Christian America?

Is it? Was it ever? I resonate with this discussion because there is this sense among many of us that this nation is a divinely appointed nation to be a light to the world. I do not doubt that some who came over early on to this land believed this, the "wilderness experiment." What tends to follow from this is a kind of line which reads, "If we are ever going to become the greatest nation, the blessed nation, we must get back to our roots, to our Christian roots." The assumption is dangerous. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere (see Marsden et al, The Search for a Christian America and Greg Boyd's, The Myth of a Christian Nation), our nostalgia of that may be just that. So, check out the 12 minute discussion below!

Later!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ortberg Strikes Again

Anyone who knows me, knows that John Ortberg serves as one of the most influential humans in my life. I have enjoyed his preaching for years, his ability to meld both theology and the underlying psychology together in a way that doesn't violate both.

I just read his article, Your Hidden Curriculum. It is precisely what I wish I could say in the way he has written it. This addresses part of the underlying stuff that goes on in ecclesiastical cultures. We must be willing to address these, to examine these. In fact, an unwillingness to examine these probably serves as one of the greatest indicators that fear dominates the culture. I find more and more that ecclesiastical cultures tend to operate more from fear than we are led to admit. Our formal curriculum may declare the opposite. Again, the more we confess how free we are of fear may indicate how much fear does dominate.

So, read the article, look at his questions posed at the end, and give prayerful reflective thought of how your religious organization honestly answers the questions. And know...He is strong!

Until...

Evangelistic Metrics

As Hiebert describes the Colonial period of mission service, one descriptor stands out:

"They measured communication by what they said, not by what people heard."

Wow! What if we changed the metric? What if our "evangelism" (here the word is used largely in the sense of communicating with words) was measured not by the content of what is presented (though this is important) but by what is heard? What if we decided to see what people were "hearing" from Christians? This appears to be what Kinnaman seeks to reveal in his book, Unchristian.

So, here is a question for us as we seek to share the good news: What are people around the world, in various places and during various times, what are they hearing from us? What are the affective as well as cognitive "hearings" they detect?

Until next time...

New Book

I have dived in as well to Paul Hiebert's work, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. I find his work informative. People who serve overseas as missionaries are required to enter an intense training before arriving. Yet, for those of us in North America, how much "training" is their for our mission here? Yes, we grew up here. Yes, we very familiar with our "culture," maybe too familiar. Or are we?

Hiebert takes a look at missions through the eyes of anthropology, identifying historically how we have, in many cases, brought not only the gospel, but our culture as well--unable to separate the two. He identifies shifts in the approach to mission over the years. There are three:

1. Colonialism
2. Anticolonialism
3. Globalism

In each, through a filter of four (Missions, Anthropology, Theology, and Epistemology), he identifies 24 elements for consideration. These consist of things like the way other religions are viewed, what is the need addressed during each shift, and the attitude of the missionary toward the indigenous people.

As I continue the pursuit of my project, I can't help but think this may provide a way through to a new creation of some kind. Stay tuned.

Until next time...

Inequitable vs. Equitable

Can you say, "AIG?" Nielsen's work reveals that organizations rank-based produce a serious imbalance in the way rewards are distributed. Notice his observation:

"Rank-based: Those higher in rank are entitled to a far greater share of the organization's resources in the form of compensation than those lower in rank."
"Peer-based: Distributing the organization's resources more equitably in the organization will generate far greater returns to everyone in the long run."

It is easy to demonize others as unequal distributive but the question might be asked, "Are there ways we unequally distribute other sources of power, other symbols of success?" What are those resources? What are the symbols of success that may get unequally distributive? Perhaps in our world today, event in local congregations, the most significant resource is information and yet, that information is distributed unequally.

Give it some prayerful reflection...until next time.

Individualistic vs Community

This one appears pretty obvious. Organizations that are ranked-based experience little community. Ah, the question arises, "What is 'community'?" Great question! Some believe "community" is the absence of conflict, the experience of harmony, or some other Utopic construct. Here is what Nielsen observes:

"Rank-based logic finds people at work are just replaceable cogs in the machinery of business."
"Peer-based logic finds people are by nature social animals who seek and enjoy working with others."

Wow, "enjoy working with others!" Ever met someone at a counter, check-out line, on the phone who didn't seem to enjoy "working with others?" Yes, perhaps it is the cog mindset. I find we in ecclesiastical settings get rather sophisticated in our demonstration of the "cog" mindset. It is easy to see people as "gifts" first and people second. IOW, all in the name of "need" we find the "gifted" and rush to their "recruitment" (all in the name of "calling") and ignore that that they are people, sons and daughters, spouses, etc. I close with this sobering observation by Nielsen:

"When the organization encounters hardships, the assumption is that those below should be sacrificed to protect the privilege of those above."

Until...

Scarcity Based vs Abundance Based

Yep, time to continue on as we head into Spring Break here in the Bay Area. The tragedy of Oakland cannot be lost in the midst of the global crisis. The anxiety of people appears so high right now--as if we are experiencing a financial 9/11, especially in a place like California where unemployment is over 10% and the projected budget of 2010 will be 40+ billion in the red. Anxiety.

So, amidst this anxiety, can organizations, can institutions and their basic attitudes hold to an Abundance mentality? The "scarcity-based" organization will see people as generally greedy, selfish, and unwilling to invest or share. "Abundance-based" organizations will see people as eager to contribute, to make a difference, as willing to share and work together. Of course, in our environment now, this whole notion will be challenged.

As Christians, how do we see people, what does our text reveal? Does it only reveal darkness or is there light? The question of human nature gets partly at the heart of our message. What does Creation reveal? What does the Fall reveal? What does the message of Jesus reveal? How did he see people? Do we see people as he does?

Until next time...

Domineering vs. Participating

Nielsen here addresses what we believe is the basic motivation for people when it comes to their involvement in any organization. In some ways, it really gets to the issue of whether we truly trust people or whether we believe it is necessary to coerce people. The question is this, "Do we believe coercion draws out the best in a person?" Does coercion reach the soul of a person? Or, does it shut it down? Coercion can almost be understood as a drug--the more it is utilized, the more the dosage of coercion must be upped to get the desired effect.

I find this particularly insightful during times of crisis, such as what our world experiences right now. Perhaps through the way formal leadership seeks to handle the tension and anxiety reveals where they fall on the value line of domineering vs. participating. Is there an invitation to participate or is there a language and practice that basically says, "We know more than you and therefore, here is the solution?" Indeed, perhaps communication (or the lack thereof) demonstrates where leadership falls on this spectrum.

Finally, he re-states the well-worn dictum, "People support best what they themselves create." So, in this hour, at this moment, how are we responding? Are we widening the circle of participation (beyond the norms of boardrooms and small committees) or are we shrinking them, holding information close to the vest?

Until....

Commanding vs. Influencing

Continuing with Nielsen's work, I can't help but pay kudos to the author for identifying this distinction. The whole notion of coercion as a means of "leading" or "managing" fails to take into account the human spirit. Since when is compliance the goal of leadership?

Here again, in the issue of influencing, I return to the significance of "Dialogue" as a way of "influencing." Dialogue, as outlined by Isaacs, includes the following four capacities for action.

Listening: "I have always prepared myself to speak. But I have never prepared myself to listen."
Respecting: "To respect someone is to look for the springs that feed the pool of their experience."
Suspending: "When we listen to someone speak, we face a critical choice. If we begin to form an opinion we can do one of two things: We can choose to defend our view and resist theirs or we can learn to suspend our opinion and the certainty that lies behind it."
Voicing: "To speak your voice is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of genuine dialogue. Speaking your voice has to do with revealing what is true for you regardless of other influences that might be brought to bear."

If I were to improve on just one of those capacities for action, imagine how much less "coercive" I could actually be? The challenge is for me to put these into play requires I become a different kind of person. The notion of being the same person and putting forth these actions so that I can influence is only manipulation--something that long-term destroys community. This is why I say the first question is not, "What shall I do?" but, "What shall I be?"

Until tomorrow...

Exclusive vs. Inclusive

According to Nielsen, rank-based organizations hold that power positions are only to be shared with a few, the few who climb to the top. The emphasis here is that only those in those formal places of power can be trusted with the power to make decisions, etc. So, in this kind of organization, organizational issues are handled only by the top officers and those decisions are then passed along to the "rank and file."

Peer-based organizations, however, see in all the capacity to contribute in the issues that face organizations. In dire and difficult circumstances, all are invited to share in the exercise of power, the exercise of seeking solutions. Solution creation comes throughout all levels and departments. Whereas in the rank-based, officers only genuinely relate to those at the top of the organization, at the peer-based organization, this kind of genuine relationship crosses all levels. In fact, the distinction of levels doesn't exist. There is no "those-in and those-out" kind of categories.

Finally, there is no "top" feel in the peer-based organizations. There is no hidden agendas or "club memberships." There is a standing invitation to bring in all perspectives, all points of view. There is this kind of being around the table and asking each person, regardless of their view, to honestly and openly express their point of view. Quoting one business leader, "We believe in rewarding communication even if it's communication about failure."

So, what does your organization feel like?

Rank-Based vs. Peer-Based Assumptions, Part I

Here is another installment of Nielsen's work regarding the contrast between a "rank-based" organization and a "peer-based" organization. I will give you the overall scheme on their particular "logic," and then spend the rest of this week outlining the particulars to each. Here's a first pass.

Rank-Based Logic--------Peer-Based Logic
Exclusive----------------------Inclusive
Commanding-----------------Influencing
Domineering-----------------Participating
Scarcity based----------------Abundance based
Individualistic----------------Community formulated
Inequitable-------------------Equitable

As you can see, the column on the left contains those elements that are part of the logic of rank-based organizations, while the column on the right identifies the logic of peer-based organizations. I will spend the rest of the week further developing these distinctions. Which column favors your organization?

Dialogue

Here I open up a new chapter at this place. Several years ago I went through William Isaacs work, Dialogue. I will be presenting some of what I identify as his core elements of what he defines as "dialogue." How many times have I heard someone present a subject and say something like, "Let's dialogue about it" and then continue with a monologue! Before getting into his definition of "dialogue" (another post), here is a quote I believe which could inform local churches: "There is a deep hunger in the modern world for meaning and the core practices whereby human beings make meaning together...We have an insatiable desire to live lives of dignity and meaning."

If there is any organization who's central mission centers on "meaning," it seems the church is the place for this to occur. How strongly will we pursue a mission of meaning? If meaning is mission, what meaning do we provide, a meaning merely prepackaged and rehearsed or meaning that brings into bear the context of our modern world?

Ciao!

Rank-Based vs. Peer-Based Assumptions

Going through Nielsen's work, The Myth of Leadership, I find this distinction of assumptions valuable for evaluating my own leadership. So here it is:

Rank-Based Assumptions------ Peer-Based Assumptions
Employees are lazy ------ Employees are productive
Employees are selfish ------ Employees are caring
Leaders are heroic individuals ------ Each individual is unique
Leaders command and control ------ General input and participation
Knowledge at the top ------ Knowledge at all levels
Manipulation ------ Cooperation

So, there you have it. Of course, here is our own particular challenge as human beings. When we see words like "manipulation" or "selfish," we instinctively more often than not rush to denial. The power of self-deception runs high. How often does anyone consciously say, "Let's manipulate the group today?" Not often. Yes, there is this danger of saying, "I know more." How often does the "top" say, "We know better?" Nielsen's distinctions are dangerous for they challenge the very foundation of our own belief system.

Yet, interestingly enough, we have within our own faith tradition, an example of a "peer-based organization:" we call it, "The Trinity."

Until next time...

Transactional vs. Transformational

While working on my doctoral thesis proposal, I've been reading Leighton Ford's, Transforming Leadership. (If you look to the right sidebar, you will see it on my Shelfari Shelf.) Written back in '91, he summarizes the work of renowned scholar, writer, and consultant, Bernard Bass (the father of taking Burns' Transforming Leadership and finding ways of measuring it). His summary serves as a great point of discussion. I quote him below:

• "Transactional leaders work within the situation; transformational leaders change the situation.
• Transactional leaders accept what can be talked about; transformational leaders change what can be talked about.
• Transactional leaders accept the rules and values; transformational leaders change them.
• Transactional leaders talk about payoffs; transformational leaders talk about goals.
• Transactional leaders bargain; transformational leaders symbolize." (22)

Quite an evaluation! While I would like to believe I am transformational, more often than not I find myself transactional. Why just the other day as I was reflecting on the direction of a conversation I was having with someone, I realized I was much more willing to bargain than to symbolize. I know, there are some who will try to blunt the sound of what Ford has summarized as a way of playing it safe. I wonder, though, "Did God play it safe?" Ouch!

His,
John

Race to Ideas

Just read an article from HBR on leading when not the boss. It reminded me of something I observe when speaking with people about situations: Most of us rush to ideas. We all want to make a contribution, an action that makes a difference in our local environment. We see things, hear things, and then we, more often than not, hurry to not only a conclusion but an action, or a suggested action. Notice what the author says:

"Effective leaders, by contrast, learn to think systematically--that is, they gather and lay out the necessary data, analyze the causes of the situation, and propose actions based on this analysis. In a group, leaders help keep participants focused by asking appropriate questions. Do we have the information we need to analyze this situation? Can we focus on figuring out the causes of the problem we're trying to solve?"

One of my improvement areas is finding ways to ask better questions. Honestly, I tend to direct much more than ask. This isn't always the best. In our race to ideas, our race to action to face a situation, sometimes the situation appears to offer little time and thus, viola, we race to an action solution.

So, I'll conclude with the question posed above: "Can we focus on figuring out the causes of the problem we're trying to solve?" Or, will we continue to blow through stop signs and drive dangerously, wondering why blue lights flash behind?

Until next time!

Individual & Community

Won't spend much time on this. Yet, the very issue of the individual vs. the collective is a classic tension retained in all walks of life, including local churches and denominational offices. What happens when the necessities of the individual and the necessities of the community collide? Does it necessarily follow that they do collide? This tension is dynamic to be sure, lurching at times toward one end of the spectrum and then to the other.

If I could characterize scripture for a moment, it would appear the Hebrews scripture center mostly on the community elements of a shared faith while the Christian scriptures tend to move more toward the individual--though there is still a strong communal role. The beauty of this tension is that we are now able to see the church as a system, very much a family system. Edwin Friedman has written much about this. Again, what has been so helpful to my own understanding and practice is to recognize this individual (member) and community (system) way of examining interactions.

Finally, what is scary is the observation by Friedman that more often than not, a local congregation will over time take on the family system of the pastor/priest's family of origin. Now, there's a sobering image as I head off into the weekend! Happy Weekend!

Permanently Suspicious

Those who know me, know one of the most influential writers in my life has been Vaclav Havel. His speech entitled, "The Anatomy of Hate," is one of the best I've ever come across on the subject of the insidiousness of our own self-deception.

I came across this quote by him this week: “Again, being in power makes me permanently suspicious of myself. What is more, I suddenly have a greater understanding of those who are starting to lose their battle with the temptations of power.”

I am constantly reminded of my own self-deception, partly the belief that I am better than I really am. Serving near a graveside today reminded me that we are all headed to the same place, a la Ecclesiastes. The question is, "What path shall I take there?" Will it be the path where I believe I alone stand or will it be the path that claims my own sinfulness and weakness as the opportunity for God's strength and righteousness?

I am reminded of this as I head into a difficult finance committee meeting at our school, recognizing the challenges we face are greater than our own human attempts. I believe part of leadership is the recognition that I am in over my head and moments like gravesides and board rooms remind me of this.

Ciao!

Ideas

As I have begun visiting various "core leadership" in our church, I've discovered there are many with a whole host of good ideas. Ideas are good. We need ideas. What my hope is that over time, we can recreate the context from which those ideas come. IOW, ideas flow from some way of seeing the world, what is commonly referred to as "paradigms." In our particular part of the world, pragmatism appears to be one of the highest values. We rush to ideas. Yet...I wonder....

What if we caught different visions, identified the deep roots of life, those things so basic to the way we live life that we rarely ever stop to ask, "Is this the only way to see?" If the radical story of Jesus concerns itself with a radical difference in the way we relate to this Divine God, then the way we relate to self and others probably will be radically different. "If a grain of seed falls and dies," seems to be the theme.

The life of the church extends from the ongoing and ceaseless activity of a Spirit that penetrates the deep places of every person open to walking the Way. Ideas are great...but what about the corridors of the soul from whence those ideas flow?

Back in the Saddle

Okay. I know, it's been a while. Honestly, my friend asked about my blog and I decided, "Hey, what a good time to get back into the saddle." So, here I go. I am currently editing my thesis proposal, hoping to have something concrete to send for a first inspection to my advisors by the end of the week.

Came across this quote, a really great quote that I believe inspires a dream, a dream for what leadership can be like, for hopefully, I can become. Consultant, professor, and writer Jeffrey Nielsen makes two observations about organizations:

1. Genuine communication occurs only between equals
2. Secrecy frequently breeds corruption and abuse of power

He continues, "In the absence of equality, you'll seldom have honest, open communication. You tell those above you only what you think they want to hear, and you tell those beneath you only what you think they need to know. This creates not only low levels of trust between individuals, but a growing gap between business reality and the world of the top executives." Doesn't this sound like a part of what is going on in our meltdown? He makes the distinction between "Rank-based leadership" and "Peer-based leadership." Let's see how he tracks over the coming weeks together!

Anyways, back in the saddle. Time to keep writing--after all, I have a thesis to complete. TTFN.