VillagePastor

Joining the Resistance

Whether it is the French people confronted with austerity measures, or the introduction of a new product like New Coke, people generally resist change. Change is unsettling—it splashes cold water on our complacency. Mixing up the order of worship, changing classrooms, or leaving out an annual tradition can send people to the moon. It’s little wonder that nearly every day, the doors of another church close, as yet another community dies of inertia—dies because of the resistance, a force dedicated to slowing down or stopping movement.

In his book, Beyond the Walls of Resistance, Rick Maurer proposes some unconventional strategies that build support for change. It’s a helpful work, for most of us in ministry are well acquainted with resistance forces (and most of us need all the help we can with bringing needed change).  Forces can gang up, whether it is because of cosmetic changes to the bulletin or changes in the worship style.  If their signs are not recognized and addressed, one may not survive the inevitable blast.  Among the indicators are these: confusion (so why are we adding another service?); immediate criticism (like a man in my first church who—like Groucho Marx-- prided himself on always voting no- “Whatever it is—I’m against it”); malicious compliance (they smile and appear to go along, something I experience often as a father); sabotage (the innocent small group meeting that has morphed into a war room); silence (never assume silence means agreement!). 

Resistance may be caused by the idea itself. People just think it is a poor idea, or it is the wrong time.  But often resistance is more deeply embedded. Maybe there is an entrenched mistrust of leadership (the result of moral failure of a predecessor), or some deep fears of an identity we might lose, a world we fear is passing away.  It might be racial.  I experienced this in a multicultural, multidenominational, multi-multi church in Holland.  Some of the resistance was directed at those who were Anglo, and some towards those of us who were American.

So what is a leader to do?  Maurer gives several default positions, each ineffective: Aim to overpower (can be either subtle or blatant); manipulation (conveniently leave out the details—or conveniently use a sermon to coerce); overwhelm with facts (turn up the volume of information); ignore (treat as a minor nuisance, like that fly that won’t quit buzzing around the food); play off others (use friendships to get others to agree); make deals (give me your vote and I won’t say anything about your designated offering); give up too soon (this must be a sign God has called me to another ministry).

There is an alternative.  Groups that have become effective in promoting change have done a number of things. Here are some:

-taken resistance seriously

-treated resistors with respect

-maximized communication

-slowed down

-looked for the win-win

Part of taking resistance seriously is to do something counter-intuitive—embrace it. Get into the minds and hearts of those who oppose. Look for their fears and anxieties. Listen to their stories. Find the common ground, for ways to actually join the resistance (we both want to reach your grandchildren).  Aim to come to a shared dissatisfaction with the status quo. Often, people just want to know you are giving them the dignity of respect, involvement.  They want to know you understand their history, and that it will play a role in future change.  Key to this, according to Maurer, is to relax, something hard for visionary, destinational leaders to do. It comes back to something Paul was instructing Timothy—“the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged” (2:25).  Behind these words is the need to stay calm in order to stay engaged.

Ultimately, just about anyone wants change—it’s how to get there.  Even those who prefer the adage “If it ain’t broke-don’t fix it” must realize that such language only consigns them to stay stuck in the present.  Anyone who is reasonable does not want to stay frozen in place, any more than they want to keep watching reruns of NCIS (okay, maybe there are some exceptions). But amidst the resistance, you do have to ultimately move forward. The train has to leave the station. Some resistors will have to be left behind. Some moments will have to be seized—for life is too terribly short, and the stakes are too high.

 

 

Our Disturbing Contemporary Culture

A few weeks ago, at the Q Conference I attended in Washington, DC, we were greeted by the US President (via video). I initially found it remarkable and assuring that we have a President who affirms his stance with us in the cause of Christ. In fact, he wanted us to know he had just come from an Easter prayer breakfast, which reinforced his message of solidarity with the 700-800 Christian leaders in the audience, as well as underscored how meaningful is the resurrection of Christ for him and us.  But I was sitting next to a member of a conservative think tank in DC, and I couldn’t help but ask him how genuine the remarks were. His assessment, given the ongoing actions of the administrative, was somewhat skeptical (and cynical).  He reminded me that this is the same administration that recently signed off on withholding any government funding to those in the medical field who withhold surgeries due to conscience (e.g. performing an abortion). And then there was ABC interview, and his statement affirming gay marriage, and in the process, radically redefining marriage.

More recently, I was at a major Portland event, a fundraiser for a major Christian ministry, and again, a political leader (the mayor of Portland) came and praised the cause in which we share in. And yes, I admit, there was a part of me (naïve perhaps) that wanted to again believe he really stands with us (stands for something).  But given his celebration this morning of the action the President took yesterday on gay marriage (“I’m so fricken happy”), as well as his own professed gay lifestyle, you can’t help but wonder—are we just being used? Politicians are so artful in saying what people want to hear, that I find it hard to avoid a growing cynicism deep within myself. It’s not that I put my hope in politicians, nor that I have been prone to believe most of them.  I’m just amazed at how brazen they can be in saying one thing and doing another in these days.

But then, pastors can do this as well. Again, there was yet another disheartening news item regarding a Christian leader and sexual perversion. A nearby pastor of a Baptist church is being investigated for placing a camera in the women’s restroom of his church. It is both amazing and disturbing that people can say just the right things, preach just the right things, and posture themselves to suggest a certain stance with Jesus, and yet be so defiant in their behavior.

This is not directed towards homosexual behavior, so much as it is at the growing perverse sexual misbehavior that is defining our landscape. It is directed at a growing number who conveniently use Jesus or the Bible in their statements, and do it with a casualness (and often a thoughtlessness).  I find few have really taken any time to seriously search the Scriptures, interpret Scripture on its terms (not theirs), and truly hear what God has said and is saying on themes regarding the life of the unborn or sexual purity (let alone sit down with careful theologians to engage in serious dialogue).  Far more are interested in the subject of human rights (the right to an abortion, the right to a marital union, etc.), but few seriously are asking the question—by what authority (or to whom) should I be submitting my life to? Whose right is it really? Whose institution of marriage is it (divine or private)? If any union that is consensual is legitimate, where do we draw the line next?

All too many quote from Scripture without really studying Scripture—put words in Jesus’ mouth without pausing to truly listen to what He has said regarding, life, sex, marriage, holiness, and godliness.

There is hesitancy in letting my thoughts be posted, as I work hard as a pastor at showing grace, not getting involved in politics, and not allowing my ministry to be defined by single issues (like gay marriage or abortion).  The church has too often been known for what it is against, and not for what it is for—for being graceless rather than graceful.  But there are times you have to speak, lest a moral confusion pervade and consume our age. We are radically redefining what is not ours to define and affirming latitude on subjects where there is no latitude. 

The irony is that some of the headlines would suggest the President took the moral high ground on what might be the great civil rights struggle of our time.  Really?  If the high ground is defined today as redrawing the design of marriage (what I would say is actually defying what God intended-a faithful and pure union between a man and a woman), or providing funding and law so women can have an abortion (with no one speaking up for the unborn), or defining people largely by their sexual orientation (when our identity as people made in the image of God is so much higher)—then you can’t help but wonder—what is the low ground?

Are We Connecting?

One of the indicators, to my kids for sure, that I have come perilously close to obsolescence is the fact I do not text, do not tweet, and rarely visit Facebook.  My response to them, feeble as it may seem, is that everyone draws some boundaries around their accessibility.  Landline, cell phone, mail, email, a personal visit—they all work for me.  Occasional communication comes via Facebook and blog sites, but that is about it. In their eyes, I am disconnected.  And maybe so, but there is something to the adage—if you are always available, you are not worth much when you are available.  Being unavailable is often much more necessary than being available. But it is more…

On the latest cover of The Atlantic are two people embracing, and next to them is this caption—“Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?”  For all of our present connectivity, all of our amazing networking, the author’s contention is that we have never been lonelier.  This seems quite ironic!  We are talking to more and more people online, but actually meeting fewer and fewer people in person.  A certain social disintegration may actually be taking place, and this has huge consequences.  Loneliness takes a huge toll.  Studies indicate a rise in dementia, obesity, and depression in people who have chosen a kind of isolation.

There is a lot of virtual community going on, but it is no substitute for face to face interaction, flesh and blood ties.  The greater the proportion of time spent physically connecting, the less lonely people are.  If texting and Facebook, etc. increase the probability of this, than they become essential tools.  But if they become a substitute for personal interaction, which research indicates, there is the real possibility we are creating a culture of desolate people, leached of empathy, spontaneity, and humanity.

So what is the attraction to technologies and social networks that create superficial connections—that so much of culture has embraced?  Here’s one answer—one can avoid the mess of human interaction. As Stephen Marche puts it, “The beauty of Facebook…is that it enables us to be social while sparing us the reality of society—the accidental revelations made at parties, the awkward pauses, the farting and the spilled drinks and the general gaucherie of face-to-face contact. Instead, we have the lovely smoothness of a seemingly social machine.” 

There are a number of significant voices that are also asking the same question as Marche.  A couple of weeks ago, at the Q Conference in Washington, D.C., I listened to Sherry Turkle, professor of Social Studies at MIT and author of Alone Together. Her first question to us was this—are we stronger than technology’s pull? Her conclusion?  For the most part, we are not.  We are getting closer to machines and distancing ourselves from one another.  We are connecting “in sips”, and this does not work so well in helping us understand and know one another.  Only in face to face conversation can we really hear tone and nuance, which all require time and patience and inconvenience.  Without this, we are losing the bedrock skill of self-reflection.  She left us with another question—will we eventually spend more time conversing with a phone App that promises companionship but offers no connection?

Yesterday, I had lunch with a recent widower, a 79 year old man who is still amazingly young.  He is adjusting to life retired, and life alone.  And he just may be falling in love again.  But this cannot be conveyed in a text, let alone an email.  Apart from face to face contact, there is no substitute for a phone—and an occasional five, six, or seven page letter—the kind I used to write before so much technology gave us instant communication.  And yes, there is the wait.  But this kind of dialogue takes time.  Great responses need the opportunity to ponder, reflect, and linger over words. 

I’m not a Luddite arguing against technology.  I do like the immediacy of emails and the convenience of cell phones.  But I am with Marche—I think we are becoming a lonelier culture. I spend time at an airport looking at a sea of people, most of whom are looking at a hand held device and missing those around them.  I believe God would have us regularly ask some needful questions—just how available do we want to be? How much is technology crowding out a God who neither texts nor tweets?  Am I losing the ability to write words that have been pondered over and crafted with the skill of an artist?  Can I still sense the tone, the nuance of the person I am sitting next to? Am I losing the ability to read an expression on a face? Have I become more—or less connected—really connected into one’s soul, heart, joys, and pain?  Is our church really a place of radical connections?

Building a Theology of Sleep

I've always found sleep to be a profound mystery—in so many ways. There are nights, like last night, that I vaguely recall getting into bed and turning on some music. I can remember nothing after that. But there are those other nights, thankfully rare, that I read, listen to music, turn on the news, read some more, pray, count sheep, stare at the ceiling—anything to get my body into a state of rest. And then there is the mystery surrounding dreams, some I can easily connect the dots, but most are so random I wonder if another brain occasionally infiltrates and takes over.

In the latest Time Magazine, Jeffrey Kluger writes about sleep ("Shhh! Genius at Work"). Recent research is beginning to discover a lot more about what is actually happening when we shift from high tide to low tide. Sleep scientists are discovering what is already obvious—that the brain is a loud, messy, and stormy place when we drift off. The brain's prefrontal cortex, that acts like a "traffic-cop", keeping a certain order during the day, goes off duty in the night, and wild things happen. As Kluger puts it, the sleeping brain runs its absurdist movie loop. I doze off and find myself in the pulpit, in my pajamas, finding my notes scattered, my speech confused, and the faculty I once sat under sitting in the front row listening to my awkward stammering!

Much of this activity occurs when one enters the second cycle of sleep, when one moves from non-rapid to rapid eye movement (REM). One's imagination takes off. It helps explain why we sometimes wake up with a brilliant idea. Paul McCartney came up with the melody for "Yesterday" in a dream. Out of her rapid eye movement, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. I have discovered that in those moments I awake in the night, my brain seems to churn out some of its best ideas. I am learning to keep a notepad nearby. We have not simply unplugged. As Leonard Sweet puts it, we have changed frequencies. Beta waves switch to alpha waves, which are emitted when the conscious mind operates at lower cycles.

Which helps to explain Lauren Winner's wonderful article "Sleep Therapy" in Books & Culture some years ago. Her basic thesis is that living with the intention of getting proper sleep is countercultural (for much of our culture is sleep deprived), but it is for the common good. Tragedies from sleep deprivation  cost Americans more than 50 billion dollars a year. Those who trade sleep for productivity are fooling themselves. We would accomplish more (and Kluger would add—be more creative) if we slept more.

I remember during my student days driving from Portland to San Diego—nearly 18 hours of non-stop driving. I nearly blacked out in LA, and it took me two days to recover. Pretty crazy. But Winner would add—pretty unfaithful. Proper sleep honors the fact that the day really begins the night before. This is how the ancient Jewish culture viewed sleep. Everything begins with how we go to bed. And we must go to bed. But it is more. Sleep testifies to the fact we are creatures who are finite. Ps 127 refers to sleep deprivation as vainness. When we short circuit sleep, we are often saying we cannot bear to relinquish control. We are ignoring God's creative purpose. As Sweet notes, resting is clearly a divine prerogative. Only God neither slumbers nor sleeps.

I think I will take a nap.

 

Why I Am Convinced the Hope of the World Is the Church

There’s something about the atmosphere of Washington, DC that is different than most cities I have visited.  There is the history all around you, the monuments that commemorate great men and events, as well as the feel of power.  Everyone seems to want to get close to it (though these are moments I think of Jesus’ words—all authority has been given to Me, both in heaven and on earth).

I am here because of the Q Conference, which is one of the most unique gatherings on earth.  Here, leaders from nearly every sphere of culture gather to learn, reflect, collaborate, and take action to renew society—to do something in the name of Jesus for the common good.  Like a mini TEDS, in the span of two days, I have listened to nearly forty presentations from some of the most fascinating people on earth.  All are committed to impacting their world.  Here are a few examples:

• Andy Crouch spoke about power and how we must rethink how we use it for flourishing—not for coercion
• David Brooks of the NY Times addressed the arrogance of our present culture and how we must rediscover the power of humility
• Sherry Turkle, professor of MIT, raised the question of whether we are strong enough to resist technology’s pull and recover the lost the art of conversation
• Hans Hess, an entrepreneur, exposed what is happening to our food source. 97.5% is grown in a monoculture, having a huge negative impact on our diets
• Chai Ling, author of A Heart for Freedom, was once the lead protestor at Tiananmen Square, and described the ugly side of genderside, sharing the alarming number of female abortions that happen every day in China.

This was just a part of the first day! Yesterday, we heard from Barbara Hagerty of NPR, Miroslav Volf, Diane Langberg (psychologist from Westminster) who spoke about the devastation of trauma, Jeremy Courtney (living in Iraq and making a difference helping with the after effects of war), and Bryan Stevenson, an Anglo African attorney, share the horrific statistics of incarceration.

And then there were Sami Awad and Daniel Seidemann, a Christian Palestinian and a secular Jew. They spoke about the desperate need for a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict before it is too late.

If there is one huge take away, it is this: In almost every talk, there was the subtle, and at times, overt message, that the hope in so many of these issues, rests in the church.  Will we open our eyes, engage in the issues, and allow ourselves to be broken as we get closer to the broken? 

 I was personally challenged by Mark Batterson, a pastor in DC, who shared these convictions—

• there are ways of doing church the church has not thought of yet
• the church ought to be the most creative place on the planet
• we must become known for what we are for
• the church belongs in the middle of the public square

This is what everyone was essentially saying.  Get engaged church! Even Daniel Seidemann, this Jewish attorney, who described his own lack of faith, nonetheless said something astounding at the end of his talk.  He pleaded for the church to come and bring its faith to the Middle East conflict before it is too late.

Today's final session, held at the US Institute of Peace, focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It reiterated the same theme. The church has been a major reason for so much of the impasse—yet it can still play a significant role if it wakes up and honors both the Jewish need for security and the Palestinian's need for a home. It will require us to be a leading voice for justice and mercy. If we spend our time playing with prophetic timelines and read no deeper than a  Left Behind series, we will remain part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The church is the hope of the world.  Will we wake up to the challenge?

 

 

 

 

 

Living With the Unwanted Guest of Doubt

It's fairly common to read about someone's journey from doubt to faith. It's less common to read a book about the journey going the opposite direction. And even rarer that it is penned by a pastor. But that is what Not Sure: A Pastor's Journey from Faith to Doubt is about.

John Suk has served in ministry in various capacities, including the editor of the official publication of the Christian Reformed Church. And in his book he invites his readers into the deeper regions of his soul, exposing what some of us would prefer to remain covered up. It is a journey from an undoubting and unwavering faith of a child, through wracking doubt, and on to a faith of a mature adult that still wrestles with uncertainty.

Suk uses personal, even relational language to describe doubt. He likens it to "a stranger to whom he must be a gracious host", a host who does not spoil the visit with anger or impatience. But in the end, as he puts it, "doubt usually overstays its welcome anyway, no matter how I treat it."  Meanwhile, Suk continues to court a lover he cannot have—certainty.

It is not a feel good read, especially during Easter week, but I am reading it because the text I am preaching declares that even in the presence of a resurrected Savior, some doubted (Matt 28:17). At times, some of Suk's transparency is downright demoralizing, not that this appears to be his intent. Unless I am naive here, the book is not written as an apologia for doubt so much as a fellow traveler asking hard questions and pointing out that there are no easy answers. Here are a few examples of doubt drawn from Suk's rather long list—

 – I doubt because I wonder how God can allow this to go on when he claims to have already triumphed over evil in Jesus' resurrection

– I wonder why, if God doesn't answer prayers to end genocides or famines he would answer a prayer for traveling mercies

– many Christians claim to have heard a still, small voice and seen the face of God, but I wonder—for I've never had the epiphany so many others claim to have had.

Suk cannot pinpoint the moment he started doubting. A good part of this book came out of a year he and his wife took to travel and seek renewal. Instead, it turned out to be a crisis of faith. Certain events and facts began to build an infrastructure for doubt to inhabit when it was ready. Unfortunately, most of the preaching he heard that year driving around the country did not help—

– spending a year on the road, I heard more sermons that went nowhere and focused on abstract ideas

– we encountered a lot more Power Point presentations that were a jumble of barely related points around a broad theme than we ran into compelling, tightly knit sermons about a single, memorable theme

Over time, the balance between faith and doubt shifted. As he puts it, "I began to mainly doubt, with some faith left over."

It will be interesting to see the response to his book, not that it is novel or new. Saints have doubted, as far back as Abraham and beyond. And our contemporary Christian culture seems to want to embrace doubt and wrap it in words like mystery. And to a certain extent, this can be healthy. Doubt and uncertainty are threads woven into every literate Christian's faith.

But doubt can, as Suk puts it, work like slow erosion, ripping away faith. In my life, I deal with occasional doubts nearly every day, but they draw me back to certainties my faith is supported and rests upon—that God is sovereign, having authority over everything;  that He is none other than wise in everything He does; that He could not be more good than He is, and more powerful than He claims. The alternatives, as Suk points out, are illusion and despair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brain Rules

Some years ago, Atlantic Monthly published an article entitled, “Is Google Making Us Stoopid?”  In it, Nicholas Carr made a compelling case that the internet is having a far more profound effect on our thinking than any of us realize. Skimming from one idea to another has the potential of remapping our neural circuitry. We are losing the ability to have a sustained thought. As he put it, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski.” To put it another way, we are at risk of turning into pancake people, spread wide and thin, as we connect with the vast network of information accessed by the touch of a button.

Assuming this to be true, it is in our interest to become more and more aware of how the brain actually works. Thankfully, an increasing number of books are being published on the brain, including John Medina’s Brain Rules. His goal is to give the reader twelve rules, twelve insights as to how the brain works. Here are a few that are particularly helpful, especially if we hope our brains will work at maximum efficiency:

1-The power of the intellect is tied directly to physical exercise. Because exercise regulates the release of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, a lifestyle devoted to fitness physically can elevate cognitive performance. In fact, one’s risk for general dementia is cut in half if one is in the regular habit of swimming, biking, weightlifting, etc. The brain itself acts like a muscle. Some parts of the brain stay as malleable as a baby’s brain, so we can grow new connections, create new neurons, enabling us to become lifelong learners, life long explorers. Hence, the more activity one does the larger and more complex the brain becomes.

2-The brain does not put up with boring lectures—or anything else that leads to dullness. At best, presenters have ten minutes to sustain interest—600 seconds to keep one’s attention. And then, wakefulness quickly wanes. The brain demands that we engage interest again. So keep core concepts to ten minutes, always giving meaning before details. If a lecturer fails to tell people where he/she is going, and what it all means, the audience is forced to listen to the instructor while attempting to figure out how it all fits. This amounts to multi-tasking, which the brain is not equipped to do very well. So keep the listener focused, with clear direction and meaning, and know that at 9:59 into your talk, attention is about to plummet to near zero. What’s necessary are “hooks”, something that triggers the emotion or something that is relevant, connected to the end of the first ten minutes or as introduction to the next ten minutes.

3-The brain’s memory system requires repetition to remember. Here’s something encouraging to all teachers—people usually forget 90% of what they learn in a class within 30 days. It gets worse. For those of us who preach, the majority of this forgetting occurs within the first few hours (possibly minutes). Our assumption is that people are like recording devices. They push the record button, than play back what they have learned. A more accurate metaphor is a blender. The brain is like a Vitamix machine left running with the lid off. Information enters, is sliced into pieces, and splattered all over the insides of our minds. Some memories hang around a few moments, and then vanish (I am finding this with increasing frequency). Other memories have a longer life span. Repetition is a key to memory persisting in the brain. Repeating information in timed intervals helps stabilize memory. But it is more. We must present information so compelling, so meaningful, so personal that the hearer engages in deep encoding of what has been taught.

4-Our respect for the health of the brain is directly tied to our respect for sleep. It is possible to become dysfunctional by having not enough sleep. Our biggest problem in our culture is a lack of sleep, and sleep loss equals brain drain. Studies indicate that not getting enough sleep cripples learning, hurts attention, memory, logical reasoning, not to mention motor skills. Sleep can actually improve learning, for the brain actually learns while we are sleeping. Strange as it seems, some kind of offline processing occurs, that only occurs when the exterior world is shut off for a time. The reality is, the brain never sleeps (my dreams tell me this—they seem to be the moments the brain enters into extreme freefall).

5-Stress can do irreparable damage to the brain. Some kinds of stress actually aid in learning, but certain types hurt it. Stress that is ongoing for days, even months, builds up hormones that are given free access to the central nervous system. Stress hormones can eventually disconnect neural networks. Ongoing stress can ultimately lead to strokes.

6-The brain loves multisensory information. Students learn better from words and pictures than words alone. We know this already, but here’s what we may not know. Students learn better when words are pictures are presented simultaneously rather than successively, when words and pictures are close to each other, and extraneous material is excluded. The brain loves learning that takes advantage of smell (which has an unusual power to bring back memory), learning that is both auditory and visual (vision trumps all other senses), and learning that is kinesthetic.

Back to Google. How we treat the brain and use the brain have profound implications for future cranial performance. And for some of us, we will need all of the help we can get.

Rescuing the Church From Goods and Services

It’s not often I come out of a dissertation defense with my head spinning and my heart breaking.  But this is in fact what happened to me this week as I listened to Dan Jarrell’s presentation of his paper.  On the surface, a title that reads—“Beyond Technology: Albert Borgmann’s ‘Device Paradigm’ And Its Implications for American Evangelical Churches” may not cause someone to stop in their tracks, but I will tell you that this paper has given me pause and challenged me to some serious reflection.

Dan is a pastor of a significant church, one of the largest if not the largest in Alaska (ChangePoint in Anchorage).  The catalyst to this project was a DMin prof, Andy Crouch, who pointed Dan to Borgmann’s writing (e.g. Power Failure: Christianity in the Culture of Technology).  Crouch is one of the best thinkers on culture (note his book Culture Making).  It was also fueled by Dan’s own growing frustration with the problem of consumerism in the church and the wholesale marketing of sacred things as if they were commodities to be consumed. He took the ideas of Albert Borgmann and applied them to the philosophy, culture, and practice of American evangelical churches in general and American megachurches in particular.

Here’s a powerful paragraph, just a sample of what Dan is saying in much of his work:

 “Consumers find freedom in devices that deliver what they value, becoming dependent upon those devices and embracing a “device paradigm” that shapes their view of life. Over time, consumers lose all sense of the value of process. They think technologically, expecting their needs to be addressed through devices, even when those needs cannot be commoditized. I contend that American evangelicals have learned to think of spiritual maturity and community as commodities. They expect their churches to provide the devices necessary for enjoying those commodities with minimal engagement in the processes that create and cultivate them. Churches grow if their programs and services seem to deliver what is expected, yet neither maturity nor community is a commodity. Neither can be enjoyed without full participation in process. The result is ironic: churches that are most effective in delivering a product are least effective in making disciples.”

As I listened to the presentation, I found much of what was said disturbing, not because anything was wrong, but because so much of what we have allowed ministry to become has gotten off center.  Dan essentially shared that this project has been his own journey of repentance—shifting from “device” thinking to “grace” thinking. Device thinking focuses on efficiency (best means to achieve an end), calculability (bigger is always better), predictability (making people feel comfortable and safe), and control (institutionalizing and packaging).  This is what a technological society values.  It is also what pastors can come to value, especially as the church grows into a large corporation. 

In contrast, grace thinking is much more interested in participation (how can we get maximum personal engagement with what matters?) and contingency (creating space for the inefficient, the immeasurable, the unexpected, and the uncontrolled). 

Just as our consumerism culture has reduced, fragmented things into mere commodities to consume, assisted by machine and technology, so the church has tended to fragment, reduce, mechanize the things that are focal, transcendent, things that provide a center of orientation.  It looks something like this--worship is reduced to excellence on stage, with passive observers expecting something more next week; fellowship gets reduced to giving units; obedience gets reduced to legalism; sacrament gets reduced to an efficient prefilled communion cup with wafer; and the Bible gets reduced to a sermon extracted from its metanarrative-e.g.“7 tips to Marital Happiness”).

So what needs to happen? Here are some of Dan’s thoughts: First, we need to repent of our tendency to follow the ways of a reductionist culture.  Second, we must reconsider how we evaluate success.  Our metrics need to count servants, not listeners; celebrate initiative (people finding ways to get engaged) over impact; and measure success in terms of deployment over detaining. Third, we need to embrace contingency (meaning—pack your plans with margins, welcome uncertainty, provoke dialogue, and be brave to invite criticism). 

Here are other things--Keep structures simple and lean.  Do things with, not for, people.  Turn the love boat (10% serving the 90%) into an aircraft carrier (everyone on board vital to the mission). Value personal touch over distant technology.

Too easily I find myself embracing a theology of achievement.  Papers like this help me move back to a theology of alignment—with what it is God values most.

Starfish and Spiders

I feel a little bit late to the party on this one. Particularly in my Mideast travels, I have heard this book referenced to in discussions about how to do ministry. Finally, after a couple of years, I decided I needed to read and process The Starfish and the Spider. It has been referred to as one of the most important books in business and leadership, a "provocative new way to look at the world," as well as a new revolution.

The Spider represents organizations that have a head, are hierarchical, and are centralized. Cut off the head and the spider dies. Think General Motors or the former Soviet Union or AT&T before 1984. Starfish represents communities that have no head, are not top down, and are decentralized. Cut a part off, and each will generate into a whole new starfish. Think the Internet or eBay or Skype or Wikipedia or House Churches.

The argument of the book is that organizations are ultimately more effective, creative, and intelligent when they look like Starfish. An open system that is flat encourages greater involvement, a greater sharing of power and knowledge, and has greater resilience. Cut off a part, and a new organization might replace it. Starfish are more amorphous and fluid, whereas Spider organizations that depend upon structure are more rigid. Things can be messy and chaotic, but with Starfish you get incredible creativity. What holds a Spider together is a strong, authoritarian head.  Starfish, on the other hand, are held together by catalysts and ideologies.

Call me a modernist or a traditionalist (or an autocrat – after all I am a "Senior" Pastor), but for all the positives, the book has some serious flaws. The main one, in my mind, is a tendency to overstate the advantages of Starfish and exaggerate the weaknesses of Spiders. According to the authors, in top down organizations followers are not inspired to give it their all. Leaders want to control what is happening, and creativity is limited. Is this true? There is certainly the potential for this, but it is also true that, with the right leadership, followers will be inspired way beyond themselves.  Great leaders are not as interested in control as they are in serving their followers, and their great delight is unleashing creativity.

One of my worst courses at San Diego State was a Political Science course taught by a professor who decided to create a Starfish environment. Everything was decentralized, and the class was invited to design the course. It was messy and chaotic, and ultimately a waste of time and money. Honestly, it was one of the courses where nothing was really learned.

To the book's credit, The Starfish and the Spider, does introduce a hybrid model, where leaders give teams latitude to have a measure of independence and be creative. The authors call it hitting the "sweet spot."  But to me, it sounds more like Spiders being what Spider's are supposed to be – allowing for enough decentralization for creativity, but sufficient structure and controls to ensure consistency.

The authors see a new world emerging, where organizations like churches will more and embrace a Starfish model, gravitating to house churches where small can provide a fundamental advantage.  Maybe…but my general observation is that most end up as leaderless groups with a far greater potential for theological confusion and drift. What's needed are churches with the kind of leadership that creates growth, builds momentum and movements and makes cultural impact, while always aiming to become smaller (i.e. create community, unleash gifts, invite everyone to the table, and shepherd people's needs).

Lessons From Steve Jobs

Reading Isaacson’s Steve Jobs has been a pretty amazing experience. I JUST FINISHED LAST NIGHT, AND LIKE Gordon MacDonald, who recently wrote a piece on Jobs, I regretted getting to the last page. He has to be one of the most unique men who has ever lived. Maybe history will place him in the pantheon next to Edison and Ford, for he truly built the world’s most creative company, Apple. He launched a series of products that transformed whole industries—

• the Apple II
• the Macintosh
• Toy Story
• Apple Stores
• The iPod
• The iTunes Store
• the iPhone
• the App Store
• the iPad
• iCloud

 So here are some takeaways from his life—

1-Be as meticulous with the unseen as you are with the seen. Jobs grew up as an adopted child, and lived in a working class home. His father loved to work with his hands, and work in his garage. He was meticulous with detail. He taught his son to craft the backs of things like cabinets and fences, even though they are hidden. The important lesson he learned was to do things right, to care about the parts you cannot see. It led him to despise carelessness in a product. He applied this to everything he created at Apple.

 2-Never underestimate the formative influence you can have with a middle schooler. This part of the story scared me, as I think about the words I say as a pastor. Jobs attended a Lutheran church as child, but it came to an end when he was thirteen. He confronted his pastor with a question regarding human suffering and the sovereignty of God, and the pastor’s answer led him to reject Christianity. He went on to practice the tenets of Zen Buddhism, mixed with meditation and spirituality, acid and rock. He followed the basic precepts of Eastern religions. Until his final days, he never had any real assurance about the things of God. He concluded that different religions have different doors to the same house, and maybe the house exists and maybe it doesn’t.

3-A fly in the ointment can spoil the perfume. Jobs had an amazing, creative mind. He was a genius. He could absorb information and sniff the future winds. He inspired and challenged the very best from people, and attracted the very best minds in the world. He won people to a cause, and it moved CEO’s from major corporations (like Sculley of  Pepsico-“Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want a chance to change the world?”). He attracted the brightest and bests artists and engineers. He could be charming, charismatic, and even mesmerizing. But he could also be manipulative, brutally cold, and rude. There was no regulator between his mind and his mouth. He created unnecessary fears because of his spontaneous temper tantrums and his proclivity to tell people exactly what he thought. Ultimately, his profane and nasty edge hindered more than helped him.

 4-There is great power in intensity and focus. Isaacson, after all of his research and interviews came to the conclusion that Jobs’ most salient trait was his intensity. He set priorities and aimed his laser attention on them. He could filter out all distractions. Jobs believed that deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do.  Because Jobs brought intensity into everything he did, it created its own tension. He was tightly coiled and impatient. His silences could be as searing as his rants. He either praised you or cursed you. It was either a great product or it was crap. Whatever he was interested in, he almost always took to an irrational extreme. But this is a huge part of what made his accomplishments great. One is left wondering if one can truly achieve at a level of greatness without this.

to read the rest of the article go to Trans-formed