WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION?

Information Comes From Clergy TO Information Is A Click Away From Any Search Engine

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XVI

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Information comes from clergy or staff (caterpillar) TO Information is a click away thanks to search engines. (butterfly).

Caterpillar: “The Dark Ages” were aptly named because of keeping people “in the dark”.  Only the wealthy or clergy were literate and educated, the masses were not.  This allowed the hierarchal structure of the Roman Catholic Church to dictate its doctrines and dogma to the masses.  The masses were instructed to “trust” their clergy to give them correct interpretation of the Bible.  You didn’t question a priest.  With the invention of the printing press, literacy grew throughout Europe birthing the Age of Enlightenment. At first these newly printed Bibles were banned and their printers even martyred, but as the masses learned how to read, the Bible became their main source of text. They soon discovered the church dogma that presided over their lives had little Biblical basis, thus the birth of the Reformation, where people read the scriptures themselves, and “protested” by breaking away from the mother church, being tagged as “Protest-ants”.  Martin Luther became one of the first to lead the charge, discovering salvation by grace not works, and advocating the “priesthood of believers”, yet when it came time to establish church government, he copied the same hierarchal, pyramidal structure of clergy (instead of priests) and laity (non-trained or uneducated).  This structured has been followed from Luther’s day into the present with little if any modification.

Butterfly:  I believe that the “priesthood of believers” that Luther advocated will be the structure of the future church on a linear, horizontal plain of relational peers.  Luther’s seed will sprout to this generation.  The emphasis will not be on relying on the clergy and their staff as professionals to “teach” them the word through westernized theological preaching nor being pew sitters nurturing apathy, but will rely on the Holy Spirit to teach each believer as they individually study the word, walking out what they have read in faith in their daily lives, and becoming very active in practicing and sharing their faith in their present culture.  The emphasis of church structure will change as it goal changes. What will now be important is the “equipping of the ‘saints’”, not the clergy and the “staff” for the purpose of “service”.  That reciprocal service of give and take will create accountability through deepened, established horizontal relationships.

The Differences: The differences are obvious:  Under the old system, the trickle down effect was emphasized.  Leadership heard from God and relayed it down to the people through sermons.  Professional leadership’s interpretation of the scriptures always superseded those of the saints in the pews, for they were the “learned”, the “educated”, the studiers of Latin and Greek.  The “sermon” by the educated clergy became the keystone to most church services.  Even Bible studies were highly scripted and guided studies written by clergy, often lead by clergy, and approved by the denomination or sect with which one belonged.  Under the new system, personal inquiry is encouraged; seek the scriptures yourself, ask the Holy Spirit to “teach you all things” about the passage, and access all the Biblical commentaries, etc. available through one click of the mouse through search engines on the internet.

Implications Today:  Today, one can get the Bible in printed form and through the internet on their lap top, IPad, and even Smart Phone in printed and oral form.  Today we are facing the linear age, where communications occurs on a horizontal plain of peers.  Biblical discussions can occur in internet chat rooms, through Facebook entries, through tweets on Twitter with attached links to websites about the discussed passages, and through blogs.  All this electronic communication by passes the screening of today’s clergy.  They use to be able to control the printed material, but today they can’t touch nor control the vastness of the internet. When in the past, when there were carefully planned and taught curriculums supporting one’s religious group or sect, today the average person is faced with an ocean of information at their fingertips through the internet.  The church needs to teach its people how to discern “truth” through “false” or “heretical” teaching.  This will be part of “equipping the saints”. The Bible will still be the standard, but how to sift through all this interpretation will be the challenge.

Conclusion:  As the masses obtain the power to read for themselves, study for themselves, discern for themselves rather than counting on “church professionals” interpreting everything for them in their “expertise”, I believe there will be a sifting out of religious “dogma” imposed by centuries of church indoctrinations, and the “apostle’s teaching”, the simplicity of the gospel, the good news, will again be restored to the church as it had been birthed in the first century.  Systems produce massive amounts of interpretive literature.  The Jewish religion went from the Torah to add the Talmud, interpretations of the Torah.  The Christian Church went from the cannon of scriptures to multitudes of commentaries filling library shelves of their interpretations.  With the age of the internet, that massive amount of information and  everyone’s interpretations are out there.  It will be the job of the “priesthood of believers” to sift through all of it, and restore the apostle’s teachings of simplicity.  The gospel is simple; we, the church have made it complex.  We now need to reverse that pattern.

WHERE DOES YOUR LOYALTY LIE - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Loyalty Lies In Submission To The System– TO – Loyalty Lies In “Laying Down Your Life For Your Brethren”.

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XV

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Loyalty lies in submission to the system (caterpillar) TO Loyalty lies in “laying down your life for your brethren” (butterfly).

Caterpillar: My parent’s generation was very loyal to their denomination.  You could find a Methodist church on one corner, a Lutheran church on another, and a Presbyterian church on yet another.  Never did the three meet together, and every church “member” remained loyal to their denomination.  Though not as strong as in the past, there is still a loyalty toward one’s local congregation.   Loyalty coincided with “membership”, with belonging.  To be a part of the system, denomination, religious group you had to accept their belief system of theology, adhere to their code of conduct, and attend the systems functions regularly in order to “belong”, to “feel accepted”, to “be a part of that group or family.” If you did that, you were a “loyal” follower or member.

Butterfly:  To the butterfly generation, loyalty means more than just attending service, participating in programs and activities, reciting the tenants of faith, or following dress codes or proper church social etiquette; it means building relationships with those in one’s fellowship circles and beyond.  Although surface relationships may be at first acceptable and beneficial, it demands a deeper commitment of relationship to the point of not only tolerating one another, accepting one another, to laying down one’s life for one another.  In a five fold model, one will “lay down his/her passion, point of view, or spiritual gift” to “serve” those with different passions, points of view, or gifting than theirs as well as receive gratefully from the others. This reciprocal giving and taking in love and service will build up tremendously deep relationships.

Differences: Loyalty through systems will produce works, and works produce Pharisees (see previous blog); loyalty through relationships forces one to die to themselves and live for others as well as receive from others.  There are no Lone Rangers or Pharisees in these relationships because they are linear, horizonal relationships with peers, brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.  You can be loyal to a system, but you will soon discover that the system may not be loyal to you; while if based on relationships, built on laying down one’s life for their brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ, the reciprocated love returns to develop even deeper, longer, and more meaningful relationships.

Implications Today:  Corporate America demands loyalty to the system and those above you in this pyramidal structure of business when “taking care of business”, but when “downsizing” occurs, often the system is not loyal to its employees, releasing them, not “taking care of them”.  The bottom of the structure that is doing the work is to be loyal to the top, yet the very existence of those at the very bottom can be in jeopardy when faced with the bottom line: efficiency to produce profit for the system. There is no linear loyalty in a pyramidal system where you have to compete and back stab your peers to get to higher paying, elevated positions of power in the corporation.  This system breeds mistrust among peers.  The butterfly generation is building relationships linear, as peers, as equals, not in competition but in communication.  As this linear communication grows, so does the commitment level toward one another, as relationships grow stronger, deeper, more trustworthy, until one is ready to “lay down their life” in that commitment.  Marriage is a good example: today in corporate America we are losing what “laying down your life” for your wife or husband means, thus an enormously high divorce rated with children being groomed in single parent and step parent homes.  Hope for marriage as an institution can grow with this linear, horizontal relationship of total sacrifice of “laying down one’s life” producing solid, long lasting relationships in marriage.

Conclusion:  Bottom line: Where does your loyalty lie” in your work, in your church life, or in your marriage?  Does it lie in the institution where you work, the religious institution you attend, or in the institution of marriage, or does it lie in the relationship with those you work with, those you worship with, and the one whom you are committed in marriage with?  As a Church we have to realize how important relationships are compared to institutions and systems.  The church is all about relationships, yet we have institutionalized them.  Church is going through a structural metamorphosis from systematic institutions to relational and will see that loyalty will be shifting from institutional to relational.

DEVELOPMENT: PAHRISEES OR DISCIPLES - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Developing “Pharisees” – TO – Developing Disciples

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XIV

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Develops “Pharisees” (caterpillar) TO Develops Disciples (butterfly).

Caterpillar: I must confess: “I am a recovering Pharisee!”  I truly believe that the longer you are in a religious system, you can’t help but become a Pharisee of that system.  A Pharisee is one who becomes a zealot of their religious faith, who does “everything right” according to their religious code, and takes their religion seriously, effecting every area of their life.  I grew up as a church kid, active in the church youth group, went to a church sponsored college, and have been active in many different ministries in my life. Jesus’ most severe criticisms were directed to the “church” people of is day, the Pharisees, comparing them to infected yeast. (See earlier blogs)  Pharisees fervently supports a religious system. They appear squeaky clean; Jesus called them “white washed tombs”. 

Butterfly:  Jesus chose twelve uneducated men from different secular trades to train and develop into what would be the foundation of his kingdom.  For three years he built a relationship with them, training them, nurturing them, instructing them, and revealing His Father to them.  They become known as his disciples, his followers.  Every good rabbi had a following of disciples.  Amazingly, when push came to shove, with Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, they fled with Peter actually denying that he knew him.  After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, He sent His Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit transformed 12 disciples into apostles who would “see over” what the Holy Spirit was about to do.  After the four gospels, the next book is the “Acts of the Apostles”, recording the actions of the apostles as they followed the leading of the Holy Spirit.  This would be the pattern of this newly birthed church built on relationships vertically with the Father, through Jesus Christ, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and horizontally among the believers of Jesus Christ, the Church.

The Differences: Again, the difference between the two is established in where one’s loyalty lies: in an institution or in relationships with others.  Pharisees are zealots about what they believe, think, and do.  They are driven to follow the law or code of their group to achieve acceptance of advancement.  Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, had followed every Jewish code possible and even lead the zealous crusade to rid Judaism of this new “sect”. That would all change when he literally gets knocked of his horse, and meets Jesus. With that relationship, his life is changed, and the rest of his life is now dedicated to his vertical relationship with God and his horizontal relationship with the other believers in Jesus.

Implications Today:  How did I know when I became a Pharisee?  When I became defensive, justifying my every action and belief. I always believed my way of thinking was the correct way.  When the Holy Spirit brought it to my attention, my first defensive response was, “prove it to me.”   We care not to admit it, but today’s church is filled with Pharisees who follow their church codes to a tee and are zealous for what they believe.  Listen to Christian radio some time, and you will hear dozens of different preachers all preaching their own doctrine, some times the opposite of one another.  Pharisees nurture division just by their words, attitudes, and actions.  The Church will never be united, one body, as long as the Pharisees get their way. 

Conclusion:  Where is your loyalty: to the religious institution to which you belong or to relationships with the priesthood of believers?  Pharisees always line up with their institution’s guidelines and code of conduct, yet they were the targets of Jesus’ most severe criticisms.  He attacked their mindsets and established traditions calling them “traditions of man.”  On the other hand, the priesthood of believers is all about equality of position and influence, linear, horizontal relationships where one believer has to “lay down his life for his brethren”, another believer.  Pharisees never lay down anything, only defend what they are holding on to!  Are we willing to lay down our traditions, our past, and our very lives, those things we hold on to, at the altar, at the feet of Jesus, before our very brethren for the sake of relationships that the Lord wants to establish in our individual lives and corporately as a priesthood?

CHURCH PROPERTY - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Having Church Property– TO – No Need For Church Property

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XIII

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: From Owning all church property (caterpillar) TO Has no need for church property (butterfly).

Caterpillar: In its hay days, the church built cathedrals, supposedly monuments to their faith but at a drastic cost to its constituents. Today, the church still builds mega-structures at a huge cost to their constituents.  Buildings and Grounds and their maintenance occupies a large part of most church budgets.  As buildings age and congregations dwindled, especially in urban America where entire communities built around church buildings are crumbling under economic conditions, slums are birthed.  Buildings often become albatrosses tied around a congregation’s neck when they become aged, huge, old, in need of repair, and empty and the congregation does not have the needed financial resources any more.  Those hallowed halls may be filled with history, but are empty of people, but strapped financially.  The building often becomes the center of focus, which we even call the “church”, for we attend “church” in a building.  It even becomes central to church activities and church life.

Butterfly:  Relationships are important, not physical facilities.  Relationships are not built around physical building, but in individuals meeting, communicating, and networking with one another.   In the past social life developed around the church building and its activities.  In the future it could revolve around the culture where the church, the people who believe in Jesus Christ, live and are active.  Church will be fused more with community and local culture.  Church could meet in Starbucks because that is where their people drink coffee (with out “doing” church by producing a church service there).  It could meet in the park by the swing sets, at the grocery store, at school, work, etc.  Any place god’s people are, where Christians hang out, technically that is where the “church” is meeting.  It is built on relationships, not location nor buildings.

The Differences: In the past, much of the church’s financial resources turned toward building projects, magnificent cathedrals throughout Europe, beautiful architectural mega-churches in the United States, etc. As buildings age, their financial demands for maintenance can strap the financial resources of the church, those Christian individuals who meet there, and become an albatross around their necks, eventually forcing them to close their doors or sell their facility. On the other hand, if the church is built on relationships among its believers in Jesus Christ, technically, a stationary building is not needed.  All one needs are “two or more” believers in Jesus Christ to gather, hang out, communicate, and you got Church.

Implications Today:  Personally, I have seen where a denominational church office threatened to take away the land and building of a local congregation over heated controversies, because in their charter, the denominations technically owns the building, not the local constituents.  Eventually the denomination backed down, but the ugly head of pyramidal, hierarchal “control” raised its political head.  Many churches today face huge mortgages and paying staff and benefits as the majority of their budget.  I have seen mega-churches build facilities, only to see them emptied in a flick of the eye when a scandal hit their staff or their pastor falls, now leaving those who faithfully remain to face a difficult financial dilemma.

The best example of the church currently built on relationships rather than real estate is the underground church in China, where they can get arrested when relationally meeting together in a house, in a barn, in a park, wherever. The communist party dos not want unauthorized groups to meet; they know the power of assembly.  In China there is an pyramidal, hierarchal, institutional church sanction by the pyramidal, hierarchal, political institution that is allowed to build buildings if approved, but it is a known fact that there is very little spiritual life in that setting.  On the other hand, the church built on relationships, anywhere they can meet, usually hiding in safety, is a vibrant, Spirit led church filled with spiritual life.  In order to understand this phenomenon, we need to look to the underground Church in China to give us Westerners advice in how to live in community of faith and relationships.

Conclusion: God has never requested any permanent structure to be built in his honor; His structures were always moveable as His Spirit moved.  He wanted a mobile tabernacle that could move whenever He chose His Spirit to move or to stay, but the Jews built a permanent structure, the Temple. In fact they have build several of them, but all have been destroyed  Today there is no physical temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, only an empty grave at its base. Paul preached, “Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit?” God has chosen mobility, humans who believe in Jesus Christ, for His place of occupancy, not permanent built structures that decay and someday lay in ruin if not maintained.  If the Church is to be fluid, to be mobile, to be penetrating cultures throughout the world, them MUST be built on relationships, not physical structures.  Bottom line: ownership identifies control.  When the church “owns” structure, they seek to control them.  When the church again realized they were bought with a price, Jesus’ blood, that they are now under his ownership, then they will head more to the leading of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and be free to minister through relationships. What is your religious life wrapped around, the building you call “church” or the relationship with those who meet at not only that location, but also at the mall, the grocery store, the park, etc.? That is the mindset of the butterfly, ready to soar in flight, not tied down by any cumbersome structure.

CONTROL VS. RELEASE - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Control– TO – Equipping and Releasing

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XII

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Controls people (caterpillar) TO Equipping and releasing people (butterfly).

Caterpillar: Up to now, historically the Church has not done a very good job “equipping the saints for the work of service” (Eph. 4).  With the clergy/laity differential, most of the work is done by the professional clergy and staff asking only their parishioners to “follow their lead.” With a professional staff, much training is done, but that is not necessarily true for the saints.  A church is always excited when a young man decides to go into the “professional” ministry, as his equipping or training begins towards the goal of becoming a professional.  Often churches have attempted to “train” their people, only to not release them once trained.  Mindsets are that the clergy does the work because that is what they are paid to do as professionals has hampered the church.  With a pyramidal church structure, the issue of “control” over a congregation can become more of an influence that training, developing, and releasing them.

Butterfly:  With the five fold, when discovering one’s passion and point of view, the church can equip them to do what drives them, their passion, no matter if it is evangelistic, pastoral, teaching, prophetic, or apostolic.   Equipping comes through serving and being served by each member of the five fold who are also laity and learning to “lay down one’s life for their brethren.”  The apostle has probably experienced the other four passions in his life, but the purpose for his gift is to see the big picture, to network, develop, nurture, support, and edify the other four giftings, then, most importantly, release them to do what they are gifted to do.  Releasing means “hands off”, no control, but remain in a supportive role. Apostle Paul is an excellent example of a man who did all four passions when birthing churches on his missionary journeys, only to physically leave them, release them, and only correspond with them through letters.  Because his techniques were all “relational”” when birthing and developing a new church, he could relationally “release” them with confidence of their giftings in Jesus Christ to carry on and expand the work.

The Differences: Old School church prepares and develops one to be a “professional” in what they call “full time ministry”.  Higher education through westernized teaching philosophies is the route provided to produce a well educated professional rather than a hands on, trained and developed laity. New School church’s mission is to “equip the saints”, not the staff, for the “works of service.”  The goal is to birth, nurture, and develop the skills which goes along with one’s passions.  All this development is of no use unless it is “released”, freed to move ahead in one’s passion.  Even with that freedom will come accountability through relationships to the other four passions and points of view in the five fold ministry.

Implications Today:  Personally, I have been trained with a group of men to become “lay speakers” in a denomination, but few of us in the class ever got the opportunity to fill any pulpits when pastors were away on vacations.  They controlled their pulpits rather than releasing them. I also have been trained to operate prophetically with fifty other people, to be able to be part of a prophetic presbytery, seeking the Holy Spirit, discerning His will for someone’s life, and in faith giving them a prophetic word.  Today, none of us are in prophetic presbyteries anymore.  Training a laity and actually releasing him/her to give one freedom to minister in their gifting and passions has been a rarity in my fifty years as a church attendee.  That needs to change drastically if the church is to take Ephesians 4 and the Great Commission seriously. 

Conclusion:  Instead of “enabling” Christians, the laity, to just “follow” everything the clergy proposes, then criticizing them for being lethargic in living out their faith, the church needs to be better at “equipping the saints” and take that more seriously.  The investment should not be in creating a professional staff, but in equipping and developing the already existing saints, those who make up the local body of Christ.  If we would equip (birth, nurture, teach, spiritually edify, and see over) the saints currently in our churches for service, then release them, we would see a revolutionary change, called revival or reformation, in the church today. You know, a butterfly can never be "free" to "fly" until it is "released" from its cocoon.  Oh, I dream to see the day of that release!

“OVER-SEEING” VERSUS “SEEING-OVER” - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Pyramidal Leadership “over sees” Church Activities– TO – Relational Leadership “Sees Over” What The Holy Spirit Is Already Doing

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part XI

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Pyramidal leadership “over sees” church activities (caterpillar) TO Relational leadership “sees over” what the Holy Spirit is already doing. (butterfly).

Caterpillar: We discussed the influence of “power” in a structural governmental system in a previous blog.  With “power” comes the issue of “control”.  In a pyramidal structure, power always comes from above.  It is important for those in power to “oversee” what is happening below them.  Their position is kind of “all knowing” or “all informed”.  The Papal and Cardinal influence in the Roman Catholic Church is an example of this kind of power structure.  Papal Bull is the official communication from above in that structure.  Protestants often have “official papers” passed at their “annual conferences” to issue their decrees to be implemented by their clergy to their parishioners.  In large churches, senior pastors “oversee” how their institutional structure operates.

Butterfly:   I believe the relational linear five fold model will allow everyone to function on an equal plain of influence. The apostle is only one of the five and does not “head” nor “lead” them.  His passion is to “see over” what the Holy Spirit is doing and “release” those passions that would be most effective toward ministry at hand at that moment.  He doesn’t do it, nor control it, only “seeing over” it.  The apostle’s passion is his vision or point of view of seeing “the big picture”, the body of Christ as a whole, thus giving him the “sight”, the “vision” of what the Holy Spirit is doing relationally in the midst of His people with His people to His people.

The Differences: Currently, under the hierarchal, pyramidal, institutional structure, power and control are dictated from top down.  This has also developed the clergy laity split over the years.  On the other hand, the linear relational structure evens the plain, encourages giving and taking from peers, and has apostles who “sees over” what the Holy Sprit is doing among them, encouraging them by “releasing” them in the passions to do what they do best.

Implications Today:  Personally, I have been under the leadership of a pastor who wanted to know everything that happened in the small groups “under” his leadership which became a control issue.  Later he wondered why no one would stay at his church.  I have another Christian friend who fell under a strong control pastor.  He said that when you see him, he was like a majestic steam roller, gleaming in the sun light, and as long as you ran beside him you were fine, but don’t fall in front of him. He fell! The CEO business model most American churches follow functions on a trickle down power/influence pool from the top down which fosters “control” with oversight where you report to those above you. Unfortunately, I have seen church denominational higher up officials threaten their congregations with taking away their church property and entitlement if they did not follow dictations handed down from the denominational leadership, another sad example that control can create.

Conclusion:  It all depends on the “point of view” and what one does with it.  If one “oversees” those under them from a superior position with power, control, and influence, the creativity and freedom for the Holy Spirit to operate becomes stifled because the “system” will not give up its control.  With a linear relational point of view using a five fold model, the plain is equal, each giving and taking, and the apostle “sees over” what the Holy Spirit is activation while releasing the others in their passions. It all depends how you see it!   Can you trust the Holy Spirit and relinquish control and be content to just “see” what He is doing, or will you want to hold onto the control you have which will quench the Spirit. The choice is yours.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT BY POLITICS OR RELATIONSHIPS - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

 Caterpillar to Butterfly: Government Run By Boards, Committees, and Hierarchal Leadership– TO – Government Run On Relationships Of Give And Take In A Five Fold Format

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part X

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change for the church.   Today we will look at the principle: Government is run by boards, committees, and hierarchal leadership (caterpillar) TO  Government is run on relationships of give and take in a five fold format (butterfly).

Caterpillar: In the past church “government” has bred “church politics”, often power struggles.  Schisms and splits have occurred over the choice of the color of carpet, organ or no organ, youth involvement, salaries, housing, order of worship, etc., etc. Some local churches are governed through congregational meetings and voting, some by boards of deacons, elders, some by church councils, some by pastor/parish committees, and some dictated by strong pastors.  Often pastors have had to yield what they have felt as strong callings, convictions, directions, and discernment to governing boards who oppose what they are doing.  Many a discouraged pastor and/or parishioner have left the church when being caught in this political vice.

Butterfly:  Government will be built on relationships that will breed respect, honor, and accountability.  IJohn 3:16 of “Laying down your life for your brethren” will be the foundation of “serving” one another, giving and taking from each other because of linear relationships as peers, as being just Christians.  An example would be the five fold where the five very different passions and points of view would be united through the leading of the Holy Spirit as each of the five gives to the other four of their talent, ability, and passion, and willing receive from the others who are so different from them.  One’s strength will support the others weakness, and each will “release” the other to follow their passion. 

The Differences: Old and current governmental church structures nurtured and wheel power and support a pyramidal hierarchy structure, while the new governmental church structure would foster respect, honor, and accountability through linear relationships of service, through laying down ones life in sacrifice, not in position of authority.  

Implications Today: This process will be one of the most difficult things for the church to transition because it will be attached by the very “power” it opposes.  Unless led by the Holy Spirit and taken to the Cross of vertical and horizontal relationships the Church will not wither the storm.  The disciples were rebuked when arguing over who would be on Jesus’ left and right in the kingdom when they felt standing by his side would be a noble political cause, but they fled and would be replaced by two thieves to be on Jesus’ left and right when hanging on the cross on that infamous day. Those three on their crosses faced the same fate on a horizontal plain of suffering and death.  None of the disciples hung there nor were there. They would have to rethink their whole kingdom of God theology before changing the world.   

Conclusion: We, the church today, have to rethink our theology on church government, for church isn’t about politics, nor church government about power.  The Bible states that “the government shall be upon his shoulders,” referring to Jesus’ shoulders.  That government is built on service and sacrifice, for Jesus “came not to be serve, but to serve” and “to lay down his life for his brethren,” showing us how the kingdom of God is to be governed.   Church government the way we think of it today is about to undergo a transition that will take it from a power struggle to one of service and accountability.  Oh, if we could only see how this is to all work out inside the cocoon of change.

POSITIONING IN THE CHURCH - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Positions Determined By Office– TO – Positions Determined By What We Do

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part VIII

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change.   Today we will look at the principle: Positions are determined by offices (caterpillar) TO Positions are determined through service, what you do, not who you are (butterfly).

Caterpillar: Pyramidal, hierarchal institutional structures major in positions and titles. You position’s title is suppose to identify what you are to be doing or in charge of.  It supposedly defines your sphere of influence.  The higher up the chain, the greater potential for some one having someone below you “do” what needs to be done because of your directives due to your power by title or position.  Those at the top don’t really do much physically to get things done, but has those under their “leadership” do it making them look good and effective.  In corporate America you work hard to ascend the pyramid at the expense of those below you.  The American church is no different, professionally. In some camps you become an evangelist working so that some day you will get “your own church”. Other camps have the progression from Youth Pastor, to Associate Pastor, To Senior Pastor.  Often one starts in smaller churches working their way to churches with larger church attendance.  Then some work their way from pastors, to superintendants to bishops, etc.  With each step are financial benefits. You know who is “in charge” by their title.  Often laity is exempt from their hierarchal structure because they aren’t professionals.  The height of their titles would be elders or church board members. Those with titles are identified as “leaders”; no title, you are considered a “follower”. Ie. worship leader (title), worshiper in the pew (no title, only a follower).

Butterfly:  On a linear horizontal plain there is no one “over you” as everyone is perceived as equals or peers.  Here the “Priesthood of Believers” is practiced, where all are priests, peers.  The only hierarchy position is that of High Priest, who is Jesus Christ.  Being a “priesthood”, corporate ministry is central, so the church will experience a new definition of what ministry by the believers in Jesus Christ is individually and corporately.  “What you do” defines who you are.  If you do lead people to Jesus Christ, you do evangelism, so you are an evangelist.  If you take care of people, nurture them, help develop them, you are shepherding them: action not title.  You share from what you have learned by studying the Logos Word, the Bible, and practiced those truths in your life, the Rhema Word, the living word, then you are “teaching” people. What you do, determines the adjectives describing your actions.

The Differences: Institutional structured produce titles and positions to identify what one is suppose to be doing and giving them authority to have it accomplished, even if at someone else’s expense.  It establishes a “power” structure or grid of “authority”.  Relationally actions produce adjectives to describe that action, not nouns to identify the office.  An “evangelist” by title is hired, through offerings, to come in and “evangelize” anyone who comes to their meetings. They are “in charge”.  An “evangelist” relationally tells others about Jesus Christ, the Gospel, the good news verbally and through the “actions” of their personal lives.  They can’t help themselves; they just “do it”.  It is their passion, the way they see things, their point of view. Anyone, and everyone, who does evangelism, ie. telling “their stories”, their “faith journeys in Jesus” can be identified as evangelists because of what they are doing.

Implications Today:  Whenever the Holy Spirit moves, what he “does”, the institutional church will institutionalize by making that action, that movement, a position.  Let’s look to the 20^th Century Church as an example.  In the 50’s through 80’s, the Church institutionalized evangelism to the extent that they could fill stadiums and draw large TV audiences as shown through Billy Graham Crusades, the C.B.N. and T.B.N. Christian TV networks, and televangelists like Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swiegart.  In the ‘70’s, with the release of the Charismatic Movement, the need for the pastoral was needed, thus the institutionalizing of it that produced the Shepherding Movement. The 70’s featured tremendous “teaching”, as the gift of teaching was released, & the Church institutionalized it through the Word Movement, producing more teaching tapes than my cassette recorder could run.  The prophetic spirit was released in new powerful ways in the ‘80’s, and the institutional church promoted their pastors to prophets. The culmination came with the apostolic being released in the ‘90’s, where people were now getting to see the big picture of the Church, but the church institutionalized it by entitling their “super pastors” of large mega-churches as apostles wanting smaller churches to follow their lead.  By the end of the century, the institutional pyramidal, hierarchal church had “structured” professionally within their ranks every movement of God during that century as an office, so today they think of the five fold as offices.

Conclusion: To become a butterfly, the church needs to change the way they think of structure. Relationally, evangelism, teaching, pastoral nurturing and caring, prophetically insight, and apostolic vision are all ACTIONS when released among the “priesthood of believers” by the priests, the believers in Jesus Christ to other believers by laying down their lives for each other in service.  When God moves, the cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night, the Church needs to know how to “move”, ACTION, and respond to the moving of the Holy Spirit, not try to “fit it” into their current structure by institutionalizing it through entitlement, titles, and positions in order to be “in control”.  Positions and titles are for control. The Church needs to let the Holy Spirit be in control.  They need to settle the question, “Can you trust the Holy Spirit?” 

ACCOUNTABILITY BY RELATION NOT POSITION - WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Accountability To Leadership – TO – Accountability Through Relationship

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part VII

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change.   Today we will look at the principle: Accountability comes through pyramid leadership (caterpillar) TO Accountability comes through strongly built horizontal relationships (butterfly).

Caterpillar: To whom are you accountable? In the current church world it is probably to your “overseer”, alias pastor, elder, or priest. Although, relationally, you may not even have a level of personal friendship with him, he still will come and bring correction into your life, especially if it affects his local body.  It could be the pastor, or a staff member, or an elder or deacon, but you only see them “when in trouble”.   So you say, “someone needs to take care of the sin in the camp.” When the charismatic movement brought revival in the early 1970’s, five men saw the excesses in the movement, and wanted to set up a discipling, pastoral, shepherding component, thus creating what has become known as the Shepherding Movement. Although their initial motives were pure, because of abuses by those in leadership, the movement has taken on a negative connotation.  “Control” became the issue.  That can be the danger of a pyramidal hierarchal type structure where those on top dominates and controls those beneath because of their position of authority.

Butterfly:  To whom are you accountable?  In a linear world accountability is determined by the degree of relationship.  The deeper the relationship, the deeper the accountability based on “respect”.  Respect is something you earn with time and relational investments.  The longer you know someone, the better you get to know their character.  With proven character, respect becomes automatic, and accountability is established.  Accountability is then built on a linear, horizontal level.  Those you respect are your peers, not the powers that be above you. 

The Differences: Position giving Power are the agents of pyramidal dominance in a hierarchal accountability model, while Position and Character are the elements of a linear horizontal model.

Implications Today:  Recently, I was talking to someone about a Pharisaical concern they had and (see blogs about Pharisees’s yeast) wondered why their leadership wasn’t “policing” the situation! I thought, “Is the church a Police state?” I have been in church leadership and know that you can spend all your time “putting out the fires” that constantly swirl around you.  It is all time and energy consuming, sapping you, taking you from the very things you should be doing to advance the kingdom. When institution gets large, personal relationships with leadership is diminished just because of the numbers.  Position by office then becomes predominant when “enforcing” discipline.

Conclusion:  Just look at the model of parenting.  Some parents spend time with their children, invest their energy in their children, built a relationship of respect, honor, and trust in their children.  When discipline is needed, although children never like to be disciplined, they actually respect their parents for doing it.  If the relationship was nurtured in their childhood, they will continue to have that relationship throughout their lives.  Cat Steven’s “Cats In The Cradle” song vividly paints how an over achieving, career driven, self centered parent who only looks at their children as a “responsibility” not as a person to develop a “relationship” finds themselves as lonely in their elderly stage of life as their children found themselves in their youth.  Discipline was enforced by these parents by parental “position” of “authority over” the child. “Remember, I am the parent; you are the child,” was continually proclaimed over their children.  The church needs to have a metamorphous in the way they looks and does discipline in this metamorphosis stage.

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE SUCCESS – WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON?

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Growth In Numbers TO – Growth in networking determines success

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part VI

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed several forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change.   Today we will look at the principle: Physical growth in numbers determines success (caterpillar) TO Networking relationships with the masses determines success (butterfly).

Caterpillar: Church Growth Conferences have become popular where you send your “staff” to learn of new strategies to maximize your resources in an effort to get more people through your door.  We live in a mega-church age where the bigger the church in numbers and facility the more impressive is the attitude.  Although most churches have an average attendance of less than 100, it is always the dream that the church will grow.  Grow in what? Numbers!  Larger churches can offer more services to their members: a bigger children’s ministry, larger youth group with their own facility, a 20-30’s ministry, greater theatrical and musical capabilities, and all kind of unique small groups, support groups, educational groups, etc.  Their church bulletin looks like a phone book of weekly activities. The larger the number of people; the larger the size of the facility and staff.  Success is measured in numbers: either of those attending or the size of the staff. A “church plant” is expected to be a certain size with in a two year period to be considered a success.  Traditional, institutional churches whose numbers are dropping because of cultural changes and an aging population are considered now as failing churches.

Butterfly:  Success in the Social Networking world is determined by how many “friends” you have on Facebook or MySpace, how many “huddles” you have on Google+, how many “hits” you get on your web site, how many “followers” you have on your blog or follow your tweets on Twitter.  To build up a network, you want numbers.  The Internet is all about having the ability to have a large amount of data at your availability. What one has to do is determine what to do with all this data, all this information, and all these contacts in a globalized world of communications.  The future church’s challenge is with how to effectively use all this electronic data, information, contacts, and communications at their disposal without losing an individual’s identity, self worth, or dignity, how to keep and develop the personal face to face intimate friendships and contacts without losing it to the vastness of the internet, or the world, both huge in number.  We have the world at our finger tips now with only the effort of a “click”, but we can not afford to lose the personal one-to-one individual contacts that prove to be so powerful in bringing about changed lives to individuals.

The Differences: Similarities: large numbers of people are important in determining success.  Differences: A mega-church can be a sea of faces, but at least you are seeing faces.  More intimate friendships beyond a hand shake can be made at a personal or small group level.  The danger is that it is easy to hide in large number in order to obtain their services for ones advantage without personally exposing oneself.  Social Networking also faces a sea of “friends”, “huddles”, “hits”, and “followers” that can be on a very shallow social level.  More intimate friendships beyond a “click” can be made only if one leaves the safe confines of their computer which is happening today thanks to the invention of Smart phones.

Implications Today:  People still desire contacts and services no matter if it is in a large facility with a huge choir, professional worship team, theatrical lighting, large screen, perfectly manicured sound system, with powerpoints projected on huge screens, in a highly professional scripted service where one will request a DVD of the service to play on their High Definition or 3D Screen TV at home, or if it is through the internet on their PC, lap top, IPad,  Smart Phone, or reading their Bible through a website or on their Kindle.  We can’t help but admit that the use of technology has impacted both the Old School and New School way of ‘doing church’ all for the purpose of increasing numbers.  One mega-church in my area that utilizes all these technologies claims numbers aren’t important, then automatically talks of their multiple campuses now connecting 20,000 people through technology. They are going to open a “new campus” with a guaranteed audience of 500 the first morning!  Ironically, even though each campus has their own worship team and participants, the pyramidal, hierarchal, C.E.O., Sr. Pastor will be “projected” on a large screen making him “life size” as if he were there to preach to all the campuses at the same time.  One person at the top, with a huge staff under him, addressing the masses at the bottom of the pyramid who are impressed at the size and scope of the pyramid. The corporate American mentality is alive and well in the church of America, so is George Orwell’s “Big Brother” of his “1984” novel more than the church wants to admit.  All the neighboring little family sized churches are fretting, “How can you beat that?”

Conclusion:  We still seem to use numbers to determine success, especially in a data driven world today. Unfortunately with both, one can easily get loss in the masses, in the large numbers.  Individuality is sacrificed for the cause of belonging; personal discipleship is sacrificed for activities and programs; ministry is expected to be done by a professional staff not the pew sitting entertained saints.  It is easy for both camps to get lost in numbers instead of individuals.  Jesus fed at least over 4,000 men not counting women and children twice: impressive, right?  But he discipled only 12 intimately although it is recorded he had many more “followers”.  One to one evangelism is still more effective than massive Crusades.  One to one mentoring is still a more effective pastoral/shepherding tool than a “discipleship course” online.  One to one prayer is powerful. “Where two or more are together, there I am,” Jesus said. Today success would be determined as 2,000 or more together!  Both camps will need to do some serious evaluations of “what” their numbers are really doing for the kingdom of God rather than just boast in numbers.    

WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON – THE ART OF BELONGING

 Caterpillar to Butterfly: Believing & Behaving Is Important – TO – Belong Begins A Relationship Producing Believing and Behaving

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part IV

In this series we have been asking the question, “What happens with metamorphosis during the cocoon stage?”  How, structurally, do you get a butterfly from what once was a caterpillar? In my Aug. 20, 2011’s blog, I listed 18 forms of transformation that I see occurring inside the cocoon of change.   Today we will look at the principle: Believing & Behaving Is Important (caterpillar) – TO – Belong Begins A Relationship Producing Believing And Behaving (butterfly).

Caterpillar:  In spite of believing in the Great Commission and an emphasis on evangelism, today’s institutional Church appears to be inward and self-inclusive.  It expects “outsiders” to come “in” to their facilities to hear the gospel. When, and if, one comes into their premise, they will hear that group’s beliefs, tenants, and doctrines.  There is also a social code: dress, speech, temperance, etc.  If you decide to follow their beliefs and practice their code of behavior, their legalistic laws, then the church will invite you to “belong”.  “Belonging” is at the end of this practice.

Butterfly:  The Great commission’s “go ye into the world” is taken literally as the Church goes out into the culture and influences the culture.  You go on the premise that everyone belongs to the club of mankind, so you start from that premise to build a relationship with that person.  As the relationship broadens and depends belief systems are exposed and accepted if perceived as genuine or rejected if perceived as being phony.  The acceptance of the belief system directly influence the behavior patters. “Belonging” introduced this process, not practice.

The Differences: Under the current Church mentality you have to “earn” your acceptance in order to “belong”.  What you believe and how you act is more important than establishing relationships for acceptance. Personally, I know what I believe and how to act, alias “do church”, while developing many “social” relationships, with a lot of hand shaking, verbal greetings, surface smiles, with little deep personally relationships.  The metamorphous church “accepts” you “where you are at” in order to begin to build a relationship with you that at first may appear superficial, but as the relationship depends, trust develops, and an openness to one another occurs.  Soon, what is important to each other is shared, belief systems, directly influences one’s behaviors.  You don’t smoke because of the law, but out of respect of the relationship that has been established.  Legalism is opposed by grace.

Implications Today:  With the technological advances of the computer age, communications is no longer inclusive.  Community is no longer just local, but regional, national, and now world-wide international. Through social networking all you need to do is be “on line” or have “internet accessibility” in order to be part of the world-wide family.  Relationships are shallowly established by just communicating, but develop with time.  I personally know three married couples who originally met via the internet.  Twittering through tweets, texting through smart phones, and Facebooking or MySpacing often introduces relationships on a surface level.  Blogging allows “belief systems” to be shared. Texting and emailing allow for more intimate development of relationships.  All this eventually leads to actual face to face meetings and friendships.

Conclusion:  Insistence of believing doctrinally the same and “doing church” the same way in order to be “acceptance” is not how Paul did his evangelistic endeavors to the Gentiles. Christianity challenged Judahism’s self inclusiveness of being the only people to qualify as “God’s chosen people.”  Christianity is all about “relationships” for “while we yet sinners, Jesus died for us.”  Martin Luther’s discovery of Justification by Faith revealed that you can not earn your salvation.  Jesus “accepted” us as sinners, died for us to mend the broken relationship caused by sin, and left it up to the “sinners” to “accept” him as their savior.  Jesus led by relationships, so this metamorphosis is leading the Church back to relationship. 

WHAT HAPPENS IN A COCOON – CHURCH STRUCTURE

The Making Of A New Form, New Image, New Body, The Church

From Caterpillar to Cocoon to Butterfly – Part III

In the last two blogs we were introduced to the possibility that Church structure may be entering a metamorphous stage: coming from being a slow cumbersome caterpillar structural format to eventually becoming a soaring butterfly structure of networking relationships.  How do we get from a caterpillar who consumes everything around it to maintain its life and form to a sleek bodied transformed caterpillar prepared for flight?  What happens in that cocoon which on the outside looks so dormant?  What is happening inside that cocoon that can change a fat, big eyed, multi legged, creature eating everything in its path to a sleek, highly defined hard shelled segmented insect like body with beautiful wings for flight?  The physical structure of the two looks so drastically different, performs so drastically different, and whose purpose is so drastically different.

 If, in our analogy, the caterpillar represents a structural church, very slow in change and movement, segmented with each segment having legs, with a tremendous appetite to maintains its growth while the butterfly represents a relational church in a different form or structure with the purpose for flight, light weight, highly mobile, and eats only the nectar of plants.  I’ve had to burn down caterpillars nests to save trees for their destructive eating habits, but I also nurtured a butterfly bush that was never eaten but whose nectar drew multitudes of butterflies. 

So if the caterpillar represents the past and present pyramid, hierarchal, institutional structure of the church, and the butterfly the horizontal relational structure of the church, what might be going on inside that cocoon?  Lets look at the church as a caterpillar and then the transformed butterfly to get a picture of this drastic change:

__________   .   __________   

 Caterpillar to Butterfly

Believing & Behaving is important to Belonging to Belong begins a relationship producing Believing & Behaving

Church “membership” is stressed to church “networking” of relationships at various levels is stressed

Physical growth in numbers determines success to Networking relationships with the masses determines success 

Accountability comes through pyramid leadership to Accountability comes through strongly built horizontal relationships

Accountability comes through submission to leadership to Accountability comes through service to and from one another

Advancement comes through educational degrees to Advancement comes through respect through service

Positions are determined by offices to Positions are determined through service, what you do, not who you are

Develops & maintains clergy/laity identity to Develops & maintains priesthood of believers

Government is run by boards, committees, and hierarchal leadership to Government is run on relationships of give and take in a five fold format

Pyramidal leadership “over sees” church activities to Relational leadership “sees over” what the Holy Spirit is already doing.

Controls people to Releases people

Owns all church property to Has no need for church property

Power struggles through church politics to Solves struggles through restored relationships

Separation (from the world) to Integration (into the world)

Creates a culture to Influences a culture

Develops Pharisees to Develops Disciples

Loyalty lies in submission to the system to Loyalty lies in “laying down your life for your brethren”

Identity lies in who you are in the system to Identity lies in who you are in Jesus individually & corporately

__________   .   __________   .   ___________   .   __________   .   __________

These are just a few of the transformations that must take place to change from an lumbering, multifaceted system of hierarchies appearing to try to work together in purpose and identity only to oppose one another reducing speed and efficiency to a sleek, multitalented horizontally relational system serving one another increasing efficiency and speed for flight.  These show the challenges the Church must face while metamorphosising into a totally renewed transformation of becoming a free flying, beautiful butterfly.

FROM CATERPILLAR TO COCOON TO BUTTERFLY – PART II

 New Form, New Image, New Body – Meet The Butterfly, The Church

In my last blog we looked at the miraculous transformation from a lumbering caterpillar to a dormant cocoon to an independent free spirited butterfly.  I used that analogy with the Church as I feel it about to break loose from its cocoon stage to freedom to fly.

Visually, the most transforming feature of a caterpillar to a butterfly is its body.  There is a complete structural difference.  The caterpillar is a fat, multi-legged, crawling bug that turns into this slim, winged insect suitable to fly.  What happened when it was in its cocoon?   This change is radical, yet it appears to occur during a dormant period of its life, when in the cocoon.

I believe the caterpillar/butterfly analogy can also be applied to the Church.  The structure of the Church has been rather cumbersome throughout its history.  When I have heard sermons about the structure of the church, it has been on apostles, elders, deacons, etc., one built on hierarchal positions.  The Roman Catholic Church has even taken it to bishops, cardinals, and the Pope.  As the institutional church has grown, so has the financial obligation to maintain it as cathedrals were built and a huge professional clergy system to finance.  The institutional church has never been known for change, and what change has come has only come through church politics, thus the lumbering caterpillar.

There have been times of transformation in the church called revivals.  During these times the church appears to be dormant, during times of spiritual lulls, where there appears to be some shaking going on inside the safe confines of church structure, unnoticed by those outside the church at first.  During these times “new ways” and “new mindsets” of old biblical principals are “revived” as the church wrestles to become like the eggs that hatched its birth in the first century.  Because of the structure of what appears to be safety and stability, these “revival” movements are eventually swallowed up by the structure in keeping its old form. The fruit of that revival movement has been division as new sects in Christianity are birthed and thrive.  There is no butterfly in structure, just the continuation of the caterpillar.

I contend that there is a new revival happening in the cocoon of Christianity that is about to take on a new form and become a butterfly.   No one outside the cocoon can see it, but the cocoon knows that something inside is happening: a reforming of structure for that of a butterfly at its designated time.  This body inside the cocoon is going to go through structural change, drastic structural change, and cannot be freed or released from the cocoon until the transformation is complete.

I believe that this change is going to be from the transformation of the current structural, pyramidal, institutional form of hierarchy of positions and offices to a horizontal position of relationships held together and directed by the Holy Spirit with the emphasis on service.  How is the structure of the butterfly to look like?  We, as a church, don’t know right now because we are entering the cocoon stage of transformation.  I believe as we release the five passions and points of view as outlined in Ephesians 4, we will see its fruits manifested in individuals being more mature in the likeness of Jesus Christ as well as the church corporately bringing unity, not division.  How that is to all work out, the Holy Spirit is beginning to lay the ground work for, the teaching, the preparation, the equipping before the releasing.

We, the Church, are about to go through a “body” form change built on relationships. The Church knows the power of the vertical of the Cross, the mending of relationship between a holy God and sinful man through redemption of Jesus, the sacrificial lamb, on the Cross.  What the Holy Spirit is about to teach us, the Church, is the horizontal relationship of the Cross, the mending of relationships between brothers and sisters in Christ, bringing this embarrassingly fragmented “body” lumbering along in many “parts” into a sleek “transformed” body prepared for flight in the Spirit through relationships.  What comes out of this transformational cocoon period will be a completely different image and identity of what the Church is. 

How will the butterfly look? Don’t know!  Transformation can be messy, retooling usually causes job loses, but it will improve efficiency. Expect even the way we “do” Church to look different as well as the way we think about ourselves individually as Christians as well as the Church, corporately as a whole, a body that is a "living organism", not a "structural organization". 

I always wondered what went on inside a cocoon. I think, Church, we are about to find out! If we plan to fly, we must go through the cocoon stage. Good bye caterpillar; hello butterfly!

I JUST WANT TO BE AN EQUAL IN CHURCH!

 Watch Out For Speed Bumps!

20-teeners, those in their 20’s & 30’s between the years 2013-1019 are relational, but they are expected to fit into an institutional church structure where hierarchy precedes relationship in prominence.  It just isn’t working.  The church is beginning to realize that truth, and they are baffled about what to do about it.  The church thinks it is relational claiming we are “all one in Jesus Christ”, but its corporate institutional, pyramidal, hierarchal structure says differently.  There is little if any flat world, flat lined, linear relational structure in most churches, thus turning off the 20-teeners. Churches have invested in a hierarchy of leadership that throughout its history has established a clergy/laity, a saints and ain’ts, those in and those out mentalities.

When any institutional structure becomes administratively heavy, that institution faces trouble.  Often downsizing by cutting middle management produces financial solvency, until another middle management rises with the institution’s new growth.  Workers are asked to practice self-sacrifice for the sake of the institution.  I’ve seen this principle in economic, political, education, and church institutional structures.  Locally, I have recently seen it economically through Harley Davidson.  Educationally teachers where I teach are taking “pay freezes” to save “administratively” financial blunders from bringing down our school system. Politically the fight over the deficit and budget cuts are effecting everyone. I am sure government will soon “ask the public to sacrifice” to get us out of their mess while they chose not to “sacrifice”. It will cost many “middle management” political jobs. I have also seen it at the church that I attend where the Senior Pastor and Administrative Pastor remained while the middle level, Youth Pastor & Children’s Pastors, were cut, as they now ask the congregation to “sacrifice” and fill those positions on a volunteer basis. 

I recently read in Isaiah 57:14: “And it will be said, ‘Build up, build up, prepare the road! Remove the obstacles out of the way of my people” causing me to pray, “what are these obstacles to the 20-teeners that we have created? This is what I discovered: 20-teeners think flat line, linear in their relationships. They function from an even playing field as seen in the way they communicate to each through social networking, the internet, and the world wide web. Friends are just friends, bloggers just bloggers, tweets, emails, and texts just another platform of communicating to each other linearly. They are looking to their generation for “level playing fields” that the older generations and their institutions are not affording them.  What they do on that level field is still being played out, but the field is level.  They certainly do not feel that level field when entering today’s churches.

When they enter a church today, the worship leader tells them what to do and they are just expected to follow, sing his lineup of songs and just follow his order of worship.  The Senior Pastor tells them what the Bible says rather than them searching for themselves. All they are expected to do is listen and accept what he says as truth because he is the Pastor.  The elders are called upon to pray with you, give you counsel and advice that you are to blatantly follow because they are the leaders.  You learn not to question anything because of their positions and that is just the way it is! The only “empowerment” of linear equality you are given is a chance to “finance” their institution by them “receiving” an offering which you have been told to prepare before you come.  Other than that, there is nothing else you have to “prepare”, for those in position will do it for you, asking you to tag along so you feel the empowerment which you don’t have.

Any horizontal relationship has hit a “bump”, through hierarchy: the worship leader leads because he is a better musician and singer and discerner of the spirit than you even though his services are scripted; you are to just follow his lead… a bump. The Pastor, definitely more “highly educated” in the Bible who he has studied Greek, Latin, and Hebrew and has done many an exegesis on Biblical passages, preaches his sermon which he has spent hours preparing while you have no preparation; you are expected to just sit and listen if you can stay awake… a bump.  Elders, trained prayer teams to pray and counsel you after church again shows your inefficiency at prayer and solving your own problems since they are better qualified and trained…. Another bump! 

There are even more, but I have to watch the size of this blog. If you line up all these bumps, do you know what you have? You have a rumble strip of speed bump!  What do rumble strips and speed bumps do? They slow you down, and sometimes if the bumps are big enough, bring you to a halt.  That is what religious, institutional speed bumps are doing to the 20-teeners, and we wonder why they are lethargic, nonresponsive, or have left the church!

I JUST WANT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD!

The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

If I were a professional NFL football player quarterback, I would not want my team playing the 2011 Philadelphia Eagles who have been drummed as “the dream team”, particularly their defensive unit.  If I want to have “fun” playing football, I would like to play a team where “we would be playing on an even field” if I am to have any chance of succeeding and not being killed or a victim.  That is exactly how the twenty-teeners, those who will be in their twenties & thirties during the years of 2013-2019 feel.

Twenty-teeners get their pay checks only to find 40% of it missing to Social Security that they think they will never get, taxes, to help pay government debt they never got us into, etc,. plus a large chunk of their check to support an enormous health care system which raises rates faster than inflation or their income.  Since employers no longer want or can afford to support these huge systems, they opt for their employees to do so, the bottom of the corporate pyramid structure, the workers who are now twenty-teeners only starting their careers. Retirement systems, 401 Plans! What are they? Something twenty-teeners are to invest in with their left over money? What left over money? Financial security is not in their vocabulary.  Day to day survival is!

In my youth/young adulthood my parents told me that the American myth was that everyone was on an even plain no matter if you were rich and poor.  A “good education” and “hard work” could get you to rise in wealth and affluence in you lifetime to enjoy the retirement “you deserved”.  That myth has been busted for the twenty-teener.  “Higher” education only promises “higher” debt, large school debts to hang over their heads while they become parents. How are they to save for their children’s education. “Education” does not promise a job in the field for which you “borrowed” from your future. Hard work has also lost its theme, for hard workers are getting laid off, facing unemployment, and small business fights against corporate greed as huge corporations or larger industries gloat at “buying you out” or “merging” on their terms. Corporate “take-overs” are accepted business practices. I heard a financial analysis state that “merging is really the only way to make money anymore if you are in the power seat.”

My parents and my Baby-Boomer generations lived in an America where industry took care of you: provided wages for a decent lifestyle, vacation benefits, health care, and a pension.  Working today “secured” your future.  That is not the mindset of the Twenty-teeners who are fighting corporate America, a stagnant economic picture, while watching the industry sector shrink, and are asked to invest in a volatile Stock Market where the sharks will eat them alive, as if that is their future security. I had a 40 year career at one place; twenty-teeners do not think that will every be a possibility for them. My sons have had multiple jobs before they were 30, and the future and job markests even look more fluid to them.

All they are asking for is an even playing field, but all they see is obstacles. The Philadelphia Eagle defense is on the other side of their line of scrimmage saying, “Make my day!  Try running against me; try passing against me.  Good luck buster!” The playing field is not just slanted, but everything the twenty-teeners sees as success now looks uphill.  Can they ever have an even playing field? Hopelessness is beginning to permiate their world in spite of their hard work, their “training” and “educating.”  America is the best educated country in the world. Students from all around the world comes to our “institutions of higher education", but where has it gotten our twenty-teeners?

Why is this generation avoiding church?  The institutional church doesn’t even afford them an even playing field. As in my last blog, they find the church as a place where they have to “believe” in that church’s doctrine, dogma or tenants, “behave” according to that churches moral standards before being accepted as “belonging”.  They feel the church isn’t accepting them for who and where they are, and they refuse to put on a dishonest façade of “belief” and “behavior” just to “belong,” to win the church’s “acceptance”.  They just want to belong, be accepted, have worth and value in a world that is stripping them down.  They are looking for the church to “accept” them just where they are.  They just want a level playing field.

Why would my son rather play in a bar in front of a drunken crowd on a Sunday night rather than being in church where he was throughout his childhood and youth?  It is an even field! In a secular environment people don’t tell him how to play, what to play, but allows him “freedom” of expression and artistry; the church doesn’t, always posing limitations (music is too loud, drum wall please, to much bass, musical style not conducive to the likes of this congregation, etc.).  The secular world identifies with his music because they “belong” to the “scene” that is nonjudgmental; not so in the church who in house religious critics continually criticizes everything under its self posed moral standards.  The secular audience can critique his music as awesome or as crap, being honest.  You can’t critique the worship team that way in a church, nor be honest about it, just maintaining your smile while expecting to compliment it.  In the secular scene, when you are tired of his music, you can go home. In the religious world you are expected to stay out of respect and “reverence” no matter how painfully long the service lasts.   

In tomorrow’s blog, we will examine the “speed bumps” that cause an uneven playing field in church.  

SOCIAL NETWORKING WORLD, WHO ARE YOUR FOLLOWING AND WHO IS FOLLOWING YOU?

Mr. Rodger Is Dead, But His Neighborhood Has Expanded!

You cannot control who “follows” you when you tweet; in fact the more that follow, the greater prestige it holds, the higher level of privileges you earn.  One simple “tweet” can touch as many as has “chosen” to follow you, and the power or retweets can impact thousands instantly.  On the other hand, Facebook and Google+ turn the tables where you choose, you “invite” people as “friends” or in a “huddle”.  You control your relationships to the level you with to communicate: to a one, or a chosen few, or a larger group, or public to the world! 

In my world, I was taught that you are not a “leader” unless you have a following.  Today everyone is a leader because everyone has attracted a “following” no matter how shallow the relationship.  Relationships are what defines this generation.  I have taught 8^th grade for 40 years, so I understand this concept, since relationships with peers and peer acceptance is the cornerstone of 8^th grade social life.  Academics are secondary in the mind of an 8^th grader seeking peer contact and peer acceptance.  Social network is an 8^th grader’s dream come true.  They now “know” how “accessible” they are with the number of “followers” they can attain on Twitter, or how many “friends” they have accepted on Facebook.  They can feel “peer acceptance” through social networking.  I know one student who has “befriended” almost every student in her high school electronically.  Of course, the opposite can be true with “cyber-bullying” where one’s reputation can be ruined or damaged in an instant through the power of instantly communicating a slanderous lie or damaging gossip. 

Technology is moving so fast that public education cannot keep up with it.  I have no idea why parents think schools are responsible for “cyber-bullying” when they have no control over the social networking of their students.  I think that it is because parents do not understand the whole social networking world in which their children are immersed.  Schools are wrestling with the question of IPhones, Smart Phones, that have WiFi capabilities because schools cannot control or block their reception to the internet.  If parents did not put filters on their phones, they have an open world to the good, the bad, and the ugly of the social networking, internet, world wide web world.

So institutions have to face the “flat world” of this younger generation, for the nature of such institutions is control from the top on down, to set policies, to dictate what one can and can not do under their institutional guidelines.  They are not sure how to relate or control this this “horizontal” movement of peer acceptance and accessibility.  The church as an institution is no exception, for the institutions of denominationalism, sectarianism, mega-churchism are being challenged by the horizontal relationships of the “priesthood of believers”.  The institutional church has yet to ask the questions of how it can relate to this new phenomenon which is quickly becoming a world wide movement that are breaking beyond institutional barriers in the name of accessibility and acceptability.

8^th graders want to be “accessible” to their friends.  8^th graders want to be “acceptable” to their friends.  Government, school, churches, etc. will need to address how they can become accessible and acceptable to a growing “world wide” population that thinks relationally, horizontally, opposing vertical or institutional structures.  The younger generation has defined new lines as the way to think globally, socially, economically, and religiously. The next few years, months, weeks, days, should be interesting as we watch this evolution and the clashes it can produce.

THE UPCOMING BATTLE THE CHURCH WILL FACE:

Yeast Forces Relationships To Yield To Religion; While Revival Forces Religion To Yield To Relationships

I remember the emotions, conflicts, and circumstances of the 1970’s when our world was being turned upside down and torn apart. (Look at Sunday, July 17^th’s blog “Church, the Winds of Change Are Blowing)  There was quite an “anti-establishment” movement that swelled on campus during my college days.  Speakers challenging “systems” and “structures”, both politically and religiously, were invited on campus to speak. The “social gospel” of its time was the politically correct gospel of what was happening across American, yet there was an underground group of Christians on campus who clung to their faith in Jesus Christ and forged their relationship with Him and God and other “believing” Christians.  If history repeats itself, I predict we will see this underground revival movement again.

The attitude of questioning everything was the emphasis of my college freshman orientation, but when I questioned the “institution” of the church and church run college, I met opposition.  I was a pacifist because of my beliefs in Jesus, who never showed nor taught violence. Peter, defending what he thought was Jesus’ kingdom, cut off the ear of a guard. To his surprise Jesus immediately replaced and healed the ear. Jesus even taught to “love your enemy; do go to those who despise you.” This view went counter to many students who declared themselves pacifists because of political reasons or moral reasons opposing the War in Viet Nam.  It was not popular to be a “Jesus Freak” at that time.

When I challenged the college’s views on “religion”, I had the opportunity to sit down with the President of the college who told me to “sit back for the next four years, change my ideas, and I will be glad I did.”  In essence he said my view of faith and relationships was all wrong, and his “institution” would instruct me correctly.  At the end of four years I found the religious institution on campus in shambles, spineless, and had its “life” in Jesus Christ diminished. Our campus went from a required chapel format to a volunteer chapel few attended, from a strict dorm code protecting women to 24 hour open house in our dorms promoting “overnight” promiscuity, and from an alcohol prohibition image to full blown drug parties.

My generation became verbal, sometimes even violent for causes that would cause change to our world. Not all changes were good, but we were vocal about what we wanted and demanded.  Today’s younger generation is quiet, receptive, and fears being vocal as “institutions” continue to influence and control their lives.  They accept this as status quo, just the way it is, rather than challenging it.  Thus they accept without questioning health care at an enormous expense to themselves, political bipartisanism that was the “fear” of our founding fathers that stalemates everything politically in their generation, debt from a previous generation, or debt for “college” that no longer promises jobs, an economic CEO pyramidal structures of large, politically and economically powerful corporations that shape their work world, and a world that no longer promises security for when they age.  I predict that will all soon change.

There is a “flat world” mentality among this younger generation, seeing the “world” rather than just local, state, or national through relationships.  They talk, communicate, blog, tweet, text the world.  Those throughout the world have become their “peers” who they “friend” on Facebook, who become an identifiable “huddle” on Google+ according to relationship.  Relationships electronically are beginning to be defined by commitment: family, friends, work, acquaintances, or public. When upset, they speak vertically, relationally. Ask the Egyptians about that!  They do not have to be “verbal” “in your face” as my generation felt they had to be, they can be “verbal” “electronically” from their bedroom, dorm room, den, coffee shop, any business location offering WiFi.  They are a mobile group, and a moving “tweet” on an emotional topic can cause thousands to “repeat” the message to the masses in minutes.   Things can happen at a moment’s notice. Change can come rapidly, sometimes almost instantaneously.

The time is ripe, for that is how the Holy Spirit works during revival: instantaneous at a moment’s notice by the Holy Spirit to the masses.  I do not know how revival will manifest itself to this younger generation, but I guarantee you that when it does, it will happen swiftly and powerfully because they are a “relational” generation! There is an institutional church in China and an underground church.  The institutional church is controlled by structure religiously and secularly; the underground church is fed and led relationally.  The government cannot control relationships in their masses. The Chinese government opposes the freedom of expression and passing information that the Internet allows, yet the Chinese Christians are communicating.  American Christian churches have become institutions, icons of our supposedly religious freedom, who do not practice tolerance and acceptance even among themselves, but there is a “networking” that is not “institutional” among flat-liners, flat-worlders, flat-breaders, of relationships as peers who are about to arise and challenge the institutions of their day.  We are on the edge of revival, the precipice of change, where this generation’s voice will arise verbally through the electronic networking available to them.  They are about to do what my generation dreamed of doing: change their world. 

Pyramid Structures Produce Programs; Horizontal Structures Produce Relationships

Approaching Problems From Two Different Points Of View

Hierarchal, pyramidal, institutional structures major in producing programs as solutions to problems.  That’s the problem with education; it has gotten too pyramidal where those at the top dictate to those at the bottom how they are to teach when it has been years since those at the top have even taught a class in the classroom.  The most effective teaching occurs at the grass roots level: teacher/pupil. 

I have always said as a public educator that the most important days of the school year are the first three even though not much “academic” instruction happens.  Those days feature handing out materials, setting before the students yearly expectations, and of course going over the rules.  What happens is boundaries for relationships are established those days.  What will and will not the teacher allow, expect, and actually do.  What relationship will the teacher build with his students and vice verses?  As a teacher you want to build a relationship of open communication, respect, and a desire to reveal your passion as a teacher and the subject you teach, not a relationship as a tyrannical dictator or their “friend”.  8^th graders, 13 year olds, are ruthless to their peers, their so called friends, for peer acceptance heads the top of their list.  They will establish a “friendship” with you, only to abandon it and stab you in the back to establish a “friendship” with someone else who is socially acceptable or popular.  Loyalty, stability, and dedication to most friendships at this age and level is a rarity. I do not want to establish this kind of relationship with my students, for they will dump me when my back is turned to be accepted by their peers.  They want a friendship with a teacher as one who cares for them, listens to them, accepts them for who they are (although they are unsure of what that is), and covers for them to save face with their peers.  Classroom management is all about “relationship management”.  The relationship between the teacher and student is a balancing act that will directly effect the willingness of the student to learn, be accepted, and succeed.

The institution looks at it differently. If there is a bully in your classroom, rather than allowing you to work at the root of the problem as relational, working on how to change the attitude and habits of the person seeking dominance over weaker vessels, the institution develops a “Bullying Program” and tells their teachers how to “implement” it!  If students have low self-esteem, a common malignant 8^th grade problem, rather than dealing with it relationally, the institution introduces a “Self Esteem Program” to reward good behavior and pat every student on the back.  Students go through “Drug & Alcohol” Programs, learning just how to say “No” all through their elementary, middle, and secondary educations, only to strive to go to “partying” colleges and universities who ignore underage drinking making partying the socially accepted practice.  Rather than letting teachers develop what works best with each class, for every class, every student is different, the educational hierarchy will pull teachers out of teaching, instructional time to “teach” them how to “teach” through some new “Educational Program”, or “Inservice Program.” 

The institutional church is no different. Rather than “ministering” relationally, as an institution you establish programs.  There is soon an “Evangelistic Program” and a “Discipleship Program” or a “Supporting Missionary Program”, “Youth Program”, “Children’s Program”, “Senior Citizen’s Program”, “Widows Program”, etc.   The whole church docket has been filled with “programs” who desire is to create relationships.  But because the institution sets the guidelines of how these relationships are to work, they stifle the Holy Spirit’s creativity to move among His people.  If the Church just allowed the Holy Spirit to work relationally with His people on a horizontal level of peer equality and acceptance, then they wouldn’t need all these programs.  People would just “do it” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately institutions love to regulate, control, set directives, etc. rather than allowing their people be a free flowing.

Although both camps want the same outcome, relationships, we can see that they come from two totally different points of view. The hierarchal group comes from organization perspectives (committees) to “understand” the problem through “education”, then set up programs (directed plans of implementation) to implement the findings of their committees, while the horizontal group just “does it” through relationships built with people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which produce effective relational results.  No wonder it is hard for the institutional church to understand revival, for during revival the Holy Spirit is in charge and moves without committee meetings, program development, and program implementation.  He just moves through His people, His way, at His time.  Usually His way does not follow the guidelines or directive of church committee meetings nor programs.

The Spirit of Creativity in the 21st Century Church

Final Review of Kent Hunter’s “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century Church Book

I have thoroughly enjoyed Kent R. Hunter’s of Church Doctor Ministries ebook entitled “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century Church.”  I have sent it to several of my friends who have repsected his insights which have created many good discussions over a cup of coffee or an ice tea. Again, thanks Kent for sharing those insights to the public.

One truth I have again realized is that the Holy Spirit is a creative spirit.  It is not God’s will to box in nor control the Holy Spirit because He will do His will His way to bring glory to Jesus Christ.  Hunter’s comments about “low control – high accountability” as being one of the keys to this generation of believers is so illustrated through the Holy Spirit.  When we do not try to control Him, He works in phenomenally creative ways while being totally accountable to the Father, God, and His Son, Jesus Christ. So one of the keys, bottom line, to revival or accepting the next movement of God, is again, “Can you trust the Holy Spirit?”  If the answer is in the affirmative, then let go and let him work creatively in you and in the Church.  If the answer is in the negative, then you need not read these blogs anymore.

Why is this principle of trusting the Holy Spirit so important?  Well, I am proposing a model of low control – high accountability through the five fold ministry where you allow the evangelist, pastoral shepherd, teacher, prophet, and apostle to be who they are, allow their passions and points of view to flow freely in “service”.  While pouring out their gifting to the churched and nonchurched alike, they need to be accountable to the other four points of view that differ from theirs by being willing to “lay down their life” for the brethren:  serving their brethren while allowing themselves to be served by the brethren who differ in giftings from themselves.  This builds relationships that brings true accountability.

Now the way most of us in the Church think, what model, what paradigm am I proposing?  I have shared through various blogs the five fold star of accountability in a circle that can rotate bringing to light any and each of the five fold gifts when needed to lead a five fold team effort.  But how is this to exactly work?  That is the job of the Holy Spirit. 

If the Holy Spirit is free to lead, then the beauty of creativity will flow. For example, when in a problem solving situation, the five fold group or team of believers can join together in corporate prayer and worship with the single purpose to lift up Jesus and “listen” to His still small voice for direction and guidance.  When this occurs, the Lord will speak; the key is “obedience” to what has been “revealed”, again accountability to the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.  The revelation will come to the entire group, but the pastoral shepherd’s passion and gifting may be what is needed to arise and come to the forefront to solve the problem, or the prophets, apostles, teachers, or evangelist.  When one arises and comes to the front, the other four always are covering his back in support.  The results: maturing the saints into the image of Jesus Christ which brings unity in the body of Christ.

What comes out of it is creative solutions that are effective and impacting.  This will be done differently!  This is difficult for the Church who likes traditions, stability, and predictability, not newness, constant change, and having no idea what the Holy Spirit is going to do next!  But in a climate of newness, constant change, and unpredictability there is freshness, excitement, and an “anticipation” of what the Holy Spirit will do next.  This is the culture created in true revival in a true movement of God.

True revival features newness: the evangelistic spirit of birthing and rebirth, the creative arts again surfacing in the Church, new songs, new forms of worship, new ways to creatively express the gospel, new ways to get the message of Jesus to the world, new ways to evangelize and develop believers into the fullness and image of Jesus Christ, and new ways to bring the Church together as the Body of Christ.   Let the “newness” begin; let the Holy Spirit flow creatively!

Kent Hunter’s Concluding Remarks On The Possibilities For The 21st Century Church

 A Look at Kent Hunter’s “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century Church

I have enjoyed Kent R. Hunter’s, of Church Doctor Ministries, ebook “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century Church.”  To conclude, I will not comment and leave the words of Kent to speak for themselves.

From Chapter 16 – Snapshots of Tomorrow Today, Hunter Concludes: “The church of the 21st century will make many changes, or it will cease to exist. These changes are really not new, but old. They are New Testament. They are biblical. There is much evidence to think that the greatest days of the church, perhaps in all of history, are ahead. A networking world is the perfect platform for worldwide witness, worldwide revival, worldwide Christianity. Today, Bible studies are being held in Iran, a closed country where it is illegal to study the Bible. However, people are doing it. They are doing it in their own Farsi language, They are doing it on the Internet. They are studying the Gospel of John. This type of networking is a snapshot of the church in the future — a church that, at the end of the day, will look much like the church of the past.

One of the constant and continual directions John Wesley used during the Great Awakening was to point people back to what he called “the primitive church.” His assumption was that if we just did what the 1st century church did, but did it in contemporary ways, the church would be effective and revival would result. That is what he said, and that is what God did. The church of the 21st century cannot improve on the 1st century church. It does not mean we wear sandals and tunics. It is the 1st century church, in 21st century clothes. If we focus on New Testament Church culture (values, beliefs, priorities, attitudes, and worldviews) and contextualize that to 21st century, indigenous delivery systems targeting this postmodern world, God will use us for revival. I have no question about that, whatsoever. Do you?"