Here are two competing maxims of leadership:
On the one hand, we are told:
Simplicity rules. Portable is memorable.
Complexity confuses. So KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.
However, we are also told:
Vision & values are distinctive. Be unique. Be YOU.
Don’t say what everyone else is saying. Visioneer your variety.
How do we hold these two leadership lessons in tension, especially when we consider communicating who we are in our vision and mission statements, our value lists, our strategic themes.
We want to communicate well but also say something distinctive. We want to dish out something everyone will understand and get into–but we want more than vanilla too. We want a broad impact but a narrow focus.
How is this done? How have you done it or seen it done? Is it possible to be simple and unique at the same time in our communication, or does the unique complexify things, and beg explanation? Does the simple suppress individuality, squashing distinctives?
I’m thinking about this in terms of the word “holiness.” It is no doubt a distinctive of people in my tribe in the Kingdom of God (the Wesleyan types). Some in our tribe have bristled at using the term, as it can be misunderstood as being about “holy rollers” or about legalism. For me, it seems helpful to discover why terms like “entire sanctification” caught on in the first place. Why did those words grip those looking for more than a stagnant religiosity? Why did they compel people to seek a deeper life in the Holy Spirit’s power?
I think it wise to examine these motives (and I hope church history scholars will help us do so better in the future… “The Story” book and WesleyanHistory.org are filling the gap for now). By doing so we can re-discover the motivation to communicate these things in a compelling manner, rather than to “believe in the brand and buzz words more than we believe in the doctrine itself” which is less than the goal of theology, preaching & communication.
I’m not looking to resurrect old words–but I am interested in how older distinctives “caught on” and how we might communicate the concept of our unique hope and holy living.
I’ll speak generally, and maybe someone else will chime with specific ways to possibly address your question. I resonated with Rainer & Geiger in Simple Church. I’ve found that people don’t readily recall the 5 purposes of a purpose driven church, but love God, love others, and make disciples most Christians know. So I’m all for similarity at this level, and letting the uniqueness come in “branding” and contextualization.
Although it is more than simple branding, for College Wesleyan Church SouShift is a good example of what I mean. The principles of SouShift are not something that nobody in the history of Christianity had figured out before, but a modern name and presentation brought a distinct vision to discipleship.
Contextualization comes in the application of the vision. The most recent example is Cedar Grove Wesleyan Church’s “Treats for Truckers.” This is simply loving others, but it would be foolish for me to call my local church outreach “Treats for Truckers” because big rigs don’t drive through my town.
When I took Wesleyan Church History & The Discipline one of the most interesting discussions I had with my professor was our use of words and terminology that were not commonly understood. I’m all for using and teaching the appropriate Biblical terms used for doctrine, but for most people, which of the following two statements would be best understood:
1. The gospel of Jesus Christ can bring us to complete holiness (or entire sanctification).
or
2. We have good news because of Jesus Christ. Our lives change be changed so that we fully express the love of God.
Great thoughts, as usual, Paul… I love your mind…
I like “our lives our can be changed so that we fully express the love of God”
amen!
here’s the thing: “love God and love others” is a great simple memorable deal–but it isn’t DISTINCTIVE… seriously… ANY spiritual organization of any kind could say that. It’s memorable, it’s portable… but it doesn’t say anything a Krishna or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Methodist might also say.
is that a good thing?
should a slogan be more distinctive? MMMMmmmmm
1. I think you are correct that even the Great Commission and Great Commandments can be too generic for people to know they are actually Christian (Judeo-Christian). In these times we do need to put the name of Jesus in there so people know what God we say we love.
2. If by “slogan” you are thinking along the lines of my “contextualization” or “branding,” then I think for sure there is room there to tell people not only what a Christian is, but also Christians at such-in-such local church, and Wesleyan Christians.
My lunch break is over. Sorry I missed you at commencement. Miss engaging with you in person.
Too often when I paruse church websites it is easy to tell what the mega churches are doing because many others are doing the same thing. The problem with programs whether they come from a denomination or another church is they are just that-programs. Prepackaged clarity. The problem is the clarity was usually for someone else.
We never use the term ‘entire sanctification’ because it takes so much unlearning and relearning. Your quesiton was what drew people to first use it. That is the right quesion.. We should hold on to the answers people give loosely but keep asking the same questions they did because it allows us to bring a timeless message to an ever changing culture.
Trying to be unique is a poor reason to say/do something. You are unique. if you have to reinvent everything just to prove your uniqueness you probably aren’t unique, just insecure.
Well said, Bill = Every sentence here.
I resonate with your “Prepackaged clarity.” line… so true. I’m starting to think that all the megachurch pastor’s books are just quoting each other as their authority too, and so it’s one big circle of confidence. That leads to groupthink.