Started a new read this week. Clusters: Creative Mid-Sized Missional Communities (Paperback: $23.60, PDF: $10.00) is written by Bob Hopkins, who was on staff with co-author Mike Breen at St. Thomas' in Sheffield, UK. The book is basically the thoughts, in large part, of Breen, written down and recorded by Hopkins. I'm nearly 100 pages into it and I can already tell this is part of a problem. Breen's thoughts are great, very meaty - but Hopkins writing style is very proper/textbook-ish. The content is worth the wading through the words. This is definitely one of those books that would do well to have a rewrite, or at least a good editor to sit down and shape the text more.

That aside, the premise of the book is to explain what the authors believe is the missing middle element in a lot of the Church today: the mid-sized community. We see the small and large represented (although, not necessarily as true to Scripture as they could be) in both the traditional model of Sunday School/small groups and congregational worship, to the more modern cell-based/house church groups and celebration gatherings. It is in the "extended family," that gathering and connection of a collection of the 'small' into groups of anywhere from 15-75 people. It is in this place that the building up of a community identity, a place of belonging, and a place where all can participate/develop gifts occurs. It is the "synagogue" or "72" that we see reflected in the life of Jesus and the early church. It is the "social space" described by Joseph Myers in "The Search to Belong" (a must read if you haven't picked it up yet).

I'm sure I'll blog about my impressions as I journey through the text. For now I'm enjoying gathering a greater insight into some of the thoughts behind the church structures and practices of places like Bridgeway that Andrea and I have been a part of.

One quick insight that I want to pass along that I really liked (that is too wordy to hand write into my Moleskine) is the discussion in the book on how to tie together the small groups/cluster sized groups to ensure the health and orthodoxy are maintained in the church overall. I think this is a concern that surfaces anytime any real value is placed upon growing small and mid. When house churches, for example, are given weight in the body of the church, and clusters are grown to a place of importance, how is the overall vision of the church protected and communicated, and how is orthodoxy protected? This is how Hopkins and Breen address it (remember, it's wordy - but push through the words as the thoughts are good):

[The authors have just been talking about how control is often a shaping principle of traditional church systems - whether the control be up-down, as in the Catholic/Anglican/Luthern models, or down-up, as in the free-church models (including Southern Baptist in my own heritage). They argue that breaking away from such controlling-shaped structures is a radical shift to take on.]

But if we move away from control as a shaping principle of the system and structure, the immediate question arises... how can we guarantee the health and orthodoxy of the multiplying communities of faith? In such a dispersed model of church, how can you protect from deviation? There is a right concern that things don't "get out of control"!

The first and most important answer, is that we can't! When a desire to protect orthodoxy and achieve risk minimisation are the dominant concerns, then mission and movement are discouraged or even stifled (emphasis mine). The disciples desired to control others who ministered in Jesus' name... but Jesus' response was that "those who are not against us are for us, do not seek to prevent them" (Mark 9:40). Paul's model of mission seems to have been similar. He planted the seeds of the Gospel, called forth new disciples and encouraged them to remain true as he went on his way trusting others who did the watering (1 Cor 3:6) and God who gave the increase. He then later returned to appoint leaders and to encourage them further. Still later he had to write letters in part to address the problems that his risk-taking mission had allowed. On one level, we could say that we only have much of the New Testament because the missionary movement initiated by Jesus and continued after Pentecost, was so releasing and permissive of initiative with dispersed responsibility, that letters of adjustment, correction and explanation had to be written (emphasis mine).

However, having affirmed the inevitable risk involved in a releasing approach to developing leaders, this system is not irresponsible. There is every bit as high concern to avoid anything destructive and to protect healthy growth. But the difference is that the mechanism is through an emphasis on accountability rather than control. It is crucial to understand that an effective mission movement based on healthy clusters (biblical congregations), depends on overall leaders developing an environment that is high on accountability and low on control. This I believe is the only way to deliver appropriate levels of protection without restricting the release of creative mission energy.