Thanks to Bill Kinnon’s post on A Good Review of The Missional Leader, I recently read Tony Sundermeier’s stimulating entry on Repackaged For a New Paradigm? A Critical Reflection of “The Missional Leader.” A number of questions raised by Tony and commentators on Bill’s blog caught my attention, as they relate to issues I’ve been considering recently about how to conduct a paradigm shift successfully. By “successful,” I mean a paradigm shift that positions a church for a more culturally-sustainable future. This requires that we do adequate groundwork and implant the new paradigm while minimizing people’s extended exposure to destructive levels of culture shock.

First I’d like to respond to some of the concepts and questions Tony talks about, and use that as an introduction to a series on how to conduct a paradigm shift in the midst of two conflicting paradigms with their radically different cultural manifestations in both church and society. If we cannot resolve the problem of “dual cultures,” we can be assured of the ongoing presence of “dueling cultures.”

Meanwhile, this overview post is likely to make far more sense if you’ll read Tony’s review first, followed by a visit to Bill Kinnon’s post, and reviewing information on Robert Webber’s three-paradigm framework in his book, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World. (See the section on “Which cultural issues do you face?” in my post, Interview: My Ministry, Cultural Issues, and Relevance.

Then, let’s see where this goes …

QUESTIONS, RESPONSES

Okay, just so you know, I have not yet read either The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality or The Missional Leader. I know … oh horrors! The disadvantage to that is I can’t address the absolute specifics yet. The advantage is that I can suggest general frameworks that, if they are well constructed and elegant, will respond to the questions already raised – and in other case studies of paradigms that pose as methodological models (and vice versa).

Here’s my riff and response on some of the points in Tony’s reflection that caught my attention. Most deal with how to conduct a paradigm shift and they’re all interwoven, but I’ll summarize toward the end with a listing of four elements I think are needed in the task of shifting paradigms.

The Missional Change Model is a set of five steps that are arranged in ways that compare to climbing stairs: awareness * understanding * evaluate * experiment * commitment. “At the beginning, skipping a step subverts the process.  As the process is learned and more people become involved, it becomes less linear and more like sailing as the congregation learns to go back and forth across all steps.” [The Missionary Congregation... page 83.] What intrigues me about this comes from a cursory analysis through the lens of learning styles.

This set of five steps is not a conventional, linear, abstract process designed to accommodate the conventional cognitive process of the skeptic, who finds and considers all evidence first, and then commits only once he/she is convinced. The presence of experimentation accommodates those whose learning process is the opposite of skepticism – those I call “embracers.” They pre-commit to embrace experiences first; that gives them a synthesis of personal and concrete evidence from which to then reflect, evaluate, understand, and then make a final commitment.

RARELY do I find approaches that keep the learning processes of skeptics and embracers in dynamic tension. Typically, only one kind of person is accommodated … which means that the others are excluded, marginalized, sidelined. What if younger generations have been shifted more toward being embracers than to the kinds of skeptics that older generations usually are? And what if the emerging Western post-Christendom and global culture paradigms favor embracers over skeptics? And what if church leaders refuse to let embracers participate in leading the journey into that new paradigm in which they are already indigenous?

Even from just a surface analysis, I find the Missional Change Model worth further investigation. It may prove to be a useful tool to bridge differences in learning styles, generational dynamics, cultures, and paradigms. And I would see that as having highly practical value, which doesn’t mean it’s pure pragmatism or just technical rationality. In fact, the Pragmatic paradigm so typical of North American Boomers does not typically bridge these kinds of differences between skeptics and embracers. So, if Roxburgh and Romanuk have indeed managed this polarity, that is evidence enough that they do not come from the highly abstract/linear Traditional or Pragmatic paradigm. It doesn’t guarantee they are fully Holistic (the term I use for Webber’s Younger Evangelical paradigm) … but to find that out would require a full paradigm assay.

Which leads into the organic/organizational question. I’d suggest that we actually can keep these two in dynamic tension, the same way that the Missional Change Model seems to keep the paradox of process and procedures together. A process does not have to be all amorphous; it can involve specific procedural steps. I think the key that gives the paradoxical pair its vitality is to keep both context sensitive. If we dictate all processes and their component steps and procedures, that’s certainly reflects a mechanistic paradigm – and we can expect that there will be relational fall-out among those who feel objectified and ministerial burn-out among those who try to carry out every jot of the specific job. But, if we balance the leading of the Holy Spirit with intentional implementation of plans, perhaps we’ll find we navigate more sensitively with less culture shock.

Naturally, this calls for adjustments – and just as many on the side of embracers, and those from certain theological backgrounds, who typically would downplay plans and urge us to go with the flow and simply live expectantly of God’s guidance. Well, they may as individuals be adept at surfing the waves of chaos, but that doesn’t mean an entire community can survive in attempting that. Not everything is iffy and squishy.

Meanwhile, the skeptics and those from other kinds of theological backgrounds will have to loosen up and add more big-picture processes to their repertoire, because to refuse change would be to quench the Spirit. Not everything is set and sure.

And both sides must consider how to accommodate “the other,” otherwise, they’ll have to explain just how it is that a supposedly responsible body of believers is functioning only with the free-form gifts, or with the detail-form gifts …

This means that no one can fully escape their “home culture,” just as Tony concludes. But we do need to move forward, to “continue to embody God’s future, because,” as Tony well states, “we want to embody God’s future alone and none other.” I’ll look forward to reading The Missional Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality and The Missional Leader in due time to see specifics on how the authors suggest that critical move forward. I’ll be looking for what they consider to be the goal, how they structure the transition process, and how they equip for keeping current with even more global culture and paradigm changes to come.

Meanwhile, thanks, Tony, for your diligent work to create such a thoughtful review, with thought-provoking clues as we search for the hermeneutical key to unlock your questions and more …

DUAL/DUELING CULTURES

So, that’s my riff on Tony’s response. Hope there’s been something helpful there for you …

For me, I know the three days of thinking about his post helped clarify a lot of details for my forthcoming series on “Dual Cultures or Dueling Cultures” in the Culturology/Paradigm Shifting subcategory. This series will draw together a number of culturology threads I’ve been writing on lately – paradigms, theologies, and cultures; and parallax, perception, and cultural transition.

In the rest of this post, I’ll share some stories on how I got started into the business of social change, and then overview two important aspects to a successful paradigm shift process that, I believe, can help reconcile the insidious situation of culture clash in post-Christendom churches:

  • Five critical tasks in a process of paradigm transition and cultural contextualization.
  • Four paradoxical elements involved in figuring out how to hand off leadership in a church paradigm transition, to whom, when, and why.

Originally, I intended to cover both of these issues in my culturology tutorial that was supposed to be part of my Missional SynchroBlog post. No surprise … but I couldn’t complete the material in time. And I only have time left this week to finish an overview, so, I’ll plan to follow up with a series of more detailed posts later.

Hope this whets your appetite for more!

DIGGING A TRAJECTORY TO THE STARS

Once upon a time, a very long time ago … second grade, to be exact … our school teacher gave us an assignment that shaped the course of my life. Mrs. Huffman asked us to figure out what we’d like to be when we grew up and why, and a few days later, each of us would be able to share that with the class.

Fireman? Most of the guys my dad’s age served on the volunteer fire brigade, and that was neat.

Teacher? I liked learning. A lot! So maybe that’d be a good job.

Jeweler? Maybe follow in the craft of my dad?

The fateful day arrived at last. When my turn came, I stood at the front of the room, green pseudo-slate chalkboard behind me, and declaimed: “I want to be a classical archaeologist because I like Greek and Roman and Egyptian history.”

Okay, so I might’ve actually said stuff instead of history, but the essence of what I said is right. Perhaps what’s more startling than what I chose is the fact that I knew what a “classical archaeologist” does!

Fast forward about 30 years to an entertainment that shaped the course of my life – the movie Stargate. In it, a group of three classical archaeologists try to decode what appear to be variant hieroglyphs on a very peculiar cartouche found on a huge set of stones, plus on an equally odd ring mechanism found underneath these cover stones at the same site. When they can’t crack the code, they bring in Dr. Daniel Jackson – brilliant archaeologist, anthropologist, and philologist – considered a crackpot by some for his unconventional theories on the origins of Egyptian culture. He works for two weeks with no more success than them.

Then it happens. While at the fountain to get water for his next pot of coffee to fuel his umpteenth all-nighter. Dr. Jackson gets a flash of insight from a glance at the security guard’s newspaper, which displays a photo of the star Orion up close. Looking at the outline created by connecting the stars like dots, he’s found the key to translate the cartouche! He rushes back to finish the translating. (Who needs coffee now when you have adrenaline flowing from such stimulating intellectual work?)

In the next scene, we see Dr. Jackson, arms loaded with rolls and scrolls and charts, entering the military base’s conference room. Cigarette smoke hangs heavy in the room, which is filled mostly with officers whose jackets sport multiple lines of campaign color bars, and a few nondescript, black-suited men. The three archaeology team members, including Drs. Shore and Meyers, and Catherine Langford, whose father discovered the artifacts in a 1927 expedition in Egypt. Catherine introduces him to the head honcho, General West.

General West: So, you think you’ve solved in 14 days what they couldn’t solve in two years.

Jackson: [Looking around at his archaeology colleagues.] Two years?

General West: [Non-plussed.] Right. Any time . . .

Jackson: Umm … I have some stuff to look at. [Chuckles nervously. He hands out rolled up charts.] I just found these, if you’d just pass them down. Umm … you’ll have to share them [chuckles nervously] because [chuckles] I’m sorry. I don’t have enough of those. [Military leaders still sitting there, now looking even less convincible as they unroll the posters.]

Okay, all right, we’re obviously looking at a picture of the cover stones. Now, on the outer track, these figures that you would believe to be words to be translated were in fact … [awkwardly unrolls a very long constellation map, which hits several of the officers as it unrolls] sorry about that … were in fact star constellations.

Now, these constellations were placed in a unique order, forming a map or an address of sorts – seven points to outline a course to a position. And, uh … [he glances around and then tapes a chart of the cover stones to a white board] and to find a destination within any three-dimensional space [he draws a cube], you need six points [he draws six points at random within the cube] to determine the exact location [he connects pairs of points, and then darkens the point where the three resulting vectors cross].

General West: You said you needed seven points.

Jackson: Well, no, six for the destination. But to chart a course … [he draws a dot far to the left of the cube, and then draws a line from it toward the center of the cube] you need a point of origin.

Dr. Meyers: [Agitated.] Except – there’s only six symbols in the cartouche!

Jackson: Well, the seventh actually isn’t inside the cartouche, it’s just below it here [he circles the symbol directly underneath the cartouche pillar on the cover stone chart], designated by a little pyramid with two funny, neat little guys [on the side] and a funny little line coming out of the top! [He chuckles again.]  Haa! [He gets serious again.] Anyway … [caps the whiteboard pen and puts it down].

As it turns out, Dr. Jackson has indeed deciphered the cartouche, and General West allows him now to see the huge ring that was underneath these cover stones. It is … the Stargate, a portal to other places, other cultures, other worlds … kind of like a paradigm shift will be for us …

A FIVE-PART PROCESS FOR TRANSITION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

So, what I’ve put together about the process of contextualization started from paying attention to the trajectory observations of the learned Dr. Jackson. The products and reasons for contextualization come from paying attention to my circumstances, the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit – plus occasionally stumbling across some author like Roland Allen who gave me more questions to consider.

In my understanding of paradigm transition and contextualization in our churches, we have at least five major tasks to accomplish. Most of them deal with figuring out where how we present ourselves or our church fits with the seven points needed to chart a course.

  1. Figure out Point A – where we are in the universe of cultures (the 3D xyz cultural coordinates of our local church, and of our church’s local neighborhood).
  2. Figure out Point B – where the Bible says that our goal is meant to be (the universals required of all gatherings of disciples in all times and spaces, cultures and places).
  3. Figure out the smoothest trajectory from Point A to point B, and how to negotiate any barriers that may crop up along the way.
  4. Figure out how to hand off leadership in this transition and to whom and why.
  5. Since all of that could be calculated in a relatively closed, short-term system, we must also figure out how to make course adjustments in light of changes in external conditions. We must also anticipate the inevitable influences of actually functioning in an open system of severe global changes in culture (social drivers, long-term trends) and where they are creating or upgrading into ascendancy (increasing the acceptability) specific paradigm elements and removing or downgrading other elements.

I am convinced these tasks hold as must-do’s, regardless of our paradigm, cultural context, and methodological model for being/doing church. As individual disciples or as a congregation following Jesus, we must determine what our point of origin is, and what unique trajectory path we must therefore follow in order to enter into a full-volume destination of Christlike/Kingdom-Culture character, beliefs, and lifestyle practices. We require these above five tasks for cultural contextualization without biblical compromise – especially if we are to pursue an intentional course as a countercultural community that is both being transformed and catalyzing social transformation.

I’ve laid out some basic material on the first three tasks already. (See the category of culturology for relevant posts, and also my Cultural Curriculum Project page for a progress report.) The review of The Missional Leader by Tony Sundermeier brings to the forefront Task #4: How do we make a paradigm shift, and hand off leadership in this transition to next-culture and/or next-generation members? This task is the focus of the following four paradoxical elements.

FOUR PARADOXES IN ACCOMPLISHING A PARADIGM SHIFT

Because I have worked since the early 1990s with leaders in ministries, churches, and agencies which expressed interest in making a paradigm/culture shift, I have many, many observations and ideas about this process. Sadly, much of this is based on failures to transform, as this is indeed a difficult process. Some leaders never started the process, others offered lip service to the concept of change but no substantive action, and still others began well but tired out from having to function cross-culturally so much.

I probably have even more experiences with ministries, churches, and agencies that obviously and desperately needed to undergo a paradigm/culture shift, but their leaders refused to put it on their radar – to the frustration of many. Yes, this kind of radical shift is hard, and yet, I am convinced there are ways to succeed. If I didn’t deeply believe that, then I’ve wasted a lot of time in endeavors that make no difference.

So far, it looks like most of the constructive changes have been made by individuals as I’ve helped them process who they are and where they therefore best fit in the emerging opportunities for ministry. And this process only seems to happen when they are emotionally and spiritually softened up enough to be receptive.

Anyway, transfer of “power” to next generations and making a real and/or radical paradigm shift – these are topics I’ve been getting into conversations about for over a decade. And actually, it seems the issue has either heated up, or the boiling point has gone down, because it feels the intensity of concern has increased – especially for disciples from younger generations, and particularly for those in their early 30s to early 40s. It’s more dominant now than in the late 1990s, when long-time church consultant Lyle Schaller gave a seminar at Golden Gate Seminary and brought up the subject to plant a seed. He stated: “When the sequential church leaders do not accommodate the concurrent [i.e., non-linear] thinkers, the concurrent people lose hope.” Food for thought. Better yet: Fuel for action!

We really do not have the luxury of time to figure out a perfectly calculated, slow moving, gentle and incremental kind of a nicey-nicey transfer. It’s a time for urgency, not lethargy. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I believe we now have less than 25 years to FINISH this transition – and if we wait too long to begin, we may find ourselves in a “congregational hospice” situation with no one to take care of us because we ourselves are setting up younger generation members to lose hope and leave.

But it ain’t fair if I urge action but have no workable solutions. I’m doing what I can to be constructive, including the time I invest in blogging about stuff that I know most people probably aren’t ready yet … but better to leave a time capsule here for whenever they are, than hope I will be available to share with them in person when they are.

I’ve developed my own set of systems for paradigm analysis and cultural interpretation with a strong component of paradox. A paradoxical paradigm seeks to hold polar opposites in dynamic tension, while other paradigms tend to pick one or the other of them. Therefore, I would suggest that “success” in a corporate transition needs to be a paradoxical, both/and proposition with a series of at least these four elements:

1. Paradigm Partner Participation. To succeed, a paradigm shift must involve people from BOTH conventional church paradigms of Christendom (Traditional and Pragmatic) AND the now-non-conventional church paradigm of post-Christendom (Holistic). If we fail to do this, we abandon part of our people, creating the equivalent of paradigm widows and orphans.

2. Healthy People, Healthy Perspective. To succeed, a paradigm shift must be comprehensive, connective, and integrative – BOTH relationally by incorporating all the members of the body AND informationally by accommodating all the kinds of learning style elements God has implanted in people. If we fail to do this, we will have a deficient, dissected, disintegrated body and/or a partial, disconnected, reductionist theology.

3. Complementarity in Forward-Movement Cross-Cultural Processes. To succeed, a paradigm shift must involve BOTH pushing toward the future by members of the Traditional and Pragmatic paradigms AND pulling into the future by members of the Holistic paradigm. If we fail to do this, one of the two groups will become imperialists, enslaving the other to a culturally impermanent process, and also both are likely to succumb to loss of cultural flexibility as they endure culture shock from stretching too far, for too long a time, with too much baking from the heat of activity.

4. Complementarity between Necessary Boundaries and Unleashed Creativity. To succeed, a paradigm shift must involve BOTH organic processes with listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit AND organizational procedures with implementing intentional plans. If we fail to do this, we lose the opportunity to optimize our creativity within the boundaries set by both external and internal factors of biblical mandates, paradigm realities, and cultural context.

I really do need to leave these four points at that, or else I shall undoubtedly launch myself into an all-nighter all-writer – indeed a recipe for short-term fun but a long-term disaster! Besides, I need to finish my posts on methodological models that are not or are not necessarily missional. And posts finishing up the Recovery from Spiritual Abuse series. And … and – oh well, the truth is, these topics rotate through my reflection and focus, and they emerge from my virtual pen when they’re ready. And that’s the way I like to do it. Hope it works okay for you as well!