Challenging the Prevailing Wisdom: Teamwork

I wrote a couple weeks ago about challenging basic assumptions and the need to take some time to do so from time to time.  For some reason, I was led to challenge one of those basic assumptions that is generally regarded as the prevailing wisdom of today.

Since I have been studying for and practicing in the ordained ministry, I have heard a recurring mantra and theme: we can do more together than we can alone.  There's even been a rather cute anagram made to fit this theme: Together Everyone Achieves More.  You got it: TEAM. 

Now, don't misunderstand where I am headed.  There is no doubt that together we can indeed raise more money to fight hunger and poverty when we join together.  There is no doubt we need teamwork when running organizations.  When they become large enough, teamwork is essential to their success.  The larger the "problem" to be addressed, the more we need a team.

But, I wonder if "together everyone achieves more" really and truly works for all things?

If that were so, what results have that brought the church (particularly the ELCA) in the past couple of decades?

Let's narrow down the question a little more: has an emphais on the TEAM concept led to more congregations reaching folks with the Gospel?  Has an emphasis on the TEAM concept led our congregations to grow and thrive?  Has an emphasis on the TEAM concept empowered our congregations to be mission outposts which are centers of generosity within their communities where "budgets" are met consistently and survival mode is a bad memory?

I'm going to take a momentary break to start fortifying a room so that I won't get hit by the stuff being thrown at me.

Is there a direct correllation between the focus on TEAM and the decline of our churches?  Perhaps not, but I cannot help but realize that in the 18 years of engaging this concept, I haven't seen a difference being made in the larger scope of evangelism in the ELCA.

I'd like to stop right here and just leave the criticism, but that offers little in the way of solutions to help reverse a dispicable trend.  And if one is not willing to offer solutions, then forget it.

I personally believe individuals must be equipped to do evangelism.  Individuals carry the brunt of responsibility when it comes to being witnesses in the world around us.  If they are not equipped to share faith stories, invite others to church, live with a marked difference in their lives, see God in action outside the church, and notice those kairotic moments when others want to engage them in "faith talk," then our congregations will continue to flounder.

If our congregations are not engaged in preaching the Gospel and making it relevant to peoples' daily lives--not in a partisan political way as many of our churches seem to do; if they are not welcoming and hospitable; if they do not seek to make a difference in the local and global community; then our congregations will continue to flounder. 

In what ways is church leadership trying to equip our people and congregations to engage in such things? 

I personally strive to do a couple of things: 1. I regularly announce 95% of a congregation's ministry is done outside the four walls of the church.  2. I try to make sure every sermon has some nugget folks can take home with them to discuss that is applicable to their daily lives.  3. I try to equip folks to watch for those moments with family and friends that beg for an invitation to be extended to come to church.  4. I intentionally invited folks to extend a welcome to each person in worship on a given Sunday.  5.  I strive to model such behavior myself in hopes that someone is actually watching what I do.  6. I refrain from announcing my political views and intentionally allow others to come to their own conclusions based upon the faith they experience.  7.  I engage people in the community in the context of their daily lives to see their struggles and joys.  When I get the chance, I am always open to discuss any topic that folks want to engage in.  8. I regularly admit that I have clay feet and am not the resident theological expert.  I admit that others have theological/philosophical insights and invite them to share them with me without my condeming their insights or saying, "Well, this is what scholars think..."

Those are a few of the things that I do.  It involves a modicum of teamwork, but it puts responsiblity on individuals.

More Listening?

I received an email the other day from our Synod Offices.  It read:

Dear Leaders of the Gulf Coast Synod,

You heard it at the 2011 Synod Assembly: We are entering into a long-range strategic planning process for our synod.  To lead this process we have engaged Keith Magnuson, Principle Owner of Kairos Consulting:  www.Kairosandassociates.com. 

We are going to begin with the largest listening process this Synod has ever attempted. We would like to hear from as many congregational staff and council as possible.  

Kairos will use Russell Crabtree, owner of Holy Cow Consulting (www.holycowconsulting.com). Russ is the author of The Elephant in Boardroom and The Fly in the Ointment, and a leader in innovative survey processes. We're going to engage a broad spectrum of the leadership in congregations across this synod, including every rostered leader and every council member.  We've intentionally engaged with Kairos and Holy Cow to insure outside objectivity.  

This is an opportunity for you and the leaders in your community to help shape the future of our work together. 

Much of this work will be done online.  To accomplish this we must broaden our email base.  We are asking you as leaders in this synod, to forward us the list of your congregation's council members and contact information so that their voices can be heard, and so that they can view a summary of the results.  The participation of your council members is vital for us to get an honest picture of the synod landscape. 

Please forward your Congregation Council contact list (names, emails, phone numbers) to Lucia@gulfcoastsynod.org by July 15^th.  The survey will open online in late July, closing in mid-August.

All Survey participants will have the opportunity to receive a summary report of the findings.

We are dreaming about the future of the Lutheran presence in our neck of the woods. We hope you will open your doors to this dreaming together, and encourage your local leadership to participate fully, as we shape our way together!

God's Blessings,

Bishop Mike Rinehart and Synod Vice-President Evan Moilan

First, let me say that I have no issue what-so-ever in long range planning and visioning.  "Without a vision, the people perish." is an often quoted translation of Proverbs 29:18, and to some extent, it is true.  Congregations, institutions, businesses, etc. which have a clear vision of what they would like to accomplish tend to thrive--particularly if folks buy into the vision.  Oh, there will be some who try to subvert the process of striving toward the vision, but you can't make everyone happy.  That's an impossibility.  Yet, if there is a goal in mind, folks are more apt to strive toward it.  I am encouraged that my synod is looking to formulate a long range vision to work toward.

However, I'm not necessarily thrilled by the process.  Listening.

Oh, I know it's one of those assumptions that tends to govern the way the church does business.  "Listen to everyone so that everyone gets a chance to have their input.  If they feel like they've been listened to, then they will not get upset when we make changes."

I call bull-cr@p!

First of all, seeing what everyone says and then formulating a vision based upon what everyone says is not leadership.  It's liking your finger, finding out which direction the wind is blowing, and walking in that same direction.  It's figuring out which way the crowd is moving and running to the front.  Real leadership, at least in the church doesn't rely upon listening to the crowds--it relies upon listening to God.  Real leadership relies upon discernment.

Now, this doesn't mean one doesn't listen to others.  Several times in my career, I have been called upon to take various stances on one issue or another.  Many times, I have wished I could simply sit tight and do nothing and let things play out.  However, every time, I wished for this to happen, I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt bad things would happen.  So, I led.  I spent time in deep reflection and prayer.  Based upon that time of discernment, I defined the situation.  I defined my stance.  I articulated my beliefs and understandings and thoughts and then painted a vision of what I believed God was calling us toward.  Upon doing so, I went to trusted leaders within my congregation: current council members, the current congregation president, former congregation presidents, leaders within the women's organization, etc.  I had them read over my stuff.  I asked for their input to see if I was off base.  Usually they took a couple of days to read, pray, and respond.  Then, I "went public" so-to-speak.

Each time, I knew there would be those who would be unhappy with what I had suggested.  I knew there would be those who thought I had gone too far or not far enough.  But I also opened myself up to critique.  Generally, upon thoughts and reflections, folks agreed with where I was trying to lead us in principle.  They might not have agreed with all the details, but they understood where we were trying to get in the end.  They understood God has a purpose for our congregation, and that purpose is very important.  Oftentimes, they are willing to strive toward that purpose with those who believe very different things than they do--if the vision is clear.

Second, I don't believe listening to everyone eases anxiety and helps a church function better.  One only need look at the happenings surrounding the ELCA's decision to ordain non-celebate homosexuals.  The ELCA "listened" to folks for nearly 20 years regarding the subject.  From Barbara Lundblad's purposeful release of sexuality drafts before congregation pastor's had the opportunity to look them over to vote after vote after vote at synod assemblies and national assemblies, no one really wanted to listen over the course of this matter.  Those pushing the church toward the resolution never listened to the church telling them "no" time and again.  They kept pushing until it passed this last year.  And, when folks caused an uproar, the same folks wondered why everyone was angry because they had plenty of time to make their voices known.  Hello!  They did.

Similarly, I don't believe the "other side" really and truly listened to the pain and frustration experienced by those who loved God and loved Christ and wanted to serve others.  

And these are just the emotional issues.  Neither side wanted to wrestle with the main issue of "how do we interpret this book we call the Bible?  Do we have a method of reading which we consider more authoritative?"

No.  Instead, it was the proverbial Abbot and Costello "Who's On First?" routine.  Plain language interpreters went up against historical/critical interpreters, and each side thought and claimed the other was idiotic, unlearned, etc., etc.

And what happened: division, anger, frustration, brokenness, churches splitting, funds draining.

Because we wanted to listen to all the voices instead of lead and discern.  There was no vision being cast for the larger church, just a bunch of listening; and fighting; and name calling.

Seems like we're trying to head down that road once more.  I earnestly hope not.  But, I truthfully believe the Synod is entering into an exercise of a waste of time and money.  

Lead...

and Listen...

to God. 

Wisdom from the A-Team?

Took some time on July 4th to catch up on some movies I've wanted to watch.  Finally sat down and watched the new A-Team movie.  As a youngster, I loved, I mean loved, the t.v. show.  I was hoping they'd be true to the show in how they handled things.  I am happy to report: they were.

But there was one fascinating aspect of the show which caught my attention.

One of the members: B.A. Barakus has a change of heart while he is in prison.  He reads a book on non-violence.  When the team is finally reunited, B.A. talks to Hannibal Smith about his desire to become a man of peace instead of violence.

B.A. quotes Gandhi, "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary."

B.A. asks Hannibal about the quotation.

Hannibal replies, "Gandhi.  'It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.'  Do you know who said that?"

B.A. shakes his head.

Hannibal answers, "Gandhi."

I had to look it up after I heard it.  You know how Hollywood takes artistic license with things.

Sure enough.  It's a solid quote.

Never heard it before.  None of my professors in college or seminary who raved about Gandhi ever brought this one to attention.

Call it selective quoting if you choose.

Just like many of us do with Scripture.  We'll selectively quote those items we think bolster our form of Christianity.  Never mind those pesky ones that seemingly contradict what we want to put forth.

God isn't wrathful.  God is a God of love.

Tell that to Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5).

You have to repent in order to be forgiven.

Tell that to the Prodigal Son's Father who runs to him before he even gets a chance to apologize.

God wants us to be wealthy.

Tell that to Jesus when He tells His followers to give up their possessions.

God wants everyone to share equally in what they have.

Tell that to Jesus when He tells the parable of the talents.

We like being selective.  How easy it is to put our own vision upon Jesus, upon Christianity, upon Gandhi.

How hard it is to allow them to instruct us in total.

The Gospel in Action

As told by Ronald J. Sider in his lecture "The Whole Gospel for the Whole Person" at The Vertias Forum at Harvard University, 1995.

Reprinted in A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions, edited by Dallas Willard copyright 2010, IVP Books.

James Dennis is a very dear friend of mine.  For eleven years my wife and I attended an inner-city church in an all-black section of Philadelphia.  James Dennis and I were elders together in that church.  Many years ago, Brother James was a very angry black militant.  He told me a little while ago that if he had met me years ago, he might have killed me.  (I'm glad he met Jesus first.)  But before that happened, his marriage was in trouble, he was abusing alcohol, and he finally went to prison for a major crime.  In prison, thank God, he came to know Jesus Christ, and he came out, struggled a bit, got involved in our church discipleship, and God put his life back together.

His family's back together, he's got a decent job, he owns his own home.  He wants to be a prison chaplain someday.  Fantastic transformation.  Anybody who thinks that all he needed was the best government programs of whatever sort, Democratic, Republican, or Green, simply doesn't understand.  He needed more than that.  He needed a living relationship with Jesus Christ that would transform his whole character from the inside out.

At the same time, anybody who thinks that all he needed was to be born again, when the school system wouldn't work and he couldn't get any job or housing, doesn't understand.  Surely he needed a decent societal order, and he needed a living relationship with Jesus Christ.  How on earth anybody who claims to follow Jesus Christ, the eternal Word become flesh, the perfect combination of word and deed, and then proceeds to separate them in life really puzzles me.

Two words: I agree.

Leaving the Group

After holding out for longer than I thought, I removed my name from the ELCA Clergy Facebook page.

There was part of me that wanted to continue to stay connected in this virtual community to see what my fellow brothers and sisters were up to and the thoughts which ran through their heads.

For a time, my curiosity was satisfied.

But then several topics started coming up which began to sway my opinion.  Actually, the topics (in my opinion) were downright depressing.

Here's a sample:

When you wear a chausible, do you wear your stole over the top of it or underneath it?

When you wear a cincture (a rope around your waist), do you tie your stole down with it or let it freely hang?

What do you wear to an outdoor wedding?

Even had a few arguments regarding whether or not one needed to have a Bible reading from one of the four Gospels at every worship service.  Some argued it was a necessity.  Others argued having a reading from any part of the Bible was sufficient.

*sigh*

Yours truly is not inspired by such conversation.

Neither was I inspired by the commentary suggesting we pastors ought to be responsible for every single aspect of church life.

I personally believe somewhere in this whole process of doing church, the power of the people in the pews must be unleashed.  To have an effective church, one must certainly have a good pastor; however, just as important is a group of unabashed people who are willing to put their faith into action in whatever manner the Spirit calls them.

When people are inspired to do ministry and come up with programs and ideas on their own, congregations are more effective than when the pastor has to drag them toward programs and ideas.  It's a simple fact of reality.

But instead of conversations about how such things need to take place within our congregations, we tend to be more interested in how we should arrange our liturgical garb. 

I'll pass on that conversation.

Vacationing

For my blog readers: I will not be posting my blogs to Facebook for the next week or so.  I will be taking some time off.  If the autopublishing stuff works correctly, there will still be a post almost daily at 10 a.m while I am spending some time with my family and friends.

Keep checking in if you choose.

Kevin

Sermon Delivered July 10, 2011: Satisfaction

How many of you recognize this candy bar? (Hold up a Snickers bar.) Just about everyone. I remember being introduced to Snickers when I was very young. It was and probably still is my dad’s favorite candy bar. I remember very clearly going to church and Sunday School when my home congregation had two services. Sometimes, my mom was asked to play organ for both services. We’d usually attend the first service, go to Sunday school, and then while mom was playing the second service, dad would take us to the local Maverick Market–how many of you remember that chain store? Anyway, we’d go down to the local Maverick Market and pick up a snack and go to a playground for half an hour or so before heading back to pick up my mom.

I remember dad gave us each a dollar to purchase a drink and a candy bar. It seemed like dad always got a Snickers. Eventually, I’d get one too and enjoy the chocolate, caramel, and peanuts. It was a snack which, in the words of the Snicker’s ad campaign today, truly satisfied.

Perhaps you have seen some of the commercials Snickers has put out recently. Beginning with the Betty White Super Bowl commercial, Snickers has gone on a marvelous campaign to convince all of us who get hunger pangs from time to time that their candy bar will truly satisfy our hunger. It will calm our cravings. And according to the Snicker’s folks, this is a good thing because when we get hungry, we are not ourselves. We transform into weak, irritable, cranky, angry people. We must be satisfied in order to be happy.

Snickers is actually picking up on a train of thought which psychologists have articulated for quite some time. Anyone here remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? I remember being taught this pyramid pretty early on in my education. You begin with physical needs. Once those are met, then you can advance a level into safety needs. Once those are met, you move into the need for love and belonging. Once that is met, you can advance to the level of esteem. Finally, once esteem needs are met, you can reach the peak which Maslow called Self Actualization. Each of these levels is predicated upon being satisfied–physically, emotionally, and psychologically. If needs aren’t met, a person can never be fully who he or she can be.

I’ve got a bone to pick with Maslow because I personally wonder if such needs can ever be satisfied. I mean bear with me for just a little bit. Take for instance, this Snickers bar. It’s not very big as far as things are concerned. The ads say it will satisfy my hunger. Well, I’m feeling a little bit hungry right now, so I’m going to munch down on this little piece of candy. Mmm. It is good. But I wouldn’t say that it’s actually satisfied my hunger. I’ve still got that taste of chocolate in my mouth. That’s a really pleasant taste for me by the way. I love chocolate. In fact, that little bit of chocolate has only managed to whet my appetite. I want more. Before I ate that candy bar, I wasn’t craving chocolate. Now, I want more. So instead of satisfying my hunger, it actually made it worse.

There are some reasons for that, I think. One of them being, for most people who are not allergic to chocolate, the body releases endorphins when you eat it. Now, endorphins are chemicals in your body that make you feel good. When you eat chocolate, you get a "fix". Your body enjoys that "fix" and it wants to feel more of it. The more chocolate you eat, the more endorphins get released, and the better you feel, at least for a short time. But the body is never, really satisfied. It wants more. And more and more.

Interestingly enough, I have read a few things which suggest the body does something similar when we go shopping. Yes, some have suggested there are endorphins which are triggered when we go buy things. Ever wonder why some people tend to be shopaholics? Ever wonder why some people have an insatiable appetite when it comes to spending money and appropriating goods? Perhaps it is because it makes them feel good to get something for themselves. But, that fix is short lived. Because there is always more to be bought.

On the flip side of that, did you know that helping someone else feels good as well? Did you know that helping others releases the same endorphins as buying something for yourself? Of course, the studies that I have seen suggest that the endorphins that are produced by helping someone last longer than the ones that happen when you shop which may be a goose for some of us to think outside of ourselves once in a while. And there are many people who keep wanting to help others, even to the point they neglect themselves or neglect their families. Why? Well, they are never satisfied with helping. There’s always one more person to help. One more life to save. And some folks never get enough of it.

Oh, I think I could keep adding to this list. Hunger, shopping, helping others, drinking, sex, buying a sports car, moving into a bigger house, desiring what my neighbor has, playing video games, surfing the internet, chatting in chat rooms, meeting other people, receiving pats on the back for something we have done, all of these things can make us feel good. They can cause reactions within us as we think we are finding satisfaction while we are doing them. But...but do they really and truly satisfy? Do they take away our physical, emotional, and psychological hungers? They certainly may alleviate them for a time, but they will not take them away. Let me repeat that, they will not take them away. If we ever think we will be completely satisfied by simply eating, drinking, having sex, shopping, helping others or what have you, we are sorely mistaken. These things will never, ever satisfy. Sorry, Snickers. You are wrong.

So what can satisfy? What can give us fulfillment?

St. Paul writes in our second lesson this morning, "5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."

When we believe all of the things I talked about earlier will lead to our satisfaction, we are setting our minds on the things of the flesh. We are seeking to satisfy our own desires. We are seeking to satisfy our own hungers, and they will never dissipate. When we set our minds on the desires of our flesh, we will be so overcome with them that we will willingly break God’s law to have them satisfied. And what is the cure?

"Set your mind on the things of the Spirit." Set your mind on the things of God. Look to Him as the one who satisfies. Make Him the ultimate concern in your life, and you will not hunger. You will find life and peace. Amen.