TRANSFOR•MISSION & #EdStetzer overview regarding how #CraigOtt describes a transformational church.

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: I teach my students that to understand transformational leadership they must first understand the transformational aspects of that which they lead, the Church (because of its supernatural, directional and eternal synergies). Here is a thoughtful analysis by a friend on Craig Ott’s important new book on mission and the church.

“20 Truths from ‘The Church on Mission”

by Ed Stetzer, Christianity Today, 9/28/19.

Below are 20 Truths from Dr. Craig Ott’s new book, The Church on Mission: A Biblical Vision for Transformation among All People. Craig is Professor of Mission and Intercultural studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, where he occupies the ReachGlobal Chair of Mission

2. “Transformation always has to do with change from something to something else, whereby the change is substantive and affecting the very essence or nature of the object” (Page 5).

3. “A transformational church is a church that becomes God’s instrument of such personal transformation through evangelism and discipleship” (Page 13).

4. “If transformation is the dynamic of our mission, and God’s glory is both the source and goal of our mission, then the church in the power of the Spirit is God’s primary instrument of mission in this age. The church is the only institution on earth entrusted with the message of transformation—the gospel—and the only community that is a living demonstration of that transformation” (Page 19).

5. “Without the gospel there is no forgiveness, no new creation, no church, no transformation” (Page 23)...

7. “A missional ecclesiology emphasizes that the church does not merely send missionaries (as important as that is), but the church itself is God’s missionary, sent into the world as Jesus was sent into the world (John 20:21). In this sense the mission of the church is not merely a task or project that the church is to carry out, but rather is participation in God’s own mission in the world, the missio Dei” (Page 35).

Read more at … https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2019/september/20-truths-from-church-on-mission.html

VISION & Salesforce founder/co-CEO Marc Benioff explains how clarity + alignment in the word “V2MOM” is the key to Salesforce’s success.

by Robert Glazer, Inc. Magazine, 11/5/18.

 vision and values (V2) combined with methods, obstacles, and measures (MOM). It’s shorthand for some fundamental business processes:

Vision: Defines what you want to do or achieve.

Values: Principles and beliefs that help you pursue the vision.

Methods: Actions and steps to take to get the job done.

Obstacles: The challenges and issues you have to overcome to achieve the vision.

Measures: The ways in which you measure achievement.

V2MOM was the brainchild of Salesforce founder and co-CEO Marc Benioff, who has said that it is “the biggest secret of Salesforce.com’scess.”

In a column explaining the origin of V2MOM, Benioff wrote, “When I was at Oracle, I struggled with the fact that there was no written business plan or formal communication process during our growth phase. In fact, I remember asking Larry Ellison during my new-hire orientation, ‘What is Oracle’s five-year plan?” His response was simple: ‘We don’t have a five-year plan, we barely have a six-month plan. It was our job to figure it out what Larry wanted on our own.”

This led Benioff down the path to examining what great companies do differently. He found that the discussions kept coming back to the themes of clarity and alignment. 

Read more at … https://www.inc.com/robert-glazer/marc-benioff-says-these-4-principles-are-key-to-salesforces-success-heres-how-to-use-them.html

CHANGE & Why it won’t happen unless you understand the important difference between “mission” & “vision.”

by Bob Whitesel D.Min., Ph.D., excerpted from an address delivered to the Great Commission Research Network (GCRN), Asbury Theological Seminary, Oct. 19, 2017.

“How Changing Generations … Change: Harnessing the Differences Between Generations and Their Approaches to Change.”

Abstract

This article will compare and contrast two leadership change strategies as observed in older generations (influenced by modernity) and younger generations (influenced by postmodernity). It will be suggested that modernist leadership strategies may focus more on command-and-control and vision. It will be further suggested that postmodern leaders may employ a more collaborative and mission-centric approach to change leadership. This latter approach will be shown to have been described in postmodern circles by organic metaphors and four conditions as set forth by organizational theorist Mary Jo Hatch. Subsequently, it will be suggested that the style of leadership embraced should depend upon the cultural context of the generational actors and the environment.

… Motivating by vision vs. motivating by mission

There is some confusion among practitioners regarding the difference between vision and mission. Kent Hunter and I, in an earlier book, sought to compare and contrast various ecclesial definitions of vision and mission and suggest an abridgment.[21]

George Barna[22] Elmer L. Towns[23]

 

Whitesel / Hunter[24]
Mission: A philosophic statement that under-girds the heart of your ministry. Your ministry emphasis and your church gifting. “What do we do” (and why do we do it, 2017)
Vision: A clear mental image of a preferable future imparted by God, and based on an accurate understanding of God, self and circumstances. Same as Barna. “Where do we believe God is calling our church to go in the future?”

My experience has been that older generations, influenced by modernity, typically emphasize the vision. By this, I mean they have a clear mental picture of the future and try to muster all of their forces to attain it. This can, and often does, result in a parade of different programs being promoted to the congregation which often – by their sheer frequency – overwhelms and wears out the congregants. Burnout is often the result.

I have noticed that younger generations are more likely to emphasize the mission that undergirds these various visions. This is perhaps because they have witnessed this in their parents’ congregations. According to Barna, a mission is “a philosophic statement that undergirds the heart of your ministry.”[25] This leads postmodern-influenced leaders to emphasize less the different programs that are being implemented and instead to motivate by stressing the mission behind them.

An interview with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s in USA Today yields a useful example.[26] In the article, Nadella criticizes founding CEO Bill Gates for mixing up the difference between a mission and a vision. Nadella states, “It always bothered me that we confused an enduring mission with a temporal goal… When I joined the company in 1992, we used to talk about our mission as putting a PC in every home, and by the end of the decade we have done that, at least in the developed world.”

“…we used to talk about our mission as putting a PC in every home, and by the end of the decade we have done that, at least in the developed world.” – Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s in USA Today

Nadella was right because “putting a PC in every home” is not a mission – it is a vision. It is something that can be reached, can be pictured in your mind and is temporally bound. You can see a vision in your mind. You can envision every house having a PC computer. That is why every house today doesn’t have an IBM PC. Instead, many have Apple Macs.

A mission, however, drives the company and its values, therefore shaping its decisions. It is much bigger and grander than a vision.

When Steve Jobs was luring John Scully from PepsiCo to become CEO of Apple, Jobs shared a mission, not a vision, saying: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?”[27]

A mission is just like that. It is exciting, world-changing … but somewhat imprecise so it could manifest in many different outcomes (i.e. visions). It is also not temporally bound, like “putting a PC in every home.” A mission drives your values and decisions through many different projects.

Apple’s mission reminds me of the trend I see in my youthful seminary students to emphasize mission over vision. They correctly understand that mission can be realized in many different visions. Apple’s mission would be realized in varied visions including: the vision to revolutionize the way music is purchased via iTunes, the vision to miniaturize the computer into a handheld device, etc. The result is that Apple devotees have a passion that IBM followers don’t. Apple has an ongoing mission that continues to be realized in various visions. As a result, the clarity of Apple’s mission, best exemplified in Apple’s 1984 Super Bowl ad, unleashes a passion in its followers.[28]

Best practices for the church: When leading younger leaders, it may be helpful to emphasize the mission while letting many subcategories of vision come and go as opportunity rises and wanes. The younger generations appear to want to be reminded of the mission but allowed to create multiple visions of how it may be carried out. They don’t want to stick to one idea or tactic, but rather one mission. Therefore, the mission becomes more important than a time and measurement constrained vision which often influenced their parents’ church.

The tip of an iceberg

These approaches to change are just the tip of an iceberg of divergences between the leadership modality of the modernist and postmodernist. I’ve compared and contrasted more areas in my Abingdon Press book ORGANIX: Signs of Leadership in a Changing Church. The reader may be interested in how I delve into the striking difference regarding how younger generations offset the disadvantages of homogeneity. For a thorough investigation of the distinctions between modern and postmodern leadership, I would encourage the reader to consult this volume.

[1] The Atlantic magazine, March 25, 2014.

[2] Generation Z has been suggested as the descriptor for this generation by the New York Times, see Sabrina Tavernise, “A Younger Generation is Being Born in Which Minorities are the Majority,” New York Times, May 17, 2012.

[3] Bob Whitesel, “Toward a Holistic in Postmodernal Theory of Change: The Four-forces Model of Change as Reflected in Church Growth Movement Literature,” The Journal of the American Society for Church Growth, Fall 2008.

[4] Bob Whitesel, Preparing for Change Reaction: How to Introduce Change in Your Church (Indianapolis: The Wesleyan Publishing House, 2007, pp. 53-56.

[5] Eddie Gibbs in Church Next (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000, p. 23) explains that though Frederico de Onis created the term “postmodern” in the 1930s it was not until the 1960s that it gained popularity due to its use by art critics.

[6] Emil Bruner, trans. Harold Knight, The Misunderstanding of the Church (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952), pp. 15-18.

[7] Mary Joe Hatch, Organizational Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 53-54.

[8] While Hatch utilizes the term requisite harmony, I have substituted the helpful term dissonant harmony as employed by Bruno Dyck and Frederick A. Starke, The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model. Administrative Science Quarterly (1999), 44:792-822. I have applied the Dyke-Starke model to the church in Bob Whitesel, Staying Power: Why People Leave the Church Over Change and What You Can Do About It(Abingdon Press, 2003).

[9] Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1979), pp. 113.

[10] Eddie Gibbs, I Believe in Church Growth, op. cit., p. 120.

[11] Eddie Gibbs, I Believe in Church Growth, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), p. 92.

[12] See for the example the hedgehog versus Fox’s comparison in Abraham Zalesnik’s book, hedgehogs and foxes: character, leadership, and commanding organizations parentheses New York: Palm grave McMillan, 2008). Zalesnik use this is a metaphor of hedgehogs who live by unwavering rules with the more long-lived foxes who adapt to their environment..

[13] Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776; reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1976), books 1 and 4.

[14] Quoted by Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp. 368-369

[15] Harrison Monarth, Executive Presence: The Art of Commanding Respect Like a CEO (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009), p. 55.

[16] Bruno Dyck and Frederick A. Starke, The Formation of Breakaway Organizations: Observations and a Process Model. Administrative Science Quarterly (1999), 44:792-822.

[17] For more on this seek Bob Whitesel, Staying Power: Why People Leave the Church Over Change, And What You Can Do About It (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) and the chapter titled “Go Slowly, Build Consensus and Succeed” in Preparing for Change Reaction: How to Introduce Change in Your Church (Indianapolis: The Wesleyan Publishing House, 2007, pp. 151-169.

[18] Harvard Business Review (Boston: Harvard Business Press, January 2007).

[19] Bruno Dyck and Frederick A. Starke, ibid., 44:812-813.

[20] ibid., 44:813-819.

[21] Bob Whitesel and Kent R. Hunter, A House Divided: Bridging the Generation Gaps in Your Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), p. 107.

[22]George Barna, The Power of Vision: How You Can Capture and Apply God’s Vision for Your Ministry (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1992), pp. 28, 38–39.

[23] Elmer L. Towns, Vision Day: Capturing the Power of Vision, (Lynchburg, Virginia; Church Growth Institute, 1994), pp. 24-25.

[24] Whitesel and Hunter, op. cit., p. 107.

[25] Barna, op. cit., p. 28.

[26] Marco della Cava, “Microsoft’s Satya Nadella is Counting on Culture Shock to Drive Growth,” USA Today, Feb. 20, 2017.

[27]John Sculley and John A. Byrne, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple: A Journey of Adventure, Ideas, and the Future(New York: HarperCollins, 1987), p. 90.

[28] The 1984 Apple commercial is available on YouTube and is best described by MacWorld writer Adelia Cellini in the following: “Apple wanted the Mac to symbolize the idea of empowerment, with the ad showcasing the Mac as a tool for combating conformity and asserting originality. What better way to do that than have a striking blonde athlete take a sledgehammer to the face of that ultimate symbol of conformity, Big Brother?” “The Story Behind Apple’s “1984” TV commercial: Big Brother at 20,”MacWorld, 21 (1), p. 18.

Download the article here… ARTICLE Whitesel 2017 Changing Generations Change GCRJ GCRN 17.10.17

Bio

Bob Whitesel D.Min. Ph.D. holds two doctorates from Fuller Seminary and is the former founding professor of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University. A speaker/consultant on church health, organic outreach and multiethnic ministry, he is the award-winning author of 13 books published by national publishers. National magazines have stated: “Bob Whitesel is the change agent” (Ministry Today) and “Bob Whitesel is the key spokesperson on change in the church today” (Outreach Magazine). The faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary awarded him The Donald McGavran Award for outstanding scholarship in church growth and The Great Commission Research Network awarded him The Donald A. McGavran Award for outstanding leadership in church growth.

Speaking hashtags: #Kingwood2018 Theological Reflection Seminar #TheoReflect #GCRN #CLIOrlando2018

THEOLOGY & A review of David Bosch’s “Transforming Mission”

A review of David Bosch, Transforming Mission, 9/2008.

David Bosch, himself, says that when Transforming Mission was suggested as a title for this work he had misgivings about it, but in its ambiguity it has proved to be a most helpful reflection of both the major theses of the book. (Bosch: 2005: xv). The ambiguity lies in that mission is both something, which transforms and effective mission is itself something that is constantly transforming. Bosch’s argument throughout the three major sections of the book (New Testament Models of Mission; Historical Paradigms of Mission; and Toward a Relevant Missiology) is that there is no one meta-paradigm for missions, it is a constantly transforming paradigm.

Within the New Testament itself we encounter different models of mission; Matthew’s emphasis falls on disciple-making, Luke’s on solidarity with the poor and Paul’s has a definite eschatological dimension. Mission is being “transformed” and redefined by the biblical authors for and within the different contexts. The contextual nature of defining mission is a major premise for Bosch. “A basic argument of this book has been that, from the very beginning, the missionary message of the Christian church incarnated itself in the life and world of those who had embraced it.” (421)

Bosch’s aim in considering the different historical paradigms is again to show the constantly transforming nature of missions, although each paradigm is assessed in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Missions is a constantly evolving process; there exists a “pluriverse of missiology” (8). Bosch evaluates the history of missions using the Paradigm Theory of Thomas Kuhn and the six epochs of Christian history suggested by Hans Kűng. Kuhn’s original work was with scientific paradigms shifts, which he suggested were non-cumulative and revolutionary.[1]

The first two sections are a thorough laying of the foundations for the crux of the book the third section in which Bosch proposes his revised definition of missions (8), the new paradigm which will take us further. The new (or current) paradigm Bosch refers to as “post-modern” and (indebted to Kűng) the Emerging Ecumenical Paradigm. Here Bosch proposes not so much a paradigm as elements of a paradigm. These elements are diverse and are to be held in creative tension, without being forced together or polarised. Only as these elements are thus held in tension will we be able to both remain faithful to Scripture and relevant to the context. Just as in the New Testament and church history we see different models existing so we ought to recognise that the new model is a contextual mosaic rather than a meta-paradigm; “different theologies of mission do not necessarily exclude each other they form a multicoloured mosaic of complementary and mutually enriching as well as mutually challenging frames of reference.” (8)

Bosch’s work truly deserves the place it has assumed, in the last decade, at the head and as the foundation for missions studies. Embracing and straddling the fields of New Testament studies, Church History and Missiology with great competence and skill, Bosch’s work surely must be regarded as the foundation and launching point for the discussion both within and without Missiology for years to come. Bosch is at his best when he refusing to accept “either-or” thinking and calling for a “creative tension” or a third way in areas such as eschatology, evangelism and social action, contextualization and justice (Williams: 1993: 121).

Bibliography

BEVANS and SCHROEDER. 2005. Missiology After Bosch: Reverencing a Classic By Moving Beyond. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29:2 (April), 69-72.

BOSCH, DAVID J. 2005. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, New York. Orbis

KREIDER, ALAN. 2005. Beyond Bosch: The Early Church and the Christendom Shift. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29:2 (April), 59-68.

PILLAY, GERALD J. 1990. Text, Paradigms and Context: An Examiniation of David Bosch’s Use of Paradigms in the Reading of Christian History. (In Saayman, W. and Kritzinger, K. (eds.) Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch. Pretoria. The South African Missiological Society)

SUGDEN, CHRISTOPHER. 1996. Placing Critical Issues in Relief. (In Saayman, W. and Kritzinger, K. (eds.) Mission in Bold Humility: David Bosch’s Work Considered. Maryknoll, New York. Orbis)

TOWNER, PHILIP H. 1995. Paradigms Lost: Mission to the Kosmos in John and in David Bosch’s Biblical Models of Mission. Evangelical Quarterly 67:2 (April), 99-119

WILLIAMS, BRYAN A. 1993. The South African Baptist Journal of Theology 1993, 117-123.

[1] There exist within any scientific paradigm anomalies, but these are not considered significant until the growing number of anomalies forces the formulation of a new paradigm, which better explains more of the evidence. There is then a period of transition in which public consensus is gained for the new paradigm whilst proponents of the old paradigm fight for its survival. The transition period ends when the new paradigm gains normative status and the old paradigm is now discredited and disregarded (non-cumulative). It is the social acceptance of a new paradigm and not the discovery of new evidence, which results in the paradigm shift (or revolution).

Read more at … Retrieved from https://legerity.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bosch.doc

MISSION & #MartinMarty on what historically it means. #BGCE #Fellows #Wheaton

Notes by Bob Whitesel on the presentation by Martin Marty, Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School.  Presented to the Fellows of the Billy Graham Center for Evangelism at Wheaton College. Dr. Marty may be America’s foremost church historian.

1519 AD: missio (mission) was first used in the modern sense of “ascending ahead” by Jesuit missionaries in the 16th century.

Martin Luther felt that Jesus’ key words at the last supper was that His mission was “for you.”

Mission became something people said horrible negative things about, but in the long-term there was hope. And, mission came from afar.  It meant coming from outside of your perspective.

“The real enemy of mission is indifference.” – Martin Marty

“You can never learn too much about the culture around you.” – Martin Marty

 

 

VISION & How to improve clarity and impact: a video introduction #LEAD600

In my courses, my students evaluate existing vision and mission statements with a goal of improving clarity and impact. To assist them in the evaluation, I’ve recorded a video introduction to their homework on evaluating vision and mission statements (LEAD 600: Strategic Leadership and Management).

©️Bob Whitesel 2017, used by permission only.

 

MISSION vs VISION & In One Short Sentence, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Explained the Flaw w/ Bill Gates’ Original Mission

by Bob Whitesel D.Min. Ph.D, 2/27/17.

Why are Apple fans more passionate than PC followers? Why are artists, who think abstractly, drawn to Apple more than Microsoft?

It has to do with one of their founder’s mixup of vision with mission.

Bill Gates equated mission with vision. As I teach my students, the two are distinctly different: mission never changes, but vision is temporal and may change, albeit carefully, over time and with strategic analysis.

Gates equated mission with vision as the current Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said, “It always bothered me that we confused an enduring mission with a temporal goal.”

Nadelle explained, “When I joined the company in 1992, we used to talk about our mission as putting a PC in every home, and by the end of the decade we have done that, at least in the developed world,” said Nadella.

Nadella is right, “putting a PC in every home” is not a mission – because it is a vision. It is something that can be reached, can be pictured in your mind and is temporally bound. You can see a vision in your mind. You can envision every house having a PC computer. That is why every house today doesn’t, many have Macs.

A mission drives the company and its values, therefore shaping it’s decisions. It is much bigger and grander than a vision.

When Steve Jobs was luring Bill Scully from PepsiCo to become CEO of Apple, Jobs shared a mission, not a vision, saying: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?” (Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple: A Journey of Adventure, Ideas, and the Future [1987] by John Sculley and John A. Byrne)

A mission is just like that. It is exciting, world-changing … but somewhat imprecise so it could be manifest in many different outcomes. It is also not temporally bound, like “putting a PC in every home.” A mission drives your values and decisions through many different projects.

But, people like visions because they can envision what the future looks like. For instance, they can picture every home having a PC.

In contrast, look at the loyal following and passionate followers of Apple. Steve Jobs had a mission to “change the world” by reinventing the way the world interacts. This change mission includes, but is not limited to, putting an Apple Computer in every home. But it also includes visions such as putting an Apple iPhone in every hand, perfecting the computer notepad, reinventing how we obtain/listen to music, etc.

A person who knows the difference between vision and mission understands why it was much more fun and exciting to work for Jobs than for Gates. And a person who knows the difference between vision and mission understands why people are more passionate about companies like Apple.

If you are trying to get people excited about the mission of the church and your vision, then you must begin by understanding the difference between vision and mission. Even mega-wealthy entrepreneurs like Gates didn’t get it and their legacy reminds us of this.

Read this article to discover why Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said, “It always bothered me that we confused an enduring mission with a temporal goal.”

In One Short Sentence, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Explained the Flaw w/ Bill Gates’ Original Mission

by Justin Bariso, Inc. Magazine, 2/27/17.

I’ve been a fan of Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella for some time. From encouraging employees after an epic fail to the amazing autonomy he’s granted LinkedIn (after that company’s recent acquisition), Nadella has proven he’s the right leader to guide Microsoft into the future.

Of course, Nadella took over a position that was once held by the company’s founder and world’s wealthiest man Bill Gates. But in a recent interview with USA Today, Nadella showed that he’s not afraid to forge his own path–by sharing what he saw as a flaw in Gates’s original mission statement.

“When I joined the company in 1992, we used to talk about our mission as putting a PC in every home, and by the end of the decade we have done that, at least in the developed world,” said Nadella.

He continues: “It always bothered me that we confused an enduring mission with a temporal goal.”

Moving Forward

For his part, Nadella has tried to embrace a more forward-thinking philosophy.  Just a few examples:

  • Microsoft Azure (the company’s cloud computing service) is growing rapidly, and second in market share only to Amazon’s AWS…

Read more at … http://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/in-one-short-sentence-microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-explained-the-flaw-with-bill-g.html

#LEAD600 #LEAD545