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.

LINEAR WORSHIP AS RELATIONAL; CAN IT BE DONE?

The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

What would happen if you eliminate the Senior Pastor and all his Associate Pastors, Worship Leader and all his musicians and singers from a scripted “order of worship” service?  Can worship still occur, or must it be “lead”?  If it has to be “lead”, does it have to be done by a “professional” “professionally”?

At first I would doubt if much would happen because no one came to church “prepared” to worship, to actually give anything during the worship service accept their “gifts and tithes” to support the professional institutional system we just eliminated, and they would not know what to do with their new found freedom to just worship!  They would even probably begin to question and ask, “What is worship” because before it had been defined for them by the Senior Pastor during his sermon and musically done by the worship team. If I can’t play an instrument or sing without the help of a full moon, what can I do to contribute to worship?

If a congregation knew they were now responsible for worship, or everyone would sit in total silence (which sometimes is the best way to experience worship, for if one listens, and is obedient to what they have seen and heard, they will produce real worship), with their new found freedom and responsibility they just might begin to share a poem the poet, Jesus, gave them, or share an “insight” or “revelation” they learned from the Holy Spirit about a scripture they read during their private devotional time,  or tell their “story” what Old School church calls “testimony”, about the relevancy of their current Christian walk, or create a theatrical drama or interpretive dance, or paint an original creation inspired by their Creator, or not just shake hands with the person sitting next to them, but actually dialogue and “hang out” with them outside the confines of the church building, or be obedient and give a prophetic word to someone also in the same room that would change or direct their life, or pray with the sick and hurting and actually witness healings, or stand by one fighting mental illness instead of wilting to the stigma of it, or raising hands, singing, or dancing with the physical or mental handicapped in their midst so they can go beyond their physical or mental limitations in worshipping their Maker.

Release the Holy Spirit to move among His people, the saints, not the professional hierarchal staff, and we would be amazed at what would come forth as “worship”.  Yes, we would have to ask the Holy Spirit to redefine worship and show us how to do it as the Creator has created us to do!  All nature worships as the trees raise their hands, the brooks babble, the winds blow causing plants and trees to sway, but we would ask how “we are to worship” as humans, created in the image of God!

I believe worship is simple: giving back to Jesus what he has already given to you!  He has given us life, freedom, salvation from sin and death, deliverance, healing, a purpose, a desire to worship, etc.  Let’s now “release” the believers in Jesus Christ, the priesthood of believers, to give back individually and corporately. I have heard corporate “singing in the spirit” which is the closest thing to heavenly music that I have ever heard as everyone individually sang their own songs of salvation, deliverance, life, hope, redemption, healing, etc. producing a corporate song of unity with a melody line and in harmony that I can not explain in words.  You knew God was truly “in the midst of His people” at those moments.

Not only vertically, but true worship should also happen horizontally, something the Church knows little about.  Unity in Jesus comes when you have “horizontal” “relational” worship!  Just as the vertical relationship where Jesus healed the broken relationship between God and mankind due to sin, Jesus can also heal the broken relationships between brothers to brothers, sisters to sisters, and brothers and sisters to sisters to brothers in a horizontal relationship.  In relational worship there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, the “we” and the “thems”, the “saints” and the “ain’ts” in the pyramidal structure,  male and female, or any race.  The Church would not be one of the largest segregated institutions in the world, but an integrated family of believers “revealing the image of Jesus” in each life universally and in unity. That is horizontal worship, creating horizontal relationships that can’t help but produce one result: unity in the body.

LINEAR WORSHIP VS. INSTITUTIONAL WORSHIP: WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO SPONTANAEITY?

The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

Linear worship can be done in an institutional setting, but only if the leadership of the institution is willing to “give up” control to the Holy Spirit, and be wiling to take the chance that it might just look as if it is “out of” control while being willing to be an integral part of the worship experience as a just a horizontally relational peer. 

I don’t know if you noticed, but the worship scene at most churches has become stagnant.  Even though drums, electric guitars and basses with a worship leader and several background singers have replaced organs and choirs, church services have become very predictable.  Even though the church may not print out a bulletin with “order of worship” in it, opting for it now being just an advertizing piece of literature of church activities, events, and services, if one attends that church weekly, it will not be hard to predict the order of the formal “worship” service. I know of a local church that has several campuses with each having their own worship band, but streams in the mega-senior pastor on huge life size screens to give the “unifying” message, all scheduled down to the minute.  What has happened to spontaneity, diversity, and many gifted people participating in worship?

Worship services revolving around “order of worship” or “order of song/chorus choices” in a tightly formed worship program or format appears very professional, meticulously formulated so that the lighting director, sound director, director of television production, director of Social Network streaming, and director of DVD production will all be on the same page at the same time as the worship team, designated participants and Senior Pastor on stage during the finely tuned scripted production, oops, worship “service”.  When visiting different camps, sects, denominations, groups, etc. under the Christian banner, their services have striking similarities.  Current “worship” songs fed by the Christian Music Industry now head the song lists replacing hymnals once placed in wooden pews.

Secularly, country music has produced its own sound & style.  Although Jimmy Hendrix lead guitar “fills” may no longer be popular, classic rock has its distinct sound.  The program “American Idol” tried to find the right sound and image that American pop culture demanded.  Now we even have our own “Christian worship” sound, style, and culture that stylistically is beginning to sound the same.

I remember the birth of C.C.M, Contemporary Christian Music, because I am old!  When birthed it was considered “alternative” Christian music, pushing the norms of conventional church hymns, organ arrangements, and choir cantatas.  It had trouble finding stations that would “air” it, for secular stations were not open to “Jesus” music.  I had to stay up to 11 p.m. on Sudnay night to listen to the Scott Ross Show on a local rock’n roll station to hear any Jesus, Contemporary music.   As it developed into an industry, I remember prophets like Keith Green unpopularly challenging it!

As we have “institutionalized” the Christian music industry, we have curbed if not destroyed spontaneity in a Christian “worship” service, and any “originality” of local unknown songwriters creating new music or being allowed to play their compositions in local churches.  What ever happened to the “new song” propagated by the scriptures?

As long as we look at worship structurally as part of the institutional system, it will continually look and sound professional at the price of spontaneity and originality.  Worship teams look today as worship being basically “vertical” to God & Jesus, but they don’t think of it relationally.  Very few Christian musicians work “horizontally” on relationships in their band, ensemble, or worship team.  They claim to be relational, but the “worship leader” is the center of attraction and focus who leads, solos, and directs almost all the songs on the stage.  “Background” singers are to augment the lead singer, the worship leader.  Most of the time they don’t even sing harmony, and male singers, like good bass singers, are rarities. The Church stigma of male dominance even appears at the worship leader as men are usually the worship leader with women as “background” sisters, oops, singers!  When watching a worship band on stage at most churches, what can we learn “horizontally” about relationships with in that music group or community? The same as the rest of the church, that it is pyramidal and hierarchal. Often the “worship leader” is professional “on staff” while volunteers are “volunteers”.

Let’s look at what would happen if we took “worship” at church truly from a horizontal, personal, a laying down your life service by the “priesthood of believers” without a “worship team”, “worship leader”, or scripted “order of worship”. That is our next blog tomorrow

CONTROL: “GIVE IT UP”?

The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

The more I think about it, the bottom line of this structural vs. relational issue is “control”.  Who is in control and the fear of what happens if the situation gets “out of control” is what holds us, believers in Jesus Christ, the Church, back from the freedom of allowing the Holy Spirit to flow freely to lead us.  Peter’s experience at the House of Cornelius is an example where everything seemed to go “out of control” while the Holy Spirit was in total control.  Peter felt the Holy Spirit was only for the House of Israel. Wrong! It was falling on the Gentiles.  Pentecost is another example.  Church officials at that time, the Sanhedrin, thought the situation of Jews speaking non-Jewish languages that people understood was absurd at an early morning hour thinking they were drunk, yet thousands came into the kingdom of God that day.  The Holy Spirit knew exactly what he was doing and was in control.

I only have three words about control: “Give It Up”! 

The purpose of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to Jesus.  Jesus, when on earth, always gave glory to his Father.  In essence, God the Father is in control and manifests it through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  The Cross always looks like an “out of control” experience until one realizes that it is a moment of “total control” because of a person “totally surrendering”, unconditionally, to the Father, Jesus, His Son, and His Holy Spirit.  Total unconditional surrender is “giving up all control.” 

I recently viewed on PBS’s Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War’s episode on Lee’s surrender to Grant at the Appomattox Courthouse ending America’s bloody Civil War.  It must have been very painful and difficult for Lee, realizing that winning the war was “out of his control”, to lay down “everything” unconditionally at Grant’s feet in total surrender.  I am impressed with Grant’s terms of allowing the Rebs to keep their guns for hunting, not imprisoning them, letting them go home to reconstruct their lives, for “they are our brothers again.”  The North’s whole purpose for fighting the war was “to preserve the union.”  Brotherhood had been broken; brotherhood had to again be established. 

On the spiritual side, those inside the institutional church have been at war with each other for centuries, fighting over differences, trying to get “control” over other Christian sects, pointing out “their” faults and errors in doctrine while defending “ours” as being truth.  Can their ever be “union” in the body of Christ as Jesus in his priestly prayer recorded in John 17 prayed? Yes, but only through total, unconditional surrender to the Holy Spirit.  The church hierarchy has to willing relinquish control, diminish it, so the Holy Spirit can increase in control.

But what happens if the Holy Spirit does things differently than the established church who is in control?  That is the chance the church has to take in an effort to unconditionally surrendered itself to God, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and the leading of His Holy Spirit.  As the pyramidal, hierarchal, institutionalized church allows itself to surrender to the Holy Spirit, flat lining, the creating of I John 3:16 will occur: You know love by this, that you will lay down your life for your “brethren”.  “Laying down” means total, unconditional surrender. That is what I believe the Holy Spirit is leading the Church towards during this next revival: unconditional surrender, laying down one’s life, and total trust in Him. 

Are we, are you and I, willing to “let go”, give up our control and “trust” the Holy Spirit’s control?  As a Church we so often talk about “total surrender” to Jesus; well, are we really willing to “totally surrender” to the Spirit of Jesus Christ?  Until we can not only say “yes”, but practice that surrender to God vertically as well to our brethren in Christ vertically, we will not experience true revival.  At the Cross, the vertical relationship “was finished”, but the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is working on the horizontal relationship during this next season of revival.  The Price: total, unconditional surrender to the Holy Spirit.  Can you trust that?

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.  

I JUST WANT TO BELONG!

The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

Kent R. Hunter in his ebook, “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century,” uniquely describes the difference of a what I call the “Old School” pyramid structure of thinking verses the “New School”, “twenty-teeners”, as I call them, way of thinking which is drastically different.  The bottom line between the two lies in the question, “Where Do I Belong?”

In his chapter “Snapshots of Tomorrow Today” he depicts the “old school” pyramid structure format as being believe -> behave -> belong while he depicts the “new school” relational structure as belong -> believe -> become ->behave.  “Old school” places “belonging” as the result of believing and behaving; “New school” believes “belonging” starts the process which produces belief and behavior.

In my last blog, I talked about the “Old School Publishing Pyramid” where an author had to “believe” that his works could be published, but had to “behave” correctly by going through “agents” following the proper format before “belonging” to the company as a published author.  You have to believe and behave before you can belong.  “New School Relational Publishing” all starts with belonging; belonging to a Facebook/MySpace page by being accepted as a “friend”, or being accepted into a Google+’s “huddle” as in a circle of influence, or tweeting articles to friends or becoming the “mayor” of local business establishments, or feeling like family by following personal blogs.  It all starts with “belonging”!  After you belong, you begin to believe in that social networking “platform” before you “become” all engrossed in it as a lifestyle.  That social networking’s lifestyle, ideals, etc. dictate how you should behave according to its individually styled norms. You chose it and its standards; it doesn’t chose or define you by its standards in order to belong.

In the political process, in order to “belong” to a political process you have to “believe” in their causes, platforms, political ambitions to belong. “Old School Political Mentality” even makes you “chose” who you believe and belong to before you can vote, unless you want to be independent excluding you from primaries.  Obama embraces the use of “New School Politics” through social media during the last election and the way he communicates today.  Through social media you already belong to the world wide web, searching for data to develop a “belief” system which eventually gives you an identity, the “becoming”, which then dictates how you “behave” and vote.  The way we do politics is even changing according to the mindset of its population.

“Old School Religion” dictates what you must “believe” and how to “behave” in order to “belong” to that religious group, thus the church has lost much of its influence to the “world” and the “culture” around it. “New School Religion” embraces your existence in one’s culture and through that relationship the sharing of one’s stories and “beliefs” influences a person now want to “become” part of that group which directly effects what their “beliefs” and “behaviors.” “New Schooler’s” question if exist to benefit the structure, thus rejecting “Old School” structures, or are they to be “relational” to their peers, their culture, and to the world?

Everyone just wants to “belong”. It is an age old need.  Some question now are “belong to what”, “how can I belong”, “what does belonging mean”, and “what does it cost to belong”, and “what happens if I can’t belong”?

 “New Schoolers” relationally just want to belong; “Old Schoolers” place “acceptance” before “belonging” thus the new debate on how to do Church and what really is Church or “The Church”? 

It is all about different mindsets, different ways we have and are looking at our world today.  Do we accept the pyramidal structures already in place or question them?  How does relationships and acceptance play in belonging?”  Do you have to “belong” to be “accepted”, or can you be “accepted” just because you “belong”?

I JUST WANT MY VOICE HEARD!

 The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

I almost fell for it!  I found on line a “Writer’s Conference”.  Unfortunately it was past registering deadlines and being held as this is published.  I had the urge to go until I asked myself “why?”  I have six, yes, six manuscripts that are book length in folder in my computer and have no idea what to do with them. If I go my questions would be, “What do I do with them?”  I thought the obvious answer is “to get them published.” Why? Bottom line: financial rewards!  Oops, wrong motive.  I love to write for the sake of writing, to get out of my head the thoughts, convictions, ideas, ideals, and images that I put on paper after going to this creative “place”, as my wife calls it!  But every writer wants someone to read his writing, doesn’t he?  All this made me realize the dilemma 21^st Century writers face – do I publish my material structurally or relationally?

“Old School”, like myself thinks structurally; “New School”, those who I label “twenty-teeners”, those who will be in their twenties and early thirties between the years 2013-2019, think relationally and are totally frustrated by “old school” structures.

I am frustrated by the “Publishing Pyramid” who is a business, thus bottom line is “what sells”, not necessarily what is the message. Pyramidal structures provide protective shields of isolation to those at its top from those on its bottom and those outside it.  Try to be a young or new author without a proven marketing record to penetrate the “Publishing Pyramid”.  They don’t take “new authors” yet claim they are searching for them.  You must have an “agent” (another 21^st century pyramid scheme to make money; ask professional athletes) to “get in” at 15% of your profits.  Again bottom line money and marketability.   They claim their staff would be “overwhelmed” by so many would-be authors manuscripts.  A lot of authors want to be heard, but are not finding outlets.  Also the “Publishing Pyramid” is beginning to crumble over the last couple of decades. Publishing house rarely take the financial risk anymore of publishing costs and marketing strategies, placing them on the shoulders of the want-to-be authors.  Self publishing and a self marketing is now the “norm”.  The movie “You Got Mail” portrayed the large Book dealers bullying the small bookstores out of business, yet today the large book houses are crumbling to the ebook industry.  The print industry finds itself fighting for their financial lives when facing the electronic generation boom of emailing, social networking, tweeting, texting, and blogging which the printed industry cannot prevent or block.

The “New Schooler” is in a world where vertical communications with peers is important.  The mindset that has been developed is that data is “free” on the internet (the only thing you should pay for is its connection fee), so old business norms of “publishing for profit” are scrambling for new avenues.  The printed local newspapers, and even personal written letters sent through the United States Postal Service are following the road of the pony express. “New Schoolers”, “twenty-teeners,” just want to be heard.  It doesn’t matter if it is to a Facebook/MySpace “friend” or in a Google+ “huddle” or to the “public”, open for the whole world to see.  It doesn’t have to be the printed word, a picture is worth a thousand words, so they say, so “uploading” photos are even more popular to express an ideal or “tell their story”.  Twittering is all about establishing a large number of followers, a reading base of your material, and/or sharing “voices” among each other that you “like” or wish to share.  It is all about “communicating” “horizontally” without the filters, interference, and censorship that pyramid structures create to protect those at their pinnacle. It is not about financial rewards, but about just being heard, vertically without restraints.

RELATIONSHIPS BUILT ON SERVICE, NOT POSITION

 The Clash Of “Mindsets”: Structural Versus Relational

“Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. ‘What is it you want?’ he asked. She said, ‘Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.’ ‘You don’t know what you are asking,’ Jesus said to them ‘Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?’ ‘We can,’ they answered. Jesus said to them, ‘You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or my left is not for me to grant. These places being to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.’ When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whomever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’” Matthew 20:17-28

In Matthew Jesus has been trying teaching about the kingdom of God to his disciples when he is faced with with the question, “Is the structure of the kingdom of God like a pyramid or flat lined?”   Kingdoms are lead by kings on top a pyramid structure, so the mother of the Zebedee boys and the disciples would naturally think that the kingdom of God would be run this fashion if Jesus is truly the King. In a pyramid only one can be on top, two below him, three below them, etc., so it would be natural for mamma to request her boys get the #2 & #3 slots. Jesus acknowledges her understanding that position dictates authority in “normal” kingdom structure. Even in the spirit world, the kingdom of darkness is a pyramid with Satan, who thirsts for power and authority by lording it over his demons, but that is not so in the kingdom of light, the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is not structurally built like a pyramid, but linear by relationship based on friendship. That is the bottom line premise of “flat world” thinkers.  Jesus is trying to show Mamma Z that “positions” in his kingdom are not based on position, power, or influence.  It is all based on a relationship with Him, Jesus and on serving and being served.  Jesus said, “Just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many,” so it is with his believers.  Jesus paid the vertical price of the Cross by dying for us on that Cross, paying the ransom to restore the right “relationship” between God and fallen man (John 3:16); now; He is asking us, vertically, to lay down our lives for each other to restore the “relationship” between man to man, Christian brother to brother (I John 3:16). The horizontal and vertical dissections create the CROSS.

There are no “positions of authority” among the “priesthood of believers”, for you cannot “earn” your way into heaven (it is only through God’s grace) and you can not “earn” a position once in heaven, for, “these places being to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”  I do not know, in the natural, what these places look like, but Jesus talks about them in John 14:1-4: “Do not let your heart be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms (places); if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there (to that place) to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”   The way to that place is through Jesus who has and is preparing a place for us, and that place will be an “eternal relationship” with him!  Jesus has prepared that place by fulfilling his mission on earth, coming back for his “priesthood of believers”, and “hanging out” with them for the rest of eternity. That is all relational.  It is about relations, not position!

So the Church, if it truly wants revival or another reformation, must recognize the fact that the kingdom of God is relational and begin to change their mindsets and structures to reflect that.  How to do that is through “service”.  A pyramid church structure causes “church politics”, like with the disciples and their mamma; a flat line church structure produces relationships through service. That is why I am such a proponent of Ephesians 4, not as church “offices” which create a pyramid, but as passions, points of view, mindsets on how to vertically serve others who are different, yet gleaning from their different giftings than yours.  You “serve” them in your distinct passion and point of view, and reciprocally they “serve” back to you through their distinctly different passion and point of view bringing “accountability” through “service”, sealed through a “relationship” with one another. (A theme throughout my blogs)

Mamma “B”achman: Don’t barter with Jesus about positioning your two sons in the kingdom of God, but nurture them relationally with Jesus and the body of Christ, positionally making the CROSS through relationships in their lives through service, then you won’t be like Mamma “Z”!

Two Generations: From “Anti-Establishment” to “Anti-Institution”

President Richard Nixon fighting against the "anti-establishment" movement at a press conference.The Possibility of Bonding Two Attitudes of Two Generations?

Protests against the War In Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the escalation of the anti-abortion/pro-life debate, the gay community coming out of the closet and protesting in the streets, the epidemic of aides, and the Drug Revolution were all earmarks of the “Baby Boomer” generation as they reached their late teens and early twenties in an effort to turn their world around. That generation coined the term “anti-establishment” in a quest to question the existing institutions of their time.  Today’s “Twenty-Teeners”, those who will be in their twenties between 2013 through 2019 are feeling the strain of now two decades of military endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan, social profiling against Mexicans and Muslims, the still continuing debate between anti-abortionists and pro-lifers, the possibility of acceptance of civil gay marriages, an overburdening health care system that they can not afford, and a possibility of a severe economy restrains, and a never-ending two party stalemate in government as their earmarks.  Like their predecessors almost 50 years earlier, they too have this anti-establishment mentality toward institutions.  I believe the next social and political revolution in America will be over this “anti-institutional” mentality.  The time is ripe for this to arise.

The “twenty-teeners” have a “flat world” view.  They see everything socially on a horizontal plane based on relationships empowered by the internet and the current trends in “social networking”.  Relationships are of the utmost importance, thus the influence of MySpace, Facebook, Google+, Tweeting, blogging, and texting as “communication tools” in this “relationship” generation.  They are beginning to show their abhorrence towards pyramidal structures or establishments or institutions. They cannot find mutual horizontal relationships in a CEO business climate with those above them, but can social network with their peers while sitting in the cubby-holes at work.  They do not see horizontal relationships in the currently political process where party members have become puppets of their party’s political bosses causing stalemate after stalemate, wishing horizontal relationships would be used to bring bi-partisanship, horizontal relationships to solve problems. They are having trouble understanding a clergy/laity mentality in the Church rather than a horizontal relationship of believers in the body of Christ.  They are turned off by church as an institution while seeking church as something “relational” between them and their God and them and their peers.

The perfect family of the 1050's: "Leave It To Beaver"America was pictured for its greed in the tv program "Dallas"Like their anti-establishment predecessors 50 years ago who fought against the “Leave It To Beaver” pristine 1950’s nuclear family and the moral standards of their generation, this anti-institutional group of “twenty-teeners” is fighting against the “Dallas” image of rich CEO magnets greedily running our economics and politics while hording our financial resources.  I predict that this “horizontal” bond of “relationship” seekers, no matter how strong or how shallow, will mold into an economic, political, and cultural force that will challenge the way the world does business, politics, follows social morals, as well as the way they see, think, and “do” Church on not only a local, state, regional, and national level, but most of all on a “world wide” level.

Economically we are beginning to realize how small countries like “Greece”, “Spain”, and Middle Eastern countries can bring economic woes to entire world markets.  People can “E-Trade” themselves in the Stock Market rather than going through traditional “brokers” anywhere in the world through the internet, thus the Stock Exchange of the United States has investors from all over the world.  The same “world wide” information is now available to everyone throughout the world, not just the socially and politically privileged as in the past.  Information is vast and fast, affecting the scope of they way we have to think about education. The world view and the way we view the world is changing; thus the clash of two different generations, two different mindsets, two different points of view.

In spite of their differences, there may be some commonality between the two generations, for as youth, they both seek to dethrone the political and economic “established” “institutionalized” powers of their times for horizontal freedoms, fluidity of thought and ideas, and a challenge to change their worlds they live in for the good.  It is a shame that the “anti-establishment” generation is now the “institutional” providers, maintainers, and developers, the very thing they opposed in their youth.  Maybe the time is right for both generation to look ahead, as peers, as equals, in a horizontal relationship to move forward as we face the change of the future.

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.

New Winds; New Revival: Revivals Always Bring Misunderstandings!

To Understand One Another, The Generation Gap Linguistically Will Have To Be Bridged At The Cross

Revival usual occurs at the grass roots of the church out in the open, not behind their closed doors.  When it occurs, it produces tension between the “established” church and its mindsets with the “new movements” and what appears to be new mindsets.  The key for true, effective, powerful revival is to bring the two sides together.  In the 1700’s, Wesley misunderstood Whitehead’s attempts to go “out” to the coal mines to preach to the miners as they left work, criticizing him for not having them come “in” to the church to hear the gospel.  When the misunderstanding was cleared by Wesley not being able to deny the fruits of Whitehead’s endeavors, he embraced the new movement and took the lead in creating the outdoor Camp Meeting movement that revolutionized evangelism in America and help spearhead America’s Great Revival. If the misunderstandings are not cleared up, then the rival brings schism, division, and conflict in the body of Christ.

I recall the enthusiasm many of us in our twenties had when returning from an outdoor Jesus Rally in the mid-1970’s after hearing some inspirational teaching from a speaker who tried to encourage his youthful audience to grow in Jesus toward eventual church leadership.  He quoted the passage from Timothy that “it is good to aspire to become an elder.”  When our local pastor heard of it, he was shocked, offended, and threatened, thinking we were going to try to usurp his power and authority as pastor.  That was his pyramid, hierarchal mindset at the time. That was never our intention since we were only thinking horizontally, relationally, but that “misunderstanding” effected how we were allowed to “minister” at the local level.  

I can see the possibility of this same misunderstanding occurring during this next revival because of the generational gap at how each looks at leadership and accountability in the Church.  The “established” church thinks hierarchal like a business model while the “new thinking” group looks linear, horizontally relational.  Today’s many independent and megachurches have developed high control, low accountability models. The church leadership has tight control of those “under” them with not much of an umbrella, if any, accountability above them, especially if they follow a “strong pastor” format.  This is why my generation has seen so many “spiritual giants” fall from ministry.  This “turns off” many in the new movement who think linear, building relationships with other Christians, not caring about dogma, doctrine, and labels as much as “fellowshipping” with their peers, the living saints, under the banner of Jesus.  The rigid horizontal, pyramid church structure always collides with the vertical, relational, reform structure.  Only if both camps allows the other to intersect it (the horizontal and vertical), then you have THE CROSS.  Only at and through the CROSS of Jesus Christ can love, understanding, acceptance, and unity be found. 

As I have wrestled over the five fold ministry of Ephesians 4 over the last two decades, I always wondered how there could be unity from five completely different passions and points of view which historically always brought division. In my 20^th century church mentality I could not ever see or imagine how that could happen.  The vertical, pyramidal, 20^th century church structure would not permit it since they made each of the five fold ministries “offices”.  Senior Pastors now obtained the title of “apostle” or “prophet”.   How else would the church see it since the pyramid, hierarchal church structure was embedded in the church?  With this new wave of thinking horizontally, stressing relationship, I can see some daylight that there is a possibility for unity in the five fold if they are looked upon as points of view or passions for every believer in the priesthood of believers in Jesus Christ.  If relationships are built so strong in Jesus between members of the body of Christ that they are willing to embrace I John 3:16 of “laying down their life for the brethren”, then the groundwork would be laid. 

In the pyramidal, hierarchal structure that I have lived through, I can truthfully say that I do not know any brother or sister in the Lord who would actually lay down their physical or spiritual life for me, nor I for them.  I would “feel obligated” to do it for my “superiors”, my pastor and staff, but never for each other.  In the linear, vertical structured based on I John 3:16, it would become natural in building a deeper relationship with those in the body of Christ.  Through reciprocal “serving” of one another, trust would be built, and accountability would be established which the vertical, pyramid structure of leadership would not understand nor embrace, thus the conflict, misunderstanding, and division that revival normally produces.

It is my prayer and desire in these blogs to help bridge the gap between the old, 20^th century vertical structure with the new, 21^st century horizontal structure by having them “intersect” making a CROSS.  At that point of intersecting, at that point of allowing the supernatural vertical relationship with God the Father through His Son, Jesus, with the nurturing of the precious Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, can the miracle of unity be found.  Both different points of view, different mindsets, different understanding can realize and understand that they are saying the same thing in Jesus, only linguistically different, for the kingdom of God principles are the same for both groups or camps.  That is why I think this upcoming revival which we are only feeling the birthing pangs, the beginning contractions, here in America, will be the birth of the Church maturing individually and corporately in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of Ephesians 4.

New Winds; New Revival: Can The Church “Afford” Professionally Paid “Staffs” In The Future?

The Price of Professionalism

Kent R. Sterner of the churchdoctor.org fame wrote in his ebook “The Future Is Now: How God Is Moving In the 21^st Century Church” in Chapter 15: Church Staff A Dysfunctional Business Plan: “Staffing the church in the 21st century is going to change dramatically. The new economy is changing the way the world works…..  At the risk of sounding non- academic, the traditional approach for training church workers has outlived its sensibility. It is no longer possible for many to leave seminary with an $80,000 debt, take on a $40,000 annual salary, provide for a family of four, pay off bills, live near the poverty level, and function with a clear mind to accomplish adequate ministry…..  It is no longer economically feasible for the system to survive.”

Jesus never founded a Christian University, a Bible College, or even a Rabbinical School of Theology, or a Seminary; he just established a “relationship” with 12 unlikely “pastor/clergy” candidates with no academically  religious background, and invested in their daily lives.  Most of his candidates would rather go “fishing”, collect taxes for revenue, etc. than study!  Sounds like many people I know today! Through Jesus’ relationship with these 12 common men, the foundations of the Church was laid, not through an educational system establishing a hierarchy causing a clergy-laity division. Jesus just prepared 12 men relationally for a ministry that would defy the Sanhedrim of his day, the established pyramidal religious structure of his day, who would marvel at these “untrained men” who spoke and ministered with “authority” while relationally changing the world.

The Church has followed the secular thinking that “education” is what is needed to change social conditions. In a public school setting, I have seen course after course, seminar after seminar, lesson after lesson educating students about bullying as if that would change their conduct and behavior. It hasn’t.  It could change the way you think about bullying, but it can’t change a bully’s heart nor his need for power and domination or attention. Church, you know that only Jesus can change a person’s heart!  With a “change of heart” and building of a “relationship” with the bully personally on equal terms takes away his power. Problem solved. The Church has the answer to social ills, but does not exercise its power or influence spiritually or relationally. That mindset is changing with the “twenty-teeners,” those in their twenties and thirties during 20013-2019 years, who look for relational, horizontal answers instead of hierarchal dictatorial solutions that have failed in the past.

The “Log College” in Carlisle, PA was founded in a log cabin during the 1700’s to train “itinerate” preachers to become circuit riders who would ride their horses anywhere anytime to present the gospel to the frontier in direct opposition to the “established” colleges and seminaries of Princeton and Yale who majored in the academics rather than practical everyday relational experience. These “lowly” trained men with little academia would usher in the great “American Reformation”, the last “great” movement of God in America. according to Kent R. Sterner, to the awe of the established Sanhedrin of their day, the established American church.

Instead of “equipping the ‘saints for the work of service” as commissioned in Ephesians 4, the church has historically opted to “equip” the ‘called’ “saints for the ‘professional’ work of ‘staff development’” in a clergy laden hierarchy church structure.  Jesus never advocated a pyramidal structure of church leadership, rebuking his disciples for fighting over who would sit on his right or his left in the kingdom of god.  “Service”, a theme of Ephesians 4, is the key for kingdom of god development.  Jesus showed this when washing his disciples feet, for while on earth he came “to serve, not to be served,” he told them.  He never “lorded” over the 12 in his relationship with them on earth, but served them, thus the difference between secular thinking of leadership and the kingdom of god experience of leadership.

Instead of building a huge seminary, university, and college campus, in an effort to build a pyramidal, hierarchical church structure, the Church needs to rethink, restructure, and develop a relational horizontal structure of how to train, nurture, develop, care for, equip, release, and send out its believers, its priesthood of believers, to effectively propagate the gospel to all the diversity of cultures throughout this globe.

As “professional” Christians become unemployed Christians, being forced to going back to tent making like Paul in the 1^st century, they will become more in touch with those in the world around them. The distinctive divide between “the saints” and “the world” will become grayer as the Church becomes more influential in the world.  More non-churched people will be relationally socializing with church people instead of church people creating their own protective social bubble that is immune from the “world” as now exists.  My heart goes out for those who have followed today hierarchal church dream of entering the “professional” ministry while incurring tremendous debt while being “trained”.  Something is wrong with that picture.  The Church will have to revamp how it trains its believers (old church calls it discipleship) that will not have huge price tags and debt placed upon it.  Discipleship will be done “relationally”, not academically in the future Church.

Will we see the day when a church building closes because the congregation could not "fill the pulpit" because they could no longer "afford" their pastor or his staff?

New Winds; New Revival: A Challenge To The Roman Catholic Church

 The “Catholic” Church As Horizontal; The Roman “Catholic” Church as Vertical

If you ask any American Roman Catholic when the Charismatic movement, or Holy Spirit movement, was initiated into their church, they will tell you at Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit in Pittsburg, PA at a conference in 1967.  The Holy Spirit fell on a group of Catholics that would forever influence the Roman Catholic Church, even to the heights of its Pope, Pope John Paul II.  Even today, there is a charismatic branch with in the Roman Catholic church. Pope John Paul II embraced the role of the Holy Spirit ‘s influence on the Church, but I am not sure if the next movement of God will be as graciously received by those in authority within the Roman Catholic church structure.

The “twenty-teeners”, as I call the, those in their twenties and thirties during the years of 2013-2019 A.D., are embracing a vertical movement of God, one built on relationships, not hierarchal by position of authority with in the Church.  Through “conversations” in person or through the world wide internet, or telling their faith “stories” (old school church called them testimonies) while conversing with Christians and non-Christians in a social media patform, this generation is developing a system of horizontal networking through relationships now matter how strong or how shallow.  I can see the biggest opposition to this new movement of God coming from those religious systems built on hierarchy, a pyramid of power, affluence, and influence.  Unfortunately that is the backbone of the Roman Catholic Church as well as every Protestant denomination or independent church with strong clergy leadership. 

Recentgly the current Pope just set up his own “Twitter” account so that he can bless all his multitudes of “followers” several times a day.  It appeared to be his attempt at becoming “social networking” literate. I think he is missing the point of the power this technology because it is used by “normal everyday” people communicating on a platform to other “normal everyday” people, their peers, from a position of horizontal acceptance and availability.  There is no “pope” of social networking, no hierarchical structure one must follow when Facebooking, Google+ing, Tweeting, texting, MySpacing, or blogging. It is a horizontal means of peer communications.

I have the same platform as the Pope when social networking.  He may have more “followers”, but my voice is also out there and cannot be stymied unless Corporate Headquarters bans me from using their social networking product.  Taking someone off line will be the hierarchal attempt of controlling the vertical in the future if there is a “power” struggle.  Joe Smuck’s blog or Tweet or social networking message has as much validity as the Pope’s dictum in Latin on his Tweet or blog!  Hierarchically, that is a threat!

This has already been demonstrated when the hierarchical communist Chinese regime tried to ban certain social networking platforms realizing its influence and power among the “masses”.  They are looking at how to control the masses to hear only their political voice which opposes the many social networking voices on a vertical level.  Social networking’s power gives every user the potential to use their voice if anyone is listening and to listen to many other voices. Social networking is a threat to a hierarchal tyrannical political system. The dictatorial Arab leaders of the Middle East are finding out the power of the mass social networking platform through opposition from the “peoples’” movement  who are demanding more freedoms. One of the themes of the “twenty-teener” age is “less control” not more in direct opposition to hierarchal dictatorial structures.

Social networking is an advocate of the “priesthood of believers.”  In the New Testament, you never hear of a single “priest” in the kingdom of god, only a “priesthood” which means “many.” In the kingdom of god so many voices can be heard, but a corporate voice can, will, and must be heard, the voice of the Holy Spirit.  The “catholic” church’s voice, as advocated in the Apostles Creed, the universal Church of all believers, can and will be heard through social networking.  The Church can now hear from any believer anywhere in the world through today’s technology.  The “Word” does not have to come out of Rome or the United States or South Africa or some secluded monastery or cave in the Alps or even China, but from any believer in Jesus Christ who is technologically connected with the “world wide web.” 

That is why the “apostles’ teaching” must be restored to the Church, as mentioned in my previous blogs, for with so many different voices from so many different languages and dialect and with such diversity in the Body of Christ, the Church, a single message of simplicity and unity must be presented and heard.  Not a message from a “doctrinal” decree, but a message of unity from the Body of Christ through the flow of the Holy Spirit.  As you can see from my previous blogs, the purpose of the five fold in Ephesians 4 is to bring maturity in Christ to the individual believer as well as the Church as a whole.  The Holy Spirit will, can, and does speak with that singular voice directed from the throne of God.  The “universal catholic” church of all believers will hear, recognize, and obey that voice of the Holy Spirit in unity, not the dictatorial edicts and decrees from established hierarchal religious structures as the “Roman Catholic” church has practiced through the centuries. This is the new view, the new wind of revival, the new mindset of the 21^st century Church.

New Winds; New Revival: A Look At The Role Of Women

 “Old School” Church Bashing to “New School” Church Acceptance

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the Law says.  If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I Corinthians 14:34

Submission in the kingdom of God is by “choice”; submission according to the world’s view is by “force”.  The Church has majored in “forcing” their women into submission for centuries, and the Jewish culture’s perspective even goes back further.  Paul, once Saul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, falls back into his pharisaical past by quoting “as the Law says” to justify his judgment. Paul, what happened to the “grace” of Jesus Christ? The “living” Jesus always extended “grace” rather than “judgment”; ask the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well, the woman who touched the hem of Jesus’ garment, Mary Magdalene, and so many more recorded in the four gospels… gosh, they were all women who were extended grace.

What happens if the Holy Spirit decides to use “women” in its next movement of God? He has used them in the past!  Acts 2:17-18 records the prophecy found in Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. You sons and daughters will prophesy…. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”  

Christ’s Time:  It amazes me that we, men, fail to recognize that in Christ’s time it was the women who had faith in the resurrection while the men doubted the resurrection’s validity having to “see it to believe it” (Mark 16:11, Luke 24:10-11);  that women had hearts of a servant while the men argued over authority rather than servanthood (Mark 11:35-37); women were forgiven and free to forgive (Luke 8:1-3) while men judged rather than forgive (Luke 8:36-39).  It was the Sanhedrin’s duty to pressure a women “suspected of unfaithfulness” to confess, then stone her, yet Jesus “forgave” a women “caught in adultery” eliminating every male from throwing stones at her.

Men, why are we still throwing stones at our women when Jesus forbad the practice centuries ago?  “He who is without sin” may throw the first stone.  Jesus, a sinless man, has been the only male to qualify, yet he chose “grace” over “judgment”.  If we are men of God, followers of Jesus Christ, then we should follow his lead and drop our stones and pick up our women in grace and acceptance.

20^th Century: In a country where culturally women are “forbidden” to lead, South Korea, Pastor Cho finds himself in a dilemma for his men are not responding to the Holy Spirit’s call for small group leadership in his local church, but the women do!  They start leading “small home groups” and the church explodes to over 750,000 people attending just one church!  I wonder how many of his peers quoted I Corinthians 14:34 to him then? He became a model for “mega-church” growth!

21st Century: The “twenty-teeners”, as I call them, those who will be active in the Church in their twenties & thirties during the years of 2013-2019, communicate horizontally.  Going through the hierarchical structure of “authority” and “rule” does not impress them, nor influence them. Papers and church rulings over procedural positions passed at church conferences or handed down from men in high church positions is superfluous to them. They see Christianity from a horizontal prospective of relationships (I John 3:16) rather than a vertical prospective of authority by position.  They see that we are not only to be “hearers of the Word”, but “doers” and recognize and follow the “doers”, not the talkers or dictators.  They don’t care the sex, race, social position, or occupation of the “doer”, but they just recognize and respect him/her for “doing”.  This is a different mind set for the establish church.  The “twenty-teeners” look at pyramidal structure as “Egyptian” and relational structure as “kingdom of God”.  If forced to choose, they will choose horizontal relationships.  

"Rivetting Rosie" of the 20th Century is now "Blogging" Betty of the 21st Cnetury!21^st Centuries view of women:  If the “twenty-teeners” look horizontally then “authority” by position becomes a nonentity. Who cares about “positions of authority”?  If women are serving, they are servants. If they have a following horizontally through relationships, then they are leaders because, by definition, a leader is only a leader if someone is following them.  I “follow” several Christian women who “blog”, so by definition, they are leading me, challenging me, prying me, prodding me along through Christian dialogue, sharing their faith journey with mine.  There is no “authority” question in their blogs.  By blogging on the internet, they are no longer in a “church building”, so by I Corinthians 14:34 standards, they don’t have to be quiet and only allow their husbands to blog. Like in Jesus’ time here on earth, they still have faith, still serve, still financially support, and still forgive and tell it through their faith stories, their journals of their faith journeys, their blogs. 

Today: Today’s Christian women “chooses” to “submit”, give of herself, to her husband, her Christian and non-Christian friends with whom she has built a relationship out of her relationship with Jesus Christ, not out of the bondage of authoritative hierarchical dictatorial authority from men cramming I Corinthians 14 down her throat, not as her peer or even friend, but as a power move of authority.  Church, when the winds of revival blow, the “old school” bashings need to stop, stone throwing must cease, and we must yield to grace through our relationship with Jesus Christ. “He who is without sin, throw the first (I Cor. 14:34) stone……” 

“Twenty-Teeners” Church Questions

 Drives My Generation of Christians NUTS!

“Where do we get the term ‘saved’ from?”

“Who invented the 4 Spiritual Laws handed out on tracts?”

“Where did the “sinner’s prayer come from?  Jesus never used it?”

“Am I not to tithe unto the Lord?  How is that tied into financing the church as an institution?

How dare the “twenty-teeners” ask such bold questions that seem to be at the essence of the 20^th Century Church’s thrust on evangelism.  Millions have been “saved” using the “sinner’s prayer”.  How dare they question its validity to our church’s cultural tradition.  I do remember when my children were smaller they asked a thousand questions which I thought was a positive experience because they were inquisitive. One of the first inquisitive words they learned was “why”, not to justify what was being done, but to know how things worked, the rationale behind it all.  Why should I be shocked now when they ask such pertinent questions? 

Questioning can be good; it part of the “twenty-teener” make up.  My generation of church leaders have become critical of Rob Bell because of his approach to questioning.  He just wrote a book about heaven and hell, and how his generation is questioning it from the standpoint of the Lord’s prayer of “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  Do we experience a little of heaven and hell already on earth? Rob’s questioning in this generations exploration of finding Biblical truth to their generation as C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce was to my generation.  I think there is a lot of common ground, but we are looking at it from generationally different points of view, thus questions.  It amazes me that Jesus did not use the lecture, alias sermon, approach when teaching as my generation does, but he is forever asking questions and speaking through parables, much of which this new generation is doing.  Could their approach to teaching be more Jesus centered than our way of teaching? Hmmmm…..

As a “church kid” it was hard for me to understand what “saved” meant because I had tried to live a righteous life under the church norms that I was taught by my parent’s generations.  I once wished I had been a junkie, a drug addict, been a pimp of a prostitution ring just so I had a good testimony of being “saved” from something drastic.  I thought being “saved” was turning from an old life through repentance and moving on in a new life, but found many of my friends returning to the altar to get “saved” again, or as they called it, “rededicating” their lives.  I thought to be “saved” meant a new beginning…. Now, through asking questions, I too am beginning to examine of the meaning of terms I just took for granted, instructed  never to question.

I’ve met the man who invented the 4 Spiritual Laws for Campus Crusade for Christ, who has gotten to the point of almost dispising them.  Yes, he found an effective way of evangelistically sharing the gospel to his generation during his time, but “canning” his approach over decades has become redundant and ineffective most times. I still remember seeing a 60 yard long paper trail of tracts thrown on the ground as litter at the York Fair. “But if one was saved, it was all worth it,” was the evangelistic cry of denial of its true effectiveness.

As for the sinner’s prayer, it may be something more of my generation. I had no idea of its origins so I went to the entrusted source Wikipedia which attributes is full thrust to 19^th & 20^th century evangelists like Dwight L. Moody and Billy Graham as well as Campus Crusade while also contributes to its weaknesses as not being Biblically based nor at times said in sincerity. I, personally, never said the sinners prayer to get saved, but knew God was real while sitting in the sunshine in a chair in our living room. My parents, coming from their generational bias, wondered if I had been “saved” because I never went forward in an “evangelistic revival meeting” at their local church.  I later discovered that John Wesley also “found” God as I had.  The “twenty-teener’s” questions about the sinners prayer may be more valid than I want it to be.

My children don’t question the Biblical principle of tithing, but question tithing to “what”. In his ebook The Future is Now: How God Is Moving In The 21^st Century, Kent R. Hunter of Churchdoctor.org fame says, “The flat world reflects the repulsion today’s young adults have for institutions that act institutionally. The key for understanding this is that if a church persists to be hierarchial, it will not attract young adults. This concept is reflected in the teaching of low-control/high-accountability.  Most churches from the modern era have become extreme, with layers of bureaucracy, politics, bylaws, rules and regulations, titles, offices and all the trappings of institutionalism. This does not fit the relation world that now exists.” They want to tithe, to the kingdom of God, but not to an institution with all its entrappings of building, maintenance, management, staffing, programs, etc. They want to be relational, not heirarchial.  Tithing to my generation usually supports a hierarchal system of pyramid professionalism.

So maybe all their inquisitive questioning is valid.  At least it is forcing me to look at it from a different point of view. After a while all the questioning about drives my generation nuts.  Hmmm, maybe they got us where they want us! LOL (as they would text)!

Pentecost Generationally

 Will This Next Movement Of God Bring Unity Of Language?

Many of my generation of church goers fear speaking in tongues, some even to the point of being in denial claiming it “died” when the original 12 apostles died, failing to recognize that millions of Christians world wide speak in tongues.  But this exemplifies the gap in the church’s mindset culturally today of my generation. American culture says if it fits my American culture and I see it in my experience (of course, grounded in the Word of God, the Bible, Amen!), then it is relevant and correct. If I do not “see” tongues in my church, then it does not exist! That’s my generation’s mentality.  Tongues was looked upon as “unintelligent gibberish” that needed “interpretation” in ones own personal language and dialect so all could understand it.  The first century Church’s experience with tongues is believers speaking in languages they did not know and all kinds of people of different language and dialect understanding their message.  This is how the Church was birthed. Tongues to the “twenty-teeners” is the art of “communicating” with the rest of the “world” through the internet and social networking in their cultural language, yet all speaking the language of Jesus Christ.  That language will not be in American English culture as the internet is now positioned, but in a language transcending the American culture where churches in China, Asia, South America, Third World Countries, tell Americans about their faith and how to walk it out.  The Church will begin to speak the language of “Jesus” supernaturally by his Holy Spirit.

The Great Commission is looked upon generationally differently today.  My generation looks at it as the physically “sent out” generation of missionaries, people called, commissioned, and financially supported by local churches.  Once sent out, the local church would only see them every five years when they would have to return to “build up their financial support.”  Parachurch ministries such as Mission Aviation, Wycliff Bible Translators, Youth With A Mission, or even Compassion International were all effective tools of mission work to my generation. 

Today the “twenty-teeners”, can do “mission” work right from their Iphone.  Their mindset of the Church is naturally global, not small town community as their grandparents.  The World Wide Web allows them to communicate literally with the world through all kinds of social platforms.  Their mentality is that they can be in touched with an actual Nigerian, relationally building conversations with them, rather “sending out” missionaries.  This generation “sends out” texts, tweets, blogs, Facebook messages, etc. to the actual people in their native land, a totally foreign concept to my generation.  Instead of funneling through a missionary, they can have direct contact with the actual people in their native culture, working out their faith in their culture.

This also breaks down denominational lines. Missionaries in the foreign field have “tolerated” each other even if from different persuasions of Christianity for the sake of the gospel as they work toward a common goal of sharing Jesus with a foreign culture to theirs.  Today, the “twenty-teeners” don’t care for labels, so when social networking, they don’t care what Christian label you carry; they only social network about their relationship with Jesus in their culture to another culture.  “Twenty-teeners” are actually more “engaged” in the actual missions process than my generation.  They can learn about cultures other than their own easier through internet connections than my generation ever dreamed of doing.  The world is their stage, not the small confines of the local community as my generation found itself.

“Twenty-teeners” don’t try to change culture, only change lives in any culture for Jesus Christ.  Early missionaries to the Americas tried to change Indian culture to European Christian culture.  The same is true with many missionaries to third world countries.  The “twenty-teeners” will try to change any culture into “kingdom of God” culture that transcends any foreign culture to oneself.  The American way is not the “kingdom of God” way, nor is the European way, as the westernized church has forced on the world so far throughout history. 

Paul learned that “Jewish culture” was not  the new “kingdom of God” culture although that was the culture he was familiar with.  He once was the “Pharisee of Pharisees”, the ultimate religious leader of his former culture, but Jesus knocked him off his horse, and completely new mindsets of “kingdom of God” thinking had to be established in his life. In fact he transcended the culture so both Jews and Gentiles could be part of the “kingdom of God”, something he had to defend at the Counsel in Jerusalem in Acts 10.

Generationally, today the Church is in a period of rapid transformation from being a “westernized” religion, or a historically Jewish based religion, to a “world wide” religion with powerful implications. The world wide culture is only being established now, and the Church needs to be a defining part of that!  Reformation always comes when the Church took new technology to advance the “kingdom of God”, them empowerment of the “priesthood of believers” who would effect not only their culture, but other cultures foreign to their previous experiences.  Lord, thank you for letting us enter the birthing of a World Wide Reformation.