Revival and the 21st Century Church

Options: Traditions or Change

I haven’t written a blog entry in almost a half a year, but I am back. I have been working on editing manuscripts, including over 500 blog entries into book form  (over 800 pages worth!), and I have reread every blog entry that I have written. I truly thank the Lord for some amazing insights.

I have realized that if a church truly wants revival it will have to be willing to embrace drastic change, and historically the institutional church has only embraced gradual change. Traditions have ruled the day. There is a sense of safety in doing things the traditional way, for traditions don’t make waves. They don’t flow; they are established.

If what I am sensing is truth, that the church is entering a cocoon stage in its development, drastic change will be a requirement. The necessity of changing the church’s very structure is at the core of this metamorphosis. The caterpillar structure of the current church with is squishy body, its multi-legged segments, and its ravishing eating habits to sustain constant growth will have to yield to a hard shelled, three segmented structure with wings whose purpose is to soar into the heavens. These are two totally different structures; same creature, but new look and purpose!

The churches who are willing to face this metamorphic state will find themselves surrounded by conflicts that demands change. Every program they have will be challenged; every thing they have done will be questioned by the standard of “relationships”. How does this standard or program enhance the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their relationship to mankind, us? Can I trust the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ? How does this standard or program enhance the relationship between man with his brother in this priesthood of believers that is known as the Church, us?  Am I truly my brothers’ keeper; if so, am I willing to “lay down my life for the brethren”? Can I trust my brother or sister in Jesus Christ? Those are the basic, challenging questions that will be asked.

Under the old caterpillar mentality of doing church, the Church cannot fly. It’s multi-legged, multi-bodied structure of splintered, divided factions, and its ravish appetite for constant church growth have often hindered its vertical relationship with the Godhead. It has not been able to bring an united, corporate atmosphere of worship or fulfilled John 17’s vision of church unity with the Godhead. Every segment feels it has the inside scoop with the Father through their church doctrine and beliefs, and the other segments of the body don’t, thus bringing division.

Under the butterfly mentality, the Church will be “equipped” to fly because it will “equip” the “saints”, the priesthood of believers, for the works of service. Everything that they do will be seen as an act of worship to the Godhead. Everything that they do will be an act of service to each other; all at the price of being willing to lay down their lives for their God and their fellow brothers and sisters, exactly what Jesus did on the Cross! The Cross is still the central component of the message of the gospel.

Every church revival that I have studied about or have personally experienced has been a messy affair as man has been challenged with new ways of doing things, new mindsets, a new awareness for the need of worship, a new burden to truly be one’s brother’s keeper, and a hunger for healthy relationships with the Godhead and the body of Christ, the priesthood of believers, that only comes through brokenness, repentance, and healing through Jesus Christ. Churches who don’t want the mess or the challenges will safely continue to crawl into its security and safety that tradition and being an institution can give. We are faced with only two options: tradition or change!

An Apostle, A Woman, In A Five Fold Peer2Peer Relationship?

 The Five Fold = Peer2Peer Relationships – Part VI

Romans 8:7 - Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Titus 1:1- Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—

2 Peter 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

 I truly believe the best qualified person to be a five fold Peer2Peer apostle would be a common, everyday Christian mother! A female? You have got to be kidding! Didn’t Paul say I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence?  - Timothy 2:12 Institutionally, under a male dominated hierarch that is probably true, but relationally that is a lie. Relationally, under the “authority” of Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:27-28 Either we are all one in Christ Jesus or we are not! What is it? This fruit of this debate has always brought division in the body of Christ, so Paul would again ask, ”Are you not carnal?” – 1 Corinthians 3:4  The five passions of Ephesians 4 are not given to believers because of their race, sex, nationality, gender, or profession. They are given to all who seek them in Christ.

Religious critics refute, “Why did Jesus only pick males to be His disciples and later His apostles? In Romans 8:7 Paul writes Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.  Junias is a woman, and an “outstanding apostle in Christ before me.” Before Paul was even an apostle there was a woman apostle. Female apostles did exist in the first century Church because of the driving force of what they did. It was how they functioned that mattered, not establishing a political position in a religious church hierarchy.

The question remains: Do women have the drive, the passion, the fortitude to see the big picture of the Church as a body, the ability to equip that body for “works of service”, and the ability to network others in body ministry, all qualifications to be an apostle? Do they have a godly character? God believes women can be godly; read Proverbs 31:10-31.  Jesus surrounded himself with godly women because women know how to serve, have faith to believe, and to be faithful even when standing before the Cross. The men? Well… their track record is not as pristine!

A Peer2Peer five fold apostle must see the big picture of the Church while understanding the other four passions in order to network them toward unity. Women understand evangelism because both experience “birth”. Both have felt the labor pains. Women are nurturers, for they care for their families (See Proverbs 31) as shepherds. Women teach their children from potty training through dating how to “grow up”.  Prophetic? Ask any teenager about the power of a praying mother, who knows the promises of the Logos Word, the Bible, and her attempts to apply it to the members of her family and her own life. Her desire is to have every family member “draw near” to God. Last, but not least, apostles network with others. Mothers are great networkers within her family, networking schedules, plans, goals, dreams, etc. of the other family members. The big family picture? She gets it! Who better to be an excellent candidate to be a five fold Peer2Peer apostle than a mother because she knows all about relationships?

Critics argue that men should be apostles and women servants because they function differently. For example, women give birth to children; men don’t!  With this kind of logic, why aren’t all evangelists females? Women have experienced the pains of “birthing”; men haven’t. If parenting is pastoring or shepherding your children, done by both men and women, they shouldn’t women also then be allowed to be pastors in the Church? The church looks at teaching as purely academic. Aren’t women intellectually capable too? As the myriad of female valedictorians! Intelligence doesn’t discriminate because of sex and gender. Why shouldn’t women be teachers? Prophets? Mothers’ prayers do more damage to the kingdom of darkness than we can imagine. Women usually have a more sensitive side towards spiritual matters and a more open willingness to receive faith without questioning and doubting than men do. And if she can oversee her family for the good of the gospel, why couldn’t she oversee the family of God for the good of the Church?

Some believe that the criteria for being an apostle is that you had to see Jesus while he was alive, thus the twelve immediately qualified. How about Paul? He never saw Jesus while He was on earth physically. Acts records that on the road to Damascus Paul hears God’s voice questioning him. He never physically sees Jesus.

Think about it. If Jesus is currently at the right hand of the Father in heaven, where would you “see” him today? You would “see” him through His Body, His Church. An apostle must be able to see Jesus through seeing the big picture of His Body, the Church here on earth. Through three missionary journeys, Paul sees the birthing, the nurturing, the teaching, the prophetic fulfillment, and the apostolic gathering of the Church right before him. That is why in I Corinthians 9:1 he defends his rights as an apostle when he says, Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? There is the qualification of being an apostle. Can a woman also see the big picture of the Church, the Body of Christ, Jesus? Women hung around Jesus in biblical days, why wouldn’t do the same today?

Being an apostle is all about relationships: birthing spiritual babes into the kingdom of God, nurturing those babes toward maturity in Jesus, helping them “grow up” spiritually, teaching them kingdom of God principles by making them not just Logos principles, but Rhema principles, drawing men toward God and teaching them how to hear the voice of God for themselves and being obedient to the Word, written and living, and networking all these people with all these passions to bring unity in the Body of Christ, the Church, and maturity, being Christ-like, in every believer.  It’s all about people2people, Peer2peer!

The Prophetic In A Five Fold Peer2Peer Relationship

The Five Fold = Peer2Peer Relationships – Part V

John 4:19, 23-24 (AS) – The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.” …..”But an hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

2 Peter 1:19 (NIV) - We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

I Thessalonians 5: 18-19 (AS) – Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances.

“Worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” As much as the teacher is driven to transform the Logos, written Word, the Bible, into a Rhema Word, to bring life into a believer’s faith, the prophet is driven to “draw near to God” through the Spirit. Worship is central to a prophet’s existence. A prophet desires to be in God’s Presence to draw life. If Truth is recorded in the written Logos Word, the prophet yearns the Spirit’s revelation of that Truth to bring a living Rhema Word.  If churches wish to worship in Spirit and in Truth, then the teacher and the prophet must unite to reveal written Truth, the Logos, as practical living Truth, the Rhema. Together they can bring a dynamic power of worship to any local church.

The prophet can also be a powerful asset to an evangelist. Jesus used prophetic evangelism when talking to the Samaritan woman at the well by using personal prophecy, discernment, and wisdom to reveal the woman’s background. There is no way Jesus could intellectually know these details since he never met the woman before. He received them through divine knowledge, the supernatural, the Rhema knowledge. This revelation verifies him as a prophet to her, so he reveals his messiahship to her, a Samaritan, a woman, even before he reveals it to his own Jewish male disciples, for she was ready to accept it. Now touched by the supernatural, the woman invites Jesus to stay bringing revival among her family and the people in her town.

A prophet can push one’s faith beyond an evangelistic message Acts 19:1-7 records how Paul followed Apollos, who was an evangelist, into Ephesus. It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?

They said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

 He said, “Into what then were you baptized?”

They said, “Into John’s baptism.”

 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. There were in all about twelve men.

These disciples who had received B.A. Degrees, “Born Again”, had repented of their sins and now believed in Jesus, but they did not know they could have B.S. Degrees, “Born of the Spirit”.  When they heard that Jesus was the one, who was coming after him, (John the Baptist), they were baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus.  There was more! When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them. They were baptized in the Holy Spirit (of Jesus Christ) which was evidenced by speaking with tongues and prophesying. Common believers in Jesus were prophesying! To speak in tongues and prophesy, you had to be both “Born Again” and “Born of the Spirit”!

If what Jesus said to the woman at the well is true, “True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth,” then what these disciples had heard from Apollos earlier was truth. Now Paul was introducing them to the spirit.

Now let’s look at a chapter earlier, Acts 18:24-26, to see who is this Apollos.

Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and searching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. Like Paul instructed the disciples at Ephesus, Priscilla and Aquila explained to him the way of God more accurately. They explained the Holy Spirit to him. Now Apollos knew both the “truth” and the “spirit”, fulfilling the call of becoming a true worshiper that the Father desires!

Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos, and the Ephesian disciples were now on the same page. That is why Paul confronted the Corinthians: I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there is no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? - 1 Corinthians 1:10-12

That is also why Paul writes, When one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? – 1 Corinthians 3:4

Even today’s church has a division between the “truth” camp emphasizing correct doctrine and theology and the “spirit” camp wanting to experience life in the Spirit. Paul asks are you not carnal when you have these divisive attitudes? True worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers! Like Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, Apollos, and the Ephesian disciples, let’s embrace the revelation that we are to worship in BOTH Truth and Spirit! Both spirit and truth are to be taken seriously. Ask Ananias and his wife Sapphaira and the first century church as recorded in Acts 5: 1-11:

A certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.  He kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last, so great fear came upon all those who heard these things. The young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter answered, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.  Great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

The 21^st century Church has to recognize that we also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. – 2 Peter 1:19 (NIV)

The prophetic is a powerful tool that is needed beside that of the evangelist, shepherd, teacher, and apostle to serve them and be served by them. That is the power of the Peer2Peer five fold model. We need to heed Paul’s advice in I Thessalonians 5:19-19 (AS) – Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances, and let’s worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers- John 4:19, 23-24.

Teaching In A Five Fold Peer2Peer Relationship

 The Five Fold = Peer2Peer Relationships – Part IV

John 4:19, 23-24 (AS) – The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.” …..”But an hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Matthew 23:8 (NIV) - “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.

John 14:26 - But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Acts 4:8,13 - Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them…. Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus

 I have sat through 65 years of sermons, thousands of hours of Sunday School classes, hundreds of hours of Bible Studies, hundreds of more hours at Jesus Rallies in the ‘70’s & 80’s and Conferences in the 90’s, even hundreds of more hours listening to teaching cassettes, radio and tv preachers, and have even earned a Masters Degree in Biblical Studies, but am I a qualified Bible teacher? Since I am not “ordained” or a “paid professional”, I am not considered clergy. I teach as a volunteer when asked. I feel the stigma of just being called “laity”. I have had little opportunity to fill a pulpit or exercise my teaching skills in church in spite of being Lay Speak Certified through the United Methodist church and being recognized as Teacher of the Year after 40 years as a public educator.

Since I had a college degree, as a public school teacher, confined to a classroom with textbooks, I discovered the easiest way to teach was by lecturing. I learned the most effective teaching came through hands-on field trips and through student self-discovery. Lecturing, via the sermon, has been the teaching technique of choice by the church who covets their pulpits. Although informational, this technique left no room for discussion, rebuttal, or inquiry. Unlike Jesus, who took walking field trips with his disciples to experience everyday kingdom of God principles, I was instructed, through the sermon, how to do those principles, but they were never modeled by the preacher since I only saw him on Sundays standing in his pulpit often wearing a garb he never word any other time during the week.

Teaching middle school students for 40 years, I have witnessed that middle-schoolers prefer peer acceptance and peer pressure over the academics, for at that age they are purely social creatures hunting for their identity. Being a teen is all about “peer acceptance.” What you remember about 8^th grade is not the academics but the “relationships” you built. You remember your bf’s, best friends, your favorite teachers, and who were the bullies. High School is all about being relational, so much so that high school alumni meet every five years for class reunions, not to review the academics, but to reminisce the “good times” they had relationally.  Relationships are also important at the college level where frat and sorority parties and tailgating on weekends out weight the academics.

Then why hasn’t the church recognized the importance of peer-to-peer relationships? Instead it opts for the academics of correct doctrine and theology taught through lecturing sermons over building relationships among peers. Even at the seminary level, intellectual knowledge of theology and doctrine trump the teaching of relationship building with future congregations. The believer will never become the clergy’s academic equal peer.

Unlike seminary training, Jesus walked with his disciples, built relationships while talking to them when going to Jerusalem to celebrate festivals and feasts, picking grain in the fields, breaking break, feeding 5,000 at one time then making them collect the spoils. He took them with him to wedding receptions and dinners hosted by tax collectors! He never founded a rabbinical school of higher Jewish education. These “uneducated and untrained” disciples loved the social life with Jesus! He included the in Passover meals, walked with them through the Garden of Gethsemane, prayed with them, and even led them to the Cross. It was there they decided to flee leaving Jesus to face the Cross alone.

 Jesus never encouraged his disciples to earn a B.A. or B.S. Degree in Religion, nor prepare them to become “clergy”. His disciples earned B.A., “Born Again” and B.S., “Born of the Spirit” Degrees by accepting Him as their Savior at Passover and accepting His Holy Spirit to be their teacher at Pentecost. To Jesus “accepting” and “receiving” is all relational!

 In Acts 4: 8 & 13, Peter and John are labeled “uneducated” and “untrained” by their religious superiors.  These leaders recognized them as having been with Jesus. It was this “relationship” with Jesus, not an educational degree that gave these men “confidence.”  Jesus promised His Holy Spirit would speak through them when they were interrogated. “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them…” Peter, who before Pentecost, was rash, inserted foot into his mouth, now when being led by the Holy Spirit spoke with confidence and authority.

What qualifies one to become a five fold Peer2Peer teacher? His willingness to listen to the Holy Spirit and be obedient! The way he reveals what he has seen and heard makes him a teacher. Every moment can now be a teachable moment! No formal classes, courses, lectures, or sermons are needed, only hands on, everyday practical applications of kingdom principles is needed. Everyday can be a personal field trip with the Holy Spirit.

It is humbling to realize that the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is the teacher, and that Spirit can arise from one’s own soul like a gushing well of living water since the Spirit resides in every believer. The Holy Spirit is the “revealer” of “Spirit” and “truth” as promised to the Samaritan woman at the well. These gushings, these teachings, these revelations bring life.

Let me make it perfectly clear: The five fold Peer2Peer teacher must be grounded in the Word, both written, the Logos, the Bible, and the living, the Rhema. Jesus, the Word, became flesh and dwelt among us. He, the Logos Word became the Rhema Word according to John 1.  When the Logos Word was fulfilled through Jesus, “It was finished”, so Jesus returned to the right hand of the Father to intercede for these new saints. In His place was sent the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Logos Word, to become the Rhema, active living word, in every believer in Jesus Christ! Everything a five fold teacher teaches is grounded in the Logos Word.  It is the goal of the five fold teacher to make this Logos Word become a living Rhema Word through faith in Jesus Christ. This is done through relationships; this is done through “experiencing” Jesus Christ.

 The book of Acts records what the apostles “experienced”, what they “witnessed”, when they followed the Holy Spirit. It begins with Peter teaching in the Temple after Pentecost, sharing Old Testament scriptures to ground believers in the validity of this new “experience” that they were having in Jesus. The rest of the book records what the apostles witnessed, seen, and “experienced” as the Holy Spirit went from just being the Logos Word to manifesting Himself as a Rhema, or living, Word in their own personal lives!

 The five fold Peer2Peer teacher is not to be called “Rabbi”, or Pastor, or Professor, or have a title, but is a common, everyday believer in Jesus Christ who is willing to be a vessel in Jesus to allow His Spirit to arise from within themselves and invest kingdom of God principles in other fellow believers! Matthew 23: 8 (NIV) records: “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. We Christians are not to have titles or offices, but have a relationship with one Teacher, the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, as equal peers, equal brothers, members of a Priesthood of Believers!

Introduction to Peer2Peer Relationships

The Five Fold = Peer2Peer Relationships – Part I

Matthew 18:20 - “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

                  The five fold is not just for the professional clergy and staff but is for every believer in Jesus Christ. It is just believers serving believers because “Where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Wherever you have peer-to-peer relationships in Jesus, you have Church! You do not need a pastor, a hierarchal church structure, or well-organized program; you just need another believer by your side as a peer in Jesus.

                  If the purpose of the five fold is for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ, then the five fold is all about peer relations of service to one another to build up the Priesthood of Believers and bring unity of faith as well as help each individual believer to “grow up” into a mature man in the fullness of Jesus Christ. It is not about programs or an institution. It’s about people “serving” people!

                  It is about giving and receiving from one another.  Paul said,  “I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” - 1 Corinthians 7:7 The five fold is all about giving out of your passion to Jesus and His body, the Church, and receiving from other’s diverse giftings and passions in the body.

                  In the next series of blogs we will look at each passion of the five fold and how it effectively serves the body of Christ, the Church, when its believers are in a peer-to-peer relationship.

A Biblical Narrative: Consensus Can Be A Difficult Journey

Consensus And The Five Fold – Part V

Coming to a consensus has not been easy; ask the children of Israel while they were in Egypt and even after their Passover.

Biblical consensus occurs when one hears from God. Moses heard from a burning bush telling him to “Let my people go”. He became obedient and left with a message for Pharaoh, but after 500 years of bondage, the mindset of the Israelites was not quite ready to receive such a message. They first agreed with Moses, but after Pharaoh’s demand for more productivity at the local brickyard, they now have to get their own straw, and they began to question Moses’ directions.

After all the plagues, Pharaoh grants them their freedom, and it appears that they are finally having a consensus, going the right direction, the same direction: out of Egypt.  Consensus waivers when they get to the Red Sea with the Egyptian army heading in their direction! Consensus is strong when the only option becomes the Red Sea dividing into dry land for an escape route before them. They again moved in the same direction.

Moses gets another word, the 10 commandments plus is told that they should go to the Promise Land!  All are with him until the wilderness becomes known as the “Wilderness of Sin” and the Israelites become known as “Children of Disobedience”, and they are forced to walk in circles because of doubt and unbelief. Because they were not “obedient” to the Word of the Lord and pulled together to go the same direction, all but three would die in that wilderness and never enter the Promise Land. Only until Israel was finally spiritually united believing they had a consensus to “take the Land”, that the “battle was the Lord’s” did God allow them to again move forward in unity as they crossed the Jordan, fight the giants, and defeat their enemies.

As I said in an earlier blog, to have a consensus you: 1) first, have to allow God, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be in total control. God calls the shots; we are just obedient to His directions; 2) each believer, though diversely different from one another must “lay down our lives for the brethren”, individually and corporately; by 3) submitting in service to and from one another, giving away our giftings to serve others, and willingly receiving the giftings from those so diversely different than from ourselves as equal peers in Christ. If we do these three things, there will be a “consensus”.

God had to lead the Israelites through the dessert: 1) to teach them to hear from Him, trust Him, and be obedient to Him and His Word; and 2) to make these people become “God’s people” by learning to serve one another and prepare them to move forward, in one direction, for upcoming battles. Today, God is still leading his believers, His people, through wilderness experiences to teach them: 1) to hear His voice; trust His Holy Spirit, and be obedient to Him and His Word; and 2) make them “God’s people, a Priesthood of Believers, peers and equals in Jesus Christ so they can serve one another and receive one another to mature individually into becoming Christ-like and to unite corporately as a Body, a family, a Church.

Yet, like the children of Israel, we to would rather rely on institutions, on empires, on what is traditional and routine for us rather than listening to the voice of God and have a consensus to move the same direction towards the promise land. As a Church we are fragmented, divided, sectarianism rules, division persists. We are known for shooting our own even when wounded. Like the children of Israel in the dessert we resist forming a Holy consensus of becoming obedient, laying down our lives for one another, and moving in the same direction.

Consensus has not been easy for the Israelites nor for the Christian faith because it demands obedience, allowing the Holy Spirit to be in control, and trusting the Holy Spirit. It demands laying down our life for the brethren, unconditionally serving them, washing their feet no matter how dirty they may be. Consensus looks like an art the first century Church practiced but has been lost. With all this division consensus does not look like a reality, “but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) I am convinced more than ever, that “consensus” is the way God governs his Church. That is why he has established his kingdom, his government on His Son Jesus, for “the government shall be on his shoulders.” His divine will is to govern that kingdom, His Church, through consensus. The Church will hear the voice of the Lord, be obedient to it, and move forward in the same direction. Come on Church; let’s reinstitute consensus as our form of government.

Can A Five Fold Congregation Govern Itself?

Consensus And The Five Fold – Part IV

What results would the church get if it recognized and released the five fold passions of its believers in its congregation and allowed then to govern a church body towards a consensus? This would not be a democracy where majority rule reigns, nor a dictatorship where a top down leadership directs all calls, but it would be where the passions and giftings of every believer would be needed to birth, nurture, ground, revive, and oversee the will of the Father through the leading of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ toward a consensus of the common good. Sounds more like the first century church!

When the will of the Father is expressed through his Son, Jesus Christ, by the voice of the Holy Spirit, a consensus of direction can be established. Somebody driven by an evangelistic spirit would champ at the bit to “birth” the consensus reached by this group. Another would want to “nurture” it toward maturity, while yet another would make sure it is grounded in the Logos Word, the Bible. Another peer believer would want to activate that Word into a living Rhema Word, all under the supervision of a believer who sees the big picture, yet releases everyone else’s giftings as peer equal to complete the consensus that was reached by the group. This process of building consensus is the “building up of the body of Christ” producing “unity” corporately and “maturity” individually.

 “As a result, we are no longer to be children tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” There would be no division caused by doctrine, no trickery through church politics, and no scheming. Instead there would be unity, purity, and obedience to the Holy Spirit.

 “We are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ.” WE NEED TO GROW UP, and that is the purpose of the five fold, to help believers in Jesus Christ GROW UP, become Christ-like, God-ly, a MATURE MAN by “equipping the saints for the work of service” and then by RELEASING them!   You cannot lose your job in the five fold because it is not a job; it is a believer’s passion. You are not “replacing” yourself. You are “replicating” yourself; you are multiplying. You are investing (laying down our lives for the brethren) to equip them, your peers, your brothers and sisters in the Lord, in their walk of faith in Jesus.

Then there will be consensus in the Body of Christ, the Church as “the whole body being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies (as peer believers in Jesus), according to the proper working of each individual part (through the five fold passions and giftings), causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

That’s the power of “consensus” through the five fold.

The Effectiveness Of Consensus In The Five Fold

Consensus And The Five Fold – Part III

Question: How do you get a consensus from five totally different passions, drives, functions, and points of view?  How can five become one?

Answer: 1) Allowing the Holy Spirit to be in total control; 2) each believer “laying down his life for the brethren”, individually and corporately; by 3) submitting in service to and from one another, giving away ones giftings to serve others, and receiving willingly the gifts of those so diversely different than from ourselves as equal peers in Christ.

How: Through consensus!

Consensus comes through the process of “giving” and “taking”.  Not only are we to “give” to one another, but we must also learn how to “receive” from one another.  This unconditional giving and taking can build a rich relationship of becoming equal peers, equal brothers and sisters in the Lord, from once shallow friendships. A person driven by the passion for evangelism needs brothers and sisters who are pastoral to nurture him/her, who are teachers to ground one in the Word, who are prophets to bring life to the Word, and who are apostolic to “see over” one’s welfare individually and as a group. This five fold process brings an unique form of accountability unknown to the modern church because it is built on a give and take relationship between believers built on trust: the willingness to receive and yield to another’s point of view diversely different from your own while giving support from your own gifting.  This gives all the confidence to move toward in the same direction together.

Consensus comes through relationships rather than positions. When a believer learns to die to self and is willing to lay down his/her life for their brothers/sisters, recognizing them as equal peers, they can begin to respect and trust one another rather than appose one another and always be defending their position. Diverse points of view can actually be productive, by creating a diverse support system around one’s own particular gifting.  In a peer believer five fold leadership model, no one is the “head” or “ultimate leader” as in a hierarchal structure, for Jesus is the head. No one gifting or passion dominates over another, not even the apostle’s. Any of the five fold giftings may rise and take leadership in any given situation and the other four will follow, not oppose, by standing in support along side them, not above or below them in stature, giving them a more diverse, unique gift that can produce a far different outcome than what we are use to today. This supportive attitude brings consensus. The pastoral/shepherd driven believer may rise with a “nurturing” solution, while the evangelist may have what is needed to “birth” the process while the teacher “grounds it in the Word” releasing the prophet to “activate” that Word into a Rhema, living Word, while the apostolic driven believer just sits back and “sees over” what the Holy Spirit is doing and how He wants it done through obedience. The group arrives at a consensus. The process may be totally different the next time if the process began with a prophetic word which sparks an evangelist to birth that word, the shepherd to nurture it, the teacher to ground it, and the apostle to release the leading of the Holy Spirit to bring yet another consensus, another resolution, another move of unity in the same direction in agreement with each supporting one another.

Consensus comes through accountability of the willingness to serve and be served. When someone serves you unconditionally for a long time, you naturally trust them, not because they have a title or position, but because of the relationship that has been built between the two of you. If you have faithfully served them, they trust you; it is reciprocal.  It is easier to arrive at a consensus when the parties involved have faithfully served and trusted each other through Christ-like relationships.

Consensus arrives when all these diverse passions and points of view point in the same direction, toward Jesus, the Head, and being obedient to the Holy Spirit to set that direction. Does the outcome of this group bring glory and edify Jesus is the standard. The bottom line remains “Who do you trust?” Is your full trust in the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ? No matter how irrational the steps may look that you must take to be obedient to the Holy Spirit, can you trust the Holy Spirit to lead you through those steps? Is your wisdom, rationale, or intellect greater than His?

Consensus’ goal through the five fold is “the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain the unity of faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”  If we truly follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and are willing to “lay down our lives for the brethren” by unconditionally serving and receiving support from one another, will that not be “building up the body of Christ,” reaching an “unity of faith,” and personally growing toward become “a mature man in Christ, becoming Christ-like and God-ly? This “fruit” produced by the five fold is exactly what is needed to arrive to a consensus.

The Need For Consensus Among The Five Fold

Consensus And The Five Fold – Part II

Ephesians 4 introduces us to the five fold: ie. apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, and teacher.  All five are gifts he gave to men, believers in Jesus, that are very evident in the first century Church. I define the five fold as “passions and functions” in every believer in Jesus that “drives” or “motivates” them toward service to build up the body of Christ, to bring unity in faith, and to develop Christian maturity. Unfortunately, the institutional church has categorized them organizationally into “titles” and “office” of leadership held by church officials, which was not their original intent. They are “gifts” given to “believers in Jesus Christ” that become their passion driving them toward service.

Historically, when each is predominately emphasized individually, division has become its fruit, for they have been given as a “body” ministry to produce unity when used together and to bring maturity in being Christ-like. Although they are five different passions with five different functions, they have been created to support, serve, and receive from one another. They are “Body” gifts to equip the saints for service and to mature them into the image of Jesus Christ.

All five are necessary in the development of a believer’s spiritual growth.  All five are necessary in the creation of a healthy, growing, spiritually active church. All five perspectives, passions, and points of view bring diversity to the Body of Christ. Every individual believer and every local church needs an evangelist for birthing, a shepherd for nurturing, a teacher for making the Logos Word become the Rhema Word, a prophet to hear, discern, and be obedient to the voice of God, and an apostle to “see over” what the Holy Spirit is already doing and directing, not “overseeing”  by micromanaging. The Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer, must always be in control, for He gives the comfort needed to nurture growing Christians towards being Christ-like, the teaching to reveal Truth, the clarity to hear the voice of God and be obedient, and the discernment, wisdom, and direction to bring it together. The five fold is all about listening, yielding, and be obedient to the Holy Spirit.

If the five fold can be so divisive, how can it ever bring unity and maturity? Jesus told his disciples, “With men that is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) Unity and maturity can come about by: 1) first, allowing the Holy Spirit to be in total control. He calls the shots; we are just obedient to his directions; 2) each believer, though diversely different from one another must “lay down our lives for the brethren”, individually and corporately; by 3) submitting in service to and from one another, giving away our giftings to serve others, and willingly receiving the giftings from those so diversely different than from ourselves as equal peers in Christ. If we do these three things, there will be a “consensus” among all the diverse parties present and a direction of unity drawing the group towards it.

Let’s examine more closely how consensus is the key to the effectiveness of the five fold in our next blog entry. 

Question: Can The Principle of “Consensus” Be Taught?

 “Consensus” Through Family Interaction

My dad told us that as a child he had been taught, “Children should be seen but not heard.” When visiting his grandparents, he and his brothers and sister were instructed to sit around the table quietly and only talk when spoken to or questioned by an adult. Seldom were they ever a part of adult conversation, and never were they part of decision making. The “Poppa” ruled the house because he was the “head of the home”, and “Mamma” ran the house because she was “the neck that could turn the head” any direction that she chose! There was no consensus in those households, only parental dictatorship. As a child, you were expected to only do what you were told or face discipline.

As a dad, my house was different. During the evening meal we sat around a round table conversing. My wife told us of the challenges and triumphs of her work day as a painter and wallpaper hanger. My children talked about “school”: bonding of friends, the breaking up with others, and the comical events of the day. My daughter told of new gymnastic moves she conquered, my son what rudiments he could drum, and my younger son telling what guitar pieces he mastered. All shared the excitement of upcoming concerts, gymnastic meets, church youth group events, and painting and wallpapering experiences. These were noisy times, for it was part of moving forward as a family. Silence usually signaled a problem or a hurt feeling, certainly not the respect and dignity their grandfather had often shared. These times around our table taught us to support one another, show interest in other’s activities, and a time to pull together to map out strategies so that all could participate in individual efforts as well as family events.

These efforts were tested in 1993 when my wife and I were invited to go to South Africa during the demise of apartheid as part of an United Methodist Lay Witness Team for a sixteen day trip from Johannesburg to Capetown. Since this invitation effected every family member, I called for a “family meeting.” After my wife and I shared the facts with the children, we wanted to hear what they thought. Unanimously they thought we should go on the trip even though it would mean they would have to alter their schedules for twenty-one days. Everyone shared how the trip would effect them personally, yet there was a consensus that we move forward and go.

As a family we prayed, and we began to see those prayers answered: checks came from friends to financially support our trip; the school district allowed me to take a twenty-one day “Sabbatical” from teaching for educational travel; and our friends who had six children of their own agreed to add our three to their family for three weeks. While we were on the trip, our children prayed for us daily, and the trip became “life changing” for all of us individually as well as a family.

Now, as adults, our children are vastly diverse, more independent, each unique, following different paths on life’s journey, yet as a family we are still close. They learned that family is important! Even during challenging times, we still seek consensus on how to support, aide, and give direction to each other on life’s journey. While other families fuss, feud, and debate bringing division, our family has “learned” that consensus may not come easily, may surface pain and conflict, yet we as a family can still move forward with positive support for one another. “Consensus” is a process that can be taught and learned by families.

The same is with the family of God, the body of Christ, the Church. Today’s church could operate through consensus if it were willing to give everyone a voice, validate everyone as a peer in the group, a member of the Priesthood of Believers, and work toward a common direction that will produce positive results for the good of the group. Maybe, just maybe, instead of being an organization, the church needs to return as an organism, a family, governed by consensus, just as it was when it was birthed at Pentecost.

Question: Does Consensus Mean “Being In One Accord”?

The Act of “Consensus” – Part V

            Frank Viola, in his book Reimaging Church, states, “What was the New Testament pattern for decision-making in the early church?  It was simply by consensus.  "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church," and, "it seemed good to us, having become of one mind," was the divine model for making corporate decisions (Acts 15:22, 25 NASB).  In other words, the decision-making of the early church was not in the hands of the elders. It was in the hands of all the brothers and sisters.  

Because the church is a body, all the members should agree before it moves forward in obeying the Head (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:11-16). In fact, a lack of unity and cooperation among the members reveals a failure to embrace the Head (Christ).  

Majority rule, dictatorial rule, and a Robert's Rules of Order mentality do violence to the body image of the church.  And they dilute the unvarnished testimony that Jesus Christ is the Head of one unified body.  For this reason, Paul's epistles to the churches are saturated with exhortations to be of one mind (Romans 15:5-6; 1 Corinthians 1:10, 2 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:3; Philippians 2:2; 4:2).  Recall the Lord's teaching on the following text:  

Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (Matthew 18:19)

Significantly, the word agree in this passage is translated from the Greek word sumphoneo.  Sumphoneo means to sound together-- to be in one accord.  Our word symphony is derived from this term.  So the meaning is clear.  When the church is in sympathetic harmony, God will act.  

In this connection, consensus mirrors the decision-making activity within the triune God, whose nature we were created to reflect.  God acts when the Father, Son, and Spirit agree.  Decision-making in the Godhead is communal and marked by mutual submission.  In other words, it's consensual.”

Viola continues, “Again, the elders of the early church bore the bulk of spiritual oversight and pastoral care for the assembly (Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24).  But they didn't make decisions on behalf of the church.  Nor were they solely responsible for the church's direction.  

Therefore, an elder has no biblical or spiritual right to bark out commands to a passive congregation.  Instead, the elders (once they emerged) worked together with the whole church toward reaching a unanimous decision and a single mind (Acts 15:22, 28).  But it was the church, as a whole, that made the decision as "one new man."   

But what about Hebrews 13:17?  In that text, some translations have "Obey them that are over you."  The Greek word for "obey" in this passage is not hupakouo, the garden-variety word for obedience used elsewhere in Scripture.  It's peitho (middle-passive form), which means to yield to persuasion.  The author of Hebrews was simply saying, "Allow yourselves to be persuaded by those who are more mature in Christ than you are."

So within the decision-making process of the early church, the role of the elders was to help the church reach a consensus on a matter.  By virtue of their relative spiritual maturity, they were sometimes able to persuade the church into a unified understanding of the Lord's mind.  But they had no right to force the church to adopt their view.  The elders were people who simply demonstrated qualities that build family solidarity (1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6).”

Viola concludes “There's no doubt that consensus is costly.  It imposes responsibility upon all the member of a church to seek The Lord for themselves.  It demands that each believer patiently wrestle and struggle with one another to secure the Lord's mind.  It often means trading quick decisions for gaining confidence through delay.  But what building together it affords!  What working out of patience.  What expression of mutual love and respect.  What exercise of Christian community.  What restraint imposed upon the flesh.  What bearing of the cross.  What dying to our own agendas.

Is such a cost not worth the value of securing the Lord's mind for his body?  Is it not worth giving Him the opportunity to work in us more deeply as a people?  Does not confidence in getting the mind of The Lord on a matter relating to His church outweigh the convenience of making premature decisions-- decisions that can damage the lives of our brethren and miss the Lord's will?  We so often forget that, in God's eyes, the means is just as important as the end.  Once again, Christian Smith puts it beautifully:  

Consensus is built on the experience of Christian community.  It requires strong relationships able to tolerate struggling through issues together.  It requires mutual love and respect to hear each other when there is disagreement.  Consensus also requires a commitment to know and understand other people more than a desire to convince or railroad them. Consensus, as a way to make decisions in the church, is not easier, just better.  To paraphrase Winston Churchill, consensus is the worst form of decision-making in the church, except for all the others.  Consensus is not strong on efficiency, if by that we mean ease and speed.  It can take a long time to work through issues, which can become quite frustrating.  Consensus is strong on unity, communication, openness to the Spirit's leading, and responsible participation in the body.  In achieving those values, consensus is efficient.  Deciding by consensus, then, simply requires belief that unity, love, communication, and participation are more important in the Christian scheme that quick, easy decisions.  It requires the understanding that, ultimately, the process is as important as the outcome.  How we treat each other as we make decisions together is as important as what we actually decide.

Question: What Are The Elements Of Consensus?

The Act of “Consensus” – Part IV 

The decision making process or consensus became common among first century believers in the governing of this newly born Church. Dr. Tim Hartnett outlined in his article “The Basics of Consensus Decision-Making”  (www.GroupFacilitation.net) the common elements that are definitive of consensus decision making. These include:

Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible are involved in group discussions.

Participatory: All participants are allowed a chance to contribute to the discussion.

Collaborative: The group constructs proposals with input from all interested group members. Any individual authorship of a proposal is subsumed as the group modifies it to include the concerns of all group members.

Agreement Seeking: The goal is to generate as much agreement as possible. Regardless of how much agreement is required to finalize a decision, a group using a consensus process makes a concerted attempt to reach full agreement.

Cooperative: Participants are encouraged to keep the good of the whole group in mind. Each individual’s preferences should be voiced so that the group can incorporate all concerns into an emerging proposal. Individual preferences should not, however, obstructively impede the progress of the group.

Acts 15 records such a proceeding in the early Church over the question of following the Jewish tradition of circumcision in this new group of believers, particularly among the newly converted gentiles.  A couple of hundred years later the Church would send its top brass, regional Bishops, to preside over a council to draft position papers on a controversial subject, debate with persuasion over the matter, and expel the opposition after an edict was passed. The hierarchal leaders in the power struggle would maintain direction and order. Any opposition would appear as heresy, but that was not the case at this first Church council held in Jerusalem. Let’s examine how the common elements that are definitive to consensus decision making were used.

Background: (Acts 15:1-3)

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” When Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.

Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible are involved in group discussions.

(Acts 15:2) ….. the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem…..

(Acts 15:4) When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders.

This new “Believers in Jesus” movement had originated as predominately a Jewish movement, most believers living in the Jerusalem area after Pentecost. Like today, the “traditionalist”, those of Pharisee background, (the ‘Word’ faction of the 1^st Century Church) wanted to be doctrinally heard. Those who had seen the transforming power of this gospel, (the ‘Spirit’ faction who had ‘experienced’ the power of the Holy Spirit even among the gentiles) wanted to present their defense. Both factions, who were hotly sincere about their convictions, wanted the whole church of their time to come on a consensus to settle the dispute. Recognized leadership through the apostles and respectful wisdom from older, mature Christians, the elders, also participated.

Participatory: All participants are allowed a chance to contribute to the discussion. We hear from the concerned, critical “Word/Holiness” faction led by Pharisaical brethren which produced debate; the “Traditional/Historical” perspective from Peter, the Apostle, produced silence; the experiential testimonies of the “Spirit/Pentecostal” faction were led by Paul and Barnabas; and the “Scriptural” perspective from James, the brother of Jesus, an elder were shared\ before the group could come to a consensus on the issue.

Collaborative: The group constructs proposals with input from all interested group members. Any individual authorship of a proposal is subsumed as the group modifies it to include the concerns of all group members.

-  Word/Holiness Faction (led by Pharisees): (Acts 15:5) But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”

-  Traditional/Historical Faction (led by Peter): (Acts 15:7-12) After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us, and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hears by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

-  Spirit/Pentecostal Faction (led by Barnabas and Paul): (Acts 15:12) All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

-  Scriptural Faction (led by James): (Acts 15:13-18) After they had stopped speaking, James answered saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written ‘After these things, I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.”

Agreement Seeking: The goal is to generate as much agreement as possible. Regardless of how much agreement is required to finalize a decision, a group using a consensus process makes a concerted attempt to reach full agreement.

James throws out a proposal that shows that everyone’s voice has been heard. No view is totally rejected, nor totally accepted, nor is a compromise established to gain political influence. James suggests,  (Acts 15:19-21) Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Cooperative: Participants are encouraged to keep the good of the whole group in mind. Each individual’s preferences should be voiced so that the group can incorporate all concerns into an emerging proposal. Individual preferences should not, however, obstructively impede the progress of the group.

 (Acts 15:22-31) Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas – Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and they sent this letter by them,

The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seems good for us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves are also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:

 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourself free from these such things, you will do well. Farewell.

So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

Agreement was reached through consensus. It was not decided by vote, or majority rule, nor dictatorial decree from leadership, but through a consensus of agreement among all present. All voices had been heard; all voices were given credence, and the Holy Spirit brought the group to a consensus, and understanding, a direction which all could proceed forward. Everyone left proclaiming the same message which brought encouragement, not division. There were no church splits, no continual feuds, not criticisms about what happened, but everyone left “in one mind”, “in one accord”.  The Church has not been able to reproduce this astounding accomplishment over the centuries as it established a hierarchal pyramid of leadership structure that began to dictated doctrine, decree, and dogma. With the clergy/laity divide the voices of the common believer, the laity would be silenced or ignored. Opposition would be looked upon as heresy, and its advocates shunned or ex-communicated from the church, and the church would be baptized into what would be known as the Dark Ages of history. 

Question: What Does Ekklésia Have To Do With Consensus?

The Act of “Consensus” – Part III

Nowhere in the New Testament are strict guidelines given on how to form and run Church government. All agree that Jesus is the head of the Church and that “the government shall be upon his shoulders”, but how that works practicality is debatable? 

 In the United States of America, the Church as a whole finds it hard to understand how to govern collectively. Under the old European system, traditional orthodoxy was led by strong hierarchal structures that created Bishops, Cardinals, and a Pope. Secular kings and dictators aligned themselves with church movements: Henry VIII of England created the Anglican Church in protest against the Roman Catholic Church. Germany aligned themselves with Luther and the “Protestant” movement. Even Hitler made sure he appeared to be aligned to the Lutheran Church of his day. When the United States formed its new government, they made sure there would to be a separation between church and State.

Democracy became a vertebra in the backbone of American politics and government. In a country with a two party political system, government gridlock is the norm; having an “unanimous” decision on anything seems impossible and only happens rarely. 51%, a majority, brings “agreement”, although 49% can be in opposition. Biblically, there is no support for democracy as a form of church government; the Bible clearly does not support majority rule.

Ordained Old Testament government was a theocracy, headed by God. Although it started with strong leadership from Moses, it yielded to judges, then kings, and even established a high priest and a Levitical priesthood to set the religious bounds for Israel.

 All that changed when Jesus became the “messiah” and “king” establishing his “kingdom of God.” “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (II Corinthians 5:17)  The Old Temple system of worship would be abolished. God’s Spirit would indwell in any and every man or woman who believed in Jesus Christ. “Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?” (I Corinthians 6:19)  Animal sacrifices were now archaic since Jesus had become the sacrificial lamb. Even the Levitical priesthood demolished. A new priesthood, a royal priesthood was birthed. “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you ay proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” This priesthood of believers would form what would become known as the Church.

Those operating under this new kingdom differed from those under the Old Testament style of government. They governed by “consensus”.  The Bible uses the term “with one accord”. Told to tarry in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit would come, they obediently “continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” (Acts 1:14) “When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” (Acts 2:1)  The promise of the Holy Spirit came, and this spirit of consensus continued. “So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart.” (Acts 2:46)

Steve Atkerson’s article “Building Congregational Consensus” shares an insight into the word ekklésia. “The Greek word ekklésia never refers to a building or place of worship, and it can refer to much more than just a meeting, assembly, or gathering.  Our understanding of Christ’s church will be much impoverished if we fail to factor in the dynamics of the original Greek word. With so much emphasis today on the separation of church and state, the last thing people associate church with is government. Yet, this was exactly the original meaning of ekklésia.

During the time of Jesus, ekklésia was used outside the New Testament to refer to a political assembly that was regularly convened for the purpose of making decisions. In the secular ekklésia, every citizen had “the right to speak and to propose matters for discussion.” [1]

Why did Jesus choose such a politically loaded word (ekklésia) to describe His people and their meetings?[Matthew 16:13-20 & 18:15-20.] Had Jesus merely wanted to describe a gathering with political connotations, he could have used sunagogé, thiasos or eranos. Perhaps Jesus intended His people, the Church, to function together with a purpose somehow parallel to that of the political government. If so, believers have the responsibility to propose matters for discussion, decide things together, make joint decisions and experience the consensus process.

God’s people have a decision-making mandate. A church is fundamentally a body of Kingdom citizens who are authorized (and expected) to weigh major issues, make decisions, and pass judgments on major issues. Though decision making will not occur at most church meetings (there aren’t usually issues to resolve), an understanding that the church corporately has the authority and obligation to settle things is important. Churches where the congregation never grapples corporately with problems or resolves issues may be failing to fulfill their full purpose as an ekklésia.”

Atkerson continues, “An important caveat is that the church, in its decision making role, should be judicial rather than legislative. Christians are subject to the Law of Christ. The church’s job is not to create law – only God can rightly do that. This is one point where the ekklésia of God’s people would differ in function from the ekklésia of the Greek city-states. Our responsibility as believers within Christ’s ekklésia is to correctly apply and enforce the law of Christ as contained in the New Covenant (Mt 18:15-20). Church members are to be like citizen-judiciaries who meet together when necessary to deliberate and decide issues or to render judgments. This form of government works tolerably well in a smaller church where people love each other enough to work through their disagreements. It is virtually impossible to operate this way in a large church setting.”

Atkerson concludes, “Not all occurrences of the word ekklésia in the New Testament involve a decision making body.  The word ekklésia is actually used several different ways in the New Testament. Yet its most fundamental usage remains that of a group of people gathered for the purpose of making decisions. In this sense, the ekklésia is not merely the coming together of God’s people.  It is also what occurs when God’s people come together. The church is authorized by the Lord to make decisions about the correct application of Scripture. It is expected to enforce the law of Christ (within the family of God) and to deal with issues as they arise. There will not always be issues to resolve, but God’s people must ever bear in mind their obligation to function as an ekklésia when necessary.”

[1] Lothan Coenen, “Church,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, Colin Brown, General Editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), 291.

Question: What Do Others Have To Say About Consensus?

The Act of “Consensus” – Part II 

“Consensus isn’t just about agreement. It’s about changing things around: You get a proposal, you work something out, people foresee problems, you do creative synthesis. At the end of it, you come up with something that everyone thinks is okay. Most people like it, and nobody hates it.”― David Graeber 

“Effective strategic leaders know how to get everyone involved in policy making and build consensus in the process. Within large complex organizations, whether public or private, consensus is the engine that sustains policy decisions. No strategic leader can succeed unless he or she can build such consensus. Thus, the search for consensus among peers, allies, and even competitors becomes a requirement for shared commitment to a national policy, and to corporate, business policy.” ― From National Defense University’s Website (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt3ch11.html) – paper: “Strategic Leadership and Decision Making 11”

“Someone has postulated that most human beings only use ten percent of their brain. If that is true, then ten people have to be in a meeting to get whole-brain thinking. This explains the value of working in teams.

Everyone who has been in one of my management training sessions knows that I define a "team" as a group of individuals who "step forward together" to achieve a common goal. Teamwork requires individuals to pool information and consider different viewpoints to find solutions and make decisions. Seldom do all team members have the same view about an idea or issue. Polarized views, opposing opinions, and stubborn holdouts can often block the progress of a team. The success of a team relies heavily on how quickly the members can come to consensus on both what their goal is and how it will be achieved.

A significant portion of a team's effectiveness and "health" is tied to how well the team members interact and make decisions…..

Coming to true consensus among a group of individuals is hard to do. It takes great facilitative skills and effective process tools among the group to bring everyone to agreement. True consensus requires everyone to remain firmly grounded and completely committed to their consensus decision once the team discussion has ended.

Unfortunately, I've found that consensus in many companies is only consensus until everyone leaves the room. Once people get back into their work area or start to ponder the team's decision outside the team room, some members tend to question the team's decision and their commitment to it. The key, therefore, to achieving consensus is not just getting it, but also making sure it sticks once it is reached.” ― Mac McIntire, President, Innovative Management Group  (On website: http://www.imglv.com/articles/gaintrueconsensus.htm)

“So what was the New Testament pattern for decision-making in the early church?  It was simply by consensus.  "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church," and, "it seemed good to us, having become of one mind." was the divine model for making corporate decisions (Acts 15:22, 25 NASB).  In other words, the decision-making of the early church was not in the hands of the elders. It was in the hands of all the brothers and sisters. “― Frank Viola; “Reimaging Church” 

“It is important to remember that the process a church goes through in achieving consensus may be just as important as the consensus that is finally achieved. Consensus governing takes time, commitment, mutual-edification, and lots of brotherly love. It truly can work in smaller churches, such as were found in the New Testament era.  We must love each other enough to put up with each other. The concept behind consensus might be called government by unity, oneness, harmony, or mutual agreement. Do we really trust in the Holy Spirit to work in our lives and churches?” “― Steve Atkerson; “Building Congregational Consensus”

Question: How Did The Early Church Come To An Agreement?

The Act of “Consensus” – Part I

The early church followed what form of government?

Certainly not a democracy, for there were no viable democracies in the first century. The church did not vote on matters with the majority ruling the day.

Certainly not a monarchy, even though Jesus is referred to as King of King. Jesus taught that his kingdom leadership was built on service, not “lording over” others like the gentiles do. His kingdom would be composed of a royal priesthood; a kingdom that would recognize Him as both King and High Priest, but his believers would be a linear, relational priesthood of peer equals in Jesus Christ. There would be no hierarchy or distinctions among them as in secular institutions.

Certainly not a dictatorship, for the Roman Caesars vividly displayed the ruthlessness of such a structure. The “laying down of one’s life” rather than the taking of another’s life seemed to be rule of thumb in Jesus’s kingdom.  “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.” (I John 3:16) In fact the gospel takes it farther, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Laying down your life not for just your own, but also outsiders is a pillar of the Christian faith.

If the Church was birthed in a Middle East, Westernized world of kings, Caesars, ruthless dictators, why did they not just make Peter the Pope and the Apostles the Ruling Council of Lead Elders to micromanage this new organization. The answer is simple. The church is not an organization. It is a living organism. Man directed it towards becoming an organization and later an institution. It does not have to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, just Jesus’ unconditional love by worshiping the Father and laying down your life for your brothers and sisters in Jesus.

If not an organization, then how did they govern themselves as an organism?  Another simple answer: through consensus in the Holy Spirit. They learned to listen and be obedient to the Holy Spirit. When he speaks, he speaks in one voice, the voice of God, that brings unity. He reveals only what Jesus wants, and Jesus reveals the heart of His Father. The three speak as one in unity.

When the Holy Spirit spoke, the Church did not debate about what He said, they just obediently followed it. They did not write position papers, or create dogma, or write doctrinal statements, etc., they just were obedient and followed it. God could speak through any believer, and often through several, yet his Word, his message, was always the same, bringing unity and clarity. All were in agreement, “in one accord”, in consensus. No debate, no dialogue, no critiquing, no criticizing, no theologizing, only faithful obedience! All moved ahead in the same direction because they had consensus on every matter when the Lord spoke to them.

Let’s look over the next few blogs on how this consensus worked, how effective it really was, and how the church has wondered away from that model into the hierarchal models it practices today. Finally let’s examine how we can “revive” the spirit of consensus back into the Church.

A Question: Who Can You Trust

The Lack of Trusting in Today’s Christianity

Why is it so hard for Christians to trust?  Particularly one another? At least here in the United States?

It is hard for many Christians to trust the Holy Spirit because they feel the Holy Spirit may do something rash, radical, different, obnoxious, and maybe even embarrass them! They want to keep the Holy Spirit “under control” at an arm’s distance rather than trust the Holy Spirit to be “in control”.   Because of this lack of trust, most church services have become “safe” places, with predictable, well orchestrated, micromanaged, planned programs.

It seems to be very difficult for professional Christian leaders to also trust those in their congregation, the laity. They equate themselves as “shepherds to be trusted”, but the laity as “dumb sheep,” untrustworthy.

The demise of Mars Hill Church in Northwestern United States under the leadership of Mark Discoll was caused by a “toxic atmosphere” of leadership mistrust. Leading elders would lose trust in their younger, lower positioned elders who might question them, then literally “throw them under the bus”, dismissing them for lack of submission to their leadership. The laity, on the other hand, had absolutely no voice; the only thing they were asked to do is financially give to support their “trusted lead elders” who made fabulous salaries and to volunteer to help keep church programs running smoothly.  The elders of these satellite churches, now newly formed independent churches, have chosen to continued to follow their exclusive “elder led; congregational informed” model of leadership.  The laity still has no voice, unless it is through their wallet.

Christians are known for not trusting other Christians outside their own religious “camps”. Everyone outside their tunneled scope of theology is wrong; only they are right. Every sect warns about “false teachers” and “wolves in sheep’s clothes” that are among believers in the body of Christ who believe differently than they do. They claim exclusive “Biblical truth”, as if no other Christians follow the Bible correctly. Judgment and “correct doctrine” triumphs over grace and mercy, and Pharisees again arise as they did in Jesus’ day. Jesus still cries, “Woe you scribes and Pharisees” to the religious order of our day!

Ephesians 4 says we are to “equip the saints (not the staff) for works of service.” If we truly follow this scripture, we are to not only “equip” the saints for service, but then must “trust” them by “releasing” them to be led by the Holy Spirit.

The United Methodist Church offered a Lay Speakers class to teach laity how to prepare and deliver sermons, so they could fill pulpits when clergy was on vacation or ill. Only a handful ever got to “preach” because most clergy would not “trust” the “none seminary trained” laity in their pulpit for fear of false teaching or dogma contrary to sound United Methodist teaching.

Ironically, this lack of trust has now “enabled” Christians to remain passive, for nothing is required of them but financial giving. Some churches still give mini-sermons before every offering because they fail to trust their tithers to follow through each week.

The lyrics to an old hymn was “Trust and obey for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.” Today’s Christian leadership demands “obedience” from its laity, but still questions if they can “trust” them.

The Principle Of “Reigning With”, Not “Ruling Over”

Prepositions Define Leadership Style & Relationships

God established a Priesthood so that He would have men “draw near TO him.” God’s design was never to have a “distant” relationship WITH mankind, but an intimate, close relationship. God had walked IN the garden WITH Adam and Eve; they all communicated as close friends. Sin separated man FROM his God; distant relationships came THROUGH sin.

Relationships were mutual BEFORE the fall; Adam and Eve did everything IN one accord, together, IN unity WITH God. Sin brought distance IN Adam’s relationship WITH Eve, and as part OF the curse the male would dominate or “rule OVER” the woman who would cling TO him. This intimate mutual relationship OF equal peers could only be restored THROUGH the shed blood OF Jesus Christ ON the Cross, as an atonement for the sins OF mankind. Now, IN Jesus, a mutual relationship as equal peers to be united as one was restored not only TO the institution OF marriage but also TO the Church as a whole. God’s design was never to have a “distant” relationship WITH mankind, but an intimate, close relationship.

Jesus told his disciples that the gentiles “rule OVER” one another, but that is not the way IN the kingdom OF God. God’s people “reign WITH” one another by being “BESIDE” one another IN a linear relationship OF equality. Even though Jesus had to return TO the Father IN heaven to intercede FOR His believers, He promised that he would not abandon them as orphans. He does not believe IN distant relationships. Instead they He made them “children OF God”, and their physical bodies would become the “temples OF the Holy Spirit.” God’s personal Holy Spirit would not be “ABOVE” them in the far distance, nor descending as a dove had upon Jesus when he was baptized, but would be “IN” them. How intimate is that?  All mankind has to do is allow the Holy Spirit “IN” their lives, and He chooses to dwell or live there forever! How awesome is that?

Unfortunately when we diminish relationship, we establish religion. As “God’s people” became known as “The Children OF Disobedience” IN the dessert, a religious institution replaced those relationships WITH an Old Testament Priesthood headed by a High Priest, a man, who oversaw animal sacrifices and a Levitical priesthood. By the time Jesus appeared the Ark OF the Covenant, God’s Presence, was missing IN a Temple that had replaced the Tabernacle. God wanted to reestablish relationships, to again “draw men near” him, thus he faced the Cross, death, that led TO his resurrection. God had already established a “Priesthood of Believers” according TO the order of Melchizadek who was without genealogy, tradition, and IN the likeness of Jesus Christ. Fallen relationships had been restored THROUGH Jesus.

Religious “institutions” have built pyramidal organizational structures WITH a man AT the top. I don’t care if it is the High Priest, the Roman Catholic Pope, or the Protestant local Pastor who lord “OVER” their flock or group. The foundation OF the clergy/laity schism is built ON this pyramid of church power and politics of who will rule “OVER” the church. OVER the centuries the clergy have made sure power has become entrenched WITH them while the laity are to be only followers.

This is not how the kingdom of God works. Leadership “WITHIN” the Church is defined by who is “BESIDE” you, “NEXT TO” you, “WITH” you, not who is “OVER” you. When Jesus was ON earth, He never lorded “OVER” anyone. He did not establish a pyramid structure where he was “ABOVE” his disciples but always walked “WITH” them, “BESIDE” them while teaching them AS a peer, a man, a teacher teaching only what the “Father” was telling him. In fact, the last thing he taught his disciples before going TO the Garden OF Gethsemane and the Cross was how not to be “ABOVE” them, but stooped down “BELOW” them and washed their feet. He was preparing them to learn the principle OF how to “lay DOWN your life FOR your brethren” by literally “laying DOWN his life FOR them.” When you lay something DOWN, it is “BENEATH” you, not “above” you.

The Church needs to learn to lay “DOWN” their lives FOR one another; Christian husbands need to learn how to lay “DOWN” their lives for their wives, not lording “OVER” them. They are your equal peers, your Eve’s, restored TO oneness “WITH” you so that you can be IN agreement IN all things! They are not to be controlled but served! You are to present them TO yourself “without spot or wrinkle”, pure, holy, blameless, as a restored equal IN Jesus!  Leadership needs to not be “ABOVE” those they are to serve, but be AT their level: “AHEAD” of them to lead, “BEHIND” them to cover their backs, and “BESIDE” them IN their personal journeys, and they need to begin to “equip the saints”, not the staff, for the “works OF service”, teaching them to serve one another THROUGH personal examples!

As believers IN Jesus, God is “WITH” us, not distantly “ABOVE” us, out OF our reach, but actually “IN” us; His Holy Spirit choosing to “IN”dwell us! The church needs to rethink and restructure its leadership models. Institutional hierarchy models are not scriptural, not the plan of the kingdom of God, and not relational as equal peers IN Jesus Christ. If the Church wants true revival, radical changes will have to occur IN its mindsets, IN its methods, and how it handles relationships, especially between leadership and the rest OF the body of Christ.  Leadership MUST begin to get off its pedestal “above” its congregation, and not only mingle, but be equal peers WITH them THROUGH service.

How To Move Away From Church Politics Pt.3

The Spinning Wheel Of Diverse Ideas

In the last blog, we recognized the role, passions, and point of view that drive the evangelistic, shepherding, teaching, prophetic, and apostolic spirits that can be in a church leadership meeting. No one passion or role dominates the others if they are going to work in unity. As the model of a five fold diagram suggests, each distinct passion of the five fold reaches out to the other four and receives or submits to them, thus creating a star shape in a pentagon of accountability. A key to the success of this model lies in the circle around it, for the pentagon can rotate, and the passion or the point of view needed at that moment can arise to the occasion with the other four being supportive. As the circle rotates, different passions and points of view are shared and a solution is found. It is in the relationships of giving and receiving/submitting of the five to one another, yet releasing each individually to “do their thing” or release their passion that is monumental in keeping unity, yet achieving success.

Let’s look at a hypothetical situation.  Hot potato problem: The Tuesday Evening small group that meets at Matt & Mildred Miller’s has the same 8 people in it as when they created the group three years ago. They recognized their group has become “very close” but have become accused of being “cliquish”. The group has become stagnant, lacks motivation, and they are asking leadership for help.

After the leadership team have prayed and sat in silence, listening to the Holy Spirit, the evangelist in the group rises and identifies the problem. He discerns that Matt Miller, their leader, is a true shepherd, nurturer, who cares for those in their group, thus they have followed his lead, allowed him to shepherd them, producing their small group as a safe nest and have become introverted as a group.

The prophet now rises as the five-fold circle rests on him. He gets the world “expand” and exhorts the group “to reach out to others producing new streams that will water their group.” He continues to exhort them to “expand beyond just the care of a shepherd, and begin to instruct and guide these new ones. A teacher in the group will arise. He will walk beside them as a shepherd leading his herd as he instructs.” He continues to prophesy, “and one of you will network these new ones into various aspects of the five fold bringing life.”

The teacher in the leadership group now arises in the circle of the five fold to share scriptures pertaining to the kingdom of god and its expansion, scriptures about the shepherd and his sheep like the parable of the shepherd who left the 99 to find the lost one. The shepherd of the leadership team confirms that they could take the nurturing Mat Miller instilled in them and now walk “beside” these new ones in their group in instruction in practical day-to-day experiences.

The remaining leader with an apostolic bent confirms the possibility of all these suggestions if the group first identifies the giftings in their group who has the passion for evangelism, shepherding, teaching, prophesying, and networking. The person with the networking passion can then coordinate the others in their united attempt to nurture the influence of these new ones, releasing each in the group to go with their passion. The five look at each other in agreement, are unified on their recommendation, no longer looking at the Miller group as a potential problem but as a promising prospect, and released them to be obedient in following the Holy Spirit’s guidance!

The Miller group begins by releasing the evangelistic spirit: inviting others to join their group, some from within their existing church structure, some nonbelievers who they personally know. They begin “loving” on them, caring for them, nurturing them, fellowshipping with them, sharing the power of the gospel with them, inviting them to enter God’s kingdom and love. Several respond. Now the group responds by allowing the shepherds and teachers in their midst to begin to walk out their new faith through daily living. The prophetic members of the group teaches the new ones how to listen to the Holy Spirit for themselves and share what they hear with the group. The Holy Spirit begins to speak to the group and instructs them to “expand even further” and they begin to reach out to the homeless now that they have a base of nurture, care, and resources in their group to do so. The group grows, expands, is full of life, and moves forward changing lives. In just six months they have grown so huge they decide to split into two, so they can keep the feeling of an intimate small group, and further “expansion” begins as they continue to grow in strength, spirituality, and numbers.

What was once looked upon as a problem has now become a success story because of the “voices” of many, the diversity of different points of view in helping the group, and being willing to release the passions of each member in the group with the support of the others. That is the potential of the five-fold in problem solving.

How To Move Away From Church Politics Pt.2

The Holy Spirit: A Problem Solver

In the last blog, we saw that our mindset toward leadership must change if we are to move away from politics when in church meetings. We need to moved toward being a “servant” instead of trying to be “savior”, having the buck stop with us at the top of the pyramid of hierarchal power. Leadership must be linear, beside one another, laying down one’s life for one another through service and being served. We will only begin to move away from church politics if we instill these principles.

Church business meeting’s agendas often address current “hot potatoes”, topics that have become controversial in the church. It seems like most local church leadership meetings that I have been part of are centered around “putting out the fires” of controversy that seem to lift their heads. You spend more time on “fire prevention” and “fire fighting” than on anything else, and it drains you.

To understand how the five fold can be an effective “problem solver” model you have to understand the role, the passions, the gifting, and the points of view of each of the five fold present so you know their strengths and weaknesses:

The Passion, Drive, & Point Of View toward Evangelism: The evangelistic spirit is all about birth and rebirth. It takes what is lost and gets it found! It draws people to Jesus as the only answer. It demands repentance from the old; the embracing of the new. Once that process happens, it moves on to another lost cause/or person to be found. Evangelists can recognize what is “wrong,” leading people to Jesus to make it “right”. Often the evangelistic spirit can identify the problem, define it in its simplest form (sin), and present it to the group. Now they know what they are facing. The evangelist is usually not good at problem solving, but knows how to lead people to Jesus who is the problem solver. When the group focuses on Jesus, it releases the evangelist to move on. Once a group comes to a consensus, the evangelist is an excellent source then to “proclaim the new”, give “birth” to the solution, begin the process of birthing results to solve the problem. In conclusion: the spirit of evangelism is good at identifying the problem, defining it, moving others toward Jesus for the solution as their “Savior”, then releasing it to the others. Upon their consensus, jumping back into the picture, they love to birth and proclaim.

The Passion, Drive, & Point Of View toward Shepherding: The shepherding spirit is all about caring, nurturing, developing, grooming, and growing others into the image of Jesus Christ.  The shepherd will want to solve the problem from a caring, nurturing point of view. They know the solution may not be instantaneous, though it could be, but probably a process of day-to-day learning experience of adjustments and changes. Walking beside or through the solution is mandatory for the shepherd who walks with his/her sheep and knows their voice, habits, life style, wants, etc. He gives practical applications to the steps needed to solve the problem. Nurturing properly is important to him. A shepherd is a very practical, disciplined person who takes one step at a time. Shepherds are usually not in a hurry, but patient, moving in harmony with their herd. In problem solving, they see that the process leads to the solution desired as a series of steps, a walk, a journey toward a destination. They are instruments of grace, taking their lambs out of thickets, lifting ewes out of ditches, fighting of predators who thrive on problems caused by dumb sheep. They extend mercy even in the harshest of times. Their attitudes extend hope in hopeless situations, and love to the unlovely. They are the practicality of the problem solving process.

The Passion, Drive, & Point Of View toward Teaching: The teaching spirit is all about having everyone “experience” the solution, actually changing mindsets, attitudes, and patterns by “living it out”, not just intellectually knowing it.  “Knowing about” forgiveness is far different that “experiencing” forgiveness or “extending” forgiveness to others. We are to not only be “hearers of the Word, but doers,” so the teacher is there to make sure the linear “walking out” the solution will be Biblically based but practical in life.  Jesus had to allow Peter to sink first before allowing him to walk on water to teach the Biblical principle of “faith”. I’ve learned there are two kinds of students in life: “obedient” ones who do what they are told without questioning and the “stove touchers” who have to “experience” touching the stove to know “why” and are willing to endure the pain to learn that truth. In the end they both learned not to touch hot stoves, but the teacher has to know how to lead both groups toward the lesson to be learned. In problem solving, the teacher often is the person defining the steps and methods how to solve the problem for those who blindly accept the solutions and those who will buck it to find out “why” before resigning to the solution.

The Passion, Drive, & Point Of View toward the Prophetic: The prophetic spirit is all about relationships. Prophets want intimate relationships, usually between man and god. They want others to learn to seek the Father, get into the Presence of Jesus, listen to the Holy Spirit, and intimately enter into worship with all three. In problem solving within the church it is so important to understand “the mind of Christ” by revelation through the Holy Spirit to get a solution. The woman at the well is a good example, where Jesus “understands” her background by revealing it to her before addressing the real problem, her relationship with God. Peter had to understand “the mind of Christ’ by having the revelation of the sheet with unclean animals being acceptable before going to the House of Cornelius. This ability to know “God’s will”, his “revelation” on the problem is crucial in finding “His” solution.

The Passion, Drive, & Point Of View toward the Apostolic: The apostolic spirit is all about discernment and networking. The apostle is not the C.E.O, the Big Cheese, the Head Honcho, only a person who gets “revelation” of seeing the big picture in its entirety. He is known for discernment and knowledge. He “hears” the evangelistic voice, the shepherding call, the teacher’s objectives, the prophet’s discernment, and pulls them all together. He not only sees the problem clearly, but sees the revelation of the answer in its entirety and knows how to network the others into bringing a proper, godly solution that will bear great spiritual fruit. Unlike a C.E.O., he does not take the credit nor leads the drive toward its solution, but humbly gives the credit to the entire group, calling each in his or her own way to use their gifting toward the solution.

Now we have seen what is in our group, we can move forward toward a solution.

How To Move Away From Church Politics: Pt. I

Leadership Model: A New Mindset

 Church politics often devastates church unity. Divisions bring hurt. Hurt produces schism. Schisms rip relationships asunder, destroying unity. Church politics contributes to “church hoping”. Since most local churches pattern their leadership meetings after the C.E.O. hierarchal business model, agendas out line reports to the upper echelon of the hierarchy, old business to be reviewed, and building maintenance, business management, and current “hot potatoes” to be discussed. Finances, or lack thereof, often control what is or is not on the agenda.  By the end of the meeting tempers can flare, disagreements exposed, and disgruntled attitudes can replace hope and direction. Wanting our business meetings to be like worship sessions, “devotions” are read with an opening prayer, but unlike worship which draws all men toward Him, the political battles over heated topics causes withdrawal instead. I have witness church politics at the local, district, and denominational levels, and it never has been a pretty thing nor an unifying process.

Is there an alternative? As long as we opt for a business model with hierarchal power we can expect the same results.  “You can not serve God and money,” yet we patter our church leadership style after the Wall Street business model.

First, we must acknowledge that leadership in the kingdom of God walks beside a brother and sister in the lord, not lording over them. The mother of two disciples was soundly rebuked by Jesus when she wanted her sons positioned for power beside Jesus in his kingdom. In fact, true kingdom leadership bows down while washing feet in service and is willing to lay prostrate by physically and spiritually laying down their life for their brethren (I John 3:16). There is no elevation, only revelation through peer relationships of acceptance and equality. “Chairmen of the Board” and “Senior Pastors” are not scriptural. Contrary to what my Roman Catholic brethren believe, Peter was no “Pope” above everyone. He became known for opening his mouth and inserting his food, humbling himself often. He was even rebuked by Paul at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) in front of all the Church leaders. Being humbled and being willing to follow the Holy Spirit is what propelled him into leadership.

Second, no one is elevated above another! Everyone has a gifting, a talent, a voice, a passion, a calling, a point of view unique to their own personal spiritual walk. When willing to lay all that down at the feet of Jesus and his brethren in total surrender through service does respect come as a peer. Jesus disciples were known as “The Twelve”, not Peter and the eleven, of Peter, James and John and the Nine! They became twelve apostles, all peers, all equals in a linear horizontal relationship. Even James, Jesus’ brother, not one of the twelve, became recognized as a leader.

Who would be in charge of a leadership meeting using the five-fold model? Who is the “Chairman”, the “C.E.O.”, the “Senior Pastor”, the individual where “the buck stops here”? No man is! Christ is the head. He placed His Holy Spirit in charge. Will the participants be willing to listen to him and be obedient to his leading no matter how illogical they may seem? The gospels are filled with illustrations of what seemed to be stupid things His followers were instructed to do, but obedience brought fantastic results! The problems comes when most church leadership teams rely on their agendas, programs, and institutional organizations to work out problems rather than allow the Holy Spirit to “problem solve”.  It is easier to “designate” others to do things to “solve the problem” than it is to be obedient to the Holy Spirit who may tell you to lay down your life, repent of your attitude, redirect your stream of thought, and then actually serve the very person who seemed to have originally opposed you.

So the alternative to the American C.E.O. business model of dominant pyramidal power is embracing a linear leadership style of serving, the taking of the apron and washing the other’s feet as Jesus exemplified. It is never dominating over, but walking beside each brother and sister in the Lord as equal peers, accepting one another’s diversity and differences, and drawing from that diversity instead of using it to cause division. It is a leadership style of “laying down your life for the brethren” constantly. You become known for your humility, your servant’s attitude, your selflessness, your character instead of your power, position, or title. This is the beginning of a new mindset of church leadership.