NeoZine - Full Article

Greg Morscher and I were watching this cool online broadcast by Mark Driscoll titled, “Why Mulit-Site?” Driscoll is the big speaker at XSI in Columbus this summer, and his arrival is none-too-soon. Columbus Xenos is re-evaluating itself, the major topic at this year’s Servant Team Retreat (STR) in Cincinnati. Listening to Driscoll’s broadcast offers a refreshing and visionary alternative to some of the hand-wringing confusion at the STR.

Driscoll proposes answering the big question left unanswered from the STR: how will Columbus regain its vision as a Church Planting Movement (CPM)? This is a significant issue for NeoXenos, because we are absolutely committed to CPM, and we fought a long and hard battle to get here. STR was certainly inspirational by teaching us the differences between spiritual and carnal leadership, but never resolved was The Quest for CPM, as most of the STR teachers acknowledged.

But Tom Dixon’s teaching at the STR raised the most exciting and clear answer for The Quest. Surprisingly, it is an ancient solution, but still highly applicable, and Driscoll frames it well.

The “Tri-Perspectival View” of Leadership

Driscoll approaches the Great Commission in a fresh way even though he uses silly terms like “Tri-Perspectival”. Jesus is the pattern to follow, he says, and names three roles of effective spiritual leadership: the Priest, Prophet and King. These Old Testament offices were all fulfilled by Jesus, as we are studying in Hebrews. This is God’s eternal paradigm for spiritual leadership, and since the authority of Jesus is driving the Great Commission, these aspects of his leadership should be evident.

The Priestly Leader is compassionate and concerned about people’s needs, like we studied in Hebrews: “He is able to deal gently with ignorant and wayward people…” (Heb. 5:2). Driscoll says the Priestly-Leader asks the question “Who?” In other words, he cares for people. This is what someone does with the “pastor/shepherd” gift, and it is an invaluable leadership role (see Eph. 4:11ff). But churches don’t grow without the other leadership roles, and they often shrink.

The Kingly Leader is a builder, Driscoll says, always asking “How?” These leaders are not only practical, but phenomenal organizers who bring people together to build. This energetic, effective leadership is a spiritual gift in Romans 12:8, but still requires the other leadership roles for balance. The King-Leader becomes too results-driven and uncompassionate without the Priest-Leader, or too institutional without the Prophet-Leader, thus eliminating God’s dynamic leadership altogether.

The Prophet-Leader is perpetually asking “Why?” and pursues the quest for change, Driscoll says. This corresponds to the gift of prophecy in Romans 12:6, and it is highly-valued in Paul’s writings. This is a powerful gift with strong influence in the church because it arises from the spiritual and mystical leadership of God. As such, this leadership gift also brings the upheaval and change that God desires for his people (see 1 Cor. 2:9, Luke 5:37; 2 Cor. 5:17). But these leaders are too theoretical or rhetorical without the other leaders who implement, build, and touch people’s concerns.

Leadership Imbalances

The STR teachings were aimed at the overwhelming influence of the Kingly-Leader model working in Columbus. When this occurs it means structures, organization, programs, buildings, statistics, bureaucracies, policies and budgets dominate a Christian group.

Dennis McCallum’s teaching about Calvary Church was an explicit renunciation of the Kingly-Leader imbalance. Then Gary Delashmutt called for a return to the “Grace Awakening” which fueled the phenomenal growth in the early days (from about 300 to 3000) before it ever became “Xenos”.¹ Columbus never experienced such spectacular growth since that time, so it must be asked: did Columbus get dominated by the Kingly-Leader model?

Prophecy is the most important spiritual gift for a Christian group, Paul says, and so we should pray earnestly for it (see 1 Cor. 14:1). Authentic church growth is God-inspired, but His growth evaporates without the Prophet-Leader. Eventually the church becomes a dead institution destined to perish.² It means the Prophet-Leader influence must be prioritized, but still harmonized with other leadership roles in the same way God works in our personal lives:

For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me. Colossians 1:29 (NASB)

The thrilling teachings at STR put the Prophet-Leader view back on its rightful place. As Dennis put it, “The Lord must build the house, else we labor in vain,” and, “the less structure, the more the Holy Spirit can work.” Neither of these statements declared an end to laboring or structure, but they clarify the high priority of Prophetic Leadership among other the leadership roles.

The STR Frustration

What is God’s prophetic word for Xenos leaders? To recognize the high priority of the Prophet-Leader’s voice is not the same as hearing that voice. What does it all mean? This became a somewhat garbled discussion at the STR.

One of the swirling controversies at the STR centered on the “methodology of church growth” as taught at Xenos. Columbus elders picked it up from Fuller Seminary’s “Church Growth Movement” in the early 1980s.³ Some of the teachings from Fuller were imbalanced and emphasized numeric growth above too many biblical priorities, but much of this “church growth technology” became nearly axiomatic at Xenos.⁴ Statistics, graphs, charts and other tools for measuring growth were standardized and still persist.⁵

“The size of the church shouldn’t be a concern,” Dennis said in his STR teaching, quoting Chuck Smith’s opinion of church growth methods. He added, “They do count heads, but probably not like us.” Staff at Calvary Chapel knew how many people attended and they knew the comparable sizes of Calvary churches.

“Still, I find myself not looking at [growth] statistics as much this year,” Dennis said, shaking his head. The audience chuckled, but it was unclear wether other leaders should follow suit.

Is Columbus no longer concerned about church growth? Was this to become the big change introduced at the 2008 STR?

Gary indicated as much in his “Grace Explosion” teaching. It was a marvelous and exciting teaching about grace. But his central point concerned the period of great growth at Xenos. This occurred before church growth theology appeared, he said, but never clarified what, if any, problems church growth theology caused - if any.

“We are not called to be successful, but to be faithful,” Jim Leffel said in his teaching. “‘Harvest’ [convert-growth] is the wrong focus. God called us to be His people. Christ will build his church.”

Jim’s teaching contained many significant and refreshing biblical insights as I mentioned in my blog, but his repudiation of church growth theology was confusing at best.

He retracted the repudiation at the same time he repeated it: “The success of the Jerusalem church arose from apparent defeat: persecution,” he said. Jerusalem’s “success” is repeatedly measured by numeric growth in Acts, with emphasis on size.⁶ Jim used a video to demonstrate that other kinds of “growth” can have far greater implications than salvation-growth, but the Christian workers interviewed were uncooperative: they talked about the joy of fruitful conversion-growth in their ministries. (Eight people in one year!) I thought Jim might resolve the inconsistency for us, but for whatever reason it was left alone.

“It is true that a measure of success is ‘the Harvest’, but not the only measure,” which is a more-balanced view of church growth, Jim said later. But was not this “more-balanced view” always taught in leadership classes? So perhaps Jim was re-emphasizing the old position. It was unclear.

Let’s not have a misunderstanding about my high regard for Jim’s teachings, and the same is true for all of these great teachers. Despite the shortcomings, their STR teachings were good spiritual food.

Still, the voice of the “Prophet-Leader” was mostly garbled at the STR, except for one teaching which voiced it with clarity.

In Part II we discuss a “word of prophecy” given at the STR.

1. See the 4/13/2007 Legacy of Love NeoZine article which describes this period of growth. During its growth explosion, Xenos was called “Layman’s Challenge for Today” and then (oddly) “The Fish House”. [⇑]
2. See the letters to various churches in Revelation 2-3. The evaluation for each church is based on their spiritual sensitivity to presence and authority of Jesus Christ. For each city addressed, neither their name as a “church” or their organizational skills will save them from getting cutoff entirely from Christ’s leadership. The Prophet-Leader is gifted to keep the eyes of the church firmly fixed on the living leadership of Jesus Christ. [⇑]
3. Fuller Seminary’s “Institute of Church Growth” included such noterieties as C. Peter Wagner, Donald McGavran, Win C. Arn, and Ralph D. Winter. They spawned a “Church Growth Movement” from which the Vineyard church arose and spread nationally. The concepts are in How to Grow a Church and Understanding Church Growth. See the Center for Church Growth for a current list of resources. [⇑]
4. Unwelcome “Church Growth” ideas included endorsements of approaches such as Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral. [⇑]
5. See the methodology repository. [⇑]
6. For Luke’s measure of success in Acts, see 2:5, 17, 39, 47,41; 3:25; 6:7; 9:31, 9:35; 11:21; 13:44, 48, 49; 19:10; [⇑]

Tags: church growth, ecclesiology, leadership, methods, missions, retreats, str2008, xenos

Trackback URI | Comments RSS