LEVERAGING  CHURCH  CULTURE:   HOW  UNDERSTANDING  A  CHURCH’S  CULTURE  ENHANCES     MINISTRY  AND  COMMUNITY  ENGAGEMENT   by MICHAEL  E.  MAWHORTER   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MINISTRY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Doctor of Ministry We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard ............................................................................... Dr. Lyle Schrag, DMN; Thesis Supervisor ................................................................................ Dr. Archie Spencer, Ph.D.; Second Reader ................................................................................ Dr. Randy Wollf, Ph.D.; Third Reader TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY March 2015 © Michael E. Mawhorter ABSTRACT     This  study  looked  at  organizational  culture  in  a  church  context,  to  explore  whether   understanding  and  leveraging  a  church’s  culture  can  help  focus  its  ministry  and  maximize   its  effectiveness.  The  research  used  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality,  by  Philip  D.   Douglass,  in  the  ministry  context  of  Ladner  Baptist  Church,  Ladner  B.C.     There  were  three  components  to  the  research:   1. Thirty-­‐five  opinion  leaders  in  the  congregation  took  a  personality  survey  with  the   results  plotted  on  a  wheel  of  eight  church  personalities.   2. A  meeting  to  report  the  results,  with  opportunity  for  feedback  and  discussion.   3. A  follow  up  interview  to  assess  whether  the  leadership  found  this  process  helpful   in  understanding  their  culture  and  leveraging  it  for  greater  effectiveness  in   ministry  and  outreach.     The  result  of  this  project  demonstrated  that  the  survey  accurately  identified  the   church’s  personality  and  the  supplemental  material  on  each  personality  in  the  book  gave   valuable  insights  into  how  to  leverage  that  culture  for  greater  effectiveness.           i   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS       The  problem  with  acknowledgements  is  knowing  where  to  stop.    A  lot  of  people   supported  and  encouraged  me  through  the  most  rigorous  academic  pursuit  I  have  yet   experienced.       First  of  all  I  want  to  give  glory  to  God.  It  has  been  a  privilege  to  serve  Him  in  ministry   for  more  than  thirty  years,  gathering  a  lot  of  life  experience  to  go  with  my  gray  hair.  The   opportunity  to  reflect  on  all  of  that  through  new  filters  in  the  DMN  program  has  been  a  gift   of  grace.       Secondly,  I  want  to  thank  Kathy,  the  love  of  my  life  and  partner  in  life  and  ministry.   For  the  second  time  in  our  forty  years  of  marriage,  she  has  made  great  sacrifice  for  my   education.  At  least  this  time  she  did  not  have  to  type  for  me  –  on  a  typewriter,  with  babies   on  her  lap.  I  could  not  begin  to  measure  the  help  and  support  she  has  been  for  me   throughout  this  program,  encouraging,  giving  and  giving  up  time,  doing  extra,  cheering  me   up  and  on,  and  most  of  all  believing  in  me,  even  when  I  had  trouble  believing  in  myself.       I  also  want  to  thank  the  board  and  congregation  of  Ladner  Baptist  Church,  where  I   have  been  privileged  to  pastor  for  the  last  eleven  years.  They  have  supported  me  through   my  studies,  put  up  with  being  studied  and  analyzed,  and  gave  me  extra  time  to  take  classes   and  write  this  thesis.     I  also  am  thankful  for  the  staff  I  am  privileged  to  work  with  at  the  church.  They  have   stepped  up,  filled  in,  and  in  many  other  ways  supported  and  encouraged  me.     Sabrina  Fast  took  time  out  of  her  busy  schedule  to  proofread  this  thesis,  giving  the   great  advantage  of  a  second  set  of  eyes,  and  finding  an  embarrassing  number  of  changes.   And  even  said  she  enjoyed  it!     Finally,  I  want  to  thank  my  Research  Supervisor,  Dr.  Lyle  Schrag,  for  the  gentle,   positive  encouragement,  advice,  support,  and  prodding  through  the  writing  of  this   dissertation,  as  well  as  my  readers  Dr.  Archie  Spencer  and  Dr.  Randy  Wollf.           ii   CONTENTS   ABSTRACT  ...................................................................................................................................................................  i   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  .......................................................................................................................................  ii   CONTENTS  ................................................................................................................................................................  iii   CHAPTER  1:  INTRODUCTION  –  UNDERSTANDING  THE  PROBLEM  ................................................  1   Assumptions  .........................................................................................................................................................................  6   Research  Question  .............................................................................................................................................................  9   Research  Project  ..............................................................................................................................................................  10   Research  Considerations  ..............................................................................................................................................  11   Church  .............................................................................................................................................................................  11   Research  Tool  ..............................................................................................................................................................  13   Summary  of  the  Chapters  of  the  Thesis  .................................................................................................................  16   CHAPTER  TWO:  LITERATURE  REVIEW  AND  THEORETICAL  FOUNDATIONS  .........................  19   Books  on  Church  Culture  .............................................................................................................................................  20   Key  Books  on  Organizational  Culture  .....................................................................................................................  41   The  book  used  as  the  primary  focus  of  the  research  .......................................................................................  66   Summary  .............................................................................................................................................................................  77   CHAPTER  THREE:  A  THEOLOGY  OF  ORGANIZATIONAL  CULTURE  ..............................................  79   Is  it  theologically  valid  to  use  a  secular  survey  of  personality  types  to  examine  a  church?  ...........  79   A  Systematic  Theology  Perspective  on  Organizational  Culture  ..................................................................  84   Theology  .........................................................................................................................................................................  85   Anthropology  ...............................................................................................................................................................  88   Christology  ....................................................................................................................................................................  97   Ecclesiology  ................................................................................................................................................................  100   The  Seven  Churches  in  Revelation  2-­‐3  .................................................................................................................  104   SWOT  Analysis  on  the  Seven  Churches  ..........................................................................................................  107   Cultural  Analysis  .......................................................................................................................................................  114   Conclusion  ........................................................................................................................................................................  119   CHAPTER  FOUR:  PROCEDURES  AND  RESEARCH  ..............................................................................  121   Stage  One  ...........................................................................................................................................................................  121   Patterns  ........................................................................................................................................................................  130   Further  Conclusions  ................................................................................................................................................  132   Stage  Two  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  136   Stage  Three  .......................................................................................................................................................................  138   Conclusions  ......................................................................................................................................................................  150   CHAPTER  FIVE:  WHAT  NOW?  CONCLUSIONS  AND  IMPLICATIONS  .........................................  153   OF  THE  FINDINGS  .............................................................................................................................................  153   Does  this  project  confirm  the  hypothesis  and  assumptions?  .....................................................................  153   Hypothesis  ...................................................................................................................................................................  153   Summary  of  Assumptions  .....................................................................................................................................  154   Assessment  .................................................................................................................................................................  154   Reviewing  the  Research  Question  ..........................................................................................................................  157   The  Benefit  of  Knowing  .........................................................................................................................................  158   Options  for  Cultural  Identity  ...............................................................................................................................  158   Douglass  –  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  ........................................................................................................  159     iii   Bridges  –  The  Character  of  Organizations  ..................................................................................................................  162   Schein  –  Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership  .....................................................................................................  164   Recommendation  ..................................................................................................................................................................  166   Our  experience  ..........................................................................................................................................................  167   Accuracy  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  167   Improvement  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  167   Next  Steps  .................................................................................................................................................................................  169   Suggestions  for  Future  Research  ............................................................................................................................  170   Another  Book  .............................................................................................................................................................  170   Enhancing  Douglass  ................................................................................................................................................  170   Expanding  Bridges  ...................................................................................................................................................  172   Design  an  Experience  .............................................................................................................................................  173   Conclusion  ........................................................................................................................................................................  173   APPENDIX  1  –  OPINION  LEADERS’  SURVEY  .........................................................................................  177   APPENDIX  2  –  SURVEY  REPORT  ................................................................................................................  181   APPENDIX  3  –  CHURCH  PERSONALITY  CHARACTERISTICS  .........................................................  190   APPENDIX  4  –  SURVEY  TALLEY  .................................................................................................................  192   APPENDIX  5  –  FOLLOW-­‐UP  INTERVIEW  TRANSCRIPT  ..................................................................  194   BIBLIOGRAPHY  ..................................................................................................................................................  199             iv   CHAPTER  1:  INTRODUCTION  –  UNDERSTANDING  THE  PROBLEM       Why  is  it  that  churches  tend  to  repeat  similar  behavior  patterns  over  decades,  or   even  generations,  though  often  all  the  individuals  involved  are  different?  Whether  it  is   how  they  treat  their  pastors  (or  each  other),  how  they  react  to  conflict  or  change,  or  their   attitudes  toward  theological  controversy  or  their  community,  some  congregations’   behavior  can  be  predicted  with  surprising  (and  sometimes  disappointing)  accuracy.     Why  do  some  churches  emphasize  doctrine  and  teaching,  or  art,  or  community   involvement,  or  evangelism,  or  children’s  and  youth  ministries?  Why  is  it  that  some   churches  have  a  relaxed,  upbeat,  informal  atmosphere  while  others  seem  more  sober,   subdued  and  formal?  Why  do  some  churches  embrace  their  surrounding  community  while   others  see  it  as  a  threat  and  are  more  inclined  to  isolate  and  insulate  themselves  from  it?   One  highly  significant  but  often  overlooked  factor  is  church  culture.       Churches,  like  other  organizations,  have  a  unique  personality  or  culture.  It  begins  to   form  right  from  the  beginning  through  the  influence  of  those  with  the  original  vision.   Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  noted,  “An  institution  is  the  lengthened  shadow  of  one  man.”1  It   evolves  as  it  is  shaped  and  modified  through  initial  successes  and  failures  and  as  new   people  become  part  of  the  group.  Sometimes  organizational  culture  is  intentionally  shaped   over  time.  Often  it  is  deep  enough  under  the  surface  that  it  is  neither  clearly  understood   nor  consciously  engaged.       Over  time  it  gradually  solidifies  and  continues  to  impact  the  church,  largely   subconsciously.  Kevin  Gerald  writes,  “Church  culture  is  most  often  created  by  default.  It   may  come  into  existence  through  the  life  patterns  and  inherited  habits  of  its  founders,  and                                                                                                                   1  Quoted  in  William  Bridges,  The  Character  of  Organizations  (Mountain  View,  Ca:  Davies-­‐Black  Publishing,   2000),  7.     1   continue  without  much  thought  or  consideration  of  whether  or  not  some  changes  ought  to   be  made.”2       Organizational  Culture  is  increasingly  recognized  as  an  important  area  of  study  in   the  business  arena  today.  Since  the  1980s,  many  books  have  been  written,  looking  at   culture  as  a  factor  in  corporate  character  and  success.3  Interestingly,  Starbucks  even  had  a     Senior  Vice  President  of  Culture  and  Immersion,4  and  Krispy  Kreme  had  a  Minister  of   Culture.5 Now,  business  and  church  are  not  the  same,  and  what  is  true  about  some  aspects       of  organizational  culture  in  a  business  context  may  not  have  direct  correlation  to  the   church.  However,  there  are  enough  similarities  to  be  able  to  learn  and  benefit  from  a   cross-­‐disciplinary  analysis.  Even  though  the  church  is  the  Body  and  Bride  of  Christ,   populated  with  people  who  self-­‐identify  as  followers  of  Jesus  indwelt  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it   will  be  argued  that  particular  theological  emphases,  core  values,  past  experiences,   community  distinctives,  common  vision,  and  a  number  of  other  factors,  all  contribute  to  a   corporate  culture  as  unique  as  each  member’s  fingerprints.  Any  organization’s  culture,   sacred  or  secular,  has  an  impact  on  and  is  in  turn  impacted  by  the  attitudes,  personalities,   values,  strategic  decisions  and  effectiveness  of  those  in  the  organization.     Although  culture  is  generally  recognized  as  an  important  influence  in  an   organization,  there  are  differences  of  opinion  on  the  definition  and  characteristics  of                                                                                                                   2  Kevin  Gerald,  Every  Church  has  a  Culture,  By  Design  or  Default  (Tacoma:  KGC  Publishing,  2006  and  2010),   Chapter  Introduction,  Loc.  94,  Kindle.   3  Outlined  in  chapter  one  of  Daniel  R.  Denison,  Corporate  Culture  and  Organizational  Effectiveness.   (www.denisonculture.com,  1990,  1997).   4Cortney  Leach,  “From  Riots  to  Responsibility:  The  emergence  of  Starbucks’  Corporate  Social  Responsibility   Department,  2000-­‐2003,”    December  13,  2010,  Accessed  May  8,  2014.   http://www.cortneyleach.com/uploads/3/0/3/9/3039805/leach_cortney_580_casestudy.pdf,  p.6.   5  Richard  S.  Gallagher,  The  Soul  of  an  Organization  (Dearborn  Grade  Publishing:  A  Kaplan  Professional   Company,  2003),  p.29-­‐30.  Also  from  a  Fast  Company  article  in  1998:   http://www.fastcompany.com/35330/minister-­‐culture  (accessed  November  19,  2014).       2   culture.  Lewis,  Cordeiro  and  Bird  stress  the  importance  of  culture  to  the  point  that  they   claim,  “...culture  is  to  the  church  what  a  soul  is  to  the  human  body.”6  They  go  on  to  say,  “It   influences  everything  you  do.  It  colors  the  way  you  choose  and  introduce  programs.  It   shapes  how  you  select  and  train  leaders.”7  They  also  recognize  that  it  is  easier  to  see  its   influence  than  to  define  and  explain  it.  “Culture  is  also  an  enigma.  It  defies  simple   definition  and  is  difficult  to  explain.”8     Gaining  a  more  precise  understanding  of  the  definition  and  character  of   organizational  culture  will  be  part  of  the  literature  review.  There  are  a  number  of   questions  that  will  be  explored,  such  as:   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   3. How  is  it  formed?   4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?   5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   8. How  would  church  culture  be  similar  to  and  different  from  culture  in  other   organizations?     As  a  working  definition,  this  thesis  defines  Organizational  Culture  as  the  essence,   underlying  values,  attitudes,  character,  and  basic  personality  of  an  organization  that  both   influence  and  are  in  turn  influenced  by  stated  mission,  vision,  values,  rituals,  experiences,  and                                                                                                                   6  Robert  Lewis,  Wayne  Cordeiro  and  Warren  Bird.  Culture  Shift:  Transforming  your  Church  from  the  Inside   Out  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2005),  xxi.   7  Ibid.   8  Ibid.,  3.     3   behaviors.  Although  the  terms  “culture”  and  “personality”  may  not  be  technically   synonymous,  they  will  be  used  interchangeably.  This  is  in  part  because  most  of  the   literature  typically  uses  the  term  “culture,”  while  Douglass,  the  primary  source  for  the   research  behind  this  thesis,  uses  the  term  “personality.”       Philip  D.  Douglass,  whose  book  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  forms  the  core  of   this  project,  describes  a  church’s  personality  (the  term  he  primarily  uses  for  culture)  as   the  operating  system  of  a  computer,  which  is  essential  to  and  influences  every  aspect  of   the  computer’s  workings.  He  writes,  “In  a  similar  manner,  your  church’s  personality  is   always  working  quietly  behind  the  scenes,  guiding  how  your  church  thinks,  feels,  and  acts,   and  directing  ‘how  we  do  things  around  here’.”9  He  goes  on  to  warn  that  if  a  new  pastor  or     staff  member  tries  to  change  this  operating  system,  the  church  will  malfunction  in  the   form  of  conflict.  In  fact,  he  posits  that  it  is  easier  (though  tedious)  to  change  the  operating   system  of  a  computer  than  the  basic  personality  a  church.10     Although  culture  seems  to  be  a  key  factor  in  a  church’s  effectiveness,  it  is  too  often   ignored,  misunderstood,  or  underestimated.  Many  churches  and  church  leaders  may  not   recognize  the  importance  and  value  of  church  culture  in  making  ministry  and  leadership   decisions.  They  may  also  prematurely  interpret  short-­‐term  progress  or  a  change  in  vision   as  a  change  in  culture.       There  are  a  number  of  ways  that  understanding  a  congregation’s  culture  can  benefit   the  church.  One  way  is  that  a  church’s  culture  can  give  invaluable  clues  for  the  kind  of   pastoral  leadership  it  needs.  During  a  transition  between  pastors,  church  boards  and                                                                                                                   9    Philip  D.  Douglass,  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  Discovering  and  Developing  the  Ministry  Style  of  Your   Church  (Phillipsburg,  NJ:  P  &  R  Publishing,  2008),  8.   10  Ibid.     4   search  committees  often  identify  areas  they  would  like  to  see  changed,  then  look  for  a   pastor  who  is  compatible  with  that  vision.  The  pastoral  candidate  sees  a  group  of  leaders   who  want  to  see  their  church  go  in  a  direction  that  he  would  love  to  lead  them  toward,  so   is  attracted  to  that  church.  However,  if  neither  the  leaders  nor  the  pastoral  candidate   understand  the  cultural  forces  that  have  shaped  the  church’s  personality,  there  may  be  an   incompatibility  resulting  in  frustration  and  conflict.  This  is  a  key  reason  why  Douglass   developed  his  model  and  wrote  his  book.  As  a  seminary  professor,  he  wanted  to  make  sure   his  students  found  ministry  settings  that  were  a  match  for  them.  He  writes,  “What  I  found   especially  distressing  was  that  too  many  of  our  graduates  were  repeating  my  experience   of  the  1970s  and  serving  in  churches  that  were  opposite  to  their  ministry  styles.  Many  of   them  were  not  making  it  past  the  five-­‐year  mark  before  being  forced  to  resign  or   experiencing  emotional  and  spiritual  burnout.”11       A  second  way  that  understanding  a  church’s  culture  benefits  the  congregation  and   leadership  is  in  the  area  of  conflict.  A  church’s  culture  will  impact  its  theological  priorities,   view  of  leadership,  worship  style,  attitude  toward  change,  and  many  other  areas  that  each   form  potential  pinch  points  for  conflict.  If  a  congregation  does  not  recognize  its  underlying   culture,  it  will  not  know  why  it  is  pulled  in  certain  directions  and  reacts  in  certain  ways.   The  better  they  understand,  the  better  able  they  are  to  evaluate  their  attitudes  and   reactions.  Similarly,  if  a  congregation’s  leadership  understands  the  cultural  influences  that   shape  and  drive  the  church,  they  can  better  discern  what  change  would  be  most  beneficial   and  how  to  bring  about  that  change  in  a  sensitive,  respectful  way.     A  third  key  benefit  is  in  strategic  ministry  and  outreach.  Understanding  its  culture                                                                                                                   11  Ibid.     5   will  help  a  congregation  know  what  kinds  of  ministries  to  initiate  and  what  kinds  of   outreach  will  be  most  effective.  It  can  help  them  identify  segments  of  their  surrounding   community  they  are  uniquely  positioned  to  reach  and  guide  them  in  strategic  planning.  It   could  be  argued  from  a  missional  perspective  that  this  is  perhaps  the  strongest  reason  for   a  congregation  to  gain  an  understanding  of  its  culture.     Hypothesis:  The  hypothesis  of  this  project  is  that  understanding  and  leveraging  a  church's   culture  can  help  focus  its  ministry  and  maximize  its  effectiveness.   Assumptions     The  following  assumptions  have  formed  a  starting  point  for  the  research:   1. Every  church  has  a  unique  culture  that  is  deeply  imbedded  in  its  identity  and   consciousness.  It  is  formed  early  and  largely  unconsciously.  This  not  only  resonates   experientially,  it  is  supported  by  much  of  the  literature  examined  for  this  project.   Connors  and  Smith  write:  “Every  company  has  a  culture.  That  culture  either  came   about  as  the  result  of  a  methodical  effort  to  build  it,  or  it  has  developed  willy-­‐nilly,  for   better  or  worse.”12     2. However,  in  the  same  way  that  human  personality  is  more  complex  and  nuanced  than   personality  surveys  indicate,  it  is  important  to  not  oversimplify  a  church’s  culture.  As   churches  grow  older  or  larger,  or  during  times  of  change  and/or  conflict,  subcultures   may  form  and  there  tends  to  be  more  ambiguity  in  looking  at  the  total  church  culture.   Joanne  Martin  has  looked  at  the  subject  of  organizational  culture  from  three  different   perspectives:  Integration  (a  single  cohesive  culture  in  an  organization),  Differentiation   (an  overlap  of  discernible  subcultures  where  ambiguity  signals  an  area  in  flux),  and                                                                                                                   12  Roger  Connors  and  Tom  Smith.  Change  the  Culture  Change  the  Game  (New  York:  Porfolio/Penguin,  1999,   2011),  17.     6   Fragmentation  (complex  organizations  where  ambiguity  is  the  norm).13  In  fact  she   challenges  the  concept  of  a  single  integrated  culture,  claiming  that  it  ignores  the   diversity  that  is  in  any  organization.   3. A  church’s  culture  impacts  its  effectiveness  in  mission,  either  positively  or  negatively   (probably  usually  both).  This  hypothesis  about  organizational  culture  is  assumed  by   most  writers  on  the  subject  and  is  directly  addressed  by  several.14  Denison  writes,   “The  issues  raised  by  the  topic  of  organizational  culture  all  point  to  the  idea  that  an   organization’s  normative  system  –  its  system  of  values  and  management  practices  –   can  be  one  of  an  organization’s  most  important  assets  or  most  destructive  liabilities.”15   Connors  and  Smith  write,  “Every  organization  has  a  culture,  which  either  works  for   you  or  against  you  -­‐  and  it  can  make  the  difference  between  success  and  failure.”16  In   fact,  Chand  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  “Culture  –  not  vision  or  strategy  –  is  the  most  powerful   factor  in  any  organization.17  Chip  and  Dan  Heath  quote  former  IBM  CEO  Lou  Gerstner   as  saying,  “I  came  to  see  in  my  time  at  IBM,  that  culture  isn’t  just  one  aspect  of  the   game  -­‐  it  is  the  game.”18     4. Church  culture  can  be  changed,  but  not  easily.  Going  back  to  the  analogy  of  culture  and   a  computer’s  operating  system,  Douglas  writes  “If  a  new  pastor  or  staff  member  tries   to  change  the  operating  system  (i.e.,  the  church  personality)  to  fit  his  ministry  style                                                                                                                   13  Joanne  Martin,  Cultures  in  Organizations:  Three  Perspectives  (New  York:  Oxford  University  Press,  1992),   Kindle.   14  The  following  authors  are  listed  in  the  bibliography:  Denison,  Gerald,  Kotter  &  Heskett,  Hofstede,  Hofstede   &  Minkov,  Chand,  and  Connors  &  Smith.   15  Denison,  Corporate  Culture  and  Organizational  Effectiveness,  16.)   16  Connors  and  Smith,  Change  the  Culture  Change  the  Game,  7.   17  Samuel  R.  Chand,  Cracking  Your  Church's  Culture  Code.  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2011),  Chapter  1,  Loc.   186,  Kindle.       18  Quoted  but  not  cited  in  Chip  and  Dan  Heath,  Switch:  How  to  Change  Things  When  Change  is  Hard.  (New   York:  Crown  Publishing  Group,  2010),  p.242.     7   preferences,  the  church  will  malfunction  in  the  form  of  conflict.”19    Kotter  and  Heskett   use  a  great  analogy  to  stress  the  importance  of  having  the  ability  to  change  as  a  core   value,  “Cultures  that  lack  adaptive  values  at  their  core  tend  to  behave  like  mattresses   or  sofas  with  inner  springs;  it  is  possible  to  change  the  shape  of  a  part  of  these   structures  with  the  application  of  sufficient  force,  but  as  soon  as  the  force  is  removed   or  lessened  the  original  shape  often  returns.”20   5. A  church’s  basic  culture  or  personality  is  formed  very  early  in  life.  People  can,  and  do   change  throughout  their  lives,  but  they  rarely  change  their  basic  personality.  It  will  be   argued  that  the  same  is  true  of  organizations.  However,  a  fundamental  biblical  premise   is  that  God  works  in  our  lives  and  community  to  transform  us  into  his  image.  So  as   difficult  as  it  might  be,  since  it  is  possible  for  individuals  to  change,  cultural  change   among  groups  of  individuals  must  also  be  possible.   6. In  light  of  the  previous  assumption,  it  is  perhaps  more  valuable  for  congregations  to   understand  their  culture  and  see  its  potential  rather  than  attempting  to  make   wholesale  change  to  their  basic  personality.  In  assessing  a  church's  culture,  it  is   important  to  be  able  to  identify  in  what  ways  that  culture  enhances  mission  and  in   what  ways  it  hinders  it.  How  compatible  is  it  with  the  cultural  aspects  of  the   community  the  church  is  trying  to  reach?  How  do  the  attitudes,  values,  priorities,  and   behavior  patterns  that  flow  out  of  the  current  culture  align  with  Scripture?  Culture   itself  may  be  neutral,  but  it,  like  everything  else  in  creation,  is  tarnished  by  sin.   Therefore  churches  must  hold  their  culture  up  to  the  grid  of  Scripture  and  commit  to                                                                                                                   19  Douglas,  8.   20  John  P.  Kotter,  and  James  L.  Heskett.  Corporate  Culture  and  Performance.  (New  York:  The  Free  Press,  a   Division  of  Macmillan,  Inc.,  1992)  79.         8   living  out  their  God-­‐given  uniqueness  in  spiritual  and  theological  integrity.  This  could   be  seen  as  sanctifying  the  culture.   7. A  church’s  unique  culture,  properly  understood,  sanctified  and  leveraged,  can  be  a   powerful  force  for  ministry  effectiveness.  This  process  can  inform  their  strategic   planning,  guide  them  in  programming,  and  enhance  their  outreach  and  ministry.  As  the   Body  of  Christ  on  earth,  the  church  is  a  living  organism.  Though  many  other  factors   influence  the  culture  and  effectiveness  of  a  church,  God  is  active  in  shaping  them   through  their  years.  Therefore,  in  some  respects,  a  church’s  culture  can  be  seen  as  a   gift  from  God  designed  to  help  them  accomplish  what  he  wants  to  do  through  them  in   their  community.     8. Aside  from  obvious  dysfunction,  what  exactly  the  culture  is  may  be  less  important  than   that  the  congregation  understands  it.  If  there  is  informed  agreement  in  the   congregation  and  leadership,  they  can  more  easily  assess  what  needs  to  be  brought   under  the  Spirit’s  direction  and  changed,  analyze  who  they  are  best  positioned  to  reach   and  discern  how  to  best  function  within  their  personality.  But  if  there  is  a  disconnect   between  what  the  pastors,  other  leaders,  and  the  congregation  in  general  understand   as  their  culture,  it  will  make  change  even  more  difficult,  and  will  more  likely  end  up  in   conflict  and  loss  of  momentum.   Research  Question     The  question  that  this  project  will  seek  to  answer  is,  “How  effective  is  the  “Opinion   Leader  Inventory”  and  supplemental  materials  in  What  Is  Your  Church's  Personality?,  by   Philip  D.  Douglas  in  helping  the  leadership  in  an  older,  established  congregation  better   understand  the  cultural  factors  that  are  impacting  its  ministry  effectiveness?”     9   Research  Project       This  research  project  will  seek  to  walk  the  church  I  pastor,  Ladner  Baptist  Church,   through  identifying  cultural  aspects  in  our  congregation  using  the  Opinion  Leader   Inventory  and  supplemental  materials  found  in  Philip  D.  Douglas’  What  Is  Your  Church’s   Personality?       There  are  three  parts  to  this  research.  The  first  is  for  at  least  thirty  opinion  leaders  in   the  congregation  to  take  the  Opinion  Leader  Inventory  (Quantitative).  This  is  intended  to   help  identify  the  dominant  personality/culture  of  the  church.  A  copy  of  this  survey  is  in   Appendix  1.     The  second  part  involves  a  meeting  with  the  leadership  of  the  church  to  review  the   results  of  the  survey  and  to  examine  the  specific  information  and  recommendations   Douglas  gives  on  their  dominant  personality,  as  well  as  any  other  personality  styles  that   may  be  prominent.  This  material  includes  suggestions  on  how  the  culture  could  be   leveraged  for  greater  outreach  and  ministry  effectiveness.  A  copy  of  the  report  is  in   Appendix  2.     The  final  piece  of  the  research  is  a  follow-­‐up  interview  with  the  staff  and   representatives  of  the  board  to  gauge  whether  they  feel  this  tool  has  helped  them  better   understand  some  of  the  cultural  aspects  of  our  church  and  whether/how  they  think  this   information  will  help  them  strategically  (Qualitative).     The  following  questions  were  used  in  the  follow-­‐up  interview:   1. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  process  helpful?     2. In  what  ways  did  you  feel  the  process  could  have  been  improved?     3. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  inventory  helpful/less  helpful?     10     4. In  what  ways  do  you  feel  that  the  results  accurately  portray  your  church  culture?     5. Were  there  conclusions  that  you  didn't  feel  fit  your  church  culture?  If  so,  what?     6. How  comprehensively  do  you  think  these  conclusions  reflect  the  views  of  those   outside  the  primary  opinion  leaders?     7. What  did  you  learn  about  your  church  culture  from  the  inventory?       8. How  do  you  expect  to  use  (or  have  used)  this  information  to  leverage  your  ministry   planning  and  implementation?       Research  Considerations   Church       The  first  significant  consideration  for  this  research  involves  the  ministry  setting   where  the  study  takes  place.  Ladner  Baptist  Church  is  located  in  Ladner,  one  of  three  cities   along  with  North  Delta  and  Tsawwassen,  which  compose  the  municipality  of  Delta,  British   Columbia,  Canada.  Ladner  is  a  small  town  of  about  20,000  people  and  is  an  historic   farming  and  fishing  village  located  in  the  fertile  river  delta  where  the  Fraser  River  flows   into  the  Georgia  Strait.  It  is  separated  from  the  surrounding  communities  by  farmland,  the   Fraser  River,  and  Burns  Bog,  which  covers  10,000  acres  between  Ladner  and  North  Delta.   The  municipality  of  Delta  is  also  part  of  Metro  Vancouver,  one  of  the  three  largest  urban   centers  in  Canada.  Much  of  the  population  works  outside  of  Ladner,  and  travels  into  other   communities  for  shopping  and  entertainment.  This  dichotomy  of  being  a  small  town  on   the  edge  of  a  large  city  plays  a  big  role  in  the  broader  culture  of  the  community,  and   contributes  to  a  distinctive  feel  for  the  town.       Ladner  Baptist  Church  has  a  long  history  in  the  community.  It  was  formed  in  1899   and  bought  property  from  one  of  the  original  Ladner  brothers  to  build  its  first  building  in   1903.  It  moved  to  its  current  location  on  the  main  street  coming  into  town  in  the  early     11   1970’s.  In  the  late  1990’s,  they  added  another  wing  that  includes  a  gym,  large  fellowship   area,  an  enlarged  kitchen,  and  classrooms.    The  church  is  part  of  the  Fellowship  of   Evangelical  Baptist  Churches  in  Canada  nationally,  and  Fellowship  Pacific  regionally.       The  congregation  in  some  ways  reflects  the  dynamic  of  the  larger  community:  small   town  conservatism  clashing  with  a  fast  changing  urban  mentality.  One  of  the  ways  this   tension  has  shown  itself  is  in  worship  style,  going  from  more  traditional  and  formal  to   informal  and  contemporary.  It  has  also  gone  from  a  single  Sunday  morning  service,  a   completely  different  Sunday  evening  service,  and  Wednesday  evening  prayer  meeting  to   two  identical  Sunday  morning  services  and  small  groups  through  the  week.  As  the  church   has  grown,  it  has  added  staff,  and  now  has  four  full  time  ministry  staff:  Lead  and  Associate   Pastors,  Children’s  Director,  and  Administrative  Director.       Another  change  the  church  has  undergone  over  the  last  few  years  has  been  in  the   philosophy  toward  building  use.  The  church  sees  its  building  as  one  way  that  it  can  bless   and  serve  the  broader  community,  and  it  is  used  throughout  the  week  by  many   community  groups.  A  few,  such  as  Weight  Watchers,  Kumon  and  men’s  hockey,  pay  a   modest  rental  fee,  either  because  they  operate  for  profit  or  cause  greater  than  normal   wear  and  tear  on  the  building.  Other  groups  that  have  used  the  facilities  on  a  regular  basis   are  BC  Guide  Dogs,  a  home  learner’s  group,  a  home  learner’s  Scout  group,  a  large  multi-­‐ church  Migrant  Ministry  and  ESL  classes,  a  Special  Olympics  group,  an  organization  that   provides  help  and  support  for  older  special  needs  youth,  kid’s  soccer  practice,  and   community  baseball  umpire  training.  Of  those,  only  the  Migrant  Ministry  is  faith  based.  For   these,  and  for  occasional  use  by  members  of  the  community  for  parties,  meetings,   weddings  and  funerals,  or  other  gatherings,  there  is  no  charge.  In  addition,  the  kitchen  has     12   just  been  completely  refurnished  to  enable  the  congregation  to  expand  its  ministry  and   outreach  and  connect  with  the  larger  community  in  a  practical  way.     Youth  and  children’s  ministries  have  always  been  a  high  priority  for  the  church,  and   those  ministries  are  thriving.  As  a  result  of  both  its  long  history  and  its  commitment  to  the   young,  there  is  a  significant  cross  section  of  people  from  birth  into  their  nineties.   Historically,  the  tenure  of  its  pastors  has  been  shorter.  Before  our  associate  pastor  and   myself,  the  only  time  a  pastor  has  served  for  ten  years  was  during  the  1920’s.  The  current   associate  pastor,  at  more  than  fifteen  years,  has  served  the  longest.   Research  Tool       The  other  major  research  consideration  is  in  the  model  and  materials  used:  What  Is   Your  Church’s  Personality:  Discovering  and  Developing  the  Ministry  Style  of  Your  Church,  by   Philip  D.  Douglass.  This  study  was  developed  through  Douglass’  experience  as  a  pastor,   church  planter,  and  seminary  professor  of  practical  theology.  He  approaches  this  subject   from  his  own  church  planting  and  pastoral  experience,  observation,  and  involvement  with   students  going  into  ministry,  as  well  as  a  theological  understanding  of  the  church.  An   attractive  characteristic  of  this  study  is  that  Douglass’  survey  and  follow-­‐up  material  views   the  different  personalities  as  neutral.  Therefore  this  is  not  a  critical  study  trying  to   determine  health  or  dysfunction  in  church  culture.  It  views  each  of  the  eight  personality   types  as  positive  and  legitimate,  each  with  strengths  and  vulnerabilities.       Douglass  uses  a  modified  Myers-­‐Briggs  diagnostic  survey  to  help  a  church  identify  its   basic  “personality.”21 The  questions  and  how  they  are  plotted  are  found  in  Appendix  One.     He  classifies  congregations  into  eight  basic  personalities:                                                                                                                     21   Douglas uses the terms culture and personality interchangeably. 13   • Fellowship   • Inspirational   • Relational   • Entrepreneurial   • Strategizer   • Organizer   • Adventurous   • Expressive   The  following  are  some  attractive  elements  of  his  approach:   1. This  approach  does  not  judge  a  church’s  personality.  The  purpose  is  not  to  try  to  change   the  current  culture  for  a  preferred  one  but  to  understand  and  value  what  it  is.  Each   personality  type  has  strengths  and  each  has  areas  of  vulnerability  and  temptation.  In  his   chapters  on  each  of  the  personality  types,  he  describes  these  strengths  and  weaknesses.   This  approach  recognizes  that  different  kinds  of  churches  are  needed  to  reach  different   kinds  of  people,  and  that  God  uses  all  of  them.  This  is  very  positive  in  that  it  affirms  the   church  and  shows  how  their  personality  can  benefit  their  service  to  the  Lord.  It  also   alerts  the  congregations  to  those  areas  where  they  need  to  exercise  greater  caution  and   vigilance.     2. The  background  information  on  each  personality  type  goes  into  a  lot  of  detail  about   their  strong  points,  challenges,  in  what  areas  of  ministry  they  typically  excel,  their   ministry  tempo,  what  inspires  them,  what  demotivates  them,  how  they  react  to  stress,   how  they  make  decisions,  what  their  priorities  are,  their  church  ethos  and  outward   appearance,  what  gives  them  confidence  or  causes  fear,  and  what  kinds  of  people  and     14   occupations  are  attracted  to  their  personality.     There  are  also  some  aspects  of  this  model  and  materials  that  are  potential  concerns.   1. The  survey  process  is  to  have  thirty  primary  opinion  leaders  take  the  diagnostic.  Each   question  contains  two  opposite  ideas  that  relate  to  behaviors  or  traits,  such  as,  “Do  I   depend  on  my  personal  observations  in  order  to  gather  information  about  what’s   occurring  around  the  church?”  or  “Do  I  rely  more  on  my  intuition  and  hunches  in  order   to  form  impressions  about  what’s  going  on  around  the  church?”  Each  question  allows  a   range  of  opinion  from  1-­‐5.  The  instructions  indicate  that  the  opinion  leaders  are  to   answer  what  they  normally  prefer  rather  than  how  they  think  they  should  behave.  The   underlying  assumption  is  that  this  will  reveal  the  personality  of  the  church.       Although  this  sample  size  seems  to  have  statistical  respectability,  and  the  impact  of   leadership  in  shaping  culture  is  almost  universally  recognized,  one  concern  is  that  this   may  miss  historical  or  even  subversive  cultural  dynamics  that  are  not  obvious  but   compose  a  significant  part  of  the  church’s  personality.  That  is  why  there  are  questions   in  the  follow-­‐up  interview  that  allow  for  further  reflection  on  the  accuracy  of  the  results,   and  that  will  hopefully  surface  anomalies.   2. A  second  concern  is  a  personal  suspicion  with  this  type  of  personality  survey  in  general.   Whether  they  categorize  personality  by  various  bodily  fluids  (melancholic,  choleric,   sanguine  or  phlegmatic),  animals  (lion,  beaver,  otter,  golden  retriever),  Bible  characters,   birth  order,  acronyms  (DiSC,  TJTA),  or  temperament  traits,  there  seems  a  danger  of   oversimplification  that  does  not  factor  in  the  complexity  of  human  personality.  Having   said  that,  these  kinds  of  diagnostics  do  seem  to  be  helpful  in  self-­‐understanding.   Although  they  do  not  begin  to  sum  one  up,  they  tend  to  be  fairly  accurate  in  what  they     15   measure.  It  could  also  be  argued  that  any  tool  that  helps  us  understand  ourselves  better   can  be  beneficial,  especially  if  it  leads  to  more  intentional  behavior.  The  intention  is  that   the  follow-­‐up  interview  will  help  fill  in  some  of  the  blanks.   3. A  third  concern  is  to  what  extent  mixed  results  play  into  the  picture.  Do  churches  have   an  integrated  culture  that  is  unique  to  them  or  do  they  tend  to  be  more  of  an   amalgamation  of  personalities;  and  if  that  is  the  case,  how  would  that  inform  their   understanding  and  strategic  planning?    This  thesis  will  argue  the  value  of  this  model  and  the  accompanying  materials  in  helping  a   church  better  understand  the  cultural  realities  at  work  within  it.  However,  in  the  final   chapter  there  will  also  be  suggestions  for  further  research  that  will  look  at  some  of  the   relative  merits  of  other  resources  examined.   Summary  of  the  Chapters  of  the  Thesis   Literature  Review     Chapter  Two  will  look  at  a  number  of  books  on  organizational  culture  to  explore   some  foundational  questions,  as  well  as  a  deeper  analysis  of  Douglass’  book,  What  Is  Your   Church’s  Personality?       In  general,  the  business  sector  has  been  quicker  than  the  Church  to  recognize  the   importance  and  potential  of  organizational  culture  and  explore  its  nature  and  effect.  The   subject  has  also  caught  the  attention  of  academia,  and  its  contribution  has  been  very   helpful  in  challenging  some  of  the  assumptions  and  conclusions  in  the  business  literature   and  exploring  some  of  the  more  complex  elements  of  organizational  culture.     There  are  resources  written  from  a  church  perspective,  but  they  tend  to  focus  more   on  how  to  create  or  change  a  church’s  culture  without  sufficiently  addressing  the  topic  of     16   culture  itself  –  what  it  is,  how  it  is  formed,  what  its  elements  are,  and  how  it  affects   performance.  Nor  is  there  much  theological  reflection  in  these  resources  on  organizational   culture  itself.       This  paper  will  attempt  to  utilize  what  has  been  written  about  church  culture   specifically  while  seeing  how  the  broader  topic  of  organizational  culture  from  a  business   and  academic  perspective  applies  to  church.  Some  of  the  specific  questions  to  be  asked   have  already  been  listed  in  pp.  2-­‐3  of  this  chapter.     A  significant  part  of  the  literature  review  will  be  a  more  in-­‐depth  analysis  of  the   primary  book  used  in  the  research:  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  by  Philip  D.   Douglass,  looking  at  his  underlying  assumptions,  motivations,  and  conclusions,  as  well  as   the  theological  validity  of  his  research.   Theological  Reflection     Chapter  Three  will  have  a  two-­‐pronged  focus.  The  first  is  to  look  at  the  theology  of   organizational  culture  in  the  church,  addressing  specific  questions  related  to  a  theological   understanding  of  church  culture,  such  as:     1.  Is  there  theological  validity  in  using  a  survey  of  personality  types  to  examine  a   church?     2.  How  is  the  broader  concept  of  organizational  culture  informed  by  theology?     3.  What  evidences  of  the  presence,  distinctiveness,  and  impact  of  organizational   culture  can  we  find  in  the  Bible,  and  how  does  Systematic  Theology,  specifically  the   areas  of  Theology,  Anthropology,  Christology,  and  Ecclesiology  inform  our   understanding?         The  second  focus  is  whether  there  are  evidences  of  what  today  would  be  identified   17   as  organizational  culture  in  the  churches  of  the  New  Testament.  Specific  attention  will  be   paid  to  the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  in  Revelation  2-­‐3.  Part  of  this   theological  reflection  will  be  a  SWOT  (Strengths,  Weaknesses,  Opportunities,  Threats)   analysis  on  each  church  from  what  is  written  in  the  letters.       One  of  the  intriguing  factors  about  an  analysis  of  these  letters  from  an  organizational   culture  perspective  is  that  they  are  not  typically  addressed  from  that  focus.  This  gives  an   opportunity  to  take,  if  not  a  fresh  look,  at  least  a  different  angle  of  view  than  normal.     Research  Project     Chapter  four  will  describe  the  three  stages  of  research,  outline  the  process  used,   and  explore  the  results.  There  will  also  be  an  attempt  to  assess  the  strengths  and   weaknesses  of  each  of  the  stages  in  order  to  facilitate  future  research  in  this  area.   Summary     Chapter  5  will  give  a  summary  of  what  has  been  learned  through  looking  at  this   topic  from  the  various  perspectives  of  the  literature  review,  theological  reflection,  and  the   research  project  itself.  It  will  address  some  of  the  implications  of  the  project  and  make   suggestions  for  further  research  and  for  improving  the  process  of  understanding  and   leveraging  a  church’s  culture.       Effectiveness  in  ministry  and  outreach  matters.  We  have  a  mission  that  is  bigger  than   our  forms,  traditions,  and  doctrinal  and  cultural  shibboleths.  The  hope  is  that  this  study   helps  us  better  understand  the  role  that  organizational  culture  has  in  the  life  and  mission   of  the  church  so  that  we  can  become  and  make  disciples  more  effectively.         18       CHAPTER  TWO:  LITERATURE  REVIEW  AND  THEORETICAL  FOUNDATIONS   There  is  a  growing  body  of  literature  on  the  subject  of  organizational  culture  that   ranges  from  popular  to  academic,  and  from  practical  to  theoretical.  These  resources  seek   to  understand  how  cultural  factors  influence  an  organization,  and  whether  or  how  they   can  be  changed  for  more  intentional  effectiveness  and  profitability.  One  goal  of  this   chapter  will  be  to  summarize  how  the  books  used  for  this  thesis  address  the  following   questions:   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   3. How  is  it  formed?   4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?   5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   The  purpose  of  this  is  to  gain  a  more  precise  understanding  of  the  definition  and  character   of  organizational  culture,  and  to  see  the  degree  of  variance  or  alignment  there  might  be   generally  in  the  literature.  The  literature  studied  for  this  thesis  explores  organizational   culture  from  a  church  perspective,  others  targeted  specifically  to  businesses,  generally  in  a   more  pragmatic  focus,  as  well  as  books  that  address  the  subject  with  a  more  academic   approach.  Generally  speaking,  with  the  exception  of  the  books  written  specifically  for   churches,  the  topic  seems  more  aimed  at  the  business  sector,  even  if  written  from  an   academic  perspective.    One  interesting  sidelight  of  this  research  has  been  to  see  some   interesting  metaphors  and  analogies  used  to  describe  organizational  culture.  Some  of     19   these  will  be  mentioned  in  this  section.     There  will  be  three  parts  to  this  chapter.  The  first  will  be  an  overview  of  books   dealing  with  organizational  culture  specifically  from  the  perspective  of  the  church.  As  was   mentioned  in  chapter  one,  the  church  has  been  slower  than  both  the  business  and   academic  arenas  to  embrace  the  concepts  of  organizational  culture  as  they  relate  to   congregations.  However,  six  books  were  found  dealing  with  organizational  culture  within   the  church,  five  of  which  will  be  reviewed  in  this  section.  This  is  done  first  because  it  is   assumed  that  since  this  thesis  relates  to  organizational  culture  within  a  church  context,   most  who  read  it  will  be  more  interested  in  this  focus.       Following  that  will  be  a  deeper  look  at  four  books  that  have  been  especially  useful   for  understanding  organizational  culture  and  the  use  of  tools  to  discover  it.  Two  of  them   are  “must  reads”  for  those  interested  in  the  broader  subject  of  organizational  culture  and   the  other  two  have  specific  areas  of  focus  that  were  particularly  helpful  for  this  study.     The  final  section  will  be  a  more  detailed  review  of  the  book  that  serves  as  the   primary  resource  for  this  project  –  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  Discovering  and   Developing  the  Ministry  Style  of  Your  Church,  by  Philip  D.  Douglass.   Books  on  Church  Culture   Culture  Shift,  by  Robert  Lewis  and  Wayne  Cordeiro,  with  Warren  Bird     This  book  is  written  by  two  veteran  pastors  who  lead  churches  they  describe  as   “vastly  different  above  ground.”22  Wayne  Cordeiro  is  founder  and  senior  pastor  of  New   Hope  Christian  Fellowship  in  Hawaii,  a  Four  Square  church.  Robert  Lewis  is  “pastor  at   large”  of  Fellowship  Bible  Church  in  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  a  non-­‐denominational  church.                                                                                                                   22  Robert  Lewis,  Wayne  Cordeiro  and  Warren  Bird.  Culture  Shift:  Transforming  your  Church  from  the  Inside   Out  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2005),  xxiii.     20   The  preface  gives  both  the  underlying  motivation  for  the  book  as  well  as  the  general   purpose:  “Culture  Shift,  born  out  of  a  passion  we  both  hold  deeply,  is  written  to  help  you   develop  an  irresistible  culture  in  your  congregation.”23  They  go  on  to  reveal  their  purpose:   “We  both  make  it  our  first  priority  to  protect,  cultivate,  and  enrich  the  cultures  of  our   churches.  Indeed,  every  vibrant  church  has  learned  to  partner  with  the  Holy  Spirit  in   developing  a  thriving,  contagious,  irresistible  culture…”24       They  do  not  attempt  in  any  way  to  give  an  academic  analysis  of  culture.  They  give  a   general  overview  of  church  culture  in  part  one,  but  their  primary  goal  is  to  show  how  to   develop  a  good  culture  in  a  new  church  or  how  to  shift  an  unhealthy  culture  in  an  existing   church.  As  a  result,  everything  is  focused  on  how  the  leaders  of  a  church  can  develop,   shape,  and  change  (shift)  a  church’s  culture.     • Part  1  gives  a  very  elementary  analysis  of  culture.     • Part  2  deals  with  identifying  and  shifting  a  church’s  culture,  focusing  on  leadership  and   values;  the  vision  statement  of  the  church;  symbols,  ceremonies  and  celebrations;  and   finally,  the  senior  leader.  One  of  the  strengths  of  this  book  is  the  chapter  in  this  section   emphasizing  the  need  to  work  in  partnership  with  the  Holy  Spirit.   • Parts  3  and  4  are  the  specific  examples  of  New  Hope  and  Fellowship  Bible  Church   respectively.     • Lastly,  Part  5  deals  with  creating  an  irresistible  culture  using  the  following   progression:   1) Identify  and  believe  God’s  promises  about  your  church’s  potential.                                                                                                                   23  Ibid.,  xxi.   24  Ibid.,  xxiii       21   2) Model  kingdom  culture  personally.   3) Enlist  allies  to  champion  the  culture  shift.   4) Focus  on  “what  we’re  becoming.”   5) Compare  the  vision  of  the  future  to  present  reality.   6) Outline  a  specific,  doable  pathway.   7) Help  it  filter  through  the  church,  and  learn  from  feedback  you  receive.   8) Stay  focused  on  transformed  people  and  on  those  receptive  to  change.25     They  use  an  interesting  metaphor  to  describe  culture:  totems.  Totems  describe  the   values  of  a  community.  Each  of  the  animals  carved  on  a  totem  pole  speaks  to  a  particular   quality  or  value  of  their  culture.  They  suggest  that  “Churches  too  can  use  a  metaphorical   totem  to  picture  their  core  spiritual  values  and  practices,  signifying  their  culture  and  the   atmosphere  they  want  to  build.  These  totems  are  the  guiding  values  that  birth  the  unique   culture  of  a  church.”26     The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?     “Yet  we  believe  culture  is  to  the  church  what  a  soul  is  to  the  human  body.  It  is  an   overall  life  force  that  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  to  give  energy,  personality,  and  uniqueness  to   everything  a  body  of  believers  says  and  does.27     “Your  culture  is  the  lens  through  which  you  view  your  life.  If  you  change  the  lens,   you  change  your  outlook.  Change  the  culture,  and  everything  else  changes,  including  the                                                                                                                   25  Ibid.,  183.   26  Ibid.,  43.   27  Ibid.,  xxi  (italics  theirs).     22   future.”28       “Culture  is  also  an  enigma.  It  defies  simple  definition  and  is  difficult  to  explain.”29   2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   A  church’s  culture  represents  the  intersection  of  three  values  you’re  to  steward:   God’s  kingdom  agenda,  who  you  are,  and  your  unique  setting.  These  are  the   foundational  elements  of  a  church’s  culture.  When  church  leaders  get  in  touch  with   God’s  kingdom  culture,  begin  to  live  it,  and  figure  out  how  it  can  be  expressed  in  their   locality,  then  a  new,  rich  culture  inevitably  emerges.30     3. How  is  it  formed?   “Culture  is  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  the  next  through  language,  material   objects,  ritual,  institutions,  and  art.”31   4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?   This  seems  to  be  assumed  in  the  model  but  both  authors  are  experienced  pastors  of   large  churches,  so  recognize  that  not  everyone  is  going  to  be  in  the  same  place  at  the  same   time.   5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   This  is  the  whole  premise  and  purpose  of  the  book.     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   They  have  a  great  appreciation  for  the  power  of  culture,  for  good  or  bad.     “Church  culture  is  foundational  to  the  life  and  witness  of  every  church.”32                “It  influences  everything  you  do.  It  colors  the  way  you  choose  and  introduce  programs.   It  shapes  how  you  select  and  train  leaders.”33                                                                                                                   28  Ibid.,  12.   29  Ibid.,  3.   30  Ibid.,  20.   31  Ibid.,  12.   32  Ibid.,  2.   33  Ibid.,  xxi.     23   “Culture  is  the  most  important  social  reality  in  your  church.  Though  invisible  to  the   untrained  eye,  its  power  is  undeniable.  Culture  gives  color  and  flavor  to  everything  your   church  is  and  does.”34   7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   “Like  a  powerful  current  running  through  your  church,  it  can  move  you  inland  or  take   you  farther  out  to  sea.  It  can  prevent  your  church’s  potential  from  ever  being  realized,  or  –   if  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit  –  it  can  draw  others  in  and  reproduce  healthy  spiritual  life  all   along  the  way.”35            “Your  church  can  indeed  make  certain  changes  and  become  the  way  church  was  always   meant  to  be.  Such  changes  focus  not  so  much  on  the  latest  new  idea  or  program  but  on  a   culture  shift  that  honors  your  church’s  unique  values.”36     Conclusion   Strengths   This  book  is  more  motivational  than  instructive.  It  is  an  action-­‐oriented  book  that   stresses  the  importance  of  leadership  and  working  with  the  Spirit.  The  imagery  of  totems   gives  a  helpful  handle  on  communicating  culture.  It  is  optimistic  of  being  able  to  shift  the   culture  of  a  church.  It  is  also  helpful  to  read  the  personal  stories  of  two  veteran   practitioners  who  have  been  very  effective  in  very  different  ministry  settings.  In  some   respects,  this  made  the  book  worth  reading.   Weaknesses     Although  the  book  acknowledges  the  importance  of  culture,  it  does  little  to  advance                                                                                                                   34  Ibid.,  3.   35  Ibid.   36  Ibid.,  7  (italics  theirs).     24   our  knowledge  of  some  of  the  more  basic  questions  of  church  culture.  It  tends  to  view   culture  as  healthy  vs.  unhealthy,  although  the  fact  that  the  two  principle  authors  pastor   such  different  churches  shows  that  they  do  not  have  a  particular,  narrow  perspective  on   what  style  that  culture  should  be.  They  give  a  general  framework  for  change,  but  other   than  some  guidelines,  they  do  not  offer  tools  for  gaining  any  kind  of  a  precise   understanding  of  a  church’s  culture.  Also,  there  is  very  little  theological  reflection  on  the   subject  of  church  culture.   Church  Unique:  How  Missional  Leaders  Cast  Vision,  Capture  Culture,  and  Create   Movement,  by  Will  Mancini   The  theme  of  this  book  is  that  every  church  is  unique  and  the  key  to  effective   ministry  is  to  identify  that  uniqueness  and  work  with  it  missionally.  The  stated  purpose  is   “to  challenge  you  to  find  your  Church  Unique  –  that  is,  to  live  a  vision  that  creates  a   stunningly  unique,  movement-­‐oriented  church.”37  The  book  begins  by  explaining  what  it  is   not:  it  is  intentionally  not  academic.  It  states  right  up  front  that  it  “does  not  offer   conclusions  and  extrapolations  based  on  surveys  or  other  empirical  analysis;”38  does  not   focus  on  a  “particular  tactic  of  church  leadership;”39  and  is  not  the  story  of  any  one  church.   Instead  of  a  strategic  planning  model,  he  proposes  what  he  calls  the  Vision   Pathway.  The  steps  to  this  are:     1. Discover  your  Kingdom  Concept  (Part  2)   2. Develop  your  Vision  Frame  (Part  3)   3. Deliver  your  Vision  Daily  (Part  4)40                                                                                                                     37  Will  Mancini,  Church  Unique.  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2008),  xxi,  Kindle.   38  Ibid.,  xxii.   39  Ibid.,  xxiv.   40  Ibid.,  xxvi     25   Mancini  stresses  that  each  church  is  unique  and  equates  that  uniqueness  with  its  culture.   He  writes:  “Wouldn’t  each  church,  however  small,  carry  a  unique  collective  soul,  because   each  church  is  a  different  subset  of  one-­‐of-­‐a-­‐kind  saints?”41   The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   He  defines  culture  as  “the  combined  effect  of  the  interacting  values,  thoughts,  attitudes,   and  actions  that  define  the  life  of  your  church.”42       He  also  uses  the  equation:  Uniqueness  =  Culture   2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?    and  …   3. How  is  it  formed?   He  attempts  to  “remove  some  of  the  enigma  of  culture”43  by  identifying  the  sources  of   uniqueness  for  a  church.  For  each  of  these  he  asks  questions  and  gives  an  illustration  from   his  consulting  experience.   • Leaders   • Gifts   • Heritage   • Experiences   • Tradition   • Values   • Personality   • Evangelism                                                                                                                   41  Ibid.,  6.   42  Ibid.   43  Ibid.,  7.     26   • Recovery     • Motivation   He  would  look  at  these  not  only  as  elements  that  compose  culture,  but  also  how  culture  is   formed.  (Question  3)   4. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   The  emphasis  of  the  book  is  less  on  changing  the  culture  (uniqueness)  of  a  church  as   much  as  finding  God’s  unique  vision  within  it.  “At  some  point,  a  defining  moment  occurs;  a   particular  call  from  God  collides  with  a  concrete  need  in  our  little  corner  of  the  world.”44   He  includes  some  great  quotes  from  others  about  vision:   • Frederick  Buechner  described  vision  as  the  place  “where  your  deep  gladness  and   the  world’s  deep  hunger  meet.”45     • Oswald  Chambers  describes  vision  as  “the  big  compelling  of  God.”46   The  change  he  proposes  is  for  a  church  to  find  its  Kingdom  Concept,  that  “big  idea”  that   defines  how  it  will  glorify  God  and  make  disciples,47  and  then  take  advantage  of  their   uniqueness  for  Kingdom  benefit.  The  model  he  proposes  takes  a  church  through  that   process.   5. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?  and  …   6. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   Questions  5  and  6  will  be  dealt  with  together.  Mancini  writes:  “Until  leaders  not  only   embrace  uniqueness  but  celebrate  and  leverage  it,  they  will  miss  out  on  God’s  best  for                                                                                                                   44  Ibid.,  73.   45  Ibid.   46  Ibid.,  74.   47  Ibid.,  84.     27   their  ministry.”48    He  continues,  “When  leaders  start  thinking  clearly,  engaging  locally,   focusing  redemptively,  and  risking  boldly,  their  church  becomes  an  unstoppable  force  and   an  irresistible  influence.”49     The  Vision  Pathway  model  is  designed  to  walk  a  church  through  the  process  of   discovering  their  Kingdom  Concept,  developing  a  Vision  Frame  to  graphically  illustrate   that,  and  then  to  communicate  it  constantly.  From  a  strategic  standpoint,  he  writes  that   “your  Kingdom  Concept  is  what  differentiates  you  from  every  other  church  in  how  you   develop  followers  of  Christ  for  God’s  ultimate  honor.”50     Conclusion   Strengths   This  was  one  of  the  more  interesting  and  helpful  books  written  from  a  church   perspective,  and  is  well  worth  reading.  It  avoided  some  of  the  “just  do  these  ten  things,”  or   “focus  on  these  four  areas”  of  some  of  the  other  books.  It  also  recognized  validity  in   uniqueness  and  built  its  whole  model  around  finding  and  leveraging  it.  The  book  did  not   get  hung  up  in  a  “this  or  that”  context  for  organizational  culture  but  assumes  that  properly   understood  and  submitted  to  God,  any  culture  can  be  healthy  and  dynamic.  In  fact,  it  is  this   uniqueness  that  is  a  church’s  strongest  strategic  asset.  Although  the  Vision  Path  process  is   quite  involved  and  not  particularly  simple,  it  appears  to  be  a  powerful  tool  for   understanding  not  only  what  sets  your  church  apart,  but  how  that  uniqueness  can  be  used   for  kingdom  benefit.   Another  strength  is  a  clear  process  for  working  through  the  system  with  practical                                                                                                                   48  Ibid.,  xxvi   49  Ibid.   50  Ibid.,  84.     28   guidance  at  each  step.  Unlike  Douglass’  system,  there  is  no  attempt  to  categorize  a  church;   in  fact,  there  is  some  reaction  to  that  approach.  The  whole  point  is  to  identify  what  makes   them  unique,  not  to  try  to  group  them  with  others.  Although  this  research  project  chose  to   go  with  Douglass’  methodology,  the  emphasis  of  this  book  on  uniqueness  is  a  helpful   balance,  and  would  be  a  reasonable  option  for  a  further  project.   A  big  strength  of  the  book  is  that  there  was  more  emphasis  on  theological  reflection   than  any  of  the  other  books  on  church  culture  referenced  for  this  project.  One  interesting   example  of  this  was  a  section  entitled  “Red-­‐Letter  Vision  Frame:  How  Jesus  Articulated  His   Vision  in  the  Book  of  Mark.”51    This  section  took  various  teachings  of  Jesus  in  Mark  and   showed  how  they  could  fit  into  a  Vision  Frame.  There  were  several  other  examples  in  the   book  like  this.   Weaknesses   The  main  idea  was  sometimes  hard  to  keep  in  sight.  At  times  it  felt  like  there  was   an  outline  within  an  outline.  At  the  beginning  of  the  book  he  diagrammed  where  he  was   going  (as  mentioned  earlier  on  the  discussion  of  the  Vision  Pathway).  The  titles  of  the   various  sections  support  this:  Part  One  –  Recasting  Vision,  Part  Two  –  Clarifying  Vision,   Part  Three  –  Articulating  Vision,  and  Part  Four  –  Advancing  Vision  (more  on  the   parallelisms  later).  However  the  actual  chapters  sometimes  seemed  to  draw  the  eye  away   from  the  main  points.  Chapter  Titles  under  part  one,  Recasting  Vision,  are:  Unoriginal  Sin,   The  Fall  of  Strategic  Planning,  The  Iniquity  of  Church  Growth,  and  Lost  Congregations.   Although  there  was  helpful  information  in  all  of  them,  the  effect  was  sometimes  to  diffuse   the  overall  focus.                                                                                                                   51  Ibid.,  117ff.     29   One  of  the  most  distracting  elements  of  this  book  was  an  almost  1980’s  and  90’s   obsession  with  alliteration  and  parallelism  that  sometimes  took  away  from  the  clarity  of   the  message.  For  instance,  when  describing  how  to  find  one’s  Kingdom  Concept,  he   pictured  it  as  three  intersecting  circles.  The  circles  stood  for  “Local  predicament,”   “Collective  potential”  and  “Apostolic  espirit.”  A  church’s  Kingdom  Concept  was  where   those  three  circles  overlap.  That  is  a  brilliant  concept  and  is  very  helpful  in  trying  to   ascertain  uniqueness,  but  the  phrase  “Local  predicament,”  though  understandable,  needs   some  clarification  and  the  phrase  “Apostolic  espirit”  is  so  awkward  and  obscure  it   demands  explanation.  Another  example  is  when  communicating  how  to  work  through  the   Vision  Frame  he  writes  that  the  development  moves  from  Missional  Mandate  to  Missional   Motives,  to  Missional  Map,  to  Missional  Marked  Lives.52  And  one  more:  in  communicating   the  vision  you  need  to  be  clear,  concise,  compelling,  catalytic,  and  contextual  –  which  when   all  put  together  is  contagious.53  At  one  time  this  was  a  common  communication  technique   to  aid  memory,  but  today  is  a  bit  annoying,  sounds  clichéd  and  affected,  distracts  from  the   conciseness  of  the  message,  and  more  likely  dates  the  communicator.       The  focus  on  and  appreciation  of  each  church’s  uniqueness  is  helpful,  but  to  boil   organizational  culture  all  down  to  uniqueness  (Uniqueness  =  Culture)  oversimplifies  the   concept  and  reframes  the  whole  discussion.   Every  Church  Has  A  Culture,  By  Design  or  Default,  by  Kevin  Gerald   Kevin  Gerald  is  the  founder  and  lead  pastor  of  Champions  Centre,  a  multi-­‐site   church  in  Tacoma  and  Bellevue,  Washington.  The  question  to  church  leaders  and  lay   people  that  fuels  his  writing  is  “whether  or  not  the  culture  is  helping  or  hurting  their                                                                                                                   52  Ibid.,  115.   53  Ibid.,  116.     30   effectiveness.”54  He  states  his  approach  in  writing  as,  “Because  lay  people  influence  the   church  culture  as  do  its  leaders,  this  book  is  intended  to  help  both  pastors  and  members   engage  in  the  never  ending  process  of  creating  a  purposeful  church  culture,  which  flows   with  the  synergy  of  their  vision  for  reaching  the  world  with  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.”55   His  basic  argument  is  that  every  church  has  a  culture,  whether  it  has  been  formed   intentionally  or  not,  and  since  it  affects  the  church  so  dramatically,  it  is  important  to   understand  the  dynamics  of  culture  and  design  your  culture  purposefully.  He  writes:   • • • It  is  possible  to  design  a  culture  that  supports  and  champions  the  message  you   want  to  communicate  to  your  city.   It  is  possible  to  create  a  culture  that  doesn’t  contradict  your  everyday  lifestyle   but  complements  all  that  you  do.   It  is  possible  to  create  a  life-­‐generating  church  culture  that  exists  on  purpose   with  a  culture  by  design.56       He  proposes  seven  practices  of  Culture  by  Design57    and  organizes  the  book  around   them  (one  chapter  each):   1. Create  a  model  for  culture-­‐creating  leadership.   2. Define  the  attitudes  and  design  the  atmosphere  that  will  attract  people  to  God.   3. Define  your  church  “Mission  and  Values”  to  form  a  constant  compass  that   church  members  can  refer  to.   4. Create  the  culture  of  a  life-­‐giving  platform.  (Referring  to  the  platform   ministries.)   5. Create  the  culture  of  corporate  competence.   6. Create  a  culture  that  embraces  the  contribution  of  both  men  and  women.  (A                                                                                                                   54  Gerald,  Every  Church  has  a  Culture,  By  Design  or  Default,  Introduction,  Loc.  79,  Kindle.   55  Ibid.,  Introduction,  Loc.  112.   56  Ibid.   57  Ibid.,  Introduction,  Loc.  133.     31   “gender  friendly  culture.”)   7. Create  a  team  church  culture.   The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   Although  he  does  not  give  a  succinct  definition  of  church  culture,  in  the  first  chapter,   entitled  “Know  the  Facts  about  Church  Culture,”  he  gives  five  facts:     • Every  church  has  a  culture  either  by  design  or  default.   • The  culture  is  revealed  in  the  church’s  packaging  and  presentation  of  the  gospel.   • The  culture  of  your  church  determines  who  comes  and  who  stays  at  your  church.   • Whatever  the  current  culture  is,  it  will  grow.   • A  culture  by  default  is  old  and  fixed,  but  a  created  culture  is  always  evolving.   2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?       “Whatever  habits  and  practices  are  accepted  as  normal  for  your  church  will  become   the  culture  that  continues  to  grow  there.”58     3. How  is  it  formed?   “Church  culture  is  most  often  created  by  default.  It  may  come  into  existence  through   the  life  patterns  and  inherited  habits  of  its  founders,  and  continue  without  much  thought   or  consideration  of  whether  or  not  some  changes  ought  to  be  made.  Typically  a  church’s   culture  is  rooted  in  dated  traditions  and  methodologies  that  appear  too  sacred  to  question   or  require  too  much  effort  to  update  with  more  relevant  practices.”59     4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?     The  premise  of  the  book  is  that  a  culture  can  be  designed  and  implemented  in  a  church,                                                                                                                   58  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  461.   59  Ibid.,  Introduction,  Loc.  94.     32   so  the  assumption  is  that  this  would  be  a  unified  culture.  However,  he  does  address  the   question  of  subcultures.     “The  clear  and  consistent  communication  of  values  helps  to  eliminate  or  minimize  the   existence  of  subcultures  in  the  church  by  getting  people  on  the  same  page.   Subcultures  that  are  inconsistent  with  the  values  of  the  leader  will  always  weaken  the   effectiveness  of  the  organization.  These  subcultures  don’t  typically  originate  in   rebellion;  rather  they  originate  by  default  in  organizations  that  lack  design.”60       5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   The  book  is  written  as  a  manual  for  developing  or  changing  the  culture  of  a  church.  The   way  it  is  done  is  by  following  the  seven  practices  listed  above.   6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?     The  consistent  message  throughout  the  book  is  that  culture  has  a  tremendous  impact   on  the  church.  That  is  why  it  is  so  important  to  intentionally  determine  what  that  culture   will  be,  so  that  the  church  will  not  be  held  back  by  an  undefined,  undesigned  culture.   “Culture  by  design,  instead  of  by  happenstance,  will  always  lead  to  a  more  productive  and   successful  ministry.”61     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   Avoiding  the  consequences  of  an  unspoken  but  active  culture  and  aligning  the  culture   with  the  mission  and  values  is  the  primary  strategic  advantage.  However  much  of  this  is   assumed  because  the  emphasis  of  the  book  is  on  designing  and  controlling  the  culture   rather  than  trying  to  understand  what  it  currently  is.   Conclusion   This  book  turned  out  to  be  considerably  more  helpful  than  originally  assumed  from   the  fact  that  it  was  written  by  someone  who  named  his  church  “Champions  Centre.”  There                                                                                                                   60  Ibid.,  Chapter  4,  Loc.  1032.   61  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  381.     33   was  an  expectation  of  “power  of  positive  thinking,”  prosperity  teaching,  that  may  have   peeked  through  on  occasion,  but  certainly  did  not  set  the  tone  of  the  book.  Although  it   does  not  do  a  lot  to  advance  our  understanding  of  church  culture,  it  does  emphasize  the   importance  of  intentional  leadership  and  gives  some  valuable  insights  into  how  to  shape   culture.     Strengths     The  book  is  written  with  an  earnest  desire  for  churches  to  be  as  effective  as   possible  in  evangelism  and  ministry.  One  great  quote  in  the  section  on  Attractive  Attitudes   and  Atmospheres  was,  “We  can,  and  should,  make  it  hard  for  someone  to  choose  to  go  to   hell.”62  The  book  champions  (pun  intended)  an  atmosphere  that  attracts  people  to  the   gospel  then  helps  them  transition  to  being  an  active,  serving  part  of  the  community.  He   makes  a  statement  that  is  obvious,  but  well-­‐phrased,  “Visitors  represent  100  percent  of  a   church’s  growth  potential.”63       Another  strength  of  the  book  that  did  not  appear  as  much  in  the  other  books   written  from  a  church  perspective  was  the  emphasis  on  the  Sunday  services,  giving  a   whole  chapter  to  “Establish  a  Life-­‐Giving  Platform.”  He  references  a  theme  that  he  and  his   wife  adopted  early  on,  “Success  Begins  on  Sunday.”64  He  writes,  “Without  a  doubt,  nothing   is  as  important  to  the  growth  and  health  of  the  church  as  its  church  services.”65  This  was   written  within  the  broader  context  of  the  whole  atmosphere  and  ministry  of  the  church,   but  it  is  a  helpful  reminder  that  what  happens  in  our  services  sets  the  tone  for  the  general   attitude  toward  the  church.  It  is  a  vital  opportunity  to  help  shape  the  culture  of  the                                                                                                                   62  Ibid.,  Chapter  3,  Loc.  683.   63  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  1710.   64  Ibid.,  Chapter  5,  Loc.  1091.   65  Ibid.,  Chapter  5,  Loc.  1098.     34   congregation.     A  third  strength  is  in  the  seven-­‐step  process  that  formed  the  outline  of  the  book.   Although  it  is  questionable  how  effective  these  steps  would  be  in  bringing  fundamental   change  to  a  church’s  culture,  it  could  be  a  valuable  process  to  work  through.   Weaknesses     The  book  is  written  about  culture,  but  little  effort  is  made  to  define  what  is  meant   by  the  word.  Also,  there  seems  to  be  a  narrow  band  of  what  is  acceptable  in  a  healthy   church  culture.  There  are  a  number  of  Scripture  references  in  the  book,  but  very  little   theological  reflection,  certainly  nothing  related  to  the  broader  subject  of  church  culture.     Cracking  Your  Church’s  Culture  Code:  Seven  Keys  to  Unleashing  Vision  &  Inspiration,   by  Samuel  R.  Chand     Samuel  Chand,  raised  in  a  pastor’s  home  in  India,  has  served  as  senior  pastor,   college  president,  chancellor,  and  president  emeritus  of  Beulah  Heights  University.66   According  to  his  webpage,  www.samchand.com,  his  vocational  focus  is  Leadership,  and  he   personally  consults,  mentors,  and  coaches  “some  of  the  country’s  largest  Church  pastors.”       The  title  of  the  first  chapter  “Culture  Trumps  Vision”  shows  how  strongly  he  feels   about  the  subject.  He  writes,  “Culture  –  not  vision  or  strategy  –  is  the  most  powerful  factor   in  any  organization.”67  He  goes  on  to  say,  “Ultimately,  the  culture  of  an  organization  –   particularly  in  churches  and  nonprofit  organizations,  but  also  in  any  organization  –  shapes   individual  morale,  teamwork,  effectiveness,  and  outcomes.”68  The  purpose  of  the  book  is   to  help  churches  assess  their  culture  in  one  of  five  categories:  Inspiring,  Accepting,                                                                                                                   66  Chand,  Cracking  Your  Church's  Culture  Code,  “The  Author”,  Loc.  3004,  Kindle.     67  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  195.   68  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  199.     35   Stagnant,  Discouraging,  and  Toxic.  He  gives  a  section  to  each  of  these  categories  in  Chapter   2  –  Culture  Killers.       There  is  access  to  an  online  tool  that  seeks  to  identify  a  church’s  culture  in  seven   key  areas  forming  an  acrostic  of  “culture.”  He  writes,  “To  help  you  uncover  the  nature  of   your  existing  culture  and  identify  the  steps  of  change,  this  book  examines  the  full  range  of   culture  health  from  inspiring  to  toxic,  and  describes  the  seven  keys  of  CULTURE:   1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Control   Understanding   Leadership   Trust   Unafraid   Responsive   Execution”69       The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   “First,  we  need  to  understand  what  we  mean  by  the  term  organizational  culture.  It  is   the  personality  of  the  church  or  nonprofit.  Like  all  personalities,  it’s  not  simple  to  define   and  describe.”70     “Organizational  culture  includes  tangibles  and  intangibles…  The  intangibles  may  be   harder  to  grasp,  but  they  give  a  better  read  on  the  organization’s  true  personality.”71     “Many  leaders  confuse  culture  with  vision  and  strategy,  but  they  are  very  different.   Vision  and  strategy  usually  focus  on  products,  services,  and  outcomes,  but  culture  is  about   the  people  –  the  most  valuable  asset  in  the  organization.”72     2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?                                                                                                                       69  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  203.   70  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  213.   71  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  217.   72  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  223.     36   “The  inputs  into  the  ‘cultural  system’  include  the  stories  that  surround  the  staff’s   experiences;  shared  goals  and  responsibilities;  respect  and  care  for  people;  balance   between  bold  leadership  and  listening;  and  clear,  regular  communication.”73     “The  outcomes  include  the  reputation  of  the  leader,  the  reputation  of  the  organization,   the  attractiveness  of  the  church  or  nonprofit  to  prospective  new  staff  members,  a  measure   of  pride  in  being  a  part  of  the  organization,  and  a  positive  impact  on  the  entire   community.”74       He  differentiates  between  vision/strategy  and  culture  using  a  driving  metaphor:   “We’ll  use  the  metaphor  of  a  race  car  to  illustrate  the  differences.  Think  of  a  high-­‐ performance  Indy  car,  finely  tuned  and  built  for  speed.  The  car  represents  the   organization’s  vision  and  strategy.  The  car,  though,  can  go  only  as  fast  as  the  road  allows   and  the  culture  is  the  road.”75     3. How  is  it  formed?   See  quote  above  regarding  the  following:  inputs;  stories  from  staff  experiences;  shared   goals  and  responsibilities;  respect  and  care  for  people;  balance  between  bold  leadership   and  listening;  and  clear,  regular  communication.   4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?     The  assumption  is  that  the  ideal  is  a  unified  culture  and  the  goal  is  to  work  toward  that.   Disunity  is  an  indication  of  lack  of  health,  or  at  the  least  transition.   “Every  team  leader  knows  that  some  people  on  the  team  are  more  eager  to  jump  on  the   train  of  a  new  idea  than  others,  and  there’s  always  someone  who  drags  his  feet  yelling,   ‘No,  it  won’t  work!’  up  to  the  day  the  team  celebrates  the  success  of  the  venture.   Leaders  need  to  recognize  that  people  have  different  degrees  of  capability  to  embrace                                                                                                                   73  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  233.   74  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  235.   75  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  482.     37   the  chaos  of  change.”76       5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   The  book  is  written  to  help  a  church  see  what  needs  to  change  and  to  implement  it.   However,  changing  a  culture  is  not  easy.     “Culture  is  hard  to  change,  but  change  results  in  multiplied  benefits.”77     “Of  course,  cultures  can  change,  but  only  when  top  leaders  have  the  courage  to  take  an   objective  appraisal  of  reality…  The  first  step,  then,  is  to  uncover  and  face  the  truth.”78     “Pastors  and  business  leaders  report  that  it’s  relatively  easy  to  institute  a  new  program   or  introduce  a  new  product,  but  changing  the  culture  is  the  hardest  thing  they’ve  ever   done.”79     “Changing  a  culture  requires  tremendous  patience.  We  can  rearrange  boxes  on  an   organizational  chart  in  a  moment,  but  changing  culture  is  heart  surgery.”80     “Most  organizational  consultants  report  that  it  takes  about  three  years  to  change  the   culture  of  a  team,  a  church,  a  nonprofit  organization,  or  a  business.”81     “Expect  blood  on  the  floor.”82     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?     “Culture  –  not  vision  or  strategy  –  is  the  most  powerful  factor  in  any  organization.”83     “Toxic  culture  is  like  carbon  monoxide:  you  don’t  see  or  smell  it,  but  you  wake  up                                                                                                                   76  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2146.   77  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  406.   78  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  403.   79  Ibid.,  Chapter  3,  Loc.  835.   80  Ibid.,  Chapter  3,  Loc.  1087.   81  Ibid.,  Chapter  5,  Loc.  1748.   82  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  1884.   83  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  195.     38   dead.”84     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   “The  culture  of  an  organization  is  the  platform  for  building  a  strong  church  or   nonprofit.  It  is  the  fertile  soil  for  growing  creativity  and  passion  for  excellence,  and  the   rocket  fuel  for  reaching  new  heights  in  excellence  and  accomplishments.”85     “Top  leaders  need  to  spend  at  least  as  much  time  analyzing  their  culture  as  they  do   crafting  their  new  vision,  strategy,  and  marketing  plans.”86     Conclusion   Strengths     Chand  grapples  with  some  of  the  fundamental  aspects  of  organizational  culture   more  than  most  of  the  other  authors  writing  from  a  church  perspective.  He  illustrates  his   points  with  real  life  experiences.  Although  formulating  the  seven  keys  of  culture  into  an   acrostic  may  be  a  bit  cute  and  requires  a  little  twisting  (i.e.  “Unafraid”),  he  at  least  has   sought  to  identify  factors  that  shape  organizational  culture  and  addresses  particular   attitudes  and  behaviors  in  those  factors.  These  seven  keys  form  the  structure  of  the  free   CULTURE  survey  (www.freeculturesurvey.com).     The  book  also  seeks  to  address  how  to  bring  about  change  to  a  culture,  while  still   acknowledging  the  difficulty.     Weaknesses     The  approach  is  fundamentally  judgmental  –  assessing  cultures  based  on  whether   they  are  Inspiring,  Accepting,  Stagnant,  Discouraging,  or  Toxic.  This  holds  a  church’s                                                                                                                   84  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  352.   85  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  335.   86    Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  347.     39   culture  up  for  analysis  on  how  they  meet  Chand’s  criteria  for  healthy  or  unhealthy  culture.   This  could  be  seen  as  subjective  and  arbitrary.     There  is  very  little  if  any  theological  perspective  to  the  book.   Cracking  Your  Congregation’s  Code:  Mapping  Your  Spiritual  DNA  to  Create  Your   Future,  by  Richard  Southern  and  Robert  Norton         Yes,  this  is  a  different  book  from  above,  although  cracking  a  code  seems  to  be   popular.  This  book  uses  the  basic  imagery  of  DNA  to  reference  church  culture.  Southern   and  Norton  write,  “From  our  perspective,  congregations  don’t  grow  because  they  fail  to   take  into  account  the  most  essential  ingredient  of  good  health  and  growth:  their  spiritual   DNA,  those  intrinsic  characteristics  and  traits  that  give  each  congregation  its  unique   identity.”87    Although  this  imagery  has  promise,  especially  as  they  note  the  emphasis  in  the   New  Testament  on  the  church  as  a  body,  the  book  generally  reads  like  a  self-­‐help  book  on   evaluating  and  addressing  four  areas  of  church  life.     They  give  a  very  shallow  treatment  of  culture  as  primarily  Core  Values  (Where  Do   You  Draw  the  Line?),  Mission  (What  is  your  Reason  for  Being?),  and  Vision  (What  Do  You   See  in  Your  Future?).88  They  use  the  DNA  imagery  to  highlight  “four  key  systems  that   carry,  distribute,  and  circulate  the  spiritual  DNA  throughout  the  living  body  of  the   congregation:  the  welcoming  system,  the  nurturing  system,  the  empowering  system,  and   the  serving  system.”89       Perhaps  the  most  helpful  part  of  this  book  is  Part  3  that  deals  with  the  strategic   mapping  process.  There  are  at  least  some  tools  and  direction  there  that  could  help  a                                                                                                                   87  Richard  Southern  and  Robert  Norton,  Cracking  Your  Congregation’s  Code:  Mapping  Your  Spiritual  DNA  to   Create  Your  Future  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2001),  x.   88  Ibid.,  7ff.   89  Ibid.,  x.     40   church  evaluate  where  they  are  and  construct  a  plan  for  moving  forward,  although  it   seems  pretty  complicated  and  built  entirely  around  the  four  key  systems.  This  could  be   valuable,  especially  if  a  church  senses  a  particular  weakness  in  any  of  these  systems.   However,  the  book  does  not  really  give  much  help  on  the  subject  of  church  culture.  Nor   does  it  address  the  subject  theologically,  other  than  a  brief  reflection  on  the  church  as  a   body.   Key  Books  on  Organizational  Culture     The  following  four  books  were  especially  key  in  preparation  for  this  thesis.  They   each  address  the  topic  from  different  perspectives  that  when  combined,  offer  a  well   rounded  treatment  of  organizational  culture.   Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership,  by  Edgar  H.  Schein     If  there  was  a  standard  text  on  organizational  culture,  it  would  likely  be  this  one.   Schein  was  Sloan  Fellows  Professor  of  Management  at  MIT  and  is  recognized  as  a  foremost   authority  on  the  subject  of  corporate  culture.  An  in-­‐depth  analysis  of  this  book  is  beyond   the  scope  of  this  chapter,  but  the  bottom  line  is  if  you  are  studying  organizational  culture,   read  this  book.  It  is  comprehensive  and  detailed,  academic  yet  not  difficult  to  read.  Coming   to  this  book  from  those  written  to  a  church  audience  is  like  wading  out  into  the  water  and   stepping  over  a  drop-­‐off.  The  contrast,  at  least  in  terms  of  exploring  the  basic  nature  of   organizational  culture,  is  dramatic.  Those  writing  from  a  church  perspective  are  using  a   different  approach  (less  academic,  almost  non-­‐academic)  and  have  a  more  focused   purpose,  but  a  book  like  this  is  important  for  gaining  a  more  thorough  understanding  of   organizational  culture,  out  of  which  the  arguments  and  principles  of  the  other  books  can   be  better  analyzed  and  applied.     41     The  main  focus  of  the  book  is  organizational  culture,  but  Schein  begins  by  outlining   four  categories  of  culture.90  They  are:   • Macrocultures  –  Nations,  ethnic  and  religious  groups,  occupations  that  exist   globally   • Organizational  cultures  –  Private,  public,  nonprofit,  government  organizations   • Subcultures  –  Occupational  groups  within  organizations   • Microcultures  –  Microsystems  within  or  outside  organizations   He  writes  that  “Culture  can  be  thought  of  as  the  foundation  of  the  social  order  that  we  live   in  and  of  the  rules  we  abide  by,”91  and  also  notes  that  there  is  a  depth  and  breadth  to   culture  that  has  a  profound  impact.     • Depth  –  “Culture  is  the  deepest,  often  unconscious  part  of  a  group  and  is  therefore   less  tangible  and  visible.”92     • Breadth  –  “Culture  is  pervasive  and  influences  all  aspects  of  how  an  organization   deals  with  its  primary  task,  its  various  environments,  and  its  internal  operations.”93     Although  the  emphasis  is  on  culture,  Schein  also  makes  leadership  a  major  focus  because   he  feels  that  “leadership  and  culture  are  two  sides  of  the  same  coin.”94       He  makes  a  distinction  between  culture  and  climate,  and  observes  that  these  are   sometimes  confused  in  writing  because  they  mix  up  “culture  as  what  is  with  culture  as   what  ought  to  be.”95  Schein  defines  climate  as,  “The  feeling  that  is  conveyed  in  a  group  by                                                                                                                   90  Edgar  H.  Schein,  Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership,  4th  Edition  (San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2010),   Exhibit  I.1,  2.   91  Ibid.,  3.   92  Ibid.,  16.   93  Ibid.,  17.   94  Ibid.,  3.   95  Ibid.,  13  (italics  his).     42   the  physical  layout  and  the  way  in  which  members  of  the  organization  interact  with  each   other,  with  customers,  or  with  other  outsiders.”96  Confusing  culture  with  climate  leads  to   “the  assumption  that  there  are  better  or  worse  cultures,  stronger  or  weaker  cultures,  and   that  the  ‘right’  kind  of  culture  would  influence  how  effective  organizations  are.”97  He  goes   on  to  write,  “whether  or  not  a  culture  is  ‘good’  or  ‘bad,’  ‘functionally  effective’  or  not,   depends  not  on  the  culture  alone  but  on  the  relationship  of  the  culture  to  the  environment   in  which  it  exists.”98       Schein  proposes  a  model  that  views  culture  on  three  levels  based  on  the  degree  to   which  the  aspects  of  the  level  are  visible.  Level  one  is  the  most  visible  and  level  three  is  the   least.  Exhibit  2.1  outlines  the  Three  Levels  of  Culture.       1. Artifacts   • Visible  and  feel-­‐able  structures  and  processes   • Observed  behavior   o Difficult  to  decipher   2. Espoused  Beliefs  and  Values   • Ideals,  goals,  values,  aspirations   • Ideologies   • Rationalizations   o May  or  may  not  be  congruent  with  behavior  and  other  artifacts   3. Basic  Underlying  Assumptions   • Unconscious,  taken-­‐for-­‐granted  beliefs  and  values   o Determine  behavior,  perception,  thought,  and  feeling99   One  of  the  most  helpful  parts  of  this  book,  from  a  practical  standpoint,  is  a  process   for  rapidly  deciphering  an  organization’s  culture  outlined  in  chapter  18.100       Schein  claims  that  this  interview  process  is  superior  to  surveys  or  other  interview   programs  because  it  is  faster  and  more  valid,  in  that  it  arrives  at  shared  assumptions  more                                                                                                                   96  Ibid.,  15.   97  Ibid.,  13.   98  Ibid.,  14.   99  Ibid.,  24.   100  Ibid.,  315ff.     43   quickly.101    He  feels  that  the  process  is  most  useful  “in  the  context  of  a  change  program  in   which  the  change  goals  have  already  been  made  explicit  so  that  the  culture  can  be  assessed   as  a  potential  aid  or  hindrance  to  the  change  program.”102  In  fact,  unless  this  process  is   done  in  the  context  of  a  change  program,  he  feels  it  will  seem  boring  and  pointless.     A  culture  assessment  is  of  little  value  unless  it  is  tied  to  some  organizational   problem  or  issue.  In  other  words,  assessing  a  culture  for  its  own  sake  is  not  only   too  vast  an  undertaking  but  also  can  be  viewed  as  boring  and  useless.  On  the   other  hand,  when  the  organization  has  a  purpose,  a  new  strategy,  a  problem  to  be   solved,  or  a  change  agenda,  then  to  determine  how  the  culture  impacts  the  issue   is  not  only  useful  but  in  most  cases  necessary.103       Schein  proposes  a  ten-­‐step  process  and  even  includes  estimated  time  frames  with  the   instructions.104  Those  steps  are:   1. Obtaining  Leadership  Commitment   2. Selecting  Groups  for  Self-­‐Assessment   3. Selecting  an  Appropriate  Setting  for  the  Group  Self-­‐Assessment   4. Explaining  the  Purpose  of  the  Group  Meeting  (15  mins.)   5. A  Short  Lecture  on  How  to  Think  About  Culture  (15  mins.)   6. Eliciting  Descriptions  of  the  Artifacts  (60  mins.)   7. Identifying  Espoused  Values  (15-­‐30  mins.)   8. Identifying  Shared  Underlying  Assumptions  (15-­‐30  mins.)   9. Identifying  Cultural  Aids  and  Hindrances  (30-­‐60  mins.)   10. Decisions  on  Next  Steps  (30  mins.)105     He  claims  that  the  process  can  be  done  in  a  day  or  less.  This  process  alone  may  be  cause   enough  to  buy  the  book,  although  there  is  much  more  value  in  it.     The  Questions     1. What  is  organizational  culture?                                                                                                                   101  Ibid.,  315.   102  Ibid.,  italics  his.   103  Ibid.,  327.   104  The relative merits of this model in identifying organizational culture will be explored further in the section on suggestions for further research in Chapter 5.   105  Ibid.,  317ff.     44   “The  culture  of  a  group  can  now  be  defined  as  a  pattern  of  shared  basic  assumptions   learned  by  a  group  as  it  solved  its  problems  of  external  adaption  and  internal  integration,   which  has  worked  well  enough  to  be  considered  valid,  and,  therefore,  to  be  taught  to  new   members  as  the  correct  way  to  perceive,  think,  and  feel  in  relation  to  those  problems.”  106   “The  most  important  lesson  for  me  is  the  realization  that  culture  is  deep,  pervasive,   complex,  patterned,  and  morally  neutral.”107     “Culture  as  a  set  of  basic  assumptions  defines  for  us  what  to  pay  attention  to,  what   things  mean,  how  to  react  emotionally  to  what  is  going  on,  and  what  actions  to  take  in   various  kinds  of  situations.”108     “One  of  the  most  important  categories  of  culture  is  the  assumption  made  about  how   reality,  truth,  and  information  are  defined.”109     “In  another  sense,  culture  is  to  a  group  what  personality  or  character  is  to  an   individual.”110     2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   See  the  discussion  on  the  Three  Levels  of  Culture  above.   3. How  is  it  formed?   Schein  makes  a  strong  argument  for  the  role  of  leadership  in  the  formation  and  re-­‐ formation  of  culture.  “What  we  end  up  calling  a  culture  in  such  systems  is  usually  the   result  of  the  embedding  of  what  a  founder  or  leader  has  imposed  on  a  group  that  has   worked  out.  In  this  sense,  culture  is  ultimately  created,  embedded,  evolved,  and  ultimately                                                                                                                   106  Ibid.,  18.   107  Ibid.,  53.   108  Ibid.,  29.   109  Ibid.,  123.   110  Ibid.,  14.     45   manipulated  by  leaders.”111     However,  the  connection  of  leadership  and  culture  is  a  two-­‐edged  sword.  “At  the  same   time,  with  group  maturity,  culture  comes  to  constrain,  stabilize,  and  provide  structure  and   meaning  to  the  group  members  even  to  the  point  of  ultimately  specifying  what  kind  of   leadership  will  be  acceptable  in  the  future.”112     Part  3  of  the  book  (chapters  12-­‐16)  deals  with  the  role  of  leadership  in  culture  at   various  stages  of  the  organization’s  life  cycle.   4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?   He  sees  culture  as  being  largely  integrated  in  an  organization.  “Culture  by  this   definition  [see  question  1],  tends  toward  patterning  and  integration.”   He  also  recognizes  that  there  are  subcultures  and  microcultures  at  work  in  many  if  not   most  organizations.     “Much  of  what  goes  on  inside  an  organization  that  has  existed  for  some  time  can  best   be  understood  as  a  set  of  interactions  of  subcultures  operating  within  the  larger   context  of  the  organizational  culture.  These  subcultures  share  many  of  the   assumptions  of  the  total  organization  but  also  hold  assumptions  beyond  those  of  the   total  organization,  usually  reflecting  their  functional  tasks,  the  occupations  of  their   members,  or  their  unique  experiences.”113       However,  these  are  not  necessarily  mutually  exclusive.  “Martin’s  categories114  are  a   powerful  way  to  describe  organizations  that  have  different  kinds  of  cultural  landscapes   within  them,  but  they  do  not  require  any  redefinition  of  the  basic  concept  of  culture  as  a   shared  set  of  assumptions  that  is  taken  for  granted.”115     5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?                                                                                                                   111  Ibid.,  3.   112  Ibid.   113  Ibid.,  55.   114 These will be discussed in the next book reviewed. 115  Ibid.,  175.     46   Culture  can  be  changed,  but  the  fundamental  stabilizing  effect  of  culture  makes  it   difficult.  “Culture  is  hard  to  change  because  group  members  value  stability  in  that  it   provides  meaning  and  predictability.”116     However,  culture  can  and  does  change.  A  number  of  corporate  examples  are  included.   Chapter  16  is  “What  Leaders  Need  to  Know  About  Culture  Changes,”  and  lists  Culture   Change  Mechanisms  for  three  organizational  stages:  Founding  and  early  growth,  Midlife,   and  Maturity  and  decline.     1. Founding  and  early  growth   a. Incremental  change  through  general  and  specific  evolution   b. Insight   c. Promotion  of  hybrids  within  the  culture   2. Midlife   a. Systematic  promotion  from  selected  subcultures   b. Technological  seduction   c. Infusion  of  outsiders   3. Maturity  and  decline   a. Scandal  and  explosion  of  myths   b. Turnarounds   c. Mergers  and  acquisitions   d. Destruction  and  rebirth117     Chapters  17-­‐19  (Part  4)  deal  with  how  leaders  can  manage  cultural  change.   6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   “Culture  is  pervasive  and  influences  all  aspects  of  how  an  organization  deals  with  its   primary  task,  its  various  environments,  and  its  internal  operations.”118     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   As  discussed  above:  knowing  your  culture  has  strategic  advantage  when  linked  to   initiating  change  or  addressing  a  problem.                                                                                                                   116  Ibid.,  16.   117  Ibid.,  Table  16.1,  273.   118  Ibid.,17.     47   Conclusion   Strengths   1. An  intelligent  and  thorough  analysis  of  organizational  culture  within  the  broader   context  of  macroculture.   2. Strong,  detailed  emphasis  on  leadership,  both  in  developing  and  shaping  culture  and  in   managing  it.   3. The  outlined  process  for  an  organization  to  decipher  its  culture  and  what  to  do  with   that  information  in  chapter  18.119      Weaknesses   Identifying  weaknesses  in  a  book  always  needs  to  be  done  with  humility  –  perhaps   even  more  so  with  a  book  like  this.  It  is  a  standard  textbook  on  the  subject  that  has  been   around  for  decades  and  is  in  its  fourth  edition.  There  is  also  so  much  information  to  sift   through  that  identifying  weaknesses  can  be  like  trying  to  isolate  an  ingredient  by  taste  in  a   complex  recipe.  It  is  easy  to  get  overwhelmed  by  the  overall  flavor  of  the  dish.   One  of  the  greatest  weaknesses  may  be  from  what  will  be  discussed  with  the  next   book,  an  overemphasis  on  the  integration  of  a  single  culture.  Although  Schein   acknowledges  the  existence  of  subcultures  and  microcultures,  he  may  be  oversimplifying   how  they  fit  into  an  overall  understanding  of  the  culture  of  an  organization.   Cultures  in  Organizations,  by  Joanne  Martin     Joanne  Martin  writes  from  an  entirely  different  perspective  than  Edgar  Schein  and   her  book  is  a  helpful  counter-­‐balance  to  Schein’s  work.  In  fact,  she  is  quite  critical  of   Schein’s  perspective,  almost  an  anti-­‐Schein.  She  references  him  numerous  times  and                                                                                                                   119  Ibid.,  315ff.     48   acknowledges  him  as  “the  finest  of  critics  –  disagreeing  with  me  vehemently,  cogently,  and   openly.”120    She  returns  the  favor.     They  likely  agree  far  more  than  they  disagree,  but  reading  them  is  a  like  listening  to   a  Baptist  and  Pentecostal  debating  Pneumatology.  Martin  (the  Pentecostal)  would  feel  that   Schein’s  position  may  be  accurate  as  far  as  it  goes,  but  is  merely  a  small  piece  of  the  reality   of  organizational  culture,  essentially  superficial  and  one  dimensional,  and  thus  fatally   flawed.  She  would  see  Schein  being  a  primary  advocate  of  one  of  the  three  perspectives   from  which  she  writes  (and  the  one  she  criticizes  the  most).   This  book  seeks  to  consolidate  much  of  the  study  that  has  been  done  on   organizational  culture  into  a  theoretical  framework  that  sees  it  from  three  different   perspectives.  “This  book  delineates  three  competing  perspectives  that  researchers  use  to   understand  cultures  in  organizations.  It  offers  a  way  out  of  the  conceptual  chaos  caused  by   conflicts  among  the  three  perspectives.”121  These  three  perspectives,  or  frames,  are:   Integration,  Differentiation  and  Fragmentation.  They  are  summarized  in  Table  1-­‐1.     Perspective   Integration   Differentiation   Orientation  to   consensus   Relation  among   manifestations   Organization-­‐wide   consensus   Consistency   Subcultural   consensus   Inconsistency   Orientation  to   ambiguity   Metaphors   Exclude  it   Channel  it  outside   subcultures   Islands  of  clarity  in   sea  of  ambiguity   Clearing  in  jungle,   monolith,  hologram   Fragmentation   Multiplicity  of  views   (no  consensus)   Complexity  (not   clearly  consistent  or   inconsistent)   Focus  on  it   Web,  jungle122                                                                                                                     120  Joanne  Martin,  Cultures  in  Organizations:  Three  Perspectives  (New  York:  Oxford  University  Press,  1992)   Acknowledgments,  Loc.  72,  Kindle.   121  Ibid.,  Preface,  Loc.  39.   122  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  438.     49     The  Integration  view  looks  for  what  is  shared  by  the  whole  organization.  Ambiguity   falls  outside  this  shared  essence.  The  Differentiation  view  says  that  different  values  and   priorities  are  shared  by  different  groups  within  the  organization,  and  that  there  is  not  a   unified  set  of  shared  assumptions,  attitudes,  and  values.  In  this  view,  ambiguity  is   transitional;  it  reveals  the  conflict  between  groups.  The  Fragmentation  view  focuses  on   the  ambiguity.  “Whereas  the  Integration  perspective  seeks  similarities  and  the   Differentiation  perspective  relies  on  an  oppositional  mode  of  thinking,  the  Fragmentation   perspective  focuses  on  delineating  multiplicities.”123     Martin  states  four  objectives  to  her  writing:124     1. The  primary  objective  is  to  examine  certain  basic  questions  about  culture  from  the   perspective  of  each  of  the  three  frames.     2. The  second  goal  is  to  address  why  she  feels  that  the  lack  of  a  common  definition  of   culture  or  a  shared  theoretical  paradigm  is  understandable  and  perhaps  even   desirable.  She  writes,  “The  blindspots  and  distortions  associated  with  each  of  the   three  perspectives  are  complementary.  Often  one  perspective’s  blindspot  is   another’s  focus…”125     3. A  third  objective  is  to  critique  her  own  approach  (a  meta-­‐theoretical  approach),  by   addressing  its  oversimplifications  and  oversights  from  a  post-­‐modern  perspective.     4. The  fourth  goal  is  to  ensure  that  the  voices  of  lower-­‐ranking  employees,  women,   and/or  minorities,  often  ignored  in  thinking  about  organizational  culture  influence   the  theoretical  conclusions.  At  this  point  Martin  shows  her  hand.  “Once  the  voices  of                                                                                                                   123  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3133   124  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  208ff.   125  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  214.     50   these  people  are  heard,  the  idea  that  any  organization  has  a  single  culture,   understood  in  the  same  way  by  all  its  members,  seems  oversimplified.”126     This  book  is  written  from  an  academic,  theoretical  perspective,  but  Martin  adopts  an   interesting  structure  to  explore  the  three  perspectives.  She  intersperses  her  indepth   examination  of  each  of  the  three  frames  with  practical  examples  of  a  company:  OZCO,  a   pseudonym  for  a  Fortune  500  company  that  employed  80,000  people  worldwide.  The   company  is  looked  at  from  within  all  three  perspectives.  What  makes  this  approach  so   helpful  is  that  by  exploring  the  company  from  within,  each  perspective  has  a  chance  to   make  its  argument;  and  by  using  the  same  company  to  explore  each,  ensures  that  apples   are  being  compared  to  apples.  She  writes,  “This  book’s  meta-­‐theory  explores  each   perspective  from  within,  leaving  its  integrity  undisturbed  by  pressures  toward  merger.”127     As  each  perspective  is  analyzed,  some  common  themes  are  addressed:  how  each  would   define  culture;  the  role  of  ambiguity;  the  impact  of  culture  on  effectiveness;  how  each   views  cultural  change;  how  each  addresses  individuals  who  deviate;  and  the  question  of   organization-­‐wide  consensus.  The  approach  is  balanced,  although  her  bias  is   unapologetically  obvious.  She  writes,  “Perhaps  most  obvious,  I  do  not  believe  all  three   perspectives  are  equally  valuable.  I  have  tried  to  be  even-­‐handed  in  my  presentation  of   each,  but  in  some  places  in  this  book  my  preferences  are  evident.”128  In  her  attempts  at   even-­‐handedness,  each  perspective  is  critiqued  for  methodology  and  substance,  and  her   whole  approach  is  critiqued  from  a  post-­‐modern  perspective.   The  Questions                                                                                                                   126  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  238.   127  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  226.   128  Ibid.,  Chapter  10,  Loc.  4651.     51   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   Integration  –  Culture  is  a  clearing  in  the  jungle.     Key  words:  Shared  and  Consistency   She  includes  definitions  of  culture  from  a  wide  variety  of  authors  from  this   perspective.  What  they  have  in  common  is  that  certain  things  are  shared  throughout  the   organization.  Where  the  definitions  differ  is  in  precisely  what  is  shared:  assumptions,   values,  behaviors,  customs,  rituals,  etc.     Differentiation  –  Islands  of  clarity  with  ambiguity  channeled  into  the  currents  swirling   around  the  edges  of  the  islands.129     Key  word:  Inconsistency   “Differentiation  views  of  organizational  culture  have  three  defining  characteristics.   First,  interpretations  of  content  themes,  practices,  and  forms  are  often  inconsistent.   Second,  the  Differentiation  perspective  is  suspicious  of  claims  of  organization-­‐wide   consensus…  Third,  within  subcultural  boundaries,  clarity  reigns,  while  ambiguity  is   relegated  to  the  periphery.”130       So,  sharing  is  among  groups  rather  than  the  whole  organization.   Fragmentation  –  Culture  is  not  a  clearing  in  the  jungle.  It  is  the  jungle.   Key  word:  Ambiguity   “Ambiguity  is  perceived  when  a  lack  of  clarity,  high  complexity,  or  a  paradox  makes   multiple  (rather  than  single  or  dichotomous)  explanations  plausible.”131     “The  Fragmentation  perspective  brings  ambiguity  to  the  foreground,  rather  than   excluding  it  or  channeling  it  outside  a  realm  of  cultural  or  subcultural  clarity.”132     “From  a  Fragmentation  perspective,  then,  an  organizational  culture  is  a  web  of                                                                                                                   129  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2268.   130  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2007.   131  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3221.   132  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3119.     52   individuals,  sporadically  and  loosely  connected  by  their  changing  positions  on  a  variety  of   issues.  Their  involvement,  their  subcultural  identities,  and  their  individual  self-­‐definitions   fluctuate,  depending  on  which  issues  are  activated  at  a  given  moment.”133     2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?    And  …   3. How  is  it  formed?   “As  individuals  come  into  contact  with  organizations,  they  come  into  contact  with   dress  norms,  stories  people  tell  about  what  goes  on,  the  organization’s  formal  rules   and  procedures,  its  informal  codes  of  behavior,  rituals,  tasks,  pay  systems,  jargon,   and  jokes  only  understood  by  insiders,  and  so  on.  These  elements  are  some  of  the   manifestations  of  organizational  culture…  The  patterns  or  configurations  of  these   interpretations,  and  the  ways  they  are  enacted,  constitute  culture.”134       4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?    Certainly  not.  That  is  the  main  thrust  and  the  obvious  trajectory  of  the  book’s   argument.   5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   Integration   “Once  a  culture  is  established,  most  Integration  studies  argue  that  it  must  be  actively,   continually  maintained,  monitored,  and  renewed.”135     “Integration  studies  that  emphasize  cultural  inertia  tend  to  be  pessimistic  about  the   possibility  (and  sometimes  even  the  desirability)  of  management  control  of  the  cultural   change  process.  These  studies  place  relatively  greater  emphasis  on  finding  a  fit  between   an  existing  culture  and  various  business  strategy  options.”136     Differentiation              “To  summarize,  when  change  is  viewed  from  a  Differentiation  perspective,  it  appears                                                                                                                   133  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3697.   134  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  188.   135  Ibid.,  Chapter  4,  Loc.  1570.   136  Ibid.,  Chapter  4,  Loc.  1607.     53   localized,  incremental,  and  triggered  (if  not  controlled)  by  pressures  from  a  segmented   environment.”137              Fragmentation            “Integration  and  Differentiation  accounts  of  planned  change  emphasize  conscious,  goal-­‐ directed  decision-­‐making  and  ideological  solidarity  within  a  culture  or  a  subculture.  These   aspects  of  organizing  for  change  are  fundamentally  incompatible  with  the  Fragmentation   perspective’s  stress  on  negating  clarities  and  disrupting  shared  assumptions.”138                “Given  these  difficulties,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Fragmentation  perspective  offers   few  specific,  well-­‐articulated  guidelines  for  those  who  would  normatively  control  the   cultural  change.”139     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   "Now  is  the  time,  then,  to  acknowledge  the  obvious:  after  listening  to  all  the  evidence,   it  seems  to  me  that  the  Integration  perspective  presents  a  relatively  unlikely  scenario   (consistency,  organization-­‐wide  consensus,  the  absence  of  ambiguity),  more  reflective  of   the  desires  of  top  management  than  the  realities  of  most  employees’  working  lives.”140     “Differentiation  and  Fragmentation  studies  have  convincingly  demonstrated  that   cultural  descriptions  which  exclude  conflict  and  ambiguity  disproportionately  silence  the   relatively  powerless.”141     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   Serious  doubt  is  given  to  even  the  ability  to  know  the  culture  of  an  organization,  or  that                                                                                                                   137  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2581.   138  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3867.   139  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3882.   140  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3985.   141  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3992.     54   the  organization  has  any  kind  of  cohesive  culture,  so  the  question  of  strategic  advantage  is   moot.   Conclusion     Strengths   This  book  is  also  a  “must  read,”  especially  if  Schein’s  work  is  consulted.  It   demonstrates  compellingly  that  the  subject  of  culture  in  an  organization  is  more  complex   than  would  be  assumed  by  much  of  the  literature  aimed  at  a  business  market.  It  is  a   relatively  balanced  appraisal  of  each  of  the  three  views  of  organization  culture.  Her   treatment  of  the  Integration  perspective  is  less  so,  which  serves  as  a  good  counter-­‐weight   to  Schein.  She  may  be,  in  part,  reacting  to  her  observation  that  the  Integration  perspective   is  the  dominant  view  in  North  America.  There  seems  to  be  a  sincere  attempt  for  balance   and  objectivity.     Weaknesses   This  book  can  be  very  academic  at  times,  bordering  on  too  theoretical.  The   interspersed  chapters  on  OZCO  definitely  help.     While  this  book  has  established  the  probability  (if  not  certainty)  that  there  are   subcultures  in  any  organization  and  that  ambiguity  is  a  given  and  a  constant,  taken  to  its   logical  conclusion,  any  attempt  to  understand  an  organization  quickly  descends  into  chaos.   In  an  attempt  to  acknowledge  more  complexity,  there  is  danger  in  going  too  far  the  other   way  and  missing  the  possibility  that  there  are  common  characteristics  in  an  organization   that  impact  its  performance  and  open  up  strategic  possibilities  to  be  explored.   Cultures  and  Organizations:  Software  of  the  Mind,  by  Geert  Hofstede,  Gert  Jan  Hofstede,   and  Michael  Minkov       This  book  adds  a  very  interesting  dimension  to  the  study  of  organizational  culture.   55   Although  it  includes  a  section  on  Cultures  in  Organizations  (Part  3),  it  focuses  more  on   National  Cultures.  What  makes  it  particularly  helpful  for  an  understanding  of   organizational  culture  is  that  the  original  research,  done  by  Geert  Hofstede  in  the  late   1960’s,  looked  at  employees  of  IBM  from  more  than  fifty  countries.  He  found  that  although   they  had  similar  occupations  in  the  same  multinational  company,  “from  one  country  to   another  they  represented  almost  perfectly  matched  samples:  they  were  similar  in  all   respects  except  nationality,  which  made  the  effect  of  nationality  differences  in  their   answers  stand  out  unusually  clearly.”142  The  results  of  this  study  were  written  up  in  1980   in  Culture’s  Consequences  aimed  at  a  scholarly  audience,  and  in  1991  the  authors  published   the  first  edition  of  this  book  written  for  “an  intelligent  lay  readership.”143       In  2005  the  book  was  rewritten  and  updated,  and  Hofstede  was  joined  by  his  son   Gert  Jan  Hofstede.  The  current  edition  was  completed  in  2010,  and  the  father-­‐son  team   were  joined  by  a  Bulgarian  researcher,  Michael  Minkov.   The  book  is  exhaustively  researched  and  the  authors  are  firm  believers  in  mining   data  that  has  already  been  collected.  They  write,  “Research  is  about  interpreting  data,  not   necessarily  about  collecting  them.”144  In  addition  to  Hofstede’s  original  research  with  IBM,   the  authors  have  done  statistical  analyses  on  several  subsequent  studies:  Chinese  Values   Survey  (CVS),  World  Values  Survey  (WVS),  Project  GLOBE  (Global  Leadership  and   Organizational  Effectiveness),  and  IRIC  (Institute  for  Research  on  Intercultural   Cooperation).   They  identified  a  four-­‐dimensional  model  of  differences  among  national  cultures  from  the                                                                                                                   142  Geert  Hofstede,  Gert  Jan  Hofstede  and  Michael  Minkov,  Cultures  and  Organizations:  Software  of  the  Mind   (McGraw-­‐Hill,  2010),  Chapter  2,  Loc.  461,  Kindle.   143  Ibid.,  Preface,  Loc.  102.   144  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  679.     56   IBM  data:   1. Power  distance  (from  small  to  large)  –  “the  extent  to  which  the  less  powerful   members  of  institutions  and  organizations  within  a  country  expect  and  accept  that   power  is  distributed  unequally.”145     2. Collectivism  versus  individualism  –  whether  the  interests  of  the  group  or  the   interests  of  the  individual  are  the  higher  priority  (chapter  4).     3. Femininity  versus  masculinity  –  whether  emotional  gender  roles  are  clearly  distinct   or  overlap.146     4. Uncertainty  avoidance  (from  weak  to  strong)  –  “the  extent  to  which  the  members  of   a  culture  feel  threatened  by  ambiguous  or  unknown  situations.”147     Added  to  these  four  were  two  more  gleaned  from  the  Chinese  Value  Survey  and  World   Value  Survey.   5. Long-­‐term  vs.  short-­‐term  orientation  –  fostering  of  virtues  oriented  toward  the   future  or  related  to  the  past  and  present.148     6. Indulgence  vs.  restraint  –  a  tendency  to  allow  relatively  free  gratification  of  basic   and  natural  human  desires  or  a  conviction  that  such  gratification  needs  to  be  curbed   and  regulated  by  strict  social  norms.149     These  dimensions  of  national  culture  were  identified  as  values.     In  addition,  they  identified  six  dimensions  of  organizational  culture  that  they  labeled  as   practices  rather  than  values.  They  are:                                                                                                                   145  Ibid.,  Chapter  3,  Loc.  751.   146  Ibid.,  Chapter  5,  Loc.  1607.   147  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2140.   148  Ibid.,  Chapter  7,  Loc.  2619.   149  Ibid.,  Chapter  8,  Loc.  3057.     57   1. Process  oriented  vs.  results  oriented   2. Employee  oriented  vs.  job  oriented   3. Parochial  vs.  professional   4. Open  system  vs.  closed  system   5. Loose  vs.  tight  control   6. Normative  vs.  pragmatic   The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   The  image  they  use  to  describe  culture  in  general  is  software  of  the  mind.  “Using  the   analogy  of  the  way  computers  are  programmed,  this  book  will  call  such  patterns  of   thinking,  feeling,  and  acting  mental  programs,  or  as  per  the  book’s  subtitle,  software  of  the   mind.”150      “There  is  no  standard  definition  of  the  concept  [of  organizational  or  corporate   culture],  but  most  people  who  write  about  it  would  probably  agree  that  organizational   culture  is  all  of  the  following:   • Holistic:  referring  to  a  whole  that  is  more  than  the  sum  of  its  parts   • Historically  determined:  reflecting  the  history  of  the  organization   • Related  to  the  things  anthropologists  study:  such  as  rituals  and  symbols   • Socially  constructed:  created  and  preserved  by  the  group  of  people  who   together  form  the  organization   • Soft:  although  Peters  and  Waterman  assured  their  readers  that  “soft  is  hard”                                                                                                                   150  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  160,  italics  theirs.     58   • Difficult  to  change:  although  authors  disagree  on  how  difficult”151                  “Consequently,  organizational  culture  can  be  defined  as  ‘the  collective  programming  of   the  mind  that  distinguishes  the  members  of  one  organization  from  others’.”152     2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   “Culture  consists  of  the  unwritten  rules  of  the  social  game.  It  is  the  collective   programming  of  the  mind  that  distinguishes  the  members  of  one  group  or  category  of   people  from  others.”153       3. How  is  it  formed?   “Culture  is  learned,  not  innate.  It  derives  from  one’s  social  environment  rather  than   from  one’s  genes.”154     4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?   “Our  own  culture  is  to  us  like  the  air  we  breathe,  while  another  culture  is  like  water  –   and  it  takes  special  skills  to  be  able  to  survive  in  both  elements.”155     5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   Culture  is  not  easily  changed.  In  noting  how  much  has  changed  in  the  last  120  years,   they  write,  “So,  on  the  surface,  change  is  all-­‐powerful.  But  how  deep  are  these  changes?   Can  human  societies  be  likened  to  ships  that  rocked  about  aimlessly  on  turbulent  seas  of   change?  Or  to  shores,  covered  and  then  bared  again  by  new  waves  washing  in,  altered  ever   so  slowly  with  each  successive  tide?”156                                                                                                                     151  Ibid.,  Chapter  10,  Loc.  3688.   152  Ibid.,  Chapter  10,  Loc.  3692.   153  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  174.   154  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  175.   155  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  381.   156  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  326.     59              “National  value  systems  should  be  considered  given  facts,  as  hard  as  a  country’s   geographical  position  or  its  weather.  Layers  of  culture  acquired  later  in  life  tend  to  be   more  changeable.”157     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   “Corporate  culture  is  a  soft,  holistic  concept  with,  however,  presumed  hard   consequences.”158     Conclusion     Although  not  a  “must  read”  as  the  last  two  were,  this  book  adds  valuable  texture  to   an  understanding  of  culture,  both  nationally  and  organizationally.   Strengths     Perhaps  one  of  the  greatest  strengths  was  that  it  was  written  by  people  outside  of   North  America  and  involves  world-­‐wide  research.  This  gives  it  broader,  more   international  scope  that  brings  balance  to  the  bulk  of  organizational  culture  literature   written  from  an  American  perspective.     Another  strength  was  that  although  it  is  highly  statistical  and  technical,  it  is  quite   readable,  with  many  interesting  examples,  both  personal  and  historical.  It  is  perhaps   unusual  to  have  a  book  that  likely  appeals  primarily  to  an  academic  audience  quote  from   the  French  cartoon  Asterix.     A  third  strength  was  the  depth  and  breadth  of  statistical  research.   Weaknesses     One  possible  weakness  parallels  one  of  its  strengths  –  the  preponderance  of   statistical  data.  To  those  who  are  not  particularly  strong  in  this  area,  the  amount  of  data                                                                                                                   157  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  341.   158  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  656.     60   and  the  number  of  charts  can  become  overwhelming.     Another  possible  weakness  is  that,  although  the  research  has  been  reinforced  by  a   number  of  major  subsequent  studies,  the  original  IBM  study  that  formed  the  nucleus  of   this  book  was  conducted  half  a  century  ago.  It  would  be  interesting  to  see  how  that  might   have  changed  since  then.   The  Character  of  Organizations:  Using  Personality  Type  in  Organization  Development,   by  William  Bridges     What  made  this  book  helpful  to  this  project  was  that  Bridges  looks  at   organizational  culture  from  the  perspective  of  character  and  uses  the  Meyers-­‐Briggs  Type   Indicator  (MBTI)  to  help  an  organization  understand  itself.  This  was  one  of  the  books  on   organizational  culture  (along  with  Schein)  that  Douglass  discovered  during  his  PhD   studies  that  helped  him  make  sense  of  his  own  experience  in  church  leadership.     Bridges  also  has  developed  a  tool  that  adapts  the  MBTI  for  organizations.  It  is  called   the  Organizational  Character  Index  (OCI)  and  is  included  in  Appendix  A  of  his  book.159   Where  Douglass’  survey  looks  at  the  personality  of  the  person  taking  it  under  the   assumption  that  the  personalities  of  the  top  opinion  leaders  is  the  personality  of  the   church,  Bridges’  survey  tool  is  designed  to  determine  how  the  person  taking  it  perceives   the  organization.  He  speaks  to  one  of  the  concerns  about  Douglass’  assumption.  “The   organization  has  characteristics  that  are  only  partly  explained  by  the  people  that  make  it   up,  so  getting  everyone  who  works  there  to  take  the  MBTI  instrument  gives  you  only  part   of  the  story.”160                                                                                                                     159  The  relative  merits  of  this  model  in  identifying  organizational  culture  will  also  be  explored  further  in  the   section  on  suggestions  for  further  research  in  Chapter  5.     160  Bridges,  xiii.     61   Using  the  four  opposing  tendencies  of  the  MBTI:  Extraversion  (E)  or  Introversion   (I),  Sensing  (S)  or  Intuition  (N),  Thinking  (T)  or  Feeling  (F),  and  Judging  (J)  or  Perceiving   (P);  he  categorizes  organizations  under  sixteen  types  of  organizational  character  using  the   sixteen  possible  combinations  of  letters  (i.e.  ESTJ).  Chapter  3  explains  each  of  them.     Bridges  looks  at  organizational  culture  as  basically  neutral  –  not  good  or  bad,  healthy   or  unhealthy.  He  uses  an  excellent  analogy  of  different  grains  of  wood.  He  writes,     “An  organization’s  character  is  like  the  grain  in  a  piece  of  wood.  There  is  no  such   thing  as  good  or  bad  grain,  but  some  kinds  of  grain  can  take  great  pressure,  other   kinds  can  withstand  bending  or  shearing  forces,  and  still  others  are  lovely  and  take  a   fine  polish.  Some  are  too  soft  or  hard,  too  light  or  heavy  for  a  particular  purpose,  but   each  has  some  purpose  for  which  it  is  well  fitted.”161       He  also  suggests  some  other  metaphors  that  would  support  that  view.  “Character  is  the   typical  climate  of  the  organizational  country;  it  is  the  personality  of  the  individual   organization;  it  is  the  DNA  of  the  organizational  life  form.”162       He  feels  that  this  way  of  looking  at  organizations  is  preferred  to  trying  to  describe   “culture”  for  several  reasons.163  Some  of  the  problems  he  addresses  are  because  of  the   differences  between  anthropological  study  and  understanding  of  culture  and  the  way  it  is   used  in  much  of  the  speaking  and  writing  on  the  subject.   The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?   Bridges  defines  organizational  culture  as  the  character  of  the  organization,  similar  to   character  in  a  person.  At  the  same  time,  he  recognizes  that  there  are  limits  to  the  analogy   of  thinking  of  organizations  as  being  like  individuals.     “Like  any  analogy,  this  one  must  not  be  pushed  too  far.  Individuals  are  biological                                                                                                                   161  Ibid.,  1   162  Ibid.   163  Ibid.,  139.     62   creatures,  while  organizations  are  social  creations.  Individuals  have  a  finite  life   expectancy  and  a  biologically  based  life  cycle,  while  organizations  do  not  –  they  may   die  a  natural  death  at  the  age  of  fifteen,  or  they  may  still  be  going  strong  at  two   hundred.  Organizations  divide,  combine,  grow,  and  shrink.  There  are  no  meaningful   individual  equivalents  to  such  words  as  divestiture,  acquisition,  new  leadership,   expansion,  and  downsizing.”164       2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?   • Extroversion  (E)  and  Introversion  (I)  refer  to  “two  different  locations  for   organizational  ‘reality,’  and  two  different  sources  of  organizational  energy.”165     • Sensing  (S)  and  Intuition  (N)  refer  to  “two  different  styles  of  perception,  two   different  ways  of  paying  attention  to  the  world  and  taking  in  information.”166     • Thinking  (T)  and  Feeling  (F)  refer  to  “different  ways  in  which  organizations  make   decisions  –  two  different  ways  of  judging  situations  and  processing  information.”167     • Judging  (J)  and  Perceiving  (P)  refer  to  “two  different  emphases  that  organizations   demonstrate  in  dealing  with  the  world.”168     3. How  is  it  formed?    “Individuals  might  be  born  to  a  particular  type,  but  organizations  certainly  came  to   their  particular  typology  in  a  more  complex  way.  The  founder(s)  left  a  clear  mark  on  many   organizations,  but  then  so  did  the  business  or  field  that  the  organization  was  part  of.  Even   traumatic  chapters  in  an  organization’s  history  can  leave  their  mark  on  its  character.”169     4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?              Bridges  writes  about  his  own  experience.                                                                                                                     164  Ibid.,  3,  italics  his.   165  Ibid.,  13.   166  Ibid.,  18.   167  Ibid.,  23.   168  Ibid.,  27.   169  Ibid.,  xii.     63   I  had  not  gone  very  far  in  my  quest  for  ‘organizational  type’  and  a  way  to  identify  and   describe  it  before  I  was  confronted  by  something  that  initially  frustrated  me  greatly,   but  that  I  finally  decided  was  both  very  interesting  and  important:  the  fact  that  most   of  the  organizations  I  studied  did  not  have  a  solid  and  unified  character,  but  instead   were  made  up  of  a  mosaic  of  sometimes  quite  different  characters.170       5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?   “Once  again,  we  see  that  there  is  no  good  or  bad  character  –  just  character  that  fits  or   fails  to  fit  a  particular  situation.”171    Since  organizational  character  is  neither  good  nor  bad,   whether  it  should  change  or  not  depends  on  the  situation.  He  evaluates  change  in   organizations  based  on  how  each  of  the  four  opposing  tendencies  responds.   • Extroverted  organizations  handle  change  that  comes  from  the  outside  more  easily,   while  Introverted  organizations  are  better  at  handling  intrinsic  changes.172     • Sensing  organizations  believe  in  step-­‐by-­‐step  change,  while  Intuitive  organizations   are  more  open  to  a  big  transformation.173     • Feeling  organizations  are  more  likely  to  engage  in  change  based  on  values  and   people,  while  Thinking  organizations  will  be  more  likely  to  change  if  it  is  based  on   logical  principles.174     • Judging  organizations  look  at  change  as  disruptive  while  Perceiving  organizations   are  more  likely  to  see  change  as  normal.175   None  of  these  actually  address  the  idea  of  changing  the  culture,  instead  they  look  at   how  the  different  characters  address  change  in  circumstances.  About  changing  the  culture   of  an  organization  he  writes,  “An  organization’s  culture  changes  very,  very  slowly  over  a                                                                                                                   170  Ibid.,  xiii.   171  Ibid.,  10.   172  Ibid.,  75.   173  Ibid.,  76.   174  Ibid.,  78.   175  Ibid.     64   period  of  years,  partly  through  intentional  interventions  but  largely  through  the  sum  total   of  people’s  only  partly  articulated  responses  to  a  changing  world  or  marketplace.”176     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?   “So  I  came  to  see  that  organizational  character  would  help  explain  the  difference  that   one  can  always  feel  (but  seldom  describe  easily)  not  only  between  one  organization  and   another,  but  also  between  different  elements  of  the  same  organization.”177     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?   “Assessing  an  organization’s  character  is  the  essential  first  step  in  any  developmental   effort.”178  The  other  three  steps  are  helping  the  leaders  understand  the  implications  of   their  character  as  it  relates  to  development,  designing  a  developmental  plan  for  the   organization,  and  “undertaking  some  of  those  interventions  that  people  usually  refer  to  as   OD  work.”179     Conclusion   Strengths              This  book  was  quite  helpful  to  this  research  because  it  approached  organizations  in  a   very  similar  way  that  Douglass  views  churches  and  provided  a  tool  that  accomplished   similar  ends.  Having  the  survey  participants  answer  the  questions  as  they  perceive  the   organization  rather  than  how  they  themselves  respond  seems  more  logical  than  Douglass’   view.   Weaknesses   The  same  hazard  of  subjectivity  that  is  found  in  Douglass’  model  is  found  in  this  one.  In                                                                                                                   176  Ibid.,  140.   177  Ibid.,  xiii.   178  Ibid.,  90.   179  Ibid.,  90.     65   fact,  this  may  be  even  more  subjective  in  that  people  tend  to  be  able  to  answer   personality-­‐type  questions  better  when  they  relate  to  themselves  than  to  a  larger   organization.  He  describes  some  of  the  disadvantages  in  this  approach:   1. Questions  can  be  interpreted  differently  by  people  who  lack  the  opportunity  to   discuss  them  and  who  do  not  understand  the  concepts  behind  them.   2. Some  people  answer  the  questions  in  terms  of  the  real  organization  that  operates   every  day,  while  others  answer  the  question  in  terms  of  the  organization  that  its   leaders  describe.   3. Everyone  inevitably  characterizes  the  organization  that  he  or  she  has  personally   experienced.  When  this  is  done  by  an  isolated  individual  with  a  piece  of  paper,  that   subjectivity  may  not  be  as  clear  as  it  is  when  issues  are  discussed  in  a  group.   4. The  OCI  has  not  been  statistically  validated.  It  is  simply  the  current  best  tool  for   inventorying  the  character-­‐related  qualities  of  an  organization.180     The  book  used  as  the  primary  focus  of  the  research   What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  Discovering  and  Developing  the  Ministry  Style  of   Your  Church,  By  Philip  D.  Douglass     This  section  will  take  a  closer  look  at  Douglass’  book,  particularly  looking  at  his   motivations,  underlying  assumptions  and  his  conclusions,  as  they  relate  to  the  questions   we  have  been  exploring  in  this  chapter.   Motivation     Philip  D.  Douglass  was  motivated  to  develop  his  system  of  identifying  a  church’s   personality  out  of  his  own  experience  as  a  pastor,  church  planter,  and  seminary  professor   (as  described  in  the  Preface  of  the  book).  He  learned  first  hand  the  challenges  of  pastoring   a  church  that  was  not  a  good  fit  for  one’s  own  personality.  In  the  pastorate,  not   understanding  the  dynamics  of  church  culture,  he  struggled  with  depression  and  burnout.                                                                                                                   180  Ibid.,  129-­‐130.     66   As  a  church  planter,  he  thrived  in  a  ministry  where  he  was  able  to  form  the  personality  of   the  congregation  (Inspirational).  However,  because  of  differences  in  the  leadership  and   later  in  staffing,  he  inadvertently  allowed  two  distinct  personalities  to  thrive  (Inspirational   and  Organizer).  As  long  as  he  was  there,  his  personality  was  dominant.  However  when  he   left,  the  other  personality  became  more  dominant  creating  unnecessary  stress  and  conflict   for  the  church.181  As  a  seminary  professor,  he  became  distressed  at  the  number  of   students  who  left  school  and  began  serving  churches  that  were  incompatible  with  their   ministry  styles,  often  resulting  in  short  pastorates  and  emotional  and  spiritual  burnout.  As   he  learned  about  personality  studies  and  became  exposed  to  information  on  corporate   culture,  he  decided  to  bring  what  he  was  learning  into  a  system  of  helping  churches  match   with  new  ministry  workers.     Assumptions   Douglass  builds  his  system  around  some  basic  assumptions.  Following  are  four  of  them:   1. Although  each  church  is  unique,  their  personality  will  fall  within  eight  basic   personality  types.  “Personality  varies  significantly  from  church  to  church.  At  the  same   time,  distinctions  can  often  be  subtle.  In  one  sense,  there  are  as  many  personalities  as   there  are  churches.  But  those  endless,  varied  distinctions  can  be  clustered  into  eight   basic  categories.”182  (p.21)   2. Although  there  may  be  evidences  of  more  than  one  type  of  personality  in  a  church,   there  will  be  a  dominant  type.  “You  will  likely  be  able  to  see  aspects  of  your  church  in   more  than  one  of  the  descriptions  that  follow.  However,  research  demonstrates  that   one  of  these  eight  profiles  will  be  most  descriptive  of  your  church.”  (p.28)                                                                                                                   181  Douglass,  15-­‐16.   182  Ibid.,  21.     67   3. The  top  thirty  opinion  leaders  determine  the  church  personality.  “This  diagnostic…is   based  on  the  assumption  that  the  personality  of  a  church  is  determined  by  the  true   leadership  of  the  church:  the  thirty  individuals  who  exercise  the  greatest  official  and   unofficial  influence  on  the  church.”    “Fundamentally,  your  church’s  personality  is  a  set   of  shared  values  among  its  most  influential  members.”183     4. The  fourth  assumption  has  already  been  touched  on  in  chapter  1  of  this  thesis.  He   approaches  each  kind  of  personality  in  a  church  as  neutral  and  valid.  As  opposed  to   some  books  that  focus  on  strong  vs.  weak  or  healthy  vs.  unhealthy  cultures,  his   “personality”  approach  enables  him  to  celebrate  each  of  the  eight  different   personalities  without  passing  judgment  on  them.     This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  he  adopts  an  “anything  goes”  approach.  He  writes,   “Not  every  aspect  of  the  church  ethos  is  positive  because  each  personality  has  its   challenges  –  forms  of  temptation  to  which  it  is  more  susceptible.”184  He  then  elaborates  on   that  with  specifics  for  each  category.       There  are  no  right  or  wrong  church  personalities.  But  every  church  personality   experiences  temptations  to  engage  in  particular  types  of  sinful  behavior.  For   example:   • Practical  churches  are  sometimes  tempted  to  do  something  simply  because   it  is  the  next  feasible  thing  to  do,  rather  than  because  it  honors  Christ.   • Innovative  churches  are  occasionally  tempted  to  become  so  enthralled  by   future  possibilities  that  they  do  not  pay  attention  to  necessary  aspects  of   everyday  ministry.   • Analytical  churches  are  tempted,  from  time  to  time,  to  study  situations  and   people  logically,  while  remaining  aloof  and  personally  uninvolved.   • Connectional  churches  are  now  and  then  tempted  to  use  emotional   manipulation  to  bring  about  results.   • Structured  churches  are  tempted,  on  occasion,  to  be  rigid  in  their  direction   once  they  have  made  decisions,  and  may  try  to  control  people  who  do  not   submit.                                                                                                                   183  Ibid.,  24.   184  Ibid.,  25.     68   •     Flexible  churches  are  sometimes  tempted  to  be  impulsive  in  their  ministry   and  unwilling  to  make  long-­‐term  commitments.  185   The  book  is  designed  as  a  self-­‐study  for  congregations.  The  process  is  described   more  fully  in  chapter  four  of  this  thesis.  The  diagnostic  survey  is  designed  to  help  the   congregation  discover  its  dominant  personality.  This  forms  one  of  three  elements  of  a   church’s  philosophy  of  ministry.186    The  other  two  elements  are  their  theological   convictions  and  the  community  context.  He  notes  that,     Most  churches  are  adept  at  expressing  their  theological  convictions,  most  have   established  biblical  standards  of  godly  character  for  their  leaders,  and  most  work   capably  toward  assessing  how  they  can  minister  effectively  in  their  community   contexts.  But,  sadly,  many  do  not  understand  the  nature  of  their  church  personalities   –  and  therefore  the  roots  of  the  conflicts  they  experience.187       Although  one  could  argue  that  he  may  be  optimistic  in  saying  that  most  churches  have  a   good  handle  on  both  their  theological  convictions  and  how  to  effectively  minister  to  their   broader  community,  his  observation  that  many  do  not  understand  their  unique   personality  is  likely  all  too  accurate.     The  Questions   1. What  is  organizational  culture?       Douglass  defines  a  church’s  personality  or  culture  as  “an  identity  –  a  set  of  values,   beliefs,  norms  –  that  shapes  its  practices  and  behavior….”188    He  uses  the  imagery  of  a   mold  shaping  plaster.  He  writes,  “The  ideals  of  your  denomination  or  church  association   are  like  the  plaster:  what  goes  into  the  mold  is  essentially  the  same  for  every  church,  but   the  shape  it  takes  is  determined  by  the  mold  itself.  One  mold  is  not  inherently  better  than                                                                                                                   185  Ibid.,  26.   186  Ibid.,  4-­‐5.   187  Ibid.,  5.   188  Ibid.,  4.     69   another,  simply  different.”189     2. What  is  organizational  culture  composed  of?     “Church  personality  can  be  viewed  at  two  levels:  some  aspects  of  its  personality  are   visible  and  concrete,  while  many  characteristics  are  intangible  and  subconscious.”190    He   goes  on  to  suggest  that  “Some  of  the  most  powerful  expressions  of  a  church’s  personality   are  the  architecture  and  décor,  the  clothing  people  wear,  the  church  processes  and   structures,  its  rituals  and  celebrations.”191     He  suggests  that  newcomers  are  able  to  both  consciously  and  unconsciously  identify  a   church’s  personality  within  a  few  minutes.  Some  of  the  things  that  help  them  recognize  a   church’s  personality  are  the  friendliness  of  the  people,  clothing,  the  bulletin  (or  lack  of   one),  what  is  emphasized  during  the  announcement  time,  and  the  worship  style.192     3. How  is  it  formed?     Douglass  states  that  “a  church’s  personality  is  greatly  influenced  by  its  traditions  and   origins.”193    Among  other  things,  this  is  influenced  by  how  long  the  church  has  been  in   existence;  their  denominational  affiliation,  and  how  much  or  little  the  church  seeks  to   reflect  that;  the  Seminaries  or  Bible  Colleges  where  their  pastors  have  been  trained;  and   how  they  handled  “debatable  matters,”  which  he  claims  are  the  areas  in  which  cultural   differences  are  most  clearly  expressed.194     4. Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  unified  culture  in  an  organization?     Douglass  acknowledges  that  different  cultures  can  exist  in  a  church,  especially  larger                                                                                                                   189  Ibid.   190  Ibid.,  7.   191  Ibid.   192  Ibid.,  9.   193  Ibid.  20.   194  Ibid.,  12.     70   or  mega-­‐churches.  He  writes,  “It  can  be  almost  as  if  two  distinct  churches  exist  in  one   body,  because  the  functions  that  a  church  undertakes  –  and  the  people  who  fulfill  those   functions  –  are  so  different.”195      He  uses  two  different  departments:  outreach  and   bookkeeping  to  illustrate.  Their  functions  are  very  different,  they  focus  on  different   aspects  of  the  total  ministry,  and  they  attract  different  kinds  of  people.  He  recommends,   “Therefore,  leaders  in  larger  churches  who  use  the  diagnostic  tools  in  this  book  to   determine  the  personalities  of  their  churches  should  not  stop  with  assessing  personality   for  the  church  as  a  whole.  It  is  important  to  conduct  the  assessment  for  each  specific   subdivision  of  the  church  as  well.”196     5. Can  it  be  changed,  and  if  so,  how?     Douglass  strongly  argues  against  trying  to  change  a  church’s  fundamental  personality.   He  writes,  “Programming  shifts  should  initiate  change  in  your  church  structures,   methodologies  and  processes,  but  they  should  not  tamper  with  your  fundamental  church   personality.”197    And  again,  “Your  fundamental  church  personality  should  not  be  tampered   with  –  so  it  is  important  that  the  pastoral  leadership  that  best  fits  your  church  personality   be  chosen  in  such  a  manner  that  the  church  grow  and  develop  in  its  own  unique  way.”198     He  uses  two  metaphors  to  demonstrate  this.  One  that  has  already  been  mentioned   is  that  he  compares  a  church’s  personality  with  the  operating  system  of  a  computer,  and   suggests  that  it  might  be  easier  to  change  that  than  the  personality  of  a  church.  The  other   metaphor  uses  the  medical  example  of  finding  suitable  donors  for  organ  transplants  to                                                                                                                   195  Ibid.,  19.   196  Ibid.,  20.   197  Ibid.,  15.   198  Ibid.,  17.     71   demonstrate  the  importance  of  finding  pastors  who  are  matches  for  the  church’s   personality.199     6. What  impact  does  it  have  on  an  organization?     In  his  section  on  a  church’s  personality  being  like  the  operating  system  of  a  computer,   Douglass  writes,  “Personality  drives  a  church  and  its  actions.”200    He  goes  on  to  say  that   “your  church’s  personality  is  always  working  quietly  behind  the  scenes,  guiding  how  your   church  thinks,  feels,  and  acts,  and  directing  ‘how  we  do  things  around  here’.”201     7. What  strategic  advantage  does  knowing  its  culture  have  on  an  organization?     The  whole  rationale  behind  the  development  of  the  survey  and  the  chapters  on  each   personality  type  is  that  personality  or  culture  has  a  huge  impact  on  the  church.  Each   personality  type  is  given  a  chapter  detailing  information  on  what  kinds  of  ministries  each   personality  thrives  at,  what  kinds  of  people  are  attracted  to  that  kind  of  personality,  and   even  what  kinds  of  occupations  tend  to  gravitate  to  that  culture.  Understanding  a  church’s   personality  enables  the  leadership  to  develop  a  more  comprehensive  ministry  style   description.  “This  process  will  move  program  development  and  conflict  resolution  along   in  a  focused  manner,  because  you  will  begin  with  a  framework  of  descriptions  from  which   to  work  rather  than  try  to  create  each  statement  afresh.”202     Theological  Considerations     Douglass  does  not  make  a  theological  defense  of  his  methodology,  nor  does  he   make  a  point  of  differentiating  between  churches  and  other  organizations  as  it  relates  to   corporate  culture.  As  he  writes  from  the  perspective  of  a  pastor,  church  planter,  and                                                                                                                   199  Ibid.   200  Ibid.,  8.   201  Ibid.   202  Ibid.,  32.     72   Practical  Theology  professor  (in  fact,  chair  of  the  department)  –  and  focuses  the  whole   book  exclusively  toward  churches  –  it  would  have  been  helpful  if  he  had  given  some   theological  rationale.  Instead  the  book  assumes  that  churches,  like  any  other  organization,   have  a  corporate  culture  or  personality  and  takes  a  pragmatic  approach  to  helping   churches  identify  and  utilize  their  personality.     There  are  a  few  ways  that  he  addresses  the  biblical.  One  of  the  ways  is  that  in  each   chapter  describing  the  different  personalities,  he  includes  Scripture  verses  for  various   aspects  of  that  personality.  For  instance,  in  the  chapter  on  Fellowship  he  includes   Scripture  references  for  Supportiveness,  Conscientious  Service,  Orderly  Planning,   Tradition,  Change,  Conflict,  Decision-­‐Making,  Communication,  and  Outreach  through   Fellowship.203  There  are  similar  sections  for  each  of  the  eight  personalities.  There  is  no   explanation  as  to  why  these  verses  are  included.  A  positive  aspect  to  their  inclusion  is  that   it  enables  church  leaders  to  use  them  as  they  reflect  biblically  on  how  their  personality  can   help  them  in  their  ministry  and  outreach.  A  concern  is  that  simply  listing  verses  that   address  certain  qualities  could  result  in  a  proof-­‐texting  approach  rather  than  a  solid   theological  foundation  for  who  we  are  and  how  we  behave.   A  second  way  Douglass  addresses  the  biblical  is  that  for  each  personality  he   includes  a  section  on  how  that  personality  learns  or  how  best  to  communicate  to  those   attracted  to  that  personality.  He  introduces  this  in  his  first  personality  profile  in  a  section   entitled  Sermon  and  Teaching  Style.  He  writes,  “Armed  with  an  awareness  of  the   Fellowship  church’s  primary  learning  style,  the  pastor,  staff,  and  lay  leadership  can  adapt   their  sermon  and  teaching  methods  to  the  way  the  people  learn  and  grow  best.  Instead  of                                                                                                                   203  Ibid.,  41-­‐66.     73   undermining  the  confidence  of  the  people  or  frustrating  them,  the  sermon/teaching  style   should  fit  the  way  they  learn  and  lead  to  their  spiritual  growth  and  development.”204     A  similar  section  is  included  for  each  of  the  personalities,  although  in  some  of  them   it  is  identified  as  Learning  Style  or  Communication  Style.  This  information  seeks  to  assist   those  conveying  biblical  truth  to  have  a  greater  understanding  of  how  to  communicate  as   effectively  and  efficiently  as  possible.  Although  this  could  become  manipulative  if  utilized   with  the  wrong  motives,  it  can  be  very  helpful.  The  task  of  preaching  and  teaching  is  not  to   dump  information  but  to  communicate  truth  in  a  way  that  transforms.  We  see  this  in  the   ministry  of  Paul,  who  adopted  a  drastically  different  methodology  in  Athens  (Acts  17)  than   he  did  in  his  very  next  stop,  Corinth  (1  Corinthians  2:1-­‐5).     A  third  way  Douglass  addresses  the  biblical  is  that  he  attaches  a  Bible  character  to   each  of  the  personalities:  Fellowship  –  Ruth;  Inspirational  –  Barnabas;  Relational  –  Peter;   Strategizer  –  Paul;  Organizer  –  Abraham;  Adventurous  –  David;  and  Expressive  –  Solomon.   These  sections  are  interesting,  and  help  put  a  flesh-­‐and-­‐blood  perspective  on  what  could   be  abstract  information.   Conclusion     In  general,  this  book  is  very  helpful  for  churches  that  want  to  better  understand   their  basic  culture  and  to  leverage  that  culture  for  more  effective  ministry  and  outreach.   Douglass  writes  both  as  an  academic  and  as  a  practitioner.  His  experience  as  a  pastor,   church  planter,  and  seminary  professor  give  him  both  an  aerial  view  and  ground  level   perspective  to  church  personality.  His  heart  for  churches  and  church  leaders  also  comes   through  his  writing.                                                                                                                   204  Ibid.,  55.     74   Strengths   1. Since  this  is  not  a  textbook  on  organizational  culture,  Douglass  does  not  go  into  a  lot  of   general  detail  about  the  topic.  However,  he  gives  enough  helpful  foundational   information  for  someone  new  to  the  subject  to  understand  its  value  and  to  use  this   book  in  their  church.   2. The  opinion-­‐leaders’  survey  and  the  system  to  identify  a  church’s  personality  are  also   strengths.  He  has  been  able  to  capitalize  on  the  extensive  work  done  by  Katharine   Cook  Briggs  and  Isabel  Briggs  Myers  in  their  personality  profile  while  customizing  it   for  churches.  This  gives  a  church  an  immediate  head  start,  in  that  they  do  not  have  to   do  the  work  of  adapting  a  tool  and  developing  a  system,  but  can  save  that  time  and   energy  for  implementing  what  he  has  already  done.  Whether  it  is  any  better  than  a   comparable  tool  and  system  based  on  a  different  form  of  personality  profile  (Taylor-­‐ Johnson,  DISC,  Spirit-­‐Controlled  Temperament,  etc.)  is  a  valid  question,  but  this  is   already  developed  and  tested.  Our  own  experience  (outlined  in  chapter  4)  has  been   generally  helpful.   3. The  separate  chapters  on  each  personality  contain  a  wealth  of  information  on  each.  A   lot  of  work  has  gone  into  exploring  the  different  personalities  from  a  variety  of   perspectives,  summarized  in  a  chart  for  each  that  includes  strong  points,  challenges,   ministries  that  they  are  especially  good  at,  the  typical  tempo  of  their  ministry,  what   inspires  them,  what  demotivates  them,  how  they  react  to  stress,  how  they  make   decisions,  their  desires,  priorities,  church  ethos  (i.e.  visionary,  task  oriented,  efficient),   outward  appearance,  what  gives  them  confidence,  and  what  they  fear.  In  addition  to   addressing  learning  and  communication  styles,  each  chapter  includes  a  section  on     75   outreach  as  well  as  what  kinds  of  people  and  what  kinds  of  occupations  are  attracted   to  that  ministry  personality.  All  of  this  is  very  helpful  both  in  helping  a  church   understand  itself  and  also  understanding  how  that  personality  can  help  and  hurt  them.   Weaknesses   1. It  would  be  helpful  to  have  some  of  the  basic  assumptions  explained  and  defended.   Since  the  whole  system  flows  out  of  the  underlying  assumptions,  those  become  very   important  in  assessing  the  value  of  the  survey  and  its  follow-­‐up  information.  There  are   perfunctory  comments  made  from  the  areas  of  organizational  culture  theory  and   statistics,  but  a  fuller  explanation  could  enhance  confidence  in  the  system.   2. Since  this  is  designed  as  a  self-­‐study,  there  could  have  been  more  guidance  on  how  to   interpret  the  results  of  the  survey.  Although  it  is  helpful  to  be  able  take  the  three  letter   combinations  and  plug  them  onto  the  wheel,  there  are  certainly  subtleties  to  the   individual  scores  that  could  add  to  the  understanding  of  the  general  personality  of  the   church.  Three  attempts  were  made  to  contact  the  author  with  the  hope  of  gaining  a   more  comprehensive  understanding  of  our  own  results,  including  requesting  a  Church   Personality  Report  on  their  website.  There  was  no  response,  so  the  logical  conclusion   is  that  this  is  going  to  be  a  self-­‐study  limited  to  the  information  given  in  the  book.   3. A  further  weakness  in  Douglass’  book  and  model  is  where  do  you  go  after  you  have   identified  your  personality?  The  book’s  focus  seemed  to  narrow  toward  the  end  to   using  this  system  to  find  the  right  pastoral  fit  so  that  other  values  of  the  process   seemed  to  get  left  behind.  How  does  a  church  go  from  understanding  their  personality   to  leveraging  it  for  more  effective  ministry?  Are  there  any  tools  or  processes  to  help  a   church  make  practical  use  of  the  knowledge  they  have  gathered?     76   4. As  was  already  mentioned,  the  book  could  have  included  a  more  robust  theological   treatment.   In  summary,  this  is  a  helpful  turnkey  system  for  evaluating  a  church’s  culture  and   addressing  its  implications  for  ministry  and  outreach.  There  is  enough  information  to  get  a   basic  understanding  of  organizational  culture  and  to  take  a  congregation  through  the   process.  To  gain  a  more  well-­‐rounded  understanding  of  organizational  culture,  or  to   understand  more  fully  how  to  bring  change  to  the  congregation,  other  resources  will  need   to  be  accessed.  However,  just  applying  the  book  will  likely  lead  to  a  better  understanding   and  appreciation  of  a  church’s  culture  and  will  form  a  strong  starting  point  for  staffing  and   developing  a  more  comprehensive  ministry  plan.   Summary     Looking  at  the  summary  of  the  books  reviewed  in  this  chapter  shows  the  wide  variety   of  opinions  on  all  seven  of  the  basic  questions:  what  organizational  culture  is,  what  it  is   composed  of,  how  it  is  formed,  whether  there  is  a  unified  culture,  whether  it  can  be   changed,  what  impact  it  has,  and  what  strategic  advantage  there  is  to  an  organization   knowing  their  culture.  Yet  in  all  the  responses,  there  are  also  similarities:   1. Whatever  else  is  involved  in  defining  culture,  all  agree  that  it  includes  basic   assumptions,  values,  and  beliefs.     2. Most  if  not  all  the  books  acknowledge  that  culture  includes  visible  as  well  as   invisible  components.   3. Most  if  not  all  the  books  recognize  the  role  of  leadership,  history,  stories,  and   rituals  in  the  formation  of  an  organization’s  culture.   4. All  recognize  the  presence  of  groups,  departments,  or  factions  that  may  be  at     77   dissonance  with  the  assumed  culture  of  the  organization,  even  if  they  differ  on   what  that  means  and  whether  it  is  normal  or  a  sign  of  dysfunction.   5. Most  if  not  all  accept  that  a  culture  can  be  changed,  although  they  differ  on  how   hard  it  is,  how  long  it  takes,  or  whether  one  should  even  try.   6. Most  if  not  all  recognize  that  the  culture  of  an  organization  has  a  significant  impact   on  the  organization.   7. Most  if  not  all  acknowledge  that  there  can  be  strategic  advantage  to  knowing  an   organization’s  culture.   In  chapter  one  a  preliminary  working  definition  was  given:  Organizational  Culture   is  the  essence,  underlying  values,  attitudes,  character,  and  basic  personality  of  an   organization  that  both  influence  and  are  in  turn  influenced  by  stated  mission,  vision,   values,  rituals,  experiences,  and  behaviors.  The  validity  of  this  definition  has  been   confirmed  by  an  examination  of  the  literature.  It  seeks  to  emphasize  the  underlying,  often   unconscious  essence  of  an  organization,  while  acknowledging  the  influence  of  and   resulting  impact  on  those  cultural  aspects  that  are  more  intentional  and  visible.   One  notable  absence  in  the  literature  written  from  a  church  perspective  was  any   significant  discussion  on  whether  there  is  a  difference  between  a  church  and  other   organizations.  That  question  will  be  addressed  in  the  next  chapter  as  the  subject  of   organizational  culture  is  viewed  from  a  theological  perspective.         78   CHAPTER  THREE:  A  THEOLOGY  OF  ORGANIZATIONAL  CULTURE       This  chapter  will  address  four  specific  questions  related  to  a  theological   understanding  of  organizational  culture,  especially  as  it  relates  to  the  church.   1. The  first  is  whether  it  is  theologically  valid  to  use  a  secular  survey  of  personality  types   to  examine  a  church.   2. A  second  question  relates  to  identifying  a  theology  of  organizational  culture.  How  is   the  broader  concept  of  organizational  culture  informed  by  theology?  What  evidences   of  the  presence,  distinctiveness,  and  impact  of  organizational  culture  can  we  find  in  the   Bible,  and  how  does  Systematic  Theology,  specifically  the  areas  of  Theology,   Anthropology,  Christology,  and  Ecclesiology  help  our  understanding?     3. A  third  question  is  how  the  church  differs  from  and  is  similar  to  other  organizations,  as   it  relates  to  organizational  culture.  This  will  be  looked  at  as  part  of  the  section  on   Ecclesiology.   4. The  fourth  question  is  whether  there  are  evidences  of  what  today  would  be  identified   as  organizational  culture  in  the  churches  of  the  New  Testament.  Specific  attention  will   be  paid  to  the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  in  Revelation  2-­‐3.   Is  it  theologically  valid  to  use  a  secular  survey  of  personality  types  to  examine  a   church?     An  attempt  to  apply  business  and  academic  learning  to  better  understand  the  church   invariably  leads  to  questions  about  the  legitimacy  of  using  secular  models,  methods,  and   tools  to  study  the  Spirit  indwelt  Body  of  Christ.  Is  this  a  contemporary  example  of  David   trying  to  fight  with  Saul’s  armor?  What  does  business  have  to  do  with  the  church?  How  can   tools  developed  from  a  non-­‐Christian  mindset  and  world-­‐view  help  Christians  better     79   understand  themselves?     These  are  important  questions  that  Christians  need  to  ask  when  discerning  the   applicability  of  any  contemporary  area  of  knowledge  and  research.  Among  the  questions   that  Ray  S.  Anderson  seeks  to  answer  in  his  book,  Minding  God’s  Business,  are:   • In  what  ways  can  Christian  organizations  use  the  so-­‐called  secular  aspects  of   managing  without  compromising  the  integrity  of  the  Christian  organization?     • Is  it  really  “spiritual”  to  use  management  practices  that  are  also  used  in  non-­‐ Christian  organizations?  205       Theologically,  all  truth  is  God’s  truth,  whether  discovered  by  God-­‐followers  or  not.   Proverbs  reminds  us  that  the  fear  of  God  is  the  beginning  of  both  knowledge  (Proverbs   1:7)  and  wisdom  (9:10),  then  proceeds  to  address  a  wide  variety  of  social  subjects   including  marriage,  morality,  money,  our  attitudes  toward  work,  health,  friends,  and   others.  Stephen  reminded  his  listeners  that  “Moses  was  educated  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the   Egyptians  and  was  powerful  in  speech  and  action.”  (Acts  7:22206)  God,  in  his  sovereign   plan,  allowed  for  this  kind  of  educational  foundation  to  prepare  Moses  for  the  task  of   delivering  his  people.     Later,  when  some  of  the  choice  royalty  of  Israel  were  carried  off  into  captivity  by  the   Babylonians,  Daniel  and  his  three  friends  received  a  comprehensive  education  at  the   hands  of  their  pagan  captors  that  prepared  them  to  serve  God  and  influence  more  than   one  national  culture.  “To  these  four  young  men  God  gave  knowledge  and  understanding  of                                                                                                                   205  Ray S. Anderson, Minding God’s Business (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 21. 206  Unless  otherwise  noted,  all  Scripture  references  are  taken  from  The  Holy  Bible,  New  International   Version,  NIV® Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.     80   all  kinds  of  literature  and  learning.  And  Daniel  could  understand  visions  and  dreams  of  all   kinds.”  (Daniel  1:17)     When  God  made  Solomon  the  wisest  man  alive,  that  wisdom  was  not  limited  to   spiritual  subjects,  but  encompassed  at  the  least  politics,  literature,  music,  biology,  and   zoology.   Solomon’s  wisdom  was  greater  than  the  wisdom  of  all  the  people  of  the  East,   and  greater  than  all  the  wisdom  of  Egypt.  31  He  was  wiser  than  anyone  else,   including  Ethan  the  Ezrahite—wiser  than  Heman,  Kalkol  and  Darda,  the  sons  of   Mahol.  And  his  fame  spread  to  all  the  surrounding  nations.  32  He  spoke  three   thousand  proverbs  and  his  songs  numbered  a  thousand  and  five.  33  He  spoke   about  plant  life,  from  the  cedar  of  Lebanon  to  the  hyssop  that  grows  out  of   walls.  He  also  spoke  about  animals  and  birds,  reptiles  and  fish.  34  From  all   nations  people  came  to  listen  to  Solomon’s  wisdom,  sent  by  all  the  kings  of  the   world,  who  had  heard  of  his  wisdom.    (1  Kings  4:30–34)     30       In  one  respect,  disallowing  a  tool  like  the  Myer’s-­‐Briggs  Type  Indicator  (MBTI)   (from  which  Douglass’  Opinion  Leaders  Inventory  is  adapted)  because  it  is  not  Christian   calls  into  question  any  insights  that  might  be  derived  from  the  social  sciences.  But  why   stop  with  the  social  sciences?  Is  it  legitimate  for  a  Christian  to  benefit  from  medical   advancements,  accounting  procedures,  environmental  information,  computer  technology,   economic  forecasts,  statistical  models,  or  governance  practices  merely  because  they  are   not  developed  by  Christians?  Organizational  theory,  like  medicine,  science,  and   mathematics  discovers  truth  because  it  seeks  to  understand  and  describe  a  world  that  has   been  created  with  order  and  reason.  Although  the  church  is  a  unique  organization  in  some   ways  (more  on  that  later),  it  is  filled  with  human  beings  and  exists  in  society.     At  the  same  time,  it  is  important  to  examine  whatever  information  we  receive   theologically.  It  would  be  unwise  to  indiscriminately  adopt  all  that  comes  from  the  world   of  psychology,  medicine,  ethics,  politics,  economics,  education,  or  business.  All  truth  is     81   God’s  truth,  but  not  all  is  truth.  Malcolm  Goldsmith  writes  that  since  the  Myers-­‐Briggs   Type  Indicator  was  made  widely  available  in  1975,  it  has  “become  the  most  widely  used   personality  assessment  in  the  world.”  207  He  goes  on  to  say,  “It  is  being  used  increasingly   within  the  churches  to  help  people  understand  not  only  their  own  personalities  and  the   personalities  of  others,  but  also  to  understand  their  spiritual  explorations  and   journeys.”208  His  book  shows  how  the  MBTI  can  be  used  to  help  one  understand  why  they   respond  to  some  spiritual  practices  and  traditions  more  than  others  and  how  they  can   grow  spiritually  within  their  God-­‐given  personality.       One  rationale  he  gives  for  the  value  of  the  MBTI  for  spiritual  exploration  is  in  the   basic  approach  of  Myers  and  Briggs.  Jung,  who  pioneered  some  of  the  underlying  concepts,   as  a  psychoanalyst,  was  most  interested  in  those  who  deviated  from  normal.  Myers  and   Briggs  took  his  ideas  and  further  developed  and  refined  them,  but  their  interest  was  much   more  on  the  normal  rather  than  abnormal.  Their  concern  was  to  see  how  personalities   were  different  and  how  different  personalities  could  relate  to  each  other  most  effectively.   Their  desire  was  to  help  people  understand  themselves  so  they  could  grow  and  develop.   Goldsmith  (1997,  p.24-­‐25)  writes,       It  is  their  positive  approach  to  human  differences  and  their  valuing  of  people  as   unique  individuals  which  makes  their  Indicator  such  a  useful  and  appropriate   instrument  through  which  to  explore  spirituality.  Our  experiences  of  God,  and  our   longings  for  God  are  different  and  unique  to  ourselves  even  though  they  may   sometimes  be  shared  by  some  other  people,  but  not  by  all  other  people.209     Many  of  the  insights  Goldsmith  gave  on  how  the  various  personalities  respond   spiritually  are  very  informative.  Some  of  his  insights  on  people  who  are  iNtuitive  Thinkers                                                                                                                   207  Malcolm Goldsmith, Knowing Me Knowing God: Exploring Your Spirituality with Myers-Briggs. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 22. 208  Ibid.   209  Ibid.,  24-­‐25.     82   (INTP,  INTJ,  ENTP,  and  ENTJ)  had  personal  resonance  because  they  help  explain  an   approach  to  spiritual  disciplines  and  spiritual  growth  that  to  many  may  seem  dry  and   overly  academic.  He  writes,  “Intuitive  Thinkers  often  find  that  their  devotional  life  is   enhanced  by  theological  questioning,  and  they  look  to  develop  a  spirituality  which  draws   upon  reason  as  a  basis  for  thought  and  reflection.”210    A  little  further,  he  wrote,  “It  is   important  to  realize  that  for  Thinkers  the  very  process  of  thinking  can  be  a  form  of   spiritual  exercise.  Their  capacity  and  determination  to  think  clearly  itself  can  be  an   offering  to  God.”211    This  helps  clarify  some  of  the  “why”  for  one  approach  to  spiritual   formation  that  may  not  always  be  articulated.   Using  a  tool  such  as  the  Opinion  Leaders  Inventory  or  the  MBTI  does  not   threaten  the  theological  integrity  of  a  church  or  the  Church  in  general.  It  is  a  recognition   that  individuals  with  personality  come  together  in  community,  and  that  this   combination  of  personalities,  values,  priorities,  beliefs,  and  experiences  shape  a   corporate  culture  or  personality  in  the  group.  This  neither  lessens  the  role  of  the  Holy   Spirit  in  the  community  nor  leads  to  a  dilution  of  sound  doctrine.  It  is  a  fundamental   recognition  that  the  individual  is  shaped  by  community  and  community  shapes  the   individual  in  adherence  to  God’s  word  and  reliance  on  God’s  Spirit.       In  conclusion,  we  are  a  Kingdom  people,  indwelt  and  empowered  by  the  Holy   Spirit,  committed  to  God  and  his  Word,  who  are  being  transformed  through  exposure  to   the  Word  and  the  experiences  of  life  and  community  into  the  image  of  Jesus.  We  are  also   human  beings  living  in  a  particular  historical  and  cultural  context.  Learning  that  one  is  an   INTP  (Myers-­‐Briggs)  or  IAF  (Douglass)  does  not  threaten  our  faith  anymore  than  learning                                                                                                                   210  Ibid.,  67.   211  Ibid.,  78.     83   we  are  genetically  predisposed  to  certain  health  issues.  We  can  benefit  by  the  discriminate   use  of  social  science  tools  and  research  in  the  same  way  we  can  benefit  by  the  discriminate   use  of  medical,  technological,  economic,  environmental,  and  health  study  and  resources.     A  Systematic  Theology  Perspective  on  Organizational  Culture     This  section  will  seek  to  look  at  some  of  the  categories  of  Systematic  Theology  to  see   how  they  might  inform  our  understanding  of  organizational  culture.  There  will  be  the   following  limits  to  this  study.     1. Although  much  theological  work  has  been  done  on  the  relationship  between  theology   and  culture  in  the  broad  sense  of  that  word  (i.e.  civilization  or  society),  little  work  has   been  focused  on  the  narrower  topic  of  organizational  culture.  Although  the  question  of   organizational  culture  cannot  be  divorced  from  broader  cultural  reality,  this  study  will   attempt  to  stay  focused  primarily  on  organizational  culture.   2. One  of  the  challenges  of  looking  at  culture  theologically  is  that  theologians  are  not   agreed  (any  more  than  non-­‐theologians)  on  the  nature  and  definition  of  culture.  This   study  will  work  with  the  definition  of  culture  already  explained  as  the  underlying   definition  used  in  the  thesis:  Organizational  Culture  is  the  essence,  underlying  values,   attitudes,  character,  and  basic  personality  of  an  organization  that  both  influence  and   are  in  turn  influenced  by  stated  mission,  vision,  values,  rituals,  experiences,  and   behaviors.   3. Another  challenge  of  looking  at  culture  theologically  is  that  our  understanding  of   theology  is  affected  by  our  culture.  This  is  articulated  by  D.  Stephen  Long,  “Theology   provides  answers  to  the  questions  culture  poses,  but  every  answer  it  provides  will     84   inevitably  be  an  expression  of  a  culture  in  a  particular  time  and  place.”212           This  chapter  is  not  going  to  (consciously,  at  least)  enter  the  debate  on  the   relationship  of  theology  and  culture:  that  is,  whether  culture  is  separate  from  theology   requiring  correlation,  or  internal  to  theology.213  Undoubtedly  the  following  study  will   interact  with  the  topic  subconsciously  within  one  (or  both!)  of  those  views,  but  will  not   intentionally  engage  the  debate.  That  subject  is  broad  enough  to  require  much  more   research  and  reflection  than  the  scope  of  this  chapter  allows.  Without  delving  deep   enough  to  understand  all  the  implications  of  each  position,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to   adopt  a  “both/and”  approach:  evaluating  the  concept  of  organizational  culture   theologically  while  recognizing  that  theology  envelops  culture.  We  seek  from  within   cultural  context  to  understand  and  articulate  timeless  theological  truth  that  was   revealed  to  us  within  cultural  context.   4. This  section  is  not  an  attempt  to  fully  develop  the  various  categories  of  systematic   theology  but  to  primarily  look  at  how  they  relate  to  community  and  culture.   5. Finally,  although  other  theological  works  will  be  referenced,  the  primary  resource  for   this  section  is  Stanley  Grenz’s  Theology  for  the  Community  of  God,214  principally   because  he  built  his  work  around  how  theology  and  community  intersect.   Theology       Our  understanding  of  human  character,  personality  and  community  flows  out  of   Theology,  the  study  of  God.  Any  concept  of  organizational  culture,  especially  but  not                                                                                                                   212  D. Stephen Long, Theology and Culture: A Guide to the Discussion (Eugene, Or: Cascade Books, 2008), p.73.   213  There is a helpful introduction to this debate in Long (2008). 214  Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2000), Kindle.     85   exclusively  within  the  context  of  the  church,  must  start  with  God.  If  humanity  is  created  in   the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  what  implications  does  that  have  for  individual  and   organizational  potential,  for  what  moral  and  ethical  standards  organizations  should  strive   for,  and  the  nature  of  community  and  cooperation?     The  intelligence,  creativity,  drive,  strategic  orientation,  ethical  awareness,  and   unique  character  of  every  organization,  whether  church,  business,  school,  club  or  family,   are  grounded  in  humanity’s  design,  and  reflect  (all  too  dimly)  the  image  and  likeness  of   our  Creator.  Our  natural  tendency  to  band  together  in  community  and  the  dynamic   potential  of  cooperation  and  teamwork  make  sense  in  light  of  the  three-­‐in-­‐oneness  of  the   Trinity.     Grenz  writes  “The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  forms  the  foundation  for  the  Christian   conception  of  the  essence  of  God.”215  Trinity  forms  both  the  foundation  and  goal  of  all   human  interrelationships.  It  forms  the  foundation  in  that  creation  flows  out  of  the  person   and  character  of  God  and  humanity  is  created  in  God’s  image.  It  is  the  goal  in  that  every   aspect  of  Trinitarian  interaction  is  absolutely  perfect  in  every  way  –  unity,  love,  justice,   cooperation,  holiness,  truth,  and  work  –  and  forms  the  model  for  all  human  interaction.   Everything  we  do  at  some  level  longs  for  that.  Jesus  prayed  that  for  his  people  (John  17:11,   22).  We  are  called  to  that  (Philippians  2:3–7).     3  Do  nothing  out  of  selfish  ambition  or  vain  conceit.  Rather,  in  humility  value  others   above  yourselves,  4  not  looking  to  your  own  interests  but  each  of  you  to  the  interests   of  the  others.  5  In  your  relationships  with  one  another,  have  the  same  mindset  as   Christ  Jesus:  6  Who,  being  in  very  nature  God,  did  not  consider  equality  with  God   something  to  be  used  to  his  own  advantage;  7  rather,  he  made  himself  nothing  by   taking  the  very  nature  of  a  servant,  being  made  in  human  likeness.                                                                                                                       215  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  1207.     86     Community  is  born  in  Trinity.  Grenz  writes,  “Because  he  is  three-­‐in-­‐one,  the  God  we   know  is  internally  and  externally  relational.”216  Since  our  understanding  of  relationships   and  organization  flow  out  of  the  Trinity,  an  interesting  question  for  reflection  is  whether   anything  resembling  an  organizational  culture  can  be  found  within  the  Trinity.  This  in   itself  might  be  a  fascinating  area  of  study  and  seems  largely  unexplored.  What  can  be   discerned  about  the  interrelationship  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  in  terms  of  role,   relationship  and  character?  The  Oneness  of  God  is  central  to  our  understanding  of  God.   “Hear,  O  Israel:  The  LORD  our  God,  the  LORD  is  one”  (Deuteronomy  6:4).  At  the  same  time   we  see  throughout  Scripture  the  functional  interdependence  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy   Spirit:  in  creation,  revelation,  redemption,  sanctification,  and  ultimate  triumph.  In  fact,   Grenz  notes:  “The  economic  unity  of  the  three  trinitarian  members  means  that,  despite   their  varying  functions  in  the  one  divine  program,  all  are  involved  in  every  area  of  God’s   working  in  the  world.  The  divine  activity  is  characterized  by  cooperation  among  the  three   members  of  the  Trinity.”217  If  we  were  able  to  identify  some  kind  of  organizational  culture   in  the  Trinity,  it  would  certainly  be  centered  in  love.  God  is  love  (1  John  4:8,  16).  Grenz   writes,  “Throughout  all  eternity  the  divine  life  –  the  life  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  –  is   best  characterized  by  our  word  ‘love;’”218  and  “Trinitarian  ‘love’  describes  God’s  inner  life   –  God  as  God  throughout  eternity  apart  form  any  references  to  creation.”219       It  is  frankly  impossible  to  apply  a  concept  like  organizational  culture  to  an  infinite   God  who  is  Three  in  One.  We  are  not  only  unable  to  comprehend  that  reality,  but  no   organizational  model  is  capable  of  addressing  that  kind  of  dynamic.  However,  Trinity                                                                                                                   216  Ibid.,  Introduction,  Loc.  620.   217  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  1144.   218  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  1209.   219  Ibid.,  Chapter  2,  Loc.  1212.     87   lends  credence  to  the  concept  of  organizational  culture  that  flows  out  of  the  unique   interaction  of  personalities  banded  together  with  common  vision  and  values  for  a  common   purpose  and  task.   Anthropology     Three  aspects  of  a  study  of  humanity  as  it  relates  to  personality,  community,  and   culture  are  Creation,  the  Fall,  and  Redemption.  These  three  are  defining  events  of   humanity.  Grenz  writes,  “We  may  encapsulate  our  human  identity  as  God’s  creatures  in   three  postulates:  We  are  the  good  creation  of  God,  we  are  marred  through  our  fall  into  sin,   but  we  are  also  the  object  of  God’s  redemptive  activity.”220  What  in  creation  relates  to   organizational  culture,  how  is  this  affected  by  sin,  and  how  can  or  does  redemption  impact   how  humans  interact  with  the  church  and  society?   Creation   Then  God  said,  “Let  us  make  mankind  in  our  image,  in  our  likeness,  so  that  they   may  rule  over  the  fish  in  the  sea  and  the  birds  in  the  sky,  over  the  livestock  and  all   the  wild  animals,  and  over  all  the  creatures  that  move  along  the  ground.”  So  God   created  mankind  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  he  created  them;  male  and   female  he  created  them  (Genesis  1:26–27).         One  way  the  biblical  teaching  on  Creation  can  inform  our  understanding  of   organizational  culture  is  through  reflecting  on  what  is  involved  in  humanity  as  image-­‐ bearers  of  God.     One  of  the  major  emphases  in  the  Genesis  account  of  creation  is  that  mankind  was   created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  Very  little  explanation  is  given  in  the  Scripture   for  what  that  means.  Grenz  notes,  “with  the  possible  exception  of  human  sin,  perhaps  the   single  most  debated  topic  of  Christian  anthropology  is  the  meaning  of  the  designation                                                                                                                   220  Ibid.,  Part  2,  Loc.  2004.     88   ‘image  of  God’.”221  We  are  not  told  what  all  being  created  in  the  image  of  God  entails,  thus   the  debate.  However,  there  are  certain  human  characteristics  that  seem  to  flow  out  of  that   divine  image.     One  of  those  characteristics  is  our  individuality.  In  very  economical  language,   Genesis  1  describes  extensive  diversity  in  creation:   • • • • Then  God  said,  “Let  the  land  produce  vegetation:  seed-­‐bearing  plants  and  trees  on   the  land  that  bear  fruit  with  seed  in  it,  according  to  their  various  kinds.”  And  it  was   so.  The  land  produced  vegetation:  plants  bearing  seed  according  to  their  kinds  and   trees  bearing  fruit  with  seed  in  it  according  to  their  kinds.  And  God  saw  that  it  was   good.  (Genesis  1:11–12)   God  made  two  great  lights—the  greater  light  to  govern  the  day  and  the  lesser  light   to  govern  the  night.  He  also  made  the  stars.  (Genesis  1:16)   And  God  said,  “Let  the  water  teem  with  living  creatures,  and  let  birds  fly  above  the   earth  across  the  vault  of  the  sky.”  So  God  created  the  great  creatures  of  the  sea  and   every  living  thing  with  which  the  water  teems  and  that  moves  about  in  it,  according   to  their  kinds,  and  every  winged  bird  according  to  its  kind.  And  God  saw  that  it  was   good.  (Genesis  1:20–21)   And  God  said,  “Let  the  land  produce  living  creatures  according  to  their  kinds:  the   livestock,  the  creatures  that  move  along  the  ground,  and  the  wild  animals,  each   according  to  its  kind.”  And  it  was  so.  (Genesis  1:24)       God  created  an  amazing  variety  of  galaxies,  vegetation,  water  life,  birds,  and  animals  both   wild  and  domestic.  Nine  times  in  Genesis  1  we  are  told  that  God  created  according  to  kind.   The  uniqueness  of  God’s  creativity  is  displayed  in  species,  races,  colors,  fingerprints,  and   DNA.     This  individuality  is  reflected  in  humanity.  God  said  to  Jeremiah,  “Before  I  formed   you  in  the  womb  I  knew  you,  before  you  were  born  I  set  you  apart;  I  appointed  you  as  a   prophet  to  the  nations.”  (Jeremiah  1:5)    The  Psalmist  wrote,  “I  praise  you  because  I  am   fearfully  and  wonderfully  made;  your  works  are  wonderful,  I  know  that  full  well.  My  frame   was  not  hidden  from  you  when  I  was  made  in  the  secret  place,  when  I  was  woven  together                                                                                                                   221  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2605.     89   in  the  depths  of  the  earth.  Your  eyes  saw  my  unformed  body;  all  the  days  ordained  for  me   were  written  in  your  book  before  one  of  them  came  to  be.”  (Psalm  139:14–16)  This   individuality  is  part  of  our  design,  at  least  in  Jeremiah’s  case  before  he  was  even   developing  in  the  womb.  Each  person  is  an  individual,  a  one  of  a  kind  creation.       We  see  this  individuality  in  many  ways  every  day,  such  as  the  different  tastes  in   makes,  models,  styles,  and  colors  of  cars  and  trucks;  in  the  variety  of  restaurants  and  kinds   of  foods  people  eat;  in  fashions;  in  music;  in  art.  It  is  seen  in  the  number  of  clubs  and   special  interest  groups,  sports,  crafts,  and  hobbies  people  enjoy.  It  is  obvious  from  just   walking  past  the  magazine  rack  in  a  store.  Everything  mankind  touches  reflects  the   creativity  and  variety  of  a  Creator  who  loves  to  make  one  of  a  kind.  Because  God  designed   us  for  community  (more  on  that  later),  people  with  similar  tastes,  values,  and  interests   tend  to  group  together,  and  as  they  do,  organizational  culture  forms.     Another  characteristic  of  God  that  shows  up  in  humanity  is  creativity.  This  creativity   shows  up  in  every  culture  in  music,  architecture,  literature  and  stories,  fashion,  art,  dance,   even  weaponry.  It  is  fascinating  to  see  how  throughout  history  all  over  the  world,  even  the   common,  everyday  tools  and  utensils  of  life  are  embellished  artistically,  whether  through   design,  carving,  bead  work,  or  painting.  Grenz  writes,  “More  significantly,  as  God’s   creatures,  we  are  capable  of  being  co-­‐creators  with  him.  Our  creative  capabilities  surface   through  various  human  cultural  expressions,  including  art,  music,  and  literature,  but  even   the  development  of  language  itself.”222  This  creativity,  when  part  of  a  group  identity  forms   part  of  organizational  culture.  It  is  seen  in  elegant  coding  of  software,  immediately   identifiable  technology,  in  logos  and  architecture,  and  in  many  other  ways.                                                                                                                     222  Ibid.,  Chapter  7,  Loc.  2787.     90     Another  characteristic  seen  in  humanity  is  personality.  There  are  a  multitude  of   personality  differences  described  in  Scripture,  such  as  the  differences  in  personality   between  Abraham  and  Isaac;  Jacob  and  Esau;  Moses  and  Joshua;  Elijah  and  Elisha;  Mary   and  Martha,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  name  a  few.  We  see  evidences  of  communal   personality  reflected  in  regional  and  national  cultures,  such  as  Sodom  or  the  tribe  of   Benjamin;  or  Egypt,  Babylon,  and  Rome;  even  distinctions  between  the  sister  nations  of   Judah  and  Israel.  We  see  how  culture  was  impacted  and  shaped  by  different  judges,   prophets,  and  kings.  We  see  it  in  the  early  church  in  Jerusalem  and  the  challenges  of  game-­‐ changing  cultural  transition  from  a  church  with  Jewish  roots  being  flooded  by  Gentiles.   One  of  the  assumptions  of  organizational  culture  is  that  when  a  group  of  unique   personalities  are  attracted  to  each  other  and  join  together  in  a  common  interest  or  for  a   common  purpose,  those  combined  personalities  form  a  unique  organizational  personality.     A  major  characteristic  of  God  evidenced  in  humanity  is  the  desire  for  community.  As   was  discussed  earlier,  community  flows  out  of  Trinity.  Grenz  writes,  “It  is  not  surprising   that  ultimately  the  image  of  God  should  focus  on  community.  As  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity   asserts,  throughout  all  eternity  God  is  community,  namely,  the  fellowship  of  Father,  Son,   and  Holy  Spirit  who  comprise  the  triune  God.”223  Mankind  was  created  for  community.   God  placed  man  in  a  cultural  context,  the  Garden.  In  this  context  we  first  see  interaction   between  Adam  and  the  animals  (and  plants)  of  the  garden.  But  interaction  at  that  level   was  not  enough  to  meet  the  deeper  need  for  community,  even  though  anyone  with  a   much-­‐loved  pet,  or  who  spends  as  much  time  in  the  garden  as  possible,  can  appreciate  that   it  was  not  insignificant  emotionally.  So  God  created  Eve,  and  man  and  woman  enjoyed                                                                                                                   223  Ibid.,  Chapter  7,  Loc.  2761.     91   work,  companionship,  intimacy,  and  responsibility  together.  Even  beyond  that,  Adam  and   Eve  enjoyed  community  with  God.  The  Genesis  account  describes  in  an  almost  matter  of   fact  way  God  coming  down  to  the  garden  for  what  would  seem  to  be  his  nightly  walk  with   Adam  and  Eve.       This  desire  for  community  is  seen  throughout  Scripture  and  appears  very  early.   When  Cain  was  banished,  he  went  off  and  built  a  city.  Genesis  10  describes  the  vast   kingdom  built  by  Nimrod.  After  the  flood,  the  people  banded  together  in  community  in   Babel  to  try  to  keep  from  being  scattered.  Grenz  observes,     The  narrative  of  a  person’s  life  is  always  embedded  in  the  story  of  the  communities  in   which  the  person  participates.  The  community  is  crucial  in  the  process  of  identity   formation,  because  it  mediates  to  us  the  transcending  story,  bound  up  with  which  are   traditions  of  virtue,  common  good,  and  ultimate  meaning,  by  means  of  which  we   construct  our  own  narrative.224       All  of  these  human  traits  are  evident  in  God  and  may  be  part  of  what  is  inferred  by   being  made  in  the  image  of  God.  We  bring  these  attributes  into  every  part  of  our  lives  and   they  shape  and  color  every  social  interaction.       Another  dimension  of  meaning  in  being  created  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God   relates  to  mankind’s  responsibility  to  function  as  God’s  representatives  to  creation.  Grentz   writes,  “The  Creator  has  given  this  creation  to  humankind  to  manage.  But  our   management  has  as  its  goal  that  we  show  to  creation  what  God  is  like.”225  This  involves   design,  purpose,  and  destiny.  God’s  evaluation  of  his  creation  was  that  it  was  “very  good.”   (Genesis  1:31)  As  the  image-­‐bearers  of  the  Creator,  mankind’s  responsibility  is  to  restore   creation  to  his  designed  and  intended  “very  good-­‐ness.”  K.  Stuart  Douglas  writes:     The  emphasis  of  “Let  us  make  man  in  our  image”  (Gen  1:26)  is  not  ontological  but                                                                                                                   224  Ibid.,  Chapter  1,  Loc.  926.   225  Ibid.,  Chapter  6,  Loc.  2737.     92   vocational.  It  refers  to  humans  being  heaven’s  representatives  on  earth  to  do   what  God  wants  done  on  earth  (cf.  “as  it  is  in  heaven,”  Matt  6:10),  as  the   remainder  of  Gen  1:26  goes  on  to  clarify  (“let  them  rule  over  …  all  the  earth”).   God’s  genius  in  creation  is  demonstrated  partly  in  his  delegation  of  important   assignments  to  humans—assignments  of  divine  design  but  of  human   fulfillment.226         The  implications  of  this  destiny  are  comprehensive,  including  issues  of   environment,  treatment  of  animals,  justice,  health,  safety,  economy,  government,  business,   and  religion.  Thus,  the  attempt  to  understand  and  leverage  organizational  culture  for   increased  effectiveness  goes  beyond  building  a  better  business  or  church.  It  is  part  of   being  God’s  image-­‐bearer  on  earth.  Anderson  writes,  “The  doctrine  of  creation,  which   flows  out  of  the  covenant  purpose  of  God  for  his  people,  teaches  us  that  all  created  social   structures  (organizations)  can  serve  as  a  provisional  means  to  the  ultimate  end,  which   God  determined  beforehand  to  exist  eternally  for  his  glory.”227  Being  more  effective  in   ministry  and  outreach  is  an  important  part  of  stewarding  creation  and  drawing  humanity   back  to  God.  “The  created  cosmos  is  intended  to  serve  as  an  environment  of  space  and   time  for  the  preparation  of  human  society  to  be  the  people  of  God.  The  organizational   structures  and  functions  of  society  can  be  called  into  the  service  of  that  preparation.”228     The  Fall     Sin  changed  everything.  The  Fall  affects  every  area  of  our  lives.  The  impact  of  sin  has   distorted  our  view  of  relationships,  authority,  work,  logic,  ethics,  and  morals.  Chan  writes,    Scriptures  underscore  the  dynamic  nature  of  sin  with  expressions  like  ‘hardening   the  heart’  (compare  Ps  95:8;  Heb  3:8)  and  the  ‘searing  of  conscience’.”  (1  Tim  4:2)   Paul  describes  sin  as  a  debilitating  power  that  prevents  the  will  from  carrying  out  its   good  intentions  (Rom  7:18-­‐24).  James  pictures  it  as  a  restless  agitation  deep  within                                                                                                                   226  Douglas  K.  Stuart,  Exodus,  vol.  2,  The  New  American  Commentary  (Nashville:  Broadman  &  Holman   Publishers,  2006),  752.   227  Anderson,  23.   228  Ibid.     93     the  heart  that  breaks  out  in  external  conflicts.”229       The  effect  of  the  Fall  is  immediately  evident  in  Adam  and  Eve’s  relationship  with   each  other  and  with  God.  Innocence  turned  to  shame,  and  they  were  no  longer   comfortable  with  their  nakedness.  When  God  came  to  visit,  they  hid.  When  God  confronted   them  with  their  sin,  they  blamed  each  other,  Satan,  and  even  God  Himself.  We  continue  to   see  evidence  of  the  Fall  in  the  reaction  of  Cain  to  the  acceptance  by  God  of  Abel’s  offering.   We  see  it  in  all  the  heroes  and  villains  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  We  see  it  in   families,  nations,  and  churches.  We  see  it  in  ourselves.  Anderson  writes,  “Human  society   no  longer  is  a  sign  of  the  formation  of  a  people  of  God;  human  organizations  no  longer   embody  the  purpose  of  God;  and  the  enterprise  of  human  management  no  longer  is   characterized  by  a  servant  leadership  that  carries  out  the  plan  of  God.”230       Organizations  are  collections  of  individuals,  each  of  whom  has  a  personality  tainted   by  the  Fall,  and  organizational  culture  is  a  product  of  this  collection  of  personalities  and   their  interrelationship  to  each  other.  Community  is  at  the  heart  of  our  heart,  although  sin   keeps  all  our  organizations,  businesses,  churches,  schools,  families,  and  governments  from   reaching  the  Trinitarian  ideal.  The  impact  of  the  Fall  distorts  and  stains  all  these   interactions  with  exploitation,  greed,  immorality,  thirst  for  power,  war,  and  violence.  Chan   writes,  “The  social  dimension  of  sin  is  demonstrated  in  ‘structural  evils’  such  as  racial  and   sexual  discrimination.  The  evil  within  individuals  contributes  to  a  larger,  deeply   entrenched  sinful  social  structure.”231                                                                                                                       229  Simon  Chan,  Spiritual  Theology:  A  Systematic  Study  of  the  Christian  Life  (Downers  Grove,  Ill.:  InterVarsity   Press,  1998),  65.   230  Anderson,  28   231  Chan,  67.     94   Redemption       Redemption  brings  us  back  to  relationship  with  God  and  identification  with  his   character.  The  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  on  our  behalf  brings  forgiveness,  cleansing   and  transformation.  It  brings  us  into  God’s  family,  clothes  us  with  Christ,  and  heals   divisions  caused  by  the  Fall.  (Galatians  3:26-­‐28)  What  Adam  ruined,  Jesus  restored.   (Romans  5)  God’s  grace  showers  us  with  undeserved  and  unearned  favor,  and  empowers   us  to  respond.  Chan  writes,     It  is  my  position  that  any  sustaining  spiritual  theology  must  keep  the  two  aspects  of   grace  together.  We  need  a  concept  of  grace  as  God’s  unmerited  favor  to  undeserving   sinners  or  the  cultivation  of  virtues  will  be  reduced  to  mere  moralism…  On  the  other   hand,  grace  must  also  be  understood  as  an  empowering  gift,  or  we  cannot  hope  to   develop  any  meaningful  human  response.232       He  goes  on  to  show  how  Augustine  summed  up  the  relationship  between  prevenient  and   concomitant  grace,  “God  ‘begins  His  influence  by  working  in  us  that  we  may  have  the  will,   and  He  completes  it  by  working  with  us  when  we  have  the  will’.”233     As  transformational  as  redemption  is,  there  are  some  things  that  seem,  at  least   visibly,  to  be  left  as  they  are.  Although  there  may  be  miraculous  exceptions,  we  generally   seem  to  remain  essentially  the  same  physically  after  conversion  as  before.  We  do  not  gain   or  lose  weight,  grow  more  or  less  hair,  bulk  up,  slim  down,  or  get  any  taller  or  shorter  at   the  cross.  Police  officers  and  border  guards  can  still  recognize  us  by  the  pictures  on  our   driver’s  license  or  passport.  Redemption  affects  us  physically  in  many  ways,  and  the   reality  of  Christ  in  us  likely  will  have  a  positive  affect  on  our  demeanor,  posture,  discipline,   and  health,  but  we  are  still  much  the  same  physically.                                                                                                                   232  Ibid.,  83,  italics  his.   233  Augustine  On  Grace  and  Free  Will  17.33.  Cited  by  Simon  Chan,  Spiritual  Theology  (Downers  Grove,  Ill.:   InterVarsity  Press,  1998),  83.     95     It  could  be  argued  that  the  same  is  true  of  our  basic  personalities.  Conversion  and   sanctification  will  redeem  unhealthy  and  toxic  aspects  of  our  personality,  but  much  will   remain  the  same.  The  Apostle  Paul  was  ambitious,  dogmatic  and  driven  before  his   encounter  with  Christ.  And  he  was  much  the  same  after,  although  what  drove  him,  what  he   was  ambitious  to  accomplish,  and  what  he  dogmatically  believed  were  entirely  different.   Pride  and  anger  were  replaced  with  love  and  grace.   Goldsmith,  in  addressing  some  of  the  common  objections  he  has  received  from   church  people,  specifically  spoke  to  the  criticism  that  a  personality  inventory  does  not   allow  room  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  work.  He  quotes  Mark  Pearson,   When  God  goes  to  work  making  us  holier  people,  He  does  not  destroy  the   personality  we  have.  He  transforms  it…  The  Peter  of  the  Gospels  is  spiritually   immature.  But  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  which  time  the  Holy  Spirit  has   accomplished  some  spiritual  growth  in  Peter,  we  don’t  suddenly  find  an  introvert   mystic.  We  find  the  same  extrovert,  plain-­‐spoken  man,  but  with  maturity.  God   didn’t  give  Peter  a  different  personality.  God  improved  the  personality  He  had   already  given  him.234       God  has  created  us  in  a  certain  way  that  has  been  terribly  disfigured  by  sin.  Redemption   restores  us  (both  immediately  and  over  time)  to  the  person  and  personality  God  originally   intended  for  us.  By  extension,  the  gathering  of  redeemed  people  has  this  same  potential  as   the  collective  personality  experiences  the  redeeming  and  sanctifying  power  of  Christ   within.  Anderson  writes,  “Reconciliation  as  the  work  of  God  is  the  good  news  of  the  gospel.   But  it  is  also  the  mission  of  the  church  as  it  penetrates  the  fallen  and  alienated  structures   of  human  society  and  seeks  to  create  new  structures  that  liberate  human  persons  from  sin,                                                                                                                   234  Goldsmith,  39-­‐40.  Quoted  from:  Mark  A.  Pearson,  Why  Can’t  I  Be  Me?  (Grand  Rapids:  Chosen  Books  –  a   division  of  Baker  Book  House,  1992),  no  page  given,     96   despair,  and  impoverishment  of  life.”235     Christology     D.  Stephen  Long  in  his  book,  Theology  and  Culture,  writes:     I  am  convinced  that  our  questions  –  how  do  we  relate  theology  and  culture?  –  is   ultimately  one  of  our  answers  to  Jesus’  question  to  his  disciples  and  to  us,  “who  do   you  say  that  I  am?”  In  other  words,  the  answer  to  this  question  will  depend  on  who   we  think  Jesus  is.  If  we  do  not  find  him  to  be  One  Person  who  is  both  divinity  and   humanity,  then  we  will  not  need  to  see  the  close  relationship  between  God  and   culture  as  human  making.236       He  goes  on  to  say:  “Interestingly,  the  best  answer  to  the  question  of  the  relationship   between  theology  and  culture  is  to  be  found  in  an  orthodox  Christology.”237       The  aspect  of  Christology  that  relates  most  visibly  to  the  subject  of  organizational   culture  is  Jesus’  humanity.  There  was  some  attention  paid  to  the  relationship  of  the  Three   in  One  in  the  section  on  Theology,  but  the  connection  between  culture  and  Trinity  is  more   obscure  because  it  is  both  incomprehensible  and  unobservable.  One  of  the  fascinating   aspects  of  the  Incarnation  is  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  –  God  Himself  –  who  exists  before,   beyond,  and  above  time  and  culture,  was  born  into,  ministered  within,  adapted  to,  and   challenged  culture.  He  was  male  (which  is  an  issue  to  some  in  contemporary  theology),  a   Jew,  a  Galilean,  and  a  Nazarene.  He  was  born  in  a  family,  grew  up  in  a  community,  and   gathered  around  him  disciples  who  were  with  him  day  and  night.  He  lived  his  life  on  earth   within  culture.  There  were  times  he  accommodated  the  culture  of  his  day.  He  observed   Passover  and  other  Festivals.  He  paid  the  temple  tax.  In  Mark  1:29-­‐34,  after  a  long  and   intense  Sabbath,  crowds  showed  up  after  sunset  to  be  healed.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  he   had,  perhaps  that  very  day,  publicly  demonstrated  his  attitude  toward  healing  on  the                                                                                                                   235  Anderson,  39.   236  Long,  50.   237  Ibid.     97   Sabbath  by  casting  a  demon  out  of  a  man  at  the  synagogue  and  had  healed  Simon’s   mother-­‐in-­‐law,  they  waited  until  the  Sabbath  was  officially  over  before  lining  up  outside   Jesus’  door.  Yet  there  is  no  hint  of  censure  in  Jesus’  response.  He  takes  the  time  to  heal  and   deliver  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  would  have  been  tired  and  it  was  getting  late.     Sometimes  Jesus  challenged  culture.  He  cleared  the  temple  courts,  frequently   “violated”  the  Sabbath,  talked  to  a  Samaritan  woman  at  the  well,  and  was  criticized  for   being  a  friend  of  tax  collectors  and  sinners.  He  chose  only  men  for  disciples,  but  allowed   women  to  travel  with  them.  He  chose  women  to  be  the  primary  witnesses  to  his   resurrection.  He  challenged  his  (indeed  all)  culture  in  its  attitude  toward  leadership  and   authority.  Long  writes,  “This  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  human  creature,  born  of  Mary,  nurtured   in  a  culture,  now  mediated  historically  in  and  through  every  culture  that  has  arisen,  arises,   and  will  arise,  is  also  no  One  less  than  God.”238       This  speaks  to  the  question  of  church  culture.  Churches  differ  dramatically  in  their   worship  styles,  architecture  (or  lack  thereof),  ministry  priorities,  attitude  toward  non-­‐ primary  (and  even  primary!)  doctrinal  issues,  whether  they  are  methodical  or  energetic,   light  hearted  or  serious,  affirming  or  polemical;  yet,  Jesus  continues  to  work  within   culture.     One  question  sometimes  asked  is  what  was  Jesus’  personality?  How  would  he  score   on  a  personality  profile?  Our  initial  thoughts  might  be  that  he  would  score  all  areas   equally.  But  is  that  the  goal?  If  someone  scored  100%  on  every  category,  would  that  be  a   perfect  personality  or  no  personality?  This  idea  may  come  from  the  implications  of  Jesus’   perfection.  But  is  being  an  introvert  any  less  perfect  than  being  an  extrovert?  Or  being                                                                                                                   238  Ibid,  110.     98   more  structured  or  flexible?  Or  being  more  task  oriented  or  relationship  oriented?     Goldsmith  includes  a  chapter  where  he  attempts  to  look  at  the  personality  of   Jesus  from  the  perspective  of  the  MBTI.  He  writes,  “While  it  is  quite  impossible  for  us  to   know  how  Jesus  would  have  scored  on  a  Myers-­‐Briggs  questionnaire,  it  is  clear  that  he   used  all  the  functions  described  and  explored  by  Myers  and  Briggs.”239  He  goes  on  to   give  examples  from  the  Gospels  of  how  Jesus  “had  to  live  and  work  and  minister  both  as   an  Introvert  and  an  Extrovert,  as  a  Senser  and  also  as  an  iNtuitive,  as  a  Thinker  and  a   Feeler,  and  finally  as  a  Perceiver  and  also  as  a  Judger.”240    The  chapter  is  an  interesting   way  of  looking  at  the  MBTI  through  the  lens  of  the  Gospel  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus.   He  concludes  the  chapter  by  saying,  “Jesus  seemed  to  know  how  to  respond   appropriately  in  whatever  situation  he  found  himself,  and  in  that  way  he  is  the  role   model  and  an  example  for  us  all  to  follow.”241    Even  though  we  have  a  personality  that   has  both  dominant  and  secondary  characteristics,  there  are  times  when  we  need  to  and   are  able  to  bring  different  aspects  of  our  personality  to  a  particular  need  and  time.  This   was  a  helpful  chapter  in  showing  the  various  qualities  of  personality  being   demonstrated  in  perfection.   It  is  interesting  that  a  number  of  the  metaphors  for  the  church  in  the  New   Testament  show  the  ongoing  relationship  between  Jesus  and  the  church:  Body  of  Christ,   Bride  of  Christ,  flock  with  Jesus  as  the  Good  Shepherd,  and  the  family  of  God  with  Jesus   as  Brother.                                                                                                                     239  Goldsmith,  98   240  Ibid,  99.   241  Ibid.,  105.     99   Long  writes,  “So,  what  has  theology  to  do  with  culture?  Everything.  Because   Christians  confess  that  the  Triune  God  created  the  world  in,  through,  and  for  Jesus   Christ,  no  autonomous  realm  of  culture  can  escape  bearing  witness  at  some  level  to  or   against  Christ.”242     Ecclesiology     This  section  will  seek  to  answer  two  questions.  The  first  is  how  the  church  differs   from  other  organizations  as  it  relates  to  organizational  culture.  The  second  is  what  we  can   learn  about  culture  and  the  church  from  the  New  Testament.  This  section  will  also  look  at   the  letters  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  in  Revelation  2-­‐3  for  evidences  of   organizational  culture  from  what  was  written  to  those  congregations.       There  are  a  number  of  ways  that  churches  are  similar  to  other  organizations.   Organizations,  including  churches,  are  formed  around  a  shared  interest,  challenge,  burden,   threat,  task,  or  opportunity.  Like-­‐minded  people  are  naturally  attracted  to  each  other,  and   there  is  a  dynamic  to  a  shared  vision  in  community  that  supercedes  individual  vision  and   effort.  As  people  form  a  group,  leadership  emerges,  organizational  structure  begins  to  take   shape,  and  there  is  some  kind  of  articulation  (formally  or  informally)  of  mission,  vision,   and  values.  Some  kind  of  system  is  devised  to  determine  who  is  part  of  the  group  and  who   is  not,  as  well  as  a  procedure  for  how  one  joins  or  is  removed.  Personality  characteristics   and  quirks  begin  to  form  either  from  the  personalities  of  strong  individuals,  the   intensification  of  shared  personality  characteristics,  or  the  bonding  of  certain  shared   personality  elements  to  form  a  separate  personality.  All  organizations,  churches  included,   have  to  work  through  how  they  will  change,  how  they  will  deal  with  conflict,  and  how  they                                                                                                                   242  Long,  110.     100   will  determine  if  they  are  succeeding  or  not.  They  are  gathered  from  (and  influenced  by)  a   particular  community  with  its  own  cultural  flavor.  Most  have  to  work  with  money,   personnel,  systems,  and  legal  restrictions.  They  are  also  composed  of  people  with  their   own  unique  experiences,  priorities,  agendas  and  spiritual/theological  understanding.  So   there  are  many  ways  that  churches  are  like  other  organizations.     However,  there  are  also  important  distinctions  between  churches  and  other  types  of   organizations  that  will  impact  organizational  culture  in  a  church.  The  church  is  a  living   organism  formed  and  led  by  Jesus  himself.  The  church  has  the  Bible  as  its  rule  of  faith  and   practice.  The  church  has  a  purpose  that  is  spiritual  rather  than  commercial.  And  the   church  has  the  indwelling  Holy  Spirit  who  guides,  empowers,  and  transforms.       One  area  of  Ecclesiology  that  has  a  bearing  on  the  subject  of  organizational  culture  in   the  church  is  the  tension  between  the  church  as  organism  and  organization.  The  church  is   both.  Some  of  the  New  Testament  images  of  the  church  emphasize  the  fact  that  it  is  an   organism  –  the  church  as  Body  and  Bride  of  Christ,  and  Temple  of  God.  Other  images  point   more  to  the  church  as  an  organization,  such  as  a  flock  or  the  Kingdom,243  or  a  covenant   people  (ekklesia),  nation,  household  or  building  of  living  stones,  picturing  a  grouping  of   individuals.  (Ephesians  2:19-­‐22)  The  church  is  a  living  organism  commissioned  by,   married  to,  functioning  with,  and  indwelling  God.  At  the  same  time  it  is  an  organization  of   people  with  leaders  and  followers,  identity  and  order.  Bloesch  writes,  “The  church  is   essentially  neither  a  sociological  institution  nor  a  divine  organism  but  a  divine-­‐human   fellowship  animated  by  faith  and  love  and  sustained  by  hope.  It  is  a  paradoxical  event  with                                                                                                                   243  This  is  not  intended  to  equate  the  Church  with  the  Kingdom  of  God.  However,  the  church  is  certainly  part   of  the  Kingdom,  and  most  of  Jesus’  teaching  emphasized  the  Kingdom.  C.f.  Bloesch,  2002,  p.70;  Grenz,  2000,   loc.7074ff.     101   two  sides  –  the  human  and  the  divine.  These  sides  are  never  to  be  identified  but  always   held  together  in  creative  tension.”244       Our  theological  understanding  of  the  church  in  the  New  Testament  cannot  be   entirely  divorced  from  culture.  The  New  Testament  writers  were  influenced  by  their   culture:  Jewish,  Galilean,  Pharisaic  (in  Paul’s  case),  and  part  of  the  larger  Roman  Empire.   The  Epistles  were  written  to  churches  that  were  birthed  in  a  cultural  context  with  people   who  were  part  of  that  context:  Roman,  Jewish,  Pagan,  and  the  cultures  of  their  particular   communities.  Culture  is  like  water  to  a  fish:  it  is  not  only  what  they  swim  in,  but  what  they   breathe.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  are  important  differences  between  the  church  and   other  organizations,  the  church  is  still  composed  of  human  personalities  in  place  and  time,   and  it  is  illogical  that  those  who  join  would  not  then  bring  that  cultural  smorgasbord  into   the  church.  David  Bennett  notes  the  shift  in  the  early  church  from  rural  to  urban:     As  the  gospel  spread  outward  from  Judea  and  Galilee,  Christian  communities  began   to  take  root  in  the  major  cities  of  the  Mediterranean  world.  The  action  in  the  book   of  Acts  takes  place  not  along  the  seashore,  or  on  the  mountainside,  but  in  the   crowded  marketplace,  the  tentmaker’s  shop,  the  theater,  and  even  the  city  jail.  The   context  is  no  longer  primarily  rural,  but  urban.  The  languages  spoken  are  usually   not  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  but  Greek  and  possibly  Latin.  The  focus  shifts  from  the   temple  at  Jerusalem  to  the  temple  of  Diana  in  Ephesus  and  the  altar  to  the  unknown   god  in  Athens.245         One  area  the  early  churched  struggled  with  over  church  culture  was  the  ongoing   tension  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  backgrounds  and  forms  of  worship.  Those  who  came   to  Christ  from  a  Jewish  background  were  born  and  raised  with  a  deep-­‐seated  prejudice   against  Gentiles.  They  were  outsiders,  dogs,  unclean.  Peter  was  criticized  for  even  going                                                                                                                   244Donald  G.  Bloesch,  The  Church:  Sacraments,  Worship,  Ministry,  Mission  (Downers  Grove,  Ill.:  InterVarsity   Press,  2002),  75.   245  David  W.  Bennett,  Metaphors  of  Ministry:  Biblical  Images  for  Leaders  and  Followers  (Eugene,  Oregon:  Wipf   and  Stock  Publishers,  1993),  72.     102   into  Cornelius’  house  and  eating  with  them.  When  they  heard  that  even  Gentiles  had  been   granted  repentance  that  leads  to  life,  they  stopped  complaining,  but  it  was  years  before   this  crisis  was  resolved.  The  cultural  differences  were  too  different  and  too  ingrained.  This   tension  led  to  the  Jerusalem  Council  in  Acts  15  where  the  decision  reached  acknowledged   the  distinctiveness  and  sensitivities  of  each  group  –  not  mandating  the  keeping  of  the  Law,   but  forbidding  immorality,  eating  blood  and  eating  meat  offered  to  idols.  This  was  a  long-­‐ standing  tension  in  the  church  as  they  grappled  with  societal  differences  that  affected  the   culture  and  personality  of  the  churches.     Another  cultural  tension  was  the  issue  of  eating  meat  offered  to  idols.  For  many  this   seems  to  have  been  nothing  more  than  a  ready  source  of  cheap  meat.  To  others  it  was   capitulation  to  a  whole  system  of  pagan  idolatry.  This  issue  that  was  serious  enough  that  it   threatened  to  be  a  stumbling  block  to  faith,  was  a  result  of  cultural  factors  within  the   churches  outside  Palestine.  Although  these  examples  do  not  prove  that  each  church  had  a   unique  organizational  culture,  it  demonstrates  that  cultural  factors  impacted  the  church’s   unity  and  mission  right  from  the  very  beginning.     In  chapter  one  (p.10),  it  was  suggested  that  in  some  respects,  a  church’s  culture  may   be  seen  as  a  gift  from  God  designed  to  help  them  accomplish  what  he  wants  to  do  through   them  in  their  community.  In  other  words,  different  kinds  of  churches  have  an  advantage  in   reaching  certain  types  of  people  because  of  their  particular  culture  or  personality.       There  are  a  few  theological  considerations  that  could  speak  to  this  idea.  The  first  is   God’s  involvement  in  individual  creation  and  life.  Both  from  the  comments  God  made  to   Jeremiah  (1:5)  and  the  song  of  the  Psalmist  in  Psalm  139,  we  see  God’s  active  work  in   making  us  the  way  we  are  and  being  involved  in  our  lives.  Paul  claimed  in  Romans  8:28     103   that  God  is  taking  the  good  and  bad  his  people  are  experiencing  and  turning  them  into   something  good.       The  New  Testament  teaching  on  spiritual  gifts  emphasizes  that  God  has  specifically   gifted  people  and  actively  placed  them  where  he  wants  them.  (1  Corinthians  12:11,  18)  If   he  is  that  involved  in  our  lives  regarding  spiritual  gifts,  how  much  is  he  involved  in  each  of   our  lives  personally  in  all  the  other  things  that  go  into  who  we  are:  intelligence,   personality,  genetics,  skills  and  abilities,  experiences,  and  interests?  What  all  goes  into  the   forming,  knitting,  and  weaving  of  a  person  in  the  womb  and  throughout  life?  The   consistent  message  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  is  that  God  is  actively  involved  in  the   life  of  his  people  individually  and  corporately.       This  question  leads  to  a  second  question:  how  much  is  God  involved  in  who  peoples   his  church,  in  bringing  together  enough  “body  parts”  for  the  body  to  function  as  he   intends?  Again,  the  New  Testament  teaching  on  spiritual  gifts  seems  to  indicate  that  God   determines  who  gets  what  gifts  and  where  they  are  placed.  So  if  God  is  actively  involved  in   shaping  the  lives  of  his  people  and  actively  involved  in  peopling  his  church,  and  the  culture   or  personality  of  the  church  is  shaped  by  the  people  who  are  part  of  it,  then,  at  least  to   some  degree,  that  church’s  culture  is  a  gift  from  God.   The  Seven  Churches  in  Revelation  2-­‐3     In  Revelation  2-­‐3,  we  find  letters  from  Jesus  through  John  to  seven  churches  in  Asia   Minor.  These  letters  reflect  a  deep  familiarity  with  the  character,  values,  behaviors,   strengths,  and  weaknesses  of  each  church.  They  were  well  known  to  the  Apostle  John  and   even  better  known  to  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  understood  each  of  these  churches,  as  well  as   each  of  the  people  in  them.  He  reviews  their  strengths  and  weaknesses.  Although  any     104   study  of  these  letters  from  the  perspective  of  organizational  culture  has  yet  to  been  found,   within  some  of  these  letters  there  are  references  (or  at  least  hints)  to  aspects  of   organizational  culture.  This  will  not  be  an  in-­‐depth  analysis  of  these  letters.  There  are   excellent  books246  looking  at  the  letters  from  various  perspectives  that  reveal  helpful   information  about  the  locations,  and  physical  and  cultural  elements  of  these  cities  that   give  depth  and  texture  to  understanding  the  letters.  This  study  has  a  more  narrow  focus   and  is  an  attempt  to  explore  these  letters  from  an  organizational  culture  perspective  and   identify  various  cultural  markers  in  some  of  the  churches.  Included  in  this  will  be  a  SWOT   analysis  (Strengths,  Weaknesses,  Opportunities,  Threats)  on  each  church  from   information  in  the  letters.       One  of  the  things  that  we  can  learn  from  these  letters  is  that  it  is  legitimate  to   evaluate  a  congregation  based  on  their  attitudes,  values,  and  behaviors.  In  this  case,  it  was   Jesus  doing  the  evaluation,  so  there  can  be  no  question  of  the  accuracy  of  the  analysis.  The   problem  for  us  today  is  that  the  One  who  knows  us  perfectly  is  not  dictating  consultation   evaluations  to  us.  One  of  the  values  of  a  personality  or  cultural  profile  is  that  it  helps   identify  some  of  the  factors  that  are  at  work  under  the  surface.  It  gives  us  something  that   the  Spirit  can  use  to  connect  us  to  his  Word  and  guide  us  into  a  deeper  understanding  of   our  church.     In  each  of  the  letters,  Jesus  begins  by  revealing  something  about  himself.   • Ephesus  (2:1)  –  him  who  holds  the  seven  stars  in  his  right  hand  and  walks  among  the   seven  golden  lampstands.                                                                                                                   246  The  three  primary  books  used  for  this  study  are:  Colin  J.  Hemer,  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia   in  Their  Local  Setting  (Grand  Rapids/Cambridge,  UK:  William  B.  Eerdmans  Publishing  Company,  1989);  John   R.W.  Stott,  What  Christ  Thinks  of  the  Church  (Mill  Hill,  London:  Monarch  Books,  1990,  2003);  and  William   Mitchell  Ramsay,  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (1904),  Kindle.     105   • Smyrna  (2:8)  –  him  who  is  the  First  and  the  Last,  who  died  and  came  to  life  again.   • Pergamum  (2:12)  –  him  who  has  the  sharp,  double-­‐edged  sword.   • Thyatira  (2:18)  –  the  Son  of  God,  whose  eyes  are  like  blazing  fire  and  whose  feet  are   like  burnished  bronze.   • Sardis  (3:1)  –  him  who  holds  the  seven  spirits  of  God  and  the  seven  stars.   • Philadelphia  (3:7)  –  him  who  is  holy  and  true,  who  holds  the  key  of  David.  What  he   opens  no  one  can  shut,  and  what  he  shuts  no  one  can  open.   • Laodicea  (3:14)  –  the  Amen,  the  faithful  and  true  witness,  the  ruler  of  God’s  creation.     In  each  of  the  letters  he  assures  them  that  he  knows  them,  and  this  detailed  knowledge   forms  the  basis  of  their  examination.  Stott  writes,  “He  walks  among  the  lampstands,   patrolling  and  supervising  his  churches.  He  is  the  chief  pastor  of  his  people.”247  With  the   exception  of  the  letter  to  the  Laodiceans,  there  is  something  that  he  commends  in  each  of   them.  To  all  but  Smyrna  and  Philadelphia  he  has  something  against  them  that  they  need  to   address.  He  tells  each  of  them  what  they  need  to  do  to  improve  (or  in  some  cases  survive),   and  what  awaits  those  who  obey  what  he  prescribes.  Each  of  the  letters  ends  with  an   exhortation  to  pay  attention  to  what  the  Spirit  is  saying  to  them.     Working  with  the  definition  we  have  been  using  in  this  thesis,  that  organizational   culture  is  the  essence,  underlying  values,  attitudes,  character,  and  basic  personality  of  an   organization  that  both  influence  and  are  in  turn  influenced  by  stated  mission,  vision,   values,  rituals,  experiences,  and  behaviors,  what  are  some  cultural  indicators  in  these   letters?  All  three  of  the  primary  books  used  in  this  study  have  helpful  geographical,   cultural,  and  archaeological  information  about  the  cities  where  these  churches  were.  It  is                                                                                                                   247  John  R.W.  Stott,  What  Christ  Thinks  of  the  Church  (Mill  Hill,  London:  Monarch  Books,  1990,  2003),  19.     106   likely  that  some  statements  in  the  letters  reference  this  information.  Although  this   information  adds  a  dimension  of  understanding  to  the  letters,  for  this  analysis,  an  attempt   is  made  to  look  specifically  at  the  clues  that  come  out  of  the  text.  Although  there  is  not   enough  data  on  any  of  the  churches  to  identify  their  personality  using  Douglass’  model,   insights  from  his  material  and  other  sources  that  relate  to  specific  qualities  will  be   included.  Because  there  is  not  a  lot  of  data  in  the  letters,  and  because  this  is  not  the  normal   way  they  are  approached,  it  would  be  easy  to  get  overly  speculative.  Effort  will  be  made  to   avoid  this  as  much  as  possible,  but  there  are  indications  that  can  give  us  helpful  insight   into  culture  in  a  church.   SWOT  Analysis  on  the  Seven  Churches     This  exploration  will  begin  with  a  SWOT  analysis  on  each  of  the  churches.  A  SWOT   Analysis  is  a  popular  planning  system  for  evaluating  the  Strengths,  Weaknesses,   Opportunities,  and  Threats  of  a  project  or  business  endeavor.  Although  there  is   occasionally  some  overlap,  generally  the  Strengths  and  Weakness  analysis  looks  at   internal  factors  in  the  organization  or  project,  and  Opportunities  and  Threats  focus  more   on  external  factors  in  the  market,  community,  environment,  economy,  competition,  etc.   This  is  an  excellent  exercise  for  church  leaders  to  do  in  strategic  planning.  This  format  is   being  used  in  this  case  to  summarize  and  categorize  what  was  written  to  the  churches,  as  a   way  to  outline  the  passage  thematically.  Prescriptions  are  made  to  each  of  the  churches   based  on  the  examination,  and  many  of  the  opportunities  and  threats  relate  to  whether  the   church  acts  on  the  prescriptions  or  not.   1. Ephesus     Strengths     107   • Hard  work   • Perseverance   • Cannot  tolerate  wicked  people  (accountability  for  personal  holiness)   • Have  tested  those  who  claim  to  be  apostles  but  are  not,  and  have  found  them  false   (uncompromising  theological  discernment)   • Have  persevered  and  endured  hardships  for  Jesus’  name   o Did  not  just  persevere,  but  did  it  for  the  right  reason.   • Have  not  grown  weary  (Dependability)   • Hate  the  practices  of  the  Nicolaitans     Weaknesses  –  Yet  I  hold  this  against  you…   • Forsaken  the  love  they  had  at  first   o Text  does  not  stipulate  whether  this  was  love  for  God  or  love  for  people.   o Although  it  is  likely  Jesus  is  referring  to  love  for  God,  Jesus  linked  the  two  in   his  discussion  on  the  greatest  commandment  and  John  emphasizes  in  his   other  writings  that  the  two  cannot  really  be  separated.   Opportunities   • Right  to  eat  from  the  tree  of  life,  which  is  in  the  paradise  of  God   Threats   • Removal  of  their  lampstand   Prescriptions     • Consider  how  far  you  have  fallen   • Repent   • Do  the  things  you  did  at  first   108   2. Smyrna     Strengths   • Rich  in  spite  of  afflictions  and  poverty     • Slandered  by  those  who  say  they  are  Jews  and  are  not   o This  is  a  strength  in  that  the  charges  being  made  against  them  are  untrue   Weaknesses   • Afflicted  and  poor   Opportunities   • Victor’s  crown   • Will  not  be  hurt  at  all  by  the  second  death   Threats   • Experiencing  opposition  from  the  Jewish  community   • The  devil  will  put  some  of  you  in  prison  to  test  you   • You  will  suffer  persecution  for  ten  days  (a  period  of  time)   • The  persecution  may  be  severe  to  the  point  death   Prescriptions   • Do  not  be  afraid  of  what  you  are  about  to  suffer   • Be  faithful,  even  to  the  point  of  death   3. Pergamum     Strengths   • Remain  true  to  Jesus’  name  in  spite  of  living  where  Satan  has  his  throne   • Did  not  renounce  their  faith  in  him,  in  spite  of  the  martyrdom  of  Antipas   Weaknesses–I  have  a  few  things  against  you…     109     • Some  hold  to  the  teaching  of  Balaam  (food  sacrificed  to  idols  and  sexual   immorality)   • Some  hold  to  the  teaching  of  the  Nicolaitans   Opportunities   • Given  some  of  the  hidden  manna   • Given  a  white  stone  with  a  new  name  written  on  it,  known  only  to  the  one  who   receives  it   Threats   • I  will  soon  come  to  you  and  will  fight  against  them  (those  who  hold  to  false   teaching)  with  the  sword  of  my  mouth   Prescriptions   • Repent   4. Thyatira     Strengths   • Your  love  and  faith     • Your  service  and  perseverance   • Now  doing  more  than  you  did  at  first  (growth,  improvement)   • Not  everyone  has  been  led  astray  by  “Jezebel”  or  has  learned  Satan’s  so-­‐called  deep   secrets   Weaknesses  –  I  have  this  against  you   •   Tolerate  that  woman  Jezebel,  who  calls  herself  a  prophet   110   • She  is  misleading  some  by  her  teaching  into  sexual  immorality  and  the  eating  of   food  sacrificed  to  idols   • She  is  unwilling  to  repent  in  spite  of  being  given  ample  opportunity   Opportunities  –  to  those  who  are  victorious  and  do  his  will  to  the  end   • Will  receive  authority  over  the  nations,  as  Jesus  received  authority  from  the  Father   • Will  be  given  the  morning  star   Threats   • Will  cast  Jezebel  on  a  bed  of  suffering   • Those  who  commit  adultery  with  her  will  suffer  intensely   • Her  children  will  be  struck  dead   • They  will  be  an  example  to  all  the  other  churches  (Then  all  the  churches  will  know   that  I  am  he  who  searches  hearts  and  minds,  and  I  will  repay  each  of  you  according   to  your  deeds)   Prescriptions   • Repent  (those  who  have  followed  Jezebel’s  teaching)   • Hold  on  to  what  you  have  until  I  come  (for  the  rest)   5. Sardis     Strengths   • They  have  a  few  worthy  people  who  have  not  soiled  their  clothes   Weaknesses   • Have  a  reputation  of  being  alive,  but  are  dead   • Deeds  unfinished  (have  not  followed  through  on  their  intentions)   Opportunities     111   • Those  who  have  not  soiled  their  clothes  will  walk  with  me  dressed  in  white,  for   they  are  worthy   • The  one  who  is  victorious  will  be  dressed  in  white   • I  will  never  blot  out  the  name  of  that  person  from  the  book  of  life   • I  will  acknowledge  that  name  before  my  Father  and  his  angels   Threats   • Dead,  and  what  yet  remains  alive  is  dying   • If  you  do  not  wake  up,  I  will  come  like  a  thief,  and  you  will  not  know  it   Prescriptions   • Wake  up   • Strengthen  what  remains  and  is  about  to  die   • Remember  what  you  have  received  and  heard  and  hold  it  fast   • Repent   6. Philadelphia     Strengths   • In  spite  of  your  weakness,  you  have  kept  my  word,  and  have  not  denied  my  name   • Have  kept  my  command  to  endure  patiently   Weaknesses   • Have  little  strength  (literal  weakness  or  smallness)   Opportunities   •   I  have  placed  before  you  an  open  door  that  no  one  can  shut   112   • I  will  make  those  who  are  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  who  claim  to  be  Jews  though   they  are  not,  but  are  liars  –  I  will  make  them  come  and  fall  down  at  your  feet  and   acknowledge  that  I  have  loved  you   • Since  you  have  kept  my  command  to  endure  patiently,  I  will  also  keep  you  from  the   hour  of  trial  that  is  going  to  come  on  the  whole  world  to  test  the  inhabitants  of  the   earth   • I  am  coming  soon   • The  one  who  is  victorious   -­‐ I  will  make  a  pillar  in  the  temple  of  my  God   -­‐ Never  again  will  they  leave  it   -­‐ I  will  write  on  them  the  name  of  my  God  and  the  name  of  the  city  of  my  God,  the   new  Jerusalem   -­‐ I  will  also  write  on  them  my  new  name   Threats   • Criticism  (at  the  least)  from  the  Jews  (Synagogue  of  Satan)   • Possibility  of  losing  their  crown   Prescriptions   • Hold  on  to  what  you  have,  so  that  no  one  will  take  your  crown.   7. Laodicea     Strengths   • Are  wealthy  financially  (potential  strength)   Weaknesses   •   Lukewarm  -­‐  neither  hot  nor  cold   113   • In  reality,  although  they  have  a  lot  of  money,  they  are  wretched,  pitiful,  poor,  blind,   and  naked   • They  do  not  realize  their  true  condition   Opportunities   • Those  whom  I  love  I  rebuke  and  discipline   • I  stand  at  the  door  and  knock.  If  anyone  hears  my  voice  and  opens  the  door,  I  will   come  in  and  eat  with  that  person,  and  they  with  me   • To  the  one  who  is  victorious,  I  will  give  the  right  to  sit  with  me  on  my  throne   Threats   • I  am  about  to  spit  you  out  of  my  mouth.   • Although  you  feel  you  are  rich  and  do  not  need  a  thing,  you  do  not  realize  that  you   are  wretched,  pitiful,  poor,  blind,  and  naked.   Prescriptions   • Buy  from  me     -­‐ Gold  refined  in  the  fire,  so  you  can  become  rich   -­‐ White  clothes  to  wear,  so  you  can  cover  your  shameful  nakedness   -­‐ Salve  to  put  on  your  eyes,  so  you  can  see   • Be  earnest  and  repent   • Open  the  door   Cultural  Analysis       The  church  at  Ephesus,  in  many  respects  would  be  a  pastor’s  dream.  They  had  a  high   sense  of  duty,  worked  hard,  and  just  did  not  give  up.  They  were  passionate  for  holiness     114   and  truth.  They  cared  about  personal  holiness  and  kept  people  accountable  to  not   compromise  to  the  standards  of  their  larger  culture.  They  had  theological  discernment  and   carefully  evaluated  what  they  were  taught.  As  a  result,  they  were  able  to  expose  false   teachers  who  had  visited  their  church  claiming  to  be  apostles.  They  even  endured   hardship  for  their  faith  and  persevered.  They  knew  what  their  task  was  and  stayed  on   mission  in  spite  of  internal  threats  and  external  opposition.  Ramsay  writes,  “The  past   history  of  the  Ephesian  Church  had  been  one  of  labour  and  achievement,  enduring  and   energetic.  Above  all  it  had  been  distinguished  by  its  insight  into  the  true  character  of  those   who  came  to  it  with  the  appearance  of  Apostles.”248       But  they  had  one  problem,  and  it  was  fatal.  Although  they  had  started  on  this  mission   out  of  love  for  God  and  others,  somewhere  along  the  line  that  love  had  faded  and  duty   seems  to  have  become  the  motivation.  Ramsay  writes,  “The  fault  of  the  Ephesian  Church   was  that  it  no  longer  showed  the  same  spirit:  the  intense  enthusiasm  which  characterized   the  young  Church  had  grown  cooler  with  advancing  age.”249  On  the  outside,  they  were  just   as  busy  and  were  working  just  as  hard,  and  were  still  holding  the  line  personally  and   doctrinally  and  just  would  not  quit.  But  everything  had  changed  on  the  inside.       Douglass  emphasizes  that  there  are  no  right  or  wrong  church  personalities.   However,  every  church  personality  has  vulnerabilities.  In  his  description,  he  mentions   what  may  have  been  a  factor  in  Ephesus.  He  writes  that  churches  that  score  in  the   Practical  component  “are  sometimes  tempted  to  do  something  simply  because  it  is  the   next  feasible  thing  to  do,  rather  than  because  it  honors  Christ.”  And  churches  that  are   analytical  are  occasionally  tempted  “to  study  situations  and  people  logically,  while                                                                                                                   248  William  Mitchell  Ramsay,  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (1904),  Chapter  18,  Loc.  3045,  Kindle.   249  Ibid.,  Chapter  18,  Loc.  3082.     115   remaining  aloof  and  personally  uninvolved.”  250  In  his  chapter  on  The  Organizer  Church  he   mentions  some  things  that  could  apply  to  the  Ephesian  Church.  He  writes:  “The  basic   driving  passions  of  these  churches  are  duty,  service,  and  the  desire  to  belong.  They  have   an  especially  strong  sense  of  responsibility  to  take  care  of  ‘their  own’.”251       Where  Ephesus  was  faithful  to  confront  false  teaching,  Pergamum  and  Thyatira  had   the  opposite  problem.  They  both  faced  the  same,  or  similar  doctrinal  challenges  and,   although  not  everyone  was  influenced,  both  congregations  were  reluctant  to  confront   theological  drift  and  it  became  their  biggest  threat.  In  Pergamum  the  letter  specifies  the   teaching  of  Balaam  and  that  of  the  Nicolaitans.  In  Thyatira  the  problem  was  an  influential   prophet,  whom  the  letter  writer  calls  Jezebel,  whose  teachings  were  leading  fellow  church   members  into  immorality  and  eating  meat  offered  to  idols.  We  are  not  given  much   information  on  any  of  the  three,  but  Ramsay,  Stott,  and  Hemer  all  suggest  that  the   Balaamites,  Nicolaitans  and  the  teachings  of  “Jezebel”  were  similar.  Hemer  writes,  “We   conclude  that  Nicolaitanism  was  an  antinomian  movement  whose  antecedents  can  be   traced  in  the  misrepresentation  of  Pauline  liberty,  and  whose  incidence  may  be  connected   with  the  special  pressures  of  emperor  worship  and  pagan  society.”252  Ramsay  (1904)  is   surprisingly  kind  to  Nicolaitanism  to  the  point  of  suggesting  John  was  somewhat  bigoted   in  his  condemnation.253  He  suggests  that  it  was  “evidently  an  attempt  to  effect  a   reasonable  compromise  with  the  established  usages  of  Graeco-­‐Roman  society  and  to   retain  as  many  as  possible  of  those  usages  in  the  Christian  system  of  life.”254  He  is  also                                                                                                                   250  Douglass,  26.   251  Ibid.,  236.   252  Colin  J.  Hemer,  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia  (Grand  Rapids,  Michigan/  Cambridge,  U.K.:   William  B.  Eerdmans  Publishing  Company,  1986,  1989),  94.   253  Ramsay,  Chapter  22,  Loc.  3789.   254  Ibid.,  Chapter  22,  Loc.  3785.     116   quite  positive  in  his  assessment  of  Jezebel.  He  writes,  “It  seems  therefore  to  be  beyond  all   doubt  that,  as  a  rule,  the  Nicolaitans  of  Thyatira,  with  the  prophetess  as  their  leader,  were   still  active  and  unwearied  members  of  the  Church,  ‘full  of  good  works,’  and  respected  by   the  whole  congregation  for  their  general  character  and  way  of  life.”255  He  even  says  that  he   would  “be  glad  to  know  more  about  this  Thyatiran  prophetess,  a  person  of  broad  views   and  reasonable  mind,  who  played  a  prominent  part  in  a  great  religious  movement,  and   perished  defeated  and  decried.”  256       Whatever  the  specific  teaching  referred  to  in  Pergamum  and  Thyatira,  there  was   some  kind  of  moral  compromise  that  was  diluting  the  purity  and  testimony  of  the  church.   And  although  not  everyone  in  either  church  was  convinced,  they  allowed  this  teaching  to   take  root  and  did  not  deal  with  it.       There  are  two  ways  that  this  connects  with  our  study  of  organizational  culture.  The   first  is  that  it  would  seem  there  was  not  a  single,  unified  culture  in  Pergamum,  Thyatira,  or   Sardis.  Although  they  continued  to  function  as  single  congregations,  there  was  significant   difference  in  convictions  in  all  three.  In  his  book  The  Character  of  Organizations,  Bridges   describes  the  sixteen  different  types  of  organizational  character.  In  his  description  of  the   ENFJ  (Extraverted,  iNtuitive,  Feeling,  Judging)  organization,  he  gives  some  insights  that   may  help  explain  some  of  the  tension  experienced  in  these  three  churches.  He  writes,   “Because  human  needs  are  taken  so  seriously,  this  kind  of  organization  frequently  has  an   undercurrent  of  conflict  and  turbulence  beneath  the  cooperative  surface.  Cooperation  and   conflict  are  the  two  sides  of  the  same  people-­‐are-­‐important  coin.”257                                                                                                                     255  Ibid.,  Chapter  24,  Loc.  4244.   256  Ibid.,  Chapter  24,  Loc.  4265.   257  Bridges,  41.     117     The  second  way  this  dynamic  connects  with  our  study  of  organizational  cultures   relates  to  Douglass’  explanation  of  some  of  the  vulnerabilities  that  the  different   personalities  experience.  He  writes  that  the  “more  a  church  personality  focuses  on   freedom  of  expression,  spontaneity,  flexibility,  creativity,  and  quick  action  in  a  crisis,  then   the  more  likely  is  that  church  to  tolerate  not  only  cultural  variations,  but  also  differences   with  other  churches  regarding  core  convictions  that  should  not  be  negotiable.”258  We  just   do  not  have  enough  information  on  the  three  churches  that  struggled  with  this,  but   Douglass’  comments  certainly  could  apply  to  what  they  were  experiencing.  Bridges  writes   about  the  ENFP  (Extroverted,  Intuitive,  Feeling,  Perceiving)  organization  that  they  are   very  people  oriented,  tend  to  be  egalitarian,  and  generally  see  the  best  in  one  another.  “But   there  is  a  shadow  side  to  all  this:  painful,  confusing,  or  difficult  things  may  be  discounted   and  swept  under  the  rug.  In  the  name  of  getting  along  together,  people  may  avoid   problems  that  are  thus  left  to  grow  unchecked  until  a  crisis  point.”259  Again,  there  is  not   enough  data  to  identify  what  their  organizational  types  are,  but  this  could  be  an  accurate   description  of  the  problem  in  Pergamum,  Thyatira,  and  Sardis.     There  are  other  possible  cultural  indicators  in  these  letters,  such  as  Smyrna’s   steadfast  faithfulness  under  very  difficult  circumstances,  the  tendency  in  Sardis  to  not   finish  what  they  started,  the  Philadelphian’s  bias  for  outreach  (their  open  door)  in  spite  of   their  weakness,  Pergamum’s  ability  to  stand  up  well  under  the  pressure  of  being  where   Satan’s  throne  was  and  the  martyrdom  of  one  of  their  number,  and  Laodicea’s  attitude  of   self-­‐reliance  and  pride.  There  are  aspects  of  each  of  these  attitudes  or  behaviors  that  fit  in   the  definition  of  organizational  culture  as  the  essence,  underlying  values,  attitudes,                                                                                                                   258  Douglass,  14.   259  Bridges,  44.     118   character,  and  basic  personality  of  an  organization  that  both  influence  and  are  in  turn   influenced  by  stated  mission,  vision,  values,  rituals,  experiences,  and  behaviors,  and  that   would  find  correlation  in  the  literature.     The  situation  with  two  of  the  churches,  Sardis  and  Laodicea,  could  be  argued  to   reinforce  the  value  of  doing  some  kind  of  culture/personality  assessment  of  a  church.  Both   churches  were  unaware  of  their  true  situation.  Sardis  had  the  reputation  of  being  alive,  but   in  reality  was  dead.  It  was  not  too  late  for  them  to  wake  up  and  work  on  what  was  still   alive,  but  the  dual  references  to  waking  up  would  indicate  that  they  needed  someone  from   the  outside  to  alert  them  to  their  danger.  Laodicea  focused  on  its  material  wealth  and  self-­‐ sufficiency  and  as  a  result  would  never  have  imagined  that  they  were  actually  wretched,   pitiful,  poor,  blind,  and  naked.  Nor  did  they  realize  how  desperate  their  situation  was,  that   Jesus  was  just  about  ready  to  spit  them  out  because  of  their  lukewarmness.  They  needed   Someone  to  evaluate  them,  to  point  out  their  blind  spots,  and  to  counsel  them  to  put  their   focus  on  real  riches  and  clothing  and  salve,  and  to  open  the  door  for  the  Lord  to  come  in   and  fellowship  with  them.   Conclusion       There  is  legitimate  theological  basis  for  organizational  culture  that  can  be  seen   from  an  examination  of  certain  categories  of  Systematic  Theology,  specifically  Trinity,  in   the  study  of  God,  the  implications  of  Creation,  Fall,  and  Redemption  in  the  study  of   mankind,  the  Incarnation  of  Jesus  within  culture  in  the  study  of  Christ,  and  the  examples  of   cultural  dynamics  in  the  New  Testament  church  and  organizational  culture  clues  in  the   letters  to  the  seven  churches  in  Revelation  2  and  3.       119     There  are  several  ways  that  a  church  is  distinctive  of  other  organizations  because   of  the  purpose,  power,  revelation,  and  presence  of  God  in  the  church.  However  it  is  also   similar  to  other  organizations  in  that  it  is  composed  of  unique  personalities  who  combine   to  give  the  church  a  unique  personality,  and  in  that  it  exists  in  a  cultural  context.  Anderson   writes,   Now  that  God  has  grasped  the  world  again  through  the  incarnation,  the  cosmos   itself  is  given  the  promise  of  liberation  from  its  bondage  (Rom.  8:20,23).  But  the   cosmos  does  not  experience  this  liberation  independently  of  the  liberation  and   reconciliation  of  human  society.  And  this  reconciliation  does  not  take  place   through  a  spiritual  “implant”  where  only  “souls  are  saved,”  but  through  the  very   structures  of  human  society  and  by  means  of  the  organizations  that  now  are   called  into  being  as  servants  of  this  redemptive  goal.260       Thus  there  is  value  in  using  tested  analytical  tools  and  methods  to  bring  a  fresh   perspective  on  the  church,  giving  greater  understanding  of  who  they  are  and  why  God  has   formed  them  as  he  has.  This  increased  understanding  of  their  culture  or  personality  can   give  a  strategic  advantage  as  they  seek  to  leverage  their  uniqueness  for  more  effective   ministry  and  outreach.  This  process  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  designed  merely  to  help  the   church  get  bigger  and  healthier,  but  enables  it  to  better  live  out  Kingdom  values,  give  a   picture  (albeit  weak  and  distorted)  of  what  heaven  will  be  like,  and  reach  out  to  people  far   from  God  and  help  them  become  citizens  of  his  Kingdom.                                                                                                                           260  Anderson,  40.     120   CHAPTER  FOUR:  PROCEDURES  AND  RESEARCH       The  purpose  of  this  research  is  to  determine  whether  the  system  proposed  by  Dr.   Philip  D.  Douglass  in  his  book,  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  is  useful  in  helping  an   older,  established  church  recognize  its  church  culture  and  leverage  it  for  greater  ministry   effectiveness.  The  study  was  done  in  the  church  that  I  have  pastored  for  eleven  years.  The   research  consisted  of  three  components.   Stage  One       The  first  component  of  the  research  involved  thirty-­‐five  of  the  church’s  opinion   leaders  taking  a  survey  to  identify  their  own  personality  traits  in  three  different  areas:     1.  How  they  gather  information  (practical  vs.  innovative),     2.  How  they  make  decisions  (analytical  vs.  connectional),  and   3.  Whether  their  lifestyles  are  more  structured  or  flexible.   Douglass  explains  the  differences  in  these  components  as:  261     1. INFORMATION-­‐GATHERING  -­‐  Practical  vs.  Innovative   1.1. Do  the  church  leaders  depend  on  their  personal  observations  in  order  to  gather   data  about  what’s  happening,  or  do  they  rely  more  on  their  intuition  and  hunches   in  order  to  form  impressions  about  what’s  going  on?   1.2. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  straightforward  ways  of  communicating  -­‐  the  more   specific  and  concrete  the  better,  or  do  they  prefer  to  use  imagery  and  symbolism   to  engage  the  imagination  of  the  people  of  the  church?   1.3. Are  the  leaders  of  the  church  observers  of  tradition  who  do  not  easily  break  with   custom,  or  are  they  able  to  break  with  tradition  and  lay  aside  customs  that  seem                                                                                                                   261  These  sections  are  quoted  from  Douglass,  22-­‐23.     121   too  cumbersome  for  a  new  situation?   2. DECISION-­‐MAKING  -­‐  Analytical  vs.  Connectional   2.1. Are  the  church  leaders  secure  in  basing  their  decisions  on  objective  analysis  –   weighing  the  pros  and  cons  of  a  situation  –  or,  regardless  of  the  pros  and  cons,  are   they  more  confident  when  they  feel  their  conclusions  are  based  on  what  is   important  and  valuable?   2.2. Can  the  church  leaders  usually  conduct  their  work  and  ministry,  regardless  of   relational  harmony,  or  do  they  find  that  harmonious  relationships  are  essential  for   them  to  function  effectively  in  a  situation?   2.3. Does  making  a  critical  evaluation  come  more  naturally  for  the  church  leaders  than   speaking  an  appreciative  word,  or  are  they  more  spontaneous  with  an   appreciative  word  than  with  a  critical  evaluation?   3. LIFESTYLE  -­‐  Structured  vs.  Flexible   3.1. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  to  plan  their  work  first  and  then  work  their  plan,  or   do  they  tend  to  be  more  casual  and  informal  in  developing  their  plans?   3.2. Do  the  basic  contributions  by  the  leaders  often  stem  from  being  systematic,   orderly,  proactive,  and  decisive,  or  do  they  bring  to  church  leadership  such   characteristics  as  spontaneity,  open-­‐mindedness,  tolerance,  and  adaptability?   3.3. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  bringing  programs  and  projects  to  completion  –   finishing  one  task  at  a  time  –  or,  do  they  like  the  feeling  of  getting  new  things   started  and  having  many  things  going  at  the  same  time?   He  includes  tables  to  outline  each  of  them:262                                                                                                                   262  Douglass,  24,  26.     122     Table  1:  Practical  churches  vs.  Innovative  churches   Practical  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • live  in  the  “here  and  now”   work  well  with  facts  and  details   like  realistic  challenges  and  problem   solving   are  experienced  and  action-­‐oriented   are  realistic  and  matter  of  fact   Innovative  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • prefer  to  live  in  the  past  and  future   are  interested  in  new  and  unusual   experiences   do  not  like  routine   are  attracted  to  theory  rather  than   practice     Table  2:  Analytical  churches  vs.  Connectional  churches   Analytical  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • • are  interested  in  systems,  structures,   patterns   like  to  expose  issues  to  logical  analysis   can  be  aloof  and  unemotional   are  likely  to  evaluate  issues  through  their   intellect  and  decide  on  the  basis  of  right   and  wrong   may  have  difficulty  talking  about   emotions   may  not  work  as  diligently  at  clearing  up   arguments  or  quarrels   Connectional  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • • are  interested  in  people  and  their  feelings   easily  communicate  their  moods  to   others   pay  attention  to  relationships   tend  to  evaluate  issues  through  their   ethical  system  and  decide  on  the  basis  of   good  and  bad   can  be  sensitive  to  rebuke   may  tend  to  give  compliments  to  please   people     Table  3:  Structured  churches  vs.  Flexible  churches   Structured  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • •   do  not  like  to  leave  many  unanswered   questions   are  likely  to  plan  their  work  ahead  and   finish  it  in  a  timely  fashion   make  an  effort  to  be  exact  in  what  they   do   do  not  like  to  change  their  decisions  once   they  are  made   are  likely  to  demonstrate  stable  work   habits   easily  follow  rules  and  discipline   Flexible  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • • may  act  impulsively  in  their  ministry   can  do  more  things  at  once  without  feeling   compelled  to  finish  them   prefer  to  be  free  from  long-­‐term   obligations   are  curious  and  like  taking  a  fresh  look  at   things   are  likely  to  work  according  to  their  mood   often  act  without  as  much  preparation   123     From  the  various  combinations  of  these  three  components,  Douglass  identifies  eight   distinctive  personalities  that  he  describes  as:  Fellowship  (PCS),  Inspirational  (ICS),   Relational  (ICF),  Entrepreneurial  (IAF),  Strategizer  (IAS),  Organizer  (PAS),  Adventurous   (PAF),  and  Expressive  (PCF).  He  uses  a  wheel  to  graphically  represent  the  various   personalities.263  When  each  of  the  thirty  opinion  leaders  completes  the  survey,  they  will   end  up  with  three  letters  that  correspond  to  one  of  the  eight  personalities.  These  results   are  then  plotted  on  the  wheel.   PRACTICAL Expressive Adventurous ANALYTICAL Fellowship FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLE PCS ICS CONNECTIONAL IAS PCF STRUCTURED PAS STRUCTURED PAF Organizer Inspirational Strategizer ICF IAF Relational Entrepreneurial INNOVATIVE       Douglass  claims  that  understanding  the  personalities  of  a  church’s  most  influential   people  will  show  you  the  personality  of  the  church.  He  writes,  “Fundamentally,  your                                                                                                                   263  This  is  slightly  adapted  to  combine  two  wheels  into  one.  Douglass  used  a  separate  (but  otherwise   identical)  wheel  to  show  Structured  vs.  Flexible.     124   church’s  personality  is  a  set  of  shared  values  among  its  most  influential  members.”264       This  is  an  assertion  that  is  neither  explained  nor  defended  in  the  book,  although   there  is  some  logic  to  it.  Leadership  is  an  important  part  of  the  culture  of  any  organization,   and  one  of  the  definitive  characteristics  of  leadership  is  the  influence  of  others.  Both   official  and  unofficial  leaders  of  a  church  impact,  and  to  a  significant  extent,  determine  the   vision,  values,  priorities,  and  ministries  that  help  form  the  culture  or  personality  of  a   church.  But  is  it  reasonable  to  assume,  therefore,  that  the  personality  of  the  church  will  be   the  same  as  the  personality  of  its  primary  opinion  leaders?       As  critical  as  leadership  is,  it  is  certainly  not  the  only  factor  in  organizational  culture.   There  may  be  historical  considerations  that  complicate  the  cultural  picture,  the   personality  of  those  who  started  the  church,  theological,  cultural  and  personality  issues   they  may  have  had  to  work  through,  and  formative  experiences,  such  as  big  wins  and   tragedies  they  faced.  Whether  the  church  is  stable  or  going  through  a  period  of  change  or   upheaval  will  have  an  impact  on  its  culture.  There  may  also  be  one  or  more  significant   sub-­‐cultures  that  are  flexing  their  muscles,  because  they  are  struggling  with  the  leadership   or  direction  of  the  church.  These  are  only  a  few  of  the  factors  that  might  suggest  that  the   church’s  personality  is  more  nuanced  and  complex  than  simply  the  composite  of  the   leaders’  personalities.  Richard  Gallagher  describes  the  paradox  well,  “Leadership  is  what   mathematicians  would  call  a  ‘necessary  but  not  sufficient  condition’  for  the  growth  of  a   corporate  culture.  Leaders  cannot,  by  themselves,  determine  corporate  culture.”265       Douglass’  instructions  are  that  after  determining  where  the  opinion  leaders  cluster   on  the  wheel,  the  chapter  in  the  book  corresponding  to  the  highest  cluster  should  be                                                                                                                   264  Ibid.,  24.   265  Gallagher,  177.     125   referenced.  Approximately  80%  or  more  of  the  descriptions  in  that  chapter  should  fit  the   church.266    If  that  is  not  the  case,  he  recommends  going  to  the  chapter  that  corresponds  to   the  next  highest  cluster  of  responses.  Thus  the  survey  itself  seems  primarily  designed  to   point  in  the  right  direction(s),  but  relies  heavily  on  the  leaders’  knowledge  of  the   congregation  to  determine  the  church’s  personality  with  more  precision.  This  shows  that   there  is  a  significant  element  of  subjectivity  rather  than  being  an  exact  science,  and  the   more  the  leaders  understand  their  congregation,  the  more  they  will  be  able  to  recognize   the  descriptions  that  best  characterize  it.  However,  that  does  take  you  one  step  further   away  from  the  numbers  and  also  opens  up  the  possibility  that  the  leaders  are  interpreting   the  congregation  through  the  filter  of  their  own  personalities.   Our  Experience     Thirty-­‐five  people  who  are  actively  involved  in  leadership  and  ministry  and  are   recognized  as  opinion  leaders  took  the  survey.  Douglas  outlines  some  criteria  for  knowing   which  men  and  women  to  select.     • An  opinion  leader  whose  perspectives  are  valued  by  the  people  of  the  church.  This   may  include  some  who  do  not  fit  the  rest  of  the  criteria  because  of  age  or  disability,   but  are  still  very  influential.   • Active  in  the  ministry  of  the  local  church  –  attendance,  giving,  etc.   • Involved  in  a  small  group  –  Sunday  school  class,  prayer  group,  Bible  study,  support   group,  etc.   • Involved  in  a  ministry  role  –  Sunday  school  teacher,  board  member,  small-­‐group   leader,  prayer  ministry,  children’s  ministry,  youth  ministry,  etc.267     The  church  board  put  together  a  list  that  included  pastors/staff  and  spouses  (8),   deacons  and  deaconesses  (11),  and  other  involved,  influential  people  in  the  church  (16).   They  were  evenly  divided  between  men  and  women,  and  ranged  in  age  from  just  under                                                                                                                   266  Douglass,  355.   267  Douglass,  350.     126   twenty  to  eighty.  Most  were  members,  although  there  were  a  few  who  are  active,   influential  people  who  for  one  reason  or  another  have  not  become  official  members.       The  surveys  were  taken  confidentially,  in  that  they  did  not  put  their  names  on  the   survey,  but  staff  and  spouses  marked  their  surveys  with  an  “S”,  and  deacons  and   deaconesses  marked  theirs  with  a  “D”  in  order  to  be  able  to  cross  reference  where  the   vocational  and  elected  leaders  fit  in  the  personality  profile.       The  delimitations  of  this  project  are  the  instrument  itself,  the  number  of  participants   and  they  way  they  were  chosen,  and  the  decision  to  limit  this  study  to  one  congregation.   The  limitations  are  that  it  was  a  one-­‐time  assessment,  the  more  subjective  aspects  of  the   study,  and  the  researcher’s  ability  to  understand,  interpret,  and  communicate  the  results.     The  individual  responses  from  the  survey  were  then  plotted  on  the  wheel  to  identify   the  dominant  personality  or  personalities  of  the  church.  Below  is  a  copy  of  the  wheel  with   the  results  filled  in.  Staff  and  spouses  are  indicated  with  an  “S”,  deacons  and  deaconesses   are  indicated  with  a  “D”,  and  the  others  with  an  “X.”  There  were  some  surveys  that  had  a   tie  for  one  of  the  categories.  These  are  indicated  on  the  wheel  with  a  line  connecting  them   to  the  section  the  tie  would  have  resulted  in,  and  they  were  counted  as  ½  in  each  section.   The  expectation  was  that  a  definite  pattern  would  emerge  with  one,  or  possibly  two   sections  receiving  the  greatest  cluster  of  entries.  At  first  glance,  the  results  were  more   complex.       127           An  initial  review  of  the  results  seems  to  indicate  that  there  is  more  than  one   dominant  personality.  Results  are  spread  out  with  all  of  the  sections  getting  at  least  ½  an   entry.  Douglass  allows  for  the  possibility  that  there  might  be  more  than  one  dominant   cluster.  The  key  to  identifying  a  church’s  personality  is  in  the  explanatory  chapters  on  each   of  the  eight  personality  types.  He  writes  that  if  the  chapter  corresponding  to  the  dominant   cluster  does  not  seem  to  apply,  then  go  to  the  chapter  that  corresponds  to  the  second   group  of  clusters.  He  gives  a  specific  example  of  a  survey  where,  interestingly,  the  primary     128   group  (33%)  clustered  as  an  Organizer  church,  and  the  second  largest  group  (27%)   clustered  as  the  Fellowship  church.  He  instructs  to  “first  read  through  the  Organizer   church  chapter  and  secondly  read  through  the  Fellowship  church  chapter  to  determine   which  ministry  style  fits  better.268       The  results  of  our  survey  showed  that  25.7%  of  the  participants  clustered  in  the   Organizer  (PAS)  church  section,  21.4%  in  Fellowship  (PCS),  and  20%  in  Relational  (ICF).   Although  there  are  some  similarities  between  these  personalities,  there  are  also  some   significant  differences.  Appendix  3  is  a  table  comparing  these  three  personalities.  Below  is   a  summary  of  the  three.269       Organizer  churches  like  to  solve  complex  problems  in  a  methodical  manner  by   using  logical  analysis  to  critique  their  ministry  programs,  spot  flaws,  and  make  necessary   changes  that  complete  their  ministry  tasks  efficiently.  They  are  organized  and  competent,   priding  themselves  in  getting  the  most  accomplished  in  the  least  time.  Before  they   mobilize  people  to  engage  in  a  new  ministry,  they  systematically  analyze  all  the   opportunities  and  then  painstakingly  undertake  their  plans.  Because  their  Christian   education  programs  are  so  important  to  them,  they  take  satisfaction  in  developing  them  to   a  high  level.     Fellowship  churches  are  conscientious,  hard-­‐working,  orderly,  and  sensitive  to  the   needs  of  people  in  general,  but  especially  those  who  are  members  of  their  church.  These   churches  bring  out  the  best  in  people  by  helping  them  work  toward  personally  meaningful   goals  in  an  organized  manner.  Therefore,  they  usually  have  many  people  who  are  eager   and  willing  to  serve.  Usually,  they  are  especially  strong  in  children’s  programs,  shut-­‐in                                                                                                                   268  Douglass,  355-­‐6.   269  Ibid.,  28-­‐30.     129   visitation  of  relatives,  neighbors,  and  longtime  members  of  the  church,  as  well  as   programs  that  train  their  laypeople  in  practical  care  ministries.  However,  these  churches   may  tend  to  resist  disturbances  to  their  routine  even  when  the  disruption  is  good  for  the   health  of  the  church.     Relational  churches  focus  on  personal  connections,  values,  opinions,  and   interactions.  They  actively  strive  to  bond  with  one  another,  create  harmony,  and   cooperate,  making  sure  that  everyone  is  involved  and  positive  about  the  church.  Because   they  place  a  high  priority  on  meeting  the  needs  of  everyone  in  the  church,  they  focus  on   organizing  and  coordinating  events,  projects,  and  activities  that  genuinely  help  people   grow,  develop,  and  be  all  that  God  intended  them  to  be.  They  naturally  care  about  people   in  the  community  and  want  to  be  appreciated  for  their  unique  effort  to  make  the   community  a  better  place  in  which  to  live.   Conclusion     Although  there  were  characteristics  of  all  three  personalities  that  relate  to  our   church,  the  description  of  the  Fellowship  church  seemed  to  have  the  greatest  resonance.   Patterns       Upon  closer  examination,  some  definite  patterns  in  the  scoring  seemed  to  surface  to   confirm  this  conclusion.     1. The  first  is  that  the  difference  between  the  Organizer  (PAS)  and  Fellowship  (PCS)   church  is  in  the  middle  letter  of  the  three-­‐letter  combination.  The  Organizer  church  is   practical,  analytical  and  structured,  while  the  Fellowship  church  is  practical,   connectional  and  structured.  The  individual  surveys  that  scored  either  PAS  or  PCS   were  examined  again  and  the  scores  were  calculated  looking  just  at  the  Analytical  and     130   Connectional  columns.  The  results  were  very  close:  the  Analytical  column  added  up  to   434  and  the  Connectional  column  added  up  to  436.     2. This  led  to  a  further  review  of  the  scores  from  all  the  surveys  to  see  if  any  patterns   emerged  (Appendix  4).  The  results  of  this  tally  are  grouped  by  Staff  and  Spouses,   Deacons  and  Deaconesses,  and  other  Opinion  Leaders.     2.1. The  scores  of  the  staff  and  spouses  were  higher  in  the  connectional  and  flexible   categories,  and  were  very  close  in  the  practical/innovative  (204/200).  This  would   make  the  combined  personality  of  the  staff  PCF  (Expressive)  or  ICF  (Relational).     2.2. The  combined  score  of  the  deacons  and  deaconesses  was  decidedly  Fellowship   (PCS).     2.3. The  combined  score  of  the  other  opinion  leaders  was  also  clearly  Fellowship   (PCS).     2.4. When  all  three  groups  were  totaled,  the  result  was  also  solidly  Fellowship  (PCS).   3. Another  interesting  observation  from  the  results  is  how  the  deacons/deaconesses  and   staff/spouses  plotted  on  the  wheel.     3.1. A  significant  percentage  of  the  deacons  and  deaconesses  (59%)  were  in  Organizer   (PAS)  or  Fellowship  (PCS),  with  the  remainder  (41%)  being  in  the  Expressive   (PCF)  or  Inspirational  (ICS)  sections.     3.2. Five  of  the  eight  staff/spouses  (62.5%)  were  in  the  Relational  (ICF)  and   Inspirational  (ICS)  sections.  My  score  was  the  only  entry  in  the  Entrepreneurial   (IAF)  section.   4. Breaking  the  rankings  on  the  Wheel  down  further  by  their  individual  components  (e.g.   Practical  vs.  Innovative,  Analytical  vs.  Connectional,  Structured  vs.  Flexible),  rather     131   than  looking  at  them  in  their  combinations  (e.g.  PAS,  PCS,  etc.),  also  revealed  some   interesting  information.   4.1. Among  the  deacons  and  deaconesses  there  is  a  strong  tendency  toward  the   Practical  (10  of  11,  91%),  Connectional  (7  of  11,  64%)  and  Structured  (7½  of  11,   68%).     4.2. Among  the  staff  and  spouses  there  is  a  strong  tendency  toward  Innovative  (6  of  8,   75%)  and  Connectional  (6  of  8,  75%),  while  being  evenly  divided  between  Flexible   and  Structured.     4.3. Among  the  other  Opinion  Leaders,  there  was  a  strong  tendency  toward  Practical   (10  of  16,  62.5%),  Connectional  (10½  of  16,  65.6%)  and  Structured  (9½  of  16,   59.4%).  They  were  also  evenly  divided  among  the  three  personality  quadrants  that   scored  the  highest  overall,  with  4  each  in  Organizer,  Fellowship,  and  Relational.   4.4. When  all  three  groups  are  totaled  together  this  way,  there  was  a  strong  tendency   toward  Practical  (22  of  35,  62.85%),  Connectional  (23.5  of  35,  67.14%)  and   Structured  (21.5  of  35,  61.43%).270  So  of  all  those  taking  the  survey,  more  than   60%  scored  in  the  Practical,  Connectional  and  Structured  categories  each.  Thus,   looking  deeper  into  the  rankings  and  scores  reinforces  the  conclusion  that  the   dominant  personality/culture  of  the  church  is  Fellowship  (PCS).   Further  Conclusions       In  addition  to  the  above  conclusion  that  the  dominant  culture  of  our  church  seems  to   be  Fellowship,  two  other  conclusions  suggest  themselves.     1. One  is  that  attempting  to  strictly  identify  a  uniform  culture  for  an  entire  church  or                                                                                                                   270  Number of each: P = 22, 62.85%, I = 13, 37.14%, A = 11½, 32.85%, C = 23.5, 67.14%, S = 21.5, 61.43%, F = 13.5, 38.57%     132   organization  is  more  complicated  and  subjective  than  some  of  the  literature  seems  to   assume.  Although  it  is  possible  to  recognize  a  dominant  culture,  it  would  be  naïve  to   suggest  that  it  is  the  culture.  The  uniqueness  of  each  of  the  individuals  involved,  the   virtually  infinite  number  of  factors  that  have  shaped  and  formed  them  both  personally   and  corporately,  the  broad  variety  of  interests  and  influences  that  have  attracted  the   congregation  as  a  whole  and  various  groupings  within  the  congregation  to  each  other,   and  the  constant  shifting  of  people  coming  and  going,  all  suggest  that  it  may  be  difficult   to  plot  a  church  definitively  within  eight  segments  of  a  wheel.  It  could  be  argued  that  it   is  this  variety  and  complexity  that  produces  a  unique  culture  or  personality  for  a   church  that  has  to  be  broad  enough  in  its  definition  to  embrace  the  variance  and  even   contradictions  that  surface  in  a  tool  like  this.  This  cultural  richness  is  a  reflection  of  the   creative  genius  of  a  God  who  loves  to  continually  astonish  us  with  the  simplicity  within   complexity,  and  the  complexity  within  simplicity  of  his  Creation.   2. Secondly,  the  closeness  of  the  scores  for  the  three  dominant  personalities  suggests  that   they  help  form  the  richness  of  our  church  culture,  and  also  interact  to  help  balance  the   whole  ministry.  In  trying  to  take  a  step  back  and  analyze  the  three  dominant   groupings,  there  are  at  least  three  different  ways  to  try  to  understand  how  they  relate.   2.1. It  may  be  that  this  shows  a  transitional  arc  moving  from  Organizer  through   Fellowship  to  Relational,  perhaps  partly  due  to  the  influence  of  the  staff.  The   church  may  have  historically  been  more  Organizer  (PAS),  is  now  more  Fellowship   (PCF),  but  is  moving  toward  Relational  (ICF).  There  may  be  some  validity  to  this   perspective  in  light  of  the  high  scores  for  Innovative  and  Connectional  among  the   staff  and  spouses.  There  seems  to  be  a  desire  to  have  pastoral  and  staff  leadership     133   that  is  more  open  to  innovation  and  sensitive  to  its  impact  on  the  people  involved.   If  there  is  effective  leadership,  and  the  primary  characteristic  of  leadership  is   influence,  this  cannot  help  but  filter  its  way  through  the  congregation.   2.2. Another  perspective  might  be  that  the  three  personalities  form  a  type  of  bell  curve,   with  Fellowship  being  larger  and  central  and  Organizer  and  Relational  at  the  ends   of  the  curve.  This  perspective  makes  more  sense  when  the  individual  scores  are   looked  at  rather  than  just  the  composite  results.  The  other  personalities  are  still   there,  but  Fellowship  is  the  more  dominant.   2.3. A  less  statistical  and  more  creative  way  to  look  at  it  might  be  seeing  the  results  as  a   canoe  with  outriggers  on  each  side.  The  dominant  personality  (the  canoe)  is   Fellowship,  but  elements  of  Organizer  and  Relational  (outriggers)  give  balance  and   stability.  The  Organizer  influence  helps  us  stay  grounded  in  the  truth,  keeps  us   more  organized  and  methodical,  and  recognizes  the  seriousness  of  what  we  are   about.  While  the  Relational  influence  helps  us  be  more  creative  and  outward   focused,  fun  and  funny,  more  energetic  and  relaxed,  and  more  open  to  change  and   innovation.  These  are  both  important  influences  that  help  make  the  Fellowship   personality  effective  and  sustainable.       Fellowship  churches  attract  hurting  people  and  work  hard  to  bring  relief  and   healing.  They  can  be  so  focused  on  the  people,  their  feelings,  and  their  needs  that  they  can   miss  underlying  doctrinal  or  theological  factors.  Douglass  writes,  “The  challenge  is  that  the   percentage  of  people  in  Fellowship  churches  who  suffer  from  chronic  pain  or  other  long-­‐ term  physical  maladies  is  higher  than  for  any  other  type  of  church.  Therefore,  these   churches  can  become  so  caught  up  in  ministering  to  the  physical  suffering  of  people  that     134   the  spiritual  needs  of  people  are  overlooked.”271       On  the  other  hand,  Organizer  churches  place  a  high  value  on  doctrinal  purity  and   theological  precision.  This  provides  an  invaluable  counterweight  to  ensure  that  both   physical  and  spiritual  needs  are  addressed.  The  Organizer  influence  also  helps  put  in  place   systems  so  that  the  caring  ministry  is  conducted  in  a  systematic  enough  way  to  be   sustainable  and  creates  a  degree  of  emotional  space.  “They  tend  to  exhibit  a  composed,   unruffled,  dispassionate  demeanor  that  critics  may  interpret  as  detachment  and  coldness.   This  is  because  they  develop  deliberate,  cautious  methodologies  to  accomplish  their   goals.”272  “Organizer  churches’  natural  orientation  is  toward  tasks  rather  than  people.”273       On  the  other  side  of  the  boat,  Fellowship  churches  can  become  too  motivated  by  a   sense  of  duty  and  can  get  overwhelmed  by  the  number  and  seriousness  of  the  needs  they   are  attempting  to  help.  This  can  lead  to  joylessness,  resentment,  tunnel  vision,  and   burnout.  The  Relational  influence  is  always  on  the  lookout  for  new,  creative  ways  to  do   things,  and  is  enthusiastic  and  visionary.  Douglass  writes,  “These  churches  are  known  for   being  fun-­‐loving  and  energetic  in  their  zest  for  helping  people.  They  are  big-­‐picture   visionaries  who  produce  innovative,  cutting-­‐edge  ministries,  programs,  and  services  that   help  people  solve  their  problems,  no  matter  how  complex  and  confusing  they  may  be.”274     This  influence  can  help  lighten  the  heaviness  of  people’s  needs  and  stay  focused  on  results.       Together  the  Organizer  and  Relational  influences  give  energy,  humor,  systems,   perspective,  and  vision  to  the  Fellowship  heart.  When  working  against  each  other  they  can   result  in  conflict  and  loss  of  momentum,  but  when  unified  by  love  and  vision,  they  can                                                                                                                   271  Douglass,  62.   272  Ibid.,  261.   273  Ibid.,  262.   274  Ibid.,  119.     135   enhance  the  strengths  and  compensate  for  the  weaknesses  of  a  single  culture  or   personality.   Stage  Two       The  second  stage  of  the  research  was  a  meeting  on  May  4,  2014,  where  the  results   were  reported.  A  copy  of  the  report  that  was  circulated  and  the  PowerPoint  slides  used   are  in  Appendix  2.  Everyone  who  took  the  survey  was  invited  to  attend  this  report  session.   Most  were  there,  although  a  few  could  not  make  it.  A  make-­‐up  session  will  be  scheduled  to   inform  those  who  were  not  able  to  be  at  the  first  meeting.  One  of  the  difficulties  was  that   two  or  three  who  were  in  the  follow-­‐up  interview  had  not  been  at  the  reporting  session.   That  limited  what  they  could  contribute  about  the  whole  process,  although  they  could  still   interact  regarding  taking  the  survey.     The  participants  were  seated  at  round  tables  so  they  could  interact  with  each  other   about  the  information  that  was  being  shared.  One  interesting  development  was  around   confidentiality  and  them  knowing  what  their  own  scores  were.  The  survey  was   administered  confidentially,  identified  only  by  whether  they  were  staff/spouses  or   deacons/deaconesses.  This  was  probably  overly  cautious,  as  the  survey  is  a  personality   profile  and  the  results  are  neutral.  There  was  a  brief  explanation  of  the  survey  and  what  it   was  measuring  at  the  original  session  where  they  filled  them  out,  but  most  people  did  not   know  what  the  results  meant  and  did  not  remember  how  they  scored.  Those  that  did  were   quite  open  about  sharing  their  results,  and  there  was  some  good-­‐natured  bantering  going   on  between  people  who  scored  differently.  One  person,  who  openly  admitted  to  being  an   Organizer  (PAS)  and  thus  more  exact  and  particular,  joked  about  how  frustrating  the   grammatical  inconsistencies  were  in  the  words  used  to  identify  the  various  personalities     136   (i.e.  Adventurous,  Strategizer,  Fellowship).       Because  the  survey  was  measuring  certain  aspects  of  their  personality  and  each  was   valid,  neither  positive  nor  negative  in  themselves,  it  was  probably  unnecessary  to  insist  on   confidentiality.  It  would  have  been  more  helpful  to  the  individuals  if  they  had  at  least   written  down  their  three-­‐letter  combination  for  future  reference.  But  it  would  have  been   even  more  advantageous  if  they  had  put  their  names  on  the  surveys  so  they  could  see   specifically  how  they  had  answered  in  each  of  the  categories.  Several  of  them  thumbed   through  the  surveys  after  the  meeting  trying  to  identify  the  ones  they  filled  out.  In   retrospect,  it  would  have  been  preferable  to  give  more  information  at  the  time  of  the   survey  so  they  could  have  better  understood  their  own  personalities  or  at  least  have  had  a   more  complete  picture  of  the  implications.     The  report  went  into  detail  about  the  three  categories  being  tested  (information-­‐ gathering,  decision-­‐making,  and  lifestyle)  and  the  implications  of  each.  The  characteristics   of  the  three  personalities  that  scored  the  highest  were  carefully  reviewed  and  an  attempt   was  made  to  interpret  what  that  meant  for  our  church.  However,  there  could  have  been   more  directed  group  discussion  around  the  tables  and  more  extensive  information  about   the  Fellowship  personality.     In  general,  there  was  consensus  that  the  Fellowship  personality  resonated  more  with   their  understanding  of  our  church  culture,  and  they  were  very  receptive  to  some  of  the   ministry  and  outreach  implications  that  were  highlighted  in  Douglass.  There  was  also   discussion  about  the  possible  reasons  why  so  many  of  the  deacons/deaconesses  scored  in   the  Organizer  section  but  none  in  the  Relational.  One  theory  was  that  people  who  value   the  more  official  and  organizational  aspects  of  church  life  are  attracted  to  the  board,  which     137   is  the  primary  group  addressing  those  aspects.  There  was  also  an  appreciation  with  the   fact  that  the  staff  scored  heavier  in  Innovative  and  Flexible,  seeing  those  as  positive   characteristics  in  setting  direction  and  implementing  ministries.   Stage  Three         The  third  stage  of  the  research  was  a  follow-­‐up  interview  with  the  staff  and  board.   This  happened  as  part  of  our  monthly  board  meeting  on  May  20,  2014.  Appendix  5  is  a   rough  transcript  of  the  audio  recording  of  that  interview.  The  following  were  the   questions  that  formed  the  core  of  the  interview:   1. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  process  helpful?     2. In  what  ways  did  you  feel  the  process  could  have  been  improved?     3. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  inventory  helpful/less  helpful?     4. In  what  ways  do  you  feel  that  the  results  accurately  portray  your  church  culture?     5. Were  there  conclusions  that  you  didn't  feel  fit  your  church  culture?  If  so,  what?     6. How  comprehensively  do  you  think  these  conclusions  reflect  the  views  of  those   outside  the  primary  opinion  leaders?   7. What  did  you  learn  about  your  church  culture  from  the  inventory?       8. How  do  you  expect  to  use  (or  have  used)  this  information  to  leverage  your  ministry   planning  and  implementation?       There  were  some  general  considerations  impacting  the  value  of  this  follow-­‐up   interview.  The  first  is  that  the  whole  process  from  survey  to  report  to  interview  happened   in  a  short  period  –  within  a  month.  The  survey  was  administered  on  April  27,  the  report   was  given  a  week  later  on  May  4,  and  the  follow-­‐up  interview  happened  on  May  20.  The   advantage  of  this  is  that  the  information  was  still  reasonably  fresh  in  people’s  minds.  A     138   disadvantage  was  that  they  had  little  time  to  absorb  the  information  and  reflect  on  how  it   could  best  be  applied  strategically  to  our  ministry  and  outreach.       Another  consideration,  already  mentioned,  was  that  a  few  of  those  who  were  at  the   follow-­‐up  interview  had  missed  the  information  session.  This  meant  that  although  they   could  interact  with  the  experience  of  taking  the  Survey  and  had  the  advantage  of  having  a   deeper  understanding  of  our  church  because  of  their  position  and  ministry,  they  did  not   have  the  opportunity  to  receive  all  the  information  that  was  given  at  the  meeting.  Copies   of  the  report  were  made  available  to  them,  but  that  was  not  an  adequate  substitute  for   being  in  the  information  session.  They  did  not  have  time  to  carefully  read  and  reflect  on   the  information,  had  not  heard  the  presentation  and  explanation,  and  missed  out  on  the   group  discussion.  This  posed  a  significant  limitation  to  their  helpfulness  in  this  stage  of  the   research.     A  third  consideration  was  that  although  all  of  the  staff  and  some  of  the  board  came  to   the  meeting  prepared,  having  their  information  sheets  with  them,  a  few  others  did  not   bring  their  sheets,  nor  had  they  seemed  to  spend  much  time  thinking  about  the   conclusions.  This  meant  that  some  of  the  comments  made  in  answer  to  the  questions  were   vague  and  unfocused.  Also,  as  would  be  expected,  a  few  people’s  opinions  and  responses   were  more  indicative  of  their  general  attitudes  and  philosophy  about  church  rather  than   addressing  specific  aspects  of  the  survey  or  subsequent  conclusions  about  our  culture.   Responses  to  the  questions:       Following  is  a  summary  of  the  responses  to  the  specific  questions.  As  in  any  free   ranging  conversation,  statements  were  sometimes  made  in  the  context  of  one  question   that  fit  better  in  the  discussion  of  another  question.  They  were  sharing  insights  as  they     139   had  them,  sometimes  prompted  by  an  earlier  question  that  just  took  longer  to  percolate,   or  not  knowing  that  another  question  dealing  with  that  specific  insight  was  coming.   Although  the  transcript  reflects  the  statements  as  they  were  being  made,  this  summary   will  seek  to  include  comments  in  response  to  the  questions  that  are  most  relevant.   1. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  process  helpful?       There  was  a  general  agreement  that  there  is  value  in  the  various  tools  and  systems   that  get  people  thinking  more  deeply  and  specifically  about  themselves  and  the  church.   Just  having  the  opportunity  to  think  about  their  own  personalities  and  reflect  on  how  that   affects  the  church  in  general  gives  a  deeper  understanding  of  our  church.  They  were   interested  and  appreciative  in  the  diversity  of  our  group  and  wondered  if  that  was   representative  of  the  church  in  general.  One  specific  question  was  how  the  results  might   differ  by  age  group  in  the  church.  One  advantage  to  the  people  invited  to  take  the  survey   was  that  there  was  a  good  cross-­‐section  of  ages,  from  late  teens  to  seniors.  However,  with   a  total  sample  size  of  35,  there  was  not  a  significant  concentration  of  any  age  group,  and   the  results  were  not  calculated  from  that  perspective.  Would  the  results  be  different  if  we   administered  it  by  age  range  with  the  results  grouped  that  way?     There  was  a  general  sense  that  the  results  were  accurate,  and  that  it  was  helpful  to  see   how  we  all  fit.  They  expressed  that  hopefully  this  will  help  us  see  the  bigger  picture  of  who   we  are  and  what  the  next  five  or  ten  years  could  look  like  if  we  use  what  we  learn  about   our  church  culture  to  shape  our  ministry  and  outreach.  One  of  our  newer  people   commented  that  it  was  very  interesting  to  see  how  the  opinion  leaders  plotted  out  on  the   wheel.  Seeing  all  of  them  on  the  chart  was  helpful  in  giving  a  better  picture  of  our   congregation.     140   2. In  what  ways  did  you  feel  the  process  could  have  been  improved?         One  person  came  back  to  the  question  about  age  groups  and  wondered  if  it  would   have  been  helpful  to  divide  by  age  ranges  and  also  reflect  on  how  many  opinion  leaders   we  have  in  each  of  the  age  groups  to  see  if  those  chosen  were  more  heavily  weighted  to   one  age  group  over  another.  Someone  else  commented  that  our  congregation  seems  quite   balanced  with  the  various  age  groups.     One  thing  that  a  few  of  them  struggled  with  was  limiting  the  survey  to  thirty  people  (or   35  in  our  case).  With  an  average  attendance  in  the  250-­‐300  range,  limiting  the  group  to   thirty  was  not  easy.  In  addition,  it  was  difficult  for  some  of  them  to  have  to  narrow  down   the  list.     About  the  feedback  session,  it  was  expressed  that  it  would  have  been  more  helpful  to   have  the  presentation  around  more  contextualized  discussion  about  the  church,  to  not   only  see  the  results,  but  to  spend  more  time  reflecting  on  how  to  apply  those  results.   There  was  the  sense  that  we  have  just  started  a  process  rather  than  having  completed  it.   Knowing  what  we  learned  from  the  survey  is  just  the  very  beginning  of  a  process  to   leverage  that  information  for  more  strategic  ministry  and  outreach.  That  was  one  of  the   purposes  of  the  follow-­‐up  interview,  to  stimulate  thinking  about  how  we  can  use  what  we   have  leaned  to  increase  our  effectiveness.  The  key  will  be  taking  time  to  reflect  and  plan   together.     3. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  inventory  helpful/less  helpful?       In  general,  people  seemed  to  appreciate  the  insights  about  themselves  they  received   from  the  survey,  and  although  they  may  have  questioned  certain  specifics,  they  felt  that  it   was  generally  an  accurate  picture  of  their  personality.  There  was  the  typical  concern     141   expressed  about  not  liking  surveys  because  they  feel  too  cut-­‐and-­‐dried  and  tend  to   pigeonhole  people.  Also,  it  was  noted  that  some  of  the  questions  seemed  very  subjective   and  one  might  answer  differently  under  different  circumstances.  One  person  said  that  a   frustrating  element  of  the  survey  was  when  both  answers  seemed  applicable  but  you  had   to  choose  one  of  them.  There  was  some  uncertainty  about  how  to  score  contrasting   statements.  Does  a  5  on  one  side  mean  that  the  other  side  is  a  1,  or  is  it  possible  to  be  a  4   on  each?  One  participant  observed  that  he  had  to  keep  reminding  himself  “in  most   cases…”  because  thinking  of  specific  scenarios  could  result  in  a  different  result.  He  had  to   keep  thinking,  “What  does  most  of  the  time  really  look  like  for  me?”  Someone  also  said   that  having  the  numbers  going  in  opposite  directions  (5-­‐1  on  the  left  and  1-­‐5  on  the  right)   was  confusing  at  first.  It  was  reproduced  this  way  on  the  surveys  they  filled  out  because   that  was  how  it  was  presented  in  the  survey  in  the  book,  but  the  online  survey   (http://douglassandassociates.com/cgi-­‐bin/d3.cgi)  has  both  sets  of  numbers  going  the   same  direction.  Another  person  reacted  to  the  suggestion  that  if  you  are  this,  you  are  not   that.  She  felt  that  it  led  to  an  oversimplification  of  one’s  personality.     There  were  a  couple  of  especially  interesting  insights  about  the  survey.  One  felt  that  he   may  have  been  subconsciously  biased  toward  one  kind  of  answer  because  of  knowing   what  the  questions  were  weighing.  That  was  because  the  questions  were  grouped  by   category.  Would  the  answers  have  been  more  objective  if  they  had  been  random  and   unlabeled?  Interestingly,  the  online  version  of  the  survey  does  not  give  the  categories  for   the  questions,  although  they  are  in  the  same  order  as  on  the  paper  survey.  Presumably   they  are  grouped  on  the  paper  version  because  it  makes  it  simpler  to  add  up  the  totals   manually  in  each  category.     142     Another  interesting  insight  was  that  some  of  the  questions  made  them  think,  “If  I’m   not  like  that,  why  not?”  They  recognized  that  different  is  not  wrong,  just  different,  but   some  of  the  questions  dealt  with  attitudes  or  actions  they  felt  should  be  part  of  their  lives,   and  having  to  acknowledge  a  different  answer  triggered  deeper  thoughts  about   themselves.  It  could  be  argued  that  this  is  one  of  the  greatest  values  of  a  survey  such  as   this,  no  matter  what  model  it  is  based  on.  It  forces  one  to  look  inside  and  be  honest  about   who  they  are.  This  self-­‐revelation  can  be  the  starting  point  of  personal  change.     There  seemed  to  be  a  general  agreement  that  although  there  was  a  strong  element  of   subjectivity,  both  in  the  questions  and  in  the  interpretation  of  the  scoring,  that  it  gave  us  a   good  snapshot  of  our  church  for  right  now.   4. In  what  ways  do  you  feel  that  the  results  accurately  portray  your  church  culture?       The  responses  to  this  question  seemed  to  center  on  two  issues.  The  first,  articulated   primarily  by  one  person,  was  that  although  the  results  were  likely  accurate,  they  did  not   necessarily  line  up  with  her  own  understanding.  Interestingly,  this  was  not  a  criticism  of   the  survey.  In  fact,  her  assumption  seemed  to  be  that  it  was  accurate.  It  was  more  an   observation  that  she  had  some  different  perceptions  of  our  church  culture,  although  she   did  not  elaborate.       The  other  issue  was  whether  the  results  accurately  reflected  the  broader   congregation  beyond  the  opinion  leaders.  This  was  a  recurring  concern  throughout  the   interview.  One  concern  expressed  was  whether  those  in  leadership  might  be  looking  at  the   culture  of  the  congregation  through  different  glasses  than  those  who  were  less  active  and   involved.  Someone  else  countered  with  the  observation  that  it  is  the  opinion  leaders  who   drive  which  way  the  church  goes  and  others  have  less  influence  on  direction  and  decision     143   making.     This  led  to  a  discussion  on  the  unity  or  diversity  of  our  church  culture.  How  does  our   size  impact  the  homogeneity  of  our  culture?  We’re  not  small,  but  we’re  not  big,  so  we  are   still  at  a  size  where  an  individual  or  a  small  group  can  carry  a  lot  of  influence.  One   statement  made  was  that  we  seem  to  be  a  culture  of  subcultures,  although  they  work  well   together.  This  means  that  a  variety  of  types  of  new  people  can  come  in  and  still  find  a  place   to  belong.  However,  someone  else  observed  that  often  people  would  begin  coming,  find   that  they  are  not  like  us,  and  stop,  and  that  someone  who  is  really  different  probably  is  not   going  to  stay  in  our  church.  Someone  else  replied  to  this  that  since  Jesus  is  for  everyone,   there  may  be  more  diversity  in  a  church  than  in  a  typical  workplace,  especially  in   workplaces  that  employ  a  high  concentration  of  the  same  kind  of  people  (e.g.  “  software   techies”).  Concern  was  expressed  that  although  we  know  that  our  personality  will  be  more   attractive  to  some  people  than  others  and  we  cannot  appeal  to  everybody,  we  want   everyone  to  come  to  the  Lord  and  do  not  want  to  ever  exclude  anybody  from  the  church.     This  question,  perhaps  more  than  the  previous  ones,  seemed  to  demonstrate  the   ambiguity  of  organizational  culture  in  many  people’s  minds  and  the  challenge  of  being   able  to  identify  it.  This  is  understandable  in  that  most  have  not  given  much  thought  to  the   subject.  It  also  may  be  an  acknowledgment  that  organizational  culture  is  more  complex   and  dynamic  than  often  assumed.   5. Were  there  conclusions  that  you  didn't  feel  fit  your  church  culture?  If  so,  what?       There  was  some  surprise  that  Organizer  came  out  as  strong  as  it  did.  They  definitely   saw  that  Fellowship  and  Relational  very  clearly  fit,  but  although  they  saw  some  Organizer   tendencies,  they  tended  to  find  things  more  relational  and  laid  back  than  one  would  think     144   of  with  Organizer.  There  is  definitely  organization  here,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  be  the   highest  priority.  There  was  general  agreement  that  we  are  strongest  in  Fellowship,  that   people  are  a  higher  priority  than  tasks.  One  thought  was  that  this  may  have  been  more  of  a   reflection  of  the  opinion  leaders  selected,  although  someone  suggested  that  there  may  be  a   lot  of  “closet  organizers.”   6. How  comprehensively  do  you  think  these  conclusions  reflect  the  views  of  those   outside  the  primary  opinion  leaders?     The  question  itself  generated  other  questions:  If  you  asked  the  majority  of  people   who  had  not  taken  the  survey  where  they  felt  the  majority  of  the  leaders  would  be  on  the   wheel,  would  they  answer  the  same  way?  Or,  if  you  had  them  take  the  test  themselves,   would  the  answers  be  similar  to  the  leaders?  Would  the  responses  be  different  if  we  had   taken  a  random  sample  of  the  congregation?  If  we  had,  would  that  give  us  more  of  a   picture  of  the  whole  church?  I  reiterated  the  author’s  presupposition  that  the  leaders  of   the  church  determine  the  culture  and  that  one  question  was  whether  that  is  an  accurate   presupposition.  Two  immediately  said  they  felt  it  was  true.     This  question  about  whether  the  responses  were  reflective  of  our  broader   congregation  was  a  major  question  for  a  few  of  the  board  and  staff.  One  concern  was   whether  we  had  “stacked  the  deck”  by  handpicking  the  people  to  take  the  survey.  One   asked  about  those  who  are  no  longer  opinion  leaders  but  are  opinionated  and  still  around.   Do  we  not  ask  them  because  we  do  not  want  to  hear  what  they  have  to  say?  Were  we  truly   nonpartisan  and  representative?  Someone  asked  if  I  had  considered  giving  the  survey  to  a   broader  cross-­‐section  for  comparative  purposes.       As  this  discussion  progressed,  it  seemed  that  there  were  some  issues  from  the  past   145   that  were  fueling  the  concern,  primarily  for  one  individual.  Several  years  ago,  the   congregation  went  through  a  difficult  process  of  addressing  the  question  of  gender  and   leadership  that  spanned  a  few  years  and  resulted  in  a  sharp  and  acrimonious  polarization.   Partly  as  a  result  of  this,  the  congregation  went  through  a  consultation  process  with  our   regional  denomination  that  recommended,  among  a  number  of  prescriptions,  that  we  go   through  a  period  of  repentance  and  reconciliation,  and  that  we  shelve  that  issue  until  we   were  able  to  get  back  on  mission.  This  was  very  helpful  and  had  a  positive  and  re-­‐ energizing  effect  on  the  church.  The  question  about  non-­‐partisan  representation  seemed   to  be  a  concern  whether  those  who  had  been  in  opposition  had  been  purposefully   excluded  from  participation.  Were  the  ones  we  chose  selected  because  they  would  be   more  positive  and  veer  to  one  side?  This  showed  a  misunderstanding  of  what  the  survey   was  designed  to  measure  that  was  picked  up  by  others  in  the  group.  They  pointed  out  that   this  is  a  survey  about  personality,  not  about  attitudes  toward  any  specific  issue.  Whether   you  were  positive  or  negative  in  your  opinion  on  a  certain  issue  would  not  change  what   your  basic  personality  is  and  the  results  of  a  broader  survey  may  not  be  exactly  the  same,   but  would  likely  be  similar.     An  interesting  observation  about  this  question  is  that  it  became  less  about  whether   the  results  accurately  portrayed  the  culture  of  the  church  than  about  whether  the  results   would  accurately  portray  the  personality  trends  of  a  larger  group  who  were  not  opinion   leaders  in  the  church.  Ironically,  this  concern  would  seem  to  be  further  evidence  for  the   accuracy  of  the  results  –  a  concern  for  conducting  things  in  a  proper  way  (Practical  and   Structured)  and  a  concern  that  everyone’s  opinion  should  be  valued  (Connectional).   7. What  did  you  learn  about  your  church  culture  from  the  inventory?       146     This  inventory  seemed  to  reinforce  the  respondents’  understanding  of  our  church  as   warm,  loving,  and  caring.  They  also  noted  and  appreciated  that  we  are  a  diverse,  yet   complementary  group.  They  felt  that  each  of  these  –  caring,  diverse,  and  complementary  –   were  accurate  representations  of  our  culture.  Whereas  the  former  did  not  surprise   anyone,  there  were  two  things  that  came  up  as  things  they  learned  from  the  inventory.  The   first,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  was  that  we  scored  more  Organizer  than  some  would   have  thought.  The  other  was  that  my  score  was  different  from  all  the  others.     The  discussion  around  this  question  seemed  to  indicate  that  for  the  most  part,  the   results  confirmed  what  they  already  understood  about  our  church,  and  that  seeing  the   results  from  the  survey  was  helpful  in  being  able  to  better  understand  and  articulate  our   culture.   8. How  do  you  expect  to  use  (or  have  used)  this  information  to  leverage  your  ministry   planning  and  implementation?       There  were  some  underlying  questions  that  came  out  of  this  discussion.  The  first  was   whether  we  should  look  to  our  strengths  so  we  can  better  minister  to  those  who  share   those  strengths,  or  work  on  our  weaknesses  so  we  do  not  leave  people  behind  who  are   strong  in  our  areas  of  weakness.  This  is  an  important  question,  and  not  everyone  agrees   on  the  best  solution.  Two  well-­‐known  authors  with  contrasting  viewpoints  would  be   Christian  Schwarze  and  Marcus  Buckingham.  Christian  Schwarze’s  Natural  Church   Development275  surveyed  churches  on  eight  essential  qualities  of  healthy  congregations.   These  qualities  were  graphically  represented  as  staves  of  a  barrel  and  the  assertion  of  the   book  was  that  water  will  only  rise  to  the  height  of  the  lowest  stave.  Therefore  a  church                                                                                                                   275  Christian  Schwarze,  Natural  Church  Development,  (Carol  Springs,  Ill.:  Church-­‐Smart,  1996).     147   needed  to  find  their  weakest  quality  (lowest  stave)  and  work  on  it  in  order  to  grow.       Marcus  Buckingham,  on  the  other  hand,  feels  that  the  key  to  our  success  lies  in  our   strengths  rather  than  our  weaknesses.  He  has  written  several  books276  building  on  the   theme  of  focusing  your  energies  on  developing  and  refining  your  strengths,  and  dealing   with  your  weaknesses  only  to  the  point  where  they  do  not  become  an  impediment  to   success.  He  asks  why  you  would  focus  all  your  energy  on  areas  where  you  will  only  ever   be  adequate  and  not  on  the  areas  where  you  can  be  great?  Both  authors  make  valid  points,   but  Buckingham’s  model  seems  to  be  gaining  momentum.  Although  Buckingham  does  not   claim  to  write  from  a  Christian  perspective,  his  views  seem  to  align  best  with  the  New   Testament’s  emphasis  on  serving  primarily  in  our  areas  of  giftedness.       As  our  discussion  progressed  on  this  question  of  the  follow-­‐up  interview,  the   consensus  seemed  to  be  that  we  will  be  most  effective  if  we  focus  on  our  strengths.  One   comment  was  that  even  if  the  information  ends  up  being  only  50-­‐60%  accurate  for  our   church  culture,  we  can  be  that  much  more  strategic  in  how  we  reach  that  culture  within   our  broader  culture.  People  pick  a  church  based  on  whether  they  feel  they  fit  or  not,  so  if   we  can  be  even  just  a  few  degrees  more  specific  in  our  understanding  of  who  we  are  and   go  hard  on  it,  we  can  take  advantage  of  our  strengths.  We  want  everyone  to  be  saved,  but   recognize  we  will  be  most  effective  with  people  who  are  more  like  us.  So  this  study  can   help  us  be  more  intentional  in  our  ministry  and  outreach.     Another  underlying  question  was  how  this  information  could  help  us  grow,  and   whether  growing  numerically  should  even  be  a  goal.  This  concern  was  expressed  by  one   individual  who  seemed  to  be  struggling  with  the  whole  concept  of  the  study,  yet  who  feels                                                                                                                   276  For  instance,  Now,  Discover  Your  Strengths  (2001);  Go  Put  Your  Strengths  to  Work  (2007);  The  Truth  About   You  (2008);  Find  Your  Strongest  Life  (2009).     148   passionately  that  we  want  to  see  our  church  grow  spiritually.  There  was  also  agreement   that  we  want  both  numerical  and  spiritual  growth.  An  obsession  with  numbers  can  draw  a   church  away  from  its  mission  of  making  disciples.  However,  if  a  church  is  serious  about   being  and  making  disciples,  numerical  growth  should  follow.       Another  question  was  asked  at  the  end  of  the  follow-­‐up  interview:  What  would  you   need  to  be  able  to  take  the  next  step  in  implementing  this?  This  was  designed  to  try  to   extend  the  discussion  from  the  previous  question  and  help  us  understand  how  we  should   proceed  from  here.     One  person  admitted  the  need  for  a  more  open  mind  and  more  openness  to  change,   and  reflected  on  a  few  ways  things  are  already  being  done  differently  than  in  the  past.   Another  expressed  the  need  to  know  what  we  are  trying  to  achieve  in  order  to  be  able  to   know  what  the  next  step  was.  A  suggestion  was  made  that  we  think  about  each  ministry   and  see  if  we  have  these  elements  of  our  culture  in  each  of  our  ministries;  for  instance,   whether  we  have  some  that  are  all  organizational  and  no  relational  or  all  relational  and  no   organizational.     There  was  the  sense  that  this  study  gives  us  some  great  ideas  we  can  run  with.  One   newer  staff  member  referenced  a  passion  for  creativity  and  imagination  that  came  out  of   the  study  and  noted  that  this  is  not  always  the  case  in  churches.  Knowing  this  is  true  for  us   gives  us  more  freedom  to  take  advantage  of  that  creativity,  confident  that  it  is  appreciated   by  the  congregation.  In  general  this  gives  us  a  better  idea  of  what  strengths  we  can   leverage.  We  need  to  be  aware  of  our  weaknesses  and  always  be  trying  to  grow,  but  this   gives  us  some  great  areas  that  we  are  strong  in  and  passionate  about  that  we  can  run  with.       There  was  also  the  feeling  that  this  study  will  help  us  better  match  up  individuals   149   with  needs  in  the  ministries.  Evaluating  our  ministries  through  the  lens  of  our  church   culture  will  help  us  know  what  areas  need  to  be  strengthened  and  what  kinds  of  skills  and   gifts  are  needed  to  meet  that  particular  need.  It  was  also  felt  that  understanding  our   culture  could  help  us  in  the  areas  of  motivation  and  implementation.  For  instance,  one  of   the  characteristics  of  the  Fellowship  personality  is  “Doesn’t  like  drastic  change.”  Knowing   that  helps  us  realize  that  we  need  to  introduce  change  more  gradually  than  we  might  like   in  order  to  give  people  time  to  adapt.  Another  quality  of  the  Fellowship  personality  (as   well  as  Organizer)  is  a  high  sense  of  duty.  Keeping  these  things  in  mind  will  help  us  more   effectively  come  around  who  we  already  have  in  our  church.  As  the  leadership  of  the   church  uses  the  understanding  from  this  study  to  lead  toward  change  and  growth,  it  will   be  easier  for  the  congregation  as  a  whole  to  embrace  the  changes.   Conclusions       The  hypothesis  of  this  thesis  is  that  understanding  and  leveraging  a  church's  culture   can  help  focus  its  ministry  and  maximize  its  effectiveness.  The  Research  Question  is,  “How   effective  is  the  “Opinion  Leader  Inventory”  and  supplemental  materials  in  What  Is  Your   Church's  Personality?  by  Philip  D.  Douglas  in  helping  the  leadership  in  an  older,  established   congregation  better  understand  the  cultural  factors  that  are  impacting  its  ministry   effectiveness?”  Although  the  research  is  focused  on  a  particular  tool  to  help  understand  a   church’  s  culture,  the  broader  question  is  whether  having  a  more  conscious  understanding   of  our  congregation  will  help  us,  and  if  so,  how?  In  other  words,  what  is  the  value  of   intentional  reflection  that  is  focused  missionally?  Overall,  the  three  phases  of  research   seem  to  support  the  hypothesis.  Following  is  a  summary  of  some  of  the  observations,   questions,  and  conclusions  of  the  study.     150     The  survey  itself  is  designed  to  identify  the  individual  personalities  of  the  primary   opinion  leaders  of  the  church.  The  stated  assumption  is  that  the  personality  of  the  top   opinion  leaders  is  the  personality  of  the  church.  Although  the  results  seemed  to  reinforce   this  assumption,  whether  the  conclusions  reflect  the  culture  of  the  broader  congregation   was  a  recurring  question  throughout  the  rest  of  the  research.  Douglass  does  not  articulate   what  research  may  have  been  undertaken  to  arrive  at  that  conclusion,  but  this  could  be  an   area  for  further  study.  Although  there  were  some  minor  frustrations  with  the  survey,   everyone  seemed  to  find  it  helpful,  and  the  leadership  of  the  church  agreed  with  the   conclusions  as  they  related  to  the  church  culture/personality.     Although  the  book  seeks  to  identify  a  church’s  personality  within  eight  basic   personalities,  the  results  (at  least  in  our  case)  would  suggest  that  the  culture  or   personality  of  a  church  is  more  complex.  While  this  may  make  the  task  of  understanding   and  defining  a  congregation’s  culture  more  challenging,  it  should  not  be  surprising,  nor  is   it  a  problem.  In  fact,  it  could  be  argued  that  it  is  this  variety  and  complexity  that  actually   forms  the  unique  culture  or  personality  of  a  church,  and  our  understanding  of  church   culture  must  be  broad  enough  in  its  definition  to  embrace  the  variance  and  even   contradictions  that  surface  in  a  tool  like  this.       One  variable  in  the  overall  helpfulness  of  the  study  lies  in  the  accuracy  and   effectiveness  of  interpreting  and  communicating  the  results.  The  Douglass  and  Associates   webpage  makes  allowance  for  a  congregation  taking  the  survey  online  and  the  results   being  communicated,  preferably  as  part  of  a  broader  consultation.  Presumably,  this  would   result  in  a  more  detailed  and  technically  accurate  result.  However,  three  attempts  have   been  made  to  engage  the  author  and/or  others  in  his  organization,  with  no  response.  It  is     151   unclear  if  the  website  is  even  still  current.  The  book  itself  is  designed  to  be  a  self-­‐study  for   the  church,  and  if  used  effectively,  could  be  a  valuable  tool  for  churches  seeking  to   improve  their  effectiveness.  However,  those  congregations  undertaking  the  study  in  this   way  are  limited  to  the  information  in  the  book  and  their  own  familiarity  with  its  contents.     Another  observation  was  that  in  the  follow-­‐up  interview,  people  tended  to  be  all  over   the  place.  They  were  for  the  most  part  remembering  vague  results  and,  other  than  the  staff   and  a  few  on  the  board,  many  did  not  even  have  their  handouts  with  them,  and  it  was  not   clear  if  they  had  reviewed  them  in  preparation  for  the  meeting.  In  spite  of  that,  the   interview  itself  was  quite  positive  and  there  was  excellent  participation  from  everyone.   There  was  general  agreement  with  the  conclusions  of  the  survey  and  a  desire  to  use  that   knowledge  to  be  more  effective  in  ministry  and  (especially)  outreach.  But  it  became   obvious  that  this  is  just  the  beginning  of  a  longer  process.  The  key  will  be  in  the  follow-­‐up.   There  will  need  to  be  more  reinforcement  of  the  results  as  well  as  discussions  about  how   we  can  use  them  and  benefit  from  them.     Some  further  questions  need  to  be  explored  as  we  seek  to  leverage  what  we  have   learned:   1. What  can  we  do  to  sharpen  and  improve  what  we  are  already  doing?   2. Are  there  new  areas  of  ministry  we  should  explore?   3. How  can  we  protect  ourselves  from  our  vulnerabilities  (without  losing  who  we  are)?   4. How  can  we  focus  on  and  maximize  our  strengths?         152       CHAPTER  FIVE:  WHAT  NOW?  CONCLUSIONS  AND  IMPLICATIONS     OF  THE  FINDINGS   This  final  chapter  will  look  first  at  how  well  the  literature  review,  theological   reflection,  and  research  project  confirm  the  initial  hypothesis  and  assumptions  from   chapter  one.  It  will  then  review  the  Research  Question  from  three  perspectives:  1)  a   general  analysis  of  the  value  of  using  some  kind  of  survey  process  to  help  identify  the   church’s  culture;  2)  an  examination  of  the  three  options  that  surfaced  in  the  literature  that   seem  most  viable  for  identifying  a  church’s  culture,  along  with  a  recommendation;  and  3)   a  summary  of  our  own  experience:  how  well  the  process  worked  and  what  could  have   been  improved,  the  perceived  accuracy  of  the  results,  and  next  steps.  Then  some   observations  and  four  suggestions  for  possible  future  research  will  be  explored  that  could   build  on  what  has  already  been  done  in  the  field.  Finally,  the  conclusion  will  highlight  the   power  of  understanding  and  leveraging  church  culture  and  address  five  important   cautions.   Does  this  project  confirm  the  hypothesis  and  assumptions?     This  project  began  with  an  hypothesis  and  seven  assumptions.  It  seems  fitting  to   evaluate  those  in  light  of  the  literature,  reflect  on  the  topic  theologically,  and  the  research   project  itself.     Hypothesis     The  underlying  hypothesis  of  this  study  was  that  understanding  and  leveraging  a   church's  culture  helps  focus  its  ministry  and  maximize  its  effectiveness.    There  are  two   parts  to  this  hypothesis,  understanding  and  leveraging.  Understanding  alone  may  make   one  smarter  but  will  not  necessarily  translate  into  action.  Trying  to  leverage  something     153   that  is  not  understood  is  a  recipe  for  confusion  and  ineffectiveness.  Both  are  important  in   order  for  the  church’s  culture  to  help  them  focus  ministry  and  maximize  effectiveness.     Summary  of  Assumptions       The  following  is  a  summary  of  the  assumptions  listed  in  chapter  one.       1. Every  church  has  a  unique  culture  that  is  deeply  imbedded  in  its  identity  and   consciousness.     2. It  is  important  to  not  oversimplify  a  church’s  culture.  As  churches  grow  older  or  larger,   or  during  times  of  change  and/or  conflict,  subcultures  form,  and  there  tends  to  be   more  ambiguity  in  looking  at  the  total  church  culture.     3. A  church’s  culture  impacts  its  effectiveness  in  mission,  either  positively  or  negatively   (usually  both).     4. Church  culture  can  be  changed,  but  not  easily.     5. It  is  perhaps  more  valuable  for  congregations  to  understand  their  culture  and  see  its   potential  rather  than  attempting  to  make  wholesale  change  to  their  basic  personality.     6. A  church’s  unique  culture,  properly  understood,  sanctified  and  leveraged,  can  be  a   powerful  force  for  ministry  effectiveness.  This  process  can  inform  their  strategic   planning,  guide  in  their  programming,  and  enhance  their  outreach  and  ministry.     7. Aside  from  obvious  dysfunction,  what  exactly  the  culture  is  may  be  less  important  than   that  the  congregation  understands  it.     Assessment     Although  there  is  not  universal  agreement  on  what  organizational  culture  is  and  its   impact  on  the  organization,  this  project  confirms  the  hypothesis  and  assumptions.  The   literature  review,  research,  and  theological  reflection  function  as  a  three-­‐legged  table     154   supporting  the  hypothesis  and  assumptions.     The  literature  reviewed  for  this  thesis,  as  well  as  the  other  resources  that  were  not   reviewed  in  chapter  two  but  helped  formed  the  academic  basis  for  the  project,  support  the   conclusions.  There  would  be  virtually  no  controversy  over  the  hypothesis,  although  there   would  not  be  unanimity  on  what  that  culture  (or  cultures)  would  look  like.  Of  the   assumptions,  there  would  be  little  if  any  disagreement  on  numbers  1,  2,  3,  and  6,  but  some   differences  of  opinion  on  numbers  4,  5,  and  7.  The  books  that  focused  most  on  changing   organizational  culture  have  a  different  perspective  on  those  questions.   The  literature  reinforced  the  importance  of  culture  to  an  organization.  Even  the   books  that  either  looked  at  culture  from  the  perspective  of  health,  like  Chand’s  Cracking   Your  Church’s  Culture  Code,  or  that  focused  on  bringing  about  rapid  and  comprehensive   culture  change,  like  Connors  and  Smith’s  Change  the  Culture  Change  the  Game,  recognized   that  culture  was  a  key  component  in  a  church  or  organization’s  ability  to  accomplish  their   mission  and  vision.  Now  it  would  be  assumed  that  if  someone  goes  to  all  the  effort  to  write   a  book  on  organizational  culture,  that  they  are  convinced  of  its  strategic  importance.   However,  the  volume  of  focus  and  attention  given  to  the  subject,  together  with  the   research  and  experiences  that  inform  the  writing,  lends  support  to  the  hypothesis  and   assumptions.  Business  writers  typically  focus  on  the  subject  of  organizational  culture   because  they  feel  that  it  will  help  the  bottom  line.  Academics  bring  the  rigor  of  critical   thinking  and  research  methodologies  to  the  table.  If  an  organization’s  culture  had  no   bearing  on  its  effectiveness  and  provided  no  strategic  advantage,  it  is  reasonable  to   assume  that  this  intersection  of  method  and  motive  would  have  discovered  that.     The  research  conducted  as  part  of  this  thesis  also  lends  support  to  the  hypothesis     155   and  assumptions,  especially  as  it  related  to  the  primary  resource  for  the  research,   Douglass’  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality.  His  conviction  on  the  validity  of  each  of  the   personalities  and  the  supplemental  follow-­‐up  material  provided  on  all  of  them  were  key   reasons  for  using  this  model  for  the  research.  The  results  of  the  survey  were  not  only   deemed  accurate  by  those  in  leadership  in  the  church,  but  the  additional  materials  give   invaluable  help  for  ongoing  strategic  application  of  the  results.   The  hypothesis  and  assumptions  are  also  supported  theologically.  There  are  facets   of  Systematic  Theology  that  correlate  with  aspects  of  current  learning  on  organizational   culture.  There  are  evidences  of  cultural  factors  in  the  early  church,  as  seen  in  the  letters  to   the  seven  churches  in  Asia  Minor  in  Revelation  2  and  3.  There  are  also  theological   implications  in  the  comparison  of  organizational  culture  to  individual  personality.  The   Bible  seems  to  indicate  that  God  is  actively  involved  in  forming  people  a  certain  way,   gifting  them  with  interests,  aptitudes,  spiritual  empowerments,  personality,  and   experiences  to  provide  a  unique  function  in  Kingdom  service.  Since  churches  are   composed  of  individuals  for  whom  God  took  this  level  of  interest,  it  is  inconceivable  that   he  would  not  do  the  same  for  the  church,  drawing  together  the  parts  of  the  Body  necessary   to  fulfill  the  function  he  wants  accomplished  in  a  local  setting.  To  put  that  much   intentionality  into  the  individual  yet  allow  for  the  random  formation  of  those  individuals   into  congregations  would  be  similar  to  a  craftsman  machining  parts  with  extreme   precision,  then  throwing  them  together  haphazardly  into  a  machine.  God  is  behind  the   formation  of  his  church  and  everything  he  does  is  teleological  in  focus.  “In  him  we  were   also  chosen,  having  been  predestined  according  to  the  plan  of  him  who  works  out   everything  in  conformity  with  the  purpose  of  his  will.”  (Ephesians  1:11)     156   If  people  need  more  confirmation,  they  just  need  to  look  around.  What  else  could   explain  the  myriad  of  different  churches  and  denominations,  the  variety  of  theological  and   ministry  priorities,  the  differences  in  the  way  congregations  worship,  treat  each  other,   interact  with  visitors,  and  view  the  community  around  them?  Every  church  has  essence,   underlying  values,  attitudes,  character,  and  basic  personality  that  influence  how  it  sees  its   mission,  what  vision  it  is  trying  to  realize,  what  values  inform  its  priorities  and   interactions,  and  the  what  rituals  and  practices  it  engages.  At  the  same  time  the  mission,   vision,  values,  rituals,  experiences,  and  behaviors  of  the  church  are  shaping  its  culture.  If   every  church  has  a  culture  then  it  stands  to  reason  that  understanding  what  it  is  will   benefit  them  as  a  church.  Understanding  the  underlying  culture  can  help  make  sense  of   things  that  on  the  surface  do  not  make  sense;  and  the  more  a  congregation  understands   that  underlying  culture,  the  more  they  can  leverage  it  for  more  effective  ministry  and   outreach.   Reviewing  the  Research  Question     The  question  that  this  project  has  sought  to  answer  is,  “How  effective  is  the  “Opinion   Leader  Inventory”  and  supplemental  materials  in  What  Is  Your  Church's  Personality?  by   Philip  D.  Douglas  in  helping  the  leadership  in  an  older,  established  congregation  better   understand  the  cultural  factors  that  are  impacting  its  ministry  effectiveness?”   This  question  will  be  reviewed  from  three  perspectives.     1. The  first  will  be  a  general  analysis  of  the  value  of  using  some  kind  of  survey  process  to   help  identify  the  church’s  culture.   2. The  second  perspective  will  be  to  look  at  the  relative  merits  of  Douglass  along  with  the   two  other  viable  options  for  identifying  a  church’s  culture  that  surfaced  in  the     157   literature.   3. Finally,  there  will  be  a  summary  of  our  own  experience:,  indicating  how  well  the   process  worked  and  what  could  have  been  improved,  the  perceived  accuracy  of  the   results,  and  next  steps.     The  Benefit  of  Knowing     As  has  been  mentioned  before,  the  church  has  been  slower  to  recognize  the  power   of  organizational  culture  than  business  and  academia.  This  project  has  reinforced  the   value  of  a  church  learning  more  about  its  unique  culture  and  its  potential  for  strategic   planning  and  ministry  effectiveness.  Since  this  is  something  many,  if  not  most  in  the   church  have  not  given  much  thought  to,  it  is  important  to  have  a  process  of  gaining  a  more   precise  understanding  of  who  they  are  and  why  they  do  what  they  do.     The  process  of  understanding  a  church’s  culture  must  begin  with  some  system  of   self-­‐evaluation.  There  are  many  kinds  of  evaluative  tools  available  for  churches  that  look   at  the  church  from  a  broad  variety  of  perspectives,  but  very  few  focus  on  a  church’s   underlying  culture  or  personality.  If  the  goal  is  to  identify  a  church’s  culture,  then  a  tool   with  that  focus  is  important.   Options  for  Cultural  Identity     That  brings  up  the  question  of  which  model  and  approach  will  be  the  most  helpful.   Through  the  literature  review,  three  different  kinds  of  methods  emerged  for  helping  an   organization  identify  its  culture.  The  three  are  similar  in  that  they  view  an  organization’s   culture  as  being  primarily  neutral.  Thus  the  studies  are  not  designed  to  approach  culture   in  a  critical  or  judgmental  way,  but  attempt  to  inform  and  identify.  The  three  methods  are   Philip  D.  Douglass’  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality,  which  was  the  method  and  tool  used     158   in  this  project.  The  second  is  by  William  Bridges  in  his  book,  The  Character  of   Organizations.  As  noted  in  the  review  in  chapter  two,  Bridge’s  survey  is  called  the   Organizational  Character  Index  and  is  patterned  closely  after  the  Myers-­‐Briggs  Type   Indicator.  The  third  is  Schein’s  Culture  Assessment  as  Part  of  Managed  Organizational   Change  process  outlined  in  his  book,  Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership,  also  described   in  chapter  two.   Interestingly,  only  two  of  all  the  other  resources  that  were  referenced  for  this   thesis  contained  any  kind  of  workable  self-­‐study  for  identifying  an  organization’s  culture   that  does  not  either  take  a  lot  of  adapting  for  application  in  a  church  setting  or  require   sophisticated  statistical  models.  Chand  was  one  of  these  in  his  book,  Cracking  Your   Church’s  Culture  Code.  His  free  CULTURE  Survey  analyzes  seven  aspects  of  organizational   culture:  Control,  Understanding,  Leadership,  Trust,  Unafraid,  Responsive,  and  Execution.   From  this  survey  it  assesses  a  church’s  culture  in  one  of  five  categories:  Inspiring,   Accepting,  Stagnant,  Discouraging,  and  Toxic.  This  method  focuses  on  organizational   culture,  but  is  designed  to  assess  the  health  or  dysfunction  of  that  culture.   The  other  book  that  had  a  workable  model  that  included  reflection  on  culture  was   Church  Unique  by  Will  Mancini.  His  model,  called  the  Vision  Pathway,  involves  Discovering   your  Kingdom  Concept,  which  identifies  your  uniqueness,  Developing  your  Vision  Frame,   which  graphically  illustrates  that  Kingdom  Concept,  and  Delivering  your  Vision  Daily,   which  is  a  strategy  for  constant  communication  of  the  vision.   Following  is  an  explanation  and  assessment  of  the  three  options  deemed  viable  for   evaluating  a  church’s  culture.   Douglass  –  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?         159   Since  this  was  the  primary  resource  for  the  research  of  this  project,  much  has  already   been  said  in  chapters  1,  2  and  4  about  the  method  and  materials.  This  study  concludes  that   Douglass’  tool  and  model  is  the  most  efficient  and  effective  option  as  a  self-­‐study  for   understanding  a  church’s  culture.  In  brief,  Douglass’  model  seeks  to  identify  a  church’s   personality  by  having  thirty  primary  opinion  leaders  take  an  inventory  on  their  own   personality.  The  inventory  (modified  from  the  Myers-­‐Briggs  MBTI)  surveys  opinion   leaders  on  how  they  gather  information  (Practical  vs.  Innovative),  how  they  make   decisions  (Analytical  vs.  Connectional),  and  “Lifestyle”  (Structured  vs.  Flexible).  The   inventory  leads  to  a  three-­‐letter  combination  for  each  person  who  takes  the  survey,  which   is  then  plotted  on  a  wheel  that  describes  eight  different  personalities:  Fellowship,   Inspirational,  Relational,  Entrepreneurial,  Strategizer,  Organizer,  Adventurous,  and   Expressive.  There  is  a  chapter  in  the  book  on  each  of  the  eight  personalities  that  includes  a   lot  of  useful  information.   Advantages     There  are  a  number  of  advantages  to  Douglass’  model  and  material.  One  advantage   is  that  it  is  geared  directly  toward  the  church  so  there  is  no  need  to  try  to  take  an   instrument  that  was  designed  for  another  organization,  such  as  a  business,  and  retool  it   for  the  church.  It  was  developed  by  one  who  has  extensive  church  experience  as  a  pastor,   church  planter,  and  seminary  professor.  This  experience  also  adds  depth  to  the  chapters   describing  each  of  the  personalities,  because  he  not  only  has  good  familiarity  with  the   principles  of  Myers-­‐Briggs,  but  also  understands  the  practical  implications  of  the  various   cultural  dynamics  for  the  church.  Thus  both  the  survey  instrument  and  the  follow  up   material  are  designed  specifically  for  churches.     160   Another  advantage  is  that  there  is  a  lot  of  information  given  about  each  personality.   This  not  only  aids  a  congregation  to  be  able  to  identify  their  personality(ies),  but  helps   them  process  what  that  means  for  staff  search,  addressing  conflict,  and  planning  ministry   and  outreach  initiatives.   A  third  advantage  is  that  a  church  can  do  this  study  on  its  own,  without  having  to   bring  in  an  outside  consultant.  The  survey  is  included  in  the  book,  along  with  instructions   for  administering,  scoring,  and  interpreting  the  results.  To  get  maximum  impact,  those   who  are  leading  the  process  would  benefit  by  each  having  a  copy  of  the  book.  That  would   still  make  it  a  very  reasonably  priced  exercise.   Disadvantages     There  are  also  some  disadvantages  to  Douglass’  model.  One  is  that  the  survey  is   based  on  the  assumption  that  the  personality  of  your  top  opinion  leaders  is  the  personality   of  the  church.  As  has  already  been  discussed,  this  is  a  questionable  assumption  that  both   has  the  potential  to  oversimplify  the  factors  that  go  into  the  development  and   conservation  of  a  church’s  culture,  and  create  insecurity  over  whether  the  results  reflect   the  broader  congregation.   Another  disadvantage  is  that  this  method  may  be  somewhat  limiting  in  that  it  plugs   a  church’s  personality  into  one  of  only  eight  categories.  As  was  discussed  previously,  our   experience  suggests  that  the  identification  of  a  church’s  personality  may  be  more  complex   and  nuanced  than  can  be  determined  by  one  category.  It  would  be  helpful  to  have  some   guidance  on  how  to  interpret  mixed  results,  such  as  how  various  combinations  interact   practically.   A  third  disadvantage  is  that  the  value  of  the  study  is  limited  to  how  well  the  person     161   who  is  leading  the  study  understands  the  material  and  how  to  interpret  the  surveys.  The   fact  that  there  is  a  lot  of  information  in  the  chapters  describing  the  personalities  is  a  good   thing,  but  there  is  no  additional  instruction  or  training  for  using  and  interpreting  the   survey.  This  limitation  is  true  no  matter  what  kind  of  evaluation  is  conducted,  but  some   more  widely  used  systems  include  better  resources  for  those  administering  the   inventories  and  interpreting  the  results.   A  fourth  disadvantage  is  that  once  you  have  administered  the  inventory  and   interpreted  the  results,  then  what?  Douglass  advises  that  the  intention  of  the  process  is   that  the  church  would  use  the  results  to  develop  a  ten  to  twenty  page  ministry  style  to   facilitate  staff  search  and  move  program  development  and  conflict  resolution  along  in  a   focused  manner.277  This  ministry  style  report  would  include  the  church’s  personality,   philosophy  of  ministry,  qualifications  and  expectations  for  staff  and  lay  leaders,  mission   values,  and  budgeting  priorities.  The  idea  is  that  this  statement  will  stimulate  further   refinement  and  definition.  However,  more  detail  could  have  been  given  on  how  to  leverage   the  information  gleaned  for  greater  unity  and  ministry  effectiveness.   Bridges  –  The  Character  of  Organizations     A  fuller  review  of  Bridges’  book  is  given  in  chapter  2.  Like  Douglass,  Bridges  looks   at  organizational  culture  as  personality,  or  character.  He  developed  a  tool  called  the   Organizational  Character  Index  (OCI),  included  in  his  book.  This  is  technically  not  an   adaptation  of  the  Myers-­‐Briggs  Temperament  Index  (MBTI)  for  organizations,  but  is  based   on  the  four  pairs  of  opposing  tendencies  used  in  the  MBTI:  Extraversion  (E)  vs.   Introversion  (I),  Sensing  (S)  vs.  Intuition  (N),  Thinking  (T)  vs.  Feeling  (F),  and  Judging  (J)                                                                                                                   277  Douglass,  31.     162   vs.  Perceiving  (P).  It  then  categorizes  organizations  under  sixteen  types  of  organizational   character  using  the  sixteen  possible  combinations  of  letters  (e.g.  ESTJ).  There  is  one   chapter  in  the  book  explaining  all  sixteen  of  them.  While  Douglass’  survey  has  the  person   take  it  on  themselves,  Bridges’  survey  tool  is  designed  to  determine  how  the  person  taking   it  perceives  the  organization.   Advantages   There  are  several  advantages  to  Bridges’  system.  One  is  that  he  views  organizational   character  as  neutral,  that  is,  every  personality  has  validity.  His  metaphor  of  comparing   organizational  character  to  the  grains  of  different  kinds  of  wood  is  very  helpful.   Another  advantage  is  that  his  survey  engages  people  at  all  levels  of  involvement  in  the   organization  (not  just  the  opinion  leaders),  on  what  they  see  as  that  organization’s  culture   or  personality.  In  fact,  he  advises  not  just  doing  it  on  the  organization  as  a  whole,  but  also   on  different  parts  of  the  organization  (functional,  operational,  or  geographical  units),   especially  if  there  are  some  concerns  about  one  or  more  of  them.  This  allows  for  –  even   assumes  –  cultural  differences  within  the  organization.     A  third  advantage  is  that  the  OCI  is  focused  on  how  the  participants  view  the   organization  rather  than  on  how  they  view  themselves.  This  puts  the  focus  where  it  most   likely  should  be,  on  the  organization  rather  than  the  individual  personalities  of  the   leaders.     A  fourth  advantage  is  that  there  are  more  character  options.  His  system  has  four  letters   rather  than  three  and  sixteen  categories  rather  than  eight.  One  major  difference  is  that  his   inventory  includes  Extrovert  vs.  Introvert,  information  that  is  certainly  as  pertinent  to  a   church  as  it  is  to  any  other  organization,  and  would  be  helpful  insight  to  have.     163   A  fifth  advantage  is  that  although  the  OCI  tool  was  relatively  new  when  the  book  was   published  and  had  not  yet  been  statistically  validated,  there  is  significant  correlation  to  the   Myers-­‐Briggs  Index.  There  is  much  more  written  on  the  MBTI  and  more  options  for   training  available  to  those  who  want  to  use  it.  This  means  that  although  there  is  not  a  lot  of   information  in  the  book  on  each  of  the  sixteen  personality  types,  that  information  is   readily  available.   Disadvantages     There  are  also  disadvantages  to  Bridges’  system.  One  is  that,  although  he  references   organizations  quite  broadly,  including  businesses,  schools,  nonprofits,  etc.,  the  tool  is  not   designed  specifically  for  a  church.  There  are  many  references  in  the  questions  to   employees,  customers,  products,  profits,  and  competitors  that  would  require  adapting  in  a   church  setting.     Another  disadvantage  is  that  there  is  much  less  specific  information  on  each   personality  than  in  Douglass’  book.  All  sixteen  of  the  personalities  are  described  in  just   one  chapter,  while  Douglass  includes  a  chapter  on  each  of  his  eight.  Because  of  the  wide   familiarity  of  the  MBTI,  much  of  this  information  would  be  available  elsewhere,  but  it   requires  going  to  other  sources  and  most  would  be  focused  on  individual  personality   rather  than  corporate  character.   Schein  –  Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership     Schein  proposes  a  multistep  group  process  to  enable  the  leadership  of  an  organization   to  rapidly  decipher  their  organizational  culture.  He  does  not  include  a  survey  tool.  In  fact,   he  resists  that  approach.  “I  have  often  been  asked  to  design  a  survey  or  do  an  interview   program  in  this  context  and  have  always  argued  that  this  is  neither  necessary  nor     164   desirable.  The  group  interview  process  described  next  is  both  faster  and  more  valid   because  an  interactive  process  gets  to  shared  assumptions  more  quickly.”278     This  process  involves  bringing  a  group  or  groups  together  that  are  representative  of   the  organization  for  in-­‐depth  discussion  on  identifying  the  artifacts  that  are  descriptive  of   the  culture,  such  as  dress  codes,  desired  modes  of  behavior,  the  physical  layout  of  the   workplace,  systems  of  reward  and  punishment,  how  decisions  are  made,  etc.  The  focus  on   artifacts  is  to  answer  the  question,  “What  is  going  on  here?”    Then  the  group  seeks  to   identify  the  espoused  values  of  the  organization  to  answer  the  question  “Why  are  you   doing  what  you  are  doing?”  After  that  they  identify  the  organization’s  underlying  shared   assumptions.  This  reveals  the  degree  of  alignment  between  the  artifacts  and  values.       The  next  step  is  to  categorize  the  shared  assumptions  according  to  whether  they   are  aiding  or  hindering  the  proposed  change  process.  Finally,  they  attempt  to  reach   consensus  on  what  the  important  shared  assumptions  are  and  what  the  implications  are   for  what  the  organization  wants  to  do  next.  Schein  is  adamant  that  attempts  to  identify  an   organization’s  culture  should  be  a  means  to  a  greater  purpose,  such  as  a  process  of  change   or  growth,  and  not  an  end  in  itself.  This  process  is  designed  to  be  used  with  a  facilitator   and  be  done  in  a  day.   Advantages     One  advantage  to  this  process  is  that  it  is  more  in-­‐depth  and  customized,  since   there  is  no  stock  survey  or  grouping  of  results.  The  result  then  is  a  document  that  is   unique  to  the  specific  organization,  not  an  attempt  to  categorize  the  results.   Another  advantage  is  that  it  includes  more  than  just  identifying  the  culture.  The                                                                                                                   278  Schein,  315.     165   group  discussion  is  designed  to  lead  into  a  deeper  discussion  about  what  to  do  with  the   information  to  increase  effectiveness.   Disadvantages   One  possible  disadvantage  is  that  the  process  is  more  subjective  and  the  results   may  seem  less  clear  and  defined.     Another  possible  disadvantage  is  that  although  the  process  is  designed  for  rapid   cultural  deciphering,  it  requires  a  sizable  investment  of  time  (and  in  the  case  of  a  business,   money)  to  pull  together  a  large  enough  group  to  ensure  the  accuracy  of  the  results.  It  also   requires  intensive  work  on  the  part  of  the  group.  In  addition,  since  churches  do  not   typically  think  in  organizational  culture  concepts,  this  might  be  difficult  to  do  in  a  church   without  more  extensive  teaching  and  training.   A  third  disadvantage  is  that  there  is  no  supplemental  material  to  help  a  church   understand  itself.  The  process  helps  identify  the  unique  personality,  but  there  is  no   context  for  comparison  and  no  additional  information  to  know  how  this  culture  can  be   leveraged  for  strategic  advantage.   Recommendation     Recognizing  that  there  are  advantages  and  disadvantages  to  all  three  systems,   Douglass’  model  would  still  seem  to  be  preferred  for  helping  a  church  determine  its   culture.  Of  the  three,  it  is  the  only  one  designed  specifically  for  a  church  by  someone  with   extensive  experience  in  different  facets  of  church  work.  Although  there  could  be  more   information  provided  on  how  to  interpret  the  results  and  move  on  from  there  to  leverage   what  has  been  learned,  it  is  still  a  process  that  can  be  done  as  a  self-­‐study  without  bringing   in  an  outside  consultant  or  facilitator.  In  addition,  there  is  a  wealth  of  useful  supplemental     166   information  in  the  chapters  on  each  of  the  personalities.   Our  experience   Accuracy     Chapter  four  details  the  research  and  conclusions  from  our  own  use  of  Douglass’   inventory  and  supplemental  material.  Our  initial  conclusion  was  that  the  results  were  not   immediately  obvious.  Three  different  personalities,  Organizer,  Fellowship,  and  Relational,   scored  very  close  to  each  other.  Upon  further  detailed  analysis  of  the  results,  it  was   concluded  that  Fellowship  scored  the  strongest  and  most  characterized  our  congregation,   although  there  were  evidences  of  the  other  two  as  well.  There  was  general  agreement  in   the  accuracy  of  that  result  and  general  agreement  regarding  the  value  of  the  exercise.  The   leadership  felt  both  that  they  recognized  our  church  in  the  conclusions  of  the  study  and   that  they  learned  more  about  our  church  as  they  looked  at  some  of  the  specific  follow-­‐up   materials  in  the  chapters  on  the  different  personalities.   Improvement     Some  observations  about  how  the  process  could  have  been  improved  have  already   been  discussed  in  previous  chapters.  Three  possible  ways  the  process  could  have  been   improved  will  be  reviewed  here.   The  first  is  that  there  could  have  been  more  communication  of  what  was  being  tested   for  and  what  the  implications  of  the  findings  would  be.  Since  the  inventory  was  the  part  of   the  process  that  had  the  most  direct  benefit  on  the  individuals  who  were  taking  the   survey,  they  could  have  been  better  informed  of  what  the  results  meant.  Ideally  this  would   happen  immediately  after  the  survey  was  completed  rather  than  before  so  there  would  be   less  chance  of  that  information  skewing  the  way  they  answered  the  questions.       167   There  were  three  realities  in  our  situation  that  would  have  made  that  a  challenge.   The  first  is  that  the  inventory  was  administered  after  our  second  morning  service,  so  they   had  already  been  there  for  the  duration  of  one  service,  and  a  few  had  been  there  for  both.   By  the  time  the  process  was  explained  and  they  filled  in  the  inventory,  and  some   explanation  of  how  the  surveys  were  going  to  be  used  was  given,  they  were  ready  to  go   home.  Secondly,  some  of  those  filling  in  the  surveys  could  not  be  there  in  person  so  had   filled  theirs  in  beforehand.  As  a  result,  they  did  not  even  have  the  advantage  of  the   information  that  was  given  at  that  meeting.  The  third  challenge  is  that  people  filled  in  the   surveys  at  different  rates  of  speed.  Those  who  finished  more  quickly  were  less  interested   in  staying  around  until  the  slowest  people  were  finished.     Another  way  communication  could  have  been  improved  would  be  to  emphasize  the   importance  of  writing  down  their  three  letter  combinations  so  that  when  we  shared  the   results,  they  could  have  learned  how  their  individual  scores  related  to  their  personalities.   They  were  encouraged  to  do  that,  but  not  everyone  did.  Also,  since  there  was  no  real  need   for  confidentiality,  they  could  have  been  given  the  option  of  putting  their  names  on  the   paper  so  they  could  have  the  advantage  of  having  their  papers  in  front  of  them  during  the   information  meeting.   Another  way  the  process  could  have  been  improved  would  be  to  have  more  guided   discussion  at  the  information  meeting.  They  were  seated  at  round  tables,  and  did  have   opportunities  to  interact  with  what  they  were  learning,  but  there  could  have  been  more   intentional  times  of  discussion.   A  third  way  the  process  could  have  been  improved,  especially  the  second  and  third   stages  of  the  research,  would  have  been  for  each  of  the  staff  and  board  to  have  a  copy  of     168   the  book.  They  could  at  least  read  the  appropriate  chapters.  The  advantage  of  that  is  that   having  more  eyes  looking  at  the  material  would  pick  up  more  details  and  insights  about   our  personality  and  the  possible  strategic  implications  than  just  one  person  interpreting   and  applying  the  results.  This  would  potentially  make  leveraging  what  we  learn  about   ourselves  more  efficient,  and  hopefully  more  effective.   Next  Steps     There  was  general  agreement  that  we  have  begun  a  process  of  understanding  and   leveraging  our  church  culture  rather  than  having  completed  one.  What  has  happened   through  the  three  stages  of  the  research  for  this  project  has  laid  a  foundation  for  future   reflection  and  planning.  There  are  at  least  two  next  steps  that  can  help  us  begin  to   maximize  the  effectiveness  of  this  learning.   The  first  is  to  schedule  another  information  meeting  for  those  who  missed  the  first  one   as  well  as  for  those  who  want  to  hear  it  again,  now  that  all  three  stages  of  the  research   project  have  been  completed  and  more  knowledge  has  been  gained.  Additional  insights   have  come  through  further  reflection  on  the  results  of  the  inventory,  on  the  valuable   discussion  in  the  follow-­‐up  interview,  and  in  the  writing  of  this  thesis,  that  can  enhance   what  has  already  been  learned.   The  second  step  is  to  have  a  leadership  retreat  to  take  the  information  we  have  gained   and  use  it  for  strategic  planning.  It  is  this  step  that  will  enable  us  to  leverage  the  culture  of   our  church  into  more  effective  ministry  and  outreach.  In  addition  to  the  questions   mentioned  for  follow-­‐up  at  the  end  of  chapter  four  of  this  thesis  (p.153),  great  value  could   come  from  using  the  information  gleaned  from  Douglass  and  combining  it  either  with   Schein’s  Culture  Assessment  Process  or  Mancini’s  Vision  Path  Process.  This  would  give     169   specific  rails  for  further  discussion  and  planning.   Suggestions  for  Future  Research       This  was  a  valuable  study,  to  have  the  opportunity  to  not  only  test  a  tool  and   system  for  gaining  knowledge  of  the  cultural  dynamics  that  shape  our  church  life,  but  to  be   able  to  work  with  staff  and  board  members  to  reflect  on  what  was  learned  and  how  it   might  help  us  be  more  effective  in  ministry  and  outreach.  In  the  same  way  that  we  were   left  with  the  sense  that  we  still  have  work  to  do  to  be  able  to  leverage  what  we  have   learned,  there  are  some  aspects  of  this  project  that  would  benefit  from  future  research.   Four  such  thoughts  come  to  mind.   Another  Book       First,  it  would  be  helpful  to  have  a  book  written  about  organizational  culture  from  a   church  perspective,  which  gives  a  more  robust  treatment  of  the  subject.  This  could  involve   a  deeper  exploration  of  what  church  culture  is  and  its  potential  for  greater  effectiveness  in   ministry,  a  much  stronger  emphasis  on  the  theology  of  organizational  culture,  as  well  as  a   practical  framework  for  self-­‐study.  There  seems  to  be  a  vacuum  of  literature  that  treats   the  subject  with  the  same  rigor  as  is  done  for  business  or  academia  and  yet  is  practically   useful.  The  information  is  out  there,  but  it  would  be  helpful  to  have  it  more  readily   accessible  to  church  leaders  who  recognize  its  importance  and  want  to  tap  into  it  for   greater  Kingdom  impact.   Enhancing  Douglass       Second,  Douglass  has  brought  a  wealth  of  church,  denomination,  and  seminary   experience  to  produce  a  tool  and  system  that  is  practical  and  relatively  simple  to   implement.  It  affirms  the  basic  personality  of  the  church  and  outlines  its  strengths,     170   vulnerabilities,  and  potential.  It  is  positive  and  optimistic  in  its  approach  and  gives   practical  recommendations  on  how  the  information  can  be  used  to  guard  against  the   vulnerabilities  and  enhance  its  ministry.  The  chapters  written  on  each  of  the  eight   personalities  are  comprehensive  and  extremely  helpful.     There  seems  to  be,  however,  some  areas  that  would  benefit  from  further  research.   One  would  be  to  put  his  assumption  that  the  personality  of  the  primary  opinion  leaders   will  be  the  personality  of  the  church  to  a  more  rigorous  test.  This  assumption  has  the   potential  to  be  the  Achilles  heel  to  the  whole  system.  If  it  oversimplifies  the  factors  that   shape  the  culture  of  a  church,  it  could  result  in  an  oversimplification  of  the  results,  and  it   might  be  the  more  subtle  nuances  that  are  overlooked  which  would  lead  to  insights  to   facilitate  needed  change  with  less  conflict.   Another  area  of  Douglass’  work  that  could  benefit  from  more  research  is  how  to   interpret  the  results  of  the  survey  when  a  combination  of  personalities  is  indicated.  Is   there  a  more  objective  way  to  gauge  how  various  personalities  interact  with  each  other?   For  instance,  as  was  outlined  in  chapter  four,  the  difference  between  Organizer  (PAS)  and   Fellowship  (PCS)  is  indicated  by  the  middle  letter,  Analytical  vs.  Connectional.  This  relates   to  how  decisions  are  made.  How  do  mixed  results  in  this  dimension  affect  the  overall   personality  of  the  church?  What  are  the  implications  of  this  combination  that  could  lead  to   better  decisions  and  minimize  conflicts  in  priorities?  This  kind  of  further  study  has  the   potential  to  muddy  the  water  in  that  there  are  so  many  possible  factors  at  work  that  the   broader  categories  could  be  threatened.  On  the  other  hand,  as  Einstein  is  purported  to   have  said,  “Everything  should  be  as  simple  as  it  can  be,  but  not  simpler.”279                                                                                                                   279  http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-­‐simple/.  Accessed  November  2,  2014.     171   A  third  area  of  Douglass’  work  that  would  benefit  from  further  research  is  to   develop  a  practical  framework  to  help  a  church  know  what  to  do  with  the  information   they  have  gathered.  Douglass  suggests  the  results  of  the  inventory  be  used  to  develop  a   ten  to  twenty  page  ministry  style  description.  However,  what  he  takes  two  pages  to   outline  could  be  greatly  expanded.  It  seems  a  shame  to  invest  that  much  effort  in  helping  a   church  get  a  detailed  and  fairly  comprehensive  understanding  of  their  personality,  then   give  very  little  practical  guidance  on  how  to  leverage  that  understanding.     Expanding  Bridges     A  third  suggestion  for  future  research  would  be  to  do  what  Douglass  has  done  but   building  on  Bridges’  work.  As  has  been  referenced  earlier  in  this  chapter,  there  are  some   attractive  elements  to  Bridge’s  system.  One  is  the  use  of  the  four  opposing  MBTI   personality  tendencies  and  the  sixteen  personality  types  applied  to  organizations.  Linking   more  directly  to  Myers-­‐Briggs  has  the  advantage  of  tying  into  a  large  body  of  existing   research  that  has  had  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  use  and  analysis.  In  addition,   Bridges’  book  was  written  in  2000,  but  the  survey  was  used  for  several  years  before  that,   so  it  has  had  well  more  than  a  decade  and  a  half  of  use  and  testing  itself.   Another  attractive  element  to  Bridges’  system  is  that  the  survey  tool  is  designed  to   assess  the  organization  rather  than  the  individual  taking  it  and  is  intended  to  be  taken  by  a   broader  cross-­‐section  of  the  organization  than  the  primary  opinion  leaders.  This  has  the   potential  of  giving  a  wider  perspective  on  the  church’s  personality  as  well  as  alleviating   the  concern  that  the  results  do  not  reflect  the  views  of  those  beyond  the  leadership.   Where  Bridges’  work  would  be  less  helpful  is  that  it  is  not  written  specifically  for   churches  and  there  is  not  as  much  detailed  explanation  of  the  different  personalities  and     172   their  implications  for  ministry.  Some  kind  of  amalgamation  of  Douglass’  church  expertise   and  detailed,  practical  follow-­‐up  information  with  Bridges’  organizational  expertise,   broader  framework,  and  focus  on  the  organization  rather  than  the  individual,  could  be  a   potential  sweet  spot  for  a  church-­‐based  system  for  understanding  and  leveraging  a   church’s  culture.   Design  an  Experience     A  fourth  suggestion  for  further  research  would  be  to  develop  a  method  for   churches,  or  at  least  their  leaders,  to  periodically  assess  and  monitor  their  cultural   dynamics  in  a  way  that  is  both  fresh  and  systematic.  This  annual  or  biannual  experience   would  guard  against  the  perception  that  this  process  of  discovery  is  a  one-­‐time  event,  or   that  the  church’s  culture  is  static.  It  would  give  the  leadership  a  continuing  opportunity  to   better  understand  their  congregation,  identify  attitudes  and  trends  that  should  either  be   reinforced  or  altered,  and  refocus  ministry  priorities.     Conclusion       Every  church  has  a  distinctive  culture,  formed  by  a  unique  set  of  personalities,   experiences,  values,  theological  sensitivities,  and  ministry  priorities.  That  culture  has  a   profound  impact  on  everything  the  church  does,  how  it  processes  information  and  makes   decisions,  how  it  presents  to  those  not  part  of  the  church,  and  how  it  sees  its  mission  in   light  of  Scripture  and  the  world  around  it.  Many  churches  function  without  any  awareness   of  the  cultural  factors  that  are  constantly  at  work,  often  undetected,  under  the  surface.   Gaining  an  understanding  of  that  unique  culture  and  how  it  can  be  leveraged  positions  a   church  to  be  able  to  minister  more  efficiently  and  effectively,  work  through  conflict  with   greater  sensitivity  and  understanding,  add  staff  more  strategically,  and  reach  out  to  and     173   serve  its  community  more  intentionally.  At  present,  Douglass’  book,  What  Is  Your  Church’s   Personality,  may  be  the  best  option  for  accomplishing  that.     However,  as  important  as  it  is  to  understand  and  leverage  our  culture,  there  are   some  vital  cautions  that  need  to  be  considered.  The  first  is  to  recognize  that  as  powerful  as   knowing  and  leveraging  a  church’s  culture  can  be,  great  care  must  be  taken  to  not  use  this   as  a  tool  of  manipulation.  James  Heskett,  in  his  book  The  Culture  Cycle:  How  to  Shape  the   Unseen  Force  That  Transforms  Performance,  describes  culture  as  a  stealth  weapon  when   thought  of  as  an  element  of  organizational  strategy.  However,  he  reacts  to  an  assumption   that  understanding  and  working  with  culture  needs  to  be  manipulative.  He  writes,   “Another  interpretation  is  that  culture  is  the  humanizing  element  in  what  would   otherwise  be  a  drab  and  frustrating  organizational  existence.  It  can  help  establish   expectations,  foster  trust,  facilitate  communications,  and  reduce  uncertainty  in   relationships  between  human  beings.”280  This  points  out  the  importance  of  motive.   Understanding  and  leveraging  culture  can  be  a  potent  force  for  maximizing  effectiveness   in  ministry  and  outreach,  but  can  also  be  a  deadly  weapon  if  used  to  manipulate  people  or   attempt  to  force  change  in  a  congregation.     Another  important  caution  is  that  focusing  too  much  on  a  church’s  culture  can  lead   to  an  overemphasis  on  organizational  factors  and  cause  one  to  ignore  the  fact  that  the   church  is  essentially  a  spiritual  organism  led  and  empowered  by  God.  This  process  needs   to  be  fueled  by  prayer.  Our  desire  in  the  church  is  to  give  God  glory  and  serve  him  more   faithfully,  and  a  focus  on  prayer  throughout  the  discovery  process  will  be  a  critical                                                                                                                   280  James  Heskett,  The  Culture  Cycle:  How  to  Shape  the  Unseen  Force  That  Transforms  Performance  (Upper   Saddle  River,  NJ:  FT  Press,  2012),  Chapter  1,  Loc.  557,  Kindle.     174   reminder  that  “Unless  the  Lord  builds  the  house,  the  builders  labor  in  vain….”  (Psalm   127:1)     Another  caution  to  a  strategic  focus  on  church  culture  is  to  ensure  that  we  stay   faithful  to  Scripture.  John  Wesley  is  said  to  have  claimed  to  be  a  man  of  one  Book.  Now  the   fact  that  it  was  a  quote  originally  attributed  to  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Wesley  wrote  it  in   Latin  is  instructive.  It  is  legitimate  to  use  other  tools  and  resources  to  enhance  our   understanding  and  sharpen  our  skills.  All  truth  is  God’s  truth.  However,  we  are  essentially   a  people  of  one  Book.  The  Bible  is  our  final  authority  for  faith  and  practice,  and  how  we   understand  and  leverage  our  culture  must  always  be  in  alignment  with  Scripture.  As  well,   since  the  church  is  a  spiritual  organism,  gifted,  empowered,  and  directed  by  the  Holy   Spirit,  we  must  stay  dependent  on  and  submissive  to  the  Spirit’s  leading  and  empowering.     Finally,  although  there  is  validity  in  every  kind  of  church  culture  (bathed  in  prayer,   shaped  by  Scripture,  and  properly  submitted  to  the  Holy  Spirit),  an  openness  to  change  is   vital  if  that  culture  is  going  to  help  a  church  adapt  to  the  fast  changing  needs  of  our  world.   Richard  S.  Gallagher,  in  his  book  The  Soul  of  an  Organization  includes  a  chapter  on  The   Nimble.  He  writes,  “Being  Nimble  is  perhaps  the  most  important  long-­‐term  survival  trait  of   any  culture….”281    He  goes  on  to  say,  “Your  adaptability  to  change  –  in  other  words,  how   Nimble  you  are  –  is  perhaps  the  ultimate  measure  of  the  strength  of  your  business   culture.”282    Not  all  change  is  good  change,  nor  is  change  for  the  sake  of  change  generally  a   wise  choice.  However,  change  is  part  of  God’s  plan  for  us  as  individual  disciples  and  for  us   as  churches.  The  goal  of  following  Jesus  is  to  be  transformed  into  his  image,  and   transformation  always  involves  change.  However,  the  Church  is  not  famous  for  being                                                                                                                   281  Gallagher,99.   282  Ibid.,  112.     175   “Nimble.”  Leveraging  a  church’s  culture  will  mean  change.  But  if  it  is  change  that  is  bathed   in  prayer,  dependent  on  the  Spirit  and  faithful  to  Scripture,  it  will  move  us  forward  in  our   transformation  and  make  us  more  effective  in  our  mission  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations.           176   APPENDIX  1  –  OPINION  LEADERS’  SURVEY     What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  Opinion  Leaders’  Survey     Explanation  and  Instructions   Thank  you  for  your  willingness  to  be  part  of  this  study.  The  purpose  of  the  research  is  to   determine  the  usefulness  of  this  diagnostic  tool  and  supplemental  information  in  the  book:  What  Is   Your  Church’s  Personality  in  helping  the  leadership  of  LBC  better  understand  our  church  culture   and  increasing  our  effectiveness  in  ministry  and  outreach.  We  also  hope  that  this  survey  will  help   you  better  understand  your  own  personality.     There  are  a  series  of  eight  questions  in  each  category.  Each  question  contains  two  opposite  ideas   that  relate  to  our  behaviors  or  traits.  You  may  want  to  choose  a  number  under  each  statement  if   you  believe  that  both  descriptions  apply  to  you,  or  you  may  want  to  choose  a  number  under  one   side  only.     For  each  question,  please  circle  a  number  from  5  (always  true  for  me)  down  to  1  (only  occasionally   true).         1  –  Only  occasionally  true     2  –  Sometimes  true     3  –  True  about  half  the  time     4  –  True  most  of  the  time     5  –  Always  true  for  me     Always  go  with  your  initial  response.     The  questions  should  be  answered  according  to  how  you  normally  behave,  rather  than  how  you   think  you  should  behave.  Try  to  express  your  own  behavior  rather  than  what  you  think  others   expect  of  you,  or  what  your  family,  church,  or  job  situation  demands  from  you.  Think  especially  of   how  you  relate  to  the  Lord  and  other  Christians  as  you  answer.     The  scores  for  each  column  are  totaled  at  the  end  of  the  section.       The  Survey   Information-­‐Gathering  –  Practical  or  Innovative   1.   Do  I  depend  on  my  personal  observations   in  order  to  gather  information  about   what’s  occurring  around  the  church?   P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   2.     In  church  presentations,  do  I  prefer  simple   ways  of  speaking  and  writing  –  the  more   specific  and  down-­‐to-­‐earth,  the  better?   P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   3.     Am  I  an  observer  of  tradition  in  the   church,  one  who  does  not  easily  break   with  custom?     Do  I  rely  more  on  my  intuition  and  hunches  in   order  to  form  impressions  about  what’s  going   on  around  the  church?       1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   In  church  presentations,  do  I  like  people  to   use  images  and  concepts  to  engage  my   imagination?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   Do  I  break  with  tradition  whenever  it  seems   restrictive  for  the  church  and  lay  aside   customs  that  seem  too  cumbersome  for  a  new   177     P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   4.   In  church  meetings,  does  the  here-­‐and-­‐ now  hold  my  attention?     P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   5.     In  church  meetings,  do  I  usually  “see  the   trees  before  the  forest  (i.e.  details  before   the  big  picture)”?   P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   6.   Am  I  a  practical  sort  of  person  with  a   commonsense  approach  to  ministry?   P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   7.   If  someone  hangs  a  new  picture  or  puts  a   new  plant  on  a  table  in  the  church   building,  will  I  usually  notice  it?   P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   situation?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   In  church  meetings,  am  I  interested  in  what   could  be,  so  that  future  possibilities  occupy   my  thoughts?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   In  church  meetings,  do  I  often  “see  the  forest   before  I  see  the  trees  (i.e.  big  picture  before   the  details)”?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   Am  I  more  original  and  inventive  with  a   creative  approach  to  ministry?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   Am  I  often  unobservant  of  things  in  the   building  and  objects  placed  on  the  grounds  of   the  church?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   Do  I  tend  to  work  by  inspiration  regarding  my   work  in  the  church  and  find  that  when  my   understanding  of  the  purpose  for  a  task  fades,   so  does  my  interest?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐I   8.     Am  I  a  steady,  dependable  kind  of  person   who  can  be  counted  on  to  be  consistent  in   my  work  in  the  church?     P-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1     Add  the  numbers  circled  in  each  column:     Practical  (P)  __________             Innovative  (I)  ____________   Decision-­‐Making  –  Analytical  or  Connectional     1.   Do  I  generally  make  my  decisions  about   church  matters  on  the  basis  of  an  objective   analysis  of  the  issues  –  weighing  the  pros   and  cons  of  the  situation?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   2.     Can  I  usually  continue  with  my  work  and   ministry  in  the  church,  regardless  of   relational  harmony?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   3.     In  my  church  activities,  does  offering   analytical  perspective  come  more   naturally  for  me  than  speaking  a  word  of   approval?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   4.   When  forced  to  choose  in  my  church   interactions,  do  I  place  straight-­‐ forwardness  above  tactfulness?     Regardless  of  a  pro-­‐and-­‐con  analysis,  do  I  base   my  conclusions  on  what  is  important  and   valuable  to  the  people  of  the  church?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   Do  I  find  that  harmonious  relationships  are   essential  in  order  for  me  to  function   effectively  in  church  situations?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   In  my  church  activities,  am  I  more  apt  to  offer   an  approving  word  than  an  analytical   perspective?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   In  my  church  interactions,  do  I  normally  place   tactfulness  ahead  of  straightforwardness?     178   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   5.     Do  I  find  that  my  contribution  to  the   church’s  ministry  often  lies  in  my  ability  to   help  people  see  impartially?     A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   6.   In  conversations  at  church,  am  I  more   concise  and  to  the  point  than  expressive   and  expansive?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   7.   Regarding  church  matters,  do  I  believe   that  I  am  more  likely  to  make  the  right   decision  if  I  go  with  my  rational  head   rather  than  my  empathetic  heart?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   8.     Am  I  more  task-­‐oriented  in  my   involvement  at  church,  with  a  greater   interest  in  the  job  being  accomplished?   A-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   Do  I  find  that  my  contribution  to  the  church   usually  flows  from  my  ability  to  empathize   and  to  help  others  stay  mindful  of  what’s  best   for  people?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   In  conversations  at  church,  am  I  more   expressive  and  expansive    than  concise  and  to   the  point?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   Regarding  church  matters,  do  I  believe  that  I   am  more  likely  to  make  the  right  decision  if  I   go  with  my  empathetic  heart  rather  than  my   rational  head?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C   Am  I  more  personal  in  my  involvement  at   church,  with  a  greater  interest  in  people  being   served?   1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐C     Add  the  numbers  circled  in  each  column:     Analytical  (A)  __________         Connectional  (C)  ____________     Lifestyle  –  Structured  or  Flexible     1.   At  church,  do  I  prefer  to  plan  my  work  and   work  my  plan?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   2.     Does  my  service  offered  to  the  church   usually  come  from  being  systematic,   orderly,  proactive,  and  decisive?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   3.     Do  I  like  to  bring  my  church  programs  and   projects  to  completion  and  finish  the  task   before  starting  another?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   4.   In  my  work  at  church,  do  I  like  to  get  the   information  I  need  quickly  for  decisions   and  bring  things  to  a  conclusion  in  a  rapid   manner?   S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   5.     Do  I  like  to  set  standard  operating   procedures  and  routines  for   accomplishing  my  tasks  at  church?     At  church,  do  I  tend  to  be  more  relaxed  in   developing  and  accomplishing  plans?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   Do  I  more  often  exhibit  spontaneity,  open-­‐ mindedness,  tolerance,  and  adaptability  in  my   service  to  the  church?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   Do  I  like  the  feeling  of  getting  new  things   started  at  church  and  having  many  projects   going  at  the  same  time?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   In  my  work  at  church,  is  it  a  higher  priority  for   me  to  wait  to  be  sure  I’ve  gathered  sufficient   information  to  make  the  best  decision   possible?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   Do  I  prefer  to  try  out  new  and  fresh  ways  of   doing  recurring  tasks  at  church  so  things   won’t  get  into  a  rut?   179   6.   7.     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   Would  the  phrase  “a  place  for  everything   and  everything  in  its  place”  be  descriptive   of  my  approach  to  church  ministry?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1   Is  it  unsettling  for  me  to  keep  church   matters  up  in  the  air  and  undecided?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   Do  I  prefer  to  leave  my  schedule  open  so  I  can   respond  to  new  opportunities  and  changing   events  at  church?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   Do  I  prefer  to  keep  options  open  at  church  so   we  don’t  rush  into  a  decision  and  miss  what’s   best?     1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   In  my  church  work,  do  I  consider  it  preferable   to  be  too  casual  than  to  be  too  task-­‐oriented?       1          2              3                    4                        5-­‐F   8.     In  my  church  work,  do  I  consider  it   preferable  to  be  too  task-­‐oriented  than  to   be  too  casual?     S-­‐5            4              3                      2                    1     Add  the  numbers  circled  in  each  column:     Structured  (S)  __________         Flexible  (F)  ____________         Scoring  the  Survey     a. Place  your  totals  in  the  appropriate  spaces  below.     Information-­‐Gathering:   Practical  (P)  ________     Innovative  (I)  ________       Decision-­‐Making:     Analytical  (A)  ________   Connectional  (C)  ________       Lifestyle:       Structured  (S)  ________   Flexible  (F)  ________       b. Go  back  to  “a.”  and  circle  the  letter  in  each  set  that  has  the  higher  score.  The  three   letters  you  circle  suggest  your  ministry  style.               180     APPENDIX  2  –  SURVEY  REPORT     Leveraging  Church  Culture     Survey  Report  -­‐  May  4,  2014   Categories     INFORMATION-­‐GATHERING  -­‐  Practical  vs.  Innovative   1. Do  the  church  leaders  depend  on  their  personal  observations  in  order  to  gather  data   about  what’s  happening,  or  do  they  rely  more  on  their  intuition  and  hunches  in  order   to  form  impressions  about  what’s  going  on?   2. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  straightforward  ways  of  communicating  -­‐  the  more   specific  and  concrete  the  better,  or  do  they  prefer  to  use  imagery  and  symbolism  to   engage  the  imagination  of  the  people  of  the  church?   3. Are  the  leaders  of  the  church  observers  of  tradition  who  do  not  easily  break  with   custom,  or  are  they  able  to  break  with  tradition  and  lay  aside  customs  that  seem  too   cumbersome  for  a  new  situation?     DECISION-­‐MAKING  -­‐  Analytical  vs.  Connectional   1. Are  the  church  leaders  secure  in  basing  their  decisions  on  objective  analysis  -­‐   weighing  the  pros  and  cons  of  a  situation  -­‐  or,  regardless  of  the  pros  and  cons,  are  they   more  confident  when  they  feel  their  conclusions  are  based  on  what  is  important  and   valuable?   2. Can  the  church  leaders  usually  get  on  with  their  work  and  ministry,  regardless  of   relational  harmony,  or  do  they  find  that  harmonious  relationship  are  essential  for   them  to  function  effectively  in  a  situation?   3. Does  making  a  critical  evaluation  come  more  naturally  for  the  church  leaders  than   speaking  an  appreciative  word,  or  are  they  more  spontaneous  with  an  appreciative   word  than  with  a  critical  evaluation?     LIFESTYLE  -­‐  Structured  vs.  Flexible   1. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  to  plan  their  work  first  and  then  work  their  plan,  or  do   they  tend  to  be  more  casual  and  informal  in  developing  their  plans?   2. Do  the  basic  contributions  by  the  leaders  often  stem  from  being  systematic,  orderly,   proactive,  and  decisive,  or  do  they  bring  to  church  leadership  such  characteristics  as   spontaneity,  open-­‐mindedness,  tolerance,  and  adaptability?   3. Do  the  church  leaders  prefer  bringing  programs  and  projects  to  completion  -­‐  finishing   one  task  at  a  time  -­‐  or,  do  they  like  the  feeling  of  getting  new  things  started  and  having   many  things  going  at  the  same  time?         Table  1:  Practical  churches  vs.  Innovative  churches       181   Practical  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • • • • • Innovative  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   live  in  the  “here  and  now”   work  well  with  facts  and  details   like  realistic  challenges  and  problem  solving   are  experienced  and  action-­‐oriented   are  realistic  and  matter  of  fact   • prefer  to  live  in  the  past  and  future   • are  interested  in  new  and  unusual   experiences   • do  not  like  routine   • are  attracted  to  theory  rather  than  practice         Table  2:  Analytical  churches  vs.  Connectional  churches     Analytical  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   Connectional  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   • are  interested  in  systems,  structures,   patterns   • like  to  expose  issues  to  logical  analysis   • can  be  aloof  and  unemotional   • are  likely  to  evaluate  issues  through  their   intellect  and  decide  on  the  basis  of  right  and   wrong   • may  have  difficulty  talking  about  emotions   • may  not  work  as  diligently  at  clearing  up   arguments  or  quarrels   • • • • are  interested  in  people  and  their  feelings   easily  communicate  their  moods  to  others   pay  attention  to  relationships   tend  to  evaluate  issues  through  their  ethical   system  and  decide  on  the  basis  of  good  and   bad   • can  be  sensitive  to  rebuke   • may  tend  to  give  compliments  to  please   people         Table  3:  Structured  churches  vs.  Flexible  churches         Structured  churches  are  influenced  by   leaders  who:   Flexible  churches  are  influenced  by  leaders   who:   • do  not  like  to  leave  many  unanswered   questions   • are  likely  to  plan  their  work  ahead  and  finish   it  in  a  timely  fashion   • make  an  effort  to  be  exact  in  what  they  do   • do  not  like  to  change  their  decisions  once   they  are  made   • are  likely  to  demonstrate  stable  work  habits   • easily  follow  rules  and  discipline   • may  act  impulsively  in  their  ministry   • can  do  more  things  at  once  without  feeling   compelled  to  finish  them   • prefer  to  be  free  from  long-­‐term  obligations   • are  curious  and  like  taking  a  fresh  look  at   things   • are  likely  to  work  according  to  their  mood   • often  act  without  as  much  preparation     182   The  Church  Personality  Wheel     PRACTICAL Expressive Adventurous ANALYTICAL FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLE Fellowship PCS CONNECTIONAL IAS PCF STRUCTURED PAS STRUCTURED PAF Organizer ICS Inspirational Strategizer ICF IAF Relational Entrepreneurial INNOVATIVE           183   The  Church  Personality  Wheel  (filled  in)     Organizer (PAS) = 25.7% Fellowship (PCS) = 21.4% Relational (ICF) = 20%   184     Organizer   • Detailed   • Methodical   • Cautious   • Strong  orientation  to  the  truth  -­‐  as  it  relates  to  everyday  life  and  societal  issues   • Like  it  plain  and  straight  up   • Not  particularly  artsy   • Want  it  well-­‐researched   • Strong  Christian  Education  ministries  (and  proud  of  it)   • Trustworthy   • Consistent   • Strong  sense  of  obligation  to  their  families   • Task  oriented   • Calm   • Reserved  -­‐  Can  be  aloof  and  seem  uncaring   • Can  be  demanding  and  critical  because  they  have  such  strongly  held  beliefs  about  what   is  right.   • More  conservative  and  formal   • Sensitive  to  hierarchies  and  doing  things  in  a  proper  way.     Fellowship   • Warm,  loving  and  caring  -­‐  especially  toward  their  own  group   • Conscientious,  hard-­‐working   • Love  to  serve  their  community  in  practical  ways   • Strong  kid’s  ministries   • High  sense  of  duty   • Friendship  oriented   • Loyal  to  difficult  people  in  their  social  network  -­‐  will  put  up  with  a  lot  from  their  friends,   relatives  and  neighbours.   • Super-­‐dependable,  but  not  happy  serving  in  situations  where  plans  keep  changing.   • Like  to  know  what  to  expect.   • “If  a  Fellowship  Church  decides  to  conduct  a  summer  mission  trip,  the  people  begin   months  in  advance  to  gather  accurate  information  on  costs,  save  money,  and  make  lists   of  what  to  take.  This  means  knowing  exactly  who  is  going  to  be  in  charge  of  what  aspects   of  the  mission.”  (44-­‐45)   • Don’t  like  drastic  or  sudden  change  -­‐  prefer  incremental  improvement   • “Once  engaged  in  a  ministry,  they  generally  try  to  make  the  most  of  it,  since  the  known  is   preferable  to  the  unknown.”  (48)   • Make  careful  and  good  decisions.     • Like  time  to  think  things  through  -­‐  don’t  like  to  feel  pressured  into  a  quick  decision.   • Go  out  of  their  way  to  care  for  people.   • Can  be  oversensitive  to  criticism.   • Really  don’t  like  conflict  -­‐  affects  how  well  they  can  function  in  ministry   • Attract  people  in  caring,  hands  on  helping  professions,  who  are  used  to  adhering  to   standard  operating  procedures  (ie  health  care  workers,  kid’s  teachers  and  workers,   coaches,  special  education  workers,  counselors,  people  in  service  industries  where  they     185   meet  people,  work  hard  and  help  people  improve  their  lives.       Relational   • Creative,  imaginative,  enthusiastic,  visionary   • Like  to  find  new  kinds  of  ministries  and  new  ways  to  try  things   • Love  to  connect  with  their  community  in  new  and  creative  ways.   • “These  churches  encourage  their  people  to  create  new  ideas,  programs,  services,  or   solutions  to  problems  in  ways  that  will  genuinely  help  people  to  be  transformed  and   grow.  They  want  their  members  to  meet  new  people,  learn  new  outreach  skills,  and   continually  expand  the  kingdom  of  God  by  working  with  a  diverse  group  of  people  in   the  community  through  a  variety  of  outreach  programs.”  (141)   • Energetic   • Funny   • Informal   • Flexible   • Not  much  attention  to  hierarchies  and  standard  operating  procedures   • Rules  are  more  like  guidelines  and  shouldn’t  get  in  the  way  of  accomplishing  the   mission.   • “Talented  at  solving  problems  by  overcoming  obstacles,  they  find  creative  ways  to   bend  rules  they  consider  unnecessary.”  (122)   Can   end  up  with  too  many  balls  in  the  air  at  once   • • Can  become  unfocused  and  scattered  under  stress   • Attract  artists,  actors,  musicians,  marketing  and  planning  people,  counselors,   development  directors,  social  workers,  advertising  people,  consultants,  inventors.   • Attract  people  who  enjoy  freedom  and  flexibility  in  their  work  and  having  a  positive   relational  impact  on  people.             186   Church   Personality   Characteristics         Characteristics   Organizer  Church  (PAS)  -­‐   25.7%   Fellowship  Church  (PCS)  -­‐   21.4%   Relational  Church  (ICF)  -­‐  20%   Strong  Points   Preparation   Troubleshooting   Managing   Listening  to  people  and   understanding  their  feelings   Valuing  teamwork  and  harmony   with  others  in  the  church   Following-­‐through  on  projects   Energetic,  creative,  and  warm   Stimulated  by  new  people  and  new   ideas   Enjoy  helping  people  achieve  their   potential   Challenges   Obsessive   Fault-­‐finding   Unsympathetic   Can  be  Oversensitive  to   Can  be  anxious  during  transitions   Criticism   Have  difficulty  with  people’s   May  Take  on  Too  Many  Projects   negative  feelings   May  struggle  to  respond  to   changing  needs  and   opportunities   Primary  Ministries   Program  Development   Planning  and  management   Ministries  of  mercy,  helps  and   compassion   Children’s  ministries   Developing  a  vision  of  the  future   that  energizes  people   Enthusiastically  and  articulately   communicating  with  people  in  ways   that  are  inclusive   Ministry  Tempo   Deliberate   Systematic   Deliberate  and  relaxed   Fast-­‐paced  and  activity-­‐oriented   What  Inspires  Them   Orderly  procedure   Involvement  in  ministries  that   genuinely  help  people  in   practical  ways   Cooperation,  diversity,  teamwork,   harmony,  creativity   What  De-­‐motivates   Them   Randomness   Disorder   Insensitivity  and  impatience   with  people   Disrespect  for  tradition  and   authority   Disharmony   Insensitivity  to  people   Under  Stress   Reserved   Can  feel  overwhelmed   Become  more  submissive  to   authoritative  people   Become  overwhelmed  with   possibilities;  indecisive   Become  obsessed  with  unimportant   details   Decision-­‐  making   Calculated   Through  consensus  building   Tend  to  procrastinate  because  they   dislike  their  options  being  limited   Have  strong,  people-­‐centered   values  on  which  most  decisions  are   based   Desire   Exactness   Acceptance  and  approval  from   people  important  to  them   Peace  and  agreement  in  the   church   Openness  to  the  moment   Minimal  conflict   Priority   The  Method   Organize  ministries  to  do  what   is  best  for  people   Changes  that  make  things  better  for   people   Church  Ethos   Efficient   Proper   Personal   Relational   Loyal   Visionary   Exciting   Egalitarian   Outward  Appearance   Conventional   More  formal  and  traditional   Creative  ministry  that  develops  new   ideas  and  programs  for  people   Idealism  that  focuses  on  serving,   developing,  and  growing  people  so   they  reach  their  potential     187   Gain  Confidence   Through   Attention  to  detail   Research   Friendships   Cooperation   Serving   Connection  first  with  what  is  best   for  people   Fear   Embarrassment   Sudden  changes   Being  tied  down       PowerPoint  Slides         Leveraging Church Culture! Survey Report!           INFORMATION-GATHERING - Practical vs. Innovative! ! 1. Do the church leaders depend on their personal observations in order to gather data about what’s happening, or do they rely more on their intuition and hunches in order to form impressions about what’s going on?" " 2. Do the church leaders prefer straightforward ways of communicating - the more specific and concrete the better, or do they prefer to use imagery and symbolism to engage the imagination of the people of the church?" " 3. Are the leaders of the church observers of tradition who do not easily break with custom, or are they able to break with tradition and lay aside customs that seem too cumbersome for a new situation?" LIFESTYLE - Structured vs. Flexible! ! 1.Do the church leaders prefer to plan their work first and then work their plan, or do they tend to be more causal and informal in developing their plans?" " 2.Do the basic contributions by the leaders often stem from being systematic, orderly, proactive, and decisive, or do they bring to church leadership such characteristics as spontaneity, openmindedness, tolerance, and adaptability?" " 3.Do the church leaders prefer bringing programs and projects to completion - finishing one task at a time - or, do they like the feeling of getting new things started and having many things going at the same time?" DECISION-MAKING - Analytical vs. Connectional! ! 1.Are the church leaders secure in basing their decisions on objective analysis - weighing the pros and cons of a situation - or, regardless of the pros and cons, are they more confident when they feel their conclusions are based on what is important and valuable?" " 2.Can the church leaders usually get on with their work and ministry, regardless of relational harmony, or do they find that harmonious relationship are essential for them to function effectively in a situation?" " 3.Does making a critical evaluation come more naturally for the church leaders than speaking an appreciative word, or are they more spontaneous with an appreciative word than with a critical evaluation?" PRACTICAL! Expressive! Adventurous! D! D! D! X! X! PAF! X! X! D! X! D! ANALYTICAL! PAS! P=25! I=26! IAS! Fellowship! D! X! X! FLEXIBLE! STRUCTURED! X! D! X! S! X! D! FLEXIBLE! X! D! PCS! X! D! ICS! X! S! S! D! CONNECTIONAL! D! S! X! PCF! X! STRUCTURED! X! Organizer! Inspirational! Strategizer! ICF! X! IAF! X! S! S! X! X! S! S! Relational! Entrepreneurial! INNOVATIVE!   188   Organizer (PAS) = 25.7%! Fellowship (PCS) = 21.4%! Relational (ICF) = 20% !     Opinion Leader s Survey Tally! Opinion Leaders Survey Tally! Practical! Innovative! Analytical! Connectional! Structured! Flexible! 22! 26! 27! 23! 14! 37! IAF! 27! 29! 22! 30! 18! 31! ICF! 23! 29! 19! 33! 29! 22! ICS! 23! 25! 23! 27! 27! 24! ICS! Practical! Innovative! Analytical! Connectional! Structured! Flexible! 28! 18! 24! 20! 27! 21! PAS! 26! 24! 32! 20! 34! 18! PAS! 34! 24! 31! 29! 32! 25! 32! 23! 31! 25! 35! 20! PAS! 9! 10! 9! 9! PCS/PCF! Deacons and Deaconess es! Staff and Spouses! 23! 28! 18! 30! 19! 28! ICF! 23! 26! 15! 31! 12! 30! ICF! 33! 15! 35! 16! 32! 21! PAS! 30! 22! 25! 27! 27! 21! PCS! 204! 200! 184! 217! 178! 214! PCF/ICF! 23! PAS! 30! 22! 20! 30! 25! 24! PCS! 29! 21! 24! 30! 27! 21! PCS! 30! 26! 26! 31! 27! 33! PCS! 28! 26! 22! 26! 20! 27! PCF! 15! 34! 19! 32! 26! 25! ICS! 30! 28! 23! 38! 18! 27! PCF! 305! 246! 261! 291! 280! 250! PCS! Opinion Leaders Survey Tally! Practical! Innovative! Analytical! Connectional! Structured! Flexible! 26! 23! 31! 17! 27! 22! 31! 15! 25! 22! 33! 13! 31! 23! 30! 24! 30! 19! PAS! 26! 19! 28! 25! 30! 30! PAS/PAF! 27! 22! 20! 23! 22! 22! PCS/PCF! 29! 21! 27! 28! 32! 21! 24! 18! 10! 32! 30! 11! PCS! 31! 21! 25! 25! 31! 19! PAS/PCS! PCS! Other OL’s! PAS! Organizer PCS! 34! 9! 7! 33! 33! 7! 16! 24! 11! 29! 9! 31! 25! 26! 29! 19! 29! 18! IAS! 26! 27! 23! 24! 25! 22! ICS! 25! 27! 26! 28! 19! 31! ICF! 29! 19! 23! 27! 19! 28! PCF! 22! 34! 20! 33! 18! 31! 26! 27! 17! 33! 18! 27! ICF! 27! 22! 25! 29! 25! 26! PCF! 455! 377! 377! 451! 430! 378! PCS! 964! 823! 822! 959! 888! 842! PCS! ! !Fellowship ! !Relational! ICF! ICF! er! hip! Fellows Fellowship! Organizer!   Relational! 189   at io na l ! Organiz Re l Totals! PAS!   APPENDIX  3  –  CHURCH  PERSONALITY  CHARACTERISTICS     Church  Personality  Characteristics283   Characteristics   Organizer  Church  (PAS)  -­‐   25.7%   Fellowship  Church  (PCS)  -­‐   21.4%   Relational  Church  (ICF)  -­‐  20%   Strong  Points   Preparation   Troubleshooting   Managing   Listening  to  people  and   understanding  their  feelings   Valuing  teamwork  and  harmony   with  others  in  the  church   Following-­‐through  on  projects   Energetic,  creative,  and  warm   Stimulated  by  new  people  and  new   ideas   Enjoy  helping  people  achieve  their   potential   Challenges   Obsessive   Fault-­‐finding   Unsympathetic   Can  be  Oversensitive  to   Can  be  anxious  during  transitions   Criticism   Have  difficulty  with  people’s   May  Take  on  Too  Many  Projects   negative  feelings   May  struggle  to  respond  to   changing  needs  and   opportunities   Primary  Ministries   Program  Development   Planning  and  management   Ministries  of  mercy,  helps  and   compassion   Children’s  ministries   Developing  a  vision  of  the  future   that  energizes  people   Enthusiastically  and  articulately   communicating  with  people  in  ways   that  are  inclusive   Ministry  Tempo   Deliberate   Systematic   Deliberate  and  relaxed   Fast-­‐paced  and  activity-­‐oriented   What  Inspires  Them   Orderly  procedure   Involvement  in  ministries  that   genuinely  help  people  in   practical  ways   Cooperation,  diversity,  teamwork,   harmony,  creativity   What  De-­‐motivates   Them   Randomness   Disorder   Insensitivity  and  impatience   with  people   Disrespect  for  tradition  and   authority   Disharmony   Insensitivity  to  people   Under  Stress   Reserved   Can  feel  overwhelmed   Become  more  submissive  to   authoritative  people   Become  overwhelmed  with   possibilities;  indecisive   Become  obsessed  with  unimportant   details   Decision-­‐  making   Calculated   Through  consensus  building   Tend  to  procrastinate  because  they   dislike  their  options  being  limited   Have  strong,  people-­‐centered   values  on  which  most  decisions  are   based   Desire   Exactness   Acceptance  and  approval  from   people  important  to  them   Peace  and  agreement  in  the   church   Openness  to  the  moment   Minimal  conflict   Priority   The  Method   Organize  ministries  to  do  what   is  best  for  people   Changes  that  make  things  better  for   people                                                                                                                   283  Compiled  from  summaries  in  each  respective  chapter,  p.231,  38,  117.     190   Church  Ethos   Efficient   Proper   Personal   Relational   Loyal   Visionary   Exciting   Egalitarian   Outward  Appearance   Conventional   More  formal  and  traditional   Creative  ministry  that  develops  new   ideas  and  programs  for  people   Idealism  that  focuses  on  serving,   developing,  and  growing  people  so   they  reach  their  potential   Gain  Confidence   Through   Attention  to  detail   Research   Friendships   Cooperation   Serving   Connection  first  with  what  is  best   for  people   Fear   Embarrassment   Sudden  changes   Being  tied  down           191   APPENDIX  4  –  SURVEY  TALLEY                     Opinion    Leaders  Survey  Tally   Practical     Staff  and   Spouses     Innovative     Analytical     Connectional     Structured     Flexible           22   26   27   23   14   37   IAF     27   29   22   30   18   31   ICF     23   29   19   33   29   22   ICS     23   25   23   27   27   24   ICS     23   28   18   30   19   28   ICF     23   26   15   31   12   30   ICF     33   15   35   16   32   21   PAS     30   22   25   27   27   21   PCS     204   200   184   217   178   214   PCF/ICF   Deacons  and   Deaconesses                   28   18   24   20   27   21   PAS     26   24   32   20   34   18   PAS     34   24   31   29   32   25   PAS     32   23   31   25   35   20   PAS     23   9   10   9   9   PCS/PCF     30   22   20   30   25   24   PCS     29   21   24   30   27   21   PCS     30   26   26   31   27   33   PCS     28   26   22   26   20   27   PCF     15   34   19   32   26   25   ICS     30   28   23   38   18   27   PCF    305   246   261   291   280   250   PCS       Other  OL’s                     26   23   31   17   27   22   PAS     31   15   25   22   33   13   PAS     31   23   30   24   30   19   PAS     26   19   28   25   30   30   PAS/PAF     27   22   20   23   22   22   PCS/PCF     29   21   27   28   32   21   PCS     24   18   10   32   30   11   PCS     31   21   25   25   31   19   PAS/PCS     192     34   9   7   33   33   7   PCS     16   24   11   29   9   31   ICF     25   26   29   19   29   18   IAS     26   27   23   24   25   22   ICS     25   27   26   28   19   31   ICF     29   19   23   27   19   28   PCF     22   34   20   33   18   31   ICF     26   27   17   33   18   27   ICF     27   22   25   29   25   26   PCF     455   377   377   451   430   378   PCS       Totals       823   964         822         959             193     842   888           PCS     APPENDIX  5  –  FOLLOW-­‐UP  INTERVIEW  TRANSCRIPT     Leveraging  Church  Culture  Follow-­‐up  Interview   May  20,  2014     (Rough  transcript  from  an  audio  recording)       1. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  process  helpful?   Got  you  thinking  a  little  more  specifically   There’s  a  lot  of  value  and  knowledge  out  there  in  systems  that  help  you  identify  trends   and  personalities,  etc.  and  it  is  good  to  help  us  get  starting  thinking  around  that.   Showed  how  diverse  a  group  we’ve  got.  All  with  the  same  purpose  but  with  different   means  of  getting  there.   And  that’s  a  good  thing.     Survey  itself     Frustrating  element  when  you  felt  like  you  couldn’t  really  answer  the  question  because   seemed  like  both  answers  applied.   Generally  speaking  were  pretty  accurate   Very  helpful  for  us  to  see  how  we  all  fit.   Hopefully  it  will  help  us  see  the  bigger  picture  of  who  we  are  and  what  the  next  5  or  10   years  look  like  if  we  cater  our  ministry  to  our  personality.     It  would  be  interesting  to  see  how  different  age  groups  thought.   May  have  been  subconsciously  biased  because  knew  what  the  questions  were   weighting.   If  the  questions  had  been  random  and  unlabeled,  I  might  have  thought  differently.   Would  see  a  category  and  prejudge  which  he  was  before  answering  the  questions.   Some  uncertainty  about  how  to  score  the  contrasting  statements  (i.e.  5  on  one  means  1   on  the  other  or  possibly  4  on  each?).       2. In  what  ways  did  you  feel  the  process  could  have  been  improved?     Divided  by  age  groups,  and  also  some  reflection  on  how  many  opinion  leaders  we  have  in   each  of  the  age  groups.  If  the  OL’s  chosen  were  more  heavily  weighted  to  one  age  group   over  another.   Congregation  seems  quite  balanced  with  the  age  groups.     Limiting  to  30  people  was  hard.  If  have  an  average  of  250,  just  taking  30  is  hard.   Hard  to  narrow  down  the  list   Re:  Feedback  session  -­‐  would  be  some  benefit  to  having  the  presentation,  but  having  it   building  more  around  having  contextualized  discussion  about  the  church.  More  than  just   these  are  the  results,  but  how  do  we  apply  these  results?    Feel  like  we  have  just  started  a   process  than  completed  a  process.  I  would  need  to  sit  down  and  think  about  what  we  do     194   with  this.  There’s  a  lot  there,  but  don’t  know  what  it  is  yet.     For  me  being  new,  interesting  to  see  how  the  OL’s  landed.  Wasn’t  super  surprised,  but  neat   to  see  the  whole.  Gave  me  a  better  picture.     Having  the  numbers  go  opposite  directions  (5-­‐1,  1-­‐5)  messed  with  my  mind  at  the   beginning.     3. In  what  ways  did  you  find  the  inventory  helpful/less  helpful?   Some  of  the  questions  were  obvious  about  where  I  fit,  but  other  questions  made  me  think  -­‐   if  I’m  not  like  that,  why  not?   Different  isn't  wrong,  different  is  different   Had  to  think,  “in  most  cases…”  Thinking  of  a  specific  scenario  can  throw  off  the  results.   What  does  most  of  the  time  really  look  like  for  me?   Element  of  subjectivity   This  survey  is  trying  to  get  a  snapshot  of  our  church  for  right  now.   Don’t  like  surveys  because  it’s  hard  to  slot  people.  Feels  so  cut  and  dried.     One  of  the  problems  I  had  with  the  results,  that  whoever  put  it  together  (the  author)  says   that  if  you  are  this,  you’re  not  like  this.     Feel  like  the  questions  pigeon-­‐hole  people  and  we’re  all  more  diverse  depending  on  the   situations.     4. In  what  ways  do  you  feel  that  the  results  accurately  portray  your  church  culture?   This  meeting  seems  to  be  reinforcing  the  results  (Fellowship)   It  is  probably  accurate,  because  that’s  what  the  survey  said,  but  it  may  be  that  my   perception  of  our  culture  is  different.   One  older  member  noted  that  in  some  ways  he  is  the  same  as  he  was  when  he  was  35,  but   in  other  ways  he  has  changed.   Survey  only  looked  at  those  who  were  more  committed  and  active.  They  may  think  about   our  church  differently.  Doesn’t  take  into  consideration  ordinary  people  who  may  not  be   leaders.  What  is  their  view  of  our  culture?  We  may  be  looking  through  a  different  set  of   glasses.   I  think  I  have  a  hard  time  defining  the  culture  of  our  church.  Been  here  a  long  time.  Size   where  we  can  have  different  cultures.  We’re  not  small,  but  we’re  not  big.  We’re  still  at  the   size  where  an  individual  or  a  small  group  can  influence  a  whole  ministry.     Might  have  less  diversity  in  a  larger  church,  more  homogenous  culture?   We  are  a  culture  of  subcultures.  Lot  of  strong  subcultures  that  all  work  together.  New   people  come  and  find  where  they  fit.     Opinion  leaders  drive  which  way  the  church  goes.  Others  will  have  less  influence  on  which   way  we  go.   There  are  a  lot  of  people  who  would  come  here,  find  that  they  are  not  like  us,  and  stop   coming.  We’re  like  birds  of  a  feather.  Somebody  that  is  really  different  probably  isn’t  going   to  come  here.   We  are  all  different.  Jesus  is  for  everybody.  So  more  diversity  in  a  church  than  perhaps  a   workplace  (software  techie  guys  are  pretty  much  all  the  same…)  So  there  is  more  of  a  mix   in  a  church.  I  don’t  want  to  exclude  anybody  ever,  especially  in  a  church.   Different  people  like  different  ways  of  worship  -­‐  liturgy,  etc.,  but  we  can’t  appeal  to     195   everybody.  We  do  want  everyone  to  come  to  the  Lord,  but  not  everyone  will  be  attracted  to   us.     I  explained  that  one  of  my  assumptions  coming  into  the  study  is  that  our  personality  will  be   more  attractive  to  certain  people,  so  knowing  what  our  personality  is  will  enable  us  to  be   more  strategic  in  what  we  do.     5. Were  there  conclusions  that  you  didn't  feel  fit  your  church  culture?  If  so,  what?   Surprised  that  Organizer  came  out  as  strong  as  it  did.  They  definitely  saw  the  Fellowship,   Relational  side  very  clearly,  although  they  saw  some  Organizer  tendencies.  Coming  from  a   more  Organizer  mindset,  they  have  found  things  much  more  relational  and  laid  back  than   was  indicated.   When  you  explained  the  data  more  and  showed  how  the  Fellowship  was  stronger,  that   definitely  resonated  with  what  we  have  seen.   There  is  definitely  organization  here,  but  it  doesn’t  seem  to  be  the  highest  priority.  People   seem  to  come  higher.     “Probably  a  lot  of  closet  organizers.”     Some  of  that  could  have  been  on  the  opinion  leaders  chosen.     6. How  comprehensively  do  you  think  these  conclusions  reflect  the  views  of  those   outside  the  primary  opinion  leaders?   If  you  asked  the  majority  of  people  without  taking  the  test  to  see  where  they  felt  the   majority  of  the  leaders  would  be  on  the  wheel,  do  you  think  they  would  answer  the  same   way?   Or  if  you  had  them  take  the  test  themselves,  would  they  fall  in  the  same  way  as  the  leaders?   That’s  the  difference  with  a  random  survey.  Would  have  gotten  more  of  a  picture  of  the   whole  church.  If  you  just  take  the  opinion  leaders,  you’re  probably  not  going  to  get  the   same  answer.     I  mentioned  the  author’s  presupposition  that  the  leaders  of  the  church  determine  the   culture.  The  question  is  whether  that’s  an  accurate  presupposition  (two  immediately  said   they  felt  it  was  true.)     Question  as  to  whether  this  was  an  accurate  representation  of  the  people.  Should  we  have   chosen  the  30  randomly?   Does  it  truly  represent  everyone?   What  about  those  who  are  opinionated  and  used  to  be  a  leader,  but  we  don’t  want  to  hear   what  he  has  to  say  now,  but  he’s  still  here.  Does  it  truly  represent  everybody?     Given  that  we  had  that  consultation  before,  I  wonder  were  we  truly  nonpartisan?     But  these  surveys  aren’t  designed  to  get  everybody’s  opinion.   But  were  the  30  selected  because  they  would  be  more  positive  and  veer  to  the  one  side?  It’s   hard  not  to  think  that  way.   But  this  survey  is  about  personality.  It  wasn’t  asking  about  a  specific  issue.  So  if  you  are   positive  or  negative  in  your  opinion  on  a  certain  issue,  it  shouldn’t  matter  how  you  judge   things,  what  your  personality  is.   Results  would  probably  be  similar  if  the  survey  is  given  more  widely,  but  not  universal.     196   Someone  asked  if  I  would  consider  giving  it  to  a  broader  group  to  see  how  the  results   compared.     Observation:  An  interesting  thing  about  this  discussion  is  that  it  turned  into  less  whether   the  results  accurately  portrayed  the  culture  of  the  church  than  whether  the  results  would   accurately  portray  the  personality  trends  of  a  larger  group  who  weren’t  opinion  leaders  in   the  church.     “If  you  want  to  get  a  survey  that  accurately  portrays  the  people,  it  ought  to  be  random.”       7. What  did  you  learn  about  your  church  culture  from  the  inventory?     We’re  warm,  loving  and  caring.   We’re  willing  to  do  surveys  for  those  we  love.   Where  I  showed  up  –  “I  thought  the  funniest  part  was  that  our  “Shepherd”  was  so  different   from  everybody  else.”   Diverse  group   We  complement  each  other   And  it  is  a  more  beautiful  team  as  a  result.   More  organized  than  I  thought     8. How  do  you  expect  to  use  (or  have  used)  this  information  to  leverage  your   ministry  planning  and  implementation?     Some  of  the  things  are  already  being  done   Do  we  look  at  our  strengths  so  we  can  minister  to  those  who  also  have  those  strengths  or   look  at  our  weakness  so  we  don’t  leave  those  people  behind?     How  do  we  use  this  to  see  our  church  grow?  Do  we  even  want  it  to  just  grow  numerically?   We  do  want  it  to  grow  spiritually,  not  just  numerically.  We’d  like  both.   Would  tie  in  nicely  to  look  at  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  individual  ministries  –   evaluating  them  in  the  context  of  our  culture  to  see  if  they  align  or  not.     Will  help  us  determine  where  we  need  to  change.   Even  if  the  information  ends  up  being  only  50-­‐60%  accurate  re  our  church  culture,  we  can   be  that  much  more  strategic  and  intentional  in  how  we  reach  that  existing  culture  within   our  broader  culture.   People  pick  a  church  based  on  whether  they  feel  they  fit  or  not.   If  we  can  be  even  just  a  few  degrees  more  specific  in  our  understanding  and  go  hard  on  it,   we  can  take  advantage  of  our  strengths.  As  opposed  to  trying  to  be  a  church  of  every  kind.   We  want  everyone  to  be  saved,  but  we  will  be  more  effective  with  people  who  are  more  like   us.  Being  more  intentional.     9. What  would  you  need  to  be  able  to  take  the  next  step  in  implementing  this?   I  need  a  more  open  mind.     I  need  to  know  what  we  are  trying  to  achieve.   What  are  we  going  to  do  to  reach  out?  To  entice  those  people  to  come?   Think  about  each  ministry  and  see  if  we  have  these  elements  in  each  of  our  ministries.   Whether  we  have  some  that  are  all  organizational  and  no  relational  or  all  relational  and  no     197   organizational.     Gives  us  some  great  areas  that  we  can  run  with  (e.g.  creativity…)     One  newer  staff  member  referenced  a  passion  for  creativity  and  imagination.  In  some   churches  that’s  not  the  case.  That  gives  me  license  to  run  with  this  kind  of  thing  more.   Gives  me  a  better  idea  of  our  strengths.  OK,  let’s  run  with  those.   Sure  we  need  to  look  at  our  weaknesses  and  always  be  trying  to  grow,  but  this  gives  us   some  great  areas  that  we  are  strong  in  and  passionate  about  that  we  can  run  with.     Helps  us  match  up  individuals  with  needs  in  the  ministries.     How  do  you  get  people  motivated  and  actually  doing  anything?   Yet  reading  through  this,  it  does  help  us.  For  instance,  “Doesn’t  like  drastic  change.”  We   read  that  and  decide  to  do  things  a  little  slower  than  we  would  like.  This  gives  us  some   starting  points.     It’s  not  the  average  Joe  in  the  church  that  is  going  to  be  using  this.  We’re  the  ones  who  are   going  to  be  leading  the  church  toward  change  and  growth.  If  we  do  it  right,  it  will  be  easier   for  the  average  Joe  to  come  along.     There  are  some  really  valuable  things  to  look  at:  not  drastic  change,  high  sense  of  duty,   keeping  these  things  in  mind  will  help  us  more  effectively  come  around  who  we  already   have  and  are.               198     BIBLIOGRAPHY     Anderson,  Ray  S.  Minding  God’s  Business.  Grand  Rapids:  William  B.  Eerdmans  Publishing   Co.,  1986.     Bennett,  David  W.  Metaphors  of  Ministry:  Biblical  Images  for  Leaders  and  Followers.  Eugene,   Oregon:  Wipf  and  Stock  Publishers,  1993.     Bridges,  William.  The  Character  of  Organizations.  Mountain  View,  Ca:  Davies-­‐Black   Publishing,  2000.     Bloesch,  Donald  G.  The  Church:  Sacraments,  Worship,  Ministry,  Mission.  Downers  Grove,  Ill.:   InterVarsity  Press,  2002.     Bryant,  Adam.  Quick  and  Nimble:  Lessons  From  Leading  CEOs  on  How  to  Create  a  Culture  of   Innovation.  New  York:  Henry  Holt  and  Company,  Kindle  edition,  2014.     Chan,  Simon.  Spiritual  Theology:  A  Systematic  Study  of  the  Christian  Life.  Downers  Grove,  Ill.:   InterVarsity  Press,  1998.     Chand,  Samuel  R.  Cracking  Your  Church's  Culture  Code.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2011,   Kindle  edition.         Connors,  Roger  and  Tom  Smith.  Change  the  Culture  Change  the  Game.  New  York:   Porfolio/Penguin,  1999,  2011.     Deal,  Terrence  E.  and  Lee  G.  Bolman.  Reframing  Organizations:  Artistry,  Choice,  and   Leadership.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Inc.  Pub.,  2008.     Denison,  Daniel  R.  Corporate  Culture  and  Organizational  Effectiveness.   www.denisonculture.com,  1990,  1997.           Douglass,  Philip  D.  What  Is  Your  Church’s  Personality?  Discovering  and  Developing  the   Ministry  Style  of  Your  Church.  Phillipsburg,  NJ:  P  &  R  Publishing,  2008.       Gallagher,  Richard  S.  The  SOUL  of  an  ORGANIZATION:  Understanding  the  Values  that  Drive   Successful  Corporate  Cultures.  Dearborn  Grade  Publishing:  A  Kaplan  Professional   Company,  2003.     Gerald,  Kevin.  Every  Church  has  a  Culture,  By  Design  or  Default.  Tacoma:  KGC  Publishing,   2006  and  2010,  Kindle  edition.         199   Goldsmith,  Malcolm.  Knowing  Me  Knowing  God:  Exploring  Your  Spirituality  with  Myers-­‐ Briggs.  Nashville:  Abingdon  Press,  1997.     Grenz,  Stanley  J.  Theology  for  the  Community  of  God.  Grand  Rapids/Cambridge,  UK:  William   B.  Eerdmans  Publishing  Company,  Vancouver:  Regent  College  Publishing,  2000.   Kindle  edition.     Hemer,  Colin  J.  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia.  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan/   Cambridge,  U.K.:  William  B.  Eerdmans  Publishing  Company,  1986,  1989.     Heskett,  James.  The  Culture  Cycle:  How  to  Shape  the  Unseen  Force  That  Transforms   Performance.  Upper  Saddle  River,  NJ:  FT  Press,  2012.     Hofstede,  Geert,  Gert  Jan  Hofstede  and  Michael  Minkov.  Cultures  and  Organizations:   Software  of  the  Mind.  McGraw-­‐Hill,  2010,  Kindle  edition.     Isaacson,  Walter.  Steve  Jobs.  New  York:  Simon  &  Schuster,  2011.     Kotter,  John  P.  and  James  L.  Heskett.  Corporate  Culture  and  Performance.  New  York:  The   Free  Press,  a  Division  of  Macmillan,  Inc.,  1992.       Kotter,  John  and  Holger  Rathgeber.  Our  Iceberg  Is  Melting:  Changing  and  Succeeding  Under   Any  Conditions.  New  York:  St.  Martin’s  Press,  2005.       Lencioni,  Patrick.  The  Advantage:  Why  Organizational  Health  Trumps  Everything  Else  in   Business.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2012.     Lewis  Robert,  Wayne  Cordeiro  and  Warren  Bird.  Culture  Shift:  Transforming  your  Church   from  the  Inside  Out.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2005.         Livermore,  David.  Leading  With  Cultural  Intelligence.  New  York:  Amacom,  2010.     Long,  D.  Stephen.  Theology  and  Culture:  A  Guide  to  the  Discussion.  Eugene,  Oregon:  Cascade   Books,  2008.     Mancini,  Will.  Church  Unique.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2008,  Kindle  edition.     Martin,  Joanne.  Cultures  in  Organizations:  Three  Perspectives.  New  York:  Oxford  University   Press,  1992,  Kindle  Edition.       Meyerson,  D.  &  Joanne  Martin  (1987).  “Cultural  Change:  An  Integration  of  Three  Different   Perspectives.”  Journal  of  Management  Studies,  24,  no  6,  623-­‐647.       Parsons,  George  and  Leas,  Speed  B.  Understanding  Your  Congregation  As  A  System.  The   Alban  Institute,  Inc.,  1993.           200   Ramsay,  W.M.  The  Letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia.  1904,  Kindle  edition.       Schein,  Edgar  H.  The  Corporate  Culture  Survival  Guide.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  1999,   2009.     Schein,  Edgar  H.  Organizational  Culture  and  Leadership,  4 Edition.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐ Bass,  2010.     Schultz,  Howard  and  Joanne  Gordon.  Onward:  How  Crisis  and  Conviction  Transformed   Starbucks.  Rodale  Books,  2011.       Southern,  Richard  and  Robert  Norton.  Cracking  Your  Congregation’s  Code:  Mapping  Your   Spiritual  DNA  to  Create  Your  Future.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  2001.     Stott,  John  R.  W.  What  Christ  Thinks  of  the  Church.  Concorde  House,  Grenville  Place,  Mill  Hill,   London:  Monarch  Books,  1990,  2003.     Wilkins,  Alan  L.  Developing  Corporate  Character:  How  to  Successfully  Change  an   Organization  Without  Destroying  It.  San  Francisco:  Jossey-­‐Bass,  1989.               th     201