Note the detail in the stained-glass windows above the minimalist depictions of buildings on the stage.
Notice how the speaker dresses in a manner that can relate to multiple generations. The older culture has expectations of dressing up to honor God, which usually in their culture includes a jacket. Younger generations may synergize styles to create innovation, sometimes called aesthetic fashion.
by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., Biblical Leadership Magazine, 2/21/19.
One of the most influential art forms in American history first appeared in its current form on public walls in the late 1960s.
Graffiti is an improvised, colorful and risky art that is layered on public buildings, bridges, railway cars and subways. A product of urban artists who often eschew training, it is a fitting metaphor for another characteristic of millennial leadership.
While modern leadership often disciplines itself to keep colors and lines in their place, millennial leaders create a leadership collage of colors, symbols and statements. (Paradoxically, the style known as “modern art,” including the works of Matisse, Picasso and others, shunned the orderliness of previous periods of art and acted as a precursor to millennial thinking. This demonstrates the broad strokes and limitations underscored by the term “modern.”)
Some of the attributes of graffiti artists are:
Graffiti reminds us of the improvisational, risky and outward-focused collage of Millennial leadership. This is not for the faint-hearted, nor the small-minded.
Graffiti leadership embraces risk
In response to these modern perils, the Millennial leader seeks a more elastic and organic approach. While the modern leader tries to create stability and minimize risk, the millennial leader recognizes that chaos is a byproduct of the human condition (Romans 3:23, 5:12). According to organizational theorist Mary Jo Hatch, the millennial leader “embraces complexity and uncertainty and their contradictory demands.”
When researcher Lois Barrett and her colleagues studied churches that were effectively reaching young non-churchgoers they found that a reoccurring pattern was “taking risks as a contrast community.” This is a church that is learning to take risk for the sake of the gospel. It understands itself as different from the world because of its participation in the life, death and resurrection of its Lord. It is raising questions, often threatening ones, about the church’s cultural captivity and it is grappling with the ethical and structural implications of its missional vocation.
A moving example of risk-taking comes from the story of John Perkins, a black man who left Mississippi after his brother was shot by a policeman. After an encounter with Christ he retuned to Mississippi to work with children during the turbulent civic rights struggles of the 1950s. Eventually, Perkins founded a Christian ministry that included student tutoring, co-ops to share food, child care, nutrition programs, medical facilities and Bible studies. This was risky behavior in 1950s Mississippi.
The millennial leader understands such risk because as Lewis Drummond observes, “In postmodern terms, we might say that Jesus came to bring equal access and opportunity to this in substandard living condition, to give voice and identity to those other than the dominant elite and to alleviate the ravages of capitalistic imperialism and colonialist economic aggression.”
Lois Barrett concluded, “These congregations seem to be living by a set of rules different from that of dominant culture. Their priorities are different. They act against ‘common sense.’ They are trying to conform to Jesus Christ rather than to the surrounding society.”
Such risk-taking for the sake of the missio Dei is akin to the risks a graffiti artist takes for one’s craft.
Excerpted from Organix: Signs of Leadership in a Changing Church, by Bob Whitesel (Abingdon Press). Used with permission.
Photo source: istock
Read the original article here … https://www.biblicalleadership.com/blogs/understanding-graffiti-leadership/
by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., Biblical Leadership Magazine, 3/20/19.
Millennial leadership recognizes the need for cultural sensitivity, awareness and autonomy. Though there is a healthy respect for different traditions, there is also a concern that the body of Christ not be splintered into smaller and less holistic factions. Millennial leaders see two types of church planting and increasingly utilize internal instead of external church plants.
External church plants
When modern leaders think of church planting, they usually think about launching a new and autonomous congregation to reach a new culture. However, many millennial leaders have seen their parents’ churches use a “church planting excuse” to push out a different culture. Whether it be a generational culture or an ethnic culture, these ”forced plants” often don’t survive. The millennial leader often wonders, why can’t the church just get along and stay together as a spiritual network?
Internal church plants (or network churches)
This is an increasingly popular strategy that plants new sub-congregations, but keeps them part of one inclusive and multicultural congregation. Called “network churches,” these can be multiple-site and multiple-venue churches, and as such, they are examples of internal church planting.
Advantages of internal church plants
Sharing finances: In the business world this is called an “economy of scale,” which means that a network of sub-congregations will have more financial resources together than if each were independent organizations. For example, if emergency funds are needed by one sub-congregation, the network can provide those funds more readily and smoothly because they are all part of one organizational system.
Sharing facilities: Internal church plants that employ a multi-site approach foster a sharing of facilities, technology and physical resources. This can help fulfill John M. Perkins’ goal of “redistribution.”
Sharing staff: Network churches benefit from sharing support staff, allowing sub-congregations to avoid duplicating their workforces.
Culture sharing: This is a strategic advantage. More cultural sharing will take place if multiple ethnicities are meeting in the same building and sharing the same budget, etc. than will take place if an emerging culture is forced to move down the street to an independent church plant.
Disadvantages of internalchurch plants
They can become divisive:This is often cited as a main concern. But, if they exit the church, it is divided anyway. Division can be addressed by having different preachers at different venues/times share the same message and by holding regular unity events.
Marginalized cultures:Often the largest cultures will try, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes intentionally, to dominate the smaller culture. Yet, this should not deter a congregation from practicing a ministry that reconciles different cultures in the same church.
One way to address this is to require proportional representation on decision-making committees.
If these caveats can be addressed, the end result is the mosaic church, where the glue of being one united organization unites different cultural expressions. A true image of a “mosaic” is created, where different colors and shades create a unified picture when viewed from a distance, but up close reveals a collage of different cultures working in unity and harmony.
This Millennial “graffiti” leadership is full of colorful layering and icons that when combined produce a new multifaceted, yet integrated image. This is the church.
Excerpted from Organix: Signs of Leadership in a Changing Church, by Bob Whitesel (Abingdon Press). Used with permission.
Photo source: istock
Read the original article here … https://www.biblicalleadership.com/blogs/how-millennial-leadership-grows-mosaic-churches/
by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., 12/11/15
A student once asked “Is multicultural and multigenerational the same thing?” Well in some ways they are, but in other important ways they are not. Let me explain.
Multicultural is a broad term that can be an over-arching description for organizations with many varieties of culture within it (for more on this click here).
For instance, both multiethnic and multigenerational are sub-sets of a multicultural organization. Thus …
The key is to describe as accurately as possible type of culture you are addressing.
To understand what a culture is and the differences see:
So, let me give some examples of when to say multigenerational and multiethnic.
So, if your organization needs to be multigenerational, then use multigenerational terminology when writing/discussing your organization.
But, maybe your church (or for instance a church in a denominational district) might need to reach out to a growing Hispanic community. Then that church might need to become a multi-ethnic organization.
One student might refer to their denominational district as “becoming multicultural” because some churches are becoming multi-ethnic and others are becoming multi-generational.
But another student might refer to his ministry as becoming more multi-generational, because it needs to create a partnership between several generations
Thus, one student might use “multicultural” in their discussion (and title of a paper) if they were dealing with an organization of several different cultures, and another student might use “multigenerational” in their discussion (and title of a paper) because they are focusing on reaching out to one specific new culture. Now, every church is made up of multiple cultures, so don’t try to get too specific.
Capture how your organization will reach out to another culture. Thus, use the terms that most precisely describe what you are doing to expand the evangelistic footprint of your ministry.
by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., 11/15/15.
Below are my thoughts to a good question posited by a student who said, “I have a few questions about the generational pastors. I see where that would seem to work in certain size congregations, but what about in a church with 4000 people? What about in a church with 10000+ people? Our church has 10 pastors:
Hello (Name of Student);
Thanks for sharing. I have helped churches like yours move to a more healthy (and organic) style with multiple pastors, each for a different culture. Let me explain.
Basically, you have a team of 10 pastors cutting (horizontally) across several cultures. Thus, some pastors will have more work, and some less.
But, you also have “cultural” pastors in your High School and Student Ministries pastor. I would suggest you create more “cultural” pastors (Hispanic Pastor, African-American Pastor, Senior Adult Pastor, Emerging Generations Pastor, etc.) and call them what ever you want. Then you will have leaders for different cultures. And, your emerging cultures (e.g. Hispanic, Emerging Gen., etc.) won’t feel like one culture controls the church. Instead, a “council of ‘cultural’ pastors” will lead the church.
This also demotes departmental pastors to directors (like worship pastor to worship director, and small groups pastor to small group director). The power thus resides in “cultural” pastors working in tandem, rather than in “departmental” pastors often competing against one another for scarce organizational funds.
A church can grow to any size this way.
In the book, Inside the Organic Church you will find the example of St. Tom’s church in Sheffield UK and their 9 “cultural” pastors for 9 different “cultural celebrations.”
by Bob Whitesel, D.Min., Ph.D., 11/15/15.
Once a student felt I was letting the senior minister off the hook in the Multicultural or Multi-congregational model. To her it appeared that the senior pastor’s role “…seems a lot of oversight and administration, no real pastoring???”
I think the confusion comes over the word pastoring and its root word: shepherding. There are two general ways people define this term.
Definition 1: If we define shepherding as discipling others, then yes, in a church that is above 75 in attendance, the role of shepherding all individuals becomes too wieldy for one pastor. Jesus Himself only discipled 12 individuals, and then had them (and their disciples such as the 72 – Luke 10:1-3) disciple others.
Definition 2: Or we think of shepherding as: leading the flock forward. With this alternative definition it then it is feasible for the senior pastor of a church over 75 to do this.
The Scriptures better support the former (Definition 1), where shepherding is analogous to discipleship. Thus, even Jesus didn’t shepherd a large group, but allowed the Jethro Principle to be utilized (oversight was given by multiples of 10 with basic groups of only 10 each, Exodus 18:17-27), so that small groups emerged as the basic discipleship venue. Thus, there should be many shepherds in a church over 75 (and some would argue anytime a church is over 12). These many shepherds, including the senior minister, would each disciple a small group per Jesus’ example and as seen in the effectiveness of small group systems (see St. Tom’s example my book Inside the Organic Church, Whitesel 2006). The senior minister is not exempt from this task, for he or she disciples a group of 12 or so as well. This group will usually be leaders who themselves shepherd other leaders, and so forth (see Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18:1-27).
The confusion arises when pastors go into the ministry because they want to do “real pasturing” which they perceive as shepherding everybody in the church, only to discover that the church is larger than can be shepherded by one shepherd. Thus, because the pastor does not begin to disciple and mentor so-called under-shepherds, everyone looks to the senior shepherd for personal ministry. And, because he or she is overwhelmed the shepherd decides they are not cut out for the senior pastorate. Semantics tend to confuse things here, for we shouldn’t probably call a senior pastor a shepherd (he or she is, just not of everyone … but of a group of under-shepherds). That is why I prefer the term lead minister, or senior leader.
And, most shepherds have other jobs too. A small group shepherd might do this as a church volunteer and work as an accountant or businesswoman the rest of the time. Similarly, the senior minister will usually be employed by the church and have as his or her other job (aside from discipling his or her leadership group) the job of church planning and oversight. Thus, it is easy to see how it can seem like “… a lot of oversight and administration, no real pastoring,” when in actuality in the Multi-Gen. Church the senior minister should be pastoring … just not everybody. That is the duty of an expansive shepherding network comprised of many lay and professional under-shepherds.
Thus, don’t let the semantics confuse you. The senior shepherd is really the senior minister and also a trainer/mentor. Yet, the small group leaders are the most prolific shepherds, as is witnessed in the cell-church movement, St. Thomas’ Church in Sheffield England (the largest Anglican church in the UK) and in programs such as Stephen Ministers. I hope this clears up the often confusing explanations and opposite expectations that are put upon the terms: shepherding.
By Pew Research, 2/24/15.
Take our 14 item quiz and we’ll tell you how “Millennial” you are, on a scale from 0 to 100, by comparing your answers with those of respondents to a scientific nationwide survey. You can also find out how you stack up against others your age…
Take the quiz at … http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/how-millennial-are-you/
ChurchLeadership.wiki 
You must be logged in to post a comment.