I continue to be amazed at the number of people whose paths I come across who have mistakenly been led to believe that if God is calling them toward some form of ministry, doing it in or connected to a local church is their only legitimate option.

It is sad to see such a truncated, warped ecclesiology hold back what could be a wave of highly committed, gifted, apostolic leaders. I am grieved at the wounds that are inflicted by such a view of the Church that is so biblically, theologically, historically and missiologically deficient.

Conversely, it is amazing when the “lights go on” for such leaders, particularly those who are thrashing around trying to find a structure into which they can fit. Too many get stuck in the unfortunate cul-de-sac of local church supremacy.

One of my greater joys is blowing out their limited understanding of where God’s calling can be accomplished, expanding the scope of what he could do with their lives, and helping these men and women find the right venues where they can break out of their shells and soar.

As in every age of the Christian movement, apostolic people need apostolic structures if their contribution to God’s kingdom purposes are to be fulfilled.

I just received a newsletter from some CRM folks who have been faithfully working in an obscure, difficult setting in Southeast Asia for the past 14 years. They have made a phenomenal contribution to God’s Kingdom purposes in their context. Who they are and what they have done is truly extraordinary. These are apostolic, pioneering types who genuinely get their thrills by going where most normal people would dare to tread.

In the newsletter, there was one paragraph which was a stellar description of what apostolic gifting is all about. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. They wrote:

“When we arrived in this country, it was a good time and place for pioneering type people. Our personality, skills and gifting are very useful when things are broken down and not yet built. We are the ‘MacGyver’ types who live with a Leatherman Multi-Tool on our belt, a roll of wire and duct tape, and a Mag-Lite close at hand for when things break or go bad.

We travel with our two favorite books in double layer ziplock bags; a Thinline Bible and a Field Medical “What to do when it all goes wrong” Manual. We don’t need traffic laws, and can drive anything from bicycles to tractors and have fun. Beds are fine, and hammocks are better (no bedbugs) and all we need is enough water to scrub the crud off once a day. We like good food, but are fine eating other interesting stuff. Life is good in the the ambiguity zone.”

It’s bogus.

I just learned of another mega-church which is laying waste to people they support who are not directly focused on the 10-40 window. Under the guise of reallocating resources, they are cutting people off who don’t fit their criteria of being on the ground in 10-40 venues.

So what’s wrong with such “prioritization?” Plenty.

1. Such decisions rarely have to be “either-or” type choices. They should be “both-and.” I’ve seen too many situations where a church’s financial support for incredibly effective people around the world and in North America, gets cut and the reason given is that the church wants to reallocate resources where the needs are greatest. However, the real reasons are all too often budgets that are stretched because of elaborate building programs, dwindling attendance, or turnover in a missions committee where control of the purse strings has shifted to people who have a personal agenda.

The church I heard about today which just cut some superb missionaries serving in North America has been engrossed in a 30 million dollar building extravaganza and felt compelled to begin eliminating missionaries. The justification was the 10-40 window.

2. Most such decisions are made by misguided and myopic amateurs who have created policies that may sound high-minded and strategic on the surface but are missiologically naive and are an indication of leadership that doesn’t know what they are doing rather than leadership that knows how to focus on the most unreached of the global population. If they really wanted to be more strategic, they could do it without the human carnage.

3. Such ill-informed decisions often demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of “leverage.” Such decision makers would probably have given Jesus the ax because he never got outside of his own culture.

Patty and I have personally gotten several such “dear John” letters. The most disappointing was from a church that had helped originally send us into a life of vocational ministry, the place where we were married and a congregation that had an incredible reputation for supporting the global Christian movement. In a form letter from someone we had never met, we were told they had “re-evaluated” their priorities and if we ever decided “to live overseas,” we should come back and talk to them and they would reconsider us for support.

4. In my experience, I have never seen a local church cut its pastoral staff or their compensation commensurate with cuts they deem necessary in those to whom they have committed who serve in a missions capacity. People you don’t have to see every week don’t raise as big a stink.

5. When a local church makes such draconian moves which can devastate people already living on the edge, I have never had one pastor or person responsible contact us and be willing to enter into a conversation about the decision. I have never seen a willingness to have these misapplied 10-40 window assumptions challenged.

6. Unfortunately, it is indicative of the fact that local churches are increasingly unreliable and unpredictable sources of financial support for those serving in mission postures. And when they take a valid, useful concept such as the need in the 10-40 window and use it to decimate and wound their existing mission force, it only reinforces the poor reputation that such church-based mission efforts all to often have earned.

“Our ‘community/organic church’ has been working to define ourselves, our mission, and overall purpose. In the meantime, we are trying to work through some tough issues with one of the local churches that all of us have been previously associated with to one degree or another.

They approached us about a month ago requesting us to consider taking on the responsibility of starting a ‘postmodern’ church service, under their umbrella. Basically, they’re stuck and realize that they aren’t effectively reaching people under 35.

All us have close relationships with various people in the leadership of the church. However, all of us in our ‘community’ are very reluctant to fall under the umbrella of such a local church and we’ve been fairly vocal about that.

Just last night my wife and I had one of the couples in our community over and they informed us that they were given the boot from participating in one of the ministries of this church because they are no longer formally attending “CHURCH” on Sunday morning, which I interpret of as the institutional church, and what we are doing as community doesn’t count.

Earlier today I talked with one of the leaders of the church, whom I respect and admire, and tried to communicate about our attitude, paradigm, perspective, for what needs to emerge. As you might well imagine, it got pretty heated and intense. I am frustrated, pissed-off and confused about what approach to take and how to handle the situation.

I am frustrated about the refusal to accept any different expression of the church if it doesn’t fall under their umbrella or institutional definition of what “church” is. And yet I feel a certain sense of responsibility to love and serve the institutional church even though we may not fit into their box. Basically, aren’t we all on the same team? I’m not quite sure how to approach the situation.”

What is so incredibly frustrating is that such an incident is not isolated or unique. It is far too common in the ecclesiological landscape of North America today. Part of my response included:

“So sorry you are facing this type of ecclesiological narrowness. It is this type of stuff that bruises and wounds people from authentically walking with Jesus. Any wonder why people want to follow him but are fed up with “church” as we see it around us. You and the folks whom you are journeying with are in good company. There was a guy we know who got hung on a cross for not being able to conform to the status-quo.

How sad. If the leader from the existing church was worthy of your respect, he should be supportive and ask “How can we help you succeed, expand, and reach others like you?” and not feel that they have to coral you into their thing or control you by what is.

Loving those in the institutional church is not the same as getting squeezed into their mold and doing things their way and under their control. It’s like relating to dysfunctional parents and going through detox.

They don’t own the body of Christ …Jesus does. You are free, like every other new church expression throughout history, to see new wineskins develop. Such expressions will almost always be a threat to a status-quo that has stagnated. If the status-quo was healthy, they would be doing everything possible to help you and yours succeed and bless you in the process.

Being a new expression of the church that may take on creative forms relevant for the participants has always been threatening to those whose definition of “church” is not biblical but cultural. So they called you a cult? Virtually every new movement in the history of Christianity has been labeled aberrant at one time or another. Again, you’re in good company. Press on!”

Tamas and Zsofia Heiser are with Barnabas Csoport, CRM’s ministry in Hungary, and are moving toward the role of leading that team.

This comes after a church planting experience over the past decade where God used them to birth and give leadership to a healthy group of believers in Zalaegerszeg in the southern part of the country.

While a highly respected pastor and leader in his community, denomination and throughout the country, Tamas is making the move to Barnabas Csoport because he sees the acute need for leadership in the church that is and the church that needs to be in Hungary and beyond. His situation is also another vivid example of an apostolic leader that needs an apostolic structure to accomplish all that God intends for his life. Tamas’ sense of vision and calling has moved beyond the boundaries of one local context. A gifted musician, teacher and great mom, Zsofia plays an integral role in all that has transpired and how God will use them in the future. She fully shares this step into the turbulent world of the missionary.

While Tamas may not be as “frustrated” in the same sense as Eric (February 7, 2006 post in Apostolic Ecclesiology), he’s cut out of the same cloth. He, Zsofia, and their three children are in the process of selling their home and moving to Budapest. They are taking some bold, sacrificial steps to follow God’s leading in their lives, steps that God will bless and through which the Church and God’s kingdom purposes will be enriched throughout this region of the world.

It is, in fact, highly unlikely that local congregations will have the resources of previous experience or historical or missiological perspective to work strategically or even effectively in a cross-cultural situation. Most congregations are unable to deal effectively with ethnic minorities on their doorstep. Why would they expect to be able to deal intelligently with those same kinds of strange people at a distance? ....

If what Paul understood to be needed in his outreach to the Greeks had been easily explainable to the Jewish followers of Christ back in Jerusalem, we would not have needed the detailed information in the New Testament. Rarely, down through history, has the exact nature of the need on the field been readily explainable to the people within the sending cultural situation.”

— Missiologist Ralph Winter

** Painting is Rembrandt’s famous “the Apostle Paul,” circa 1657.

There are two mantras I see consistently all over the world when encouraging those in other cultures toward raising financial support to sustain themselves in ministry.

1. “But brother, you do not understand. Ours is a poor country. We do not have the resources for such giving.”

2. “But brother, you do not understand. The church and Christians in our country don’t know how to give. Giving is not part of the ethos in our churches or among our people. Asking for such financial help is something foreign and unusual in our context.”

1. Being in personal financial or physical need is never an excuse in the bible for people not giving. Rather, what we actually see is giving being encouraged even in extreme poverty (Luke 21:4, II Corinthians 8:2).

Let’s be theoretical for a moment. Consider that if a person commits to living on lifestyle of the culture around them, it would take just ten others giving 10% of their resources for one to be supported. That’s all. Or it would take 20 giving units at 5% to support one. What this means is there is virtually no excuse for the vast majority of environments around the world for people to give and people to be sustained in ministry provided those being sustained are doing so at the same standard of living as those around them.

Where this construct breaks down is when such people being supported leave their own culture and move into another culture, country or nation. Then costs and the amount needed to live, travel and minister has the potential to skyrocket. In such a scenario, there is a greater need for creative and alternative means of funding particularly if they go to cultures more affluent then their own.

2. It is true that a “culture of generosity” does not automatically exist wherever the Christian movement has gone. Furthermore, an ethos that gives generously toward the extension of the gospel into other cultures and lands is even less the norm. Consequently, it can be an uphill slug to generate financial support via giving in such settings.

However, while it may take longer, it may be part of God’s good plan for the people in that setting to be moved toward a more biblical, engaged use of their resources. In other words, the actual process of educating people about their giving responsibilities serves a prophetic function. It becomes a ministry—by those apostolically gifted individuals who are raising the money—to the
Church at large. It helps to move the followers of Jesus in that context toward a more biblical, generous, and responsible world-view regarding the use of their resources, not matter how meager their resources may be.

An organization that does a good job around the world addressing these two issues is International Steward.

Derived from the biblical example of the Apostle Paul who made tents to make ends meet, the concept of tentmaking generates appeal as an alternative and/or complimentary means of funding people in cross-cultural ministry. Unfortunately, it is too often made out to be something it is not.

1. The biblical example is not the ideal. Paul does this because of the immaturity of the Corinthian church. He is clear that he has the right to expect their financial support but forgoes the right in order not to burden them in their embryonic, developmental stage. Tentmaking is the default posture. Not the norm.

2. The limitations on tentmakers are usually substantial and rarely do those attempting it have a realistic understanding of what they are getting into. Imagine what it’s like to carry on a 8-5 vocation or profession, and then add all of the stress and adjustments of cross-cultural living on top of that. What’s really left for any effective ministry? The fact is, the primary and often only ministry context tentmakers can reasonably expect will be their jobs.

Too often the expectation is that they will be free to serve alongside vocational missionaries or expressions of the church in national settings. That is usually a fantasy.

3. Unfortunately, some of those I’ve seen gravitate toward tentmaking are independent individuals who don’t want to be accountable to others and want to go it alone. I’ve also seen people use tentmaking as an excuse to not raise support, want to insure a consistent pay check, and not have to depend directly on God or donors for their livelihood.

4. I’ve repeatedly heard the mantra that tentmaking is the means of placing missionaries in closed or restricted access nations. That’s simply not true. There is no such thing as a closed country on the face of the planet. Only creative access countries. There is a distinct difference in a tentmaker who is committed to a profession and wants to use it for ministry purposes and a person called into vocational ministry using a profession as a creative means of access in difficult contexts.

Does tentmaking have a place in God’s overall missional purposes around the world? Of course. But there needs to be some honesty and realism about what it can accomplish. There are some wonderful people who have made such cross-cultural jumps and who serve, in word and deed, as the presence of Jesus through their jobs in difficult cross-cultural contexts. But tentmaking is not the panacea that some make it out to be.

Regarding funding through “support,”, ie, gifts given by other to support those in vocational ministry, Alan Hirsch writes in The Shaping of Things to Come;

“...mission support is the support sytem of the future. Sutainability and organic growth are at stake.” (pg. 213)

“There have certainly been ups and downs ‘…times of plenty and times of want.’ (Phil 4:11-12). While we have never failed to see God’s faithfulness in meeting our needs, there have been seasons when financial fatigue has set in.”

Unfortunately, there are those who grow weary of living in such a posture. In my experience, most of the time, they have not worked hard at this. They have refused or failed to see it as an integral and essential aspect of apostolic ministry. And when the financial woes mount, some head for the door looking for whatever can relieve the pressure. Some go to tentmaking. Some seek fees for services. Others justify their posture by blaming changing cultural demographics or the unwillingness of the church in their context to give. The excuses are legion.

An organization that I have found very helpful in getting one’s arms around this whole subject has been the Bodybuilders. They do a good job debunking all the excuses and all the irrational and sometimes emotional thinking that surrounds the topic of support raising for ministry.

There are four books that I would recommend—also recommended in the Bodybuilders most recent newsletter:

“Friend Raising: Building a Missionary Support Team That Lasts” (Betty J. Barnett)

“People Raising Kit” (William P. Dillon)

Funding Your Ministry: Whether You’re Gifted or Not” (Scott Morton)

“Getting Sent: A Relational Approach to Support Raising” (Pete Sommer)

Missiologist Ralph Winter writes in his editorial in the most recent issue of Mission Frontiers magazine:

“Many jobs are ‘funded from behind.’ That is, some foundation, some tax base, or some set of donors is willing to pay you to deal with an urgent problem or provide a service to someone else (who does not pay).Mission agencies fall into this category. Much of what they do blesses people who can’t pay for the products or services they receive.

Could everything that needs to be done in this world be done with a business approach? Almost. But many highly strategic needs require funding ‘from behind.’ You can’t make “a business” out of rescuing child prostitutes in Thailand, or by setting up medical clinics in the midst of extreme poverty around the world.”

1) It requires a position of dependence. The term “faith missions” is not a misnomer.
2) Independent, self-relient, westerners are not all that good at such a posture. I have lost count of the successful business people whom I have met who long to be missionaries or in vocational ministry, but will only do it if they are independently wealthy and not having to depend on anyone else for money.
3) It is perceived as “begging.”
4) It is associated with living in poverty and going through life being needy.
5) It is hard work.More about this tomorrow.
]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/01/11/funding-from-behind-for-apostolic-ministry/feed/ 2 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/11/01/313/ http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/11/01/313/#comments Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:29:07 +0000 Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/11/01/313/
Alan Hirsch has just come out with a new book that I highly recommend, “The Forgotten Way: Reactivating the Missional Church..

In it, he makes a compelling case for the inherent spiritual DNA—what he calls “Apostolic Genius”—that exists in every individual who follows Jesus and in every community of such individuals.

It’s important reading for anyone serious about the future of the Christian movement and what is necessary for us to participate with the Spirit of God in the type of spiritual dynamics that can, and should, affect the course of history.


“The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church” (Alan Hirsch)

]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/11/01/313/feed/ 3 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/25/local-churches-as-eunuchs/ http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/25/local-churches-as-eunuchs/#comments Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:43 +0000 Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/25/local-churches-as-eunuchs/

Historically, local groups of Christians (churches) have multiplied in three basic ways:


1. The groups themselves multiply. There is variety in how this is accomplished: they hive, they divide, and all too often, they experience nasty splits.

2. An entrepreneurial, apostolic person starts a new group. I.e., a “church planter” with the gift of evangelism acts as the catalyst to start a new group or groups.

3. A apostolic team (missionaries), most often part of a larger apostolic movement, begins a new group or multiple groups while maintaining their own sense of community and apostolic, sodalic identity.


There are numerous variations and themes on these three basic models. But by and large, all church planting in any cultural context over the past 2000 years fits into one of these three categories.

It is also true that all three of these models are needed. However, a good historical case could be made for the fact that the majority of such new local church starts have been through models 2 and 3. The oft quoted mantra of “churches planting churches” (mode #1) as the primary way the Christian movement expands is simplistic and shortsighted.

While the ideal is always to build a bias toward multiplying into the DNA of any new group of Jesus’ followers, the reality is that the church in its local, 1st decision form is structurally limited in its ability to reproduce. Hence, the vast majority of local churches struggle not to be “structural eunuchs.” Local churches have their best opportunities for multiplying within their own cultural context, what missiologists call “M-1” cultural distance.

But when faced with cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic and geographic barriers, the church in its local form is structurally ill-equipped to reproduce and models 2 and 3 are needed. Even the very best, missionally committed groups of local believers face such structural limitations. The fact is that the reproducibility of the local church is greatest when in an interdependent and synergistic relationships with models 2 and 3 above. This is the biblical and historical pattern.

“The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World” is the slogan of the Lausanne Movement. Unfortunately, this vision has scant possibility of fulfillment without an accurate understanding of what comprises the “Whole Church.” Such a slogan is devoid of meaning if the definition of Church is limited to those expressions that are local in nature and ignores those essential apostolic structures that do the work in models 2 and 3 above.

Any portion of the Christian movement—because of truncated ecclesiology, lack of historical perspective, or missiological naivete—which bypasses that equal part of the Church in its apostolic, missionary form, does so to its own peril. The inevitable result is a net loss to God’s kingdom purposes in the world and many lives that may remain untouched by the redemptive presence of Christ.

]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/25/local-churches-as-eunuchs/feed/ 0 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/18/multiplying-apostolic-orgs/ http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/18/multiplying-apostolic-orgs/#comments Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:44:35 +0000 Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/18/multiplying-apostolic-orgs/


“It is astonishing that most Protestant missionaries … have been blind to the significance of the very structure within which they have worked. In this blindness, they have merely planted churches and have not effectively concerned themselves to make sure that the kind of mission structure within which they operate also be set up on the field.” – Missiologist Ralph Winter in “The Two Structures of God’s Redemptive Mission”



I just returned from London where I met with those who lead CRM’s ministry in eight nations where nationals are the leaders and nationals are in one stage or another in being sent as missionaries.

Rather than be a multi-national corporation, we have deliberately determined that CRM will evolve as an international partnership of apostolic entities which are the mission structures Winter describes.

We believe the the results will be exponentially powerful in the multiplication of new kinds of leaders for new kinds of churches all over the globe.

Pictured above are leaders from Venezuela, Hungary, U.K., Africa, the Middle East, Korea, the U.S. and Australia.

]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/18/multiplying-apostolic-orgs/feed/ 2 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/09/neo-monasticism/ http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/09/neo-monasticism/#comments Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:09:22 +0000 Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/09/neo-monasticism/


“The tragedy is that Christianity has become ayes-man for the culture,” says Boston’s University’s Prothero. Non-prosperity parties from both conservative and more progressive evangelical camps recently have been trying to reverse the trend…. a sprinkling of Protestant groups known loosely as the New Monastics is experimenting with the kind of communal living among the poor that had previously been the province of Catholic orders.”- TIME, September 18, 2006, “Does God Want You to be Rich?”


Today, as alluded to in TIME, there is a burgeoning interest in such structures due in part to a renewed commitment among the emerging generation to social justice, ministry among the poor, concern for the environment, and other elements of a more holistic, biblical gospel.

However, neo-monastic movements among Protestants are nothing new. Even though the reformers in the 16th century threw the proverbial baby out with the bath water when they overreacted to Catholic orders, Protestants have repeatedly reinvented and reintroduced such apostolic structures throughout the past five hundred years. The most notable thrust came with William Carey, popularly known as the “father of modern missions,” in the 1790s and every succeeding generation has repeated the process, often oblivious upon whose shoulders they stand.

For example, an editorial in Christianity Today, first published in 1988 and republished since, made a compelling appeal to “re-monk the church.” A cover story in the same magazine in September, 2005 gave a fascinating overview of such contemporary movements.

CRM’s InnerCHANGE is just such a neo-monastic structure, a present day “order among the poor.”

Presently, a fascinating issue is what direction will the “emerging church” go? Some of these new missional expressions are evolving toward such neo-monasticism and others toward the church in local form, two structures which are distinct from one another but equally “church” in the biblical, historical and missiological sense. I believe the health and vibrancy of the emerging movement may well depend in part upon its ability to recognize and embrace the distinctives inherent in both structures.

Any hope for the renewal of authentic Christianity in the West will require a plethora of such neo-monastic movements. As in each of the eight great epochs of the Christian movement since Pentecost, such sodalic, apostolic expressions are designed by God as necessities that infuse life, vitality and spiritual power into the broader church and society. They are not aberrations. They are essential.

]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/10/09/neo-monasticism/feed/ 0 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/08/26/the-necessity-of-function-structures/ http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/08/26/the-necessity-of-function-structures/#comments Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:22:35 +0000 Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/08/26/the-necessity-of-function-structures/

C. Peter Wagner writes:


“The better mission structure leaders are convinced that their task is the most important task in the kingdom of God. Whether it is Bible translation, church planting, relief and development, evangelistic crusades, church renewal leadership training, or what have you, the leader of the group doing it had better think that is the most important thing in the world. Those who don’t can still lead mission structures, but not as well.”


Two frequent objections to such a view are:

1. Why aren’t all of these tasks innate and generic to the church in its local form? If they were, there would be no need of such specialized initiatives (sodalities) and the egotistical people who all too often lead them?

A REPLY: Many of these functions are carried on by the church in its local expression particularly in neighbor and near neighbor relationships. But universally – throughout the history of the Christian movement and biblical history – specialized structures to carry out such functions have been formed and ordained by God. They are particularly necessary when cultural, social, linguistic, or geographical barriers must be overcome for the function to be carried out. Missiologists would persuasively argue that the church in its local, nurture form is ill-equipped and not structured by God to carry out such roles. It takes the church in its missionary form to fulfill the missio dei in its totality.

2. Such a perspective disrespects all those committed to local church ministry. There is an underlying disdain for the generalists who labor tirelessly in local communities of faith be they lay or professional.

A REPLY: One of my best friends is a family doc. He’s a generalist. And he’s a good one. But he knows how and when to refer me to a specialist. While I Iove and respect his medical acumen, I would never expect him to operate on me if I had a brain tumor or if I had cancer. That’s not his role. But when he works in harmony, respect, and interdependence with such specialists, I get the best medical care possible.

Likewise in the Church—consisting of both the church in its local form and the church in its mobile/apostolic/missionary form—there are different structural roles needed for God’s plans and purposes to be effectively carried out. And we find these structural roles universally, across cultures, across time and involving every imaginable type of church expression. The glorious diversity of this structural mosaic demonstrates the creative genius of God and is not something to be feared or decried.

]]> http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2006/08/26/the-necessity-of-function-structures/feed/ 0