who brings relational restoration to those who were excluded because of another male. I find it amazing that His work addresses the most profound issues of both major categories of cultures worldwide: guilt-based cultures, which have their core issue of justice for wrongdoing resolved in Christ, and shame-based cultures, which have the issue of relational brokenness likewise resolved in Christ. If this is an accurate understanding, it means that reconciliation done in the name of Jesus is a contextually redemptive action that should be able to “travel” worldwide. And that’s something very substantive to ponder, pray about, and see how we can practice practical reconciliation in the midst of a world that is ripped asunder in every demographic way imaginable.

To me, it makes more sense if we deal with structural issues of inclusion or exclusion through the theology of reconciliation instead of through liberation theology, power-nomics, or anti-patriarchalism transmogrified into misandry (i.e., the hatred of men. To quote C.S. Lewis, “Hatred blurs all distinctions,” and we need to exercise caution about condemning a whole category of people for the faults of one or more of its representatives). The world systems often push us to welcome the previously marginalized into the realms of power, but what too often happens is that just expands the number of purveyors of power instead of multiplies agents of peace. Now whole new groups have structural access to “do unto others what was previously done unto them.” And where’s the Gospel in that?

No, women can’t fully heal women in those areas where men have wrought the damage. (Nor the reverse – men can’t fully bring healing to men when they have been wounded by women.) If we are to have a gender-inclusive missional movement, men – as the default people in control – must take the risk to make special efforts to include, invite, listen to, and mentor women. We must equip, empower, and encourage them in moving toward their providential giftedness. We must together work to figure out how to structure our strategies in ways that create an appropriately open system for whosoever wants to become a missional leader. We are bound together already as siblings in the Body of Christ, so this is post-Christendom task is a rest-of-our-lives thing, not just a beginning-of-this-movement thing.

Bottom line: Even if we as men have not caused direct damage by excluding women, I believe we will be causing direct damage if we fail in our role as redemptive agents who should include women.

Meanwhile, I believe the same principles apply to differences based on generation, race, learning styles, etc. Moving from mono-demographics to multi-demographics to intercultural-disciplographics is one of the great challenges of the Kingdom. And it isn’t just us “old white guys” that hold the keys on all of this. Last time I checked, most demographic groups AND virtual tribes put up walls against others, both inside and outside their group. But the genius of the Gospel is that it crosses every single category and barrier we can conceive of. (And here, I will quote the famous philosopher … okay, so it was Dana Carvey … “To label me is to ignore me.”) If we cannot break through our multifaceted forms of elitism, then we are, in essence, followers of Gnosticism, not Christianity, where only smart [or rich, or brown, or green, or matriarchal, or Millennial … people count].

Whew! Well, I warned that this would likely be lengthy. Just a few more points on issues of cultural transformation, and then it’s time to end for now.

In www.nextreformation.com, a post-Seabeck blog entry by Len Hjalmarson talks about how a Missional Order involves shared practices, not just shared vision, and that shared practices are what shape a culture. I think this makes sense. In addition to reflecting on what it means to create a culture based on shared practices, I believe it will be important that Allelon leaders and fellow-travelers eventually consider other angles on cultural transformation. For instance:

  • How do cultures typically change in times of relative calm?
  • How do cultures tend to change when external forces dictate that things can never again be how they were?
  • How do individualistic cultures become transformed into communal/communitas cultures?
  • How do traditionalistic communal cultures stop squelching the creative contributions of individuals which would actually allow the culture to survive in the midst of radical global change?
  • How do we change culture?
  • How do cultures change us?

All of these topics surfaced briefly, but were not explored at the Seabeck summit. However, I believe they are essential to consider before launching into whatever steps may be next for establishing the Missional Order and whatever emerges for missional training structures and strategies. (And my hunch is that they may figure especially into the culminating “decisive moment” for the development of missional training.)

Well, time for me to end for now.

May the Lord who brought us into His own household transform us into people of peace who are implanted into the neighborhoods of our nations, for the sake of His Kingdom.

Blessings – Brad 

Jump forward to Missional Order, Part 2 – Missional Order Reflections, Two Weeks Out.