Showing posts with label missiology. 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?

Enrique Fernandez was asked for some key axioms pertaining to the local church effectively engaging cross-cultural missions, leadership and discipleship based upon his work and experience. His response:

The local church must take the "s" off of Missions, and instead focus on the Mission of God (singular). The world-wide mission of God is one of restoring all people to relationship with Himself and ushering in His Kingdom. The work of the local church is to participate in this universal Mission. The implication is to approach each culture, destination or people group with a mindset of discerning what His work is in that place and determining our role in participating.

This kind of mindset demands a vulnerability to reflect upon our own agendas and presuppositions of culture and consider that of our surroundings. it requires us to commit not to a single location as much as God's work there, listening and learning. It involves thinking about sustainable efforts and long-term investments that are about seeing God's design fully lived out in that place over attainable projects for us to come back from having touched.


Certainly this axiom, while spoken in relation to outbound missions, has application for leaders in any context. How often do you step back and wrestle with the Mission of God for the people you're interacting with, versus making "a mission" out of your efforts? How effective, when working with people from another culture, are you at discerning between the form of your own American culture from the essence of Christ in evaluating their situation?

*Quote from goLead Cross-Cultural Leadership & Discipleship Symposium (2009, Wayside Chapel)

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.