eCrozier #141

Ron Ashkenas, whose latest book is Simply Effective, says that many organizations over time develop what he calls learned helplessness. This occurs when leaders in the organization slowly create a list of excuses and explanations for why the organization can’t change or improve as it seeks to accomplish its mission. Ashkenas says that rather than finding ways to make things better or generating ideas for how things might be different, leaders instead gradually accept the status quo and blame external forces to explain and then to excuse the “stuckness” of the organization.

Learned helplessness can become viral in any organization and the Church is no exception. As our Church prepares for General Convention next week where we will address major issues of restructuring, I’m aware of how this virus has infected us. In our congregations, I hear regularly how what happens at the national Church level inhibits local mission. This is no doubt true to some extent, which is why we need to radically restructure our Church’s organizational life to focus on the mission of making disciples. But it’s also an excuse for congregational leaders to do little to proclaim the Gospel in their communities by treating themselves as victims of the larger Church’s actions or inactions, as the case may be. This is learned helplessness in its most clear form.

Ashkenas offers two ways to get beyond learned helplessness and I will apply them to our context. He says that organizations should first name clearly what is going on. He suggests making a list of initiatives people say they want, but have not done. Then put together a list of the ten most common excuses for why there has been inaction. Creating dialogue helps everyone become aware of their complicity in learned helplessness. So, in the Church, we hear things like: “We don’t have enough people. We don’t have enough resources. We don’t have enough time. We tried something new before and it didn’t work.” These are all the words of people infected with learned helplessness.

A way to get the organization “unstuck” from the virus of learned helplessness is to find one initiative that, as Ashkenas says, can show even in a small way that the organization can accomplish something. I know this to be true. In a congregation where people have adopted the passive resignation of learned helplessness, too often church leaders try large, bold initiatives. This has the tendency to scare people and make them even less likely to become unstuck. What works is to find one simple thing that the church can do together, that’s likely achievable, and then to do it. Once it’s achieved, celebrate the success. I remember in one of my former parishes where we wanted to grow the Sunday School. We had one child and when we got a second, we celebrated that Sunday School attendance had doubled in just one week!

It is time to give up our excuses for not engaging in God’s mission to make disciples and, by doing so, to make a difference in our communities. No more passive resignation, please. If your congregation has become stuck with the virus of learned helplessness, then call it what is and then find one first thing you can do together for God’s mission. Take that first small step to become unstuck and then celebrate your way to the next.

+Scott

 

 

We all have things we are sheepish about, particularly those things we know are sort of silly, but we like them anyway. Some call them “guilty pleasures.” I, like you, have them. So, I have a confession about my guilty pleasure: I like Superman – the comic books, the TV shows, the movies – all of them. I like Superman because, whatever trouble Lois Lane or Jimmy Olson ever got into, Superman could get them out. Whether they were in a car heading for a cliff or in a plane crashing to the ground, he would always rescue them “faster than a speeding bullet.”

I used to see Jesus as a Superman, only it wasn’t Lois and Jimmy in trouble, it was the disciples. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus and his disciples are in a boat crossing the Sea of Galilee. A raging storm comes upon the sea, so Jesus steps up and says: “Peace! Be still!” and the storm calms and everyone is safe. But in the Book of Job, God isn’t described as Superman, but rather as a mother who gave birth to the sea and who wrapped the clouds in diapers. This calls to mind that old Gospel: “Jesus, Savior, Pilot me,” where it says “as a mother stills her child thou canst hush the ocean wild.” So, maybe Jesus, rather than shouting at the storm, is actually singing a lullaby to it? “Peace, be still.”

I know from experience that you can’t calm a crying child playing Superman. I’ve tried it. I’ve thrown out my chest and yelled: “Hush!” It doesn’t work. Superman would be as helpless as I was with a crying child. He could force the child into silence by his strength, but a mother who calms a crying child does so using a different kind of power: the power of love. When a mother hears her child cry, she goes to the child and holds it securely. It’s not superhuman strength that calms the child, but rather it’s the loving arms of the mother and her closeness that gives her the power to calm her child.

I believe Jesus stills the storm like a mother calms her crying child. That means we should take the Gospel to others in lullabies, not shouts. We should hold others in the arms of love the way a mother holds a child. We should share the Good News the way a mother pleads with her child and not in the way that Superman dispatches evil ones. The Superman way isn’t the way of the cross. We need less high-testosterone evangelism and more maternal evangelism. I’m not suggesting some weak proclamation of the Gospel. We should never associate maternal love with weakness. I don’t know about your momma, but there’s nothing weak about my momma. She’s always been a force to be reckoned with.

No one will truly come to Jesus through high-powered force. And, even if they did, it wouldn’t be true to the mind of Christ. God’s love for us is more powerful than anything we could ever imagine, but it’s conveyed to us in a way that’s the exact opposite from how the world defines power. We live in a world that is crying out for God’s love, but does not know it. Our families and communities need it. The bitter partisanship we see across our nation should tell us that our nation needs it. Being true to heart of God, can we give up the “Muscular Christianity” we see being so ham-handedly displayed these days and simply learn to love one another with a motherly tenacity?

+Scott

 

“Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” is the provocative title of the cover story in May’s Atlantic Monthly. Author Stephen Marche’s answer is: sort of, but only because it perpetuates a trend that has been present in our culture for some time. He contends that Facebook offers an illusion of connection, faux intimacy if you will, without actual human connection. He reports on the growing data about loneliness. According to one prominent study, about 20 percent of us report that we’re lonely most of the time.

Concurrently, doctors are beginning to talk with some alarm about an “epidemic of loneliness.” One such doctor, John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago, is a leading expert on loneliness. In his book aptly titled, Loneliness, he showed how loneliness impacts our physical health. He reported: “When we drew blood from older adults and analyzed their white cells, we found that loneliness somehow penetrated the deepest recesses of the cell to alter the way genes were being expressed.” Loneliness then isn’t only an emotion. Our whole bodies are lonely. And the data shows loneliness makes us sicker. It is becoming a public health crisis.

Ten years ago I remember reading Robert Putnam’s compelling book, Bowling Alone, where he documented the rise of suburbia’s isolation, media’s omnipresence, and the instant gratification of technology all of which makes our separation from one another more possible. Combined with the decline of traditional associative institutions like unions, community groups, and churches, we see the result: greater loneliness. Marche argues we’ve done this to ourselves willfully, but without a conscious awareness of the consequences. As he writes: “We are lonely because we want to be lonely. We have made ourselves lonely.” I can hear Screwtape and Wormwood laughing out loud right now.

Marche quotes Sherry Turkle, from her book Alone Together: “These days, insecure in our relationships and anxious about intimacy, we look to technology for ways to be in relationships and protect ourselves from them at the same time…The ties we form through the Internet are not, in the end, the ties that bind. But they are the ties that preoccupy.” We Christians know about the “ties that bind,” as in the hymn: “Bless be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love.” I recall the Episcopal Church Ad Project poster from a few years ago that showed a television set with a corporal, paten, and chalice atop it with the caption: “Can your TV set give you Holy Communion?”

This growing data on loneliness offers an insightful description of our current mission field. We need to find Gospel ways to address people’s loneliness at its core and not superficially, and by that I mean, only socially. That probably means that more Church Bowling nights or other group activities are not the answer, although they certainly might help. We need to go deeper and somehow convey the Biblical truth from the Genesis creation story that it is “not good” for us to be alone; that God has created us for one another; that St Augustine was right (“Our hearts are ever restless until they rest in thee, O Lord”); that “there is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole; there is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul.” God has a mission for us.

+Scott

 

One of the recurring laments I hear from clergy is their perception that many laity in their congregations don’t have a serious investment in the Church’s mission. For the most part, clergy aren’t saying laity lack a love for God or that they don’t desire for the Church to flourish, but the clergy’s experience is that the laity are not committed enough to the transformation of their church into a vital center of mission for Jesus Christ. While there may be a few laity out there who truly fit that definition, my experience tells me that the problem isn’t a lack of commitment from the laity, rather it’s a lack of emotionally intelligent leadership by the clergy and lay leaders of congregations.

In their new book, The Progress Principle, Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer describe a widespread problem they found in many of the businesses and organizations they studied. Leaders, they contend, regularly and unconsciously inhibit the commitment and creativity of the people with whom they work. The authors make the corresponding point that this ultimately hurts the emotional inner lives of employees because as they experience this inhibiting, they lose their personal engagement and connectivity with their work. The authors conclude that all this is very avoidable.

Amabile and Kramer argue that employees both want and need to make real progress toward meaningful work. They write of the “inner work life” of employees. When this “inner work life” is attended to, even in small ways, employees become “more creative, productive, committed, and collegial in their jobs.” So, before setting production metrics, work goals, or strategic objectives, leaders would do well to focus on creating the conditions for their employees to develop “positive inner work lives.” And for this to be positive for the long haul, employees must actually experience in tangible ways some personal meaning in the work they’re doing. When that happens, the commitment and investment in the goals of the organization deepen and become widely shared.

What might we learn from this research in the Church? My hunch is our leaders often wrongly assess laity as being complacent or apathetic and lacking sufficient motivation to accomplish the goals of the Church’s mission. What really might be going on is this: Clergy and lay leaders have failed to engage the laity in their “inner spiritual lives” in such a way that helps them connect their personal spiritual practices with the larger mission of the Church. Without attending seriously to the inner spiritual lives of the laity, clergy and lay leaders unconsciously inhibit the commitment, and consequently, the creativity and passion of the laity for the Church’s mission.

Church leaders, I believe, need to spend less time on grand strategies and audacious goals. Those are important, to be sure, in the long run. But they are the cart before the horse, so to speak. When a critical mass of laity have, through personal spiritual practices, attended to their inner spiritual lives, and thus developed from the inside out a commitment to the Gospel, then church leaders will not lament a lack of commitment from the laity. They will actually find themselves leading a congregation alive with missionary zeal.  Or, they will discover that they better just get out of the way.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #83

From our Catechism:

Q.     What is the mission of the Church?
A.     The mission of the Church is to restore all people to
unity with God and each other in Christ.

The Church really does not have a mission, per se. Now please wait and hear me out. The Church does not have a mission, but God does, and it is restoring all people to unity with God and one another in Christ. But that mission is God’s property, not ours. The Church then should not be the grammatical focus of any sentence that contains the word mission. In other words, the Church does not have a mission to the world. Rather, God has a mission to the world and God compels the Church to participate in what God is up to in that mission through Jesus Christ.  Thus, the Church is a strategy that God has deployed to accomplish God’s mission.

When we understand mission from this perspective, we remove ourselves as the Church from the center of the story as if the Church were an end in itself. It was not God’s goal to establish the Church as a result of the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Rather the Church is God’s strategy for the ongoing living out of the mission of God in Jesus.  Seeing the Church as God’s strategy rather than as God’s goal reorients our focus and helps reorder our understanding of mission.

It is very easy to fall into the trap of understanding the Church as God’s goal. When we do this, we tend toward complacency, self-satisfaction, and, historically, toward triumphalism. This leads us to a mindset that results in our making sure we have churches in as many places as possible so people can come to us when they are ready. If we are an end unto ourselves, if we as the Church are God’s ultimate end, then it stands to reason that we should wait patiently until those outside the Church come to their senses, so to speak, and arrive at the doors of our churches. And when they do, of course, we will welcome them. This sort of triumphalism, however, disorders the Church and distorts our understanding of the Church’s role in God’s mission.

So, the Church is God’s strategy and not God’s goal. The Church should be more verb than noun. This should be liberating news to us for this is more than mere semantics. It is the news that mission is not only about what goes on inside our churches. To be sure, our worship and discipleship formation inside our churches matters. But they matter in so far as they compel and constrain us to leave the confines of our churches and incarnate the Good News of God in Christ in our communities. We cannot restore all people to unity with God if we are hunkered down inside our churches.

This is cold water in our faces during Lent. It has the power to wake us up out of any complacency or triumphalism into which we may have fallen. If we are not participating in God’s mission, then God will surely seek out others who will participate in being the hands and feet and heart of Jesus in the world.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #82

In their new book, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell share the results of their extensive research into the contemporary religious practices of Americans. In many ways, their work builds on the excellent work done by the Pew Forum on Religion and other research groups.

Putnam and Campbell describe a growing group in American religious life that they call Nones, as in no formal religious affiliation at all (“none of the above”). But these folks are not atheists or agnostics. They believe in God, and they seem to want a meaningful spiritual life. Putnam and Campbell have followed this group closely and have interviewed many of them twice or more. What is actually happening, they contend, is that about one third of these Nones are moving in and out of religious traditions. They call these folk Liminal Nones because they are partly in and partly out of a particular faith tradition. And these Liminal Nones are disproportionately under 30 years of age. So, if you ask them one week they might say: “I’m probably a Methodist.” But the following week, they might say: “I’m not sure I am anything right now.”

The authors argue that this is a rapidly growing demographic cohort in our culture. And they suggest that the Episcopal Church might appeal to the Liminal Nones, but these people just don’t know what the Episcopal Church is all about. These Liminal Nones do know that they are turned off by what they perceive to be secular, partisan politics in church, whether it be of the liberal or conservative brand. Putnam and Campbell suggest from their research that what might well attract these folks back to church is an evangelical style of religion but without the politics of fear mongering, blaming others, or a more righteous-than-thou attitude toward one’s neighbors. That is what has turned away this group of people from their most recent church affiliation.

Our tradition at its best is most certainly evangelical. But it’s a humble and gracious type of evangelicalism. We Episcopalians have rightly shied away from arrogant pronouncements that claim our way of discipleship is the only way to be a Christian. We have resisted partisan politics. Our leaders do not instruct church members on how they must vote in elections. At our best, we have not scapegoated immigrants or blamed particular ethnic groups for the problems our society faces. Again, at our best, we steadfastly avoid claiming that our faith tradition makes us morally superior to others.

What Putnam and Campbell have identified is a growing trend among many people in our culture who are tired of religion being used to baptize prejudice, greed, and indifference to other people’s suffering. These people believe in God and want to have a spiritual life. They just don’t want it with the religious experience they are leaving. They might want to live out their discipleship in the Episcopal Church. But first they would have to know that such a church as ours exists. That means we will need disciples in our church who are willing to go out and tell them and then show them. God is giving us this opportunity to evangelize many people who have found their previous experience of church toxic. I hope we are paying attention.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #77

My life shall be a real life, being wholly full of Thee – St. Augustine in Confessions

The world is full of phonies – Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye

Historically in our culture people turned to St Augustine to read about a life well-examined and well-lived. Then, at some point, Holden Caulfield became a more popular source for such meaningful introspection and living. It is an irony of our time that Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is a real person while Holden Caulfield is the fictional creation of J D Salinger. So it goes, to quote Kurt Vonnegut.

But the irony is deeper than that. For many people today, church is last place they look for truth, beauty, and meaning. There are many reasons for that. My hunch is you and I could debate why it is many people these days have rejected the church as a source of what is really real in life. My further hunch is that we would have substantial data to support our contentions for why this is so and we would both be right for the most part.

However interesting that would be, I don’t believe it would add much more than further bemoaning the loss of the Church’s influence. But what if we instead called people to a real life, as St Augustine wrote? What might people need to experience in church for that to happen? Here are some helpful questions for such a call.

When people enter our churches do they experience hope? Do they sense the possibility of a new and different life? In Biblical language: Do they get a glimpse of the Holy City? Do they get an inkling of what God has intended all along for God’s creation? Do they experience worship of such grace and beauty that they find themselves drawn into the very life of Jesus? Does this worship gladden their hearts? Does it open their eyes to see God’s action in the world? At the exchange of The Peace and at Coffee Hour do they sense among us a real humility, gentleness, and love?

Regardless of size or shape, every church can faithfully address those questions. Our common life on Sundays should be shaped by how we intentionally respond to those questions. When churches do so, a buzz begins among members and visitors alike and that then is organically carried to others because there is something that strongly touches and moves them. This happens spontaneously. It’s grounded in a passion about who we are as a local outpost of the Body of Christ.

Holden Caulfield was right at least in his contention that the world is full of phonies. Well, maybe not full, but full enough that people today take a much more cynical stance to their lives. They are turned away by what they see as the hypocrisy of the Church. And we bear our share in the causality of such a stance.

I believe people are still longing in their lives for truth, beauty, and meaning. Our call is to live real lives wholly full of God. Our common life on Sundays needs to reflect such a real life. That will make all the difference in the world to people we have yet to meet.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #74

Leaders in the church can get frustrated when trying to change a particular mission direction in a congregation. It may be a new direction for the church school, or maybe the needs of the community have indicated a new focus for outreach, or it could be that the music ministry might need a new direction. Whatever new direction we might wish to engage, it won’t succeed unless we pay attention to the human dynamics in the process.

What is often called Gleicher’s Formula for Change states it this way: Change will only happen when there is enough dissatisfaction with the status quo as well as a compelling new vision for how things might be. But that’s still not sufficient. People also have to see some concrete first steps toward the new vision. And then all that (Dissatisfaction, Vision, and First Steps) needs to be greater than the resistance expected by the change. The formula looks like this: C = D x V x Fs > R.

Church leaders sometimes fail in leading in a new direction because they don’t give attention to all parts of the process. For example, they have a compelling vision for how things might be for a new church school ministry. So, they focus on stating the vision consistently, but then get discouraged because children and parents do not embrace this new ministry. The vision for the new ministry may be solid and holy, but the leader did not first gauge the level of dissatisfaction with the current church school ministry. If people are content with the status quo, then a new vision alone may not be enough.

Sometimes leaders have to help people learn to be dissatisfied with how things are. An alternative vision for how things could be is a good start toward that, but until a critical mass of people are dissatisfied with the status quo leaders waste a lot of energy. That’s where discouragement sets in and leaders can begin to blame people for being “stuck” or “rigid” or “not open-minded.” That then can create a sense of resentment that can give way to spiritual withdrawal. “Why can’t these people just follow my lead on this?” is what’s often said in frustration. Likewise, when leaders fail to gauge the level of resistance they might face in introducing a new direction, they imperil the success of the change. Resistance can be lessened by raising people’s level of dissatisfaction and by offering a compelling vision for how things might be. So, leaders need to give focused attention to all parts of the change process (D, V, Fs, R).

This is how St Paul led. One could argue that the entire Letter to the Romans did just that. Chapters 1-4 lays out “all have sinned and fallen short,” which addresses the dissatisfaction for the way things are. Chapters 5-11 present and new vision for how we are to live by grace through faith in Jesus. Chapters 12-15 outline the first steps to that vision of new life in Christ (Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God).

We should not be discouraged as we try to bring change to our congregations. We won’t be if we do the hard work and pay attention to all the needed parts of the process.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #51

I want to let you know about a DVD that Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and Lauren Winner have produced. Jonathan is an acquaintance of mine from Durham, North Carolina who is one of the leaders of the New Monasticism movement. Lauren is a friend who is a professor at Duke Divinity School. Both are in their 30s and speak powerfully to young adults about the richness of classic Christianity. Their DVD is a five-session introduction to the classics of our early Christian mothers and fathers. You can order it here. It would make a great Lenten study.

http://www.paracletepress.com/discovering-christian-classics-5-sessions-in-the-ancient-faith-of-our-future.html

There’s a YouTube piece on it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ_EpGUAu50

Lauren & Jonathan introduce viewers to these ancient witnesses that transcend time and have shaped the faith of thousands. For example, I remember reading Antony of Egypt for the first time as a seminarian. In Antony, I found a spiritual guide who took Scripture seriously and demanded I do as well. And even though cultures, continents, and centuries separate us, he has been a consistent catechist of my faith. St Antony always demanded that Christianity was not only a way of belief. He lived Christianity as a way of life. Christianity is something one does and not merely what one believes. In that sense, Christianity is more verb than noun.

And speaking of doing, check this out

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10993749

The Reverend Zoltan Lendvai, a Roman priest from Hungary, reaches young people with the Gospel by skateboarding with them (the pictures of Fr Lendavi on his skateboard wearing a Cassock are worth going to the link). Now I am not suggesting any of our clergy take up this particular evangelistic strategy (our health insurance rates are high enough as is), but going where the people are and connecting the Gospel of Jesus with their lives as they are has to be at the heart of any strategy we employ. So, figure out something a bit less bone-crushing and then do it. Get out there. There is a world of people waiting to hear the truth that there is a God who loves them more than they could ever imagine. And the best way for them to hear that truth is for us to show them it is true.

+Scott

 

eCrozier #49

While on holiday this summer I found myself praying about the growth of our Church. What initially prodded my prayers was looking at the website of the Methodist Church’s North Alabama Conference. My old colleague from Durham, Will Willimon, is the Bishop there. Check it out: www.northalabamaumc.org/weeklyreport

Bishop Willimon publishes weekly statistics on things like membership, attendance, outreach, and the giving of each of the conference’s churches. It’s there for everyone to see. As one might guess, the conference clergy don’t universally love this. But regardless of how one feels about such reporting (don’t worry, I am not proposing such a thing in the Diocese of Georgia), growth in membership, attendance, outreach, and giving matter – a lot. Jesus unambiguously pronounces the Great Commission. We are in the disciple-making business. And if we are not making disciples, then we need to change something we are doing (or start doing something we are not doing) so we make disciples.

Here are some random reflections on this challenge:

  • My hunch is that most people in our congregations think growing would be just fine but actually give little real energy to it. The energy is around the people who are already there and their formation in faith. That’s energy well spent. But we need to free up more people in our congregations to focus on making new disciples.
  • As a Church we have been involved in some international, inner-church conflicts. This has taken a lot of time and sapped our energy for making disciples. This has to change. Still, I don’t believe that our international church issues are a valid excuse for our lack of growth. There are a fair number of Episcopal churches that are growing, so there is no legitimate reason why each of ours can’t as well.
  • For too long we have looked to non-Episcopal, mega-church models to tell us how to grow. That hasn’t worked because it does not fit our identity and potential new disciples can sense the lack of congruency.

So, what can we do? Let’s look at the Episcopal churches that are growing by making new disciples and see what they have in common. In these churches, growth is a by- product of manifesting their mission in a way that is consistent with their identity. They have a clear, shared understanding of their mission. They are not growing because they focus on growth, per se, or because they will die if they don’t get more people and thus more pledging units/money (the American people are too smart and savvy to want to join a church to share in its death or debt). They grow because they are clearly and unapologetically engaged in mission.

Growth in membership, attendance, outreach, and giving then are important metrics to see how we are doing at manifesting our mission consistent with our identity, but they can never be the goals in and of themselves. Get mission going (not just be “mission-minded”), focus on making disciples, and then the growth will come.

+Scott