I began studying different denominations a year before I started Church Relevance. I knew I needed to learn what they believe, how they talk, and how the live out the Bible in order to grow outside of my own theological bubble and explore ministry on an ecumenical level.

It has been a slow journey, but like a cogwheel, my understanding both spiritually and culturally has gained momentum and made dramatic shifts within the last year and even more so within the last 3 months.

Of course, the Holy Spirit gets credit for the spiritual insights, and last fall marks the beginning of my greatest spiritual awakening yet. But unfortunately, studying ministry and its methods are often just as much or more about culture than it is about Scripture. People’s behavior, beliefs, and social environment outside of God’s Word determine much of how they choose to interpret and live out the Bible.

So the Holy Spirit gets credit for spiritual insights, but you have to act like an anthropologist if you want to understand the methods and cultural idiosyncrasies of each denomination and theology. Because humanity is flawed, we seem compelled to take spiritual insights and then build upon them with our own ideas using our own strength.

The Same Tree but Different Angles

Five years ago, a retired minister named Leon Blackwell generously gifted me 600 books from his library. During his decades of travel, he visited countless used book stores collecting the best theological works and Bible commentaries he could find regardless of their denominational background. He gave me this advice:

The Bible is like a tree that stays the same but looks different from each angle. When you read different theological perspectives, it gives you glimpses of the same tree from different angles. And the more you read, the better you understand the tree as a whole.

I’ve found this to be true in my own life. As I study different opinions of Scripture and the Great Commission and then judge those perspectives through my own study of Scripture, I find it tremendously more insightful and quite effective at revealing my cultural blindspots.

2 Approaches: Stained Glass vs Melting Pot

Here are two approaches that have both worked well for me in better understanding Christian cultures. Both are theories.

I have spent a few years trying to learn firsthand from the opposite ends of the church spectrum – seeker sensitive, Reformed, charismatic, emergent, missiological, organic, Orthodox, denominational, liberal, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and more. It has left me with an eclectic group of friends. Many of whom think each other are heretics.

For me, the key to finding the best insights is to talk to the leaders on the fringe of each niche. I find their ideas so highly concentrated that it is easier to see the underlying strengths and weaknesses of their niche and discern what is biblical and what is cultural. More ecumenically accepted leaders within each niche tend have a more diluted stance, which is why they are more popular among mainstream Christianity.

I still have much to learn, but at the moment, it seems like:

• Melting Pot
  Trying to achieve a global Church worldview by weaving together the strengths from the diluted perspectives of more ecumenically accepted leaders achieves more of a melting pot because these leaders are more like each other than they would care to admit. The melting pot muffles their individual strengths.
• Stained Glass
  However, trying to achieve a global Church worldview by weaving together the strengths from the highly concentrated perspectives of more fringe leaders achieves more of a stained glass effect that better showcases and appreciates each of their strengths, and I think gives a bit brighter total biblical picture.

Both approaches have their pros and cons. In both cases, you must challenge everything against Scripture to see for yourself what is said.

The melting pot method won’t rock your world too hard conceptually. But the melting pot has more subtle weaknesses that can more easily be mistaken as truth.

The stained glass method can mess you up sometimes conceptually. You have to go back to the basics more often and anchor yourself in the gospel, the Great Commission, the two love commandments, worship, and the pursuit of purity. Like a teeter-totter you stretch your perspective some and then go back to the basics before stretching it some more. The stained glass has more obvious weaknesses, but they are more destructive if mistaken as truth.

Currently, I prefer the stained glass approach. It works well for me now but might not be the best approach in the future. It may never be a good approach for you.

I’d love to hear your feedback on these theories.

At The Global Leadership Summit, Mario Vega the Senior Pastor of Misión Cristiana Elim in El Salvador (a church with over 73,000 attendees) took us through 1 Samuel 15 to look at a biblical example of leading through tough decisions.

Historical Context

At this time, the people of the Middle East were transitioning to powerful monarchies. However, Israel remained tribal chiefdoms, and this fragmentation lead them to be vulnerable to their neighbors. Previously, they relied on God, but worry led them to decide they needed a king and a powerful army.

Saul’s First Slip

King Saul was a humble and unassuming person in his early years. Quickly endearing himself to Samuel the prophet. Samuel was extremely proud of Saul and his king, but on one occasion Saul deliberately disobeyed the decree of the Lord. He was greedy and stole cattle. When he was called out, he tried covering it up by saying it was an offering. God was not interested in sacrifice but obedience.

Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Because of this failure, God no longer viewed Saul as one certified to be King. Some may think that God was too hard for rejecting Saul over a single act of disobedience. But when a person engages in dishonest living, they reveal their lack of character. It was just the tip of the iceberg and revealed his selfish ambition. Saul’s lifestyle of disobedience after that showed that God had not been too harsh in rejecting Saul. He grew violent and abused his power. This lead Saul to mass murder of temple priests and even attempt to murder his own son. He pursued David with an obsession.

Those that allow themselves room for moral failure, open the door for further failure to come. Charisma and skills were not enough to keep Saul on the throne of Israel. Integrity of character was far more important. Saul had showed the world his lack of character. And it was very painful for Samuel to accept the fact that God had rejected Saul as king. He spent the entire night crying for Saul. His love for Saul ran deep, and he was deeply grieved that God had disqualified him. This brought Samuel to an ethical crossroads. Samuel would now have to choose between hiss love for God and his love for Saul. In other words, his loyalty to values and loyalty to his friendship.

The 4 phases of Handing Moral Failure of Leadership

1. Denial

Samuel’s pain was so deep that he couldn’t accept the truth. He couldn’t accept that Saul would no longer be king. Doing something that seemed so small caused him to lose everything. Samuel expected God to change his decision, but God’s decision was final. The sun went down and the anguish was uncontrollable. He was forced to confront the new reality, entering the second phase of this difficult proceeds – depression

2. Depression

His love for Saul couldn’t blind him to the reality. Saul was not who he thought he was. He lacked a healthy fear of God, and the evidence was undeniable. There was no turning back. This daunting reality lead him to a deep, deep depression. Samuel walked the dark hours of the night searching for an alternative, one that would not involve firing Saul. However, there were no other options. It was clear that Saul would no longer be King. At about midnight, Samuel entered into the 3rd phase of this difficult decision making process – acceptance.

3. Acceptance

Samuel finally accepted that Saul would no longer be king. This made him feel alone and desolate. If Saul would no longer be King, then who would be? If Samuel was God’s prophet, then it would be his responsibility to anoint the other. An action that would certainly alienate his good friend Saul. Was this a contradiction? Wasn’t he the one that publicly appointed Saul in the first place? The  light of the new day found Samuel still aching with new pain. This process would not be complete until he would hear the voice of God saying, “How long will you grieve over Saul as I have rejected him as the king of Israel. Fill your horn with oil and [go].”

4. Action

It was time to go appoint a new King. It was not the time to look at the past but the future. The plans of God were still on course. It was time for action. The heart finds comfort with every new step of integrity. So Samuel went into action. He filled up his horn with oil. Dried his last tears. Moved forward to appoint a new king of Israel.

Leaders are defined by the ongoing decisions they make. And leadership rises and falls on the decision that are being made.

Are you facing a difficult decision at this moment?
Are you allowing your personal bias to influence your decision?

Maybe you are going through your own dark night of grieving. It is difficult when you have to decide over people’s lives. Theses are decisions that you cannot delegate to any other person. Give yourself permission to grieve, hurt, cry, and walk through depression. All of this is normal. After all you are a human.

But never give yourself permission to avoid doing what is right. And don’t give yourself permission to stay in the valley of depression. Lay your burden with God. Don’t stay stuck in your grieving. Look to the heavens, God has more in store with you. This is the best choice for everyone involved. It is the right decision for you as well. You will never regret doing what is just and walking in integrity. When the years pass by, they will reveal justice and integrity in your action.

In light of these thoughts, be courageous, be strong, live with integrity. The Lord is with you.

At The Global Leadership Summit, Patrick M. Lencioni discussed the the benefits of focusing on organizational health.

Organization health is the single greatest competitive advantage in business. It is virtually free and accessibly to any leader that want its. Yet it remains virtually untapped. Most leaders haven’t been trained in it. They often feel it is hard to measure or doesn’t feel complex enough.

When Southwest Airlines as asked why competitors don’t copy them, the CEO responded saying that they think it is beneath them.

2 Qualities Needed to Maximize Success

1. Smarts (financing strategy, technology, marketing, intellectual sciences)

• #1 currently gets 98% of attentions, but it should be closer to 50%.
• It is almost impossible to distinguish your company based solely on smarts.
• I’ve never found a company where the executives weren’t intelligent.
• In fact, they usually have more than enough domain knowledge and expertise.

2. Health (minimal politics, minimal confusion, high moral, high productivity, low turnover)

• These 5 things allow you to leverage the intelligence of your entire company. Not just it’s leaders.

4 Disciplines of Organizational Health

1. Build a Cohesive Leaderships Team

• Results
• Accountability
• Commitment
• Conflict
• Trust

2. Create Clarity

• Intellectually aligned
• Mission statements (most don’t work)
• 6 critical questions
• Why do we exist? (core purpose)
• How do we behave?
• What do we actually do?
• Who will we succeed?
• What is most important, right now? (rally cry)
• Who must do what?

If we can answer these 6 questions, we create clarity in our organizations. They pave the way for empowerment in its true sense of the word.

3. Over-Communicate Clarity

• If your staff can’t do a good imitation of you when you’re not around, you’re not communicating enough.
• Don’t be the husband that fails to tell his wife he loves her because, “I already told you that when we got married.”

4. Reinforce Clarity

• Corporate decisions should constantly enforce them.
• Don’t punish people for trying to carry these out.
• You can correct and redirect, but people shouldn’t be afraid to make decisions.
• Make hard decisions to let people go (employee or customer) if they aren’t a good fit.

A closer look at a few of these questions.

Why do we exist?

• Every org has to know why it is there. This can be different than what you do.
• Southwest: “Democratizing travel in America.” Human beings should be able to travel, even if they don’t have a lot of money.
• Defining this is more than just something you put on a wall or a t-shirt. It has to affect decisions.

How do we behave?

• Value statements are usually pretty generic, and cover just about everything.
• Need to get this down to the one or two (maybe 3) key things.
• Have to avoid confusing them with other values.
• Not aspirational values. One of Enron’s core values was integrity.
• A core value is something you are willing to stand up for even if you get punished (may not benefit you financially).
• Southwest’s value is sense of humor (“fun loving spirit”). When someone asks them to violate a core value, Southwest famously responded, “We’ll miss you.”
• Don’t sell your soul. One test is if you can make a desion based on a core value even if you know it won’t benefit you financially.
• Note: You can take a core value too far, but when this happens redirect rather than focus on harsh punishment.
• Not permission to play standards. These are minimum standards. If you’re going to work here, you should believe…, you shouldn’t cheat on your taxes, etc.

How will we succeed?

What is the most actionable definition of strategy? It is this: The myriad of intentional decision you make that give you a chance to succeed and differentiate you from your competitors. This then means that every decision you make can be viewed through this lens.

What are your 2-3 strategic anchors? 

One day organization health may be the standard. Until then, this is a huge opportunity for competitive advantage.

At The Global Leadership Summit, Jim Collins discussed the 3 behaviors you need in order to be great during chaos.

In October 1911, two teams of explorers set foot in Antarctica with the goal of being the first humans in history to reach the South Pole.

Robert Falcon Scott led the British expedition, and Roald Amundsen led the Norwegians. Both left the coast within days of each other. However, Amundsen reached the destination 34 days earlier than Scott and returned to the coast on the exact day that his team had penned in their journals before leaving. Scott and his team never made it back to the coast. Instead they all perished on their return trip from cold, exhaustion, and starvation.

So why do some enterprises survive and others don’t?
Why do some leaders prevail, while others fail to achieve greatness… or even fail outright?

The differences between the leadership behaviors of Amundsen and Scott map almost perfectly to the leadership that set apart the 10x companies (i.e., those that performed at levels at least 10 times better than their competitors in the most volatile industries).

There are 3 leadership behaviors you need when the world gets chaotic and unpredictable and things don’t go as planned.

1. Fanatic Discipline

Imagine you’re going to walk across the entire United States. One approach is to push hard when the conditions are good so that you can hunker down and wait out bad conditions.  The other option is to push 20 miles every day, regardless of the weather.

When things are bad: You press toward your goal regardless of how bad things get. 
When a severe blizzard hit both parties, Scott said, ”I doubt anyone could travel in these conditions.” Amundsen penned, ”It has been a hard day, but despite [hardship] we have advanced.”

When things are good: Don’t overextending yourself and make yourself vulnerable.
When nearing the pole, members of Amundsen’s team wanted to push hard to cover close to 40 miles in a single day. After all, they didn’t know if the other team was on the verge of beating them. Instead Amundsen marched 17 miles and rested for the day.

Casestudy: Southwest Airlines 

1. We will be profitable every year.
2. We will manage ourselves well.

In 1996, when they had 100 cities clamoring for their service, how many new cities did they open? Four. It was their 20 mile march. They didn’t want to over extend themselves.

What’s your 20 mile march?

2. Empirical Creativity

Discipline alone is not enough. We must also create. We must find new way of doing things. So how do these 10xers innovate and create differently?

Scott loved big disruptive technology. His team was going to cross Antarctica in big motor sledges, but they hadn’t been empirically tested and soon ended up with cracked engine blocks. So Scott moved to plan B – pack ponies. But sweating ponies became frozen ponies in the -30 degree temperatures and gail force winds. Plan C was using shoulder harnesses and man-hauling their sleds the equivalent distance of Chicago to NYC and back.

Amundsen, on the other hand also loved innovation and was constantly tinkering and testing. But when it came to the big risks, he relied on the tried and true. Before the expedition, he chose to live with Eskimos, who taught him not to use ponies but dogs which don’t sweat, can pad on top of the snow, and who work as teams. This was an empirically validated model, based on 100s of years of people that had known what they are doing.

Fire bullets before cannonballs. Fire enough little bullets to ensure that the angle and trajectory (plan) works before using up your remaining gun powder on a cannonball. The companies that didn’t make the 10x list had a tremendous pension for blowing large amounts of resources on large uncalibrated cannonballs.

Casestudy: Intel

Intel beat their competition 30:1 by innovating at a rate half that of their peers (based on the filing of new patents). This does not mean that they stopped innovating but that they did so at a steady rate (discipline) combined with empirically based innovation.

Creativity is not the hard part. Discipline is. Creativity is natural (just look at a 5 year old) disciple is not. Creativity is infinitely renewable, the questions is not how to be creative but how to get rid of the stuff that is in the way.

Marry discipline to creativity in a way that amplifies creativity rather than reducing it.

3. Productive Paranoia

You have to be optimistic to lead, but you also you have to be prepared to deal with things when they going wrong. The 10x companies had 3-10 times the ratio of cash to assets to others. They started this when they were young. They did not say that it is a luxury of size. They became big because they were like this.

Both Amundsen and Scott planned ahead by creating supply depots. Amundsen multiplied an adequate number by a factor of 3.  He also took the time to create 10km signal lines of each side of the supply depots as buffers incase they got caught in a blizzard.

It is what you do before you’re in trouble. It is how you manage with disciple in good times, so that you can be strong when people most need you.

SMaC Recipe

Your decisions and actions should not be random, but based on empirical validation of what actually works and why.

Every church should had each SMaC (Specific, Methodical and Consistent) recipe and the discipline to follow it. Yet you should maintain a healthy level of paranoia that it might not work anymore in the near future. This causes you to simultaneously working to empirically innovate (slow), preserving the core (principles, values, etc.) while also stimulating progress.

And when bad things happen, you should take the time to zoom out to figure how to get the most out of the experience (good or bad).