How To Deal Effectively with Conflict and Difficult People

Dr. Barrett Mosbacker, PublisherDealing with difficult people can be very uncomfortable!  Despite 20 years of experience, my stress level still rises whenever my administrative assistance informs me that: 

Mr. and Mrs. Jones want to see you.  They are upset about .....

One would think that by now I would have learned to be more sanguine but alas, I still feel my gut tighten in anticipation of an unpleasant conversation.

Although I have not yet learned how to reach a “state of nirvana,” I have learned a few things over the years that may be helpful to you.  I offer the following tips with the prayer that you will find them helpful the next time you face that angry email, phone call, or the unscheduled “do you have a minute?”

Conflict Cannot and Should Not Be Avoided

If two godly men like Paul and Barnabas, who ministered and faced persecution together, could not avoid conflict (Acts 15:39-40) then there should be no illusions about our ability to avoid it. Conflict is inevitable.  It is also an integral part of our ministry to students, parents, and staff.

I often tease parents during our Parent Orientation sessions.  When asking for their prayers I quip:

My job is relatively easy--"I only deal with people's children, money, and religion!

Parents laugh at this statement because they quickly realize just how difficult leading a school can be. Most of them would not want the job for any amount of pay!  Upon reflection, they become a bit more empathetic when assessing the school's response to a given situation.

A Little Humor

As illustrated by my quip, humor is a natural and effective way to reduce tension, demonstrate humility, and foster empathy--provided it is used appropriately and in the right context.  Misused or inappropriate humor can do more harm than good. Well timed and thoughtful humor, on the other hand, can relax a tense situation and put it into perspective.  Consider the following non-school examples (source: How to Use Humor to Diffuse Conflict, by Carla Rieger).

Time Deadline

Our manager was pushing the IT technician to fix a huge computer breakdown in under half a day. The technician was getting frustrated at the unreasonable request, but rather than push back with resistance, he said, "Actually, I only need two hours. The other two I'll be using to cure world hunger." They both laughed and the manager mellowed out.

Smaller Budget

A client kept returning our budget proposal saying it needed to be smaller. No matter how much trimming we did, the client kept pushing for "Smaller, smaller!" I finally took the proposal to a copier and had it reduced to two inches in size. I sent it to the client and said, "This is about as small as I can make it. Tell me what you think." He called me saying it got a huge laugh in his office and that he would now accept the proposal as soon as he could find his magnifying glass.

Again, be careful.  Humor can be very effective but it can backfire if it is poorly timed or inappropriate.

To make an apt answer is a joy to a man, and a word in season, how good it is! (Pro 15:23)

To Disciple and to be Discipled

When I know that I am about to be confronted with an angry or upset parent, or when confronted unexpectedly, I remind myself that every conflict "is an opportunity to disciple or to be discipled."  The objective is not to avoid conflict, it is not to deny that there is a problem, and it is not merely to "tolerate" the other person or the meeting.  Instead, conflict is a providentially appointed opportunity to disciple and minister to others or to be discipled by others (Rom. 8:28). 

When dealing with someone who is upset, don't ask yourself "how can I avoid this situation or how can I get through it as quickly and painlessly as possible."  Instead, ask yourself this,

How can the Lord use me in this situation to minister to Mr. and Mrs. Jones and how can the Lord use upset Mr. and Mrs. Jones to instruct me or to make the school better?

You will be surprised how much easier it is to deal with difficult situations and people when you adopt this biblical attitude.  I remind myself of the following verses when facing a difficult situation:

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)

Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy. (Pro 27:5-6)

The upset parent or staff member can be our instructors!  Only pride would keep us from freely acknowledging our need for correction--even if not given in an appropriate manner.

Humility

Relax!  You and I have clay feet.  We make mistakes.  We sin.  Unlike our teenage children, we don't know everything. 

We don't have to pretend otherwise to be effective leaders. In fact, acknowledging our frailties reflects genuine humility, fosters listening, reduces defensiveness, and in general reduces tension.  It also puts us in a state of mind to learn from the situation while fostering respect for those who are upset. 

Admit mistakes.  Do not be defensive.  Own the poor decisions.  Doing so models Christian character, is instructive to those who are upset, and leads to the development of stronger schools.

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Pro 16:18)

Listen!!

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (James 1:19)

This verse reminds me of Steven Covey's statement that one of the Seven Habits of Highly Successful People is that they seek first to understand and then to be understood.  In our pride or defensiveness we often seek to justify more than we seek to understand. We want to defend more than we want to learn.  This attitude is both wrong and counter-productive.

Even if the other person is out of line or just plain wrong, we can often learn something of value from the confrontation.  This requires that we talk less and listen more. 

(Source: Cartoonstock)

Sometimes people just need to vent.  Have you ever been in a meeting where the other party keeps repeating the same grievance over and over?  You got it the first time or certainly by the second rendition but they keep going? 

Take a deep breath (quietly!), be patient, and give them ample time.  Doing so shows respect, gives them time to vent, and may reveal something important to learn.

Speak the Truth--In Love

Humility does not mean that we ignore sin or false accusations.  It is sinful to ignore the truth in order to avoid conflict.  Sometimes we need to confront the parent or the employee with their sinful behavior.  For example, the dad who is acting inappropriately during an athletic event, the teacher who responded disrespectfully to a student, or the parent who was verbally abusive to a teacher must be confronted and corrected.  Ignoring sinful behavior in the school corrupts the school's culture.

HOW we speak the truth, however, is extremely important.  We should be clear and candid but gracious even if we have to confront the sinful behavior of others. 

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ. (Eph. 4:15)

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Pro 15:1)

The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness. (Pro 16:21)

Turn the Other Cheek, Go the Extra Mile

Remember, LIFE AND MINISTRY ARE NOT ABOUT US!  When we remember that we are to "be living sacrifices" (Rom. 12:1-2) it is easier not to take personal offense when dealing with conflict.  Every action we take and every response we give, or don't give, reflects upon God's glory, His kingdom, the testimony of the Gospel, the reputation of our schools, and our leadership. 

When dealing with angry or unreasonable people, it is helpful to remember Jesus' instruction:

And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:41-48)

We can demonstrate going the extra mile in our schools with a strong bias for "yes."  In other words, unless the request violates an important policy or foundational principle our bias should be to say yes.  While it is not always possible to agree, it is possible to agree to requests more often than we like to admit. 

One of the keys to saying "yes" is to avoid the "convenience" trap.  That is, if we are not vigilant we can too quickly say no because saying yes would require sacrifice and inconvenience.  Remember, sacrificial service not convenience, is Christ's example for our lives and ministries.

Take a moment to reflect on the following verses.

But when Herod's birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company and pleased Herod, so that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask. Prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter." And the king was sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he commanded it to be given. He sent and had John beheaded in the prison, and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.

And his disciples came and took the body and buried it, and they went and told Jesus. Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns.

When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves." But Jesus said, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat." (Mat 14:6-16)

Note several things:

1) Jesus has just been told about the beheading of John the Baptist.  His natural human response upon hearing this terrible news is that he sought solitude, perhaps a quiet place to grieve the loss. 

2) Jesus is inconvenienced.  The inconsiderate and insensitive crowd follows Jesus--demanding more of his time and energy--notwithstanding his own desire for solitude. 

3) Jesus does not feel sorry for himself, he does not ignore the needs of those around them, and he does not complain--instead--he gives of himself yet again in order to serve them.  Rather than feeling sorry for himself he has compassion on them!

Responding versus Reacting

 Stop!  Pray! Think!  When confronted by an upset parent or employee, when reading a brusque or mean-spirited email, or when listening to an angry diatribe on the phone, do not immediately react.  Wait.  An immediate  emotionally driven response does not reflect the Fruit of the Spirit and will be counter-productive.

Rather than responding immediately take a moment to say a silent prayer.  Then reflect on the issue before responding to it. 

For example, I will often compose a response to an email and then set it aside for several hours or for a day.  Inevitably I find myself revising the email being careful with the words I choose to ensure that my response is not emotional, is clear and gracious, and deals with the facts, not the emotions surrounding the issue.

I often employ Paul’s “sandwich” style as found in  his Epistles.  You are probably familiar with his style.  He starts out with a compliment or praise, moves to instruction/correction, and closes with praise or positive acknowledgment.  Here is an example from I Corinthians.

Opening:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge-- even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you--(1Co 1:3-6) …

Instruction/Correction:

… But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ … (1Co 3:1) …

Closing:

… The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen. (1Co 16:23-24)

Follow-up

Do not ignore the matter!  It will not go away.  Whatever the issue—address it.  Dr. Kynerd, our current Chancellor and former Superintendent, has given me very wise advice.  He counsels, “Under promise and over deliver.”  Reflect on the benefits of this statement for a moment.  What are the potential benefits if we under promise, over deliver, and always follow-up?  Conversely, what are the consequences if we over promise and under deliver?

Fruit of the Spirit

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)

When dealing with conflict, ask yourself the following questions:

• How will my response reflect love?
• How can I find joy in this situation for myself and for the one who is upset? (“count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. Jas 1:2-3)
• How can I show kindness EVEN if I am being “abused”?
• What good deed/work can I perform in this situation?
• How can I use this situation to demonstrate faithfulness to my Lord, to my calling and to my students, parents, and staff?
• How am I reflecting gentleness in my response as I seek to “speak the truth in love?”
• Am I demonstrating self-control or am I reacting?

Keeping Authorities Informed

With the exception of gifts, people do not like surprises!  If you are dealing with an issue that is likely to come to the attention of a board member, the pastor, or others in positions of authority—inform them in advance of the situation.

I routinely give my board chairman and/or the pastors a “heads-up” on situations that may percolate.  Doing so is a courtesy to them so that they are not caught off guard.  It also fosters trust and gives you the opportunity to seek advice.  There is NO DOWNSIDE to this proactive communication!

Likewise, if there is bad news share it with the school board forthrightly.  Don’t sweep things under the rug, don’t pretend everything is fine if they aren’t.  You owe it to your board and others to keep them fully informed of the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Making the Hard but Necessary Decisions

Sometimes an effective response may be require a parting of the way.  For example, an employee may have to be dismissed or a parent may have to be told that the school can no longer serve him or her.  This should be a last resort measure but it may be necessary. 

Over the years I have had to make the unpleasant decision to terminate an employee or to tell a parent that his behavior is such that the school can no longer effectively serve his family.

Such decisions should only be made after much prayer, hard work, and longsuffering.  The highest levels of integrity must be maintained.  But failure to make these hard decisions is a failure of leadership. 

 When you make these hard decisions remember that you do not have the liberty of defending yourself to others.  With the exception of those with authority over us, we must not share information regarding the circumstances of our decision with others in order to justify ourselves.  We also do not have the liberty of gossiping (sharing something that is true is still gossip!).  The Scriptures are clear—“Love covers a multitude of sins.”  This does not mean that sin is swept under the rug—it means that we protect the reputations of our protagonists even if doing so causes others to question our leadership and decisions.  Again, this is NOT about us.

In Summary

• Conflict cannot and should not be avoided
• Use humor to diffuse anger
• See conflict as an opportunity to disciple and/or to be discipled
• Be humble
• Listen
• Speak the truth in love
• Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile
• Respond—don’t react
• Follow-up
• Demonstrate the Fruit of the Spirit
• Keep the appropriate authorities informed
• Make the hard decisions

Technorati Tags: Challenges,Leadership,Productivity,School Culture,Conflict

The End of Christian America?

Reprinted from Newsweek (Apr 13, 2009). Jon Meacham

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

"That really hit me hard," he told me last week. "The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous." Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler's attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

Let's be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated. Being less Christian does not necessarily mean that America is post-Christian. A third of Americans say they are born again; this figure, along with the decline of politically moderate-to liberal mainline Protestants, led the ARIS authors to note that "these trends … suggest a movement towards more conservative beliefs and particularly to a more 'evangelical' outlook among Christians." With rising numbers of Hispanic immigrants bolstering the Roman Catholic Church in America, and given the popularity of Pentecostalism, a rapidly growing Christian milieu in the United States and globally, there is no doubt that the nation remains vibrantly religious—far more so, for instance, than Europe.

Still, in the new NEWSWEEK Poll, fewer people now think of the United States as a "Christian nation" than did so when George W. Bush was president (62 percent in 2009 versus 69 percent in 2008). Two thirds of the public (68 percent) now say religion is "losing influence" in American society, while just 19 percent say religion's influence is on the rise. The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush 43 and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

Many conservative Christians believe they have lost the battles over issues such as abortion, school prayer and even same-sex marriage, and that the country has now entered a post-Christian phase. Christopher Hitchens —a friend and possibly the most charming provocateur you will ever meet—wrote a hugely popular atheist tract a few years ago, "God Is Not Great." As an observant (if deeply flawed) Episcopalian, I disagree with many of Hitchens's arguments—I do not think it is productive to dismiss religious belief as superstitious and wrong—but he is a man of rigorous intellectual honesty who, on a recent journey to Texas, reported hearing evangelical mutterings about the advent of a "post-Christian" America.

To be post-Christian has meant different things at different times. In 1886, The Atlantic Monthly described George Eliot as "post-Christian," using the term as a synonym for atheist or agnostic. The broader—and, for our purposes, most relevant—definition is that "post-Christian" characterizes a period of time that follows the decline of the importance of Christianity in a region or society. This use of the phrase first appeared in the 1929 book "America Set Free" by the German philosopher Hermann Keyserling.

The term was popularized during what scholars call the "death of God" movement of the mid-1960s—a movement that is, in its way, still in motion. Drawing from Nietzsche's 19th-century declaration that "God is dead," a group of Protestant theologians held that, essentially, Christianity would have to survive without an orthodox understanding of God. Tom Altizer, a religion professor at Emory University, was a key member of the Godless Christianity movement, and he traces its intellectual roots first to Kierkegaard and then to Nietzsche. For Altizer, a post-Christian era is one in which "both Christianity and religion itself are unshackled from their previous historical grounds." In 1992 the critic Harold Bloom published a book titled "The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation." In it he cites William James's definition of religion in "The Varieties of Religious Experience": "Religion … shall mean for us the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they consider the divine."

Which is precisely what most troubles Mohler. "The post-Christian narrative is radically different; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority," he told me. "It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step." The present, in this sense, is less about the death of God and more about the birth of many gods. The rising numbers of religiously unaffiliated Americans are people more apt to call themselves "spiritual" rather than "religious." (In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 30 percent describe themselves this way, up from 24 percent in 2005.)

Roughly put, the Christian narrative is the story of humankind as chronicled in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament—the drama of creation, fall and redemption. The orthodox tend to try to live their lives in accordance with the general behavioral principles of the Bible (or at least the principles they find there of which they approve) and anticipate the ultimate judgment of God—a judgment that could well determine whether they spend eternity in heaven or in hell.

What, then, does it mean to talk of "Christian America"? Evangelical Christians have long believed that the United States should be a nation whose political life is based upon and governed by their interpretation of biblical and theological principles. If the church believes drinking to be a sin, for instance, then the laws of the state should ban the consumption of alcohol. If the church believes the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, then the public schools should tailor their lessons accordingly. If the church believes abortion should be outlawed, then the legislatures and courts of the land should follow suit. The intensity of feeling about how Christian the nation should be has ebbed and flowed since Jamestown; there is, as the Bible says, no thing new under the sun. For more than 40 years, the debate that began with the Supreme Court's decision to end mandatory school prayer in 1962 (and accelerated with the Roe v. Wade ruling 11 years later) may not have been novel, but it has been ferocious. Fearing the coming of a Europe-like secular state, the right longed to engineer a return to what it believed was a Christian America of yore.

But that project has failed, at least for now. In Texas, authorities have decided to side with science, not theology, in a dispute over the teaching of evolution. The terrible economic times have not led to an increase in church attendance. In Iowa last Friday, the state Supreme Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage, a defeat for religious conservatives. Such evidence is what has believers fretting about the possibility of an age dominated by a newly muscular secularism. "The moral teachings of Christianity have exerted an incalculable influence on Western civilization," Mohler says. "As those moral teachings fade into cultural memory, a secularized morality takes their place. Once Christianity is abandoned by a significant portion of the population, the moral landscape necessarily changes. For the better part of the 20th century, the nations of Western Europe led the way in the abandonment of Christian commitments. Christian moral reflexes and moral principles gave way to the loosening grip of a Christian memory. Now even that Christian memory is absent from the lives of millions."

Religious doubt and diversity have, however, always been quintessentially American. Alexis de Tocqueville said that "the religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me on arrival in the United States," but he also discovered a "great depth of doubt and indifference" to faith. Jefferson had earlier captured the essence of the American spirit about religion when he observed that his statute for religious freedom in Virginia was "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination"—and those of no faith whatever. The American culture of religious liberty helped create a busy free market of faith: by disestablishing churches, the nation made religion more popular, not less.

America, then, is not a post-religious society—and cannot be as long as there are people in it, for faith is an intrinsic human impulse. The belief in an order or a reality beyond time and space is ancient and enduring. "All men," said Homer, "need the gods." The essential political and cultural question is to what extent those gods—or, more accurately, a particular generation's understanding of those gods—should determine the nature of life in a given time and place.

If we apply an Augustinian test of nationhood to ourselves, we find that liberty, not religion, is what holds us together. In "The City of God," Augustine —converted sinner and bishop of Hippo—said that a nation should be defined as "a multitude of rational beings in common agreement as to the objects of their love." What we value most highly—what we collectively love most—is thus the central test of the social contract.

Judging from the broad shape of American life in the first decade of the 21st century, we value individual freedom and free (or largely free) enterprise, and tend to lean toward libertarianism on issues of personal morality. The foundational documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament (though there are undeniable connections between them). This way of life is far different from what many overtly conservative Christians would like. But that is the power of the republican system engineered by James Madison at the end of the 18th century: that America would survive in direct relation to its ability to check extremism and preserve maximum personal liberty. Religious believers should welcome this; freedom for one sect means freedom for all sects. As John F. Kennedy said in his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960: "For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew—or a Quaker—or a Unitarian—or a Baptist … Today I may be the victim—but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped."

Religion has been a factor in American life and politics from the beginning. Anglican observance was compulsory at Jamestown, and the Puritans of New England were explicitly hoping to found a New Jerusalem. But coerced belief is no belief at all; it is tyranny. "I commend that man, whether Jew, or Turk, or Papist, or whoever, that steers no otherwise than his conscience dares," said Roger Williams.

By the time of the American founding, men like Jefferson and Madison saw the virtue in guaranteeing liberty of conscience, and one of the young republic's signal achievements was to create a context in which religion and politics mixed but church and state did not. The Founders' insight was that one might as well try to build a wall between economics and politics as between religion and politics, since both are about what people feel and how they see the world. Let the religious take their stand in the arena of politics and ideas on their own, and fight for their views on equal footing with all other interests. American public life is neither wholly secular nor wholly religious but an ever-fluid mix of the two. History suggests that trouble tends to come when one of these forces grows too powerful in proportion to the other.

Political victories are therefore intrinsically transitory. In the middle of the 19th century, the evangelist Charles Grandison Finney argued that "the great business of the church is to reform the world—to put away every kind of sin"; Christians, he said, are "bound to exert their influence to secure a legislation that is in accordance with the law of God."

Worldly success tends to mark the beginning of the end for the overtly religious in politics. Prohibition was initially seen as a great moral victory, but its failure and ultimate repeal show that a movement should always be careful what it wishes for: in America, the will of the broad whole tends to win out over even the most devoted of narrower interests.

As the 20th century wore on, Christians found themselves in the relatively uncontroversial position of opposing "godless communism," and the fervor of the Prohibition and Scopes-trial era seemed to fade a bit. Issues of personal morality, not international politics, would lay the foundations for the campaign for Christian America that we know as the rise of the religious right. The phenomenon of divorce in the 1960s and the Roe decision in 1973 were critical, and Jimmy Carter's born-again faith brought evangelical Christianity to the mainstream in 1976.

Growing up in Atlanta in the '60s and '70s, Joe Scarborough, the commentator and former Republican congressman, felt the fears of his evangelical parents and their friends—fears that helped build support for the politically conservative Christian America movement. "The great anxiety in Middle America was that we were under siege—my parents would see kids walking down the street who were Boy Scouts three years earlier suddenly looking like hippies, and they were scared," Scarborough says. "Culturally, it was October 2001 for a decade. For a decade. And once our parents realized we weren't going to disappear into dope and radicalism, the pressure came off. That's the world we're in now—parents of boomers who would not drink a glass of wine 30 years ago are now kicking back with vodka. In a way, they've been liberated."

And they have learned that politics does not hold all the answers—a lesson that, along with a certain relief from the anxieties of the cultural upheavals of the '60s and '70s, has tended to curb religiously inspired political zeal. "The worst fault of evangelicals in terms of politics over the last 30 years has been an incredible naiveté about politics and politicians and parties," says Mohler. "They invested far too much hope in a political solution to what are transpolitical issues and problems. If we were in a situation that were more European, where the parties differed mostly on traditional political issues rather than moral ones, or if there were more parties, then we would probably have a very different picture. But when abortion and a moral understanding of the human good became associated with one party, Christians had few options politically."

When that party failed to deliver—and it did fail—some in the movement responded by retreating into radicalism, convinced of the wickedness and venality of the political universe that dealt them defeat after defeat. (The same thing happened to many liberals after 1968: infuriated by the conservative mood of the country, the left reacted angrily and moved ever leftward.)

The columnist Cal Thomas was an early figure in the Moral Majority who came to see the Christian American movement as fatally flawed in theological terms. "No country can be truly 'Christian'," Thomas says. "Only people can. God is above all nations, and, in fact, Isaiah says that 'All nations are to him a drop in the bucket and less than nothing'." Thinking back across the decades, Thomas recalls the hope—and the failure. "We were going through organizing like-minded people to 'return' America to a time of greater morality. Of course, this was to be done through politicians who had a difficult time imposing morality on themselves!"

Experience shows that religious authorities can themselves be corrupted by proximity to political power. A quarter century ago, three scholars who are also evangelical Christians—Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch and George M. Marsden—published an important but too-little-known book, "The Search for Christian America." In it they argued that Christianity's claims transcend any political order. Christians, they wrote, "should not have illusions about the nature of human governments. Ultimately they belong to what Augustine calls 'the city of the world,' in which self-interest rules … all governments can be brutal killers."

Their view tracks with that of the Psalmist, who said, "Put not thy trust in princes," and there is much New Testament evidence to support a vision of faith and politics in which the church is truest to its core mission when it is the farthest from the entanglements of power. The Jesus of the Gospels resolutely refuses to use the means of this world—either the clash of arms or the passions of politics—to further his ends. After the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the dazzled throng thought they had found their earthly messiah. "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." When one of his followers slices off the ear of one of the arresting party in Gethsemane, Jesus says, "Put up thy sword." Later, before Pilate, he says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." The preponderance of lessons from the Gospels and from the rest of the New Testament suggests that earthly power is transitory and corrupting, and that the followers of Jesus should be more attentive to matters spiritual than political.

As always with the Bible, however, there are passages that complicate the picture. The author of Hebrews says believers are "strangers and exiles on the earth" and that "For here we have no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come." In Romans the apostle Paul advises: "Do not be conformed to this world." The Second Vatican Council cited these words of Pius XII: the Catholic Church's "divine Founder, Jesus Christ, has not given it any mandate or fixed any end of the cultural order. The goal which Christ assigns to it is strictly religious … The Church can never lose sight of the strictly religious, supernatural goal."

As an archbishop of Canterbury once said, though, it is a mistake to think that God is chiefly or even largely concerned with religion. "I hate the sound of your solemn assemblies," the Lord says in Amos. Religion is not only about worshipping your God but about doing godly things, and a central message of the Gospels is the duty of the Christian to transform, as best one can, reality through works of love. "Being in the world and not of it remains our charge," says Mohler. "The church is an eternal presence in a fallen, temporal world—but we are to have influence. The Sermon on the Mount is about what we are to do—but it does not come with a political handbook."

How to balance concern for the garden of the church with the moral imperatives to make gentle the life of the world is one of the most perplexing questions facing the church. "We have important obligations to do whatever we can, including through the use of political means, to help our neighbors—promoting just laws, good order, peace, education and opportunity," wrote Noll, Hatch and Marsden. "Nonetheless we should recognize that as we work for the relatively better in 'the city of the world,' our successes will be just that—relative. In the last analysis the church declares that the solutions offered by the nations of the world are always transitory solutions, themselves in need of reform."

Back in Louisville, preparing for Easter, Al Mohler keeps vigil over the culture. Last week he posted a column titled "Does Your Pastor Believe in God?," one on abortion and assisted suicide and another on the coming wave of pastors. "Jesus Christ promised that the very gates of Hell would not prevail against his church," Mohler wrote. "This new generation of young pastors intends to push back against hell in bold and visionary ministry. Expect to see the sparks fly." On the telephone with me, he added: "What we are seeing now is the evidence of a pattern that began a very long time ago of intellectual and cultural and political changes in thought and mind. The conditions have changed. Hard to pinpoint where, but whatever came after the Enlightenment was going to be very different than what came before." And what comes next here, with the ranks of professing Christians in decline, is going to be different, too.

Read more about NEWSWEEK's poll on religion in America here .

Technorati Tags: America,Christianity,Culture

Was Chicken Little Right? Is the Sky Falling?

Although he is cute, I have no desire to be Chicken Little! I do not  believe the sky is falling.

I am convinced, however, that storm clouds have formed on the horizon. Want to see what is in those storm clouds? Watch the first episode of the PBS special, Where We Stand: Echoes of Sputnik and a Call to Action.

Referencing this series, Mr. Thorpe writes in Education Week:

With the presidential candidates focused primarily on issues such as ... the 3E’s—economy, environment, and energy—this program will ask an important question: Why is the fourth E—education—not seen as worthy of equal attention?

It is the one systemic investment that ultimately fuels our success (or failure) in almost every national endeavor ... Most of us would probably agree that there is little evidence schools are doing any worse than they did 10, 20, or even 50 years ago. They are probably doing better, in fact.

But the problem lies—just as it did a half-century ago—not in what we are doing, but in what other countries are doing.

Our challenges involve the degree to which those other countries are investing in human capital, the priorities they set, and the results they are getting.

The United States once led the world in math, science, and other critical subjects, as well as in the number of students going on to higher education. Today we are well down in the pack ...

Let anyone dare to compare our education results with those of Finland, South Korea, or Singapore, for instance, and the excuses rain down.

We have a more diverse country! We try to educate all children! They can do that over there because, because, because.

Finally, he warns:

In today’s “flat world,” the geographical accident of where they are born no longer conveys to the children of the United States the advantage they have had for decades. Other countries have learned from us how important it is to invest in their people.

We give lip service to the cliché that “our children are our future,” but most people do not see a 2nd grader, or even a high school student, as having much to do with determining our future strength ... Few of us really look at Susie’s lack of interest in reading or Jose’s success in math as being either a threat to or the hope for the nation’s future. Yet, that is exactly what they are.

Is the sky falling? Maybe not but there is a storm brewing over the distant horizon. Unfortunately, most Americans are blissfully ignorant of the pending threat posed to our national well-being, to our national security, or to our children's futures.

Too many of us are like the Hobbits in Tolkien's classic, The Lord of the Rings. Danger is brewing in Mordor but like the merry Hobbits, too many of us go about running our schools largely ignorant of the rising danger or are unwilling or "too busy" to provide the leadership that is necessary to realign our schools, our standards, and our curriculum to meet the global challenge.

Everything may seem beautiful and peaceful in the village but the threat is real. By the time we are concerned enough to raise our standards to international levels it may be too little too late for many of our students.

As illustrated by the table below, American students rank very low in international comparisons of science achievement. Click here for the Executive Summary of the 2006 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) report. As pointed out in the report, the problem of low achievement by U.S. students is not restricted to science.

To put the problem in a more tangible form, consider two typical "man on the street interviews," which add a surreal exclamation point to the threat our nation faces from poor academic achievement.

Why People Think Americans are Stupid

How Much do American's Know about Europe?

If you have not done so already, I strongly recommend that you and your staff read The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Here is one excerpt from the book to illustrate the international level of educational competition:

India is a country with virtually no natural resources that got very good at doing one thing--mining the brains of its own people ... In 1951, to his enduring credit, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, setup the first of India's seven Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) in the eastern city of Kharagpur ...

The IITs became islands of excellence by not allowing the general debasement of the Indian system to lower their exacting standards ... You couldn't bribe your way to get into an IIT ... Arguably, it is harder to get into an IIT than into Harvard or the the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ...

IIT alumnus Vinrod Khosla, who co-founded Sun Microsystems, said: "When I finished IIT Delhi and went to Carnegie Mellon for my Masters, I thought I was cruising all the way because it was so easy relative to the education I got at IIT." pp. 104-5

So How Should We Respond?

• Don't dismiss the problem or the challenge. It is real and is substantiated by a large body of research.
• Don't assume that Christian schools are academically superior. As I have indicated in previous articles, even if our students score high on nationally normed assessments, we are comparing our students against a low standard relative to international achievement.
• Have your teachers and administrators read The World is Flat and other articles that layout the problem.
• Assess the quality of your teaching staff--are your teachers superior? How do you know? If they are not superior, what do you plan to do about it?
• Substantially increase the level of your professional development activities and accountability.
• Reassess your curriculum--is is broad enough, rigorous enough?
• Leverage technology to deepen and enrich your curriculum and to enhance professional development
• Remember that when grounded in God's word and motivated by His glory and a love others, the pursuit of academic excellence is a holy endeavor!

What say you?

Technorati Tags: Globalization,Excellence,Chinese,Competition,India,technology Integration,flat world,staff development,professional development,international standards,Mordor,Lord of the Rings,Dumb Americans,Man on the street interviews

The Way We'll Be ... What the Polls Show

Where is our country headed?  What are the trends that will shape American culture?  These are the questions that John Zogby, CEO of Zogby International, seeks to answer in his new book, The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream. Drawing on surveys he conducted over a 20-year period, Zogby analyzed responses from all age and demographic groups to project tectonic shifts in our nation.

Dematerializing

• Institutional authority is all but dead and gone.  Self-reliance and self-determination are on the rise.
• "Green" is more than a good slogan ... the young especially have internalized sustainability as a life goal, and that's true across the planet.
• Christian conservatives, especially those under thirty, have moved far beyond their putative spokesmen on issues such as stem cell research, global warming, and health care. 
• American values remain strong, but Americans increasingly see themselves as part of a bigger picture.

Global, Networked, and Inclusive (First Globals)

• Eighteen to twenty-nine-year-olds care about more than themselves.
• Young adults celebrate diversity.
• The entire world excites them, not just their community or nation on earth.  The young think and buy globally (patriotism will not sell products), and they are sensitized to global issues from human rights to AIDS and poverty, even though they might not always command the facts.
• First Globals poll liberal on many issues but they are more devoted than any other age group to finding common ground on tough social issues.
• Just about everything is in the public domain (e.g., through social networks like MySpace and FaceBook), up to an including intimate details of their lives.

New American Dream-The Secular Spiritualists

• Zogby defines "Secular Spiritualists" as those who believe that the American dream is measured in spiritual, not material, fulfillment.
• For at least one in three Americans, spiritual fulfillment is a higher priority than acquisition, ownership, and consumption.
• They buy of course, but they buy in accordance with their re-prioritized lives.  Cut the frills, mute the whistles, give good value.  It's back-to-basics for this new stealth force of American society.
• Secular Spiritualists are not big spenders even when they can afford to be.
• God matters to many of them, but they aren't building their lives around specifically religious values.  They're looking for more meaning, not more doctrines and isms to live by.

One True Thing

• People are demanding truth.  Everyone today has a "B.S."  detector.
• People want reality and authenticity (Those who have seen City Slickers will understand the reason for the video below!).

• Men and women want the same things in each other: natural over silicon, good personality over great bodies, real over make-believe.
• In a world dominated by sizzle, it's all about the steak.

What I find particularly amazing is how current the book is.  In his introduction, Zogby writes:

As I write, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is sinking like a stone,and the president and Congress are scurrying to cobble together a stimulus package.  Either way, the media is certain to be panting after the story, but in a very real sense the public is already ahead of wherever such news is headed. 

Our polling consistently shows not only that the wealth isn't being shared equally--that's obvious--but that average Americans have made fundamental adjustments in their expectations, their needs, and their values, and that those adjustments are creating whole new paradigms through which people are making consumption and political choices that will shape the nation in the decades to come.

Polling also reveals generational divides and suggests how the weight of public opinion will shift as one generation yields dominance to the next, and the next ... Through asking questions that move beyond the present and try to get at how people will respond to situations that might arise in the future, we can anticipate changes in society ... and advise organizations how they must adapt to new realities.

That's what this book is about: the current state of America, the likelihood of the close-in future, and the movement of our underlying social geology.  Put another way, this book explores who we are, what's changing, and the way we'll be. (pp. xiv-xv)

He compares and contrasts the perspectives of four generations across political parties and income distribution.  He divides the generations as follows:

• The Private Generation (1926-1945)
• The Woodstock Generation (1946-1964)
• The Nike Generation (1965-1978)
• The First Globals (1979-1990)--usually referred to as Generation Y.

What Are His Conclusions?

• The America of 2020 will be a more tolerant nation.
• Our people by then will have lived for two decades in a new world of less.  We will have gotten comfortable with the limitations on us and embraced the Zen of more minimal lifestyles and consumption patterns.
• We will expect our leaders to talk straight: Hype, hokum, and hooey--in politics, in advertising, wherever it appears--will be punished.
• We'll care about this fragile planet in hitherto unseen ways
• The Private Generation will fill their golden years with volunteering, mentoring, and lifelong learning opportunities.
• Woodstockers will finally get tired of trying to look and act like their children.
• Nikes are going to bond with their families as no generation before them.
• First Globals are ready to go anywhere, experience everything, and work and live in exotic places.
• Americans will continue to define themselves less and less by paid work.  "It's who I am, not what I do."
• In the battle between science and anti-science, science wins.  No more Terri Schiavos, and no more global warming denial idiocy.  Alternative fuels will heat and light our world.
• The church of the future will be a bungalow on Maple Street, not a megastructure in a sea of parking spaces.  It's intimacy of experience people long for, not production values.
• The nation of the future will be in a strange way more intimate too.  Americans want to live in a world with other people, not in a walled empire surrounded by enemies.
• My surveying shows that we are in the middle of a fundamental reorientation of the American character, away from wanton consumption and toward a new global citizenry in an age of limited resources.

It is clear that Mr. Zogby has liberal leanings, evidenced by the fact that Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post is one one of the endorsers of the book and by his many statements throughout the book that reveal his liberal worldview.  

Nevertheless, his liberalism does not invalidate solid research and data, though it can shade his interpretations and predictions.  To the extent that the data is reliable (and there is no reason to think that it is not), there is much to be gleaned from the book.

The role of the leader is to do his or her  best to peer over the horizon seeking to understand the trends and events that will affect our students, our families, and our schools so that we can position them to serve Christ effectively this century.

The Way We'll Be provides a window into our possible future. 

__________________

Zogby, J. (2008). The way we'll be: the Zogby report on the transformation of the American dream. NY: Random House.

Technorati Tags: Zogby,polls,trends,politics,megatrends,culture,prediction,survey

Leading Your School In Uncertain Economic Times: Practical Suggestions

Many experts predict that we are headed for a recession. A recession in and of itself is not particularly worrisome. Like breathing, expansions and retractions in the economy are normal and keep the economy healthy and vibrant over the long-term.

What is of concern is that this recession may be deep and long. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The bailout plan was needed but more needs to be done to fix things, and we're not even sure a rate cut will be enough," a trader at GFT Global Markets says. To many Wall Street veterans, a painful, long recession unlike anything the U.S. has suffered in decades seems increasingly likely. (WSJ: Today's Markets, Oct. 6, 2008)

Given the turmoil on Wall Street and words like "crisis", "recession", "bank failure" and "depression" circulating in the media, it is not surprising that consumers have dramatically cut back on spending, The New York Times reports that:

Cowed by the financial crisis, American consumers are pulling back on their spending, all but guaranteeing that the economic situation will get worse before it gets better ... But in recent weeks, as the financial crisis reverberated from Wall Street to Washington, consumers appear to have cut back sharply ... Recent figures from companies, and interviews across the country, show that automobile sales are plummeting, airline traffic is dropping, restaurant chains are struggling to fill tables, customers are sparse in stores. Graph from the WSJ Business Section, Oct. 6, 2008-click on the graph to go to the article.

Whether the predictions of gloom and doom come true or not, it seems clear that we are in an extended economic slowdown, which may affect many of our schools. As school leaders, it is our responsibility to assess the situation and then to provide prayerful, faithful, and steady leadership.

My good friend Zach Clark, Westminster Christian School (St. Louis), put it this way:

1. We should have an attitude of gratefulness for the strengths we have as a Christian school like increased enrollment and strong budgets, freedom to make changes, talented staff, etc.
2. Be steady during this time when everyone is looking for a reaction. Be realistic but confident in our ability to act.
3. Be sure that our focus is on keeping our attitudes positive, and encourage each other to stir each other up to love and good deeds.
4. Look for opportunities to be effective and efficient NOW.
5. Become an expert in engaging and developing others, especially volunteers to improve our stewardship of resources and human resources.
6. This is an opportunity to turn people’s focus to the substance of our work. To not only allow, but also enable others to determine the value of a Christian education.
7. Wait and watch what the Lord will do, trusting in His faithfulness.

Preparing Our Students and Our Schools

So how do we prepare our schools for economic turndown, or even a possible prolonged recession? The role of the leader is not to react but to respond prayerfully and strategically. If the economy spirals into a long recession it will affect our families and in turn, our schools.

I offer the following series of possible contingent responses for your prayerful consideration if, as seems inevitable, there is a sharp economic downturn. Obviously, every school and local market is different, but perhaps one of these suggestions will be helpful.

1. Pray faithfully for your families and for your school ministry. As I indicated in a previous post, I do not encourage prayer because it is the expected thing to say or because it is the politically correct preamble to a real solution. I say pray because in the final analysis it is the Lord who grants wisdom and who will provide for our needs. Remember, your school ministry is the Lord's!

2. I refer you to my article Economic Crisis, Globalization, our Students, and our Mission (Era of U.S. financial dominance at an end: Germany) on possible ways to prepare your students for an economic downturn.

3. As much as possible, move toward zero-based budgeting or at least look at your budget from that perspective. Investopedia defines zero-based budgeting is "a method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified for each new period. Zero-based budgeting starts from a "zero base" and every function within an organization is analyzed for its needs and costs."

This contrasts from the usual method of simply adding a percentage increase to existing budget categories or departments. This requires a strategic approach to school leadership. For more information, see my previous post: Are You Spread Too Thin? How to Thrive and Not Merely Survive as a Christian School.

4. Smaller schools need to assess the number of students per class to ensure that each class is at break-even on a contiguous basis. Depending on the school's expenses and tuition levels, break-even is usually 16-18 students/full-time teacher. If you have classes that are not at break-even you have built financial losses into the school's budget, which is never a good practice but is particularly problematic in during an economic downturn.

If you are losing money in any class consider how you can consolidate classes. For example, if you have two third grade classes, both of which are not at break-even, consider combining them and then hiring a full-time teacher and a full-time academic aide (and laying off the other teacher or making him/her the academic aide but at a lower salary (I know this is hard, but it may be the right thing to do).

Doing so will permit a larger financially viable class without sacrificing academic quality while reducing cost IF the teacher and academic aide are experienced and very effective. Obviously, this could present some PR issues so great prudence must be exercised. But if you have classes of say 13 each, combining them into a single class of 26 with a teacher and academic aide will cut cost without negatively affecting academic quality.

5. Increase financial aid. This is, of course, easier said than done, but increasing financial aid may be essential. There are several ways to increase financial aid; 1) allocate/earmark a certain dollar amount from tuition specifically for financial aid. For example, $50/student x's 300 students produces $15,000 in additional financial aid. 2) Approach parents with financial resources to contribute specifically to the financial aid fund. 3) If your school is a church ministry, ask the church in contribute (or increase contributions) for financial aid.

6. Stay on top of your accounts receivables. This is one of those areas that is hard but ESSENTIAL. Do not allow parents to keep their children in the school if they are not keeping their accounts current. I would not, however, dismiss a student mid-year if avoidable as this can be harmful to the student. However, re-enrollment should not be extended unless and until accounts are current. If the family has a history of slow payment, require at least a half-year of paid tuition before permitting re-enrollment.

Be patient, understanding, and creative in working with parents. "Do unto them as you would have them do to you." This does not mean that you are obligated to provide them a free education. You have no ethical obligation to do so. Doing so jeopardizes the long-term viability of your school (which is poor stewardship) and is unethical because tuition paying parents are subsidizing the non-paying parents. Schools are not banks.

7. Think of ways to expand your market. For example, consider running a bus to "outlying" neighborhoods to increase enrollment. Keep in mind that you need parents with the financial means to pay tuition so target neighborhoods accordingly.

8. Work on your retention rates! It is far easier to keep students than to recruit new ones. The key to retention is value, which is a function of price and quality.

Remember, if your community (market place) is blessed with a large number of high quality public and private schools, parents have a smorgasbord of quality educational options.

If parents perceive the local public schools to be safe, high quality learning environments, they are more likely to consider enrollment in the Christian school to be a discretionary “luxury” purchase. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE DURING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN!

Only the most diehard adherents to a Christian philosophy of education will consider enrollment in the Christian school a necessity. We can make all of the theological and philosophical arguments about why Christian parents should have their children in a Christian school but this will affect the decision-making of only a small group of Christian parents.

The Archdiocese of Chicago provides a compelling example of this principle. Faced with declining enrollments and a school deficit of $20 million, the Archdiocese commissioned a study to determine how to boost school enrollment. Boffetti (n.d.) reports that researchers discovered that:

Struggling schools, at the very least, needed to fill every available seat with tuition-paying students. Surprisingly, many inner-city parents, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike, did not know that Catholic education would only cost them $1,000 a year, with the diocese picking up the rest of the tab. When they learned the facts, many said they would eagerly pay to get their children out of the awful and dangerous public schools they were in.

Suburban parents were more sanguine. Parents who believed in the importance of Catholic education already sent their children to Catholic schools. The rest of the parents did not think it would be worth the added expense because they felt that their suburban public school system was at least equal to, if not better than, the Catholic schools in terms of academics and amenities [emphasis added]. In other words, the “Catholic” in Catholic education was not worth an extra $1,000 per year to them. (pp. 7-8)

Increase the value of your school by improving quality (teachers are most important here), adding high-impact courses/programs, leveraging technology, reducing costs, and moderating tuition increases.

9. Consider merging with other Christian schools. This poses theological and philosophical challenges. However, merging Christian schools can reflect very wise stewardship through economies of scale, the ability to pay higher salaries, cutting costs, consolidating programs, and building larger fine-arts and sports programs, to name a few. Unless there are mutually exclusive theological and philosophical principles at stake, it makes little sense to have several small, struggling schools within a few miles of each other, particularly in a harsh economic environment.

Before considering a merger, keep the following in mind:

• You may need to create a transportation system. Convenience and cost (given current gas prices) are two high values for parents. If one school merges with another, one school will lose some students. This loss can be reduced by providing a transportation service for parents whose school closed.
• Emphasize the advantages the merger will create for students.
• Differences in preferences can be overcome and the schools can merge. However, fundamentally incompatible differences in theology or philosophy cannot and should not be compromised (e.g. a protestant school combining with a catholic school would reflect an unbiblical compromise, or the proposed merger of a fundamentalist school with a school committed to a reformed theology would be inherently incompatible theologically, culturally, and practically). Be careful to distinguish between policy and pedagogical preferences and fundamental theological differences. They are not the same but are often confused. The challenge is to determine what is preference versus what are genuine theological and philosophical differences and core tenets.
• One school must take over the other--a house divided cannot stand. One school board and administration must be taken over by the other. Seldom should board members or administrators be absorbed into the new school. More often than not this will be a recipe for conflict and failure. However, the personnel (support staff and teachers) of the school that is being merged/absorbed by another should be carefully interviewed and given priority for hiring provided they meet the absorbing school's standards. This is fair and just but the absorbing school is not ethically obligated to hire the staff of the merged school. Likewise, where there are redundancies in staff resulting from the merger, and there will be, only the best staff of either school should be retained. This seems harsh, I know, especially for Christian leaders. However, as leaders it is our responsibility to staff our schools with the best available personnel, which may mean in a merger that some staff from either school may be let go. If so, generous and fair severance packages should be provided and good staff who are laid off due to redundancies should be rehired if positions become available.
• Pride must be crucified! There is great pride of "ownership" by the leadership and founders of any organization, including Christian schools. However, our schools belong to the Lord--not to us! It is His glory and His kingdom that matters--not the sweat equity that we have invested in the schools we lead. Since the schools we lead belong to the Lord there should be no pride of "ownership" and no shame if one school must be merged with another. The merger may simply reflect faithfulness and wise stewardship for God's glory and the advancement of His kingdom. Pride should never prevent two weak struggling schools from combining if doing so ultimately benefits students by creating a stronger and more stable Christian school.

10. If you are a Covenantal school (a school that only enrolls children born to at least one confessing parent (1 Cor. 7:14), consider enrolling the children of non-believers. If the school's founding charter or theology/philosophy is covenantal, this will be controversial for leadership and for some parents. More so if your school is sponsored by a church, in which case approval by church leadership will probably be required.

I started out in Christian education as an ardent advocate for the covenantal model of Christian schooling but I have modified my position based upon theological considerations and personal experience (I have been founder and head of a covenantal school (Covenant Day School) and head of two non-covenantal schools, including my current school, Briarwood Christian School.

Great prudence and much prayer must accompany any discussion of this decision. The goal is to clearly discern the Lord's will in this matter. He has called some school ministries to serve only the Covenant community. Other school leaders and churches believe the Lord has called them to minister to BOTH the believing and non-believing communities. It could be that the Lord will direct you to change your ministry focus. Only prayer, study of God's word, and wise counsel will help you discern His will in this critically important matter.

Here are some things to consider as you prayerfully ponder this possibility.

(NOTE: This blog article is already too long so I cannot go into all of the details of why I suggest this possibility. If you have questions please contact me directly and I will be happy to speak with you.)

• I believe the decision as to whether the school is Covenantal or non-covenantal is a matter of Christian liberty. There is room for disagreement here based on the leadership's sense of God's calling, but I believe either model can be biblical, can advance the kingdom, and can glorify our Lord.
• I have been surprised to find that when a school is well-run with good leadership that there are no more problems in the non-covenantal school than in the covenantal school. This was counter intuitive to me until I gave this more thought. The short version of my thinking is this: non-believing parents who choose to send their children to a Christian school tend, by common grace, to share the same high standards for external behavior and academic achievement as many Christians (provided the school does not have a reputation as a reform [small r] school for troubled students). I find many Christians, on the other hand, to be antinomians (at least when it comes to their children) who, when confronted with a disciplinary matter, respond "I thought this was a Christian school--where is the grace!" Translation, grace means "no or only mild discipline, at least for my children."
• The admissions process is essential for ensuring a healthy school culture. I have found that having a "pooled" admissions process for grades 7-12, in which NEW prospective students are enrolled ONLY after they have interviewed with an admissions committee, is a very effective way to protect the school because only students who are deemed as good fits are enrolled. Frankly, sometimes the children of non-believers can be better fits then the children of some believers.
• The school must have strong caring school leaders who wisely and consistently enforce policies. When this is the case, I have found that enrolling the children of non-believes creates no more problems than those found in covenantal schools. On the other hand, when the school does not have good policies or when leadership fails to wisely and consistently enforce them, there will be problems resulting in an unhealthy school culture in both covenantal and non-covenantal schools.
• As a practical matter, the non-covenantal model greatly expands the school's marketplace. This has several advantages including larger enrollments and stronger finances. Under wise leadership, this translates into higher teacher salaries, improved instruction, expanded and higher quality programs, higher retention rates, and financial stability. This in and of itself is NOT sufficient reason to move from a covenantal to a non-covenantal model but if school/church leadership believe that either model, when done properly, can be biblical and that the Lord is leading them in that direction, then this model offers significant practical and financial advantages.

We may be facing difficult years ahead. Now is the time to prayerfully plan ahead. How are you going to position your school to not only survive, but thrive in uncertain times?

One of my favorite verses refers to King David's leadership:

For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation... (Act 13:36, ESV)

We are called to serve the purpose of God in our generation, which includes providing godly, biblically informed, steady, and strong leadership for our schools during times of uncertainty. May the Lord grant us the grace to be beacons of light and steadfastness for our brothers and sisters and before a frantic and watching world.

Technorati Tags: Recession,depression,Christian school,economic,economic crisis,Wall Street,Main Street,Merger,Covenantal,non-convenantal,enrollment,zero-based,faithfulness,admissions,leadership,stewardship,salary,salaries,leverage

Economic Crisis, Globalization, our Students, and our Mission (Era of U.S. financial dominance at an end: Germany)

In view of the current financial crisis surrounding the U.S. economy, I sent the following email to my staff. I am sharing this with you in the hope that you may find it of some small value to you or your staff. Barrett Mosbacker

___________________________

September 25, 2008

Dear Staff:

As you know, over the last several years, I have made a point of emphasizing the new realities of the global economy, its impact on our students, and what this means for our teaching and our academic standards. I would encourage you to take a minute to read the Reuters’ article at the end of this email even if economics and finance are not your “thing.”

I am obviously not an economist so I cannot assess the accuracy of every assertion in this article. What seems clear are the following:

1. The world our students are inheriting is vastly different than the world we have known

2. As was noted in the movie 2 Million Minutes, the U.S. no longer enjoys the economic monopoly that was ours after WWII

3. International competition in all sectors of society is increasing rapidly with the rest of the world catching up and poised to surpass the U.S.

4. All of the above adds up to greater economic uncertainly for our students

The question is, what does this mean for us and our students? I would like to suggest the following:

1. We need to remind our students that we are responsible for our decisions but God is sovereign so anxiety is not an appropriate response. Prayer, humility, trust, and obedience are the appropriate response to this or any crisis.

2. We must continue to enhance our ability to give our students a thoughtful, intelligent biblical worldview. Simplistic responses to complex scientific, social, moral, political, and economic issues will not prepare our students to be salt and light in this world. I am reminded of Dr. Machen’s insightful observation:

The missionary movement is the great religious movement of our day. Now it is perfectly true that men must be brought to Christ one by one. There are no laborsaving devices in evangelism. It is all hard work. And yet it would be a great mistake to suppose that all men are equally well prepared to receive the gospel. It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. But as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root. Many would have the seminaries combat error by attacking it as it is taught by its popular exponents. Instead of that they confuse their students with a lot of German names unknown outside the walls of the universities. That method of procedure is based simply upon a profound belief in the pervasiveness of ideas. What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity …

Furthermore, the field of Christianity is the world. The Christian cannot be satisfied so long as any human activity is either opposed to Christianity or out of all connection with Christianity. Christianity must pervade not merely all nations, but also all of human thought. The Christian, therefore, cannot be indifferent to any branch of earnest human endeavor. It must all be brought into some relation to the gospel. It must be studied either in order to be demonstrated as false, or else in order to be made useful in advancing the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom must be advanced not merely extensive but also intensively. The Church must seek to conquer not merely every man for Christ, but also the whole of man. Machen, J. G. (1987). Education, Christianity, and the State. Jefferson, MA: The Trinity Foundation., pg. 50

3. We need to teach our students that the violation of God’s law leads to temporal and eternal loss. Although there are many interrelated causes for the current economic turmoil, it seems clear that materialism and greed are major contributing factors.

On the subject of materialism, did you realize that one of the major sins of Sodom was materialism and failure to care for the less fortunate? I believe this is a sin on Wall Street and Main Street (To whom much is given, much is required).

Eze 16:49-50 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. (50) They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

4. Our students need to be made to understand that the opportunities and relative prosperity of their parents may be much harder to realize in their lives.

5. There will likely be little job security for most.

6. Working hard and learning are not optional. They face global competition for university entrance and jobs and must prepare themselves if they are going to care for themselves and their families and have resources to share with the less fortunate.

7. We must teach our students to think and HOW to learn. Although this can be a cliché, our students will have to be life-long learners.

8. Our teaching must be active and engaging. Students need to master information/skills but they also must learn how to assess, analyze, synthesize, and present information. They have to be problem solvers, not just good test takers.

9. We will continue to develop our understanding and application of 21^st century skills in our classrooms.

Please join me in praying that the Lord will:

· Use current events to spark a reformation in our country.

· Enable us to use current events as an instructional opportunity to develop our students’ sense of justice, charity, and a deeper understanding of economics and other disciplines from a biblical perspective.

· Be particularly merciful to the poor who suffer disproportionately during economic downturns.

Thank you for your commitment to excellence in Christian education—the Lord is using you to impact many lives! Barrett Mosbacker

Technorati Tags: Economics,globalization,Wall Street,Greed,Materialism,Excellence,Worldview

Doing A Great Job on the Wrong Things?

By: Scott Mayo

I had the distinct pleasure of reading Dr. Donovan Graham’s Teaching Redemptively: Bringing Grace and Truth Into Your Classroom in manuscript form during my Master’s program at Covenant College. It was subsequently published by Purposeful Design and is now a required reading for ACSI teacher certification. By definition, then, it is getting a wide reading in Christian school circles. That being said, I am having a hard time believing that there hasn’t been a great outcry, in that I found it to be a very troubling book on several fronts. His central premise is that the Gospel, the central element of the Christian Faith, does not permeate our schools in a manner commensurate with our profession of its importance. Sadly, our Christian schools seem to rival our secular counterparts in the area of focusing on the temporal, superficial, and measurable. In fact, because we have great kids and wonderful teachers, we tend to produce even better results, albeit results measured on the same secular yardstick.

What to do then? Well, I asked Dr. Graham that very question over lunch one day in the cafeteria. His good-natured response was that the working out of his thesis was “our job” as Christian school administrators and teachers. That answer was more profound than I originally understood. The outworking of the Gospel into daily life, including school life, does not lend itself to a recipe-like approach. The seasoning of grace will produce as many flavors as it finds sinful, hurting, difficult situations. Once I began to grasp that I didn’t have to figure out how to bring grace and truth into every classroom in every school, that freed me up to start to discern how to bring the Gospel to bear on our little school with our unique set of dreams and aspirations hindered and clouded by the site specific effects of the Fall.

Initial implementation began in the conventional way; we read the book as a faculty and then discussed sections of it throughout the year during in-services. The content of those discussions varied widely, but the structure stayed very consistent. We were always finding ourselves at “Yes, but…” moments. The “yes” was in reference to the claims of the Gospel and the necessity for all our actions to be guided and covered by grace. The “but” was the pragmatic, mundane reason why we couldn’t accommodate the Gospel in a particular school situation. Instead of acting as a conjunction, we had turned the “but” into an eraser, effectively eviscerating our “yes” to the Gospel of any real meaning. It was evident that we had good intentions, a great desire to make positive changes, and a long way to go!

We are now completing our second year of school-wide attempts to move from a place where our students derive their worth from their performance and instead find it in Christ. This has involved changes in content and process. We still teach, test, discipline, perform service projects, and field athletic teams. It’s just that we are striving to have God’s grace make a difference in each of those elements of school life. Those efforts have not always been understood, especially by the parents. We’ve been accused of giving our students a license to sin (behaviorally) and fail (academically). While not claiming to be infallible in our efforts, it is noteworthy that we had never been accused of granting license before. As Paul made clear in Romans 6:1, grace will always be misunderstood by those who measure ultimate worth and merit by performance (especially outwardly visible performance). Interestingly enough, most of the consternation was not voiced by parents concerning their own students, but was centered on how our actions with other students was somehow not “fair” to their students. During those conversations, Christ’s parable of the workers in the vineyard from Matthew 20 always echoed in my mind. It’s easy to want grace for ourselves. It’s also easy to resent grace when other receive it.

We truly believe that the image of God in our students coupled with the power of God’s grace can be used to roll back the effects of the Fall in a way unattainable by behavioristic, manipulative methods, methods that often seem to produce desirable results in the short term. In the face of all the difficulties, we are still convinced of and committed to the ideas delineated in Teaching Redemptively. To continue to make this the reality at our school, several things working together are needed. First, we must model this as well as teach it. So many times schools try to plant something at the classroom level that is choked out by the overall school atmosphere. For instance, as an administrator it makes no sense for me to expect the faculty to discipline in a relational way while I treat the teachers bureaucratically. Next, we need to continue to research, instruct, and experiment. While grace-based instruction should be situational and should never be enacted mechanically from a checklist, that certainly doesn’t mean we can’t learn great things from other schools. For instance, in Dr. Gene Frost’s Learning from the Best: Growing Greatness in the Christian School, his chapter describing the approach to discipline enacted by Lutheran High School North in Macomb, Michigan was both inspiring and useful. So much of what they are attempting to do in moving from Law to Grace is transferable in essence to any school.

Finally, as leaders we must constantly paint the big picture for those on the front lines. Sometimes that takes the form of visionary speeches. At other times, we just need to take the small, teachable moments to show how a philosophy can inform practice. Recently, I began our morning meeting by reading Luke 14:12-14 aloud. This passage is where Jesus instructs those giving a feast to invite the poor, the crippled, and the blind, i.e. those who couldn’t pay them back. I then distributed an assignment. The teachers were to reread the passage. Then, to drive home the point, I required a few written paragraphs within a week reflecting on how this story applied to their classrooms. The twist was that they had to name names in the reflection. I wanted them to realize how easy it is to reward those who are rewarding but to only tolerate those who aren’t. It’s an even greater leap to love those students who are needy in an academic or behavioral sense. It’s easy to admit that in general. It can be painful to admit that when there is a face attached.

The results were wonderful. In their written responses, the teachers were very honest about how theory and practice diverge on a daily basis. When they would mention Little Johnny by name, describe how they normally reacted to him, and then record how he should be the object of their love especially because he had less to “offer” them compared to his peers, it was evident that the desire to be gracious was making a tangible difference. For closure, I read aloud excerpts of the reflections in our morning meeting the following week. That was helpful in that various teachers identified varying ways in which teaching particular students exhibited that lack of inherent reward along with heartfelt regret for not pursuing more diligently those same students in love. If nothing else, we intentionally took time to examine our practice in light of the Gospel. While no one-shot panacea, I do believe exercises like this can aid in the process of changing the culture of a school.

Technorati Tags: Worldview,Christian Education,Assessment

2 Million Minutes

How do our students compare?

Dr. Barrett Mosbacker, PublisherTwo million minutes is roughly four years, the amount of time high school students have to prepare for life. The documentary compares and contrasts the education experiences of six students; two from each of the countries of India, China, and the United States. It includes statistics on the amount of time spent in the classroom, the influence of the student's parents on their decisions to pursue a certain career, and the degree to which those choices impact their free time during their high school years. Robert Compton talked about his documentary film and the education community's response. Video clips are shown."

Technorati Tags: Time,globalization,excellence,international standards,world-class standards,school,China,India