Recently I was asked whether I believed in a social gospel or a biblical gospel. I found this question strange, having a few seconds of complete silence as I thought about how to answer. My response was one word: "Yes."
To be fair, I understand where the person was coming from. She was concerned that Christians today are being sucked into a humanitarian movement and calling it the gospel - which is a legitimate concern. An equally large concern is that our biblical approach to sharing our faith involves only our testimony, an invitation to follow Jesus, and then a decision that must be made by our audience. The Spirit has worked through this approach consistently through the ages, but I don't think this alone is the true biblical model of evangelism. Sure, this approach is there - check out Acts 10. But how do we see Jesus spread the gospel? I read about him taking care of the sick, feeding the hungry, and socializing with the outcast. How do we see the early church do this? See the answer to the previous question.
So why the Social vs. Biblical gospel argument? It seems they should not be pitted against each other, but instead, coupled together to give a complete definition to the message of Jesus Christ - "to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). In today's church language, we can focus so much on converting people that we forget to show hope in the form of fighting social injustices, such as those Christ fought himself.
Giving the world a complete gospel picture communicates clearly the message of who Jesus is: loving, redeeming, transforming. Many outside of the family of God have long been given a message of "you need to believe, you need to change your life, you need Jesus." These are all true, but how much more powerful is this message if the world first sees Jesus in us? If the world sees followers of Christ fighting against human trafficking, they'll think, 'Jesus wants sex slavery to end? I believe it should too.' If the world sees followers of Christ being the first in line raising money to end world poverty, they'll say,'Jesus cares that everybody gets a meal? That's change I want to see too.' If the world sees followers of Christ take the action that Christ himself took, those who currently want nothing to do with Him will, for the first time, see who He truly is. This realization may ultimately lead them to the conclusion,'I do need Jesus.'
Our spoken words of Jesus cannot be neglected. The apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:14 that there must be someone speaking the message of Christ so that they will hear it. But this message cannot be effectively delivered if our lives don't symbolize the type of redemption Christ will bring to those who seek Him. He is about changing hearts and minds, defending the powerless, loving the unlovable, and saving the incapable. Yes, we must preach Christ, but me must also live Him. When we do this, there is no Social vs. Biblical argument. There is just the gospel, there is just the good news, and there is just the true picture of Jesus Christ.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Right, Wrong, and Rob Bell
The last couple of weeks have been a whirlwind for Pastor Rob Bell of Mars Hill in Grand Rapids, Michigan. With the release of his new book Love Wins, Bell calls into question the existence of heaven and hell as we traditionally picture them. Now I haven’t read this book, so I’ll stop there in offering a description (the subtitle is Heaven, Hell, and Every Person Who Ever Lived, so my initial attempt can’t be too far off).
When orthodoxy is questioned, one can assume controversy will arise. In this instance, controversy may be a limited definition of what has taken place since the release of the book and the preview trailers that surfaced on Youtube weeks ago. Bell’s theology, motives, and even his own salvation have been challenged over the past several days. Having appeared on several nationally broadcast interviews, Bell has defended his book in typical Rob Bell style: with more questions.
Many of the questions people have brought against Bell are good. If all people who do good go to heaven regardless of whether or not they follow Jesus, what’s the reason for following Jesus? If hell is no more than the hell we experience on earth, what is the real motivation for escaping life as it exists today? If God sends someone to hell, shouldn’t we attribute that to his holiness rather than saying he is a villain? These questions are important. They have serious implications. To expect an answer from Bell is right.
However, I think many church leaders have gone way beyond simply asking such questions. Many have written him off (one famous preacher from Minnesota simply posted via Twitter. “So long, Rob Bell”), some have publicly and angrily rebuked him, and others now view his previous work as heretical. This approach – to cast Bell aside, to ostracize him, to brand him a wolf in sheep’s clothing – in my opinion, is very wrong,
Then there’s Bell. Answering his critics with long-winded, round-about answers and deferring to not being a biblical scholar couples with his definitive, repetitive statement that God’s love overrules every earthly or even orthodox Christian principle. This is a mixed bag of right, wrong, and confusion dressed in hyperbole.
So this is where we are: amidst controversy. The real question now is what do we do with it? My hope is that Bell will continue to ask questions, to engage those who don’t know Christ, and to form ideas that lead to Jesus more so than to an abstract “What if?” But I think the real lesson here is for the church to learn to answer questions with more grace and less condemnation. Our words form ideas within our faith, but they also tell those outside of us who we really are. We may disagree, we may have different approaches to and theories on scripture, but we cannot eat each other alive and expect outsiders to want to be a part of us. Even in times of disagreement, Paul relentlessly called churches back to unity in the faith, where Christ is the head.
Rob Bell is a part of our body. He loves Jesus, and I believe he is trying to be obedient to Him. His writing has consistently brought great discussions, important insights, and passion for Jesus out of people. Whatever wrong Bell might have written in Love Wins, the Spirit is perfectly capable of bringing conviction and clarity to questions and abstracts. I pray that He makes us capable of rebuking, correcting, and training each other in love rather than resentment.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Goodness of Change
Change is hard. We all know this. We’ve all experienced this. It removes what we’re used to and replaces it with something foreign. It makes us uncomfortable, like a new character on a sit-com or our favorite restaurant changing menus. Change is hard (to do).
But does this make change bad? I am of the belief that a changing organization is an alive organization. When changes take place for reasons that are not arbitrary, evidence exists that the organization in question is responding to its audience. And in such scenarios, change is good.
I’ve been a part of a church community for the past 5 ½ years called Epoch Church. We are a small community, so changing plans or adding ideas is not as hard as it may be for a congregation of 6,000+. Nonetheless, we are not exempt from the difficulties of change. I was recently asked by my pastors to take a leadership role regarding our small groups. We are big believers in small groups at Epoch – we feel this is where life is most lived out together. This is where the most growth, relationship building, and intercessory prayer takes place for us. And while we have been fortunate to have a growing small group ministry, we also recognized the need to re-vamp.
The “Problem”
We realized that in our 5 ½ year history, our small groups have always run the same way. We gather, discuss the sermon from Sunday, pray together, and visit. This is pretty basic, and most small groups around America (at least) probably follow a similar format. We’ve never had an uproar of disappointment over how these meetings take place, but as a team of church leaders, we wanted to direct our small groups to be more life giving. We wanted to find out how our time together could be more dynamic. How people could be more mentally and spiritually stimulated. How our small groups could make a greater impact on our church community and our downtown Little Rock community.
The Process
Immediately after being asked to spearhead our small groups, I met with each small group leader to hear their ideas. I spoke with other participants who weren’t necessarily leading a small group, but cared about the direction in which they were headed. The feedback received was much better than anything I could have come up with on my own. Some wanted small groups to focus more on evangelism. Others wanted to incorporate more education on missions. Several expressed the desire to do more service with their small groups as a way of teaching people that serving others is supposed to be a normal way to spend our time. And still some wanted to figure out ways specifically impact the SOMA district, the area of Little Rock where we are centrally located.
From these meetings, it was clear that our small groups could use some re-tooling. Great ideas came at us from great people. The next question was could we incorporate all of these ideas into our small groups – and if so, how? Something I was intent on doing was making sure our small group gathering didn’t become a burden on people’s schedule, so there was another wrench thrown into our planning. Organizational change, and specifically how to communicate it, is an interest of mine. It’s fascinating how easy it is to do this the wrong way. It’s way too early tell whether or not we did this the right way, below is the approach we used for restructuring our small groups and communicating these changes.
The “Solution”
The first change we made was to break-up our small groups in 10-week cycles, with 2 of those weeks technically being “off-weeks”. This fell into our idea of making the small groups more life-giving. We did not want a church full of overworked, busy people. We wanted to provide them with at least 1 night within those 10 weeks where they were free to enjoy time with a spouse, take out a hurting friend for coffee, get things done around the house, etc. The other “off week”, we will provide a corporate gathering for all small groups, such as a game night, community dinner, or other similar activities. The structure of “8 on, 2 off”, we hope, will give people both the ability to rest and to be actively involved in a life-giving small group.
The second change we implemented was the idea of having small group leaders incorporate 3 new elements somewhere within the 8 weeks of meeting together. These elements are: a night of internal service (serving each other), a night of external service (serving the SOMA district), and a focus on evangelism & missions. How each small group would implement these elements would be decided by them and their leader. Research suggests that people are more willing to adopt changes when they feel close to the policy-makers (Hartkamp, ter Hoeven, & Pieterson, 2008, p.14). We recognized that groups will feel closer to their leader than they will the small group pastor or church pastor. It made sense, then, to make groups their own “policy-makers” rather than construct a centralized policy for all to follow. With each group being made up of individuals with God-given passions, we felt the best way to cultivate growth and impact on our internal and external communities was by allowing each group more ownership in how they operated.
The final change was to focus our small group ministry on our church’s core values: community, authenticity, simplicity, spiritual formation, service, cooperation, diversity, and creativity. If these values are truly core to our church, they should be fleshed out in as many ways as possible. As a result, each small group leader will educate and remind his group with these core values when decisions are made within the group.
Final Thoughts
You’ll notice that 2 sections of this post have a word in quotations. To say that what were dealing with was a problem is a stretch. It amazes me how much the Lord has protected our church, despite our lack of experience, resources, and people. I’ll take problems like that any day – those are fun. For two separate reasons, it is also a stretch to say that we’ve found our solution. First, we only recently implemented these proposed changes. Over the next 5 months, we will observe the growth of our groups in number, in depth, and in outreaching effectiveness. Second, even if we conclude that we found a good solution for now, this will not be the last time we need to change things up. Organizations – churches included – “either change or die” (Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 133). The church must engage today’s world, and society’s need for agility and the ability to embrace change is increasing (Grill & Carver, 2008, p. 3). The Church must offer the world something they won’t find elsewhere. Obviously, we offer the message of Jesus, but we must also offer opportunities for the world to meet Him.
References:
Hartkamp, M., ter Hoeven, C., & Pieterson, W., (2008). Resolving resistance: the role of commitment to change in public organizations. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2008 Annual Meeting
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 133-141.
Grill, Kristine; Carver, Leilani. (2008).Organizational change as sensemaking, not resistance, in nbc’s the office. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 2008
But does this make change bad? I am of the belief that a changing organization is an alive organization. When changes take place for reasons that are not arbitrary, evidence exists that the organization in question is responding to its audience. And in such scenarios, change is good.
I’ve been a part of a church community for the past 5 ½ years called Epoch Church. We are a small community, so changing plans or adding ideas is not as hard as it may be for a congregation of 6,000+. Nonetheless, we are not exempt from the difficulties of change. I was recently asked by my pastors to take a leadership role regarding our small groups. We are big believers in small groups at Epoch – we feel this is where life is most lived out together. This is where the most growth, relationship building, and intercessory prayer takes place for us. And while we have been fortunate to have a growing small group ministry, we also recognized the need to re-vamp.
The “Problem”
We realized that in our 5 ½ year history, our small groups have always run the same way. We gather, discuss the sermon from Sunday, pray together, and visit. This is pretty basic, and most small groups around America (at least) probably follow a similar format. We’ve never had an uproar of disappointment over how these meetings take place, but as a team of church leaders, we wanted to direct our small groups to be more life giving. We wanted to find out how our time together could be more dynamic. How people could be more mentally and spiritually stimulated. How our small groups could make a greater impact on our church community and our downtown Little Rock community.
The Process
Immediately after being asked to spearhead our small groups, I met with each small group leader to hear their ideas. I spoke with other participants who weren’t necessarily leading a small group, but cared about the direction in which they were headed. The feedback received was much better than anything I could have come up with on my own. Some wanted small groups to focus more on evangelism. Others wanted to incorporate more education on missions. Several expressed the desire to do more service with their small groups as a way of teaching people that serving others is supposed to be a normal way to spend our time. And still some wanted to figure out ways specifically impact the SOMA district, the area of Little Rock where we are centrally located.
From these meetings, it was clear that our small groups could use some re-tooling. Great ideas came at us from great people. The next question was could we incorporate all of these ideas into our small groups – and if so, how? Something I was intent on doing was making sure our small group gathering didn’t become a burden on people’s schedule, so there was another wrench thrown into our planning. Organizational change, and specifically how to communicate it, is an interest of mine. It’s fascinating how easy it is to do this the wrong way. It’s way too early tell whether or not we did this the right way, below is the approach we used for restructuring our small groups and communicating these changes.
The “Solution”
The first change we made was to break-up our small groups in 10-week cycles, with 2 of those weeks technically being “off-weeks”. This fell into our idea of making the small groups more life-giving. We did not want a church full of overworked, busy people. We wanted to provide them with at least 1 night within those 10 weeks where they were free to enjoy time with a spouse, take out a hurting friend for coffee, get things done around the house, etc. The other “off week”, we will provide a corporate gathering for all small groups, such as a game night, community dinner, or other similar activities. The structure of “8 on, 2 off”, we hope, will give people both the ability to rest and to be actively involved in a life-giving small group.
The second change we implemented was the idea of having small group leaders incorporate 3 new elements somewhere within the 8 weeks of meeting together. These elements are: a night of internal service (serving each other), a night of external service (serving the SOMA district), and a focus on evangelism & missions. How each small group would implement these elements would be decided by them and their leader. Research suggests that people are more willing to adopt changes when they feel close to the policy-makers (Hartkamp, ter Hoeven, & Pieterson, 2008, p.14). We recognized that groups will feel closer to their leader than they will the small group pastor or church pastor. It made sense, then, to make groups their own “policy-makers” rather than construct a centralized policy for all to follow. With each group being made up of individuals with God-given passions, we felt the best way to cultivate growth and impact on our internal and external communities was by allowing each group more ownership in how they operated.
The final change was to focus our small group ministry on our church’s core values: community, authenticity, simplicity, spiritual formation, service, cooperation, diversity, and creativity. If these values are truly core to our church, they should be fleshed out in as many ways as possible. As a result, each small group leader will educate and remind his group with these core values when decisions are made within the group.
Final Thoughts
You’ll notice that 2 sections of this post have a word in quotations. To say that what were dealing with was a problem is a stretch. It amazes me how much the Lord has protected our church, despite our lack of experience, resources, and people. I’ll take problems like that any day – those are fun. For two separate reasons, it is also a stretch to say that we’ve found our solution. First, we only recently implemented these proposed changes. Over the next 5 months, we will observe the growth of our groups in number, in depth, and in outreaching effectiveness. Second, even if we conclude that we found a good solution for now, this will not be the last time we need to change things up. Organizations – churches included – “either change or die” (Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 133). The church must engage today’s world, and society’s need for agility and the ability to embrace change is increasing (Grill & Carver, 2008, p. 3). The Church must offer the world something they won’t find elsewhere. Obviously, we offer the message of Jesus, but we must also offer opportunities for the world to meet Him.
References:
Hartkamp, M., ter Hoeven, C., & Pieterson, W., (2008). Resolving resistance: the role of commitment to change in public organizations. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 2008 Annual Meeting
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 133-141.
Grill, Kristine; Carver, Leilani. (2008).Organizational change as sensemaking, not resistance, in nbc’s the office. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 2008
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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.
Friday, September 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)