Ask More Questions

So, while it is important to withhold our conclusions before we have enough information, there is something we can do. But it may be too simple to be significant.

When I was in school, I was famous for being the guy who was unafraid to ask questions—especially in math classes. If I didn’t understand something, I always wanted clarification. I don’t know this for sure, but I would have bet that if I had questions other kids in the class did too. So I always stuck my hand up before we moved on too quickly.

Sometimes the answer to that question made me ask even more questions. But once it sunk into my thick skull and I finally understood it, my wife of 35 years, who was in class with me from the eighth grade on through high school, use to tell me that I would always close my little inquiry by saying, “O, I see.” (I think the implication was—now that I have grown old and have had time to think about it—that this repeated phrase became rather obnoxious: “O, I see!”)

Consequently, I bring that part of my life to this problem—both the inquisitive part and the obnoxious part. I guess I always liked to understand, whatever it was. So, I’m no different today than I was then. When it comes to the church, if I see that something is not working, I still want to stick up my hand and say, “Excuse me; I have a question.”

Perhaps this is the beginning of acquiring the help we need. I know that there will be many steps in this journey that we are beginning together, so we need to have not only a starting place but also a place to which we can return in case we stray a little off the path. But not like the inference ladder feedback loop where we return only to our selected data that reinforces what we already think we know. Instead, I think we have to wipe the slate clean and start over in the seemingly bottomless pool of available data.

But how do we do that? We have already conceded that there is far too much information. We’re swimming in data. So, being the rather simple-minded man that I am, I have tried to boil it all down to something really easy that maybe we can apply to whatever situation in which we find ourselves. It is simple, and it’s not really that profound either. Sorry.

Here it is: Ask more questions. Good questions. Obvious, right?

Maybe not. What I think I have found is that, as the church, we are often too quick to draw conclusions and then make decisions about how to proceed without subjecting our conclusions to just a little bit more scrutiny. Even worse than that. We are not likely to question anything that has become an established practice over a period of decades. Why? (There I go again.) It seems to me that it would be beneficial if we would ask at least one more question. For example…

Argyris’ Ladder of Inference

Picture a ladder. Each rung of the ladder represents a step toward inference. We begin on the bottom rung with reality and facts or data. Are you as acutely aware as I am that we have more information at our fingertips than we can ever use? Therefore, we must take the next step on the ladder by selecting which available data we will use. Step two is selected data/reality.

The next step we take is to affix meaning to the limited data we have selected. In other words, we interpret the data. Then we make assumptions about the data. From our assumptions we draw conclusions about what we assume. Then our conclusions lead to beliefs, and our beliefs lead to actions. Of course, if on any step along the ladder we are incorrect, we will be led astray.

This model of how people process information is an invaluable help to relationships, leadership, and decision making across the board. In addition to these initial seven steps, it is also obvious that it is self-reinforcing. For example, our beliefs will naturally influence the data we select. Now we are in a feedback loop that reinforces itself regardless of the truth.

Have you ever been in a meeting where everyone was intrigued with the speaker except for one person? Regardless of the attentiveness of everyone else, all you can see is the restlessness of the one. You have already selected data from all of the available information. Then you affix the meaning that this person is not interested in what is being said. Therefore you conclude that she disagrees with the speaker. Now your belief about her leads to actions that may cause you to either confront her about it or to tell others what you know.

But what if she was distracted by something that had just happened? What if she received a text when you weren’t watching and was merely staying put out of respect? How does that change the reality? This is a poor oversimplification, but isn’t it obvious that we do this sort of inferring every day? And isn’t it dangerous to walk up this ladder too quickly or with limited information?

What Are the Questions?

If you are bothering to read this, then you know the kinds of things writers and speakers come up with, including those who think nothing should change. Some argue for a collective model of relational community where justice reigns and we all live like the book of Acts describes with “having all things in common.” Some suggest a postmodern, emergent model that will make room for the angst of the generations of young people and adults alike who have no room for absolute truth. Others suggest the house church model where we find accountability and acceptance in a double handful of close-knit relationships.

Still others advocate a multi-site, multi-plex, mega marvel with thousands in attendance in locations all over town, or even all over the globe. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that any of those are not valid expressions of the church. What I am so afraid of is that whatever our solution is today, we will have a single choice of one of only two options: We will either institutionalize our current solutions into just another tradition among so many, or we will find our solutions temporary at best.

With something as universal and as all-embracing as the gospel, do we need to have it nailed? And if we do nail it down, won’t it fall off within ten years anyway? In a culture where the latest technologies and advancements are passé within a few years or even a few months, do we need to have it carved into stone tablets? Or do we need it written on our hearts which are pliable and open?

What I have observed in our community is that not all answers apply to all people. What I have observed often in the larger church world is that we are answering questions no one is asking any more. So, not only do the answers change, but maybe the questions change on a regular basis too. If that is the case, then what if we’re asking the wrong questions?

Now I have a friend who wonders if “wrong questions” even exist. He asks, “Aren’t all questions good questions?” In my experience, no. As mentioned before questions that no one else are asking may be useless. Also, it depends on when and where you stop asking and start answering. What if your assumptions with which you begin are skewed? Won’t that lead us to ask wrong questions?

For help here, it would be wise to look at the Ladder of Inference developed by author and Harvard Business School Professor Emeritus Chris Argyris. You can watch a short video of the concept here. Or you can read about it extensively here or here.

I will try to summarize it. But do some research for yourself. It will be important that you understand this concept as we journey together.

Whose Agenda?

In my studies, particularly my reading over the last decade, I have heard the voices from within and from without the church. Much of the study I did had to do specifically with the church, especially what might have gone wrong along the way. But some of it had to do with other things like creativity, education, worldviews, culture, art, beauty, and relationships. Missiology too. But no matter what I read, it was always with the church in mind and what we, as followers of Jesus, needed to rethink. Turns out, it might be just about everything regarding method if not dogma.

Unfortunately, even among some of the most fascinating of writers, I have run into a common thread. They all, apparently, have the answer(s). Especially with regard to this conundrum of church, their research led them in a certain direction and ultimately they had come to one conclusion or another about the answer as to how we ought to “do church.” Of course none of them agree.

In the beginning I would read along with great interest and hope. These are mostly people whose journeys have been similar to my own. I would relate to their frustrations and their questions. I would respond with thoughts like, “Yeah! Me too!” Or, “Wow, that is exactly what I have always thought!” However, sooner or later there would come a point at which I would end up saying, “What? No, really? That’s your result?” That’s because obviously each writer feels the need to provide his readers with the right solution to the mystery.

I think my college literature professor may have told us that. Something like, “Good writing presents us with a problem and then proceeds to solve it.” Or maybe it was, “Tell them what you are going to tell them; then tell them; then tell them what you told them.” Apparently publishers are also pretty picky about this sort of thing. Because, I have yet to read one that didn’t spell out some specific pattern or model to follow in order to solve the problem.

If God is speaking to each of them, he is saying something different about what the church ought to do in each of their circumstances. Which kind of makes my point. Their particular conclusions are presented as the answer—the one and only answer to every situation. Maybe that’s not the way they mean it, but that’s the way it sounds. I don’t think there is only one answer to the question of what the church should be doing in any given city or community. I think the questions and concerns are similar across the board, but I think the right conclusions and solutions for the church are as varied as her people.

My purpose here will be to try and ask the right questions, give you our attempts at solving them, and leaving the rest up to you.

Church-Basher?

Over the last 10 years I have done a lot of self-study on the church. I have also done some deep soul-searching. As I mentioned, some of my writings have already prompted some to accuse me of being a “church basher.” Like I have some kind of beef. But nothing could be further from my heart.

I love the church. I am a product of the church. I don’t think I was conceived there (sorry, Mom), but for my whole life it was as though I was born under a pew. And, for more than 30 years I have worked in the church. The deal is not my disdain for her but my love. Therefore, my journey has taken me on a path of reflection and concern for the results of our collective efforts. But apparently if that reflection causes other people to squirm, it would be better to just keep quiet.

Obviously, that is not an option for me. Not any more. Something is dreadfully wrong. And I can’t help myself. I have to try to understand why—why it’s not working. Why is the church growing everywhere else but dying in America? Why is there such a deep and growing divide between church culture and popular culture? Why are we so reticent to recognize our decline?

These questions and many more have kept me from sleeping well over the last 10 years. And at the risk of alienating some of my dear friends within the church, I can no longer alienate my friends without.

It’s About Time

I have taken a two year hiatus from writing. Two years ago this month, we took over the coffee shop that is on the front side of our location in the Fontana Shopping Center in Tulsa. That has been a long journey of really hard work. But it is time that I get back to the job of writing about that to which God has called us. So the following writings pick up where we left off. We were just getting ready to talk about what we have learned over the last six years or more.

In the interim, I have had the opportunity to think about how to approach our story. It seems to me that if I write it one way—with a sensitivity toward existing structures—I might get a hearing with people who are still steeped in the “church as usual” mindset. Then again, my writing so far has apparently already caused some people hurt feelings, especially those who take what I say very personally.

The other option is that I just put it out there, tell it like I see it. And while my intent is not to be obtuse or controversial, I may be too far down the road anyway to go back and remember what it felt like to hear from people like me a few short years ago.

In the last six years I have learned that too often people in the church will say and do things out of a fear of criticism from within. The way we talk, the decisions we make about relationships, and what we choose to allow others to know about us are controlled more by a fear of fellow Christians than by personal conviction. I don’t want to be guilty of that.

So as a result, I have concluded that I need to simply lay it out. Let the chips fall where they may. It is likely that anyone who reads what I write with an open mind will have already started down a path that will make them receptive to it. Anyone who cares about what I have to say will have already concluded for themselves that all is not well.

With that in mind, you have been warned.

“Send” the Indigenous, Part 3

So, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. The only reason I have used the word “send” is because it is such an important word in “Christianese” that most of us understand with regard to missions or with fulfilling the Great Commission.

*Warning! Rabbit trail!*: Along with the word “go.” We understand what is meant by “go” as well as “send.” However, both words are loaded—like so many words used in the subculture of Christianity in America.

Let’s think of some other examples: “Evangelical.” Do people who are in the church have any idea what a nasty word this is to the people on the outside? “Missionary.” Here’s a word that people outside our subculture think of as an invasion force. To them, missionaries destroy the culture and the traditions of entire civilizations, turning the people into Americanized Christian clones. (That’s not a good thing to them, by the way.) Every day the Prime Directive is being violated by well-meaning Christians. *And the rabbit trail ends abruptly before it gets out of hand…*

Okay, back to the theme. The word that is better—the one that I believe we are called to do for the “Next Generation” (another Star Trek reference)—is “empower.”

Empower the indigenous.

Some of you are asking, “Where do Bible school and Seminary fit into the mix?” And I would respond, “Where do we ‘send’ the indigenous to learn the ‘God stuff’ without overwhelming them with the ‘man stuff’?” When you find that place, you let me know, will you?

In the meantime I think we have to mentor while being “reverse mentored.” Treating them and accepting them as equals, we need to come along side the next leaders and allow them to develop their own expressions with very broad, spandex-like boundaries.

If we can control ourselves and give the Holy Spirit room to do his work, I believe that the Church of the future will naturally, organically become more like the New Testament church than it has been since the first century.