It seems clear to me that we need structure if we’re going to see organisms flourish. The structure exists to support the life that’s there, and is only good in as much as it helps the flourishing of that life. I wrote about this in Part 7 of my Missional Communities series:
As things grow, some form of organization or structure is necessary if we wish to see things continue to grow… some kind of structure is actually necessary for the ongoing flourishing of life.
The assumption I’ve made in this regard is that structure follows life from a chronological standpoint. Life emerges, and we put structure in place to support the life that’s there. But something I read in an advance copy of Mike Breen‘s upcoming book Multiplying Missional Leaders has me wondering about that.
Commenting on Ezekiel 47 and 37, Mike writes:
In this passage, the temple is rebuilt and reformed, incidentally in precisely the same order in which the army is reformed from dry bones. Both receive new life from the first task of reforming. Ezekiel 47 says that the temple must be rebuilt before the water can flow, just as Ezekiel 37 indicates that the bones have to be drawn together and covered with flesh and muscle before they can receive the breath of God.
The chronological order is exactly reversed. First comes structure, then comes life. First the bones are formed into bodies (structure), then the breath fills them and they come alive (life). First the temple is rebuilt (structure), then the river begins to flow (life). And, to evoke another biblical image, first the wood is arranged on the altar (structure), then the fire falls (life).
So I wonder if there are times to work hard at putting structure in place before there is much evidence of life; in essence creating structure in the expectation of life filling the structure later. You build the house first, anticipating what kinds of structures you’ll need to support your life there, and then you move in. You build a trellis first, then you plant your cucumbers so they can grow into the structure you’ve put in place ahead of time.
Much like a business would secure enough bandwidth on their website before launching a major ad campaign, I think there are times for re-forming our structures in the expectation that when the renewing power of the Spirit comes, it will have appropriate channels to flow through. The river doesn’t do much good unless it has a channel to flow through. The breath of life in Ezekiel 37 would just be a lot of wind unless it had well-structured bodies to flow into and enliven.
The goal is always life and blessing, of course. The breath of life wants to inhabit a well-ordered structure so it can animate a body toward love and good works. The river of life wants to inhabit a well-ordered structure so it can carry the blessings of the temple out into the dry places.
I’m sure you get the picture. Perhaps well-ordered, life-stewarding structure needs to be put in place before life fills it. Perhaps structure precedes life in an important way.
It also makes me wonder if one of the reasons we don’t see more renewal in the church is that we haven’t yet prepared the structures that could receive it and multiply it for the blessing of the world.
What are your thoughts on the implications of this for church leaders? What are the structures we need to put in place for life to flourish?
That sounds awfully like what Jesus said about wineskins to me…
That's a great intuitive insight, Mark.
I was talking to a pastor last week from Sri Lanka and this EXACTLY what he said and why they are seeing so much fruit. He said he knows it is counter-intuitive, but it's what it means about there always being a harvest but there not being workers. The structure gives you the means to have workers for the harvest.
Brilliant. And it's important, I'm finding, for people to understand that "structure = leaders."
Ben – Thanks for another insightful and helpful post.
Perhaps structures can, as you describe, "prepare the way of the Lord."
Since corporate life often hinges on individual character (weakest link), and since discipleship is always limited by the capacity of the disciple maker, perhaps it would be helpful to recognize internal as well as external structures. Both seem to be absolutely essential to sustain a move of God.
1. Internal structures could be individually tailored and might include devotional, abiding, study and accountability rhythms – marked by our covenant relationship with God, in Christ.
2. External structures could be corporately tailored and might include prayer, discipleship, liturgy, and missional rhythms – marked by our covenant relationships with others, in Christ.
I like that way of thinking about it. Ultimately I think the structures we establish are the leaders we develop, both in terms of character and skill.
Interesting way of looking and thinking about "structures." Reminds me of the new mantra over the past few years, "We don't go to church. We 'are' the church."
Exactly! Developing leaders is analogous to an endo-skeleton that allows a body to stand up and do stuff. Without that structure of leaders we are "the blob of Christ" instead of "the body of Christ."
I think there are times and seasons where this is definitely important. I've been through a season like this recently and it's saved my life. The problem is this: So much of the time our pre-structuring is just busy-ness, not something inspired by the Lord. When our structuring before life is inspired by Jesus, then it's beautiful. When it is our own doing, it results in life-less structure.
True! We can definitely use “structure” as an excuse to avoid the messiness of engaging in real discipleship and mission. The key, I think, is to be honest in our evaluation of the fruit that's coming from our ministry.
Ben, I totally agree we must be honest with our evaluation of the fruit in our community.
My next question would be: How often do you evaluate the fruit? How long do we give the current structure a shot before moving on to a new one or a re-formed structure?
Also, With this you must have current metrics of what is "fruitful", what does this look like for you and your body?
Good questions Sean! Short answers to some of them:
We evaluate every six months or so at a weekend leadership event that allows leaders to evaluate what's happened in the past six months, and then pray and dream, and make adjustments and plan for the next six months, along with feedback and input from me.
For us fruitfulness is basically 1) new disciples, 2) mature disciples. So, are we seeing people become disciples of Jesus? And are we seeing them looking more and more like Jesus?
Wow, this is good. Thank you.
One of the core values at my church in regards to community is that, "Structure always submits to Spirit." Your post gives the exact thought and explanation behind that, and in such a beautiful way.
There has to be some sort of foundation and common ground for any movement to take place in a group of people. The structure is the foundation, the static and firm basis for the dynamic and flexible movement of life. Church leaders must continually remind themselves that structure is a tool, not a goal. Structure should never be glorified.
Good thoughts Ryan. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Great insight, Another thought to add, When my son was born in Sept I got to watch him take his first breath. A child is completely formed and developed in the womb and it's not until it hits the outside air does it take it's first breath.
I like that illustration Derek!
Good stuff Ben. In my usual form (smile)…I think that the danger is that much ministry we see today builds a house without having even a small family to move in. Or puts up a trellis without the rose bush being planted below. I think that there's a distinction between future thinking structure that serves the organism and building structures to create life that is not there even in seedling form. But, one of the reasons I love the 3DM stuff is that is seems to have that future-thinking structure in place in it's core. Just my two cents.
True enough, Luke! I also think that “structure” for 3DM = leaders, not necessarily processes and systems. The infrastructure is the leaders you invest in to actually make disciples out on the “edges,” which is the key to movement.
Ben,
Could you describe more in-depth of what you mean by "edges," and how that is key to movement?
Thanks. 🙂
By "edges" I mean those who are furthest from the "center" of the culture (senior leadership), those who are coming to faith through involvement with our communities, etc. Discipling those people is the key to movement because those are the people those I'm discipling are making disciples of… make sense?
Another way to say it is that I can't disciple everyone in the community from the pulpit, so I need to disciple people who can disciple people who can… and on it goes, making disciples on the "edges" of the community. But if I can't make disciples who make disciples, those on the edges won't become disciples, or they'll only become disciples as quickly as I can personally disciple them. Movements demand a strong, robust culture of leadership development.
That totally makes sense! Thanks!
I had one more example pop to mind as I read this: God formed Adam and then breathed life into him, rather than animating the soil and then forming it into Adam.
I think this kind of leading and conversation is important right now as the Western Church is beginning to recognize we've over-structured and stifled life. But we need to be careful we don't simply adopt a strategy of no structure as a response.
Good one, Nate. A good lesson for me has been that I need to stop “tinkering with the model” in my mind, and simply engage in “building the structure” by discipling and developing leaders. It's the difference between trying to be the architect of a community and learning to be the leader of a community.
Bro,
Love the unspoken comparison of a Theorist vs. Practitioner in this comment. Super Helpful. Thanks for all you do!
Indeed, like the difference between being a vacation planner and a safari guide.
Gotcha!
Do you have any thoughts on what the value each side brings to the table? In what time and place is it appropriate to see from both vantage points?
p.s- Would I be able to shoot you an e-mail with some more leadership questions? – My e-mail is srich3@gmail.com if that is possible and you want to shoot me one first.
Well, “theorist” has a bit of a negative connotation. I'd say we should be training leaders who are competent as theologians, strategists and practitioners. Probably should always be all of them, but you'll be naturally gifted in certain ones and express certain ones in certain seasons.I'll shoot you an email so we can talk further.
indicates that the bones have to be drawn together and covered with flesh and muscle before they can receive the breath of God.
This has been the case in my life.