Affirmative Action

In a leadership class I took for my Master's of Divinity degree, we used a book entitled "Leadership: Theory and Practice" by Peter Northouse. Based upon its price on Amazon, I would guess that it's a typical textbook for business classes, describing varying approaches and models of leadership.

One of the chapters towards the end of the book is all about women and leadership. As I read through the chapter, my mind constantly wandered to what I really think about this topic. It's somewhat of a volatile issue to me and has the potential for getting people on both sides of a debate fairly worked up.

I was raised with a mom who was very much the typical 1950's mom. Her family was the most important thing in the world and she did whatever she could to ensure that the kids would be all right and Dad could keep working. She eventually went to work in the public school system as a teacher's aide for over 20 years, but she never really outgrew the gender roles that had been defined by her in her past. I certainly would not consider to have been a "doormat." She had a voice and was willing to allow it to be heard, but she had some strong opinions about the role of women in leadership.

As I began to explore options other than the ones that my parents had conveyed to me, my parents and I developed a healthy and loving debate over the issue of women in leadership, primarily when it came to the church. My parents adhered to the "women should be silent in church" mentality, believing that men should hold the primary roles of leadership within the church. While all of this deeply impacted my ideology and thinking, it certainly did not cause me to make decisions without having thought them through myself.

When I left my engineering career to follow after God's call on my life and enter into full-time vocational ministry, I served in a church where this was not an issue. Their ideology was much the same as that of my parents: women had no real place in the leadership of the church other than as Sunday school teachers and nursery workers. It was during this time that I really began to ask myself some questions that began to get me into hot water. The ironic thing is that I had not even formulated an opinion, I was simply asking the questions.

Now, I've always been one to play the devil's advocate. It's part of my personality. If controversy doesn't exist, I may be the one to create some just to liven things up a little bit. After all, who doesn't enjoy some good old fashioned passionate debates once in a while? Friends have referred to it as the social equivalent of throwing a grenade into a crowded building. While that might be a little extreme, I can't deny that I have, on more than one occasion, thrown the figurative "grenade" into a crowd and sat back to watch and enjoy the chaos that ensued. I started this in high school and haven't really stopped since. After a personality analysis, I was labeled a stabilizer/de-stabilizer. Can you guess which one I tend towards?

Anyway, as I moved through high school and then college, the time grew nearer to when I would need to look for a full-time job. As that time approached, I began to realize that I fell into a difficult place as an educated white, protestant male. Unlike today, there were more jobs out there, but there was this thing called affirmative action and equal opportunity that mandated a certain number of positions to those who were considered minorities.

I eventually got a job and the idea fell out of my conscious mind because it just wasn't something that I faced on a regular basis. Recently, it has surfaced again, in no small part due to this leadership class. At the same time, it has been a hot button topic for many of the denominations in whose circles I run.

A while back, I read a book by Malcolm Gladwell called "Blink." I blogged about it not too long ago here, so you can read what I wrote. Many of the stories within the book fascinated me, but one that stood out to me above the others was about a woman who had become a member of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra as a trombonist. Auditions were held behind screens and the members of the committee who selected the musicians were shocked and astounded when they realized that they had selected a female. They thought that there had been some mistake, but the screen had forced them to listen with their ears rather than their eyes.

As I read the story, I was intrigued to think about what the equivalent of a screen might be when it came to jobs. How could a search process be done with applicants "behind a screen?" Was it possible for people to analyze applicants for a position based upon the things that matter rather than the things that don't? Wouldn't that be so much more effective than mandating the number of positions required to be filled by females or certain ethnicities? But how could it be done?

I used to argue with a pastor who I worked with that morality could not be legislated. We both came down on different sides of that argument and finally agreed to disagree. When we attempt to legislate morality, people may have a tendency to resent that morality and all who subscribe to it. In the same way, when we legislate who should be hired, do we not endanger ourselves from doing the same thing? But what is the alternative?

As I mentioned before, I have never fallen into the category of a minority, though I someday may. If I did, I would much rather know that I had gotten a job because I was the best person for the job, not because someone had to fill a quota. I would much rather know that out of all of the qualified candidates out there, I was the one that was chosen because someone thought that I was the best person for the job.

As I think through this, I can't help but think about Jesus' approach towards people. He broke cultural and gender barriers, which were a bigger deal during his time than they are for us now. He saw past the stereotypes and saw the value of the underlying human being. Legislate it or not, the only way that we can even come close to "behind the screen" decisions is to allow ourselves to be changed to be more like Jesus. If we want to see things less tainted and skewed, we need to exchange our view for the view that Jesus has.

I certainly haven't figured this all out, and I am not so sure that I ever will. I do know that I always want to be in a place where I am working with people who are there because they are the best people for the job that they are doing. I can only hope and pray that my eyes might see more the way that Christ sees than the way that my flawed and sinful self sees. When I begin to see as Christ does, I will begin to impact the world in much the same way that Christ did and still does.

Postscript:
It's been pointed out to me that this is an oversimplification of the concept of affirmative action, and I am beginning to understand that more and more.  There have been major injustices done in our country that we are still trying to live down and make right.  Unfortunately, it's not an overnight event to right these wrongs, but a process and I believe that affirmative action can be helpful for us to rethink the way that we have made decisions in the past.  While an oversimplification and extreme approach to it could suggest filling a quota, the broader sweeping view of it is that it keeps us in check and helps to prevent us from making some of the major mistakes that we have made in the past.

This post is really addressing the extreme view of it and a desire to see people be given a chance because we look past color of skin, gender, physical limitations, etc. and look to abilities, skills, talents, and qualifications.  We could all use a "screen" sometimes when we make decisions as our own preconceived notions and assumptions color our view of situations and people.  May we all work towards looking at people as creatures made in the image of God.  That alone will add value to everyone we look at, seeing them as God sees them.

Vision and Preference

I've heard it said before that the church is the only organization that exists for the benefit of those who aren't yet members.  Somehow, that idea doesn't translate really well to those within the church.  We find ourselves seeking our own preferences or looking for some piece of nostalgia from our childhood or church upbringing.  When we do this, whether we want to admit it or not, we might be unintentionally interpreted as saying, "I don't particularly care what you do or don't like, as long as I get what I like, we're fine."

While those are most likely not our intentions, when we seek our own preferences in style and programs within the church, are we leaving room for those who come in who have never experienced any of it before?  What are the elements that are inviting and winsome to those who come in off the street?  This is shaky ground as we could easily get the cart before the horse by either allowing visitors to drive what we do in our worship to God and thus ostracizing members or by allowing tradition only to drive our worship to God and thus ostracizing visitors.

So, what's the right answer?  Is it possible to coexist together?  What's the purpose of Sunday morning or corporate worship times?  It needs to be about Jesus first, and all other things take second chair to that.

I've always said that it's much harder to introduce this concept in an established church versus a church plant.  Why?  Because it's very difficult to introduce this concept to people who have been used to their own preferences for so long.  It's not easy.......but it's possible.

One key ingredient in the path forward is vision.  If we do not have a clear vision of the path ahead, we will not have a clear approach in how we get there.  This doesn't mean that things can't change at all, but a clear and focused vision will be the lens through which we look at everything.  If that lens is dirty or distorted, we'll be bumping into things, tripping over things, or just going the wrong way.

A friend and colleague who has planted a church speaks of "vision wranglers."  These are the people who attempt to hijack the vision to meet their own desires and preferences rather than following the clear vision that God has given us.  Anywhere that vision exists, there will be vision wranglers.  They will always be the loudest voices as they are doing their best to get what they want at the expense of everyone else.  Vision wranglers seek the comfort and safety of the familiar at the expense of new thoughts and ideas at best, and those people whom the church is trying to reach at worst.

Having been in the area of worship and arts within the church for over 20 years, I've had a closer glimpse at this than most people.  I can't think of an area where vision wranglers show their faces more so than in the area of music and arts.  Music and the arts evoke such powerful passion and emotion from people that it's hard to hear objectivity in the midst of it all.  When these passions emerge, people hardly ever choose to remain silent.

I remember watching a video from a church out in Colorado who has a fairly dynamic music program, what most people would call "contemporary."  During this video, they interviewed a senior adult member of the congregation.  She had been in the church for a number of years and at first, she wasn't crazy about the style of music.  But after a while, she began to really pay attention to the words of the songs and observe how the music was speaking to the people around her.  Once she realized the impact that the music was making, she didn't really care so much that her preference wasn't being met, she was more concerned with the fact that people were connecting with God on a personal level.  In her mind, her own personal preferences came second to that.

We all need to be careful that in an effort to preserve the heritage and traditions of the faith we don't lift up that heritage and those traditions to the status of idols.  I have seen it happen before where churches have become idolaters of good things, just because it's good doesn't mean that it can't be worshiped and elevated to a level where it doesn't belong.

I'm all for the preservation of history and traditions for if we fail to learn from the past, we will be guilty of duplicating its mistakes.  My one desire has always been intentionality and purposefulness.  Placing importance on things and forcing them to be part of what we do in corporate worship is the religious equivalent of affirmative action.  I am sure that the people behind affirmative action had good intentions and in no way meant for it to have devolved into what it has become today.  Instead, it has become a mandate for placing people into positions because of limitations rather than qualifications.  By mandating certain elements in corporate worship, we miss the opportunity for those elements to speak for themselves or to value their meaning because we have simply seen them as important or necessary.

Again, vision is everything.  If we fail to lay out vision, we fail to find a good route to get to where we're going.  Sometimes that's kind of fun, if we've got lots of time to kill or if we are trying to find new things to discover, but most of the time, we want to be intentional and purposeful in our movement forward.  I need to be fully aware of the potential for my own preferences to cloud my vision.  If I lay out a vision, I need to share it with others, have them give constructive criticism, and determine if it is indeed the best route through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Once that vision is established, sharing it with others is important for the sake of accountability.

It's easy to create vision on our own but much more difficult to allow the Holy Spirit to birth that vision in us.  It takes time and deliberateness.  We can easily "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and lose pieces that are not only historical but beneficial.  At the same time, we can allow vision to be created based upon preference, elevating that preference to mandate and even doctrine.  There are dangers on all sides which should cause us to seek humility and discernment in the process.  Vision and preference are not mutually exclusive, but they don't necessarily coexist within the same space either.

Without vision the people perish, with cloudy vision, they might get into a terrible wreck.  Forward movement will be determined by the vision, before you go too far, you had better make sure that it's as clear as possible, after all, objects in the rearview mirror are closer than they appear.