Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Kooy, Steven Lee. “Developing and Implementing a Model for Discipleship Through Student Missional Houses on the Campus of Queen's University.” D. Min., Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2018. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Kooy, Steven Lee. “Developing and Implementing a Model for Discipleship Through Student Missional Houses on the Campus of Queen's University.” D. Min., Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2018. [ Citation Page ] Tyndale University College & Seminary Developing and Implementing a Model for Discipleship through Student Missional Houses on the Campus of Queen's University A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Ministry Tyndale Seminary by Steven Lee Kooy Toronto Canada February 2018 [ Title Page ] Copyright © 2018 by Steven Lee Kooy All rights reserved [ Title Page Verso ] ABSTRACT The purpose of this project was to develop and implement a model of student discipleship through missional houses on the campus of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. In order to achieve this objective, biblical and theological data, social science literature, and current missional housing models were researched and a model for missional houses was designed, implemented, and tested. The methodology undertaken was Participatory Action Research and included resident surveys, missional health assessments, and interviews. This data provided the tools needed to discern a transformational model for discipling students through campus missional houses. [ Page ] vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to express my deepest appreciation for everyone who played a role in helping me complete this project. Your prayers, support, and encouragement have been invaluable to this process. I have profound gratitude to God who has taken me on this leadership journey and stretched me beyond what I thought was humanly possible. The verse that best describes my experience writing this thesis is Matthew 19:26: “Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’” I never wanted to write a thesis; however, God made me do it—and I am thankful he did! God taught me so much over the last three years and I am excited to see how he will use this training to continue developing me as a leader and building his kingdom. I offer my deepest thanks to my family for all their support in this journey. Julia, Megan, and Izzy have been a tremendous strength to me throughout this process and I am so grateful for everything you did to help me succeed. I couldn’t have done this without all of your love, sacrifice, and encouragement. I also want to thank my academic family. Dr. William Thornton was instrumental to me throughout my studies. His razor sharp attention to detail helped me to hone my writing skills (especially block quotations) and inspired me to strive for excellence. Thank you Bill, for reading thousands of my written words including some that never made it into this document. Thank you for your sacrificial investment in my life and ministry. [ Page ] vii I am so grateful to Dr. Paul Bramer and Dr. Mark Chapman for co- shepherding me through this doctoral pilgrimage. I have learned so much from you both and through the instructors you have provided for our cohort. Your investment is already having a tremendous ripple effect in my life. God blessed me with an incredible peer thesis team consisting of Heather Malnick, Mark Lawrence, and Heather McCance, as well as so many phenomenal classmates like Glendale Lazaro, Yvonne Chan, Walter Joseph, Errol Johnson and Fanosie Wolde. Thank you for your insights, encouragement, and friendship. This adventure would not have been the same without you. I am thankful every day for the incredible ministry community in which I serve and want to thank my board, ministry team, and huddle groups for investing in my leadership, praying for me and cheering me on. This was a project of our community and for our community and it was a gift to learn so much with you. Special thanks to Emily Burnell for all your organizational and logistical work, the missional house design team of Ryan Farrell and Evelyn Reid, and to Kathy Doering and Rebekah Smith for editing the many pages of my thesis. And thank you to the leaders and residents of the missional houses. You stepped into a ministry experiment and allowed yourself to experience the blessings and challenges of deep communal discipleship. Your efforts are the start of something that I am convinced will have significant kingdom impact, and I have already seen how God has used you to bring transformation. Thank you for your service, and vulnerability, and for co-creating a model for missional living. [ Page ] viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .... xii LIST OF FIGURES .... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .... xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .... 1 Ministry Context .... 1 Opportunity .... 3 Innovation .... 5 Scope .... 7 Outcomes .... 8 Conclusion .... 9 Key Terms .... 10 CHAPTER 2: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE .... 12 Discipleship .... 12 The Mission of God .... 16 What is “Missional”? .... 25 What Role Can Community Play in Missional Living? .... 26 New Monasticism .... 28 Mike Breen and 3DM’s Model for Missional Discipleship .... 31 Incorporating Breen’s Model .... 36 Summary .... 39 CHAPTER 3: PRECEDENT LITERATURE .... 40 Group Dynamics .... 40 Stages of Group Development .... 41 Group Conflict .... 43 Power .... 47 Size of Group .... 51 Summary .... 53 Student Leadership Development .... 54 Experiential Learning .... 54 Mentoring .... 57 Implications and Responses .... 59 Summary .... 61 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY .... 62 Context .... 62 Objective .... 63 Research Questions .... 64 Project Narrative .... 65 Research Population .... 67 [ Page ] ix Approach .... 68 Stage 1 (January - August 2016) .... 68 Stage 2 (September – December 2016) .... 69 Stage 3 (January 2017 – April 2017) .... 69 Stage 4 (May – August 2017) .... 70 The Model .... 71 Instrumentation .... 75 Data Collection .... 80 Ethical Considerations .... 81 Privacy and Confidentiality .... 83 Inclusion .... 83 Consent .... 83 Conflict of Interest .... 84 Summary .... 84 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS .... 85 Missional Health Assessment Findings .... 87 One Semester Data .... 88 Two Semester Data .... 89 Summary of Missional Health Assessment Findings .... 92 Semester-end Survey Findings .... 92 Overall Experience .... 93 Growth .... 94 Weaknesses .... 94 Improvements .... 95 Don't Change .... 96 Additional Comments .... 96 Semester-end Survey Thematic Findings .... 96 Implications of Semester-end Survey Findings .... 98 Leadership Journal Findings .... 99 Implications of Leadership Journal Findings .... 99 Missional House Model Findings .... 100 Thematic Findings of Missional House Model Interviews .... 110 Implications of Missional House Model Interview Findings .... 111 Summary .... 111 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .... 112 Observations .... 112 Recommendations .... 116 Further Study .... 123 Personal Reflections .... 126 APPENDICES .... 127 Appendix A Missional House Resident Application .... 128 Appendix B Individual Missional Health Assessment .... 131 [ Page ] x Appendix C Huddle Group Information .... 133 Appendix D Weekly Journal Reflection .... 135 Appendix E Semester-end Survey .... 136 Appendix F Missional House Model Interview Questions .... 137 Appendix G Letter of Information .... 138 Appendix H Consent Form .... 140 Appendix I List of All Research Code Words .... 142 Appendix J Individual Missional Health Assessment MMH One Semester Results .... 149 Appendix K Individual Missional Health Assessment WMH One Semester Results .... 150 Appendix L Individual Missional Health Assessment WMH Two Semester Results – Semester One .... 151 Appendix M Individual Missional Health Assessment WMH Two Semester Results – Semester Two .... 152 Appendix N Individual Missional Health Assessment WMH Two Semester Results – Changes from Semester One and Two .... 153 Appendix O Individual Missional Health Assessment MMH Two Semester Results – Semester One .... 154 Appendix P Individual Missional Health Assessment MMH Two Semester Results – Semester Two .... 155 Appendix Q Individual Missional Health Assessment MMH Two Semester Results – Changes from Semester One and Two .... 156 Appendix R Semester-end Survey Code Words, Categories, and Themes .... 157 Appendix S Missional House Model Interview Code Words, Categories, and Themes .... 163 REFERENCE LIST .... 174 [ Page ] xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Roles, functions, and expectations of Geneva House team .... 2 Table 2: Missional house residents .... 67 Table 3: Research instrumentation .... 81 Table 4: Research instruments and participation .... 87 Table 5: Number of responses from two semesters of missional health assessment data .... 90 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Geneva House leadership structure 2016-2017 .... 6 Figure 2: Geneva’s Adaptation of Breen’s LifeShape triangle (Breen 2011, 49) .... 38 Figure 3: Geneva Missional House: Missional training through a student residence .... 60 [ Page ] xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AR Action Research CRC Christian Reformed Church MH Missional House MMH Men’s Missional House WMH Women’s Missional House [ Page ] xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The objective of this project was to develop and implement an effective model of student discipleship through a campus missional house model. Geneva House has been experimenting with a house-based campus ministry for over twenty years and this thesis provided the ministry with valuable insights and tools to enhance our efforts to join God in his mission to reach out and draw everyone to himself. Chapter 1 of this thesis provides the foundation upon which this project was built. It introduces the ministry context, opportunity, innovation, scope of research, outcomes, and key terms. Ministry Context The setting for this project is a campus ministry called Geneva House located at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. Initiated by the Christian Reformed Church in 1974, the organization was originally known as Kingston Campus Ministries. In 1993 the ministry made a defining decision to purchase a house on campus as a basis of operations and the space was given the name “Geneva House.” This name has become the main designation of the ministry and the residential mission approach has been central for the organization since that time. Five students normally reside at Geneva House and they share their home [ Page ] 1 with ministry groups that fill the residence most days of the week during the regular school year. This symbiosis of residence and mission has become a way of life for members of Geneva House; the leaders of the organization place great value in this method of ministering to the campus. The approach is a natural outflow of the mission statement of Geneva, which is “to be an incredible community where people experience Jesus and his transformation” (Geneva House 2017). One of the foundational ways of building community for Geneva has been inviting students to live together in a ministry house. The presence of personal testimonies of transformation throughout the years lend credence to the assumption that this approach has merit for campus ministry. The residents of Geneva House are part of a large team of leaders that provide direction for the ministry. In the 2017-2018 school year, this team consisted of twenty-three team leaders, twelve team members, three interns, and six paid staff. Table 1 below describes the functions and expectations assigned to each role. Table 1: Roles, functions, and expectations of Geneva House team [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 1 details ] [ Page ] 2 [ Table 1 continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 1 details ] Opportunity When I became the ministry director of Geneva House in 2007, I saw great potential for the development of the existing ministry model. I witnessed [ Page ] 3 students enjoying deep fellowship by living together in Christian community and there were many opportunities for discipleship. For the next seven years, I worked on developing a discipleship program based out of this student residence that was focused on developing our students as followers of Jesus and leaders in his kingdom. It was an exciting adventure of experiential learning and I saw the positive effects of ministry through residence-centric discipleship. As our ministry grew and flourished, God began to stir within me a desire for multiplication. In 2014, I had more students apply to live at Geneva House than available spaces. When I considered the thousands of students who lived in houses in the neighbourhoods surrounding the campus, the idea of creating additional ministry houses was born. I began to imagine a campus filled with residences where students were living intentionally as followers of Jesus and reaching out to their friends and neighbours. I was moved to think about the transformative effect this would have on the lives of both the residents and their neighbours. My hope was to see residents sharing meals and experiences, and learning how to live out God’s mission together as a house. If students lived intentionally in this way, perhaps they might view discipleship as more than just a weekly activity; they would learn that discipleship is a holistic way of life to be lived out in deep fellowship with other followers of Jesus. As an outflow of this lifestyle, God’s kingdom would advance and come more fully on campus. [ Page ] 4 Innovation I began to work with a team of students and staff to design a new and enhanced version of Geneva’s current ministry house model. Together we created a concept that was designated “missional houses.” These residences would be spaces of intentional discipleship where students would be apprenticed to follow Jesus and live out his mission for the world. My team performed research into the concept of “missional living,” designed a model for ministry and then navigated the housing logistics of property and resident selection. I created a resident application (Appendix A) based on the current Geneva House form and I invited students in our community to join me in a missional house movement. What I did not expect was that this idea to create another ministry house would actually multiply more quickly than I thought. So many residents applied that I decided to begin a pilot project phase with not one but two houses. One home was designated for women and another for men, and these two houses were in addition to the existing Geneva House. I decided to set up the leadership of the houses as a don-resident system. I asked two upper year students from our leadership team to head up the women’s house, and a local youth pastor and one of his youth leaders from this church to lead the men’s house. No formal leadership training was provided for these leaders and I relied on their past ministry experience to guide them. These four people were the house leaders, but the residents were also considered missional leaders. Thus the missional houses created two new categories of leaders to Geneva’s existing structure which resulted in six types of leaders: missional house [ Page ] 5 leaders, missional leaders, team leaders, team members, interns, and staff, illustrated in the organizational chart on the next page, Figure 1. On May 1, 2016, the ministry residences were inaugurated and this began an important phase of both ministry and a discernment process for the exploration of a missional house model. The residents would be invited not only to be part of the missional house experience, but would also be invited to participate in a research project. This study would test the validity of the pilot project in order to Figure 1: Geneva House leadership structure 2016-2017 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1 details ] [ Page ] 6 determine its effectiveness. Never before had this level of scrutiny been applied within a ministry house of Geneva and it was hoped that the research gleaned would help our organization to enhance and multiply a residence-based ministry. Scope The research component of this project involved two areas of study: experiences of the new residents and three external models of missional houses. Participants in Geneva’s student missional homes were invited to participate in a Participatory Action Research program with three components: a weekly reflection journal, an individual missional health assessment, and a semester-end program review questionnaire. I planned to have participants surveyed through a missional health assessment (Appendix B) at the beginning of the program in order to provide a benchmark to measure patterns related to missional health. They were asked to set personal growth goals and keep a journal (Appendix D) for the duration of the project which would record data related to these goals. At the end of the first semester they would complete the missional health assessment questionnaire a second time to track any changes that have occurred. They would complete a program evaluation survey (Appendix E) at the end of each semester in order to gain insights needed to make corrections to our model. At the end of the program participants would complete the missional health assessment survey a third time in order to measure any additional changes made. A specific timeline associated with this plan is laid out in Chapter 4. [ Page ] 7 Three external models of missional residences were also studied in order to gain insights into their programs. Representatives from Newman House, MoveIn, and Redeemer University College provided valuable insights from their specific approaches and findings from this research are presented in Chapter 5. Implications of this research study for Geneva House are discussed in Chapter 6 and recommendations for further study are provided. Outcomes At the outset of this project, I had hoped for two outcomes. First I wanted to gain valuable insights from studying other missional houses that I could apply to Geneva’s program. Although the other models were not exactly the same as Geneva’s, there were enough similarities to provide relevant data that could inform my work at Queen’s. Secondly, I hoped that the students involved in our program would develop in three areas: missional living, missional training, and missional activity. By choosing to participate in this program, students would experience living missionally with others. They would be required to share their living space and to make significant investments in their housemates, in their relationship with God, and their friend networks. I was hopeful that this intentional investment would have a positive impact on each individual involved, and even if negative outcomes occurred, each student would receive a unique and positive experience of living missionally. I also anticipated that students would gain a greater understanding of God’s mission and how they could be part of God’s work to reconcile the world to himself. Through a weekly discipleship [ Page ] 8 group, regular mentorship by missional home leaders, intentional missional training, and shared missional experiences, residents of the missional houses would grow as disciples of Jesus. I was hopeful that students would also experience new opportunities for living out the mission of God in their specific context. Students would plan and participate in weekly events designed to build community with their friends who are not following Jesus and this would involve them in original, communal missional activities. In order to evaluate these three expectations, I measured missional patterns of the house participants and the quality of their missional experiences. These measurements were provided narrative input as to what could be improved to more accurately achieve our goal of discipling students through a missional house model. The end result of this project allowed me to achieve both outcomes. I was able to glean invaluable insights from other models, and I was able to help students develop in their missional living, missional training, and missional activity. The journey did not always go as I planned, and I was not able to produce all the data I hoped. But the information I did acquire was invaluable and has helped me to further my goal of discerning an effective model for student discipleship through missional houses. Conclusion Chapter 1 has introduced the ministry context, opportunity, innovation, scope of research, and outcomes. Relevant key terms are provided below and [ Page ] 9 Chapter 2 of this thesis will provide the theological perspectives related to this project. Key Terms For the purposes of this project, the following terms will be defined as noted below: Discipleship: an apprenticeship process whereby one learns the ways of the master and becomes more like Jesus. Emerging Adult: a person between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five years old. Kingdom of God: the realm where Jesus is king and everything and everyone is yielded to his lordship. It is currently in an already-but-not-yet stage. Mentorship: “the process where a person with a serving, giving, encouraging attitude, the mentor, sees leadership potential in a still-to-be developed person, the protégé, and is able to promote or otherwise significantly influence the protégé along in the realization of potential” (Clinton 1994, 130). Missional Community: “a group of people, about the same size of an extended family, doing the mission of God together outside the regular confines of the church building” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 12). Missional House: a campus ministry house where students reside for the purpose of being intentionally discipled and mentored in the ways of following Jesus and living out his mission for the world. [ Page ] 10 Missional: to accompany God as he ushers in his kingdom and to join him in his mission to get the world and God connected again. Participatory Action Research: a research method designed to create positive change by enlisting the participation of those involved in the organization. [ Page ] 11 CHAPTER 2: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE The objective of this academic project is to propose a model of discipleship for university students with a focus on missional houses. In order to begin to understand how to do this, I explore the theological framework for discipleship and mission. This chapter will provide answers to the following questions: What is a disciple? What is discipleship? What is God’s mission? What does “missional” mean? And what role can community play in being missional? Discipleship Discipleship is central to Christianity. In his book The Cost of Discipleship, the early twentieth century theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote “Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ” (Bonhoeffer 1937, 64). Bill Hull notes that “Discipleship isn’t just one of the things the church does; it is what the church does” (Hull 2006, 24). In short, discipleship is essential to what it means to be a Christian. The Gospels reveal that Jesus’ earthly ministry was focused on discipleship. He invited people to become his disciples, to be trained in his kingdom ways, and then to take leadership in his mission (Geiger and Peck 2016, 153). But what is a disciple, and what did Jesus mean by this word? There are [ Page ] 12 many suggested answers that vary in scope and depth and come from a number of different theological starting points. In order to produce an accurate definition, this section considers what the word disciple meant at the conception of the early church. The term disciple used in Christianity has its roots in the New Testament Greek word mathetes. Michael J. Wilkins has done an extensive study of early discipleship and in his book Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship. He defines a first century disciple as follows: [M]athetes was a committed follower of a great master, although the type of master ranged from philosopher to great thinker-master of the past to religious figures. The commitment assumed the development of a sustained relationship between the follower and the master, and the relationship extended to imitation of the conduct of the master. This is the notion of the word understood by a Greek audience at the time of the writing of the New Testament. (Wilkins 1992, 78) Specifically there were five basic expectations for first-century disciples: deciding to follow a teacher, memorizing the teacher’s words, learning the teacher’s way of ministry, imitating the teacher’s life and character, and raising up their own disciples (Hull 2006, 63-64). When applying this framework to Jesus’ discipleship as recorded in the New Testament, there is clear evidence that each of these five elements were present in his leadership. All four Gospels provide details of how Jesus invited his first disciples to follow him. The book of Mark describes the call to discipleship of Simon, Andrew, James, and John in this way: As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him. When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, [ Page ] 13 preparing their nets. Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him (Mk 1:16- 20 [NIV]). The call and response in this passage demonstrate a distinct decision to follow Jesus as a disciple. The notion that Jesus’ disciples memorized his teaching is evident in that fact that his words are recorded throughout the Gospels. According to a study by Arthur Hinds, there are 1599 sayings of Jesus in the New Testament (Hinds 1924, 8). These sayings were passed on through oral tradition and then written down in the late first century resulting in what we now call the Gospels. Luke begins his book by noting, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:1-2). These same Gospels contain numerous narratives of how the disciples learned Jesus way of doing ministry (Lk 9:1-17, 10:1-24, Mk 9:14-29), of how they were mentored to live like their master (Mk 10:13-16, Jn 13:31-17:26), and that they were sent out with the mandate to make disciples (Mt 28:16-20, Acts 1:8). This New Testament background offers the church a helpful framework for how disciples of Jesus should shape their lives today. In applying this early model to today’s context, a disciple of Christ can be defined as having the following characteristics: decide to follow Jesus, learn the teacher’s words, follow the teacher’s ways of ministry, adopt the teacher’s life and character, and create other disciples of Jesus. [ Page ] 14 Using this fivefold definition of a disciple, we can move forward to define what discipleship is and what it is not. In the life of the church, “discipleship” has sometimes been synonymous with an education program. It has often become an intellectual pursuit, a process of downloading information in the hopes of forming disciples. It has become “a lesson in cognitive learning” (Cole 2008, 37). Mike Breen writes that most of the discipleship in the church is approached from “a classroom experience” (Breen 2011, 25). He states, “We learn from the pastor’s teaching on Sunday. We learn from Bible studies. We go to Sunday School. We learn from small group discussion guides and DVDs. We learn from reading books. We learn from taking classes at church. Notice that all of this is completely information driven, in some sort of classroom-esque experience (Breen 2011, 25-26). Indeed, the classroom setting can be an important mode for disciple formation. It is a service usually provided with good intentions. But if discipleship is limited to what goes on inside the walls of the church, it lacks the fullness that Jesus intended when he began the discipleship movement. “Discipleship is not a program,” writes George Barna, “it is not a ministry. It is a lifelong commitment to a lifestyle” (Barna 2001, 19). There is something more holistic to discipleship than education programs alone can offer. Discipleship must have broader implications. The Concise Oxford Dictionary clarifies that adding the suffix “ship” to a word can indicate “status, office, or honour” and “skill in a certain capacity” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed., s.v. “ship”). Hull does well to get at the first element of this definition when he expresses discipleship as “the state of being a disciple” (Hull 2006, 35). This offers a good starting point that leads us away from defining discipleship as a program and focusses on the [ Page ] 15 elements of condition and position. But it is still lacking the inclusion of developing discipleship skills and capacities. Understandably, Hull works with the assumption that skill development is built into the process of discipleship. But in order to connect with a broader audience who might not have the same assumptions, discipleship would better be defined as the process of being an apprentice of Jesus. This definition encompasses the condition, position, and skill involved in being a disciple. An apprentice is one who is committed to a master with the intent of learning the trade and eventually becoming a master. Discipleship then, is a way of life. It is an apprenticeship process whereby one learns the ways of the master and becomes more like Jesus. The Mission of God Just as discipleship is central to Christianity, the mission of God is central to discipleship. If disciples learn Jesus’ words and follow his ways of ministry, they will discover that mission is at the core of their apprenticeship. Mike Breen and Alex Absolom write, “Mission is not an optional extra—an upgrade for the ‘mature disciple.’ Going forth in mission is fundamental to the journey of discipleship and from day one we should view ourselves as missionaries” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 24). Therefore, disciples of Jesus are leaders of God’s mission. But what exactly is the mission of God? In order to understand this concept, it is first important to comprehend the kingdom of God. Each of the Synoptic Gospels note that when Jesus began his [ Page ] 16 earthly ministry, his message centered on the kingdom of God. Mark, Luke, and Matthew record the following passages which highlight this kingdom focus: After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mk 1:14-15). He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk 4:16-21). From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Mt 4:17). These accounts of Jesus’ inaugural work clearly show a focus on the kingdom. And this focus was not just an early theme; it was the main theme that dominated Jesus’ earthly ministry (Dunahoo 2005, 41; Ladd 1959, 14;Stassen and Gushee 2003, 19). The concept of the kingdom is mentioned one hundred and fifty-five times in the New Testament and fifty-four of these references can be found in the book of Matthew (Biblegateway.com, s.v. “kingdom”). Clearly, the kingdom was central to Jesus’ ministry and message. Cornelius Plantinga, president of Calvin Theological Seminary from 2002 to 2011, defines God’s kingdom as “the sphere of God’s sovereignty” (Plantinga 2002, 107). Author Charles H. Dunahoo refers to it as “God’s rule and reign” (Dunahoo 2005, 44). Albert Wolters, professor emeritus at Redeemer University [ Page ] 17 College, teaches that it is the kingly office where Jesus is sovereign (Wolters 2005, 74). The kingdom of God then, can be described as the realm where Jesus is king and everything and everyone is yielded to his lordship. This definition offers a starting point for understanding the kingdom, but it is far from comprehensive. The kingdom is a complex phenomenon that has caused “much debate and considerable uncertainty” in academic circles and there appears to be “no consensus as to its precise meaning” (Klooster 2001, 1093). One of the challenges is the multidimensional aspect of the kingdom with both cosmic and personal significance. It relates to both the restoration of the universe and the reconciliation of individual souls. The specific emphasis of this project will focus on the transformative work of God in individual lives more than the global restoration of all things to Christ, but it must be understood that a dualistic approach which separates the cosmic and the personal aspects of the kingdom is not the intention. Creation is a complex system of interrelated parts that includes human beings as the crown of creation. God’s redemptive works weave through the fabric of his creation to bring redemption to the universe in ways that are above human comprehension. The kingdom cannot be easily defined and is often surrounded with mystery and a lack of clarity on this side of heaven, as our human brains struggle to understand the high ways of God. What is clear, however, is that God desires every aspect of creation to be under his rule and reign, especially his people, and his great mission is to usher in this rule and reign fully on earth. [ Page ] 18 Mike Goheen and Craig Bartholomew write that God “wants to have a people living under his reign and spreading the fragrance of his presence all over creation” (Goheen and Bartholomew 2004, 25). This was God’s intention from the very beginning. The book of Genesis records the story of God designing a cosmos fully under God’s dominion. His will was for Adam and Eve, and future generations, to experience unbroken intimacy not only with him but one another. But Genesis 3 reports that something tragic happened to this perfect reality. Tempted by Satan, the first humans disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This willful decision to pull away from God’s directive led to judgment and separation from the King and his kingdom. A doorway to death was opened and this resulted in physical, spiritual, and eternal separation. Moreover, this act of rebellion disrupted all of creation as well; it plunged a perfect world into chaos and disorder, leading to enmity between people and their Creator. The damage was so extensive that no human could repair it. But God responded to this tragedy with a salvage mission (Goheen and Bartholomew 2004, 129). He inaugurated a plan to repair the damage and bring harmony to what was now in chaos. God would restore his rule over the earth and re-establish his reign by ushering in a new kingdom. God initiated a plan to re-create the world so that the original good would be restored (Wolters 2005, 70-71). This plan focused on Jesus who would be the crux of the mission. God reached out to humanity through patriarchs, prophets, and priests in preparation for the arrival of his Son on earth. He made covenants [ Page ] 19 and commitments to bring redemption and when “the set time had fully come” (Gal 4:4), God sent his Son to earth to teach about his kingdom and to initiate it through his death and resurrection. Jesus’ sacrifice was a work of atonement (1 Jn 2:2) that gave kingdom access to whoever would believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31). The apostle John writes, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (Jn 1:11-12). Those who believe in Jesus can echo the apostle Paul’s testimony, “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:13-14). In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul explains, In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. (Eph 1:7-10) Jesus’ earthly ministry marked the initiation of the kingdom, although as evidenced in the passage just cited, it has not yet reached its fulfilment. Goheen and Bartholomew write, “the kingdom Jesus describes is both present and future: already begun here, not yet here in fullness” (Goheen and Bartholomew 2004, 146; italics in original). This already/not yet idea of the kingdom is essential to understanding the mission of God in today’s context. The kingdom has begun, but it will not be fully ushered in until the triumphant return of Jesus [ Page ] 20 as king. In this in-between period, God’s people are tasked with joining him in his mission of redemption (Goheen and Bartholomew 2004, 171). The apostle Paul describes this mission as a ministry of reconciliation. In the book of 2 Corinthians, he writes, Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. (5:17-19a) The English word “reconciliation” refers to “the action of bringing to agreement, concord, or harmony” (The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “reconciliation”). It has the notion of bringing into agreement or harmony, of repairing what was broken. The Greek word used in the original text for reconciliation is katalasso. According to the Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, katalasso has the following definitions: To re-establish proper friendly interpersonal relations after these have been disrupted or broken (the componential features of this series of meanings involve (1) disruption of friendly relations because of (2) presumed or real provocation, (3) overt behavior [sic] designed to remove hostility, and (4) restoration of original friendly relations)—‘to reconcile, to make things right with one another, reconciliation.’ (Louw and Nida 1996, 501) Jesus’ plan to advance his kingdom is a mission to repair and restore a broken relationship between God and his creation. It is a mission “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col 1:15-20). The intention is to close the gap that was created with Adam and Eve’s disobedience and to restore a right relationship with God. Nathan L. K. Bierma writes, [ Page ] 21 God will one day restore planet earth to the full flourishing it was intended to have, will restore the works of human minds and hands to again give glory to him alone, and will restore human relationships with others and with himself to their fullest expression. Creation will again sing with the harmony of shalom, the way things are supposed to be. (Bierma 2005, 183) This is the reality of the kingdom — God and his people living in harmony and deep oneness. Stearns writes, “Ever since the garden of Eden and the broken relationship caused by the sin of Adam and Eve, God has longed to re-establish direct fellowship and communion” (Stearns 2013, 61). The mission of God then, is a mission to reconnect God and people once more. The implications of how we understand kingdom in the context of discipleship are many, but at least three are essential to note in the context of this project. First, discipling students in a missional house setting requires intentional training in the ways of the kingdom. The mission of God is to advance the kingdom of God, and students need to be taught that there are broad and narrow implications of the kingdom for their lives; they need to learn how kingdom ethics impact their lives and the lives of others. The multidimensional nature of the kingdom of God necessitates that the missional house be open, learning environments where residents are always discerning how the Holy Spirit will choose to reveal the kingdom in its particular context. Students will be trained to develop a kingdom perspective which will include a broad, cosmic scope, as well as a more narrow focus of personal salvation. However, as has been noted, greater attention will be given to the more personal aspects aspect of the kingdom. The [ Page ] 22 residents will be invited to experience personal transformation through following Jesus and in turn, they will be encouraged to invite their friends, classmates, and neighbours to experience the saving work of Jesus in their lives. A second critical implication of discipleship through a kingdom lens is the notion that the mission of God was started by God. He is the great initiator of the mission and as such, he is a missionary God. Ed Stetzer writes: The concept of missio Dei, the mission of God, is recognition that God is a sending God, and the church is sent. It is the most important mission in the Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that mission; the Holy Spirit is the power of that mission; the church is the instrument of that mission; and the culture is the context in which that mission occurs. (Stetzer 2006, 28) God is the initiator and the leader of the mission. The Holy Spirit is at work in his creation to bring about his kingdom and the reconciliation that he desires. Again the Contemporary Testimony is helpful in its summary: The Spirit gathers people from every tongue, tribe, and nation into the unity of the body of Christ. Anointed and sent by the Spirit, the church is thrust into the world, ambassadors of God’s peace, announcing forgiveness and reconciliation, proclaiming the good news of grace. Going before them and with them, the Spirit convinces the world of sin and pleads the cause of Christ. Men and women, impelled by the Spirit, go next door and far away into science and art, media and marketplace— every area of life, pointing to the reign of God with what they do and say. (CRCNA 2015) God is present everywhere in this world, bringing his kingdom more fully and inviting his people to join him in his mission. This leads us to the third important implication: disciples of Jesus play an important role in God’s mission and God invites his people to participate in the work of reconciliation. Paul writes, “And he has committed to us the message of [ Page ] 23 reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor 5:19a-20a). The message of reconciliation has been committed to disciples of Christ. Followers of Jesus are his ambassadors through which Christ invites the world to join his kingdom. The call to make disciples in Matthew 28 needs to be held in tandem with 2 Corinthians 5. “The Great Commission” as it is commonly called, is also a kingdom commission; it must be read with a kingdom lens to properly understand the mission Christ gave. Jesus says, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Mt 28:18-20) Jesus commissions his followers to invite others into his kingdom, taking on the state and condition of an obedient disciple and learning the skills of the kingdom master. Stearns notes that living out this Great Commission means announcing the gospel or good news of the kingdom, inviting people to enter the kingdom by faith, discipling and teaching new citizens of the kingdom, baptizing them in the name of Jesus, and establishing outposts of the kingdom (Stearns 2013, 75). God is already at work; “Mission is understanding the work of God, and joining Him in it” (Stetzer 2011d). The Contemporary Testimony puts it this way, Joining the mission of God, the church is sent with the gospel of the kingdom to call everyone to know and follow Christ and to proclaim to all the assurance that in the name of Jesus there is forgiveness of sin and new life for all who repent and believe. The Spirit calls all members to embrace God’s mission in their neighborhoods and in the world. (CRCNA 2015) [ Page ] 24 Stearns notes that, “If we are not personally engaged in God’s great mission in the world, then we have missed the very thing he created us to do” (Stearns 2013, xxi). And Stetzer writes, Because God by nature is a sender, it implies two simple ideas. First, there is One who sends; and second, there are people to whom we are sent. But, it is not that God just sends us anywhere; God sends us somewhere. You are called and sent on mission; the only question is where and among whom. (Stetzer 2011c) Disciples of Jesus play a central role in fulfilling the mission of God and thus are called to be “missional” in every aspect of their life. What is “Missional”? In their study of the word “missional,” Van Gelder and Zscheile track an early use of the word back to 1883 when William Tozer was labeled “the Missional Bishop of Central Africa” (Van Gelder and Zscheile 2011, 42). The term then surfaced occasionally throughout the next hundred years but found prominence in the work of Francis DuBose and his 1983 book entitled God Who Sends. Building on Karl Barth’s theological work, DuBose understood “missional” to mean living out the mission of God (Van Gelder and Zscheile 2011, 44-45). In the 1980’s and 1990’s the term became more popular and was developed significantly in the 1998 book Missional Church (Van Gelder and Zscheile 2011, 46). But even with all that has been written on “missional,” the word today appears to have many different connotations. Some view the term as synonymous with evangelism, and although evangelism is an important part of being [ Page ] 25 missional, there is more to it than that. “Missional” and “Great Commission” are not interchangeable terms (Stetzer 2011b). Stetzer clarifies that: Missional Christ-followers and missional churches are joining Jesus on mission. They care about the things that Jesus directed us to care about: serving the hurting and loving others (the Great Commandment), and seeking to proclaim the gospel to the lost (the Great Commission). (Stetzer 2011a author’s emphasis) To be missional then is to live out God’s great mission of ushering in his kingdom, driven by God’s great desire to reconnect with his people. Stephen Lutz writes, “As God’s gospel-transformed and sent people, we orient everything we do to God’s mission, which is to reconcile and restore God’s fallen creation to himself through his son Jesus Christ. This is what we mean by missional” (Lutz 2011, 38). Gary Nelson furthers this line of thinking when he writes that missional Christians are: Mobilized and energized by the implications of the gospel on their lives in such a way as to seek to be a people of kingdom ethics empowered by the Spirit to live differently both as a community and as people in the world. Thoughtfully, they desire to apply all the values and virtues of Christ’s reign in the context in which God has placed them. (Nelson 2008, 59) To be missional is to accompany God as he ushers in his kingdom and to join him in his mission to get the world and God connected again. What Role Can Community Play in Missional Living? One opportunity for living missionally in community is a missional house. A missional house is a living space where the mission of God can be lived out in community and the objective of these homes would be to reflect the collective [ Page ] 26 nature of the early church. The book of Acts gives us a glimpse into how mission was lived out when it states: All the believers devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to fellowship, and to sharing in meals (including the Lord’s Supper), and to prayer. A deep sense of awe came over them all, and the apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders. And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity—all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47) As they sought to live out God’s kingdom mission, the first disciples of Jesus invested deeply in each other’s lives. They shared meals, possessions, and resources. It is unclear from this passage if they also shared accommodation, but it is not hard to imagine this might also have occurred. I Corinthians 16:19 refers to a church that meets in Aquila and Priscilla’s house and implies ministry was done through their home, with the whole household involved (Banks 1994, 32). Early churches placed a high emphasis on ministry through deep community. The apostle Paul reveals the depth of this communal nature when he describes his relationship with the church in Thessalonica. He states: “We loved you so much that we shared with you not only God’s Good News but our own lives, too” (I Thes 2:8). In this way, Paul sets an example for discipling. In his apprenticing, Paul entered into deep, communal relationships with others while sharing the good news of God’s redemptive plan for his world. In the early church, the life of a disciple was a communal existence and one that led to many people joining God in his mission. Similarly, missional [ Page ] 27 houses can work toward achieving the same reality. The residents in these living spaces could be intentionally mentored in the ways of living out the mission of Jesus every day. Discipleship would move beyond the classroom experience and into an immersion experience (Breen 2011, 32-33). Followers of Jesus would be immersed in a missional experience that could offer transformational discipleship experiences and help take apprenticing for Jesus to a completely new level. David Janzen writes, “A longing for deeper community is growing in our land” (Janzen 2013, 12). He argues that what the church needs today is a greater sense of the Greek word koinonia (Acts 2:42). Often translated as “fellowship,” the author challenges the church to view the concept as “intentional community” (Janzen 2013, 12). Viewing koinonia as “intentional community” pushes the concept of discipleship to a more deliberate plane of existence, where following Jesus becomes more holistic. It seeks to counter the process of fragmentation and compartmentalization of the Christian faith to certain activities and time slots in a week. It seeks to live out Jesus’ call to costly followership (Lk 9:23) and create a kingdom movement. “Renewal movements in the church have again and again discovered the power of intentional community to transform lives and demonstrate to the world what the way of Jesus looks like in visible social and economic relationships” (Janzen 2013, 13). New Monasticism One such renewal movement is called “New Monasticism,” a term coined by Jonathan R. Wilson in his 1998 book Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World [ Page ] 28 (Moll 2005). New Monasticism became an official movement at a conference in 2004 when a group of over sixty people from different denominations gathered to discern how God might be calling them to deeper community (Wilson-Hartgrove 2008, 36). Members from established missional communities included Shane Claiborne (The Simple Way) and David Janzen (Mennonite Reba Place Fellowship), as well as fourteen other missional communities (Moll 2005). The result of this forum was a New Monasticism manifesto aimed at “producing a grassroots ecumenism and a prophetic witness with the North American church” (Wilson-Hartgrove 2008, 39). The specific programs of New Monastic missional homes vary and an organic nature of missional activity is preferred to intentional programming. Living missionally in these communities means living by the Spirit and following his promptings and direction. Wilson describes it this way, Their lives and their form of life is always provisional, subject to the presence and world of the Holy Spirit. Also, their form of life is that of discernment, not planning. They are guided not by asking, “How can we accomplish our aims?” but by asking “How is God at work today and how may we participate in that work?” (Wilson 2009, 66) The organic nature allows for freedom and diversity and necessitates dependency on the Spirit’s direction. This Spirit-led emphasis can be seen in the design of Canadian-based missional house organization MoveIn. MoveIn started in Toronto in January 2009 with a desire to see ordinary Christians move in and pray in high-needs neighbourhoods in Toronto and other cities around the world. In May of the same year, MoveIn held their first conference, drawing over 700 attenders; teams were [ Page ] 29 launched after that (MoveIn 2015a). Now in six counties, MoveIn’s vision is “To see thousands of regular Christians prayerfully moving in among the unreached, urban poor globally” (MoveIn 2015b). Missional movements like MoveIn are built on the zeal and appeal of emerging adults. Their vision statement encourages “all young Christians to ask themselves to move where they move on purpose and to challenge their default motivations” (MoveIn 2015b). Moll notes that “Like earlier movements, the ones today attract mostly 20-somethings who long for community, intimacy with Jesus, and to love those on the margins of society. And they are willing to give up the privileges to which they were born” (Moll 2005). Scott A. Bessenecker, director of global projects with Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship/USA labels these young people “new friars” (Bessenecker 2006, 16). In his 2010 book of the same name, he writes, To do mission and devotion correctly, the new friars embrace the messiness of community. Indeed community seems to be a hallmark of these new orders that are attracting youth intent on drawing near to Jesus in the disguise of the world’s outcasts. (Bessenecker 2006, 105) That these new missional movements are led by young friars should be no surprise to the church. In his article on New Monasticism, Erik Carter notes that, The five renaissances in church history were largely led by young people who were radically motivated to move to the fringe and push the church to the social and geo- graphical edges, so the new friars of emerging Christian youth continue missionary-like patterns as the Celtic and Augustinian, Benedictine and Nestorian, Franciscan and Dominican, Jesuit, Moravian and Anabaptist movements. (Carter 2012, 278) It seems natural that New Monastic movement would overflow onto university campuses that are filled with thousands of emerging adults. Campus [ Page ] 30 ministries would do well to embrace this movement and respond by developing missional houses. Living missionally in this way provides an opportunity for young disciples of Jesus to experience the deep connectedness that early followers of Christ experienced. It affords the next generation of Christians opportunities to explore new ways of living out the mission of God and ushering his kingdom into their everyday lives. Mike Breen and 3DM’s Model for Missional Discipleship Mike Breen is the founder of the missional agency 3DM (an acronym for three dimensional ministry) an organization that seeks “to CHANGE the world by putting DISCIPLESHIP and MISSION back into the hands of everyday people” (3DMovements 2016). Breen has been a pioneer in creating missional movements in England and the United States (3DMovements 2016) and his work has been foundational to the design of the Geneva missional house model. In particular, missional communities, “LifeShapes,” and huddles have been essential concepts that have become part of the DNA of the missional discipleship of this campus ministry. 3DM defines missional communities as a “group of people, about the same size of an extended family, doing the mission of God together outside the regular confines of the church building” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 12). Specifically, this means that groups of around twenty to fifty live out God’s mission in a specific context. Breen has developed missional communities around the New Testament Greek concept of “oikos” which Louw-Nida translates as [ Page ] 31 “house,” “temple,” “family,” “lineage,” or “property” (Louw and Nida 1996, 173). 3DM proposes that Paul and the early church used this word to describe their gatherings and by doing so, they merged the concept of a household and the Jewish temple (Breen and Absolom 2010, 33). This notion led to house churches, which was the primary way that the mission was done for the early church. The authors write “for at least the first three hundred years, Christian community was based in the home, in the context of the oikos, and not structured around dedicated buildings and public service” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 34). House churches were missional communities that shared life together and reached out together to their neighbours; they were highly relational, made use of their social networks and saw tremendous growth in the movement with over thirty million Christians by 350 AD (Breen and Absolom 2010, 33-34). 3DM believes that “oikos” is the key to effective mission and they suggest that it is “God’s natural method for sharing his supernatural message” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 35). They argue that the draw to extended household can be seen throughout culture and the Church needs to respond to this dynamic (Breen and Absolom 2010, 37). Breen and Absolom write, If you build a church movement around Missional Communities (households of people on a mission), what you end up with is a movement. This will be a network of networks, with leaders at every level who are passionate about seeing the Kingdom of God infiltrate every crack of society, planting authentic expressions of church that draw people back to their God and Father” (Breen and Absolom 2010, 41). The organization has developed the concept of “oikos” into a system of “oikonomics.” Mirroring the concept of economics, 3DM teaches that mission [ Page ] 32 through missional communities is all about investing. In particular, members of the missional household invest spiritual, relational, physical, intellectual, and financial capital in the family system (Breen and Sternke 2014, 40). They believe that “a family on mission that is growing in its common capital can’t help but be an attractive community that shows the world something about the future toward which God is pulling us” (Breen and Sternke 2014, 97). Although Breen and 3DM do not go as far as creating missional homes, their thinking has been applied to Geneva’s missional house model for the purpose of advancing the mission of God through home-based ministry. Geneva’s missional houses are smaller in size than 3DM’s twenty to fifty range, but the six to ten students living in the houses are part of a broader missional community which includes five students living at the main Geneva House site, and over forty leaders and staff that direct the ministry. Missional houses are small units within a broader community that are “living out our discipleship to Jesus together as a family on mission” (Breen and Sternke 2014, 18). Breen also created a framework of eight “LifeShapes” that are designed to create a shared language of discipleship for mission. He argues that these “LifeShapes” are an essential part of building a discipleship culture and each shape represents “a foundational teaching of Jesus or principle from his life” (Breen 2011, 49). Elements of these “LifeShapes” have been incorporated throughout the ministry of Geneva House, and one in particular is essential to the missional house model - the triangle. The triangle has three points and thus the [ Page ] 33 shape focusses on three key aspects of discipleship: an upward relationship with God, and inward relationship with Christian community, and an outward relationship with non-Christians. Based on Jesus’ example, apprentices of Christ focus on building an upward relationship with God. Significant investment is made to develop deep connections with the Lord and to cultivate attentiveness to the Spirit’s leading (Breen and Absolom 2010, 18). John 15:5-8 is a key text for the upward relationship and in this passage Jesus states: I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15:5-8) Followers of Jesus develop a deep connection and oneness with him. They are driven to intimacy with God and to developing a passionate spirituality. Breen notes that this upward relationship in the life of the early church was demonstrated by “unbridled praise and worship, prayer, commitment to the teaching and obeying of the word, and lives oriented around fasting, feasting, and the breaking of bread” (Breen 2013, 185). Christ’s disciples also focus on an inward relationship with their fellow apprentices (Breen and Absolom 2010, 18). Jesus modeled this focus when he invested in his disciples at varying depths. He invested deeply in the seventy-two he sent out in Luke 10, deeper still in the twelve who would become apostles, and most deeply in three - Peter, James, and John. Jesus spent a lot time with these [ Page ] 34 three, built deep relationships and taught them the secrets of the kingdom (Luke 10:21-24). Breen writes, “Jesus shared food with these friends, laughed with them, and met their families – in other words, he ‘did life’ with his chosen circle. This was the ‘In’ward dimension of his relational life” (Breen 2011, 69). This inward investment by Jesus resulted in the birth of a “radical community” (Breen 2013, 185) and when the same investment is made by followers of Jesus with other Christians, it results in people “prepared to sacrifice and share life to levels that we would call extreme today, in order to be a family on mission together”(Breen 2013, 185). Flowing out of the upward and inward relationship is the outward movement to connect deeply with the world. This is a “missional zeal” (Breen 2013, 185) where followers of Jesus seek to reach out as he did. They take an incarnational approach, moving into neighbourhoods and ministering to people at their point of need (Breen 2011, 69-70). Mission emanates out of communion with God and with other Christians and it results in engagement in the specific contexts that members of the huddle find themselves in every day. Breen proposes that The Up, In, Out model is the key to missional health, and he states “to be healthy, you must be in relational balance as pictured in the Triangle: Up-In-Out. It really is that simple” (Breen 2011, 72-73). One of the core programs of 3DM’s missional movement is a huddle. A huddle is a small discipleship group of four to ten people, designed to help participants listen and respond to the voice of God. It involves “ongoing, [ Page ] 35 intentional, structured investment” (Breen 2012, 19) with participants meeting weekly or biweekly for encouragement and accountability (Breen 2012, 5). Over the course of a year, huddlers will pass through four learning phases that focus on understanding the “LifeShapes,” developing spiritual rhythms, increasing boldness in mission, and emerging as a huddle leader (Breen 2012, 7-10). These learning phases are then incorporated into ten five week intervals (Breen 2012, 25). Built into every huddle meeting is the “LifeShape” of the circle and the two driving questions related to it: What is God saying to me, and what am I going to do about it” (Breen 2012, 7). It is important to note that although the huddle is a key piece of the discipleship strategy for 3DM, it is just one piece. Breen writes that “We realized the vehicle of HUDDLE is on the organized side of the spectrum; however, it is crucial we must also do the organic things that are best described as access to our lives outside of huddle” (Breen 2012, 19). More is needed than the huddle, as this is a classroom experience and to disciple, more access to the rest of life is needed. That is why for Geneva, the huddle is part of a threefold discipleship model based not only on huddles, but also on mentorship, missional training and activity. More details will be provided in the following section. Incorporating Breen’s Model The concepts of missional communities, the “LifeShapes” triangle, and huddles have been incorporated into the design of Geneva’s missional house project. The missional house is a form of missional community, and lives out [ Page ] 36 Breen’s concept of “oikos” in a very literal sense. Although smaller than the extended household size of twenty to fifty that 3DM proposes, each missional residence is a household to itself and is part of a wider household of three Geneva ministry houses and the broader Geneva community of over two hundred people. The missional house is a household unit that seeks to do life together and its goal is be loving, living spaces for students where they will be intentionally discipled and mentored in the ways of following Jesus and living out his mission for the world. This notion fits into Geneva’s broader vision to be an incredible community where people experience Jesus and his transformation. The vision statement reads: We believe that God has a big plan for our campus and for each one of our lives and we want to be part of his transforming work. God loves our campus, so we love it and we welcome everyone to experience Jesus through meaningful community. We invest deeply in people, inviting them to grow as followers of Jesus and as leaders in his Kingdom. We build authentic and meaningful relationships in order to demonstrate the love God has for everyone and to earn the right and respect needed to be a positive influencing force. We go deep with God, we go deep with each other, and we go out on mission together, serving others and helping them get connected with Jesus. (Geneva House 2018) Living in a Geneva Missional Home means that each resident commits to being an authentic follower of Jesus who seeks to live out God’s mission. They invest in their housemates by caring for each other’s emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. They join each other on a discipleship journey designed to help each one go deep with God, go deep with others and to go out and live missionally, and they serve each other by doing household duties together and living as a family. [ Page ] 37 Breen’s “LifeShapes” triangle seen in Figure 2 was incorporated into the discipleship design of the missional house. Figure 2: Geneva’s Adaptation of Breen’s LifeShape triangle (Breen 2011, 49) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 2 details ] Using the up, in, out pattern, three elements of the house were created: a missional huddle group, missional training, and missional activity. Missional huddles challenge students to grow in all three directions. They require participants to develop a regular rhythm of daily Scripture mediation, prayer, and reflection where the intent is to develop a deep connection with God and to develop a Spirit-led life. Once a week, group members meet to invest in each other, sharing with their housemates how they sense God is leading them and how they are living missionally. Intentional communal living works to fulfill Breen’s inward relationship criteria. Students share living space for eight months while they are in school and they eat together, play together, and share in each other’s discipleship journeys. Missional training and missional activity complete the triad relationship by encouraging residents to be outward focused in their everyday [ Page ] 38 lives. They are mentored in the ways of missional living and empowered to reach out to their neighbours and classmates. In this way, missional communities, the “LifeShapes” triangle, and the huddle are all integrated into the design of Geneva’s missional house project. Summary This chapter has touched on the driving theological questions behind the missional house project. These queries are: What is a disciple? What is discipleship? What is God’s mission? What does “missional” mean? And what role could community play in being missional? This final question included an overview of New Monasticism, 3DM’s model for missional discipleship through community, and Geneva’s efforts to incorporate this model into the missional house project. With this theological framework laid, this thesis will now look at precedent social science literature that will inform the project at hand. [ Page ] 39 CHAPTER 3: PRECEDENT LITERATURE The Missional House (MH) model at the heart of this project is reliant upon key elements of the social science theories of Group Dynamics and Student Leadership Development. The principles involved in these areas are numerous, and so this chapter identifies some essential keys that have a direct bearing on the missional house project of Geneva House. In particular, attention will be given to stages of group development, conflict, power, size, experiential learning, reflection, and mentorship. These principles will first be discussed and then the implications, responses, and considerations for the MH will follow. Group Dynamics Norris Haynes defines a group as “an entity comprised of individuals who come together for a common purpose and whose behaviors in the group are guided by a set of shared values and norms” (Haynes 2012, 1). Group Dynamics is the sociological study of the forces that exist within these groups (Merriam- Webster Dictionary, s.v. “group dynamics” [accessed Feb 1, 2017, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group%20dynamics]). In general, groups can be placed into two categories: functional and identity groups. Functional groups are categorized by what they do and achieve. [ Page ] 40 They include entities like training groups, counselling groups, therapy groups, support groups, workgroups, focus groups, and psycho-educational groups. Identity groups are categorized by how they are connected to other individuals in the group. They include membership groups, reference groups, family groups, and friendship groups (Haynes 2012, 1-4). Based on this perspective, a Geneva missional house can be classified as a functional group that has come together for the purpose of training. The goal is to provide students with a learning environment to increase their awareness of the mission of God and enhance their thinking and skills at living it out in community (Haynes 2012, 2). In studying social science literature, four key aspects emerged as relevant for the purposes of this project: the principles of group development, conflict, power, and size. Stages of Group Development During their lifespan, groups go through a number of stages of development (Wheelan 2013, 7). Group theorists vary in their approach and definition to these phases, but most present a four or five stage model that follow a similar theme (Haynes 2012, 8). B.W. Tuckman created a model that has five stages of development. These stages are described as Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning (Tuckman and Jensen 1977, 426). In an attempt to present a more integrated model, Susan A. Wheelan built on Tuckman and others and designed a five-phase model with stages labelled: Dependency and [ Page ] 41 Inclusion, Counter Dependency and Fight, Trust and Structure, Work and Productivity, and Final (Wheelan 2005, 16-19). For the purposes of this study, Wheelan’s titles are used to describe the five stages. In stage one (Dependency and Inclusion), members of the newly designed group begin to form relational bonds and build trust with each other (Haynes 2012, 9). The goal is to create a sense of belonging, member loyalty, and an environment in which people feel safe to share (Wheelan 2013, 8). The leader is relied upon to provide direction and participants try to fit in (Haynes 2012, 9). There is a high emphasis on conforming and low emphasis on conflict. Apart from the leader, roles are uncertain and undefined, and communication and power are centralized in the leader (Haynes 2012, 9). Stage two (Counter-Dependency and Fight) sees the group working to develop goals, values and functional processes (Wheelan 2013, 9). This phase results in deeper relationships, and as group members find their roles, new leadership begins to surface and conflicts begin to occur (Haynes 2012, 9). Subgroups may form, and communication and power become more shared by the group (Haynes 2012, 9). The goal of a group in stage three (Trust and Structure) is to solidify positive relationships and to mature in their interactions related to roles and functional processes (Wheelan 2013, 11). The group experiences greater levels of confidence, openness, authenticity, trust, and self-awareness (Haynes 2012, 9). Members feel more deeply connected to each other and they take greater [ Page ] 42 ownership of the mission of the group (Haynes 2012, 9). Conflict continues to occur but the shared ownership helps facilitate constructive approaches to solving disagreements (Haynes 2012, 9). The leader shares more power with emerging leaders and as group members take on more ownership, communication continues to be less centralized (Haynes 2012, 9). Stage four (Work) is the phase when the group begins to achieve its functional purpose of getting the job done (Haynes 2012, 10; Wheelan 2012, 12). Relationships are deep, authentic, and caring; feedback is shared openly and received in a non-defensive manner (Haynes 2012, 10). Members grow in self- awareness, the leader exhibits low control over the group and power and communication are shared (Haynes 2012, 10). The final stage (Termination) marks the closing of the group. Realizing that separation will soon be occurring, some members begin to discuss ways to stay connected and form new friendship groups (Haynes 2012, 11). Some members will start to withdraw and participation may drop (Haynes 2012, 11). Tubbs notes that it is important to realize that these stages not only occur over the lifetime of a group, but may also occur during each gathering of a group (Tubbs 1998, 185). Group Conflict As can be seen in the previous section on group development, conflict is an expected dynamic in the group process. It enters the course already in stage two and will remain a dynamic throughout the lifespan of the group (Tubbs 1998, [ Page ] 43 183; Haynes 2012, 72). Conflict appears to be inevitable when two or more people have a significant relationship—“a conflict-free relationship is probably a sign that you really have no relationship at all” (Tubbs 1998, 277). Group theorists tend to agree that conflict is a natural part of group life; in fact, they suggest it is a necessary part of a group’s maturation (Haynes 2012, 73). Although sometimes viewed as a negative part of group life, conflict can have desirable effects (Tubbs 1998, 277). Conflict and tension create an energy that the group needs to develop (Wheelan 2005, 62). It reduces groupthink and stimulates new ideas and creativity (Tubbs 1998, 278). Bruce J. Avolio writes that “Unless there is some degree of tension, which conflict generally creates, there are no insights” (Avolio 2011, 37). If managed well, conflict can lead to a deeper connection between group members and increased performance. What results is that they “emerge from the conflict and the resolution collectively empowered, energized, willing to trust one another and more committed to the success of the group” (Haynes 2012, 73). Patrick Lencioni teaches that healthy conflict will actually save time in the end (Lencioni 2002, 203). He notes that a “fear of conflict” is one of five dysfunctions that will have damaging effects on a team (Lencioni 2002, 188-189). Conflict should be embraced and dealt with efficiently, productively, and in an informed manner. In his study of group dynamics, Haynes proposes that the most common conflicts occur as a result of the following factors: unclear purpose, goals, roles and responsibilities, unrealistic expectations, ineffective communication, [ Page ] 44 disagreement about the member’s needs and priorities, divergence in values, attitudes, beliefs, ideas or positions, difference in gender, racial, ethnic, and culture, and lack of trust (Haynes 2012, 72). Tubbs summarizes group conflict into two categories: “conflict of ideas” and “conflict of feelings” (Tubbs 1998, 279). Conflict of ideas is necessary to avoid the pitfall of groupthink and different perspectives are essential in order to achieve optimal performance (Tubbs 1998, 279). But conflict of ideas often leads to emotional responses and can result in personal conflict (Tubbs 1998, 279). One of the reasons groups fail to resolve conflict is due to group members personalizing the experience (Wheelan 2005, 71). Tensions rise, members feel personally attacked, and this can lead to defensiveness. When this pattern occurs, conflict almost always leads to negative results (Tubbs 1998, 280). Tubbs writes, “Defensiveness leads us to distort our perceptions so that ambiguous acts are more frequently misconstrued as threatening when they may, in fact not be intended that way” (Tubbs 1998, 280). When conflict has spiralled to this level, it becomes difficult to control and creates deep division and polarization (Tubbs 1998, 280). As a result, it “may significantly reduce the group’s chances to resolve the conflict and create a unified group culture and social structure” (Wheelan 2005, 71). In their study of group conflict, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann developed a conflict mode instrument (TKI) that can be used to help avoid this escalation. The device identifies two dimensions and five approaches to [ Page ] 45 conflict situations (Thomas and Kilmann 2017). Thomas and Kilmann teach that in each conflict situation, group members will find themselves in one of five positions: Competing, Accommodating, Avoiding, Compromising, and Collaborating (Thomas and Kilmann 2017). Competing is high on the assertive scale and low in cooperativeness. In this mode, a person places his or her own desires and opinions above others and uses whatever power is available to win the conflict (Thomas and Kilmann 2017). Accommodating is the polar opposite of competing. High in cooperativeness and low in assertiveness, accommodators deny their own opinions and seek to satisfy the wants and needs of others. When conflict arises they give in without resistance (Thomas and Kilmann 2017). Avoiding is low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Avoiders do not engage in conflict and prefer to postpone or withdraw from the situation (Thomas and Kilmann 2017) Compromising is a moderate approach to conflict and engages the issue at a greater level of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Compromisers seek a quick and beneficial resolution for all involved (Thomas and Kilmann 2017) Collaborating is high in assertiveness and cooperativeness. The inverse of avoidance, collaborators deal with situations of conflict at a deep level, seeking to identify the underlying issues involved (Thomas and Kilmann 2017). Understanding this model and how it applies to groups can be extremely beneficial for a group’s development. Thus, conflict is an expected outcome of the missional house and by understanding the dynamics and strategies for conflict [ Page ] 46 resolution, the house will be better equipped to achieve its purpose. Specific recommendations regarding conflict training are addressed in Chapter 6. Power Power is another aspect of group dynamics. Haynes defines power as “the potential or ability to influence others” (Haynes 2012, 78). This definition implies that not only the leader, but each group member will have various degrees of power, and thus it is important to understand some basics about the forces of power at work in a group. As can be seen in the stages of group development, power dynamics and leadership changes occur through the lifespan of the group. In the first stage, leaders have significant influence, but as the group progresses through the phases, the leader must begin to share this power (Wheelan 2005, 68). As early as stage two, group members may begin to challenge the leader’s competence; they might feel resentful of the leader’s influence over their lives and they may challenge the leader’s authority (Wheelan 2005, 68). Factions can occur with some remaining loyal to the leader and others challenging his or her authority (Wheelan 2005, 68). Conflict may arise regarding the expectations and behaviours of the leader (Wheelan 2005, 68). It is a process of clarifying “Roles, decision making, power, status, and communication structures” (Wheelan 2005, 68). Because individuals tend to want more power, navigating the shifts in power that take place throughout the lifespan of the group are not always easy. Leaders often respond with resistance to attempts to usurp their power (Wheelan 2005, 69). But in order [ Page ] 47 to move effectively to the next stage of group development, the leader must be willing to share power. This is only possible if the leader is willing to deny his or her own desires and take a communal perspective (Wheelan 2005, 71). It is essential that the leader understands the group dynamics in play and focus on shepherding the group in its development. Effective group leaders sacrifice their own personal agenda to do what is best for the group. A key element to the success of the leader in this regard is self-awareness. Leaders who are more aware of their power and, the power dynamics involved, will be better equipped to guide the process. Raven notes that “It is reasonable to conclude that a leader who is more aware, either formally or informally, of the various options in social power strategies will be more successful and effective” (Raven 2008, 10). And if group members have this awareness, their knowledge will also positively impact the group. Haynes writes, “Knowing the source of one’s power and how one can increase one’s power can be extremely beneficial to a group member in his or her interactions with other group members” (Haynes 2012, 78). Understanding the power dynamics involved in groups is essential for healthy group development. Raven identified six bases of power: Informational, Reward, Coercion, Legitimate, Expertise, and Referent (Raven 2008, 1).Reward Power is “the ability of the agent to offer a positive incentive” (Raven 2008, 2). This is a very commonly used power, but those who use it can often be unaware that they have this power (Haynes 2012, 79). Rewards can include a wide range of things such as [ Page ] 48 academic grades, money and social approval (Haynes 2012, 79). Coercive Power is sometimes viewed as the opposite of Reward Power (Haynes 2012, 78) and has to do with negative reinforcement. If a group member behaves in a way that is not satisfactory, he or she will be corrected in some way (Wheelan 2005, 69). This may be done in either a direct or less overt manner. Informational Power might appear to be the same thing as Expert Power, but there is a difference. Expert power has to do with specialized information, whereas Informational Power is more general. A person with Expert Power is a specialist in one aspect of the group, but the one with Informational Power is viewed as being the most knowledgeable overall (Haynes 2012, 79). Legitimate Power is the power that is given to a member that places him or her in a position of authority over others (Haynes 2012, 79). It is a designated leader within the group. This is the power base that is most often challenged in stage two, and the members of the group with referent power and information will frequently be the ones leading the opposition (Haynes 2012, 79). Referent Power is given to a member who others in the group admire and respect. The person will receive the power because of personal attributes (Haynes 2012, 79) or charisma (Wheelan 2005, 69). Understanding power base theory will greatly benefit missional house leaders. Haynes writes, Knowing one’s strongest power bases enables the individual to maximize that source of power on the team and to contribute as productively as possible to the work of the team. On the other hand knowing one’s weakest power bases can lead the individual to find ways to increase and enhance those sources of power on the team thereby strengthening the individual’s position of influence on the team. (Haynes 2012, 115) [ Page ] 49 The leadership training program of the missional house would be enhanced if teaching on the dynamic of power is included. In addition to power bases, it is helpful for the missional house to understand the forms of power that a leader experiences. In their study of power in organizations, Edwin P. Hollander and Lynn R. Offerman identified three of these forms. “Power over” is the dynamic of dominance over an individual or group, “power from” is the “ability to resist influence and demands of others,” and “power to” is the giving away of power resulting in the empowerment of others (Hollander and Offerman 1990, 179). Their findings showed that “power over” has the most negative results associated with its use while “power to” approaches offer the best results for group development. A leader who relies on the “power over” approach will experience challenges in both relationships and goal achievement (Hollander and Offerman 1990, 179) and will often experience attempts to usurp his or her power (Wheelan 2005, 70). “Power to” approaches tend to offer better results for group growth and Wheelan notes that “redistribution of power is essential for group development and productivity” (Wheelan 2005, 70). The work of James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Power agree with these findings. They propose that one of the five practices of exemplary leaders is to “enable others to act” (Kouzes and Posner 2014, 9). They write: No leader ever got anything extraordinary done by working solo. True leadership is a team effort …Leaders do what it takes to give people the confidence and competence they need to face the challenges ahead, to [ Page ] 50 support each other and move together toward success. (Kouzes and Posner 2014, 13) The most effective leaders empower group members. They bring out the best in their team and make them feel powerful (Kouzes and Posner 2014, 192). The more empowered team members feel, the greater the likelihood that they will participate fully and completely in the work of the team (Haynes 2012, 115). Empowerment is a key principle that impacts group life and as a result, it should be incorporated at every level of leadership in the missional house. To be effective, house leaders need to take a “power to” approach, sharing and giving away power in order for the residents to feel valued and to equip them to be missional leaders. Size of Group The size of the group is another important dynamic to consider with regards to this project. In the inaugural stage of the MH venture, people were invited to join a missional movement by submitting applications. There was no consideration given to a limit of these applications, and the size of the housing units were driven by the number of applicants, not by sociological study. The result of this application process was six women in one house, and eight men in another. A key element of the missional house program is a small group called a huddle. An existing huddle system has been in place for over four years in the broader ministry of Geneva House and is now being incorporated into the new missional house system. The current structure that exists outside the MH typically [ Page ] 51 has three to five members in a huddle. Experience has demonstrated that a group over five has a more difficult time creating deep connectedness, and a group under three is essentially one-on-one mentoring. With the new MH system, however, an effort has been made to reflect on pertinent research regarding the ideal group size for discipleship in this context. In her study of work groups, Wheelan discovered that group size “is a crucial factor in increasing or decreasing both group development and productivity” (Wheelan 2009, 247). Researching both nonprofit and for-profit organizations in the United States, Wheelan learned that the most productive and developmentally advanced were those groups that had three to eight members, and the optimum size was a group of three to four. Her study reports that as size increased, personal connection and intimacy decreased. Members of larger groups identified their groups to be more competitive, less unified, and more argumentative (Wheelan 2009, 247). As group size increased, member satisfaction, communication initiated by individual members decreased (Wheelan 2009, 247-8). In summary, “Intimacy and cohesion, member satisfaction, participation, and expressed disagreement are all affected by increased group size” (Wheelan 2009, 248). In their study of top management teams, Jerayr Haleblian and Sydney Finkelstein concluded that the average size of the best performing teams was 3.39 members (Haleblian and Finkelstein 1993, 851). Tubbs suggests that groups of three are too small and can lead to pairing up which results in leaving one [ Page ] 52 member out. He believes that groups of four are better but even they result in stalemates because of the even number. As a result, he suggests that five is the optimum group size. Once a group exceeds five, member participation begins to drop, subgroups can form, and side conversations begin to occur which distract from the progress. Groups above ten are very ineffective as they become more focussed on group organization and maintenance which diverts their energy away from their main purpose (Tubbs 1998, 102-104). The ideal group size will depend on a number of variables, including the type of the group and the specific situation (Tubbs 1998, 104). Tubbs notes that his conclusions about five group members refer specifically to problem-solving groups (Tubbs 1998, 104). Although the social science findings on group size do not speak directly to huddles and missional houses, the insights gleaned can be applied to Geneva’s project. It would seem prudent to aim for a size of five residents as an optimal choice in order to enhance cohesiveness and participation. Summary Group development, conflict, power, and size are important dynamics that should be considered Geneva’s missional house program develops. These elements were not factored into the original design, and Chapter 5 highlights some implications of this oversight and Chapter 6 notes recommendations for training in this area. [ Page ] 53 Student Leadership Development In the last twenty years, the study of leadership development on post- secondary campuses has gained great interest (Komives et al 2011, 64). In academic institutions, shifts have been made from leadership as a byproduct of education, to leadership development as an intentional goal (Komives et al 2011, 64). And leadership theorists such as Kouzes and Posner have adapted their findings in the corporate and public sectors to campus leaders (Komives et al 2011, 64). Based on their work, many studies have been launched that help provide insight into the social science of student leadership development (defined in this paper as leadership development of emerging adults in college or university settings) (Komives et al 2011, 64-67). This section explores the student leadership development principles of experiential learning and mentoring. Experiential Learning The interest in student leadership development has led to the creation of formal leadership programs that are designed to increase students’ understanding, abilities and values in the area of leadership (Komives et al 2011, 75). There are a wide variety of leadership programs and models in existence that vary in their approach to students, structure, and strategies (Komives et al 2011, 232-235). But P. Haber suggests that an effective formal leadership program model will have the goal of creating an integrative learning experience (Komives et al 2011, 233) and should consider the elements of experiential learning and reflection (Komives et al 2011, 246). [ Page ] 54 Experiential learning is a theory that suggests that experience is central to the learning process (Sternberg and Zhang 2014, 227). It attempts to offer a holistic approach to how people learn, grow, and develop (Sternberg and Zhang 2014, 227). David Kolb presented a model that suggests that this process has four stages: Concrete Experience (experiencing), Reflective Observation (reflecting), Abstract Conceptualization (concluding), and Active Experimentation (experimenting) (Kolb 1984, 72). In the first stage, the learner encounters a new situation or experience. He or she then reflects on this experience, begins to form conclusions about the experience, and finally begins to apply these conclusions in his or her daily life through experimentation (McLeod 2013). In summary, this learning process is about “engaging in experience, connecting that experience to a concept or idea, reflecting on that experience, and ultimately making meaning and altering behavior” (Komives et al 2011, 247). Experiential learning is an essential component for student leadership development. Owen writes that “Leadership is inherently an experiential process of engaging with others and learning how to be more effective in that context” (Komives et al 2011, 118). And Haber notes that “Experiential learning is a powerful learning strategy that helps provide real-life experiences for students and encourages transferability to different aspects of their life, solidifying their learning” (Komives et al 2011, 247). If students learn through experience, they will learn leadership by leading (Eich 2008, 182). It is essential for a successful [ Page ] 55 leadership program to provide meaningful opportunities for students to develop their leadership skills (Komives et al 2011). Theorist Darin Eich adds that “reflection activities emerged as a vital tool for leadership development, especially in concert with action and observation” (Eich 2008, 183). Reflection assists a student to understand and internalize concepts (Komives et al 2011, 248). By processing the activities of the group, the members will “internalize the full cognitive and emotional impact of the group experience” (Haynes 2012, 55). And by reflecting on what it means for them personally, they will be able to develop a greater sense of self (Komives et al 2011, 248) and personal identity (Komives et al 2011, 104). In their work with emerging adults, Jana L. Sundene and Richard R. Dunn suggest that the dynamic of reflection is essential for the discipleship of this age demographic (Sundene and Dunn 2012, 100). Reflection refines the discipleship process, ensuring a student is healthy and growing (Sundene and Dunn 2012, 100). In particular, reflection “creates space for celebration, for wisdom regarding redirection and repair, and for cooperation with the Holy Spirit” (Sundene and Dunn 2012, 100). Reflection can have many different models and be done individually or in groups (Komives et al 2011, 247-248), but regardless of how it is incorporated, high-quality leadership programs will make effective use of this resource (Eich 2008, 183). Students should be encouraged to develop a habit of reflection on their learning and grow in self-awareness (Komives et al 2011, 104). [ Page ] 56 Mentoring Mentorship is another essential piece of student leadership development. The research suggesting the positive impact of mentorship is overwhelming and spans many spheres including education, business, and church life. Faculty mentoring has proven to be a powerful dynamic in the world of post-secondary education (Komives et al 2011, 73). Interactions between faculty and students “can be crucial in developing students’ academic self-concept and enhancing their motivation and achievement” (Komarraju et al 2011, 332). In their study of over fourteen thousand college seniors from fifty American schools, Dugan and Komives discovered that faculty mentorship of students was a key influence on leadership development (Dugan and Komives 2010, 525). Their findings affirmed the importance of faculty mentoring in the shaping of emerging leaders (Dugan and Komives 2010, 538). Mentorship is essential for competence and an effective student leadership development program will provide meaningful opportunities for students to observe good role models and mentors (Komives et al 2011, 103). The world of business is saturated with teaching on mentorship. In an article in the Harvard Business Review, Daniel Goleman suggested that coaching is one of six main leadership styles and it is one that should be mastered to increase both performance and a positive environment (Goleman 2000, 87). John Maxwell writes that “leaders who mentor potential leaders multiply their effectiveness” (Maxwell 1995, 10). Kouzes and Posner make it clear that mentoring is an essential part of any exemplary leadership (Kouzes and Posner [ Page ] 57 2014, 207). Mentoring stretches people, it increases their capabilities, and it enhances skills through challenge (Kouzes and Posner 2014, 206). They write, “You need to mentor people because no one ever got to be the best at anything without the benefit of constructive feedback, probing questions, and thoughtful coaching” (Kouzes and Posner 2014, 205). The church has been involved in mentorship since its conception. Beginning with Jesus’ training of his disciples, ministry leaders have lived out the Great Commission throughout the centuries by investing in the next generation. Discipleship and Christian leadership development are inextricably linked (Reese and Loane 2012, 25) and developing future leaders is in the DNA of the church (Geiger and Peck 2016, 153). Life experiences present many teachable moments, and Christian mentorship allows godly leaders to pay attention to these moments (Reese and Loane 2012, 25) and shepherd the development process (Geiger and Peck 2016, 175). It is about partaking “in the deepening and empowering of those given to the world of leadership” (Reese and Loane 2012, 18) and “investing” in their lives and how God is already working (Reese and Loane 2012, 20-21). Whether in the world of education or business or church ministry, the message is the same: mentorship is essential for leadership development. It is crucial to help emerging leaders move along in their development (Clinton 1994, 200) and this is especially the case in the lives of emerging adults. Sharon Daloz Parks writes that “As young adults are beginning to think critically about self and [ Page ] 58 world, mentors give them crucial forms of recognition, support, and challenge (Parks 2000, 128). If student leadership development is the goal, there seems to be no alternative - coaching must be provided (Geiger and Peck 2016, 171). Implications and Responses The social science dynamics that were highlighted have important implications for the MH project. Based on the research presented it is essential that a discipleship model for emerging adults incorporate key elements of experiential learning, reflection, mentorship and training. The ultimate purpose of the MH project is to train university students to live out the mission of God in their everyday lives. This is a learning process, and as a result, students need regular exposure to meaningful missional experiences and times of reflection about these experiences in order to develop and grow. They need adult mentors to help them process their learning, and effective training to develop their skills. In the pilot phase of the project, I attempted to respond to these needs through the creation of a model illustrated in Figure 3, that envisions students living together and joining in four main aspects: participating in a discipleship group (huddle), being mentored, engaging in a group study to develop missional understanding and skills, and collaborating in a number of shared missional activities. By living together in a residence, the students learn through the experiences of daily interactions with their housemates. They experience what it means to share their lives with others as they share space, meals, and time. And by regularly investing this way in each other, they experience group dynamics to [ Page ] 59 an extent to which many groups who only meet weekly or even less frequently, would not. Through the huddle, residents learn the experience of deep discipleship and the importance of reflection as they attempt to develop a daily rhythm of Scripture Figure 3: Geneva Missional House: Missional training through a student residence [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 3 details ] meditation and prayer and meet to share their reflections with their discipleship group. Each week residents gather for a ninety-minute huddle to share how God has been speaking to them, how they are living missionally, and any prayer requests they might have. Group study sessions provide training opportunities and instruct residents in missional theory, inspiring them to live out God’s mission in their everyday lives. Individual mentorship is provided by missional house leaders and other adult ministry leaders. These mentors regularly invest in the residents to [ Page ] 60 nurture a missional lifestyle. Finally, residents work together to plan various missional activities designed to provide them with shared missional learning experiences. The particulars of these activities are defined by the residents and In this way, the elements of experiential learning, reflection, mentorship, and training are incorporated into the MH program. Summary Social science theories of Group Dynamics and Student Leadership Development Theory play significant roles in the Missional House model being presented in this project. In particular, the aspects of group development, conflict, power, size, experiential learning, reflection, and mentorship are vital concepts that have been incorporated. This chapter provided an overview of these elements as well as offering a number of implications for huddle, missional studies, mentorship, and shared missional activities. Chapter 4 will provide an overview of the methodology involved in the implementation of this project. [ Page ] 61 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY Chapter 4 presents insights into the methodology of this thesis-project. In particular, it introduces the context, objective, research questions, project narrative, research population, approach to research, missional house model, instrumentation, data collection, and ethical considerations involved. Context Our organization has been ministering to Queen’s University students through a house-based model for over twenty-two years. Throughout this time, four to five different students have been invested in yearly through a residence based discipleship program; many students have testified that their time at Geneva House had a positive impact on their spiritual growth. As I have developed this model throughout the years, it became apparent that residence-based discipleship has tremendous potential to impact the spiritual lives of university students. My research in social sciences (Chapter 3), theology (Chapter 2), and experience has led me to believe that this type of ministry can greatly benefit God’s mission on campus and significantly impact the kingdom. The opportunity for home-based ministry on Queen’s campus is significant: thousands of students are living together in residences surrounding the university. If even some of these residences [ Page ] 62 were transformed into missional outposts, it is my conviction that many students could encounter God and his kingdom in a powerful way. As such, the overall purpose of this thesis-project was to discern an effective model for student discipleship through missional homes which could be multiplied on Queen’s campus. This model would incorporate the strengths of the existing Geneva House, as well as pertinent findings from research on other residence-based models and relevant social science literature. It was my hope that such an in depth study would provide significant learning to enable me to develop a program that would result in significant transformation in the lives of many students. It would simultaneously respond to an increasing demand for living spaces within Geneva House. My ministry had outgrown one ministry house and I wanted to see our organization both minister to more students and to do so with great effectiveness. Objective The main objective of this project was to create student ministry houses where participants would be intentionally discipled to follow Jesus and to live out his mission for the world. In particular, I hoped to see improvements in the missional health, missional understanding, and missional competency of the participants. These objectives were decided upon by the missional house vision team and they were discerned after more than six months of meetings in early 2016. [ Page ] 63 Research Questions As I approached this project, I recognized that four main questions needed to be addressed: What elements are fundamental for an effective missional house? In other words, what are the key building blocks to help missional house residents grow as followers of Jesus and leaders of his mission? This question was the cornerstone of this project. To our knowledge, very little—if anything at all—has been published to answer this specific question. Our efforts to discover relevant findings on student ministry performed specifically through missional house models were unsuccessful and it was our hope to offer something significant to address this void. What can be learned from the existing Geneva House model that will assist in the discernment of the fundamental elements? As has already been noted, Geneva House has existed for over two decades. The last ten years of its history have been marked by many ministry developments and significant organizational growth. Through reflecting on the current model of Geneva House, we hoped to unearth elements that have proven effective in discipling the students over the years. We wanted to discern where the Holy Spirit has led the ministry to experience fruitfulness and replicate this. What other student missional house models currently exist and what can we learn from them? An in-depth look at other case studies could provide valuable insight for the design of new missional houses. In particular, valuable data might be gleaned regarding leadership structure, vision, objectives, goals, [ Page ] 64 strategies, a definition of “living missionally” (there is great divergence and a lack of clarity surrounding the term “missional”; in Chapter 3 of this thesis this term is discussed and defined), expectations of residents, definitions of success, strengths and weaknesses, and other helpful suggestions. What can we learn from precedent social science literature that will enhance our effectiveness? This project is the first time that Geneva House has performed in-depth social science research on missional living. The potential for learning about student development dynamics through social science is significant and applying this knowledge could have a profound impact on the effectiveness of our organization. Project Narrative The history of this project dates back to the fall of 2014. At that time, Geneva House received an overwhelming number of applications for residency. As I reviewed the applications, it was disheartening that I was going to have to say no to so many students who wanted to live in Christian community. As I mulled through the options, an idea surfaced. What about starting another house? Nobody would be excluded if Geneva had another residence. I began to explore the idea and put great effort into discerning the logistics of multiplying Geneva House. The potential was evident but the timing was less than ideal; there wasn’t enough time to establish another house before the start of the school year. I was disappointed with being unable to meet this need and, regrettably, informed a number of applicants that Geneva could not accommodate them. These [ Page ] 65 circumstances left me with a holy discontent, and I began to pray that God would multiply Geneva House. Five months later, I had a conversation with Ryan Farrell, a youth pastor at Bay Park Baptist Church in Kingston. Ryan spoke about a deep nagging God had put on his heart. It was a prompting to invest more in campus ministry and, particularly, to live in community with university students. It was thrilling to hear God was stirring him this way, and I shared my prayers for multiplication. Ryan and I began to sense that God might be up to something and we started to discern together what God was calling us to do. I took our ideas to the Geneva House Executive team and with their discernment and support I felt it was time to begin a missional house movement. An application (Appendix F) was created, students were invited to join our initiative, leaders were appointed, and residences were located. The next step was to design the model. The missional house design team met for many months to assist in discerning the objective, goals, strategies, and measurable outcomes. These specific elements are presented in the upcoming section entitled “The Model.” Fundamentals that were working well at Geneva House were incorporated, and three other models of missional living were identified. More models were difficult to find and the lack of missional houses spurred a resolve to develop an effective model that could be reproduced. By the spring of 2016 a test model had been developed and it was launched on May 1 of that year. The discipleship program and research [ Page ] 66 components began on September 1, 2016 and concluded on April 30, 2017. Throughout the course of the project, other models and social science literature were researched. In many ways the story of Geneva’s missional houses embodied the principle of “building the bridge as you walk on it” (Quinn 2004, 3) and many valuable insights were gleaned through ongoing experience, reflection, and research. Research Population The missional house project originally had fourteen residents, divided into gender-based dwellings (eight male and six female). After one semester, one of the residents transferred schools and another resident joined our program but not the research component. All but one of these residents were students at Queen’s University, St Lawrence College or Royal Military College. They included the following as outlined in Table 2: Table 2: Missional house residents [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 2 details ] The resident who was not a student was Ryan Farrell, the pastor previously mentioned, who was part of our missional house vision team. [ Page ] 67 These residents committed to the missional house project program but were under no obligation to participate in the research element associated with it. Each non-leader resident was invited through a neutral third party to volunteer for the research component; all eleven signed on. The four leaders of the missional houses did not participate in the research aspect with the exception of insights shared in my leadership journal. Approach The approach of this project was Action Research (AR). AR is “a collaborative approach to inquiry” designed to create change that involves continuous stages of looking, thinking, and acting (Stringer 2007, 8). Coghlan and Brannick separate these stages into four movements: constructing, planning action, taking action, and evaluating action (Coghlan and Brannick 2014, 10-11). Using this model, we created a project that involved four elements: Plan, Act, Observe, and Reflect. The timeline proceeded as follows: Stage 1 (January - August 2016) 1. Design a model for discipleship through missional homes including measurable goals [Plan]. 2. Develop a missional health assessment tool to be used at the beginning, midpoint, and the end of the program [Plan]. 3. Invite missional house residents to participate in this research study [Act]. [ Page ] 68 4. Distribute missional health assessment tool to participants to provide a benchmark of measurement [Act]. Stage 2 (September – December 2016) 1. Implement missional house ministry plan (Part I) [Act]. 2. Establish missional growth goals with participants [Act]. 3. Distribute journals to record missional growth data [Act]. 4. Collect journals in December to analyze missional growth data [Observe]. 5. Distribute missional health assessment tool to participants in December to determine if any changes have been made [Observe]. 6. Distribute semester-end debriefing questionnaires to participants in December to gain feedback on participants’ growth and effectiveness of the program [Observe]. 7. Interview participants for debriefing purposes as needed and research the effectiveness of the program [Observe]. 8. Analyze the data and make changes as necessary [Reflect]. Stage 3 (January 2017 – April 2017) 1. Continue with missional house ministry plan making changes as needed (Part II) [Act]. [ Page ] 69 2. Establish missional growth goals with participants [Act]. 3. Collect journals in April to analyze missional growth data [Observe]. 4. Distribute semester-end debriefing questionnaires to participants in April to gain feedback on participants’ growth and effectiveness of the program [Observe]. 5. Distribute missional health assessment tool to participants to determine if any changes have been made [Observe]. 6. Interview participants for debriefing purposes as needed and research the effectiveness of the program [Observe]. Stage 4 (May – August 2017) 1. Compile data from research and analyze for patterns and principles of effective discipleship through missional houses [Reflect]. 2. Develop an enhanced model for campus discipleship through missional houses [Plan]. In addition to AR, elements of experiential learning were incorporated. As a missional house leadership team, we reflected on the strengths of the current and past Geneva House models and incorporated elements we believed would be beneficial. We did not have quantitative data to back up our decisions, but we [ Page ] 70 relied on our personal experiences and testimonies from students as to the effectiveness of the components. The Model In order to design my model, I planned to incorporate the strengths of other missional house models. However, this was not possible. A delay in approval from the Research Ethics Board did not allow interviews to take place until the end of the first semester of our project, so we were forced to create a model solely based on our current model. This was not an ideal situation, but our program needed to begin in September of 2016, running in tandem with the academic school year. By December 2016, research data was garnered from three other models, including Newman House, MoveIn, and Redeemer University College. Newman House is a Roman Catholic residential mission on university campuses throughout Canada and the United States. It has a long history of campus ministry and the centre at Queen’s is just two doors away from Geneva House. MoveIn is a movement seeking to gather Christians to live missionally in poor, urban areas of cities in Canada, the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Germany. Although the MoveIn focus is somewhat different from Geneva House, the organization’s model has the potential to share valuable insights regarding missional living. Redeemer is a Christian university located in Ancaster, Ontario that was started by the Christian Reformed Church. The campus includes more than thirty dorms consisting of seven to eight students each, and appears to parallel our missional house model. [ Page ] 71 Although the research from these models was not available to us at the beginning of our project, it proved valuable to our learning and informed our reflections and modifications moving into the second half of our project. The initial design of our model relied solely on the leadership team’s experiences with the strengths and weaknesses of the current model at Geneva House. We concluded that four key elements were essential: a huddle group, individual mentorship, group training study sessions, and shared missional activities. A huddle group is a specialized discipleship group that has been used at Geneva House since 2012. Based on Breen’s huddle as describe in Chapter 2, Geneva huddles (Appendix C) help students develop a daily rhythm of Scripture meditation and prayer, making use of a huddle journal to record reflections. Each week three to five participants gather for a ninety minute huddle to share how God has been speaking to them, how they are living missionally, and how the rest of the huddle can pray for them. This huddle follows the triangular pattern as laid out in Chapter 2 and it has become the primary means of discipleship for our leaders. Extensive anecdotal evidence of personal growth pointed to the benefit of huddles and, as a result, the missional house leadership team included this element in the new model. Individual mentorship has been a staple of the Geneva House discipleship program for many years. Each student leader is required to meet with a mentor regularly, and our staff regularly invests time and prayer in many members of our [ Page ] 72 student community. As discussed in Chapter 3, mentorship is an essential element to the development of student leaders, and I felt it essential to include this aspect in our missional homes. Ideally, the missional house leader would regularly invest in each resident to help nurture a missional lifestyle. The frequency for mentorship meetings was not dictated to the house leaders or residents, and freedom was given for them to develop a mentorship rate and rhythm. In the two years leading up to the missional house project, student leaders at Geneva House consistently provided feedback that more missional training was needed. Updates on how students are trying to live missionally are an element of all huddle sessions, but direct instruction about how to live missionally was never provided. In light of this feedback, the missional house leadership team included regular group sessions to instruct residents in missional theory and inspire residents to live out God’s mission in their everyday lives. The specifics of this training was not determined until the program began because house leaders wanted to first gauge the missional level of residents and then respond with materials designed to meet them at their level. Each house had the freedom to determine the substance of missional training. This resulted in the women’s house doing a series of open discussions on communal living and then studying Michael Frost’s book Surprise the World: The Five Habits of Highly Missional People (2014). The men met weekly over breakfast and discussed sections of A Field Guide for Everyday Mission (2016) by Ben Connelly and Bob Roberts Jr. [ Page ] 73 The fourth essential component of the model is shared missional activities. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this thesis, experiential learning has a direct and positive impact on how a student learns. Additionally, my design team believed that shared experiences would add an extra layer of accountability for students. Residents working together to plan shared missional activities would provide them with valuable experiences that could challenge them to reflect, discuss, and ultimately to grow. The particulars of these activities would be defined by the residents and would flow out of their specific context and networks. I would work with the house leaders to ensure that these activities matched our description of living missionally as described in Chapter 2 of this thesis. After defining the four main components of the model, my team then identified specific objectives in three categories: missional living, missional understanding, and missional activity. 1. Missional Living a) Students will invest in housemates by caring for each other’s emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. b) Students will invest in their personal relationship with God through daily times of personal prayer and Bible reflection. c) Students will invest in their friends and acquaintances through relational evangelism. 2. Missional Understanding a) Students will participate in a weekly discipleship group which includes reflection on daily devotional times and weekly readings of missional materials. b) Students will receive regular mentorship by missional home leaders. 3. Missional Activity [ Page ] 74 a) Students will plan and participate in weekly events designed to build community with friends who are not following Jesus. These objectives were deeply rooted in Breen’s work on missional communities as presented in Chapter 2. The highly relational aspects of 3DM’s “oikos” approach lead to the inclusion of 1. a), c), 2. b) and 3. a), and the triangle based huddle informed 1. b). The missional training of 2. b) was included in response to the request by existing Geneva House leaders for more instruction on missional living. Instrumentation One of the challenges I faced was determining how to measure the success of this project. How would I measure discipleship and missional growth? I had hoped to find resources for measuring individual missional health, but I was unsuccessful in locating any. I found a tool for assessing the missional health of a church, but it was too broad for my purposes. As a result, I designed my own individual missional health assessment tool following the layout of the “Patient Health Questionnaire” (PHQ-9) used in the healthcare field. Along with my team, I studied missional principles in Michael Frost’s Surprise the World: The Five Habits of Highly Missional People and Scott Dawson’s The Complete Evangelism Guidebook (2006) and then identified twenty-four missional habits that I decided to measure. I created a tool (Appendix B) that measured the following missional activities: 1. Spent meaningful time listening for God’s direction through Scripture [ Page ] 75 2. Engaged in conversational prayer 3. Set time aside to learn about Jesus 4. Personally reflected on your role in the plans of God 5. Had a shared time of vulnerability with someone 6. Spent time investing in your spiritual community 7. Had a positive experience of speaking truth into someone’s life 8. Sacrificed in order to meet someone else’s needs 9. Had a meaningful interaction with a geographical neighbour 10. Initiated a meaningful conversation with peers 11. Went out of your way to intentionally bless someone through words or actions 12. Adapted to culture to connect with someone 13. Worked to bring reconciliation to a broken relationship or situation 14. Initiated a relationship with a non-Christian 15. Spent time with a non-Christian friend 16. Set time aside to learn about Jesus’ mission 17. Had confidence in initiating conversations with others [ Page ] 76 18. Had the ability to extend grace to someone who wronged you 19. Followed the Holy Spirit’s prompting to act in a specific situation 20. Helped bring peace to a situation of conflict 21. Demonstrated the wisdom to respond well to a situation 22. Prayed for your neighbours 23. Prayed for non-Christians 24. Shared with someone how God is working in your life Participants were asked how often they performed these missional patterns using the scale of “Not at All,” “Several Days,” “Nearly Every Day,” and “Every Day.” This tool was far from exhaustive, but it provided me some evidence of missional living, understanding, and activity that were measurable. I hoped to see residents active in many of these habits several days per week. In order to provide some additional qualitative data on individual missional health, my team also designed a weekly reflection journal for participants (Appendix D). This journal had three sections. The first section asked the participant to spend time in prayer and reflective listening about the past week’s experiences. This was based on Geneva’s huddle approach and the ministry’s high value on reflective experiences as a means of learning. The second section was an accountability piece related to the number of times the [ Page ] 77 participant reflected on Scripture and participated in huddle, training, and missional activity. This provided the missional house leaders with some quantitative data with regards to the resident’s missional living habits. The third section had four reflection questions related to missional experiences, learning outcomes, spiritual growth, and missional understanding. This area was designed to offer insights on the quality of missional experiences and the residents’ missional competency and spiritual development. The intention of the individual missional health assessment and the weekly reflection journal was to provide data on the participants of the program. In order to generate data on the program itself, my team designed a semester-end program review questionnaire (Appendix E). It was my hope to see students regularly active in missional habits at least several days per week. The semester-end program review questionnaire posed the following questions: 1. Overall, how was your experience as a participant in the Missional House experiment? 2. Which parts of this experience have helped you grow missionally this semester? 3. What held you back from growing missionally this semester? 4. What are some things that could be improved for next semester? 5. What are some things that shouldn’t change? [ Page ] 78 6. Is there anything else you would like to share with us to help make our Missional House program better? Another research instrument I created was a questionnaire (Appendix F) designed for interviewing three missional house models: Newman House, MoveIn, and Redeemer University College. I prepared a series of fourteen questions and in December of 2016, I asked interviewees to share their history, objectives, strategies, leadership organization, resident expectations, strengths, weaknesses, and definitions of success and missional living. The Newman House interview was administered in the Newman ministry office with Scott Sanderson, the Newman House Manager and Edward Burroughs, the upcoming House Manager and assistant to campus chaplain Father Raymond DeSouza. The MoveIn interview was with Sam Kamminga, a member of the MoveIn Vision Team and the Redeemer University College interview was with Hendrika Schoon, Community Life Director. Both the MoveIn and Redeemer interviews were conducted over the phone. The audio of each session was recorded and I took my own notes. Each individual mentioned has given permission to be named in this thesis. My final instrument for collecting data was my personal research journal. I regularly took field notes based on my experiences with the project and any meetings that occurred. It should be noted that the four leaders of our missional houses did not take part in the individual missional health assessment or the weekly reflection [ Page ] 79 journal. Because of their dual role as both leader and resident they were directly responsible for the missional growth of the students that the assessment and journal attempted to measure. The leaders did, however, provide anecdotal feedback throughout the duration of the venture and participated in a project-end debrief. Their perspective was essential for determining the effectiveness of our program. Data Collection Apart from the leaders, each resident was invited to participate voluntarily in the research component of this project which began in September 2016. The leaders presented the residents with an information package containing a letter of information (Appendix G) and a consent form (Appendix H). After giving residents a minimum of forty-eight hours to consider participation, the leaders collected any signed forms and presented them to Emily Burnell, an intern at Geneva House, who was a neutral third party tasked with maintaining the anonymity of the research participants. It was my intention to have individual missional health assessments performed in September in order to provide a benchmark for the participants, but due to logistical breakdowns this did not transpire. Instead, at the end of each semester, the leaders distributed the individual missional health assessments and collected them. This data was presented to Emily, who then emailed the semester- end survey electronically and collected the results. The anonymous findings were passed on to me and our missional house leadership team. [ Page ] 80 No participant completed the weekly reflection journal and no data is available from this instrument. This created two holes in the data collection process: no preliminary individual missional health assessments and no weekly reflection journal. The data collected from the individual missional health assessments and the semester-end survey was interpreted using In Vivo codes in Excel spreadsheets and a list of the codes used can be found in Appendix I. The research instruments are outlined in Table 3: Table 3: Research instrumentation [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 3 details ] Findings from the research using these instruments will be presented in Chapter 5 of this thesis. Ethical Considerations This project intentionally abided by the research standards of the Government of Canada as laid out in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. The four main research instruments [ Page ] 81 were reviewed by a team of academic advisors and the project was approved by the Research Ethics Board of Tyndale on September 26, 2016. Special efforts were made in the undertaking of this project to protect the human rights and dignity of participants. Due consideration was taken in the consideration of dual role issues. As a ministry leader and researcher, I worked diligently to ensure that I did not consciously or subconsciously pressure a student to participate in this study. Since Article 2.2 for the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans notes that consent must be voluntary, I clarified in the initial contact, letter of information (Appendix G), and on the consent form (Appendix H) that participation was not mandatory. I identified my power differential to students and invited a third party to follow up my initial invitation to the students, so they did not feel that I was pressuring them. No coercion tactics including either incentives or punishments were employed. In order to ensure the safety of those involved in this study, interviews that took place were held in a place that offered an atmosphere of protection and confidentiality. In the questionnaires and interviews, it was communicated to participants that their honest opinions and experiences were valued and necessary in order to assess accurately the effectiveness of the program. It was also clearly communicated that their responses would not be judged in any way, and would be received as authentic and meaningful. [ Page ] 82 Privacy and Confidentiality Care was given to the collection, dissemination, and disposal of data. Data was compiled, coded, and kept on a computer database protected with a password and appropriate firewalls and anti-virus software. Specific responses gathered were not released to any campus ministry organizations and patterns discovered from data collected were made public in a way that did not identify individuals. Five years after this doctoral program is completed, stored research data will be destroyed. Inclusion Participants in this study were not discriminated against in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, age, or disability. Due to the religious nature of this project, it was expected that respondents belong to the Christian faith and identify as being active followers of Jesus. Information was gathered as to the participant’s personal belief system and perceived commitment level to Christ; however, no judgments were made as a result. To protect against discrimination, information about respondents’ beliefs was only available to the researcher and consultants. Consent Each participant signed a consent form (Appendix H) before participating in this research study; the nature and intent of this study was clear and non- deceptive. No incentives were offered to participants involved and all were above the age of eighteen. [ Page ] 83 Conflict of Interest Special efforts were taken to establish an environment where participants in the research project felt free to share openly and freely without fear of negative reprisal. An intention of this project was to enhance the effectiveness of Geneva’s campus ministry, and the underlying truth is that there is substantial room for improvement. It was incumbent on the leader of this project to convey the importance of transparency and authenticity in order to reach optimal research results. The dual role I carry as both supervisor and researcher was named and factored into the process throughout the course of this study. Conversations with residents were tempered with comments about my dual role and I made use of a third party to administer research instruments. Summary This project followed the plan as laid out in the Methodology section of this chapter and created two student ministry houses in September 2016. The program focused on four elements: huddle, individual mentorship, group missional training study sessions, and shared missional activities. Residents of the houses were invited to participate voluntarily in this research study and results of this study will be presented in the following chapter. [ Page ] 84 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS For the duration of this project, fourteen residents lived together in two missional houses – six in the women’s missional house (WMH) and eight in the men’s residence (MMH). After the completion of one semester one of the residents transferred schools and another resident joined the program but not the research component. Each house had two leaders, which left eleven residents to be the main subject of my research. Of these eleven, each one signed consent forms which involved a commitment to do individual missional health assessments at three intervals (beginning, midpoint and end of project), a weekly reflection journal, and two semester-end surveys. Unfortunately, none of the eleven participants completed the weekly reflection journal and no data is available from this instrument. This would have provided a unique insight into the spiritual growth of each individual; nonetheless the results gathered indicate that living in a missional community can have a positive effect on an individual’s spiritual growth. Additionally, no individual missional health assessments were completed at the beginning of the project as was laid out in the instructions. This information would have been extremely helpful to discern the overall impact that the program [ Page ] 85 made on the participants. Without this information, it is hard to provide a before- and-after comparison. Regardless, the midpoint and endpoint assessments provide good insight regarding the impact of the program on the residents in each semester. All eleven residents completed at least one semester assessment and four residents, three women and one man, provided data for both the fall and winter semesters. The semester-end review questionnaires were completed most comprehensively by the women’s house and data from four residents was provided for most of the two semesters. All four responded after the first semester and three out of four responded for the second semester. The men’s house did not fare as well. Only three of nine residents responded to a survey, and of those three residents, only one responded both semesters. More responses from the men’s house would have increased the reliability and validity of the data provided. Three of four house leaders provided feedback at the end of the project using the semester-end feedback questionnaire. The feedback was provided anonymously through electronic survey at the end of the semester, and as such the leaders were under no obligation to provide biased feedback. The information collected from these surveys was added to my meeting and research notes compiled in my own leadership journal. In addition to the in-house data, three missional house models were studied. Representatives from Newman House Catholic chaplaincy at Queen’s University in Kingston, ON, an organization called MoveIn located in Toronto, [ Page ] 86 ON, and Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ontario were interviewed to gain insights into their programs. Table 4 provides an overview of the research instruments as well as the participation of those involved. Table 4: Research instruments and participation [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 4 details ] The semester-end surveys and missional health assessments were each administered twice, once in December 2016 and another in April 2017. The three Missional House Model Interviews were performed in December 2016 and the Leadership Journal was maintained for the duration of the research project. Missional Health Assessment Findings The individual missional health assessment (Appendix B) was designed to provide insight into missional patterns of residents. Residents were asked how often they participated in the twenty-four missional qualities outlined in the missional health assessment in the course of a week. The choices for their [ Page ] 87 responses were: “Not at all,” “Several Days,” “Nearly Every Day,” and “Every Day.” As has been previously stated, ten residents completed at least one self- assessment after one semester. This provided data regarding the presence of missional characteristics in their lives. Four residents completed the tool for both semesters and this offered insight into the changes that were occurring spiritually in these residents over the course of the project. One Semester Data Five residents provided data for only one semester, four men and one woman. Two men and one woman responded after the first semester (December 2016) and two men responded after second semester (April 2017). A summary of responses can be found in Appendix J including the mode results. This summary shows that MMH respondents were moderately active in the missional patterns of the assessment. When individual responses were aggregated, the mode results revealed that the majority of residents were participating in the missional patterns “Several Days” (thirteen times) “Several/Nearly” every day (six times), “Nearly” every day (four times) and “Nearly/Every Day” (one time). Looking at the raw data in Appendix J, the numbers show that the majority of participants were participating in the missional characteristics “Several Days.” Fifty-one responses out of ninety-six fell under this classification. The second highest response category was “Nearly Every Day,” with thirty-five answers. The third and final categories were close in range with “Every Day” receiving seven responses, and [ Page ] 88 “Not at All” with three. When grouped together this results in ninety-three responses ranging from “Several Days” to “Every Day” and three in the “Not at All” category. The WMH data (Appendix K) reflects the answers from one female participant, but it shows some similarities to the responses from the men. Most of the answers were “Several Days” (fourteen), followed by “Nearly Every Day” (six). But the pattern differs in that “Not at All” received the third ranking with three and “Every Day” at the lowest amount of responses with one. When the results from the three men and the one woman were grouped together, twenty-one responses ranged from “Several Days” to “Every Day” and three were in the “Not at All” category (see Table 5). Two Semester Data Three members of the WMH and one member of the MMH provided two semesters of data (Appendix L). As can be seen in the chart below, in the first semester, female respondents answered the questions forty-one times with “Several Days,” twenty-seven with “Nearly Every Day,” and two times with “Every Day” and “Not at All.” Appendix M shows that in the second semester this changed to “Several Days” (thirty-seven), “Nearly Every Day” (twenty- three), “Every Day” (nine), and “Not at All” (three). This means that the categories “Several Days” and “Nearly Every Day” dropped four points each. The classification “Every Day” gained seven points and “Not at All” gained one. [ Page ] 89 Table 5: Number of responses from two semesters of missional health assessment data [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5 details ] This data shows that respondents increased in their overall everyday missional behaviour after two semesters. Appendix N provides a look at the average overall changes among the women from the first semester to the second. This table shows that after two semesters, the women remained the same in twelve categories, increased in five and decreased in three. An additional four others had an even spread of answers so were classified as “Divergent.” The five missional patterns that increased were: • Spent meaningful time listening for God’s direction through Scripture • Set time aside to learn about Jesus • Spent time with a non-Christian friend • Set time aside to learn about Jesus’ mission • Had the ability to extend grace to someone who wronged you The three areas of decrease were: • Had a meaningful interaction with a geographical neighbour • Went out of your way to intentionally bless someone through words or actions • Adapted to culture to connect with someone The one male respondent with two semesters of data produced results that were strikingly different from the women who responded in the same category, as well as the women and men who provided input on one semester. When asked how often he was active in the missional patterns after one semester, the participant responded fifteen times with “Not at All,” eight times with “Several Days,” and [ Page ] 90 one time with “Nearly Every Day” (see Appendix O). There was an improvement in missional activity after second semester with eleven responses in “Not at All,” an increase to twelve answers of “Several Days” and “Nearly Every Day” remained constant with one response (see Appendix P). In comparison, the women who were asked the same questions had a total of one response for “Not at All” first semester and three second semester. And the five men who responded with one semester’s data had a combined total of six responses in the same category. The one male respondent with two semesters of data appears to have been much less active in missional practices than other residents who provided any data. The information related to the changes in the one man respondent over two semesters can be found in Appendix Q. This information shows an increase in seven categories, no change in fourteen, and a decrease in three. The missional patterns that increased were: • Had a positive experience of speaking truth into someone’s life • Sacrificed in order to meet someone else’s needs • Went out of your way to intentionally bless someone through words or actions • Initiated a relationship with a non-Christian • Spent time with a non-Christian friend • Had the ability to extend grace to someone who wronged you • Demonstrated the wisdom to respond well to a situation The areas of decrease were: • Spent meaningful time listening for God’s direction through Scripture • Engaged in conversational prayer • Had a shared time of vulnerability with someone Although the male respondent appears to have been much less active in missional habits than other residents, the data provided from his missional health [ Page ] 91 assessments demonstrates that he increased in missional activity after the second semester. Summary of Missional Health Assessment Findings Overall, the findings of the survey indicate that missional house residents range from moderate to regular activity in missional practices. When asked about the twenty-four missional qualities, the majority of answers from both men and women showed that the participants were active “Several Days,” “Nearly Every Day,” or “Every Day” of the week. Where data was available to track changes over the two semesters, the average member from the WMH remained constant in twelve areas and grew in more areas than they declined. And the one male respondent grew more than he declined with an increase of seven traits and a decrease in three. Semester-end Survey Findings The following questions were asked of the residents: 1. Overall, how was your experience as a participant in the Missional House experiment? 2. Which parts of this experience have helped you grow missionally this semester? 3. What held you back from growing missionally this semester? 4. What are some things that could be improved for next semester? [ Page ] 92 5. What are some things that shouldn’t change? 6. Is there anything else that you would like to share with us to help make our Missional House program better? Each response was coded using In Vivo process and the code words were then grouped into categories and themes. A list of code words, categories, and themes can be found in Appendix R. Overall Experience When asked about their overall experience, each participant provided a positive response in both semesters and houses. Responses included: “Good,” “Enjoyable,” “Incredible,” “Fantastic,” and “Exceptional.” Where two semesters of data is available for a participant, there was no apparent change in their overall experience from one semester to the other. Three residents of the WMH residents and one of the MMH identified the following as significant factors which contributed to their overall experience “Relational Bonding,” “Supportive Relationships” (two responses), “Connectedness,” “Christian Environment” (four responses), and “Christian Community” were also noted. The concept of Growth was a notable theme in this category, with four respondents identifying “Spiritual Growth,” and two noting both “Self-Awareness Growth,” and “Missional Awareness Growth.” Additionally, one respondent noted that the experience was “Challenging.” The issue of conflict came up in the WMH second semester in one [ Page ] 93 response and more on this topic surfaced under the question: “what held you back from growing?” Growth There were many responses to the question about what specifically helped residents grow. The four women were unanimous in the area of “Huddle,” and three identified “Supportive Relationships” and an “Intentional Discipleship Focus.” All four women also responded that the missional aspect contributed to their spiritual growth. Specifically, “Missional Training,” indicated by three respondents, and “Missional Awareness,” indicated by one respondent, were the missional areas that were the most helpful to spiritual growth. Three identified “Spiritual Devotion” as helpful and “Accountability” was noted by two women as integral to their spiritual development. The two men who responded to this question answered differently than the women. None of the code words triggered by the women registered and instead two men both responded with “Spiritual Discussions” and “Vulnerability” and one noted “Personal Contemplation.” Weaknesses Three categories emerged when the students were asked about what held them back from growing missionally. The first was “Time Limitations.” Three out of the four women and one of the three men identified this as a factor. This also might account for a lack of response rate for surveys and the weekly reflection journal, but this is somewhat speculative. Another category identified was [ Page ] 94 “Conflict.” Three out of the four women noted this element after the second semester. And three out of three men noted “Fear” as something that held them back. In addition to these responses there were two other items of note. One woman mentioned “Missional Clarity” and another identified a “Lack of Spiritual Mentorship.” Improvements When asked what should be improved, responses were far from uniform. Individual responses had little overlap, save matters relating to greater connection to the broader Geneva community and the leadership of the missional houses. “Corporate Connectedness” was identified by two women, “More Shared Leadership” by two women and more “Collaborative Leadership” by another. The concepts of “Empowerment” and “Valuing,” each identified by one woman are perhaps also related to issues of leadership. Residents identified specific areas the leadership of the program could be improved and noted that more “Top Level Communication,” “Communication of Resident Expectations,” “More Top Level Involvement,” “More Top Level Mentorship,” “More External Leadership,” and “External Mentorship” (one response each from the WMH and MMH) all would have made the overall experience more spiritually fruitful and impactful. Another item to note was the concept of house size. Although only raised by one member of the MMH in the context of the house being too large, this idea [ Page ] 95 also came up in the Leadership Journal and will be commented on later in that section of findings. Don't Change When asked what shouldn’t change with the program, three women answered “Huddle.” Two women and one man responded with “Relational Bonding” and “Scripture Focus.” And one person from each house added the “In House Bible Study.” Additional Comments The final question of the semester-end survey asked residents if there was anything else that they could suggest to make the missional house program better. Two women responded with “More Top Level Mentorship” and “More Top Level Involvement,” one with a desire to see more “External Leadership,” “Shared Leadership,” and “Top Level Communication.” Semester-end Survey Thematic Findings When code words from responses were thematically sorted, seven major themes emerged: 1. Value of missional house experience. As can be seen from responses noted in the “Overall Experience” section, residents gave a strong endorsement of the program and saw great benefit to it. 2. Value of intentional missional and discipleship reflection and practice. This was a major theme that surfaced and demonstrates the high value residents [ Page ] 96 placed on the discipleship training they received. In particular they appreciated personal contemplation, huddle, missional activities, missional training, personal engagement in mission, prayer, Scripture focussed discipleship, and the intentionality of discipleship. 3. Value of relational connectedness through Christian community. This was another major theme and included aspects of accountability, vulnerability, challenge, relational bonding, personal investment in others, serving housemates, supportive relationships, and connection to the broader Christian community. 4. Value of an empowering and collaborative leadership system. This theme was a prominent one in responses from residents. They placed a high importance on shared leadership and being part of the decision-making process of the missional house. Residents wanted more time and investment from the top level leaders of Geneva and they sought to be valued more. 5. Need for effective communication. A few respondents asked for more communication from leadership with regards to purposes behind decisions, resident expectations, and clarity about the concept of living missionally. 6. Emotional, relational, and logistical dynamics prevented growth. Emotional and factors included apathy, lack of vulnerability, cynicism, fear, closedmindedness, adjusting to university life, and interpersonal conflict. Logistical dynamics included the size of the men’s house and organization of [ Page ] 97 ministry activities. 7. Evidence of growth. A number of residents self-assessed as having experienced personal and spiritual growth through the program. Implications of Semester-end Survey Findings The semester-end surveys provided valuable insights into the program design of Geneva’s missional house model. They revealed that residents highly valued the program and rated the experience positively. There was evidence of spiritual growth and the elements that contributed to this were huddles, supportive relationships, and an intentional focus on missional and discipleship reflection and practice. A number of emotional, relational, and logistical dynamics prevented growth including interpersonal conflict. The program could be improved with leadership enhancements, more direction from top level Geneva leaders, more shared leadership, better communication and a greater connection to the larger community of Geneva. Residents suggested a continued emphasis on huddle, a focus on Scripture and relational bonding within the house. Moving forward, it would seem prudent for Geneva to place a high emphasis on an intentional discipleship process that is Scripture-based and focused on training in mission, reflection, prayer and practice. The ministry should make relational connectedness through Christian community a priority, and it should work to develop an empowering and collaborative leadership system that includes effective communication. [ Page ] 98 Leadership Journal Findings The Leadership Journal component of this project included notes from meetings with missional house leaders and participants and personal reflections about the process and events that occurred. Four categories of notes were created: “Book Notes,” “Project Themes,” “Project Meetings,” and “Project Notes.” The largest component of this journal had to do with meetings. Early on, the meetings involved visioning and planning and as the project progressed the meetings turned into times of debriefing and discussing issues that surfaced. The project themes that surfaced included: mentorship, conflict, the size of the house, power dynamics, landlord issues, and missional training. Conflict was a major theme in the WMH and took considerable time and energy to navigate through. Many meetings were held around how to identify the issues and bring resolution. Tied in with this theme were the of power and leadership dynamics. For the men the main challenge was their relationship with the landlord. Many meetings were held to try to navigate these dynamics and to establish a good working infrastructure for the MMH who were renting from a ministry partner. Implications of Leadership Journal Findings The leadership journal highlighted the importance of mentorship and raised questions about the ideal size of the missional house. But the majority of [ Page ] 99 entries related to conflict and the need to address and provide training for this dynamic seems key to an effective missional house. Missional House Model Findings Three organizations were interviewed in order to gain insight into other missional house models: Newman House, MoveIn, and Redeemer University College. Scott Sanderson and Edward Burroughs (Newman House), Sam Kamminga (MoveIn) and Hendrika Schoon (Redeemer) were asked the following questions and have given permission to be identified in this thesis: 1. When was your model created? 2. How was your model developed? 3. What leadership structure do you have in place to run your house(s)? 4. What is the objective of your model? 5. What goals have you set to accomplish your objective? 6. What strategies have you put in place? 7. What activities are essential to your model? 8. What is your specific definition of “living missionally”? 9. How does the concept of living missionally relate to your model? 10. What are the expectations for residents? [ Page ] 100 11. How do you measure the success of your program? 12. What do you think the strengths of your program are? 13. What are the weaknesses? 14. Is there anything else that would be helpful for us to know about your missional house model? Responses were coded (see Appendix S) and a summary of the responses follows. Newman House is a Roman Catholic residential mission at Queen’s University that began in 1917. The ministry currently has three residences at Queen’s. In addition to Newman House, they began Vanier House for women in 2006 and Frassati House for men in 2015. Newman has been developing their model for years under the direction of Father Raymond DeSousa. Making use of both experiential and experimental learning, Father DeSousa sought to multiply their mission to evangelize the campus and to draw it into Christian community. Redeemer University College began in 1982 in Hamilton. At that time the organization did not own any housing units so students rented local townhouses. This style of housing received such positive feedback from students that the university decided to incorporate townhouse style residences when they constructed new facilities a few years later. The intended focus was on living together in intentional Christian community where meals were shared and disciples of Jesus were formed. [ Page ] 101 MoveIn began in 2009 when Nigel Paul was inspired by a friend to move in and live missionally in a high needs neighbourhood in Toronto. This incarnational approach emphasized a ministry of presence and a communal life of prayer and mission. After moving in, Paul gathered like-minded people around him and formed teams in other cities. The model, simple and easy to replicate, was created out of a desire to create a missional movement. Each missional house model has a different leadership structure. Newman works within a multilevel, hierarchical structure. Father DeSousa is the supervisor, landlord, spiritual director, and ultimate authority; a property manager oversees maintenance issues; and a house leader is elected by residents. Newman representatives that were interviewed described the atmosphere as an empowering model of self-leadership, with Father DeSousa having the final say. Redeemer works within an academic institutional framework and interviewee Hendrika Schoon oversees the residences in her role as Community Life Director. Each residence has a student house leader who is trained to provide spiritual direction, mentorship, assistance with life stage adjustments, mental health first aid, and logistical organization for the house. MoveIn places a high emphasis on team-based ministry. Each residence unit is part of a local team that includes up to three other apartments which form a “patch,” or a geographical neighbourhood. These teams are supported, resourced, and kept accountable by a vision team consisting of staff and volunteers. The [ Page ] 102 vision team and organization is shepherded by a leadership team of three staff including the Director, Nigel Paul. MoveIn places a high emphasis on local ownership and maintaining the organic nature of a movement. Although there is a leadership hierarchy, it was stressed that it is not a top down approach. Rather, each unit has the freedom to determine what programs are run. Each missional house has the objective of discipleship, and each has a different approach. Newman seeks to “create and multiply missionary disciples of Jesus.” They want to see their residents engaging personally with mission and they emphasize missional training, spiritual devotion, and caring for the needy. MoveIn’s objective is “to see thousands of regular Christians prayerfully moving in among the unreached, urban poor globally.” Their heart is to witness “the Church present and reproducing disciples in more unreached, urban poor communities.” Finally, Redeemer seeks to disciple by providing a holistic Christian education, with a specific emphasis on intentional leadership development. The goal setting methods of these three ministries varied somewhat and ranged from many goals (Newman) to a few goals (MoveIn) to less tangible learning outcomes (Redeemer). Newman listed goals that are coded as “Intentional Christian Community,” “Christian Virtues,” “Holistic Christianity,” “Spiritual Formation,” “Spiritual Devotion,” “Intentional Discipleship Focus,” “Connectedness,” and “Relational Bonding.” MoveIn’s goal is to enable [ Page ] 103 participants to reproduce the program through a ministry of prayer and presence. Finally, Redeemer noted that they set learning outcomes and goals, but they did not identify specific goals that were put in place consistently. Ministry strategies within the three missional home models varied but each organization had specific methods to achieve their overall objectives. MoveIn has two strategies: move in with one other person and pray with that person at least once a week. Newman has a strategy that involves three aspects. First, the executive director of the ministry selects residents and sets expectations for their communal living. These expectations include taking seriously the Catholic faith, participating in community life, and caring for the house. The second aspect is what those interviewed described as the two pillars of Newman House. These pillars are common meals and common prayer. These elements are foundational to Newman and reflect their missionary perspective which involves inviting people into community, practicing hospitality, eating together, and growing spiritually. The third aspect of Newman’s strategy has to do with three levels: God, house, and community. Each level is a key component of the organization’s mission. Redeemer appears to have the most structured strategies in place with a strong emphasis on mentorship and a specific leadership development curriculum for house leaders. Redeemer staff mentor student leaders biweekly, and the student leaders in turn invest in regular students. These leaders are also educated using a set curriculum which provides training in conflict management, leadership [ Page ] 104 styles and giftings, team dynamics, and spiritual development. The school has also developed a four week cycle which includes elements of discussion, communal prayer, worship, mentorship, and fun. The activities that flow out of the strategies set by each organization have some overlap. All three ministries identified prayer as a key activity. Newman and Redeemer both named the elements of weekly discipleship, small group faith studies, worship, conflict training, and the component of a regular rhythm of events. Apart from the others, Newman specifically mentioned sharing meals together, although responses to previous questions indicate that this is a staple for Redeemer and MoveIn as well. And MoveIn noted that ministry activities are determined by the local team and thus vary among locations. Some residence teams run weekly programs, some focus on advocacy and a big emphasis is on hospitality. When asked about their definition of the term “living missionally” and how it relates to their model, Newman noted that the specific term is not one they use. Their terminology is “evangelical Catholicism” or “missionary discipleship.” These words encompass the ideas of Christians living as missionaries in everyday life, and involve developing their relationship with God, being able to speak and share competently and confidently the Gospel message, and believing the essentials of the Christian faith. Through their personal relationships with other people and through their involvement in campus life, students apply the principles and strategies taught at Newman House. Members of Newman invite friends to be [ Page ] 105 part of the communal life of the ministry and members join other campus and local groups to bring a Christian perspective and influence. MoveIn had a very quick response when asked how they live missionally, and the specific term “living missionally” was very familiar to the representative (Sam Kamminga) being interviewed. He noted that it is a term that the church has been wrestling with for a number of years and it lacks uniform understanding. But Sam’s well-articulated definition is “recognizing that God is at work around you and stepping into it.” According to Sam, living missionally means understanding that Christ is already present in your context and he invites us to join him in what he is doing. The nature of MoveIn is living missionally and being intentional about God’s presence and ministering out of it. Redeemer’s definition of living missionally echoes MoveIn and the interviewee talked about partnering with God on mission. Vocational discernment is a large part of Redeemer’s program and they emphasized God’s calling to restore creation and to join him in his work of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18- 19). Living missionally is about serving God in whatever context he puts me in and about learning to respond to my God-given passions and the world’s deep needs. Redeemer’s model seeks to help students discern their specific callings and use their unique giftings to serve the broader community. When asked about expectations, all three organizations talked about personal engagement in the mission of the organization. For Newman that means residents focus on the two pillars of common prayers and common meals and the [ Page ] 106 three levels of relationships mentioned earlier (House, Community, and God). For MoveIn, residents are expected to move in, pray weekly, and live missionally. Specifically, living missionally in this answer was noted to mean discerning what God is doing, being intentional in mission, and investing in their neighbours. Finally, Redeemer requires its participants to engage deeply in the discipleship process and in communal living. Residents are asked to wrestle with big questions, to seek out mentors, to be proactive in their development, to be an ambassador, to believe that Christ is Lord of everything, to live by a covenant and conduct agreement, and to help create a community of grace and accountability. In order to measure the success of their program, all three organizations pointed to the need for qualitative evidences of personal transformation. Redeemer noted that it is hard to measure spiritual growth and each group responded with an element of what was coded as “Testimony Based Growth Markers.” In order to point to growth, participants need to be able to give personal anecdotes that gave examples of transformation. Newman noted that this evidence would include elements such as growing stronger in faith, more confidence in sharing faith, good relationships with others, a personal encounter with Christ, and mission activity and fruit. Redeemer included evidences such as engaging in community, working toward restoration of a broken world, and students selfidentifying that they felt invested in by others. MoveIn cited a long list of proofs including caring and supportive relationships, spiritual growth, relationships with [ Page ] 107 neighbours, joining God in what he is doing, a rhythm of rest, and spiritual sustainability (not burning out). In addition to anecdotal evidences, Redeemer and MoveIn also added the number of participants as a quantitative measurement to judge the success of their programs. Redeemer evaluates the retention of residents and MoveIn’s measures the number of people who are being mobilized and moving in among the poor. The self-assessment of their organization's strengths provided many differing answers with the exception of two overlapping answers. Both Newman and Redeemer identified deep community as an asset and MoveIn and Redeemer converged on the idea of an intentional discipleship focus. Newman added the concept of normalizing a Christian lifestyle. Redeemer listed many other strengths which were coded as follows: “Personal Attention,” “Mentorship” (including Peer), “Intentional Leadership Development,” “Team Based Leadership,” “Life Skills Development,” “Conflict Management Training,” “Listening Skills,” and “Self-Awareness.” MoveIn added to their list that their model has a simple design with low ministry costs and is led by lay leaders. The ministries were all very open with their program deficits and were quick to identify areas of weakness. Each model had different responses and there were no apparent overlaps with one another. Newman noted a number of weaknesses. With their model, residents can become too inward focused, and they can fail to reach out and evangelize. Rituals of faith can become an end in themselves and can overtake a relationship with God. Having three houses can [ Page ] 108 create division in the community, and the newer houses can draw students away from the main building Newman House. They also noted that interpersonal conflict can compromise every level of the houses. MoveIn reported that their residences can often neglect the inward focus of relationships within Christian community. Strong efforts to reach out to their non-Christian neighbourhoods can sometimes become all-consuming and the lack of inward tending of relationships with other Christians can result in feelings of loneliness and isolation. Residency also comes with another cost – high- commitment discipleship. Participants take radical steps to join MoveIn. By choosing to live in low income housing, they choose to give up certain levels of personal comfort and safety. Living near crack houses and with cockroaches can be part of the package and not every Christian is ready to live this way. Redeemer identified two main areas of weakness. Although a lot of personal attention is given to students, some do get missed and are not adequately shepherded. Second years in particular tend to fall into this category as more attention is directed to first years in residence. Secondly, mental health issues can have a huge impact on the house. Because of the townhouse residences, eight people reside in four rooms and they become a family unit. One student struggling with mental health becomes a shared issue with varying degrees of communal influence. The final question of the interview asked if there was anything else that would be helpful to know about their model. Redeemer responded by noting that [ Page ] 109 their leadership training included both mental health first aid and physical health first aid. They also provided a list of helpful resources for discipleship and leadership development. MoveIn shared two insights that they have discovered. First, corporate connectedness is helpful for sustainability. Their longest lasting residences are ones that form teams with others in the organization, and the less individual teams are connected to other teams, the less likely they are to last. Secondly, the flexible structure of MoveIn leads to diverse ministry expressions. Each residence discerns how God is moving in their neighbourhood and responds out of the uniqueness of the people involved and the situation. Thematic Findings of Missional House Model Interviews Almost one hundred and fifty code words were identified in the missional house model interviews and these words were condensed into categories and then sixteen themes (Appendix S). Below is the list of themes with the number of missional house models that are associated with it. • Emphasis on caring for the needy (2) • Emphasis on communal meals (2) • Emphasis on empowering and collaborative leadership system (3) • Emphasis on leadership development (2) • Emphasis on intentional mentorship and personal investment (2) • Emphasis on simple, flexible and reproducible model for ministry (1) • Value of intentional missional and discipleship reflection and practice (3) • Value of relational connectedness through Christian community (3) • Relational approach to mission (1) • Incarnational approach to mission (2) • Invitational approach to mission (1) • Multifaceted approach to mission (1) • Up, In, Out approach (1) • Anecdotal evidences of personal transformation (2) [ Page ] 110 • Emotional, relational, and logistical challenges (2) • Miscellaneous (3) The ministry houses interviewed had a number of different approaches and emphases, but all three made it a priority to develop an empowering and collaborative leadership system, intentional missional and discipleship reflection and practice, and relational connectedness through Christian community. Implications of Missional House Model Interview Findings There are many things that can be learned from the study of the missional house models interviewed. The varying emphases and approaches provide Geneva with a number of items for future consideration in developing the next generation of missional houses. For instance, caring for the needy and communal meals might be worthwhile additions to the existing model. But what seems essential to focus on are the areas of empowering and shared leadership, intentional discipleship methods based on missional learning, reflection and practice, and developing deep relationships through Christian community. Summary This chapter has presented findings from missional health assessments, semester-end surveys, missional house model interviews, and the researcher’s leadership journal. Major themes were identified in each category and in the following chapter conclusions will be made regarding the implications of this data as well as some personal reflections on this project. [ Page ] 111 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The objective of this project was to develop and implement an effective model of student discipleship through a missional house. In order to achieve this objective, three missional house models were reviewed and a missional house test model was designed and studied for effectiveness. The design review included missional health assessments, semester-end surveys, reflections via a research journal, and delving into social science theory. The findings collected by the research instruments were presented in Chapter 5 and relevant themes gleaned from social science theory can be found in Chapter 3. Chapter 6 will now present observations, recommendations, areas of further study and personal reflections related to this project. Observations The data derived from the research instruments points to a model that has a number of strengths and limitations. The strengths appear to be related to the experience of residents within the four main components of the program: huddle group, mentorship, missional study, and shared missional activities. Semester-end surveys, missional health [ Page ] 112 assessments, studies of social science theory and other missional house models seem to affirm the inclusion of these key elements and point to their importance. The semester-end surveys presented evidence of a very positive experience with Geneva’s model for most respondents. No negative comments were made and participants used terms such as “Incredible” and “Exceptional.” Varied responses were given when residents were asked what helped them grow and answers included huddles, deep relationships, and an intentional discipleship focus. Weaknesses identified had less to do with the program and more to do with the time limitations of students involved as well as personal issues and commitment levels. Improvements suggested by residents were non-systemic items and related to enhancing the leadership of the house and going deeper into some of the existing components of the model such as mentorship. The missional health assessments indicated that the majority of residents were participating in specific missional patterns at least several days a week. Where data was available to track changes over two semesters, most students increased in their missional activities over the course of the year. The study of other missional house models and the social science research affirmed Geneva’s emphasis in mentorship and training. Mentorship was a major theme in all three of the organizations studied and the concept was identified eight times in survey responses. Mentorship was identified as an essential aspect of student leadership development in Chapter 3’s findings. The inclusion of mentorship as one of the four main components appears to be a solid choice. [ Page ] 113 Training was another aspect identified in both the interviews of other models and in theoretical research that has informed Geneva’s model. Redeemer and Newman House emphasized the component twelve times, and in Chapter 3’s findings, it was noted that training is viewed by experts as an essential part of student leadership development. The highly valued concepts of mentorship and training lend credence to Geneva’s design. Indicators through semester-end surveys, missional health assessments, studies of social science theory and other missional house models affirm Geneva’s pilot project as having legitimacy and a positive effect. Many anecdotal evidences of personal transformation were present and underscore a number of strengths evident in the project. There were, however, a number of limiting factors associated with the program. The missional health assessments provided a helpful look into the missional habits of residents, but they were limited in the data they provided. The lack of an initial benchmark meant that it was difficult to measure growth decisively. And the growth data that was available after each semester was based on only four out of eleven participants in the study. These findings did show a general trend of increase in missional activity; however, each resident also demonstrated areas of decline. The missional activities of one resident even decreased significantly more than they increased. It was surprising to observe this data, and it seems that the residents’ missional habits and commitment levels as well as the administration of the assessment need improvement. [ Page ] 114 The quality of the missional training, another key element of the design, also appeared to fall short. After two semesters, some residents still struggled with a lack of understanding regarding the term “missional” and wrestled with what it means to live “missionally.” In a semester-end survey, one resident noted a desire for greater missional clarity. This participant suggested the project could be improved if there was “a clearer idea of what our ‘mission’ is” and they wanted “to be inspired about how we might go about it.” This statement appears to show a deficit in one of the core aspects of the model and missional training is an area that needs to be enhanced if the program is to be successful. Leadership training was another area of weakness in the program. House leaders were not effectively prepared to navigate conflict and group dynamics and this may have been a factor in the relational tension that occurred in the women’s house. Geneva’s leaders were given no formal training as to conflict management, empowering leadership, or mental health dynamics. The relational intensity of living in community necessitates better training and the leaders at the missional houses were ill equipped to handle the underlying forces involved. Shared missional activities also did not go as planned. Originally slated to be a weekly activity, these events were eventually downgraded to biweekly and then monthly occurrences. Some resident feedback noted a need for more missional activity, and other comments encouraged a more natural, organic approach to how these activities were planned and managed. This feedback seems to resonate with the organic approach of New Monasticism as noted in Chapter 2 [ Page ] 115 of this thesis and the shared missional activities could be improved to reflect this idea. Although a number of weaknesses can be identified, Geneva’s missional house model appears to have many positive aspects and evidence of growth and transformation exists. The four aspects of the model seem to be worthy components but the quality of their execution needs to be developed. In particular, the ministry would do well to address weaknesses in the areas of missional health assessments, leadership training, and shared missional activities. Recommendations Based on the aforementioned conclusions, recommendations will now be presented regarding the four components of the missional house model, leadership, leadership development, mentorship, shared missional activities, common prayer and shared meals. Recommendations regarding next steps for the missional health assessment can be found in the next section entitled “Further Study.” It is recommended that huddle, mentorship, missional training, and shared missional activity remain key components of the house. Feedback from the semester-end surveys and 3DM’s discipleship theory in Chapter 2 point to huddle as a significant ingredient for spiritual growth and one that should be maintained. It has already been noted that mentorship is a critical part of student leadership development and is present in all three of the missional house models that were interviewed. Additionally, residents asked for more mentorship in the semester- [ Page ] 116 end surveys and it seems prudent to develop this aspect further. Similarly, training appears essential in order to create a healthy missional learning environment. Chapter 3’s findings on training and Redeemer’s model elevate the necessity of intentional investment in students by leaders and mentors. Benefits of shared learning activities are also highlighted in Chapter 3. As a result, none of the four components should be removed from this model and they should remain key aspects of any future program. My second recommendation relates to the leadership of the missional houses. The leadership structure of the MHs was set up using a residence don model. An upper year or older adult was given the role of leadership and placed in authority over the house, thus making use of the legitimate power base (Haynes 2012, 79). But no training was offered to the leaders in the area of power dynamics and the ideal outcome of empowerment of the members. An assumption was made that empowerment would be an essential element of leadership; however, this assumption was not communicated or incorporated intentionally into the design of the project. After the extensive findings on the importance of empowerment in group and student leadership development, this appears to be a major omission. Hollander and Offerman write that “True follower development needs to go beyond encouraging follower influence (sharing power) to allowing followers to have decision responsibility (distributing power)” (Hollander and Offerman 1990, 184). And the data presented in Chapter 5 show the importance of an empowering and collaborative leadership system. [ Page ] 117 The women’s house had a significant amount of tension and conflict enmeshed with leadership and power issues; a number of female residents noted that this was a stumbling block for their personal growth. Although there were many facets to this conflict, one of the requests from residents was more shared leadership. This does not mean that a hierarchy cannot exist in the order of responsibility. Redeemer and Newman House both have hierarchical structures, although Newman has given greater power to the residents to elect a house leader. MoveIn also has a hierarchy embedded in their model, but they place a great deal of emphasis on local autonomy. The learning outcome that Geneva can derive from these experiences and models is the need for resident empowerment. Chapter 3 identified empowerment as a foundational principle for student leadership development and residents need to be co-creators of the missional project. Shared house leadership for the second generation of the missional house project, would better serve Geneva’s objective. Instead of the executive director working with house leaders to make decisions for each home, the whole house should be involved in the planning. All residents should be part of the design process for their specific house including what roles are needed and who should fill those roles. The gifts of each resident should be factored in and consideration should be given to rotating responsibilities so that students are given more experiences to test their skills and to develop as leaders. The emphasis should be on empowerment, shared leadership, and co-creating under the coaching and accountability of the executive director. [ Page ] 118 This leads to a recommendation about training. In my assessment, the missional training element needs to be overhauled. The materials used were not adequate to achieve the level of missional training that was desired and I did not provide sufficient training for my leaders. The ministry would do well to develop a leadership development module for all residents of the houses to ensure adequate training. This module would be developed through further study of Redeemer’s program and would include sessions on: • Team Dynamics – How to function as a team • Conflict Management • Mental Health First Aid • Empowering and Collaborative Leadership • Missional Living- What does it mean and how do we do it? • Spiritual Conversations Certainly, more training opportunities could be provided, but these categories in particular appear to be key areas necessary for the development of missional leaders. Team dynamics would include teaching on personality types, stages of group development, and how to create community bonding experiences. Conflict management would incorporate elements of the TKI and training on conflict resolution strategies. Mental health first aid would provide residents with tools on assessing and supporting persons struggling with mental and emotional health issues. This would assist in building relational connectedness [ Page ] 119 through Christian community. The empowering and collaborative leadership module would train participants in the values and skills of shared leadership and power dynamics. A session on missional living would provide discipleship theory about God’s mission and would lead into the last session which would help participants develop skills in having spiritual conversations. The challenge of increasing this leadership training is the time limitations of students. Students have a finite amount of time available in their schedule and this program needs to account for this. The program will not be effective if there are too many requirements of the residents. The solution I suggest to compensate for this is to amalgamate the missional training that was originally part of the mission house model with this new design of leadership training and holding six, three-hour sessions throughout the school year during the months of September, October, November, January, February, and March. These training sessions would be available to not just missional house residents, but all the leaders of the Geneva community and could contribute to greater corporate connectedness. Weekly accountability for missional house residents will continue to occur in huddle, and more comprehensive leadership and missional development will be provided through the six missional leadership sessions. If students return for a second year of residence, they will be given a leadership role in facilitating the training. A change in leadership structure at the missional houses also necessitates a comment on mentorship. The original design of the residences called for mentorship of the residents by the house leaders. The move to a shared leadership [ Page ] 120 approach would require this mentorship be provided elsewhere. In order to meet this need, it is recommended that the residents be mentored by the staff of Geneva House or such persons that have been vetted by the executive director of the ministry and have been properly trained. This mentorship would include both investment and accountability in the areas of spiritual, emotional, missional, and communal living. Since residents apply to live at a missional house and they commit to living by a code of standards and a participation covenant, a level of accountability is required. And without a specific house leader, accountability will need to come from external mentors. Shared missional activity is another area that requires development. This aspect entailed house members planning an event that was designed to provide group missional opportunities. Specific parameters were not given for these events and instead, an organic approach was established in line with the New Monastic principles cited in Chapter 2. As has been noted, shared missional activities were often neglected by Geneva’s missional houses. This seems to be a result of time limitations, lack of planning, and uneasiness related to these events. Some of the feedback related to shared missional activities on the semester-end survey noted that when events did happen, they felt forced or contrived and participants suggested a more organic approach. It is therefore recommended that shared missional activities continue to be included in the model in order to create an experience of mutual learning and accountability, but that the residents should be given flexibility as to the frequency and the nature of these activities. With that [ Page ] 121 said, it is suggested that the minimum number of shared missional activities be at least three per semester. Since semesters at Queen’s are twelve weeks long, three events would allow students to get organized at the beginning of the semester and then plan one event per month while they are in regular school term. Another key element missing from the original design is communal prayer. Although prayer is incorporated into huddle, a dedicated time of prayer for discernment and mission would appear to benefit the missional houses. The concept of prayer surfaced seventeen times in the interviews with other models, and each organization identified dedicated times of prayer as elements of their programs. Both MoveIn and Newman House identified common prayer as not just one aspect of their mission, but as a focal point. MoveIn’s simple strategy has two steps: move in and pray. Newman identified one of the two pillars of their mission to be common prayer. Geneva would do well to learn from the other models and to include this element in its design. It is highly recommended that common prayer be at least a weekly activity, and be connected with another aspect: shared meals. For Newman House and Redeemer, the concept of common prayer and shared meals is foundational to their program. Newman described shared meals as their second pillar and Redeemer has intentionally designed their residence model so that not just eating is a shared activity, but buying groceries and preparing meals is also communal. Geneva’s model included shared common eating and preparation space, but the logistics of meal times was left to the residents to discern. This resulted in students buying their own groceries, and for the most [ Page ] 122 part, eating individually at times that were convenient for them. Once a week the men’s house had breakfast together and the women would incorporate shared meal times into their missional activities. Geneva missed something by taking this individualistic approach. Self-regulation might be an easier option for students due to their schedules, time limitations, and dietary issues, but they forfeit a significant aspect of communal living by not sharing meal times. Although I am leery to add a sixth component to an already substantial five-aspect model, the findings from my missional house model interviews lead me to see communal meals as an essential part of an effective model. Therefore it is recommended that all missional houses spend at least one meal per week together. By adding common meals to the main components of the missional house, the result would be a model of six key elements: huddle, mentorship, missional training shared missional activity, common prayer, and common meals. Further Study This project presented four sources of data: external missional house models, individual missional health assessments, semester-end surveys, and reflections via a research journal. The data provided by these research instruments was informative and has led to a greater understanding of discipleship in a missional house setting. This information was far from exhaustive, however, and there are great opportunities for further research. The missional house model interviews provided a good look at three residential ministries. Newman House and Redeemer shared information about [ Page ] 123 two university-based approaches and MoveIn delivered insights into intergenerational missional houses that began in Toronto but are now all over the world. This data has been invaluable to my work, but this academic project could benefit from further study of additional missional house models. Further research could also delve deeper into the dynamics of gender and size. The data available in this study did not allow conclusive deductions to be made as to how gender factored into responses and experiences at the houses. And a co-ed missional house might be a worthy experiment and could speak to the effectiveness of gender-specific houses. The phenomenon of house size is another area of potential discovery. This idea arose in the leadership journal and also in social science findings in Chapter 3. Is there an optimum size for a missional house? More study could be done to shed light on this topic. The missional health assessment also has great potential for further development. To my knowledge, this assessment is the first of its kind. I believe it offers a good assessment of twenty-four specific missional behaviours, but it is far from being fully comprehensive. Some characteristics could be added and perhaps some deleted. A more in-depth study of the questions could develop the tool itself, and I would like to have this instrument vetted by missional leaders at Tyndale Seminary and in local missional settings. I believe this tool could be very useful for missional communities everywhere and greater input from people outside of my small team would greatly enhance its viability. [ Page ] 124 Better administration of the instrument could have yielded very valuable data. It was originally designed to be completed before residents entered the program as a benchmark, and then after each semester to analyze growth patterns. Due to some levels of disorganization at the inception of the program, the initial assessment was not done. If this information had been available, conclusions that are more decisive could be made. Perhaps an improved approach would be to have residents complete the missional health assessment every week of the program as part of their huddle group. In the current practice, students were asked to look back on a semester and to rate their average missional activity. This is in some ways highly subjective and reliant on memory and estimation. Five minutes at the beginning of a huddle could be set aside for this self-assessment and this could result in more accurate data and a more enhanced study of missional houses. And finally, further research should be done to develop the leadership and missional training curriculum proposed in this chapter. The recommendation to create a six-session module will work well for participants who are part of the program for one year. But enhancements would need to be made to ensure that residents who are part of the program for more than one year have new information and learning opportunities. It has already been suggested that returning students will assist in leading the training, but there is a great opportunity to provide next level leadership for these residents by developing a multi-year program. It is difficult to determine what this enhanced program would [ Page ] 125 look like without having first tested the six-session program proposed in this project and as a result, further study will need to be done in the future. Personal Reflections Designing and developing a missional house model for effective discipleship has been an incredible journey for me and for my ministry. This project has stretched my skills as a researcher and a leader, and by applying Action Research methodology to my ministry context, my organization has grown in many ways. The missional houses have added quantity to the ministry with the accumulation of two residences and fourteen residents, and the intentional discipleship process has added quality to the ministry in the form of transformative change. It was extremely rewarding to read personal testimonies from students who shared that they grew as followers of Jesus because of this project. Growth occurred as they were invested in and as they in turn invested in others. It happened when they focused on developing their relationship with God, enhancing their relationship with others, and discerning what it means to live out God’s mission in their everyday life. Through conflict and communal living, students learned a little more about what it means to be an apprentice of Jesus and to be a leader for him. It is my hope that through this project, God’s kingdom has grown tangibly and that those who read this thesis will have been influenced in some way to more fully join God in his mission. [ Page ] 126 APPENDICES [ Page ] 127 APPENDIX A MISSIONAL HOUSE RESIDENT APPLICATION The Goal of Geneva House Campus Ministry We want to be an incredible community where people experience Jesus and his transformation. We believe that God has a big plan for our campus and for each one of our lives and we want to be part of his transforming work. God loves our campus, so we love it and we welcome everyone to experience Jesus through meaningful community. We invest deeply in people, inviting them to grow as followers of Jesus and as leaders in his kingdom. We build authentic and meaningful relationships in order to demonstrate the love God has for everyone and to earn the right and respect needed to be a positive influencing force. We go deep with God, we go deep with each other, and we go out on mission together, serving others and helping them get connected with Jesus. The Goal of Geneva’s Missional Houses We want to create loving, living spaces for students where they will be intentionally discipled and mentored in the ways of following Jesus and living out his mission for the world. Expectations Living in a Geneva Missional Home means that each resident commits to: • Being an authentic follower of Jesus who seeks to live out God’s mission. • Investing in their housemates by: • Caring for each other’s emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. • Joining each other on a discipleship journey which includes: • A Weekly discipleship group based on daily times of personal prayer and bible reflection, as well as weekly reading and sharing of missional materials. • A Weekly Missional Meal designed to build community with friends who are not following Jesus. • Serving each other by doing household duties together. • Abiding by the goals and values of Geneva House Campus Ministry. Personal Qualities of Residents Being a member of a Missional Home requires a special type of person. They realize that they are on a mission to serve God and others, and their home reflects this. As a result, residents are missional leaders who are committed to be: • Builders of Community • Residents invite people into their home. They have a deep desire to help people find a place to belong, and they are constantly inviting others to enjoy deep community at their house. They realize that they [ Page ] 128 live in a house that will be often filled with people and they work hard to make these people feel welcome and at home. • Servants of Christ • Residents seek to serve Jesus by serving others. They are the first to lend a hand, they carry others burdens, they go the extra mile. Residents are selfless and committed to helping others. • Champions of Cleanliness • Because their home is a shared space, residents know that they must keep common areas clean and tidy. They clean their dishes upon use and put them away immediately. They never leave a mess. They even clean up after others, because they want to make sure that their home is a warm and welcoming environment for anyone who may come Application Name: School: Field of Study: Year: Phone: Email: Current Address: Home Address: Citizenship: Which missional home are you applying for (check any that apply): • Female Only House • Male Only House • Coed House Reflection Questions (100-200 words for each question) • Focusing on the last two years, how would you describe your relationship with God? • Why do you want to living in a missional home? • What are you most excited about? • What are you unsure about? • How can we help you flourish this year? • What are your greatest strengths? • What are you greatest weaknesses? • How will you help others flourish in living missionally this year? Please provide the following references who have known you for at least 1 year: [ Page ] 129 Spiritual Reference Name: Role: Phone: Email: Residence Reference Name: Role: Phone: Email: Please submit applications to queensgenevahouse@gmail.com by November 15, 2015. The Geneva Missional Living Team will review your application and respond to you shortly after. Applicant’s Signature: ________________________________________ Date:_____________________________ [ Page ] 130 APPENDIX B INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix B details ] [ Page ] 131 [ Appendix B continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix B details ] [ Page ] 132 APPENDIX C HUDDLE GROUP INFORMATION Goal The goal of a huddle is to help people connect deeply with God, connect deeply with others and to live out God’s mission to get the world connected to him. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for figure details ] Strategy The way we try to live out this goal is by helping people develop a regular rhythm of reaching up, in, and out. We invite huddlers to live daily rhythms of up and out and a weekly rhythm of Out in a huddle group. Here’s a closer look at how this happens: • Up o There are lots of ways to reach up to God, but the primary means for huddle is mediation. Meditation involves: • quieting ourselves in God’s presence • slowing down our minds and our souls • opening ourselves up to receive whatever God wants to say • reflective reading of a bible passage • listening to God’s voice o We believe that when people meditate on God this way, it will result in • connection • direction • transformation o Mediation is a spiritual discipline and it will take time to develop this skill, so don’t be discouraged if huge revelations don’t happen right away. The more you work on your mediation skills, the better you will get at it. [ Page ] 133 • In o Reaching in is about developing deep, authentic, caring, and safe relationships with others. A huddle can be a really great place to foster these types of relationships. For this to happen, the leader will need to model and train huddlers to follow the Up, In, Out rhythms, the huddle covenant and the LAMP process. • Out o Reaching out is really about paying attention and responding to how the Spirit is working all around you. God is on a mission to connect the world to himself. 2 Corinthians 5 describes it as a mission of reconciliation, making things right between God and his creation. Our job is to discern how God is working and to help him. We can start to do this by doing 4 things: • praying – talking and listening • meditating – listening through Scripture • having missional radar on – being ready and attentive to what is going on • responding – acting when the Spirit prompts Huddle Session So what actually happens in a huddle? We have designed a simple process using the acronym LAMP to enlighten you. Listening – How have you been listening to God? What has he been saying? Accountability –What do you want us to keep you accountable with? How do you want us to do that? Mission – How have you been living missionally? How is God working around you? Who are you investing in? Prayer – How can we pray for you right now and during the week? Every part of the LAMP process is essential to a huddle group. [ Page ] 134 APPENDIX D WEEKLY JOURNAL REFLECTION Phase One: Take a moment for prayer; thank God for his grace this week, the opportunities you’ve had and ask him to guide you through a thoughtful reflection of your experiences and what you have learned about yourself, others, and him. Phase Two: I reflected on scripture ____ times this week for approximately ______minutes. I attended the huddle time ____ (y/n), training time ___(y/n), missional activity ___ (y/n/NA) I participated in organic missional activities ____ (y/n) If yes, please elaborate: Phase Three: What was the missional highlight of your week? Was there an experience, scripture, or relationship that impacted you in a meaningful way? Can you describe a “learning opportunity” you had this week where you might have tried something new and/or made a mistake? What would you do differently next time? What would you do again? Would you say that you have grown spiritually this week? If so what helped you to grow? What held you back from further growth? Given your experiences with our program, how would you explain to someone what it means to live “missionally”? [ Page ] 135 APPENDIX E SEMESTER-END SURVEY 1. Overall, how was your experience as a participant in the Missional House experiment? 2. Which parts of this experience have helped you grow missionally this semester? 3. What held you back from growing missionally this semester? 4. What are some things that could be improved for next semester? 5. What are some things that shouldn’t change? 6. Is there anything else that you would like to share with us to help make our Missional House program better? [ Page ] 136 APPENDIX F MISSIONAL HOUSE MODEL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. When was your model created? 2. How was your model developed? 3. What leadership structure do you have in place to run your house(s)? 4. What is the objective of your model? 5. What goals have you set to accomplish your objective? 6. What strategies have you put in place? 7. What activities are essential to your model? 8. What is your specific definition of “living missionally”? 9. How does the concept of living missionally relate to your model? 10. What are the expectations for residents? 11. How do you measure the success of your program? 12. What do you think the strengths of your program are? 13. What are the weaknesses? 14. Is there anything else that would be helpful for us to know about your missional house model? [ Page ] 137 APPENDIX G LETTER OF INFORMATION Developing Disciples through Student Missional Homes This research is being conducted by Steven Kooy under the supervision of Dr. Mark Chapman, Dr. William Thornton and Dr. Paul Bramer, in the Doctor of Ministry department at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, Ontario. This study has been granted clearance according to the recommended principles of Canadian ethics guidelines, and Tyndale’s policies. The research being conducted is not officially associated with Queen’s University. What is this study about? The purpose of this research is to develop an effective model for student discipleship through missional homes at Geneva House, a Christian campus ministry near Queen’s University. What is expected of me? The study will require the participant to do the following: • Fully participate in the Geneva House missional house project. • Complete a missional health assessment at the beginning, mid-point, and completion of the eight month study. • Maintain a Weekly Reflection Journal on your missional experiences. • Complete a Semester-end Program Review Questionnaire at the end of each semester in order to provide input on the program. • Potentially participate in a one-hour interview with a researcher at the end of the project in order to provide input on the program. Is my participation voluntary? Yes. Although it would be greatly appreciated if you would participate, you may decline participation in the study without penalty. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to answer all material as frankly as possible, but you should not feel obliged to answer any material that you find objectionable or that makes you feel uncomfortable. You may also withdraw at any time with no effect on your relationship with the ministry or standing in school. There are no known physical, psychological, economic, or social risks associated with this study. You may take twenty four to forty eight hours to decide if you would like to participate in this program. What will happen to my responses? I will keep your responses confidential. Only researchers involved in this project will have access to this information. To help me ensure confidentiality, please do not put your name on any of the research study answer sheets. The data collected will be used to shape the effectiveness of the ministry of Geneva House, and it may also be published in [ Page ] 138 professional journals or presented at scientific conferences, but any such presentations will be of general findings and will never breach individual confidentiality. Should you be interested, you are entitled to a copy of the findings. Will I be compensated for my participation? No, there will be no monetary incentive to participate. What if I have concerns? Any questions about study participation may be directed to Dr. William Thornton at thornton@flambc.org. Any ethical concerns about the study may be directed to the Chair of the General Research Ethics Board at REB@tyndale.ca. Thank you. Your interest in participating in this research study is greatly appreciated. [ Page ] 139 APPENDIX H CONSENT FORM Developing Disciples through Student Missional Homes Name (please print clearly): ________________________________________ 1. I have read the Letter of Information and have had any questions answered to my satisfaction. 2. I understand that I will be participating in the study called Developing Disciples through Student Missional Homes. 3. I understand that this means that I will be asked to: a. Fully participate in the Geneva House missional house project. b. Complete a missional health assessment at the beginning, mid-point, and completion of the eight month study. c. Maintain a Weekly Reflection Journal on your missional experiences. d. Complete a Semester-end Program Review Questionnaire at the end of each semester in order to provide input on the program. e. Potentially participate in a one-hour interview with a researcher at the end of the project in order to provide input on the program. 4. I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and I may withdraw at any time without consequence. It is my choice to participate, and I may decline participation in this study without penalty. I will not be asked to waive any legal rights. I understand that I have twenty four to forty eight hours to decide if I would like to participate in this program. 5. I understand that every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of the data now and in the future. The data collected will be used to shape the effectiveness of the ministry of Geneva House, and may be published in professional journals or presented at scientific conferences, but any such presentations will be of general findings and will never breach individual confidentiality. Should you be interested, you are entitled to a copy of the findings. [ Page ] 140 6. I am aware that if I have any questions about study participation they may be directed to Dr. William Thornton at thornton@flambc.org. Any ethical concerns about the study may be directed to the Chair of the Tyndale Research Ethics Board at REB@tyndale.ca. The research being conducted is not officially associated with Queen’s University. I have read the above statements and freely consent to participate in this research: Signature: __________________________________ Date: _______________________ [ Page ] 141 APPENDIX I LIST OF ALL RESEARCH CODE WORDS 1982 2005 2009 2014 2 Pillars: Common Prayer and Common Meals 3 Levels: House, Community, and God 4 Week Strategy Accountability Caring for the Needy Challenging Christ is already present and he invites us to join him in what he is doing Christian Lifestyle Christian Virtues Christian Witness Christians prayerfully living among the poor Collaborative Discernment Collaborative Leadership Collaborative Leadership Communal Impact of Mental Health Issues Communal life of prayer and mission [ Page ] 142 Communal Prayer Community Focus (Inward) Community of Grace Conflict Management Connectedness Connectedness is helpful for sustainability Consistent Rhythm Create and Multiply Missionary Disciples of Jesus Curriculum Deep Community Deficit in Inward Focus Director Initiated Discernment through Experimentation Discussion Divine Encounter Easily Reproducible Empowerment Empowerment Evangelical Catholicism Evangelism Focus (Outward) Experiential Learning Experimental Learning [ Page ] 143 First Aid Training Flexible Structure Leads to Diverse Ministry Fun Gift-Based Leadership Goal based Good Relationships Gospel Fluency Gospel Fluency Hierarchical High Commitment Discipleship Holistic Christianity Holistic Education Hospitality House Conflict Incarnational Approach Incarnational Ministry Independent from Church Governance Intentional Christian Community Intentional Discipleship Focus Intentional Learning Environment Intentional Missional Activities Investing in Students [ Page ] 144 Leadership Development Leadership Styles Life Skills Development Life Stage Adjustments Listening Skills Living as a Christian in everyday life Local Ownership Logistical Organization Loneliness Loss of Personal Comfort Low Ministry Costs Low Organizational Structure Mental Health First Aid Training Mental Health Focus Mentorship Ministry of Presence Missional Activity Missional Fruit Missional Invitations Missional Living Missional Living is Central Focus Missional Training [ Page ] 145 Missionary Discipleship Mobilization MoveIn Movement Focussed Multi-Level Leadership Multi-Site Creates Some Divisions Multifaceted Approach Multiplication Mindset Non Clergy Leaders Normalize Christian Lifestyle Not a common term Organic Organizational Freedom Patron Model Peer Mentorship Personal Attention Personal Engagement in Mission Personal Safety Issues Prayer Purpose Driven Qualitative Data Qualitative Evidences of Personal Transformation [ Page ] 146 Reconciliation Recruiting Participants Relational Based Relational Bonding Relational Evangelism Relationship with God Relationships with Neighbours Respect Restoring Creation Retention of Participants Rhythm of Rest Rituals overtake Relationship Safe Place Self-Awareness Serving Community Shared Meal Preparations Shared Meals Simple Model Small Group Faith Studies Some residents overlooked Spiritual Devotion Spiritual Formation [ Page ] 147 Spiritual Growth Spiritually Sustainable Support Staff Supportive Relationships Team Based Team Based Leadership Team Dynamics Term lacks uniform understanding Testimony Based Growth Markers Too Inward Focussed Top Level Direction Top Level Mentorship Top Level Selection Unknown Value Based Vocational Discernment Weekly Communion Weekly Discipleship Training Worship [ Page ] 148 APPENDIX J INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT MMH ONE SEMESTER RESULTS Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix J details ] [ Page ] 149 APPENDIX K INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT WMH ONE SEMESTER RESULTS Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix K details ] [ Page ] 150 APPENDIX L INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT WMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – SEMESTER ONE Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix L details ] [ Page ] 151 APPENDIX M INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT WMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – SEMESTER TWO Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix M details ] [ Page ] 152 APPENDIX N INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT WMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – CHANGES FROM SEMESTER ONE AND TWO Did they increase, decrease and remain same in identical categories? [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix N details ] [ Page ] 153 APPENDIX O INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT MMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – SEMESTER ONE Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix O details ] [ Page ] 154 APPENDIX P INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT MMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – SEMESTER TWO Looking back over the last semester; in an average week, how often have you: [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix P details ] [ Page ] 155 APPENDIX Q INDIVIDUAL MISSIONAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT MMH TWO SEMESTER RESULTS – CHANGES FROM SEMESTER ONE AND TWO [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix Q details ] [ Page ] 156 APPENDIX R SEMESTER-END SURVEY CODE WORDS, CATEGORIES, AND THEMES [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 157 [ Appendix R continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 158 [ Appendix R continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 159 [ Appendix R continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 160 [ Appendix R continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 161 [ Appendix R continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix R details ] [ Page ] 162 APPENDIX S MISSIONAL HOUSE MODEL INTERVIEW CODE WORDS, CATEGORIES, AND THEMES [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 163 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 164 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 165 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 166 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 167 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 168 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 169 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 170 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 171 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 172 [ Appendix S continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Appendix S details ] [ Page ] 173 REFERENCE LIST Avolio, Bruce J. 2011. Full Range Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Banks, Robert J. 1994. Paul’s Idea of Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Barna, George. 2001. Growing True Disciples. Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press. Bessenecker, Scott A. 2006. The New Friars: The Emerging Movement Serving the World's Poor. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Biblegateway.com. n.d. New International Version.Accessed: March 5, 2018. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NIV&quicksearc h=kingdom&begin=47&end=73. Bierma, Nathan L. K. 2005. Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1937. The Cost of Discipleship. New York, NY: Macmillan. Breen, Mike. 2011. Building a Discipling Culture. 2nd ed. Pawley’s Island, SC: 3 Dimensional Ministries. Breen, Mike, and Alex Absolom. 2010. Launching Missional Communities: A Field Guide. Pawley’s Island, SC: 3 Dimensional Ministries. Carter, Erik C. 2012. “The New Monasticism: A Literary Introduction.” Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care. 5, no 2 (September 1): 268-284. Chan, Francis, and Mark Beuving. 2012. Multiply. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. Chester, Tim, and Steve Timmis. 2012. Everyday Church: Gospel Communities on Mission. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. Christian Reformed Church of North America. 2015. “Contemporary Testimony.” Accessed December 11, 2015. http://production.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/contemporary- testimony/ourworld- belongs-god. [ Page ] 174 Clinton, J. Robert. 1994. The Making of a Leader: Recognizing the Lessons and Stages of Leadership Development. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress. Coghlan, David, and Teresa Brannick. 2014. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cole, Neil. 2008. Search and Rescue: Becoming a Disciple Who Makes a Difference. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Connelly, Ben, and Bob Roberts Jr. 2014. A Field Guide for Everyday Mission. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers. Dawson, Scott. 2008. The Complete Evangelism Guidebook: Expert Advice on Reaching Others for Christ. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Dewey, John. 1910. How We Think. Boston, MA: Heath & Co. Dubois, Francis M. 1983. God Who Sends. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press. Dugan, John P., and Susan R. Komives. 2010. “Influences on College Students' Capacities for Socially Responsible Leadership.” Journal of College Student Development 51, no. 5: 525-549. Dunahoo, Charles H. 2005. Making Kingdom Disciples. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing. Eich, Darin. 2008. “A Grounded Theory of High-Quality Leadership Programs.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, no. 2:176-187. Frost, Michael. 2016. Surprise the World: The Five Habits of Highly Missional People. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress. Geiger, Eric, and Kevin Peck. 2016. Designed to Lead: The Church and Leadership Development. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing. Geneva House. 2017. Accessed December 19, 2017. http://genevahouse.ca/ ———. 2018. “Vision and Values”. Accessed February 20, 2018. http://genevahouse.ca/vision-values/ Goheen, Michael W., and Craig G. Bartholomew. 2004. The Drama of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Goleman, Daniel. 2000. “Leadership that Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review. 78, no. 2: 78-90. [ Page ] 175 Haleblian, Jerayr, and Sydney Finkelstein. 1993. “Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion.” The Academy of Management Journal 36, no. 4: 844-863. Haynes, Norris M. 2012. Group Dynamics: Basics and Pragmatics for Practitioners. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Kindle eBook. Hinds, Arthur. 1924. The Complete Sayings of Jesus. Hogarth Blake. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.hh-bb.com/complete-sayings-jesus.pdf Hollander, Edwin P., and Lynn R. Offermann. 1990. “Power and Leadership in Organizations.” American Psychologist, Special Issue: Organizational Psychology 45, no. 2: 179-189. Hull, Bill. 2006. The Complete Book of Discipleship. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress. Janzen, David. 2013. The Intentional Christian Community Handbook: For Idealists, Hypocrites, and Wannabe Disciples of Jesus. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press. Klooster, Fred H. 2001. Our Only Comfort: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources. Kolb, David A. 1984. Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall. Komarraju, Meera, Sergey Musulkin, and Gargi Bhattacharya. 2010. “Role of Student–Faculty Interactions in Developing College Students’ Academic Self-Concept, Motivation,and Achievement.” Journal of College Student Development 51, no. 3: 332-342. Komives Susan R., John P. Dugan, Julie E. Owen, Craig Slack, Wendy Wagner, and Associates."The Handbook for Student Leadership Development (2nd Ed.) Susan R. Komives, John P. Dugan, Julie E. Owen, Craig Slack, Wendy Wagner, and Associates." 2011. The Handbook for Student Leadership Development. 2nd ed. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 2014. The Student Leadership Challenge: Five Practices for Becoming an Exemplary Leader. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. [ Page ] 176 Ladd, George Eldon. 1959. The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Lencioni, Patrick. 2002. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Louw, J. P., and E. A. Nida. 1996. Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: United Bible Societies. Lutz, Stephen. 2011. College Ministry in a Post-Christian Culture. Kansas City, MS: Beacon Hill. Maxwell, John C. 1995. Developing the Leaders Around You. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Moll, Rob. 2005. “The New Monasticism.” Christianity Today. September 2. Accessed December 16, 2005. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/september/16.38.html MoveIn. 2015a. “Our Story”. Accessed December 21, 2016. http://www.movein.to/our-story/. ———. 2015b. “Vision”. Accessed December 20, 2016. http://www.movein.to/vision/. Nelson, Gary V. 2008. Borderland Churches. St Louis, MI: Chalice Press. Ogden, Greg. 2007. Discipleship Essentials. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Parks, Sharon Daloz. 2000. Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parnell, Jonathan. 2014. “What Is a Disciple?" Desiring God. July 28. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-a- disciple. Plantinga, Cornelius. 2002. Engaging God’s World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Quinn, Robert E. 2004. Building the Bridge as You Walk on it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Page ] 177 Raven, Bertram H. 2008. “The Bases of Power and the Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influence.” Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy 8, no. 1:1-22. Reese, R. D., and Loane, R. 2012. Deep Mentoring: Guiding Others on Their Leadership Journey. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books. Russ, Eric. 2013. “What Defines a Christian Disciple?” Discipleship Defined. Accessed December 13, 2016. http://www.discipleshipdefined.com/resources/what-defines-christian- disciple. Stassen, Glen H., and David P.Gushee. 2003. Kingdom Ethics. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press. Stearns, Richard. 2013. Unfinished. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Sternberg, Robert J, and Li-fang Zhang, eds. 2014. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Stetzer, Ed. 2006. Planting Missional Churches. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing. ———. 2011a. “Developing Missional Churches for the Great Commission, Part One.” Christianity Today. April 18. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2011/april/developing- missional-churches-for-great-commission-part-one.html ——— 2011b. “Developing Missional Churches for the Great Commission, Part Two: The Great Commission and Missional Thinking.” Christianity Today. May 24. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2011/may/developing- missional-churches-for-great-commission-part.html ———. 2011c. “The Missional Idea in Scripture: Developing Missional Churches for the Great Commission, Part Four.” Christianity Today. June 27. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2011/june/missional-idea-in- scripture-developing-missional-churches.html ———. 2011d. “Developing Missional Churches for the Great Commission, Part Five: God Sends.” Christianity Today. July 11. Accessed December 12, 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2011/july/developing- missional-churches-for-great-commission-part.html Stringer, Ernest T. 2007. Action Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Page ] 178 Sundene, Jana L., and Richard R. Dunn. 2012. Shaping the Journey of Emerging Adults: Life-Giving Rhythms for Spiritual Transformation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books. Thomas, Kenneth W., and Ralph H. Kilmann. 2017. “An Overview of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI).” Kilmann Diagnostics. Accessed March 5, 2017. http://www.Kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview- thomas-Kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki. Tubbs, Stewart L. 1998. A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Tuckman, B. W., and M.A. Jensen. 1977. “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.” Group & Organization Management 2, no. 4: 419-427. Van Gelder, Craig and Dwight Zscheile. 2011. The Missional Church in Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Wheelan, Susan A. 2005. Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ———. 2013. Creating Effective Teams. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ———. 2009. “Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity.” Small Group Research 40, no. 2: 247-262. Wilkins, Michael J. 1992. Following the Master: A Biblical Theology of Discipleship. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Wilson, Jonathan R. 2009. Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Wilson-Hartgrove, Jonathan. 2008. New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today's Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press. Wolters, Albert M. 2005. Creation Regained. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. [ Page ] 179 ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****