futuristguy@missionaltribe


Road Trip to the Roundtable-03. “Right-Angle Horizon Lines”


Jun 20

Posted: under Road Trip to the Roundtable.

Well, it’s been a very odd week of actions and reflections. My storyline of the “No Bread” wallet has taken unexpected turns in the two months since posting Part 1 of Road Trip to the Roundtable. As I said earlier this week in Part 2, I’ve had to cancel my participation at the Global Roundtable event … at least in terms of in-person presence.

It would be easy to dive into melodramatic details. But rather than that route, how about just the big picture:

Things ended up still on empty, both in terms of money and energy. I took actions to get basic assistance through the local “social safety net” so I can survive this relapse of chronic illness and hopefully get it into remission. And, although things haven’t work out as hoped for going to Poland, there are still providential things to do, though on a different horizon.

It looks like I’ve got quite a different road trip to take instead, and I’ll have to dedicate the summer months to recuperation - working to turn around underemployment by first regaining more stamina. It’s one thing to feel well and not be able to find work, like the first few months of this year. Versus now, which is not feeling well so I can’t even handle the demands of any extensive work I am able to find.

In the midst of this frustration, it’d be easy to give in to feelings of utter resignation. Why bother? What difference does it make? Wouldn’t it just be easier to give up, bottom out, go nowhere, do nothing?

Well, actually … no. Somehow it serves the purposes of growth activation to embrace the troughs in life and slog through them, instead of only seeking for spiritual highs of self-actualization and climb up them. At least, that’s what I think I realized this week from my Ozzie friend, Matt Stone. In his recent blog post on the book, The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, he notes:

Reading the introduction I think I am now hooked too. Unlike some books on Christian mysticism, this book acknowledges that life transformation is more important for the Christian mystic than the peak experiences.

So, the mystical disciple embraces the paradox that suffering leads to an uncomfortable but ultimately better quality life, versus the consumerist Christian who pursues constant comfort and probably can’t distinguish heights from hype. Guess I’m a mystic, then. Hope that doesn’t sound like promoting masochism, and hey, I’d rather have comfortability as much as the next person. But I haven’t found the me-me-me narcissism version to be-be-be particularly helpful.

Could it be that maybe how we handle darkness shows how much we live in the light?

Speaking of which, as an intriguing (though seemingly out of place) “bright spot” in the midst of this darkness, it has again popped into mind that I am “wired” to be a futurist, and that I have an enormous amount of background studies already done in this field. If I were well healthwise, I should probably pursue further training in studies of the future because it would be wise stewardship. And in fact, wouldn’t it be cool to connect with an organization that’s interested in developing next generation leaders as culture readers and futurists and social change catalysts? And to work on a Masters in Strategic Foresight while applying all my school assignments to this agency’s organizational systems and consulting issues? Who knows. That kind of thought keeps cropping up at the least expected times … usually when there is no humanly possible way for it to happen. Hmm …

Is formal training as a futurist my own preferable future? (That certainly sounds ironic!) I’m not really sure, partly because I’m not sure I’ve ever really had any “high horizons” to aim for. During college, when I would typically be exercising hopeful imagination to explore dreams for my future, I was struggling instead to cope with an insidious depletion of stamina that became chronic. By graduation at age 23, my “exciting” first summer in the workaday world was actually spent in 10-12 hours or more per day sleeping and resting – working hard to recuperate. Then, despite a degree in linguistics with honors, I could only handle part-time work, and the only doable work I could manage was data entry. (In my value system, no work is below our dignity, but not all work ultimately represents the best stewardship of our destiny. And yet, given my situation, I had to make due and I did, since we couldn’t figure out what was causing this condition and do anything about it at that time.)

So, in the 30 years since college graduation, somehow I’ve found alternative horizons to pursue. As I said earlier, this has been an odd week of actions and reflections. One of those reflections had to do with horizons. I don’t know what else to call them except “right-angle horizon lines.” Here’s the gist of it, which I learned in Boy Scouts during middle school.

Problem: Suppose you have to measure a raging river at a place where there is no bridge, and that you can’t measure it by boating or swimming across with a rope and then calculating the length of rope used. How do you safely figure out how far it is across the river?

Solution: Put one hand over your eyebrows, as if shielding your eyes from the sun’s glare. Then fix your gaze on a point directly across from you on the opposite shore. Lower the angle of your hand gradually until your sight just meets that point at the horizon line underneath your hand. Holding your hand steady, turn your stance slowly at a right angle and find the equivalent horizon point on your own shoreline. That process should give you the same distance, but it’s a workable and safer place to measure.

And the application? Perhaps for people with normal health, they have higher horizons than just the opposite shore and can actually have the energy to cross the “raging river” in front of them to achieve their destiny. For those like me with a chronic health concern (or any other “life-dominating issue”), it’s not that we have no destiny or hope, but that we may have to find it at a right angle to what would otherwise be directly in front of us if we were well. We do have a providential line of sight available, but it’s on the shore where we already stand rather than across from us where we’d like to be. Our current task may involve slogging through the muddy shoreline on this side of the river.

Looping back to the Christian mystic emphasis on gradual whole-life transformation instead of conquering peak experiences, the future on this shoreline may not be fun, but it will ultimately be fulfilling of God’s plan. And there is hope hidden deep within in this thought, if we will perceive it and let our trek on this side of the river capture our imagination as much as the vision of crossing the river might have in other circumstances or for other people.

After thinking and thanking about that, I remembered a poem I wrote a long time back, about not-quite-there situations brought to completion, and changing our perception of blockages into challenges:

.

eleven/eleven transformed to twelves

© 2001 Brad Sargent

.

Harsh nature pounds on imperfections

but walls in life are no sure prison

and wounded hearts need not thwart hope

if we reintegrate decisions

and view our current circumstances

as trajectory points for powering vision

.

for imagination fuels our futures

and lets us look beyond our “now”

it challenges to stretch our gazes

teaches to invert our frowns

and transform them into scoops

whereby we can bring stars down

.

I don’t mean the sentiments in this poem to be sickly sweet. But sometimes I need something relatively positive as an intentional antidotation to what is most likely my default orientation about my own situation, which is relatively negativistic, if not downright nihilistic. (You know us nihilists … we’re the ones who believe that the pessimist is too optimistic!)

And then, if that poem weren’t enough, I recalled the theme of a support group book my friend Jonathan Hunter wrote in the late 1990s: Embracing Life. I met Jonathan during the 1980s when I served as a volunteer in ministry to people infected or affected by HIV disease. He originally designed The Embracing Life Series: Healing Transformation in Christ for people in life-threatening stages of HIV disease, to help them:

  1. Process how terminal illness was negatively affecting their view of self in Christ.
  2. Embrace life instead of succumb to a “spirit of death.”
  3. Take their rightful place in the Body of Christ as a family member with something to offer – not simply someone who needs to receive.

But these themes are far more universal. How many of us with chronic conditions – and other difficult life situations –deal with similar issues? We lower our horizons about who we think we are in Christ. We don’t embrace the creative possibilities in the life circumstances we have. We fail to step forward into our true identity - full siblings in the Body of Christ. With life-dominating situations, it’s just too easy for our “radar” to turn into orbiting around a negative integration point instead of at least moving forward with some positive actions. But a static state is no better. Unless we move spiritually – even if we cannot move physically – how can we have a living hope to share, as we experience Christ sustaining us?

Let me wrap up by bringing the topics of suffering and mysticism and transformation and embracing life back full circle to the Global Roundtable. We who have been called to serve as salt and light in emerging cultures and underground ministries need to find God’s horizon for us in the Kingdom. Whether we work in regions where people of our faith are reviled or revered, where gatherings are in the open or underground, there is still an integration point on this very shoreline for us to pursue – even if it is at a right angle from a destination we might have preferred. There is no shame in this providential place, and does it really matter that there is probably no glory or accolades on this side of the river? But faithfulness has it rewards as we “take no bread” with us and experience how Christ is the Bread of Life for us.

So, those were some of the swirls of thoughts in my world this week. Still wish I were going to the Global Roundtable in a few weeks. But I still have a hopeful horizon here … and would appreciate your prayers for a summer of recuperation and re-destinization.

This is cross-posted on my Wordpress futuristguy blog.

Comments (1)

Road Trip to the Roundtable-02. Grace to Stay


Jun 20

Posted: under Road Trip to the Roundtable.

Sad news - as it turns out, I won’t be able to attend the Slot Festival and the Global Roundtable for Emerging and Underground Ministries. Illness prevents me from traveling.

This is one time when the circumstances I have to deal with are particularly disappointing. Maybe I’ll eventually discover providential purpose lurking in their midst. But at the moment, I’m quite grieved that I won’t be at these events in person, though I’ll certainly be praying for those at the Roundtable and look forward to reports. There is still a need for scholarships for the 2009 Global Roundtable - please contact Andrew Jones if you are interested in contributing (his contact information is in the post just linked to).

And, once recuperated, hopefully I’ll be able to complete my series on Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom at Missional Tribe, as an online resource on cultures and contextualization. (I only got through about a quarter of the planned posts before illness slowed me down.)

Meanwhile, I’d surely appreciate your prayers for a recovery of health, stamina, and joy. Thanks …

This is cross-posted on my Wordpress futuristguy blog.

Comments (1)

Cultures and Kingdom 04-What types of cultures are there?


May 26

Posted: under Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom.

A note on delays - My apologies for getting behind on this Cultures and Kingdom series. I have been coping with fatigue and illness for a number of weeks now, and have still not recuperated. This put me far behind where I had hoped to be by now - on track for completing about 15 posts by the time of the Global Roundtable in Poland, July 8-11. I will keep working away at that goal, and we’ll see what transpires. Thanks for your patience and prayers.

Introduction

There are many different approaches to studying cultures. Over the years, I have sifted through terms to figure out ways that make sense to me as an amateur culturologist with little formal training but a penchant for frameworks to help analyze and interpret what it is I observe. I like the idea of multiple frameworks because a set of them working together is like an MRI for cultures - it gives more of a three-dimensional reading on things. And, if we are interested in the fourth dimension of time, and how cultures change over time, we need to have as robust of a 3D reading as possible in order to track what changes. So, with no more delay, here are frameworks I use to “type” or categorize cultures. P.S. These are my own definitions for the terms, and I have not conducted extensive studies to figure out if these all coincide with “official” uses of the terms.

Cultural Integration Points (What Brings People Together)

Mainstream Culture. The dominant, accepted, or majority culture among a people group or nation. Mainstream culture is the one most people choose to identify with. Mainstream culture tends to be a large-scale or national-level ways of seeing things and doing things.

In the big picture of things, anything that is outside the mainstream culture could be called a counterculture or an alternative culture. The rest of the terms in this framework identify different subcategories of countercultures, each type with varying degrees of friction with, rejection by, or repulsion from the mainstream culture.

Underground Culture. A counterculture that is stigmatized, marginalized, hidden, or otherwise separated from or rejected by the mainstream. Underground cultures can be based in inherent characteristics like race or country of origin that cannot be changed. Or, they can be based in virtual characteristics, such as a different set of values, that bring a group into conflict with the mainstream.

Subculture/Identity Subculture. A counterculture that integrates the group’s identity on chosen values like do-it-yourself or give-peace-a-chance rather than inherent characteristics like race. that forms because the mainstream culture does not have specific values or directions that subculture members are passionate about. A subculture may or may not be hidden from the mainstream, and so would not necessarily be considered an underground culture.

Virtual Culture. An alternative culture that integrates a substantial part of member interaction via technological connections instead of in person interactions. It is possible that virtual cultures will become an entire techno-parallel or mirror system to mainstream culture, as the internet and other forms of quick technological connection become an even more dominant presence globally.

Retro Culture. A counterculture that retrieves at least the style and perhaps the paradigm substance of a previous version of mainstream culture or counterculture. Retro cultures are becoming more common, since “style tribe” subcultures offer a way of escape from current mainstream expectations.

Occulture. This is not a term I found used anywhere else. Perhaps the closest technical term would be cult or cultus, as used in traditional religious studies. But since cult has acquired a negative meaning, I decided to coin a term that fits situations of a relatively hidden subculture that is deeply integrated around its spirituality, religion, secrets, rituals, or esoteric practices. Examples might be the Death Eaters in the Harry Potter series, and the ritualist secret societies in The DaVinci Code.

Parallel Culture. A situation where the mainstream culture is forced upon people as the one they must identify with - at least in the public arena of work, politics, religion, media, etc. However, many people don’t like having to obey an imposed public culture, so they develop their own countercultural “parallel world” in private. Parallel culture is most often applied in situations like life under the control of some form of “-ism” - communism, totalitarianism, fundamentalism - where, if you act out of line, you will be punished. Therefore, many people go home, lock their door, and there they can be who they want to be. Others choose to challenge publicly the status quo of the imposed official culture or a mainstream culture and act within a protest/resistance culture.

Protest/Resistance Culture. A counterculture that integrates around going against the grain of the mainstream culture in a typical society, or against the imposed official culture in a parallel culture society. Other descriptors could be added, based on the purposes of the group (e.g., whether they want meaningful social changes or radical reform or revolutionary overthrow) and the kind of action or level of stridency (e.g., protest, non-violent social action, violent action).

End States (What People Move Toward)

In his research on values, sociologist Milton Rokeach categorized them into end-state values (goals; where we want to go) and instrumental values (means; how we want to get there). I see a related framework on end states for cultures, although these may describe the current state rather than where things are moving. There are two main alternatives: utopian and dystopian. The “-topian” suffix comes from the Greek topos, meaning “place.” Variations on utopia (a good place) and dystopia (a bad place) pop up periodically, with the first part of the word indicating what sort of idea or thing the culture has integrated around, such as ecotopia, Christotopia, and technotopia. These can all be thought of as a sort of social equivalent of the personal attitudes spectrum running from nihilist, to pessimist, to optimist.

Utopian. A culture that embodies (or is moving toward) right relations among people, justice, positive outlook, respect, mutuality, ennoblement - in short, a substantive, fair, ideal society.

Dystopian. A culture that embodies (or is moving toward) dysfunctional relations among people, power, control, prejudice, marginalization, negativity, narcissism, corruption -in short, a vain, abusive, evil society.

Cultural Spaces, Power, and Purity

There is a set of terms that emphasizes the push-pull-or-paradoxical nature in issues of self/other, and can identify what particular kinds of group or groups dominate a particular space (e.g., racial group or cultural group). The set can also pinpoint how component groups interrelate with other groups either inside or outside their boundaries. For instance, multicultural tends to be about co-existence and appreciating various aspects of another’s culture, while intercultural is about going beyond multicultural to build a system where we find ways to fill in the gaps in our lives with what we learn from the strengths of people from other cultures.

Homogenous Culture/Monocultural-Monoracial. Everyone who is the same bands together within the same borders and pushes out the others.

Heterogeneous Culture/Multicultural-Multiracial. Everyone opens up the borders to all, whether the same or different from themselves, and invites or pulls in the others.

Intercultural. Everyone is welcome, and yet all are challenged to change by integrating into their own life/culture what they learn from the strengths and weaknesses experienced by other cultures.

Hegemonous Culture. A particular group may or may not let many others inside their boundaries, but they work to exert control over whoever is there.

Cultural Style Layers (Matters of “Taste” in Cultural Matters)

Terms like classic culture, folk culture, and pop culture have been used to specific layers of different “cultural tastes” within a society. They are used primarily in matters of art, music, dance, theatre, media, and other more leisure-time activities and entertainments. Socio-economic class elitism often creeps into how the terms are applied - for instance, “high culture” is acceptable for the  wealthy classes, whereas “folk culture” would be considered at best an divertive excursion into “the exotic” for them and at worst as kitsch or vulgar. In other words, “taste” can be interpreted from a class or caste system perspective where high culture is the standard to which all else is always compared.

High Culture/Classic(al) Culture. Traditional or “high art” forms as typically enjoyed by those with funds to go to performances and/or the intellectual sophistication to enjoy, i.e., the elite. High culture would include such forms as classical ballet instead of folk dance (low culture), or stage plays instead of Las Vegas variety shows (pop culture).

Low Culture/Folk Culture. Populist art forms that arise from and/or are accessible to the masses in terms of being relatively inexpensive and requiring little academic sophistication to interpret and enjoy. Folk culture is known for a more “home-spun” approach, or for being mass produced. This doesn’t mean there is no design to it, just different design and purposes.

Pop Culture. Popular culture, often associated with younger generations and global audiences. Pop culture tends to have far more glitz and glamour than folk culture, but does not require the depth of understanding in historical allusions and metaphors as high culture. However, it does often include allusions to a very broad range of current news and culture, so it is not actually unsophisticated, just different.

There are some fascinating hybrids these days, where what appears to be a folk culture phenomenon like all the toys, games, action figures, and posters from The Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series, is also undergirded by the original writings which have very sophisticated literary content and structures that could be attractive in high culture settings, and the spectacular appeal of celebrities for pop culture.

“So What?” - What Difference Does This Make for Being Missional?

EVERY kind of culture has aspects that don’t match up to what the Bible would indicate as universal standards for how God wants people to treat themselves and others. Awareness of these different frameworks for analyzing and interpreting cultures gives us some tools for “critical contextualization and counterculturization.” They help us identify what aspects of a culture offer us a base for biblical relevance and which that call forth our resistance. Since these are hallmarks of being missional, then there is a huge, positive “so what” to considering all these systems!

I hope these frameworks have been of help. If I’ve been unclear, or you additional questions, feel free to use the comment section to let me know!

Comments (0)

Healthy Ministry Systems and Structures-Part 2 of 3-Systems Integrity and Evaluations


May 14

Posted: under Gathering, Planting, and Enterprising, Organizational Systems Design, Toxicity vs. Sustainability.

Ministry Systems Integrity

Any church, ministry, business, or agency that wants to train DiscipLeaders needs to evaluate the integrity of its systems and structures first. And, if toxic deficiencies are discovered, those need to be addressed - or at least started toward significant resolution - before implementing any kind of mentor/apprentice system.

We simply should not expect interns to save a failing organization - though interns undoubtedly have much they can contribute to its vibrancy and vitality. And we should not subject interns to an unhealthy ministry setting. That borders on misuse, if not abuse, and likely also implants some “toxic DNA” into the interns’ perspectives.

I believe this so strongly that, if I were In Charge of Everything, I would not allow interns into an organization where its leaders refuse such an evaluation of ministry system integrity, or where they slack off in addressing problems discovered during an evaluation.

I assume that the less open to scrutiny or solutions an organization’s leaders are, the more open they are to abusing anyone associated with them.

This does not mean that I’d write off organizations that don’t have healthy enough systems in place yet. However, their current need would be for redemptive and restorative work to bring the organization up to a reasonable level of standards for what their systems should be, not attempting to replicate what systems they have into anyone prospective DiscipLeader they would mentor.

So - that may sound all fine and dandy, but it leaves many practical questions about an internship site certification assessment that identifies the organization’s core systems and tests for “structural integrity” in ministry:

  • What areas should be considered as necessary for a minimum threshold of system health?
  • What additional areas are needed for a comprehensive system?
  • What are the standards for evaluating whether there is sufficient development and integrity in these various areas?
  • Are these standards quantitative, qualitative, or both?
  • Are the standards of “healthiness” different, depending on the organizational paradigm or the methodological model for ministry, or are they universal?
  • What biblical expectations for organizations of disciples must override any other standards set by the business community, denominational officials, or emerging organizational development models?
  • Who should conduct such an evaluation - are insiders objective enough to set aside their assumptions to see the strengths and challenges involved?

.

The Importance of Mobilizing Disciples into Ministry

The one recommendation I have for both biblical and “best-practices” principles in a systems-oriented evaluation is the “Model Mobilyzr Church” from http://mobilyzr.com/. Check their website for a range of core issues in healthy versus toxic ministry systems and resources, and especially see the series of links below on the Model Mobilyzr Church profile.

Disclosure: I previously worked for Mobilyzr as a ministry strategist in 2007-2008. One project I had was writing the Model Mobilyzr Church profile. Its principles and applications were developed directly from material written by PLACE/Mobilyzr ministry founder Jay McSwain, in his book, Are You Committed? Connecting God’s People to Meaningful Ministry. The profile of evaluation principles I developed from his book was designed to fit a range of traditional, transitional, and “new-edge” ministry models and methodologies, and a range of approaches and practices within orthodox theologies. Although the Model Mobilyzr Church is not in the form of a checklist, its profile does interweave very practical ways to identify system integrity issues and, often, ideas for correcting problems. Also, I do not receive any remuneration for linking to mobilyzr.com, Jay’s book, or the Model Mobilyzr Church.

I strongly recommend the perspective of Mobilyzr and its sister organization, PLACE Ministries. Also, I know they consistently work to upgrade their products, and that they avoid promising what they cannot yet deliver. They seek to practice what they preach. I refer people to Mobilyzr for helpful resources because their toolsets are integrated around how to:

  • Connect God’s people with meaningful ministry through identifying their giftedness and areas of passion for service.
  • Equip, empower, and encourage them in their best-fit ministry.
  • Develop them as leaders and the entire organizational system for sustainable multiplication of ministers and ministries.

In my opinion, if a Christian enterprise does not have ministry mobilization of disciples as a core commitment, I believe it is already proving both its lack of overall health and that it has no business at this time in attempting to supervise ministry interns from either an inside or outside program.

In systems that do not mobilize disciples into ministry, the designated “leaders” typically: (1) do everything themselves, (2) only allow their “chosen ones” to serve, and/or (3) misuse the service of sincere volunteer ministers for their own misguided “leadership” vision, purposes, and goals. All three of these are manifestations of quenching the Holy Spirit by denying the gifts given to people within that gathering. And quenching the Spirit is indeed a most serious issue of accountability.

How to Evaluate Your Organization’s Systems Integrity

Here are links to the overall principles that Mobilyzr recommends for planning, evaluating, and ensuring ministry systems that are sustainable, both through positively mobilizing God’s people and through preventing abuses. Other tools from Mobilyzr offer practical resources for improving the quality of systems in a church, ministry, or agency.

1. The Model Mobilyzr Church. Introducing core values, sustainable systems, customization, tracking changes, and budgeting consistency.

2. Naming and Promoting Core Values. Overviewing biblical values required to implement an intentional, complete, integrated process to connect God’s people to meaningful ministry.

3. Sustaining Integrity in Ministry Processes, Systems, and Structures.Implementing practical principles for healthy systems, such as: strength-based service (instead of “slotting” people into roles where anyone could do the job), clear job descriptions, team-based ministry, mentoring, sustainability, systems improvements, ministry infrastructures, accountability, new ministry development, missional development, conducting background checks, periodic evaluations, supervision, and ministry multiplication.

4. Customizing Ministry Placement, Training, and Communications. Assessing gifts, ministry interests, and spiritual maturity level before placing any volunteer (or staff) into ministry positions; customizing the ministry role and ongoing training for people from a variety of learning styles and maintaining confidentiality in data and communications systems.

5. Tracking Quantitative and Qualitative Changes. Balancing both being Spirit-led and being intentional in upgrading organizational systems, and using regular evaluations of the “environment of empowerment” - responsibilities, risk-taking, and unconditional support - to assess the church overall and its individual ministry teams.

6. Budgeting Reflects Priorities from Core Values and Sustainable Systems. Budgeting specifically to fund equipping resources, training, and sabbatic leaves. Creating a clear and comprehensive system for internships/externships. Some of the other detailed sections contain general principles of openness and accountability with financial systems - a crucial feature to identifying an overall healthy or toxic system.

7. Here is a link to read/download: Introduction and Chapter 1 - “Is the Church on Steroids?” - in Are You Committed? Connecting God’s People to Meaningful Ministry by Jay McSwain.

Any church, ministry, or agency leaders who believe they are beyond the need for evaluation, training, and oversight themselves in order to supervise others have already proven by their lack of humility and teachability that they are currently incapable of leading others in healthy growth or ministry development.

How to Identify Your Organization’s “Redemptive Purpose”

Not everything in our organizations should be about finding the deficits and excesses, and fixing them. Important as a systems integrity evaluation is, it needs to be counterbalanced by an understanding of the organization’s providential “redemptive purpose.” I define redemptive purpose as the unique “spiritual capital” that God has implanted in a specific church, ministry, agency, business, culture, or individual. It reflects God’s intent and design for that entity, and includes its history, mission, context, and potential best future options.

I suspect that many times, an organization strays from a deep understanding of why it exists, and why it exists in the specific place it is planted. And this may lead to problems in the organizational systems, because its leaders have lost their focus on God’s providential purposes. Recapturing that sense of redemptive purpose may help set things back on course, but it will not automatically correct internal problems, remove toxicity, and/or promote health. Nor can it change external circumstances that may require continual course adjustments because the culture and context of the organization do not remain what they were when the organization was founded.

If you are interested in more details about how to identify the redemptive purpose of an organizational entity, culture, or individual, look into the emerging discipline of appreciative inquiry. This approach to communal discernment focuses on identifying what is positive and constructive in a business or organization, and amplifying it - not on identifying its flaws and problem-solving them.

Next post: Part 3 - Sustainable DiscipLeader Systems introduces my systems design terminology. It also shares principles for selecting and certifying qualified sites, mentors, and other leaders for various kinds of DiscipLeader mentor/apprentice systems (e.g., arts/creativity, general character and specific gift-based ministry skills, and sustainable strategies for Kingdom contextualization).

This series is cross-posted at my main futuristguy blog.

Comments (1)

Healthy Ministry Systems and Structures-Part 1 of 3-My Background in Systems Design


May 14

Posted: under Gathering, Planting, and Enterprising, Organizational Systems Design, Toxicity vs. Sustainability.

Series Introduction and Overview

A recent guest post from Dr. Margaret Jones tackled some important issues for training leadership and addressing issues of spiritual abuse. I may eventually respond to each of the five “cluster questions” I posed there. However, I felt I should at least explore issues of systems and structures for mentoring next generations of DiscipLeaders. (DiscipLeaders is my own term, and I mean it to emphasize that ALL who follow Jesus Christ as disciples are automatically designed to be leaders through their life, their gift-based ministry, and their relationships.)

So, this series on Healthy Ministry Systems and Structures will run at least three posts.

  1. This first post gives my background in organizational development and systems design.
  2. The second post links to webpages on http://mobilyzr.com/, an important source for conducting an evaluation of systems integrity for your church, ministry, or agency. The delay between Parts 2 and 3 gives you a time gap to read and consider the material from the mobilyzr.com links, and conduct a basic evaluation on how well your organization seems to be doing for integrity of systems and structures, processes and procedures.
  3. The third post offers specific suggestions for starting a ministry internship or mentor/apprentice system. It draws from three different plans I have designed for sustainable and duplicatable systems: one for experiences to hone interns’ ministry skills and character; one for mentoring next-generation artists, creators, and writers; and one on sustainable strategy and ministry skills for culture-readers, change agents, and futurists. (I’ll see if I can blend principles from all three into one coherent approach. But if it looks like it’s becoming too long, I’ll split it into several posts.)

I am raising these topics right after Dr. Jones’ guest post on spiritual abuse because:

I believe an organization that has not evaluated its system integrity and begun addressing deficiencies does not have the right stuff to be mentoring next generation leaders responsibly. An organization with low system integrity is at high risk of inflicting spiritual abuse on its leaders, members, and ministry interns.

I hope this series will give constructive frameworks for health ministry and mentoring systems. These are crucial to the survival of existing churches, ministries, and agencies, and expansion of the Kingdom! I will post the second part of the series immediately, and the third part as soon as I can, depending on time and energy coinciding.

My Background in Organizational Development and Systems Design

If spiritual gifts and ministries are where our “work” seems like play, then I must have a providential gifting package related to organizational development! I have vivid memories of my first major systems design job. My role related to conference organizing. It involved creating a system for scheduling 1,600 students into as many of their top choices as possible for 5 different workshops with a total of over 60 teachers, some of whom had limited time availability and others who let us choose their time slots. And then I had to train a team of schedulers in how to apply this system - thanks Al, Leslie, and Robyn! It could not be done by computer … because it was high school, in “old school” times, and we didn’t have access to computers in those pretechstoric time.

Yeah, that was my first big gig in systems design. I was 16 at the time. When I was 40, I designed what apparently was the first-ever U.S. seminary training on HIV/AIDS ministry offered for academic credit. It involved three weekend conferences, each on a different theme and with multiple main sessions and workshops. This series utilized the expertise of over 50 instructors who averaged something like 9 years of experience in ministry to people infected or affected by HIV. (Most of whom I knew personally from national-level work in this ministry arena myself since the late 1980s.) It also involved developing all the schedules and volunteer plans, plus creating over 200 pages of resources in three notebooks. That was in 1996 - 15 years into the HIV epidemic - and it was still a startling missing link in terms of church ministry during that era.

Maybe all that detail wasn’t necessary for most readers, but for those who do require documentable expertise, perhaps that shows enough “street cred” for me to write on this topic as a combination practitioner-theoretician-theologian.

I’m not sure I ever viewed projects like that one, or organizations in general, through a mechanistic framework. That’s because I believe a set of multiple factors shapes the outcomes, and if any of those elements change - especially the human element - then the intended outcomes cannot be guaranteed. No one taught me that, that’s just the way I always saw it. As I’ve come to understand since then, that perspective involves a framework that is more organic than mechanistic, and a methodology that is more interconnected complex systems than purely analytic. (My beginnings in organic systems and ecology go back even farther than my systems design experiences, but I’ll save the story of that passion, research, and practical experiences for another time.)

And so, I’ve come to see that “O” for Organic is about Optimizing the cOmbination of relevant elements for the best Output, while “M” for Mechanic is about Maximizing the aMounts of set inputs for the Most output. (I just made that up on the spot. Not perfect, but I still kind of like it!)

A Decade of Sustainable Systems Design Plans

Much of what shaped the ideas in the next posts on healthy systems and mentor/apprentice programs comes from three major projects I’ve developed over the past 12 years. Some of the ideas come from even earlier periods in my thinking, but the initial proposals date from 1997 through 2003 - with multiple revisions and upgrades to them in the years since.

The first source comes from 1997. I completed an extensive proposal for creating “MentorCenter Networks” to disciple next-generation artists, creators, and writers. It contained specific criteria, structures, and processes for selecting and developing mentors and interns. The design called for the first interns/trainees to become the next mentors in turn (if interested, capable, and qualified by sufficient spiritual maturity),and some of them could be trained and certified to transplant the entire system elsewhere. That gave the approach an edge for transforming what could otherwise be just a one-time, short-term series of meetings into an ongoing, long-term sustainable and duplicatable system.

The second source comes from reflection on my own Theological Field Education (TFE) internship at seminary in 2000-2001. I was supposed to serve in a church plant as a “concept and design guy,” which involved conceptualizing and designing all dimensions of what I was then calling a “post-postmodern-friendly church.” Today I’d probably describe the concept and design activities as something more along the lines of “organizational historian, cultural interpreter, learning styles consultant, and systems designer and developer.” The post-postmodern-friendly aspect I would now describe with equal verbosity as a “culture-current, futures-oriented, intercultural-context, multiplication-structured, organic-paradigm church.”

What these were called wasn’t as important as the fact that this experience turned out to be far more disappointing than engaging. At least my deconstructing it afterwards led to at least two things I consider very redemptive. One was an original system for integrating multiple cultures into an “intercultural connection zone” that was “welcoming and transforming” for all. Another was an extensive critique of the TFE system. That very disheartening experience also motivated me to apply for a job as the seminary’s TFE administrative assistant when the position came open in 2004.

Disclosure: Serving in that position gave me a direct opportunity to share suggestions for improving the quality and consistency of the TFE promotions and materials, processes and procedures, systems and structures. I shared with the Director some articles I had developed on internship systems, with the explicit agreement that “In sharing this material with the TFE program [...] I retain the right to use the same material in any training and mentoring programs I may eventually implement.” Hence what I’ll write from in Part 3 is material I am responsible for creating and stewarding, even if it was initially in response to my TFE experiences, and even though some of my ideas were adopted in the updates to their program.

The third source comes from an extensive proposal I created in 2003 for “Marin Century.” I live in Marin County, often acknowledged as one of the least churched counties in the U.S. In terms of discipleship, this locale needs more plowing, sowing, and watering than of reaping. And - just my opinion - that kind of preliminary work may need to be the priority for several more generations, as this setting really does seem to be a classic cross-cultural missions frontier situation.

The Marin Century proposal offered systems for developing a 100-year-plan for greater systems health, spiritual maturity, and transgenerational sustainability in Marin County churches and ministries. It suggested structures for equipping an initial intergenerational, interdenominational team of adult men and women to move toward spiritual maturity, and for training them in practical culturology, contextualization, and futurist skills. Their legacy of this long-term learning-and-serving community would be to:

  • Apply those spiritual formation and ministry strategy skills in the current context.
  • Pass them on through investing them in next generations of DiscipLeaders.
  • Release those next generations to adapt the plans to their own emerging contexts as they discern it.

Thus, Marin Century would implant a multigenerational strategic plan and skills training system that could be implanted, and continually adapted and re-implanted.

Next post: Part 2 - Systems Integrity and Evaluations shares some opinions on why potential ministry internship sites should undergo evaluation. It also gives an overview and links to www.mobilyzr.com as an important source for conducting your own evaluation of systems integrity for your church, ministry, or agency; and introduces the complementary process of appreciative inquiry to identify an organization’s “redemptive purpose.”

This series is cross-posted at my main futuristguy blog.

Comments (1)

Cultures and Kingdom 03-What are “cultural capital” and “redemptive purpose”?


May 11

Posted: under Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom.

SUMMARY: This post expands beyond the concrete/production aspects of culture to include abstract and linguistic aspects that deal with our legacy of “cultural capital” that we invest into next generations. It suggests how “redemptive purpose” relates to cultural capital, and overviews perspectives for identifying each.

Elements of “Cultural Capital” and Its Transmission

In the last post, I mentioned a number of aspects within a culture. I’d like to categorize and re-list those. They include two layers - those that are more often:

  • Concrete and visible - artifacts (products, physical items), places, behaviors, and organizations.
  • Abstract and invisible - vision, values, philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

To these, we need to add language - which is a highly important factor to the transmission of culture. Typically, a coherent cultural system is contained within a specific language. Once aspects of that culture are translated into another language, some things are inevitably altered in the process. Sometimes this distortion is due to the lack of relevant or accurate vocabulary. For instance, the family of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, which sought in the late 1800s to revive biblical Hebrew into a modern language, had to create Hebrew words for newspaper, telegram, and tomato. Or, distortion could be due to very specific ways the new host’s language is inherently biased toward processing information. Our inability to translate concepts exactly between languages is part of the power of what happened at the Tower of Babel. Differences in language help ensure that the diverse range of cultures remain intact and we do not all homogenize into one generic humaniculture - and cultural diversity seems to be part of what God intended. (Sidenote: I’m trained as a linguist and I focused on the role of “discourse analysis” in understanding cross-cultural communication problems. Someday I’ll put up a “bonus post” on logic and language, and then link it here.)

Concrete, abstract, and linguistic layers of culture all together form “cultural capital” - the complex system of interconnected elements that are invested into next generations of that culture’s members. Cultural capital is invested in next generations explicitly through teaching and implicitly through role-modeling. It is also transferred by teaching the next generation the language of that culture, or - in the case of subcultures - the “slang” or “lingo” of the “tribe.”

Points of Integration for a Tribe or Culture

Every culture possesses and invests its capital, whether that culture is based on natural group characteristics or virtual group characteristics.

  • Primary cultural integration points for “natural tribes” include such inherent and unchangeable characteristics as: race, gender, generation, family or tribe of origin, and country of origin. Think of inherent characteristics as those set by God’s choices in His providence.
  • Primary cultural integration points for “virtual tribes” include such affinity and chosen characteristics as values, lifestyles, what other groups or philosophies the tribe opposes. Think of affinity characteristics as those things outside themselves that hold such appeal that a person chooses to adopt them as his or her own.

Each culture integrates itself around a unique mix of these two kinds of characteristics - natural and virtual. For instance, when the punk subculture began in the mid-1970s in the UK, its appeal was primarily to young adults. So, it had a specific age-group or generational appeal. In its origins, punk is seen as a pessimistic or nihilistic counterpart to the idealist and optimistic hippy movement. Punk strongly valued a do-it-yourself mentality, and perhaps for this reason, there seems to have been a higher percentage of women actively involved in the punk music scene than in many other subcultural scenes.

These days, it seems that everyone belongs to one “affinity tribe” or another. We create or join some kind of “virtual family of volition” or “family of choice” with which to live life. This may be anything from a residential community of non-blood-related comrades who feel like kin, to a decentralized network of friends who keep in touch by electronic means. It can be a “style tribe” like Glam Rock or an “activity tribe” like Role-Playing Game groups. (More in a later post on how subcultures and virtual tribes form.)

The increased influence of virtual tribes helps us understand why traditional approaches to transferring culture are not as effective - the next generations are not always interested in carrying on the old ways, especially when the old ways do not allow for the realities of the new world as it is emerging. So, if that’s the case, how do we see what is being passed on, and through what specific routes, and what is being phased out? I’d suggest that these are handy skills for missional disciples to learn and apply. We need them in order to connect with relevance to positive aspects of another culture’s profile while we stand in resistance to its anti-biblical aspects. We won’t know which is which unless we intentionally learn how to discern cultural capital.

Researching “Cultural Capital” and “Redemptive Purpose”

To discover what concrete, abstract, and language elements are in a culture’s current “capital,” we can take a research “snapshot” of it, interview cultural informants on why what we perceive is or is not important to it, and then analyze and interpret what we observed. (A technical term for this kind of investigation is a synchronic analysis - with time, at one point in time.) If you’re interested in what to look for in your research, you can use this book as a guide: Create a Culture: A Complete Framework for Students to Use in Creating an Original Culture by Carol Nordgaarden. It’s written for middle-school students (about grades 5 through 8 in the U.S. system, or ages 11 through 14), so you can get your kids involved, too.

But what else would we see if we captured a “videotape” of a culture over time, conducted similar interviews periodically, and analyzed our data (i.e., did a diachronic analysis - through time)? With a more historical bent to our analysis, we can more easily perceive patterns of both visible and invisible aspects of culture that are being passed on to next generations, as well as those that morph and evolve into something else, those that go from a major emphasis to a minor one or vice versa, and those that become extinct. We can also discern how patterns of relationships with other cultures and groups maintain themselves or change over time - how offenses lead to long-term enmities or how friendships or needs lead to alliances.

A long-term analysis is also crucial for understanding how the abstract elements in culture (e.g., values, information processing modes, theology) become concrete, and vice versa. For instance, in our own era, we must now consider how the constant presence of emerging forms of technology, virtual networks, and instantaneous communications exert pressure on the very ways we perceive and process information. These results of concrete products affect our values, our visions of what futures are possible and preferable, etc.

A long-term analysis is also crucial for understanding a culture’s “redemptive purpose” - which is the unique “spiritual capital” that God has implanted in a specific culture so they can help people from other races, places, and cultural spaces learn wisdom from the particular circumstances their tribe has endured. I suspect that each country and culture and tribe and organization has some pieces of wisdom to offer, and that if that culture is influenced by Kingdom Culture, the constructive lessons learned will be amplified through God’s grace and the Gospel.

For instance, we in Western countries could gain much insight on the affects of modern-day servitude by studying the system of apartheid, how it was instituted, how it was dismantled, and what lasting influences it has left where it was enforced. We can learn a lot about the value of being industrious from the punk subculture, and about important practices of environmental stewardship from those who identify themselves as being eco-spiritual. And we can learn immensely valuable practices of communal discernment and decision-making from various Native American tribes. It doesn’t mean their entire framework has to resonate with a biblical one, but there needs to be some point of relevance between the two. And if we can learn to listen and discern what is pro-biblical within other cultures, we are halfway to finding “spiritual spackle” to fill in gaps in our own paradigms and cultures.

If you’re interested in more details about how to identify an organization’s or culture’s redemptive purpose, look into the emerging discipline of appreciative inquiry. This approach to communal discernment focuses on identifying what is positive and constructive in a business or organization, and amplifying it - not on identifying its flaws and problem-solving them. (In my opinion, ministries need to use evaluations of systems integrity plus appreciative inquiry in order to both avoid/remove toxicity and promote health. Same with cultures.)

Perspectives on “Cultural Capital” and “Redemptive Purpose”

In the 1990s, several authors studied the sorts of cultural heritage and equivalents of redemptive purposes that resident in people groups and races. In my studies back then on the formation of cultures and subcultures, I gained some intriguing perspective from Joel Kotkin’s 1992 book, Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy - then apparently considered ground-breaking. Thomas Sowell was another author who challenged my assumptions on cultures in such books as Race and Culture: A World View (1995) and Migrations and Culture: A World View (1997). What they presented could be misconstrued as stereotyping, and yet, it does seem as if specific abilities, passions, or ways of social organization are “in the cultural genes” of particular people groups.

  • Why is it that certain nationalities excel at entrepreneuring businesses that succeed, even when they immigrate to other countries? And why otherwise has this pattern has persisted for century after century?
  • Why do other nationalities excel at industrialization?
  • Why do some societies produce gifted novelists and playwrights - generation after generation after generation?

Such cultural personalities and destinies are not in the physical genes of a people group, but are values, skills, and perspectives transferred culturally from one generation to the next through the teachings and experiences of everyday life.

Authors like John Dawson Healing America’s Wounds (1994) wrote from a Kingdom perspective about a similar concept of “redemptive gift” that each people group and nation could offer to the world. Twenty years earlier, the amazing, interdisciplinary anthropologist-theologian professor Arthur Custance wrote in Noah’s Three Sons: Human History in Three Dimensions (1975) about the unique cultural contributions of entire civilizations left by the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Also, in some theological circles these days, we hear the question of “what gift does this person or group carry?” Or we might hear of a community discussion on its “spiritual destiny.”

I’m currently using the term “redemptive purpose” to describe the providential history and experiences leading to the unique contribute each person, group, congregation, tribe, community, or culture can make to human civilization and to Kingdom Culture when that purpose is redeemed for God’s ultimate purposes. So, think of redemptive purpose as a “virtuous virus.”

For me, the specific redemptive purpose for a covenanted group of disciples is what calls forth its members’ passion. It stirs people’s hearts, brings them tears of sorrow and joy. It motivates their projects, both within the community of disciples and toward those who are not yet disciples. This redemptive purpose is demonstrated in the beginnings of a gathering’s “spiritual DNA,” and manifests itself over time.

It is bigger than any single leader, single team, or single generation. Its perpetuation depends on all of them together, not any one of them alone. Redemptive purpose is far more a vision that is already carried and embodied, than a vision which is cast and moved toward. All that is said and done sends messages that pass around this purpose to congregants old and new, infecting them with renewed motivation and momentum, which they pass on in turn to the next generations. It can be identified, but it cannot be isolated from either the community in which the gathering is embedded, or the Kingdom community of churches in which it is related.

Comments (0)

Cultures and Kingdom 02-Why do we have such trouble talking about “culture”?


Apr 30

Posted: under Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom.

SUMMARY: This post introduces some key elements of “culture.” It also overviews some difficulties people in general have when it comes to talking about culture, and a few additional reasons why this is especially a problem for Christians.

Core Aspects in Talking About “Culture”

People generally have a lot of problems when it comes to talking together about cultures and what makes them tick. Some equate cultural analysis with surface things like artifacts (for example, concrete items such as CDs, movies, books, clothing styles), places (church buildings, clubs, schools), behaviors (wildness trips, “hanging out” at malls, going to an alternative worship service), and/or organizations (political organizations, educational institutions, business enterprises). Some would focus on formal statements of vision and/or values, or perhaps the underlying philosophy, theology, or spirituality of a people or culture.

These are all important layers of what cultural systems are about, as is reflected in the core definition of culture I gave in Cultures and Kingdom 01, in the section on “What Culture Is and What Culture Is Not.”

Culture is the broadest perspective for thinking about being human. Culture is our most complex creation as beings made to reflect the image of a Creator God. Cultures are complex systems that include both everything that we create to be seen, along with the unseen ways of processing information, values, and beliefs that lead to what is made manifest.

However, those elements are more the “what” aspects of culture. What about the “who”? Some people expect they can substantially understand someone’s culture based solely on that person’s gender, age/generation (Builders, Boomers, Busters, Blasters, Bridgers, Beyonders … or whatever system of titles and attributes you use), level of abilities, race, social/economic class, country, or even religion. If we look at all the people factors, is that enough to understand culture?

While those may be important factors, not one of these has a fully isolated culture that belongs only to them, with no influences drawn from elsewhere. For instance, not all “Millennials” are techy-geeks, not all Boomers are narcissistic, and there is no women-only culture that has no carryover from elsewhere or to elsewhere. Again, going back to the core definition from Cultures and Kingdom 01:

Everyone creates/influences culture, and culture influences everyone. All people contribute to the creation and expressions of some kind of culture, regardless of their stance toward the mainstream culture. [...] This means engagement with cultures is not neutral - we either resist it, relate with it, isolate from it, assert control over it - and whatever other potential stances toward the collective creation we can imagine. All forms of engagement and disengagement with a culture influence it to some degree. No one escapes being affected by culture, or even the drive to create culture. [...] Also, when someone chooses to disengage from society, we can interpret that as their choices being influenced by culture and their actions as creating a culture - even if it is an alternative culture or subculture.

General Problems Christians have with “Culture”

As Christians, we compound our problems with talking about cultures if we have been steeped in a typical “church culture.” Many of us have become unfamiliar with “the world out there.” But I would suggest that missional discipleship is about living like Jesus would in the midst of cultures, relating to its people, and challenging its ways that go against God’s design and therefore are harmful. And yet, rarely is systematic material about culture presented to the average person in the average church. However, when it comes to specific cultures or cultural activities, there are often enough sermons about them, or celebrations of them, or diatribes against them. At least, that’s been my experience.

But how deep is the understanding about “culture” in these cases? Are they really about the complex interconnections of values, ideals, perceptions, behaviors, etc.? Or just about some single issue that is relatively easy to pick out and pick up or pick on?

From what I’ve gathered, even seminaries do not seem to educate students well in the systems and substance of doing cultural analysis. This includes training both professional ministry practitioners and missionaries. They may learn how to strategize ministry for this or that people group, but not necessarily how to conduct cultural research for matching ministry with relevant aspects of culture while avoiding the anti-biblical aspects of culture that should be resisted. I’ve even watched as men and women who are training for international cross-cultural missions seem to be in love with the idea of culture, and yet avoid connecting with others in their dormitories who hail from another language, race, and/or culture.

For these and whatever other reasons, we simply do not have a common vocabulary to use in discussing culture. That means we have a hard time talking about frameworks for essential issues in expanding the Kingdom in healthy, transformative ways. Hopefully this series can offer something constructive on that line!

Two Key Difficulties Christians have in Talking About “Culture”

Meanwhile, I have a few other thoughts on difficulties. So - if all people in general seem to have trouble focusing in on a shared vocabulary for meaningful dialog about culture, what else that makes it perhaps even more difficult for Christians? Let me suggest at least two things.

First, culture is far more concrete than we are used to, because we Western Christians have focused on studying, improving, and teaching abstract philosophical-theological principles. Philosophical debate has been the premiere intellectual discipline of the West for many centuries. However, I suspect that culturology will become a more dominant field of study in the future.

If you want to explore some in-depth material on why these two approaches clash, check out this post on my futuristguy blog: Culturologists versus Philosophists? Culturology versus Philosophy? There I state that “a culturologist perspective is that cultural change drives the production of new philosophies,” while “a philosophist perspective is that philosophical changes drive the production of new cultures or cultural changes.” The world seems to be moving from the old abstractions of philosophy to the new concretizations of culture. So, if we are oriented primarily to theology and cognitive worldviews and statements of belief, we find ourselves out of our element in a world that is increasingly interested in spiritual practices and creative imagination and practical expressions of social justice. Which leads directly to my other main issue with why we Christians have trouble talking about culture.

Second - and as shocking as some may find this - when it comes to culture, we have been just plain lazy. Well, let me rephrase more nicely to say that “We invest our energies into things that are generally easier to understand and deal with, and that don’t drain our energy.” I think this complacency stems from our historic roles of cultural dominance in the West. We have not had to think hard about other cultures, because some type of Christendom culture has been our mainstream, our norm. People from other perspectives needed to understand us, not vice versa.

No longer. We now live in the midst of multiple other competing cultures. If we wish to disciple others, we need cross-cultural skills - even to connect well with people who may share our same language but speak a different “lingo.” However, exposure to cultures drains our energy - that’s what culture shock is about.

Even now, we Christians seem notorious for labeling and stereotyping people according to this or that inherent personal or social feature. I suppose we do this in part to reduce the work of dealing with cultural differences (i.e., reduce our own level of culture shock). Do we think this will make cross-cultural communication easier, even if it comes from a sincere desire to relate the gospel with others?

Why do we think this is supposed to be easy? If we go back to one key turning point in the formation and migration of cultures - the Tower of Babel - we see that God set differences in language in motion precisely because it would NOT then be so easy to unify everyone in our attempts to “be like God.” Culture is not the enemy; it can be a protection designed by God so our own enemy of the broken will to power does not consume all humanity.

There is hope, though. I didn’t believe that a better understanding of the dynamics of cultures would help in discipleship, I wouldn’t be writing this. We can learn how to function cross-culturally. And if it does not lessen the level of culture shock, at least it can make our cross-cultural functioning more incarnational, more humane, more productive.

The next post forges ahead with thoughts on “cultural capital” that is developed within a culture over its history and is passed on to next generations.

Comments (0)

Cultures and Kingdom 01 Continued-What is culture? What is Kingdom Culture?


Apr 18

Posted: under Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom.

SUMMARY: This post addresses several addition key thoughts on culture and Kingdom Culture. Topics:

  • What culture is - Culture is pervasive.
  • What culture is not - Culture is not neutral.
  • What Kingdom Culture is - scripturally comprehensive, integrated, and robust.
  • What Kingdom Culture is not - Not an overemphasis on one type or category of Scriptures.

Culture

Culture is pervasive. For better or for worse, culture touches on all things. It includes our ways of processing life and what we pick from that life as our values. It covers our beliefs and behaviors, our rules and rituals, our production and our consumption. It involves the local and global, organizations and infrastructures, work and entertainment. Everything.

Simply put, we cannot get away from aspects of culture any more than we can escape spirituality. Culture is the environment in which we carry out our lives, both individually and socially. Ironically, even if we as Christians believe “secular” culture is evil and therefore we should separate ourselves from it, we prove we are still cultural beings by creating a Christian subculture of isolation!

This is why the analogy of the Kingdom as leaven in a lump of dough is so vivid. Yeast multiplies in the dough and eventually works its way through the entire lump, changing the nature of the surroundings as it goes. So, when Grace commented after the previous post on the Church’s struggles with many aspects of culture, it reminded me of yogurt as an analogy for the pervasiveness of how organic cultures leaven or ferment. I thought about how “good bacteria” can transform milk into something good … and also how “bad bacteria” can multiply in foods and turn into toxins. Such extended analogies are hard to find, so I realized this was something I needed to study more.

That inspired me to get a copy of Wild Fermentation: The Flavor, Nutrition, and Craft of Live-Culture Foods by Sandor Ellix Katz. I chose this book specifically because it presents the fermentation process for almost every category of food, from almost every region of the globe, and from recipes that go back as much as 5,000 years. If there are near-universal analogies for culture and Kingdom, this sure is one of them! Perhaps I’ll have more to blog on the subject after I read the book.

Culture is not neutral. For better or for worse, culture transforms all it touches. Its pervasive influence affects us constructively or toxically. Cultures are in ascendancy or decline, they are static or dynamic, they are being changed in ways that ennoble or corrupt. Individuals and groups attempt to use culture to influence others.

Besides culture not being neutral over time, cultures are not neutral at any given time. Here I am referring to differences in how people view their own culture in comparison with others. A fascinating book related to cultural snobbery-and-submission is The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and Anthropology, edited by George E. Marcus and Fred R. Myers. Among other ideas about colonial kinds of cultural comparisons is the Western art critic notion of “the primitive” or “the exotic” in art. These are actually sophisticated ways of keeping Western concepts of beauty in our objets d’art as the standard by which all others elsewhere are judged. Really, it’s all about our little “pseudo-artiste” flair instead of any kind of genuine appreciation for the unique beauty produced by skilled artistry and craft work of cultural art and artifacts from elsewhere.

I suspect we engage in such false comparisons among our church cultures as much as others do for secular arts and cultures. Hmm …

Kingdom Culture

Kingdom Culture is scripturally comprehensive, integrated, and robust.

In the previous post, I suggested a number of themes that we need for expanding toward the largest possible holistic perspective of Kingdom Culture and our stewardship in it: Trinitarian, earth/creation, angels and demons in spiritual battle, etc. I’d also suggest that a narrative/storying framework drawn from the entire Bible will prove much more satisfying in helping us interpret our cultures and their histories than will the traditional conceptual/systematic theology framework. (Even though most of the specifics of Kingdom Culture come from the New Testament.) There’s a very lengthy and dense set of reasons for that conclusion, and this is not the time for the explanations.

But let me say this: I sense the narrative perspective is ascending in usage while the conceptual perspective is declining. If for no other reason than identifying with contemporary cultures, it is our responsibility to adjust to a narrative approach if we wish to communicate with others in their terms and not attempt to squeeze them into the assumptions of systematic theology approaches. After all, isn’t Kingdom Culture supposed to be incarnational? If so, then our means of sharing it should likewise be incarnational … considerate of the terms and turf of those we seek to communicate with. And if we’re not really willing to do the work involved, we ought to get out of the game.

Kingdom Culture is not an overemphasis on one type or category of Scriptures.

Not all views on the Kingdom and cultures constitute Kingdom Culture. Most oversimplify things. Maybe it is a human tendency to reduce complex things. I suppose we think simplifying makes things easier, more manageable. The trouble is, reductionism usually creates nearsighted perspectives where too many things that endanger us are left lurking in our peripheral vision, and from there, they sideswipe us. We may be sincere in our attempts to capture Kingdom Culture, but end up instead captivated by constrictive viewpoints, and these eventually cause significant problems in our practices. (Much more on that in future posts.)

In my opinion, the essential DNA of Kingdom Culture is drawn from a broader examination and interpretation of Scripture than we are used to. So, I am particularly concerned about systems for figuring out our faith and practice that are too small in ways that constrict freedom of choice and fluidity of transformation. Here are a few particulars of systems that I find inadequate to handle the “cosmic context” approach to Kingdom Culture that I mentioned in the previous post. For instance, some Christians overemphasize:

  • The Old Testament. They often act like we are under the legal and ceremonial practices of the Mosaic Law. A mentality of Christian control over culture often accompanies this legalistic mentality. However, the Church is not Israel, and the Kingdom is not a theocratic nation. Their attitudes and methods often come across as “Christalitarianism.”
  • The Gospel and/or the Book of Acts. They often act like everything described in these books is automatically prescribed for us as Christians. In practice, this presumes biblical-era culture correlates exactly to present culture, and that activities from that era in the Kingdom of Israel can be perfectly superimposed into the Kingdom of God. They change a culture-bound description into a universal requirement. This different form of cultural control also misses a biblical balance.
  • The New Testament epistles. They often focus on systematic theology and miss the emphasis of practical discipleship found described and/or directed in the Gospels and Acts. Or
  • Revelation and/or other prophetic and apocalyptic literature. This overfocus goes in different directions, such as embracing ethereal or hypermystical beliefs, passivity while awaiting the Lord’s inevitable soon return, and perhaps even adoption of something like “Christian animism” that involves constant warring against the spiritual forces of wickedness. Some lead to cultural withdrawal, others to domination.

I am not speaking from shear theory here. I have spent extended periods of time in various settings where these different perspectives reigned. The wounding experiences there are part of what God used to reshape me toward pursuing what is hopefully a more biblical balance. The DNA of each view leads to negative consequences in relation to how church cultures attempt to identify with (or isolate from) local cultures, and challenge (or control) local cultures - among other unbalanced and toxic possibilities. Later posts will address harmful approaches to cultures and Kingdom.

Comments (1)

Cultures and Kingdom 01-What is culture? What is Kingdom Culture?


Apr 07

Posted: under Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom.

“Basic Questions on Cultures and Kingdom” is a four-month series leading up to and through the Global Roundtable for Emerging and Underground Ministries, to be held in Poland, July 2009.

SUMMARY. This post gives a snapshot with a wide-angle lens of what culture is and what it is not. It also introduces the concept of “Kingdom Culture” as the core of God’s ideal that can be worked out uniquely in any and every cultural setting.

Other posts in the series will zoom in on some of these points, probably add more pixels, and consider how the subjects captured on film (cultures, disciples of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom) all interact.

What Culture Is and What Culture Is Not

Culture is the broadest perspective for thinking about being human. Culture is our most complex creation as beings made to reflect the image of a Creator God. Cultures are complex systems that include both everything that we create to be seen, along with the unseen ways of processing information, values, and beliefs that lead to what is made manifest. If culture were a human being, then culture is like the unique physical form that reflects how its deep-level DNA shapes the physical surfaces and how the DNA and surface both change while interacting with other factors in the social environment.

In the Western world - which is in decline - philosophy would likely have been considered the broadest perspective for considering the questions of what it means to be human. My approach of “culturology” assumes that studies of worldviews, philosophies, and beliefs are just another system within the larger set of systems that cultures are made of. My assumption that culture trumps philosophy tends to throw some people into culture shock … in multiple meanings of that term … but I hold to it nevertheless. Using a framework based on cultures, we can consider more aspects of humanity than simply what people create with their mental faculties; we can look at what emerges from our imaginations, our emotions, our soul and spirit, our will, our bodies, our actions, our relationships, our communities - and the synthesis of any combination of these material and immaterial layers of the “MRI of being human.”

Everyone creates/influences culture, and culture influences everyone. All people contribute to the creation and expressions of some kind of culture, regardless of their stance toward the mainstream culture. (For instance, some people isolate from mainstream culture, some try to control their culture, some do what they have to in order to survive an oppressive public culture and then they act however they want to in private.) This means engagement with cultures is not neutral - we either resist it, relate with it, isolate from it, assert control over it - and whatever other potential stances toward the collective creation we can imagine. All forms of engagement and disengagement with a culture influence it to some degree. No one escapes being affected by culture, or even the drive to create culture. Even a person alone creates culture … for instance, think of Tom Hank’s character Chuck Noland in Cast Away (2000). Also, when someone chooses to disengage from society, we can interpret that as their choices being influenced by culture and their actions as creating a culture - even if it is an alternative culture or subculture.

There is an even bigger perspective possible by looking at the “cosmic context.” No need to freak out because I used the word cosmic. All I mean here is that my previous description of culture and being human is too small, because it is only about people.

It is nearly universal that people in different times, places, and social spaces believe there are more than just people in the picture of reality and therefore, in what influences cultures. As Christians we see the Triune God as creating that much larger context. If we have a more holistic biblical understanding of stewardship, we see the environmental system of earth as part of that context. If we have a more holistic biblical understanding of the unseen world, then spiritual warfare between rarely visible agents of good and evil are engaged in conflict that spills over into our existence as individuals and as cultures.

The assumptions any culture shares about who acts on the cosmic stage of life dramatically affect other values, beliefs, and behaviors. Who is God and is He engaged with or disengaged from people? Is He weak or strong, perfect or flawed, sadistic or righteous? Who are forces of evil and good? Are they equal in strength? In numbers? What degree of influence do they exhibit? Should we invoke their presence and their power, or not? If we do, what are potential consequences? What difference does it make if people relate with God and/or these other beings?

There is an Ideal “Kingdom Culture”

God has revealed a core to “Kingdom Culture.” I believe the Bible gives us sufficient moral imperatives and wisdom guidelines for us to discern a comprehensive set of personal and social frameworks to design a local expression of “Kingdom Culture” that is both considerate of local culture and true to scripture. This local expression also both honors the Triune God, keeps unseen forces of good and evil in perspective, and allows all individuals and people groups the freedom to choose whether they pursue a relationship with God through Christ, and how. So, in my understanding, Kingdom Culture is the ideal, and - using the analogy of DNA and physical body - the internal essence or frameworks are found in the DNA first, and the outward expressions will look different, depending on the particular place.

We are found within the real - even if/when moving toward this ideal of Kingdom Culture. However, we are not totally bound by our local cultural circumstances. All of us as individuals and in our groups fall short when compared to God’s ideal. I’ve termed these gaps “spiritual osteoporosis” - we are missing spots of values, beliefs, and behaviors that need to be filled in with “spiritual spackle.” For instance, a society that does not promote protection from poisons for those who work in agriculture need a strong and long-term dose of biblical justice to counteract that Kingdom Cultural gap.

Likewise all of us as individuals and in our groups find issues and areas where we go beyond God’s ideal. For instance, perhaps a church is too zealous about teaching or prophecy or worship through music, and this creates an excess or overemphasis. I’ve termed this “spiritual bone spurs” and would suggest that to bring things back into balance, the excess substance must be scraped off. If it is not, it will eventually cause severe damage. (In this example, while some areas must be “filed down,” the missing parts to the balance must be “glued in.”)

The past history and current situation of a place affects what issues a particular family, tribe, group, nation, society, or civilization there tends to emphasize or quench. So, if we want to better comprehend and composite a far more panoramic picture of what the Kingdom looks like, we need to consider places where disciples and churches have addressed issues that are not strongly “on our spiritual radar,” though they are on God’s mind and His commands and/or wisdom is revealed in His Word. For instance, a deep level of lessons about responses to modern slavery and oppression reside in those who endured apartheid, as well as among those who endured the persecution of most people groups by leaders in the former Soviet Union. My sense of godly justice has been sharpened by my interactions with the life stories of people in such settings.

The next post will continue with a few more thoughts on these themes of what culture is and is not, and what Kingdom Culture is and is not. I will also plan to give some of my background on the providence behind my studies of cultures.

Meanwhile, this is your chance to interact with the ideas and examples found here! Questions? Comments? Concerns? Situations? Also, maybe you’ll want to start making your own list of what you think is in “Kingdom Culture” that should show up in some form in every “transformed local culture.”

Comments (4)

Road Trip to the Roundtable-01. Providential Grace: Take NO BREAD With You


Apr 07

Posted: under Road Trip to the Roundtable.

It was unexpected to be invited, but an honour. I’m excited about the opportunity, and suspect there will end up being quite a story in how God provides to get me there! [Cultures and Kingdom 00-Series Preview]

One way the Lord often uses to direct me is clarity of mind that comes in the morning. It happens especially when I’ve been in a process of praying and thinking, seeking and discerning over any number of days. This morning it came together for me how unlikely it is that I should be going on a road trip to the Global Roundtable for Emerging and Underground Ministries, this July in Poland. After all, I haven’t traveled internationally since 1990, and I’ll need a renewed passport. That isn’t really such a big problem in itself. But then, as one who endures the effects of chronic fatigue, travel just isn’t that easy for me. That could be a much bigger problem. And then, the fact that my job ended October 31 due to the economic downturn, and that I’ve been underemployed ever since … now that could surely prove the biggest problem of all.

Energy and money - those two issues resurface any time I sense a “Divine Road Trip” is underway. But, if I made those two things the first and/or final criteria for deciding what I think God’s will is, I’d be a complete stay-at-home shut-in because rarely do I have energy and/or money. But the mandates of being transformed and ministering to others require us to go beyond the easy and comfortable, and engage at least once in a while in some faith-stretching risk-taking disciple-making enterprise.

And so, over the years, I have learned to make the decision about going somewhere based on discernment first, rather than whether I physically feel up to going or whether I immediately have the funds to get there. Sometimes it’s a series of shaky steps, but it all works out - as with my trip to Houston for Doxology in 2005 - whether by a subtle or spectacular series of “divine dominoes” to get me on the road. Sometimes it doesn’t work out - as with my hoped-for trip to GodBlogCon 2008 - which doesn’t necessarily mean I was chasing after something wrong. It could be other issues, such as it being the right thing but the wrong timing. Or maybe the process of learning and discerning was more important for me than the product of going was. Or …

Maybe the key thing is the story these faith adventures create. And living into our stories by taking steps forward, knocking on doors to see what opens. And working with the Spirit as if this is a collaborative project in which there’s some scripting plus some improvisation plus some stage directions plus an ensemble cast plus some props and lighting and backdrops.

So, if the story’s the thing, why should I expect that all would be easy going - especially to a global roundtable that focuses on ministry in emerging and alternative and underground cultures? Aren’t those very settings and our involvements there a “God story” in themselves? So, whenever I go on road trips with God’s blessing, I’ll not be looking for ease (as pleasant as that would be!) but for “providential grace” along the way.

Sidenote: Funny, as I was writing this post, I suspected there was something providential even in the choice of that term. And sure enough, turn

[p-r-o-v-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-l  g-r-a-c-e]

inside out and we find a nearly perfect anagram that spells:

[Enlarge: Road Trip]

with a few leftovers and leftunders! And that’s the ultimate thing, really. That road trips are faith-stretchers, by divine design.

(P.S. Sometimes I scare even myself when stuff like that just pops into my brain.)

(P.P.S. Almost frighteningly, a PERFECT anagram for Providential Grace turns out to be: Evangelic Road Trip. Now what were the odds of that?!)

I suppose I’ll eventually have to deal with (or just ignore) the energy issue. Meanwhile, the monetary issue keeps pressing in.

Work has been sparse and income has been spotty since November. However, in the last five months, I have not missed a bill payment yet. (I think that counts as miraculous!) Now here we are in April - and I have five different kinds of tax bills due simultaneously on April 15. (And you thought your taxes were complicated!) Only a week ago, I discovered that the total I owed was outrageously far more than I’d expected, and without a penny available to pay toward the multiple thousand dollars needed. And yet a gracious Father worked swiftly through the prayers, loans, and gifts of His people to cover this need. In one weekend, the needs were completely covered, with a bit left over to take the next step on getting a passport, and buy food for the rest of April, and purchase four books on a subject I know I’m supposed to study.

I doubt the memory of this provision will fade anytime soon, especially since some very dear friends presented me with double gift: a check, plus an unusual wallet that will be my concrete reminder of God’s providential grace for this seemingly impossible road trip to the Poland Roundtable.

Now, I immediately found this denim-like fabric wallet really intriguing, beyond that story of its journey to me. (It just happened to be designed and manufactured by a twenty-something friend of mine, and if I get her permission, I’ll come back and post a picture of her wallet here.) [UPDATE: Got permission from Monica G., so here's the picture of the wallet she designed.]

No Bread Wallet, designed by Monica G.

It took mulling it over last night and this morning to figure out why this wallet so caught my attention.

I found my answer in Mark 6:8-10. In that chapter, we have the account of Jesus sending disciples on … a road trip!

These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff, no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town.” (New International Version)

Maybe having everything we need all together before we begin isn’t such a great thing when we’re going on an “evangelic road trip.” Praying, trusting, and seeing God provide just enough for the next step when it’s time to take the next step - now that plunges us right into experiential learning about faith and following Jesus. Maybe a minimalist preparation will be all we have. Am I okay with that?

I wonder what the disciples learned on these excursions into providential grace. Or were they still at such early stages of faith development that the lessons needed far more reinforcing before they sunk in? (I can relate …) Ironically, later in Mark 6 is the account of Jesus’ miracle in feeding 5,000 people. And what sparked this situation? In part, it was because there was NO BREAD available to feed people who’d been listening to Jesus teach. If the disciples had learned deeply from their previous road trips, would they have had a more positive perspective on forthcoming provisions of grace?

I hope my previous road trips have prepared me for what stretches in faith lie ahead. And now, I have a “No Bread” wallet for my by-faith-probable road trip to Poland. Surely God has a sense of humour embedded in His providential grace …

Stay tuned as we find out how this storyline unfolds!

A final P.S. To read the encouraging account of providential grace for the “evangelic road trip” I took to Houston in 2005, see the three-part series on Greyhound Jesus and Alabama Jimmy. The Lord does indeed provide in strange and mysterious ways to accomplish His purposes in us, and through us!

This has been cross-posted at my futuristguy blog.

Comments (0)

« Older Entries