Leadership - The Church's Biggest Failing

I attended a Forge intensive in Perth on the weekend. Hamo asked me to do a presentation on the stuff we've been doing in Bunbury with Alternate-Or Community, involving ourselves in the lives of marginalised people, and so was able to kill two birds with one stone and sit in on some of the presentations.

One that got me thinking was presented by Brad Flynn and focussed on co-dependency in leadership. In the context of Brad's presentation, co-dependency related to the way congregations draw their self-value from the pastor or leaders, and the way the leaders have to be "needed" by their congregations in order to find value in themselves.

This got me thinking about the "clergy/laity" divide again. It's something that for many years has made my stomach churn.

It is my opinion that any view of leadership that embraces, either purposefully or unconsciously, the idea of there being any place for an "anointed" priestly class within the church, is fundamentally flawed.

I would even go as far as saying it is one of the modern churches greatest failings and is the cause of many of the issues we face in our established congregations in terms of lack of commitment and involvement in the life of the church and the broader community. It creates a shallow, comfortable environment which actively abrogates the responsibility of all believers to live their lives as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It also forces those who challenge this way of thinking to the margins of the local church or out of it all together, thus stripping it of valuable resources and allowing the flawed philosophical, ecclesial and theological premises at play to have free reign.

CEO leadership models in the church are sinful. Plain and simple. The sooner leaders put the gospel before job security, power and control, or even before the expectations of the institution itself, the better. Leaders, we need to empower our fellow disciples by being the first to take this stand. To be willing to put aside the power structures which create a comfortable secure environment for us, for the sake of the gospel and the future of our local incarnations of the church. Encouraging and facilitating a paradigm shift among those we serve.

Jesus the CEO

CEO leadership and the church - it's one of my pet hates.

I was recently on the board of a relatively large Christian organisation where Jesus "Leadership secrets" were offered and discussed at each board meeting.

While the intent of the person offering the "secrets" was genuine and well intended, the "secrets" often left me a little hot under the collar at times.

Rick Meigs recently comment on this same topic on Blind Beggar. He writes:

---

Chris Blumhofer writes a needed corrective at Out of Ur on the trend to make Jesus the greatest CEO of all time.

Reading the Gospels for leadership principles like team building, vision casting, or ’seeing the potential in others’ makes a mockery of authorial intent and historical-cultural backgrounds. Such readings appear to take the Bible seriously, but they don’t do it justice; they simply create anachronistic interpretations.

People need to stop using the Bible to justify their church-as-business paradigm. Chris correctly observes that Jesus was not first-and-foremost a leader with a message for us, but rather a savior who loved the world enough to die for it. He was consumed with the idea of servanthood. If leaders want to follow Jesus example, they too should be servants.

---

Something more to think about.

CEO style in the church

Hamo again - I great post on the very real problems with the CEO leadership approach in church.

Here's a piece of Hamo's action:

I don’t believe the CEO has any place in the ‘family’ of God. When was the last time your family appointed a CEO to keep it on track? Where does a ‘chief executive officer’ fit into a family? Find me one metaphor or description of the church as business/corporation anywhere in the Bible and I will walk naked up the aisle of your church this Sunday with an annual report in my bumcrack.

While I can't think of any apropriate proof texts - I hope if someone does find one or two, Hamo remembers to post the photos on Backyard Missionary! Read the whole thing here.

Hamo's post is a response to this post by MikeB on Raah.

Amahoro -Finally!

Paul from the Christian Unity Church, Kampala with some Ugandan dancers at the source of the Nile River in Jinja

I arrived in Uganda on Saturday night after a gruelling 26-odd sleepless hours of travel from Perth in Western Australia, through Dubai in the Middle East and Nairobi in Kenya.

Internet access has been intermittent and the service is a little unreliable - so I'll keep this post brief to avoid frustration (for me!). Hopefully I'll have the chance to post in a little more detail in the next day or two.

The conference day has been broken up into a couple of different sessions with the delivery of papers/presentations in the morning, followed by small group sessions where we are looking at the nature of and way forward for the emerging church in Africa.

The first sessions on Monday dealt with the concepts of post modernism as post colonialism in the African context.

Yesterday focussed on reconciliation with speakers from Rwanda and South Africa who addressed the genocide and apartheid respectively with the third speaker, a South African university professor, discussing the growth of Christianity in Africa and the marked increase in it's spread south since the end of colonialism and the increase in indigenous expressions of Christian faith.

Today's sessions looked at ways in which women can be empowered to take on a greater role in the future of the church in Africa. Women are highly marginalised in African culture and this is something that has lead to many problems in the community, but also in the church.

Sorry for the brief overview - I will post in greater detail on all of these things in the next few days.

The conference is leaving me with the feeling that I am seeing history being made. It's a bit like being at a 21st century African council of Nicea (although, of course, the focus is on the future of the church and not the holy scriptures).

Church leadership - Pastors II

I posted a similar question to the one I posed in yesterday's post (relating to the role of the pastor in the missional context) on the missional church planting email list. Sonja responded in a way that struck a chord with me:

---

It's the picture of a shepherd. A shepherd "leads" the flock from behind. S/He has to because they also have to keep their eye on all the sheep. They cannot go out in front and say, "Follow me," because sheep are stupid and they'll wander off in all directions. So the shepherd must stay at the back ensuring that the flock stays together and all heads in the same direction. He encourages, exhorts, and keeps the flock on the path together ... all from behind. It's a very difficult form of leadership and there's definitely **no** glory involved. It's not the way the Army does it, or the corporate world either. But in God's upside-down, bass-ackwards economy, I'm beginning to get glimmers of how He leads and it seems to be from the back and bottom ...

---

I think I understand how this looks - I have been a part of this kind of thing for a while now myself. But how can one be issued with a mandate to lead or commissioned to lead while taking what is very much a low profile role? Is the commission neccessary (I would say yes and point to 1 Tim. 3 for the answer as to why)? How is such leadership recognised?

Lots of questions. Not so sure there will be many or even any answers, but hell, I gotta ask 'em anyway!

Church leadership - Pastors

This is a subject I have been chewing over for quite a few years now - if you've been a reader of this blog for a bit you probably know what I mean (look here and here and here). Leadership is a big issue (and worth big bucks too) in the church today, and the missional/emerging church isn't excluded from this by any stretch.

Much of what I have read about leadership on the net, seems to head in one of several different directions (these are intended as examples only and yes, they are probably gross generalisations):

1) The "house church" approach - Characterised by the following sentiments "we're all leaders" or "there is no such thing as a leader".

Now to me this is just down right ridiculous, at best naive and at worst dilusional. Egalitarianism (is that a word?) is an ideal that is very, very, very difficult to achieve. There will always be leaders - the question really is, will they be recognised or not, and will they be the right kind of leader or not?. Obviously the danger of having an inapropriate leader is greater in a situation that refuses to recognise any leaders.

2) The "traditional church" approach - While this approach can take on many guises and polemic extremes, it is best summed up as the "CEO" approach to ministry. The church is a corporation and the pastor is responsible for ensuring all KPIs are met, the shareholders are happy, and the programs run smoothly.

This is the way most churches have operated for centuries.

3) The "missional church" approach - I actually don't know what this is. Everything I have read (and that list isn't exhaustive) seems to stop just short of describing the way leadership - especially pastoral leadership - looks in a missional fellowship. Their are flavours of the "house church" approach present in some responses, and flavours of the "traditional church" approach in others (see my comments on the APEPT model, which I think is a good starting point but doesn't take things quite far enough).

What are you thoughts on this? How does Pastoral leadership work in a missional setting?

While your thinking about that one, have a read of John Smulo's recent post, The Charmed Life of Pastors. He's right - however you look at it, on the whole, these guys do the thing they do out of a love for Christ, and it isn't an easy job.

How Does One "Preach Missionally"?

[Edited 1 Feb 2007]
The title of this post comes from a question raised by Shannon in response to a previous post where I claimed to be doing this - preaching missionally.

Actually I don't really know if this is what I am doing, but it certainly feels like it is. This has been for the most part an unintentional, "God-guided" process - and I say that with qualification - it seems to me like God has led me and my fellowship down this path, independantly of a broader understanding of the missional/emerging movement. At least until more recent times when my studies of missional/emergent Christianity have helped a lot of the other stuff, the "God-guided" stuff gel and fall into place. And I really do say this with reservations - I know how presumptuous and even arrogan these kinds of statements can sound. So feel free to pull me up on this.

I have posted (below) my response to a couple of things Shannon asked and I think they are good questions/comments. At the moment though this is really looking a lot like the "Shannon and Andrew" show - I know I get a few other lurkers and visitors to this blog so I would really like to throw out the invitation and urge, encourage, and pester you into joining in this discussion.

I think these topics (missional leadership, missional preaching, missional living etc.) are all incredibly important, and I know I want to learn and know more and the best way I know to do that is to do it with other people!

Shannon Asked:

---

How does one preach "missionally"?

---

Good question, and I guess I can only respond out of my own direct experience. Hopefully some others can weigh in on this conversation and shed further light/criticism etc. on it.

I would say that in what I would call "missional preaching" I am regularly focussing on three points:

1) The kingdom of God;

2) The centrality of Christ and;

3) The royal priesthood (or Luther's priesthood of believers).

These are the three core topics I have found myself continually coming back to in so many areas of ministry/life, and I think all three are key to preaching and living missionally.

There seems to be something fundamentally different about a fellowship where one person wears all the hats and calls all the shots and where more of a team effort is applied.

Of course in my context, this doesn't mean we all sit around and make every single decision together. There are plenty of things I make decisions about - there are also things others make decisions about, but generally each one in their area of expertise.

Where we come together is where we overlap or where there is uncertainity. Getting to this point hasn't been easy. There are still those who want to come back to (what I beleive is a completely unworkable) place where all decisions are made corporately - even to the point of involving the membership in some pretty mundane decision making.

It's a work in progress and I am anything but an expert. The term "missional" in the sense we are using it in this discussion is new to me. However the concept, at least as I think I understand it, isn't. It encourages me to see and hear how others in similar and also vastly different circumstances are being led in the missional direction.

The Leadership Thang II

The following post is clipped from a reply I made to Shannon's comments on my last post, Growth in the Midst of Confusion (which should probably have been called Patterns in the Midst of Change).

Shannon got me thinking and I have tried to clarify - what is still not terribly clear even in my mind - why I see "pastorcentric" ministry as detrimental to longterm real - as opposed to transferred - growth in the local church.

Please know there are no fingers being pointed here - these are my observations and could be (are very likely are) wrong.

Let's hear what y'all have to say!

---

As I see it, leadership is essential. A filter for leadership has been given to us by God - it's called spiritual gifts (it's primary role is equipping, but it is also a filter). The leadership will be a representative sample of the wider membership but will still only be small in number - dependent on the size of our fellowship - when compared to the total number of members/congregants. It will be based on leadership gifting, where responsibility is given according to gifts which are recognised by a general consensus of fellowship members.

The pastor will be one of several other leaders, and responsibility for the ministry of the fellowship will rest, first, upon these leaders as a plurality, and secondly, upon the members.

I think there are many missionally minded pastors out there serving in what are outwardly CEO roles (I mentioned a couple who greatly influenced me in my post The Leadership Thang) but - and its a big but - who are going to keep running into problems getting their congregations into a missional mindset simply because of the very structure they are forced to work in and around. I believe this is where frustration and burn-out comes from in pastoral service.

IMO the very operational structure of a CEO-type church leads to an abrogation of God-called ministry within the members. Most members, regardless of what is being preached from the front (the fact that there is a front from which to preach is also part of the problem), will continue to see the primary ministerial role as resting upon or at the feet of the pastor. They will tell themselves this is why they contribute to his salary each week - so he can do the things they cannot do or don't have the time to do themselves. And therein lies the problem.

If you were to come to my fellowship (i.e. the fellowship to which I belong and where I serve - not mine because I own it!) you would see things still very much done in the way I describe above, but it is here - in the structure itself, that we have begun to implement change. A long time ago I started preaching "missionally" but central to this was also an ongoing and gentle encouragement (at least that is how I see it!) to act missionally. And the greatest benefit I had in this was that I was not in a recognised position of pastoral leadership. I was seen as one of the leaders, but I was not "the" leader. In this approach we are seeing change start to take place in our structures. I think - even though there may still be a long, long way to go - this is part of the solution to the problem.

Missional and traditional styles or philosophies of leadership (i.e. traditional in the sense of the form or structure we operate out of - dare I call them "modernist" - and have operated out of for the best part of the last 200 years) are simply not compatible - I would go as far as saying in many ways they are mutually exclusive.

---

Does this make sense? :)

Again - these comments are based on my perceptions (which have been influenced by prayer and bible study) but are, at the end of the day, still just my perceptions.

Bring it on! :)

Patterns in the Midst of Change

Several fellowships I have a loose connection with, and one I am a part of, have recently faced some challenging times. The catalyst in every case, and for different reasons in each situation, has been loss of pastoral leadership.

What's interesting is, in every instance, the same 3 things happened;

---

1) A core group (including people not previously involved with "leadership") came forward to take responsibility for the congregation,

2) Members began to take on roles generally associated with the pastor's responsibilities and

3) A number of families moved off to other churches (actually just about everyone in each instance went to the same large, purpose driven church down the road!).

---

Fellowship number one decided to make its goal the sourcing of a new pastor. This took place over a series of months and around 2 and a half years ago a new man took to the pulpit.

Immediately just about all of those who had stepped up to the plate disappeared into the background. A few who wanted to stay involved in areas of ministry taken up in the absence of a pastor were effectively pushed out of those ministries and alienated by the new leader.

Today this fellowship is the very model of the CEO-led, attractional fellowship. It retained most of its post-pastor members and has even grown a bit when new Christians have moved into the area. All in all though, it's a Sunday centred church where the pastor calls the shots and is personally responsible for the bulk of the ministry.

Fellowship number two (actually my own), amid some turmoil and because of a difficult financial situation, had no option but to struggle on without a paid pastor. A divided leadership meant some new people (i.e. new to the fellowship's leadership team) had to step up to the plate. For around a year an interim, caretaker board was left to make sure things didn't completely dissolve. Members took on ministry roles, and some began to pursue a missional agenda - sounds sneaky, doesn't it! In reality though it was independent of any major outside influence and with no knowledge of the modern missional/emerging movement.

12 months down the track the fellowship had grown smaller, but the attitude and outlook of those who stayed was slowly beginning to change.

Today, after around 2 years, most have come to accept that there are other ways (other than the CEO pastor way) of doing church. This acceptance has introduced a new level of vitality and personal commitment to the fellowship. Things are happening now that have never happened before. There's still a long way to go, and like the Israelites in the Promised Land, a time may come when they decide they want a "king" again. But for now God is leading in a new direction and a new and exciting picture of the future of the kingdom in this part of the world starting to take shape.

Fellowship number three - the newest to experience the loss of a pastor - is today at the cross roads.

There seems to be a very strong push from within to head down a similar road to ours, to capture that which at the moment is an aberration, created of necessity, and make it the norm. Becoming less concerned with the attractional side of things and embracing a more missional philosophy of ministry.

Where they will end up is yet to be seen, but there journey sounds like it could be an interesting one.

What struck me most in all of these separate situations, was the way the same pattern existed in each examples; a pastor is lost, people step forward, direction is found, people pull together and work as a plurality to achieve an end result. The end result was different for fellowship one, than for two and possibly three, but in every case it was achieved as a result of a group effort.

Where will any of these fellowships be two years from now? I guess the answer to that question lies with God. But my sneaking suspicion is, those that choose and stay with the missional road will be in a very different place to the fellowship sailing the safer, traditional route.

The Leadership Thang

I have been thinking, praying and reading a fair bit about leadership over the last few months. In the past I have been pretty critical of the traditional "pastor at the top" model of church leadership - without going so far as to suggest we should do away with pastors altogether.

Much of my emotion comes from negative personal experiences. But I have to say I also have had some very good "pastoral experiences" - Tony A. and Mike F. being the most notable (you guys know who you are if ever you happen by this blog - your impact on my life has been incredibly significant , thank you!), and either way, I have learned a lot through all my experiences, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Well, today I received my "ministers accreditation card" - it's my proof that a denomination is actually crazy enough to certify me (no pun intended), but it has also led me to do some pretty deep thinking about what the role of the "leader" really is in the 21st century church.

So this Sunday, after much sweating and many prayers, I bit the bullet and preached on leadership from Ephesians 4. I have found this particular passage enlightening in my own journey. In verses 11 to 16 Paul simply explains the necessity of spiritually gifted leaders in a healthy church.

It is a passage that knocks traditional (and centuries old) notions of pastoral hierarchies on the head, it also destroys any (hard) post-modern dictum of a church without any delegated leadership.

Gifted leadership is, it would seem, essential for the vitality and efficiency of the church.

As I studied these verses I was given a picture of a church where the leaders, working out of their God-given abilities, reflected the ministry of the Master - Jesus, and where the members reflected the ministry of the leaders. I guess you could sum it up by saying, any church ministry is only ever as good as its leaders and when the leaders are working from spiritual gifts it's going to be many times more successful than when they aren't.

The words of Paul; "Imitate me as I imitate Christ", are echoing through my mind. How easy it is, as a follower of Jesus to quote these words as Paul's - "see, Paul said we should imitate him as he imitates Christ, but for God's sake, don't imitate me!". In reality these are the very words we as individuals (whether in recognised leadership roles or not) should all be confidently aspiring to say to those we fellowship and minister to and alongside. Now that, at least for me, is a rather daunting reminder of what being a disciple of Jesus Christ is really all about.

Yet if the members are ever going to be able to confidently encourage each other this way, the leadership has to be willing to confidently encourage the members first - not simply with hollow words, but with lives that reflect the statement. And if we accept what Paul has to say in Ephesians 4, the only way the body is going to be able to do this (i.e. "work properly") is when the leadership gifts are being recognised and used.

Rick Meigs on his fantastic blog; The Blind Beggar, has posted a list of contrasts between "missional" and "maintenance" (you can substitute "attractional" here if it helps) congregations. A large section of this list deals with leadership - we could do a lot worse than to use it as a mirror; is our life/ministry reflected in the missional list or the maintenance?

As we look at the 5 gifts of leadership given to the church and their New Testament analogs, it's interesting to see how all of them relate so well to a missional/incarnational framework of ministry.

Rick's post, Asking the Right Question, is HERE

For a look at definitions of the general roles associated with each of the 5 leadership gifts, check out this post on John Smulo's blog, called Wanted: Fivefold Ministry Team.

Part 4 of Frost and Hirsch's book The Shaping of Things to Come also takes a fairly in-depth look at the 5-fold gifts of leadership (they call it APEPT leadership - you can read some of my earlier comments relating to this section of Frost and Hirsch HERE).

Food for Thought - On Pastors and Pastoring

Dan Kimble wrote the following in an article on The Next Wave entitled,Pews, Pulpits, Pastors, Preaching and other things that can get in the way...:

Pastors - I am a "pastor", so I am not suggesting we don't use that word - but the biblical defintion was a gift of "shepherding" - not a title tagged limited mainly to a paid person who went to seminary. In the early church it was all small house churches and there were the "shepherds" (pastors) who were leading and caring for the people. So there is leadership needed, but not as a formal title given only to paid professionals, which was a spiritual gift. When someone in any church over 75 or so people call the person who gets up front "pastor", it becomes different than the "shepherds" who knew all their "sheep" by name etc., which was possible to do in smaller house church settings. But as we use the now use the title "pastor" for the person who gets up and teaches - it is not the way it was in the New Testament. Again, I am a "pastor", but I am wondering if how we title ourselves like this can be detrimental to people not understanding there are also many of them who are "pastors" , who have that gift. We seem to only use it for the paid professionals (we only do that in our church currently, because of the current cultural defining of the word). But as we look at the separation of "clergy" and the people, we can force more and more barriers between them. Even robes and how pastors may dress differently sets up a culture of having people feel more and more less likely to understand biblically they can be "pastoring" people themselves. Reading the history of why clergy wears robes or suits is fascinating and it all stemmed from cultural issues we aren't facing today. But many never have changed the dress that was once developed for reasons of specific time period and made sense then, but today may even be counter-productive to the reason they were word originally. I am not against robes or suits, depending on the context and tradition. But I wonder when what we wear causes people to think less of themselves and what they could grow into and their roles in a church.

Dan's point on the adornments of the office - the dress of the clergy - reminded me of something Patrick Johnston wrote about in his book The Church is Bigger Than you Think:

I well remember preaching in a parish church in Colombo some years ago. It was a hot and humid tropical climate and the parish priest was putting on all his robes that were designed to keep the clergy warm in unheated, medieval church buildings in north western Europe. He swung round to me and blurted out, "It's all your fault I have to wear this!" Isn't this a parable of what has happened so often through the history of the Church? It has held on to the forms and let go of the principles (p. 156).

I don't want anyone to get me wrong - It's not like I hate pastors or anything. Some of my dearests friends and most influential people in my life are pastors. In fact I am employed in a pastoral role myself and about to embark on a process of denominational "pastoral" endorsement. I just think, generally, we need to look again at the hows and whys of pastoring and get back to the model the Bible gives us for leadership. The church has to benefit from this paradigmatic shift!

If you haven't already, check out the review (Emerging Jargon - APEPT) of Part 4 of The Shaping of Things to Come. I think it presents a more biblical model for local church leadership.

Emerging Jargon - APEPT

APEPT Leadership

I haven't been much of a fan of the currently popular Pastor-at-the-top model of church leadership for a long time. In my experience it creates a self fulfilling cycle of sorts, where church members expect pastors to be spiritual Jack-of-all-trades, responsible for the "ministry" of the church while the "laity" (a word I loath) do their bit by rocking up to church on a Sunday. This can create situations where gifted members of the church are unable to be involved in the ministry of the local church, particularly if their gifting is in areas that clash with those traditionally belonging to the pastor. It also creates, either intentionally or otherwise, a perception of two classes of Christians - those who are "called" to ministry and those who are not.

Frost and Hirsch deal with this in part 4 of The Shaping of Things to Come and present what they have called the APEPT model of leadership. APEPT is an acronym based on the 5 leadership giftings of Ephesians 4:1-16; the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher.

Basically the APEPT model or mode of leadership recognises the 5 APEPT leadership giftings as crucial to growing and sustaining healthy missional ministries. The authors also see a broader application of these gifts across the general population of the church. While in a specific sense these gifts exist individually for leadership they are also broadly represented across the body.

"...here comes the revolutionary paradigm. What we have called the ministry matrix [the broad application of the APEPT gifts] suggests that the fivefold ministry belongs to, and describes in some way, the whole church".

Frost and Hirsch describe the APEPT gifts in the following way (they make the point that these 5 gifts should not be seen as offices - they are functions based on obvious gifting and not roles or career positions):

• Apostolic function: usually conducted translocally, pioneers new missional works and oversees their development.

• Prophetic function: discerns the spiritual realities in a given situation and communicates them in a timely and appropriate way to further the mission of God's people.

• Evangelistic function: communicates the gospel in such a way that people respond in faith and discipleship.

• Pastoral function: shepherds the people of God by leading, nurturing, protecting and caring for them.

• Teaching function: communicates the revealed wisdom of God so that the people of God learn how to obey all that Christ has commanded them.

While I did not see it explicitly spelled out in the book, I get the impression that Frost and Hirsch are recommending the APEPT leadership ministry belong to the Elders in the local church context and that Elders be recognised based on their APEPT gifting rather than elected in a democratic sense. This would signify a return to what I have always seen as the more biblical way of leading the local church - where the pastor is one of the Elders, not over and above the Elders. It would also signify a sharing of ministry responsibilities rather than simply expecting the Pastor to take on every role, from counsellor to accountant, regardless of gifting or personal strengths and abilities.

Frost and Hirsch promote the APEPT model as the only way for the local church to achieve spiritual maturity and effective mission. I see this as being an important point as Paul does seem to be linking the exercising of APEPT leadership and broader church giftings to Christian maturity in the Ephesians 4 passage.

Hirsch and Frost conclude,

if this is true, it is impossible to estimate what terrible damage the church has done through the loss, even active suppression, of this crucial dimension of New Testament ministry and leadership ... Perhaps the fact that APEPT has not been intentionally nurtured and practiced might have something to do with the immaturity we find in the Western church ... Verse 14 [of Ephesians 4] could well be a description of church history in the West - we have been tossed about, immature, infantile.

To me this chapter really just stated what should be the bleedingly obvious, that leadership should be shared and based on obvious spiritual gifting. Yet because of traditions and in-built mechanisms within the human psyche that seek to abrogate our individual spiritual responsibilities, this ideal has been overlooked for centuries.

In the end I really appreciate what Frost and Hirsch have achieved in this book and particularly in this chapter. If the established church is to change in order to become more effective in its mission the first area that is going to have to experience this change is leadership. A move into the missional will not be possible while church ministry is driven from the top and while class distinctions exist within the body.