Showing posts with label gospel. Show all posts

I've discussed the distinction between "leadership" and "discipleship" before. They are two disciplines/functions that have so much interplay that they are often blended together, which can be hazardous at times.

In a recent discussion about cross-cultural leadership/discipleship issues within the context of global missions, Keith Anderson reiterated how much a healthy understanding of the relationship and distinctions between L&D is to the deployment of healthy practices - particularly with church planting.

Before referencing some outstanding scholarship that has been produced recently around cross-cultural leadership dynamics (GLOBE project), he highlighted how the sequencing and confusion of these 2 practices can play out in church planting contexts...

(1) You can focus on leadership principles alone. You must wrestle with effectively transmitting the principles in ways that are transferrable to that culture, of course. (something Enrique Fernandez succinctly captures in his teaching on Leadership Extrapolation) The hazard is that you can create dynamic organizational structures and learning systems that fail to draw people to Christ, transform the world or truly touch the Kingdom agenda of God. Certainly, followers will be created ("disciples"?), but not necessarily growing towards Christ and by Him.

(2) You can focus on discipleship. This is most commonly the practice in church-planting, and logically so. You send a team, proclaim the Gospel, teach people to read, pray and go share the story of Christ, rinse-lather-repeat. A by-product of this is certainly that "leaders" are generated as the recipient of the Gospel who turns and shares with others inherits leadership responsibilities and influence over them. This is the primary commissioning of Christ-followers and is the ground floor for reaching new people groups. However, the practices of initially seeding disciples are not effective at cultivating healthy leadership that is sustainable, replicable, and developmental in nature.

(3) You can disciple with a plan for intentional follow-up and leadership development. This is (as you've guessed) the recommended approach. In this you lead off fundamentally, but have the discipline and commitment to follow it up with continued learning, investment and equipping so that indigent leaders can be supported in their generational work of living out our shared Commission in their locale.

I've certainly seen these principles validated - in Haiti, Honduras, Argentina, Mexico, Ireland and the US. Myopic emphasis on just L or D creates an organizational anemia that hinders the Body and creates cyclical resource expenditure by congregations that fail to accumulate for net progression. There is incredible opportunity, however, when a healthy outlook is achieved that allows for seasons, stages and a metamorphosis-based approach.

The principles are not just a function of scale - it works down to the ministry team, small group and similar level. As a leader, are you differentiating between the functional purpose of development efforts - to disciple, to infuse with leadership to further the cause of Kingdom advancement, additional discipleship to provide the depth from which to lead spiritually even further, etc? Have you seen hazards from L&D being confused, or a lack of any intentional plan to develop along either tracks?

Yesterday this guy was preaching about the "power of words" and their value to build up and encourage fellow believers. He even addressed the concept of taking "risk" to encounter conflict or get your hands dirty by wading into the water of a situation for the sake of another person. For many of us, the mental picture turned to unpleasant individuals in our lives or situations we know are so messy we'll likely get a headache in the process.

Then, this morning a CNN report briefly mentions a South African lady who voluntarily waded into the waters of Afghanistan to help disabled people and was ruthlessly assassinated by the Taliban for proclaiming the Gospel. Martyred in the year 2008 in a region occupied by the world's most powerful and "Christian" nation.

On the scale or risks we can take, I think we should remember that 98% of us will never truly experience the cost of discipleship, price of following and depth of risk a majority frontier Christians have for centuries.

Let us therefore....Go.

A recommended read on missions, evangelism, church life, community: "Christianity Rediscovered" by Vincent Donovan. A Catholic priest sent on missions to the Masai tribe of Tanzania.

After successfully communicating the Gospel with 7 local tribes, he prepares to leave them to their own journey of faith and asks them what role or label they would have for a "priest" or "pastor" equivalent. He describes their process:

'What will you call the one who takes my place, the one from your community who will do my job among you when I am gone?' They discussed it at length. Certainly not laibon or witch doctor - they were rid of this pagan domination. Also not legwanan or chief - for what role of chief would their be in a people of Christ? No olkarsis (rich one/powerful one), olkitok (head one) ...They chose to equate this role to a man present in every community - a man always interested in all of the flocks of a tribe, not just his one and supporting the phases of life of a community: ilaretok (helper or servant of community).

He goes on to discuss how critical it was that he present the Gospel free of systems, developments or constructs not required by Christ - and let their culture experience the eucharist-like transformation of having the love of Jesus at its center. Here's an excerpt on his imperative for this:

We must be reminded that it is dangerous to preach the gospel as part of any system. The gospel is lost through any such identification. This identification of gospel with system has been made more than once, and in the end we are confronted with astounding conclusions: the gospel is monarchy, the divine right of kinds; the gospel is democracy; the gospel is capitalism - so said the Calvinists; the gospel is apartheid - so say the South Africans of old; the gospel is Marxism, the gospel is African socialism...The Gospel is none of these things. The Gospel is not progress or development. It is not nation building. It is not adult education. It is not a school system. It is not a health campaign. It is not a five-year plan. It is not an economic program. It is not a ranching scheme or water development. It is not an independence movement. it is not the freedom fighters. It is not the liberation movement. It is not the black power movement. It is not...No one would deny the connection between the gospel and development...what has to be denied is the mutual identification of the two things. Our business, as Christians, is the establishment of the Kingdom.

A great testament to consider.

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place...You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.