Friday, October 17, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Sunday, September 21, 2014
I have previously blogged on A Patron – Client View of the Gospel as a key way to understand MBB journeys to faith in Christ, and, by implication, how we can share the gospel with Muslims.
Based on some feedback I’ve received from the article, it seems extremely difficult for most Westerners to grasp the concept. In that respect, I highly recommend Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, which does a fantastic job of explaining culture and interpretation in an enjoyable and edifying way.
Here are some selected quotes on the concept of patronage as it is found in the New Testament:
Joining words together, though, can be far more significant than merely vocabulary. Some words have special meanings when they are paired with other words. In the New Testament, for example, the word charis means "grace." Pistis means "faith." What we didn't know until recently-what went without being said in Paul's day- was that those two words together described the relationship between a patron and his or her client.
In the Roman world of the New Testament, business was conducted through an elaborate system of patrons and clients.' When we watch the movie The Godfather, we are seeing the modern remains of the ancient Roman patronage system. Like Marlon Brando who played the godfather in the movie, the ancient patron was a wealthy and powerful individual (male or female) who looked after his or her "friends" (clients). The complex world of Roman governmental bureaucracy, the far-reaching tentacles of the banking system (usually temples) and the pervasive and powerful grasp of the trade guilds made it impossible for ordinary craftspeople or farmers to conduct business on their own. They were entirely dependent upon their patrons. Like most unwritten cultural rules, everyone knew what was expected of a patron and a client, even though expectations weren't engraved on a wall. Everyone knew a patron's role was to solve problems for his or her clients, whether it was trouble with the local trade guilds, refinancing a loan or smoothing over tensions with city leaders. When Paul was staying in Thessalonica, it was reasonable to expect Jason to handle the "Paul problem," which he did by asking Paul to leave town (Acts 17).
In that world, an ordinary craftsman or farmer didn't have the social skills or connections or wealth to negotiate with the various powerbrokers of a city. He would seek out an individual, a patron, to help. Marlon Brando captures the sentiment well. The local merchant wants help. The godfather says, "So you want me to do you this favor?" Both sides understand the agreement: the godfather solves the problem, and the merchant now must be loyal to the godfather and be ready to help if he is ever summoned. In the Roman system, likewise, the client couldn't earn the "favor"; the patron showed "kindness" to help. Seneca, a philosopher from Paul's time, said the patron and the client had a relationship, a form of friendship.6 The client was now a "friend" of the patron, but not a peer. The client was expected to reciprocate with loyalty, public praise, readiness to help the patron (as much as he could) and, most importantly, gratitude.' This kind gift had strings attached. (All gifts in antiquity had strings attached.) Seneca called it "a sacred bond."' The recipient of the gift was obligated to reciprocate. Paul introduced Lydia to Christianity (Acts 16). She reciprocated by hosting Paul and his team at her estate.
The language of patronage permeated everyday life. We know well the Christian terms grace and faith, but these were common before Paul used them. They were part of the language of patronage. When the patron gave unmerited gifts of assistance, these were commonly called charis, meaning "grace/gift.."10 The client responded with faithfulness to the patron, called pistis, or "faith."" We see that when Paul explained our new relationship with God, he used something everyone understood: the ancient system of patronage.12 Taken together, this vocabulary-so central to the Christian faith-means something different than the sum of its parts.13 (Kindle Locations 847-866).
Now Paul wasn't opposed to the patronage system; he probably couldn't imagine a world without it (Kindle Location 1802).
Because it was impossible to escape the patronage system, Paul worked within it, even in his explanation of the Christian message of salvation. Patronage had its own vocabulary. Words we usually consider particularly Christian terms-grace and faith-were common parlance before Paul commandeered them. The undeserved gifts of assistance the patron offered were commonly called charis ("grace" and "gift").' The loyalty the client offered the patron in response was called pistis ("faith" and "faithfulness").9 Roman philosophers noted that when one received a god's favor (charis), one should respond with love, joy and hope.10 When Paul sought to explain the Christian's new relationship with God, then, one of the ways he did so was in terms of the ancient system of patronage - something everyone understood. In other words, it went without being said that relationship is the premier and determinative aspect of charis, grace (Kindle Locations 1808-1813).
I believe that relationships today in Africa, the Middle East, and throughout Asia are largely defined by patronage, whereas in the liberal, democratic cultures of North America and Europe, relationships are defined by equality and freedom (except in politics). If this is even remotely close to reality, how can Westerners use the concept of patronage to share the gospel with Muslims?
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Update: Forgot to mention his posts also show up on his blog http://www.genedaniels.org/
I’m really excited that Gene Daniels has decided to join the blog team at Circumpolar.
Gene is a PhD student and a missiologist who leads a team of missiological researchers in the Muslim world. I have been learning from him for a while now. Gene is a practitioner with a heart to bless Muslims in Jesus’ name. He also has a keen eye for missiological fallacies and is able to get to the point of an issue without polarizing the debate or looking for a quick “fix” for the problem.
I’ve really enjoyed his articles and previous posts. Here is a sample of some of his publishing:
His interview in Christianity Today Worshiping Jesus in the Mosque (I promise he didn’t choose the title!)
“CITO” vs. “Socio-religious Insider” Article in IJFM.
EMQ Articles: Fruitful Practices: Studying How God Is Working in the Muslim World (10/2011), Personal Piety vs. Institutional Aid: A Case for a Return to Alms-giving (10/2008), The Character of Short-term Mission (04/2008), Event-speech as a Form of Missionary Education (01/2008), Mission-Church Relations in Post-Soviet Central Asia: A Field Study(10/2007), Receive or Use (07/2006), Searching for the Indigenous Church: A Missionary Pilgrimage(04/2006), Leadership on the Move: From One Culture to the Next (04/2006), Missionaries, Churches and Home Assignment (04/2005), Decoupling Missionary Advance from Western Culture (10/2009), The Converted Missionary: Becoming a Westerner Who Is Not Western-centric (01/2011), Saying the Shahada: Matters of Conscience, Creed, and Communication (07/2014).
CONTEXTUALIZING CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS IN MUSLIM CONTEXTS in Global Missiology.
What his video on YouTube: Spontaneous Multiplication of Churches
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Aside from the fact that most Muslims have never heard the gospel, so they can hardly be against it, I always answer with two easy to remember points:
1) be an openly religious person. Secular society here in the West has beat us down with the idea that religion is supposed to be a private thing kept to yourself. That is a lie. I am a deeply religious person, and my faith impacts many of the things I say and do. If you are the same, then be up front about that with your Muslim friends. As it fits the conversation, talk about how you raise your kids and spend your money differently from many in America because of your faith. Don't fall into the trap of thinking religious=hypocrite, your Muslim friends probably don't think that way.
2) pray at the drop of a hat. If we are people who believe God is actually listening, then we probably pray about all kinds of things; sickness, financial problems, our worries, etc. The Muslims you meet have many of the same problems. When they express them to you, simply offer to pray in a very low keyed way. Something like this usually works great, "You know Akhmed, Jesus told his followers to pray in his name. So whenever one of my kids is sick I pray and ask God to heal them. Can I do the same for your little boy?"
You will be quite surprised to find that the vast majority of Muslims will be happy for you to pray for them, right on the spot. What could be better than inviting the living God to intervene in their situation, through the name of Jesus?
You may not be an expert in Islamic culture or be able to explain the nuances of theology. But if you will consistently do the two simple things above, you will surely and gently nudge your Muslim friends toward the gospel. And you can trust the Holy Spirit to handle the rest.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Here is a nice piece of political theology that is relevant for anyone working in a place where Christians, Muslims, Gay Rights Activists, etc., coexist:
Pluralism does not entail relativism. Living well in a pluralist world does not mean a never-ending openness to any possible claim. Every one of us holds deeply entrenched beliefs that others find unpersuasive, inconsistent, or downright loopy. More pointed, every one of us holds beliefs that others find morally reprehensible. Pluralism does not impose the fiction of assuming that all ideas are equally valid or morally benign. It does mean respecting people, aiming for fair discussion, and allowing for the right to differ about serious matters...
The argument for pluralism and the aspirations of tolerance, humility, and patience are fully consistent with a faithful Christian witness. And in this age, they are also far likelier to resonate than arguments for religious exceptionalism. The claim of religious exceptionalism is that only believers should benefit from special protections, and often at the cost of those who don't share their faith commitments. The claim of pluralism is that all members of society should benefit from its protections.
HT: Tish Warren
Friday, August 22, 2014
So, what should a committed Christian think about Muhammad? Well, I will not even try to answer that question, although I do think we should be as generous as possible since John 3:16 probably applies to him too.
I think the better and more pressing question to ask might be, "What should a committed Christian say about Muhammad to their Muslim friends?"
I realize wadding into this argument is akin to diving into tepid, muddy water, but I think it worthwhile to at least splash around its edges a bit.
This reminds me, just a little bit, about an incident in the life of another extremely influential figure of world history. If I remember correctly he was being questioned by the national religious authorities about his stand on taxation, and he replied something like, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God."
There are two points in this we should not miss:
1. Jesus did not directly answer their question, and there are times that neither should we.
But most importantly,
2. Jesus talked about God, not Caesar.
Have you ever noticed that if you meet a physician in some social setting they often end up talking the practice of medicine. Same thing with politicians, they tend to talk politics. In other words we talk about what we are about. Jesus spent his time talking about God because that is who he came to reveal.
So, if Jesus is what I am about, then I should be talking about him - not Oprah - in my social engagements. While I do agree that Christians should be well-rounded, knowledgeable people, I still assert that our conversations expose what is in our hearts. But now I digress, back to Muhammad.
Certainly there are times when we need to have something to say about a major world figure such as Muhammad. But for the most part our Muslim friends will feel quite honored if we know anything about their prophet other than the caricatures presented in the nightly news. Some of us may even know quite a bit about his life, but I don't think we need to say very much.
Or I love the way the I heard another missionary put it. When describing a conversation with some Muslim scholars he said, "I am not an expert on Mohammad. If you want to learn about him go talk to the Imam. But I am an expert on the person of Jesus, I can tell you about him."
And that sounds about right to me.
*PBUH means "peace be upon him," spoken by many devout Muslims in reverence whenever mentioning Muhammad's name.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Wilken, Robert L. 2009. "Christianity Face to Face with Islam." First Things:
“Christianity seems like a rain shower that soaks the earth and then moves on, whereas Islam appears more like a great lake that constantly overflows its banks to inundate new territory.”
Saturday, August 9, 2014
As someone who is involved in missions leadership, I understand the challenges facing evangelical sending agencies today in communicating vision, purpose, branding, and management. We all want to be unique, relevant, and Biblical.
I also understand that there are certain trends that rise and fall in the missions scene. Church planting was all the rage a few years ago. And now it’s movements. Other trends include the rise of the term ‘transformation’ and the emphasis off the church and onto the kingdom. This is related with holistic or integrated mission and on caring for the poor. Other long-lasting trends include the unreached or least-reached, and the use of metrics to evaluate our effectiveness. Of course every trend and emphasis has a way of highlighting only part of the nature of Biblical mission.
But is there a way for sending agencies to tie all of this together in a way that is not reductionistic?
Maybe. How about “discipleship?”
I’m interested all the talk these days on disciple-making movements. It might just be trend as well, but somehow I think that, as a necessary sound bite used in communication, it comes closer to recapturing the essence of what we’re doing across ALL contexts, more than church planting or integrated development or peace-making or proclamation or compassionate evangelism.
I want to commend Melanie McNeil’s Mission Paradigms: Is Discipleship Important? to you. It’s not an eloquent article (she’s a better writer than I am!), and I don’t agree with everything the says, but she makes a case of discipleship to be a key metaphor to reclaim Biblical mission in our world today (of course, discipleship has to be properly defined!). From the conclusion:
We have explored the way the task of mission is described today by modern mission agencies, and I have argued that the reductionism of modern missions has resulted in a narrow definition of God’s commission. I have shown that the definitions of the task being used today fail to embrace the whole of God’s vision for the world he created. Whole life discipleship, the radical journey into relationship, and maturity of relationship with God is the core of God making his name known in the nations. God invites us to participate with His mission, and this will require a radical shift in the mission paradigms of today.
I have sought to demonstrate that such a shift opens up paths of radical transformation that impact both lives and communities, but it will come at a cost. The question is whether we in missions, and the Church, are prepared to count the cost and move into new things together with God, and with each other.
The review of methods and vision and mission statements here is not a judgment on any individual agency or strategy. It is a call for all of us who are disciples of Jesus Christ to embrace whole life discipleship and the radical rule of God in our lives and organisations.
Related Post: The Purpose (Vision) and Task (Mission) of Missions
Friday, August 1, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
I’m ‘adapting’ the concept from the book Adaptive Leadership.
By “adaptive” I mean that there is not a one-size-fits-all type of evangelistic approach that can be used to reach Muslims for Christ. Evangelicals are often prone to “method chasing,” which is searching for a technical solution to the problem of Muslim evangelism. (The Camel Method might come to mind.)
A simple technical solution, such as “evangelism should be done in such and such a way…,” (which is very common in current missiology) is inappropriate. There is no one single method or solution to the challenge of evangelizing Muslims.
Muslim evangelism is not a technical problem (i.e. a known problem with a known solution, like a doctor performing heart surgery) but is instead an adaptive challenge (both the problem and solution are unknown) that requires people working together to attempt to discover new, personal, and biblical-missiological paradigms of effective kingdom witness in resistant, Islamic contexts.
More to come… (probably summer of 2015…)
Thursday, July 24, 2014
…Some years ago I was studying interviews with church planters in various parts of the Muslim world, looking for those key insights into how God was using them. One day during that project, sitting at my desk in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, I read about a fundamentalist Muslim soldier who came to Christ when a foreign missionary had the courage to share a New Testament with him. My eyes welled-up with tears. I set my work aside, got on my knees and wept. Here research was painting a picture, showing me a miracle of God that many of my fellow Americans would find hard to believe. Worship was the only proper response.
Along this same line, worship should rise-up in our hearts anytime we encounter the amazing beauty of the gospel crossing new cultural frontiers. We should marvel everything new nations and peoples are woven into the tapestry of God’s kingdom. I guess that is one of the reasons I love to do mission research, it often evokes such wonder and awe that I can’t help but worship.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Whenever things heat up with Israel, people want to know how to think about the conflict in a way that is fair and balanced. Here is a repost of something I put together in 2011. It’s a group of some of the best resources I’ve found on the subject. Please link to other resources in the comments.
Talking about Israel and the Arabs is a minefield among evangelicals.
There is probably no quicker way to be labeled anti this or pro that.
– Mike Kuhn, pg. 109
For anyone working with Muslims the issue of Israel is bound to come up eventually. So what is the way forward?
For starters, here is a short article: How Evangelicals Are Learning to Be Pro-Palestine, Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, Pro-Justice and Always Pro-Jesus (HT: JC).
One great secular resource is the very unique book called The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East. It’s a narrative non-fiction that displays the humanity on both sides of this complex issue. I have heard that both Palestinians and Jews claim the book is fair. But more than fair, it’s also an enjoyable, fascinating read!
See also chapter 7 in Fresh Vision for the Muslim World by Mike Kuhn.
For a solid and balanced biblical-theological perspective, see John Piper’s Israel, Palestine and the Middle East. Piper also has some shorter resources:
- Israel, Arabs, and the Family of God
- Prophecy and the Invasion of Lebanon
- Do Jews Have a Divine Right in the Promised Land?
It’s nice to know we don’t have to take sides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The important thing is to use this issue to point our Muslim friends to Jesus, the hope of all and our only lasting peace.
Related Post: Christ at the Checkpoint
Saturday, July 12, 2014
I shared the gospel countless times with Muslims, and for some reason they didn't seem interested. After creating the two triangles, I realized I had stumbled onto something that could change the way we share the gospel with Muslims and with anyone who believes in the devil.
Watch him explain his approach here:
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
IJFM recently released Sixteen Features of Belief and Practice in Two Movements among Muslims in Eastern Africa: What Does the Data Say? by Ben Naja. I think the publication of the empirical study is highly significant.
Obviously, just because something is happening doesn’t automatically mean God is blessing it. However, this Naja case study shows, regardless of our positions or opinions, that the Holy Spirit (apart from a postmodern expatriate missionary!) is birthing emerging expressions of “church” in frontier settings where MBBs retain, to some degree or another, a “Muslim” identity. (Whether or not they will always have a “Muslim” identity is another issue.)
Followers of Jesus in these movements:
- trust in Jesus alone for salvation, forgiveness, blessing and protection
- believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross for
- have been baptized
- pursue a dual identity (social and cultural insider, spiritual outsider)
- do not acknowledge Muhammad as a true prophet nor trust in his power to intercede
- no longer consider the Qur’an as their sole and highest authority
- pursue diverse practices with regard to mosque attendance
- feel that they are a part of the worldwide family of God
- attend ekklesia meetings at least once a week
- read or listen to the Bible frequently
- share their faith
- have family members who also follow Jesus
- have been persecuted
- experience the supernatural power of God
- are frequently from a Sufi or other non-Wahabi background
- grow into more biblical expressions of faith and practice over time.
Here is an extended quote from the article:
My research provides empirical evidence that Jesus movements are a God-given way in which many Muslims are coming to saving faith in Christ. In addition, two features of these movements—pursuit of a dual identity and regular ekklesia gatherings within the Muslim community— are not simply theoretical possibilities, but actual reality.
In the literature on insider movements, supporters and opponents are divided as to whether such movements are a modern theoretical construct concocted by Western missiologists or whether they are actually happening as a God-given phenomenon in the Muslim world today. My research on these two Jesus movements in Eastern Africa seems to suggest the latter. These movements appear to have been divinely initiated and are not the result of a new strategy developed by a few mission strategists from the West. In fact, no Western gospel worker even knew about them at first. Only at a later stage, as more things were happening, were these movements brought to the attention of field practitioners. These practitioners then sought to find biblical guidelines and answers to the missiological questions these believers were asking.
Whatever their origin, the data make it clear that Jesus movements among Muslim communities are happening; they are an undeniable reality today.
My findings show that many followers of Jesus in these two movements pursue a dual identity. Culturally and socially, these believers are Muslim, while spiritually they are disciples of Jesus. They are still part of the wider Muslim community, even though their thinking diverges theologically and spiritually from that of mainstream orthodox Muslims. Their Muslim communities do not seem to mind that much what these disciples actually believe and practice, as long as they do not bring shame or offense to the community.
Within the wider umbrella of at least some expressions of Islam, there seems to be room for many deviant views, practices, and opinions. This is true not only for members of Jesus movements, but also for the very numerous members of Sufi orders or other Muslim sects.
The findings presented here show discreet gatherings of disciples of Jesus within a wider Muslim community to be a reality (and one that can now be carefully documented). The existence of “visible/invisible” informal groups of disciples (ekklesia) who regularly gather in the midst of Muslim communities might be one of the most important findings of my research.
These informal ekklesia are “invisible,” in that they do not actively seek public recognition by displaying Christian symbols or engaging in practices generally connected with Christianity (such as large buildings, loud music, or full-time clergy). But they are nonetheless very real or “visible” fellowships because actual people are meeting at actual times in actual places on a regular, at least weekly, basis.
Structurally, these ekklesias usually follow the lines of natural family and other pre-existing social networks. Rather than extracting members from their networks into an aggregate church, the kingdom of God and its values are implanted into them.
Given the rather authoritarian character of Islam, open or normal ekklesia gatherings do not seem to be an option. Nevertheless, my research shows that—however unlikely on a theoretical level—a new redemptive community within the old is an actual reality.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
From St. Francis Magazine, Ramadan’s effects of Muslims’ openness to the gospel, By L.D. Waterman. The Conclusion:
This survey, while not conclusive, has given some broad insight into the spiritual dynamics of Ramadan in various parts of the world. Based on the impressions of survey participants, we can conclude that Ramadan is definitely a special time of year for ministry to Muslims. Many Muslims seem more open to talk about spiritual things during Ramadan, but also more fearful to discuss things different from what they have been taught. A strong majority of respondents experience and observe negative spiritual dynamics during Ramadan, notably heaviness, darkness and increase in violence. Respondents report positive supernatural spiritual experiences occurring during Ramadan, but not necessarily with greater frequency than at other times of year.
More than half of respondents experience night as a more fruitful time for ministry than daytime during Ramadan. Though the majority of respondents observe no difference related to the Night of Power, roughly one quarter note dynamics contrary to the gospel. The survey also brought to light different understandings among Muslims of the meaning and implications of that night. And almost two-thirds of respondents observe more inclination toward Islamic devotion during Ramadan, yet in most cases this seems to be a temporary phenomenon.
Based on these observations, this survey offers fresh insights into ways that prayer and other forms of ministry can play a fruitful role in what God is doing and may want to do during this unique month of each Islamic year. Ramadan gives God’s people an annual reminder to pray and uniquely challenging opportunities for ministry. Let’s make the most of it!
Read the whole thing.
See also The Essence of Ramadan (and Islam).
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Thursday, June 5, 2014
I think it’s important to know that this kind of stuff is happening today: Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic:
BANGUI, Central African Republic – Tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries by plane and truck as Christian militias stage brutal attacks, shattering the social fabric of this war-ravaged nation.
In towns and villages as well as here in the capital, Christian vigilantes wielding machetes have killed scores of Muslims, who are a minority here, and burned and looted their houses and mosques in recent days, according to witnesses, aid agencies and peacekeepers. Tens of thousands of Muslims have fled their homes…
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Lots of food for thought here: I’m thinking about epistemology, ontology, and Biblical visions of the future in regards to leadership- in these areas, the author and I are not on the same page.
But at the least, this theory corrects one-man-show type of leadership, and argues for a more relational understanding that requires more humility and is more focused on the process than the outcome. This could be an exercise in pendulum swinging, but I find it to be a stimulating counterpoint the typical Maxwell/Hybels leadership mantas.
From Barrett C. Brown, Complexity Leadership: An Overview and Key Limitations:
|Conventional Leadership||Complexity Leadership|
|Leaders specify desired futures.||Leaders provide linkages to emergent structures by enhancing connections among organizational members.|
|Leaders direct change.||Leaders try to make sense of patterns in small changes.|
|Leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality.||Leaders are destabilizers who encourage disequilibrium and disrupt existing patterns of behavior.|
|Leaders influence others to enact desired futures.|| |
Leaders encourage processes that enable emergent order.
Through the lens of conventional leadership, the world is assumed to be knowable and desired organizational futures are considered achievable through focused planning and the use of control mechanisms. Complexity scientists counter that uncertainty is a better starting point. Specifically, they contend that the world is not knowable, systems are not predictable, and living systems cannot be forced along a linear trajectory toward a predetermined future. There are four myths of conventional leadership that are therefore dispelled by the application of complexity sciences: leaders specify desired futures, leaders direct change, leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality; and leader influence others to enact desired futures. The behaviors of emergent leadership, based upon complexity science, which replace these “myths”, are summarized below.
Myth 1: Leaders specify desired futures. Conventional leadership worldviews frame leaders as visionaries, who see the future, chart the destination, and guide their organizations toward that destination. The repeated prescription is to: clarify the organization’s desired future, scan the external environment, design the requisite actions, and remove any obstacles. Complexity theorists suggest that organizational unpredictability often comes from within the organization, through the interactions of its members, which are not controlled by its leader. It is usually organizational members that develop the ideas that lead to productive futures for the organization, arguably a more important source of ideas than the vision of the leader at the top of an organization. Therefore, complex leaders should focus on enabling productive futures rather than controlling them (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Thus, the “new reality” to replace Myth #1 is that “leaders provide linkages to emergent structures by enhancing connections among organizational members” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 139). This is based upon the complexity theory principle of emergent self-organization, in which the interaction of individual agents, exchange of information amongst them, and continuous adaptation of feedback from each other creates a new system level order.
Myth #2: Leaders direct change. Leadership theorists often contend that the essence of leadership is to lead change (e.g., Kotter, 1996). One of the principles of complexity theory concerns sensitivity to initial conditions. It notes that major, unpredictable consequences can arise out of small fluctuations in initial conditions (Kauffman, 1995). Thus small changes at anytime, anywhere in the system, can cascade and lead to massive change that may be inconsistent with the leader’s change vision. The new reality to replace this myth, then, is that “leaders try to make sense of patterns in small changes” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 141). By detecting and labeling patterns in the midst of emergent change, leaders have a greater chance of helping their organizations to respond effectively.
Myth #3: Leaders eliminate disorder and the gap between intentions and reality. Leaders are typically seen as needing to influence others to accomplish the tasks required to achieve organizational objectives. They are also expected to minimize conflict and cultivate harmonious relationships, such as in the case of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Complexity theorists contend that organizations are not characterized by stability and harmony, but rather exist on a continuum between stability and instability (Prigogine, 1997; Stacey, 1996). As organizations gravitate toward greater instability, due to destabilizing forces, new, emergent ideas and innovations arise. Therefore, rather than constantly attempting to stabilize an organization, leaders can at times help their organizations to benefit by being a source of disorder and destabilization. The new reality to replace Myth #3 is therefore: “leaders are destabilizers who encourage disequilibrium and disrupt existing patterns of behavior” (Plowman & Duchon, 2008, p. 142).
Myth #4: Leaders influence others to enact desired futures. The core of leadership is often considered to be influence. Two assumptions about influence run counter to a principle of complexity science. First, influence is often based upon the assumption that a leader knows what needs to be done and that the leader can subsequently influence those who need it to bring about a desired future state. These notions are, in turn, grounded in assumptions of linearity: that changes in one variable lead to anticipated changes in another. Complexity science, though, is based upon nonlinear interactions, in which multiple agents with varying agendas engage and influence each other’s actions. Nonlinear, living systems can learn, though. With such complexity and uncertainty within organizations, is it impossible for leaders to know and prescribe to others what to do. Instead, organizational members often help leaders to find directions out of confusion and uncertainty. As such, the new reality to replace Myth #4 is: “leaders encourage processes that enable emergent order” (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009, p. 143). An example would be for a leader to focus on clarifying processes rather than clarifying outcomes, and allow the organizational members to determine the relevant outcomes.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
A 6 week small group resource that will Count for Zero:
ZERO languages without the Scriptures
ZERO people groups without Disciple Makers
ZERO oral learners without an oral Bible
ZERO villages or neighborhoods without a church
ZERO people who have not heard the Gospel
Saturday, April 19, 2014
- When we hear the word “preach” (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:2) do we immediately think of the Western cultural form of an expository monologue behind a “pulpit?”
- It seems the early church was commended for the participatory nature of their meetings (1 Cor. 14:26). DBS encourages participation in a way that the Western church model generally does not.
- Surely DBS does not preclude the need for teachers and preaching and proclamation. It just doesn’t need to take the form of a 30 minute sermon.
- I would imagine Paul would think that Bible learning is more important that Bible preaching.
- DBS and preaching don’t need to be thought of as mutually exclusive.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Repost from Justin Taylor:
Michael Patton, author of Now That I’m a Christian: What It Means to Follow Jesus, writes:
The believer in the Islamic faith has to trust in a private encounter Muhammad had, and this encounter is unable to be tested historically.
We have no way to truly investigate the claims of Joseph Smith (and when we do, they are found wanting).
Buddhism and Hinduism are not historic faiths, meaning they don’t have central claims of events in time and space which believers are called upon to investigate. You either adopt their philosophy or you don’t. There is no objective way to test them.
Run through every religion that you know of and you will find this to be the case: Either it does not give historic details to the central event, the event does not carry any worldview-changing significance, or there are no historic events which form the foundation of the faith.
This is what it looks like:
Read the whole thing here.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Initially adapted but modified significantly from The Gospel in Human Contexts, pages 31-32:
- The gospel, as revealed truth, is distinct and separate from all human cultures.
- Culture is simultaneously a reflection of divine creativity and human rebellion.
- Gospel and culture are interrelated realities: it is impossible to express the gospel apart from culture.
- The gospel transforms people, and transformed people transform societies.
I reserve the right to modify this in the future.