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!