“Shifting the Center of Gravity” – Reconstructing the Church

Part Five: The Rise of Transvocational Ministry

We are perhaps in the midst of a paradigm shift in the practice of ministry.

Often, we use this term liberally, describing fairly ordinary change processes as a “paradigm shift.” However, we are using the term in its most revolutionary intent.  

It was philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn who first popularized the term “paradigm shift” in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions first released in 1962. The word paradigm has Greek origins paradeigma and had an important role in Aristotle’s theory of argument. While the word is usually rendered “example” in English translations, Aristotle meant it in the sense of an “exemplar” or the very best and instructive example. When something was in dispute, it is analogical, something that almost everyone would agree is true between two things is a paradeigma.^[1]

The idea of the paradigm shift has been widely used and applied to many fields. It is a complex concept even in Kuhn’s own writings. Kuhn himself describes paradigm in two different senses:

On the one hand, it stands for the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community. On the other, it denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle-solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science.^[2]

I will employ the term in the first sociological sense, as a kind of constellation of group commitments. In the scientific community, anomalies can emerge. Often anomalies are suppressed, to preserve the status quo of the paradigm. Kuhn describes clusters of anomalies that lead to crisis, “blurring of a paradigm and a consequent loosening of the rules of normal research,” this creates a kind of “despair of those who have seen it as the end of an existing paradigm” and “a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance.^[3] Kuhn lists examples of paradigm shifts as “Copernican, Newtonian, chemical, and Einsteinian revolutions.”^[4]

Kuhn also describes a transitional phase between paradigm shifts,

“During the transition period there will be a large but never complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old and new paradigm.”^[5] “Often a new paradigm emerges, at least in the embryo, before a crisis has developed far or been explicitly recognized” … “In other cases, however—those of Copernicus, Einstein, and contemporary nuclear theory, for example—considerable time elapses between the first consciousness of breakdown and the emergence of the new paradigm.”^[6]

In the ecclesial realm, anomalies have been showing up for 50 years. The decline of church attendance was a sign of larger change, but we have mostly sought to preserve the status quo of the previous age, rather than deal with the emerging crisis.      

David Bosch took up the language of “paradigm shift” to describe the emerging missional scenario in the West.^[7] In the U.S., upcoming generations are having a qualitatively different experience than our ancestors just one or two generations removed. At the dawn of the third millennium, Bosch observed “a growing awareness that we live in an era of change from one way of understanding reality to another.”^[8]

Discoveries in biology, chemistry, and most particularly in physics have challenged long-held fundamental assumptions about life and the universe. Some call it “postmodern science” as it repudiates the assumptions of previous paradigms. Other call it “post-critical studies.” Leonard Sweet spoke prophetically of this as “an emerging cosmology that is now as revolutionary as once were the Copernican and Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmologies.”^[9] Sweet writes of quantum physics enlivening a spiritual perspective of the universe, that replaces religious sensibility with a “quantum spirituality.”^[10]

This nascent way of thinking is what Margaret Wheatley called simply the “new science.”^[11] Social psychologists Sara Savage and Eolene MacMillan laud the new sciences like quantum and chaos theories for having “opened the doors for a more fruitful dialogue between science and religion.”^[12] Others like Michael Moynagh and the Santa Fe Institute use the term “complexity thinking” to describe a variety of theories replacing the mechanistic Newtonian world-view.^[13] Mechanistic Newtonian assumptions are being replaced by the complexity thinking of the strange new quantum world in science. This paradigm shift, along with technological advances, have contributed to the restructuring of western and global society in dramatic ways. The church has largely failed to adapt to these changes and is still living under the spell of stale and outmoded logic models.

We have treated church decline, financial erosion, a failure of discipleship, and the disappearance of generational cohorts as technical problems with technical solutions. Our denominational systems are like a religious machine, if we identify the broken parts, and trade them out with the new pieces, the machine will start to hum again.

As Bishop Carter and I identified in Gardens in the Desert, what we are facing is an adaptive challenge that requires adaptive leadership.

Transvocational Ministry—An Adaptive Response

In this series, we have explored the biblical and historical foundations of transvocational ministry and laid out a vision for how the modern church can embrace this holistic, integrated model of ministry. In some ways, we are writing forward toward the future. Meaning, from a denominational system that is still thinking and behaving in the previous paradigm. Some of this won’t even fully make sense until ten years from now.

But we’ve been careful to locate this in a long-forgotten paradigm, that of the Biblical and social world of the first-century church. We’ve rediscovered how work, faith, and family are not separate spheres but interconnected aspects of a believer’s vocation. Now, as we move forward, we must address the challenges that inevitably arise when seeking to adapt to such a paradigm shift in today’s church culture.

Transvocational ministry is not a mere theoretical concept—it is a practical, lived reality that demands change at multiple levels of church life and leadership. While the vision is clear, the road to full implementation is fraught with obstacles. Here I want to examine a few key challenges to transvocational ministry and offer strategies for how we might navigate these difficulties with wisdom and perseverance.

Reconstructing the Church

No single person has been more influential in my own life and ministry than E. Stanley Jones (1884–1973). Jones was a missionary theologian, evangelist, and author born in Baltimore, Maryland and served on the faculty of Asbury College in Willmore, Kentucky. He was called to missionary service in India in 1907 and began working with the lowest castes, including Dalits. Jones was the architect of a series of interreligious lectures (or “round tables”) to the educated classes in India. Thousands of these lectures were held across the Indian subcontinent during the first decades of the twentieth century. One of his most well-known books was The Christ of the Indian Road, which sold more than a million copies worldwide in 1925.

For me, the most important book of Jones that any Christian could read today is his less known The Reconstruction of the Church. Here he suggests the church is a revolutionary embodiment of God’s “organized love.” He sees the Jesus way of handling a paradigm shift, is not destroying the old “mummified” and “constrictive” structures of the old system, but fulfilling them. Jones believes the “revolution par excellence”… “destroys a system as a system by taking out the good and fulfilling it, and thus rendering the old unnecessary and irrelevant.”[14]

For Jones, the key to reconstruction lies in Antioch. In the book of Acts, Jerusalem represents the center of the existing system, Antioch represents the edge, and the two forms of church, although very different, live together in symbiotic relationship (Acts 15).

In the twenty-first century, I have described the Fresh Expressions movement as a blended ecology in which inherited forms of church live in symbiotic relationship with emerging forms of church. In the liminality, the “in-betweenness” of the two paradigms, this allows us to create little future experiments from the base of the existing system.

In Romans 11:11-24, there is an image of the church as a living organism, an olive tree, that has both deep roots and wild branches. God is grafting the wild little gentile communities (Antioch) into the existing tree (Jerusalem). Over time, the symbiotic relationship transforms and fulfills the potential of the whole organism.

Today, this looks like inherited churches that cultivate new Christian communities with those currently not connected to any church in the normal spaces and rhythms of life. However, this activity raises a series of challenges for congregations. How do we make space for this with fewer people in our pews, less financial support, and often part-time clergy that are overworked and underpaid? Jones believes the key to reconstruction lies in the lay-led nature of Antioch, “The church at Antioch was founded by laity, carried on by laity, and spread through the ancient world by laity.”*[15]        

Overcoming the Clergy-Laity Divide

As noted previously one of the most entrenched obstacles to transvocational ministry is the clergy-laity divide, which has existed in various forms throughout church history. This divide reinforces the idea that full-time ministry is reserved for ordained pastors, while the rest of the congregation’s role is limited to supporting the clergy or engaging in passive roles within the church structure. In many churches, there is an assumption that ministry is something done “by professionals for the laypeople,” creating a stark separation between those who lead and those who follow.

Jones writing prophetically from 50 years ago, states, “the next great spiritual awakening is going to come through the laity. Hitherto, the center of gravity has been with the clergy, now the center of gravity has to be shifted to the laity.”[16] Jones remarks that the clergy-laity divide “takes away from the laity that spiritual growth and development which comes through sharing one’s faith.”[17]

The divide between clergy and laity is institutionalized in most churches, whether through leadership structures, financial models, or ministry expectations. Overcoming this divide requires a radical rethinking of what it means to be in ministry and who is called to it. Transvocational ministry challenges the assumption that full-time ministry is limited to the clergy and instead asserts that every believer is a minister of the gospel.

I want to dive into this more fully in coming posts, but let me conclude with some practical suggestions for navigating this challenge:

• Shift the Language: Instead of referring to clergy as the only “ministers,” begin to use language that reflects the truth of Scripture—that all believers are called to serve and lead in the world. Pastors can model this by leading as fellow servants, not as spiritual elites, and by sharing leadership with laypeople in meaningful ways.

• Empower Lay Leaders: The church must intentionally raise up and empower lay leaders who feel called to serve in their workplaces, communities, and beyond. This can be done through focused missional discipleship processes that equip believers for ministry in every sphere of life.

• Redefine Success: The church must redefine what success looks like in ministry. Instead of measuring effectiveness by attendance numbers or professional salaries, we should measure the impact of ministry in the world—whether through transformed communities, workplaces, or personal lives. And this will require new metrics that encourage the kind of behaviors we want to see.

•  Reimagining Church Structures for Flexibility and Mission: Traditional church structures are often designed to accommodate a model where ministry is focused on programs, services, and a hierarchical system of roles. The structure of the church tends to be top-heavy, with a singular focus on corporate worship, pastoral care, and event-driven programming. This can inadvertently make it difficult to recognize the diverse ways God is working in and through people beyond the walls of the church building. The rigidity of many church structures can stifle innovation and hinder believers from stepping into their transvocational calling. Programs and schedules are often set up to support a “one-size-fits-all” approach to ministry, but this can be limiting in a world where ministry takes place in myriad contexts, from the workplace to the home, to neighborhoods and online spaces.

• Decentralize Ministry: Move toward a more decentralized model where leadership is spread out and ministry is shared among many members, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few full-time staff. This can include the creation of smaller, more organic ministry teams that focus on specific areas of mission, such as workplace ministry, community outreach, and neighborhood initiatives.

• Cultivate Fresh Expressions: Rather than focusing on large, program-driven congregational events, focus on cultivating fresh expressions that serve the needs of a specific group of people. These smaller, more agile groups can adapt to the needs of their members and engage in ministry in ways that are relevant to their particular context.

• Flexible Leadership Roles: Rethink the roles of pastors and church staff. Instead of expecting them to fulfill every ministry need, pastors should see themselves as equippers who support and empower the lay leaders to live out their calling in the world. Pastors may not need to be the ones leading every ministry—others in the church are capable of taking on leadership roles that align with their specific gifts and callings.

These could be a few simple next steps that help us shift the center of gravity, and reconstruct a church for the future. A church that is flourishing in a new paradigm.

---

[1] Kuhn, Thomas S., and Ian Hacking. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. P. xix.

[2] Kuhn p. 174

[3] Kuhn p. 84.

[4] Kuhn p. 67

[5] Kuhn p. 85.

[6] Kuhn p. 86.

[7] Borrowing from concepts first developed by Thomas Kuhn in, The Structures of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books, 1991. P. 185.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Sweet, Leonard I. Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic. Dayton, Ohio: Whaleprints, 1991. P. 8

[10] Sweet, Pp. 6-7

[11] Wheatley, Margaret J. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999.P. xiii

[12] Savage, Sara B., and Eolene M. MacMillan. The Human Face of Church: A Social Psychology and Pastoral Theology Resource for Pioneer and Traditional Ministry. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2007.

[13] Moynagh, Michael. Church in Life: Emergence, Ecclesiology and Entrepreneurship. London, UK: SCM Press, 2017. P. 11P. 21

[14] Jones, E Stanley. The Reconstruction of the Church. The E. Stanley Jones Foundation, 2020. (First published by Abingdon Press, 1970).

[15] Jones, 58. *“laymen” replaced with “laity.”

[16] Jones, 58.

[17] Jones, 59.