Category Archives: Organizational theory

Control

19 Thursday Jul 2018

Posted by in Church, Health, Organizational theory, Politics, Society, Theology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I think there is a valid argument for saying that the biggest sin that humanity commits is control.  It’s a sin that puts the created in the place of the creator – crafting ourselves as a god.  The sin of control is the ultimate broken relationship with God.  It’s us saying to God: “We don’t like your ways.  We’ll do it our way, thank you very much.  You go sit over here for when we need you to bail us out.”

The first commandment states “You shall have no other gods before me.”  (Exodus 20:3)  This applies to how we make ourselves into a god as well – not just idols that are created and worshiped.

We do this when we try to control things by keeping them the way they are or try to re-create the past.  Except we can’t.  Change will happen, does happen, and there is no way to stop it.  We can certainly adapt to it.  We can resist it to some degree, especially if the change is not healthy and good.  We might even be able to redirect the change.  But that isn’t the same as trying to stop change and keep everything the same – forever.

Look at the effort we give to trying to stop change from happening.

The most obvious way this happens is with ourselves.  We try to stop the aging process instead of embracing it as a part of life and adapting to it.  Our bodies change – that is a fact.  Look at yourself in the mirror.  Is this what you looked like 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago?  Of course not.  Your body changed, regardless of how you wanted to stop it.  You couldn’t.  Even if we cover it up, have surgeries, exercise, and have procedures, the fact remains that your body is still changing.  Yet, we are told a lie that we can stop aging, that we can hold onto our youthful look, that we can make our bodies youthful again.  And many buy the lie that we can stop change in ourselves.  There’s a lot of money to be made with selling a nostalgic self-image.

We try to stop change in our institutions as well.  Church is a good example.  Many want it the way it was, the way we see it through an idealized lens in which the pews were full, the pastor did all the ministry, everyone in town came to worship, everyone dressed up, and the culture assisted the church with laws and mores that gave the church a privileged position in society.  We want church to be a steady rock that never changes, all the while we will voice a desire for change, mostly because it seems like the right thing to say.  That is until we actually consider how that change will impact us, not just other people.  We want change in church, but change that doesn’t require us to change, only other people.  Often the change that is voiced isn’t so much a change with progress forward, with adaptions, and new ministries to serve new peoples in our ever-changing communities.  Rather it is a change by looking backward to nostalgia.  We want the world and the church to go back to the way it was – ignoring the challenges and sins that existed in the church and in the world.  We want to make church a steady and stable rock again.  We want a sense of control over life.

Yet, when Jesus calls people to follow him, he is asking for a huge change – a personal change.  He’s saying drop everything – all the nostalgia and the desire to control and stop change – and follow me.  Die daily so that new life can take hold.  Don’t just voice it, actually do it.  Jesus said:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do no do what I tell you?  I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built.  But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation.  When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of the house.”

(Luke 6:46-49)

We try to stop change politically and as a nation.  We hear it in the slogan “Make America Great Again.”  Many desire a change to some romanticized time in which all was well, that we were great, and everyone thrived.  Except this time never actually existed.  It’s a change backward, a reverse of time.  And it’s a lie.  There has never been a time in this country when all was well and where everyone thrived.  Never.  Certain groups of people certainly have, but not everyone.  And often there have been and still are groups of people who not only aren’t thriving, but are struggling to survive – pushed down by those in more privileged positions in life.  This is what the desire to control does.  There is a cost.

Things that are alive change and adapt.  Any science book will tell you that.  Things that are dead don’t move on their own and don’t adapt.  They wear away and decompose.  In that respect, even things that are dead change.  And eventually, they become unrecognizable and become dirt.  Dust to dust, ashes to ashes.

And in the end the question remains – what is the point of trying to stop change completely?  Or of turning back the clock?  Change is coming.  It is already here.  It walks with us.  Why not spend our energy adapting to it, maybe even steering it in a positive direction towards something that actually can allow for more people to thrive?  What if we took some of the good things of the past and adapted them for our present circumstances as opposed to trying to recreate the past?

What is the point of trying to change things in a backward fashion – to a time that never actually existed and certainly can’t be recreated.  Everything else has changed around us.  The environment in which we find ourselves has changed.  We can’t go back.  We can’t be any of those things again.

Change means there is newness.  There is no “again.”  No matter how much we desire it, we can’t go back in time and have those beautiful memories become reality again.  There is change.  There is life and there is death.  And out of death comes new life.  We allow the past to die so that there is new life in the present and the future.  Shackling the present and the future with the past doesn’t bring us back to the past and the way it was.  It just holds us hostage.  And in the mean time, the world continues to change, without our consent.  Because we are not in charge. And we fall further behind.  This makes adapting to changes more difficult and costly.

This is what it means to follow Jesus.  We aren’t called to go backward in time with the church.  We aren’t called to go backward in time with our nation.  We aren’t called to go backward in time with our bodies.  We are called to go forward and to let past things die, so that new life can take root.

To another [Jesus] said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-62)

These would-be disciples wanted to go back, to hold onto the nostalgia – to bury their dead and to say farewell.  To look back.  But Jesus knows that a look back will only hold us back.  You can’t plow looking backwards.  You can’t drive a car looking in the rear view mirror.  You can’t walk forward while you keep your eye behind you.  It doesn’t work.  You can’t be the church, or you, or a nation by having a tight grip on the past, holding the present and the future hostage, with an old model that doesn’t meet current conditions and challenges and cultures.

Jesus calls us forward, not to a time of nostalgia.  The kingdom isn’t in the past.  The best days of the kingdom of God are unfolding now and are to come.  They aren’t in the past.  It’s unfolding right now.  It’s causing a change.  Will we be embraced by it, or will we resist it?  In the end, resisting it and trying to stop it will never win out.  It can’t.  Because change is always taking place.  The kingdom is always unfolding in new ways, in ways that are different from the past.

Narcissism

19 Tuesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Humanity, Organizational theory, Society

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I just finished a book titled “Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times” by Peter Steinke.  I recommend this book – it was a good read.  The book was published in 2006, which got me thinking about the fact that our society has been pretty anxious for some time now.  Much of the book applies today – especially regarding an anxious society and leadership.

The last chapter dealt mostly with narcissism – both dealing with leaders who are narcissists and with congregation members that are closet narcissists.  Fascinating stuff.  But as I was reading it, I couldn’t help drawing parallels beyond the congregational context.  It’s hard not to.  When I read sections in this chapter, my mind kept going to specific figures and names in society – “leaders” as they are often referred to.  But these leaders aren’t leading, they are often making matters worse and raising anxiety levels.  And their followers are sucked right in.  That’s what narcissists do – make people rely on them and feed off of them.  That’s not what leaders do though.

Here’s a few segments from the last chapter of the book. Enjoy.  Or maybe cry.  Either way, it’s worth being aware of these things.

  • The person feels entitled to special consideration and is self-important (often exhibitionistic or dramatic to prove it). (pg. 166)
  • The person is capable of seeing only her perspective, is intolerant of disagreement, doesn’t discuss ideas but imposes them, is single-minded, believes in her own superior wisdom, and doesn’t need help from others. (Pg. 166)
  • The person is ruthless toward those who do not reflect back his projected image of specialness.  He is vindictive, vengeful, devaluing, and abrasive.  He publicly humiliates others and wants others to be wholehearted supporters (“yes” people). (pg. 166)
  • The person is prone to lying and is an expert as disguise. (pg. 167)
  • The narcissist is not as certain as he or she looks, as evidenced by his or her supersensitivity to criticism. (pg. 168)
  • The narcissist is a master at denying reality, projecting an image of invincibility or charisma and coercing the world to refuel his specialness.  There is no transparency in narcissistic functioning.  It’s all varnish and veneer – with lots of charm. (pg. 168)
  • So one person remains intoxicated with all the praise and adulation he manipulates from others, and the others are enthralled to be associated with someone larger than life. (pg. 168)
  • The narcissist functions like a magnet, possessing the power of attraction. People caught in the spell surrender obediently.  Under the spell of enchantment, they become dedicated followers as impervious to reason and truth as infatuated lovers. Many of the disciples of narcissists are vulnerable, lonely, and searching souls who mistake the charm, self-confidence, and certainty for substance, when in reality it is pretentious fluff and feathers. (Pg. 168-9)
  • Not surprisingly, many narcissistic leaders shield their swooning constituency from outside influence. (pg. 169)
  • Many staff, over a period of time, begin to see through the empty praise and the false facade of concern for supporters.  They realize that they are valued only insofar as they reinforce the narcissist’s own glory. They are mere suppliers.  But staff members need to be careful not to expose the sham. (Pg. 170)
  • The charmer is often involved in sexual misconduct, misuse of funds, or in setting oppositional groups. The charmed can be so blinded by the charmer that they defend the narcissistic behavior, even encourage it.  They cannot face the truth of the damage wrought by the spellbinder. (Pg. 171)
  • Nonetheless, the charmer brings havoc to relationships. Others who know and see it are ineffective  in dealing with the “charmer/charmed” problem if they think being nice or expressing goodwill will change things. The game is domination for the narcissist, not cooperation.  A person functioning in a narcissistic way must be held accountable for his behaviors. (Pg. 175)

 

Why people leave church and are cynical about government

05 Tuesday Dec 2017

Posted by in Church, Humanity, Organizational theory, Politics, Society

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

I would guess the number one answer is summed up in one word – hypocrisy.

I have heard people criticize Christianity with the argument that Christians are hypocrites.  They preach love, yet turn around and judge people.  They preach peace and then talk about how they want to destroy enemies.  They claim to care for the poor and then support policies that hurt the poor.  Etc., Etc.

Of course, this is not all Christians, but it is a sizable amount – at least here in the US.  There are many Christians whose definitions of love, peace, and forgiveness make me wonder what it is that they actually believe in – and I’m a Christian pastor.

Hypocrisy isn’t just confined to church though.  It’s rampant in politics and has been for some time.

A couple of examples will suffice.  Take the recent tax bill that passed the US Senate.  Put aside the policy and the debate of what it will or won’t do.  The criticism of the bill was that it was a large document (over 500 pages), Senators didn’t have enough time to read it, it was voted on in the middle of the night, and on straight party line vote, etc.  Democrats were livid in citing these criticisms.  They even created some homemade videos that went viral with their outrage over the process.

That’s all well and good, but I have a hard time buying that these Senators were truly upset over this process.  These same folks had no trouble voting for the Affordable Care Act in 2010 (Sen. Jon Tester, D-MT did vote for it, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA wasn’t in the Senate at that time, but given her voting record and defense of the law, I have no doubt she would have voted for it) when it was a large document in which Senators didn’t have enough time to read it, and it was voted in the middle of the night on a straight party line vote.  Nancy Pelosi – then Speaker of the House was famously quoted as saying that they had to “pass it in order to see what was in it.”  Hmm, sound familiar?  The only difference is which party is upset.  It’s the same arguments though.  Once in power, the party in power thinks nothing of ram-rodding through their policy positions and trampling over process.

Just to be fair, it’s not just Democrats who are hypocrites.  Remember Republican criticism over President Obama using executive orders to stop the Keystone pipeline?  Democrats cheered at the action.  Then President Trump came to office and guess what – the parties had a change of heart over the process of using executive orders.  Republicans didn’t have a problem with Trump signing an executive order reviving the pipeline project, while it was now the Democrats who were upset.

Here’s the thing, neither party really cares about the process.  It’s the end that matters for them.  In this sense we have all become Machiavellian – apparently the ends justify the means.  The process be damned!  Never mind that the process exists to protect the minority out of power.  Never mind that our political leaders are shortsighted enough to forget that they will be in the minority again at some point, and then in the majority again – how will they want to be treated in the minority?  Apparently, we see governing as a winner-take-all approach.  Not a way to run a government or a society.

Nor a church.  When hypocrisy runs the show, it ends in broken relationships and trust.  Does this mean that we should be perfect?  Hardly.  That’s impossible anyway.  What it does mean is that leaders in church have a responsibility to create an environment where the end in mind isn’t being right, but rather being a child of God.  We are sinners.  We are going to sin.  But this isn’t an excuse to just let the sin go on unchecked.  Church leaders, and political leaders for that matter, have a responsibility to build trust, to show the humanity of our opponents, to move people into actual communication, to create an environment where shame and guilt and blame are not welcome.

In short, church leaders can address the claims about hypocrisy – by being honest and open, transparent and forgiving, full of integrity and addressing issues rather than avoiding them.  Political leaders can and should do the same.  Other wise what we lose is not a policy debate, but rather trust, stability, and maturity.

“Philosopher and writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau long maintained that “The Prince” was a work of satire that sought to expose the cynicism of one-man rule.”

Too bad we see seem to be more interested in using Machiavelli’s thoughts as a map, rather than a warning.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  There is another way.  But here’s the hard part – we can’t wait for someone else to start.  If we do, we’ll be waiting until the grave.

Instead we are called to start.  So let’s get started.

Vision

26 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by in Organizational theory

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

People need vision.  Organizations need vision.  Institutions should have vision.  Vision is what drives us forward and gives us a reason to get up and get going.  Without a vision, we flounder and wander.

But where does vision come from?  It comes from leadership and from people.  Most people don’t see a vision for themselves, but often we ask them to vision for organizations they are a part of.  Leadership is often responsible for vision, but it’s not solely the responsibility of the leader either though.  Leaders have a vision that is drawn from conversations with people, their hopes and dreams, but also from discerning what is truly needed – even if it is not stated directly.  Vision comes from wisdom and listening – listening to people, but also listening to the things that aren’t said.  Sometimes the things unsaid are more important than what is said.

Vision is painting a picture of a future that you’ll never really ever get to, but it moves what is normal in the direction of that vision.  It’s not about the end product, but rather the journey there.  It is in the journey that the vision unfolds.

When leaders tell the story of the vision, and they buy the vision themselves, then amazing things happen.  But the leader has to buy the vision.  Without buy-in, it’s just a bunch of words.

But find a leader who is so bought into a vision that it seeps out of their very being, and I’ll show you someone who will accomplish amazing things with the people they are leading.

What is your vision?

Trust is…

25 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by in Organizational theory, Society

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

What is trust?

It’s to see and identify when we see it.  But it’s not all that easy to define.

Here’s how I define trust.  Trust is a relationship with others and with institutions that is based on honesty, integrity, vulnerability, and knowing that someone has your back in case of an emergency.

Another way of putting it is that trust is when you are a part of some larger group, even if you don’t personally know the people, but you know that everyone has similar values and there is a sense of commonality.

Trust is the foundation of community.  Without trust, there really can’t be community.  Without trust, there is no sense of safety.  Without trust, people are busy looking behind their backs to ensure they don’t get stabbed in the back.  When that happens, no one is looking out for anyone else.  Without trust, it’s pretty lonely out there.

Trust is a foundation for a society to advance and thrive.  Without it, there is a great deal of anxiety and strife.

Trust is an expectation and a sense of predictability.  This brings stability and an openness to opportunity.  If trust is lacking, so is growth.  Without trust, the focus is on survival.

This is most certainly true for a society, a nation, a community, an organization, and a church.

Responding to white supremacists

14 Monday Aug 2017

Posted by in Humanity, Organizational theory, Politics

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

By now, everyone is familiar with the white supremacists who held a “rally” in Charlottesville, VA.  I put that in quotes because extremists don’t hold rallies – they hold gatherings that are designed to cause problems.

There was a counter protest, which we all heard about.  And there was violence.  And even three deaths as a result.  Evil usually demands a blood sacrifice, this would be no different.

Frankly I’m tired of white supremacists and their tactics and their belief that their ideas are just a-ok and deserve attention.  I understand the desire to hold counter rallies.  But here’s some things that concern me with these counter rallies.

What is the purpose of the supremacists in holding a “rally?” to cause problems.  Why?  To get attention, ultimately.  What happens when there is a major counter-protest?  The counter protestors give the supremacists exactly what they were seeking – attention.  When we give attention to something, we give it legitimacy as if the ideas presented were of equal weight and consideration.  Let’s be clear, they aren’t.

I understand that we want to speak out firmly against what the supremacists stand for.  I agree.  I just wonder if there is a different way to go about it.  A way that wouldn’t give the supremacists what they wanted – attention.  It seems as though the supremacists plan their rallies so that they hope there is a counter-rally.  It just adds to the attention.  They are sure to get coverage because emotions run high when you have something like this that touches people’s nerves and identity.

The problem with this is that the supremacists end up controlling the message of the day – they become the focus.  Their hatred is the message.  The violence that they cause is what is displayed and talked about.  They get what they want.

I’d rather see something else take place.  What if we responded differently?

These protests are known in advance.  That gives communities time to think through a response.  Here’s my idea.  Instead of holding a counter rally that gives the inmates of the asylum a full voice and all the attention they want, why not give them no attention at all.  But do it a coordinated way that is very unique, that is active, and changes the message completely.  In other words, change the rules of the game.  If the supremacists desire attention and want there to be a counter rally – do what you can to change that so they get minimal attention and the message is not in their control.

How would this happen?  Here’s one idea – get everyone to vacate town.  What if the town became a ghost town on the day of the supremacists rally.  Not a soul in opposition – no one there at all.  No one waving any banners.  No one chanting at the supremacists.  Just an empty town.  You see, everyone has a right to speak.  But that doesn’t mean we have to listen.  It doesn’t mean that what everyone speaks is of equal value and worth.

By way of analogy, take a different situation – when a toddler starts to pitch a fit in a mall, they are seeking attention to get whatever it is they want.  When we pay attention to the toddler and respond, or fight with them, or talk with them at all, we are giving the toddler exactly what the toddler wants – control over the situation.  Instead, the best thing you can do is realize you are the adult and they are the child.  You ignore them completely, even to the point of walking away.  You can’t rationalize with a toddler – they don’t have the capacity for rational conversation.  You aren’t going to convince them to stop their fit.  You just need to walk away.  Frankly, these supremacists are no different – only more violent and irrational than a toddler and a bit older (Which means they ought to know better).

If everyone vacated town, it would send a message that the supremacists words are being shunned because they carry no worth and no value.  It would also draw attention away from the supremacists to the counter message, if you want to call it that.  In this case, you’d have one spokesperson for the town.  Someone who could do any interviews the media wanted.  It would be best if it was a pastor or someone who could speak from a religious context.  The response to any question would be similar – it wouldn’t be to engage in any conversation about the supremacists.  Instead, it would be to offer prayers for those that are hurting, prayers for those that are filled with hatred and rage, prayers for those that separate.  It would be to shift the focus from the message of the supremacists to a different message – a message of grace, forgiveness, and care for all who come to the town.  It would be a message of non-violence.  A message that says that we pray for those who are fearful and violent.  It would be a simple message, repeated over and over again.  It would be said in a calm manner – signifying with body language that there is no intimidation, there is confidence in a better way of living and behaving.  It would be displaying a vision for what an alternative way of living would look like and behave.

Could this kind of response be pulled off?  I don’t know.  The larger the city, the harder that would be.  The more likely that others from outside of the town would come in to counter protest.  And realize that this way of thinking about countering the supremacists is very different from the norm.  Which is why I would be curious to see how well it would work.  And there is an added benefit – because this would be an unusual response, it would throw the supremacists off kilter.  They probably wouldn’t know what to do.  They might even wrap it up quickly and go home.  This would be telling – it would signify that all they really want is attention, and they didn’t get it.

I welcome your thoughts on how to respond to extremists actions in unique ways that disrupt the message they spout.  Please share them in the comments section.

Changing the world

06 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Humanity, Organizational theory, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Just a quick thought for the day:

Even if you think most people aren’t capable or competent, remember, Jesus did some amazing things and started a movement with a group of uneducated men and women – outcasts in their society.  Because of the people Jesus surrounded himself with and empowered, he changed the course of history and changed the world.  And it is still changing today.

You don’t need only the best and the brightest.  Just like on a sports team – you don’t really want a team of superstars.  It’s a recipe for failure.  Instead, you just need people who are willing and able, and have nothing to lose.  People who make the mission and vision their own and do what they can to move everyone closer to that vision.  With that, you can conquer and/or change the world.

Power, Authority, and Relationships

30 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Humanity, Organizational theory, Politics, Society

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

What is the basis, the core foundation, of a relationship?  It can be a number of things.  Part of this depends on who is involved in the relationship. It could be between individuals, or groups, or institutions, etc.

Power is one basis of a relationship.  When power is the basis of a relationship, then it will probably end in war or a power struggle of some kind.  That’s because most people who base relationships on power believe that power is a limited resource that only a few can possess – and guess who should possess it?  That’s a false understanding about power though.  It’s a better understanding of authority though.  Power and authority are two very different things.  Not everyone can have or be in a position of authority.  But you can be in a position of authority and have no power.  You can also be in a position of absolutely no authority, but have a significant amount of power.  Authority is a title that is given.  Power is based on the relationship between people.

Politics is ultimately about power – who’s got it and what are they doing with it.  But it’s combined with authority – or rather tainted by authority so that often the two are seen as intermixed and interrelated to the point that there is a belief that there is no difference between the two.

So we end up with a few people with authority fighting and clawing at each other to gain and horde as much power as possible because they confuse power with authority.  Just look at Washington, DC for some examples.  It really doesn’t matter which party you look at – it’s been this way for quite some time now – well before any of us were born.

Those that have authority, but lack self-confidence and self-awareness, will try to make up their lack of self-confidence and self-awareness with a pursuit of power.  They think if they have power, it will fill in any weakness or gaps in themselves.

They see power as something like a spot light – it will shine on them – and they will use up all of the light that is shining on them.  Instead, what power does for these folks is show the weakness of character for all to see.

Light isn’t designed to be horded – but to be spread.  The same is true for power.  It is best used when it is spread out and touches as many people as possible – when many are empowered to make decisions about their own lives and used for the betterment of the many.

It is abused when it is used for the betterment of the few or the one at the expense of the many.  Then it is just tyranny.  And it is why those who horde power end up losing it or having it taken away.

There are other options though.  We can base our relationships on love, respect, trust, etc.  These are much healthier.  And they have a different focus – outward, towards the other.  These things are focused on empowering others, seeing what is best for all involved.  They are risky though.  They take time and they leave us vulnerable.  You have to have confidence, or maybe a better word is faith.  Faith that the other person is seeking the same thing that you are – a thriving life.

What are your relationships with others and with institutions based on?

Why does your church exist?

22 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Church, Organizational theory

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

This is not an existential question that I’m asking here.  Why does your church exist at all?  If you asked the people who attend your church why it exists, I wonder what the answer would be.  Have you ever tried this?

I asked this question a lot when we were in Finland back a couple of years ago.  I received a variety of answers.  What I learned from it was that the church didn’t know why it existed – it just has existed for a long time.  This was a question that the church was struggling with as its influence in the Finnish society was declining.  There were individuals who were working to provide focus, were listening to what God was doing in Finland, were discerning what God was calling the church to do and be.

But how about where you are?  Why does your church exist?  If you asked 50 people in your congregation, would you get 50 different answers?  Would you get 2-3 answers?  Would you get a bunch of “I don’t know” answers?

Why does your church exist?

So let it be written, so let it be done…

27 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Church, Organizational theory, Politics, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Yul Brynner, one of the best actors of all time in my opinion, said the immortal line “So let it be written, so let it be done,” in The Ten Commandments in his role as Pharaoh.

220px-yul_brynner_in_the_ten_commandments_film_trailerGiven how our new administration has taken these words to heart through the use of executive order over the last week, I couldn’t help but think of him.  Of course, the use of executive order isn’t something new, or unconstitutional for that matter.  However, it seems like with each new president, there are more executive orders signed.

I’m not crazy about executive orders – they seem to go against the whole idea of our form of government.  I wasn’t fan of them during Bush’s years, or Obama’s years, and I’m not a fan now.  I think they take us in the wrong direction in terms of governing – especially when it comes to controversial issues.  I much prefer the sloppy process of going through the legislative process.  It’s inefficient and the end result usually looks different than what was intended.  But it involves more voices having a say.  Executive orders require one person’s voice – the President.

Imagine if we did this in church?  You don’t have to imagine for some churches – for some, whatever the pastor says becomes the the way things will be.  This way of governing, whether civil government or religious, has positives and negatives.  It’s very efficient.  Of course tyranny is the most efficient form of government there is – the person in charge become the law and what they say is the law.  Very efficient.

However, I thought we put that system aside.  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe people don’t like it when their guy isn’t in charge, but have no problem when their guy is in charge.  You probably know by now that I don’t like it regardless of who is in charge.

Back to church though – how should decisions be made?  I think there are several parts to that answer.  One part is prayer – the church exists to carry out God’s mission.  If we aren’t in communication with God, then we’re doing our own thing.  Prayer isn’t about what we want – it’s about aligning ourselves with God’s will.  Another part is Scripture – it’s a guide that spells out our mission.  We are called to preach the Good News to the poor, to love our neighbors, and to care for the outcasts of society.  Another part is community – Church isn’t about one person saying what the rule will be – at least not the way I see church.  Church is the community of believers working together to carry out the mission.  Otherwise it’s just one person’s mission.  Another part is leadership.  Leadership means having a vision of how to carry out the mission, leading people, communicating the mission in ways that reach people.  A church without leadership will just wander in the wilderness.  Leadership also plays an important role by creating an environment where everyone can be engaged in the life of the community and where the status quo is challenged so church doesn’t get lazy and dull.

The church is different than civil government, and I’m grateful for that.  is it messy and difficult at times?  Yes, but that’s not a bad thing.  Maybe our civil government could learn a few things from our churches.  Church isn’t perfect, but we aren’t called to be either.