Syncritism - not as strange as you may think

Some years ago I made a trip to Bolivia to do some strategic work with SIM missionaries in that country. While the official stats on Bolivia say its 95% Roman Catholic, SIM had it classified as an unreached people group regarding the Christian Gospel. This was perplexing to me at first, but was explained by the missionaries this way.

When the Spanish settled (conquered) South America, they were obligated to "convert" the Indian populations to Christianity. Of course this was a clash of cultures and was difficult, if not impossible, to force something like a set of religious beliefs on others with a totally different view of religion. The Quechua Indians were pagan worshipers with all kinds of god's. Instead of offending the natives, the Spanish invaders "syncritized" the religions by drawing parallels between key icons of each religion, creating an amalgamation religion and blended rituals of worship. For instance, the Virgin Mary was basically seen by the natives as Pachamama, goddess of earth and fertility. Catholicism was contaminated in order to accommodate the natural, cultural sense-making of the natives. "Catholics" in Boliva did not receive the benefits of their faith and anyone looking from the outside in, would not see Christianity present at all.

By now you may find this interesting but not particularly salient to you. Maybe it is helpful to an American Christian to examine a fundamental question - what is so embedded in our culture that may "contaminate" our sense-making of the Gospel? The dominant mindset establishing our nation is one of "rugged individualism," high moral conviction, coping with our trials, and freedom to pursue our own path unencumbered by government restrictions and demands. The declaration of our independence starts with these words,

 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

This, as much as anything, has driven a nation of people unparalleled in the history of mankind. An enforcer of freedom against tyranny, an economic system raising the standard of living for the entire world, and a benevolence for the needy, even when they were enemies. There's is no doubt that in terms of civil order and the governance of a society for the well being of all, the truths in which our country are grounded are to be admired, honored, and perpetuated. That is not the question for the Christian.

We should ask ourselves to what degree have we been drawn to the truths of our country's founding in a way that we have "contaminated" our sense-making of who we are and what makes us well. In other words, where in the Bible does it say God has given us "unalienable rights"? Are our civil liberties and the pursuit of happiness what Jesus died for? I think not.

Jesus goes out of His way to explain that "our rights" are not at all the purpose of the Kingdom (Matt 5). In fact Jesus claims we must "lose our life" in order to save it. He says the Kingdom is not about social justice and establishing what is fair (Matt 20). It was the most moral in society (Pharisees) that Jesus said could never enter His Kingdom. We are sojourners and pilgrims, aliens in this world (1 Peter). Regarding happiness, Paul says he is content whether he has a lot or whether he has a little, that his circumstances are irrelevant to his well being.

While it is a good thing we live in a country that creates the greatest common good and we should grieve any loss of that quality, even "fight" to keep it strong as we are called to do so. However, when we see our country as our Savior, we have lost the power of the cross in our lives. We live beneath the privileges of the Kingdom. When we are anxious and fearful of governments and cultures, we see freedom as something governed by society, not granted to us by the King. Maybe we too have fallen victim of syncritism.

Maybe we look like the Quechua Indians to others around the world, an errant testimony to the Gospel - an unreached people group.

Maybe the toughest movie I have ever seen

I just saw the movie "The American Sniper." I found it to be deeply emotional and in many ways a difficult movie to process. I know there have been all kinds of attacks on and defenses of the movie, but i found none of that to be on point with what Clint Eastwood captured so profoundly. The driving theme was how the war experience altered the lives of soldiers and their family. In a general way this is an important reality of war in that the toll on the soldiers' families is significant. But Kyle's story was more than the typical soldier. After all, he was a legend. What was it about Kyle that was so special?

The childhood scenes of Chris Kyle focused primarily on his dad's emphasis on three kinds of people. There are sheep, wolves and those who protect the sheep from the wolves. Kyle was "bred" to deliver the victims of bullies from the terror of the bully. Bullies are wolves, those in this world that choose to inflict fear into the hearts and minds of others in order to control them.

Throughout the history of our world there have been bullies using military, economic, religious and political means to control others through fear. In our day this is best found in the Islamic terrorists who are using their religion to justify terror means of control. But specifically, there was an Islamic sniper that struck fear into the US troops in Iraq. It was this enemy sniper, the BULLY, that Kyle obsessed over.

Even when Kyle was home on leave he was haunted by the soldiers he could not protect from this sniper, always aware of the price he and his family was paying. The scene in the auto store where a soldier who Kyle had saved thanked him and told Kyle's son his dad was a hero, but you could see the anguish in Kyle as he looked at his son knowing his son paid a price for rescuing the soldier. His obsession was not an "Olympic style" competition of sharp shooters, but a commitment to rid the US soldiers of this terrorist's threat. The story is primarily how his tours to Iraq and time on leave built to a crescendo of focus to get this sniper, even at great risks to his fellow soldiers.

To me the movie did a marvelous job of making me realize (feel) the realities of the one who is chosen to protect others from the bully. It is a special calling that comes with a great personal price. Kyle did not want to be seen as a legend. He was not proud of his calling, but he could not abandon it. He paid a dear price for the liberation of many.

There's no pollyanna way to look at this reality that has existed from the beginning of time and will until Christ returns. There are bullies, those committed to controlling others thru fear and there will be the heroes, the protectors of the sheep. However, the role of the hero is not glamorous, it is costly!!!

certainly worth pondering and shedding a tear or two over ....

   

"be ye repenting"

I have just been listening to Charles Stanley. He constantly focuses on the need to repent. Of course, he's in good company, it was the first thing Jesus said after His baptism so it must be important. The Greek word used in this verse in Mark 1 is "metanoeite", which translates "be ye repenting". The root of this word is "metanoeo", which literally means "think differently afterward" or "after a change of mind".

The issue I have with Stanley's focus is he generally admonishes us to do things differently, take an about face. He does claim that we tend to go the way we think and that is true. But, our own change efforts generally migrate to our behavior, even when we realize what we read and watch can influence what we do. The problem we have is not misguided teaching per se, but that we have much more control over what we do than what we think. We can control what we read and watch, but the thoughts we have are difficult for us to control. This leaves us frustrated in that we try to repent by changing our behavior, BUT repentance is "to change our mind".

What does that mean? I know when I do something wrong but what's wrong with my mind? If I don't have a firm grip on what makes my mind what it is, how do i change it? For instance, the USA is founded on individual rights. So we value our rights and get upset when they are violated. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus is describing the Kingdom of God and how citizens of this Kingdom think. He basically says we do not have rights in this world - if someone smacks one cheek, give them the other one to smack and the tunic and the cloak thingy. Later He says that the reward system of the Kingdom is not a fair exchange like wages but the result of the character of the reward giver (Grace). Often Jesus tells us that the currency of The Kingdom of Heaven is not equity but grace.

So you see when we make sense of our situations, ourselves and even our relationship with God though the lenses of equity, rights, and reciprocity, we have stinkin' thinkin' and need to repent - NOT of our behavior but our thinking that drives sense-making.

Repentance is thinking about events in our life and even our own existence with a heart of thanksgiving not obligation, a sense of faith that God has established our well being thru redemption and not our attempt to extract our well being from the world around us. Repentance is renewing our mind, not revamping our behavior (which will take care of itself).

  Because we can control our behavior easier and better than we can our thinking, without wanting to we are left in a "repentance legalism" that leads not to joy, but guilt and frustration. Repentance is freeing but requires significant disruption in our norms of morality and a willingness to let go of sense-making that we have been committed to much of our life. Our birth defect is our mind, our thinking, and that's why Jesus calls us to repentance, the genesis of our transformation in Grace. Now that's Good News, "the Gospel of the Kingdom of God."

Left hand vs right hand

I was eating lunch at a University one day, sitting across from the bookstore. I looked up and noticed these two signs - one on the left side of door and one on the right. the one on the left was a marketing attempt to redirect students away from buying books on the internet vs the campus bookstore. The one on the right was from operations attempting to deal with the disruptive and costly volatility of student book purchase behavior.

Obviously the book store was frustrated with the way students registered and then dropped classes, causing books to be returned, or maybe students buying their books only to learn from a fellow student that they could get it much cheaper somewhere else (campus book store markups are notoriously high). Yet, look at little closer at the sign on the left side of the door.

The number one reason to shop the book store vs. the internet is "Bookstores generally have a liberal refund policy for drop/adds."









While this was quite humorous to me at the time, it is so illustrative of organizations and why they struggle to win. Functions within an organization go off on their own, not guided by an overarching strategy. This is a leadership void that is way too common.

Businesses often fail because the left hand and the right hand are not guided by THE BODY!!

Certainly worth pondering ....

"slave type fear"

Today's church service was a friendly reminder of my concerns with why there is far too little transformation in the midst of so much information. This blog is not a new message from me but a response to my experience today since it illustrates the essence of my current mission. First some key quotes from the pastor,

"Even in the light of the cross, we often remain fearful that God will hold our sin against us."

"At any given moment our hearts can run to despair."

"Therefore since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near in full assurance of faith, hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience" (Hebrews 10)

the answer the pastor provides (and I am not being critical here of him)
"the deliverer is Jesus"   (the Romans 7 message)

This is what we hear often from the pulpits, books, videos, etc. in our Christian world, but rarely (and I am not sure ever for me) have we heard the explanatory mechanism of our bondage short of just reminding us of our condition, "we are sinful", "we live for ourselves."

We hear
"We forget what God has done for us."
"We lack faith."
"We need relationship with Jesus, the Holy Spirit in our hearts."

Of course all of this is true, but why isn't it transformational? Why do Christians continually hear this message but remain in "slave type fear"? Thus, not looking any different than unbelievers to the world, not exhibiting an appeal to the unbelieving world for the Christian life! Is there something wrong with our hearing?

What is it about our sin that works against us? What makes sin such that we can't realize our freedom from it? Why are we stuck in stinkin' thinkin'?

My conclusion is that for the "Good News" to be transformational, we must make proper sense of the "bad news". Our flesh (birth defect and source of our sin) demands that we meet any favor we receive with duty, obedience, and obligation. This is explained by sociologists and psychologists as Social Exchange and an obsession with justice.

Our sin is not only our bondage but also the force that constrains our sense making about it and how God really sees us. Our sin, in fact, perpetuates our bondage to our sin, constraining our joy, freedom, hope, and significance. This is the "BAD NEWS".

While it is true that Jesus delivers us from this bondage by the power of the Holy Spirit, but "being transformed by the renewing of our mind" involves making sense of sin in more productive ways. Who is helping us with that?

The point of cueing

In teaching Org Behavior at the university I would use an object lesson in the first exam to introduce the study of motivation, which was the topic for the second exam. One of my favorite lessons for the students dealt with the bonus question. At the very end of the class prior to the first exam I would give students a few examples of questions that would be on the exam along with the correct answer. I framed this by saying that I wanted them to see what a question would look like and how I would grade it. Separately I explained how many questions of each type would be on the exam and that there would be a bonus question.

Actually I used one of the sample questions I presented to them as the bonus question. The first time I was quite surprised that only 15% of the students got the bonus question correct. I was continually surprised that this percentage was consistent across every OB class I taught. This made quite an impression on the students. Some were embarrassed that they missed a question that I gave them beforehand. BTW, students are always joking before a test about giving them the questions so they know what to study. I pointed out that I gave them a question and very few got it right. Then i asked, "what was missing?"

The obvious answer is that i didn't tell them when i was giving the example that this question was going to be the bonus question so they did not make the association. This is called cueing. Cueing is an important way to improve performance because it improves motivation. Cueing makes something more salient by drawing attention to the behavior - exactly what should be done or how to do it.

One of the ways to increase motivation regarding performance of another individual is to provide them with exactly what you expect, to raise their attention level in some way to what or how something is to be done. This is not necessary for everyone in every situation - remember 15% of the students were be able to connect the dots and see what is expected without me explicitly telling them. However, if you find that one;s performance can be better, then using cueing is a leadership behavior that you should find useful.

Interestingly, on the class before the second exam, I did not give example of questions but I did CUE them to the fact that it would be helpful to them if they knew the Feedback Model by Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor. The actual bonus question was asked from this model - 80% would consistently get it right.

Give them the question but not cue them about it being on the test, 15% right. Just reference what might be on the test but not specific question - 80% right.

Certainly worth pondering as a way to become a more effective leader ......

"do this, don't do that"

How often do we see managers saying this to employees, parents to children, coaches to players, and so on? What's behind this behavior of those in authority and what are the downstream consequences?

The need to control is a powerful force in many individuals. The problem is that most people learn to exercise control by limiting others from doing things wrong, generally through some forms of punishment. Yet, at the same time most people in authority have a desire for those "under their control" to provide their own expertise and creativity in accomplishing goals and helping the team win. We call this "empowering".

However, the use of control to eliminate mistakes ultimately conditions individuals to limit their efforts to stay "within the lines" because of the fear of being blamed if something goes wrong. The focus of work is to not make a mistake resulting in missed opportunities to solve problems, maximize potential, and create new paths of winning in a changing hostile world.

Another collateral damage to control, which focuses on the "do not's", is the stunting of trust. Trust occurs when one releases their need to control another. There is the belief that the trusted party will not act in their own self interest but in the interest of the whole. Information flows more freely and better solutions can be found. When an individual feels trusted, he/she is more committed to the outcomes and is willing to give more of him/herself beyond what the reward and punishment structures would deliver.

Managers tend to use the "do this, don't do that" approach in order to deliver a predictable status quo absent mistakes. Leaders produce significant outcomes by not focusing on blame, by seeking their followers input and ideas and by trusting that they will provide better outcomes than expected because they can and they want to. Stringent rules and policies and reward systems may limit mistakes but they never unleash the human capital available.

Valuing control over the creative power of human capacity makes us vulnerable to the world around us.