When combined with leading edge postmodern congregational laboratories, its radical themes provide the potential to:
- Eliminate institutionalism
- Avoid burnout among staff and lay leaders
- Drop the casualty rate among missional teams from 95% to 0
- Ignore the bell curve statistics and entropic principles (which insist upon the inevitability of a cooling pattern), create sustainability in health and growth patterns and perpetuate congregational life
- Double or triple the amount of real front line ministry for the same cost (the stewardship advantage)
Here are some immediate reasons we can depend upon the PMB approach as an appropriate framework for postmodern, multicultural ministry.
- Paul's missionary team thrived on the kind of culture shifting turbulence that we are experiencing in this new millennium.
- Paul's missionary band was cross-cultural from day one.
- The spread of the first century church was more missional than institutional.
- The band employed teams and leadership principles appropriate to our postmodern setting.
- Their characteristics have been present in all the great historical movements of Christian revival and growth from Paul to McGavran.
I believe that in the study of Paul's missionary journeys, several important points are often overlooked. These points center on the crucial issues of selection, training and strategy.
a. Paul's selection. In Acts 11 we see that it was Barnabas who recruited
Paul to join the missionary team ministering to the new Gentile churches in Antioch of Syria. As the initiating team leader, Barnabas was the one who spiritually discerned the potential of Paul and recognized his aptitude to reach those outside the Jerusalem world. Because of this talent for sensing and releasing gifts, Barnabas was able to link Paul to a highly appropriate pioneer mission.
The role of Barnabas has been undervalued in most commentaries. His leadership was critical in the team's development and outcomes. Without the spirit-filled discernment of Barnabas, there would not have been the rapid multiplication of churches through Paul's leadership. The tendency of most leadership development studies is to focus on the second or third generation leader, without recognizing the importance of the one who initially saw the potential and then acted upon those instincts.
Notice the progression. A naturally gifted man, Paul was selected by an astute and committed leader, Barnabas. The foresight and the trust modeled by Barnabas are two critical selection requirements that leadership demands. Paul then adopted this same pattern that he observed in the ministry of Barnabas. He learned quickly to discern and trust leaders, and to let go of them early.
I see a quite different pattern in churches where I minister. Repeatedly I hear pastors tell me that none of their new converts, and very few of their volunteers are ready to assume leadership. This results in both lack of growth and internal tension. The underlying cause is the resistance of most pastors to give over their position to those who appear to them to be backward and untutored.
b. Paul's training. The way in which Paul's training was conducted is also overlooked. As Dean Gilliland points out, Paul did not train anyone for ministry. He trained them in ministry. Paul's apprenticing style was learning by doing. He believed that Christians could best learn while serving.
Matriculation took place at baptism, with appointment to ministry following almost immediately, even while engaged in the first courses of study. They were not only to be instructed, but were to teach as well, beginning with the first day after their conversion (Rom.15: 14, Phil 1:5, Col. 3:16).
Our tendency is to insist upon a sequence which delays participation in ministry until there has been what we perceive to be, sufficient, supervised learning. We over prepare and under empower. The greatest gift we can give newly formed missional teams is the right to think out and act out the Christian life for them.
c. Paul's strategy. Most studies of Paul's missionary journeys do not emphasize the structural pattern that was established by this pioneer team. In Acts 13:2 we read, "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." This pioneer team, engaged in what Wagner describes as the Cyprus and Cyrene Mission, was called to separate itself from the rest of the church for a special mission.
Ralph Winter uses the term sodality to describe these legitimate specialized teams. The other, more "normal" redemptive structure in Paul's day was the local synagogue. As Barnabas and Paul were sent out they built upon the familiar structure of the Jewish proselytizing bands Jesus referred to in Mt. 23:15, which functioned apart from the local synagogues.
According to Winter the very fabric of the Christian movement will be torn apart if either the warp or the woof does not play its essential purpose. The warps are the longitudinal, vertical or modality structures, whereas the woofs are the lateral, horizontal or sodalic structures. Groups with membership restrictions such as age, gender, or disciplinary standards are sodalities; those that are non-restrictive and that in principle desire to include everyone, are modalities.
There are several characteristics of Paul's missionary strategy which illustrate the advantages of sodalities:
- Their ability to attract the unchurched and to incorporate new Christians is undeniably superior to the ability of modal structures.
- Although their existence has created tension for churches throughout the ages, they are not an aberration, but a complementary, biblical vehicle for reaching non-Christians.
- Missional teams should be allowed as much autonomy to design and complete their calling as church polity will permit. Bureaucratic restrictions and effective mission are incompatible.
The strategy of Paul and Barnabas was quite different from the normal, modality strategy at the Church of Jerusalem. The intricate relationship between Barnabas and Paul proved itself not only in their rapid formation of reproducing Christian communities, but also in the delicate communication with Jerusalem. Barnabas was the encourager. Whenever Barnabas found a person or a cause needing to be encouraged, he supplied all that he could.
Paul on the other hand, consistently created a stir wherever he went. According to F.F. Bruce, when Paul left for Tarsus after his 15 days in Jerusalem, they probably breathed a sigh of relief.
He had been a thorn in their flesh in his persecuting days. They were to learn that Paul the Christian could also be a disturbing presence. Trouble was liable to break out every time he visited Jerusalem.
This is what missional team leaders typically do. They make things happen, and they create tensions. They also need someone like Barnabas to go before and after them. Another example of this divine partnership in action was the critical selection of Barnabas during the investigation of the rapid growth of the churches at Antioch, recorded in Acts 11:21-23.
Since the leaders of the Jerusalem church exercised supervision and control over the spread of the gospel into adjacent territories, had someone other than Barnabas been selected a quite different outcome might have occurred.
There were probably some who suspected wild syncretism, since the forward movement at Antioch presented features which some members of the church of
Jerusalem would have found deeply disturbing. But through the lens of
Barnabas they accepted these strange developments. Barnabas, the encourager, found much cause for satisfaction.
And now for the footnotes for those that love to see the sources.
1. For a technical profile of Barnabas, see Laura Raab and Bobby Clinton,
Barnabas, Encouraging Exhorter: A Study in Mentoring (Barnabas Resources, Pasadena, 1985).
2. Dean S. Gilliland, Pauline Theology and Mission Practice, (Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 1998), 91, 214-216.
3. Peter Wagner, Lighting the World: A New Look at Acts - Bringing the Gospel to Every Nation and Every People, (Regal, Ventura, 1995), 96-98.
4. Ralph Winter, Warp and the Woof (William Carey, Pasadena, 1970), 3-4, 55.
5. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1978), 94.
6. Bruce, 167-8.
Repositioning Paul's Missionary Band in a Postmodern World: A Case for Culture-bridging, Missional Teams as the Heart and Soul of the 21st Century Church.
Part Two (of a four part series)
In section one of this series I introduced some of the radical themes of Paul's selection, training and strategy that are appropriate for postmodern, multicultural ministry. In this second section I will describe additional features of Paul's initial missionary band, and then cite examples of other "sodalities" in the redemptive history of Christianity.
Paul's Missionary Band serves as an excellent biblical metaphor for 21st century ministry because the playing fields in America have changed from mono-cultural to cross-cultural and there are thousands of new tribes that are spiritually hungry. Unfortunately, these new barbarians are finding answers elsewhere because the church is often seen as an irrelevant farce, confused, dysfunctional, divided, bogged down in introspection and institutionalism.
The PMB framework provides a solution that is rooted in the beginnings of Christianity, that builds on the ancient foundations of the church, but provides both message and metaphor for the future church. As we look at Paul's missionary band we see the first example of practical missiology and cross cultural team ministry in the New Testament, and the missionary means of implementing the Great Commission.
I believe we need to develop a whole new skill set for the next generation of church leaders, because in a rapidly changing world where cultural shifts are taking place seamlessly, there is enormous confusion and ignorance about both church and mission in this new setting. We are relying on training and programs designed for a modern setting. We don't realize that in this postmodern world we need to be cross-cultural rather than mono-cultural and more missional than institutional.
Paul and Barnabas model the corrective skill sets in Scripture. Their approach relied upon practical missiology and relational teamwork to reach the Gentiles. The skills and patterns of the original missionary band are also observed in the various waves of missionary bands throughout history.
I believe it is time to reinforce our ecclesiological foundations by introducing practical missiology and by learning from our biblical and historical origins to become a catalytic force once again. Only by understanding practical missiology, that is how we contextualize ministry, form effective cross-cultural teams and address issues as a team in a particular context, can we effectively reach 21st century postmoderns.
Consider these additional features of Paul's initial missionary band:
- Barnabas and Paul both had cross-cultural experience, and were able to form an indigenous ministry to the Hellenistic world. They provide the first manual in practical missiology. They formed a particular team to reach persons in a particular context.
- They complemented and completed each other as the key persons within a team-sized entourage. They recognized what the other person brought and valued the other person. They modeled giftedness, trust, healthy relationships, and Christian community.
- They were led by and in tune with the Holy Spirit. They believed in God's sufficiency no matter what the circumstances.
- Barnabas was willing to allow Paul to lead the team. He was a model of how leadership succession is supposed to work in the church.
- Barnabas went on to mentor others on teams, notably Mark. Paul, because of his own giftedness, did not perceive Mark the same way. Barnabas again saw what Paul could not see, and served as a strategic link and mentor. Every team needs these strategic links and mentors if they are to reproduce.
- Paul covered a great deal of territory. He and his team did not stay so long in one place as to become institutionalized.
- Paul learned from Barnabas to empower people early, and he continued this practice. They planted churches that became quickly autonomous and that continued to reproduce other Christian communities.
- They developed new leaders by taking them into real ministry settings. They expected people to rise to the challenge. Leaders were developed in the midst of challenging circumstances. Not all of their young disciples survived. But the best leaders emerged.
- They were able to secure authority from Jerusalem when it was necessary, by presenting their church planting approach in ways that were perceived as favorable and appropriate. They modeled how sodalities can be highly autonomous; yet work in effective partnership with modalities for a greater purpose.
- They developed an overall effective strategy, which drew upon the history and credibility of Barnabas. When the discerning gifts of Barnabas were creatively blended to the catalytic gifts of Paul, an explosive, cross-cultural movement was launched.
Summary of original team: Paul's missionary band was formed as a cross-cultural team. The story is as much about Barnabas as Paul. Together, they interacted with the more institutional, established church, in a creative and healthy manner. Because their team was both mobile and frontline, it avoided the inevitable tendency to lapse into institutionalism.
Examples of later sodality teams: The practical characteristics of Paul's missionary team have been present in all the great historical movements of Christian revival and growth from Paul to McGavran. Additional strategic clues for reaching postmodern barbarians can be discovered in the unfolding interplay of sodalities and modalities following the first century.
a. Celtic Christianity. Perhaps the most impressive example is seen in Celtic Christianity from the fifth to the eighth centuries. Here we can observe repeatedly the same kind of misunderstandings that Paul and Barnabas faced at the Council of Jerusalem, based upon the difference in perspectives between sodalities and modalities. Latourette, for example, cites the irritation by the local bishops in Ireland and all throughout the Alpine valley when encountering one of Patrick's missionary bands, referred to as the Irish peregrini. Their faith and lifestyle simply did not fit into the bishop's diocesan pattern.
Patrick's centers of learning were unique in that their monks migrated to distant countries. They formed missionary groups both to reach pagan populations and to elevate the morals of the nominal Christian populations near whom they settled. The apostolic teams sent out by Patrick, beginning in the fifth century, closely resembled Paul's missionary band in the manner in which they engaged barbarians in both conversation and in ministry.
The Celtic achievements as a movement were astonishing. As Hunter's study substantiates, Patrick's bands multiplied mission-sending monastic communities, which continued to send teams into settlements to multiply churches so that within two or three generations all of Ireland had become substantially Christian.
Celtic monastic communities became the strategic "mission stations" from which apostolic bands reached the "barbarians" of Scotland, and much of England, and much of Western Europe.
Ultimately, what caused their disappearance in the two centuries following the Synod of Witby in 664 was the control of the Roman way over the Celtic way. The Romans were more conservative. They insisted upon cultural uniformity rather than allow for shifts in methodology. Celtic Christianity adapted to the people's culture. The Romans wanted Roman cultural forms imposed upon all churches and people.
b. Waldo through Wesley. A few examples of missionary teams can be observed after the 9th century, such as the Frenchman Peter Waldo. The Poor Men of Lyon, initiated by Waldo multiplied discipleship communities rapidly through Spain, Italy, Germany and Bohemia at the end of the 12th century. John Wesley further developed the Pauline pattern of reproducing Christian communities during the mid-18th century Evangelical Revival in England and the United States.
c. Carey. It was not until 1793, when William Carey and a colleague sailed for India to initiate the first undertaking of the Baptist Missionary Society, that rapid cross cultural missionary activity returned to the level of the Celtic teams of the fifth and six centuries, or to Paul's first century missionary band. Carey, after the greatest of effort and patience in persuading the non-conformist Baptist that a new structure was necessary for mission, settled in Serampore, a Danish possession near Calcutta. His "Serampore Trio" translated and printed the Bible into several languages and founded a school for the training of Indian Christians.
As Winter points out, Carey was not the only pioneer who encountered resistance in launching a structure for mission.
Indeed all down through history, structures for mission have, by and large been greeted with great reluctance by church governments, and have generally required the additional impulse of Pietism, Wesleyanism or revivalism. Somehow the older and more settled a denomination, the more likely the church government itself is going to be fully occupied merely with the task of staying on top of things.
d. McGavran. If William Carey can be credited with rediscovering the advantages of Paul's missionary band, Donald McGavran must be recognized for taking the strategic insights to the next logical level. As early as the 1950's, McGavran's investigation of indigenous strategies and people movements clearly confirmed the upside of sodalities. In the tradition of Paul and Barnabas, McGavran also made things happen, and at the same time created tensions. He rocked the boat in India as field secretary; questioning whether schools and hospitals had taken up so much energy and money that evangelism had been forgotten. And he later rocked the boat in numerous speeches and articles challenging both the priorities and the structures of the conciliar movement.
In part three, I will cite contemporary examples and describe how Paul's missionary team approach can be adapted to effectively reach the emerging barbarian tribes.
Notes
1. Ralph Winter, Warp and the Woof (William Carey, Pasadena, 1970), 32-33.
2. Kenneth Scott Latourette, History of the Christian Movement (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1954), 332-333, 1033.
3. George Hunter, The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach The West Again, (Abingdon, Nashville, 2000), 35, 41.
4. Donald McGavran, Bridges of God (Friendship Press, New York, 1955), and The Conciliar-Evangelical Debate: The Crucial Documents (William Carey, Pasadena, 1977).
(Part Three)
In the first two parts of this series I provided a sketch of Paul's original missionary band, and traced its ebb and flow throughout the past 2000 years of church history. I believe that the radical themes provided in this PMB metaphor are highly appropriate for postmodern, multicultural ministry. In this third section I will describe how Paul's missionary team approach can be adapted to effectively reach the emerging neo-barbarian tribes of the 21st century.
What does the dynamic equivalent of Paul's missionary band look like in our postmodern, multicultural reality? In my article "Mega-shifting to a Team Ministry Approach," I describe the characteristics of teams, how to shift to a team mentality and ways in which teams function within the church. The principle underlying the article is that there is a difference between the institutional, programmatic use of groups and committees and the focus on teams that lead to decentralized leadership, task orientation around a compelling, owned vision. I define team ministry this way, "... team ministry is ownership and self-initiated vision in which members carry out plans they themselves have conceived or have had a part in conceptualizing."
- The vision is grassroots initiated and owned.
- Staff roles (both professional and lay) are different.
- Team members are connected to a compelling, owned vision.
- The teams are often fluid and focused on a task.
- Team members acquire a deep-seated belief in the power and synergy of teams.
- Team members experience a climate of trust.
- Team members practice open and honest communication.
- Conflict is viewed as a normal means of creatively exploring new ideas.
These characteristics are sodalic rather than modalic and are similar to the characteristics of the missionary bands in the early church. Just as we have seen in our brief historic overview, they were characteristics of missional, people movements, and they are emerging again as some of the strategies and skill sets to reach postmoderns. Eddie Gibbs, in his most recent book, ChurchNext, confirms that in a culture of chaos teams are better able to take risks, experiment and move churches through the stormy waters of change.
One of the greatest needs in the church today is to discover how to integrate sodalities into a complex variety of church structures. Fortunately, there is at least one laboratory in America which helps us to picture how Paul and Barnabas might have contextualized their strategy for reaching neo-barbarians in a world that increasingly resembles their own.
New Hope Community Church in Honolulu, HI, has discerned an approach of reproducing missionary teams that resembles Paul's missionary band more than any I have personally investigated. Under the leadership of Wayne Cordeiro and his Barnabas-like partner, Dan Shima, New Hope has grown faster, has planted more churches, and has produced more radiant, reproducing missionary teams in their first six years than any other American church in recent memory.
To put it simply, New Hope has discovered how to reposition sodalities at the very heart of the church. The two redemptive structures have been fused into catalytic missional teams that are penetrating numerous neo-barbarian tribes with a transforming, indigenous Gospel in Oahu and throughout the Pacific Rim.
Strategies for Radically Repositioning
What is New Hope doing differently from the last generation of healthy, growing congregational laboratories? In many respects they have borrowed the best of what they have learned from Willowcreek and Saddleback. But in another respect their strategies are much more than mere refinements. They represent a visible return to the ecclesiological foundations of Paul's Missionary Band. New Hope's ministry is a simple and creative blend of relationship building (they call it "heart to heart"), servant leadership, and discipleship teams that rapidly reproduce.
New Hope's distinctive discipleship teams represent an advancement in the way they have combined the two most fundamental parts of a church, fellowship and witness. I call the ecclesiological essence of this catalytic hybrid simply "reproducing discipleship teams." In actual fact, they have discovered the means to fuse the best of the cell church technologies with the best team-building technologies. It is the equivalent of connecting both the sodality wire, and the modality wire on a jumper cable to a Book of Acts energy source. Once the two redemptive structures are attached a Christian movement ignites. Let's now look more closely at New Hope's story and their remarkable results.
Pastors Wayne Cordeiro and Dan Shima opened New Hope Christian Fellowship's bank account in Oahu on March 5, 1995 with a wealth of hope. Between May 1 and July 8, a P.O. Box was issued, an office was leased, letters were sent out in search of those called to pioneer New Hope, an orientation meeting was held, and initial "practice" worship was conducted. On September 3rd, 1995, at a leaders' evening service at an intermediate school in Honolulu, leaders were assimilated into seven ministry teams: front lines, sound, children/youth, greeters, ushers, parking and prayer.
Five hundred were anticipated at the inaugural Sunday morning service on September 10. Over 800 people arrived to a standing-room only service. By February 4, 1996 there were 1563 worshippers. At the end of the first four years, New Hope had grown to over 6,000 weekend attendees, with 4,800 receiving Christ for the first time. During the first five years they had planted 20 churches. Ten churches were planted between Easter 1999 and Easter 2000. Five of these were in Honolulu, two in Japan, and one each in Montana,
Samoa and the Philippines.
Perhaps the most significant statistics relate to staff ratios. With 6200 in average worship attendance during the year 2000, they had 32 full time staff and 31 part time staff and 526 volunteer team members. These ratios were less than half of the equivalent ratios at Ginghamsburg United Methodist Church, one of the America's most streamlined team-based ministries in Tipp City, Ohio. New Hope's ratios are less than one third of the comparable ratios at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois. In other words, these favorable comparisons mean a great deal more ministry is being facilitated by staff at New Hope, for less time and money than at these other two extremely healthy ministries. Also, New Hope appears to have reached an optimum level of rotating teams in order to provide adequate lead time and rest, thereby avoiding much of the burnout associated with lay involvement.
One final set of scores relate to conventional health indicators. Most of New Hope's disciples are young, first generation native Hawaiians that mirror the diverse demographics of the greater Honolulu area. During an eight-day visit, which included Easter weekend, plus the following weekend services, my wife and I experienced a level of Christian contagiousness that was the highest we have ever experienced. The joy and radiance of Christ manifested through lay leaders using their gifts in and around the service was overwhelming, and more impressive than any other feature we observed, including excellent preaching, drama, and music.
We detected no indications of institutionalism, or leadership burnout during interviews with staff and lay leaders at New Hope. Because of their unique system of deploying and caring for team members, New Hope's casualty rate appears to be insignificant, if not zero. Most important, there is no reason in theory why such multiplication of teams and churches cannot be sustained, in a pattern reminiscent of Paul's missionary band and the Celtic Christians, for several centuries.
How can we reposition Paul's missionary band in our multicultural postmodern context? When the advances at New Hope are combined with lessons from history, there are at least a dozen practical distillations that can be immediately applied. In part four, I will highlight the particular innovations that best facilitate a PMB approach in North American congregations.
A Case for Culture-bridging, Missional Teams as the Heart and Soul of the 21st Century Church.
(Part Four)
In this last section I will highlight the most helpful applications of Paul's missionary band in our multicultural postmodern context. Special attention will be given to the particular advances at New Hope Christian Fellowship and related lessons from history.
1. The primary texts are Exodus 18 and II Timothy 2:2. The number 10 is a regulatory and optimum sized number for groups. New Hope uses the formula 1 + 4 x 2 = 10 to identify one facilitator (team leader), four persons who bring complementary gifts, and any available spouses, to form discipleship teams with a maximum of ten persons. The facilitator's primary role is to disciple each member as the team accomplishes its mission, and to multiply teams by finding faithful men and women who will find faithful men and women, etc.
2. New Hope's mission statement is divided into four functional parts. Four persons who serve on Wayne Cordeiro's leadership team at any given time are responsible for multiplying discipleship teams within page one, page two, page three, or page four. Each member of every team begins by training a shadow to take their place so that they will be available to move to another team. Teams are then reproduced within each of the four pages. Multiplication occurs rapidly and one team which is responsible for a particular mission soon becomes four teams, so that ministry and discipleship are multiplying simultaneously. Alignment of teams within the overall mission is automatic and continuous.
3. All ministry is done by teams with a clear goal and mission. If an individual gets an idea that fits the overall mission, New Hope does not launch the ministry until a balanced and qualified team is properly prepared.
4. All teams are sodalities (specialized teams) with minor modality responsibilities. Since every team has a singular mission that is definable and measurable, each team can pursue that mission with a minimum of encumbrances or distractions. The central task of any team, however, does not override the importance of valuing and caring for each team member.
5. All members of teams are missionaries and emerging leaders. Evangelism occurs on virtually every team. Many of the service teams invite pre-Christians they meet along the way to join their team and to help them serve in various capacities. The attraction of the team's contagious, transforming and authentic faith serves as a powerful witness that proves to be highly fruitful.
6. The entire congregation is a missionary organism (sodality vs. modality focus) rather than maintenance-minded institution. The focus of each ministry is sodalic in nature. The overall sense is more like a missionary movement than a large local church. New Hope's sodality mindset has permeated and transformed a modality organization into an indigenous movement among a variety of postmodern peoples.
7. Spiritual renewal and organizational replenishment is ongoing. Members grow as they go. Approximately 20% of the focus of all care groups for new Christians is devoted to team-like activities. Each group determines among themselves how they can focus strategically on others. Service as a Christian core value is built into the discipleship DNA almost at inception.
8. Accountability and placement are strengthened and simplified. Only on an exceptional basis can a person be on more than two teams. Most of New Hope's leaders are being discipled on one team and at the same discipling others on their own team.
9. Territorialism and hierarchical thinking are irrelevant. Because of the rapid movement of individuals and the constant multiplication of teams, individuals do not develop cherished positions, or set up their own turf to defend.
10. The greatest congregational value is to be apart of a team that is sent out to form a new congregation. No one is forced to be involved in a church plant, but everyone is encouraged. When a leader senses that their time has come to begin a new work, their divine call is vigorously celebrated.
11. Contributing to this continuous exodus of teams is the belief that one's
gifts can best be maximized by experience on a variety teams. Individuals move with ease from being discipled in a team-like care group, to joining a real team as a leader in training. They are taught immediately to train another person to take their place. As soon as this first step is completed they are free to make a lateral shift according to their interests and burdens. In most churches such rapid movement by an individual among several teams would result in chaos, and be interpreted as a lack of faithfulness or commitment. At New Hope, lateral shifts are encouraged as a spiritual way of discerning one's gifts and gaining the necessary experience on several teams to become an eventual team leader.
12. Small groups are feeders to teams, rather than self-contained units which reproduce other small groups. Specialty teams are able to reproduce more quickly than conventional cell groups because there are fewer skills to learn. Cell groups are more like a modality, since they function as a house church, or a complete reproducing entity. In contrast, specialty teams have some secondary modal responsibilities, but they focus approximately 80% of their energy on a single mission.
A few additional guidelines will be helpful to maximize Paul's missionary band approach, as it relates to our multicultural postmodern reality.
1. Realize that the transition usually takes two to three years for the average established congregation. There is a normal sequence of understanding, embracing, adopting and implementing any radical ideas. However, change should be encouraged throughout an organization, wherever there is receptivity. The shift to teams should permeate an organization at any and all levels gradually, rather than proceed systematically from the top down or, from the bottom up. Sometimes several pockets in the middle or at one side are the best place to begin.
2. Be sure to make the focus on reaching receptive groups of barbarians rather than on individual nominal Christians. One of the best ways to reach indigenous groups is to emphasize hospitality as a critical frontline gift, and as an essential skill for all Christians to acquire. Wayne Cordeiro places a major emphasis on food, fun and relationship building activities at virtually every church gathering. In a nutshell, New Hope is not a program, but a heart to heart ministry, where one heart touches other hearts constantly through service and more of the outgoing, hospitable style of St. Patrick than the cerebral style of St. Augustine.
3. Adopting the Pauline approach enables congregations to shift from complexity to simplicity. Any one who attempts to track the flow of people at New Hope, or to sketch an organization chart, will likely be disappointed. Individual leaders flow from one team to another through an almost invisible, yet spiritually discerned signal, by those who are relationally in tune with large numbers of leaders.
4. The criteria of selection of leaders is also reduced to a short, easily discernible list of three: Ability to facilitate teams, loyalty/comfort with team leader; some expertise in the area ministry. In contrast, most congregations in America, still require a long list of leadership competencies, and assume that the most talented or experienced player will be the best team leader.
5. Perhaps best and most radical of all is the distillation of a single primary measurement of leadership effectiveness. In future 21st century team based ministries I believe the most important question to ask at the end of each year of ministry, is how many discipleship teams have you reproduced in your ministry this past twelve months?
Conclusion
Current postmodern writers often describe the frustrations and the difficulties in entering the world of the postmoderns and engaging them with the gospel. Wayne Cordeiro has put Paul's missionary band into action in 21st century Hawaii. New Hope has creatively contextualized McGavran's people movement principles in a postmodern expression of tribal Celtic Christianity. Advances by the teams at New Hope provide the biblical means to accelerate effective ministry among the emerging postmodern tribes in North America.
The great commission has not changed. The gospel has not changed. According to McGavran, God's unswerving purpose from the creation of the world has been for the salvation of persons of every race, tribe, language and clan. Congregations should continue to press forward, making sure that every tribe within their reach has within in it a witnessing band of vigorous Christians.
Here is an appropriate core ecclesiology. Missionary bands (sodalities) can once again become the heart of a reproducing ministry. The two indispensable parts of a Christian church are fellowship and witness. Reproducing discipleship teams is a better and a biblical way to fellowship and witness, to grow as we go, to become a force, rather than a farce.
You can interact with Dan Reeves the author of this excellent series of articles and give him feedback at ReevesSC@aol.com or check out his web site at http://www.reevessc.com.