The Seduction of Power

This past Friday my daughter graduated from High School and the ceremony was held in a large church here in town. The facilities opened about a year ago and it was a nice change from previous graduations held at the athletic field where the audience sat for two hours in the sun on concrete benches. So I was very appreciative that the church allowed graduation to take place in their facilities.

However, (you knew that was coming didn't you?) the pastor of the church simply could not resist the temptation to put himself in the middle of the picture. He sat on the stage on a little elevated platform which held two armchairs. He was totally out of place and a distraction from the attention that was to be on the accomplishments of our children. Like a king on a throne surveying the activities of his kingdom he made sure he was in full view throughout the graduation. Then, even though there are many entrances/exits, only one, with two adjoining sets of doors, was unlocked for the large crowd to exit the building and he stood squarely between the doors to try to greet people as we tried to squeeze through the lone exits.

There is something that happens as men and women rise through the ranks and gain position, prestige, and power. It happens when people suddenly find themselves with wealth; it happens when politicians find themselves with power; and it often happens when pastors build large churches. Somehow, their sense of importance is unrealistically elevated and they have an exaggerated sense of personal appeal.

I've heard from local restaurant owners who cater food to the church and the demands for how the food must be prepared for "the Bishop" is almost comical. I've heard of politicians, who began with such sincerity, but then they get caught up in the political machine in Washington and they are making deals and accepting favors. Recently, there have been charges that Lee Scott, CEO for Wal-Mart, has been accepting favors from vendors and then allowing them to put their merchandise in the stores as a response. Sam Walton would be very disappointed with where Wal-Mart has gone.

The pull of power is so prevalent, and so prevailing, that one is tempted to believe that it is inevitable. The example of Jesus is that one can learn to serve and even empty himself or herself and identify with the least and the last among us. If Jesus is the ultimate example of leadership (and I think He is), then many pastors, politicians, and other powerful people have much to learn.

Work or Worship?

Someone who recently stopped attending our church made the statement that going to church was like going to work. That statement has been rolling around in the back of my mind now for a couple weeks. I believe in sacrifice, and I believe in selfless giving, and serving God through serving others, but I don't believe it should be work. It should be worship.

I am a fanatic for the Word of God. I insist that Word be the basis for all we do or say, teach or preach. I believe in, and strive for, sound doctrine and theology in everything I teach, or preach, or write. But somewhere in the midst of this, there must be a place for joy, for gladness, for singing, for thanksgiving and for praise. There is something in us all that longs to break free from the constraints of time and our self-conscious preoccupation with what others think, and just lose ourselves in the presence and the power of God.

I feel that in many churches (even the one I lead) there is something missing, and it is that "something" that drives people to go from church to church looking for something. Most of them cannot put their finger on it. They cannot even explain with words what they feel in their heart, but they know what it is and they know what it isn't, and far too many aren't experiencing it, whatever it is.

Is it relationship with God that is missing, and the church fails to encourage? Is it the "anointing" of the Holy Spirit? Is it transformational revelation that lifts us above the facts and allows us to see His face? What is it? Whatever it is, I want it!

Some with say that it is not it, but Him. However, He has always been and will always be, so it is not just Him, but it is encounter with Him. It isn't about where He is, but about where we are in relation to Him. ( cf., Martin Buber)

Psalm 100 point us to it. It is about joy, gladness, singing, and knowing. It is about entering, praising, and thanksgiving. Sometimes I think I have it, but at other times it seems to elude me and I find myself at church working instead of worshipping.

Emergent Models are Mimicry

Linstead and Hopft (The Aesthetics of Organization, 2000, 75-77) propose that four types of games, which correspond to four types of play, can be distinguished. These are:

1. Agon, or contest, in which the player desires to win by merit under conditions of regulation, by relying only on themselves (or the team) and their efforts.

2. Alea, or chance, in which the player desires to win by luck, by anxious submission to fate, relying on everything except themselves and powers that are elusive.

3. Mimicry, or illusion, in which the player desires to be another personality and succeeds in acceptable imaginary universe.

4. Ilinix, or carnival, in which the player desires ecstasy, unboundedness, and freedom from constraint, and does this by confounding bodily equilibrium, ordinary perception and conscience.

Reading this, it occurred to me that these four types loosely correspond four ways in which churches operate. Let me illustrate:

The Agon church tries to operate and succeed by virtue of their own power. They “try harder,” and “go the extra mile,” and “make sacrifices.” The thought is that if they do enough, long enough, they can achieve success. Often, they achieve fatigue and burnout long before they see the enigmatic success they long for.

The Alea church believes that revival, growth, “success” is all in the hands of God. They have very little to do with it. It all has to do with God’s “timing,” and God’s “plans” for His church. They pray and believe and if it is “God’s will,” people will miraculously start appearing at their church and running to the altars.

The Mimicry church is always trying to find out what is working at another church and tries to replicate that success at their church. The pastor is always going to seminars, always up on the latest church growth strategies that worked at Willow Creek, or Saddleback, and trying to copy it in their own context. This church is marked by continually changing programs. From Evangelism Explosion, to Small Groups, to 40-Days of Purpose, they are always trying to replicate the success of other churches.

The Ilinix church is looking for a spiritual connection with God. It seeks a fresh approach, is unrestrained by either human effort or mimicry of other models. It doesn’t follow a pattern, but invites disorientation as a method of reorientation and integration of an ecstatic/spiritual experience. I am tempted to suggest that this is the desired approach of the Emerging Church Movement, but the minute Brian McLaren or Leonard Sweet wrote their books and others began to employ the Emergent Church model, they were already engaged in Mimicry.

What should the church be? Is it one of these types, or some combination? I am intrigued.

Leadership: Thinking the Unthinkable

Yesterday, the unthinkable happened in Blacksburg, Virginia on the campus of Virginia Tech (VT). A lone gunman killed 32 people before turning the gun on himself. In the wake of this atrocity the leadership of the university and the local police force are under fire from the community, students, and grieving parents who believe that grave errors in judgment, action, preparation, and disaster planning were committed. Hindsight is 20/20 and many people will look back after the fact and tell the president and police what they should have done. Mass media, men and women like Heraldo, Nancy Grace, Larry King, Katie Curic, and so on, will look back and find fault with every action taken, or not taken, on that tragic day.

Sometimes, however, things happen that we have not even considered as a possibility, things so out of the norm, so aberrant, that we have not planned for them, because we have not considered them. However, a leader must go there, must look down the dark alleys of evil possibilities and sinister scenarios. In the case of the VT incident, this type of evil is not without precedent. Columbine HS was a wake up call to this very type of atrocity. Every HS and college leader should be running scenarios and disaster planning for things of this sort.

Likewise, pastoral leadership should be prepared for the unthinkable. Recently I was threatened by a white supremacist because I am in an interracial marriage, and because our church is multicultural and multiracial. The next Sunday a large white man attended. I had never met the man before and he seemed somewhat unemotional, not unfriendly, but not friendly either. I sit in the congregation during worship, on the front pew looking ahead and it seemed I could feel this man coming down the aisle at me from behind. As it turned out, this man was just a visitor and I've since talked with him and found him to be a friendly guy. The point is that I began to think about things I'd never thought of before. What if?

Later that evening I met with the elders of the church and we began to run through some scenarios. We devised a plan to deal with any potential threat to me or members of the congregation. Leadership must think the unthinkable. Exxon had no plan when the Valdez oil tanker ripped open and spilled her cargo of oil all over the pristine Alaskan shoreline. They were caught unawares because they had not considered the unthinkable.

Leaders need to ask the "what if" question. Foresight may not be 20/20, but blindly forging ahead without considering the unthinkable is no longer acceptable.

Easter Leader

Have you ever gone to the creek or the lake to swim? When I was a kid, I would anxiously wait for that first spring plunge into the creek that ran behind our house. Usually my mother would make us wait until June. Only then was the water no longer too cold to turn our lips blue. The water was still cold, but on a hot June day, we welcomed the cool refreshing splash of nature. However, even after our mothers gave permission, my sister, various cousins, and I were all reticent about being the first into the water. We all wanted the other one to go ahead of us and tell us what it was like. Finally, one of us would dive in and lead the way.

Jesus was our leader. He went first. We are all apprehensive when it comes to death. Most of us have never been there and back, and those who claim they have . . . well they never took the plunge. They only dabbled on the edges until they were brought back by a shock or blow to the chest. Jesus dove in and was gone for all or part of three days. He went ahead and came back with the promise that His resurrection is our assurance that we who have placed our faith in him will rise again also.

Sometimes leadership requires that we plunge into the unpleasant, that we wrestle a victory from the jaws of defeat, and come back as an example to others.

So many opportunities in life float by the like the creek in our West Virginia back yard. We stand and shiver at the thought of diving in. We imagine, and envision, and set a goal, and chart a course, and plan a strategy, and outline a blueprint, and brainstorm, and talk and talk and talk. But somewhere, sometime, someone has to lead the way, has to take the plunge and come up again to let others know that it can be done if you have the courage to dive in.

Usually, I had one or two cousins who never would go into the water. They would sit on the shore and dabble a toe here and there, but they never knew the bliss of the cool water's kiss. Too many opportunities are missed, by too many people who only wish, but never do.

Conferred Power

Any first year seminary student knows that the most prominent Greek word translated "power" is dunamis, which literally refers to force. However, there is another word that is often translated "power" in the KJV, but is most often translated as "authority" in more modern versions. This word is exousia, which is power by virtue of authority, competency, or mastery rather than strength or force.

Jesus conferred exousia upon believers and thus gave them mastery over of the dunamis, or the force of "the enemy" (Lk. 10:19). A hardened steel worker may have more force or physical strength than a manager who has grown soft in the office, but the manager has the authority that has been conferred upon him by virtue of his office.

In a conflict situation, both types of power may come into play. The manager is in a position of authoritative power to hire and fire, to enact policies, to determine distribution of resources and so forth, but in a heated confrontation where passions surpass reason, the worker may use physical force make his point. The challenge for the manager is utilize his or her authority in such a way that the conflict does not escalate to that point, but takes on a more cooperative form of exchange.

In a church, the pastor must learn to build trusting relationships where it is not an issue of confrontation with members over competing concerns, but a spirit of cooperation where shared concerns, framed by the Great Commission, lead to solutions where the real winner is the body of believers and not one man, clique, or interest group.

IS JESUS DEAD?

James Cameron (of Titanic and Terminator movie fame) claims to have found the tomb of Jesus, and that it contains the ossuaries (coffins) of Jesus, Mary Magdalene (his wife), Judah (their son), Mary mother of Jesus, and Matthew (one of the Apostles). He plans to do DNA and Carbon dating to verify their credibility. How does the Church respond to these claims?

Rational Points Against the Reports

1. The bias of the secular press is blatantly anti-Christian.
2. The misinformation of the press is well known (many examples could easily be cited).
3. The agenda of James Cameron:
1. Filmmaker, not an archaeologist or biblical scholar.
2. His goal is not truth or scholarship, but money.
3. He is part of the Hollywood machine that is trying to discredit Christianity.

Archaeological Points Against the Reports

1. The dating of the cave is not confirmed (nor can be), even though they may argue that it can and will be.
2. The dating of the remains is not confirmed, though they may argue that they will be (carbon dating can only get you in the ballpark, and not provide decades). thus the dating does nothing to verify that the remains were even from the same time period as Jesus, except to within a few hundred years.
   
3. The names (Jesus, Mary, Miriam, Judah) were very popular names, before and after the resurrection of Jesus.
4. There were many imposters and charlatans during the early centuries of the church. Furthermore, the heretical (so-called) Christian Gnostics had a vested interest in producing a body of Jesus, in that, they denied a physical resurrection and claimed only a spiritual resurrection.
   
5. DNA testing cannot prove anything about the identity of the people in the coffins, other than relationships to one another. They cannot prove or disprove the identity of Jesus.

Biblical Points Against the Reports

1. Jesus prophesied that in the last days this would happen: “At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it” (Mat. 24:23). This is just another such claim, though this is unique in that it is a dead Jesus.
2. Given the claim that Matthew, one of the Apostles, was buried in the same cave, this would suggest that the Apostles knew that Jesus never ascended and ultimately died. It is doubtful that ten disciples would have endured martyrdom, or would have allowed thousands of followers to endure martyrdom, if they knew this was a hoax.
3. If the Jews (especially the Jews) or Roman authorities in the area knew of the location or the death and ultimate burial of Jesus, they would have produced Jesus or His dead body and once and for all discredited the faith of the early church.
4. The Apostle Paul affirms the resurrection, declaring of Jesus: “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom 8:34).

Check out this link from Fox News, Father Jonathan Morris.

Growth on the Periphery

How can an organization facilitate growth on one hand, and yet maintain its identity as an organization with consistent values and beliefs on the other hand? As an organization grows, it must be willing to delegate more authority and autonomy to the periphery or growth will stop. If an organization is dogmatically controlled by a central source of power and resources then the organization is doomed to stop growing when the extent of the influence of the central source is reached. Even with inventive and involved hierarchical schemas, there are limits to which an organization can continue to grow without allowing for more autonomy on the edges. Instead, the vital and innovative edges will break away and thrive on their own, independent of the founding organization.

A clear example of this is the contrast between the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO). The Assemblies has a much larger membership than the Church of God does, and the structure between the Assemblies and the Church of God helps to explain how the Assemblies has continued to see such growth while the Church of God has never seen the level of growth that the Assemblies has. The centralized and hierarchical structure of the Church of God mitigates growth, while the less centralized structure of the Assemblies facilitates growth.

Even at local church level, growing churches have leadership who have discovered the multiplication factor of empowering others to create, administer, and minister in semi-autonomous small groups, para-ministries, outreaches, extension congregations, and so forth. While I am a Church of God minister, and believe in the teachings and leadership of the organization, I fear that unless substantial structural change is embraced in the near future, the extent of our growth and vitality as an organization may be within sight.

Leaving a Legacy

I received a yearly devotional from the administrative bishop of our state in our denomination. It is a devotional that utilizes historic events and personalities from the church. Each morning I’ve been taking time to read the short devotional and to reflect upon the journey that other great men and women of faith took in their walk with God. I sometimes wonder if my effort, if my contribution in ministry and scholarship will have any lasting impact on the kingdom of God, or if my paltry blood, sweat and tears will result in little more than a castle in the sand, standing only until the next tide sweeps across the beach and all memory of the effort is forever gone.

My weakness, perhaps, is the desire to leave a legacy. I see presidents, past and present, who become obsessed with legacy. What will history say of them? How will their presidency be remembered in the pages of time? The obsession leads to policies and politics that have less to do with sound judgment, than with how they will be remembered. Some, like Jimmy Carter, will try to engage in historiography, rewriting and restating their own importance, as if trying to convince themselves and others.

I want to leave something for the next generation. I want my life to have been significant, but significant to whom? It is, in the final analysis, the review of God and not of man, which is of utmost importance. But still, I want to build something, to grow something, to write something, to say something that will live long beyond my years. Is that a weakness?

It is a weakness when such a thing becomes an obsession and when the pursuit of such a thing blinds a man to his own faults and failures. It is a strength, however, when the legacy becomes a light that points others to the enabling power of Christ in us, the hope of glory. It is a strength when we have left something behind upon which others can build. It is strength when the legacy inspires others to strive for greatness, rather than to fade into the gray mist of mediocrity.

I have found that lasting legacies rarely come without sacrifice, commitment, and selfless acts of compassion. It is wrong, and it is folly, to believe that a lasting positive legacy can be built on words without action, faith without works, or vision without courage. The example of Jesus is one of commitment to the cause, faithfulness to the Father, and courage in the face of criticism. Such men are rare in this time of quick fixes and easy believism.

Dietrich Bonheoffer was one who challenged his fellow ministers and pastors in Nazi Germany to resist the temptation to take the route of least resistance and instead to do what was right regardless of the perceived cost in this life. Still a young man at the time of his execution, his legacy continues to inspire and to challenge all believers to do right in a do wrong world, to count the cost, to consider the reward, and to go the distance.

My Prayer
God forgive me for being complacent, for seeking the easy road, and for being more concerned with how I will be remembered than I am with who will know you through my life today. Help me to become consumed with you, with your love, with your will, and your word in my life. Chip away from my life, anything that does not look like you, until all that remains is your image and likeness fully restored in me. Amen

The fear and the fallacy

Like many students graduating from a conservative Evangelical seminary, I was introduced to an exegetical approach that emphasized the historical context, the grammar of the text, and the original intent of the author. The idea of approaching the text with my own socially imbedded views as a legitimate tool in the process of interpretation was practically anathema. Later, during a hermeneutical course of study at Emory University, I was challenged by the works of Paul Ricoeur with the idea that it is practically impossible to really know the original intent of any author, and that frankly, the original intent is only of marginal importance. Furthermore, original intent implies that there is a single intent and not many intentions on the part of the author. The most important point, he argues, is what the text says to the reader and, on a larger scale, to contemporary society.

Enter, ideological texture, and one is confronted with an exegetical approach which posits that the interpretation of any text may never be absent of the socially/culturally imbedded worldviews of the interpreter. Interpretation, therefore, is not a statement or a declaration, but a conversation, a living and ongoing dialogue that explores the text as God’s word with others who offer unique perspectives, and ourselves as individuals who are conscious of our own inherent biases. If this is so, how does one read, understand, teach and proclaim the message of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God? In fact, is there “a word,” or are there “many words” that are equally valid? The fear of some is that ideological texture, as an approach to exegesis, will lead to subjective interpretations, the fallacy, is believing that there is no subjectivity.

Brian McLaren (Leadership,Winter, 2007) writes that he has recently been reading, studying, fellowshipping with, and listening to Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans. He is doing this, he says, “Because the U.S. can so easily become an echo chamber, Western voices arguing with other Western voices about Western topics from a Western perspective” (p. 110). McLaren goes on to say: “Many people in the global South see what we don’t see: how we have blended Christian faith with European-American culture” (p.%

Emergent Learning Models

In my recent studies, I am becoming familiar with various organizational learning (OL) models. One of the models that caught my attention is referred to as the “pure emergent” strategy, which lies at the other end of the spectrum from the “pure deliberate” strategy. An emergent strategy does not begin with any presumptions or “planned strategy.” It suggests that patterns and structures can take form in the absence of intentional strategy. It suggests that most of what is learned in an organization happens outside of the formal teaching models, and occurs in informal settings.

In church, we usually come to the worship service with a strategy. We may have a formal order of worship written in the bulletin, or we may only have it as a strategy that has taken form and is fixed in our ritual or our liturgy. Pentecostals often claim freedom from ritualistic religion, and yet most follow the same predictable pattern. The emergent strategy argues that these strategies form learning boundaries that inhibit or restrict learning to fit within the received framework.

We do this with our interpretation of Scripture, which is why Baptists and Pentecostals differ while both claim to be representing the same book, and both claim the inerrancy of Scripture, but neither claim that they are in error. What if we were to read the Bible without having to fit it into a Declaration of Faith or an Apostle’s Creed? What if we approached the Scriptures with a hungry heart, an open mind, and a seeking spirit? Are we allowed to learn things that lay outside the framework handed down from the Church Fathers?

What if a church gathered to worship God without expecting God to fit our formula? Is it possible to be the church and allow the liberty of the Spirit to direct the ebb and flow of a service? We claim that this is what we do, but such claims are empty in the light of most prefabricated forms and timetables.

If the emergent church is truly going to emerge, then it is going to take more than sitting in a circle and claiming that we are no longer following a hierarchical structure. It is going to take more than employing the arts and deriding traditionalism. It is going to take people with the courage to welcome the move of God on His terms, in His time, and as He wills. It is going to take leaders who are willing to challenge the received text of tradition and allow the Holy Spirit to speak in new tongues to a new generation.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME

This past week (or was it last week) former President Ford passed away. The procession and the progression of the funeral and memorial have gone on and on. For almost two weeks, we have heard and seen new accounts of the funeral. One day I told my wife that I was tired of the constant news updates and reminders that Ford is dead. At this point, it would only be news if they told us that he had risen from the dead.

I remember Ford's presidency. At the time, he was reviled by Democrats for pardoning Nixon. They were eager to put Nixon on trial and further embarrass the Republicans. Conservative Republicans were lukewarm in their acceptance of Ford, in that, he was pro-choice and he seemed too willing to make nice with the Communists.

However, after much time has passed, and with some reflection, many now see the positives of the Ford presidency. They refer to him as a healer. In retrospect, we see that putting Nixon on trial would only have kept the wounds of the nation open longer, and may well have caused the cut to go deeper and the divide in the nation to become wider.

As leaders, we may find ourselves in a position where an unpopular decision has to be made. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether it is the right decision, at the right time, for the right reasons. If it is, then time will eventually reveal the wisdom of that decision. However, such decisions may come at the cost of personal sacrifice. Ford would lose the election to Carter largely because of the pardon of Nixon.

Now the country looks back on Ford's presidency and says he was a healer, a reconciler, a man of principle and wise in his decision to pardon Nixon. This is the mediating affect of time and perspective when the decision is right. When the decision is wrong, the motive is wrong, or it was the wrong time for the decision, time will prove that as well.

Typically, time softens the criticism, but sometimes, as with despots such as Hitler, time reinforces the critical assessment of the leadership of such men and women. As leaders, we do not need to weigh our decisions by public opinion at the moment, but according to principles, values, integrity, and time. At the same time, we need to be prepared to make personal sacrifice when the right decision is unpopular at the time the decision must be made.

Problems are like rocks--they're hard

Luke 8:6
6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. KJV

Last year our church had some work completed on two of our fields. In fact, we had the two fields combined to make one large field. We have a dream of a sports ministry at the church and with a gym for basketball and volleyball, as well as a top-notch fitness center--we are well on our way. However, we needed to develop our fields for softball, football, and soccer. Last year the Lord blessed us with over $50,000 in dirt and grading to bring our dreams closer to reality.

Every morning I drive down the edge of the large field and enjoy the serene scene of rich green grass growing over a field that is several acres large. Away from the phone in the office, I check my calendar, read some devotional scriptures, and then I get out and pray while I walk the field. As I walk the field I find that beneath the grass, mostly hidden from view, there are many stones and some large rocks that need to be removed before anyone attempts to dive for pop-fly or tackle someone. So every morning I find and fling rocks from our field. As I’ve done this, I asked God what lesson there is for me in this exercise. This morning God have me an “ah-ha” moment.

Rocks are like problems. There are small ones that can be easily handled, in fact, several can be handled at once and easily dispensed with. Others are larger, harder to dig out and difficult to carry. Some require assistance in removing. Some are hidden beneath the grass and not readily seen, others stand out like a sore thumb.

In addition to myself, some geese have found our field and the fresh green grass is more than they can resist. So them come, they eat, and they leave behind little reminders of their visit. If I get in a hurry, and if I don’t pay close attention to what I’m doing, I find myself with a handful of goose poo. (I hate it when that happens!)

Leadership requires that problems, challenges, and obstacles be dealt with. Let’s face it, problems are hard, that’s why we call them problems, but with patience, persistence, and close observation, they can be dispensed with until the beauty on the surface, is matched by the beauty beneath. It may seem like an endless task. Sometimes it seems like the ground is growing more rocks, but over time I see the difference and feel good about what I’ve done. Still, I know that before the job is finished, I’m going to have to recruit others to the field with me to find and fling the rocks from our field.

When To Speak Out

You're at a meeting and an issue arises that you are informed on and on which you have an opinion or an important insight. However, your comments do not agree with what appears to be a consensus among the members of the meeting. When do you speak up? How do you broach the subject? Or do you sit back and hope that someone else will speak to the topic and therefore you will not have to get up in front of a crowd and speak.

I speak in front of crowds frequently, and do so with little anxiety. I enjoy being asked to share my insights and inspirations. But when I'm in front of a group of my peers, I tend to get nervous. I have as much experience as most of them, and more education than most of them, but there is something about a group of peers that tends to intimidate me. The problem with not speaking, even when one's insights are obviously outside of the seeming consensus is that there is a tendency for something known as "groupthink" to occur.

Groupthink is the enemy of innovation and creativity. Groupthink tends to keep everyone going in the same direction without asking if this is the direction we should be going.

The fact is that there is a time to speak, and we should respect the process enough to allow others with various opinions to be heard. In fact, we should encourage diversity of perspectives because if we are all standing on one side of the mountain, we will all have but a part of the picture, not the entire picture. We need to hear from the other side.

If you are informed on the subject, and have another perspective to add to the discussion, do not sit back. Add your voice and be willing to be different.

Emerging Problems

It is no secret that the Emergent movement is a protest against traditional church. The problem with Emergents is that aside from some commonality with respect to their attempts to engage the enigma known as Postmodernism, and a few common practices in the expression of worship, the movement is ill-defined, lacking in theological formation, and is driven by pragmatism rather than principle.

When one attempts to explore the tenants of the Emergent movement, one finds a plethora of voices all claiming to speak for the movement. There are many who are ready to rush into the leadership void, and a few have already claimed that mantle for themselves. They have attempted to set the agenda and when others on the fringe make claims for the Emergent movement they are dismissed because they do not align with a movement that is seeking to liberate church from the confines of creeds and doctrines, boundaries and bonds of traditionalism. Yet, one finds that the logic of Emergent church becomes quite circular and self-serving.

For example, in one message board, an inquirer is shocked at some statements of a self-proclaimed Emergent, but the views of this Emergent are dismissed because they don’t represent the mainline view of the movement. Sez who? Sez the people who claim to be the spokesmen/women for Emergents.

They cannot point to any consistent theology because it is still in formation (or in their words “reformation”). They cannot state what they are, only what they are not. They are not traditional (as they define traditional), they are not linear in their approach to thinking and communicating, they are not modernists, they are not positivists, they are not bound by the dogma of previous generations, they are not limited to previous exegetical approaches to Scripture, they are not churchy, and they are not hierarchical in organizational structure (unless you disagree with the self-ascribed leadership).

The Emergent movement is driven by pragmatism because, by their own admission, it is a movement that is targeting the Postmodern generation. The foundational question is not biblically based, but is culturally driven, it is the question of what do we have to do to reach this generation. A principle driven movement begins with biblically based foundational premises, but the Emergent church is prepared to place clear biblical principles on the shelf while they wrestle with what it will take to appeal to the Postmoderns.

For example, in Scripture the issue of homosexuality is unambiguously addressed as a perversion of human conduct that is completely inconsistent with the biblical example of Christ, Pauline teaching, Old Covenant and New Covenant stipulations. Yet, because the Postmoderns are more open to alternate lifestyles, Brian McLaren is willing to put the issue of homosexuality on hold, to set it aside for a few years before taking a position. Pragmatism does not ask what is right, but what works. Admittedly, many churches are operating from this same paradigm, so how is Emergent any different from the form of church they reject?

Again, fresh expressions of worship are always welcomed. A renewed desire for an experiential relationship with God is certainly appropriate. A willingness to look at Scripture with culturally unbiased eyes for a contemporary word from God is a good thing. But the Emergent movement, as I read it in Sweet, McLaren, et al, is not as much about reformation of Protestantism or Pentecostalism, but it is, in their minds, as much of a protest against current Christianity as Protestantism was against Catholicism. In the words of Erwin McManus, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.”

I am wary of those who drape their own shoulders with the mantle of leadership and then define reality through their own eyes. As one poster on a message board argued, “I am the authority for what the Emergent church really is. Ask me, don’t search for yourself.”

Motivating Volunteers

How do we motivate volunteers to remain committed and to give of themselves sacrificially? I think that Maslow’s self-esteem and self-actualization levels in his five teir hierarchy are important. Additionally, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory holds promise in that the intrinsic conditions needed to elicit motivation can be employed in the church. These are achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, the work itself, and the possibility of growth.

I think that by providing training with certificates and measured advancement can be motivating, as well as publicly presenting certificates or diplomas for completion. Also, recognizing the contributions of others is motivational. I have always had a weekly lay-leaders recognition program where I prayerfully consider the labors of a lay-leader from that week and then recognize them in the bulletin as “Christian Worker of the Week,” and post their name and ministry activity on the bulletin board.

This is important for me as well, in that, if forces me to stop and seriously consider all the significant contributions to ministry that are made by volunteers in the church. After that, I have to stop for a moment and thank God for so many committed people.

Three Leaders In The Flock

The truth is that we have far too many people who want the title, the position, and the privilege of being a leader but fail to lead effectively. It is frustrating for a pastor to have a teacher who does not lead his or her class, to have an elder who does not consistently engage the people for whom he is responsible, or to have the staff member who fails to train and equip workers to minister. Ultimately, as the pastor I am responsible for leading the leaders and developing them. As President Harry Truman reminded himself with a plaque on his desk, “The buck stops here!” If my leaders aren’t leading, then perhaps, I’m not doing my job.

The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 11 through 13 shows us three types of leaders who impact a flock. Jesus said,

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. NIV

A shepherd, by definition, leads the sheep. Jesus said in verse 4 that the sheep will follow the shepherd because they know his voice. Three types of leadership models are found in this text. First, there is the good shepherd. This is a servant leader (or perhaps more definitively, a kenotic leader) who is prepared to give everything for the sheep. Five times in verses 11-18 Jesus refers to laying down His life. This leader is willing to place the welfare of the sheep ahead of his own life.

The second kind of leader is the hired hand. He may be a shepherd, but he has no investment in the flock. He is there for himself and for his own benefit. An example would be a bad Charismatic leader, or perhaps a transactional leader. If it benefits him to care for the flock he will, but if personal sacrifice is called for, it will not happen. He will abandon the flock to the wolf.

Finally, there is the wolf. Although not a leader in the parable, it is true that wolves often come into the flock wearing the mantle of a leader. Jesus refers to them as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He is worse than a hired hand because he is interested only in himself and anticipates using the flock to feed on.

I’ve seen examples of all three of these types of leaders come into a church. I’ve sent the good shepherds who gave and sacrificed and who raised up other good shepherds as the flock grew. I’ve seen hired hands who were just passing through. They needed a church to start out in, but they made no real emotional or spiritual investment in the church. Finally, I’ve seen wolves in a shepherd's garb. They had the hairstyle and the clothing down, the pastoral mannerisms and even the right words, but it quickly became evident that their intention was to fleece the flock and move on. They drained the saving accounts, lived as extravagantly as they could for as long as they could, and then when there was nothing else to take, they moved on. Sadly, too many denominations allow this to happen without corrective action or punitive measures for the wolves.

Grandma's Leadership Paradigm

I grew up in West Virginia deep in the hills next to a creek. Most of the people who lived around us were family. Often when we would get together to address a situation or engage in a project the entire enterprise dissolved into yet another exercise in futility and family feuds. My grandmother (the matriarch of the family) would usually assess the situation by telling us there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I don’t suppose that was politically correct, but then again, I doubt that she ever heard of the concept of political correctness.

Her comment reflected a strongly held belief that someone (emphasize “one”) should be in control. Other phrases like “too many cooks in the kitchen” and “too many hands in the pot” illustrated the idea that there should be a clearly identified, communally recognized, and perhaps even officially certified leader in charge. The feeling was that if this delineation between leader and follower were not clearly defined and respected then nothing would “get done”.

My grandmother was born in 1906 and she died in 2005 at the age of ninety-nine. Obviously, she came from a different era, a time when great men like Ford, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived. It was widely believed that a “great man” could lead a nation, a church, or a business forward in pursuit of success. This was held to be true from the local church on the dirt road of Elk Lick, West Virginia, to the nation’s capital, to the Ford Motor Company that transformed her world from dirt roads and horses, to automobiles and pavement.

By the time my grandmother passed much had changed. Great men had experienced great failures, dramatically affecting the national psyche and bringing about a significant change in the way we view leaders. After Nixon’s Watergate, Clinton’s Monicagate, and the Enron debacle at the hands of a CEO, leaders having singular control is no longer viewed favorably. Now we want more cooks in the kitchen, we want more chiefs in the camp, and we expect to see leadership shared among teams and not held by a few elites at the top of some imaginary hierarchical structure.

There has been a shift of focus in leadership studies from the singular impact of the leader, to the significant importance of the followers. Assumed, perhaps, is that a collective is more trustworthy than an individual is, or that power distributed in the hands of many is less dangerous than a concentration of power in the hands of the few, or the one. This is, after all, the premise of democracy.

More recent leadership literature, such as the massive work by Bernard Bass, Bass & Stogdills’ Handbook of Leadership, or Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organizations, has relegated the Great Man theories to the dusty pages of history. Even the Charismatic Leader theories have been abandoned in favor of Transformational leadership models where the leader empowers, inspires, and partners with the followers. The charismatic leader, or the benevolent dictator, might inspire, but he or she failed to empower or to partner with the followers.

The philosophical shift from a top-down model to a more egalitarian approach is a movement that continues to evolve as the Servant Leadership model popularized by Charles Greenleaf has come into prominence.

My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman whose view of leadership was shaped by the times and by her experiences. It was her experience that too many people trying to take the lead on one project was a failure waiting to happen. However, she readily embraced the cliché espoused by many a preacher that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Furthermore, in our church we regularly observed the practice of feetwashing as a sacrament of our church. Each time we participated in this ordinance we were powerfully reminded of the night Jesus, the Lord and Master, took on the role of a servant. As such, the concept of Servant-Leader was not foreign to her theologically; it was just that she never thought of it as a general model for leadership. One leader in charge with the followers in line behind him was her paradigm. (As a widowed mother of eight children this probably made sense.)

It seems that the modern idealism of an evolution of science and society taking us toward a utopian “Camelot” future died with Kennedy. Skepticism and post-modernity were born with the Vietnam War and Watergate, were nurtured in Monicagate and Enron, and is coming into their own in the light of CIA misinformation leading us into a war on a quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that apparently never existed.

As the war against terrorism wages on and as the level of gridlock, partisanship, and vitriol escalates among the nation’s political “leaders,” we can only imagine where the paradigm of leadership will be 54 years from now when I turn 99. The trend has been to take the leader off the throne, down from the pyramid and into the masses. In fact, the paradigmatic shift now seems to place the leader under the followers, lifting them up and encouraging them to achieve their full potential. So where does the leadership model go from here? Is there an ultimate model, one model that will stand as the logical end to a quest for the perfect model?

If social trends continue and if the leadership paradigm sift continues in the direction it has historically gone, then leadership in 2050 will be problematic at best. The level cynicism and relativism may be as epidemic as the Avian Bird Flue by then. The family, a time tested laboratory for leadership, will be redefined and religious relativism will every man or woman their own Messiah. Perhaps it will all be academic by then. Could it be that the anarchy looming on the horizon of the societal sunset is the very sea out of which a worldwide dictator will emerge? Is this the beginning of the end of leadership? And if leadership is cast into the abyss with the last worldwide dictator (Antichrist), will the world then be ready for a King (Jesus)?

LEADERSHIP DNA

I think there is a book somewhere that has a title referencing leadership DNA. I haven't read it, but in the past few weeks I've been doing extensive reading in the fields of psychology, sociology and epistemology. As I read I see the classic debate of nature vs. nurture being rehashed. Are we born to be leaders, or are we made?

Most will claim that it is a little of both. I would argue (as a parent observing the different temperaments of my children) that we are born with certain personality traits. We are born bold or timid, we are born with an IQ and maybe even an EQ, we are born assertive or reticent, but what we do with these predispositional traits is shaped by our environment. Where we grow up, how we are raised, the opportunities or the challenges we overcome all help to shape the raw DNA material into the person we will become.

As an adult (beginning somewhere around the age of 20 or so) we find that our leadership personality traits (LPT) are fairly well set. We can improve, we can learn, we can maximize our strengths and work around our weaknesses, but we are who we are. This would mean that it can be an exercise in futility to accept a leadership position which is outside the realm of our LPT. We may want the paycheck, the promotion, the recognition and the status, but we should be honest with ourselves and true to ourselves. We will be much more effective and satisfied by finding our fit.

I watched a person in a poor leadership fit, flounder and fail. They began to believe that they could not lead, that they were not a “leader”. But placed in the right position, in the proper setting for their own LPT they excelled and regained their self-confidence. Personality temperament assessments and surveys are helpful tools in providing insight into our LPT and thus, where we are most likely to achieve success as a leader.

We don't like to hear this. We often want to believe that we can do anything that we set our mind to, that we can "grow" into the position. In truth, there is the tendency to grow into our highest level of incompetence (the Peter Principle). Leadership and management courses, seminars, and conferences will gladly take our money and lead us to believe that we can change our LPT and become an effective leader outside of our area of interest, expertise, or leadership DNA. We usually leave the seminar psyched up, enthused and ready to implement a few simple laws of leadership, believing that we will transform ourselves and the organization that we are leading. The truth is that after the excitement wears off, we look in the mirror and we are the same person we were before the course, seminar or conference.

What then is the value of consultation, conferences, seminars or courses? They can help us become better at what we do best. They can help us to understand ourselves and to discover our strengths and identify our weaknesses. We can become more efficient, we can learn new practices, and we can use new tools in the arena of leadership, but it will all be shaped by who we are.

It is for this reason that I believe strongly in the concept of team leadership. A carefully chosen team, with LPT's that complement and complete one another on the team can make all the difference. The future of leadership will probably be in more effective team building and team leading. The days of the Lone Ranger leadership model are quickly passing.

Socialization and the Emergent Movement

I've been doing much reading in preparation for the Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership that I am taking through Regent University. The first semester required over $1,000 in books. There are around twenty books of required reading and these are BIG books. Wew!

In my reading--which includes psychology, sociology, philosophy, management and leadership--I have been challenged in my thinking. One of the challenges is to the idea of the autonomous self. The autonomous self is the belief, idea, theory, or theology that every man or woman is completely in control of who they are, how they think, what they do, how to live, and so forth. Those who believe in autonomous self will argue that a man or woman can change if they want to. That all which is required is that a person pull themselves up by their bootstraps, make a decision to change how their view themselves and then live according to a new paradigm.

The social self theory would argue that there are social dynamics involved over which the individual has only limited or even no control. The social self theory would argue that much of who we see ourselves as (and therefore act and live accordingly) is thrust upon us by society. Therefore we tend to conform to the expectations of society as we come to an understanding of who we are and how we should act in a given societal milieu.

There are some powerful points to be made for both theories, and it may be that there are elements of truth in both. At the very least it should cause us to step back and reflect upon the influence of social expectation upon us and then to ask if we are trying to live up to the image of Christ as an issue of a personal decision of salvation, or if we are merely trying to fulfill the social expectations of a the group with which we identify. We need to consider if we are merely acting as it is expected of us by our church, or if we have truly experienced a spiritual change through the New Birth. Only a true tranformation will enable us to stand and to prevail in the absense of the mediating influences of other Christians.

It would seem to me that much of what happens in religious circles is a socialization process whereby the group in which we find fulfillment and meaning defines us and supplies us with the expectations of acceptance in that group. It is also true that the more dogmatic and the less introspective a group is, the more narrowly they define those expectations, for example the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, or even some forms of fundamentalist Christianity.

The danger of some of the newer forms of religious expression, such as Emergent Theology, is that they can be equally restrictive and self-deluding. There is the propensity for this movement, as with most novel movements, to speak in absolutist terms and with a false sense of definity about things which are, by their own definition, "emerging." They talk about the Postmodern paradigm and assume that current forms of religious expression are not and will not be effective in reaching the next generation. They have put forth their own models for religious expression and declare with some bravado that these expressions are the future of the church because, according to some, the church as we know it has no future (i.e. George Barna).

In predictable fashion the Emergent movement, which represents something of a protest movement against traditional religious expression, is in the process of creating its own tradition, which (as is always the claim) is closer to the primitive expressions of Christianity than current "traditional Christianity". As such, there will be a socialization process within the movement that will define the "authentic Christian". By claiming that they are seeking authenticity there is the implication that other expressions are less than authentic if not inauthentic. Therefore, to be authentic, to be a real Christian, one must allow the definitions of the Emergent movement to shape them. Either way there is then a socialization process involved in this movement or there is acquiescence to the Postmodern social definitions of self. Either way, there are social expectations that seek, even if unknowingly, to redefine individuals according to their new model.

Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate, and am willing to incorporate many of the expressions of worship and witness of the "emergent" movement. My concern is the willingness of the "movement" to dismiss as archaic, current forms of Christian religious expressions. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to malign tradition while at the same time creating your own. Of course, they would argue that they are not creating a tradition, they are rediscovering authentic expressions of the Christian faith. This is, after all, the traditional response by new movements.