Archives For edwin friedman

the-sower-vincent-van-gogh

The Missional Excuse

February 11, 2013 — 6 Comments

I’ve observed an occasional correlation between those trying to be “missional” and those frustrated with the internal turbulence in their congregation or own soul. Of course, not all churches suddenly trying to be missional have gridlocked leaderships or frustrated ministers–but many do. You can’t tell from what they write in books or articles. You can’t always tell from what they say behind a microphone. You have to hear them talk “off the record.” I don’t have anyone in particular in mind as I type, but I can think of a number of examples in which missional becomes a last resort for a leader or leadership that can’t find their way out of gridlock or that theological dark place.

Consider the functioning of a traditional family. If mom and dad can’t get along, they often focus on the kids. This may relieve tension in the mom and dad temporarily. Mom and dad may also think it’s what’s best for the family as a whole. However, it tends to really mess up the kids, as they become those in whom the stress of the marriage surfaces. The same can be said of those in whom the stress between Christians surfaces.

When leadership and congregation, preacher and elders, one-half of the church and the other half–are at odds, it’s easy to feel the need to do something to break the cycle. It’s normal to feel the need to refocus. As long as churches are continuing to work diligently to reconcile with one another and shape a common vision, this can be a way of building common ground, temporarily. However, the lost, the broken, the poor–they cannot be where we work out our congregational stuff. They need not wait for us to get our act together. Yet, if we seek “missionality” to the exclusion of working diligently on our issues, we aren’t being missional. We’re using missionality as an excuse–as an avoidance behavior.

I’m not suggesting any of us do so intentionally. I think it’s subconscious. I think it’s rather natural…but also wrong.

Missional, done right, is incarnational and thus requires a clear picture of Christ, as well as emotional and spiritual maturity. It requires a clear vision of Christ to avoid mutation into moral but secular activism or do-goodism loosely attached to theology. Following Jesus faithfully for the sake of the world requires we pay attention to the work of reconciliation with one another even as try to “be missional.” Perhaps we should look at our unity as a “missional move.”

If we, in our frustration, try to be missional (even if we’ve always thought it was the right way to go), we risk making “identified patients” of those we encounter in all of our efforts to share the common good. Family systems genius Edwin Friedman says, ”the identified patient is not “sick” but simply the one in whom the family’s stress or pathology has surfaced.” It’s why child-centered families tend to produce unhealthy kids…and why the more we focus on culture, the more upset with us they seem to become. These are of course generalizations, but I believe them to be accurate.

Could it be the hostility of culture we feel now has less to do with our doctrines than with the consequences of our inability to deal with our own anxieties? To what extent, I wonder, has culture become the identified patient of the Church’s internal wars? To what extent is their hostility toward the church a result of the anxiety we’ve transferred. Have they become an avoidance behavior for us? I pray not.

This isn’t a knock on the missional movement, which has much to commend it. It’s also not a knock on the frustrated. Ministry frustration is among the most life-sucking, depressing kinds. It’s just a warning to us all not to use “the lost,” “the poor” or the need to be missional as a way to avoid dealing with our own junk. If we want to be missional, let’s be missional. Let’s not make missional an excuse.

Let it begin with me.

In Christianity, conflict, Current Affairs, Family Life, Leadership, Religion, Spiritual Formation, Theology , , , , , ,
permalink
Unstuck

Ask a New Question

June 27, 2012 — 5 Comments

UnstuckImaginative gridlock is a term Edwin Friedman uses to describe the thinking processes of systems that are “stuck.” In trying to solve a particular problem, stuck systems (like churches) try harder to provide the right or better answer to the same questions. Unstuck systems are able to ask new questions.

A stuck system might ask, “What can we do this time to really draw people to our mid-week service?” An unstuck system will at least consider the questions, “Why do we have a mid-week service?” and “Is there a better way to meet the same objective?” A stuck church with 30 attenders and a track-record of decline will ask only, “How can we grow again?” An unstuck, declining church with 30 attenders might ask, “If God isn’t calling us to revival, could He be calling us to pass the torch to another church or join with another body of believers?”

At New Vintage Church, we’ve been trying to figure out our new office situation. No matter how hard we’ve tried, we simply haven’t been able to find good office spaces in our facility. We thought of every possible combination of offices we could think of. Then, someone asked, “What if we all shared one large space?” This led to us designing one large, more collaborative workspace. I’ll blog on it when it’s finished here in the next week or two. We didn’t need to think about it harder or bring in an architect. To solve the problem, we needed someone to ask a new question.

When a church is imaginatively gridlocked–they limit the scope of their ideas by the questions they ask. This imaginative gridlock is usually not a symptom of unintelligence or inherent lack of creativity. It’s more likely a symptom of the emotional processes at work in leadership that cause limited perspective.

What we often need to solve certain ministry problems often isn’t better techniques or stronger effort–though those are fine. We need God to give us new vision. We need God to give us a new question or ten. How does a church get unstuck? Usually, God unsticks someone. He spurs someone to ask the new question first and to keep asking it until it’s considered rather than summarily dismissed.

We need some new questions. So do our churches. So do our fellowships and denominations. We don’t need to ask them for the sake of asking–or to be quarrelsome. We ask new questions in service to God and His people.

 

In Christianity, Church Growth, Church Staffing, Church Strategy, Leadership, New Vintage Church, Productivity , , , , , , , ,
permalink
tough questions

Why It Might Work This Time

June 4, 2012 — 5 Comments

There is nothing more frustrating than having an idea for reaching people you are sure is going to work, and having it shot down by those responsible for deciding whether it moves forward. One it feels so crummy is because it feels like the death of that vision, because a “no” feels like an eternal “no.” That doesn’t have to be the case.

If it’s been a while since you brought it up, bring it up again. If the church actually did try the idea and it didn’t work, that doesn’t mean it will never work–though sometimes it does. Look at it again with fresh eyes. Perhaps it will work this time. There is one primary reason it might work this time–things have changed. Not people, not traditions, etc. What? The emotional processes in your church may have changed.

Sometimes decision-makers resist decisions because they are resistant to change (for a number of reasons) or you. Sometimes, what you think is a really good idea, just isn’t. In the first case, resistance is often not to the idea itself but as a result of the emotional processes afloat. In the second, sometimes we come up with ideas because of certain emotional processes within ourselves.

Clearly, sometimes a decision’s fate has nothing to do with emotional processes. It just is or isn’t a good idea. However, I’ve seen more ideas given a “no” due to personality conflict and/or the fatigue or fear of leadership than because the idea just isn’t good. In fact on a percentage basis, I’d put it as high as 80/20. Other times, people come up with a lot of ideas to “do more” not only because Christ compels them, but because some unresolved something (like guilt) compels them. You’re the issue.

The emotional processes of a church cannot and should not be ignored.  They do change. Sometimes, conditions have changed. Sometimes, it will work this time–even if it didn’t work the last time the idea got a “yes.” Why? Because “times” have changed. More correctly, the emotional processes that often determine whether an idea lives or dies and whether it is successfully implemented or poorly implemented, have changed.

I know of a church that tried to start a Spanish-speaking service and it didn’t work. So, they almost gave it a, “no” again a number of years later. “We tried that,” they said. They were right, of course. But, this time the service thrived. It didn’t thrive simply because the idea was better implemented–though it was. It thrived because the emotional processes in the church allowed the idea to be better implemented. Three things in particular had changed. There were:

  1. Better differentiated leaders making the “yes or no” decision.
  2. Better differentiated leaders proposing the decision.
  3. A healthier church implementing the decision–reducing grumbling, resistance, discouragement, and reactivity.

All three of the above factors were in place. If any one of the three hadn’t changed, the idea’s “success” would have been imperiled again.

Every now and then it’s good to go through the “no” pile. Be careful, though. That “no” pile has plenty of ideas in there that should be right there. However, don’t be surprised if now is the time to make that hire, start that ministry, etc. How do you know? Look at the emotional processes at play. If those haven’t changed–the answer won’t either. That’s actually for the best in the long run. If the processes haven’t changed, it’s better to leave viable ideas down and work on the processes first.

In Church Strategy, conflict, Leadership, Leadership Vault , , , , , ,
permalink
stress_ball

Stop Stressing

May 23, 2012 — 7 Comments

Stress is often misunderstood as something that derives simply from “work.” If someone complains about being stressed out, we might tell them to obey the Sabbath more faithfully and to take some time off to unwind. Those are both good suggestions. Nevertheless, we may be confused as to what actually winds us up so tightly we need unwinding. It may be more than work. It may be the position a leader occupies within the emotional processes of church or family that causes every bit the stress the actual work does–if not more.

Meet the Executive Monkey Experiment, courtesy of Edwin Friedman.

He writes:

“A study dubbed the Executive Monkey Experiment serves as a metaphor. It has generally not been considered scientifically valid because it was not repeated, but it is a poignant metaphor. An effort was made to give monkeys ulcers or to promote some other kind of somatic disturbance through frustration. The monkey was taught how to get food and then frustrated when it finally learned. But no amount of frustration seemed to create the desired somatic dysfunction. Then someone got the bright idea to make the monkey responsible for getting food for other monkeys; then, they claimed, they did produce a somatic disturbance. Whether or not the experiment was scientifically valid, it captures an existential reality.”

Truth is, work is like weight-lifting. How hard it is to lift that 20-pound weight depends on the position you’re in when you try to lift it. It’s so easy for me to think I need to watch my workload–sometimes that’s exactly what would do me good. Not always.

You may not be overworked, after all. You may be lifting from an awkward position in your church or family–that’s why you’re burning out. Take time off without changing your position, and the source of your stress remains.

Friedman explains why:

“The position that is most dangerous to a leader’s health is what I call the “togetherness position,” in which the leader feels responsible for keeping a system together. Such leaders are most likely to suffer burnout, function badly, or suddenly die when forces pulling in opposite directions have stretched their capacity to hold things together to its breaking point.”

Church leaders often live in the “togetherness” position. This is why they often feel burdened, stressed out, etc., and have a difficult time explaining why to themselves or others. They look at their workload and find it substantive, but not overwhelming. So, why do we sometimes feel tired, down, overwhelmed, numb, or some other emotion that doesn’t match workload? Why is it that once we return from our vacation, the stress resumes all over again? It’s not usually because the “work” resumes. It’s often because the work is being done from that awkward position still.

If, as you head into the summer months, you’re going on vacation, let me encourage you not just to rest from ministry. Clarify any “togetherness” positions you are in–and begin to work your way out of them. Change your position to something better for lifting. You may find it does you more good than ten vacations.

Here’s why this matters: when not dealt with, stress can kill your joy for ministry, and often your ministry, period. A church might want to say, “Pastor, we know you can lift a lot. But, pay attention to the way you’re lifting. We don’t want you to hurt yourself seriously.”

In Books, Christianity, Church Strategy, Family Life, Leadership, Leadership Vault, Personal, Productivity, Spiritual Formation , , , , , , ,
permalink
Spyglass on a Map

Let Them Be – We Need Explorers

May 14, 2012 — 3 Comments

We believe in conventional wisdom, in tried and true ways, and in what the experts tell us.

Good.

That’s a great place to start. However, when someone comes up with a new idea–a church decides to try something else, someone suggests the conventional paths are full of potholes, or the “tried and true” ways are simply tried ways, they need not be labeled as “stubborn” or “arrogant.” One certainly can be so. But, one can be stubborn or arrogant whether one believes in conventional wisdom or not. Those who chart their own course should be encouraged to do so.

I’ve been re-reading A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, by Edwin Friedman. It’s probably the finest book on leadership I’ve ever read, but it’s lesser known–because it was unavailable through all conventional means until a few years ago.

Among other things, Friedman makes the case for the self-differentiated leader–someone who:

  • is someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about.
  • is someone who can separate while still remaining connected, and therefore can maintain a modifying, non-anxious, and sometimes challenging presence.
  • is someone who can manage his or her own reactivity to the automatic reactivity of others, and therefore be able to take stands at the risk of displeasing.

He says:

“…those who lack self-definition, whether they are children, marriage partners, employees, clients, therapists, or supervisors, will always perceive those who are well-defined to be ‘headstrong.’ As with Columbus, they will describe well-differentiated leaders as compulsive rather than persistent, as obsessive rather than committed, as foolhardy rather than brave, as dreamers rather than imaginative, as single-minded rather than dedicated, as inflexible rather than principled, as hostile rather than aggressive, as bull-headed rather than resolute, as desperate rather than inspired, as autocratic rather than tough-minded, as ambitious rather than courageous, as domineering rather than self-confident, as egotistical rather than self-assured, as selfish rather than self-possessed–and as insensitive, callous, and cold rather than determined. Such sabotage will be cloaked in supposed virtues likes safety and togetherness.”

All this is to say–good leaders don’t always perfect what’s already in the book. They help write the next chapter over the objections of those who helped write the early chapters and think the book is largely closed.

Listen to what’s already been written. Understand there’s good reason why conventional wisdom has become such. But, never fail to go where God leads because others might think you a fool. It’s far more foolish to ignore God’s leading and listen to humans.

Not every impulse or dream is of God. Sometimes it’s not divinely given, but it’s an idea that’s worth exploration anyway. Go for it, and remind those who are inappropriately attached to conventional wisdom that it was someone’s new, hair-brained idea at some point.

The earth used to be flat.

Everything used to orbit around earth.

Eggs are good for you.

Eggs are bad for you.

Eggs are so-so for you.

Ministry has it’s equivalents and always needs to leave room for well differentiated leaders to explore with encouragement from those who have been the thought leaders for years. Because the goal is the advancement of the Kingdom, not the preservation of our own legacies.

Thoughts? 

In Books, Christianity, Church Strategy, conflict, Leadership, Leadership Vault, Religion, Science , , , , ,
permalink