Ogres are like onions

Whether or not you have a child, you've probably seen the movie Shrek. Pictured here with his sidekick "Donkey", Shrek is explaining how Ogres have more depth than people realize. To illustrate his point, he smashes open an onion to show the layers that exist.

I recently used this clip to introduce Social Penetration Theory to my class. According to this theory, we all have layers. We reveal our layers through disclosing information to others. This is what we might call building a relationship. If you have friends, you have revealed several layers of yourself, which is how they know you as well as they do.

But friendships don't happen automatically. A process takes place. According to Em Griffin, "the main route to deep social [intimacy] is through self-disclosure." For example, Jack and Diane initially exchange very shallow information when they first meet, such as their names and the weather. If they continue to see each other and have more conversations, perhaps they will continue revealing things about themselves. One may invite the other to grab lunch. They discover they both really like chili dogs, specifically the ones served at the Tastee Freeze. Over lunch, they may find out they are both two American kids who grew up in the heartland. They might learn of the mutual acquaintences they have. This lunch ends with Jack and Diane wanting to hang out in the future. As spending time together becomes more frequent, deeper information will inevitably be revealed through conversation. The budding friendship is made stronger through deeper understanding of each other's family life, as well as future goals, fears and fantasies, and eventually, how each person truly sees themselves.

As we see in Jack and Diane's situation, we do not typically learn everything about someone all at once. It takes time. Furthermore, it takes effort from both parties. We would likely not see Jack pouring out his soul to an open-earred Diane, while she in turn reveals nothing about herself. As Jack shares information, Diane discloses the same depth of information, revealing the same layer that Jack has. This is what is known as reciprocity, where people share information at the same rate. We have likely all known people who share too much information, too fast. But this is not the norm, and it's certainly not the best way to enter into a mutually growing friendship. If you tell me that you like pizza, and I respond by telling you that I refuse to eat pizza because my little sister choked to death on a pepperoni, I come off as a little awkward. Rather, I would likely just give you the same amount of information that you gave me - whether or not I liked pizza, and maybe the type of pizza I preferred.

* * * *


"Relational evangelism" is a term that basically means building a relationship with someone and using your lifestyle to show them who Christ is. This is a popular approach among the postmoderns, of which (I suppose) I am a part. A criticism of relational evangelism is that it's not intentional enough. And though I agree that this could be used as a cop-out to never bring up a conversation about faith, I think sharing Christ through our relationships is the most effective approach.

Viewing evangelism through the lens of social penetration theory, we can see that people typically do not reveal who they truly are in the beginning stages of a relationship. As we share information about ourselves, they are likely to share the same depth of information. When they reveal more through conversations with us, they are inviting us to reveal more about ourselves to them.

The flip-side of this is that it's also very easy to turn people off to hearing more about us or what we have to say. Much like the ridiculous pizza example above, if I share with you that I'm from Little Rock, and you respond with "Well can I tell you about Jesus?", I'm going to take that as an awkward statement. Even if I allow you to proceed on your quest, I'm not going to be as open to your testimony as I would if you told me about Him after you gained credibility through a genuine friendship. Through our relationships, our shallow exterior layers are freely pulled away to reveal who we really are. When we have reached this point, according to a social penetration theorist, we are much more open to hear and reveal such central information as our questions or statements of faith.

As great as this theory is, it's not the Holy Spirit. When he leads us to share Christ, our calling is to be obedient. But I also believe that we were created with the need to trust people. When we earn that trust, however, we also earn that right to share our depth - and people are more likely to share theirs as well. The relationships you form can be an effective way to influence peoples' perception of Christ. If evangelism is important to you, be open to share your beliefs when you reach those intimate levels in your relationships. But also be open to listen and not shut down someone else's beliefs or questions. That's the middle of their onion you are hearing. It's an honor that they would be so open, whether or not we agree with them. If the sole purpose of your friendships is to add new Christians to the world, I applaud your optimism, but I question your methods and tact - and your authenticity as a friend!

Faith is an amazing thing that needs to be communicated effectively and delicately. Our relationships allow us to enter into these important conversations.

Twitter Tracker

As I mentioned in my last post, I recently opened a twitter account (you may follow me @thadaniel if you like). While the idea of twitter is still rather silly to me, I can't help but admit I'm somewhat addicted at checking my account. I like seeing what people are up to, and I narcissisticly enjoy letting people know what I am doing. What can I say - I like staying in the know :)


www.imb.com/rainnwilson


One tweet that recently caught my eye was from Rainn Wilson, who plays the character "Dwight Schrute" on The Office. He wrote "Baha'is don't have mega-churches, just mega-potlucks." Interesting thought from a non-believer (that is, a non-believer in Jesus Christ as God's Son and Sovereign). His comment was a tactful one, not directly putting down a mega-church, and you could even argue he was not implying anything negative. Nonetheless, he brings two different aspects of faith communities together: a building used to house worship and to act as the central base, and a meal, which represents a basic need, an opportunity to be in fellowship, and bringing people together on a level playing field.


http://tinyurl.com/2gxnd38

To some, a mega-church represents establishment, power, an institution, and consumerism. I personally don't look at it that way; however, its easy to understand how others could. Even for me, a person who has no problem with a mega-church for being big, it is easy to fall prey to marveling over state-of-the-art facilities, the best programs, high-tech worship productions, etc. For many, however, these frivolous things are necessary to get them to come to church. Without such trappings, some would have never come to know Jesus. For this reason, you'll never see me write or speak against mega-churches.

Now that that's out of the way, let me get back to Wilson's tweet. Between mega-bricks and morter and mega-food, I'll always take the calories. I want to be a part of a community that brings people together, that provides opportunities for people to share something, and recognizes the things we have in common. If we do not eat, we die. If we are without people, we are miserable. If we cannot be heard, what we have to offer the world will never be known. I have never been to a Baha'i temple. I've seen one, and it looks like it's just a house. If I'm merely judging from Wilson's portrayal of the faith, it seems Baha'i has its priorities right when it comes to making meeting together more about our commonalities, expressions, and needs as opposed to our entertainment, comfort, and visual delight.

Mega-churches have the same ability to make meeting together about what's important. I whole-heartedly belive many of them do. My hope is that all communities - big, medium, and small - will constantly challenge their approaches to being that genuine community of faith that draws people in and helps change them forever. When this happens, our message to the world is clear. We are not about fog machines, lcd projectors, or 3rd stories. We are about Jesus, who truly knows our needs, who is the reason we have something in common, and who gave us the ability to offer something to the world.

Mega-potlucks will be held daily in heaven. Let's keep (or start) practicing.

Who is in Front of Us?

I’m an old man.

Technically speaking, that is. I don’t like learning new things on computers, cell phones, pdas, pdfs, iPads, ipods, blackberries, blueberries, Burberrys, or schnozberries. I don’t like technological change (my granddads would be so proud).

"Schnozberries"

An unfortunate fact is that technology does change, and with it, the way our lives socially operate. It never fails on nights when I’m out with friends that at least two of them are playing Words with Friends on their iPhones. Few hours go by where I do not pick up my smart phone to send a text message. I even recently opened a Twitter account, something I once said I’d never do. Apparently I do have the capability to become a conformist, but I won’t adapt to anything else. That is until I get my next phone.

The truth is it’s difficult to navigate through life today without some sort of connection to the ever-fluid multi-media rat race. How do you stay connected to your real-world social network if you aren’t connected to an online social network? Think about the last get-together you attended. How did you hear about it? A text? An e-mail? A direct tweet? A Facebook message? No matter the channel, you most definitely did not hear about it through someone knocking on your door, and you probably didn’t even get a phone call. Even among close friends, frequent face-to-face interaction has been passed off to electrical wires and hi-speed connection.

My wife and I recently had a discussion revolving around the inescapability of electronic communication. She is a kindergarten teacher. She had to be trained on a Promethean smart board so she could teach 5 year olds how to stare at a screen and move images around through the power of touch. A part of me wondered why children are being taught this way so early. It didn’t take either of us long to realize the necessity of training kids at a young age with the latest means. They will be using it when they get home, so to not prepare them in their most frequent interactive means is a great disservice. This became painstakingly clear when we were visiting the family of a little girl she used to nanny. The child, whose diapers Anne changed just 2 years ago, taught us (in broken toddler English) how to use Steve Jobs’ iPad. It goes to show the role of rapidly-emerging technology in the future and the way in which younger generations will be better prepared to use it.


"Kid with iPad"

This fall, I am serving as an adjunct professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The courses I will be teaching are in communication. I was surprised (though not anymore) to see that the textbook from which I teach dedicates more than one page to electronic communication. Text messaging is even a key term in the book’s glossary. And truthfully, it should be. Though I’ve run across many in the academic world opposed to these “high-tech” approaches, resisting them may not only diminish students’ ability to function in the real-world at the highest level, but it may also limit professors’ adequacy to relate to their students.

What does this mean for the Church? You’d be hard pressed to find a church whose pastor does not text, whose worship leader does not tweet, or whose website doesn’t have an interactive feedback option. That being said, we often don’t know how to properly use these channels. From a PR perspective, organizations long ago understood the power of the web. Churches have unintentionally done the same, as they use their websites to highlight service projects, connection to their cities, suburbs, and towns, and ministry opportunities existing within the church. On an interpersonal level, however, I believe church leaders fall prey to a common problem among other organizational executives: engaged while e-communicating, but disconnected to their immediate settings.

Mike Thompson, whose book The Organizational Champion I’ve recently referenced, warns executives and leaders of the danger of this approach. “You never see [organizational champions] pick up their mobile device and grab a text message during a conversation,” he says. A simple enough thought that few leaders practice. And why don’t we? Because leaders have to multi-task.

With great power comes great responsibility. – Peter Parker (a.k.a Spider-Man)


Being able to handle multiple moving parts is one of the reasons leaders are given leadership. And when involved in ministry, work never stops (sometimes even for us volunteer leaders!). There is never a shortage of something that needs to be done. While tens to hundreds to thousands of people rely on the hard and constant work of their spiritual leaders, multi-tasking often comes with a price.

When you are talking to someone who is constantly looking around, staring at their computer screen, or texting, does it make you feel like you are being listened to? Of course not – because they aren’t focused on you, which means they cannot react to everything you say. I read this and for some reason think I have the supernatural ability to focus on the person in front of me while sending a text message in response to a tweet that someone sent me from their iPhone which conveniently also sent to my e-mail inbox. The fact is I cannot give someone my attention while electronically interacting with others. It won’t happen – at least not the way I am needed in that moment that someone comes to me to have a discussion.

As church leaders, we need to be able to multi-task. But many times, we are needed more to focus on who is in front of us. When we are engaged with the people we interact with, our communication is more clear, our understanding is more precise, and the meaning we create with those people is valuable to them as well as us. Multi-media brings about convenience and many time-saving solutions. But in adopting the latest e-trends and adapting to a faster-paced world, we cannot lose our ability to stop what we are doing and give the person in front of us our eyes, our ears, and our focus.

Here's What I Mean...

"When we speak, we do something. Our words literally do something. Speaking is action."

These words echoed in my interpersonal communication grad class like an iPod stuck on repeat. Dr. Mirivel, the hard-lining Frenchman who consistently found a way to critique the most well-written of papers lived by this motto (and he said it often): speaking is action. This thought is echoed in the speech act theory (which I'll leave alone for this posting). Its really not a hard concept to grasp. During one presentation in this class, I incorporated a video of myself asking a girl out, to which she refused as she pushed a knife through my chest. The point was that her words were more than just words. They caused real, physical pain. When we speak, things really happen as a result. Thus, speaking is action.

I read an article recently about Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory (CMM). This was the bane of my existence in grad school. An encompassing cousin of speech act theory, William Pearce and Vernon Cronen came up with CMM just so they could keep communication students up at night banging their heads against a wall. I hated this theory because of its ambiguity and black hole-like ability to suck in many different aspects of communication studies that may or may not have really applied. As defined, coordinated management of meaning views conversation from a participant's perspective, taking note of everything that could add to the perceived meaning of all parties involved. Confused? Me too. Basically, there is more going on in a conversation than just words being spoken. There are certainly things we explicitly understand, but many meanings are implied, assumed, and logically deduced. Regardless of what we understand or the degree to which we understand, a CMM theorist holds that communication is the primary means through which meaning is created.

Church leaders need to understand the implications of coordinated management of meaning. Well, first, communication scholars need to find a better way to explain it! In all seriousness, what do your conversations do to people? What do people understand about you, your vision, your approaches, and your outlook on life and ministry? What kind of social reality are you constructing for your church, the Church, and the person of Jesus Christ? This post could be completely dedicated to James 3 and the reminder that we need to watch what we say. My purpose is to be more specific than that.

What we say and do will have direct influences on the reality of our churches. But not just how we converse with people, but also how we react and respond to what others say. Remember, the name of the theory begins with the word "coordinated." This means our conversations produce meaning through a joint effort. If, for instance, I decide to tell someone in my small group that we will start using a particular curriculum and she replies, "Why are we using that curriculum?", my response will directly effect the meaning attached to her statement. If I respond, "Because I picked the curriculum, its the best one out there, so just accept it", then I label her question as an insult, and my response makes it such. However, if I respond by welcoming her questions and take the opportunity to let her know why this curriculum was chosen, her question will instead be viewed by both of us as a clarification. Even if she meant it as an insult, by simply choosing to respond as if no insult was spoken, the meaning of our conversation will remain positive. When we coordinate our conversations in a way that allows people to question, argue, and even disagree, we create an environment where people are open to change because its acceptable to be vulnerable. The meaning we create is that the churches we are a part of allow people to have new ideas. And as long as these ideas don't take away from scripture, this is a good thing.

Many people leave churches because they feel there is a certain mold they must fit to be included. Others leave because they don't agree with the mold or the existence of such. Churches have been socially constructed as places of rigidity, rituals, and closed-mindedness instead of organizations of discourse, learning, openness, and authenticity. In many cases, I do not believe this is how they actually are. Of course, some communities have become closed off from the outside world and do nothing to include those with any way of life that opposes the critical mass. This happens when the church's leadership creates a culture of absolutism and cognitive superiority. Critical dialogue cannot happen in such an environment.

To ensure that we engage a post-Christian culture, we must pay attention to the meaning our conversations bring. Growing up, I was reminded by my Sunday school teachers that I might be "the only Jesus someone sees." The Jesus I read about in the Bible didn't shun people for bringing up different ideas. Rather, he entered into deep conversation with them. And I'm not talking about the Sanhedrin; that was the group he had no tolerance for, as it was they who held so tightly to the law they squeezed the love out of it. Read the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus in John 3 or the conversation with the Samaritan woman in the next chapter. He brought the absolute truth, which did not supersede his absolute love. In fact, they were complimentary. Scripture more than implies that our conversations should be conducted in the same way:

"Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." --Colossians 4:6

What meaning do you bring to conversations with those looking to you for spiritual leadership?

Good Reads

Can't believe I've let a month go by since my last post!

I wanted to call attention to two books I'm currently reading, both of which so far appear to be great reads for church leaders. And they're not Christian books.



I don't want to jump the gun on either work, but they are both really good in two very different ways. The Organizational Champion takes a new view on leadership. While we typically think of leaders as those in charge of an organization, author (and Arkansas native) Mike Thompson argues that organizational champions can be found in any number of areas. This is especially encouraging for those of us who are not in a shepherding role of a church or ministry, but nonetheless want to be a part of positive change, efficiency, and growth within. And though this book is not aimed at church leaders, it provides a framework through which leaders and change agents within any organization can gain ideas, inspiration, and motivation to take initiative.



The Present is an allegorical exchange between a young and old man. The old man, playing the role of sage instructor, encourages the young man to focus on the gift of the moment. While I am (in some respects) a planner, I too often forget about opportunities I have in the here and now. Most people I'm around seem to do the same thing. What would happen if those leading our churches and the ministries within those churches recognized the power of the immediate tense? What more could we accomplish with our time and how much more effective could we be? The Present, through the power of narrative, presents readers with the fact that the present does not change, allowing us to put all of our energy into it rather than planning for and worrying over it. The present is now, so we are free to do something with it now. A great word of encouragement in the midst of an ever-changing culture.

So what are you reading now? Many books exist with great information on leadership, motivation, and organizational change. If you are a church leader, it would do you good to be reading one.

How Great the Pain of Searing Loss...

This has been a tough week for me. Two of my favorite shows went off the air. Their series finales were shown on Sunday and Monday nights. I'm speaking of Lost and 24. No more Jack Shepherd. No more CTU. No more Smoke Monster sightings or digital tick-tock commercial breaks. No longer will I hear Sawyer's insulting quips, Chloe's ridiculously bad acting, or either shows uncanny ability to make me eager to get to the next week. They are done. And I am all alone.




Not really alone, per say. I'm actually one of millions affected by the ends of both. These are two of the longest relationships I've had with shows, both of which I began in my first year out of college. I've watched every single episode. I am fully invested in every major character, and it almost feels like losing someone who played an integral part of my life. Of course, I'm being dramatic. Life will go on, other shows will take their place, and each actor will go on to other projects. While I and many others will argue that there may never be a show like Lost or 24 again, it will be ok. We will survive.



It's incredible how hard it can be to lose something so ingrained in our everyday function. Either show was a normal topic of conversation among friends. Both contained thematic elements I'd casually reference with others whom I knew watched. One of my buddies even checked into his honeymoon suite under the name Jack Bauer. Now that these programs no longer exist, there will be an adjustment period for many. And this time I'm not being dramatic; literally, we will have to adjust to our new reality.

Change is a difficult thing. I say that as someone who welcomes new surroundings, ideas, and people. I don't typically like routine, I can't stand monotony, and I absolutely abhor life without progress. So while I enjoy change, I know it's not easy. In fact, change is one of the hardest things for churches to endure. Anytime individuals have a constant (nice Lost reference) removed from them, it regularly takes a while for life to settle down. Organizations are made up of multiple individuals, in many ways subscribing to a group-think mindset. Once again, the adjustment is more drastic because the change affects many. Because there are multiple types of changes that churches must deal with, I'm going to focus on one in this post: when one of your own moves away.

I hate losing people. It's hard when people leave over conflict or differing preferences or any other reason you could think of. But when people move away, its almost harder because they want to go to a new city or new job, but not a new church. They are sad and you are sad. And it gets worse if they are people who had many responsibilities in the church. I write this with someone in mind.



At the end of the summer in 2008, Epoch Church had to go through this very thing. We lost Justin and Robyn Bourlon, when Justin took a new position with Kraft in Rogers, Arkansas, located 3 hours away. They had both been there from the beginning. Justin had left a church he was attending to be a part of the start-up, and Robyn became a part of the church immediately after she moved to Little Rock. They become engaged and married while they were with Epoch, Justin headed up our finance committee, they were small group leaders, etc., etc. It was a hard loss. Oh, not to mention that Justin was and is one of my closest friends. Several others in the church were in the same boat as I was. It was incredibly difficult to have been such a big part of their lives, for them to be such a big part of ours, and to know that there were several roles that needed filling in a church without a lot of resources.

Soon after, a newlywed couple in our church volunteered to lead a small group. They had agreed to take the first year of their marriage to not accept other responsibilities and focus on each other. They reached their 1 year anniversary a month after the Bourlons moved away, and they recognized the need existing in their church. A few months after this, a new couple began coming to Epoch who had moved to be campus ministers at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Several months later, our small groups expanded and they became leaders. Just before this, a recent college graduate named Sam moved to Little Rock and became active with Epoch. He was in the process of passing his CPA. Therefore, he was an obvious choice to lead the finance team. He accepted and has willingly served ever since. Flash forward almost two years since Justin and Robyn left, and we still miss them. We could still use them. But their absence led to a realized need among the community. People volunteered to take their place.



Do you know why muscles get bigger when you lift weights? If muscle fibers are strained enough, they tear. Through the synthesizing of protein, these torn muscles are rebuilt with the capacity to take on the load that was previously applied to them. Through this process of the body adapting, lifters get stronger. This is an accurate picture of what can happen in a church when volunteer leaders leave. Much like a pruned bush, a broken bone, or an over-worked bicep, churches can grow stronger through these instances. If Justin and Robyn had not left, who knows if that first couple would have stepped up to become small group leaders? Maybe Sam would have never been asked to join the finance team. The Bourlon's absence, from an organizational stance, may have been a positive thing because of the urgency with which people in the church recognized a need for more leaders.

Change can be a tough pill to swallow. But in this case, we clearly see how a young church had an opportunity to be strengthened by losing some of its key leaders. I am not suggesting that you should be happy when leaders go; on the contrary, I dread the next time I see a friend move off (or I move off myself). What I firmly believe, however, is that churches must view changes within their communities as opportunities to be strengthened. And if you've noticed, I have only focused on organizational structure - I've said nothing about the work of the Holy Spirit, who is far better at preparing us to embrace and grow during changing times than we could prepare for on our own. The next time your church loses someone crucial to its mission, take your time to mourn. Take your time preparing for what must be done to fill their shoes. But be excited over who will step up and carry the load. When a church follows God's direction, there is literally no limit to who He will use and how He will use them, and what He will accomplish with what He has.

In other words, change can be an awesome thing.

Diffusion of Church Relevance

In the 1980's, America was undergoing its own AIDS crisis, especially in San Francisco. One of the projects responsible for drastically slowing down the spread of AIDS in San Fran was called Stop AIDS (not exactly catchy, but whatever). The key approach utilized by members of the Stop AIDS project was small group diffusion. Stop AIDS employed outreach workers to set up small group meetings throughout the gay community to discuss ways to prevent the spread of HIV. At the end of each small group session, the leader would ask those who would practice these measures and organize a small group meeting themselves to raise their hands.



Stop AIDS trained over 7,000 small group leaders and reached over 30,000 people through small group meetings. In 1983, there were 8,000 new cases of AIDS. By 1985, there were 650 new cases, which is still 650 important lives, but a dramatic decrease of new infections (91%).

This is a case I've read over, analyzed, and studied on numerous occasions. Stop AIDS used a communication theory called Diffusion of Innovations, which was the theory I covered in my master's thesis. There are many different areas that this theory can/has/should be applied within churches. Most churches already indirectly practice this. Small groups, community groups, cell groups, or any other name you choose to attach, is small group diffusion. But when we say the word "innovation," we're clearly referring to a new idea. Church small groups are not a new idea - but using small groups to spread the gospel may be (at least in America).

I've heard of newer church plants in progressive cities employing this type of outreach. Bread & Wine Church in Portland appears to center themselves around small group meetings. Duke Revard, one of Bread & Wine's pastors, explains their approach this way: "Gospel Communities are the central rhythm of Bread&Wine. We come together because of the Gospel. We are growing up into a deeper understanding and application of the Gospel. We are taking the Gospel to the neighborhood/city/world through intentional missional engagement. I believe this is the most effective way to reach an increasingly secular society."

Those subscribing to the Diffusion of Innovation model would agree. In less-churched areas of the country, regular involvement in a Christian community is a new idea to most. But why would breaking down the idea of a thriving, growing, multi-media driven church to that of a decentralized, small group-based, simple approach be so effective in a metropolitan, cutting-edge city like Portland? If you asked Revard, it comes largely down to cultural relevance. "People in the increasing post-Christian Pacific NW see church buildings as an injustice," says Revard. He goes on to explain that many Oregonians see large church buildings and technological approaches as money spent on self rather than meeting needs of people. "Therefore, the attractional model has seen its day, and we have to adapt."

As post-modern and anti-establishment as this approach sounds, the foundational purpose is to bring the Gospel to places and people where it is absent. If we go back to the previously mentioned diffusion of innovation theory, a specific criteria exists that new ideas must adhere to in order to be adopted. These 5 major characteristics are as follows:

1. Relative Advantage - There must more pros than cons to the new idea over the old idea it seeks to replace

2. Compatibility - It must meet the demand of the population to which its being introduced

3. Complexity - It must not be complicated to understand and apply
4. Trialability - It must be tried before one must commit to or make a decision about the new idea

5. Observability - Positive results of the new idea's adoption must be recognizable

1.With regards to introducing the idea of Christian community to the Pacific Northwest, Bread & Wine appears to have provided an innovation with the right elements to be adopted. A church community based off of small groups with the mission of being servant leaders in their neighborhoods holds appealing advantages to Portland's culture as opposed to the centralized church building model.

2. A culture already engaged in social justice issues (feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, eating healthy) is compatible to a church that seeks to accomplish the same thing.

3. Having never been to Portland, I can't say this definitively. However, I've read the blogs, the books, and asked the questions. People in this part of the country are already looking for ways to stick it to the man and stand up for the little guy. Portland neighborhoods are full of people wanting to do good for others. Showing the community that this is Christ's desire too bridges a perceived gap that exists between human rights and Christian spirituality. The two should overlap, and Bread & Wine makes this a foundational tenet.

4. One thing that most smaller churches are great at is welcoming guests. Its hard to imagine a church with a Gospel community emphasis being anything less than welcoming to people who want to see what they are about. In a way, church communities are in a constant state of trialability.

5. This is the kicker. People will not continue with a community if they perceive their lives to be better off without said community. Many improvements may not be tangible. However, salvation, discipleship, biblical training, service opportunities, and neighborhood renewal result in noticeable results.

Bread & Wine's approach is working. In March 2009 they launched their first gospel community. Flash forward a little more than a year later and they are preparing to add their sixth, each consisting of 10-12 people. For those keeping score at home, that's a 500% growth rate in 14 months in a post-Christian, anti-American church culture. Clearly there is a work of the Holy Spirit going on here that cannot be seen, tasted, touched, or strategically planned by man. But there is a lot to be said for the structure of Bread & Wine and their approach to embrace the culture of Portland in order to bridge the perceived gap between followers of Jesus Christ and a thirst for social justice and genuine community.

As the idea of belonging to a church is being diffused throughout downtown Portland, many more people are likely to join these gospel communities. That's what typically happens when new ideas enter the early adoption phase within a population. Church planters in other American cities should take note of this new approach and pay attention to the model of small group diffusion. While no one can guarantee the absolute best practice for planting a ministry, social and cultural trends should be practiced. In many cases this is happening, and Bread & Wine is just one example. As the Church becomes more innovative in its outreach efforts, connectedness to its external community, and response to social concerns, I believe even post-Christian circles will realize its relevance.

Community

Remember that episode of Friends when Rachel takes up smoking? She had just gotten a promotion with Ralph Lauren, but her boss and a co-worker would make all the decisions when they would go out on a smoke break. To ensure she wouldn't be left behind, Rachel picked up a cigarette and pretended to puff like a pro. Smoking was portrayed poorly on that show, and Rachel's character admitted to her friends that she hated the very smell of cigarettes. She simply didn't want to be left out. Smoking was the only way to ensure this would not happen, so she adapted herself.

I'm part of a church that puts major emphasis on community. I don't mean we all live in the same part of town (not sure if that would be more cool or more cult), but that we try to instill the idea that church should go beyond the corporate and small group gatherings. The Church at Rock Creek has a great saying: It's More Than Just Church...It's Life. That's a powerful statement, and one that can be a double-edged sword.

When you try to do church this way, there is the risk of hurting feelings. If a group of people who are all part of the same church get together, it's probably going to be seen as a church-related function. In one way, this is unfair to do, as a church should not be judged by the actions of a small portion of its population. On the other hand, a church is the people, and if we are really trying to view our life as community-based, even the smallest of get-togethers are technically a function of the church.

But how about the hurt feelings? Within any organization or community, there will always be those more sensitive than others. For those of us who are typically the "organizers" of a get-together, I think it's pretty selfish when we fail to include others whom we know would like to share an evening with us (and by the way, EVERYONE has left someone out or been left out before - therefore we're all guilty and should all be sympathetic to this situation). From this point of view, though difficult, the ideal approach to hanging out is to include everyone with whom you worship.

One problem of including everyone is that your group will eventually get so big that you can't go anywhere together as one. Waiting on grub for 2 hours because you need a table for 30 gets old. Additionally, it's unreasonable to expect someone will remember to call all 700 people they see in church every time there is a social gathering. Also, I don't know many people who's homes can comfortably seat their entire church. And finally, most of us are involved in more than one circle of friends, both within and without our church bodies. To invite everybody to a single gathering means we'll be putting people in a room who don't know each other and won't have anything to say to each other. That can be awkward. So from this perspective, it may be better if we don't always seek to include everyone we worship with to our gatherings.

The paradox continues.

I think back to Jesus, and how he had his group of disciples whom he constantly surrounded himself with. Sometimes he even retreated from large crowds to be with them. We have evidence of him spending more time with 3 disciples than the others, and 1 whom he might have spent the most time with out of them all. It's clear when we look at the life of Jesus that he did not play favorites, but he did have a core group he was close to.

Yet, a part of Jesus' ministry that we often miss is that he constantly spent time apart from his group of regulars. His disciples tried to take him away from a group of children - he stayed with the kiddos and illustrated a lesson his followers needed to learn about immeasurable faith. When crowds swarmed around him, he found a Rudy-sized tax collector named Zacchaeus and then grabbed dinner with him. He welcomed a prostitute to the table who came to kneel at his feet seeking to leave behind a life with no king. An outcast woman in John 4 needed water; Jesus had a long conversation with her beside a well, then sent for her to bring by everyone she knew so he could visit with them, too. He met up with a Pharisee one night who wanted to know more about this new birth Jesus spoke of.

Despite the fact that Jesus had a core group, Jesus purposefully made time for people he did not regularly hang out with.

What does this tell us about Jesus? What message about him does this remind us of? That he had love for humanity? Sure, a love that brought about compassion for the weak, healing for the sick, and purpose for the disengaged. That he sought to connect people? I think so. First, within his own original disciples he pulled together people from all walks of life. Some lowly fisherman, an educated accountant, a traitorous tax collector, a politically vocal Jewish patriot, and others. Then, he brought those disciples to people outside of their comfort zones - the sick and injured, foreigners, government officials, poor people, rich people, and everyone in-between. And what's more: Christ's disciples continued to interact with different groups after his death and resurrection.

So how is the church supposed to react and respond? Certainly community-driven churches must do a good job with spending time together outside of a building. In forming a community that is tightly knit, we must walk that fine line to where it does not become an exclusive club. And it must be made up of individuals who are willing to get outside of their core group to connect with others - perhaps even bringing these "outsiders" in to the existing core group.

What could happen if your community was made up of people like that? Not people who just want to hang out amongst themselves all the time, but people who are continually reaching out to others? People who are willing to miss out on an occasional night with their regulars to make a connection with someone else who needs their influence? I think we'd be surprised what would happen within our churches, and also within our personal lives. If we became people who sought to live within a community while also seeking those outside our community because we realize we are a part of a greater community - the Kingdom of God - where we all share in a reward none can surpass.

Let's re-visit that Rachel Green instance from earlier. In pretending to be a smoker, she faked who she was for acceptance into a group. Without such a forgery, she would have been excluded from certain activities. You and I have probably done this too. We pretend to like a video game, band, restaurant, or author just so we'll not be excluded the next time the group takes part in a related activity. Erving Goffman, considered to be the most well-known sociologist of the 20th century, believed in a presentational self, wherein people take on a certain image of themselves and portray that image over other aspects of their personality. While deemed normal to a sociologist, I believe such a presentational self dangerously threatens our ability to be genuine. The church, I believe, can facilitate the deconstruction of the presentational self. And if we are to live in a vibrant, authentic community, it's necessary for people to know that they do not have to present themselves, but rather to be themselves.

As a church leader, you can make an impact on the way people interact. Communication does not just play a key role, it is the key role. Below are a few brief tips in how to implement this deconstruction of the presentational self into your community-driven church:

1. Make a commitment to speak to someone you do not know at your church's next corporate gathering. Privately tell others within any sort of leadership position in the church to do the same. Organizations follow the example of their leaders.

2. Avoid hanging out with the same people every weekend night, and instead...

3. ...intentionally spend quality time on a weekend night with someone you are just an acquaintance with.

4. Repeat #3 in the near future.

5. Eliminate the phrase "our group." When we label ourselves as a "group", anyone on the outside becomes an "other". This clearly contradicts the New Testament model of a church body.

6. When organizing a get-together, tell those you invite that everyone is welcome. It's impossible for you to invite everyone, but bringing more people in on the invitation process will eliminate the exclusive group mindset.

The presentational self dilemma directly correlates to this close-knit community crisis. If someone feels excluded from a group (and receiving no invitation is a form of exclusion), the first thing he or she will do is stress over why they weren't invited. This leads them to the conclusion that there is something about themselves they must change, or that they must highlight something different in conversations. Such constraints keep people guarded, insecure, and fake - traits that cannot exist for authentic community to take place.

This is a convoluted issue, to be sure. And pastors, along with others in leadership positions, can do a great job of practicing an inclusive lifestyle, yet still have the problem of exclusive hang-outs and presentational conversations take place within their communities. What is required for disposing of this problem is a concentrated group effort, with a focused desire to eliminate exclusivity. It will start from the top down. The community must be continually reminded to break free from their comfortable "inner-circles" and include new people into their lives.

When our churches learn -- not just occasionally practice -- how to become a truly unified community, we will gain a better understanding of what our world needs. We will be a part of positive change because we were first changed, and we understand what it means to be a biblically-based community.

"They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer...They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those were being saved."

Acts 2:42,46-47

Systems, Machines, & Other Likeable Things

What do you think of when you hear the term "The System"?

How about the phrase "a cog in the machine"?

We don't view either of these phrases in positive ways. In fact, we usually talk about ways of "beating the system" and refer to company men as "just another cog in the machine."

Often times, we take this approach to organizations because we think of them as easily corruptible. And true, this can (and has) happened many times over. However, despite the many times corporate corruption has infiltrated groups that began with a good purpose, I believe the organization still has the best chance to bring about positive change. An individual can be a great champion and cheerleader, but he or she must have a supporting cast to carry out the mission. A cast where everyone has a specific task that is different, yet brings to life the over-arching goal. For this reason, it is a powerful thing to be a cog in the machine and a small part in a big system.

Take the human body, for example. The gallbladder is just one of many organs. It's one of the smaller organs, only 6-9 centimeters in length. We can actually live without this tiny organ, even though it helps us process and breakdown the food we eat. Yet, missing a gallbladder carries serious setbacks. People living without a gallbladder cannot eat large meals. Because the gall bladder secretes bile into the small intestines, which helps digest fat, people without one must instead eat snack-sized portions throughout the day. Eating smaller portions prevents the "dumping syndrome" in which food is too quickly transported from the stomach to the small intestines. So while the human body can continue living without this organ, the digestive system is at a large disadvantage in its absence.

The gallbladder is a part of a greater system - the digestive system, to be exact. The digestive system is part of an even bigger operating machine, which we call the human body. Within this body are even more systems, namely the circulatory, musculo-skeletal, endocrine, nervous, excretory, integumentary, reproductive, and respiratory systems. Within each system are many more parts, some of which are large, and some even smaller than the gallbladder. Because each system in the body is made up of parts working together to meet the same goal, it works. When even one part in this overall system goes down, the whole body suffers.

The same can said of organizations. Many systems exist within any given organization. These systems are made up of people and functions, and no matter which function people find themselves in, the work they do matters for the health of the organization.

Like any other organization, churches certainly have their systems. Teaching teams, worship leaders, small groups, outreach groups, mission teams, and finance teams are typical for most churches. They each meet specific needs within a church, and each are very important. And while any of these parts are capable of being corrupted, they are more likely to produce something beneficial for the overall system. More than just another cog in the machine, each part is THE cog for THAT specific function of the machine.

So what part do you play in your church? I write this assuming you play a specific role, as this site is for leaders. And if, in fact, you do play a role, how are you viewing your place in the system? How do you view the system?

General systems theory is a great framework for church leaders to consider. Through this framework, we see our churches as a group of parts working together for the same reason.

I mentioned many parts of this in my first post, but this theory is essential for anyone involved in organizational work. Therefore, it's worth repeating many times over. The system or machine can be a good thing, and it's an inescapable part of accomplishing positive change. What we must remember as leaders is to play our role in the systems we lead. We must put in our strengths and allow others to put their strengths into the same system. When we view our churches in such a way, we empower individuals with different abilities to be a part of the same goal.

This is how our churches will collectively change the world.

What to Say?

This Sunday marks a special day: Easter. More than Cadbury Cream Eggs or Chocolate Bunnies, Easter is the day the Church celebrates Christ's resurrection from the grave. And while Christmas is the day most of us get more excited about, what Easter commemorates is truly what separates Christianity from any other religion.

Easter Sunday also happens to be the day that church buildings are most packed. Attending an Easter service is as expected as watching the Super Bowl - while few people watch every football game during the season, just about everyone will sit down for the end-of-year extravaganza.

This leaves pastors with the tough decision of what to preach. Now largely, the decision is made by the Christian calendar. The message will likely focus on the death, burial, and ascension. But there is a decision as to what kind of take-away to leave the audience with. After all, some of those in attendance will not hear another sermon for 365 days.

By the grace and omniscience of God, I do not pastor a church. And since I do not have the responsibility or pressure of making such a decision this week, I will forgo using this little platform to suggest which direction to go. I will, however, list several ideas for pastors to consider as they prepare for this Sunday's message. Although churches across the world have many different structures and will use different formats, they will all (in some way) present a gospel message. By now, most pastors have probably finished the major points of their sermons; but I hope these points will be considered as the finishing touches are added.

1. What does the resurrection of Christ communicate to the world?

2. What does the resurrection of Christ communicate to the Church?

3. How does the answer to question 1 differ from question 2, and how do they compliment each other?

4. What does the message from the resurrection of Christ do?

Here is what I believe on all 4 questions. The fact that God would send his Son to suffer and die for the world communicates that He values every person in the world. The resurrection displays the power that accompanies this value, proving that God is a loving God. To those of us who buy into this idea, I've said nothing ground-breaking. However, those who have seen the extreme poverty and government-imposed injustice of 3rd world countries, experienced harsh judgment from a church, or witnessed hypocrisy from those claiming to follow Christ, often have a hard time believing in a loving God. The resurrection serves as an explicit reminder of the existence of such a being.

For question number 2, I believe Christ's resurrection reminds the Church, his followers, that we will be raised from the dead with Him one day. This life, with all its pain, misery, discomfort, and even its joy, will not overcome our need for Him, nor will our imminent last breaths overshadow what He will do with and for us in the end.

For question 3, of course both answers revolve around Christ's doing. The power connected to God's value on the created human race is the same for those who are in Christ and those who observe from a distance. But I believe an important difference is that those who are not Christ-followers will not experience the love this power comes from without turning to it. Therefore, while an individual's response can neither create nor destroy God's power, the openness of the human heart and the willingness of the human mind to embrace this phenomenon is required to one day experience the resurrection of Christ.

As for question 4, a lot. If we focus on the semantic meaning of "resurrection", we find polar opposites represented. Christ was dead (and beginning to decay), and then He was alive. What does this mean for a heart as far away from God as possible? For the Satanic ritualist? The murderer? The rapist? The pornographer? The gossip? The liar? The adulterer? All of these are far from God, yet none of them are dead. What about the Muslim, Hindi, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, or Jew? What about the agnostic or athiest? All of these hold a view of a non-divine Jesus, yet none of these are in physical decay. Christ has already overcome much more, but we often look at these situations and people of such different beliefs as lost causes. The resurrection changed everything, and it continues to change how we view reality. Linguistically, we can understand what is meant by "resurrection." Spiritually we can experience it for ourselves. And physically, we believe that Christ truly overcame death and decay to make hope possible for the world.

For those who will teach the masses this weekend, consider these 4 questions. However you choose to do it, clearly communicate the message God gave the world.

Reducing the Uncertainty of a Visitor

Uncertainty takes many forms and exists across many different arenas within any organization. While I haven’t spent any significant time comparing, I venture to say no real difference exists between uncertainty in a church or any other work environment. It is possible that uncertainty within a church could carry more emotional consequences, as people’s feelings are going to be more invested in a religious organization. Nonetheless, uncertainty is an uncomfortable phenomena whether in Christian or secular organizations.

One of the most fascinating theories within all of communication studies is uncertainty reduction theory. Its title is self-explanatory; this theory explains how strangers aim to minimize what they do not know about each other to determine if there can be mutual approval. Practically speaking, when I meet new people, I may ask them where they are from, what their hobbies are, their job, likes, dislikes, etc. (just imagine a conversation you’ve had with someone on a blind date). They will likely ask me the same thing. Through this conversation, I and this new person will determine if we wish to further have conversations or a relationship. If, by reducing my uncertainties about them, I discover that they are not people I particularly have anything in common with, I will probably not seek a relationship with them, nor they with me. While this theory is applied to interpersonal communication, I believe it can also explain why people choose to attend or not to attend any given church.

If you think about it, what I claim here is really nothing groundbreaking. When people visit a church, they are going to ask questions to people they come in contact with, take notice of the decorations, seating arrangements, building structure, attitudes of those they come in contact with, teaching style, music style, etc. They will have entered the church building with certain questions, and they will exit with answers to many of their questions, thus reducing their uncertainty about the church. From the information they take in, they will begin to form their opinion of the church.

Church leaders, however, cannot control individual’s perceptions. It is beyond unreasonable to expect to prevent every bad thought from occurring in the minds of visitors. Therefore, I believe the pressure to make sure anyone who visits absolutely loves everything about your church should be lifted. People are going to think what they think. Some simply have unrealistic expectations – expectations that NO church can meet.

That being said, I do believe there are several ways that church leaders can position themselves, their buildings, and their followers to positively reduce the uncertainty of those who are new to or visiting the community. For example, as most of us know, visitors usually do not come to be ignored, nor do they come to be the center of attention. I believe it is important for church leaders (any position of leadership) to be on the lookout for visitors – and this typically happens. But at some point, new people also want to be allowed to just take in their surroundings without being bombarded with the same questions over and over again. If you notice person after person coming up to a visitor, it’s likely that they would appreciate a break from having to talk or listen. This doesn’t mean you ignore them, but I think it does mean you should give them an opportunity to catch their breath before becoming another name they are sure to forget.

And what about the building? We can’t possibly re-decorate or re-position the interior of our buildings every week or to meet the preferences of every attendee. Rather, ask yourself, “What does our church set-up communicate?” Are you located in a downtown urban setting inhabited by hipsters, artists, post-moderns, etc? A suburb with young families? A college town with frat boys, intellectuals, and internationals? You can’t expect to get these people through the doors without something with which they’ll connect. What is the art style of your surrounding location? What is the area culture, heartbeat, vibe, and any other word you could include here? Match it (as long as it doesn’t go against scripture). Find a way to tap into what is already going on around your church setting. Doing so communicates that your community is not an elite group that requires knowing someone, being super spiritual, or even owning a bible to check it out.

In many ways, visitors may not initially connect with church leaders, at least if these guests are not Christians. And even if they mesh just fine with a leader the moment they walk through the door, they will likely find more “non-leaders” whom they are comfortable with. It is therefore crucial that those within your community who do not necessarily hold a leadership position in the church know how to positively reduce a visitor’s uncertainty. The main thing this really takes is the ability to say hello and be a friend. It is, however, important for non-leaders to know what the church stands for biblically, how they practice this, and what they offer the community. In addition to the knowledge this will provide a visitor, a non-leader who knows what the church stands for biblically, communicates (very loudly, by the way) that the church is based on sound, clear, biblical teaching. If a non-leader knows this, it means the leaders have done a good job conveying their message.

These are just a few examples of ways that leaders can prepare their communities for positively reducing the uncertainty of a guest. Below, I’ll provide the uncertainties most visitors have when they enter a church, as well as a list of things church leaders and non-leaders should do.

Uncertainties of Visitors
• Will I like the people?
• Will I feel welcome?
• Will I feel comfortable during the worship?
• What do they teach/believe?
• Will I connect with anything there?
• Will it fit my needs?
• Are the people genuine?
• Will I want to go back?

How Church Leaders Can Positively Reduce Uncertainty
• Be clear in your church’s view of God
• Introduce yourself to guests and try to learn something about them
• Do not overwhelm visitors with tons of information
• Find ways to tap into & engage the culture of your surrounding community
• Make church goals/values visible (stationary, web, etc)
• Teach those in non-leadership positions what your church believes and why

How Non-Leaders Can Positively Reduce Uncertainty
• Be a friend
• If a crowd has gathered near a visitor, give them space.
• Be genuine
• Know where your church biblically stands (if you don’t, ask your leaders)
• Know what the church offers the community

The Importance of Interaction Part 2

In my last post, I discussed why its so important for church leaders to interact with members, visitors, etc. I covered very little regarding staff-to-staff interaction. And while many of the same points from my first post on interaction apply, I argue that its equally important (if not more so) for there to be frequent, positive interaction between church staff members.

Previous posts have mentioned the importance of relational work environments. But I think this is a topic that needs to be emphasized and re-emphasized. Church leaders can have some of the most pleasant work environments around. They can be encouraging, there can be genuine concern for each individual's well-being, and there can be room for creativity and autonomy more so than any other work environment in our entire free-enterprise system. But that is likely not the norm, meaning there are many churches where the work environment can be as cold and robotic as the human resources sector at the IRS (ok, probably not that bad).

To explain why it is so important for church staff to interact frequently and positively, I point to social network theory. This theory focuses on relationships within any given social network. Building off of the social construction theory, it also holds to the view that reality is an off-spring of social interaction. Within social network theory, individuals within a given network all possess different roles. in regard to a church, the roles could be stereotypically assigned, where a church secretary is the mother of the group, taking care of the pastor's day-to-day tasks, and constantly taking on what needs to be done. The youth minister could be the young, fun-loving one. The music minister the artsy, socially awkward one. The pastor the gentle, encouraging, motivating leader.

As I said, this is very stereotypical. And this is likely what roles most church members would assign to these staff members. However, this could be far from the truth. According to social network theory, the relationship between people in a network is more important than the characteristics of each individual. For instance, the pastor mentioned above may be gentle, encouraging, and a motivator. But if he does not act this way toward the members of his network (i.e. his church staff), then he will not be recognized as such. Instead, he will be viewed as a hypocrite, a nuisance, and/or an unfit leader.

Interaction - the frequent and positive kind - shapes the types of relationships we have for the better. Avoidance, the opposite of interaction, becomes an infection in a church network if it continues. If a moment of passionate disagreement leaves two or more church leaders needing to get away from their counterparts for a moment, this is healthy. In fact, working closely in any situation or environment will likely lead to stressful situations where each person needs to allow themselves some space for the sake of peace. This time of avoidance, however, must not last long. It can quickly become unhealthy and lead to deeper seeded problems.

If two ministers become deeply engaged in an argument over whether to put more effort into evangelizing the north side of the city or the south side, its probably a good idea for them to take a break so as to not deviate from their point of contention: where to put their church's resources. If they never come back together to figure out what to do, each will indefinitely believe the other to be hard-headed and difficult to work with. The more time that comes between them, the more each will tear down the other in their head, replaying their last conversation together and why they were right, the other wrong, and how terribly misguided the church would be if the other were making all the decisions. Then they will pass each other in the hallway after a few days of not speaking. Neither will know what to say, so they say nothing and keep walking their separate ways. With this, what began as a disagreement in vision will morph into a complete distrust, disrespect, and dismissal of the other as a ministerial teammate altogether. The simple act of each avoiding the other will confirm to both that the other is a bad minister. And in some ways a bad person. How could anyone want to work with them? What will become of the church if others agree with such foolish ideas?

Kind of sheds new light on what Jesus said in Matthew 5:24 about being reconciled with our brother before carrying out our other responsibilities. I think he knew (because he is God) that when we avoid each other, our imaginations fill in the blanks. Not true if there is frequent interaction. As we spend time together, continue talking, persevere in working out our differences, we learn to interact positively with each other. The more positive interactions we have, the more frequent they become. It's cyclical.

Often it seems counter-intuitive that the relationships a person has determines his or her role in a given network, rather than the role determining the relationships. Nonetheless, communication theorists convincingly argue the former. The influence of social networks is a powerful thing. I believe a positive social network should be modeled by church leaders. Such a network cannot happen without frequent and positive interaction.

If you are on a church staff, spend less time at your desk. We all have busy days, but we also have an important role in a social network. Your social network is of extreme importance, as it needs to be an example for other networks. Walk around to the other offices in the building. Say hello to everyone you come across. Ask someone how their day is...and mean it. Gather up everybody who can and go out to lunch. Build a network - a community - that your congregation is able to lean on and learn from.

The Importance of Interaction

I know many of us serve in a small church. With a church staff of 2 and a congregation of 60 (on a good day), I am able to interact pretty easily at Epoch. Few churches have numbers this small in either category. If you serve in a church of 500, 750, 1000+, it becomes impossible to have regular communication with all congregants and staff.

We recognize the power of relationships. Many of us subscribe to the idea of relational evangelism. Acts 2:42-47 certainly stresses the importance of relational interaction within a church body. Beyond this, why is interaction so important for a healthily functioning church?

Social constructivism is where people's understanding of the world is directly tied to whom they interact with and how they do so. Ultimately, whether done accurately or not, people socially construct and co-construct their perceived realities. In English, this means that people base their perception of reality on interactions with others.

If identical twins are separated at birth and are adopted by two differing sets of parents with different approaches to parenthood, their views of reality will not be the same. It won't matter that they sound, move, and look the same or that their fingerprints are a match or that they have similar tendencies in personality. If one was raised by parents who love him, provide for his physical and emotional needs, and teach him right from wrong, that child will grow up with a positive opinion of family. If the other is raised by parents who are rarely home, communicate through shouting, and pay little attention to the kid, he will probably grow up to think this is normal. Thus, the word "family" will have a negative connotation to him.

Many Christians have long known that saying hello to new faces and making outsiders feel included is the right thing to do. What is less known is why this is so important. When we stay in constant contact with people, our relationships form and deepen. Its easy to distrust or dislike someone we don't know. But if we are recognized by, spoken to, or otherwise involved in someone's life, we are much less likely to have negative feelings toward them or they towards us. Therefore, one of the best ways to make people feel good about your church is to have a relationship with them.

If you are in any kind of leadership position (including non-paid volunteer leadership) within a church, you have a responsibility to build a relationship with the congregation. For many, this is easy. For many more, however, constantly speaking to strangers or people not known well can be a stressful experience. But leaders must get over this discomfort. If, for example, someone within your church is rarely spoken to, included, or shown the vision of the leadership, your church is not very good. At least not to someone with whom people (especially leaders) rarely interact. Perception is reality, and people socially construct that reality through interaction. If you want to give someone the impression that church is a bad thing, ignore them.

The social constructionist theory has crucial implications for the church. Specifically, I believe 3 things must be recognized by church leaders:

1. People construct their reality through interaction
2. Interaction, positive or negative, greatly impacts the way people view church
3. A socially constructed reality is fluid: it can changed for better or worse

Because we care about the impact the church has on the world, we must interact with
people who walk through our doors. Through interaction, we have the opportunity to change hearts and minds. And yes, we have the power to influence reality.

Interact wisely.

Get Away

What is up with all of these geese?

I’ve been in St. Louis this week, and I’ve never seen so many in all my life. I didn’t realize the Show-Me-State capitol was such a Canadian waterfowl hub. This is especially true on the campus of the University of Missouri at St. Louis, where I have been spending the majority of my time.

So why am I here? To see the Edward Jones dome and the Rams? Saw it from a taxi, but football season is over and the few remaining Ram fans are happy to see this one go. To see Busch Stadium and the Cardinals? No – baseball season has yet to begin, for which I’m sad. I have been here to learn from Greg Nelson, the Annual Giving Manager at this school. I hold the same job title at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and I have had a great time learning best practices from an 18-year veteran in this field.

I could have learned these practices through e-mail. Greg could have FedExed me some UMSL material, shown me last year’s gifts compared to this year’s projections, and I could have picked and chosen which parts of his campaign to bring implement at UALR. But by being here, I can focus all my attention and energy on how UMSL works. And I can do that without the everyday distractions and interruptions I would have if I were back in my office.

Getting away to learn something new or be reminded of something previously understood is a common practice. In fact, a few weeks ago I returned from a retreat with guys from my Thursday morning men’s group. We take one every year, and for the past two we’ve gone to the same remote cabin in the backwoods of Jasper, Arkansas. We spent the weekend hiking, eating meat, playing Risk, burning stuff, reading, praying, and just being together out of our normal element. It was exactly what all of us needed. For three days, there was nothing else for us to do but hang out with guys that encouraged and challenged each other. There were no interruptions from wives or fiancées, no distractions from TV shows or after-hour office work, and no worries about paying bills or fixing the drip in the kitchen faucet. All we were there to do was to get away from our world and focus on the one God had waiting for us.

I think church staffs should practice this more often. When you get away from your normal environment, it’s pretty cool how differently you can interact with people. Think how great it would be to just sit around a bonfire and have a coke with the guy who plans your worship services, or the guy who does the preaching, or your youth ministry team? How incredible would it be to see the wives of staff members intermingling together, sharing the burden of being married to a minister, yet in so doing, sharing the joy of such an opportunity? How closer could your staff be if you collectively took the time to just be together in a setting that had nothing to do with work? How much could you learn about each other? Yourself? Your strengths and weaknesses, and those of the staff you serve with? How much better prepared could your staff return from such a getaway?

This is a topic I haven’t researched, so I don’t know if any literature even exists to support my claim. But I have experienced the benefit of getting away from my normal surroundings and coming back with a better understanding of my purpose. Chances are, so have you. Whether your church staff is undergoing conflict, trying to overcome multiple obstacles, or just trying to figure out how to work together and relate to each other better, off-site retreats are well worth the time and expense.

Small Group Dynamics

How do your small groups work?

At Epoch, we recently added another one and shifted people around within the existing small groups. A needed change if you ask me. Not because the current groups didn't get along or were unevenly matched, but simply because they had been together for so long. In a small group setting, the social dynamic of the group is affected by several factors. And counter-intuitively, communication within a small group is more difficult than that within the corporate setting.

I am of the belief that small groups are where real community happens. Now I know we all have our views and preferences about how a church should run, but whether you are a mega-church or a 20 person start-up, your corporate worship service does not allow much communication to take place. One person speaks at a time. Often the goals, vision, purpose, and message of a church are given here. So from an organizational communication standpoint, yes, communication does take place. And there is even an element of fragility here, as more people will hear the message (and by message, I do not just mean sermon) within the corporate setting. But pastors have notes, worship leaders have words on a projector screen, and the announcement guy writes down bullet points on one of the guest cards.

In a small group, however, all eyes are on the person talking. There are no notes or other visual reminders about what to say; just an invitation to let other group members in on the heart and mind of the one sharing. And people are expected to talk in this setting. This may not be true public speaking, but sharing can still be a vulnerable thing. That's why its important that small group environments are safe for the flow of ideas. People must feel a sense of trust and comfort if we expect them to be real. This sense of security must be sustained from meeting to meeting. As this happens, the environment will become a solid staple, and those who were once too shy to talk become much less guarded.

It takes time for a group to get to this point. And to be sure, a group may never get to a point where people are completely open books, as some issues need to be handled between a husband and wife or a patient and counselor. But what becomes more devastating than when people refuse to share personal prayer requests is when they refuse to share their deeper spiritual concerns, questions, and celebrations with other group members. If the ultimate goal of small groups is to build deeper community within a local church through further exploring the heart of God (a byproduct of which is a more holistic understanding of our own spiritual needs), then those of us involved in a small group must not be intimidated to be open with what we want to say. And as leaders, we must speak. We must challenge, we must cultivate, and we must inspire those in our groups. Yet sometimes, those in our group have become as challenged, cultivated, and charged as they can be in their current groups. Sometimes, people can get to know each group member so well and even come to expect and predict everything each person has to offer. If this happens, a small group can even stifle the progress of its members. For this reason, I believe it is important to occasionally place different people together in small groups.

Recently, I posed the question of how to do small groups to several churches across the U.S. Willow Creek Community in Chicago, Fellowship Church (Little Rock and NWA), The Village Church in Dallas, The Journey Church in St. Louis, Sandals in Riverside, California, and the Church at Rock Creek in Little Rock. I expected to get one over-arching theme. Instead, I received several. Some believed in indefinitely keeping the groups as they were. Some believed keeping the same people together would lead to a halt in growth.

Regardless of which side these churches took on switching people around or keeping the same people in a small group, there was one consistent trend: change. For groups who switched people around every year, the type of change that took place is obvious. For those churches who kept the same people in the same group every year, the changes were either using a different curriculum every so often, having a different person lead the conversation each week, holding the small group meetings in different homes from week to week, or allowing each small group to take the summer off. However they chose to do it, the aim of these churches was to keep their small groups from becoming a ritual.

When two or more gather together in Jesus' name, His promise is that He is there with us. But also when two or more gather together, they have the opportunity to create a culture of mental and spiritual stimulation, or mental and spiritual complacency. However the leaders of churches or small groups choose to do this, it's crucial that small groups constantly adapt to make each experience a growing opportunity for those who participate. When this happens, people will want to be a part of such a group.

The Spirit has the power to accomplish this with or without us - but if we are walking with the Spirit, part of keeping in step with the Spirit means he is leading us further from where we were, and closer to the Father. And Christ has a supernatural way of challenging and deepening us, mind, heart, and soul. Our churches get to be a part of such cultivation.

In order to improve the culture of your churches' small groups, the answer is simple: find ways to make them more dynamic.

Interpersonal vs. Organizational

When we hear the word communication, we often think of a person speaking (i.e. I studied in the speech communication department, so I must know how to speak well). This is one part of communication, but many more aspects exist.

In the same way, when we hear that a church has a communication problem, we may immediately think the pastor does not preach well. Or we may think the announcement guy makes confusing statements. Or the radio and TV spots are ambiguous. These are all parts that make up the way a church communicates. But before this blog can go further, we must first understand the difference between interpersonal communication and organizational communication.

Interpersonal communication is what we are most familiar with, such as when individuals speak back and forth to each other. This does not mean when more than two people are speaking together, an organization is formed. Instead, interpersonal communication relates to a type of communication that only represents individuals. A large group of 30 can come together to talk, and interpersonal communication still takes place. Within this group, many conversations occur. Someone's dog just died, a guy just got a new job, a young lady just got a zit, a couple is thinking about adoption, a child has to go to the bathroom. None of these conversations present any ideas, beliefs, or actions of anyone but the speakers. The listeners will likely engage back with comments about the zit or the need for a bathroom break, and then perhaps form some statements of their own.

If this explanation was confusing, then just think of it like this: interpersonal communication takes place when people communicate to each other through speaking, listening, and non-verbal cues.

Organizational communication is done on behalf of an organization. This can be achieved through a public relations statement in a press release, but it can also be done through the types of charities the organization supports. Or the type of people the organization hires. Communication even takes place by the work environment of an organization. The most famous understanding of this form of organizational communication takes place at Seattle's Pike Place Fish Market, as made known through the book Fish. This book takes the fish market's culture and turns it into an easy-to-read manuscript on how to create a fun atmosphere at work.



There are clear differences between interpersonal and organizational communication, although much overlap exists as well. Within any organization, interpersonal communication obviously takes place. One of my college professors even argued that there was little reason to seperate these two types of communication, claiming they both fell under the same umbrella. With organizational communication being such an unknown phenomena, however, I think having only one label for communication would prohibit many organizations from knowing how to effectively promote positive change. Interpersonal communication might fire up one or two, but an organization with actions that match its values delivers a message more powerfully than a room full of 100 individual linguistic geniuses.

As we continue to look at organizational communication for churches, I am confident that the theories and practices within this field of study will provide solutions for existing difficulties. Communication is a powerful thing - whether from the mouth of 1 or the hands of 1 million.

The Purpose of Developing Church

Hello.

(Sound of crickets)

As I write, no one has yet seen this blog. Quite understandable. As of this morning, it's brand new. And while grassroot-efforts rarely lead to highly subscribed blogs, I certainly hope this one gets some pub. Here's why: people do not know how to most effectively communicate.

What does this have to do with church? A better question may be "what is a church?" My answer will be different than most pastors. Not because I am anti-church or disagree with what most pastors would say, but because I view churches first and foremost as organizations.

Before you cry heresy, let me qualify that I DO believe the Church is the people of God, whose first and foremost mission is to glorify Him, show the love that He first showed us, and to produce disciples. To me, this goes without saying. I view church from an organizational standpoint because without such a view, any given local church will never be as effective as they can be.

Bold words, considering I've never had the sole responsibility of leading a congregation. As I have grown up, been involved, and led ministries in churches, I have been able to see many of the moving parts that make up a church. But it wasn't until grad school that I began to adopt this "organizational" view. From this vantage point, I came to believe that in many ways, a church is not that different from a corporate business, non-profit foundation, or other organizations that require the focus of many moving parts for one over-arching purpose.

Of course, the mission of a church is different. As stated above, the church has a holy mission - a mission ordained by God Himself. But more than just this mission, every local church needs to ask themselves "How can we most effectively carry out this mission?" And I wonder how often churches fail to identify their best way to glorify God, show His love to the world, and produce committed disciples of Christ. If an effective way to do this does not infiltrate every aspect of a church, opportunities will be missed.

Like other organizations, however, churches need to be strategic in producing results. And while we can't forget the guidance of the Holy Spirit, churches must not ignore their strengths, weaknesses, culture, surroundings, or goals. In other words, churches must intentionally plan to run successfully.

Back to my purpose for this blog: that people don't know how to effectively communicate. What does this statement have to do with a blog about developing churches? Communication is much more than what we say. Our actions tell people something about us. Even the actions of an individual tells a story, but multiply that by 30, 50, 100, 1,000, or more, and you've got a loud message from an organization. This could be a great message, or it could be a lousy one. It might be a message that stays within the church walls or that goes beyond them. Either way, the actions of a church communicate who they are and Whom they follow.

I believe that by equipping church leaders to communicate competently through their organization, the church will be as effective as the world needs it to be. Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, calls the local church "the hope of the world." I believe this too, but only if it brings an effective message that will change lives. This happens when we develop effective organizational communication plans for local church bodies. Be it issues of conflict, crisis, change, motivation, interpersonal or public relations, the church needs to be better trained.

My hope is that this blog will help. Thanks for reading, sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to learning with you.