The following material continues the critiques found in the post on Methodological Models that are NOT Missional. Check that post for my list of missional paradigm assumptions, values, operational system elements, etc., by which I am evaluating these various models whose leaders sometimes claim them to be missional.

I have several more models to critique, and then will re-edit them into the original post, along with new sections that give brief descriptions of each model. I also plan to eventually add a section to each critique that summarizes “what it’s got that’s good” that may resonate with being missional. And perhaps a section on the kinds of actions that could be taken to readjust the deepest levels of these paradigms in order to move toward missional. (Whoa! That’s probably a whole post, or a book or something!)

But for the time being, perhaps it’s best just to sit with the points on where a model falls short of the missional paradigm and wrestle with those issues – not attempt to negate the criticisms by countering with a model’s good points, regardless of whether those points are missional-friendly or not. Having good points still leaves the missional paradigm gaps that need to be filled …

MORE ABOUT THE CHAPLAIN AND CEO-MANAGER MODELS

As I was thinking about methodological models this past week, it struck me that the chaplain pastor approach is often reinforced by a congregation that wants to have its own way and go its own way. Basically, they see their chaplain/pastor as being there to do their bidding. It is possible that the CEO-manager approach to pastoring emerged as a reaction that attempts to counteract that kind of congregational overcontrol. Unfortunately, it didn’t solve the problem of overcontrol, just shifted the person who is in control. 

PARADIGM SHIFTING IN A COMPUTER ANALOGY

As a reminder, just because each methodological model I critique demonstrates deficiencies or excesses in relation to the missional paradigm, the model can still be changed. Because models flow from the assumptions in their entire paradigm system, it will take far more than attempts to micro-tweak or remix the model with various patches and de-bugging, or by adding some emulator program so the old paradigm PC desktop is disguised to look like a new paradigm Mac. Sluggish functioning won’t keep you going in the world as it is becoming. At some point, getting up to speed will require deleting the temp files and your search history, and defragging to reintegrate all the bits and pieces into a coherent system – and/or make the leap to an entirely different platform, realizing that not all application programs will be able to translate and transfer!

More about paradigm shifts in the computer platform analogy another time … I know I’ve got an article I wrote on that about five years. Time to pull it out of storage, dust it off, and see what’s relevant in it for today. 

THE STAFF-LED CHURCH MODEL IS INHERENTLY NOT MISSIONAL

Description. In a staff-led model of being/doing church, a limited number of paid staff members are responsible either to decide on what ministries are undertaken and implement the leadership of them, or only to implement the ministries that a CEO-manager pastor and/or governing board determine. (In some variations, there is a three-way splitting among decision-makers, implementers, and overseers/accountability board.) Key distinguishing features of a staff-led model are (1) that a group at the top of the hierarchy decides what is initiated as an “official” ministry of the church, and (2) there is usually little or no opportunity for the average congregation member to initiate new ministry development.

Processing Mode. The staff-led model manifests the same problems of black-and-white, either/or thinking that lead to segmentation and classism as seen in the deepest levels of the chaplain pastor and CEO models. In this case, though, the division is applied to professional staff as a group instead of to the pastor as just one person. Similarly, it also leads to consumerism, as the average attender consumes the leadership produced by the staff.

Critical Values. I think where the staff-led model most conflicts with the critical values of missional is in redemptive transformation, specifically in how we reach spiritual maturity. The goal of transformation is to become more Christlike. This means growing up, no longer being as children, stretching toward maturity. Although it would seem that a professional staff could more easily lead and model the way to maturity, there is an inherent weakness at that very point. By their determining what will be taught, which ministries will be implemented, how worship services will be presented, etc., the staff actually uses a pedagogical model for “growth.” This means the staff act as The Experts who know best, and it assumes the congregants are The Recipients.

As I have stated elsewhere on educational models:

I believe mentoring should include two main things. … First, help individuals and social groups work toward a broad understanding of the whole counsel of God, from biblical themes about God and His relationships with people, to concerns of morality, creativity, imagination, ethics, appropriate mysticism/reflection, etc. Second, customize biblical truth and wisdom for working on personal/social transformation issues that the individual/group indicates a readiness to address, while also challenging gently and perseveringly on other issues they aren’t yet willing/ready to tackle.  

In my way of thinking, this helps keep two polar opposite teaching approaches in a vital, dynamic tension – pedagogy and andragogy. We need pedagogy, where those who are more mature in the understanding and applying Scripture serve as experts who teach and mentor novices/less advanced disciples in what they will ultimately need to know. We also need andragogy, where those who are learners set the agenda, based on what they are ready and willing to learn. Pedagogy alone leads to a long-term theoretical knowledge base, but without regular enough application to current situations. Andragogy alone leads to a short-term application base, but without the big-picture framework of the whole counsel of God in order to interpret life wisely in the long-term. Either one alone can lead to a consumerist mentality; both together hopefully leads to participant learners with a Kingdom producerist reality.

If the pedagogical expert approach is the only decision-maker and educator mode in place, it ultimately freezes the everyday disciple in the role of a child. And how is that healthy - even if it is convenient and appears to be effective – in terms of what has to be done to do the work of ministry? Won’t it at the very least slow the development of disciples who lead, if not completely block that goal? (For more background, study the biblical concepts of how the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and the cultural concept in the New Testament era of how a paidagogos served as a custodian in charge of a child until the child reached adulthood.)

This conundrum is not resolved by letting congregants in effect dictate everything through their felt needs. No, there are still many things that all disciples need to learn and practice – whether they realize it or not, and those who are more mature disciples with more experience can help the immature ones discover those requirements. Nor is this problem resolved by a full-on shift to andragogy where “we the people decide what we want to learn and do” and thereby the dictatorship has shifted from the top of the hierarchical pyramid to the base. (My sense is that, sometimes, groups which are attempting to be more missional trade one extreme for the opposite, which is equally incomplete in its perspective.)

The resolution lies in a dynamic tension which involves both pedagogy and andragogy – but with a difference. In a paradoxical approach, we must use both methods, but contextualize each and apply the appropriate content to the appropriate audiences: pedagogy to teach/train each disciple in core of Christlike faith, practices, and new-to-them life skills and ministry skills, and andragogy for those disciples who are ready to tackle  advanced concerns on individual issues, needs, giftings, ministry development, etc.

Guiding Theological Principles. I would suggest that, at its best, discerning the direction for a group of disciples involves activation and inclusion of members who are appropriately gifted and sufficiently mature – along with careful listening to the input of other members in the Body. When that discernment/decision-making process is limited to professional staff, the discernment is limited by their aggregate of spiritual giftings, spiritual maturity, and listening abilities. It’s too easy for each of us to see the world only through the lens of our own giftings and perspectives. So, I suspect that a staff-led situation often blocks the usage of certain spiritual gifts by gifted and sufficiently mature members. Also, I’d be concerned about the strong possibility of assuming that there is sufficient knowledge and wisdom within the staff to address every problem well.

Operating Systems. My observation is that staff-led churches rarely seem to have processes in place for new ministry development initiated by congregation members – that power and privilege is reserved for the staff. This means very limited roles of entrepreneurial ministry leadership are possible for congregants, regardless of their spiritual giftings and maturity. A typical parallel result is what’s called “slotting,” the creation of generic activity roles in ministry that do not necessarily require any special gifting or relative maturity level. Anybody could serve in that slot. But because such positions are not gift based, people in them often burn out, even if they have a passion for that particular ministry and whom it serves. In contrast, missional endeavors involve mentoring people into matches with specific positions that are appropriate to their spiritual giftings and maturity level.

Also, if staff members are professionals who are responsible to lead people, they likely experienced critical deficiencies in their training. Most seminaries and leadership programs include little training or practical experience in such important skills for leading people as:

  • How to catalyze a team, equip the next generation of leaders, and pass the baton to them.
  • How to supervise staff and volunteers, as well as how to mentor and disciple them.
  • How to deal with conflict within a team – including how to identify whether the conflicts are based in personalities, different spiritual maturity levels, cultural backgrounds, sin patterns, etc., and to bring resolution in ways that befit the causes.

Without these abilities, staff members expend their energies in serving, not invest their energies in equipping servants. It is a consumption model, not a sustainability model.

Conclusion – Key Anti-Missional Issues. Unless there are other intentional efforts at play, a staff-led model ultimately proves counterproductive to becoming missional, if not highly anti-missional. It assumes a low view of what every disciple needs, and what every disciple could accomplish. It tends to keep people at the level of spiritual children by doing all the discerning and deciding for them. It is anti-entrepreneurial by reserving the development of church ministries to staff alone, and frequently contradicts the realities of the priesthood of every believer by slotting people into minimal roles that keep a ministry going but at the cost of unused gifts in the Body.