DownshoreDrift

The Effects of the Big Sort: The Polarization of America and the Breakup of the Church

One of the most groundbreaking books that I have read in some time has been Bill Bishop's The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. As someone involved in church leadership and community development approaches, this book is very enlightening.  The main premise of this book, is that primarily since 1965, and especially since 1990, Americans have become increasingly mobile and have been sorting themselves geographically according to their personal preferences and lifestyle choices - not just because of economic necessity. The book is full of statistics to back it up and I have no intention of reprinting them all here. But, what I would like to do is to think through the implications of Bishop's thesis on the Christian life and church leadership over the next several posts.

While this is not a religious book, Bishop devotes chapter 7 (Religion: The Missionary and the Megachurch) to the emergence of the Homogenous Unit Principle in the rise of the megachurch.  The idea presented in this book is that affluence has allowed Americans to do what they want, and what they want to do is to be with people like themselves - even in church.  The more that people are educated and the more resources that they have, the more that they segregate themselves according to their personal preferences. So, you have the rise of cities like San Francisco that has become full of cultural creatives. In 1976, 44 percent of San Franciscans voted for the Republican candidate for president, Gerald Ford. In 2004, only 15 percent voted for George W. Bush. As time has gone by, liberal creatives have pushed out conservative value-oriented voters and those groups have moved to areas where they are able to live with people more like themselves.  These groupings have happened all over the country. People have done this in every walk of life, even in churches, as megachurches have arisen to cater to the desires of people who have similar socio-economic and value orientations.  Just like the denziens of San Francisco move their because of the cultural values, people choose churches based not on theological or denominational distinctives, but because of cultural values.

The more that people gather together with people like themselves in larger groups, the more safety that they can secure, or so the thought goes.  A reviewer on Amazon was nice enough to relay Bishop's interview with Republican strategist Matthew Dowd, who explained the thinking behind the 2004 re-election strategy of George W. Bush:

Dowd understood that "American communities were 'becoming very homogeneous'. He believed that to a large degree, this clustering was defensive, the general reaction to a society, a country, and a world that were largely beyond an individual's control or understanding. For generations, people had used their clubs, their trust in a national government, and long-established religious denominations to make sense of the world. But those old institutions no longer provided a safe harbor. 'What I think has happened,' Dowd told me (Bishop) early in 2005, 'is the general anxiety the country feels is building. We're no longer anchored'." Bishop decodes this further, saying "Unsurpassed prosperity had enriched Americans---and it had loosened long established social moorings. Americans were scrambling to find a secure place, to make a secure place...Most Americans have done that by seeking out(or perhaps gravitating toward) those who share their lifeworlds---made up of old, fundamental differences such as race, class, gender, and age, but also, now more than ever, personal tastes, beliefs, styles, opinions, and values."

So, we are no longer necessarily experiencing "White Flight." Rather, we are experiencing "Middle-Class flight," "Liberal Flight," "Conservative Flight," "Religious Flight," "Educated Flight," etc., etc. People want to be with people like themselves. So, they are moving en masse to communities where they can share the same lifestyle as their neighbors. As Bishop says, "Americans joined communities, churches, and political parties in a manner that was almost tribal."

What are the implications of this for the church?  Is this thesis even true?  As Bishop states in Chapter 7, many used this to appeal to people on the basis of their preferences or lifestyles when it came to the discipline of church growth. The church itself is becoming more tribal as churches form around personal preferences and the place that congregants are in their life. So, you have "niche" churches based on lifestyle choices begin to emerge. Is this a good thing?  Personally, I don't think so. The Body of Christ is not to be divided based on economics, interests, race, or personal preference. We are to be one in Christ, not in our hobbies or political persuasions. But, this clustering is happening faster now than ever. Smaller, community based churches are giving way to larger churches based on the preferences of people.

Bishop's research is also showing that people are not being shaped by their beliefs as much as they are being shaped by their geography, at least eventually. The more that like-minded people cluster together, the more that their beliefs harden and keep them from interacting with others who are different from them.  People are finding their safety and security in an ever-changing world by grouping together with people that they share common lifestyles with and America is becoming ever more polarized.

But, what if there was a community where people different in many ways could come together and exhibit a unity that would be shocking to a world that was breaking apart?  Could it be that Jesus' command for His followers to love one another in a way that the world would know that they were His (John 13:34-35) - could it be that this is exactly what America needs right now?  I think so, and I am going to be exploring this thought more throughout the week. 

Are Multi-Site, Video-Venue Churches a Good Idea?

I have thinking about this quite a bit over the past few months and have decided to weigh in with some thoughts. I'd appreciate any other opinions on this as well. The new trend in church growth is for successful churches with popular pastors to start new congregations in other places by broadcasting their preaching via video to the new site. These sites usually have a campus pastor and small groups. Sometimes, they have live worship and sometimes it is simulcast in as well. Multi-site churches are springing up all over and I have to admit that I don't get the appeal.

I understand the desire for good preaching and to be connected to a successful, well-resourced church model. Americans love to be around and hear from "winners" and successful people. But, getting up on Sunday morning week after week to watch a guy in another city preach on a video screen? You cannot possibly know him and he cannot possibly know you. His message is not contextualized to your context, your community, or the gathering at the satellite site. Sure, you have a campus pastor, but why can't he preach? If he did preach the message and person of Jesus Christ, would people not come because he wasn't the celebrity preacher? If that is true, then why are they coming? I am not against a hub church doing this for conferences or on occasion to disseminate information or vision, but every week?

If we are appealing to America's desire for celebrity now in the local church, that is a problem. Why can't we raise up leaders who can preach and lead? What does it do to the faith of people who are a part of a video-venue multi-site church? Would it reinforce passivity and spectator Christianity? How are the dynamics of biblical community affected by this approach? I agree that it might seem appealing in the 3-5 year span, but how can this be sustainable in the long run?

My wife says that she doesn't see much difference between the video venue church and the megachurch. Good point. If people like megachurches they will probably like video venue churches. But, what does that say about our view of church? At least in the megachurch the man preaching is around. He is a real person, not a TV character. But, if the average person can't know the pastor of the megachurch either, then that is also a problem.

Anyway, I obviously have a lot of questions about this and my opinion of the multisite video venue church is not good.

What do you think? What are the implications of this? Why would people want this? What affect will this have in 10-20 years? Interested to see what others think.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

:Update: I wrote this post this morning and after engaging in discussion with readers in the comment stream, I am learning a lot. I pecked the post out on my phone and just intended to present my initial impressions on the growing surge of multi-site, video-venue churches and some questions that I had about it. Going back and reading it now, those questions presented in machine-gun-fire-staccato makes it look like my opinion against this is much harsher than it actually is. I tend to start from a strong position on something, which is what inspires me to learn more about it while trying to keep an open mind. I'm weird that way. Thanks to all those so far who are attempting to answer my questions and help me see a broader view on why this is working well for many people. No doubt, the way that we have done church in the past has problems and I definitely do not want to shut down creativity. I just wonder where this will lead long-term.  

Haitian Orphans and UNICEF's War Against International Adoption

On Wednesday of last week, I found myself traveling through the rubble strewn streets of Port-au-Prince on my way to the US Embassy. We went there to inquire about bringing 50 Haitian orphans to the United States. A ministry that I am familiar with called Bridges of Faith in Alabama has the facilities and the desire to take care of up to 50 Haitian orphans on something that the State Department calls a Humanitarian Waiver. When we got to the embassy we were told that the Haitian government was allowing orphans to leave the country last week. But, then things changed. Inexplicably, they changed direction and now no orphans were leaving Haiti. The 10 Americans who are now being detained in Haiti got caught up in this confusion, it appears. Some reports state that they had permission but they needed one more piece of paperwork to leave the country. What they did was not wise, but the rules have kept changing in Haiti regarding the orphan situation. Apparently, UNICEF (United Nations Childrens Fund) is playing a huge role here.

According to reports, UNICEF has a standing policy against international adoption (see HERE).  According to missionaries in Haiti and other reports from those trying to adopt, UNICEF has pressured the Haitian government to adhere to their policies on international adoption and cease releasing children to adoptive parents that have already been approved. The U.S. government is trying to get the children released and a stalemate has ensued. This is what we were caught up in at the US Embassy in Port-au-Prince and it is why the policies changed. The UNICEF perspective is that children in poverty-stricken condiitions are better off if they stay in orphanages in their native culture than if they leave their native culture and go to families in other countries. You can debate this all you want, but that is what is behind the fact that Haitan orphans are not being allowed to leave right now. UNICEF saw an opportunity to spread their philosophy to Haiti and they have a lot of money that the Haitian government needs. At least that is the story that is being reported by people in Haiti who are in the know.

As for the 10 missionaries from Idaho, the media is presenting this like they are bunch of sex traffickers that got caught. Did they make a mistake? Yes. Were they foolish and ill-informed? It appears that they were. However, it is easy to speculate that an example is being made of them to send a message that children are staying put, despite the best intentions. One report stated that they had full approval from the orphanage and the parents of the children that they were taking. 21 of the 33 children had parents and those parents actually put them on the bus to get them out of Haiti and to the Dominican Republic. I don't know the full story. It is doubtful that anyone does at this point. I fully understand the need to have things documented and for the proper paper work to be done. Actually, I fiercely support things being done the right way when it comes to children. There are many ill-intentioned people out there that would take advantage of a situation like this and it is possibly that the group from Idaho was in that number. But, when international power plays begin to get involved in things like this, then the story is not always as it appears. 

The role of the church is to be an advocate for justice and righteousness all over the world. The Haitian children should be protected from predators that would seek to exploit them in this time of disaster. At the same time, children that can be taken care of and provided for in these types of situations should be. If they cannot leave Haiti, then we should go to them and help care for them there. The 11 year old orphaned girl that we rescued from sex slavery last week is burned into my mind. Fortunately, she is in an orphanage that we are working with and is not being prostituted on the streets of Port-au-Prince. But, how many more are suffering? What else can we do?

My heart aches. 

White Christians, MLK, and the End of Racism in the Church

Things are definitely changing. We celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday today in an America that is moving beyond its racist past. Sure, racism and prejudice still exists, sometimes disgustingly so. But, it is obvious that things are changing.  I am primarily talking about the Church. I don't know exactly where America is headed in regard to racial prejudice. I have a suspicion that things will always be difficult in that area and perhaps increasingly so as America becomes more diverse. But, in the Church, I am seeing real progress, and for that I am very glad.

In the church that I pastor in Montgomery, AL, we continue to see blacks, whites, and people from other countries worship together. The racial diversity in our church is growing. I praise God for that. Dr. Martin Luther King asked us to imagine a day when people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That is happening in our church, as it should, and I am grateful. The Church of Jesus Christ is the only place where we have a real chance of seeing racism end, in my opinion, because it is the only place where grace can truly be experienced and proclaimed. We are all sinners and we have nothing within us to merit the merit of Christ. How can any real church separate on the basis of race, skin tones, culture, economics, or class? How can there be elitism of any kind in the church? How can we ever think that we are better than anyone else on any basis?  We are all alike in desperate need of the grace of God. If not for Christ, we would all be lost. How can we separate from others?

Dr. King was a prophet and a great leader who pointed to a better way of living that was based on the equality that can be found in the midst of the beloved community. Neither he nor his theology were perfect, as has been documented by his adversaries repeatedly over the years. Still, he had the courage and vision to call us to a way of life that was very biblical when it came to racial justice and equality. The gospel does not allow there to be divisions based on race or people groups. Christ died for all.  Ephesians 2:11-22 tells us that Christ Himself is our peace.  The Civil Rights Movement in America was a movement that was born in the church and was victorious because it was on the right side of history and on the right side of God's will. Dr. Russell Moore from Southern Seminary eloquently made a case for the righteousness of the Civil Rights movement and why it ultimately prevailed over white racism today. I urge you to read it.

I have become quite a student of the role of both the white and the black church in segregation and the Civil Rights movement. I am convinced that there are valuable lessons for us today that we must learn or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past in different forms. Here are some of the questions that haunt me:

• Why was the white evangelical church so blind to the evil of its racism?
• Why was the true gospel subverted under a false gospel that caused people to look down on and separate from others because of the color of their skin?
• What would have happened if the Evangelical Church would have righted itself and led the Civil Rights Movement against a Southern culture that was steeped in deplorable practices?
• How would America have been different from the 1960's onward if the Southern church would have led the way on the issue of racial equality?
• In what area are we now being affected by a blindspot prophetically? What are we missing today that could affect future generations?
• How can we be more aware prophetically so that we can throw off the trappings of cultural Christianity, not subvert the gospel to false concepts, and boldly proclaim the biblical Jesus?

I have been trying to answer these questions for some time now and I believe that they are very important in developing a missiology for the American South and for America as a whole. People like Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, Fannie Lou Hamer, Phule in India, and others have had the vision to see what was wrong and what needed to happen to make things right. God has been working through people like this since the time of John the Baptist and earlier in the lives of the prophets of Israel. How can we recover their voice and apply it to our own times? What would that look like? 

If we are to truly celebrate the birth of Dr. King, let us praise God for the progress made in the area of race while also asking Him to show us how we can continue to proclaim truth from the rooftops in a world groping in darkness.  I am looking forward to the day when the Church leads the way in restoring the world to God's intentions. I think that I am seeing that beginning to happen and for that I am very glad.

Post-Secularism and the Role of Christianity in the Fall of Communism and the Remaking of Europe (and America)

Communism fell in Eastern Europe 20 years ago and the church in America is largely unaware of the role that Christians played in its demise. I wrote about the role of Christianity in the fall of the Berlin Wall on Tuesday and today I ran across another article on this subject. Adrian Pabst in his article for The Guardian (UK) entitled Christianity Ended the Cold War Peacefully writes,

The Velvet Revolutions of 1989 are commonly associated with the uprising of secular liberal dissents against atheist Communist regimes. But the extraordinary events that brought down the Iron Curtain are perhaps best described in terms of the victory of religious resistance which foreshadowed the emergence of a post-secular Europe. As such, the resurgence of religion has more to do with 9/11/89 than 9/11/01.

Without Christianity the cold war would not have ended peacefully. Across the East, churches and religious organisations brought together workers, students and intellectuals. Under totalitarian rule, church services and religious festivals often provided the last bastion of freedom and resistance.

In Poland, the opposition frequently gathered during Catholic liturgies and celebrations. They were inspired by Pope John Paul II's rallying cry to all Christians in the Soviet bloc at Gniezo on 3 June 1979 – exactly 10 years and one day before Solidarnosc won semi-democratic elections that ended Communist rule in Warsaw.

Similarly, the famous Monday demonstrations (Montagsdemonstrationen) in the former GDR took place after prayers for peace at the Nikolai Church in Leipzig. Both dissidents and ordinary citizens enjoyed the crucial support of both Protestant and Catholic churches which, according to Markus Meckel, the GDR's foreign minister in 1990, were "the only free space for free communication and thinking".

Even in the Soviet Union, the Orthodox church – benefitting from Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika – constituted a core pole of resistance against the official state ideology of "scientific atheism". In 1988, the millennial anniversary of Russia's Christianisation saw an upsurge in popular celebrations of Christian traditions and the re-opening of ancient churches and monasteries. In turn, Patriarch Alexy II and the church were decisive in defeating the attempted putsch in August 1991 by KGB hardliners against Gorbachev.

Crucially, 1989 saw the triumph of civil society over totalitarian states. And behind civil society stood the churches and religious organisations which defended and promoted workers' associations, professional guilds, intermediary associations, educational establishments and communal welfare. As such, 1989 marked an unprecedented opportunity to overcome the bipolar order of the communist east and the capitalist west, building a genuine "third way" beyond centralised bureaucratic statism and unbridled free market capitalism.

Add to this the peaceful Christmas resistance led by Christians in Romania in 1989 in defense of the pastor Laszlo Tokes in Timisoara and you can make a strong case for the essential role that Christianity played in bringing freedom to millions of oppressed people throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc. Prayer, dependence upon God, a heartfelt desire for peace, freedom, and justice, and a righteous stand for the freedom of the gospel were the sparks that ignited the populace to revolt against the oppressive Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. The fact that these movements were ignited by men like Christian Fuhrer and Laszlo Tokes is not an historical accident, but rather indicative of the hand of God in their personal lives and in the shaping of nations. We give too little credance to the power of prayer and peaceful, non-violent resistance to the powers and principalities that have set themselves up against the knowledge of God. 

Pabst goes on to say,

However, the post-1989 secular consensus is already unravelling. The ongoing economic crisis once again highlights that the primacy of individual freedom over communal justice is undesirable and unsustainable. Similarly, value-pluralism alone can neither secure the integration of religious minorities nor solve ethical questions like assisted suicide because it negates universal principles such as cultural cohesion around religion or the sanctity of life.

We are entering a time of post-secularism because the secular ideals of individualism and unending prosperity and advancement continue to unravel on every front with the economic collapse of 2008-09 being the latest example. The stories of the Fall of 1989 and the role of Christians in remaking Europe should be told again and again. While the influence of cultural Christianity in America wanes, similar movements of change can begin by handfuls of Christians living out their faith in the midst of opposition from a culture that is steeped in opposing values.

Pabst concludes by saying,

Twenty years after the collapse of atheist communism, 2009 has seen the failure of secular capitalism. There is now a unique opportunity to enact a new socio-economic settlement centred on human relationships, families and communities rather than the binary, secular logic of the individual and the collective. Together with other faiths, Christianity in Europe will be a formidable intellectual, cultural and social force in arguing for alternatives to the post-1989 secular consensus.

Is Christianity capable of the same "intellectual, cultural, and social force" in defining the future of a multicultural America? Most definitely. But, we will only take part in this when we stop trying to reclaim an America that has passed, if it ever actually existed in the first place, and start working to create an America that is not yet, but could one day be.

What Really Brought Down the Berlin Wall

Prayer.

On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall separating East from West fell, as East Germany allowed its citizens to travel to West Germany unfettered. A great deal of unrest had preceded this decision. I was 15 at the time and followed the story closely, but I had no idea about what led up to the dramatic events surrounding the sudden collapse of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War that had paralyzed the world for 40 years.

Starting September 20, 1982, East German pastor Christian Fuhrer began "Peace Prayers" that were held every Monday in the Nikolai Church in Leipzig. The prayers focused against the Cold War. This went on for seven years and was seen as sedition by the East German government, while the Lutheran Church approved. By 1989, more and more people were joining the "Peace Prayers" and peaceful, candlelight marches began to flow out of the church in September. These prayer meetings turned to peaceful marchers were called the Monday Demonstrations and the world was forever changed. Alan Nothnagle explains what happened:

Why Leipzig?

Before the Revolution of 1989, Leipzig was best known as the city of Bach and Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. But in 1982, Pastor Christian Führer of Leipzig’s historic St. Nicholas' Church had begun conducting “Monday prayers for peace” at five p.m. in the spirit of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. He conceived this event as a non-violent protest against the nuclear rearmament programs of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO, which  had been planning for decades to unleash full-scale thermonuclear war on German territory if the status quo in Central Europe were disturbed. Non-church members (along with a generous sprinkling of Stasi informants) also used to take part in this peaceful protest, where concerned citizens met to discuss matters of current interest. After all, the church was the only remaining institution that was largely free of direct government supervision and interference.

Führer had scheduled his prayer service carefully. By five o'clock, most ordinary people were already off work and could thus spend their leisure time as they wished. Monday evening was ideal, since nearly all communist party members were busy attending their weekly meetings at the factoryor office. Moreover, downtown shops were still open, which meant that groups of people congregating in the streets outside the church did not stand out to the police and the Stasi. This would later prove to be a convenient time for West German TV journalists to smuggle footage of the demonstrations across the border and broadcast it on their evening news programs.

"We are the people!"

On September 4, 1989, the traditional Monday prayers for peace swelled into a demonstration by several hundred participants for freedom of travel and political reform. Two other Leipzig churches joined in, and the authorities did nothing to stop them. 10,000 assembled on October 2.² Then, on October 9, following the debacle in Prague and the departure of the first "Freedom Trains" to West Germany, the event exploded into a demonstration by 70,000 citizens in this city of half a million. And these demonstrators were armed, too, but not with knives or guns. No, these counterrevolutionaries (as Honecker called them) came equipped with the most dangerous weapon of all: a brilliant slogan.

“Wir sind das Volk!” (“We are the people!”³), the demonstrators chanted. They passed out lighted candles and began parading through the streets. They sang protest songs, including the communists' own Internationale, and marched right past Stasi headquarters itself shouting “No violence!” These “enemies” certainly didn't look very violent. As Pastor Führer pointed out in an interview for Deutsche Welle earlier this year, when you carry a candle, you need two hands – one to hold it, and one to protect the flame from the wind. You have no hand left in which to carry a weapon.

The next Monday, 120,000 demonstrators met in Leipzig. The next Monday? Over 300,000. The peaceful demonstrators put so much pressure on the East German government that by November 9, the Berlin Wall came down and Communism was effectively dead in Eastern Europe. It all happened without the firing of a shot. After the West spent billions of dollars on armament and military defense, the Iron Curtain came down as a result of the rising tide of peaceful demonstrations of people who met under the threat of violence and death. It all began with a prayer meeting to the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ.

This story is rarely told. Today, on the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall, it needs to be told again and again.  It all began with prayer. Who would have thought it? Who would think it now?

All things are possible with God. 

3, er, 5, no, 7 or Whatever, Steps that Guarantee Successful Missional Church Leadership!

The other day, Andrew, a friend of mine, called me and asked me a question about strategies for missional church leadership (being missional simply means that you live as a "sent" representative of God in the world - a missional church is a church that does not depend on attractional programs to reach people, but rather, it sees its people live dynamic, "sent" lives for Christ in the world as His ambassadors). He is a student in seminary doing a paper on this for a class, and he had to interview a pastor that was seeing his church step out missionally and engage their community and their world. He asked me about strategies and vision and plans. He reads this blog, so let me first of all say that his questions were very fair and I completely understood his assignment. This isn't about the questions. It is about my answers.

My answers were pretty pathetic if you were looking for coherent strategies in the way that most "church" experts talk about strategy.  But, I think that God is showing us some things and while my answers may seem kind of Sunday School-ish, I think that that they are right. Maybe we need some simplicity in this type of discussion.

Book Review: Church Turned Inside Out By Linda Bergquist and Allan Karr

In 1997, my wife and I had just arrived in the San Francisco Bay Area for me to attend Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. We moved onto campus in Mill Valley (North Bay) and I quickly got a job and started attending classes. I was pretty busy, but knew that I wanted to do ministry in the City during my time in seminary. In March, I was invited to a church planting party at a home near Golden Gate Park. It was a really interesting night where Erika and I met people that would challenge us and shape us for the years to come. One of those people was Andrew Jones (TallSkinnyKiwi) whose storefront church on Haight Street we would start attending a few months later. But, the party was hosted by Linda Bergquist and her husband Eric.  Linda was the church planter strategist for Baptists in the Bay Area and Eric ran the Page Street Baptist Center near the Haight-Ashbury District. This couple would eventually have a profound influence on the way that I thought about church and people who were far away from God.

I worked with Linda and Eric on many different occasions while I was in SF and have continued to keep in touch with them over the years.  My daughter, Ashtyn, and I even stayed in their home for 5 days this past March while we enjoyed a Daddy-Daughter visit to the city of her birth. They are wonderful people. So, I am really excited to begin reviewing Linda's first book that she has co-authored with Allan Karr, the associate professor of missional/church planting at Golden Gate. The book is entitled The Church Turned Inside Out. I am still reading it and plan to start reviewing it in full next week, but until then, here is the description from the back cover to get started:

There are no sacred models of church, no specific molds into which God pours blessings, and no special leadership styles that are holier than others. Too often, though, church leaders attempt to pattern their ministries after either tradition or the successes of a few prominent trendsetting congregations.

In Church Turned Inside Out, Linda Bergquist and Allan Karr push back on the one-size-fits-all approach. They invite leaders of all kinds of churches—new and existing, megachurches and microchurches—to walk through an inside-out design process. Instead of starting with models and methods, they insist that every sphere of church life resonates with and communicates what you really believe.

As the book unfolds, it moves from abstract concepts toward concrete suggestions. It considers the uniqueness of individual leaders, their teams, and their particular communities, cultures, and contexts while taking seriously both spiritual and practical dimensions. This process results in more potent and effectively organized churches. Perhaps more important, it helps church leaders discover ways to live and work more wholly and faithfully, according to how God created them. It really is possible for a church to be so beautifully designed that every structure, program, and relationship reflects what it intends. Sometimes this requires a whole new design, and other times it only takes re-aligning or refining what already exists. This thoughtful and systemic approach opens a wider array of possible church paradigms than most people ever imagine, but the real goal is not innovation but transformation.

Using a blend of theology, biblical imagery, and metaphors from culture and creation, Church Turned Inside Out provides respectful ways to consider adaptation and change. It offers a hopeful vision of what the church can and must become. It not only positions the church for its future mission to the twenty-first century but offers timeless principles for the church of today.

Linda is absolutely brilliant, by the way, and thinks on more levels than I can keep up with. One of my favorite parts about my trip to SF back in the Spring was sitting at Linda and Eric's kitchen table at night and talking with them until we could not keep our eyes open anymore. Like a fascinating kitchen table conversation, this book is opening me up to her (and Allan's) experiences and insight. It is especially helpful for church leaders in the South who have not yet experienced the full weight of the cultural change that is coming, but will very soon. More on that later . . .

Full review coming next week.

The Audacity of Leadership by Jay Lorenzen

Jay Lorenzen blogs at onmovements.com and he is brilliant. If you don't read his blog, you should. Here is a post from a couple of weeks ago that I ran across on leadership. He highlights Edwin Friedman's, The Failure of Nerve, and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mocking Bird. I'm going to have to take a look at this book. Here's Jay's post:

The Audacity of Leadership »

By Jay Lorenzen on Aug 20, 2009

Since my last post, I’ve been underlining every other line in Edwin Friedman’s The Failure of Nerve. I’ve read a lot of books about leadership–most are about the techniques of leadership (vision-casting, team-building, communication skills) or the character of leadership (integrity, trustworthiness, servant-like, loving).

Friedman’s book, however, has the ability to completely reshape one’s perspective about leadership. It goes to the very nature of leadership and how it works.

When I wasn’t reading Friedman, I was listening to Sissy Spacek’s reading of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch, the lawyer in this Pulitzer Prize winning novel, kept reminding me of Friedman’s description of the “well-differentiated leader.”

If you don’t remember the novel, Atticus Finch is a lawyer in Maycomb, Alabama in 1932. He puts himself and his children at risk by defending a black man accused of raping a white woman in Alabama. Atticus Finch sets a standard of morality that no other character in the book comes close to matching. His “self-differentiation” from the rest of the people of Maycomb gives him the ability to cope with the unreasonable and highly emotional elements of the town. Taking a stand against the injustice of racism, he serves as an “immune system” resisting the invasive and destructive viruses infecting the community.

For Friedman, a true leader (like Atticus Finch) resists the “chronic anxiety” around him or her. By his or her presence, the self-differentiated leader possesses a modifying, non-anxious, and often challenging presence. The crucial issue of leadership, Friedman argues, may not be how much power leaders exercise but how well their presence has been able to preserve that society’s integrity. By the integrity and audacity of their own self-possession, they keep societies (institutions, churches, movements) from “dis-integ-rating.”

Unfortunately, Friedman argues, most leaders lack nerve, becoming co-opted by the highly reactive, often regressive atmosphere of chronically anxious, dysfunctional societies. He defines chronically anxious societies as:

Reactive–the vicious cycle of intense emotional reactions of each member to events and to one another
Herders–a process thru which the forces for togetherness triumph over the forces for individuality and move everyone to adapt to the least mature members
Blame displacers–an emotional state in which members focus on forces that have victimized them rather than taking responsibility for their own being and destiny
Quick-fixers–members have a low-threshold for pain and thus constantly seek symptom relief rather than fundamental change.
Lacking well-differentiated leaders–a failure of nerve in leaders that both stems from and contributes to the first four characteristics.

Maycomb, Alabama in 1932 was one of those chronically anxious Southern towns trying to emerge from the racism of its past.

In Friedman’s terms, no one but Atticus Finch has the capacity to separate himself from the surrounding emotional processes. No one else has the courage to be clear about his or her principles and vision. Only Atticus is willing to be exposed and to be vulnerable, is able to persist in the face of inertial resistance and able to regulate his emotions in the face of reactive sabotage. Atticus represents a kind of non-anxious, well-principled presence that is at the heart of true leadership.

According to Friedman, such “self-differentiation” in leadership is the key to the kingdom.

Here’s a couple quotes from the book that illustrate Atticus’ well-defined self:

Atticus to his son, Jem:

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

An exchange between Atticus and his daughter, Scout:

“This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that goes to the essence of a man’s conscience — Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man.”

“Atticus, you must be wrong . . . “

“How’s that?”

“Well, most folks seem to think they’re right and you’re wrong . . . “

“They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions,” said Atticus, “but before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”

In another exchange with Scout:

“There are some things that you’re not old enough to understand just yet. There’s been some high talk around town to the effect that I shouldn’t do much about defending this man.”

“If you shouldn’t be defending him, then why are you doing it?”

“For a number of reasons. The main one is that if I didn’t, I couldn’t hold my head up in town. I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do somethin’ again.”

Miss Maude Atkinson about Atticus:

“What I meant was, if Atticus Finch drank until he was drunk he wouldn’t be as hard as some men are at their best. There are just some kind of men who-who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.”

‘Whether Maycomb knows it or not, we’re paying the highest tribute we can pay a man. We trust him to do right. It’s that simple.’

Bob Ewell (the antagonist) to Atticus Finch:

“What kinda man are you?”