Good Leadership, Part 1

It is not easy to lead change in any organization, but it is especially hard in a church. Churches are formed around community and one of the key elements we long for in community is stability. Therefore, it is understandable why congregations naturally resist change. But churches and denominational bodies must fight this resistance to change and our leaders must be remarkably self-aware in order to lead us through difficult times. Change is a reality. Congregations can lock into a “no-change” mindset, but they will find it will only lead to decline and ineffectiveness.

Leadership is key in managing change. Making hard decisions in the face of difficulties are not the requisite of a strong leader; a leader’s greatest gift is enabling and teaching their organization to learn. Jesus was the greatest example of this. Jesus modeled the kind of life he desired his followers to live, but Jesus also enabled his followers to learn and grow. They were able to carry on his mission and calling after he was gone. They became leaders in his absence. The great failing of any leader is to live under the haughty assumption that the organization, or church in our discussion, can’t get it right without them. If one of the key aspects of leadership and change management is creating learners, then we must first and foremost be learners. A leader is at his or her best when they are able to engage in the learning process with others, recognizing the mismatches they themselves contribute to in the organization. How can a leader expect followers to learn if the leader refuses to learn?

Chris Argyris, in his book Knowledge in Action: A Guide for Overcoming Obstacles to Organizational Change, states, “Learning occurs when we detect and correct error. Error is any mismatch between what we intend an action to produce and what actually happens when we implement that action. It is a mismatch between intentions and results. Learning also occurs when we produce a match between intentions and results for the first time.”

Learning is an integral part of change and leaders (and followers, for that matter) must understand that if we are not learning we are not leading. Effective learning, within our Christian context, does not happen in isolation. We must have advisors, mentors, and even “ruthlessly, compassionate partners” who come alongside us to help us see when we are becoming defensive. If a leader lives in isolation and never receives critical feedback about whether or not their intentions and actions are in line, they do more harm than good in their church or organization.

Argyris goes on to say that learning is an active concept. Learning is not just about ideas or new insights. Learning requires effective action. We must identify and correct the errors. Identifying errors alone is not enough. It is much easier to identify, but much harder to correct errors. This is key in leadership and this is also where most leaders fail. How many times have you heard leaders in our society diagnose our problems? They are easy to identify and there is no innate gift of leadership required to see the problems we face. Correcting problems on the other hand is difficult work and this is where the leader makes their contribution.

The unfortunate problem in our churches is that many of our leaders are leaders in title only. They are unable to correct error and teach others to correct error. The great question to ask of any leader, to determine whether they are effective or not, is this: How do we know that you know what you say you know? When you can produce what it is you claim you know. Claiming to know something is useless. We have untold numbers of blogs and writings from people claiming to know a lot about a lot of things. There is only one problem. Most of these writers have never actually been able to accomplish the things they write about. Most of these writers have never actually corrected the errors they see in their churches or organizations. When they fail, they blame the membership or the culture or the previous administration or the lack of money or the community or whatever other excuse they can find to absolve their ineffectiveness. Do you want to define effectiveness? Effectiveness is the ability to detect error AND correct it. Without the ability to correct the errors, we are simply prophetic blowhards.

Here are three elements from Chris Argyris that are helpful for the leader as they seek to detect and correct error and teach their church/organization to learn and grow.

First, Argyris says, “there will always be a gap between our stored knowledge and the knowledge required to act effectively in a given situation. In order to fill the gap, learning about the new context in the new context is required.” What this simply means is that whatever worked for you in the past in your previous context is not the same thing that will work in your current context. The context is different. The culture is different. The leader must have enough agility in intellect and action to recognize that they cannot bring the same template to a new context. Some elements may come forward, but they are never the same. There is a gap between what you know and what will work where you are. Recognize that and be humbled by it.

Second, “even after the knowledge gap has been relatively closed, it is unlikely that the action we design and implement will be adequate. Most contexts or situations that concern us are constantly changing. We cannot assume that other individuals or groups will react as we had thought they would when we designed our actions. There is a continual need for vigilant monitoring of our and others' actions.” Even after the leader claims to ‘know’ the context and is ready to lead, they must have enough humility and self-awareness to know that people within this context will not respond as people in other contexts. We need help from others to monitor our actions to help us see what we do not see. It has always amazed me that pastoral counselors and psychotherapists all have their own therapists to help them process things they do not see clearly, yet pastors, district superintendents, and bishops seem to think we don’t need help monitoring our leadership and responses.

Third, and finally, “learning is not only required in order to act effectively; it is also necessary to codify effective action, so that it can be reliably repeated when it is appropriate.” When I came to my new appointment at a large congregation on St. Simons Island, one of the first things I did was spend time on developing an employee policy handbook, wedding policy, and facility usage policy. Our church is an amazingly beautiful sanctuary on a beautiful island on the coast of Georgia. Through the years, they have encountered all sorts of issues with employees, facilities, and weddings and they had dealt with most issues but they had never written any of it down. I hate policies and it wasn’t what I wanted to spend time doing, but the process helped me learn the context and it has saved trmendous amounts of time in the following years because our learning is now being transmitted to new committees and employees causing less stress and strain. We are now better able to make disciples because we spent time on some organizational codification. I never thought that would be the case, but it is true.

One last note, leaders are decision makers. Every expert on leadership and organizational culture agrees that leaders should have monitors, advisors, and “ruthlessly, compassionate truth tellers” who can help us identify when we become defensive. One of the greatest problems a leader faces is defensiveness because it keeps the leader from seeing things honestly and clearly. All leaders should encourage trusted advisers to confront them when the advisers see them behaving defensively. I have a few people on staff and in my church that I have encouraged and given permission to be my advisors in my journey. I know they are people who speak freely and honestly and will not spare my feelings but rather share my passion for the good of the church I lead.

It is not easy to lead change, but the church of the next century needs leaders who can teach their churches to learn, grow, and change.

What Leaders Pay Attention To...Tomorrow

I used to love to plant a tomato garden in the back yard. Every year, I would till the soil, buy the young plants, place them properly in the ground, and nurture them over time waiting for the tomatoes to come. As anyone will tell you, there is nothing better than a tomato ripened on the vine. Those “vine-ripened” tomatoes in the grocery store? I’m not sure what “vine” they were ripened on, but it’s not the same kind of vine I used to grow.

Now, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to answer this question. What would happen if I did all the prep work, prepared the soil, planted the tomatoes, but left them alone once they were in the ground? Let’s just say I didn’t water them, care for them, or pay them any attention at all. I might get a few tomatoes, but the harvest would certainly suffer. Nurturing anything takes a lot of commitment over a long period of time. It’s one thing to put all your time and energy into starting something (is it fair to say many of us are great at starting things?), but it makes all the difference in the world how much time and energy is put into the long term nurturing. This is the essence of disciple making.

What we pay attention to, what we resource, what we value, and what we devote time to all reveal what matters to us. Over the long haul, leaders shape what really matters by what they pay attention to and by what they nurture.

I’ve been in ministry for almost 20 years and I have seen many programs brought to our attention by the United Methodist Church. Some of these programs and emphases were designed for a set period of time, say four or ten years. Any time a new ‘movement’ begins in the church, a lot of energy and effort goes into getting it off the ground. But the true, culture-shaping power of any program/movement comes only if the leaders devote themselves to nurturing it systematically over time.

I remember in the South Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church we engaged in a huge study in 1991-1993 called the Futuring Document. Bishop Marion Edwards chaired a team of leaders in our conference. They met for almost two years revisioning how our conference could do things differently to reach the coming generations. They were ahead of their time on some things, like the role and responsibility of the District Superintendent. They addressed the nature of the Superintendency so superintendents could better help local church make disciples. They sought to connect more closely the local church to the conference and denomination – something the Call to Action report desires in 2011. We voted to adopt the Futuring Document in 1993 and I remember that as one of the most exciting Annual Conferences ever. Things were going to truly be focused on making disciples and changing structures to better allow that to happen. South Georgia Methodists would no longer experience decline – or so I thought.

A funny thing happened between Annual Conference 1993 and Annual Conference 1994. We approved the Futuring Document, put together an ‘implementation’ committee and the next thing we knew, the Futuring Document was never heard from again. A very few items led to change, but not many. For the most part, it just sat there. In 2001, not even a decade later, someone referenced the Futuring Document on the floor of the conference and not only could no one remember what the document said about the particular issue…no one could even put their hands on a copy of the Futuring Document. It was the talk of the town with untold hours and effort put in the front end. It ended up doing very little.

All that said, now the leaders of the United Methodist Church have engaged in a massive study called Call to Action spending over $500,000 to study vitality in congregations and what drives vitality. The leaders (Bishops, Connectional Table) are calling for churches to begin measuring worship attendance, membership, professions of faith and missions giving/engagement in addition to other things. The leaders also desire more focus on the drivers of vitality (dynamic worship, leadership development, etc.) The verdict is out on whether the metrics and initiatives will lead to greater vitality or not, but one thing is certain. If the leaders of the United Methodist Church refuse to consistently and systematically pay attention to these metrics and initiatives over time, they will end up accomplishing very little.

So, here is an important question. Will leaders in our denomination make this a long term priority? Or, like many other ideas, will they put massive amounts of time and energy into creating it only to let it phase into another level of statistical tables or programs to be included in a Charge Conference report. We may continue to argue ‘what’ the numbers mean and ‘how’ they contribute to vitality, but one thing is certain. If Bishops and other denominational leaders don’t consistently pay attention to and nurture this focus, the culture will not change. What leaders systematically pay attention to communicates their major beliefs – whether they like it or not.

We love the newest and the latest. We love to be early adopters. We love to have our name on the list of pioneers and founders. But what we really need now are healthy tomatoes. What kind of tomatoes we get, and how many, remains to be seen.

Why Kentucky Will Regret Monitoring Facebook

So I hear tell that the Kentucky Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church wants its pastors to sign an agreement so the conference can monitor all pastor's social media (at least they list Facebook and MySpace, but I don't really know of anyone who uses MySpace anymore.) At first I was very mad about this. After all, can the conference force me to include them as my friends on my Facebook so they can monitor all my posts? What do they actually think I put on Facebook?

Many of the comments by pastors across the country point out how silly this is (see link above) and also point out that whoever came up with this in the Kentucky Conference doesn't seem to really understand social media at all. I have decided that whoever came up with this idea is supremely ignorant (yes....I said it) for more than the many reasons I have seen on many pastor's blogs. My argument for the level of ignorance reflected here can be boiled down to simply this...do they even know the kind of stuff people put on Facebook?

Now, I am friends with many pastors on Facebook. I also am friends with many church members (of my church and other churches), so I can't really tell you what a hard-core, hedonistic, non-Christian might post on Facebook (I only have a few of those kinds of friends and we don't fellowship by Facebook). As a part-time Facebook junkie, I can share with the Kentucky Conference the level of interesting stuff they will find on Facebook.

Here is my list of what the "watchers" in the Kentucky Annual Conference will see when they observe pastor's Facebook accounts:

• Pictures of pastor's kids (on vacation, at restaurants, riding bikes, hanging out on the beach, sleeping on the couch)
• Pictures of pastor's grandkids (on vacation, at restaurants, riding bikes, hanging out on the beach, sleeping on the couch)
• Pictures of pastor's nieces and nephews (you guessed it, on vacation, at restaurants....)
• Links to great YouTube videos like the Annoying Orange, Charlie Bit Me, and the Chewy, Chewy, Chewy, Chewy Bubblegum Song
• Quotes from long dead theologians that people will "Like" but not really understand or try to live out.
• Status updates that tell where the pastor is, what they are eating, how great the fried chicken was at potluck, or how bad they need a cup of coffee (seriously, doesn't everyone NEED a cup of coffee in the morning...and another thing - why are you posting anything on Facebook before a cup of coffee???)
• Links to pastor's blogs, which...let's face it...is really boring stuff. This is why pastor's blogs don't make money. Snooze fest - this one is no exception.
• Self-portraits (where people take their own picture with their cell phone) at really exciting places like Applebees and Lowe's.
• Happy Birthday wishes in as many ways as one person can imagine without actually having to say, "Happy Birthday"
• Pictures of pastor's new running shoes. Seriously Benny???
• Comments on the day's news that turn any mild mannered pastor into "Captain Obvious". "Wow! Did you see that goal????" "The world is really messed up!!!" "I can't believe it!"
• 2,435 family vacation photos from the trip to Tuscaloosa, Alabama or Boise, Idaho.
• An announcement about how super duper excited the pastor is about church tomorrow! It's gonna be scrumdiddlyumptious awesome and you don't want to miss it! (By the way, no one in South Georgia does this Tom Carruth!)
• Obvious comments about the weather. "Wow, who turned on the heat????" and "Please rain, we need you now!!!"
• Google+ invites
• Continuous observations about what's wrong with the world. (After all, it's everything but us, right?)
• Pastors who need materials for Farmville or have a poor puppy that you need to adopt.
• The occasional, "I clicked here and found out who's stalking me on Facebook. Click here to see who's stalking you!!" (You do know that's a bug, right??)
• Pastor's run, bike, or swim time. How come no one puts how long it takes to eat an 8-ounce filet? Next time I eat one, I'm posting my time!
• Narratives of family vacations...along with pictures.
• Pictures of dinner and dessert. After all, you can't post a picture of dinner and not post a picture of dessert, right?
• Scripture quotations, and not the obvious ones. It's like pastors think they might find one no one ever heard of before, like, "Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” Exodus 4:25
• Vacation countdowns!!! Yay!!!!! "Only 1 Week til Bahamas!!!" "Only 6 days til Bahamas!!" "Only 5 days til Bahamas!!" I'm sorry, where are you going again?
• What a pastor is watching on TV. "Really fascinating Special on the Secrets of the Secret Service on Discovery!"
• Not just narratives of the weather....but....wait for it.....PICTURES of the weather!
• And for the overly ambitious, "I need a pat on the back" pastor, a list of all the work they actually did that day. "Woke early for hospitals, wrote sermon, changed tires, visited nursing home, prayed with mission team, worked on Habitat house, and served lunch in Soup Kitchen." All before lunch.
• And finally.......pictures of kids.

There you go, Kentucky. This is what you get after thousands of hours of combing through Facebook posts. If by chance this makes it down to South Georgia, let it go on record that I do not want to serve as one of the watchers! I get to see this stuff everyday! (Where do you think I got the list?)

And one more thing...Can't church folk police this themselves? Logic dictates if I have church folk on my Facebook page, they will keep me in check. If I don't have any members or other pastors, then what is the worry about what a pastor puts on Facebook? Who's gonna know?

Is Less More? Reducing Districts in South Georgia

A few years ago, I made a motion on the floor of conference to study the organization of districts in the South Georgia Conference. The motion included the focus of restructuring/downsizing to enable our conference to better make disciples, which is our primary mission. A study commission was formed and they came back the next year recommending we keep our current 9 districts. Some good came out of the motion...they did consolidate the accounting practices/procedures of the districts so that all budgeting/accounting now goes through the conference office. (If you are not sure why that is a good thing, we'll talk later.)

This year, Mrs. Helen Rhea Stumbo made another motion to study the number of district in the South Georgia Conference. She asked the Bishop and the Cabinet to engage in this study and bring back a report in June 2012.

In going through some older files, I came across notes from my motion that were never included in the study commission then and thought I might share some of them with you. Much of this information came from the North Alabama Conference which studied the same thing several years ago. They decided, like the Florida Conference before them, that a reduction of districts was necessary for two primary reasons: 1) it saved the conference a tremendous amount of money, and 2) it forced the conference to think differently about how it functions and carries out its mission of making disciples. Here are a few of the factors that I pulled together, including quotes from Bishop Whitaker in Florida and Bishop Willimon in North Alabama.

1. Most conferences have geographical boundaries that were set many, many years ago around old lines that are in some cases, irrelevant;
2. While South Georgia may not have undergone incredible demographic shifts as a whole, some districts lines don't make a lot of sense. You know as well as I that the Statesboro District lines make little sense to anyone. Why couldn't it be absorbed by Savannah and Waycross? Don't argue the current district setup as to drive time for DS's or number of churches (we have to think differently about when DS's are present in local churches), rather revisit the boundaries based on missional needs and changes over the past 30 years.
3. Several years ago, I argued that relevancy cries for the South Georgia Conference to relate differently to the local church, especially regarding the potentially transformational role of the district superintendent; the problem with this point is I think I've changed my mind. I think larger districts should force the job of the DS into a more supervisory/administrative/visionary creative leadership role for churches that need it rather than "pastor to the pastors" and "visit every church in the district". The pastoral role should come out of the covenant of elders, deacons, and local pastors. And the truth is, some churches don't need the DS's assistance or presence...others desperately need them involved.
4. I think we should reduce districts by 3 to 6 districts in South Georgia, but I believe our focus should not be only financial. There should be careful-purposed alignment of all the resources (all!!!) around the mission of the church of making disciples for Jesus Christ. This would not only pull in Connectional Ministries and NRCD for greater function and responsibility, it could actually financially resource them MORE so they could actually assist in training around disciple making in district work. We also need to recapture a coaching/mentoring mentality where larger/stronger churches partner with smaller/weaker ones.
5. One argument I hear from Bishops is fewer districts means less connectionalism - as if the episcopacy/superintendency of our denomination was the glue of our connectionalism. I don't believe that has to be the case. Fewer districts can increase connection by including more lay, clergy, and local church leadership in district strategy, leadership, and implementation. We just have to have the right leaders to make it happen.
6. Currently, we have 9 districts and most all of them have part time administrative assistants. If we would reduce South Georgia to 6 districts with full time administrative assistants and possible additional part-time help from retired elders (as the missional work needed) it would cost significantly less and could be much more productive.
7. Another argument revolves around Charge Conferences. How will the DS make it to them all? Charge conferences do not have to be led by a DS. Elders may be assigned by the DS to oversee a charge/church conference, or churches could hold combo charge conferences/rally's. THIS would increase connectionalism by allowing us to see how we are connected to other local churches in our communities.
8. DS's should be required to be in districts more and serve on conference committees less. Why can't we broaden leadership and make more use of a Leadership Forum for leadership representation in various committees and boards.
9. Major changes in the number of districts (such as Florida’s 14 to 9, or North Alabama’s 12 to 8) require fundamental changes at every level. This is why South Georgia doesn't need to trim one district. We need to be forced to make bigger changes in the way we do our work.
10. Here's a great testimony for major change in districts from Florida Bishop, Timothy Whitaker, “The Florida Conference approved a plan involving major changes rather than modest adjustments because major changes require an organization to function differently. We could have reduced districts by two and continued with business as usual; we chose instead to develop a new district structure consisting of only nine districts. From the beginning we have known that we could not make such a major change without also reforming the internal structure of the districts and the role of the district superintendent and creating a culture of different expectations in the Conference. Such reform requires thinking through the fundamental purposes of the district, the office of district superintendent and the missional objectives of the Conference. We are now involved in implementing new approaches, and we believe that being intentional about our objectives and our ways of meeting our objectives is having a very salutary affect upon the life of the Florida Conference. We continue to try to figure out how to be effective in every dimension of our work, and this on-going process of evaluating, planning, and changing has lifted us out of an institutional rut and liberated us to discover more effective approaches.”
11. In North Alabama, Bishop Will Willimon related the following points:

• All districts would be reformed to address some of the huge inequities that exist in the Districts that we have inherited from the past. Moving from twelve to eight districts would enable us to decentralize much of the work of the Conference utilizing District Resource Centers in every District, designed to facilitate the work of the churches in each district. We would also utilize clergy and laity to organize churches intoclusters that are based upon shared characteristics of the congregations.
• We would realize significant monetary savings in the downsizing of our Conference administration. We have lost one third of our members in the past two decades without a corresponding downsizing of the costs of our administration. This is poor stewardship. The savings (4 DSs, their housing and offices) could then be used to hire full-time administrative assistants (who could be clergy or laity, depending upon the specific needs and goals of each district) to free the DSs for more mentoring, coaching, and training of churches to grow into the future. Funds would be available for a network of consultants that would be provided to congregations in need.
• Eight DSs would work more efficiently and adaptively than twelve. We must spend more time supporting the work of our pastors and churches and less time in routine management and administration.

I have been in conversation with several Chairs of the Order of Elders from around the denomination. Many conferences are looking at the reduction of districts. While it is true that the money seems to be driving the train here, I truly believe an organizational shake-up is what we need in the United Methodist Church. I believe the Call to Action report is just scratching the surface, but it is giving us permission...permission to act. Let us use the gifts God has given us to come together and construct a viable, powerful, and Spirit led disciple making conference that fits our churches and our personnel. It's time to start doing things differently.

Dashboards and Sabermetrics

I just returned from the South Georgia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, our denomination's annual gathering for worship, business, and fellowship. As with most mainline denominations (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc.), we are experiencing decline in membership. Leaders in the United Methodist Church are seeking ways to stop the losses through a variety of studies. In the United Methodist Church, the Call to Action Report is one study vehicle focused on vitality.

This Call to Action Report is moving many administrative leaders in the United Methodist Church to want to "measure" vitality through what some are calling "dashboards". As to how vitality is defined and how it is measured, there is still not general consensus, but the movement to measure vitality has grown and is now upon South Georgia Methodists. Just as other conferences, we are headed toward the "dashboard" it looks like our Bishop is also wanting churches to measure statistics more regularly. Several other Methodist conferences are already using "dashboards" each week to fill out the statistics of what is deemed "vitality".

Methodists have always kept good records and statistics, the debate now is more about which statistics speak most about vitality. Is it professions of faith? Baptisms? New members? Money given missions? Amount given to apportionments?

Whenever we start talking about statistics, I can't help by think about baseball. Baseball enthusiasts love their statistics. Former Major League ballplayer Toby Harrah once said, "Statistics are like a girl in a fine bikini. It shows a lot, but it doesn't show everything." It’s true that statistics don’t show you everything about a player, but they do tell you just about everything you would ever need to know about how affective a player is on the diamond. That is, if you’re looking at the right stats.

So which states do we look at. If you look at the back of baseball cards since the 1950's, you will find the same sets of stats presented in the same way: Position played, Games, At-Bats, Runs, Hits, Doubles, Triples, Home-Runs, RBI's, and Batting Average. The only recent change to relevant baseball statistics is On-Base Percentage (OPS).

But what about the new science of Sabermetrics? Sabermetrics is a statistical science in baseball which measures more than the "end of game" or "end of season" statistics that most fans have always measured. Sabermetrics looks more at "in-game" statistics. Sabermetricians would argues that RBI's (Runs Batted In) by an individual player is not nearly as helpful a statistic as say VORP (Value over replacement player). VORP would look at how many runs the player would give the team over a replacement level player in the same position over a full season.

Fans of Sabermetrics argue that one can not only see the past but predict the future of players by evaluating their "in-game" performance. For example, sabermetricians argue that the stat "BABIP" (Batting average on balls in play) can actually help identify pitchers who have fluke seasons. This stat is said to show whether the pitcher's next season will improve or regress based on a huge formula of factors.

I share all this because while Methodists have always kept good records on members, baptisms, and other details, we have never really been in the "statistics" business. It looks like we may be headed in that direction, and as with most Methodist preachers (me included) we like to think ourselves experts on any given field after about 20 minutes of reading. I want to go on record that I don't understand all the nuances of Sabermetrics, but it does help me appreciate the science of useful statistics. It also lets me know that there are other useful ways of measuring vitality than the traditional stats.

What stats will we measure? What will they tell us about the past? What will they tell us about a church's vitality? And, what will they tell us about the future potential of a pastor or a church? I wonder...

P.S.

One of the great debates between "old school" baseball scouts and "new school" baseball sabermetricians is how to judge talent. Scouts believe in subjective measurments (look, sound of ball off the bat, quickness, speed, lively movement of pitch, etc.). Sabermetricians believe the stats can give what they need through objective measurements. Here's a link to a great debate on scouting vs. statistics in baseball.

God Weeps With Us

Matthew 26:37-50

...“I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and stay awake with me.” And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want...”

I will never forget a story shared to me by Bill Mallard, one of my theology professors at Emory. He recalled a story of visiting a friend whose husband had died way too early in a tragic situation. As the people were at the house grieving, a friend of the husband asked Mallard in the presence of the wife, “Bill, where is God in all this?” Bill Mallard shared how he looked back with tears in his eyes and he replied, “God is here. And he is weeping with us.”

That’s not always how we think of God. We get that God is with us, but the weeping part has never been a part of our understanding.

N.T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham and now Professor at the University of St. Andrews. When students would come to him and say, “I won’t be attending chapel, I don’t believe in God,” his reply was, “Which God is it you don’t believe in?” This would cause them a little hesitation, then they would begin to describe something like this, “I don’t believe in a God up in the sky looking down, a God who doesn’t care about humanity and suffering, a God who is removed from the world.” N.T. Wright’s response was, “I don’t believe in that God either!”

On this Palm Sunday and as we begin Holy Week, we are reminded of the last week of Jesus’ life. During this week, we see betrayal, suffering, and death. The death of Jesus at the hands of those in power. This was always God’s plan, but it doesn’t make it any easier for Jesus. You see, we seem to forget that Jesus was a man (yes, he was God in the flesh, but let us never forget that he was a man) – human flesh and blood just like us – and he suffered tremendously.

At this moment in the Garden of Gethsemene, Tom Long points out that "we see the collision of wills and desires at work". This happens to us all the time in our Moments in the Wilderness. The collision is between the divine will and the human will. There are times when we can clearly draw lines of distinction between divine and human wills, but when times are difficult and suffering and grief are present, the lines are not as clear. We’ve all dealt with this – when something has happened to us – a broken relationship, divorce, loss of a loved one, loss of a job, loss of anything of value or importance – we struggle with the why. That is normal and God doesn’t have a problem with that at all. The hard part is when we move beyond the grief work and try to figure out the why. When we struggle to answer the why of the conflict between the human and divine wills, we find confusion and a lack of clarity. This causes many of us to believe God is not with us, God doesn't care, or God somehow caused and we just have to accept it.

In the Garden of Gethsemene, we see Jesus grappling with the same thing. The tension between the divine will and the human will. Trust me; it's not easy to see God and believe and understand when you are in the midst of great suffering. Here we see Jesus struggling in his soul. He is profoundly anguished. Jesus knows his life is in peril. He knows what is coming and he doesn’t face it with stoic resolve. He is emotional, full of sorrow, and distressed. Like the Psalmist in Psalm 42 and 43, his “soul is cast down” and he is “deeply grieved even to the point of death.”

In this moment of trouble, we have been taught that Jesus says, “Alright God, I know what I’ve got to do, give me the strength.” In almost every church Sunday school or sanctuary stained glass is the image of Jesus kneeling in the garden with his back straight, his eyes toward heaven, and a light beaming down. Funny thing is that the passage in Matthew 26 says that Jesus "threw himself down on the ground and prayed." Jesus reveals deep pathos and humanity by asking God to provide a way out, an easier road that his life may be spared.

Jesus can relate to our grief and suffering. Not only because he has felt suffering and stared into it with the same questions we have, but because he also knows what if feels like to go through it alone. I think it is ironic that he asks his friends to stay up with him to pray. They cannot. This passage of waking them up and them falling back asleep communicates something we all know; we go through suffering alone. Jesus experienced this. Thomas Merton writes, "When a man [sic] suffers, he is most alone. Therefore, it is in suffering that we are most tested as persons. How can we face the awful interior questioning? What shall we answer when we come to be examined by pain? Without God, we are no longer persons. We lose our humanity and our dignity." We must suffer with faith, knowing God is with us - knowing God weeps with us.

Let us look deeper into the life of Christ and say, “The God I believe in is not some God living in the sky who doesn’t know me or my struggles.” No, we serve a God who is revealed through Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus who died for us -yes; but Jesus who has also suffered. Jesus is acquainted with our griefs and our sorrows when we are in our moments of wilderness.

Is Adaptive Change What We Need? Reflections on the UM Leadership Summit

In the world of 24/7/365 social media, I realize I am a dinosaur in the amount of time that has passed since last Wednesday's UM Leadership Summit. For the five people out there who are not aware of what the summit was, it was a collection of leaders in the United Methodist Church who led the entire denomination in a live web feed discussion concerning the issues and concerns regarding the Methodist church. The primary focus was the Call to Action Report which calls for confession from us all that we have not been as intentional as we should in making disciples. The study also spent $500,000 to define and identify "vitality" in vital congregations. You may decide if the money was worth it or not, that's not what I want to discuss. I am more intrigued by the primary use of the word "adaptive" which is used significantly and defines the way in which we deal with the challenges. (Call to Action, pg. 22, pp. 25ff)

As a student of systems theory, organizational culture, and learning organizations, I was most fascinated by the leaders' use of the word "adaptive". Bishop Gregory Palmer uses it first when he states in the video (at 37:41 and 37:56) what our "adaptive" challenge is: Redirect attention, energy, and resources to increase the number of vital congregations. The actual report itself has an entire section devoted to "Adaptive Challenges" (pp.25ff)

I understand that anyone can define any word to mean anything they want, but I'm not sure what we need is "adaptive learning". Maybe its what the institutional church and leaders desire, but its not really what true reformation is all about.

Peter Senge, noted systems theorist, learning organization guru and author of The Fifth Discipline, defines a "learning organization" as "an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such organizations it is not enough to merely survive. 'Survival learning', or what is most often termed 'adaptive learning' is important - indeed it is necessary. But for the learning organization, 'adaptive learning' must be joined with 'generative learning' - learning that enhances our capacity to create." (The Fifth Discipline, pg. 14).

Adaptive challenges and adaptive learning are all rooted in the struggle to survive. There is nothing created or recreated in adaptive learning. Adaptive learning is kin to the old adage "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Adaptive learning is reactionary and is motivated from fear of survival. Adaptive learning also usually comes from the top down as the institution or organization meets survival challenges and works diligently to stay alive.

Generative learning, on the other hand, creates something new - or recreates that which once was vital. Generative learning is closely connected to the scriptural word metanoia. Metanoia is in no way connected to adapting. It has always been connected to conversion and recreation. The great central truth of our faith in Christ is that the dead can live again and that mediocre living can be recreated to something abundant! Abundant life (vitality?) is our fundamental need which is why the word "vital" is central in the Call to Action Report. Unfortunately, as with any large initiative coming from the top, it is extremely difficult to step away from the drive to survive. The drive to survive (adaptive) is not the same and the drive to live creatively and abundantly (generative). This, in my opinion, is why the creators of the report feel the urgency to increase reporting and accountability. While rooted in something that seems generative, it is totally adaptive and rooted in the fear of death. "Maybe, if we watch our numbers more closely and measure everything more carefully, we will become more vital." It's like watching a pot of water waiting for it to boil but never turning on the heat.

In the Call to Action Report, they write "Adaptive change and leadership are not possible without an authentic purpose and vision; powerful, cohesive, guiding coalition; strong standards, and accountability." In truth, adaptive change is entirely possible without purpose and vision. Dying churches engage in adaptive learning every day and it hasn't really changed anything because they are not expanding their capacity to create! The essence of adapting is merely adjusting to the external factors to survive.

Do we merely need to survive? If that is all we are after, then I say the Call to Action Report is just what we need. More reporting, more dashboards, more numbers, and more measurables.

Or do we want to breathe new life into these dry bones? If that is what we are after, it will start in the local church, with local laity, and local pastors who will define vitality rather than live into definitions from Nashville.

So, do we really desire to live and create?

Reflections from South Georgia Board of Ordained Ministry

I returned last week from our annual Board of Ordained Ministry (BOM) meeting for the South Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church. This Board interviews candidates for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church. The meeting is always emotionally draining as we interview new candidates for almost 11 hours per day for two and a half days. This year was particularly tough as we interviewed twice the normal number of candidates. The increase came because two years ago our conference reduced the provisional period from three years to two years. At this meeting, we had the last three year group of provisional members and the first two year group of provisional members all apply for status as Full Members and Ordination as Elders/Deacons.

Here are a few interesting insights from our BOM meeting.

For the first time ever, the BOM voted that all approved candidates would only be approved pending a suitable appointment. What does this mean? The Board was already doing this for new Provisional Elders (PE) (Provisional members are in a time of probation as they prepare for ordination and they are guaranteed an appointment). If there is not a place to put the new PE - either no appointment or one not able to pay them the required PE minimum salary - then they had to wait a year. They do not have to come before the BOM again, but they would not be commissioned until the next year.

• This year, "pending a suitable appointment" extended to all candidates - including those approved for Full Conference membership and ordination as Full Elder (FE). Why? Because once a candidate is approved FE (after PE) the minimum salary requirements increase as well. They may already have an appointment, but if it doesn't pay the required minimum salary for Full Elders then the Conference Equitable Compensation Committee must pay toward that pastor to help them reach the minimum. Last year, the Equitable Compensation Committee was over budget by more than $150,000. Almost 40 churches received help from Equitable Compensation. All that money comes from apportionments paid by all local churches - and apportionments are being paid less and less by churches across the denomination. Considering our Conference was $800,000 over budget last year, that is a number that cannot continue and must be managed better.
• This means if the candidate is approved and there is not an appointment available that pays the minimum salary for Full Elder, they will not be ordained that year. They will not have to resubmit work to the BOM, but they will have to wait at least one year to be ordained.
• South Georgia is not the first conference to do this. Many conferences have already adopted approval "pending a suitable appointment."

The Boards of Ordained Ministry in almost every United Methodist Conference are faced with greater challenges than ever before. In years past, there was plenty of space for clergy and plenty of money to pay them. That is no longer the case. Because of this, the Board of Ordained Ministry expects the best possible candidates to submit their best possible work.

I will end with this. Many candidates believe that if they "answer" the questions correctly, or preach a decent sermon they will pass. That is also no longer the case. Boards of Ordained Ministry across our denomination are now looking much deeper into issues of personality, effectiveness, how the candidate handles conflict and adversity, and the overall impression of the candidate in all aspects of ministry (including the interview process). We are not charged with ordaining candidates who just get the answers to the questions correct. We are charged with approving candidates who can lead and excel in ministry in a fast-changing and complex world.

The bottom line? We don't have any right to question anyone's call from God. But we have every right to question whether that call from God is best lived and served out in the United Methodist Church.

Pray for candidates. Pray for the Board of Ordained Ministry. And Pray for our churches.

Stewards of God's Mysteries

1 Corinthians 4:1-2

Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy.

A few weeks ago, my aunt passed away after a brave battle with pancreatic cancer. She was one of the sweetest most encouraging people I knew. She always had a smile for me and would ask every time I saw her, “How’s it going kiddo?” If someone needed a meal, she wouldn’t ask, she would just bring it and she wouldn’t knock on the door and bring it in. She would leave it and then call to tell you it was on your back porch because she never wanted to impose on anyone. Random acts of kindness over and over again. When we left St. Peter in 2009, my Aunt Susan was a member there, she put together our going away party and it was classic Susan. Everything thought of, everything meaningful, but Susan, she was sort of hidden in the back after a brief word or two. She was the epitome, in my mind, of a good steward. Someone who knew that each action and decision was a service for God to someone who had a need. She just did it, whether it was out of love, compassion, service, I’m not sure I will ever know all the motivations. I just know if she could do something, she would do something and when she would do something, she was being used by God in some pretty miraculous ways.

Christian stewardship can simply be defined as how each and every one of us is used for God’s purposes in relating to one another. We are servants who minister to the world on God's behalf, entrusted with God's stuff.

Unfortunately, many church folk regard stewardship only in financial terms. When we hear the word, stewardship, we say, “Hold on to your wallet or pocketbook, here they come again.” This is not entirely the church’s fault. The unfortunate truth is many pastors and other church leaders have used the term ‘biblical stewardship’ when really all they are after is your money. That is unfortunate.

I am fascinated by one throwaway line in a stewardship parable in Matthew 25 that seems to frame everything differently. Jesus tells of a master who leaves three servants (stewards) in charge. You may remember this famous parable of Jesus; the master gives each servant differing amounts of talents - five, three and one. In the opening of the parable, Jesus says that the master went away and "entrusted [all] his property to them.” I use 'all' because that is the meaning of the phrase. The significance of that one line cannot be understated. When the master entrusts all of his property to these stewards, they literally become the regents of all the master owns. I have always focused on the talents the stewards each receive and what they do with them. Yet, at the moment of this 'entrusting' they become overseers of everything. They had responsibility for everything. This is the essence of stewardship. While we may have a lot of stuff God has entrusted to us with our names on it, the truth is - we have actually been "entrusted" with everything - even the stuff that doesn't have our name on it.

We are stewards of God's 'mysteries'. The word mystery in the scripture always refers to the invisible element of God's grace working through some tangible means. Sacraments are mysteries of God. So is a hug from your 10-year old daughter as she whispers in your ear, "I love you daddy." We are to be the stewards of God's mysteries, the workings of God's grace. When God works through our words and deeds it shouldn't surprise us and at the same time it should always surprise us. As God is made known through Jesus Christ, we are to make Christ known through every word and action in our lives. We are gifts to one another.

We are simply the stewards - the servants. We are not God. Let us give our lives as faithful stewards of God's mysteries, continuing to surprise, bring comfort, offer joy, and provide healing.

Seriously? Condemning Rob Bell Before His Book Comes Out?

The social media world has been abuzz over Rob Bell's upcoming book on salvation called Love Wins. The book isn't even out yet and all anyone has to go by is a brief video clip where Rob Bell discusses some of the big questions about salvation - he doesn't actually make any statement at all - he just frames a variety of questions about the issue. Check out Christianity Today for the video.

Some guy named Justin Taylor, who most people I've talked to have never heard of, wrote in his blog that Rob Bell is a universalist and basically condemned the guy without knowing anything about the upcoming book at all. His blog is here. His first blog entry was so condemning, that he actually had to come back and soften some of his statements a little, which he admits in his updated blog. He still seems to be convinced of the content and teaching of Rob Bell's upcoming book and basically calls him a heretic and false teacher.

Really? Seriously? There are two really big problems here:

First, it really shouldn't amaze any of us anymore that Christians seem to be ready to criticize and condemn more quickly than most people. The anger in conversations between Christians (which I intentionally do not call Christian conversation) is disturbing. We still fail to understand that the WAY we talk to each other is as much a witness and WHAT we talk about. I go back to Thomas Merton. In No Man Is An Island, he wrote:

The arguments of religious men are so often insincere, and their insincerity is proportionate to their anger. Why do we get angry about what we believe? Because we do not really believe it. Or else what we pretend to be defending as the "truth" is really our own self-esteem. A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the truth than in stating it clearly, for he thinks that if the truth be clearly seen it can very well take care of itself.

(I realize there will be a large segment of Christians who will condemn me for quoting Thomas Merton - helping to reinforce my point.)

With all of the illustrations of Jesus' patience and grace in dealing with those who were 'different' it amazes me that our Christian leaders more quickly reflect the anger of the Apostle Paul in Galatians, rather than compassion and patience of Jesus Christ to sinners, Pharisess, and Priests. Jesus should be the first and only model of how we live and act. Last I checked, Paul didn't die on the cross for our sins. Paul was not God incarnate. I wish more Christians, especially leaders, would exhibit the faith, mercy, grace, and patient understanding of Jesus when dealing with others they don't agree with.

Second, I am glad that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, prized education so highly. With the advent of the internet, every Christian leader with a pulse has a platform. Many Christian leaders on the internet have no understanding of the history of our faith. They read and interpret scripture only in light of their immediate context - their current reality - which is all they really care about. An appreciation for 2,000 years of Christian teaching doesn't require an advanced degree - just pull up Wikipedia.

As they assail Rob Bell, who I won't comment on until I actually read his book, they ignorantly (yes, I said it) proclaim that universalism is not orthodox teaching. While I am personally not a universalist, it doesn't take but just a little research of the early Church Fathers like Origen (one of the most profound 2nd century Christian leaders who actually helped put together the New Testament) to find out that 'restorationism' was taught by several of the Church Fathers. Restorationism, whether you agree with the position or not, claims orthodoxy in that it; characterizes sin as rebellion against God, requires grace as necessary for salvation, and teaches that Jesus Christ is the highest expression of that grace. it also teaches that God, in God's sovereignty, will ultimately restore all things - bringing all creation under His reign. Orthodoxy and universalism. (Origen viewed hell as temporary.)

As I hear all this back and forth about a book that hasn't even been published, I am once again troubled by how Christians engage in dialogue. The world is watching us, my friends. How we disagree is just as important as the truth we proclaim.

Our Mission: Plain and Simple

Matthew 28:16-20

¹⁶Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. ¹⁷When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

I’ve always been amazed by organizations that know what they exist to do, do it well, and evaluate everything they do by their stated mission. Effective businesses and churches should share this trait.

One of the companies I love to watch as they continue to examine what they do and why they do it is the Coca-Cola company. Just take a look at the first part of their mission statement. Look at how clearly, compellingly, and succinctly they put together their mission:

From The Coca-Cola Company: The Introduction

The world is changing all around us. To continue to thrive as a business over the next ten years and beyond, we must look ahead, understand the trends and forces that will shape our business in the future and move swiftly to prepare for what's to come. We must get ready for tomorrow today. That's what our 2020 Vision is all about. It creates a long-term destination for our business and provides us with a "Roadmap" for winning together with our bottling partners. Our Roadmap starts with our mission, which is enduring. It declares our purpose as a company and serves as the standard against which we weigh our actions and decisions. Our Mission To refresh the world... To inspire moments of optimism and happiness... To create value and make a difference.

They have a clear mission. They have a clear understanding of their identity. They know who they are and what they do and they do it excellently. What is the church’s mission? This is actually a powerful question to wrestle with among the leadership of our church. There is a lot to accomplish, and we can’t do it all today, so let’s just begin with mission. Why we exist – our purpose for all we do. Here's the easy part for the church: our mission has already been given to us! We don’t have to form study committees or listening posts or neighborhood chat groups. We don’t have to form a team to craft the words and put them together. Our mission is clear: We exist to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. That’s it, that’s the list. You know the funny thing? So many churches have gone through hours, days, months, and some even years to craft elegant mission statements. I can't imagine how many hours we've wasted trying to craft mission statements that now hang in the church library somewhere. If you can find the mission statement behind portraits of former pastors, you can see that the leadership of the church took great care and time to form a beautifully written mission statement. The problem is - no one in the church has any idea what it is. As I search the internet for church mission statements, here are a few I found...

Mission Statement of Riverside Community in Eagle River, Alaska

At Riverside Community Church we're not about "having it all together" or even pretending we do. We're just a family trying to grow together toward a God who knows us and can help us put all the pieces of this sometimes bizzare world into perspective. We may not have all the answers but we know someone who does. In fact He not only knows the answers...He made up the questions.

I'm not really sure this is a mission statement, but I love the line, "We're just a family trying to grow together..." Sounds like my 13-year old making another excuse about why she didn't finish her homework. Here's another...

Mission Statement of Friendship Church in Pittsburgh, PA.

The mission of Friendship Seeds of Hope is to sow "the Seed of Hope," Jesus Christ, in the hearts of many in Bloomfield, Pittsburgh, and to the ends of the earth. Our context is the emerging post-modern culture. Post-moderns have rejected the "trinity" of modernism: reason, nature and progress-and the church that is built on it. Lacking a metanarrative, post-moderns turn to a sort of primitive tribalism, or bury their pain in technology or consumerism. Our mission involves creating a Church that can be a safe gathering place for post-modern people to come experience the grace and forgiveness of God; a family of believers where they can find healing for the things that have hurt and wounded their souls; where they can "belong to believe"-that is, where they can be nurtured and discipled into faith in the one true God and in Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

This one befuddles me. The first sentence is a mission statement, but I'm not sure how the rest of the thing ever becomes anything more than, "blah, blah, blah." Now, this last one I really like. It is simple, clear, compelling, and best of all - biblical...

Mission Statement of St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Jacksonville, FL

Make Disciples

St. Peter’s Catholic Church gets it and our churches need to get it. If we don’t know our mission, then we have no hope of accomplishing it. We must do a better job of proclaiming a clear and compelling mission to ourselves to help us stay focused and guided along the path of our ministry. Our mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.

Everything we do in the church should be evaluated in light of our mission. If we don't know why we exist, then how can we know if we are devoting our time and resources correctly?

If you want to hear more on this, then visit www.wesleyssi.org/listen and check out my February 20th sermon "Making Disciples for the Transformation of the World"

Stewardship of the Leader: Modeling

Leading organizations is a great responsibility. The essence of leadership hearkens us back to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. Jesus tells of a master who leaves three servants (stewards) in charge - the scripture says, “entrusting all of his property to them.” The significance of that one line cannot be understated. When the master entrusts all of his property to these stewards, they literally become the regents of all the master owns. They become significant leaders. We tend to forget that they have responsibility for everything.

Leaders must understand their level of responsibility within organizations. When we are called and set apart to lead, we are entrusted with shaping the culture of the organization – including tending lives of those we lead. This is no small task. Leaders must be willing to grow, learn, and model out of core values of faith and morality.

Let me focus on one aspect of leadership stewarding that is critical – modeling. Modeling is the most important shaping force of the leader. Leaders who don’t understand modeling and the power it has in shaping the culture of organizations do a disservice to those they lead. These leaders also violate the basic principles of biblical stewardship because they do not understand the great ‘talent’ they are called to invest.

I use the term modeling, but it has broad meaning. Edgar Shein in Organizational Culture and Leadership uses the term “primary embedding mechanisms” and he lists the following: what leaders pay attention to, measure, and control regularly; how leaders respond to critical incidents; how leaders allocate resources; how they teach and coach; how they allocate rewards and status; and how they recruit, promote, and excommunicate. I see all of these mechanism connected. Effective leadership must understand the shaping forces and how important they are. The leader models through these mechanisms and communicates significant information that defines who the organization is and how it goes about its work.

All leaders model all the time. They must be aware of this and they must be conscious of the messages they send. Leaders must also be adept enough to recognize the defensive routines at work in their organization. All organizations (congregations are organizations) have defensive routines. Defensive routines are behaviors and attitudes that inhibit learning and growth. Defensive routines may be violations of formal policies, but usually they are more subtle. Defensive routines are subtly found rooted in any mismatch between what the leader proclaims is important and how the leader actually engages in action (espoused value vs. theory in use, Shein). This type of disconnected modeling actually works against the formation of the very culture the leader is attempting to craft. When the leader’s actions of promotion, rewards, coaching, and excommunication don’t line up with what they have told us are core values, increased stress is introduced in the organization as people try to make sense of the mixed messages. Learning is stifled and natural defensive postures appear.

What is required to confront defensive routines? Two things must occur for the leader.

First, the leader must be push to become more self-aware in understanding why they do what they do. They must understand it, but understanding it alone is not enough. The leader must also be able to articulate their understanding. Without the communication component, they once again fail to model learning and positive change in the culture. The articulation of self-awareness and growth is modeling. Think for a moment how powerful it is when a leader fails, reflects on the failure to understand their role in it, and then has the ability to articulate their learning to their team. There is a sense of confidence that the leader has the capacity to learn and grow and they model this for their team.

Second, the leader must allow his/her managerial team to give feedback regarding their modeling. We are unable to see our modeling objectively. Without a willingness to hear from those who help guide the organization, the leader may not realize the mixed messages that are sent. By allowing the managerial team to assist with the leader’s self-discovery, the leader not only learns, but the leader once again models organizational learning.

If they leader is not willing to hear critique because of embarrassment or threat, then once again there is a mismatch in modeling. These issues and events become ‘undiscussable’. As the level of undiscussable items grows, the inconsistent messages grow. The managerial team is not allowed to discuss freely this disconnect with the leader. The organizational culture begins to reflect this distortion of mixed messages. Ineffective decisions of mismatch become covered up and obfuscated as the leader and managerial team attempt to make sense of the mixed messages to others in the organization. The rest of the managerial team begins to model like the leader, teaching the values yet acting differently. As this process grows and reinforces itself, cover-ups begin to be covered-up even though one of the core values may be openness. Next, the undiscussable previous actions now cannot be discussed. Chris Argyris calls this the “undiscussability of the undiscussable.” The managerial team begins to collude to keep the mixed messages covered-up. The managerial team now expects others to distort and manipulate as well. A new sub-culture is born.

Finally, the leader who sincerely believes he/she is utilizing their gift of stewardship for the good of the organization will find a deep and disturbing set of defensive routines in place that promote ineffectiveness, rather than effectiveness. Dysfunctional managerial teams are created. The leader becomes frustrated with outcomes without realizing why the outcomes are there. The leader fails to see and accept that the organization is learning to function in the same way as the leader and managerial team. The leader is subconsciously reinforcing the defensive routines through rewarding/promoting a managerial team that respect the “undiscussability of the undiscussable”. All the while, the leader doesn’t see he/she is rewarding such behavior. If we return to the parable in Matthew 25, we find now a leader who truly believes he/she is investing their five talents for the master’s return, while in reality they have buried the true talent and are doing the work of the Kingdom with monopoly money – nothing of value, nothing that lasts.

How does all this change? Unfortunately, it is difficult to change. Since defensive actions are so highly skilled, they are executed without hesitation and they are automatic. The defensive routines are enacted without any reflection. Chris Argyris states that at our core, our defensive actions come from our early life and are ingrained in us. It is how the leader learned to deal with embarrassment or threat. When the leader uses these defensive routines, they model this behavior in the organizations they lead. The organizational culture then begins to follow the model of the leader and adopt these defensive routines. Then, once the leader sees the ineffectiveness of the organization, the blame goes to the organization itself as the leader assails all the organization’s defensive routines. It becomes, as Argyris concludes, a “circular, self-reinforcing process, from the individual to the larger unit and back to the individual.”

The only remedy I can point to is the importance of “ruthlessly, compassionate truth-tellers”. If the leader has the capability for self-reflection and learning (or even if they do not), the repeated lifting up and naming of the defensive routines can be helpful in changing the culture. Think of how Jesus consistently shed light on the inconsistencies of his day. The difficulty is in the character of the leader who may decide it is too difficult to listen to how their modeling contributes to the problems they are attempting to overcome. If the leader can trust the managerial team to assist them, change can occur. This also requires self-awareness and maturity of the managerial team, which is another issue altogether.

So let us pray for all our leaders. Let us pray that they may be self-aware. Let us pray that they would receive feedback from us all and listen carefully. Let us pray for their spirituality. Let us pray for their talents – that what they invest in the Kingdom may be valuable and eternal.