An Argument from Organizational Behavior

Stephen Robbins, MBA textbook author on the subject, defines organizational behavior as "a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and structure have on behavior within organizations, for the purpose of applying such knowledge toward improving an organization's effectiveness" (2014, page 11). It is a combined discipline of psychology, sociology, and anthropology as it relates to groups as part of a larger group. Leaders use the principles of organizational behavior to inject the strategy and mission of an organization into that organization's DNA. A leader defines effectiveness by how closely the organization operates in accordance with its mission and strategy. 

           

An organization can go to great lengths to build a mission and strategy but neglect to bring that mission and strategy to bear on every task, objective, department, and member. When this happens, the tasks, objectives, departments, and members create waste that perpetuates the organization's ineffectiveness. Tasks become superfluous to the mission and strategy. Objectives become shortsighted. Departments tenaciously compete with one another due to the present leadership's inability to remain true to the mission and strategy. Finally, members become victims of superfluous requirements, shortsighted objectives, and other members exerting their control in an effort to fill the perceived leadership void.

           

Self-coined, Modern-day Fundamentalists (the intentionally conservative, independent Evangelical brand of Christianity) by and large reflect a severe lack in understanding of the principles of organizational behavior. Despite the emphatic profession to be always adhering to the "fundamentals of the faith," they have neglected the pure mission and strategy of the Gospel for a practical theology that allows for Gospel rhetoric but adds subtle burdens that not only visibly discredit the Gospel but also quench the Holy Spirit from accomplishing His purpose in individual members of the local church.

           

Christ's mission to the members of His Church is simple yet potent enough to redeem a fallen world: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Christ's strategy to His Church unfolds the mission:

•       Submit to Jesus Christ as the One to Whom has been granted power in Heaven and on Earth;

•       Cast your sin under His blood and receive His righteousness;

•       Love others as you would love yourself by serving them with compassion and making disciples of Jesus Christ;

•       Grow together in your knowledge of and love for Jesus Christ; and,

•       Be led by the Spirit, Who will never leave us or forsake us.

           

In secular organizations, leadership takes stock of its members, seeks to align those members to the mission and strategy, analyzes strengths and weaknesses of members, equips and assigns those members to appropriate tasks that accurately fulfill the mission and strategy, all the while recognizing that diversity among members must be encouraged (rather than squashed) and channeled towards effectiveness (as defined by the mission and strategy). In the Church, Christ does exactly this through the power of the Holy Spirit according to the Word of God. This makes perfect sense, seeing as how God created the science of organizational behavior. Scientists are only privileged to discover it. A key to understanding organizational behavior is the God-given need within each person to be valued and enriched by the organization in which he/she exists. Without individuals being allowed to embrace their diversity as an important part of the team, they are listless, frustrated, confused, and often left feeling guilty for not fitting in.

           

Ephesians expresses these truths through word pictures such as a building with many stones in their own place uniquely crafted by the Holy Spirit. I Corinthians also compares the local church to the human body, all parts necessary and uniquely gifted by the Holy Spirit. Communication among Believers in a local church should exalt this diversity both verbally and nonverbally. Using communication, verbal and nonverbal, to squash this diversity is not only unkind but is an obstacle to the work of the Holy Spirit in the midst of that local church. This diversity is deeply unified, not around gifts and personalities but around the Gospel (as is declared in Corinthians). Diversity is not only permissible, it is vital if we desire to see the Holy Spirit equip and grow the Church.

Understandably, any local church or brand of local churches will naturally have their own flavor as they seek to carry out Christ's mission and strategy in their community. But each and every local church ought to accurately reflect Christ's mission and strategy for His Church, which is inflexibly Gospel-centered. When principles of organizational behavior are applied to the current Fundamentalist Movement, four key characteristics emerge to challenge both the unity and diversity of the Church. These characteristics are certainly not limited to Fundamentalism, but they provide a clear framework for understanding and explaining the practical theological errors within:      

• Fundamentalism empowers loud consciences.

• Fundamentalism endorses a culture of protection.

• Fundamentalism betrays an idolatry of excellence.

• Fundamentalism reacts to organizational flaws by improving the presentation.

           
These behavioral characteristics are not unique to Fundamentalism. Many individual churches and denominations will naturally exhibit one or more of these behavioral characteristics. 

           

The warped practical theology of modern day Fundamentalism can be primarily credited to a deviation from Christ's mission and strategy for the Church. While there are increasingly more high-profile cases of physical, sexual, and spiritual abuse within Fundamentalism (and other evangelical brands), we will not explore the obvious moral infractions exhibited by extreme cases. Instead, my purpose is to venture deeper into the less-obvious (until exposed) philosophies within Fundamentalism that are producing hundreds and hundreds of spiritual abuse victims each year. Many of the subtleties of the behavioral characteristics described above may not be visible from the pews but become quite obvious as one enters the "belly of the beast." The practical theological errors are so much more than shallow arguments over musical styles and dress code: they are misconceptions that have been profoundly installed into our rational cognition. Mere pulpit preaching did not do this, but the powerful reinforcement of these practical theological errors through the organizational behavior of modern day Fundamentalism did.

           

As my wife and I hosted Sneads Ferry Fellowship Church in our home in its infancy, we ministered side-by-side with a great group of military families. The Holy Spirit miraculously kept us unified even through challenging circumstances. I am sorrowful to recall moments where I fell prey to my own Fundamentalist mentality and effectively quenched the Holy Spirit at Sneads Ferry Fellowship Church. At a time when my own ambitions for the future of our church got ahead of what God intended to do, the Holy Spirit used Jim (a dear friend and vital member) to make quiet suggestions that, had I listened, would have saved us from unintentionally hurting two families in the church. Jim holds no seminary or counseling degrees from a liberal arts university, but he was a member of the body, and the Holy Spirit used him just as powerfully as any evangelist or pastor. At least two other scenarios burn in my brain where the Holy Spirit offered practical wisdom through unexpected people, and instead of listening and watching for the Spirit to work, I reverted to endorsing some form of quenching the diversity and unity of Sneads Ferry Fellowship Church. Thankfully, there are also many wonderful memories where diversity and unity were upheld through the work of the Holy Spirit in our midst. My wife and I were so blessed to have been a part of SFFC before the church closed its doors.

Reacting to Organizational Flaws

If an organization were a pyramid, the bottom of the pyramid should represent that organization's mission and strategy. The large center of the pyramid would represent the organization's culture (as a result of the principles of organizational behavior), and the tip of the pyramid would represent that organization's presentation (advertising/public relations/etc.). Often, organizations can get turned upside down, where the mission and strategy are ignored/neglected. The culture of the organization (small at the bottom due to poor indoctrination/methodology and large at the top) begins to focus less on the mission and strategy and more on the presentation. When the character of the organization is turned upside down, advertising/public relations must compensate for the flaws in the system.

           

For a local church, departing from the simplicity of the Gospel produces severe flaws in the system for which the presentation must compensate. Many Fundamentalist churches that recognize flaws in the system seek to make their presentation more and more pristine. Instead of addressing internal and foundational flaws, they use PR tactics to react and "put out fires." Many do this by addressing problems with official statements or a sermon series. While a sermon series is necessary to address general errors in thought among church members, it can never truly get to the heart of problems that find their basis in a neglected foundation. A sermon series is a great way of introducing and adjusting church members to organizational change, but a sermon series typically translates individually into half-listening minds that only hear what they want to hear. A sermon series with no organizational adjustment on a practical level is only compensating with PR. Organizations that have reversed the pyramid are salvageable but not without need for massive overhauls on an ideological and practical level. The financial and relational sacrifices can be huge, and often it is much easier for the organization to "PR" their way through the storms.

           

When flaws in the organization become more apparent in a local church, the paid staff must work double-overtime. I say "double-overtime" because Fundamentalist pastors are already severely under appreciated and under paid. Especially when organizational flaws related to evangelism and community outreach become a grave concern, the Fundamentalist culture is one that expects the pastor to do the work. Instead of fulfilling Ephesians 4:12 where church leaders equip the members to make disciples in their realms of influence, church members by and large throw their pastors "under the bus" for the church not growing or effectively reaching the community. Considering the other three behavioral characteristics of Fundamentalist churches, effectively reaching the local community seems an insurmountable task for a team of two to five men working full-time on a part-time salary. While pastors of all brands and denominations are already struggling to not become financial and emotional "martyrs of those who employ them" (to borrow a phrase from an extended family member), Fundamentalism has further demonized financial appreciation for their ministers by criticizing the large, "seeker friendly" churches that take good care of their pastors. We hypocritically heap stress upon our ministers, become surprised when they fall into secret sins that provided them with a solace from the misery, and then we leave them out to dry wearing their infamous Fundamentalist Scarlet Letter. Shame on us!

           

In the heat of organizational problems, a common reaction of Fundamentalism is to centralize control.  Sometimes, this means eliminating transparency with constituents when transparency is vital (swearing disaster-involved individuals to secrecy). Sometimes, this means removing responsibilities from the perceived "less-qualified" personnel when it might be safer to eliminate or delegate more tasks to more people. Ultimately, Fundamentalism often betrays a mistrust of the Holy Spirit to work in the members of local churches to do the work of the ministry. The already under appreciated, under paid pastors increase their workload and leave vast numbers of members without job descriptions and nothing else to do but speculate and give in to the urge to impose their hyperactive consciences and idolatry of excellence upon other church members.


Return to original post

Idolatry of Excellence

If the most devastating behavioral characteristic within modern Fundamentalism is its tendency to empower loud consciences, its most subtle characteristic is an idolatry of excellence. While a student at Bob Jones University in 2005, all the music students were required to read a pamphlet on the school's philosophy of music education. A key premise of the booklet lay in a unique interpretation of Philippians 1:9-11. According to BJU, the "knowledge and discernment" under discussion aided Believers to "approve what is excellent" on an aesthetic level, with the result that more elevated aesthetic tastes made us more "pure and blameless." By implication, mature believers were those who acquired higher tastes for classical music. By further implication, the popular musical styles of the day were disgusting to God and had to be avoided. Upon any common sense understanding of the passage, this interpretation is absurd and not supported by any legitimate theological position. Paul clearly intended to encourage the Philippian Believers to grow in their love and knowledge of Christ so that their maturity in loving others and applying pure doctrine would bring glory to God. This assumption that our spiritual maturity is attached to our more improved aesthetic tastes is a quiet, yet widespread opinion held within Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism betrays an idolatry of excellence in another way by demanding that Believers bring their very best to God, their King. God deserves our reverence, Fundamentalism says, and we show our reverence by coming into his presence with well-prepared (classical) music while wearing attire that we only ever otherwise see at a formal business dinner. (Note: there is nothing wrong with formal attire, and there was a day in American history where formal apparel was expected at most social functions. Additionally, it is a culturally accepted tradition that ministers might choose to dress formally while bringing the Word of God to a congregation.)

Dressing formally in church is a freedom to all Believers, and we may joyfully exercise that right. But dressing formally never turned God’s head in our direction, and by upholding that formal dress be the unspoken official dress code of the church, Fundamentalism has elevated the white-collar culture to a place of ill-deserved prominence. There is nothing inherently sinful about the white-collar culture in the US; the problem is that an entire brand of Christianity insists upon bringing a white-collar culture into their church in a vain effort to reverence their King.

           

To prevent confusion about what our King in Heaven desires, Christ began His sermon in Matthew 5 with the rhetoric of a king before His subjects. In declaring blessing upon a certain group of people, God in the Flesh declared His favor toward them. Christ proceeded to bestow favor upon the "poor in spirit." If our King in Heaven bestowed favor upon those who did their very best, then Fundamentalism would be correct. Instead, our King quite clearly favors a different group, those who are spiritually poor. King David, as an earthly king bowed in brokenness before his Heavenly King, reflected this truth during his confession of immorality: "For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; You will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." There is only one display of excellence that pleases our King, and it is not anything we can muster. Jesus Christ is the One and Only true display of excellence this world will ever see, and our King wants nothing more than to see us recognize our spiritual poverty and be clothed in the excellence of Christ. We reverence our King by exalting Christ. By thinking that our dress, standards, and artistic choices earn God's pleasure, we betray a theological error suggesting that God can be pleased with anything that we do by our own efforts. 

           

Fundamentalism might verbally downplay their white-collar church environments as resulting from personal preferences. Yet when the overwhelming majority demographic in every county of every state in the United States is middle and lower class, any active or passive endorsement of a white-collar culture in our churches creates the perception that God loves suit-and-tie, cultured, classical-music-loving, professional white collar people. White-collar churches successfully reach their own and bestow an unwelcome atmosphere to all other demographic types. 

           

Our King came to earth for one purpose and one purpose only: to reach a spiritually and physically poor human race and salve our souls with His most excellent righteousness. If anyone on this earth ought to feel favored to come before the King of the universe, they are those who are spiritually destitute. If there is anywhere on earth where all the spiritually sick and destitute of the earth ought to be able to run to the arms of Jesus Christ, it is the Church.

An unfortunate by-product of idolizing excellence above Christ is the desire to heap up and hoard pious living. Fundamentalism has (in some places) followed a Benjamin Franklin style of sanctification where spiritual virtues (fruit of the Spirit) are adopted and perfected. This form of sanctification perceives that spiritual maturity is God's form of personal enrichment for church members. Fundamentalism has become a refuge for people who want to be left alone to nurture their hobby of Spirit-filled living. Nothing could be farther from the heart of God Who gave us Christ that we might expose our Spirit-regenerated affections to the nations.

Return to original post

A Culture of Protection

As a result of breeding loud consciences, Fundamentalism has become so focused on protection that it has bred a watchdog culture. It operates via the assumption that the louder the conscience, the more spiritual the Christian. By implication, if my conscience is louder than yours, then I am both more spiritual than you and obligated to confront you about those areas where your conscience has said nothing. On occasion, Progressive Fundamentalism has made this reasoning more palatable by refraining from confronting these extraneous issues directly all the while passively endorsing the perception that they believe their stricter way of living is more pleasing to God. They may talk as though Evangelical churches (with their jeans, pop music, and large numbers) are "doing what they believe is right," but then they allow one another to tenaciously refuse to loosen their grip on those conservative preferences that set them apart even in circumstances when the Gospel is at stake (see Idolatry of Excellence).

Fundamentalism therefore has become a conformity culture out of a desire to protect its congregation from worldliness. The problem with this is that conformity is a threat to the unity of the Church. Additionally, protection by means of conformity insinuates that worldliness is an external issue. The problem with the Believers in the Corinthian church was not their love for alcohol, rock music, jeans, and movies. The Corinthian Believers were worldly because they betrayed affections that resembled their unredeemed Corinthian surroundings: a love for self by associating with an important person or showing off their gifts. Loving God and their neighbors was what set them apart from the world, but since they loved themselves, every gift God gave them became an opportunity to gorge and exalt themselves. They reflected an exact replica of the godless Greek culture wherein they existed, because they did not love God. Their worldly issues were internal and led to blatant infractions against the commandments of Christ. If worldliness were an external issue, then it could have been avoided in Corinth by closing the church off from all things questionable. If worldliness were an external issue, there would be little or no evangelization. If worldliness were an external issue, then there would be no regeneration or sanctification, only training workshops to change habits. Merely addressing externals never addresses the affections. A change of affections means a new identity and a new value system, which is why I Corinthians climaxes on the “love chapter” in chapter 13. A structured environment does not effectively address affections and is unable to cultivate an atmosphere that frees the Holy Spirit to produce fruit in our lives. The Gospel, however, cuts straight to affections and transforms us by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God.

Return to original post

Empowering the Loud Conscience

A friend recently shared with me that modern Fundamentalism has unintentionally propagated something of an OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) theology. Clinical OCD is a condition that exploits fears and anxieties to bring about compulsive behavior. OCD preys upon the fear that one thing leads to another thing which leads to another thing, eventually leading to irreversible ruin. As a gift of general revelation, God granted every human a conscience. Since the fall, our consciences still give us a basic understanding of right and wrong. However, our consciences are highly pliable. Most Christians understand how a conscience becomes seared, but few Christians consider how a conscience becomes trained to work on hyper-drive. This explains why people diagnosed with OCD struggle with simple, everyday tasks: their conscience has been allowed to condition itself to such an extent that it provokes irrational, excessive, preventative behavior in an effort to ward off mirages of catastrophe. Introspective personality types tend toward this struggle, and many who have OCD do not realize that they have it. OCD is very treatable through behavioral therapy that trains the brain to not associate every innocent behavior with impending disaster. 

           

Without realizing it, Fundamentalism has guided their congregations to see current issues through a lens of OCD theology, by suggesting that many things "on the fringe" are actually shiny objects that lead us down a slippery slope to spiritual destruction. Particularly in the arena of cultural change, Fundamentalism compulsively makes much of minor issues out of a desire to avoid the Red Death of “worldliness.”

Instead of empowering the conscience to operate on hyper-drive, the Word of God trains our consciences to enjoy Christ through many different forms of cultural expression and earthly blessings. More importantly, the Word of God educates our consciences to love one another with the Gospel in an endless variety of cultural situations. Disciple-makers have been given freedom to reach cultures of all shapes and sizes with the Gospel and then to see a unique (and quite amazing) expression of the Gospel in that culture. The Gospel is the most powerful concept in history that triggers an irreversible internal culture change while keeping external cultures in tact through the power of the Spirit to the glory of God. By empowering a hyperactive conscience, we exhibit fear and anxiety toward most things new and foreign, which in turn produces distrust where there is unfamiliarity.

The Holy Spirit is not the same as our conscience. Often times, the Holy Spirit leads us to behave in ways that push us out of our ideological comfort zone. While the Holy Spirit always operates in accordance with the Word of God (after all, the Holy Spirit certainly took a key role in Its authorship), He is never obligated to submit to our consciences. It is far more likely that our consciences will lead us astray than will the Holy Spirit. It may be that the most devastating problem within Fundamentalism is that our consciences have been so empowered that it is questionable whether or not we can even hear the Holy Spirit over our screaming consciences.


Return to original post