Postliberalism

Recently I was invited to highlight, on this blog, a discussion of Brian McLaren's postliberalism. However, the discussion tended to treat postliberalism as liberalism, and this, in my view, does not make a good fit. Being registered as a postgraduate student at a postliberal seminary, I’ll give the question a go: What is postliberalism (or narrative theology)? To simplify in the extreme (I’m trying to make it understood), it may be summarised in two points. 1. Postliberalism considers that the value of Christianity cannot be founded or demonstrated -- much as someone might ask you: "What do you see in that?" and you reply: "Well, it can't really be explained. Just come along and see!" Postliberalism, therefore, has been called non-foundationalism (says George Hunsinger). This is a well-known philosophy, of which the chief proponent is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Therefore 2. instead of being founded or demonstrated, the value of Christianity is discovered as one becomes absorbed in the language and practices of the Church. Again, this is like "Just come along and see!" -- then you wake up one day to realise that you have been quite taken up by it all, and now you do the same things and speak the same words as "those guys". Thus postliberalism holds that one is drawn into the narrative and formed by it (says Paul Ballard). With all this in mind, postliberalism is sometimes referred to as a neutral theory of religion (says George Lindbeck), as it doesn't ask destructive questions like the liberals, nor does it construct rational proofs like the conservatives (Lindbeck describes these as experiential-expressive religion vs. cognitive-propositional). Postliberalism is a very big movement, being espoused by major seminaries the world over. OBSERVATION: However, by stating up front that becoming a Christian is to be drawn into the narrative, one tends to reject the kind of Christianity which has been described as "an encounter with the Holy" (says George Malek). Postliberalism tends to reject the idea that faith comes "straight down from above -- through the skylight, as we might say" (says Lesslie Newbigin). Therefore on the crucial issue of conversion, it tends to see this as enculturation rather than miracle (Newbigin famously spoke of “no privatised eschatology”). It also tends to disavow an “interventionist God”. To the untrained person, postliberalism is hard to spot, as it tends to "talk the talk" – however, it has many catchwords or phrases, among them community, reign of God, shalom. My post Emergent Church is related.

Older Congregants Boost Growth

I am doing a deconstructionist critique of Christian transformational leadership. Among other things, this means that I study the footnotes. Here’s a particularly interesting one from Eddie Gibbs (Gibbs E 2005:200). He writes: “In a personal email [Peter Brierley] writes, ‘Your comment that churches making a significant impact among under 35-year-olds needing folk in the 70+ category was proved by our research from the 1998 English Church Attendance Survey in a report we wrote in collaboration with Springboard called Growing Churches in the 1990s. We found [that] 42 percent of churches grew when 25 percent of their attenders were 65+, the highest percentage of any age mix.’” QUESTION: What would older congregants do for growth? And how would one effectively accommodate them with under 35-year-olds?

Priesthood of Believers

The International Coalition of Workplace Ministries in the USA has posted an article by Eric Swanson, which proposes ten paradigm shifts for the Church (see http://www.icwm.net/articles_view.asp?articleid=1395&columned). An interesting observation (paradigm shift no. 3) is that, if churchgoers are not given the opportunity to minister, they drop off in time. I think this is true. But there’s an interesting twist. Swanson writes: “In the typical church, lay people are asked to serve in five or six capacities: Teach a Sunday School class / Work in the nursery / Lead a home Bible study or small group / Sing in the choir / Be an usher or greeter / Serve on a board or committee.” These “five or six capacities” go unquestioned by Swanson, except that he notes an important need to add “ministering to ... the needs of a community”. This is good -- yet why such a short list of “five or six capacities”? There would seem to be a big gap here. There’s a multiplicity of things that churchgoers can do besides: leading the prayers, giving spiritual messages, welcoming guest speakers, preaching the sermon, and so on. We ourselves do this within a fairly “traditional” context. Not to speak of what people can do in groups. QUESTION: Why is it that Swanson’s list is as short as “five or six capacities”? Why, apparently, does he not see so many more?

Bubbling Under

Despite months of neglect, I have noticed that Leadership South continues to pop up from time to time among the South African Top 30 Religion blogs. Perhaps it deserves to be revived -- although it is unlikely to receive diligent attention. It also deserves to be less obscure. Given the time, I might rework some of the older posts to be more intelligible.

The Cause of Stress in Ministry

In my previous two posts, I highlighted the extraordinary strain that Christian leadership represents, at least in large circles. An obvious question is: what is the cause? On this, the Christian leadership literature is clear. It is the need to influence followers, and the resistance or opposition that this brings about. The “greatest trial” for the Christian leader lies in driving values and visions against the status quo (Wofford J C 1999:85,86); there is a “depth and pervasiveness” of malaise among leaders over resistance to change (Roxburgh A J and Romanuk F 2006:16); instituting change is a draining process, even under the best of circumstances (Murren D 1997:205); leaders may be decimated by negative reactions to innovation (Barna G 1997:207); casting a vision is a daunting challenge, and opposition is hard to deal with (Hybels B 2002:41); selling vision is “an onerous task” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:65); and about 10% of followers will “predictably” not only resist Christian leadership but seek to sabotage it (Hunter J C 2004:75). Emotional strain is therefore clearly linked with the notion of the Christian leader as a person whose responsibility it is to influence followers through values or visions. QUESTION: What lies at the root of needing to drive “values and visions”? The diagram shows Wofford’s conception of the process.

The Most Pressing Issue

The previous post referred to the “Herculean effort” of Christian leadership. This will inevitably go hand in hand with the effect of such effort on the lives of Christian leaders -- and here are some examples. Hybels (2002:231) writes: “The single most pressing issue [for Christian leaders is] enduring.” Ford (1991:131) asks: “Is there enough strength to stand then?” Christian leaders are under enormous pressure (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:5); many have a sense of desperation (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:31); and there are countless leaders who would quit today (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:3); deep depression is not uncommon in Christian leadership (Engstrom 1976:100); the burdens of pastoral ministry are onerous (Jinkins 2002:39); it is demanding and exhausting (Jinkins 2002:50); the Christian leader faces grief and abandonment (Jinkins 2002:45) and the desire to flee resistance and sabotage (Jinkins 2002:44); and many are overwhelmed by the challenge (Gibbs 2005:139). Sanders (1994:53) suggests the prayer: “God harden me against myself,...”; Thomas (1999:135) is guided by the prayer: “Lord have mercy”; while Jinkins (2002:32), quoting Eugene Peterson, calls for Christian ministers to be lashed to the ministry mast. Of course, Christian leadership would be expected to involve some strain -- but these examples surely qualify as “abnormal strain”. They represent intense emotional conflict. Again, all the authors quoted here represent Christian transformational leadership, a popular Christian leadership model of the Global North. QUESTION: Why does this model of leadership engender such strain? Again, would this be true of all Christian leadership?

The "Herculean Effort" of Christian Leadership

The subject of my M.Th. thesis is Christian transformational leadership. With this in mind, it is interesting that Christian transformational authors consistently emphasise that such leadership requires a superhuman effort: it requires a “Herculean effort” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:7); it requires courage “of the highest order” (Sanders J O 1994:59); it comes with a high price (Gibbs E 2005:173; Hunter J C 2004:144; Sanders J O 1994:19); it involves heavy struggles (Engstrom T W 1976:14); it requires a great deal of motivation (Hunter J C 2004:19), and enormous efforts (Hunter J C 2004: 157); it demands personal suffering (Thrall B, McNicol B and McElrath K 1999:128), in fact “more than sacrifice and suffering” (Wofford J C 1999:164); it may face incredible odds (Munroe M 2005:209); it represents a daunting challenge (Gibbs E 2005:26); it requires a ribbon of steel running through one (Jinkins M 2002:30); and it demands superior spiritual power (Sanders J O 1994:28). In future posts, I hope to focus on the personal impact that such demands have on leaders. QUESTION: Is the above true of all Christian leadership? or is it something specific to certain types of Christian leadership? For those not familiar with “transformational”, this is possibly the most popular leadership model in the USA.

"Strengths and Abilities"

Henry and Richard Blackaby, in their book Spiritual Leadership, quote the promise of God to Joshua in Josh 1:5-9. This includes the famous words: “Be strong and courageous!” Then they add this comment: “God did not flatter Joshua, nor did he encourage Joshua to draw courage from his own strengths and abilities. Rather, God made it abundantly clear to Joshua that he need not fear his own inadequacies because God would be in control. Joshua could lead the Hebrew nation with absolute confidence, not in his own leadership skills, but in the assurance of the Lord’s presence” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:95). QUESTION: Does this mean that our “own strengths and abilities” are not needed? What is the meaning of “the Lord’s presence”?

Transformational: Mods to the Theory

Following on from my previous post, my academic supervisor has emphasised that my critique of transformational Christian leadership should propose constructive modifications to current theory. How, therefore, would I modify current theory if I could? High on my list, I think, would be to seek to break the causal link between influencer (the leader) and influenced (the followers), and to restore the direct influence of God on followers (an aspect which is de-emphasised in the literature). In other words, rather than the horizontal relationship between influencer and influenced (which in my view leads to a constellation of serious problems), there would be a triangular relationship between influencer and God on the one hand, and God and influenced on the other. QUESTION: Would this be in keeping with Biblical emphasis? Could leadership realistically function without the purpose of influencing others?

Transformational: What Is It Really?

Elsewhere on this blog, I suggest a definition of transformational Christian leadership. This might, however, give a different impression to what it really is. Each of the quotes which follows is drawn from a stock of many more: Transformational Christian leadership holds that leadership is personal influence. This influence is based on character (in the sense of “integrity”, but also “persistence”): “Character is foundational if a leader is to influence people ...” (Clinton J R 1988:74). The purpose of such influence if to fulfil a vision: “If you want to become a leader, vision is not an option [i.e. it is mandatory]” (Barna G 1997:47). Such vision tends to be what defines a Christian leader’s calling, and it needs to be seen through. This, however, tends to place an extraordinary burden on the Christian leader: “Perhaps the greatest trial for the transforming Christian leader is in challenging the status quo ... [i.e. is in] values and visions” (Wofford J C 1999:85,86). In the literature, there is a marked de-emphasis of the Triune God in exegetical passages, and of faith in the sense of the human response to God. This would seem to fit with transformational Christian leadership’s emphasis on personal influence. QUESTION: Assuming you are familiar with this leadership paradigm, how might the above be modified or enlarged? The picture (from Senge P M 1990:151) illustrates the “vision tension” particularly well.

NOTE: “Transformational” may have a very different meaning in Southern Africa. What is referred to here is a popular Global North leadership paradigm.

Definition of Religious Persecution

I have been closely involved in discussions surrounding the establishment of the World Evangelical Alliance’s (WEA’s) International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF). At the same time, an academic publisher hired me to proofread a text: Re-Examining Religious Persecution. Here is the author’s definition: “Religious persecution should be understood as an unjust action of varying levels of hostility directed at a believer or believers of a particular religion or belief-system through systematic oppression or genocide, or through harassment or discrimination which may not necessarily limit these believers’ ability to practice their faith, resulting in varying levels of harm as it is considered from the victim’s perspective, each action having religion as its primary motivator” (Tieszen C 2008:42). I’m not sure, though, about religion as the primary motivator. Is this doing justice to what happens “on the ground”? Some examples (both of these actual): a pastor reveals corruption discovered through counselling, and is framed; or a Church dismisses an employee for unchristian practices, and is summoned. I might try a definition like this: “Religious persecution is suffering at the hands of others for religiously grounded practices”. Of course, there might be religiously grounded practices for which one deserves to suffer. QUESTION: Can religious persecution be restricted (Chambers Dictionary) to suffering for “religious or political opinions”? Are such definitions adequate? What about the suggested one-liner?

Simple, Simple, Simple?

Best-selling management researcher Jim Collins (Good to Great) proposes the “hedgehog concept”. This is popular today as a Church growth principle. A hedgehog does just one thing really well: it rolls up into a ball, and so outsmarts the slyest fox. Therefore, writes Collins, if you want to know how to succeed in an undertaking, discover your hedgehog concept (Collins J 2001:90). In Collins’ view, Einstein, Darwin, Marx -- not to speak of the “greats” in business -- “took a complex world and simplified it” (:91). So it’s all about “simple, simple, simple ideas” (:95). Yet Collins notes that a simple idea needs to be based upon “deep insight” and “deep understanding along three key dimensions”. These dimensions, it so happens, are each subtle and far-reaching -- as an example, one’s personal emotional make-up, which even Collins describes as “soft and fuzzy” (:109) -- not to speak of that “deep understanding”. In fact, did not Einstein, Darwin, and Marx -- apart from the others Collins presents -- have a wizardly understanding of their so-called “simple, simple, simple ideas”? In short, while the hedgehog concept may have some merits, Collins himself would seem to say too much that undermines it. QUESTION: Is a hedgehog concept really that “simple, simple, simple”? May it genuinely be useful?

Management Subtext

The management literature, I find, frequently seems to subvert itself. Here’s an example. Ichak Adizes wrote the classic work, Managing Corporate Lifecycles. Yet one continually stumbles across asides in this book, ever so briefly deposited, which would seem to subvert the text. Adizes states that “the tools for diagnosing and treating ... organizational behavior -- to change organizational culture and consciousness -- are in their infancy” (Adizes I 2004:10). That is, they are still in the earliest stage of immaturity. On the core subject of the “integration” of companies (getting it all together as a well-functioning whole), he states that this “remains elusive and an ongoing subject of inquiry” (:254). To be elusive means of course “to escape one”. He writes that “when I watch spiritual leaders, I am in awe” (:396). That is, the organisational guru himself would seem cowed by what spiritual leaders are able to achieve. Such comments are scattered throughout the book -- and indeed other such management books. QUESTION: What is the meaning of such qualifiers? What does this really say about the merits of management theory?

Blighted Blog

Over the past year, the state of the Internet in South Africa has, in parts, considerably deteriorated. My ISP puts it down to the telephone system -- which, it states, affects “any connection (dial up or ADSL)”. This has seriously affected my ability to blog -- to the extent that I am unable to post at all from my own connection. What to do? For the time being, I shall do my best to find workarounds. However, this blog could be on the endangered list.

Doctoral Proposal

I handed in a doctoral proposal today. While I have not finally completed my M.Th. thesis, some universities prefer an early start to the doctoral process. The title of my dissertation is provisionally: Fact/Value Dualism: The Role of Language as Reconciling Factor. The difficulty can be stated simply: “How can facts lead us to values?” Fact/value dualism has been described in various terms. Chisholm (1977:60) sees it in Kant’s analytic vs. synthetic propositions; Capra (1982:21) describes it as rational vs. intuitive knowledge; Lyotard (1984:64) refers to it as denotative vs. prescriptive language games; Toulmin (1990:200,201) describes it as abstraction vs. humanism; Davey (2001:31,32) refers to it as devalorization vs. valorization; while Korten (2001:234) refers to it as materialistic monism vs. transcendental monism. This dualism is, I believe, the most important conceptual problem of our time. It has also deeply influenced recent theology. Anyway, a number of eminent thinkers have proposed a reconciliation of this dualism through a study of language, and this is the route that I propose to take in exploring the problem. QUESTION: So you have all the facts of a situation. How do you evaluate it? On what basis do you act? And why? What examples are there of people who have the facts, or data, yet do not use them appropriately?