Thursday, July 28, 2005
note to self: perhaps i’m not mad
Im noticing this kind of discussion happening over at Steves blog since he questioned the APEPT model of leadership as the only model portrayed by Paul in his ministry and letters. After his post Alan commented with:
And I suspect many of you would not like to be part of genuine missional movements because of your reserve on so many things. How are we every going to change things if everyone is so touchy about basic biblical ministry?
Its the words basic biblical ministry that send the same shivers down my spine … Its the idea that someone is pointing out a truth that cant or shouldnt be questioned. Its also that it seems that when one questions a model like APEPT its seen as an attack rather than someone asking questions that might need to be asked.
And the idea that by questioning it makes one touchy or reserved also worries me … That being said, I do like the APEPT model, but do believe that Paul offers us more models for leadership that come out of the community in which he is planting a church. Perhaps people like Steve are asking some questions that the others dont want to hear or accept, and that is why they get such a weird response
Perhaps hes asking questions in much the same way that a Prophet would in the APEPT model? The Prophet is rarely liked, because they ask questions that the others dont like.
[ironic musing: arguing against the APEPT model by using the APEPT categories?]
)
Steve
I am a sucker for irony. Love it. Very Kierkegaardian/Socratic. 🙂
Mate, I am not saying it’s the only form of ministry. But I have come to believe that it remains essential, not only because it is mentioned as a fundamental aspect of ecclesia in Eph 4, but because it reverberates in and through the practices of the Early Church (ala Acts and beyond.) It seems that they were sensitive to the foundational importance of ‘at least APEPT.’ (We can add to it, but I’m not sure whether we should subtract from it.)
I am not so much touchy about APEPT being questionsd. People can question all they like. But I will admit to being somewhat exasperated. Because the text before us has been there for as long as we have had the Bible and we have yet to take it seriously! And I do believe it is fundamental to a recovery of missional forms of church. We need to come out from under the hegemonic sway of the Pastor-Teacher forms of influence/leadership and braoden out the discussion. It seems to me that APEPT, being as important what Paul clearly thinks it is, is a darn good place to start. We are beyond having to question the whole deal. Its time to put it to the test in a wholesome organic way!
Comment by alan hirsch — July 28, 2005 @ 2:27 pm