OnMovements

At simplychurch.com, Felicity Dale made the following points about movements and their structural components:

What characterizes a movement?  

• It generates momentum, feeds passion, attracting and uniting people with like passions
• People start doing similar things because of their shared values
• Usually there is a quick change in a relatively short amount of time—the concept of the tipping point
• There is a change in public perception, law—even changing culture
• There are people who are change agents/catalysts (either one person or a group or an amalgam of different people at the grassroots)
• There needs to be a climate for change that either exists or is set by the catalysts
• A movement can last for a short or long time—often depending on how the movement was generated (e.g. Hitler and the Nazi movement was thankfully a short-lived movement)
• An appetite and energy for change often begins with younger people
• They are often a reaction to the status quo–hence persecution may follow

There are three structural components to a movement:

1. Decentralization–things don’t just happen with one leader or in one place   
2. Segmentation–things may look different in different places but they share similar values
3. Interconnection–those involved in the movement are able to connect together

Here’s a good book recommendation at Simplychurch.com.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

“The poverty I’m most concerned abt in Newark & our globe is a poverty of compassion, of action, and of moral imagination”-John Hodgeman

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Ran across Clay’s TED talk…. I’m anxious to get our teams together and discuss the implications for “movement building” where most of the processes are “viral and social”. To get ahead, we need to think thru technology and the role new media and the creation of “groups and conversations” — critical elements as we coordinate to build movements everywhere. Also, what’s thrilling to me is how media enables the creative energies of our individual God-given creative capacity.

“Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations” (Clay Shirky)

You might find Clay’s book helpful as well.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Movement Building | 0 Comments

I wonder:

In the building of movements, do we depend upon a combination of methods, knowledge, and skills

when what we need most is imagination?

Skye Jethani, in his book The Divine Commodity, suggests that the challenge facing Christianity is not a lack of resources or motivation, but “a failure of imagination.” We too often become slaves to the models and methods of the past. We want to obey Christ but lack his imagination. I’m looking for approaches and/or questions that might trigger a Christlike imagination. Here’s a few I’m trying:

1. Imagine a world in which God rules and reigns in every place. As you do so, take a look around the world and notice the things that will not be true in the new heavens and new earth. Then understand they don’t belong here either.
2. Imagine that God is constantly trying to give you new ideas. Actively seek out those ideas, listen closely, be present in each situation, write down those ideas. Now, implement a few of them–ignoring everybody but that quiet whisperer who leads you into all truth (John 16:13)

I found the following story about Maggie Doyne–I don’t know her or her spiritual story. What I find compelling though is her imagination? What if all of us had “Christ-ignited imagination”?

Fast Company article

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Building a movement always challenges the status quo. Leaders must act, they must willingly risk the things they love. Unfortunately, many leaders are frozen by the lethargy of indecision. They fail to move.

I’m convinced that this indecision in leaders–the failure to act–rests in their perception of the powers opposing them. In building spiritual movements, they fail because they make what I call The McClellan Mistake:

They overestimate the strength of the enemy and underestimate their own strength.

Early in the Civil War, after several discouraging defeats by Confederate forces, President Lincoln appointed General George McClellan to be senior commander of the Union Army of the Potomac. McClellan had won several small engagements in what is now West Virginia. McClellan, known as the Little Napoleon (the little describing his stature, the Napoleon describing his supposed military prowess but in reality describing the the size of his ego), wrote his wife after Lincoln’s appointment, “Finally, they have called upon me to save the Union.”

When General McClellan took command of Washington and the Army of the Potomac on 26th July, 1861, everyone had great expectations of him. He was a hero. Everyone expected great things from him. For a while it appeared they got them–he increased the defenses around Washington–not only making the capital safe, he made it “feel” safe.

His perceived success seems to have gone to his head. In another letter to his wife, he wrote “I seem to have become the power in the land” and “I could become dictator or anything else that might please me – but nothing of that kind would please me – therefore I won’t be Dictator. Admirable self denial!”

But McClellan’s mind was already being clouded by thoughts of the enemy opposing him. Again to his wife:[Confederate General] “Beauregard probably has 150,000 men – I cannot count more than 55,000. . .the enemy have 3 to 4 times my force.”

The reality was that Confederate Generals Johnston and Beauregard had to abandon plans for any offensive because they couldn’t muster 60,000 men between them. Having lost the initiative, McClellan settled in to continue to strengthen the Washington defenses.

Later in the Penisula Campaign, McClellan moved his army south to Fort Monroe. It was during this phase of the war that he constantly miscalculated not only the size of the Confederate army facing him, but also his own–constantly padding his estimates of the enemy to justify increases in his own. McClellan’s own estimates of the size of his own army varied from day to day, sometimes by as much as 17,000 men.

Allan Pinkerton (pictured to the right), at that time not much of a detective, supplied McClellan with estimates of the enemy’s strength. Pinkerton invariably padded the estimates of enemy strength and McClellan would pad it again. In Pinkerton’s estimates of Confederate troop strength submitted to McClellan, he exaggerated significantly. Often his estimates ran double the actual size of given Confederate forces. By routinely overstating the troop strengths reported by Pinkerton and his agents, McClellan allowed an inflation that worked to deter action by the Army of the Potomac, robbing it of a much-needed initiative.

Later, in September 1862, McClellan was back in Washington. That month, Confederate General Lee marched his army from Harper’s Ferry to Sharpsburg, knowing that that his Southern army was half the size of the Army of the Potomac, (40,000 men to 80,000). Besides, his men were tired, demoralized and looking like “scarecrows.” Enroute to Sharpsburg, a Confederate officer had also lost Lee’s entire battle movement plans which were found on 13th September and given to McClellan.

With all the odds on his side, McClellan should have won a tremendous victory on 17th September. McClellan had superior numbers, knew exactly where Lee would position his troops, but still produced a series of uncoordinated attacks that were very often late. McClellan inexplicably delayed a day before moving. The delay allowed Lee to obtain reinforcements and knowledge that his battle plans had become known by the enemy.

The subsequent Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest single day of fighting in the war and McClellan came out of it with only a draw, despite his vastly superior force. McClellan’s lack of coordination arose mostly from his estimate that that the Confederate army he faced was far larger than it really was. He thought that he was attacking at least 97,000 men, not the maximum of 40,000 that Lee had at his disposal.

And afterward, with Lee in a disadvantaged position, McClellan true to form did nothing. Once again he miscalculated the size of the remaining Confederate forces and decided he needed more reinforcements before he could do anything. Rather than a rigorous pursuit, McClellan stopped and waited for more men and supplies.

By now, people were becoming very impatient with McClellan. When he asked for more horses, Lincoln wrote to McClellan “Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?”

Halleck said that “There is an immobility here that exceeds all that any man can conceive of. It requires the lever of Archimedes to move this inert mass.”

Lincoln eventually tired of McClellan’s failure to act. Lincoln found that McClellan had what he called “a case of the slows” i.e. being too afraid of losing to risk winning. McClellan was said by many to be deluded into always thinking he was outnumbered, regardless of what his intelligence told him. He was also said to have believed Lincoln and the government were conspiring to see him defeated and that the only way to overcome their plot was to move cautiously and rely only on his own intuition.

Once, while visiting the Army to encourage McClellan to move against Robert E. Lee, Lincoln had to join McClellan for an official photograph. While waiting, Lincoln wrote his wife Mary. “Mary dear, we are waiting to be seated for a photo. McClellan does not have any trouble with being seated. He likes to sit.”

For his part, McClellan continued the letter war, “The good of my country requires me to submit to all this from men whom I know to be greatly my inferior socially, intellectually and morally! There never was a truer epithet applied to a certain individual than that of the “Gorilla”. In addition to calling Lincoln a Gorilla, he complained about his other superiors: In a letter to his wife he wrote that “I have insisted that [Sec. of War] Stanton shall be removed & that [Cmdr in Chief] Halleck shall give way to me as Comdr in Chief. I will not serve under him – for he is an incompetent fool.”

That McClellan was academically very bright, personally brave, and a good organizer isn’t in doubt. Neither is the fact that he was a good unit commander and popular with the men under his command. He equipped his men with the best rifles, blankets and tents. They marched well and proudly under his leadership. He wrote his wife lots of letters and the Union Army grew in its espirt de corps. But McClellan would never send them into the fight.

He often explained his sluggishness to doing anything definite as “I’m waiting for the right time.” In Germany, strategist Field Marshall Count Helmuth Carl Bernard Von Moltke the elder (1800 – 1891) told his students that “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” That truth was something that McClellan should have known and guarded against, but this was another of his failings as a General. Once he’d conceived of a strategy and it had to be scrapped, McClellan would seem totally paralyzed. Frightened of failure and the consequences, McClellan failed to act.

As historians review the behavior of McClellan, they concluded two things:

“McClellan always (1) overestimated the size of the enemy by a factor of two and (2) underestimated the size of his own strength by the same factor.”

Again McClellan did many things right–he trained his army well, he procured the best equipment, he improved morale. His men loved him and he loved them. But Lincoln eventually fired McClellan because McClellan was unwilling to risk the thing he loved.

Later, to his surprise, the men who loved him in 1862 failed to support his presidential bid against Lincoln in 1864. For even the common soldier knew at the time that whether he liked it or not, he was in the army to fight. Not to sit.

Movements depend upon our willingness to walk in faith and to take Kingdom size risks. Faith engenders hope which counteracts fear.   Despite the challenges we face, the Scriptures are clear— the forces with us are stronger than the forces opposing us. Jesus is becoming King in every place. Any movements we attempt to build will die from an unwillingness to risk. Of course, in the immediate fight, victory is never certain. But we’ll always fail to act if we make the McClellan Mistake of “overestimating the strength of the enemy and underestimating our own strength.”

So, when tempted to make The McClellan Mistake, remember these points:

1. The Scripture’s most oft repeated command is “do not fear.”
2. Fear of failure always makes you over-estimate the strength of the enemy and underestimate the strength of your forces.
3. The moral arc of the universe always leans toward justice.– Martin Luther King, Jr.
4. John the Apostle said, “Greater is he who is in you (and in your cause) than he who is in the world.”
5. What you can do, or dream you can do, begin it; boldness has genius, power and magic in it.- Johann von Goethe
6. Don’t blame others for your inaction.
7. Reality is your friend. If great detectives wont give you the truth, find it out for yourself.
8. Ego and self-esteem always intertwine with our ability to lead . . . there is always the tendency to put a spin on everything imaginable, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. We easily lose sight of what is really happening.-P. Senge

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Just read the following excellent article on leadership as “intentional influence.”

From his study of 1000 leaders in 50 global organizations, Joseph Grenny offered the following insights to help explain why so few leaders either grasp or exert influence well:

1. Leaders act as if it’s not their job to address entrenched habits.

Most leaders put a great deal of time into crafting strategy, selecting winning products, and engaging with analysts, shareholders, and major customers.

But few realize the success or failure of their grand schemes lies in influencing the behavior of the hundreds or thousands of people who will have to execute the big ideas—their employees.

The most influential leaders—the 5% who succeed consistently at influencing profound and essential behavior change—spend as much as half of their time thinking about and actively influencing the behaviors they know will lead to top performance.

The 95% who dither and fail tend to delegate what they dismiss as “change management” to others, most often leaders in human resources—who often lack the credibility to influence real change.

The average leader spends little, if any, of his or her time on active efforts to create behavior change. Consequently, nothing changes.

2. Leaders lack a theory of influence.

Very few leaders can even answer the question, “How do you change the behavior of a large group of people?” And yet, this is what they’re ultimately paid to do. It isn’t just about making a decision; it’s about getting people aligned to execute the decision. And this means influence.

Imagine discovering just as the anesthesia is taking effect that your heart surgeon—the one hovering over your chest with a scalpel—is working off a “gut hunch” about how to conduct a bypass.

Unless leaders become articulate about a repeatable and effective way of influencing profound, rapid, and sustainable behavior change—they’ll continue to rack up predictably high failure rates at leading change.

3. Leaders confuse talking with influencing.

Many leaders think influence consists of little more than talking people into doing things. It’s no wonder most influence efforts start with PowerPoint presentations. But profound, persistent, and overwhelming problems demand more than verbal persuasion. Anyone who’s ever tried to talk a smoker into quitting knows there’s a lot more to behavior change than words.

Leaders make the same mistake when they publish platitudes in the form of Mission and Values statements, give a few speeches on why these values are crucial, and then assume their job is done.

4. Leaders believe in silver bullets.

When leaders actually attempt to influence new behavior, it’s common for them to look for quick fixes—to fall into the trap of thinking that deeply ingrained bad habits can be changed with a single technique. The failure mode is to rely on any single approach.

Some host star-studded retreats. Others hand out inspiring posters and color-changing mugs and think people will line up for change. Still others believe it’s all about incentives, and so they tinker with the performance-management system or tie new behaviors to executive bonuses. The research shows that when leaders rely on just one simple source of influence to drive change, they almost always fail

What we’ve learned is that when you know what you’re doing, change can happen relatively quickly. And it all starts with gaining greater clarity about what leadership really means, then finding a way of thinking about the fundamental principles of influence.

Joseph Grenny is the co-author of three immediate New York Times bestsellers: Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations. He is cofounder of VitalSmarts, an innovator in corporate training and organizational performance, and a consultant to the Fortune 500. Learn more about the Influential Leader at www.vitalsmarts.com/influentialleader.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Rwanda (B-sides) -27,
originally uploaded by Jon Allen.

I’ve been in Rwanda for the past 10 days. Petite Prince (pictured here, named after Antoine De Saint – Exupery’s classic protagonist, The Little Prince) is one of Compassion’s 48,800 sponsored children in Rwanda. Compassion Int’l is making a difference around the world as they “release children from poverty in Jesus’ name” and lay the foundation for kingdom change in the countries where they work.

Movement Building | Comments Off

Will Mancini’s excellent book on missional team leadership argues that we must be cultural architects, consciously aware of our surrounding culture and purposely shaping the culture of our movement to create a preferred future.

He offers the following suggestions, which I’ve adapted to building spiritual movements of evangelism and discipleship.

Missional Team leaders do the following:

Scripture: Reveal God’s Signature

Leaders lead from the Scriptures. Look for particular passages that fuel your passion, enlarge your vision, inform the values of your movement, and distinguish your movement and its strengths. Master the exposition of these texts. Then use every opportunity to ooze the vision through the pages of Scripture (almost always “figurative” in its expression). As you do this, you’ll show the signature of God behind your vision-casting and point the movement back to the Original Visioneer.

Several years ago, I shared responsibility for the “Gateway” division of CCC’s Military Ministry. We were developing movements of evangelism, discipleship, leadership and service at the basic entry points or Gateways into the military services. I discovered several Biblical passages referring to the “gates” of ancient cities (Isa 28:5-6, Psm 127:5, Gen 24:60), all of which suggest that the gateways or entry points into walled cities were defended by the best warriors. To save a city, you sent the best warriors to the city gates to fight. Those scriptures provided a treasure of “God signatures” to encourage young enlisted men and women entering the service of their country as well as our staff who served them.

Folklore: Retell the Story

Develop a campus or movement folklore. Folklore is a special class of story–stories that speak so fundamentally and clearly to your campus (movement) vision that they have to be told, retold and told again As mission team leader, play the role of story collector and story teller. Religious people and programs are defined by preferences; movements and missional people are defined by stories. Thru your campus folklore, you can cultivate the missional imagination of your students, faculty and volunteers and thereby reorient them back to God’s vision.

For example, I still remember hearing Roger Hershey speak of spiritual movements at Miami of Ohio. He told story after story of where Miami of Ohio students were serving around the globe and cemented those stories by pulling out a “world map” out of his pocket with the names of those students written on the nations where they served the gospel.

Symbol: Mark Defining Moments

A symbol is a visible sign of something invisible. Roger Hershey’s map was a physical symbol of the impact of the movements there at Miami. When a leader expresses old familiar symbols and/or creates new ones, he or she begins to shape the culture of the movement. Every culture has essential metaphors that define and shape its ethos. Your symbols (reflections of those metaphors) can be containers of your special campus or movement folklore.

A powerful metaphor connected to these symbols and stories can cause an eruption of images, ideas, dreams, beliefs, and convictions all at one time. Erwin McManus, named his church, Mosaic, because it reflected its identity and vision. The metaphor of mosaic reflected (1) a vibrant expression of a multiethnic congregation, (2) emphasized a personal brokenness lived out in community, and (3) captured an awareness of a sovereign God who works as a master artist. Pretty cool!

Pull your team together and work on recognizing/defining symbols for your movement.

———

Start shaping your culture. You might want to read/study Mancini’s book…it’s full of suggestions on how missional leaders cast vision, capture culture and create movement.

Leadership of Movements, Marks of a Movement, Movement Building | 1 Comment

I love to glean leadership lessons from the blogosphere. The Exponential Network put together their own collection in this ebook. You’ll enjoy downloading it and reading.

leadership-learnings

Books, Movement Building | 0 Comments

William Wilberforce commented after his Great Change (his conversion to Christ) that up to this point in his life and career, ‘My own distinction was my darling object.’ God began to move in his heart and he accepted a larger commission. ‘God Almighty has laid before me two great objects,’ he wrote in his diary, ‘the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners,‘ which we might call the whole moral climate of the country.

I’ve been wondering if we’d be more likely to build spiritual movements “if our churches and para-churches moved beyond individual/personal transformational mission statements toward mission statements like Wilberforce’s that targeted city/community/country/world transformation.”

As a result of the seeker movement, churches and para-churches adopted mission/vision statements to help focus their impact. That process made sense–the church ought to focus its effort and energy. Willow Creek, a church I love and respect, adopted a keynote mission statement that caught fire and spread. That statement was “to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.” Other churches and para-churches copied and tweaked this statement or statements like it. The process was helpful–to a certain extent. It certainly helped us focus toward missional ends—we’re not a holy club, we’re to reach the irreligious, we’re to disciple new believers into fully transformed Christ-followers. A lot is captured by that statement…but what is missing?

When I compare such current statements to the commissions driving Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect, I find our statements to be mainly about individual/personal transformation. Now, I think we assume that such individual transformations will lead to better cities, communities, and countries. To better worlds. Yet, I wonder by focusing on individual/personal transformations we lose the power of a mission that goes beyond the individual to a God-sized cause–to a cause that’s rooted in “rescuing” the world.

As Paul Vander Klay argues:

The church is then no longer simply yet another corporation seeking to enlarge it’s religious market share, it is a community of servants who are joyfully and deeply committed to seeing the flourishing of community/city on planet earth at whatever the cost. We don’t seek the supremacy of our organization or party, but we seek the well-being even of the pagan enemies around us. It is the reverse of the Christian culture war. We want our unbelieving neighbors to praise a God they don’t know for the presence of Christians in their city rather than resenting and fearing them in the public square.

I’m wondering, for example, what difference it might make if our missional team leaders on campuses or military bases, in cities and communities, expressed their purpose in communal flourishing terms.

What if we thought like this:

Instead of asking “what manpower, resources, strategies, etc. are needed to reach Campus A (e.g. turning lost students and faculty into Christ-centered laborers) ,” we ask: what manpower, resources and strategies exist on Campus A to bring kingdom change (end of poverty, joblessness, illiteracy or any applicable issue) to within five to ten miles of our location? What if we (as Campus Crusade or other para-church ministry) took responsibility for mobilizing the Christ-followers on our Campus to lead that kingdom change? What if we helped the university to adopt a significant injustice in the world and helped lead students and faculty in the “suppression of that injustice.”

Just a thought.

Movement Building | 1 Comment

Dallas Willard has argued that Jesus was the most intelligent person who ever lived. In an article entitled “Who is Your Teacher,” Willard surmises:

Once you stop to think about it, how could he be what Christian’s take him to be in other respects and not be the best informed and most intelligent person of all: the smartest person who ever lived, bringing us the best information on the most important subjects.

What if we used the same logic about Jesus’ personality. Can we seriously imagine that Jesus could be Lord, if he were not captivating? If he were divine, would he be dull? Or boring?

I’m betting that Jesus was also the most interesting person who ever lived. Sadly, many of us who follow him are not that interesting–perhaps because we are so little like him or perhaps because we’ve allowed the enemy to make us boring.

I’m working on being more interesting–not that I would receive attention but that my attractiveness as a person might reflect the one I follow — the one “who was without a doubt the most interesting person who ever lived.” What if others said of us as Christ-followers: “those people are so captivating; they must have been with Jesus.”

How interesting are you? How interesting is your movement?

I recently ran across Scott Ginsberg’s 30 Ways to Become the Most Interesting Person You Know. I’m intrigued by his suggestions. I began to wondered what would happen if Christ-followers were not only “holy” but also “interesting.” What if it were more often said of a Christ-follower by the people he or she met — “wow, that was some righteous dude (or babe).” (Jay, you’re a dork!! See point 5a below.)

Here’s a smattering of Ginsberg’s suggestions with some of my reflections:

1. Avoid the Always/Notice the Never. Find out what people (Christians, CCC staff) who do what you do ALWAYS do, then do the opposite. Similarly, find out what people who do what you do NEVER do, then do the opposite. What are you currently doing that’s unpredictable?

Ask yourself, what is it that the secular world assumes about Christians–either falsely or by way of the current behavior of evangelicals? (see UnChristian for some suggestions.) What if we did the opposite?

What if, like Jesus, the “religiously boring” noticed that we broke taboos and “ate with and received tax collectors and sinners,” “touched the leper,” “healed the woman whose bleeding made her unclean,” and “chased the paid mourners away from Jarius’ daughter?”

2. Make the mundane memorable. Ginsberg asks: “What do your voicemail, email signature, business card, website and blog –your ministry methods – have in common? ANSWER: They’re all boring. Keep in mind: Nobody notices normal. Nobody buys boring. And nobody pays for average.”

What if we made our message “memorable”? What would set apart our methods and make them more captivating? It is a sin to bore people–especially since Jesus is the most attractive, compelling, beautiful, engaging person who ever lived.

3. Don’t be one-dimensional. Ginsberg writes that “he once had a boss whose sole interest, purpose and passion in life was sports. That’s it. The guy couldn’t carry conversation like a normal person unless the topic related to sports. Or, if the conversation was not about sports, he’d go out of his way to make sure it slowly became that way. He was most uninteresting, one-dimensional guy Ginsberg ever worked with.” He was one-dimensional.

To be interesting we must embrace an openness for activities and experiences outside of our scope of interests. If we don’t, we mar our ability to relate to others in a healthy way. We are Bor-ring. How many dimensions do you have?

As ministers of the greatest news ever announced, we need to embrace the fullness of the gospel’s impact. As Ronnie Stevens once said, “God did not give us to gospel to explain the world, he gave us world to explain the gospel.” In other words, everything declares his story; all creation speaks. Everything matters. We ought to expand the scope of our interests and set foot (and mind and heart) into the river of God’s wonders. Or dare to just dive right in.

4. Learn the principles of amazing storytelling. Stories are powerful. Stories are better than statistics or quotes. Stories are what readers and audiences remember and connect with most. Ultimately, stories are the best way to communicate a message. Think of how many stories Jesus told. Have you learned to tell stories? Why not?

5. Be childlike, but not childish. Ginsberg borrowed this one from the New Testament. Jesus affirmed over and over that we must receive the kingdom as a child. Certainly Jesus was addressing the notion of “simple trust” in the child, but I can’t help but wonder if Jesus was also intrigued with the power of play.

As Ginsberg writes: One person’s playful spirit brings out the same in another. So, by acting childlike, you subconsciously give other people PERMISSION to the same. It’s contagious. It’s approachable. It’s memorable. And everyone can relate to it.

How are you giving people permission to be playful around you?

5a. Unleash your inner dork. (Not sure I’m comfortable abt applying this directly to Jesus…but still?) I got this principle from an article by Jonathan Morrow, How to Be Interesting. Morrow suggests that “we stop trying to sound like an all-knowing teacher and unleash the “inner dork” inside of us — the part of us that’s so enamored with our topic that everyone else thinks it’s funny….but they pay attention anyway.” I have friends who are “dorkish” about food and hunting and Jesus. I can’t help but laugh inside, while wanting all the while to have more friends like them. (I may be a little dorkish about books and Gettysburg.)

6. Be more challenging. Ask questions like: Is that always the case? So what? What stops you? What would happen if you didn’t? What’s your proof?

Break people’s patterns.

Make them stop, think and say, “Wow…”

How challenging are you?

7. Be radically honest. It’s unexpected and unforgettable. We so often avoid reality in the name of niceness. Warren Bennis warns: “Conspiracies of silence are enormously damaging and all but universal.” We can learn to speak the truth in love. Speak the truth, in love and discover that Reality is your friend.

8. Become a Question Master. Ginsberg argues that “It’s not just about asking a bunch of questions; it’s about valuing a questioning attitude.” Since I read this, I’m following Ginsberg’s advice: every time I hear or read a question that makes me react in ANY way, I’m trying to write it down. I’ll probably post it to mycommonplace.com (assigning a new category of questions).

Why not begin your own question list? Keep adding to your running list of questions. Categorize them. Sort them alphabetically to make it easier on your eyes. Whatever you do–just collect them. Try them out.

How many questions do you have on your list?

9. Books. Speaking of books, Ginsberg suggests we make a list called, “Top Ten Most Interesting Books I’ve Read.” (I’m working on this one.) Next to each one, write three attributes, actions or states of being that make those books so interesting. When you’re done, look for patterns. Extract the key ideas and then ask yourself how you can practice that in your own life.

What did you read today?

10. Consciously choose how you experience the world. In his mind-blowing book, Playful Perception, Herbert Leff suggests, “Expand your repertoire of useful awareness plans and you will improve the flavor and value of your inner experiences. Increase the choice about the quality of your experience.”

Ginsberg put together a list of 43 awareness plans to make your daily life more interesting. I was at first overwhelmed by the list, but as I read closely I’m finding lots of ways to be more attentive to life. Here are some of his awareness plans:

• NOTICE things you normally wouldn’t. Because noticing is basic to all victory in creativity.
• PRETEND you always have a camera. Your perception of color, shadow and poignancy will heighten.
• BECOME unabashedly enthusiastic about your ideas, whatever they are. Because enthusiasm literally means, “to be filled with God.”

Read thru his list and make some mindful choices for experiencing the world.

11. Create Points of Dissonance. Vagueness stimulates curiosity. And curiosity is a natural motivator of human engagement. So, there’s a certain dissonance when people observe an unexpected or unexplained behavior. Especially when it’s inconsistent with their environment. (Like seeing some guy wearing a nametag at the gym, for example.)

The challenge is to craft an idea, a message, or a look that when people are first exposed to it, they can’t help but respond with, “Huh?” or “Ok, so, I just HAVE to ask…” Those words are money in the bank. Remember: The most effective way to attract people’s attention is to B-R-E-A-K their patterns. Copyblogger has a killer post about being interesting as it relates to this topic.

What patterns are YOU breaking?

12. Explore the word “interesting.” It literally means: Engaging or exciting and holding the attention or curiosity. Arousing a feeling of interest. A state of curiosity or concern about or attention to something. Involvement with or participation in something. An excess or bonus beyond what is expected or due. Something, such as a quality, subject, or activity that evokes this mental state.

OK, so, now that you know that, go do that. Go BE that.

On a scale from 1-10, how interesting would you say you are? How interesting would others say you are?

13. Read the rest of Ginsberg’s list. Discuss it with your disciples. If Jesus was truly the most interesting person who ever lived and if it’s true that disciples become like their teachers, then it makes sense that we would become increasingly more interesting people as we follow Jesus.

Here’s an exercise: take the list to a staff meeting and ask:

• how interesting are we as individuals and as a team?
• How interesting is our movement?
• How can we make it more interesting using this list?

(One caution from C.S. Lewis. This exercise is not intended to be used to evaluate others on their “degree of interesting”. It’s for self-evaluation. Lewis cautions us with this truth:

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would strongly be tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal.–The Weight of Glory by C.S. Lewis)

Movement Building | 4 Comments

Ran across the post by Jonathan Brink, loved it.

But I would suggest that leadership is actually very simple. Jesus modeled leadership with one simple word: love. Love is the definition of leadership for many different reasons. It is the fullest expression of our design as human beings made in the image of God. There is no single expression that is greater. Love speaks to the dignity of the other person, letting them know that they are worth what ever cost to restore the person. Love is not interested in hierarchy or org charts because a role is a responsibility of action, not a validation to be attained up a ladder or with a title. In fact love would place oneself at the bottom of the ladder, elevating those around her as valuable. Love would search out meaningful opportunities to restore people because they are God’s creation. Love knows the mission, which is the restoration of all creation. It is bent towards real change, listening to and speaking for those who have lost their voice. Love sees the image of God in everyone, including the neighbor that rubs us the wrong way or the enemy at work. Love constantly urges us, prods us, and calls us into maturity, which is the capacity to think outside of the self. It invites us to become the fullest expression of our own humanity. Love is not interested in force, but it is powerful. In fact love is more powerful than force because it always includes the human heart.

Jesus said, “Come, follow me.” He was calling us into an action. And that action was love. He was calling us into leadership by choosing followership, which was the hidden path to true leadership. Followership is essentially the process of aligning our hearts to the way the universe already works, to His mission. And in doing so we become part of the solution.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Take some time to read and reflect on Tim Keller’s article on the relationship between “The Proclamation of the Gospel and the Poor.” It was presented recently at the Gospel Coalition Conference and is published in the themelios journal. I’ve argued before that all spiritual movements have a component of “ministry to the poor.” As we build movements everywhere, many of us are wrestling with the challenge of “compassionate” ministries and our strong ministry DNA of bold proclamation as well as of leadership focus and development. Keller’s thotful article contributes solid biblical and historical fodder for our discussion.

Tim Keller on the Poor.pdf

Movement Building | 0 Comments

In a previous post, I summarized part of Richard Bauckham’s argument that:

“God is always moving from the particular to the universal, his is a storied narrative of action with three aspects: the temporal, the spatial and the social. In other words, God is constantly moving toward an ever-new future, toward an ever-new horizon and always toward an ever-new people.”

Bauckham goes on to argue that there is another narrative movement that should characterizes all of these three other aspects, as well as the mission of the church.

This is a movement to all by way of the least.

He writes:

God singled out the poor and the powerless, choosing to begin his work with them, not because God’s love does not extend to the cultural and social elite, but actually for the sake of the wealthy and the powerful as well as for the poor and the humble. God’s love has to reach the strong via the weak, because the strong can receive the love of God only by abandoning their pretensions to status above others. Only when they see in God’s choice of those without status that status counts for nothing in God’s sight can they abandon the arrogance and the vested interests that prevent their right relationship with God and with others.

Bauckham argues, using Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians, that God’s shaming of the wise and the strong in the preaching of the gospel is a “redemptive contradiction of their values.” By the exaltation of the crucified Christ—the foolishness of the cross—, God defined his own kingdom.

Bauckham concludes with this rather challenging statement for those of us helping to “build movements everywhere.”

So God’s way to his universal kingdom is through a movement of identification with the least.

What are the implications? According to Bauckham, there are several:

Spiritual movements cannot be indifferent to the inequalities and injustices of the world into which we are sent.

The gospel comes to each person in the realities and differences of their social and economic situations.

The gospel engages with the injustices of the world on its way to the kingdom of God.

As we build movements in geographical extension and in numerical increase, there must also be (in the Bible’s imagery) this downward movement of solidarity with the people at the bottom of the social scale of importance and wealth.

And lastly:

We must acknowledge that God has given priority in the kingdom to the poorest, to those with no power or influence, to the wretched, and to the neglected, because he loves them and because he loves all the rest of us who can enter the kingdom only alongside them.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”–Samuel Adams

Leadership of Movements, Movement Building | 0 Comments

Richard Bauckham in Bible and Mission argues that the biblical narrative always embodies a kind of movement from the particular to the universal—that God, God’s people and God’s world are related to each other primarily in a narrative that mediates constantly the particular and the universal. (pg 13)

Now, why is this important?

Well, it’s critical to see our movements in light of this constant dialectic between the particular and universal aspect of God’s overarching story. God is always moving from the particular to the universal—a movement that according to Bauckham has three aspects: the temporal, the spatial and the social.

In the first aspect, God’s story is always moving from the past toward the ever-new future. While our identity as the people of God is rooted in the past, the long journey from Abraham to Jesus and then to the community of Christ-followers, we are always being turned by the biblical narrative toward the coming of God’s kingdom in the future. We—and our movements—are oriented temporally toward God’s future. The story arc runs from Genesis 12 to Revelation 22—all history is moving to the future coming of Jesus and his final in-breaking of the kingdom into all creation. Our movements reflect this biblical movement across time.

In the second aspect, the biblical narrative runs spatially or geographically from one place to every place. Spiritual movements follow this biblical direction toward ever-new horizons. As Steve Douglass reminded the staff of CCC, “we build movements everywhere, until everyone knows….”

The coming kingdom will ultimately cover the whole earth, “as the waters cover the sea.” When we build movements, we must keep this “world-wide focus” before us. When we restrict, even for tactical purposes, the scope of our movement to less than every place, we disconnect it from God’s story and rob it of its compelling call.

I find the NT captured by all creation. As Ephesians 1 says, God is summing up all things—all things in heaven and earth, in Christ. Our movements are then in some ways not just global, but indeed cosmic. They have a universal horizon to them and we do well to cast the vision for our movements in terms of this geography movement from our particular location to the universal rule and reign of God over “every inch.”

In the social aspect, Bauckham argues that the biblical narrative is a movement of people, a movement from person to person, from people to people. The social or numerical movement of the biblical narrative is from the one to the many, from Abraham to the nations, from Jesus to every creature in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Our movements reflect this expansive social movement in which people come together to reach ever-new people.

The NT expresses so forcefully God’s “boundary-crossing” recklessness—from Jew to Greek, to barbarians and Scythian, from to male to female, master to slave. Whenever a boundary arises, the NT writers call it out and work to overcome it. Our movements again must be rooted in a loving community constantly striving to extend itself to its neighbors, crossing whatever boundaries it must.

As we embrace God’s larger story, our particular movements are thus framed by the biblical progression “temporally, spatially, and socially” from the particular toward the universal. Along this line, Greg Ganssle of the Rivendell Institue argues that all movements are multi-dimensional….that they extend both globally and locally and along time (see draft article below). As movements are built, the gospel goes in all directions – to the next place enroute to the world, in a deeper way locally bringing culture change to a local campus or community, and then historically in impact to the future.

We should keep thinking of our movements in terms of this God’s larger story. We keep the definitional bar high when we see movements in light of God’s storied movement from the particular to the universal—to an ever-new future, to an ever-new horizon and always to an ever-new people.

ganssle-on-four-dimensions

Movement Building | 0 Comments

I’ve been researching “social movements” of late and discovered the following definition of movements:

“a collective action that leads to political, social or cultural change.”

Most of what I’ve written about movements in this blog has been about “collective action” and how movements expand thru the unified action of people (organized as decentralized cells, lead by leaders who empower others, etc.) to bring about change. I haven’t wrestle much with the concept of change, other than arguing here and there that all movements should ultimately lead to cultural change.  Certainly our organizationally based definitions of movements should be supplemented with sociological considerations.

As part of an organization whose initial rallying cry was “come help change the world,” I’ve been thinking more and more about what “change” means. I wonder sometimes if collective efforts to build spiritual movements have actually lead to real change in the world.

For example, I’ve been reading lately about the East African Revival (1930s) and how faithfully missionaries “collectively acted” to bring the gospel message to Rwanda and then into Uganda and Kenya. Unfortunately, an evil level of tribalism and racism prevailed behind a veneer of Christianity. As a result, what we would have naturally celebrated in our “organizationally defined understanding of movements” didn’t lead to an enduring “political, social or cultural change” in these countries. Instead, we see the opposite. Millions of “Christians” lost their lives to a murdering genocide of other “Christians,” to AIDs and malaria, to famine, injustice, illiteracy, etc.

On the other hand the Wesleyan Movement coupled with the Anti-Slavery Movement led by Wilberforce and friends (1730s-1830s) brought the world around a corner. Looking back from their struggle, one couldn’t even imagine the ways the world was before.  The slave trade was abolished, social laws were enacted, injustices righted, violent revolution eschewed, and “goodness became fashionable in England again.” Was this “political, social, economic and cultural change” perfect? No. Was it better? Without a doubt. Did society actually change? Yes.

I’m wondering if our thinking about movements might be advanced if we gave more consideration to the concept of change.

Some sociologists actually defined social movements by the scope and type of change--leading to such major distinctions as:

revolutionary or radical movements--leading to radical, usually political, change for everyone; these changes are primary targeted at changing leadership and/or value systems with fundamental implications for everyone. An example is the American Civil Rights Movement.

reform movements–leading to radical change for specific individuals or groups or limited changes for everyone; these movements are dedicated to changing some norms, often legal ones. Some examples are the “green movement” or the anti-abortion movement.

Up to this point in my thinking, I’ve sometimes wondered whether the literature describing social movements had direct applicability to “building spiritual movements.” Right now I’m convinced that the research into all types of “collective action leading to political, social or cultural change” applies directly to spiritual movements. The principles of “collective action” seemed certainly applicable. I have, however, wondered whether our notion of “change” could be understood in terms equivalent or similar to “revolutionary change or reformational change.” I’m increasingly convinced it can be and should be so understood.

Let’s take, for example, the twin Biblical realities that God is bringing in both a King and a Kingdom. God intends that “the kingdom of the world would become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ and that he shall reign forever and ever (Rev. 11:15).” God is reconciling all things in heaven and on earth in His Christ (His Anointed One) and is summing up all things in him. And when that King initially came, he announced that with his coming there was the launching of a new Kingdom–a “political, social, economic and cultural” kingdom to rival all other kingdoms of this world. Proclaiming the gospel, Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15).”

As Eugene Peterson writes:

The “political” metaphor, “Kingdom,” insists on a gospel that includes everything and everyone under the rule of God. God is no religious glow to warm a dark night. Christ is no esoteric truth with which to form a Gnostic elite. The Christian faith is an out-in-the-open, strenuous, legislating, conquering totality. God is sovereign: nothing and no one is exempt from his rule.

As we share and live out the message of King and Kingdom, the Scriptures expect that there will be change.

The allegiance to a King brings political change–a revolutionary expectation that everyone will bend the knee and call Jesus Lord. In the gospel, we are calling for political, revolutionary, and radical change beginning with individuals but ultimately applicable to everybody.

At the same time, as we choose Him as King (instead of all types of other Caesars), we seek to bring in His Kingdom and His righteousness to bear. In other words, we will work for “social, economic, and cultural” change–a reform expectation that brings specific Kingdom changes to all society.

Now, simple allegiance to the King never results in change. Americans recently elected Barak Obama as president on a platform of Change. An election doesn’t mean a thing, of course, unless President Obama and his team can bring the changes they’ve promised. Our commitment to Jesus as personal Lord and Savior means little either unless we can help bring the Kingdom change he promised and commanded us to seek.

A better understanding of movements demands, I believe, this sense of revolutionary and reformational change. We can’t assume a “trickle-down” understanding of change where our evangelical efforts at building spiritual movements (church planting movements, etc.) lead to new adherents who by nature of belonging bring change. In other words, changing a person’s loyalty will not naturally bring change the world. We’ll never change the world believing that just reforming enough hearts will reform the world. The King wants a Kingdom. We can’t just call him “Lord, Lord” and not do what he says.

Now, we mustn’t assume “political, social, economic and cultural change” implies triumphalist methods. When we conceive of “building spiritual movements everywhere” that bring real “political, economic, social and cultural” change, we can’t take a path different than our King took. He must guide us. We seek a Kingdom in which we bring such real changes, but not thru the worldly political machinations of other revolutionary and reform movements.

We build movements thru a path of service and sacrifice and a cross.

Books, Case Study: El Salvador, Leadership of Movements, Marks of a Movement, Movement Building, Movements in History, Podcast | 1 Comment

Eric Swanson sent me a link to the editorial below by Cal Thomas. Cal hit on one of the secrets of spiritual movements–movements that bring real change. That secret is, of course, Jesus—and the kind of kingdom movements modeled after him.
What would be the implications if we “reJesus” our movement-building strategies as Cal suggests below?
(By the way chk out Frost and Hirsch’s new book:ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church. Can’t put it down.)

Jewish World Review Nov. 6, 2008 / 8 Mar-Cheshvan 5769

Religious Right, R.I.P.

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed.

The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question:

Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards?

Of course they do not.

Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others.

What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

God teaches in His Word that His power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice.

How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom“?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics. (bold and italics above are mine–jay)

– Cal Thomas

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Reacting is based on instinct and intuition.

Responding requires thoughtfulness.

Initiating comes from imagination.

An atmosphere where people initiate can only come from a place where dreaming is encouraged. Leaders imagine a world that they would like to be a part of, a world worth fighting for. With this vision and all the emotion that gets stirred up in the heart, the leader begins to initiate. They see the issue or challenge that not everyone else sees and lead people to do something about it that was not done before.

Passion sparks initiative, a tremendous focus, belief, desire, and drive. – Seth Godin

Movement Building | 1 Comment

I recently found the series of posts by Steve Pratt on the Leadership Lessons of Web 2.0. I wanted to include his main points while making connections to our task of building and leading spiritual movements. Take some time however to peruse Steve’s blog. Steve’s thinking, not only on leadership, but also on the role of emerging “media” will help us be better at our task.

Lesson #1: Give Up Control – The Power of One Vs. Many

Network Theory (illustrated so well by the web/internet) argues for the wisdom of the crowd. The web (Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, Open Source software, etc.) reflects an architecture of participation increasing known as crowdsourcing—the sharing and co-operation of ideas and innovation and leadership enacted on a global scale and in the hands of individuals. Pratt argues that the web discovered the massive power, knowledge, and efficiency that results from letting go of control and trusting the community to help solve problems and come up with better ideas.  

As A Leader: The wisdom of the crowd is almost always greater than the wisdom of the leader, too.

Many leaders’ natural instincts tend towards control – they’ve likely reached ‘leader’ status because they have experience, they’re smart, and they’re good at solving problems and producing results. So it’s often very tough for a leader to actively give up control over an idea, a project, or a problem and place that responsibility entirely with his or her team. (Pratt)

When leaders give up control and trust the wisdom of teams, they move from being a manager (someone who solves a problem—or supports pre-decided solutions to problems—and then forces other to execute those solutions) to being a leader (someone who helps a team work more effectively by releasing the reins, by developing cooperation and trust, and by kindling the team’s inherent passion.)

Lesson #2: Engagement

Network Theory. At the heart of network theory is interactivity; it’s all about dialogue, a conversation, and exchange. At its heart, a network is about engagement, connection. Links. Hubs. Webs. When networks are functioning, a community is truly engaged—creating astonishing value and fueling more and more participation.

As A Leader: Much like a web community, a successful team in an organization is an engaged team. Taking lessons from Web 2.0, Pratt suggests the following methods to increase engagement on your team.

   * Make meetings two-way conversations.

   * Don’t make decisions in a silo – solicit input from the team.

   * One of the best pieces of advice on starting conversations on a blog is to ask questions of your audience – this is also the best way to begin to engage your team.

   * Seek information, don’t tell them the solution.

A leader cannot give a team a one-way step-by-step instruction manual and expect buy-in and passion. However, if a leader creates an environment where new ideas are welcomed, new ideas are implemented, and successes are championed, teams feel valued and more confident in using their knowledge and expertise. Give them autonomy and empowerment, and the sky is the limit to the value they will create.(Pratt)

A team is engaged when they show up early and stay late; when they constantly suggest new ideas; when they all feel a sense of ownership; when they feel valued.

Leadership Lesson #3: Be A Valuable Community Member

Network Theory: Steve Pratt uses the following scenario to describe the “community” nature of networks. (Since I’m a terrible at making comments and answering comments at blogs, I’m learning something here.)

Take the example of two different types of bloggers. Jim has a great looking blog with very compelling content. Sandra has a basic template blog with relatively average content. BUT, Sandra has a healthy stream of visitors to her blog every day, while Jim is quickly fading into obscurity.

Why does the mediocre blog win the race? Because Sandra participates in online communities that are related to the subject matter of her blog. She comments on other blogs, participates in forum discussions, and generously helps other bloggers where she can. As a result, Sandra is seen as a valuable community member. Other community members have gotten to know her and, as such, visit her site regularly.

On the flip side, Jim knows he’s got a great blog, but can’t be bothered with stooping to comment on other, inferior blogs. He knows everything about his subject matter and adamantly believes that once people ‘find’ his blog, the crowds will come pouring in.

Unfortunately for Jim, they won’t.

As A Leader: You can’t just hire people and let them loose. And you can’t force people to listen to you just because you’re the boss. Leaders can’t assume they are the ‘hub’ of the community. Leaders have to earn loyalty.

Pratt suggests the following ways to be valued community members as a leader:

   * So be generous.

   * Help out your team members when they need it.

   * Get to know them.

   * Support them when they’re having troubles and champion them when they succeed.

   * Teach them.

   * Coach them.

   * Support them.

   * Take an interest in their interests.

Leadership Lesson # 4: Permission to Fail

Network Theory: In networks, communities learn from their mistakes and get stronger, faster, and better over time. Networks police themselves. For example, on Wikipedia as an example, not every entry is 100% factually correct, but the community’s passionate, engaged users have learned how to correct most of the mistakes themselves. As a result, Wikipedia has assumed a increasingly trusted position, while Encyclopedias have become outdated.

As A Leader: Pratt writes:

In order to build trust and full engagement with your team, you need to be okay with failure, too. If a team tries something that’s different than the way YOU would have done it and it doesn’t work, you can’t panic and madly reach for the reins again so you can re-assert control. Just as you trusted the team with the initial idea and execution, you need to trust that the team will learn from its mistakes and get stronger and better from each failure.

Naturally, as a leader, you’ll need to develop ways to let people ‘flag as inappropriate’ situations. Some of these you’ll have to solve. Others you can allow the team to solve. As a team learns to solve its own problems, it gets stronger, faster, and better.

Leadership of Movements | 1 Comment

Those who would transform a nation or the world cannot do so by breeding and captaining discontent or by demonstrating the reasonableness and desirability of the intended changes or by coercing people into a new way of life. They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope. It matters not whether it be hope of a heavenly kingdom, of heaven on earth, of plunder and untold riches, of fabulous achievement or world dominion. If the Communists win Europe and a large part of the world, it will not be because they know how to stir up discontent or how to infect people with hatred, but because they know how to preach hope. — Eric Hoffer in The True Believer (p. 9)

Are we kindling and fanning an extravagant hope? We can’t build movements unless we preach hope.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Malcolm Gladwell tells us in Outliers that when it comes to success, context is everything. Only by asking where a person comes from can we understand who succeeds and who doesn’t. Geoff Colvin would agree but there’s more.

In Talent is Overrated, Colvin rightly asserts that “great performance is in our hands far more than most of us ever suspected.”

When many people never become outstandingly good at what they do, no matter how many years they spend doing it, why do some people become excellent at what they do?

Colvin convincingly argues that in general, it’s not innate gifts or intelligence, but what researchers call deliberate practice that creates world-class performers.

A study by Anders Ericsson and his associates concluded that “the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.”

Deliberate practice is not your normal practice.

It contains several important elements:

• it’s designed specifically to improve performance (usually with a teacher or coach),
• it can be repeated ad nauseam,
• feedback on results are continuously available,
• it’s highly demanding mentally (focus and concentration),
• and it isn’t much fun.

Add passion and the good news is that great performance is not reserved for a preordained few.

It is available to everyone.

If such deliberate practice produces great performance, how does this apply to leadership development—specifically to developing movement leaders? Is this how leaders are developed?

Colvin writes that organizations that apply the principles of great performance follow several major rules:

   1. Understand that each person in the organization is not just doing a job, but is also being stretched and grown. The best organizations assign people to jobs to push them just beyond their current capabilities and build the skills that are most important. Organizations tend to assign people based on what they’re already good at, not what they need to work on.

   2. Find ways to develop leaders within their jobs. One technique: short-term work assignments in which leaders take on an additional assignment outside their field of expertise.

   3. Encourage their leaders to be active in their communities. Community leadership roles are opportunities for employees to practice skills that will be valuable at work.

   4. Understand the critical roles of teachers and of feedback. At most organizations, nobody is in the role of teacher or coach. Employees aren’t told which skills will be most helpful to them and certainly aren’t told how to best develop them.

   5. Identify promising performers early. A telling indicator is how interns get others to work with them when they have absolutely no authority.

6. Understand that people development works best through inspiration not authority.

   7. Invest significant time, money, and energy in developing people. You don’t develop people on the cheap, and you don’t just bolt a development program onto existing HR procedures.

   8. Make leadership development part of the culture. Developing leaders isn’t a program, it’s a way of living.

(a great summary by the author here)

Movement Building | 0 Comments

Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Exploring the Five Marks of Global Mission, edited by Andrew Wall and Cathy Ross, argues for the following five marks of mission. While I believe the “gospel of the kingdom” embraces all of these, I like the way the authors broke them out. I’ve ordered the book and am anxious to read the essays, but for now, I’ll post the following poster.

Movement Building | 0 Comments

In a lot of ways, churches (and ministries/movements, etc.–mine) operate like the marketplace; we keep our ideas and strategies and talent and experience (good and bad) to ourselves. It mostly makes sense in the marketplace, where that kind of proprietary, scarcity mentality is often the edge on the competition. But in the church (or in movement building–mine), it’s not Kingdom, it’s not wise, and it’s not effective.

– A Comment by Joshua Blankenship on this post by Tony Morgan

Movement Building | 1 Comment

As one commentator said, Seth Godin’s new book, Tribes, is an enthusiastic endorsement of standing up and taking the initiative.

Godin believes that what most often keeps someone from becoming a leader is the fear of failure. As we fear failure, we end up being managers and not leaders. Leaders always challenge the status quo. Godin makes this point over and over: leaders must be heretics.

Godin describes most people within organisations as “sheepwalkers,” those who “have been raised to be obedient” and those that are comfortable “with brain-dead jobs and enough fear to keep in line.”

Heretics are the opposite of this.

Heretics don’t let rules or religion stand in the way of what they want to accomplish; they “create movements by empowering the tribe to communicate.”

Now, it’s hard to escape the religious metaphors in the book. References to “heretics” and “fundamentalists” echo throughout. In centuries passed, heretics were burned for their religious views. However, in Godin’s 21st Century world, heretics may just be the ones that save us from an unremarkable world.

Godin’s use of heretic has little to do with doctrinal orthodoxy; he uses the term to describe those who challenge “organizational orthodoxy”—those who challenge the status quo. As he writes:

Challenging the status quo requires a committment, both public and private. It involves reaching out to others and putting your ideas on the line. (Or pinning your Ninety-five Theses to the church door).

Religion and faith are often confused. Someone who opposes faith is called an atheist and widely reviled. But we don’t have a common word for someone who opposes a particular religion.

Heretic will have to do.

If faith is the foundation of a belief system, then religion is the facade and the landscaping. It’s easy to get caught up in the foibles of a corporate culture and the systems that have been built over time, but they have nothing at all to do with the faith that built the system in the first place.

Change is made by people, by leaders who are proud to be called heretics because their faith is never in question.

Heretics are engaged, passionate, and more powerful and happier than everyone else. And they have a tribe that they support (and that supports them in turn).

Godin sees 7 traits of a heretical tribal leader:

1. They challenge – they challenge their tribe! Heretics must believe. More than anyone else in an organization, it’s the person who’s challenging the status quo, the one who is daring to be great, who is truly present and not just punching a clock who must have confidence in her beliefs.

2. They create culture – they intentionally create it. As Andy Crouch says in his recent book, Culture Making: “the only way that cultures change is when people make more culture”.

3. They are always curious – they’re always probing…

4. They have charisma – some inherently have it, but most get it because of the passion of their leadership. (D.A. Carson recently commented, “people don’t learn what I teach them, they learn what I’m excited about.”

5. They communicate – they talk with those they lead, not “to” or “at” those they lead.

6. They connect – they make it easy for followers to connect with them and with others. They establish the foundation for people to make connections, as opposed to commanding people to follow.” Powerful leaders connect members of a tribe by a common interest (e.g. by sharing a passionate goal), and a determination to create things that did not exist before.

7. They commit – they commit to the wellness of the tribe.

Godin’s use of the “tribes” is helpful as well for those of us trying to build movements everywhere. A tribe is any group of people, large or small, who are connected to one another, a leader, and an idea. They are about faith – about believing in an idea and in their community. Movement leaders are tribal leaders.

What’s really powerful about tribes is the people. People are in a tribe because they all believe strongly in the same cause or movement. Everybody wants to belong, to be in a tribe–even multiple tribes. People communicate to each other in their tribe, they want to connect. And as Godin maintains, the internet/web/social media make this communication and connection easy. Everyone can lead a tribe.

The question isn’t, Is it possible for me to do that? Now, the question is, Will I choose to do it?

Books, Leadership of Movements, Marks of a Movement | 2 Comments

Dr. Philip Zimbardo ran the (in)famous Stanford Prison Experiment, so he knows how circumstances can make good people do bad things. His article attached below is different—it’s concerned with how ordinary people can do heroic things.

Zimbardo writes that the “core of heroism” revolves around the individual’s commitment to a noble purpose and the willingness to accept the consequences of fighting for that purpose.

According to Zimbardo, heroism is made up of four independent dimensions listed below. I’ve included by each dimension an movement leaders who illustrates heroic leadership in challenging the status quo and helping lead cultural change.

1. Heroism involves some type of quest (M.L. King leading the Civil Rights Movement).

2. Heroism must have some form of actual or anticipated sacrifice or risk—either physical peril or profound social sacrifice (Wilberforce’s sacrifice of position in William Pitt’s cabinet).

3. The heroic act can be either passive or active. A hero may perform some valiant activity or involve passive resistance or an unwillingness to be moved (Ghandi’s resistance in India).

4. Heroism can be a sudden, one time act, or something that persists over a longer period of time (the Clapham Sect’s struggle against the slave trade).

The short explanation of what it takes to be a hero is the presence of “heroic imagination” which the authors describe as “the capacity to imagine facing physically or socially risky situations, to struggle with the hypothetical problems these situations generate, and to consider one’s actions and the consequences.”

Nurturing a heroic imagination takes five actions–five actions that define leaders who challenge the ’status quo’:

1. Maintain constant vigilance for situations that require heroic action–heroes remain mindful, carefully and critically evaluating each situation they encounter to see what needs to be done.

2. Learn not to fear interpersonal conflict and develop the personal hardiness necessary to stand firm for principles we cherish.

3. Imagine alternative future scenarios beyond the present moment. Heroes have an extended time-horizon, not just the present moment.

4. Resist the urge to rationalize and justify inaction.

5. Trust that people will appreciate heroic (and frequently unpopular) actions. If the course is just, they trust that others will eventually recognize the value of heroic action.

Dr. Zimbardo and Franco are concerned with “heroic” actions in society, but a “heroic imagination” is clearly the hallmark of movement leaders too. I urge you to read the entire article.

heroism.pdf

Leadership of Movements | 0 Comments

George Whitefield was Methodism’s first and most popular spokesman. Ben Franklin, one of Whitefield’s admirers, devised an experiment during one of Whitefield’s American visits to show that Whitefield could easily address 30,000 people standing in an open space. He said of Whitefield:

Every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of voice was so perfectly well-tuned and well-placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse; a pleasure of much the same kind with that received from an excellent piece of musick.

Why is it then that the movement that he helped co-lead with John Wesley is known as the Wesleyan Revival and not the Whitefield Revival?

Adam Clark, an early historian of Methodism, suggests the reason–a reason that is crucial to the understanding of spiritual movements.

It was by this means—the formation of small groups—that we have been enabled to establish permanent and holy churches over the world. Mr. Wesley saw the necessity of this from the beginning. Mr. Whitefield, when he separated from Mr. Wesley, did not follow it.

What was the consequence?

The fruit of Mr. Whitefield died with himself. Mr. Wesley’s fruit remains, grows, increases, and multiplies exceedingly.

Did Mr. Whitefield see his error? He did, but not till it was too late. His people, long unused to it, would not come under this discipline.

Clark then relates the following story.

Whitefield met an old friend, Mr John Pool and accosted him in the following manner:

“Well, John, art thou still a Wesleyan?”

Pool replied, “Yes, sir, and I thank God that I have the privilege of being in connection with him, and one of his preachers.”

“John,” said Whitefield, “thou art in the right place. My brother Wesley acted wisely—the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.”

By “joined in class,” Whitefield was referring to the “hierarchy of interlocking groups (societies, class meetings, bands)” that Welsey developed to “mobilize and train and disciple” the converts of his preaching. These “meetings” were the instrument by which preaching and doctrine were harnessed into spiritual renewal. It carried the revolution.

Take some time to study the following history of Wesley’s model. We can’t build movements unless we have “meetings” where disciples are transformed and leaders are multiplied.

“A Model for Making Disciples: John Wesley’s Class Meeting” (D. Michael Henderson)

Books, Case Study: El Salvador, Leadership of Movements, Marks of a Movement, Movement Building, Movements in History, Podcast | 1 Comment

Charity:Water reflects the power of social entrepreneurship and the kinds of causes that are capturing the imagination of this generation. Evangelicals would do well to join this generations’ call for real social change — a call originating in God’s heart for the world and Scripture’s constant trumpeting for justice.

My daughter just launched the following campaign on her blog. I’ve included her post here because she says it better than I ever could.

We’re digging for water.

The lack of access to clean water is the leading cause of death in underdeveloped countries.

Try to imagine walking on a three hour journey…twice a day…to collect a liquid which shares “two diabolical identities–life mixed with death. It is both cure and poison.”(Dan Haseltine)

Inside the containers of millions of people around the world is a mixture of “water, dirt, algae, cow and goat feces, bacteria, mosquito larvae and other insect eggs and parasites and various waterborne diseases waiting for a host.” (Haseltine)

They are forced every day to make the choice…drink and die.

Or don’t drink and die.

And die they do.

4500 children die EVERY day due to water related diseases.

Did you get that?

4500 children every day.

And the solution lies simply below the surface…in a relatively inexpensive and permanent solution.

And for these reasons, we knew from the beginning one of our projects was going to be an attempt to dig a fresh water well.

This is hard for us to imagine because WATER is NOT something we worry about.

But again, please try. Eyes open.

Watch this:

We found the above mentioned organization to partner with and were so excited about a well-digging opportunity.

But as the holidays approached, we got nervous. We feared everyone (including ourselves) would start holding their money a bit tighter as Christmas approached. We didn’t want to commit to building a well and then have to come up short.

We thought about it and prayed about it for several weeks.

I was absolutely consumed by it.

Then it hit us.

Isn’t that the point?

It’s the point of all these things. All these projects. To force us to loosen our grip on earthly consumption. To strengthen our resolve to issues of justice. To keep our eyes open. To give more. Sacrifice more. To keep the world from changing us.

Then it was these statistics that sealed the deal—

Americans spend 450 billion dollars on Christmas every year.

It would cost 10 billion dollars to give the whole world clean water.

Are you kidding me?

Unacceptable.

That was it. We were no longer digging one well. We were launching in the middle of holiday season. And we’re going for 10 billion.

Water For Christmas.

We’re buying Water For Christmas.

We are doing it because we want to. Because it resonates with who we want to be.

And we are inviting everyone to join us.

If you want…individuals, families, churches, businesses.

We can all give up something.

Little somethings.

Big somethings.

This holiday season.

In order that people can have clean water.

We have a web page set up with Charity Water where donations can be made. water4christmas.com. 100% of our donations go directly to digging wells. Donations can be made there or by check and/or cash collection. Through them, we will be able to track our progress. Details coming.

They said they have a huge need in Liberia right now. And well, where the needs are is where we want to be.

So we are working on well projects in Liberia.

Charity Water provides the post-drill training in maintenance and repair to the local community. A very important piece of long term impact.

We will wrap this campaign up on Dec. 31st.

It’s not hard to imagine what Jesus would desire from us in the celebration of His birthday–

“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me….To the extent that you did it to one of these, even the least of them, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:35,40)

It’s His heart. And I want it to be mine.

And so this year I am asking for Water For Christmas.

I know these issues are on the heart of many of you as well. If we joined forces we could begin to make a serious dent.

And sometimes we just need the opportunity.

So that is the point of Water For Christmas…to unite people from all across the country in a common goal. Clean water for all people.

We also know that when we come together in heart and mind, “there will be no needy persons among them.” (Acts 4:32-34)

Clean water is within the reach of this generation.

For goodness sake, it’s 2% of American’s annual Christmas spending.

We can do that.

And we’re starting with Water For Christmas.

Our friend Pastor Larry in Maryland was one of the first to join us in Water For Christmas commitment. It’s a cool story and you can read it here. He says this perfectly so I’m just going to steal it–”So, if you want to join me in saying, “All I want for Christmas is water,” great, but don’t do it out of guilt or obligation or anything like that or else you will have a miserable Christmas. Do it because you want to. Maybe you will want to give up one gift for water. Or simplify Christmas dinner and give the savings to Water for Christmas.”

This is going to look different for everyone.

But we can all put water on our radar of things to care about.

I can say personally that since I have decided to think water and simplify Christmas a great deal this year…excitement and not stress have been reigning in my heart and mind. We’re still pulling out the tree and hanging lights. Just not buying any new decorations. We have plenty. We will buy the kids gifts…but probably just one. One meaningful gift. Andy and I will forego trying to come up with something to buy each other…and instead buy water. And watch our money tip the scale ever so slightly from consumerism to compassion. We’re still thinking about continued ways we can incorporate water into our Thanksgiving and Christmas. And I can tell you I think about it every time I turn on the faucet, or fill a glass with ice, or take a hot shower, or turn the cap of a brand new water bottle.

And in the next two months, each time we make a sacrifice or a reduced spending effort, we will donate immediately to Water4Christmas.com.

And if we all did something, we would be well on our way to world change by Dec. 31.

I do not see this as another token charity that we pull out at Christmas time–appease our conscience–and then carry on as normal. This is not meant to replace or compete with the programs already in place in your churches and family traditions. I guess I kind of want us to feel it. To give up something. Not to do this in addition to overindulgence. Sacrifice something. Make it’s absence felt. Mother Teresa said, “I hope you are not giving only your surplus. You must give what costs you, make a sacrifice, go without something you like, that your gift may have some value before God. Then you will be truly brothers and sisters to the poor who are deprived of even the things they need.” (Believe me, I’m squirming as I type that too.)

$20 gives one African clean water for life. $5,000 dollars digs a well for a whole village.

10 billion dollars gives the WHOLE WORLD clean water.

So the only thing standing in the way of life and health for millions of people in Africa the inability to pay for the drilling to clean water.

We can do that, people.

In Africa, “Water is Life.”

We can give life.

And that’s what we are going to do.

Water For Christmas.

(OK, details later today on how to get started! Lots of fun things for you to use to get Water For Christmas started. Stay tuned).

– Jody Landers

Leadership of Movements, Movement Building | 1 Comment

For the past five years, Fast Company has granted “Social Capitalist Awards” to organizations that combine social impact and organizational effectiveness. The magazine analyzes the ability to craft solutions leading to significant improvements over the status quo. They’ve identified the following five critical components. As we build spiritual movements, each component provides a grid to evaluate our own efforts at building spiritual movements.

1. Social Impact In Two Aspects:

First, Fast Company analyzes the organization’s rigor and sophistication of its approach to social change.

• Does it understand the problem it is trying to address?
• What is the solution it is providing?
• Are the performance metrics tightly aligned with the problem it is addressing?

Organizations that look for the highest-leverage, root cause solutions and are committed to assessing their progress in “moving the needle” are positioned to have the most significant social impact.

Second, it measures organization’s actual social impact. This includes both its direct impact in providing necessary products or services (taking into account the degree of difficulty of their challenge, the depth of impact, and the breadth of the impact), as well as its ability to drive system-wide change in addressing the targeted social need.

The organization must demonstrate that it is having a disproportionately large impact on the problems that it addresses, relative to other organizations in their area or at their organizational age.

2. Aspiration and Growth: In addition to proving that an organization is having significant impact today, Fast Company asks the following questions:

• Does the organizations dream big?
• Does it aim to push their direct and systemic impact out into the world as far and as fast as they can?
• Are their high aspirations backed by a logical, achievable growth plan that recognizes relevant organizational challenges and milestones?

An enormous vision that is not believable or achievable is very unlikely to create tremendous impact, and the organization may waste scarce resources in the attempt to scale.

3. Entrepreneurship: Fast Company defines entrepreneurship as “the ability to do a lot with a little.” For each applicant, it looks for specific evidence that the organization is able to gather and command disproportionately large resources (e.g. financial, human, partnership or intellectual assets) while thinking strategically about which resources it deploys in solving its social problem. It also seeks proof that these resources are being used to their maximum potential and efficiency. Finally, it looks for indications that the organization is truly entrepreneurial in nature: passionate, ambitious, creative, flexible, focused on constant improvement, willing to take calculated risks and willing to hold individuals accountable for meaningful results.

4. Innovation: Fast Company defines innovation as the organization’s ability to generate a game-changing or pattern breaking idea–either a new solution to an existing social problem or a new business or operational model.

• Is there a culture of innovation within the organization?
• Are there processes for continuously developing significant new ideas, evaluating whether or not the organization should invest in a new idea, and plans in place to carry them out?

At the highest level, a Social Capitalist winner is not a one-hit-wonder of innovation, nor does it endlessly pursue new ideas without significant results; it systematically and strategically uses innovation to maximize its social impact against its targeted problem.

5. Sustainability: Sustainability has two primary dimensions in our assessment.

• Does the organization has a strong resource strategy to support the organization and its future growth plans? This means reliable, renewable funding sources that are strategically aligned with the mission and business model of the organization.
• In addition to sustainability from a financial perspective, are their indications of the general strength of the management team and board and their combined ability to anticipate challenges within the organization and or its operating environment?

Take some time to review the 2008 Winners here and here. Let them challenge and inspire you as you build movements everywhere.

Leadership of Movements, Marks of a Movement, Movement Building | 0 Comments