A technical/first-order response to an adaptive/second-order challenge

One of the ways to make matters worse is to apply a technical/first-order response where the challenge can only be addressed by adaptive/second order change. One of the most pervasive technical/first order responses is to do nothing. A pristine example of this is cited in the March 12, 2010 New York Times. The headline reads:

Board's Decision to Close 28 Kansas City Schools Followed Years of Inaction

The article describes the responses to the Kansas City School Board's decision to close nearly half of its schools. The article states:

"The sudden move suggests a depth of dysfunction here that is rarely associated with Kansas City, a lively heartland town with a reputation for order. But a closer look at the school board's recent history reveals a chaotic, almost nonfunctioning body that put off making choices and even even routine improvements for generations. Experts said that in the board's years of inaction is a cautionary tale for school districts everywhere."

Doing nothing where action is necessary is an action, a specific choice. The eternal temptation where choices are hard is to do nothing, but doing nothing is itself a technical/first-order response, and it is one that will make the challenges more difficult to address in the future. It comes from a rule that lifts up peace, goodwill, avoidance of conflict, and such as an important values. It is frequently articulated in decisions to study something, to do a comprehensive plan, to wait for more information, to take actions that do not address the challenge but only mask the effects. The church is no stranger to doing nothing where something is necessary.

One of the characteristics of leadership is courage. Courage can emerge where leadership pushes to take action where most would prefer to put it off. Leadership in the church is so frequently understood as doing what everyone wants rather than doing what is right, good, proper, and such.

Koster's Third Law of Church

When issues are important, there will always be some who believe the purpose of debate and discussion is to win-
---- rather than to discern the will of God.

Example First Order Change -- Iranian Revolution

Here is a case of a technical/first-order change where the basic rules were not changed when the revolution occurred. The result was a governing process that increasingly seems to look like that of the overthrown government.

From the New York Times, 2/3/10. Mir Hussein Moussavi, responding to the announcement by the Irnanian rulers that they would hang 9 protesters.

"The majority of people believed in the beginning of the revolution that the roots of dictatorship and despotism were abolished. I was one of them, but now I don't have the same beliefs. You can still find the elements and beliefs that lead to dictatorship."

The article went on to say that Mr Moussavi said he did not believe that the revolution had achieved its goals.

Me and the Missional Church

I recently attended a series of seminars led by Alan Roxburgh, one of the originators of the idea of the “missional” church. He is brilliant. I heard him say that the American churches are descendants of little European tribal churches. Yes. That we carry with that a lot of baggage that is superimposed over what church really ought to be. Yes. That though denominations will not go away, they are largely irrelevant to modern culture. Yes. That one polity is as good as another. Yes. That the early church made it up as they went along. Yes.

According to Mr Roxburgh, the use of the concept “missional” has been so massaged and mangled over the years that he won’t use it any more. I am told that Darrell Guder, who was also one of the original group to use the term, has said he wants his word back. Whatever the words that are used, the underlying concepts laid out by the missional church folks are something I embrace.

However, what I have written in The Challenge of the Presbyterian Church is not a prescription for the missional church, for I have written with a different concern in mind. Mr. Roxburgh’s passion and power is in changing the way the church serves Jesus Christ at the level of the service delivery system, the local congregation. He believes that all the ways we have done it in the past—we have frequently been very successful at it—are just not relevant to modern life, because we are delivering baggage from an alien culture. He seems to see the structures and polity of the church as largely irrelevant to ministry.

It is at that point that I believe I fall outside what he proposes. I am driven by Koster’s First Law of Church:
Whenever two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, two questions inevitably are raised, always in this order:

Who’s in charge here?

And

Who says it’s you?

I believe this law is right up there with the law of gravity. If it is true, it means that polity will always happen. They may have made it up as they went along in the early church, as Mr. Roxburgh so rightly points out, but they did make it up. Indeed, the emergence of a polity is manifest in the earliest Christian writings.

Many say that the church will never be really changed by changing the polity, by doing things in the various governing bodies of the church, and Mr. Roxburgh would seem to agree with that. But I believe something else. First, however irrelevant these governing bodies may seem, they have the power to impede change. Someone has to make some decisions somewhere, and these decisions will ultimately need to be made by those bodies and individuals laid out in the structures. What I write about are ways to help governing bodies and people make the kinds of decisions necessary to release the church from its baggage.

Even more, however, is the possibility that governing bodies can be the source of adaptive/second-order change. The fact that there are different logical levels involved means that one governing body is outside the other, bringing with it the different perspectives, ideas, and ideals. This difference in levels, already built into the system, could generate the kinds of change that will free us up to serve Jesus Christ in ways never foreseen. I am not ready to giv e that up. What I propose is that our sessions and presbyteries and synods and Assemblies can be responsive to the Holy Spirit in ways that can both allow good things to happen and can even be the source of such things. I believe the kinds of changes advocated by Mr. Roxburch et al, whatever label they are given, are essential..

So I believe that we cannot jettison structures and powers and polities, for inevitably we will return to the questions: who’s in charge; who says it’s you.

Tansparent Process

Our Presbytery meeting last night had some very difficult issues. The potential for blood on the floor was very high.

What happened was a testimony to what I have written about. In preparation for the meeting, all interested parties were included in discussions of process, interpretation, Robert's Rules, and all aspects of the various issues. There were no surprises. The debate was orderly and well defined, and it appeared that folks were reasonably able to live with the outcomes.

I have maintained that transparency is critical to discernment. If everyone is fully aware of what is at issue and how things will happen, then a lot of anxiety is alleviated and the body can then turn to the task of finding God's will rather than haggling over irrelevant issues or points of procedure.

On persuasion and leadership

I am thinking that the great overlooked factor in our Church is persuasion.

I frequently engage folks who are angry because the Church in some form has or has not done this or that. All kinds of allegations because the General Assembly approved something they did not like or the Presbytery did not vote as they wished. The blame is placed there, that theydid it again.

The simple truth is this. The presentation of arguments in various governing bodies and committees frequently takes on the quality of haranguing rather than persuasion. I have seen someone stand up in front of Presbytery and read from Romans as an argument, and then be angry because they Presbytery did not do what he wanted. However true or not true the passage may have been, it is not a persuasive strategy. If the Presbytery did not do what this gent wanted, it was partly due to his failure to use his three minutes at the mike in a way calculated to persuade.

I believe that if a person wishes to stand for something, it is incumbent on her to do it effectively. Making or opposing resolutions is so important that it requires thought, planning, and determination to give the Holy Spirit a chance by presenting arguments that can break through resistance. Reading from Romans or other similar strategies just does not do it.

Since Presbyterians allow for so little executive authority, the only way for leaders to operate is by persuading groups of people in a system where everyone has the right to oppose. What it means is that leadership is effective only to the degree that he or she can convince sometimes reluctant groups to go along. No one can make Presbyterians do anything against their will. The only way to operate is to convince them.

Koster's Second Law of Church

Nobody reads the Book of Order much. Until there's trouble--and then they read the fine print.