You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Powerboat / sailboat paradigm’ category.
I met Anna Marie Brucker recently at the Engage consultation in Chicago. She has written on a new model for missions funding that I believe has much promise, and have engaged in a forum she has initiated on the topic. Recently she sent the link to a devotional she wrote in March that speaks to the sailboat metaphor, and is included here in case you wish to read it.
I also recommend you check out the discussion in her Basecamp web site:
https://mutualfunmodelmissions.basecamphq.com
Alex Araujo
In the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine is a most compelling article: “The Black Swan of Cairo: How Suppressing Volatility Makes the World Less Predictable and More Dangerous,” by By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Blyth.
The beginning of this article reads as follows:
Why is surprise the permanent condition of the U.S. political and economic elite? In 2007-8, when the global financial system imploded, the cry that no one could have seen this coming was heard everywhere, despite the existence of numerous analyses showing that a crisis was unavoidable. It is no surprise that one hears precisely the same response today regarding the current turmoil in the Middle East. The critical issue in both cases is the artificial suppression of volatility — the ups and downs of life — in the name of stability. It is both misguided and dangerous to push unobserved risks further into the statistical tails of the probability distribution of outcomes and allow these high-impact, low-probability “tail risks” to disappear from policymakers’ fields of observation. What the world is witnessing in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya is simply what happens when highly constrained systems explode.
Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. In fact, they tend to be too calm and exhibit minimal variability as silent risks accumulate beneath the surface. Although the stated intention of political leaders and economic policymakers is to stabilize the system by inhibiting fluctuations, the result tends to be the opposite. These artificially constrained systems become prone to “Black Swans” — that is, they become extremely vulnerable to large-scale events that lie far from the statistical norm and were largely unpredictable to a given set of observers.
Such environments eventually experience massive blowups, catching everyone off-guard and undoing years of stability or, in some cases, ending up far worse than they were in their initial volatile state. Indeed, the longer it takes for the blowup to occur, the worse the resulting harm in both economic and political systems.
As I read this article, I was thinking a lot about the sailboat paradigm and cross-cultural partnerships in the global Body of Christ. There must be some overlaps, some lessons for for followers of Christ, I mused. Here are a few thoughts that attempt to describe some of those overlaps:
1) The article claims that the practice of artificially creating stability, hiding the risks, suppressing volatility in the geopolitical realm ends up creating greater risk and significantly more danger.
Likewise, Christians in cross-cultural partnerships sometimes try to create artificial stability by rigid systems that do not account for the vulnerabilities that exist in the majority world. They often end up with more risk, not less … greater disappointment, and greater potential for broken relationships.
2) In the geopolitical realm, the need for predictability is tantamount to the need for control.
Likewise, western Christian partners sometimes live out this bias for control and end up feeling “burned” when things end in disappointment or failure; they may assume the partnership failed because they could not control it. But the answer is not in having greater control, but in submitting ourselves to, and cooperating with, the sovereign Lord, the Wind of the Holy Spirit, who sees the end from the beginning and is Lord of all members of the partnership.
3) “Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. In fact, they tend to be too calm and exhibit minimal variability as silent risks accumulate beneath the surface.”
Likewise, cross-cultural partnership practitioners should recognize that our efforts in Christian cross-cultural collaboration are truly complex systems with many silent risks. This should increase our dependence on God, motivate us to improve our cross-cultural relationship-building skills, and make us more open to honest critique that exposes the hidden risks. A non-defensive openness to critique, though rare, can be our privilege as we sail together inside of that realm we call the grace of God.
I have heard from expert sailors that the silent risks inherent in sailing are enormous. For example, the tides and currents which vary by the season … the weather which can change silently, abruptly … these are two that come to mind.
To artificially suppress the knowledge of the volatility of the currents or the weather would be unthinkable to a wise and experienced sailor. Rather, the expert sailor is bluntly honest, profoundly humble, alert and wise about all of the risks—and able to navigate an incredibly complex system in cooperation with the wind.
Expert sailing is required in volatile times.
SAILING CLOSE TO THE WIND
A response to Roger Parrott and Alex Araujo from Mark Oxbrow
As someone who listened to Roger opening the Lausanne Forum in Pattaya in 2004, although there I was part of a different issue group on Partnership and Collaboration, and then having the privilege in 2008 of being in the ‘Global Dialogue’ group at the WEA Mission Commission when Alex made his presentation, I have been prompted to make the following observations.
A word first on perspectives. I write as a British Christian who was brought to faith by an Ethiopian many years ago. Having worked for twenty years as a director of one of the most traditional mission agencies (CMS in the UK) I now have the privilege of coordinating a small network of mission agencies that come out of five different continents and several different Christian traditions. What I write now can only come out of that background.
Beginning with Brendan
Saint Brendan of Clonfert (c.484 – c.577), called “the Navigator” or “the Voyager” was one of the early Irish monks best known for his legendary quest for the “Isle of the Blessed”, taking dozens of his monks onto the Atlantic ocean in small corricles with the smallest of sails – totally at the mercy of God. Traditionally this was his prayer:
Whatever we make of these early Christian traditions, Brendan’s prayer strikes me as an excellent guide for all who set out in mission placing themselves at the ‘mercy’ of the wind of God. I have special reason to be grateful to Brendon and his monks as they brought the gospel to northern Britain many years before the better known St. Augustine landed in my home country!
Power dynamics
As most of us agreed in Pattaya, I find the comparison of power boats and sail boats, used by Roger and Alex very helpful, and I’m not sure how well many have listened to the strong challenge Roger gave us almost five years ago. I still see a lot of new power boats being built and others being patched up, refuelled, and polished. I also see many many sail boats, some of them as small and fragile as Brendan’s coracle, being set adrift in choppy water. The risk is that some of our power boats are so noisy and create such a splash that we will not see the sail boats and risk running right over them.
Years ago I was a sailing instructor myself and I used to love showing young people how much power there is unseen ‘in the air’ even on a day which doesn’t feel windy. But without a sail you cannot ‘see’ that power and so it is not surprising that so many people choose the power boat option.
I am not so certain as Alex (at least appears to be) that the power boat paradigm is exclusive to the Global North, nor that we find no sail boats in the North. In very general terms there may be some truth in this but I have seen quite a few power boats cruising across Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as some very fragile missionary sail boats in the very choppy waters of post-Christendom, secularised Europe. I think the issue of ‘alternative energy’ – seeing the wind and learning how to accept His power – is a critical one for all of us. In a paper which Duncan Olumbe (of Mission Together Africa) contributed to Connections some time back, called Dancing a Different Dance, he issued a strong warning to Global South leaders not to copy the ‘dance of the North’; and we Northerners have to be honest and admit that it can be quite flattering when Southern Christians imitate and adopt our (deeply flawed) methodologies. Being imitated empowers the one who is copied!
Almost all directions are possible!
Roger admits in his address that he is not a sailor and so I do not hesitate to correct him! Discussing his first benchmark on ‘unwavering trust’ he suggests that “you only go where the wind allows you to go”. In a literal sense this is true but in fact, at least in a modern sail boat, you can travel in almost every direction as shown here. (The only way you cannot go is directly into the wind.) This ‘all directions are possible’ insight helps me to see that the relationship I have with the ‘wind of God’ is far more dynamic than just being blown about (as might have happened to Brendan’s monks). In other words I have the capacity to use the power of the wind to reach a range of destinations which I can choose. I think what this means for mission is that we need to have an attitude of ‘working with’ the wind of God rather than being simply ‘blown along by’ that wind. But I also believe that the direction of the wind also normally indicates the direction we are most likely to be called to adopt.
Another interesting thing about sailing is that ‘close hauled’ on a tack heading almost directly ‘against’ the wind is when you feel you are going fastest – the boat is heeled over, everything is taught and the water rushes past noisily. In fact you are making very little progress. When you are ‘running’ with the wind everything is peaceful, the boat is upright and the water is silent and it can feel as if you are hardly moving at all. In fact this is the fastest direction of travel. The lessons for mission are, I suspect, obvious.
One final sailing lesson – the jibe! When you are ‘running’ with the wind and everything is at its most peaceful you are at the greatest risk of breaking the mast (and your neck if it gets in the way). A slight change in the wind can bring the boom (at the base of the sail) crashing through 180 degrees from one side of the boat to the other. A jibe, uncontrolled by a watchful sailor who instantly hauls in the ropes, can snap the strongest mast. How many of us have also experienced this lesson in mission – powering along with the wind behind us, God’s blessing full in our sails, and then suddenly ……… !
Fleet Sailing
It strikes me that the questions we really need to address in our Global Dialogue are about fleet sailing, something not unfamiliar to Jesus on Lake Galilee where we learn it was not uncommon for one boat to call to another for assistance. We might also want to address the question of mixed fleets – power and sail. I propose to do this by now returning to the five issue groupings that Paul helped us to identify towards the end of our time together in Pattaya and which form the basis of our group report. In the second part of this paper I also want to be more practical in addressing possible ways forward.
1. Personal Issues
I would suggest that we might want to rename this section ‘Cross-Cultural discipleship’ (as I saw it helpfully recently, ‘Cross-culture discipleship’). For me the key point here is the fifth bullet point, “Deepening a Biblical understanding of ethnicity, race, unity and diversity”, especially unity and diversity.
As an Evangelical I can say that we Evangelicals often have a real problem with diversity and hence with unity. If there is the slightest tension over theology (or more often personality!) we plant a new church! We need to take seriously the fact that (a) the God whom we worship maintains perfect unity whilst finding expression through the dynamic relationship of three distinct persons; and (b) humanity from the start knew division between husband and wife (as Adam accused Eve) and hunter and cultivator (when Cain murdered Abel); yet our destiny is to be united – every tribe, nation and tongue – around the throne of God (Revelation).
Miroslav Volf once said provocatively, “When I stand lost in worship before the throne of His grace, I will not notice whether the hands I hold are black or white, leprous or manicured, or belong to a gay man or my worst enemy”. Worship makes us blind to difference. The deeper point of Revelation, as emphasised by Andrew Walls, is, however, that for the worship of God to be complete it is required that all nations, tribes and tongues be there. Our worship of God is not complete without all these others.
So how do we move forward on this practically? As a start I have found Duane Elmer’s book Cross-cultural servanthood helpful. Relationships are key here and for them there is no ‘quick fix’. I have learnt how to relate cross-culturally not just from books but from the ‘school of mistakes’ in which gracious sisters and brothers have offered me their forgiveness and a hand of fellowship. One thing we can all do is to help others in our ministries and churches to build these difficult relationships, to make mistakes, and to put on the bandages and press on. In our discussions we mentioned some of the key things here:
• Trust
• Humility
• Realistic expectations
• Transparency
• Identity in Christ (not ethne)
• Security in Christ
• Openness and risk taking
• Reflecting on my own culture
I wonder whether there are a few ways in which we could begin to sponsor personnel exchanges between our churches and agencies/networks which would help to build these stronger relationships.
2. Issues within our different North/South communities
One issue we can work on here, and join others who are already working, is to redress the balance in mission biography. We all know that ‘stories’, and especially the stories of how God has used others in mission, act as major motivators for new generations. Those stories also shape our missionary paradigms.
As I travel around the world I am not too surprised to find British Christians still reading the stories of David Livingstone, and Americans who are motivated by reading Jungle Pilot (the biography of Nate Saint), but what does worry me is the fact that African and Asian Christians are often reading the same stories. Of course the stories (witness) of African, Asian and Latin American missionaries, of past centuries and this, are equally powerful and motivating and, more importantly, would shape different missionary paradigms, but they are not told often enough.
Publications like the Dictionary of African Christian biography are beginning to address this need but much more needs to be done – especially in turning these biographies into African/Asia/L.American missionary paradigms which can be practically adopted in the appropriate parts of the world. (To hold on to our earlier analogy this is about making sure we do not try to sail up narrow river creeks with ocean going catamarans.)
Another issue here, which received a lot of attention in Pattaya, is our own attitudes to financial resources. I am becoming more and more convinced that we get into problems over finances when we relate to each other because we struggle with how to use money as a Christian within our own culture. It’s an age old problem – why did Jesus talk more about money than sex? If I always use the word ‘poor’ to refer to my financial condition rather than by family relations, health or spiritual state then my view of whether my Asian sister is ‘wealthy’ or ‘poor’ is always going to be distorted. Can we as a group work on a biblical (missional?) understanding of wealth and wealth sharing?
3. Issues Concerning active collaboration
I will keep this section short because it is the one I am tempted to write most on – it is my day-to-day work as the coordinator of an international multi-cultural, multi-denominational network and I could write books, not paragraphs, on this one. Thankfully I don’t need to write the books because others have done it. Two I commend are Phill Butler’s Well Connected and Lianne Roembke’s Building Credible Multicultural Teams. I am aware that one of these books is by an American and the other by a European – what are Asians, Africans and Latin Americans writing on this topic?
Of key important here I would list:
• Trust building
• Trust maintenance
• Trust restoration
• Shared discipleship (esp. prayer)
• Shared expectations
• Transparency – about power & money
• Achievable objectives
• Care with language
• Celebrating others’ achievements
• Understanding leadership models
• Evaluate competition
• Be generous with time
There are a lot of resources out there to help us with these issues (PowerofConnecting, VisionSynergy, etc.) and we need to make good use of these without trying to reinvent the wheel.
4. Contextual Issues
Again a lot of work is taking place in this area but sadly Evangelicals are not always as ready, and Biblically equipped, to address these issues as some of our Liberal colleagues who rapidly get lost in syncretism, and plain woolly thinking!
There is much hermeneutical work to be done here and it will often be best done by the ‘serving missionary’ than by the academic who only visits or learns second-hand. An issue for us as churches and missions is whether we are so ‘activist’ and so focused on ‘getting the task done’ that we fail to give some of our best missionaries the encouragement, space, time and resources to do deeply Biblical contextual reflection on the mission issues they face. I have met too many retired missionaries who have finally got round to some reflection and who say, “If only I had taken a year out to do this thirty years ago.”
It was in this section that the Pattaya group picked up on the issue of ‘informal’ or ‘non-intentional’ missionaries. My hero Rowland Allen of course wrote on the ‘de-professionalisation’ of the ministry (including missionary work) a century ago but we still have a lot to learn. I have a small contribution on this issue in my article in the January edition of Lausanne World Pulse.
5. Training Issues
As a former sailing instructor (much out of practice now) I know the key importance of training. (I was horrified to hear Roger Parrott say he took his wife on the ocean with no instruction at all!) All training must be appropriate to the context, the student and the trainer and must contain an element of ‘life-long-learning’.
I have been privileged to work a little in recent years with secular trainers in the UK who adopt a ‘systemics’ approach to learning and talk a lot about the ‘learning company’ or the ‘learning hospital’. There is not space to go in to all of that now but I have been helped by their thesis that each of us constructs meaning out of every event, every human interaction, and that these meanings then begin to build up into a whole system of meaning which eventual, shapes the way we act and relate. These meaning may not be ‘true’ but they become true for us and exert their power on us.
If I can try to illustrate this from our context ………
Reuben does not respond when I send him this document, although I see he replied to Russ and Alex. Meaning Reuben is not interested in what I have to say. (Not true – he was just busy, but I construct another meaning!) Reuben proposes a tele-conference call and then chooses a date when I am not free. Meaning Reuben really doesn’t value my input. (Not true – it just happened to be the date most people could make, but my earlier experience reinforces my constructed meaning.)
After that call Russ sends me an email which thanks me for my contribution but disagrees with one point in my document. Meaning, ‘they’ probably talked ‘about’ me on the tele-conference call and decided they didn’t really want me in the group. (Not true, but that’s my meaning.) Result – I act on the meaning I have made and withdraw from the group.
These challenges of confused meaning are even greater across cultural divides. Mary of the solution is a commitment to processes of corporate meaning making, learning from each other, review and reflection.
I wonder whether we can in some way begin to build these concepts of corporate meaning making and living as a ‘learning mission community’ in to our interactions as a global community of churches and agencies/movements in mission?
Mark Oxbrow
February 2009
Note: This is a revision of the posting by Jon Lewis and Werner Mischke on February 9, 2010.
A PDF of this article may be downloaded by clicking here.
After a recent discussion here at our Partners International office about the Sailboat-Powerboat metaphor, I came away with a troubled feeling about how this illustration is being understood. My sense was that different people are interpreting the metaphor from different contexts leading to misunderstanding of each other’s points of view.
It is sometimes argued that the sailboat paradigm is clearly the “right” perspective and the powerboat the “wrong” one—a “right/wrong” view. I propose that in taking a “right/wrong” view one is thinking of the metaphor exclusively in terms of the spiritual dimension—relating to the degree of one’s dependence versus independence toward God—and emphasizing that dependence on God is healthy, biblical—right.
Could it be there is also a “both-and” view—with which to recognize the spiritual, and additionally, the cultural dimension, of the powerboat/sailboat metaphor? Could it be that a multi-dimensional perspective enhances the metaphor’s clarity and usability?
While I appreciate and respect the vital spiritual context of the powerboat/sailboat metaphor, I also understand the metaphor from a cultural context. For example, I view the powerboat and sailboat paradigms as primary features, respectively, of the cultures of the Global North (the West) and the Global South (non-West.) Generally speaking, the Global North has a culture that is more task-oriented, more “powerboat” in its cultural expression—while the Global South is more relationship-oriented, more “sailboat” in its cultural expression. Moreover, I believe Christians possessing either cultural style can be healthy and biblical.
In looking back over the various blogs and conversations on this metaphor, it appears to me that many others have been mixing these two different contexts—spiritual and cultural. The result is that there has been an overall “muddiness” to the discussion about the metaphor, leading some to question if the metaphor is useful at all.
My proposition is that both the spiritual and the cultural aspects of the powerboat/sailboat metaphor have validity, but they must be separated in order to understand the metaphor’s pragmatic value to cross-cultural partnership ministry. When these continuums—spiritual and cultural—are separated, I propose that the cultural continuum is morally neutral while the spiritual continuum is not morally neutral. This is represented by the diagram below:
The powerboat-sailboat continuum—viewed culturally—is morally neutral. The powerboat-sailboat continuum—viewed spiritually—is not morally neutral.
Having defined two different continuums, I suggest we think about them as two interrelated dimensions. To illustrate this, let’s put them both into a two-dimensional diagram with the cultural continuum on the vertical axis and the spiritual continuum on the horizontal axis (as shown below). This allows us to discuss some practical implications. Here is my attempt at that—with the caveat that these are extremely broad generalizations.
ASSUMPTIONS
- The Global North has a cultural style and worldview that is somewhere in Quadrant I. Our “rugged individualism” hinders us from living in dependence on God’s Spirit day-by-day—while our industrial/technology heritage enhances our ability to control outcomes and accomplish more through a “task-oriented” approach to life and problem solving. I‘ll label the typical starting position on the chart for the Global North as “N1.”
- The Global South has much more of a relational cultural style and worldview. They experience more vulnerability and embrace flexibility due to circumstances and situations over which they have little or no control. Therefore, their relational approach to life and problem solving puts them in the lower half of the chart. However, Global South people can also tend toward independence from God, though probably differently and not to the same extent as those of us in the Global North. I’ll label this starting point in Quadrant III for the Global South as “S1.”
- The Global North has a need to learn greater dependence on God’s Spirit as opposed to using self or secular management approaches to determining Truth. Therefore, in general, it has a need of moving rightwards on the chart. It also has a need to be much more sensitive to relationships and not always so intensely goal- and task-oriented. So it also could use moving downward on the chart as well. However, the Global North has a huge and rich heritage of learning how to get things done, so I think it would be wrong for it to totally give up its understanding of strategic planning, etc., and demand that it live only in a Quadrant IV worldview. I suggest a good ending point for the Global North would be the lower part of Quadrant II—“N2.”
- The Global South also has need of learning greater dependence on God’s Spirit as a primary guiding force. It, too, can use movement to the right on the chart. It could also benefit greatly from learning something about the Global North’s experience in management practices and goal orientation. Therefore some upward movement is also appropriate. Its ending point could then be in the upper part of Quadrant IV—“S2.”
CONCLUSION
My conclusion is that the new positions of N2 and S2 now describe a position for truly healthy cross-cultural partnerships. By both being sensitive to God’s Spirit (the same Spirit for each!) and both bringing to the table the value of their heritage cultural styles, (task- and relationship-orientation, respectively), there is the potential for new synergy that can produce greater effectiveness. It is from this position of N2 that I would hope Partners International is interacting and working together with its ministry partners from the Global South who, in turn, have learned from our partnership, how to end up at S2.
My hope is that by combining both the cultural and spiritual dimensions of the sailboat/powerboat metaphor in this manner, we can clarify our dialog and extract a richer understanding from it—to configure our global partnerships for even greater impact for God’s Kingdom.
A PDF of this article may be downloaded by clicking here.
Jon Lewis is President/CEO of Partners International, Spokane, Washington / www.partnersintl.org
Werner Mischke is Executive VP of Mission ONE, Scottsdale, Arizona / www.mission1.org
by Jon Lewis / February 4, 2010
After a recent visit by Alex Araujo here at our Partners International office last week, and a subsequent stimulating discussion about the famous Sailboat-Powerboat metaphor, I came away with a troubled feeling about how this illustration is being understood. My sense was that different people are interpreting the metaphor from different contexts leading to misunderstanding of each other’s points of view.
This became clear to me when Alex was arguing that the Sailboat paradigm was clearly the “right” perspective and the Powerboat paradigm the “wrong” one. I had always maintained that there were good and bad qualities on each side. Upon further discussion, however, I realized that Alex was thinking of the metaphor primarily in terms of a spiritual context relating to how we should work out our dependence vs. independence in our personal relationship with God. I, on the other hand, had been viewing the metaphor purely from a cultural context and attributed the two different paradigms as relating to the contrasting worldviews of the Global North (the West) and the Global South (non-West.)
In looking back over the various blogs and discussions on this metaphor, it appears to me that many others have been mixing these two different contexts in the discussion. The result is that there has been an overall “muddiness” to the metaphor discussion that has even led some to question if the metaphor is useful at all.
I would like to propose a new way of thinking about both of these two contexts with the metaphor by adding them BOTH to a two-dimensional chart. My proposition is that both the spiritual and the cultural aspects of the metaphor have validity, but they must somehow be separated out in order to gain pragmatic value to any application that might be attempted.
This two-dimensional chart would look like this:
Having defined two different continuums according to the X and Y axis, it now allows us to discuss some practical implications. Here is my attempt at that—with the caveat that these are extremely broad generalizations.
Assumptions:
- The Global North has a tendency toward a worldview that is somewhere in Quadrant II. Not only does our “rugged individualism” keep us from living in dependence on God’s Spirit day-by-day, but our industrial/technology heritage pushes us toward a “goal-oriented” approach of problem solving. I will label this typical starting position on the chart for the Global North = N1.
- The Global South has much more of a relational worldview and understands flexibility due to dependence on circumstances and situations usually out of a person’s control. Therefore, their relational approach to life and problem solving puts them in the lower half of the chart. However, Global South people can also tend toward independence from God, too, though probably differently and not to the same extent as those of us in the Global North. I’ll call this starting point in Quadrant IV for the Global South = S1.
- The Global North has a need to learn greater dependence on God’s Spirit as opposed to using self or secular management approaches to determining Truth. Therefore, in general, it has a need of moving leftwards on the chart. It also has a need to be much more sensitive to relationships and not always so intensely goal-oriented in worldview. So it also could use moving downward on the chart as well. However, the Global North has a huge and rich heritage of learning how to get things done, so I think it would be wrong for it to totally give up its understanding of strategic planning, etc., and demand that it live only in a Quadrant III worldview. I suggest a good ending point for the Global North would be the lower part of Quadrant I = N2.
- The Global South also has need of learning greater dependence on God’s Spirit as a primary guiding force. It, too, can use movement to the left on the chart. It could also benefit greatly from learning something about the Global North’s experience in management practices and goal orientation. Therefore some upward movement is also appropriate. Its ending point could then be in the upper part of Quadrant III = S2.
My conclusion is that the new positions of N2 and S2 now give a place for truly healthy partnership to work well. By both being sensitive to God’s Spirit (the same Spirit for each!) and both bringing to the table the value of their heritage worldviews (goal- and relational-orientation, respectively), there is the potential for new synergy that can produce great effectiveness. It is from this position of N2 that I would hope Partners International is interacting and working together with its Ministry Partners from the Global South who, in turn, have learned from our partnership, how to end up at S2.
My hope is that by combining these two different interpretations of the Sailboat-Powerboat metaphor in this manner, we not only clarify the dialog about its interpretation, but also have the potential of extracting an even deeper and richer understanding from it and thus inform and configure our global partnership endeavors for even greater impact for God’s Kingdom.
To comment, click on “Leave a comment” under the headline of this post (above), or scroll down and enter your comments below.
Contributed by a mission leader from SE Asia who requests anonymity.
Are you a powerboat or a sailboat?
In my last circular I referred to the metaphor of sailing and the question of Dr. Roger Parrott, “Are you building a sailboat that will catch the wind of God, or are you only fine tuning the engine on your powerboat so that you can keep going no matter which way the wind is blowing?”
Mindful of the fact that power structures affect relationships, I find this a helpful way to illustrate that it is very appropriate to place our trust – not in the engine of our powerboat – but in the Wind of God, to take our sailboat where he wants us to go! Using a sailboat frame of reference, we realise that success depends completely on the sailing team’s ability to trust each other and co-operate together and with the external elements.
The journey itself is as important as the destination. The sailors know that a strategy that worked yesterday might fail them tomorrow. They respect and carefully assess the context, and realise that flexibility is one of their greatest resources. This can really be scary: to dare more boldly, to dream bigger, to sail out of the safe harbour and farther away from the shore, to venture on wilder seas where we might often times lose sight of land … to only “find the stars”, as Sir Francis Drake tells us!
But, there may be just as much danger in not stepping boldly out in faith, as there is in the journey itself, as Mark Twain said so vividly, “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”
The partnership journey can be a messy and hazardous one, but it can certainly also be an exciting and challenging journey of exploration and discovery. Let us continue to place our trust in the Lord to guide and direct us as we set sail as a flotilla of partnership boats to reach the destination God has set before us.
We have argued that a paradigm of control over the process of advancing God’s kingdom leads to ministry structures that are not sufficiently flexible to respond to unexpected leading from the Wind of God. This is true even when in our hearts we really would like to be responsive.
If you lead a ministry with a formal organization, buildings, staff, and contracts with providers of goods and services, you have daily responsibilities and commitments that cannot be ignored while you wait for divine direction. How do we reconcile the basic demands of living and working in the world with the need to be flexible to God’s leading?
I am helped in my reflections by looking at the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt under Moses’ leadership.
There were two realities Moses had to consider:
1. He had to lead his people to Canaan;
2. And he had to provide for their well-being and security during the journey.
These are not contradictory but complementary realities. How was Moses to exercise his leadership responsibilities concerning the two areas?
God was very clear about the first one. God said concerning his mission to reach Canaan: I will provide you with spiritual guidance concerning when to move and when to stop. A pillar of fire will guide you at night and a cloud during the day. When they move, you and the people move. When they stop, you and the people stop. It would be foolish for Moses to continue moving when the cloud stopped, and foolish to stop when the cloud kept moving.
As to the second responsibility, there was no cloud by day or pillar of fire by night. Does that mean Moses did not need to do anything about the people’s well-being? Of course not. He did not need special guidance from God to manage the needs of the day. Camping space was allocated to families; provision was made for herding the cattle, for fetching water, and for all the activities that a large people must fulfill on a daily basis. There were also preparations to be made for the journey when the cloud moved again.
Moses and the people were not idle when the cloud stopped. When we talk about ‘sailing’ as a better metaphor than ‘powerboating’ for Christian ministries, we are not suggesting that we just sit idly waiting for the wind to blow. The Israelites were not idle when the cloud was not moving.
The issue with powerboating is not with regard to the operational aspects of running an organization; it has to do rather with plans and strategies that drive us to move when the cloud is stopped. Our model of ministry is generally based on ambitious strategies and timetables that demand we keep moving. They encourage skills related to relentless pursuit of results and target dates, and they undervalue the need to develop our spiritual sensitivities to the Wind of God. Therefore we may not be skilled at knowing how to wait: we equate waiting with lack of commitment, even disobedience.
If we conclude that our powerboat model is harming our desire to serve God well, we need to keep in mind that changing to a sailing model will involve learning how to be obedient as we wait. Moses was not idle while he waited for the cloud to move. But he had the flexibility to move and to stop as the Lord directed.
It is amazing how rich this metaphor about sailing can be. There are many applications for different purposes. We can imagine how specific parts of the boat illustrate ministry tools, how sailing skills suggest certain spiritual practices, etc … This richness of possible interpretations, though stimulating, runs the risk of obscuring the primary value of the metaphor, which is to call our attention to a paradigm change.
Here is one way to summarize the core of the sailing metaphor:
1. God advances his kingdom by the power of the Holy Spirit: the wind, in Jesus’ words to Nicodemus (Jn.3).
2. The Spirit, like the wind, is beyond our control; if we want to serve the kingdom well, we must depend on the Spirit’s leading as far as intensity, timing and direction of our service – we do not set the times and seasons or control the wind of the Spirit.
3. Spirit dependence as a way of life and service is in conflict with the Western entrepreneurial paradigm, which is predicated on our ability to control the forces that enable us to achieve our objectives.
4. To the degree that Western entrepreneurial thinking shapes how we seek to serve God’s kingdom, it undermines our very heart’s desire to serve Christ well. However sincere and well-meaning we are, we must work within a paradigm that resists the life of dependence on the Spirit’s guidance.
5. A change to sailing can free us from the pressure to control God’s work and put us in a place of surrender to his control.
6. I have used the metaphor of contrasting powerboat and sailboat simply to show how the pursuit of the same objective can have radically different characteristics when pursued from different paradigms.
7. In the classic sailboat, the motive power is outside the boat, and we need to develop skills related to understanding and working with the wind; in God’s work, as in sailing, the force that enables the church to serve Christ is beyond our control. The Spirit will empower our work, set timetables and direction. We need to learn to discern the Wind, and understand how to set our souls (sails) so as to catch the Wind.
8. The powerboat image, by contrast, with its motor and fuel tank, seeks to accumulate and store power within the boat so that the operator can determine when, how and where to go. The wind is not necessary.
Any other application of the metaphor may indeed offer helpful insights, but it needs to be used with care so that it does not distract us from considering the need for radical paradigm change.
[Note: at the top of this entry, just below the title, you will find some words in blue. Please click ‘leave a comment‘ to view and enter your own comments. I would love to know what you think.]
The Church as a Body
Dennis Tongoi writes a helpful perspective, in the March 09 issue of Connections (www.cms-africa.org). He suggests a probable birth of powerboating in the church as he notes a historical increase in dependence on human institutions to achieve Kingdom purposes. I think you will find his insights helpful in understanding how the church began changing from sailing by the wind of the Spirit to putting greater trust in human ingenuity and institutions.
Here is Tongoi’s text:
In the first two centuries Church was more of “family”- people gathering in homes eating together and fellowshipping as key activities. As the Church grew and the Greek culture embraced it, church became more of a philosophy- with the focus on logic and defense of the faith. After Roman culture embraced the faith the church became an institution with the focus on systems, titles, positions and power.
In the last fifty years or so, the Church under the huge movement of missions from the west and in particular America became an enterprise- complete with the pastor (or Bishop) as the prime mover or CEO. With the resultant focus on programs, reports and results, relationships began being defined on a contractual basis; as partnerships often with one partner dominant or dictating the agenda.The centre of global church is now acknowledged to have moved south. A prominent Church leader has proposed that we in Africa, model “church as a body”. In the body there is no dominant or dependant member- the primary relationship becomes interdependence and the focus is on service. Even the least honorable member is given honor. We need to remove the focus from individualism that is the dominant value in the secular western culture and survival that dominates the African mind. This will enable us move to mutuality and interdependence. How can we do this? Mutuality will not be accomplished through debate and agreement on doctrine- the only way we can do this is as we serve, not ourselves but others.
A colleague recently raised the concern that most of the current dialogue regarding a ‘sailing’ paradigm are ‘North’ people. He wonders if we are not missing something by not bringing ‘South’ people more fully into the discussion. It is a good question.
When I first began speaking about changing from powerboating to sailing, it was in the context of finding language that would help ‘North’ people understand why there are still lingering concerns and frustrations around the world with the ‘North’s participation in global missions. Also, as a result of my presenting the topic in the presence of people from the ‘North’, I have been asked by ‘North’ people to make presentations on the topic.
It is very clear that this topic directly impacts ‘North’/’South’ relationships. ‘South’ leaders who have been exposed to it have received it with open arms because it may help them make progress in communication with their North brothers and sisters. Perceptive ‘South’ people also recognize that they are not immune to powerboating, and need the message as well for that reason.
I have spoken twice in an international context where ‘South’ people were present, and found them very interested in participating in the discussion. My intent is that this blog will draw them into the discussion as well.
I often hear that the North people in particular need to look at ‘sailing’. There is good historical reason for that, since we in the North have been most active in developing and operating a powerboat model. But I want to be careful not to encourage any sense among the South people that because they are not ‘North’ people they have got ‘sailing’ right.
The temptation to rely on our own power and control is universal. Western societies just happen historically to have recent success in the material realm and have been bolder and more confident in their own abilities.
The comparative material poverty of the South in relation to the North happens to favor them in a switch to ‘sailing’, but it is not a given. Powerboating is a universal tendency among humans of any culture. Some times the difference between ‘North’ and ‘South’ is not of paradigms but of resources. A rowboat is just as much a powerboat as a motor boat.
Once everyone grasps the meaning and implications of the metaphor, we all can begin to learn to ‘sail’ together.
What do you think?
Sailingfriends 