Tuesday, August 24, 2021

After eight years as a dean, change comes.

It has been an incredible joy and privilege to serve as the Dean of Southeastern University’s Barnett College of Ministry and Theology (formerly known as the College of Christian Ministries and Religion) for the past eight years. Many academic leaders from our peer institutions have told me they see us as the leading Pentecostal faculty in the world. We have worked together to see some amazing achievements accomplished. Our combined enrollment – traditional, online, extension site, and undergraduate – grew from 537 in the 2012-13 school year to 2219 last year. School of Divinity (graduate and doctoral) enrollment grew from 70 to 316 in that same period of time. We launched the Master of Divinity, the Master of Arts in Family Ministry, the Master of Arts in Biblical Studies, and the Doctor of Ministry degree. New traditional undergraduate degrees included the BS in Children, Youth, and Family Ministry, the BA in Worship Ministries, and the BA in Biblical Studies. The church-based degree-granting extension site program exploded from twelve sites to two hundred this fall. We obtained Association of Theological Schools accreditation for our School of Divinity and joined the Association of Biblical Higher Education. The BCMT Team led many innovative efforts to improve the quality of education our students receive, and many pastors of churches of all sizes – including many of the largest and fastest growing in the country – have come to us for their own education and to get their people a quality SEU education. All have raved about the education they have received from this incredible faculty.

A dean’s tenure averages five years, and I am grateful for the privilege of serving Jesus’s church and those called to his ministry for these eight years. I know the Barnett College will be in excellent hands for an even brighter future under new Dean and Vice President Nick Wallsteadt.

I am excited to keep two of my favorite parts of the former role in my new position as Senior Director of Assemblies of God Relations and Ministerial Education and Professor of Practical Theology. I will still be teaching at all levels, and I will network with pastors and churches on an even greater level. I look forward to strengthening the relationships I already enjoy with hundreds of Assemblies of God pastors and leaders while building new ones with those across the country to see how we at Southeastern University can better serve them and their churches.

With all my heart I thank President Ingle and the SEU Leadership Team who trusted me with both these critical roles, the incredible students around the world I have had the privilege to teach, and the phenomenal faculty who have been my true colleagues. I know God has a greater future for all of us than we can imagine.

Thursday, August 6, 2020

75 Years after the Greatest Dilemma in History

One year ago today, August 6, 2019, my wife, Keira, and son, Stephen, got off our plane at Tokyo’s Narita Airport and were greeted by our daughter, Hannah, in the land of her calling, where she has

worked teaching English to Japanese people of all ages since graduating from Northwest University in 2013. This was our first chance to visit Japan, and I asked her to show us every place we could see that was special to her. The last few years she has lived and taught in Yokohama, Japan’s second largest city less than an hour from Tokyo. We spent two days there before travelling to her favorite getaway destinations of Kyoto and Osaka. We then headed to the first place Hannah taught and lived, a city whose name is infamous, especially today, 75 years after it was destroyed in an effort to end the most

destructive war in human history. Much has been said about how evil that decision was, and there is no doubt the results were truly tragic.

We were deeply moved as we spent several hours walking the Peace Memorial Park and Museum. It told a powerful story of the destruction. The museum showed the loss of life and the ongoing health effects on many residents of Hiroshima, but it also talked about the immediate American efforts to provide relief and help the nation rebuild. It did not condone the decision, but several displays sympathetically expressed the truly painful dilemma President Truman, Prime Minister Churchill, and key leaders in both governments faced when deciding whether or not to drop the bomb.

In preparation for the trip, I read Inventing Japan: 1853-1964, by Ian Buruma. It told a fair but enlightening backstory on how what had arguably been the most isolated nation in the world developed and tried to conquer the Asia-Pacific Region just eighty years after connecting with the rest of the world. Its story on the thinking inside the Japanese government as their hope of winning the war or even surviving diminished completely as the US and its allies conquered island after island and neared its homeland matched that presented in the Hiroshima museum. The Bushido Banzai ethic had taken hold: Suicide would always be chosen over surrender, even if it meant the suicide of an entire nation.

Once the United States forces conquered islands capable of holding airstrips within bombing range of Japan’s largest island, Honshu, the US began firebombing campaigns from its B-29 bombers. Even this decision was a huge ethical dilemma that was difficult to fully justify. Yet, the Japanese war industry was not primarily done in industrial parks away from the cities. Most weapons were made in residential neighborhoods. US leaders wanted to end Japan’s ability to arm itself. It also wanted to send a message on the futility of continuing the war. US leaders made the decision to firebomb the city of Tokyo in Operation Meetinghouse March 9-10. That operation has gone down in history as the single most destructive raid in human history.[1] Our family’s final hotel on last year’s trip is actually located on the sixteen square miles destroyed in Operation Meetinghouse.

The plan did not work. Japanese will seemed only to harden. In spite of regular overtures from US ambassadors asking for surrender and US bombers destroying city after city, the Japanese government rebuffed every request and continued to fight even after Germany’s surrender on May 8.

While gathering in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17-August 2, 1945, to come to terms for how to govern Germany and its former possessions, the new US President Harry Truman, the outgoing United Kingdom Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and the soon-to-be-deposed Chairman Chiang Kai-shek of China drafted and signed what is known as the Potsdam Declaration, demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender. It was clear that the US and its allies did not want to rule Japan as a conquered territory, saying, “We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation.”  It demanded, “Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.” There was even a promise for overseeing forces to leave as soon as a stable, freely elected Japanese government and industry was in place. “The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.”

However, the threat was clear if Japan did not surrender: “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”[2] In retrospect, these words seem to be a veiled threat of the just tested atomic bombs that would be dropped in less than two weeks.

The Potsdam Declaration was issued, broadcast, and printed on July 26, 1945. Three million leaflets containing the declaration were dropped over the nation of Japan.

Although some of Japan’s civilian government leaders wanted to accept the terms, the Supreme Council for the Direction of War rejected it. In response at a press conference, Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki said, “The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokatsu siru (interpreted as ‘ignore it entirely’ at the time, but some now believe it have meant ‘keep silence’). The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end.”[3]

Some in the Japanese leadership hoped the, until then, neutral Soviet Union could mediate and clarify the terms, but, instead the Soviets saw an opportunity to expand their influence in the East. They declared war on Japan on August 9 and swiftly conquered what is today North Korea, setting the stage for a still unresolved conflict and much of the Cold War.

On August 6, 1945, the B-29 Superfortress named the Enola Gay and flown by Colonel Paul Tibbets dropped a bomb named Little Boy on Hiroshima at 8:15 AM, killing between 70,000 and 80,000 people and injuring another 70,000.[4]

In his radio broadcast to the American people that day, President Truman said, “It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum.”

He went on to describe the development of the bomb in general terms and the resolve to continue such efforts if the Japanese government failed to surrender. President Truman closed his address with these words: “I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace.”[5]

As we look back seventy-five years later, it is easy to judge the decision to drop the atomic bomb as unethical and immoral. Less than half of the lives lost that day were soldiers. Some estimate 20,000 of those who died were Korean slaves working for the Japanese government. Every life lost that day was precious to God. Every death was a tragedy. I am sure the vast majority of the Allied leaders wished the Japanese government that provoked us to enter that war on December 7, 1941, would have seen the futility of continuing and accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Better yet, we all wish they saw the inevitable end in defeat before the horrors of the Battle of Iwo Jima and made an earlier surrender that would have spared the lives lost in firebombing raids over Tokyo and other Japanese cities. We cannot justify death on that scale, but it seems they saw no other alternative. We may think it easy to look back and see better options, and we do want to believe there had to be some. Of course, we wished the Japanese government did not make the militaristic shift it did in the 1930’s. Of course, we wish Hitler and the Nazis never came to power, but they did.[6] Those Allied leaders faced a horrible dilemma with no clear way out without a massive loss of life. They saw the alternative as a land invasion of Honshu and the other core Japanese islands that would have been unimaginably costly in lives on both sides, orders of magnitude greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even in his last days in office President Truman reiterated this conviction in a letter, “Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts.”[7]

As horrible and devastating as that choice was, Japan finally offered to surrender to the US on August 10. The US forces, under the leadership of General Douglas MacArthur, helped rebuild Japan and its economy and ensure a stable democratic government was in place by the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951. The rebuilding was far more successful than anyone could have imagined, as Japan hosted the Olympic Games in 1964 and has been the leading force of economic growth and stability in a very volatile region for the last seventy five years.

Those raised since 1990 may find it difficult to imagine what it meant to live in a world continuously polarized with a constant, real threat of possible destruction. In some eerie way, President Truman’s words about nuclear power enabling the maintenance of world peace in his August 6, 1945, announcement came true to some extent. Thank God that in spite of forty year-long Cold War, atomic weapons have not been used in warfare since the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. I pray our world never has to face a dilemma like that again.



[1] For an interesting background on the development of firebombing and the decision by USAAF General Curtis Lemay to launch these raids, listen to Malcom Gladwell’s “Revisionist History Podcast” four episode series running July 9-August 1, 2020.

[4] Last month on TCM, Keira and I watched Hideo Sekigawa’s Hiroshima, a film depicting the bombing and its aftermath that was made in 1953 and used many Hiroshima citizens. Although it, understandably, had an agenda, it was amazingly well made so soon after the events.

[6] To get an idea of how close Europe was to sliding completely under their power, read Erik Lawson’s blockbuster, The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance during the Blitz, and the much earlier The Partnership that Saved the West: Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941, by Joseph P. Lash.

[7] Harry S. Truman, “Letter to Professor James L. Cate, January 12, 1953.” https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hiroshima-nagasaki/truman.html.


Thursday, July 2, 2020

Pandemic Audio Reading Reflections

As our world started to enter the worst pandemic in over a century, my mind kept wondering how this would compare to other worldwide disease outbreaks, specifically the worst two pandemics in history. I listened through two outstanding works on the so-called Spanish Flu (that most certainly did not start in Spain) of 1918 and the Great Courses lectures on the fourteenth century bubonic plague better known as the Black Death. All three were fascinating and, actually, gave more hope than fear, but certainly a strong warning, in our current COVID-19 Pandemic.

Jeremy Brown is an emergency room doctor and published his well-researched Influenza less than a year before COVID-19 broke out in Wuhan, China. It is a prophetic warning but predicted an influenza pandemic rather than the coronavirus pandemic that has infected the whole world. It is shorter and easier to read than Barry’s epic, and it looks more at how influenza works in our world today while providing a briefer overview of the 1918 epidemic.

John Barry’s The Great Influenza was released in 2005 but has climbed back up the charts in the coronavirus pandemic. It provides a detailed look at the 1918 influenza epidemic, including the fullest history of the development of American medical research I have ever read. It was shocking to discover how limited medical research was before the 1870s but how far it had developed before the influenza was discovered in Kansas in early 1918. Medical researchers were actually not caught off guard and suggested immediate quarantine action that would have curtailed its spread, but President Woodrow Wilson and others in leadership had fought hard against their isolationist opposition to get America into World War I, and the US war machine was hard at work to get as many soldiers and weapons to Europe as possible. After an astute doctor in Haskell County, Kansas, first recognized the risk, it appeared a few hundred miles away a Camp Funston, near Fort Riley, then spread to Army bases across the country and to Europe, hopping on troop ships, then later spreading around the world, killing more than 50 million people, most between the months of September and November 1918. Although over 500 pages long, Barry’s account is breathtaking in its research and detail, although some epidemiologists now question the certainty of some of his claims.

I have enjoyed listening to Great Courses for over fifteen years. Dorsey Armstrong’s account of the Black Death quotes hundreds of sources from every facet of European life and paints as clear a picture as we can gather 650 years after the worst pandemic in human history. Although most experts believe more people died in the 1918 flu pandemic, the Black Death killed a much higher percentage of the population of Europe – at least a third. Armstrong considers the evidence for its cause and spread and spends more time reflecting on its impact on culture, the arts, commerce, religion, and government.

Audio reading all three in the midst of what may be the third worst pandemic in history brought several thoughts:
  1. We should have seen this coming – We certainly cannot blame the people of the thirteenth century for not expecting a pandemic, but even their societies quickly recognized the severity of the danger they faced. Yet the world of 2020 did not do much better than the world of 1918 in spite of all we have learned in the last century. Brown points out how many experts have been expecting something of the magnitude of the coronavirus, even if much of the preparation was not well thought through – like storing millions of doses of perishable treatment for a specific virus when there are hundreds of forms a viral epidemic can take. We have faced several might-have-been pandemics in the last twenty years: SARS (2002), the H1N1 Swine Flu (2009), MERS (2012), and Ebola (2013-16), among others. Decisive, immediate action likely spared the world an earlier global outbreak, and hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared had the Chinese listened to the earliest voices of doctors who saw the risk of COVID-19.
  2. Our pandemic is not nearly as lethal as the other two – Although this season is unlike any I have ever seen and every life lost is a tragedy, we can be grateful the COVID-19 mortality rate is a fraction of the Spanish Flu and the Black Death. Much higher than expected positive antibody test results show that many people have had the virus without symptoms. This has led some experts to predict mortality rates (the percentage of people with the virus who die) as low as 0.3%, while the UK has seen nearly 14% of its confirmed cases end in death. Even the worst of these is much less than the estimated 40% morality of the other two outbreaks.
  3. Though it is happening much more slowly than we hoped, things are getting better – Yes, we have seen a rise of cases recently. This is troubling and certainly due to more social gatherings without protection. However, the hospitalization rates have not increased and deaths have continued to decrease. (Let’s pray this remains the case.) We can attribute this to the drop in the average age of those infected. Younger adults have gathered and shared the virus with one another. They get sick, but most do not die. This is one big difference from the 1918 Spanish Flu where the death rate was much higher for those aged 18-40 than older adults. Certainly World War I had a huge impact on this, but even young adult civilians at home were more likely to die than their parents. That influenza was a very different virus from COVID-19. Hospitals across the country have open rooms and ventilators. At its worst in April, approximately one-third of all deaths in the US could possibly attributed to the coronavirus. The last week of June 2020, in the midst of a fresh spike of new infections, the CDC reports only 157 deaths out of the total 11,351 across the entire nation were attributed to COVID-19. That means only 1.5% of all people who died last week did so because of the coronavirus.
  4. Keep social distancing and remain quarantined, if possible, if you are in a high risk group – The spike should warn us, though, that this is not over. If you don’t have to leave home, don’t. If you do, wear a mask. If you are over 65 or have a compromised immune system, have someone else go for you while you stay quarantined. (75% of all who have died from the coronavirus in the US were over 65.) I have friends suffering now who probably did not choose to follow all those cumbersome rules. I know it is a pain, but this will pass eventually. We should take heed of what happened in New York and New Jersey in March and April. Our medical professionals are much better prepared now, but the risk of overflowing intensive care units remains.
  5. Get vaccinated when you can – I know that many well-meaning Christians have bought into the vaccine-conspiracy theory, but Barry’s book tells the miracle stories of vaccines that have saved the lives of millions who likely would have died from yellow fever, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, and many other diseases that were huge causes of death in the nineteenth century. No, they are not perfect, but I think effective vaccine development is a great example of humankind carrying out our first mandate to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). Increasing numbers of parents not vaccinating their children is opening the door for reemergence of some dreaded diseases. Several promising COVID-19 vaccines are in the final stages of testing. Unless the virus mutates itself to impotency and/or humanity achieves herd immunity (as a combination seemed to happen with the Spanish Flu seemed to in 1919), the risk of more outbreaks remains until enough of humanity has either had the disease or been vaccinated so the virus has no safe place to land.  

Yes, this is the most challenging season in my lifetime, but “this, too, shall pass.” Let’s make it to the other side together.

Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Let’s Find a Better Way Forward Than Defunding the Police


Our entire nation has been grieving for more than two weeks over the murder of George Floyd at the hands of a uniformed officer of the law. We know he is not alone as a victim of a wrongful death at the hands of law enforcement. We also know many of those killings over the years have been racially motivated. This kind of behavior cannot be tolerated and changes need to be made so that police unions cannot block removal of officers with repeated offenses like this. The outcry from all parts of the country in this unprecedented season should motivate all police departments to scrutinize their systems and practices to ensure they truly deal justice.

However, the vast majority of law enforcement officials do what they do because they want to see justice and liberty for all people. They work hard and put themselves in crime’s way every day at a fraction of the pay they deserve so we can all have the best lives possible. Seasons like this call to attention the need to make changes that will ensure all people – regardless of race – and all neighborhoods – regardless of social status – enjoy the same peace, freedom from violence, and freedom of opportunity

The recent calls to “defund the police” will not accomplish this desired future. We do not want to return to the violent streets of the 1970s and 1980s. Yes, change needs to continue to be made, but let’s not forget the officers who gave everything to bring about the incredible drop in crime since those days.  

It would be wonderful if everyone would just get along and be nice to one another, but until Jesus returns, sin will be a part of the human experience. As the apostle Paul points out in Romans 13:1-5, God's plan includes government and law enforcement. “The one in authority is God’s servant for your good.” (Romans 13:4, NIV) We just need to find a way to ensure those with that authority and power use it justly, fairly, and for the good of all.

Keira and I loved the multi-church, multi-racial prayer gathering we joined at Faith Celebration Church on Saturday. Three hours of prayer for justice, peace, and reconciliation was culminated by a time of seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Several different African American church leaders in the room sensed the Spirit calling them to host a family dinner for Lakeland police officers and African American church leaders to sit down at the table together and build understanding and relationships. This kind of unity and understanding is the key. YES, we need justice and equality, but, YES, we also need men and women of good character willing to enforce the law with fairness and equity to enable all to have justice. Let’s all work together to make this a reality.

Friday, June 5, 2020

The Neuroscience of Prejudice


Imagine a new chain restaurant comes to your town. You have heard about it but never eaten at one of its establishments. You are curious and decide to give it a try. You and your spouse wait in line on opening weekend expecting excellent food and service, but you are sorely disappointed. Your overwhelmed server is slow and rude. Your chef is a rookie and overcooks your food and forgets a special request you make. You can barely choke down the meal and almost choke again when your server rudely drops the bill at your table. If you are like most people, you and your spouse make the vow, “We are never eating here again.” Even if a future road trip takes you by another in the chain in a different city right at meal time, the impression from your first visit leads you to drive right by. One meal at one restaurant – really just one chef and one server – has defined every restaurant in that entire chain for the rest of your life.

Research that led to my book, How to Make Big Decisions Wisely, and my doctoral dissertation dove into the fields of neuroscience, persuasion psychology, and decision science. In depth scientific research in all of these fields demonstrates that most people make most decisions intuitively. As the renowned, Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Daniel Kahneman labeled his best-known book on the subject, Thinking Fast and Slow, we too often use this fast thinking, impulsive, and intuitive thinking to make major decisions. In part, we do this because of the extra time and mental energy it takes to intentionally make a decision. Rather than taking into account all the data that would help us make the best decisions, we look for cues, what persuasion psychologists call heuristics. We use one small piece to make a judgement about the whole. We use one chat with a former customer to decide if we will shop at a store. We use the words we heard from our parents growing up to determine if a person’s skin color will determine their value and trustworthiness.

I believe God created us with the ability to think fast and make quick decisions because most of our decisions are routine and do not require contemplation. Should I take the next breath? Yes, if I want to stay alive. Which pedal do I push to make my car go? After thousands of car trips, I do not have to consciously remember the accelerator is on the right. The majority of the millions of decisions we make every day are best made impulsively, but, as Kahneman points out in his book, we can make some horrible decisions if we trust fast thinking too often.

Most of us do not recognize the heuristics we use or the problems they cause. So much of racial prejudice is inherited from our parents and other influential voices as we formed the metaphorical lenses we use to quickly interpret situations in our lives. Some of these lenses were formed so early and are held so deeply, we will not accept any evidence they may be in error. It is like the lenses have filters that only allow evidence that reinforces what we thought in the past it to pass through in confirmation. An individual raised to think one race was inferior to another will use a rare negative experience with someone of that race to “prove” that view was right all along even if thirty positive experiences with people of that same race happened in the same time period.

We also tend to use heuristics to lump things together to ease our evaluation and decision-making. Like the litmus paper my mother used to see if her home-canned pickles were safe to eat, we assume everything is either good or bad and one single cue in a complex situation can tell us which it is. Although this saves decision making time and effort, it is incredibly risky and fuels the prejudice that has divided humankind for generations. I cannot assume everyone in a particular career field, school, political party, nationality, or race holds all the perspectives of everyone else in the group. I also cannot assume everyone is either good or bad. Every human in history has been made in the image of God yet has also done many wrongs. (Genesis 1:26; Romans 3:23)

The problems with fast thinking and looking for embedded cues are magnified in times of unexpected, urgent stress produced by fear. Our intentionally processing prefrontal cortex shuts down in what Daniel Goleman calls an amygdala hijacking and puts us into a state of hypervigilance. The amygdala is the fastest thinking part of our brains and responds quickly in self-defense but does not process rationally. It can only draw from our embedded preconceptions and habits.

Although my hometown had few African American residents, words from my parents, my friends, and even television programs shaped my lenses and put me in a state of fear whenever I was in a neighboring city and passed a group of black men. I did not base my fear on knowing each of them as individuals. Like avoiding every restaurant in the chain after one bad experience, I used hearsay from my upbringing to judge them before I ever got to know them and the hypervigilance those preconceptions produced meant that would never happen as I tried to get away as soon as possible.

I thank God my story does not end there. At age 18 Jesus transformed me and enabled me to experience what Paul describes in I Corinthians 5:17 (NAS): “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” This new life can produce in us the change he describes in the verse before: “Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh.”

I would love to say this automatically happens, but this same apostle writes in his letter to the Romans, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2, NAS) The renewal of our minds requires our intentional effort in partnership with God’s work in us.

In my first Air Force assignment I was assigned an African American sergeant. Rather than leaning on the old prejudging lenses formed in my childhood, I intentionally sought to get to know him as a fellow human being. In fact, I learned to greatly respect him. His 16 years of active duty gave him a lot of wisdom this fresh second lieutenant was lacking. I saw his insightful hard work and dedication bear real fruit. The false cues I may have used in past years fell away.

Since then I have been privileged to get to know and love hundreds of African Americans. Each is a unique individual with unique abilities and gifts. Certainly, there are distinct elements of African American culture, but most of these can and should be celebrated. Nearly every one of the church tours I take students on features a predominantly African American congregation and that pastor is usually voted the favorite preacher of the whole trip by my students.

We are in a season in which more people than ever are willing to rethink the preconceptions they have carried. I will not allow one negative experience to serve as the judgement of all. I pray God helps us all renew our minds.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Why I Love Our Movement

I chose to become a part of the Assemblies of God. Most I have met in this movement were born into it or brought in by their parents. Christ radically called me to himself when I was eighteen, and I experience what I now know to be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit a year later. I studied the Bible voraciously over the next few years and researched the range of Christian denominations, their theologies and their praxis. After graduating college and getting out on my own, I chose to join an Assemblies of God church, and I am glad I did.

I love our movement…

…not because we are perfect (We definitely have some things we can improve),

…not because we are the only ones bound for Heaven (God’s Kingdom is MUCH larger than the A/G),

…not because God does not work through independent churches and Christian organizations (MUCH Kingdom impact has happened through others).

However, I do love our movement because we were founded on and have retained a firm priority on the authority of scripture while still believing that the Holy Spirit is at work today guiding and empowering believers.

I love our movement because we were born with the firm conviction that Jesus Christ is the hope of the world and his Gospel must be shared with every person on the planet in an understandable and effective way.

I love our movement because that passion for the Great Commission was implemented with a firm commitment to raise up self-led national churches around the world.

I love our movement because that priority of missions has led to the greatest growth of the Christian church in history with nearly 600 million believers around the tracing their spiritual heritage in one form or another to an A/G missionary or pastor.

I love our movement because we understood from the very beginning that the Gospel involved eternal salvation for the next life AND compassionate life change in this one demonstrated in the launch of hundreds of need-meeting ministries, such as Mission of Mercy, Latin American Child Care, Teen Challenge, Convoy of Hope, and many more.

I love our movement because it is a movement, in which the leaders have been open to new ideas on how best to meet needs, share the Gospel, and raise of the next generation of leaders while holding fast to our heritage where it really matters.

I love our movement because its influence has expanded far beyond into own boundaries, with huge organizations tracing the roots to us, including Youth With A Mission, CBN, TBN, and even the Foursquare Church and the trans-denominational Charismatic movement initiated by David du Plessis.

I love our movement because we have increased our desire for academic study and excellence without compromising our confidence in biblical authority.

I love our movement because of the supportive relationships and fellowship we experience as ministers at all levels, sectional, district, national, and international – this is an incredible family.

I love our movement because it equips and supports ministries and church plants around the nation and the world that might not be able to launch effectively alone.

I love our movement because it provides loving, biblical accountability to those in leadership to ensure they live lives worthy of the Gospel they preach and teach while providing a redemptive road back for those who get off course and respond in repentance.

I love our movement because we have consistently been the fastest growing Protestant denomination in America for many years.

I love our movement because I firmly believe God will do more through us together as we cooperate and seek the working of his Holy Spirit together in the years to come.

Yes, I love my movement for all these and many more reasons. In a season when many question the value of “institutions,” I see more than ever the need and value for the movement I chose to embrace under the guidance of the Holy Spirit: The Assemblies of God.

Alan Ehler, DMin
Dean, College of Christian Ministries and Religion
Southeastern University

Friday, March 13, 2015

Theological Strategy Detailed Paper

Theological Strategy: A Model for Spiritually Healthy Change
Practical Theology Interest Group
Alan Ehler, DMin, Southeastern University
Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies


Facilitating effective change is one of the biggest challenges of ministry leadership. Like a rail car headed toward a missing bridge, to fail to change is often to risk disaster. Yet like derailing the car onto a rock slide to avoid the missing bridge, mishandled change can be just as destructive. The vast majority of Western churches need to change to see their missions fulfilled.[1] Yet, idealistic ministers may take over some of these struggling ministries with the best of intentions and the latest in ministry skills and fads only to fuel their churches’ slides even further in the wrong direction.
There are many reasons why change does and does not succeed. The business world has studied change science for decades with classics like John Kotter’s, Leading Change (1996), and Spencer Johnson’s, Who Stole My Cheese (1998).[2] Church researchers and consultants like Aubrey Malphurs, Ed Stetzer and Mike Dodson, and Dan Southerland then took principles from the business world and developed methodologies to guide churches through change.[3]
Meanwhile, the newly modified discipline of Practical Theology grew in influence in seminaries with its goal of “critical theological reflection arising out of and giving guidance to the practices of a local faith community.”[4] Yet, although the objectives of Practical Theology neatly fit within the objectives of leading healthy change in churches, few church leaders have been equipped with an effective and workable approach to Practical Theology that can be used to lead healthy change in their local churches.
The goal of this paper is to present an overview of an approach that takes the best in Practical Theology and applies it in a framework that local church leaders can apply to develop healthy and effective strategic plans.  The framework is called Story Shaping and draws its name from the use of “story” as a term to define the worldviews (or paradigms) held by the parties of the process. The term “story” is used in place of worldview because worldview connotes a cosmological perspective that does not always translate well to a particular situation. A pastor and his congregation may share the same worldview in all critical areas, such as beliefs in the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, and the active presence of the Holy Spirit, yet have foundational disagreement about the role of the pastor and what makes a church “good.” Many failures in church strategic change can be traced to conflicts of story at this level.
Although Story Shaping is a form of Practical Theology, this approach does not dismiss the efforts of other disciplines. Practical Theologian Jerome Cottin explains, “The discipline of Practical Theology seeks to make connections between the various branches of Social Studies in and outside Theology [to make it] a science for the contemporary world.”[5] Story Shaping seeks to integrate findings from decision science, neurology, and business, while maintaining a theological heart.
Richard Osmer has identified four key tasks of Practical Theology: What is going on? (The descriptive-empirical task) Why is this going on? (The interpretative task) What ought to be going on? (The normative task) How might we respond? (The pragmatic task).[6] Story Shaping merges these four tasks into three: 1) Read the old story (This integrates Osmer’s first two tasks), 2) Write the new story, and 3) Tell the new story. The overall framework of Story Shaping can be applied in many contexts including conflict resolution, decision making, counseling, evangelism, spiritual formation, and habit change, but the objective of this paper is to consider the process as applied to church and ministry strategic change. This paper will provide a very brief overview of the Story Shaping process, the academic and biblical basis for the approach, a few comments on how it can be applied to church and ministry planning, and conclude a with brief discussion of Acts 15 as a paradigmatic example of Practical Theology and Story Shaping.
STEP ONE – READ THE OLD STORY
Misunderstandings and misinterpretations are at the root of many failed change efforts. Differences in culture and education, even when subtle, can have a huge impact in how people understand the world, others, and how and why things happen. Each person uses a different story to understand and explain the world and their role in it. These story differences are the source of much of the world’s conflict and have caused large problems for governments, corporations, and all kinds of relationships. This is why Story Shaping begins with reading the old story. This is a major shift from business model-based church strategic planning methods, such as that developed by Aubrey Malphurs, which begin with theory then work toward practice.[7] This practice-theory-practice approach was developed by Practical Theology pioneers like Don Browning.[8] This step encompasses seeing what is happening currently, determining why it is happening (including the “stories” of those involved), and speculating how God might be at work in the situation.
A) What is Happening?
The first step of Story Shaping when applied to church strategy is to analyze the current situation. This involves identifying what appears to be healthy and functioning well and what is not.
B) Why is It Happening?
Like a doctor trying to diagnose the illness responsible for the symptoms, the pastor needs to identify the causes for unhealthy and healthy situations in the church; those certain, likely, and speculative. Some of these factors are external to the church. If the major employer in the region has shut down operations, an exodus of attenders seeking employment elsewhere is a likely cause for a decline in attendance. Likely external factors should be listed at this point.
Internal factors are often more significant, in particular the “stories” by which people understand themselves, others, their churches, and the world. Story Shaping presents the metaphor of a pair of glasses with four layers to each lens to help leaders understand the factors at work when dealing with change, conflict, habits, and other decisions.
THE STORY READING GLASSES
Most people are unaware of how much their own perspectives shape how they understand things. People rarely consider their eyes’ lenses’ role in how they see things. Yet, many must get corrective lenses – whether spectacles or contacts – to accurately see things as they are. In a similar way, people’s mental understanding is always affected by interpretation. Many strands of Practical Theology acknowledge the “inherently hermeneutical nature of human experience” and the role of narrative hermeneutics in facilitating change.[9]
Every individual has a story that functions like layers of lenses embedded together that shape the individual’s understanding of what is and what is not, what can be and what cannot be, what must be and what must not be, and what should and should not be. These stories have developed from family, education, religious training, experiences, thoughts and reflections, the media, friends, and a variety of other sources.[10] People understand themselves by story. “Identity must be narratively construed.”[11] These metaphorical story reading glasses consist of two different lenses, each with four layers. The left lens represents things people consider intentionally: beliefs, ethics, values, and reason.[12] The right lens represents “thinking without thinking” impulses: desires, instincts, skills, and habits.
INTENTIONAL LENS LAYER ONE - BELIEFS
Whether a Christian, a Muslim, an Agnostic, or an Atheist, every person has beliefs. Beliefs answer the questions, “What is?” and “What is not?” as well as “How do things work?” Beliefs include cosmological questions of how the world came into existence and the individual’s place in it, but beliefs also include basic, day-to-day functions of every area of life. Beliefs are often, but not always, the foundation for all of the other layers. Beliefs vary between cultures and religious systems, but also between families and individuals. 
Beliefs have an enormous impact on performance in education, work, and relationships.  Stanford University Professor of Psychology Carol Dweck has researched how people function at this level. She uses the term mindset rather than belief, but her research shows how powerfully beliefs affect people’s actions and ability to find success and happiness in life. She has found two predominant mindsets among people: fixed and growth. People with fixed mindsets tend to view their abilities and intelligence as unchangeable. Those with the growth mindset see themselves and others as capable of learning and improving.[13] A church leader with a fixed mindset is likely to be very resistant to change and may oppose a pastor’s effort to implement a new ministry approach.
INTENTIONAL LENS LAYER TWO - ETHICS
The ethics layer determines the answer to the questions, “What should and should not be?” and “What must and must not be?” Although Bible-believing Christians assume they draw most of their shoulds and musts from the Bible, not all ethics are as clear or grounded as they might think.
Like beliefs, a lot of ethics come from religious backgrounds and parents. However, society and the media have influenced many people to change their ethics. The great eighteenth century economist Adam Smith recognized how effective the new genre of the novel was in shaping the views of the people of his day toward the interaction between classes, sexual morals, and the economics of inheritance.[14] Many studies have shown how movies, television, and news media have increased Americans’ attitudes toward and acceptance of homosexuality.[15]  Audiences can emotionally identify with characters who represent ethics they might have opposed previously. These vivid, emotional portrayals enable the readers and viewers to see through the characters’ eyes and understand their perspectives. This can lead to a softening of “cans” and “musts.” Peer pressure can have a similar effect in changing ethics in individuals and communities.
Unspoken and unwritten ethics drive individual expectations of relationships and much that happens at church. Although most Christians in one church may agree that part of their mission is to reach the lost, there may be some very strongly held convictions about what is acceptable in achieving that mission. A rapidly growing church near Seattle hosted a wine-tasting events called “Drinks for Drinks” to raise money to drill wells in Africa,[16] an event that would produce ire in a more traditional, tea-totaling congregation. Identifying ethics held by various constituencies in a congregation can be a part of diagnosing problems at work in the old story and predicting potential conflict as the new story is written and told.
INTENTIONAL LENS LAYER THREE - VALUES
The next layer of the intentional lens is values. These are things individuals and societies truly and deeply care about. Values are also relative within a community or individual. The values questions are “What matters most?” and “What matters more?” The impulsive right lens has a layer called desires, but these are distinct from values in that they are immediate urges that may not reflect deeply held values.
Like the previous two layers, values are shaped by families, education, media, peers, and religion, but tend to vary even more from individual to individual. Many values are directly drawn from ethics and beliefs, but this is not always the case. A Christian woman can value being known for honesty and integrity in large part because of her biblical beliefs and Christian ethics. However, another woman could hold that same value because of belief that people trusting her as a salesperson will lead to more sales.
An individual and society’s beliefs and values often determine how it responds to crisis, conflict, and change.[17] This is why values is a critical layer in the story shaping lens and determining the values of those involved is essential in leading healthy and effective change. If a person fears losing something of great personal value in change, he will not be eager to make that change. Yet, if he can be shown something of even greater value is risked by not changing, he may be more willing to make that change.
INTENTIONAL LENS LAYER FOUR - REASON
The final layer of the intentional lens is reason. This is the intentional mental processing of new information, experiences, and their implications. People can use reason to determine if a message is true (internally consistent) and good (in line with their ethics). People can use reason to seek inconsistencies in others’ arguments. Reason can also determine how opportunities, challenges, and the views of others compare or contrast to one’s own beliefs, ethics, and values. Reason can help determine action, especially in complex situations.  Reasoning can be used to take new information gleaned from reading, education, research, experience, or relationships to “fill in the blanks” of previously unknown beliefs and to adjust beliefs (and subsequently, ethics and values) accordingly.
It is not uncommon for something on one story layer to be incompatible with that on another within the same individual. Sometimes the individual may be completely unaware of the conflict. Other times the individual may be very aware. An example of the second type of conflict is a person who holds the religious ethic that adultery is wrong yet surrenders to the impulse to have an affair with a coworker anyway. The guilt he experiences is a direct result of his awareness of the conflict between his ethics and his actions.
Not all internal story conflicts face that kind of guilt and awareness, though. An example of ignorant internal story conflict is the person who reacts in anger at others who cut him off in traffic, while also being angry at those who honk at him when he cuts them off. In this case, his story is conflicted at the same level. We use the common expression “double standard” for one who has one ethic for himself and another for everyone else.
Reasoning can be a part of the process of correcting internal story conflict. Reasoning can occur by individuals and by communities, especially in the midst of crises in which old (usually impulsive) views and modes of action are no longer effective. Story Shaping itself is a reasoning process that seeks to recognize the roles of the other intentional and impulsive lens layers of ourselves and others to make the best decisions possible in a variety of situations.
It should be made clear that reasoning has its limitations. Some choose not to evaluate a conflict between experience and beliefs and hold onto their beliefs in spite of the evidence. Others will choose to cling to old ethics and values when their belief systems change. The nineteenth century Danish philosopher Soren Kirekegaard wrote, “Human reason has boundaries,” while making the point the vast majority of human decisions are not based on reasoned, rational consideration but rather “subjective meaning.”[18] His thoughts are supported by much of the latest findings of neuroscience and decision science.
RIGHT (IMPULSIVE) LENS
Dr. Daniel Kahneman has been researching the way people make decisions for over four decades. He and his partner Amos Tverski discovered that humans tend to default to one of two systems for decision making. System One is quick, automatic, and impulsive. System Two is slower, deliberate, and rational. His book’s title, Thinking, Fast and Slow, lays out the implications of these two different systems in a variety of settings. People tend to use System One far more often because it takes less effort. Many problems stem from defaulting to System One instead of intentionally using System Two.[19]
Other research psychologists have observed similar behavior in a large number of tests. Some have termed this phenomenon the Heuristic Systems Method.[20] A related concept is called the Elaboration Likelihood Method,[21] but all three models have a similar core concept: People tend to make quick decisions by defaulting to heuristics – rules of thumb, gut reactions, and other cues they have picked up to try and make decisions as effectively as possible without expending much time and effort, unless they view something of sufficient value and uncertainty to warrant intentional, reasoned processing.
While Kahneman and the others spend most of their time pointing out the flaws of using System One (fast thinking) heuristics in decision making, the reality is the vast majority of the time it works well. The pioneering American Psychologist William James saw the fact that humans have “a far greater variety of impulses than any other lower animal” as the reason why our brains so effective.[22] In fact, it would be very difficult to get anything accomplished if people had to analytically process every decision they made.
In How We Decide, Jonah Lehrer cites many neuroscientific research studies that have demonstrated the impulsive and emotional region of the brain’s ability to learn to function automatically and to make quick decisions without intentional effort.[23] Fast thinking and quick decisions have their place, but they can also cause real problems when we resort to them when a deliberate decision making process like Story Shaping would prevent errors. Kahneman provides several examples of how the fast-thinking, impulsive System One function of the brain fools people. It looks for cues to make quick decisions, but its method of judging and handling those cues cannot always be trusted.[24]
Neuroscientists have discovered that a different region in our brains is used for this fast thinking – the amygdala. Daniel Goleman points out how the amygdala is tied to emotions and memories. The prefrontal cortex is used for rational processing, what Kahneman calls System Two: slow, deliberate thinking. Goleman points out how strong emotions tend to activate the amygdala in what he calls “an amygdala hijacking” that prevents people from accessing the more intentional prefrontal cortex and System Two.[25]
In the metaphor of the story reading glasses, System One, the fast thinking brain region, corresponds to the impulsive right lens to imply that deliberate effort is not used in thinking and deciding. This lens has four layers (whose first letters spell DISH) that can shape what people see and how they act.
IMPULSIVE LENS LAYER ONE: DESIRES
Desires are emotional and physical urges.  Many of these are natural and essential parts of human systems. If a man is thirsty, he craves water. The man’s body warns him to drink to avoid the debilitating effects of dehydration. However, acting on some desires can be destructive. Slugging a spouse in the face in the midst of argument may be acting on a strong desire, but it will not build a healthy marriage. Fear is a powerful urge that can save a life by avoiding an imminent accident in a trained driver. However, fear also cuts off the ability to reason and access intentional thinking in an amygdala hijacking.
IMPULSIVE LENS LAYER TWO: INSTINCTS
 Instincts are actions done without thinking that do not require any learning. An example is breathing. Babies are born from the womb breathing. Most human bodies’ systems function instinctively. Instincts also constitute things people sense to be right or true without conscious consideration. Although instincts are often accurate, Kahneman provides many examples from a variety of disciplines in which “experts trust their guts” with disastrous results. One of these is the “Sports Illustrated jinx.” The world’s leading sports magazine seeks the “hottest” player in professional sports over the previous month and sticks a photo on the cover under the assumption that hot streak will continue. More often than not, the month after the issue is published, the player’s performance plummets. Kahneman does not believe this is some cosmic curse or jinx, but rather a statistical regression to the mean. The streak was not a sudden improvement in that player’s ability but rather a statistical anomaly. The post SI cover crash is simply the player returning to normal.[26] The SI editors’ guts led them astray when rational statistical analysis would have spared them (and their athletes of the month) embarrassment.
IMPULSIVE LENS LAYER THREE: SKILLS
Skills are complex abilities that are initially learned through intentional effort but are later used by individuals without conscious thought. Driving a car is an example. A typical sixteen year old concentrates on every aspect of driving, for example, how hard to push which pedal, when to turn, and when to turn on a signal light. However, an experienced adult driver rarely concentrates on the specific mechanics of driving, unless dangerous conditions are present.
In The Talent Code, Daniel Coyle gives many examples of how exceptionally skilled people who appear to have an abundance of “talent” actually have learned skills through what he calls “deep practice.” This is intentional repetition of challenging activities until they become second nature. One who has reached this level does not need to invest the time and mental energy in making decisions but can respond by instinct.[27]
IMPULSIVE LENS LAYER FOUR: HABITS
Habits are behaviors developed at some earlier point that have become routine and are done without thinking. The difference between habits and skills is that skills require intentional effort to master. Habits are not difficult to learn but are picked up by intentional or unintentional repetition. As with so many things on the impulsive side, some habits are good; some are destructive. It takes intentional effort to stop bad habits. One of the biggest challenges to habit change is not fully accessing the intentional side of the brain.
As the pastor or leader continues to read the old story, identifying the metaphorical story reading glasses worn by all affected can help reveal the motives for actions that contribute to the current situation and how people will likely receive change as it is implemented. Once the external and internal contributing factors are discovered, the next question asked in reading the old story is the question of Practical Theology.
C)  How Might God Be at Work?
Practical Theology seeks to “interpret the revelatory realism of God’s action in concrete, lived experience.”[28] The second major step, Writing the New Story, involves significant reflection on what God would have people do in their situations, and that section will go into more detail on theological reflection, particularly in a Pentecostal congregation. At this earlier point, the goal is to identify what God may already be doing. There may be some significant hints God is at work. Some of these may be obvious, and some may be subtle.[29]
Leonard Sweet’s book on evangelism is called, Nudge: Awakening Each Other to the God Who’s Already There.[30] The title itself communicates an understanding that God is already at work in people’s lives before they fully embrace him. A leader who recognizes God at work in a situation can point that out to those involved to encourage an appropriate response. At this point the point in the Story Shaping process, the leadership can pray, reflect, and ask: How might God be at work? Do we sense the Holy Spirit speaking? Are there more subtle hints of God’s work among us in this situation?
As the old story is wrapped up, three core questions have been clarified: What is happening? Why is it happening? How might God be at work? Now, it is time to begin to write the new story.
STEP TWO – WRITE THE NEW STORY
This is the heart of the Story Shaping process. In most applications, this is where the actual decision is made. In planning, the major components of the plan are put together in this stage. There are three major substeps of writing the new story in Story Shaping, all starting with the letter P: People, Prospect, and Plan. Some of these have many possible approaches within them. Not all of these need to be used in every application.
A) People
The first question to ask when writing the new story is, “Who should be on the story writing team?” Some decisions are best made with others. In church and ministry major planning, a team is usually best because:
·       Many people will be impacted by the decision
·       Several different viewpoints are held by those affected
·       There is likely to be opposition to a final decision (representation on the decision team can alleviate some of this)
·       The decision will have a large impact on the organization’s future
·       Enacting the plan will require many individuals
Jim Collins found “getting the right people on the bus” was one of the first steps corporations took who made the leap from good to great.[31] Founding pastor of Willow Creek Community Church, Bill Hybels, developed the Three C criteria for hiring staff that not only included competency at the skills required by the job, but also character and chemistry.[32] An individual’s integrity and ability to work with others on the team is essential for the team’s success.
So, in selecting the best story writing team possible, leaders can look for the following:
·       People of character
·       People who work well with others
·       People who sincerely care about the future of the person, group, or organization
·       People representing the major constituencies affected
·       People with “adjustable lenses” willing to consider new possibilities and other ways of thinking
·       People willing to speak their minds and risk disagreement[33]
Another important consideration is the size of the decision team. The more people on the team, the more time decisions take and the more difficult it can be to get consensus. There is not a hard and fast rule on the best size for a decision team, but planning teams usually function well with around twelve.
B) Prospect
The main decision component of Story Shaping is called Prospect because of the uncertain nature of most solutions. Decision scientists Chip and Dan Heath have determined that most businesses and individuals fail to make the best decisions possible because of what they call “narrow framing.”[34] This is assuming there should be one clear right decision or a simple choice between two options, what they call “Either/Or Thinking.” To avoid this, Story Shaping lays out seven parts of prospecting that all begin with the letter R in order  to get as many possible solutions as possible, narrow them to a manageable list, thoroughly evaluate each option, and make the best decision possible.
1) Raise the Number of Options
Story Shaping fights narrow framing to get as many creative options as possible. In 1953 Alex Faickney Osborne popularized the concept of “brainstorming” in his book, Applied Imagination. This process has been adapted and widely used by many in group creativity and problem solving. A facilitator clarifies an objective and members of the team present as many ideas as possible with no limits to viability or absurdity.[35] When well facilitated in a group that feels free to share and be creative, brainstorming can lead to some very creative solutions. The keys are: 1 – Let the ideas flow, 2 – Write them down, 3 – Suppress comments and attitudes that stifle creativity (for example, “That is stupid. That won’t work.”) 4 – Encourage people to dream without boundaries as ideas are shared.
However, studies have shown that in many conditions brainstorming can actually reduce the number of options generated. Individuals in these studies came up with more ideas working on their own than working in groups. This is attributed to several factors. One is called blocking. This is when one person has an idea to share but another takes the floor first. While that idea is being recorded, the individual who has not yet shared forgets the idea.[36] Another is fixation. This is the tendency for people to be influenced by others’ ideas to the extent that they stop sharing their own.[37]
These limiting factors of brainstorming can be overcome by a combination of private and public brainstorming. Brainstorming team members make lists of their own ideas first privately in written form and give them to the facilitator who compiles the list for the whole team to “prime the pump” and get ideas flowing.
A tool to help generate more ideas is to ask expanding questions to encourage team members to view things in new frames. Here are some examples of expanding questions:
·       What would you do if you were guaranteed to succeed and had unlimited resources?
·       What would _____ (Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Albert Einstein, Yoda, Ronald Reagan, my successor, my predecessor, my best friend) do?
·       What would you do if you could not do any of the options selected so far?
·       What are we giving up by making this choice?
·       Envision the best future possible. What did we do to get there?
In Smartcuts, Shane Snow tells the story of his college roommate who set the world record for the video game Super Mario Brothers, not by beating every boss on every level but by discovering secret Warp Pipes hidden in the game by the developers that enabled those who discovered them to pass through multiple levels without a single obstacle. He uses those ladders as a metaphor for what he calls smartcuts – ways to skip the normal steps others take to gain success quickly. He uses many examples from a variety of fields to show that the step by step process is not always (or even usually) the best process to follow.[38]
Instead, Snow says we should pursue “Lateral Thinking,” a concept he borrowed from Edward De Bono. De Bono encourages putting on a variety of “thinking hats” to view opportunities and options through a variety of perspectives. This can be done in a group, with various members figuratively (or even literally) wearing colored hats representing the perspectives they are to consider and share. The facilitator wears the blue hat to clarify the objective and rules, encourage all participants to share, and to keep everyone on track. Those wearing the white hats share the facts related to the situation (much like Story Shaping’s Read the Old Story step). The red hats share their immediate, gut reactions and ideas. The black hats then approach the problem logically, pointing out problems and barriers and any weaknesses in the ideas shared to this point. Those wearing the yellow hats focus on benefits and look for harmony, while those in the green hats encourage the team too probe more deeply, explore new options, and investigate possibilities.[39]
Another suggestion to increase the number of options is to get the input of someone with a fresh perspective, especially if they are a disinterested expert. “Insiders” can become so acclimated to the status quo that it becomes difficult to see any other possibility. Consultants can be familiar with many workable solutions and emotionally separated from the status quo enough to be free to give good suggestions.[40]
2) Reduce the Options to a Manageable Number
Once the growth of new creative solutions seems to be nearly exhausted, it is time to reduce the number of options to be considered.
Experts in corporate problem solving for the Boston Consulting Group, Luc de Brabandere and Alan Iny, laid out an approach in their book, Thinking in New Boxes, that involves five steps: 1) Doubt Everything, 2) Probe the Possible, 3) Diverge, 4) Converge, 5) Evaluate Relentlessly. Their step three, diverge, lines up with Story Shaping’s “raise the number of options,” and converge corresponds with “reduce the options to a manageable number.” They call for these essential steps to get people to not be bound by “old boxes” of limited thinking. The expanded creativity usually leads to the best solutions, but effective consideration of options requires a limited number.[41] Depending on the application, three to seven options allows each to be carefully studied while providing a reasonable ranges of possibilities.
The option reducing process starts by eliminating those that obviously will not accomplish the objectives, do not inspire the planning team, or do not match with the organization’s ethics and values. Next, merging ideas can be considered. “And” is often better than “or.” With the remaining options, representative options over a range of likely successful choices can provide good test cases for further study. The final list can be identified, and each option considered in the next steps.
3) Reflect Theologically
Theological reflection is at the core of Practical Theology. This has been the key missing component in most of the business models adapted for church planning. Yet, as mentioned earlier, Practical Theology’s objective is to connect practice and theory.[42] By definition, the church’s mission is God’s mission. Determining what a church should do is a theological activity.[43] The challenge is to make what has been considered an erudite activity for academic theologians accessible for church leaders. A series of specific steps can help lay and pastoral leaders reflect theologically as they seek to improve mission effectiveness.
Look for applicable biblical commands and examples: Pentecostal believers (and many other Christians) have historically turned to the scriptures as their first step for guidance. They believe the Bible is “not just a book about what God has done in the past but is first and foremost about God’s direct and immediate word for their lives in the present.”[44] The challenge is to determine how the Bible should be applied in a certain situation with seemingly endless numbers of ways to twist the meaning of words. Yong does not hesitate to give freedom to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through the scriptures with the Christian community of all ages “bearing witness and passing judgment” (I Corinthians 14:29) and helping to interpret and apply God’s message to their churches and lives.[45] The clearest New Testament commands are a good starting place. Parallel examples of biblical characters are a next good step. Implied life principles can often be distilled from narrative passages.[46]
Listen to the Holy Spirit: The New Testament gives several examples of the Holy Spirit giving direction to the Apostles through dreams, visions, prophecy, and being “led by the Spirit.”[47] Pentecostals have always been open to divine guidance. One of the earliest scholars of the movement, Stanley Frodsham, went so far as to say, “Is it possible to be led by the Spirit of God every day in the year, every hour of the day, and every moment of every hour?  Most assuredly.”[48]  However, even the earliest Apostles did not appear to get divine guidance on a daily basis. A study of how the Apostle Paul made decisions in his ministry shows that he did receive some divine guidance, but a slight majority of the decisions Paul made as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles were his own reasoned decisions.[49] Certainly Paul drew from his reservoir of wisdom, but there seemed to be no supernatural occurrence in these cases. Acts 16:3 is one example:  “Paul wanted [Timothy] to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” (NASB) Paul took Timothy because he wanted to take him. He circumcised him first to avoid conflict with the Jews in the area, since Timothy was half Jewish. Both Acts 20:3 and 16 use the word “decided” to describe Paul’s choice in travel modes and destinations. There is good reasoning used in both cases, but nothing supernatural. Add to this that Luke only records the most significant of decisions, and it is apparent that although God gave some supernatural guidance to Paul, it was the exception rather than the norm.           
The Anglican Triad of authority stated that scripture could be understood by tradition and reason. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral added experience as a means to validate the biblical message. Perhaps a Pentecostal Pentagon should be proposed that adds a fifth leg of revelation, made distinct from experience (at least in the mind of the recipient) by the externally initiated nature of revelation and its goal to convey new information to the recipient. Yet, the risk of outlandish behavior done in the name of God’s direction has driven Spirit seeking communities to exercise “discernment” (I Corinthians 12:10). All prophetic utterances and supernatural activity needs to have the witness of the Christian community to substantiate it before action (I Corinthians 14:29).[50] 
Christian believers who look to the New Testament for exemplars of God’s working can be open to praying and listening for God’s direction without staying frozen in indecision in its absence. James says to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5). Although he does not define it explicitly, he seems to mean the ability to make moral and practical decisions apart from unmistakably supernatural guidance.[51]
4) Research
The next step in the process is also very much in keeping with the objectives of Practical Theology. Research can occur in several ways and should be focused on data that can be helpful toward the specific issue.
Learn from the Christian Community: There is a growing awareness in Practical Theology on the role of the larger Christian community in theological understanding. The phrase “Christian community” can reflect a local congregation, but it usually encompasses the entire church of all generations, acknowledging the role of tradition, the studies of scholars through the years and around the world, as well as those familiar with the details of a particular congregation. Amos Yong says,
The on-the-ground aspect of Christian life drives theological reflection, and in that sense, theology always strives to keep up, interpret, and understand Christian discipleship in ever-changing contexts… [The theological task] is part and parcel of the hermeneutical circle wherein we encounter and confront Scripture and of the dialogical matrix wherein the many voices of our past meet and mesh with the many tongues and discursive practices that constitute our present lives.[52]

Learning can happen in formal settings like classes and conferences, as well as informal relationships and looking for models to emulate. The unique context and history of other cases should be taken into consideration before immediate adoption. However, lessons learned by others can provide valuable insights.
Learn from Other Disciplines: The cross-disciplinary nature of Practical Theology has already been noted. Much can be learned from similar fields and even beyond. Analogous lessons can be learned from completely different fields.[53]
Study the Context: Quantitative data can be of immense value in determining the reality of the congregation as well as the community and what forces are at work. Chip and Dan Heath warn against falling into a “confirmation bias.” This occurs when leaders neglect to seriously consider hard data that goes against their assumptions.[54] Qualitative studies can also be helpful in uncovering attitudes and behaviors at work in the church and community that can affect the success of some options.
5) Reach Forward
Once each live option has been researched, the long term ramifications and likelihood of success of each can be evaluated. However, the tendency of organizations has been to exercise trendspotting, assuming recent trends will continue and the future can be predicted. Although this approach can sometimes yield desirable results, trends rarely continue at the same rate for long periods of time. The US Housing Boom of 2002-2006 is an excellent example. Many who bought investment homes in that period assumed that the rate of price increase would continue indefinitely.
Story Shaping proposes an alternate approach called trajectory prospecting. Rather than assuming trends will continue and that a single future can be predicted, it assumes a trajectory is a more accurate way to anticipate the future. It also avoids the regression to the mean fallacy pointed out by Kahneman.[55] Trajectories also represent the non-linear, wave-like quality of fashions, fads, and other phenomena.[56] Considering a range of possible outcomes increases the chance of accuracy. Because more possible outcomes are considered, trajectory prospecting is more complex and time consuming. Yet, the increased considerations can enable decisions and plans to be made with more confidence. There are several steps in this process.
Plot the Trajectory to the Current Point: Researching the organization’s past will point out the general nature of the line historically. Things to look for include: patterns, length and intensity of cycles, forces that caused trajectory changes in the past, and the shape and direction of the most recent trajectory.
Select a Few Representative Prospects: Potential curves can be plotted forward that provide a range of possible futures. A few plots can be made representing likely outcomes of the various options considered.
Evaluate Likely Outcomes: The Heaths recommend conducting “pre-mortems” and “pre-parades” by mentally imagining themselves after undesirable outcomes have happened and asking, “What factors led to our failure? What did we do wrong?” Similarly, the mental imagery of success is envisioned, and the team asks one another, “Why did we succeed?”[57] These can help evaluate the different options available and the likely trajectories. A cost/benefit analysis can also be used for each likely outcome. Those options whose outcomes are high risk with little reward and high cost with little benefit can be eliminated.
6) Read the Remaining Options through the Intentional Lens
Options and their outcomes can be evaluated to determine which are truly in line with the organization and individuals’ beliefs, ethics, and values. Those that conflict should be eliminated. A priority can be established.
7) Resolve
At this point, the best option may be clear. However, even if not, a decision can be made. The future cannot be predicted, and the best choice cannot always be known. Working this process prayerfully can enable leaders to decide with confidence, even in the face of uncertainty.[58]
When a team is used, consensus may not be possible. A majority vote may not yield the best decision at every occasion, yet thorough discussion of all information gleaned through the process, including another round of prayerful reflection, weighing the costs, and considering likely outcomes is good before the final decision is made. Yet, at some point, the decision should be finalized.
C) Plan
The third and final portion of writing the new story is developing the plan to implement the decision. This is not complicated in several applications of Story Shaping. However, in ministry planning, this can be quite an extensive process, including determining specific action steps, timelines, and personnel required. Documents can be developed to identify what needs to be done in what order. Sample plans can be developed for a variety of applications.
STEP THREE – TELL THE NEW STORY
Once a decision has been reached and a plan developed to implement it, those affected should be notified and the action taken. When significant change is enacted at a church or other organization, those who have been members for a significant time period are likely to resist unless the change is communicated in a healthy way. The acronym SMART is used to help leaders communicate the new plan to people in ways they are likely to understand and embrace.
Simple – Although plans are often detailed, most people have difficulty understanding and remembering something complex. It can be tempting to try to communicate everything about a plan, but a simple, memorable model or acronym can increase the likelihood people will embrace the change and follow through.[59]
Motivating – People often do not embrace change because they fear losing what they value. As leaders read the lenses of their followers, especially their values, they can phrase the change to speak to what those in their organizations care about most. Simon Sinek’s Start with Why demonstrated how marketing and other persuasive message that start by answering What?  or How? are less effective at motivating people than those that start with the reason for the change.[60] Pointing out the likely long term wins of the change and the long term costs of the status quo can help people embrace the new direction.
Actionable – Some plans fail because clear responsibility is not assigned or unrealistic expectations are made. All involved should be aware of both the big picture and their specific roles. Communication to all involved is essential.
RewardedCelebration is motivation and builds morale in an organization. Clear and early wins will help build ownership of the new plan. Measurement of key indicators and specific awards with stories send a clear message of what matters most. These celebrations can becomes anchor points for further growth and improvement.[61]
Tentative – Consistent evaluation is critical for long term success. Early monitoring can reveal needed course correction. One of Shane Snow’s smartcuts is Rapid Feedback.[62] Similarly, Iny and Brandenbere urge organizations to “reevaluate relentlessly.”[63] Churches and other organizations can get locked into a pattern without evaluation. However, sufficient time must be given to allow for the learning curve. New processes are not usually as efficient or effective until the people involved develop the skills to handle them impulsively instead of intentionally.
Story Shaping will hopefully be developed more fully as a system that can be understood by church, ministry, and business leaders, as well as laypeople, to handle a wide variety of life situations. In closing, here is a brief, paradigmatic review of the Jerusalem Council and how their handling of a very difficult situation encompassed many of the elements of Story Shaping.
ACTS 15 AS AN EXAMPLE OF STORY SHAPING
In the city of Antioch, there was a major disagreement on what it meant to be a Christian and what new Christians who were not of Jewish background needed to do to become Christians. At its core, this was an Intentional Lens Layer One (Beliefs) and Layer Two (Ethics) issue.
The Apostle Paul, Barnabas, and the Christians in Antioch believed (Layer One - Beliefs) that Gentiles only needed to believe in Jesus to become Christians. They felt these Gentiles should not (Layer Two – Ethics) get circumcised, because that would be trying to earn God’s favor through a work of the Jewish law, not the faith that Christ prescribed. However, some Pharisees who had become Christians disagreed. They believed (Layer One – Beliefs) that becoming a Christian meant becoming a Jew and required following all of the Law, including circumcision. Therefore, in their minds, Gentile converts must (Layer Two – Ethics) be circumcised to be fully saved. Fortunately, both groups valued (Layer Three – Values) honoring and obeying God over all else and were willing to get together to reason (Layer Four) things out.
The first thing they did was to read the old story. They did this by seeking to understand each other’s stories. Acts 15:4-11 describes Paul and Barnabas sharing their beliefs and ethics along with the experiences they had that validated them. The Pharisees who disagreed were also given a chance to share their story. Next, the Apostle Peter shared his own story of how his beliefs on the issue were changed through experience and God’s revelation. This is an excellent example of our first step, Read the Old Story. Everyone got to speak. Everyone had the opportunity to be understood. They all understood the reason for the conflict, and they were willing to ask how God might be at work.
They then proceeded to Write the New Story. The people part of the process was already decided. The Jerusalem Council consisted of people on both sides of the issue, plus many of the original Apostles, and James (Jesus’ half-brother), who was recognized as the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Their prospecting was not as concerned with future outcomes as with what should be done at that time and in all times. They considered the options presented. Although Luke only records James’ words in this section, they provide clear evidence of theological reflection. In verse 14, James pointed to the evidence of Peter’s miraculous experience in Joppa (described in Acts 10 and relayed by Peter to all those present at the Jerusalem Council) as evidence of God’s sanction of Gentile salvation through faith without circumcision. He next reflected on scripture (Amos 9:11-12) and applied it to their situation. He then made a clear decision not to require the Gentiles to be circumcised in verse 19. Verse 28 makes it clear there was a corporate consensus on the decision, so there must have been dialogue by all those there since they came to that kind of an agreement.
Although the decision was made at this point, it would have had no impact on the early church had they not then made the step of planning how to implement it. This corresponds to Step Three – Tell the New Story. James ordered a letter with simple instructions sent to the churches facing this dilemma. This letter was delivered by Paul, Barnabas, Barsabbas, and Silas – a blended team of those who had been at Antioch and those who had been in Jerusalem in recent years. It showed unity and gave voices all could respect. The wording of the letter itself was positive and motivating. What they asked of the Gentiles was clear and actionable. The reward was obviously from God, ultimately, but the unity of the church and ceasing of hostility brought a real, temporal reward as well. Finally, they told the story tentatively. As Paul and his friends set out to deliver the letters, some improvisation was required along the way. It seems that the Letter to the Galatians may have been part of Paul’s efforts to clarify some misunderstandings that still existed after the initial visit following the Council of Jerusalem. His later return to Jerusalem with an offering and representatives of many of the new Gentile churches was likely a further, Holy Spirit inspired, effort to continue the reconciliation and healing process. (Acts 20-21 and II Corinthians 8-9) Today the church around the world is still strongly communicating the message of God’s love and grace because its early leaders were willing to shape its story in the right direction.







[1] George Barna and David Kinnaman, Churchless: Understanding Today’s Unchurched and How to Connect with Them (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2014), report the percentage of Americans who consider themselves unchurched has increased from 30% in the 1990s to 43% in 2014. The 2012 Pew Research Religion and Life Project, “Nones on the Rise,” October 9, 2012, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ [Accessed January 11, 2105], reported the percentage of “unaffiliated Americans” (self-declared atheists, agnostics, and those with no religious affiliation) increased from 15% in 2007 to more than 20% by 2012. Thom Rainer, “13 Issues for Churches in 2013,” http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/164787-thom-rainer-13-issues-churches-2013.html [Accessed January 11, 2015], estimated 8,000-10,000 American churches closed their doors in 2013.
[2] John Kotter, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996); Spencer Johnson, Who Moved My Cheese: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998).
[3] Aubrey Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning, First Edition (Grand Rapids, Baker: 1999); Ed Stetzer and Mike Dodson, Comeback Churches (Nashville, TN: B & H Books, 2007); and Dan Southerland, Transitioning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
[4] Stephen E. Parker, Led By the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 12. Other definitions include: Mark Lau Branson and Juan F. Martinez, Churches, Cultures and Leadership: A Practical Theology of Congregations and Ethnicities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 41, “The ongoing life of the church between study/reflection and engagement/action;” and Andrew Root, Christopraxis: A Practical Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 10, Practical Theology is ministry, which is divine action, whether through the direct presence of God or the ministerial activity of his people.
[5] Jerome Cottin, “The Evolution of Practical Theology in French Speaking Europe,” International Journal of Practical Theology (2013: 17(1)): 33.
[6] Richard Osmer, Practical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
[7] Malphurs, 95-144.
[8] Don S. Browning, A Fundamental Practical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 285.
[9] Sally A. Brown, “Hermeneutics in Protestant Practical Theology,“ Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction, Kathleen Cahalan and Gordon S. Mikosi, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014), 117, writes, “Thinking critically about the act of interpretation is not something that practical theologians can take or leave; it is part and parcel of every effort to understand the way communities of faith function, both internally and in relation to the communities in which they are embedded.” See also: Elaine Graham, Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002); Charles V. Gerkin, The Living Human Document: Revision Pastoral Counseling in a Hermeneutical Mode (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1984); Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1983); and Osmer, 21-23.
[10] See David I. Smith and James K.A. Smith, “Faith, Practices, and Pedagogy,” Teaching and Christian Practices (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 12-14, for one example on how one’s understanding of the world and the meaning of practices can be developed in community.
[11] Dale M. Coulter, “On Traditions, Local Traditions, and Discernment,” Pneuma 36 (2014): 1-3.
[12] Coulter, 3, identified that Early Christian tradition developed as a common identity that sought to integrate orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthopathy: right beliefs, right practice (ethics), and right values. These correspond to the intentional story lens.
[13] Carol Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York: Random House, 2006).
[14] Shannon Chamberlain, "Adam Smith and the Romance Novel," The Atlantic (September 3, 2014).
[15] Jerel P. Calzo and Monique Ward, "Media Exposure and Viewers' Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Evidence for Mainstreaming or Resonance?" Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2009): 280-299; David Gauntlett, Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2008); Jennifer M. Bonds-Raacke, Elizabeth T. Cady, Rebecca Schlegel, Richard J. Harris & Lindsey Firebaugh, "Remembering Gay/Lesbian Media Characters," Journal of Homosexuality 53, no. 3 (2007): 19-34.
[16] https://my.charitywater.org/drinks4drinks. [Accessed January 11, 2015].
[17] This is demonstrated by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (New York: Blackwell Business, 1996). In the middle of the twentieth century, academic psychologist Clare W. Graves developed a theory he later termed Spiral Dynamics, an emergent cyclical levels of existence theory,” that sought to explain how both individuals and societies think and act and how cultures have developed throughout history. Graves’ work was not published until he partnered with Don Beck near the end of his life in 1975. Beck systematized and popularized Graves’ work, which has had tremendous influence on psychology, anthropology, and business. One of the core concepts of Spiral Dynamics is the eight “value systems” that are used to categorize societies around the world and throughout history. Beck and Graves diagnosed that many major cultural conflicts have resulted from values systems conflicts. Beck was even invited to South Africa by the President Nelson Mandela to help that country “memetically” navigate the massive cultural and values system changes resulting from the abolition of Apartheid and the goal of ending racism.
[18] Soren Kierkegaard, Journals and Papers, Vol. 5 (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1978), 5.
[19] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011).
[20] Richard E. Petty, Pablo Brinol, and Zakary L. Tormala, “Thought Confidence as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Self-Validation Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, no. 5 (2002): 722-741. James B. Stiff, and Paul A. Mongeau, Persuasive Communication (New York: Guilford, 2003), 233.  Duane T. Wegener and Richard E. Petty, “Understanding the Effects of Mood through the Elaboration Likelihood and Flexible Correction Models, ” in ed. Leonard L. Martin and Gerald L. Clare, Theories of Mood and Cognition: A User’s Guide (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001), 177-210.  
[21] Richard M. Perloff, The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003), 128-142; and Stiff and Mongeau, 217-235.
[22] William James, Principles of Psychology, Vol. 2 (New York: Dover, 1952), 389.
[23] Jonah Lehrer, How We Decide (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2009).
[24] Kaheneman, 44.
[25] Daniel Goleman, (Working with Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam, 1998), 74-76.
[26] Kahneman, 178.
[27] Daniel Coyle, The Talent Code (New York: Bantam, 2009), 33-50.
[28] Root, 57.
[29] A biblical example of seeing God already at work in others before they even came to faith in Christ is found in Acts 17:16-31. This was Paul’s first visit to the great center of philosophy in his day: Athens. He was initially provoked by all of the idols in the city. While this was initially a point of offense for the devout Christian monotheist, he began to look beyond his offense to find ways God may have already been at work in the culture. He was not content to let them rest in their idolatry, but he looked for an open door of understanding that could be a way God was at work. He found it in the “altar to an unknown god.” Throughout his message to the philosophers of the Aeropagus, Paul sought to make known to them “what they had worshipped in ignorance” with that altar. He also pulled evidence for the truth of one creator God who revealed himself in the Savior Jesus Christ though Greek poets and philosophers, and even creation itself. Paul recognized his visit was not an opportunity to not start God’s work among the Athenians but to take it to fruition with a full explanation of the God they only knew in part before.
[30] Leonard Sweet, Nudge: Awakening Each Other to the God Who’s Already There (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010).
[31] Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t (New York: HarperBusiness, 2001).
[32] Bill Hybels, Courageous Leadership (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 123-127.
[33] Adapted from Hybels, 123-130, and Malphurs, 59-60.
[34] Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work (New York: Random House, 2013).
[35] Alex Faickney Osborne, Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953).
[36] For example, M. Diehl and W. Stroebe, “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1987), 497509; D. G. Jansson and S. M. Smith, “Design Fixation,” Design Studies, 12 (1991), 311; B. R. Gallupe, L. M. Bastianutti, and W. H. Cooper, “Unblocking Brainstorms.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (1991), 137142; and B. Mullen, C. Johnson, and E. Salas, “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-analytic Integration,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12 (1991), 323.
[37] Nicholas W. Kohn and Stephen M. Smith, “Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 25, no. 2 (May/June 2011), 359-371; and S. M. Smith and S. E. Blankenship, “Incubation and the Persistence of Fixation in Problem Solving,” American Journal of Psychology, 104 (1991), 6187.
[38] Shane Snow, Smartcuts: How Hackers, Innovators, and Icons Accelerate Success (New York: HarperBusiness, 2014).
[39] Edward De Bono, Six Thinking Hats (New York: Back Bay Books, 1999).
[40] Malphurs, 46-47.
[41] Luc de Brabandere and Alan Iny, Thinking in New Boxes, (New York: Random House, 2013), 6.
[42] Kathleen A. Cahalan and Gordon Mikoski, Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014), 2-3.
[43] Root, 244-245.
[44] Amos Yong, Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 336.
[45] Yong, 342-355.
[46] Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture, and Community (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2002), 226-233.
[47] The possibility of divine guidance is a controversial issue among New Testament scholars. Some conservative scholars deny any revelation subsequent to the canonical scriptures. Carl Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, Volume II: God Who Speaks and Shows (Waco: Word Books, 1976), 14-15, says, “The Holy Spirit conveys no new truth,” in spite of presenting a theology of revelation in fifteen theses.  He argues the Spirit can only illuminate and interpret the revelation already given in the pages of the Bible. Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson, Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980), p. 82, say, “The Bible is fully sufficient to provide all the guidance needed for a believer to know and do God’s will.” Yet a growing number of theologians argue that revelation is a present reality.  Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Volume I: Reason and Revelation, Being and God, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951, 127-132, says, “Christianity… should affirm that there is continuous revelation in the history of the church… A dependent revelatory situation exists in every moment in which the divine Spirit grips, shakes, and moves the human spirit….  Revelation occurs in every true prayer.” H. Niebuhr Richard, The Meaning of Revelation, New York: Macmillan, 1946, 136, says, “The God who revealed himself continues to reveal himself.” As Dallas Willard, In Search of Guidance (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1984), 120, says, “There is no foundation in Scripture, in reason, or in the nature of things why any or all of these types of experiences might not be used by God today to communicate with His creatures.” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I:1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960, 518-519, believes the Holy Spirit enables each person to have his own personal participation in revelation and gives him instruction and guidance he cannot receive any other way. In the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume I:2, The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960, 223, says, “The objective possibility of revelation becomes a subjective reality.”
[48] Stanley Frodsham, Spirit Filled, Led and Taught, Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, [193?], 33.
[49] In centuries past, Acts was not a common source of theology, but that has changed.  Roger Stronstad clearly articulated the value of narrative as a source of theology in his book, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984).  This perspective has become widely accepted even by non-Pentecostal evangelical theologians.  For example, I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 17-33, states that nearly all scholars today accept the belief that one of Luke’s primary agendas in writing the Acts is theological.  Luke also usually records both the source and process Paul used in making decision, thus providing an excellent “laboratory” for developing this theology. Acts records Paul using his own reason as the primary means of decision-making in 18 instances (9:24, 11:29, 15:22, 25, 15:36-38, 16:2-3, 16:13, 17:2, 19:21, 19:30-31, 20:3, 20:16, 21:21-26, 23:15-24, 25:11, 27:10, 27:30-31), prophecy on 4 occasions (11:29, 13:1-4, 21:4. 21:10-14), he received 5 appearances, visions or dreams (9:4-6, 9:10-16, 16:9-10, 18:9-11, 23:11, 27:22-26), and it seems that 3 occasions were likely internal guidance by the Holy Spirit (15:28, 16:6, 7, 20:22-25).
[50] Stephen E. Parker, Led By the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press: 1996), 34.
[51] Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, “Sofia,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
[52] Yong, 354.
[53] Heath and Heath, 80.
[54] Heath and Heath, 11-15.
[55] Kahneman, 175-184.
[56] Snow, 101-122.
[57] Heath and Heath, 202-217.
[58] Andy Stanley, Next Generation Leader (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 20013), 52.
[59] Snow, 157-160.
[60] Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2009).
[61] James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, Encouraging the Heart (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2003), 89-128; and Kotter, 121-136.
[62] Snow, 53-77.
[63] Brabandere and Iny, 187-215.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture, and Community. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2002.
Barna, George, and David Kinnaman. Churchless: Understanding Today’s Unchurched and How to Connect with Them. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2014.
Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, Volume I:1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960.
---, Church Dogmatics, Volume I:2, The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960.
Beck, Don, and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change. New York: Blackwell Business, 1996.
Bonds-Raacke, Jennifer M., Elizabeth T. Cady, Rebecca Schlegel, Richard J. Harris & Lindsey Firebaugh. "Remembering Gay/Lesbian Media Characters." Journal of Homosexuality 53, no. 3 (2007): 19-34.
Brabandere, Luc de, and Alan Iny. Thinking in New Boxes. New York: Random House, 2013.
Branson, Mark Lau, and Juan F. Martinez. Churches, Cultures and Leadership: A Practical Theology of Congregations and Ethnicities. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
Browning, Don S. A Fundamental Practical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Cahalan, Kathleen A., and Gordon Mikoski. Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.
Cahalan, Kathleen, and Gordon S. Mikosi, eds. Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.
Calzo, Jerel P., and Monique Ward. "Media Exposure and Viewers' Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: Evidence for Mainstreaming or Resonance?" Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (2009): 280-299.
Chamberlain, Shannon. "Adam Smith and the Romance Novel," The Atlantic (September 3, 2014).
Charity Water. “Drinks 4 Drinks.” https://my.charitywater.org/drinks4drinks [Accessed January 11, 2015].
Collins, Jim. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. New York: HarperBusiness, 2001.
Cottin, Jerome. “The Evolution of Practical Theology in French Speaking Europe.” International Journal of Practical Theology (2013: 17(1)): 33.
Coulter, Dale M. “On Traditions, Local Traditions, and Discernment.” Pneuma 36 (2014): 1-3.
Daniel Coyle. The Talent Code. New York: Bantam, 2009.
De Bono, Edward. Six Thinking Hats. New York: Back Bay Books, 1999.
Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (1987), 497509.
Dweck, Carol. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House, 2006.
Friesen, Garry, and J. Robin Maxson, Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View, Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980.
Frodsham, Stanley, Spirit Filled, Led and Taught, Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, [193?].
Gallupe, B. R., L. M. Bastianutti, and W. H. Cooper. “Unblocking Brainstorms.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (1991): 137142.
Gauntlett, David. Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2008.
Gerkin, Charles V. The Living Human Document: Revision Pastoral Counseling in a Hermeneutical Mode. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1984.
Goleman, Daniel. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam, 1998.
Graham, Elaine. Transforming Practice: Pastoral Theology in an Age of Uncertainty. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002.
Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1983.
Heath, Chip, and Dan Heath, Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work. New York: Random House, 2013.
Henry, Carl, God, Revelation and Authority, Volume II: God Who Speaks and Shows, Waco: Word Books, 1976.
Hybels, Bill. Courageous Leadership. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
James, William. Principles of Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Dover, 1952.
Jansson, D. G., and S. M. Smith. “Design Fixation. Design Studies, 12 (1991): 311.
Johnson, Spencer. Who Moved My Cheese: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1998.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011.
Kierkegaard, Soren. Journals and Papers, Vol. 5. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1978.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, “Sofia,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Kohn, Nicholas W., and Stephen M. Smith. “Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 25, no. 2 (May/June 2011): 359-371.
Kotter, John. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. Encouraging the Heart. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2003.
Lehrer, Jonah. How We Decide. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2009.
Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning, First Edition. Grand Rapids, Baker: 1999.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Mullen, B., C. Johnson, and E. Salas, “Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: A Meta-analytic Integration.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12 (1991): 323.
Niebuhr, H. Richard, The Meaning of Revelation, New York: Macmillan, 1946.
Osborne, Alex Faickney. Applied Imagination. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953.
Osmer, Richard. Practical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Parker, Stephen E. Led By the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Parker, Stephen E. Led By the Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Perloff, Richard M. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2003, 128-142.
Petty, Richard E., Pablo Brinol, and Zakary L. Tormala, “Thought Confidence as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Self-Validation Hypothesis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, no. 5 (2002): 722-741.
Pew Forum. “Nones on the Rise.” (October 9, 2012) http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ [Accessed January 11, 2105].
Rainer, Thom. “13 Issues for Churches in 2013.” http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/164787-thom-rainer-13-issues-churches-2013.html [Accessed January 11, 2015].
Root, Andrew. Christopraxis: A Practical Theology of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.
Sinek, Simon. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. New York: Portfolio Hardcover, 2009.
Smith, David I., and James K.A. Smith, eds. Teaching and Christian Practices. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
Smith, S. M., and S. E. Blankenship. “Incubation and the Persistence of Fixation in Problem Solving.” American Journal of Psychology, 104 (1991): 6187.
Snow, Shane. Smartcuts: How Hackers, Innovators, and Icons Accelerate Success. New York: HarperBusiness, 2014.
Southerland, Dan. Transitioning. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Stanley, Andy. Next Generation Leader. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 20013.
Stetzer, Ed, and Mike Dodson. Comeback Churches. Nashville, TN: B & H Books, 2007.
Stiff, James B., and Paul A. Mongeau. Persuasive Communication. New York: Guilford, 2003.
Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984.
Sweet, Leonard. Nudge: Awakening Each Other to the God Who’s Already There. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010.
Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, Volume I: Reason and Revelation, Being and God, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Wegener, Duane T., and Richard E. Petty. “Understanding the Effects of Mood through the Elaboration Likelihood and Flexible Correction Models. In Theories of Mood and Cognition: A User’s Guide, edited by Leonard L. Martin and Gerald L. Clare, 177-210. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
Willard, Dallas, In Search of Guidance, Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1984.
Yong, Amos. Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.