Systems-Sensitive Leadership: Empowering Diversity Without Polarizing the Church

Michael C. Armour, Ph.D. and Don Browning

Change and Complexity

Back in my days at Parsons Technology, especially when Bob Parsons was still there, one of my favorite sayings about us -- because of the paradox it invoked -- was "Change is the status quo." We've gotten to the point in our industry and (perhaps more importantly) in our society where we expect change. Change is so common that it becomes the constant.

Our parents' and grandparents' generation might have said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." But the problem with today's changes is that they don't just affect how we do things, they affect what we do. So today, the more things change, the more things change!

Consider the Internet. The Internet didn't just change how we communicate with each other (which it did in a big way) but it changed what we do. Now the World Wide Web is supplanting television as a leisure time activity. Laridian, the company I formed to market PalmBible, is completely "virtual." Employees work from home or from distant offices and communicate through a global network of text, audio and video links. Our sales floor is our web site.

Changes in society affect how people think about themselves. Change adds complexity, and complexity "breaks" models of reality. An isolated South American tribe who is exposed to air travel or television can find nothing in its model of reality to explain what these things are or how they work. Such exposure would force the tribe to make a giant shift in the way it looks at the world, or else stubbornly hold on to a model that no longer fits what it knows to be the facts.

Conflicted Christians

Christians face changing perceptions of reality as they explore the limits of their understanding of God, of the Bible, of the church and of themselves. A Christian in a church that teaches strict obedience to a set of prescribed behaviors can be comfortable knowing that those rules come from the Bible and that his leaders understand and teach exactly what the Bible says. But what happens when this Christian begins to ask, "Why do we believe or practice the way we do?" While most of the time this question can be answered to his satisfaction, sometimes it can not. When this happens, our Christian friend faces the challenge of changing his model or living in a conflicted state.

For example, typical fundamentalist worship centers around a sermon based on a biblical text. The singing, prayers and other aspects of the service all lead up to the sermon, which culminates in a "call to action" or "invitation" (at least in North America) during which members of the congregation either come to the front of the sanctuary/auditorium to make a public commitment based on the sermon, or make a similar decision in their seats.

But why do we do it that way? Centering around the sermon certainly is consistent with the predominant thinking system among (especially) fundamentalists who put great importance on right doctrine. But nothing in the Bible indicates this is the right or only way to conduct a worship service.

Some people find this form of worship very fulfilling. But others want more opportunities to share their feelings and build a sense of community. They want to reach out to those who are hurting and show the compassion that Christ taught. Sitting around listening to a long sermon doesn't touch these people at all. Yet they're no less Christian than those who prefer this modality..

Others don't mind the teaching, but want it to be a two-way street. They want to be able to ask questions, give their own opinions, and even consider points of view that some in the congregation would consider heresy. It's not that they're abandoning the faith; they just want to explore all the possibilities (it helps them solidify their understanding of the truth). The lecture-style worship service doesn't really meet their needs. Especially if the sermon time is long and if the same subject is covered over a long period of time (i.e. "For the next year, we're going to be digging into the book of Jude." While some find this no problem at all, others find it useless.).

"Thinking Systems"

Armour and Browning examine dominant thinking systems within groups and within individuals and discuss how to deal with diverse thinking systems within one congregation without splitting the church. They identify eight "systems" (or loosely, ways of looking at the world) that interplay within the congregation. Their systems are based on the work of Abraham Maslow (remember his "needs hierarchy" from psychology class?) and Dr. Clare Graves.

The authors reject the temptation to name the systems, since limiting each to a one- or two-word name would unnecessarily pigeon-hole it. But once you get through a few chapters and get used to the "System 1" through "System 8" nomenclature it becomes very natural.

Briefly, societies, organization and individuals can be described in terms of their dominant system. They may exhibit characteristics of more than one system in various aspects of their lives (home, church, work, etc.). Similarly, churches may exhibit more than one system in various ministries (teaching [a System 4 activity], evangelism [also System 4], outreach [usually System 6], competitive youth activities [System 3], etc.).

Again in brief, the eight systems can be loosely described by what motivates people in each system:

System 1: Physical survival is the only thing that's important.

System 2: Personal safety in a world of unseen forces. Forms tribes generally around family relationships. God(s) is(are) close at hand in the workings of everyday life.

System 3: Physical safety in a world of hostile human forces. Builds hierarchical organizational structure to defend and conquer. God is a powerful being who defends our causes.

System 4: Moral and social stability in a world given to impulsive behavior. Makes rules, builds governments with clear lines of authority. God is the author of truth. Respect for the Bible.

System 5: Personal achievement apart from demands for conformity by the world around. Goal-oriented, builds organizations that are judged on their ability to make and achieve goals. Looks to God as personal friend and guide; emphasis on a personal walk with the Lord. Develops spiritual gifts.

System 6: Building bonds of intimacy and mutual support in a world that alienates people from each other. Works in small groups where each individual has a say, and decisions are made by consensus. Seeks God as a healer and reconciler. Needs worship that touches feelings and causes people to be introspective resulting in compassion.

System 7: Being flexible enough to consider solutions that are diverse and complex in the face of a world in which rigid viewpoints promote warring camps. Creates flexible organizations that can be re-structured and re-deployed to meet ever-changing needs. Sees God as the great integrator who brings all things together into a functioning whole. Seeks unity in diversity.

System 8: Seeing all life as connected and the need to create equal access to limited resources on a fragile planet. Brings diverse elements together to solve global problems. Highly metaphysical in its approach to God.

Great in theory, but...

It is difficult to comment on the applicability of the premise of the book without you having read it. I could see the reasonableness of the theory presented, though I contest whether "System 8" is a true "next step" or if it is System 6 with a global perspective and an environmentalist political viewpoint.

In fact, my one criticism of the book is that it ties too much white male western culture into the descriptions of the Systems. I've tried to eliminate some of that in my descriptions above. For example, the authors describe System 5 in truly materialistic terms, when it's clear that the thinking system behind System 5 is not necessarily driven by greed but by personal achievement.

Each thinking system has its positive and negative aspects. System 4 builds stable governments where System 3 has conquered peoples. System 5 adds a thriving economy and System 6 human compassion to System 4's impersonal, rule-based governing style.

At the same time, System 4 achieves its goals through guilt and intimidation. System 5 can become greedy and materialistic. System 6 can be so concerned with getting everyone's opinion that it can no longer function.

As applied to the church, the theory helps leaders understand why some people insist on contemporary music and a "praise" format and others want lecture-based teaching with a strong biblical basis. It helps them see the need to create an environment in which people holding to all of the thinking systems can cooperate to carry the ministry forward.

And it helps people like me understand why I sometimes feel very different from the congregation with which I worship. You may find it equally insightful.