Who to lead?

At the moment we are meeting with people in Benjamin who has been part of this church or another. As we are getting to know them the issue of ministry, leadership, doing something in the church comes up. And a lot of times about leading worship. It seems like the outlet of the energy for young people has been leading worship, or being part of the worship band.

Who to lead is one of the most important issues we face when planting or restarting a church. A good leader can be a real blessing but a bad one can seriously hinder growth and development.  So what to look for? Well here are three things I’m thinking about at the moment:

1. Character. Always more important than gifting. But gifting is more apparent and attractive. But without character and good attitude it can be a real pain. Choosing the person who is a little less talented but with a good character always pays off in the long run.
2. In process. With this I mean that the person is aware of their own weaknesses and sins and that they are a person in a process of change, sanctification. Brokeness over ones own sins almost automatically gives an merciful attitude to others. The opposite, a person who feels ready with themselves and would like to change others gives of a perfectionistic atmosphere which is very unattractive.
3. Relationship. It’s important in church to first connect on the level of being brothers and sisters in Christ, like it’s important in life to connect to anyone firstly as a human being created by God. Being brothers and sisters doesn’t involve work, so that kind of meeting, call it meeting between pilgrims, has a different flavor to it. After that comes the task. Without the relationship foundation the work is too vulnerable to conflict, as there are no base for communication and resolution.

I’m sure theres more, but these are my thoughts today J Never rush into these things, people deserve good leaders, children even more. Resist the temptation to “fill the gaps to make the machinery work”, they’re worth it!

Wanted: Nice words

We all know the nice feeling when we receive a compliment. Someone says something nice about our clothes, joke or gift, and we feel good, loved, and we can do more, dare the next challenge. And to make things better: nice words are free. They cost nothing. Free. And anyone can practice them: we do not need education or diploma and or be smart. Sounds easy, right?

Unfortunately it seems that many people live with many ugly words. They pull down. It seems more normal to say the negative. Or mix. In many conversations this happens: Someone says something positive, "yes, she is very good, does many nice things" and then comes the "but", "but she can not manage your money" or something. It's like you feel you need to balance things out.

The worst is that this is common with Christians as well. The sins and weaknesses of others comes very quickly in any conversation. A lack of generosity.

Do I seem tired? Maybe a little. I think that a life with more generosity and nice words would be easier to live.

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

Information and inslulated systems

I'm reading The Unshackled Organization, by Jeff Goldstein, a 1994 book on how to apply the science of self organizing systems and non-linearity found in nature, to organizations and groups. It has the inviting subtitle: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization.

So far, what I get of it, he argues that contrary to popular opinion, groups and organizations want to change, or it's in their nature to change. It's part of their "non-linearity". Goldstein claims: "What is radically new about the self-organization perspective is that a work group or organization as a natural system will spontaneously know how to reorganize in the face of a challenge, if the obstacles hindering its capacity to self-organize are removed." 

On of the things that keeps the group in "equilibrium", standing still, is "the refusal to admit new information into the system". The group, whether an organisation, company or a smaller unit like a family, is insulated from receiving new information, therefore whatever happens will be interpreted according to the old ways of thinking, what Goldstein calls "self fulfilling prophesies". 

We must not think by this he means that the group lives on a deserted island cut off from everything, he means that information and "data" are different things. Data is fact and figures, "I am tired", without relationship to the other members of the group. Information would be "I am tired because my boss sent me to do this job". Goldstein defines it like this: "Information...refers to the knowledge that is available to a system of its own functioning, of the arrangements of it's parts, where each element is and what is doing". It's basically the members being able to reflect upon themselves and how they are working, as a group.

Standing still systems tend to diminish or defend themselves from this kind of information, the reflective kind. But in order to see change we need to let new information in, understanding about the group in the context of it's environment. This triggers the self reorganization, that would be a major point in the book.

Enough of the book. What triggered me with this passage was the experience of it, how groups, families and churches can't get out of their self-image and develop, they're stuck with the same problem definitions almost forever. They're closed as a system, and other people, a members or outsiders, that offer a different view, are excluded or censored in different ways. The reflection: "Isn't this a little weird" is of course very threatening for a leader that is just trying to deal with a situation.  This seems to be especially difficult in a culture like the Latin American cultures which are very hierarchical, free flow of reflections are really very rare. So far.

A positive example of this principle was a project that my convention, Interact, did together wit the Paraguayan convention we're working with. It was funded by the Swedish government (!) (My tax money at work) and was aimed at organizational development. It resulted in a lot of paper and goals and so forth, but it seems to me that what really made a difference afterwards was that the process gave the organization tools and time to self-reflect, to let new information into the system. And this the results of that are still emerging.

What to learn? 

• Always welcome other peoples reflections, even if they seem weird or from the "wrong" people", sift later
• If you lead a group, allow time and help them to reflect about how they work as a group and how they relate to their environment.
• Information, in this sense, will release change by itself.