A man of great faith

Linus is a man of great faith.

But in the span of a few minutes:

What he believed in brought grief to those who cared about him.

He assigned a seemingly arbitrary set of rules to that which held his faith

When he thought what he had faith in seemed to become certainty, he couldn't believe it.

He held on believing in the spite of conflicting realities.

He suffered and was uncomfortable because of his desire to see his faith realized.

He believed, one may think, for the wrong reasons--for a pay off that was born in his selfishness.

In the end.  Those around him rescued him from the dangers of his faith and returned him to comfortable circumstances.

...but no doubt he woke up the next morning a changed man.  And maybe his faith was more important than the certainty of his belief.

A man of great faith.

The most unforgettable person you ever met

 In the 1970s a reporter named Charles Salter wrote a column for the Atlanta Journal called "Georgia Rambler." He'd get into his car, head out to some small town within driving distance of Atlanta and visit with folks of the community at the barber shop or cafe and basically ask one question:  "Who is the most unforgettable person you have met in this town?"

Mr. Salter developed a column that he wrote for years around this concept.  The question always led to a story.

How would that play out for you and me?

Who is the most unforgettable person your ever met in this...ministry?

Are they still involved?

Did they challenge you?

Did you gravitate toward them?

Did you count down the years, months, hours until they rotated off the board or the committee because they were so unforgettable that they drove you crazy?

I am trying to learn or appreciate the importance of being able to serve in ministry with the most unforgettable people of the world.

You and I can work and enjoy and "get some ministry" out of the people we like and are like us.  The people who show up and get the job done and don't ask questions and don't cause no trouble.  We get what we always have gotten and we'll keep getting what we've always gotten and it'll be mostly forgotten.

But the unforgettable people.  Are we willing to take part in the unique, crazed, maniac, heart-stopping, hair pulling ministry God has stored up for us and the world through these people?

That is where the wisdom lies, and the 10,000 hours come into play.  It's the music and the mastercraftmanship we signed up for when we started.

I'm afraid if Charles Salter wandered into my little ministry hamlet and asked his question of me, I would say, "Well I kind of remember this person one time..."

The story he would take back home would be woefully short.

There is something about you...

"It must be hard to be a man, too," she says.  "Mr. Draper, I don't know what it is you really believe in.  But I do know what it feels like to be out of place.  To be disconnected.  To see the whole world laid out in front of you the way other people live it.  There is something about you that tells me you know it too."

She is a character on the TV show Mad Men.  She is not the prototypical woman for the period (I think the show is set in the fifties.)

She is pretty hardcore but in a informal meeting with Don Draper, she comes to appreciate her "unique" struggles aren't really unique.

And coming to that realization seems to sell her on a business relationship with Sterling Cooper.

Un-unique struggles lead to unique connections.

I've often heard if we are going to connect, it'll be through our similarities or "common ground".  We won't likely build a relationship on our differences.

Somehow being able to see that the person sitting across from the table, though so very different, struggles with the same things we do often leads to a connection.

It leads to a willingness to do business together.

What brings us together isn't our differences.

But it isn't our shared strengths or our alike-ness.  Necessarily.

It's our common struggles.

And not just our common struggles.

Our ability to identify the struggle in another as the struggle within us.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Or is likely to become so.

The delusion that drives you

Natalie Jeremijendo's is that new technologies are an opportunity for social transformation.

A delusion that drives you.

She currently runs, among other things, an environmental health clinic.  People come in with concerns about environmental health and leave with prescriptions for things they can do to improve the health of the environment.

Her delusion has led to such strange behavior as taking tadpoles for walks, talking to fish, and planting plants in front of fire hydrants.  But because of it; advancements in cancer treatment, ozone depletion, and less need for superfund clean ups seem doable.

I don't know her personality type or her experiential history or much about her at all.  But it seems like this idea of embracing her idea/calling/live's work as delusion really works for her.

I must be cut from the same cloth, because I think it's great.

I don't know what delusion drives you.  Maybe it's real important for you to know and for others to know that your idea/calling/life's work is unneurotic-aly right.  In fact, maybe that is what drives you.

Maybe it's that once every nation confesses our Christianity as the right belief, Jesus will come back to Earth.

It could be that unless you believe like I believe you are going to spend etenity in agony instead of in heaven in paradise (with me).

Sometimes I think its our (mere) prescence that changes things.  Not so much what we know or what we believe or how much we can do.  Just our presence.  With each other.  So I do my best to connect people.

It's the delusion that drives me.

I don't know what if anything it has led to.  Probably not so much a treatment for cancer.  There'll still need to be massive superfund clean up sites in spite of the people I attempt to connect and connect with.

But I don't know.

I mean, then again, it's still driving.

Something to sell

It makes it eaiser if you have something to sell.

I have always shied away from the fact that I had something to sell or an idea to convince you of or a position to persuade you toward.

And I don't think I've really been doing anyone any favors.

Adam Neal works with the United Methodist Church as a missions specialist.

I recently had a chance to talk with him about the Global Ministry of the United Methodist Church.

I knew that he wanted us to do something: to sponsor a project or to support a missionary partner or to covenant. He was selling us on the importance of partnership with a GBGM missionary partner.

I gained an appreciation for that when I realized as we talked, some of the ideas and desires our church has for missions became apparent.

Some of them lined up with what Adam was "selling."  Some didn't.

But because he had a desire (he wanted us to do something) some things became apparent.

Some things became possible.

Adam wasn't selling us missionary partners.

He was providing opportunities that we seek to find and fulfill.

And that made a huge difference.

I want to try to figure out how I and my organization can help you get to where you find God moving you.

Parts of it may help and fit.  Parts of it won't.

But until I get a chance to let you take it for a test drive, I'll probably never find out which is which.

And you won't either.

Try it free for 30 days.

Whether you decide it's for you or not.  Whether I make the sale or not: something will happen.

show your strength

people show their strength in a variety of ways.

some might never fail to show up for a meeting you call 2 minutes late.  every time.  two minutes.  late.

some might not respond to an email asking for input.  until you call them and then ask them in person.  it's not that they don't have time or overlook it.  it's just how they show their strength.

some people don't offer any discussion during discussion time.

and some don't reply to you when you give a answer.

they just let it hover above the group.

they seem strong.

other people make sure that people are empowered to take the limelight and lead the group or the effort with their full and visible support.

some people show their strength by giving it away.

or at least sharing it for a while.

Don't know or don't care

A New Yorker Magazine cartoon that stuck with me was one depicting a presentation with a flip chart with a scrawled pie chart proclaming 60% of the people don't know the math and 40% of the people won't do the math.

Or something to that effect.

Which raises a question about the 80/20 rule we sometimes talk about around the church and other organizations.

Is the 80% the 80% because they don't know about the events or because they don't care about the events.

And is it OK to talk about people not caring about an event you put on?

Not that they are apathetic, don't know what's good for them, and if they would only participate we could transform their lives type don't care.

Like, you know, just not interested in that right now.  Or: that just isn't something they are interested in or appeals to their particular intelligence of learning or they just aren't "ready for that yet" type don't care.

Is there a certain due diligence of making sure they have opportunities to know about the event before you have to say: "We need some new events," or "We have to spend more time gettting people connected to communities of people they care about", or "The people who want to know about something will find out about it"?

Maybe, just maybe, we need to spend more time cultivating authentic realationships with a few of the people who we know care about something.  (But for your own safety: keep the trains running on time).

That, though, will take some time.

Maybe even an eternity.

We should probably grab a Snickers Bar.

A Plow and the church staff

Positive feedback propels you and your ideas forward.  It is affirming.  It feels good.  We all crave positive feedback.

Not so fast my friend.  It's important not to disregard negative feedback.  Don't just embrace it.  Don't simply grit your teeth and get through it:  "They just don't understand.  They have been around here long enough.  The last supervisor/boss/CEO let us do it that way."

Nay: seek it out.  Attach yourself to it and go to work against it.  (Not against it like futile resistance--against it, but rather like generating positive results in tension with it.)

A friend who is old enough to remember watching a farmer plow a field with a horse (mule maybe?). Compares the process to plowing with a horse or mule.

The horse provides positive feedback.  As long as you keep the horse feed and healthy it'll pull all day in what ever direction you want it to go.

The plow, on the other hand, seems to hold things back.  It's a pain and literally a "stick in the mud."

But without it; no ground gets broken, no crops get planted, and no food gets eaten.

The person on the board or the team who never seems to like your ideas is really helping you break ground and produce crops.

And if you ever hear a member of your organization complain that if you ever want to kill an idea, give it to the staff just tell him:

"Hey, haven't you ever seen a farmer plow with a horse?"

How can I help you?

No, I mean really.

This isn't just for customer service people or the guy behind the counter.

Like, I'm trying to figure out expectations and what it is that I can do to help you in your efforts in ministry to God and the world.  So why did you call me?

I'm pretty bad about just jumping in there everytime you say you want to do this that and/or the other.  Because, I guess, I basically figure that's my job. Or maybe it just that people often seem so uninterested in ministry that I jump at a warm body that says they want to do something.  Anything.

I often don't ask "How can I help you?" because it, to me, comes across as: "Sorry, that's not my station", or "I'm on break", or "I'll tell me supervisor", or "I don't know, I just work here" type of a thing.

And if I ever do, it's not like "How can I help you?" (emphasis on I- what can I specifically, uniquely do?)


I'll just come out and see what you want to show me without any real desire to help or without any capability to help or provide what you need.  It'll take lots of time, effort and energy away from the things I think are really important, but oh well: I tried.

I fee like if you want something, I better drop everything and come help.  Otherwise it might come across as "Failure to plan on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part".  And that seems so...cold and unministryish.

But ultimately, you might not realize my strengths, abilities, and connections really don't match up at all to the task you wish to tackle.

Then again, that could easily come across as "I don't care."

...maybe I don't.

Is that OK?

Are we still good?

If so: maybe now I can help you.

On connection, caring, and being terrified

I was reminded recently of one of the key components of groups of people who make significant change through movements and causes.

In his article comparing old school movements to causes and movements based on social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Malcolm Gladwell traces the roots of sit in's to four college buddies.

While not necessarily talented, gifted, or skilled at civil rights organization or leadership,  the four guys cared deeply about the cause of equality.

And they cared deeply about each other.

As we prepare our ministry teams for the coming year, select committee chairs, seek out volunteers for the Sunday school teachers, or organize the team to go to Costa Rica, one of the most important characteristic to look for is a willingness to connect with and get to know others.

In reading Gladwell's take on the four young men who participated in the first sit in at Woolworth's, another collective characteristic attributed to them jumps out at me:

The four students who first sat down at the lunch counter were terrified. “I suppose if anyone had come up behind me and yelled ‘Boo,’ I think I would have fallen off my seat,” one of them said later.

In consideration for a leadership team: are we willing to write into the volunteer job description: "Must become connected to cause, be willing to care for others, and be terrified from time to time"?


If not, can we really expect things to change?

The devil made me do it...or my lack of cortisol did

Ever heard the theory that Satan goes after ministers or people in authority in the church with, like, a special fury?

"Being in a position of power also may make people feel that they can do no wrong. In recent experiments, Dana Carney, a psychologist at Columbia University's business school, has found that acquiring power makes people more comfortable committing acts they might otherwise be reluctant to commit, like lying or cheating. As people rise to a position of power, she has shown, their bodies generate more testosterone, a hormone associated with aggression and risk-taking, and less cortisol, a chemical that the body generates in response to stress.

'Having power changes you physiologically, reducing your body's internal feedback that tells you which actions are good or bad,' says Prof. Carney. 'Power temporarily intoxicates you.'"
-from the Wall Street Journal

So if something can be scientifically explained does that detract from the spiritualness of the truth? Does it somehow validate it?

Are you more likely to be on your guard from an attack from Satan or from being hormonal?

Is it, in fact, helpful to think that Satan is somehow more interested in your downfall than in the downfall of a member of congress?

Whatever gets you through the night.

Or maybe:

Whatever keeps you from ruining your life and the lives around you.

Lost camels

Henri Dunant found the Red Cross in the 19th century on three principles: impartiality, neutrality, and independence. Dunant sold the idea to potential donors around the idea that not only was the mission of the Red Cross "the Christian thing to do", but that it was an economic boon to countries going to war because the work of the Red Cross in its mission to rescue, feed, bathe, and bandage the survivors of war, it reduced the cost to the governement.

In his survey of books concerning humanitarian efforts in a recent New Yorker magazine, Philip Gourevitch pits this idea of humanitarian aid (savings to the cause of the need for the aid in the first place) against the vision of humanitarian aid of Florence Nightingale. Part of Nightingale's mission was not only tending to the agony of human suffering brought on by the political ambitions of the governments involved, but being realistic about what was causing the agony in the first place.

Gourevitch quotes Sadako Ogata who worked with the U.N. refugee agency as saying "There are no humanitarian solutions to humaitarian problems."

Solutions must include a political component as well as a humanitarian one.

So, do spiritual problems have spiritual solutions?

It seems difficult to engage in solving someone's eternal dilemma without being realistic about the political, emotional, financial, economic, organizational dilemmas that dilemmas that we all face simultaneously.

In declaring the impartiality, independence, and neutrality of the solution we offer do we actually embue suffering rather than honestly alleviate it?

A man tries hard to help you find your lost camels.

He works more tirelessly than even you.

But in truth he does not want to find them, ever.

-Ali Dhux

***Please read the disclaimer

If the email blast we send was a web page, would anybody ever read it?

If the bulletin was a blog, how many comments would it have?

If the Sunday school announcement was a facebook status, how many people would tag it?

We probably have a command and control system that is characterized by a top down hierarchy.

This is good because it is one component to a healthy system, organization, body, etc.

The rest of it is most likely a system described by Steven Johnson his book Emergence (p. 77) which "learns from the ground level, a system where macrointelligence and adaptability derive from local knowledge..."

This part of the equation would be decentralized groups of people seeking out the information and connections they need to grow in their ministry and place in God's Mission.

Some of the characteristics to consider when interested in moving toward this component of organization:

More is different: There needs to be something called "critical mass". This is real tricky because this is what leads to getting stuck on the numbers. An event cannot be judged only by how many people come, but the reality is if you have 235 kids on the role and only 10 of them show up for the retreat- you are not going be have a faithful community. The retreat can still be awesome, but sheer numbers do figure into the equation. More people, more interactions, more growth.

Ignorance is useful: Not everybody who comes to the event or joins the community needs to know the mission, vision, and purpose statement and what the metrics are. In fact the less the participants know themselves about the overall complexity of what you are doing the better. Some people just want a job to do and be done with it. This is OK. Remember the mainframe top down structure with the mandates and the core values is already in place.

Encourage random encounters: This is where we sometimes work against ourselves. The missions person should be in dialog with the director of children. You as director of missions shouldn't be the point person or go between for missions laity and children's staff or even laity. Encourage (or at least try not to dissuade) such encounters in the name of chain of command protocol or "keeping things clean".

Look for patterns in the signs: OK this is where we can really unleash some of our pent up have to be relevant, need to have an impact and something to report at the staff meeting that we did: find out what's going on. Don't worry about dictating the course all the time. Try to understand the prevailing winds and the patterns. Go Thomas Jefferson: figure out where people walk the most before you pour the sidewalks.

Pay attention to your neighbors: Not only be kind to everyone you meet because they carry a heavy burden, have as much Martin Buber I and Thou action as you can cram into a day. (Please observe Sabbath if you really get into this). The object is to stumble across one another. Don't worry so much about the activity calendar so sterile. Mix it up when you can.

***The views expressed here are not necessarily those of status quo. Please consult your doctor and seek medical help for decentralized thoughts that last for more than 4 hours. Lack of invasive emails and unwarranted Sunday school solicitations may result in actually developing real relationships. Do not operate pulpit support while seeking genuine life transformation. Brochure racks may show some signs of emptiness. Failure to have your name to appear in, like, every other bulletin announcement as the contact may empower someone who really cares about the ministry.

How to (or not to) find a good ministry team member

What's the purpose of a ministry team?

Labor pool, but that's really a guild

Rubber stamp, but that's really a puppet regime

Accountability group, but that really should have the word anonymous after it

Ministry legislators, but that's really a board

Staff booster club, but that's really a staff booster club

Empowered leadership team, but that's hard to control

Group of agenda holders, but that's just a group of agenda holders

An opportunity to get people involved, but that's really a member assimilation program

At any time a ministry team might take on characteristics of any and all these groups.

As we pick and choose who would be best on our ministry team:

Who is a one cause wonder and who wants to help us all live better lives?

Who thinks the church should really take on this cause and who wants to live out this cause?

Who likes hanging out with "like minded people" and who's ready to subordinate their interest for the greater interest of the organization?

Who has expressed interest?

Who is already active to some degree in the ministry?

Who wants to change the world and who is delusional?

The process probably starts with determining if I am able to identify myself as the person I am looking for.

If I'm not, who's going to help me be that person?

They might be a good ministry team member. Or not.

White towels and dead chimps

In boxing, the "corner" throws in the white towel when they feel like their boxer is taking too much punishment even though to people who don't know him, he seems to be gamely fighting on. The referee is willing to let the match go on, but the people who know the fighter best can tell he's done and nothing good is going to happen if he keeps trying to win.

I saw a documentary one time about a group (troop?) of chimps. A baby chimp died, but the mother kept carrying the carcass around for weeks. The other chimps who seemed to realize that the baby was dead didn't intervene. They let her "work it out" for herself.

So: when to employ the white towel strategy? When to employ the dead chimp strategy?

Anybody who takes on leadership of a ministry will no doubt encounter some brutal beatings and some still born events and activities.

It might be up to us to let the leader come to terms with the fact that the ministry of the community development isn't relevant and they are just taking on unnecessary punishment or hauling a stinking carcass around.

As difficult as it is to ignite or inspire someone into acting out their call and discover their vocation:

maybe the hardest thing to do is to pick up the white towel or to watch as they carry around something that is dead.

Protecting a vulnerable fighter.

Letting a loving parent carry a dead baby.

Tension.

The importance of knowing your Relational Model Theory

Relational Models Theory is an idea of Alan Fiske that proposes that all people interact with one another through essentially one of four models:

Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad or group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social domain in question. Examples are people using a commons (CS with respect to utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with respect to their social selves), people who "ask not for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee" (CS with respect to shared suffering and common well-being), or people who kill any member of an enemy group indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective responsibility).

In Authority Ranking (AR) people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates. Examples are military hierarchies (AR in decisions, control, and many other matters), ancestor worship (AR in offerings of filial piety and expectations of protection and enforcement of norms), monotheistic religious moralities (AR for the definition of right and wrong by commandments or will of God), social status systems such as class or ethnic rankings (AR with respect to social value of identities), and rankings such as sports team standings (AR with respect to prestige). AR relationships are based on perceptions of legitimate asymmetries, not coercive power; they are not inherently exploitative (although they may involve power or cause harm).

In Equality Matching (EM) relationships people keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. Common manifestations are turn-taking, one-person one-vote elections, equal share distributions, and vengeance based on an-eye-for-an-eye, a-tooth-for-a-tooth. Examples include sports and games (EM with respect to the rules, procedures, equipment and terrain), baby-sitting coops (EM with respect to the exchange of child care), and restitution in-kind (EM with respect to righting a wrong).

Market Pricing (MP) relationships are oriented to socially meaningful ratios or rates such as prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or cost-benefit analyses. Money need not be the medium, and MP relationships need not be selfish, competitive, maximizing, or materialistic—any of the four models may exhibit any of these features. MP relationships are not necessarily individualistic; a family may be the CS or AR unit running a business that operates in an MP mode with respect to other enterprises. Examples are property that can be bought, sold, or treated as investment capital (land or objects as MP), marriages organized contractually or implicitly in terms of costs and benefits to the partners, prostitution (sex as MP), bureaucratic cost-effectiveness standards (resource allocation as MP), utilitarian judgments about the greatest good for the greatest number, or standards of equity in judging entitlements in proportion to contributions (two forms of morality as MP), considerations of "spending time" efficiently, and estimates of expected kill ratios (aggression as MP).

I have been working under the misconception that one of these will work for me all of the time (subconciously). And so the task has been to get everybody to buy into which mode I decide works best.

The lesson of this theory might be to try to recognize which system is in play for which person or group of people you are interacting with. It's possible that you might be in multiple modes with the same person depending on the circumstance.

You can devote as much time and energy as you wish trying to get yourself and/or others to employ which ever mode you want.

But the real work may come in understanding what's going on in your relationships and moving closer to connections and engagements because of them.

Or even better: in spite of them.

Your on switch

I have a friend who is always willing to come and speak to most any group most any time. As long as the subject matter has remotely to do with theology or maybe leadership and group dynamics, he's in.

He requires very little prep or much info on the specific topic.

Just tell me when and where and flip my on switch, and I'm good to go.

I always appreciated that when I needed a "piece" on theology or leadership which he could always provide.

But I also kind of resented that because it seemed kind of rote and maybe not necessarily heartfelt.

I remember hearing Tony Campolo for the first time speak at a couple of events at a church and feeling that he too had an on switch that somebody flipped. He did his schtick and was on his way.

It felt a bit inauthentic. A little icky.

I've come to think that not only is the on switch a ok thing: it's kind of important to have your "go to" talk that you can share about at a moment's notice.

Your personal core values of ministry, where they came from, and why you believe them, and where they are going.

Hopefully once you develop your on switch "ministry take", you'll be able to rattle it off with little or no notice.

But the next time you hear mine: I hope it'll be a little different and maybe even slightly contradictory to what you heard the last time.

Otherwise it's just a schtick.

And that's not funny.

Wondering about wonders and wonder

G.K Chesterson wrote over 70 books and his faith journey included stints as a Unitarian, Angelican, and a Roman Catholic.

For me, his philosophy that "Every human transaction, therefore, whether social or economic, is an opportunity either to dignify or to exploit our fellow man." is best summed up by a quote variously attributed to him as something like ""The world will never starve for want of wonders; only for want of wonder."

Let's say it's time to evaluate the ministry.

Given this thesis: does it work for you or against you?

So, the habitat build has lost it's interest for people. It's become rote and all they really want is our money. We need a more compelling story. Like Extreme Home Makeover.

The missions program has lost it's appeal. We need a live satellite phone hook up with our missionary partners during worship (both services).

Our worship has become liturgy by numbers. We need some compelling solos or a quartet. Or a little girl to sing.

The first hurdle is to understand wonder- a collective lump in the throat of the community as well as wonders- I think we can get the lead guitarist from the church across town (I've heard he's not happy there.)

But: we can't just bring in more wonder.

One person's wonder is another persons wonders. We need a dialog.

Like always.

And maybe this time it could be tell me about the last time you experienced wonder during worship, missions, etc.? And maybe: were there any wonders involved?

Would it help to admit that we are hungry for both?

Failure to Launch

Isn't just a pretty bad movie. (The talking squirrel was the nail in the coffin.)

I was glad I made an appointment for my visit to the Apple Store the other day.

When I got arrived, there was a ton of people gathered waiting for help.

I keep up fairly well with the goings on of product releases of Apple and I was pretty sure nothing major was really in the works.

I asked the salesman what was up and why there were so many people there on this particular day.

"I don't know," he said, "we launch a lot of stuff. It's hard to tell sometimes what the crowd is about."

Upon further review, I think the crowd that day had to do with the i-phone and some of the antenna problems.

But point made.

Launching stuff has to do with involvement and learning about what we do that works and doesn't work. Call it kissing a lot of frogs or breaking a lot of eggs. How we engage people or not has to do with launching stuff. Lot's of stuff.

If you decide this is the strategy you'll employ to engage the most tribes in your care, there is probably one thing you'll have to do.

Let go.

Of having to have everything go the way you want.

Without sacrificing a common what and why you are doing it.

But then again if you don't go the launching stuff route:

It's easy to get to everyone who comes your way for ministry.

And nobody will have to worry about whether or not they set a time to see you.