Dilbert Principle

“Don’t do as I do,” the old saying goes, “do as I say.”

In my classes, equipping for cross-cultural ministries, I state that if a family is unable to do ministry overseas they will do one of two things: (1) quit and go back home or, (2) be involved in irrelevant busy work on the field. People that fall into the second category are not those who cannot adjust to the culture but are people who, for one reason or another, can’t seem to find their niche in ministry. Perhaps they are not gifted in teaching, facilitating, or some technical skill that is required. Since they made a commitment for cross-cultural work, left their jobs, raised their support and now are on the field, it would be a shame for them to return back to the states. So what do we do with these people? We make them managers!

I have been observing this phenomenon managerial ministry among different organizations for sometime now, and believe me, they are not confined to a few. I’m not sure what drives this need to generate jobs for people on the field, but it’s now common practice to create a hierarchy of roles and give everyone a title so they can justify their existence as well as their considerable budget. Some organizations have created titles such as regional leaders, team leaders, strategic leaders and short-term coordinators. With all these managers one wonders who they are managing and who’s left to do the work? I know of one group that has only three families on their particular field and, since they can’t work together, they have all been made managers…and they go to area meetings to learn how to manage more effectively.

L. Peter first introduced the Peter Principle in a humoristic book (of the same title) describing the pitfalls of bureaucratic organization. The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence".

The Dilbert Principle, the syndicated cartoon character, has overtaken the Peter Principle. Now, apparently, the incompetent workers are promoted directly to management without ever passing through the temporary competence stage.

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, states, “When I entered the workforce in 1979, the Peter Principle described management pretty well. Now I think we'd all like to return to those Golden Years when you had a boss who was once good at something. I get all-nostalgic when I think about it. Back then, we all had hopes of being promoted beyond our levels of competence. Every worker had a shot at someday personally navigating the company into the tar pits while reaping large bonuses and stock options. It was a time when inflation meant everybody got an annual raise; a time when we freely admitted that the customer didn't matter. It was a time of joy.”

“We didn't appreciate it then” Adams continues, “but the Peter Principle always provided us with a boss who understood what we did for a living. Granted, he made consistently bad decisions -- after all, he had no management skills. But at least they were the informed decisions of a seasoned veteran from the trenches.”

While there is a role for managers in missions, perhaps we should begin with those who can say, as did the Apostle Paul, “Follow my example. Do as I do, not just as I say.”

Dowry

I am slowly changing my mind about the validity of the dowry system.

I understand the function of bride price, where the father of the daughter is compensated for loss labor when he gives her off to be married. It’s not really a crass system, as many in the West would see it. Having observed the bride price system among the Pokot or Kenya, I never looked at it as a “selling off” the girls. There are always abuse of any system, and it’s true that some fathers misuse the bride price practice to gain economic advantage . Bride price disputes can go on for generations if girl is barren, lazy or just a troublemaker and the groom’s family feels they have been cheated. Marriage and family disputes are messy affairs no matter the culture or custom. The West touts “fairness” laws to protect the woman in cases of divorce, but that doesn’t mean our system is without flaws. Obviously, in a culture that has a nearly fifty percent divorce rate one could hardly say our practice is morally superior.

The custom of dowry, where the family of the daughter pays a negotiated price to the groom’s family, seems, on the surface to be reasonable. The groom’s family is, after all, taking on the responsibility of the girl and therefore to support the extended family, dowry is, in theory, a helping hand for the well-being of the new couple. Since the extended family financial structure is one of pooled resources, what is given to one is shared by all. Again, that’s the theory. I suspect that in most cases it functions well.

Almost every week, if not everyday, in some newspaper throughout the nation there are stories of brides being beaten, harassed or killed by the groom’s family. In today’s paper there is a story about a young woman who killed herself with a suicide note stating that she was no longer able to cope with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law’s constant abuse and demands that she go back to her father and demand more dowry money.

Because all cultural systems are, as my friend Sherwood Lingenfelter says, prison’s of disobedience, whether the bonds of marriage is through dowry or bride price negotiation or through unreliable romantic love, the only way it will have a chance of survival is through the transformation of the heart. That transformation comes when both husband and wife know true love through Christ. When that transformation takes place, any arrangement of marriage will do.

Escapism

You have to hand it to God; He really knows how to mix things up? That's especially true for me this week. I’m on an Indian campus, teaching students from the south in Kerela to the northeast in Assam, with a strong contingent from Myanmar (Burma). Visiting faculty include an old couple from England, one from the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. I’m the only American in sight.

It’s not bad. You have to put up with an occasional swipe at our President and his motives for going into Iraq. I just shrug my shoulders and remind them that he was re-elected, along with our strongest allies, Prime Minister Howard (of Australia) and Tony Blair of the U.K. I don’t remind them that those who opposed the war, Germany’s Schroeder was voted out and France’s Chirac is on his way out. I resist telling them that I can’t seriously discuss issues with those whose main source of information is the BBC or CNN. The problem with internationals is they miss the point of what really goes on inside another persons country therefore their arguments are merely repeats from last nights newscast.

Apart from politics, the atmosphere is quite amiable. It’s interesting to listen others talk about the new Bishop in Sydney and the dreadful weather in Bristol. I can appreciate their banter about cricket and how they do wish there was more time for bird watching. Of course the only thing my students want to talk to me about is their research assignment and how difficult will the final exam be? It’s tough being the only “Yank” on the block.

My diversion is my computer and the Internet. I search desperately to see if I have mail from my family or friends, read my daughter’s latest blog and check yesterday’s baseball scores. Thankfully I can go to FoxNews and watch the latest news video’s and learn that the rains in the northeast continue, people are gearing up for the new season of AMERICAN IDOL and that LOST has captured the imagination of the masses. Hardly things that would make me want to sing the national anthem, but news about home is interesting, even if it’s undemanding.

It’s a long weekend, and I have two more weeks to go. A good biography entitled, THE ROAD TO DELHI – BISHOP PICKETT REMEMBERED 1890 – 1981, keeps me entertained. The Dean of Academics gave me the recent movies on DVD to watch on my laptop. It’s called ‘escapism,’ and it’s what you do when you are the only one of your kind surrounded by multicultural's.

Giftedness

“How did you discover YOUR gift,” the student asked me in class today?

In my lecture I made the comment that in finding their niche in ministry they need to match their calling with their giftedness. My standard speech is, “If God has given you the gift of administration, don’t try to be an evangelist. If He has given you the gift of a teacher that doesn’t make you qualified to be a pastor. People get frustrated in their service for Christ because they are trying to do things they are not gifted to do.”

I’m not sure when I knew my niche was in teaching? I suppose it was when I was pastoring my first church in Texas. The most enjoyable facets of being a pastor was when I teaching. That love for teaching carried on through my time in Kenya, discipling others informally, which eventually led me to establish a Bible institute.

In the process of learning ones gift, you invariably learn the areas where you are NOT gifted. It was at that time I realized my gift was not in being a pastor and I wasn’t a very good preacher. I have also learned over the years that I’m weak in administration. It’s as important to know what you are not good at as to know what you are gifted in doing.

Having a desire to serve doesn’t override giftedness. I’d love to be able to sing, but those who have heard me sing, and that is a very few people, know my inability to carry a tune in a sack overrules my aspirations. One may desire to be a missionary, but that doesn’t mean they are gifted to live overseas. I’m not sure that I buy into the well-worn phrase that “What God is looking for is not ability but availability.” I’m available to belt out a song, but no one is inviting me to sing in the choir. Giftedness MUST be coupled with calling.

Finding your giftedness is a process. Some learn their role in life early. For others, probably for most of us, the discovery of what we are really good at is through a period of trial and error. If you don’t try to teach you’ll never know if you are any good at it. If you don’t try to live overseas you will never know if you are cut out to do it. The problem comes when you discover your don’t have those gifts, will you acknowledge it and find something you are good at? Life is too short to continue to try to make your square gift fit into an occupational round hole.

Best Practices in Funding?

The question of how to finance missions is always challenging. In almost every congregation I visit the pastor expresses concern about the future of their local church involvement. For the most part, mission giving is provided by those who are fifty years of age and older. Those who are below fifty may be involved in mission giving but less are inclined to give to the church program and instead give to projects they are interested in ranging from everything from Tsunami relief to orphanages to their friends going on short-term trips. Those below thirty usually give to projects they will directly be a part of in exploratory overseas trips. So how will missions be funded in the future?

FAITH PROMISE – Started in the 1950’s, faith promise was a program that suggested that people, by faith, promised God that they would give a certain amount of money each month, above their regular tithes and offerings, to missions. Collectively, the church would take up the faith promise pledge each year to determine their mission budget. It was a good system for the first thirty years. Partly because of the social structure of the church between 1955 and 1975, church members believed in and participated in top down organizational giving. Those who were a part of faith promise in those years are now over fifty years old and many are in their seventies and eighties.

Vietnam, the peace movement, Nixon’s resignation was a sociological sea change in America as people began to question authority and institutional structures. As a result of that societal shift, people began to see the church for what it provided to them personally and giving to the corporate structure began to wane.

Another reason faith promise giving has diminished is because the church did not have a solid mission strategy. What was the purpose of missions? Indeed, what was missions? Did it include youth camps in the U.S., local radio ministries, and prison ministries? I can remember in the heyday of faith promise churches hired mission intern staff and paid their salaries out of the mission budget. Missions then became the family who ran the youth or children’s ministry. Perhaps one reason faith promise is not appealing to the present generation is that missions is not well defined. Giving to a general fund is no longer attractive.

COMBINED BUDGET – Some churches, though I know of very few, have a combined budget where a percentage of all income goes to world evangelism. Theoretically this is a good program. IF people will support the church finances, automatically fifteen to twenty-five percent of all income will go to missions. Under this plan a mission’s budget can be developed and it will be sustained whether people give directly to missions or not. Theoretically, as the church grows so, too, does their worldwide outreach. This seems to be better in today’s climate as I see many churches growing, starting new ministry projects, building new facilities and as the congregation grows so does their missions program. The combined budget has two weaknesses.

First, if the church does not grow, neither does the mission outreach. Small churches, especially, struggle to make ends meet. If the local congregation is stagnant or in decline it will obviously affect how much can be allotted to mission projects.

Secondly, a combined budget does not address the need for this generation to become personally involved in missions. To tap into their needs, the church missions program will have to do more to create interest beyond the four walls of the assembly.

WHAT TO DO? - It seems that now, more than ever before, the church needs to do two things to enhance their mission’s outreach.

1. There needs to be a concentrated and intentional creation of a mission’s strategy. This will include a definition of what is missions, what the church is trying to accomplish with their mission investment and what type of ministries and people they will support to reach that goal.

2. Allow people to be involved in missions outside the local assembly. Though this is a controversial suggestion among some churches, it is a method that has been around for many years. The Navigators have for years have solicited support from family and friends. It’s a method that allows people to have a personal and vested interest in how they will support missions. But, like all methods, it has its problems, which I will discuss in a future post.

I do not believe there is an either/or solution for raising mission awareness or funding. It’s very possible that faith promise, combined budget and personal giving can be incorporated into a cohesive plan. The greater challenge is thinking about how we can do missions better.

Looking For The Right Pitch

A friend of mine gave me a CD before I left the states, Rick Warren’s kickoff service of Saddleback’s latest program, “40 Days of P.E.A.C.E.” I was unable to go to church this morning, so I listened to the CD instead.

Of course I enjoyed, not only the message, but the content as well. Rick is a gifted speaker and no one questions his success in building a strong church. I must admit, I’ve never read his runaway bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life, partly because I have an aversion to jumping on bandwagons. No doubt I would profit from the reminders that are basic and valuable for every Christian, and in time, I probably will read it.

It’s interesting how the Holy Spirit uses a message for HIS purpose. Rick was talking about using our lives to serve Christ by serving others. While that is a message I need, it was not what impressed me most. The thing that grabbed me was the positive tone of Rick’s presentation. When I say positive, I don’t mean in the sense of Schuller or Osteen, which tends to be inward focused, but a positive presentation of what God wants for our lives to fulfill His purpose.

I contrasted Rick’s message with that of another person I admire and that is John McArthur. John is a noted Bible scholar and down through the years I have listened to his expository presentations. His command of the original languages is unquestioned and as a result he brings out unique insights from the pages of Scripture.

The difference between Warren and McArthur is tone. Warren’s tone is more along the lines what is right and good whereas McArthur’s sides more with what is wrong and bad. It’s no secret that McArthur has been critical of Warren’s writing’s as he was on Larry King Live basically characterizing Warren’s writing as “pop Christianity.” He may be right, though I think it probably doesn’t do McArthur or the Kingdom much good to get on national television to make that point.

Critical analysis is one of my areas of giftedness, which has evolved over the years. Because of my age and experience, I’ve lived enough of life to discern what is real and sensible, from what is misleading and thoughtless. Obviously cross-cultural ministry is my arena of expertise and I’m pretty open with my views on the church as it relates to world evangelization. The trick is, and this is where the Spirit nicked me this morning, the fine balance between critical analysis and just being critical. Am I more like Warren or McArthur? Tone is everything. I’m praying for the right pitch.