Review: Tribes by Seth Godin

Seth Godin is a leadership guy and Tribes is his collection of thoughts on the current state of leading and communities (tribes). So, this review will not only cover the content of the book, but replicate its form, too. Here's a summary:

NEW LEADING FOR NEW TRIBES
Tribes are united by a shared interest and a way to communicate. Leaders don't fear members communicating and emerging leaders (called heretics) in their group.

TIMES ARE ALWAYS CHANGING
The safest thing to do, says Godin, is to change. The riskiest thing to do is not to change. There's always something new and only the few who are moving with it get in on it. You wanna play it safe, you always lose. Plus it's more fun to be creative.

LEADING IS ABOUT DOING
Leaders aren't born. They do; they act. They are shy, upfront, well-spoken, quiet...lots of different things. The only thing they do is find a tribe and get them talking and thinking...and doing. But don't think it's about steps and follow the process leadership.

My thoughts:
"TRIBES" IS TOO EXPENSIVE ($19.95)
I'm glad I got it (mainly) with a gift card.

"TRIBES" HAS GREAT IDEAS IN SOUNDBYTE FORM
-People don't lead because they are afraid of being laughed at, failing, sounding crazy. The only thing you can't do is nothing. Doing nothing always loses. Do something. Lead something and someone--maybe just yourself--maybe especially yourself.
-Get tribes tight, not big.
-Real leaders don't care about credit. They care about ideas.
-Leaders sometimes follow because the idea is too important and they cannot lead right now. Take the follow.

"TRIBES" IS DEEP ON OPINION, SHALLOW ON RESEARCH
Godin has no proof for any of his thoughts. Some of them are couched in stories and anecdotes. Some are just left sitting on the page in front of you asking you to believe them, giving no reason you should.

"TRIBES" HITS CLOSE TO HOME
What unites a church? How tight is the tribe? Can an organized church be a tribe?

Christian Reflection on Scharmer's Emerging Future

Scharmer believes that we must learn from the future, seeing what is emerging, and use that as the basis for leadership. This happens as one is able to be fully present to this moment, to this person, to this event / situation.

It should be noted that there is some Buddhist philosophy in Scharmer's work, at least the possibility that it would fit nicely with his work, so I wanted to offer a Christian reflection on the above idea.

Christians believe in kairos time. That is, there are moments that are important and extraordinary, most specifically for God to work in an active way, revealing part of his eternal purpose. Not all moments are equal. While some time plods along, kronos time, different moments are charged with revelation, kairos time. C.S. Lewis said that the "present is the moment that time touches eternity" that it is the moment when "freedom and actuality are offered to [people]." Being present--fully present--in the moment allows for different moments of kairos time--moments charged with eternal value where we can discern the movement of time as a whole under God's direction. We can see the future emerging by being fully present in the moment that touches eternity. Leading in that direction, whether or not anyone follows, is good leadership. Moving in that direction that values all of God's creation, full justice restored, in the present moment can be done by leading or by falling back (Seth Godin), but one thing one cannot do in the kairos moment: nothing. It is in that moment that Rev. Dr. Peter Widdicombe's advice rings most true: "For God's sake do something!"

Iggy Cometh. But What Iggy Thinketh?

Scharmer on the Primary Job of a Leader

What's the most important aspect of leading? Seeing reality.

Scharmer writes, "The primary job of leadership...is to enhance the individual and systemic capacity to see, to deeply attend to the reality that people face and enact. Thus the leader's real work is to help people discover the power of seeing and seeing together" (Theory U, 136).

Scharmer has a two postmodern assumptions in this thought. First, there is a realization that systems need to be addressed. Systems--church boards, for example--are, by definition, related to power. The better the system, the more it conserves power. This automatically taints its beliefs. Systems, games of power, form their own knowledge. I think this is neither good or bad; it just is. (As Scharmer argues, both individuals and organizations have blind spots.) Systems, then, have the capacity to see in a way that is different from the individual and vice versa. Second, there is the affirmation that community is a gift: Seeing together is necessary alonside seeing individually.

Implicit in this thought, as well, is a sympathy to narrative. People can play a creative role ("enact") the reality that is before them. Leading is helping people play into this role. Because there is a future coming, one must discern it and play into it well. As a Christian, I can say that God is working in history, moving it in a certain direction. Good leaders participate and enable others to participate in this story's direction.

Another way to think of this is that leadership is not a neutral gift. Going in the wrong direction with many people does not make you a good leader. It makes you a terrible leader. A better leader goes in the right direction with no one. Maybe no one would follow them. They are still a better leader than the one who went in the wrong direction. Why? Because leadership isn't a netural gift and if its used incorrectly, it's detrimental to all involved. This is why the first aspect of leading is seeing reality.

Otto Scharmer's U Theory of Change

Otto Scharmer's Theory U proposes that the deepest level of change surrounds purpose. One can create change by reacting to challenges with solutions. This is the most superficial level of change. One takes change incrementally to more significant levels by greater focus (creating new structures and practices), broader perceptions (new core activities and processes), and deeper exploration of assumptions (new thinking and principles).

Here's an example: My wife has legitimate concern and frustration with my aloof and unintentional rudeness. My initial reaction to solve the problem is apology. I then realize the issue is a little more than me being slightly boorish and so restructure my apology, communicating its sincerity. However, perhaps I still haven't really listened to my wife. I now offer my apology with something beyond the words. A new practice (e.g., flowers) helps to communicate different modes of apologizing. However, this still hasn't become a conversation--where I not only listen, but talk, as well. We enter each other's worlds and see the situation from new perspectives. We reframe the story. This is getting pretty deep, especially since this example is fairly superficial. (My wife is actually quite gracious!) Finally, the biggest change I can make is not to enter her world, but for us to create a new world together. What's the purpose of apologizing? What's the relationship we're after? Once this happens, all the responses to change (apology, flowers, listening) naturally flow from this re-generated relational purpose. My reactions to problems are now grounded in the deepest form of change.

Otto Scharmer and Three Methods of Studying Leadership

Otto Scharmer's new leadership text, Theory U, is, I think, postmodernism leadership. The first hint at this is Scharmer's analogy of studying leadership to studying a painter. There are three ways this can be done:

1. Study what a leader has done. What have they built? What's their organization look like? In other words, study the painting.

2. Study how a leader did it. How did they lead meetings? How did they manage? What principles did they employ? In other words, study painting methods.

3. Study the leader. Who are they? What's the source of their leading? Why do they lead? In other words, study the leader.

Pretty simple, but check how many (good!) leadership texts are about principles, lists, and methods. The two best things I ever learned from John Maxwell had to do with character: First, see the potential you want people to realize about themselves and talk them to it. Second, focus today on what you can do today and you'll get where you want to be. Both of those come from character. The first is about hope. The second is about faith. Love is what grounds them both.

Barry Schwartz on Choice

Western Dogma is that maximized welfare of citizens is by maximized individual freedom. This is for two reasons: First, freedom is inherently good; second, individual freedom opens the individual to chase their own happiness. This freedom is accomplished by maximized choice. More choice = more freedom = more happiness.

There are no questions that there are some amazing and taken-for-granted benefits of living in a culture or community that follows that dogma. There are, however, some drawbacks. Schwarz lists two.

First, choice produces paralysis rather than liberation. Schwartz offers a study on employer-offered retirement plans. For every 10 stocks offered, employee participation went down 2%. More choice = more difficulty.

Second, satisfaction goes down as choice goes up. This is a very simple principle. As one has more options, one has greater opportunity to choose perfection. When there are more choices, one should be better than all the rest...and yet when we don't achieve perfection in our choice, then we made a less than perfect choice. We have lost the ability to be pleasantly surprised. When I go out to dinner, I receive, almost without fail, an excellent dinner, good service, and a nice time. But I leave feeling the same as I went in. I have come to expect excellence and when it's delivered, I'm just satisfied.

So, who's responsible? Ultimately...me. I could have chosen a better restaurant.

This is the problem of modern, affluent Western culture. We have too many choices. Some choice is necessary; some boundary is necessary.

(Anglican theologian, Oliver O'Donovan, has noted this idea, as well. O'Donovan argues that true freedom must be bounded. Therefore, O'Donovan argues, freedom is only possible by living within the moral order of the world.)

Review: The New Christians

Tony Jones, national coordinator of Emergent, has given the fullest expression of what being Emergent means in The New Christians. It is tamer than other books one could read (or expect), making this book both enjoyable, but somewhat disappointing.

Throughout the book, Jones paints different pictures of the American Evangelical church that are disappointing: People not acting like Christians and people not thinking like Christians. These are unfortunate. Emergent is meant to redress not only these shortcomings, but the systems that make them more prevalent. The overarching theme in these redressings is to make things more complicated than we've often allowed. Theology is complex; life is complex; community is complex. Let's not make them simple or easy. The beauty of taking theology and life and community this way is that one finds a God willing to meet with us in the complexity. We should live no other way than entering/meeting with others in the complexity of their lives. This means that friendship is the overarching value of emerging Christianity.

I quite enjoyed the book and Jones' style. It's readable; it's informative; it's often gracious. I like its heartbeat. I have only one criticism: Not all churches are like the ones he critiqued. As I read his helpful chapter on emerging churches, I thought, "That's not really that radical." There are some systems in place that facilitate living out some of the complexity they desire, but for the most part, their churches are culturally and communally sensitive, finding a niche and ministering/serving people in that niche. That's not radical in all traditions, although perhaps it is for Jones and his United Methodist background. I don't know. I know that I am privileged in the church (and denomination) I pastor not to face some of the struggles Jones did, although there are, of course, struggles.

I do, however, struggle with Emergent's emphasis on beautiful truth. Jones shares the story of a boy speaking with Phyllis Tickle who told her he believed Mary was a virgin because the story's too beautiful not to be true (160). (Would this appeal to the resurrection?) Here's my criticism: I cannot enter that mindset. Scripture leads me to believe that Mary was really a virgin in her pregnancy. Perhaps it does this for a theological point while she actually was impregnated by a man. (I don't think this is the case, but I am using it for a point.) But even if this is the case, and the story re-told is beautiful, it still doesn't change that, in history, she was not a virgin. The beauty of a story does not make it historically true. If Scripture appeals to history, then to history it must go. (Thanks George Caird and N.T. Wright.)

There are two ironies in this beauty/truth thing. First, emerging Christians are big on eschatology (and well they should be!). Could the story of the risen Messiah's return be so beautiful as to be true without historical, recordable appearance and transformation of the world? Second, emerging Christians are big on relationship. What of those, like me, who reject the truth/beauty equation as a fallacy? What if Keats was wrong? Do emergents have more to offer skeptics interested in history? Would my theological beliefs be limited to their approach? Of course not. But for that to be the case, history would have to enter the theological equation.

God bless the emerging church. They are doing good work. God bless the evangelical church. They are preaching good news. God rescue the mainline / liberal church. They have good people.

Crossing the Bridge

Hi friends,

Shameless update here. I wanted to let all my friends know that I put together four of my sermons on atonement into a short book called Crossing the Bridge. It's available here for download and regular purchase. It's my newest cash cow.

Adventures in missing the point...

George Laraque has stumbled upon the reason the NHL is proposing rule changes regarding fighting. The NHL is adding stiffer penalties to "staged" fights (an additional 10-minute misconduct) and fights after a hit in defense of a teammate (more strictly enforcing the instigator penalty). Laraque hates these proposed changes because they will eliminate the "one-dimensional player"--a player who is present mainly to fight, although they may also be a stong skater and "energy" player. Hello? McFly? What did you think the NHL was trying to do, George? "Oh. George is right. Guys who are really only minor league talent should have just as much a right to play at the highest level of the sport in the world as the most talented players. How did we miss that?"

Jesus Knows the King of Ai

Sometimes revelation catches us by surprise. I have been reading through the Old Testament for a few months and I am now in Joshua. One story struck me. It's the story of Joshua and his brilliant military strategy in conquering the city of Ai (Joshua 8). Joshua is about to attack the city and separates off 5,000 men while the remaining 25,000 make like they are going to attack the city. The King of Ai, obviously a very brave man, and his fighting men (less than 12,000!) empty out of the city to engage these 25,000 men, unaware of the 5,000 laying in ambush. Joshua allows this smaller army from Ai to begin defeating this larger group of Israelites, pushing them further and further from the city, until he gives a signal for the remaining 5,000 to rush into the city, setting it ablaze and killing women and children. The men of Ai are now trapped--devastated by the loss of their city and hopelessly outnumbered. The account ends with the king of Ai, likely already dead, hung on a tree outside the city, and then buried under a pile of rocks, two symbolic reminders of the destruction and shaming of this city.

It's a brutal account. Death all around. Women and children killed under the leadership of Israel. It's all very easy to read this as 21st century people and condemn its horror without thinking of its historal context. Of course it's brutal; of course it's horrific--it's 4000 years ago! But doesn't it leave us with questions about God? God has instructed them to take away plunder, but not to spare people (8:29). Why would God do this?

I don't think there are many answers to these questions. At least, not answers that shape the whole thing up and make it more palatable. But what struck me in this was the contrast of Jesus. While Joshua hangs the shamed king from a tree, Jesus gives himself to be killed. While Joshua buries the King of Ai under rocks, Jesus is entombed behind a stone. Ironic that Jesus' life would not identify with his namesake--Joshua (Jesus = Yeshua in Aramaic, a sister language to Hebrew that Jewish people spoke under the reign of the Greeks)--but with the King of Ai. Sometimes you just have to let the story play out and be surprised by the ending.