2012 End of the World?

2012 the end of the world?

Some people live in fear of that question, some plain ignore it. Neither work for me. I admit to mixed emotions when I think about 2012.

1) Bemused: The Mayans simply ran out of room on their calendar stone! Hollywood is great  at making block-buster, global events over stories based on the flimsiest of pretexts (Hello, Dan Brown.) If you’ve lived more than a decade, you’ve seen lots of these end-of-the-world predictions come and go. We know it’s just another fear-driven marketing tool!
2) Serious: I do take seriously that one day there will be an end to time-as-we-know-it. And it may even be within our life-time, because of the exponential way global limits are coming to a head, like over-population, economics, energy supply, environmental limits, and gospel communications. But not in 2012.
3) Steadfast, excited, scared, trusting: Things are coming to a head, but haven’t yet. I can’t tell the future, but I can tell you the end of the world won’t be in 2012, because Jesus says no-one knows the time of the end-of-the-world: it will take us all by surprise, like a thief in the night.

We know Who holds the future

So in 2013 I’ll be saying, “I told you so, no-one knows”… And then maybe, Bam! the end might come.

Whenever it comes, I’ll face it like I face death: with a mixture of grief, sadness, loss, fear-of-the-unknown, yes, but also excitement-about-the-Known, faith, love, relief, maybe even a sense of adventure. And I can only say those positive things because:
1. I’m convinced of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, and
2. the living dynamic of the Holy Spirit within me as the first deposit of that spiritual Life to come.

So then, you must always be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you are not expecting him. (Matthew 24 & 25)

Live as if He is already here – because He is!
Then the last day will have continuity with the New Day.

Easy on the differences

I had to describe myself for a group that prides itself on open-mindedness, and which wanted to hear from a representative of mainstream Christianity… A strange thing emerged as I did:

Geoff Westlake works for OAC Ministries, a non-denominational outreach organisation educating people about the basics of Christianity. He’s a Baptist reverend, married to an Anglican-Uniting girl, sends his kids to Catholic schools, yet doesn’t regularly attend a normal church. Instead he voluntarily runs Cheers Neighbors’ Network in Banksia Grove under the auspices of Scripture Union WA. He is in good standing with the Nyoongar-Whadjuk people, and assists Together for Humanity when they are in town.

Having important differences doesn’t mean we can’t work together!

Posted in And

Ecclesia part 1

A few of you have asked for sources about my take on ecclesia. It’s simple.

I go to my shelf and look up ecclesia in the standard-setting Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, Walter Bauer, translated by Arndt & Gingrich. (See pic.)

ecclesia

The primary definition is not Christian, but political. In fact it’s not until the fourth definition that you get a sense of a particularly Christian implication, and this developed because of the context anyway.

See how Paul opens his letters by specifying that he’s writing to the ecclesia of God in that town, not the primary meaning of ecclesia.

See how Acts 19:32-40 uses the very same word ecclesia, but without a specifier it means “town meeting,” the primary meaning of ecclesia. (Mark D Roberts concurs.)

When Jesus first used the word in Mat 16:18, it had no Christian connotation. Everyone would have understood Jesus meant ecclesia in the primary sense of the word. “I will build my ecclesia” = “I will build my town meeting.”

In the hearers’ ears, this could mean either:
1) his meeting would be like a town meeting, concerned with the affairs of the town, but done in his Way;
2) his meeting would be concerned with his “town.”

In either case, it did not mean “church” in the English dictionary sense of the term.

If Jesus meant “a gathering of his faithful, to encourage one another and to study the scriptures,” it would seem much more natural for him to use the word synagogue, in the Jewish tradition, which he was extending. But he chose ecclesia, a concept primarily dripping with the concerns of the polis.

Even when the Septuagint uses ecclesia to describe Israel, it still has this political nuance. After all, Israel was the chosen nation of God.

Jesus wants us to regularly gather, concerned with the town around us, and to develop that community in his Way. That’s got to be a large part (not the only part) of what the meeting is about!

Meeting without that primary concern for the town, is meeting in a way that is fundamentally less than Jesus intended. 

Cheers-log 2011-09 Mediation

I’ve had a running conflict with the school principal, and mediation was suggested - but it was doomed to fail because the mediator didn’t know the processes mentioned here.

Mediation. A word we use generically to mean keeping two parties from fighting whilst they sort their differences. But there’s more to mediation than you first think – the art of reconciliation has detail. The Peace-Maker, by Ken Sande outlines personal peace-making, and if you go on and learn more in the seminar series, you can become a mediator.

A mediator would:

  • Coach BOTH parties beforehand, to
    - prepare a genuine apology, that gives hope for things to be different in future
    - prepare your story, that gives understanding, empathy.
  • Meet when all is prepared by both parties, so the way ahead is already obvious.
    - share stories,
    - share apologies, and
    - form a joint statement for the future, that you can both sign
  • Share the joint statement with as many who have been effected by the dispute.

In our “mediation,” despite assurances that the principal would ‘be prepared’ – he hadn’t been prepared at all (poor guy). So at the meeting, I gave my apology, it was accepted, the end! 

The end? Er… Where is the foundation for future trust? No recognition of his part in the conflict, no apology, equals no likelihood that anything will change.” So I can give no trust in that environment. There can be no reconciliation.

When I tried to express this, I was quickly made to look like the troublemaker, the one “not willing to end this dispute.” In actual fact, I am the one looking for real reconciliation.

So here are lessons for me:

  1. Mediation means different things. What you’re going into may be called mediation, but it may not be real mediation. Let’s explain carefully what everyone means, before we go into it. All need to be confident in the process. Now I have a good model to start with.
  2. No wonder Aboriginal reconciliation is so far off, when good mediation processes are so hard to find.
  3. Peacewise are onto it. Want to join me in getting equipped for this massive need?

Leadership and Missional Communities

Blind-spots. You can’t know what you don’t know. Not until someone shows you, then you know what you didn’t know before.

Andrew Olsen showed us some leadership blind-spots which, on reflection, are some areas in which I could have benefited if I had known about them earlier.

1. Human nature defaults to pecking order and scapegoating.

This is why groups of good people, that started well and co-operatively, ended up devolving, quietly drifting apart, “losing interest,” or loudly arguing, fracturing, or ending. I thought that if we consciously figure out good ways to go forward, that the Spirit’s leading and logic would make that apparent to all. But it’s the sub-conscious primate-brain that short-circuits us. We THINK we differ on “the issues,” but IN FACT as soon as there is a group loyalty there is a subconscious drive to have our place in the pack, and to protect and galvanize our pack by expelling “threats.” This sinful human nature lies at the base of all our conflicts, all our groups!

Maybe some missions failed because we trusted each other to be good, and failed to properly acknowledge our sinful human nature. 

2. Human nature needs to be managed by good civic ground-rules.

Everyone knows what is right. It’s just that we struggle to do it. So a leader can form good civics by asking three basic questions, and letting the people shape the civics. ”How do you want the meetings to be?” safe, not talking over the top, honest, etc. “How do you want us to relate to each other?” Respectfully, listening, honest, friendly, etc. “How do you want the leader to conduct the group?” Keep us on task, safe processes, etc.

So now the leader’s job becomes clear: he/she is accountable to the group to make the group behave like we all know we should. And we have given the leader authority to do it. The leader uses these civic ground-rules (which we chose!) to make us behave better towards each other. If he doesn’t, he fails and we tell him off. If she does, we all perform much better towards each other.

Maybe some missions failed because we failed to set up solid ground rules that manage the human nature. 

3. Parallel Thinking Grids overcome Oppositional thinking.

How quickly arguments get out of hand! Brain research tells us that when we feel under threat, adrenaline is released which interferes with the function of the frontal lobe, the part only humans have, used for reflective and rational thinking. We default to primate-brain, pecking order. So as soon as adrenaline kicks in, stop – we are no longer physiologically capable of understanding other viewpoints!

Oppositional thinking (he said / she said) is our default way of dispute resolution, and it creates adrenaline in no time!

Alternatively, if the leader makes us think in parallel ways, it keeps us together, and tables far more information on both sides of the issue. In parallel thinking, the leader makes us all park our points of view. Then all together, we all brainstorm as many reasons for ‘A’ as possible, uninterrupted. Then we all brainstorm as many reasons against ‘A’ as possible, uninterrupted. Then we all brainstorm as many reasons for ‘B’ as possible, uninterrupted. Then against ‘B’. Then we all consider all that info together and mention what has become obvious, without defending our observations. Then we all name the obvious actions to take.

At no point did we become oppositional, we stayed together throughout. No adrenaline, so we can empathize.

In fact  brainstorming by using a thinking grid like this gives you 5-10 times more useful info, than just brainstorming “pro’s and cons.” This is because the “value-finding” part of your brain is different from the “danger” finding part. The thinking grid makes you stay in one part for an extended period, which triggers a spiraling creativity. You also spark off each other by being collectively in that brain-space together.

Parallel thinking grids are one of the most powerful tools to manage sinful human nature, and also create synergistic thinking. I wish I’d known that before!

Maybe some missions failed because we used oppositional thinking processes that ended in adrenaline, and failed to use parallel thinking modes enough.

4. Leading well requires skills to be learnt.  

I under-estimated the complexities. I had two tools – prayer & logic. I thought if God prompted and it made sense, that would win the day and all would follow. All I had to do was be clear. Ba-poww! Wrong!

I’ve already mentioned the skills of setting up good civics, and parallel thinking grids. I also learnt about: value-creating questions; shortest possible time negotiation; commentating on thinking and social processes; techniques for stimulating imagination; delegation; reflection; and finally the ability to teach all this too.

I did not know all this! And that’s just the skills of leading a group to do it’s tasks.

I also under-estimated the complexities of getting the tasks themselves done. There’s all the interplay between the setting, the staff, the clients, management of operations, admin and logistics, communications and command, relationships, conflict resolution and peacemaking, strategy planning and execution, priorities, stages of formation.

Yikes! A bit more info on all that would have helped. Did Jesus have a handle on all that stuff? Well, now that I think about it, yes he did. It doesn’t mean he formed a company, but he had a wide repertoire of those skills and more.

Maybe some missions failed because one or more of these many elements were not tended to properly, because we just didn’t learn about them, or because we had too simplistic a model of what was happening. 

5. Teams Dysfunction at different levels

Patrick Lencioni gives this pyramid of dysfunctions of a team: Absence of Trust > fear of Conflict > lack of Commitment > avoiding Accountability > inattention to Results.  As soon as this was described, I suddenly saw the dysfunctions that made sense in the various groups I was a part of, and then I could work on it. Until I saw it, the group “just wasn’t working” and I couldn’t do anything about it.

Maybe some mission groups failed because there was one of these foundational dysfunctions. 

6. Flat leadership structures do not mean laissez-faire

Laissez-faire means, “whatever.” That’s not flat leadership, that’s just flat! It’s no leadership. That can be OK in a partnership where there is mutual initiative, but when more people are involved, relationships become more complex, and group-loyalty engenders pecking order in the primate-brain. Therefore trust has to be worked at, otherwise the weeds of fear and sinful human nature will choke the garden of community. As soon as we give someone responsibility we require them to lead in that area, and, as we’ve seen, people can lead well or poorly.

Flat leadership is not an oxymoron. The group can defer to each others’ expertise in different areas, and there can be a co-ordinating leadership that asks questions and facilitates the whole group expertly, without dominating. And that kind of leadership has to be conscious, or else it will be blind-sided by the above issues.

When the group defers to someone’s leadership in an area, each area-leader would benefit from understanding all of the matters listed above.

Maybe some missions failed because there was no leadership, leaving them defenseless against the entropy of primate-brain defaults.

7. Hierarchy can be used to serve

If you have a hierarchical leadership structure, you can use it to serve, or to dominate. From the Arbinger Institute we learned about “out-of-the-box” thinking vs “in-the-box” thinking. This is not about creativity, but empathy. Being “in-the-box” is relating to people from within your own frame of reference. Being “out-of-the-box” is relating in open-hearted ways, being other-centered. It’s the mindset that says no to manipulation, and yes to service. Conversely, in-the-box thinking can turn the most gentle method into heartless manipulation. Being out-of-the-box is an important overlay to all leadership skills.

Maybe some missions failed simply because leaders were “in-the-box.” 

I’ll be going through these in more detail at a public meeting for SUNO (Scripture Union Neighborhood Outreach.) 730pm, Tues Nov 15. Venue TBA.

OACWA Outreach newsletter

Hi folks,
Attached as a PDF is our latest OAC newsletter for WA. If you no longer wish to receive it, please let us know.
We have just returned from a schools trip around Jurien & Moora districts. Great reception in both HS and PS sessions.
Rob Adams & Geoff Westlake
OAC Ministries (WA branch)

out1108.pdf

Posted in And