"We Are Not Helpless"

"Blame is a ready antidote for feeling helpless." -- Martha Nussbaum
"We are not helpless. We are men [and women]." -- from the movie 'FailSafe,' a line spoken by Henry Fonda playing the president of the United States.

Everything I've written in the blog until now has been leading up to this: we aren't helpless.

It's true as Jared Diamond writes that the single most important factor in a society's survival in the face of a crisis is its ability to respond by evaluating its traditions and customs, its way of doing 'business as usual.' It's also true, as Heifitz has written, that we are not faced with a technical problem but with an adaptive challenge, a challenge that will require that we learn and risk and share widely among us all the work of adapting. And it's true that only a transformation of 'the system' will work; tinkering and tweeking the present system won't do it.

In the midst of all of this, I say again: we are not helpless.

The late Dr. Edwin Friedman, who brought insights from family systems theory into congregational leadership, would agree. He held that to change a system, be it a family or a congregation or a nation, it's not necessary to work with the people in that system who hold the most power. It's more effective to work with the people who are most motivated to change. Think of a hanging mobile. The mobile exists in a state of balance, and to acheive this balance different pieces of the mobile are connected to lengths of string or to rods of different lengths. If you want to change how the mobile looks, you don't have to exert force on the largest or heaviest piece in the mobile; pushing just a little on even the smallest piece changes the arrangement of the entire mobile!

If we look at our 'System' here in the US, we would despair when we think about taking on the financial industry or the oil lobby or Washington itself, but that's not where our opportunity lies. The system, like a mobile, depends on each part being where it should be and functioning the way it always has functioned. Changing the 'input' of one part changes the entire system. Friedman, in his book Friedman's Fables, wrote about an aquarium in which the fish that was supposed to clean the scum off of the glass stopped eating the scum (Friedman used a more colorful word than 'scum'). All the rest of the fish began acting differently, some dramatically differently, because of the upset in the system when the one who was supposed to eat the scum stopped eating the scum. Shy and docile fish that used to hide all the time became quite social; gregarious fish became apathetic; the top-of-the-food-chain fish became confused and anxious and downright cowardly!

We are not helpless. Having said that, it's also good not to be careless about our input into the system, but that's for another day's posting.

Never the last word,

Pastor Lee

Individuals, Congregations, and 'The System': What Will and Won't Work

Peter Sawtell writes a wonderful E-zine called Eco-Justice Notes (go to http://www.eco-justice.org/ to subscribe). In the August 22, 2008 issue which carried the title "Questioning the System" he identifies four types of church. He first developed this typology based on a congregation's response to today's environmental challenges: some don't do anything at all; others that do the basics like recycling and trying to buy "green" cleaning projects; a third type goes deeper and devotes time and energy to affect the political process or the marketplace; the final type believes that our society needs to be transformed, not just 'tweaked.'



Upon further reflection Sawtell noticed that the four types of church represented four different view of "The System." The do-nothing type believes so firmly in the existing political/economic/social institutions and their ability to solve all problems (the 'invisible hand of the market' is a good illustration here) that they don't feel they need to change anything they're doing. The church that engages in basic steps sees The System as being fine, but individually they need to do things to make the system work the way it should. The third type looks deeper into the problem and comes to the conclusion that The System isn't working the way it should, although basically it's a good system that can handle all the problems of today with just a little 'tinkering under the hood.' The last type, the transformational type, see The System as being deeply flawed at its core: consumerism is unsustainable, the market's vision of 'the good life' and 'progress' is an illusion. This is the type that believes The System must be changed, not just fixed.



Now, do you remembering Jared Diamond's book Collapse that we discussed a few posts ago? In that book Diamond states that the greatest challenge societies face in a crisis, and the best predictor of the society's survival, is its willingness to look critically at its institutions, its System, to determine if it still works. Does the traditional way of doing things really work in the new reality, or will following that way lead to ruin? Can the System's weaknesses or downright failures be ignored any longer? I believe that Diamond would rate that fourth type of church, the transformational church, as being a society's best bet in a time of crisis when the approach of the other three types - denial, changing inputs, and repairing The System - won't do the job.


So, what can one person, or one congregation, do in the face of a gigantic task like changing The System (which will resist the change mightily)? The most important thing to do is resist feeling helpless.

We'll talk about that next time.

Never the last word,

Pastor Lee

So, how will we respond to the environmental/social/global challenges of today? Let’s look at the work of Ron Heifetz, a widely known and accepted authority in leadership studies. He makes the critical distinction between technical problems and adaptive challenges (I am indebted to Anthony Robinson’s book Leadership for Vital Congregations for my understanding of Heifetz’ work.)

With a technical problem, the problem is completely known, totally understood (I know this may not be our experience with computer tech service departments, but bear with me). The solution to the technical problem involves using existing technology and accepted methods. Then experts or professionals apply the technology and methods.

Take the call for more offshore drilling in response to $4/gallon gasoline prices. Viewed as a technical problem, the situation is simply a matter of supply and demand: if we just increase the supply, prices will go down. To increase the supply we can use the existing technology of the oil companies, who after all are the experts in this field. So, we have a situation that is completely understood, that has a solution that existing technology can provide, and that can be handled by experts, so that the rest of us don’t have to change a thing we’re doing.

Adaptive challenges are different. They recognize that our understanding of the situation is incomplete, that this is not business-as-usual, and we must learn new things. It follows that the tried-and-true methods of the past or present aren’t up to the challenge, and that risk will be involved. Finally, these challenges require something of us all, not just experts or professionals. The solution includes our collective efforts and, yes, sacrifices.

So, $4/gallon gasoline is not viewed in terms of supply and demand, but in terms of the sustainability of an oil-based economy (remember how Diamond included ‘trading partners’ in his list of survival factors?). Alternative sources of energy must be explored. We recognize that weaning our society off of an energy source that has become problematical requires taking risks, especially the financing of new infrastructure and the transitioning of industries. Finally, the way we think about and use energy needs a major overhaul.

To recap, with a technical problem we have complete understanding; with an adaptive challenge we are required to learn new things. With a technical problem we can use existing technology; with an adaptive challenge we will need to explore new technologies and risk will be involved. Finally, with a technical problem we turn to experts or professionals to do all the work, while an adaptive challenge requires something of us all, namely change in behavior and attitude. We may even have to question our traditions and practices in light of the new circumstances (see Diamond again).

Next, we’ll explore categories of change and which ones won’t work here.

Never the last word,

Pastor Lee