Scary how accurate this is for Pastors / Bad Pastoring

Was shown this article on bad habits of CEOs in a NUMBER of contexts (Google+, in-house Yammer, etc.).  Creepy how many of these are super-typical of pastors I've worked with / worked for.  CREEPY!

I see all but #4 consistently in, I kid you not, over 80% of the pastors I've worked with over the years.  This makes me quite sad.

If you are a pastor and reading this, please do your best to not rationalize why you should/have-to do any of these.  Rather, let them be new ways to see what needs to be sharpened or removed.  Let them be different ways to look at your soul first - not your tasks, your 'ministry.'

I write this not because I'm projecting myself onto others (as you'll see in my sad "report card" below).  But using assessments not created by me, I gathered enough data to make the above statements.

For the record, here's how I self-assess my pastoring:
        ( 1 = didn't do this at all, 5 = did this all the time )

 Habit #1 = 4
 Habit #2 = 5
 Habit #3 = 4 - sadly, I wanted to be a 5!
 Habit #4 = 2 - was already appalled by this elsewhere
 Habit #5 = 4... no 5 (bummer)
 Habit #6 = 2 - I think - maybe not? (eek!)
 Habit #7 = 1 - Yay!  A good score.




God help us.  And I mean that literally.

Changing 'workplace' dynamics

I like to read cranky futurists on www.FaithPopcorn.com There's a section (after the super annoying hand-clapping intro!) called "Culture Pulse" which is a very knocked-down version of what they're thinking about.

In February 2010 they posted an article (.pdf) by Richard Donkin out of The Guardian on employment law. Interesting, less-than-4 page read.

The article ends with this last, bullet-point(ish) -- emphasis added by me:

Entrepreneurship: Opportunities to start up your own business, create partnerships or work freelance will blossom. "It will become difficult for employers to hold on to their key staff, who will realise they can earn more working freelance or setting up their own networks of ad hoc working relationships," [Ian] Pearson says ['futurist']. "So entrepreneurial skills will be key." (p. 4)

Got me thinking: What if 'the workplace' and 'career' are replaced with the uncertain & highly volatile "networks of ad hoc working relationships." Will 'social networking' skills cross-over in the same way 'people skills' are cross-vocational? Will having existing 'social networking capital' (i.e. a long-standing, highly invested-in social-networking presence [read: Facebook- or Twitter- or Google Buzz- account]) become valuable like a degree or alumni association or recruiter or ____ is today?

Gen-X is, according to most historians and culture observers, a 'stuck' generation: what they invested in (mid-to-late 1900's education, buy everything on-loan [called "leverage"], family & social (& financial) values/morals) doesn't have a positive return - made even more frustrating by the fact that the generations before them DO have a positive return on those same investments while at the same time the Gen-Xers are taking a loss.

Blah, blah, blah... all that to say, I wonder if those of us (i.e. ME!) who don't really like social-networking are going to find ourselves sad and frustrated when we realize that we should have been investing in something we don't care for (social networking).

As one of the last Gen-Xers (age-wise), am I going to find my current as well as future 'investments' are losses?!?!

[or have I simply commodified relationships in a 1980's sort of way!!]

How many recessions are there in 2009?

As I read books and blogs, listen to people and podcasts, think about current and future times, watch activities in North America and elsewhere...

I am concluding that the Church in the U.S. is in a recession. God is moving mightily, vastly, and obviously in the Southern Hemisphere and/or the Eastern Hemisphere right now (2000 to present 2009). While there is much talk and desire for God's movement here in the West (e.g. the multitude of new 'movements', 'returns', and organic networks), I would contend that it's not really happening like it did (?) here and is (!) elsewhere. And I'm in-network with many of those working to see it happen.

Personal opinion, I think we are in a "spiritual correction" that is parallel to the financial "corrections" we have seen over the last few years. We built an inflated, less-than-actual 'Christianity' in the West and now it's not working out to be what it claimed. Possible causes, as I see it include:
- New ideas (parallel to new markets)
- 3rd and 4th generation 'Christians' being exposed to other Christians around the world via media(s) (parallel to the idea of 'the informed customer')
- the eventual-but-certain demise of the self-centered version of Christ Followers [pun intended] (parallel to consumer reporting)
- [insert your observation here by using the Comment feature of this blog!]

Recession brings options: push even harder using current methods (or values or competencies or _______) until the recession ends or resources stop, downsize, invest in deeping what is, panic, do something else altogether and wish for better days gone by, get pummeled by market and/or competition and die out.


I would like to suggest that the Church has gotten away from deliberate relationships. We have continued to diminish our deep relationships between fellow Christians so that the Body and Family metaphors of the Bible are now more like social clubs or Facebook groups. We have shrunk our concept of a local church to mirror an affiliation with a political party (increased activity based on periodic activity). We are certainly not known for bringing the Love of God Himself to our neighbors much less the needy (vs. the reputation of the Church the first few hundred years, for example). We encourage a "personal relationship with Jesus" but never get back to Him.

So we throw up 'alternative' movements, we talk about "Change" (a la Obama), we throw money around the world (seriously, how many more times do we have to hear about how easy it would be to end ____ -- for all the money I personally know that people and organizations have 'sent', I still hear little to nothing about change. Perhaps we aren't dealing with the root problems!)... just like our political life. What a waste.

Perhaps it's time to invest deeply, like Singapore Airlines, Amazon, and numerous others who don't talk much during recessions but spend money, time, energy on that which has only long-term payoff (and no immediate payoff - crazy!).

What if we...

• redid how Children are taught and/or involved in the Real life of God's People
• created leadership communities inside a local church that include all who are leaders (in particular, young leaders - high school through 90's)
• invested in mastering/harnessing new mediums of communication so that content isn't bound by the restrictions of one or two
• chose involvement in 'Spiritual' activity as a way for people to enter into a life with God instead of reserving it for those who have already mastered(?!?) it
• choose to be not just transparent but outright vulnerable with fellow brothers and sisters, even if it means we might get burned by them - what if we chose to need them
• saw each other's passions as under our deep, personal care - and left our passions up to their care
• met and engaged in the lives of our neighbors (the people living within a stone's throw from my quickly closing garage door) -- taking care of those we have direct contact with
  - or co-workers, bosses, subordinates
  
• met and engaged our brothers' and sisters' neighbors, too -- taking care of those in direct contact with those we are in direct contact with

What if we saw the Kingdom of God as a slow moving, all-encompasing bacteria that eventually takes over the entire petrie dish leaving self-replicating cells all the while? What if instead of trying to convince others to take huge jumps, we simply brought local humans along on our own journies as God's clay? What if we began to live as if vital-connection to others is equally important as righteous living? What if we stopped being soley pragmatic about the next 50 years and started thinking, "Slow and steady wins the race..." and accomplishes much along the way.

What if we invested deep into people. All people.

Pastors as PickUp Artists

My good friend, Jesse Gable, 'introduced' me to the sub-culture of "PickUp Artists."

[NOTE: Neither Jesse nor I are pick-up artists!]

So I read a bit on this approach to life. I found it dumb and base but powerful. This drew me to ponder my own use of power, posture, etc. in relationships and even my work. And now I have distilled a major insight.

When I first meet someone (or a group), I can work towards Respect or Trust.

PickUp Artists work for Respect. They work to create a (sub)version of reality that gives them incredible respect. They want the respect of their 'target' (girl). But ALSO self-respect as well as the respect of others (even other males). **

Ironically, the one book I read on/by PickUp Artist ended with the author's (fake)world being 'popped' by a real girl who didn't play the game. She had more power (respect) over him than he had over her. He left "the game" (as he called it) to be with the more powerful one. Irony to spare!

So what sets apart a PickUp Artist? Why are they so "successful"? Because they go after Respect-Only. The rest of us (intuitively) go after some amount of Trust.

I fear pastors have become PickUp Artists: When I ask pastors about their churches, I get Respect answers (number of _____, income, impact). Perhaps this is why pastor conferences feel like bars?

Trust seekers are "good friends", Respect seekers are "desired": I had a good friend in high school whom girls flocked to. I wanted girls, too! But I had friends. I had been trained/taught to generate trust, not respect. I envied my 'player' friend.

I can choose! I realized yesterday that this information allows me to deliberately choose one way or the other. I think we also have natural-bent. I am predicting (haven't thought this one out fully) that 'pastors' are Trust seekers and 'teachers' are Respect seekers (in their current, late-moderntiy, U.S.A. contexts!!).

Long-term Loss or Payoff: Perhaps there are times when I should(?) focus on Respect? If I am in a short-term (2 days or less) situation, might it be better for me to establish Respect (more than Trust) so as to achieve maximum impact?
- But what about those who discipled me that focued on Respect. Is that why I don't talk to them anymore? maybe even not-respect them anymore?
- Should a presidential candidate even TRY to gain my trust? Why not just go after my respect! But a Congressional candidate might work for trust due to the potential, long-term relationship with my state.

My Ego :: Trust has no shock or wow: But sheep follow a shepherd they trust. And since I am not the Chief Shepherd, where does that leave me?

Facing the real point of this post: am I okay getting my significance obeying the Chief Shepherd and not from the 'respect' of the sheep?

---

** It reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons in the 80's!! Create a fake world, work hard to get respect (power), and try to spend as much time as possible in the fake world. Eventually, one comes to believe that the virtual world is more real than the physical world.

I'm not very pragmatic (duh)

I'm wondering if I'm ever going to be worthwhile...

I am finishing the free lectures from the history class "Modern Physics: From The Atom to Big Science" taught by Dr. Cathryn Carson @ UC Berkeley. It's the history of physics, basically.

The latest class I listened to was on the history of physics education in the U.S. In particular, research. She noted that from the 1940s (when the U.S. really started offering post-graduate physics) to the 1980s, research (both in the classroom and at G.E., Bell Labs, etc.) was on speculative, futurical ideas. Then it all changed and physicists had to accomplish short-term successes (fix this problem in 18 months or create this new technology in 12 months).

Amazingly, without bemoaning the fact, Dr. Carson stated that the U.S. has been, since it's inception, very pragmatic. While we may think of ourselves as "cutting edge" we are only so when it has immediate benefit. The labs at G.E. and others drastically changed when quarterly stock-value became the deciding mark of a successful product.

Then I was talking to a guy who does sales from a company like Cisco where the product is very complex and it usually takes 12 to 18 months for a sale to complete. What is he supposed to do when the Sales Manager says, "Profits were down last quarter, we need to sell more!"? How can he turn even a 12-month sales-cycle into a profit in 4 months?!?!?


So here's where I fear I'm not going to be worthwhile... I'm strongly inclined to see eventual gain. For example, if Home Depot goes back to treating its customers well (which I believe they are trying to do), I think they will eventually gain back much of the market they lost to Lowes.

If more people meet more Christians who aren't fully-obnoxious about their religion, eventually people will have a new understanding of Christians and, even better, of The Christ.
If more people grow up around more Christians who deeply love God and others, eventually this will become 'the norm.'

At least that's what my eyes see.

So what do I do in a country/culture that is so pragmatic? Do I try to 'sell' what I see to those who are pragmatic? Do I try to give them glasses or binoculars? Do I try to change their pragmatism?!? Do I use metaphors I don't really care for like 'being balanced' (balance of pragmatism and long-term investment)?

Even worse, I sometimes see a win-win in which pragmatic decisions are made based on both short- and long-term goals. Is it possible for someone to see the benefit of both-and when they can't (barely) see 'the other' side?

But what pragmatic person is going to even have a conversation about long-range thinking?

Am I in the wrong part of the sandbox?

Leadership Development can't just be of Leaders

Having had a conversation about how "leadership is developing leaders" with someone, and being tired of the 6.5 billion irrefutable laws of leading and following, and how often I hear individuals speak of being a "leader of leaders" but never interact with these proteges as it pertains to their ACTUAL FOLLOWERS!, I had the following outline of thought.

1. Leadership development is not just developing leaders but giving them opportunities.
a. There is leadership development of skills, character, history, etc.
b. But there is ALSO develop opportunities for them to learn how to lead: by practice, experience

2. Otherwise "leadership development" is just developing individuals, it's not generating anything that needs to be led!
a. That is, self-promoting in that it is circular (cf. old story about the lighthouse that turned into the lighthouse society that was too busy being a society to save sailors anymore)
b. That is, it would never be FOR the followers but just FOR the leaders!

3. Thus, "leadership development" is the development of individuals (leaders) AND expressions of leadership (on behalf of of the followers) or it will ALWAYS be hypothetical (or worse, circular)

Implication: NOT every leader can/should be involved in this scope of Leadership Development. It is, much more so, a very different kind of leadership development that is not for every leader (due to history, genetics, etc.). In fact, a Leadership Coach/Developer might not be much of a leader at all, but might be a masterful coach who also comes up with/finds expressions of leadership.

Example: Leadership Development in the International (actually, Chinese) District of Seattle. Leadership Development should certainly include skills, theory, character, etc. But if they don't actually get out an lead, then we've done nothing but propagate titles.

[Even worse would be that we now call this person a sage and ask him/her to train others who do nothing but train others]

So leadership development would need to also include actually leading. Perhaps:
+ Creating a "clean up the street" program to be led by developing leaders
+ Founding, staffing, helping create curriculum for a "big Brother training center" where developing leaders can run/manage/engage
+ Handing a young leader the topic of:
"self-sustaining food production inside This District"
Paperwork aid for non-English speakers
homeless legal defense

All examples of something that is done for the locals, on behalf of the locals, with the locals, etc.

Why I like Seth Godin - his single lines

It may take reading the whole (albiet, short) post to get meaning from the one line, but it's worth it in the case of this post on perks/expectations. Or maybe he has one lines that are incredible and then fleshes them out.

Either way, the post is worth pondering as it pertains to business AND loving my neighbor (or family member or stranger or the person on the other side of the counter at any given retail outlet).

Subliminal teaching by Contrast effect

Is it possible more is taught (or in this case, caught) by the incongruity between what is asked and what is allowed? when what is stated as important is often dismissed by non-action (therein devaluing what is stated)?

If I, as a leader, state that those I lead should "always be growing/expanding" yet never ask if they are, never measure growth of any kind, maybe only briefly praise examples of growth, never show my growth, and put most of the resources into things other than "growth"...

Have I not taught, asked, lead, something other than what I said? Have I not, perhaps more powerfully than direct request, actually instilled the opposite of what I was intending to impart?!?

I am thinking of this as a dad. I am thinking of this as a boss. I am thinking of this as a leader of a cause. I am thinking of this as The Head Dog. I am concerned.

Culture and Beliefs

Been doing a bit of work on worldviews: how they are formed, how they can be formed. Then had an interesting conversation with my friend Jesse Gable about our time together in the youth group of a church we were at together.

I think this is what I believe: creating a "culture" is more powerful than teaching truths (or policies or priorities or ...) because it both directly and indirectly alters those beliefs (I'll call them "governing beliefs") that affect actions, feelings, and other beliefs. Perhaps these "governing beliefs" are the same thing as one's world-view.

Critically, maybe this is why who I hang-out with or what I immerse myself in is so important (ex. friends, music, 'scene', books, club, church, etc.).

Perhaps this, 'culture', is what all the current business-thinkers are talking about: how do we get an organization to move-forward, to be always growing, etc. because what we've BEEN doing isn't working (management by walking around, management by objective, six-sigma, reorganization / re-engineering, etc.). How do we shrink the gap between the lowest or newest employee and the CEO or the soul of the organization? Seems to me they are usually asking, "How do we create a culture that just . . . causes! . . . what we want in the company?"


As a leader, how deliberate am I about pro-actively creating the desired culture (since I AM creating culture by my very position)?

As a human, what kind of culture(s) am I in? What would I assume they are doing to my worldview? Is it good, bad, neutral? Do I NEED a different culture to live in right now (in order to grow, expand, heal, etc. some aspect of myself)?

How intentional am I being with those aspects of my life that define what I think is "natural"?

Great quote on Persistence - too good to pass up

Sorry to simply quote someone else's whole blog-post. But I really like this and it's short.

---

Persistence

Persistence isn't using the same tactics over and over. That's just annoying.

Persistence is having the same goal over and over.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/03/persistence.html

Wineskins, paradigms, metaphors

"Meta" is a fun prefix to me; it just makes everything Bigger! Mikaela's teacher actually has a section called "meta-cognition" on her report card (that means "thinking about what/how you think").

There is a bizarre combination of sociology and postmodern philosophy (majoring on deconstruction) that sprung-up a while ago called "Cultural Studies"++ that has me thinking about currently used Metaphors but through a different Paradigm (sounds pretty snazzy, eh!).

I was conversing with Tara about the metaphors we have used, quite subconsciously I think, to understand ourselves as a society/nation. It seems that Leader/Follower is quite dominant. This is, by now, clearly seen in the Church and in Business (generally).

tying this together...
One of the three threads that Cultural Studies has identified as "that which creates one's world-view" is Discourse.** Where my mind wandering into was this: How has "Leader/Follower as dominant paradigm" affected Discourse?

Thought 1: Lately, it has made Discourse the most-used thread of influence. I suspect this comes from how Leaders & Followers are often physically distant from each other (ex. distance from CEO to store-clerk, Federal Government to constituents, principal to students, working parent to young child). This, then, diminishes the other two threads: Relationships and Animation (activities, habits, practices). Does this help (partly)explain all talk and no Love / no Action, respectively?

Thought 2: Discourse-by-Oration has taken a beating making way for Story and Decentralization, as of late (in my opinion). Does this have ramifications for the Sunday Morning Sermon?

Thought 3: What opportunities might this turbulence* create? What other disruptions might this cause?

Thought 4: What are the long-term effects of such a pendulum-swing away from Oration? [More than once I have heard the "death" of oration. Ironically, I have heard this in an oratory format!]

---

++ the link is a pretty lame introduction, but the best I've found so far

* [by "turbulence" I mean the move away from a given method (oration) of living-out our most foundational metaphor (leader/follower) plus the renewed interest by the less-powerful (followers) in the other 2 branches of living life (relationships & animations)]

** I am most grateful to James Watson of Outreach Canada for elaborating on the work of Ryan Bolger as he (Ryan) synthesized Cultural Studies unto usefulness!

More implications of a Faith-based God

I wrote about this previously, but am finding it almost all-consuming anymore so I have more thoughts (duh).

A quick perusal of the Gospels finds that Jesus often "waits" for someone's faith: "Your faith has made you well" "He didn't do many miracles there because of their lack of faith" etc.

So what if God's "agenda," His "work in this world" IS my faith. Then God's Plan, His Action, His Will is my faith, my submission. I have often found it awkward how God (as usually seen in Jesus in the Gospels) lets His plan get altered. The when and why often seem much less significant than what is being stopped (ex. Jonah: one guy's submission vs. a major city-state's repentance).

This seems to have some serious ramifications as to:

• Truth: the reason for Truth, the use of Truth
  
• God's love of that _____ (lost, poor, sheep, etc.)
• God's "activity in this world"
• Wisdom and/or advice in the Community/Body
• How we measure God's activity, others' activities
• Role of the Holy Spirit personally, in a local Body, globally
  
• "What is God's will for my life?"
• "What is God's will for Life?"

Does this imply that anything other than my faith is less than faith?

• When I work on different aspects of my "walk with God" (that's code for, "mainly my morality, especially the parts that can be seen and/or measured so I can feel good about myself - maybe even come to trust myself to be Right"), should I always start with finding the faith parts?
  
• If I focused on faith first, would this life (or my "walk") look different? be done differently?

I fear I have no idea. I have trusted myself far too long. I have trusted that Obey is equal (better?) than Faith only to find that this is not God's way?

Good Power

Thread 1: There's a TV show I like called The Unit on CBS (can't believe the show is still going!) about the lives and missions of a secret, elite military team. During the latest episode ("Side Angle Side"), one of the team's wives helps "save" a gal from her suicide attempt. In talking with her husband she says, "When you're out on a mission ... I feel so helpless. But with this, I really felt (pause) powerful. I know, it's wrong to want power..."

Thread 2: I read a bit of business literature/theory, especially Jim Collins and Hamel & Prahalad. One thing they all key in on is what Collins calls a "Level 5 Leader" - the leader who leads on behalf of the organization, not him/herself. Example: CEO of CostCo makes ~$350,000 (as of 2006), "I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary," he said. (ABC News interview) I'm sure he has nice bonuses and other benefits, but $350k?

Thread 3: I fear my own pride and strength of relationships. I fear what I might do with such . . . power. In an old Tuesday Night conversation (which we used to host in ~2004) it came out that Relationship can be measured in Power (persuasion). I REALLY didn't like that. But it seemed accurate.

Thread 4: I always - always - think there is a better or even perfect expression for everything. Call it perfectionism. Call it control. Call it "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Call it bringing the future into the now. Call it the Reign of Christ. I long for the ultimate expression of any/everything. Whatever is perfect for a given time/circumstance, that's what I want to think about, to pursue.

After weaving these threads (and I'm sure others), I have concluded that Power does not corrupt. Self-gaining use of power is an expression of corruption-already-existent. Two leaders I work with (a.k.a. my kids) often hear, "Leading is always for those being led - you never use leadership or power for yourself."

Yet I find that most Christians I talk to, read, or work with see Power as something toxic.

Like the wife in that episode of The Unit. Power is bad, only God can handle power. And is this not one of the messages just under the surface in The Lord of the Rings trilogy - those who want power are enslaved by it (power == ring). In the books, this is made even more clear by the character of Tom Bombadil.

It seams we humans either run away from power for fear of wanting it, abuse it, or try to develop a series of controls for (against?) those who have it (Elder boards, denominations, policies, etc.). But we never seem to develop power "skills."

My Will be Done

Had my head stuck in research lately - actually research of research (?). I'm convinced we can use research to find out what people are actually thinking, feeling. But this runs smack up against most everything church-health related (ex Natural Church Development (cf. graph in upper right), Vision Renewal, CRM, etc.).

they ALL have their pre-set list of what churches should be
[and none of them include the poor, for example]

This is really driving me nuts. How is it that with all the resources, insight, wisdom, and history that the Church has, we still cannot figure out how to stop swinging like a pendulum from one way/method/idea to the other?!? Why can't we see that these are short-term, reactive (at best!) solutions that will not get us further but simply different?!? And why is "different" such an important value? Why isn't "better" or "preparative"? Why do we have to be so today-driven? (or at best, today plus a little bit of the past)

Seriously, am I nuts? Does it disturb only me that the majority of people coming to Jesus (worldwide) are no longer Evangelical, non-charismatic (which, as I understand, has been what most Western Christians are/become)? Not that I'm bothered by their being non-Evangelical and somewhat charismatic (I think I might prefer that!), what's disturbing is how much of it all is reactionary. I'm sure you, reader, can think of a few other pendulums your country/culture are swinging on.

Seriously, am I nuts? Am I so fixed on an aberration of the future that I am I have lost touch with reality? Seriously?

My life at this time

A blog entry that is so incredibly accurate to the way I think and so relevant to my current life-situation, only way more beautifully written/crafted than my own observation about life . . .

Monday, July 30, 2007

Steering is this: empowering leaders, resourcing plans, evaluating outcomes.

The active alignment of money, mandate and measurement is *not* judging tactics or leading execution. Steering is all about alignment. Steering is not making things happen. It is catalyzing the circumstances that allow for things to happen.

Steering is about a certain indirect influence in the future that is always already coming. The public face of steering is strategy embodied in initiatives. One steers initiatives. One executes projects.

One steers through initiatives as one turns a ship with the slight movement of its wheel. One executes projects as one swabs the deck of the ship that turns.

Another angle on human collections

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." attributed to Albert Einstein


Been reading "Finding our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time" by Margaret Wheatley. It's a look at human systems (organizations, companies, groups, pairs, etc.) through the lens of biological systems. From these evolutionist (and often Evolutionist) biologist comes the following set of needs organisms have (note: the more complex the being, the more these needs are felt):
1) the need to be myself and live (or create) out of my sense of self
2) the need to be with others, in actual community

Here's the basics of their framework . . .

3 Conditions for a Sustainable, self-organizing Organization (human or otherwise!):

1) Identity: the making-sense capacity of the organization
- core values, lenses/filters, intent of the org.
- the "self" is an internal construct
- self generated
- creates filters, values, etc.
- canNOT be created externally, only externally disturbed
- why try to shape what cannot be reached?!?

2) Information: the Medium of an Organization
- in-form, what forms from the Inside
- data becomes information when it is used by the "in" to form itself

3) Relationships: the Pathways of Organization
- data/information is passed, shared, amplified down these paths
- identity is created and re-created
- community is had, held, formed, given to new members

I find the #2-Information point interesting. Have I, as a pastor, tried too hard to change what I cannot even touch? Granted, the Spirit can mold there, but I cannot form in those places (values, ethics, morals, habits) that I was trying to reach with sermons, advice, meetings, events. [this point is directly tied to the ideas of "teachable moments" and "salting the oats"]
- I also like how date becomes information

#3-Relationships is expanded on quite a bit throughout the book. It is definitely a two-way system. More than just feedback, there is a equality that 's interesting: the head (human head, for example) that cannot get data except by Relationship, but the members only pass along that data which they consider Informative!!

This angle of bio-systems is fascinating my mind!

One simplistic view of effective Leadership

QuickDefinition to establish a starting point: Leaders act on behalf of their followers while directing same followers. In most situations, it's an issue of taking them from one "place" to another.

The nature of the "other place" is that it is, typically, more ideal than the current situation. As such, leadership can be seen as helping people experience more and more of "tomorrow" until today becomes what used to be the new tomorrow. Ideally, it's a cross-fade between Reality and Vision. Parts of tomorrow "infiltrate" today. Then more. And more.

PLEASE BREAK THIS POST, BECAUSE I'M A BIGOT

I'm going to lay out a few thoughts on the fully-mis-worded subject of "Women in Ministry," as it is too often called. Please, for the sake of all things of value, post SOMETHING if you disagree with anything in this post. I am so tired of arguing with myself since the people who write on this topic don't ever (1) defend their position nor (2) deal with the other side. Even if you agree with a conclusion but see something wrong in the path getting there, WRITE SOMETHING!!

So let me clarify: the issue is, can a woman be in authority over a man? Or, can a woman be in the top-authority position (typical example, "senior pastor")? This post will not deal with the issue of having a senior pastor since it is only used as an example common to us today.

1) Paul writes about how a woman cannot teach/exercise authority (v.12) over a man. I would take, as is common among the commentaries (but evidently not among the Greek-to-English interpreters), that "teach" and "exercise authority" are appositional. Thus I would write it, "teach-exercise authority" as if they mutually define each other.

2) Paul writes that a male has headship over a woman, just like the Father has headship over Jesus.

So let me stop there with the Biblical quotes and make a few observations in no particular order:
First, Jesus is fully qualified to be in-charge, but He wasn't allowed to be [parallel: why can't women lead when they are equally 'qualified']. Makes one wonder if this is a question of "qualification."
Second, both times, Paul refers to Creation as his rationale.
Third, Paul has most of the self-explaining writing on this subject

It is very common to also read our current need-for-power into Paul's context. Paul's use of Jesus and the Father or the Church and Jesus as a parallel/metaphor seems to imply that he (Paul) did not view leading the same way we do since the examples and metaphors we use have nothing in common with Paul's (e.g. slavery, C.E.O., etc.).

-- First Observation: Leading is supposed to be an act of Love and seen as a gift to the followers. If this isn't happening, then the leading is bad. No matter the gender of the leader! Please don't deal with bad leadership as some kind of male-dominance issue.

-- Second Observation: The common critique is that this issue comes from Paul's opinions (even though they almost universally cite Paul as their primary verses for male-female equality). This works its way into two, dominant threads.
First, the "obvious" male-and-female, side-by-side documentaries (e.g. Priscilla and Aquilla). This is a frustrating one to hear because it is, by definition, wholly subjective and flat-out reading into the accounts, basing the whole weight of the argument on word order. Yikes.
Second, the idea is espoused that Paul was putting his own bias and/or culture into his writings. This obviously runs into issues of how much control God kept in the writing of the Bible. I have yet to see it written (although I presume it has) that someone will come out and say, "This is my stance, and it works because I don't see God having much control over what Paul wrote." I don't subscribe to that idea of how the Bible was formed. Fine. The actual problem is this: without some kind of restraint on the writers, we have NO idea what is or is not cultural / we have no idea what is from God!! Too often I have heard in these contexts, I believe what Jesus said, not Paul. And we know what Jesus said from . . . Jewish, male writers with the same culture as Paul. Hmm. Making Paul suspect makes Matt., Mark, Luke, and John suspect, too. Then Jesus really does become God in (wo)man's image.

The other trend I see is that the whole male-over-female authority structure is an issue of the Fall and is therefore something that is reversed by Jesus and should be reversed by His Body as it ushers in the Kingdom.
Problem #1: "the Fall" refers to Gen. 3:16 where the woman is told the man will rule over her. A quick read brings up a goofy word: "desire." Susan Foh wrote an article many moons ago showing how this word "desire" translates a Hebrew word that shows up in Gen. 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. Gen. 4:7 is an issue of who gets control, Song 7:10 is an issue of sexual attraction. Not too difficult to find out how Moses uses the word, go 15 verses and see it's a control issue. So we have the Fall and, as is written, the inequality starts. She has to be ruled by man.
-- why don't we see the woman's desire to control her husband / men as part of the Fall?!? It's in the same sentence! We are only going to condemn HALF the verse?!?
Problem #2: Paul, in both the examples I cite above, goes back to Creation. Pre-Fall!

Note of sadness. Two things bum me out in this: 1) we're taking whacks at the Scriptures because it's contrary to current struggles (why don't people go after forgiveness - that one's a whole lot more difficult to live out!) and (2) most women I've seen get into positions of authority end up leading just like the bone-headed males that have preceded her for the last few centuries.


There it is. My current ;-) thesis. Please hack away!! Even if you're reading this months or years after it has been posted - please respond if you disagree with one single word, phrase, sentence, idea . . .


[The real issue, for me, is the quality of the leadership which is STILL not being addressed!!]

More-on leadership

Leadership too often is simply defined as either the action of saying, or the person who has the power to say, "No." Too often it is the prevention of new that is called "leadership."

Or it is the use of "no" by an all-wise, benevolent to prevent a small harm at the cost of a broader good - like when I tell my kids no out-of-hand because what they are asking for is not the ideal request, meanwhile squashing their creativity, enjoyment of life, and sense of self-ability. PLUS teaching them to not self-generate new ideas while training them out of learning to think.

As if leadership = control = leadership

The leader-poison of Contempt

Something of a syllogism on the relational power of leader-follower-leader.  This comes from my second-hand interaction with “The E-Myth” as well as my own self-observations.
Let me know if you agree or not, am I missing parts, etc.

If leading means the leader stops “doing” in order to lead
   - and -
Doers don’t know the leader [e.g. Doer is new, organization is too large, leading takes too much time]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Doers will foster contempt towards the leader


Doer-contempt fosters a decrease in productivity
  - and -
Decrease in productivity fosters contempt in the leader
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then how does a leader lead without fostering contempt throughout the circle of people involved?


I  know there are things that Doers can do, the question focuses on the role, power, and potential of the Leader for two reasons.  First, it’s faster to fix one point (leader) than many points (doer) and I really like efficiency.  Second, my sphere of contact tends to be with leader-types.