Author: admin

[rating:2]

( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.)

224 pgs

With the death of virulent atheist, Christopher Hitchens, this book by his brother, who embraces Christian beliefs, is perhaps a timely read. Anyone who wants to be informed of the current spiritual landscape in the Western Hemisphere ought to be at least aware of the disturbingly popular atheist triumvirate of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. These men have taken atheism mainstream and have stepped up the vindictive to entirely new and public levels.

Christopher Hitchens wrote the bestselling, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He takes a historic approach to his case, surveying Church History to demonstrate that religion, and Christianity in particular, has caused more human suffering than any other single force. Christopher Hitchens’ book was a bestseller and he was a popular guest on talk shows, espousing his condemnation and ridicule of Christianity.

Peter Hitchens, his younger brother, is a British journalist who reported from locations such as Moscow, North Korea, Burma, The Congo, Iran, and China. He readily confesses that he is not a theologian, Bible scholar, or even a philosopher, but a journalist, a former atheist, and the brother of one of the most recognized atheist of our generation. As a result, this book is written in the popular and engaging manner you would expect from an international journalist. He does raise some interesting thoughts and offer some keen observations. I would not view this as a strong apologetics text or a thorough rebuttal of atheists using Church History. Nevertheless, for those wishing to become familiar with some of the issues being debated today, this may be a good introduction.

Should Christians even bother reading the hatred and ridicule being bound into bestselling books by atheists today? Well not everyone will need to be an expert in apologetics. Nevertheless, the “new” atheism that is popular today is being avidly promoted by numerous media outlets, and is being soaked up, especially by the younger generation. It would seem wise to be aware of the angle of attack being taken against Christianity.

Peter Hitchens makes several great observations that I’ll just note. He says: “Unlike Christians, atheists have a high opinion of their own virtue” (25). He argues that, without an ethical source that is above mankind, ethics always boils down to who is most powerful and who ultimately writes history. He notes that in World War One and Two, both sides committed similar atrocities against each other and against civilians. However, the winning side can always claim the side of virtue. He also describes his visit to Mogadishu that had descended into lawlessness. His description of what it looks like when “trust, civility, and peace” is lost is compelling (98). One of the primary weaknesses of atheists is that they have no definitive basis for their ethics, apart from God. Why are they incensed at actions they consider unethical? If we are, as they claim, simply the descendants of monkeys who survived while weaker species died out, why should we not take advantage of the weak? Those who believe in atheistic evolution have a flimsy basis for their morals.

Hitchens relates how observing a painting of the Final Judgment shook him as an atheist and launched his journey back to God (102). He notes: “But I had a sudden, strong sense of religion being a thing of the present day, not imprisoned under thick layers of time. A large catalogue of misdeeds, ranging from the embarrassing to the appalling, relayed themselves rapidly in my head. I had absolutely not doubt that I was among the damned, if there were any damned” (103). It reminds the reader of the power of art to communicate truth. He also describes the gradual eroding of the Church of England’s orthodoxy. He describes how the Book of Common Prayer, used for over 400 years, and filled with references to confession of sin, was slowly set aside by Liberal church leaders to accommodate more enlightened (and less repentant) congregants (108). He also argues that nothing hurt the Church in England any more in the Twentieth Century than did the two world wars, which it won. He argues that it was as the Church attempted to justify and sanctify unjust actions that people became disillusioned with the church.

Hitchens argues that atheists refuse to admit that they have a motive for their belief system, as he does. He readily acknowledges that he does not desire to live in a world with no design or purpose or afterlife. He is pleased that the Christian faith provides answers to all of his deepest needs. Yet he argues that atheists refuse to admit that they have a vested interest in Christianity not being true. For they fundamentally despise the concept that there is a God who expects to be obeyed and who will one day judge those who rebelled against Him (24). If there is no God, then they are free to live as they wish. They simply cannot afford to be wrong about their atheism, regardless of the evidence. He also posits that atheists avoid admitting that theirs is a belief system. They ridicule Christians for believing in God, yet they argue that their worldview is not based on belief but on science (even though they cannot prove that God does not exist, making their viewpoint a belief as well) (155).

Hitchens paints a sobering picture of what a godless society such as the former Soviet Union was like. The “new” atheists argue that if God were removed from society, it would be more tolerant and rational. Yet Hitchens points out that religion-less regimes have been extremely brutal and intolerant. Hitchens shows how atheists view people like Stalin and Mao and Hitler as exceptions. Hitchens points out how Christopher Hitchens tries to claim that the Stalinist Soviet Union was a “Christian” nation because Stalin attended seminary, but refuses to allow it to serve as an example of what a godless nation looks like, because he sees the violent Stalin as an aberration (A true atheist would have been tolerant and enlightened!). Atheists want to have things both ways. Hitchens points out that “utopianism is dangerous precisely because its supporters are so convinced that they themselves are good” (138). He challenges the atheists’ argument that wars in the name of religion have always been, in fact, about religion. For example, Northern Ireland was a battle between Protestants and Catholics. But in reality, it was between native Irish and the usurping English who now controlled their land. Hitchens suggests that more often than not, conflict has arisen out of greed for power, land, and money, more than out of religious differences. He argues that those deeply holding religious faith in Ireland were not generally in favor of the violence. Hitchens also notes that, atheists always harken back to what Christians did in the Crusades or when burning witches in New England as evidence of their violence. Yet he notes: “When did Christians last burn, strangle, or imprison each other for alleged errors of faith? By contrast, those who reject God’s absolute authority, preferring their own, are far more ready to persecute than Christians have been . . .” (154). It is interesting that atheists are still pointing to what Christians did in the Middle Ages as proof of their guilt, while one need not look past this year to find atrocious violence committed by regimes who deny the existence of God.

Hitchens also quotes Richard Dawkins in an extremely revealing statement where he claims that Christian parents should not be allowed the freedom of speech to teach their religious views to their children (207). This is the heart of the danger. Atheists do not want Christians to be public school teachers or nurses for example, if they do not affirm such beliefs as same sex marriage. Atheists expect to enjoy free speech themselves (rights granted to them from Christian-oriented, democratic countries), but they do not believe Christians should have the right to teach their own children their religious beliefs and values. These militant atheists are aggressively working to take away rights and freedoms from Christians. It behooves us to be aware of what they are doing.

This is a specialty book and as such, I have not rated it as high as I might have. It is not a scholarly work of apologetics or history. It is one person’s musings, although from an interesting and often thoughtful perspective. What makes the book appealing is, of course, that the author’s brother was one of the most violent atheists of the age.

If you have not read much in this field, it might be a good start as you try to familiarize yourself with where some of the battle lines are being drawn in the ongoing battle for peoples’ souls.

[rating:4]

(Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2008.)

205 pgs

For someone who has taught principles from Experiencing God for the last twenty years, it was intriguing for me to read this book. In many ways I saw this as a contemporary attempt to address some of the same issues my father dealt with in his classic book. There is clearly a movement among many of the younger church leaders today to get back to what genuine Christianity is supposed to be. What I liked about this book as compared to a work like Pagan Christianity, is that Francis Chan has not given up on the modern church, but is calling it to go to new levels of devotion and missional living.

Chan’s premise is that, as we draw close to God, we are inevitably going to have His heart and passion. He writes in his foreword: “This book is written for those who want more of Jesus” (21). That seems to describe much of the younger generation in the modern church. They don’t want more religion, or meaningless church activities. They want to know and experience God.

Chan argues: “We need to stop giving people excuses not to believe in God” (21). How true! For anyone looking for an excuse not to believe in God, the modern church is quick to oblige! Chan argues that God is far greater than we can comprehend. In fact, if we could fully understand God, “What a stunted, insignificant god that would be!” (32). He argues that it is arrogant to think God owes us an explanation for anything (33). More disturbingly, he also claims that worry and stress both “reek of arrogance” (42).

Chan says a number of things that make you stop and think. He is not obnoxious about it. In fact, he is quite transparent and generally humble. He says things like: “The thought of a person calling himself a Christian without being a devoted follower of Christ is absurd” (85). And, “Let’s face it. We’re willing to make changes in our lives only if we think it affects our salvation” (86).

Chan came from a difficult life. His mother died delivering him. His father may have resented him for this and was abusive to him (54). Chan’s story and passion for God are all the more compelling knowing what God delivered him from. He offers some interesting glimpses into Scripture at times. I liked his treatment of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (115). He also asks: “How would my life change if I actually thought of each person I came in contact with as Christ?” (118).

Chan gets “radical” when he mentions that he downsized his house to one half as large so he could give more money away (136). Here you see a close relationship to David Platt’s Radical. Chan claims: “The concept of downsizing so that others might upgrade is biblical, beautiful . . . and nearly unheard of. We either close the gap or don’t take the words of the Bible literally . . . There has to be more to our faith than friendliness, politeness, and even kindness” (121, 130). In following this principle, Chan’s church gives half of its revenues away and it chose to build an outdoor amphitheater rather than a large, indoor auditorium so it could give more away. He admits that some days church can get chilly, but “there will also be joy in knowing that we’re sitting in the cold so that someone else can have a blanket” (163). Chan confesses that the Christian life is about “complete surrender.” He notes that he was never very good at merely “trying harder” (170).

This, like Platt’s book Radical, has garnered widespread interest, and rightly so. While there are many books out today that urge people to be on mission, this book begins not with a demographic study, but with our relationship to Christ. Too many books push missions without ever laying a proper basis for it.

I think that for many churches, Chan’s words will be too radical. Too many Christians are still enamored with their buildings and programs. I also think that it will challenge many evangelical Christians who have wedded themselves perhaps too tightly with the political right wing movement. While I tend toward many right wing viewpoints, I also recognize that it is precarious for Christians to bind themselves too tightly to political and economic camps. I have heard many evangelical Christians offer the simplistic solution that if people in America don’t like being poor, they can get a job! For Chan to suggest that we downsize what we have so we can give more to others definitely runs counter to right wing politics today!

This book has been out for a couple of years but I felt it important to read it as it has exerted considerable influence. Overall I enjoyed it. I found it fresh and provocative, without being harsh or unduly negative. Not only does the book offer some great challenges, but it also gives a good insight into the attitude of many of the younger generation of Christians. For both reasons I recommend that you read it.

[rating:1]

(United States: Tyndale House Publishers, 2002, 2008.)

293 pgs

This book has been out for a couple of years now and so is not a new release. Nevertheless, due to its nature, I thought it might be good to review for the SLN. It is written to disturb people and it undoubtedly will. Frank Viola is the primary author, in partnership with George Barna. In a nutshell, the authors assert that practically everything the current church does is unbiblical and drawn from paganism, hence the title, “Pagan Christianity.”

This is not a new theme for Barna. In his book, Revolution, he wrote a scathing assault on the modern church and all but suggested that it be abandoned for a new form of church that he claimed was emerging. Viola backs up this effort with a sweeping study of every major practice in the church to repeatedly demonstrate that the practices so cherished by the modern church are nowhere to be found in the book of Acts.

You know that a book is going to transgress sacred beliefs when the publisher (Tyndale) actually includes a note at the beginning explaining why they agreed to publish a book that appears so condemnatory of the existing church.

Rather than evaluate this book page by page, I will focus on its key points and comment on the approach. It would take too much space to evaluate every argument put forth in the 293-page book.

First, it is helpful to critique current church practices. Much of what current churches do is unbiblical. So, I was intrigued with the title of this book and the approach it seemed to take. There are three general comments I would make at the outset of this review:

First, this critique is too sweeping. They argue: “”By contrast, a great number of the practices in many contemporary churches are in conflict with those biblical principles and teachings. When we dig deeper, we are compelled to ask: Where did the practices of the contemporary church come from? The answer is disturbing: Most of them were borrowed from pagan culture” (xix). Few would argue that worldly practices have crept into the church at various points. Yet the broad sweep that the authors argue that practically everything the church does is pagan, begins to seem like a stretch as the reader progresses through the material. Critiquing such things as the sermon as pagan, or churches being planted by people other than itinerant apostle-like leaders begins to sound like someone who is intent on thoroughly debunking the church with no stone left unturned.

Second, I am not familiar with Viola but one of the problems with Barna has been that he is neither a theologian nor a church historian. I suspect Viola isn’t either. Though they attempt to provide a wide-sweeping review of history, their footnotes reflect a heavy use of secondary sources. Likewise, the same sources are repeatedly cited. Clearly they have been influenced by a handful of radical writers and are now trumpeting their viewpoints. Despite the impressive looking footnotes at the bottom of the pages, closer examination leaves one with the impression that the writers have been unduly influenced by a couple of writers.

Third, after rejecting the existing church, the authors promote their own version entitled, “organic church.” They define this as: “simply a church that is born out of spiritual life instead of constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Organic churches are characterized by Spirit-led, open-participatory meetings and non-hierarchical leadership)” (xix). The authors have a distinct vision of what the true church is like. It meets in homes and has no local leadership. They seem to feel that unless every person is actively speaking up in some way in the worship times, it is unbliblical. The authors do mention a couple of examples of attending such churches (though it does not appear that they promote such churches of which they are active members themselves), but they never mention a specific congregation. It comes across as extremely weak argumentation to criticize most existing churches and then to talk in vague terms of unnamed churches that get it right, as if the authors are protecting themselves from having their claims verified. The authors’ solution is a little too convenient. We have these idealized congregations described to us without any way of checking them out or visiting them. For people who have felt free to fire their broadsides at every church in their sites, it seems a little too easy to hide their own churches in a shroud of secrecy.

The following are a few statements I would challenge or question:

The authors begin by describing a fictional family that argues on the way to church and feels hypocritical dressing up to go to church on Sunday (3). The problem, it would seem, as they describe it, is not the nature of the church but the nature of people. The authors make it sound like people are bored and hypocritical attending traditional church but they would not feel that way if they participated in an organic church. They describe a family that argued on the way to church and now their spirits are not right as they sit in the service. Yet of course, it is naïve to suggest that people would not attend an organic church with improper motives or that people would not argue on the way to attend an organic church meeting. The primary issue is peoples’ hearts, not church structure. Of course we should be on the alert to do things as biblically as possible, but it is naïve to think the answer is structure.

I have participated in numerous church services where the Spirit of God worked powerfully and peoples’ lives were dramatically changed. To suggest that for the last 1600 years the church has been functioning incorrectly is to cause one to wonder how there are any genuine Christians in existence today. It makes me wonder what churches the authors have attended.

The authors claim that meeting in houses was a conscious choice of early Christians (15). This is clearly a stretch. The reason the early Christians met in homes was because their movement was persecuted and at times illegal. They were also generally drawn from the lower classes where money was sparse. To erect a building in the first century Roman Empire would have made it easy for officials to round up Christians for the local entertainment at the coliseum. As soon as Christianity was made legal, Christian churches began springing up everywhere.

The authors claim that early Christians avoided all contact with paganism (26). Clearly this is false. The first century world would not have been turned upside down if they had.

The authors argue that pews leave people as “mute spectators” (36). Certainly there are those who sit passively in church (in all churches). But pews were installed originally not to pacify the audience but so people could sit! There were elderly people in attendance. Certainly making church more comfortable is not clear evidence of introducing paganism into the church. Likewise, I am not sure which churches the authors have been participating in but pews are definitely on the way out in the majority of churches. The authors also argue that candles were introduced into the church from paganism (37). This seems to be a bit alarmist.

One of the chief concerns expressed is toward the sermon and the fact that the arrangement of pews forces people to look at the preacher rather than to each other. The authors suggest that people should be looking to Christ, the Head of the church, rather than to the preacher. Yet they equate looking at each other as looking to Christ. Anyone who has ever been distracted in church knows that it is far easier to be distracted when you are looking directly at other members versus looking to the front of the auditorium where the cross or other religious symbols are located.

The authors suggest that over 230 billion dollars of church assets are invested in church property that is generally used a few hours a week (41). Certainly this is a valid, though not a novel, comment. The authors go on to say there is not a “shred” of evidence in Scripture for church buildings (42). One problem is that the authors assume that everything in the Old Testament was cast aside once Christ came. The fact that Jesus regularly taught in the synagogues or that Paul made wide use of them seems unimportant. Synagogues could be founded any time there were ten Jewish men. This would have been the size of some homes. This was a place of teaching and regular meeting. While clearly the Church took on new forms, much of what was of value, such as regularly meeting for worship and instruction, continues to be important for Christians today.

The authors allege that the current Protestant order of worship comes largely from paganism (55). They also claim that the Puritans believed that the sermon was the primary way God spoke to people (62). Again, this seems a stretch. The Puritans upheld Scripture. What they did hold to was the biblical injunction of exhortation. Certainly the sermon is a powerful tool for encouraging people to obey what God told them in His word.

The authors charge much of public prayers with utilizing archaic King James English. This may have been true a generation ago, but again, such comments makes me wonder what churches the authors have been visiting lately. The authors state that the frontier revivalists focused exclusively on evangelism (65). Again, this shows a shallow knowledge of church history. The great revivals at Cane Ridge and frontier Kentucky occurred when itinerant preachers were preparing the people on the frontier to take communion. Their messages were on consecration for people presumably Christian who needed to prepare themselves before taking communion.

The authors also argue that many people in the church today are driven by pragmatism (67). They explain pragmatism as using whatever works “regardless of ethical considerations.” Clearly this is an exaggeration. Pragmatism in the church is often done without careful consideration of whether the behavior is biblical, but generally church leaders do not flippantly discard ethics just to build their numbers.

The authors claim that D.L. Moody was solely concerned with peoples’ conversion (70). Again, this is an exaggeration and demonstrates a weak knowledge of Moody. He was indeed the premier evangelist of his day, but even a cursory look at his life demonstrates a heart for more than evangelism. The authors also suggest that the first century Christians were not focused on reaching their world in their generation (71). This particular point seems a bit strange, especially in light of both how rapidly the church spread in the first century as well as the degree to which early Christians were willing to suffer to spread the Gospel.

The authors claim that Protestantism is highly individualistic and subjective (73). Interestingly their alternative is house churches where people simply begin sharing whatever song, or prayer, or poem, or thought comes into their mind. Perhaps one of the authors’ biggest complaints is that they believe verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:29 direct Christians to participate interactively in worship services (88). They suggest there should not be traditional sermons in services but rather, people should share what Christ puts in their heart and people should feel free to interrupt or ask questions. They argue that when people are not allowed to “preach” in traditional services, they are treated like “second class” members (98). They argue that Scripture exhorts each member to exercise their gifts and if they do not do so in the worship service, the church is not properly functioning. The truth is that not all of the gifts of the Spirit are public speaking gifts. People may have the gift of service or mercy and never speak a word in a public gathering. Yet they could be fully exercising their gifts. It is simply erroneous to think that every person must speak in a public worship gathering if the church is to function properly.

The authors debunk numerous other church practices such as ordination (123), paid clergy, and dressing up to go to church (148). That is an interesting one. In the authors’ eyes, dressing up to go to church is an effort to appear or to be “good” in the eyes of God (149-150). They completely neglect the reality that we, as creatures, are drawing near to worship our Creator. Surely there is room for preparing ourselves for such an encounter! Too often the authors suggest a church practice and create a straw man with particular motives only to deride those motives. This is not strong argument.

The authors also condemn the practice of tithing (171). They find an interesting antecedent back to feudal land leasing as the genesis of the church’s practice (177). Often, in such arguments, the authors’ footnotes suggest a strong dependency on limited and biased sources. Interestingly, the authors even condemn asking people to pray the sinner’s prayer (189). They believe that baptism was supposed to be the public confession of conversion. Yet is seems confusing how praying to repent of your sins and to be converted can be bypassed in favor of baptism. One would seem to lead to the next.

The authors also reject Sunday School, youth ministers, developing programs for teenagers apart from adults. They also argue that only itinerant church planters are biblically sanctioned to start churches. Finally, and almost comically, Viola argues that for 2,000 years Christian readers have been unable to understand the New Testament because they do not understand the order it was written or the context (239). Then he declares that finally it is possible due to recent studies. Then he footnotes a book he wrote himself! At this point in the book, the reader may well suspect that the authors believe that after 2000 years of the Church, Christianity has been blessed to have two wise Christians who have finally deciphered the Scriptures and now see how the Church is supposed to be run.

I began this book, curious at what these authors noticed in the modern church. I am not overly sensitive to those who critique the church. I am fully aware of many of its problems. But I have had a problem with George Barna ever since he wrote about “revolutionaries” who have rejected the traditional church. He writes as a sociologist with limited theological or biblical training. Viola attempted to conduct a thorough study of Church History but it becomes clear that he has a rather superficial knowledge of it as well.

I think this book simply goes too far. It certainly touches on issues where the church needs to be revived. Yet discounting everything the church does is too sweeping. Their solution is also dissatisfying. It may be one way to do church, but to suggest that it is the only way to do church is presumptuous. I think the authors touch on some areas that invite further investigation, but to charge so many church practices to paganism is too radical. I don’t recommend this book. It misrepresents history and Scripture and may be more confusing than helpful.

[rating:3]

( Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2009)

205 pgs

I enjoy listening to Crawford Loritts speak. He is always fresh and insightful. I recently had the opportunity to teach leadership with him for several days. He taught from this book and I was soon intrigued. For those of you who want a good book on Christian leadership, from someone who has done it for years, and who is honest about his own foibles and lessons learned, this is a good read.

Crawford worked for years for Campus Crusade and has spoken extensively around the world. Currently he is the senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church in Roswell, GA. Interestingly, he taught a seminary-level class on leadership for years and used our book, Spiritual Leadership as his textbook.

Loritts states it well when he says: “. . . absolutely nothing of lasting value or significance will ever happen in life apart from leadership. Nothing is sustained or passed on from one generation to the next apart from leadership. God’s cause and purposes in human history is advanced through faithful, focused leadership” (10). He notes that, “there is no particular personality type that God singles out for leadership” (11).

Loritts suggests there are at least four common characteristics of leaders that can be found in people God uses. These are: brokenness, uncommon communion, servanthood, and radical, immediate obedience. Throughout the book he expands on these four qualities.

Loritts makes a number of great points, such as:

“And here’s the key: God’s priorities are so different, so supernatural, that only He can fulfill them . . . and he works predominantly through leaders who remember that truth” (25).

“There is always a gap between what you have and what God wants done . . . God loves to be depended on. So He gives imperfect, inadequate human beings impossible assignments” (40).

“Surrender is the leader’s response to brokenness” (43).

“The fact that you don’t feel qualified to do what you are doing may be the very reason why God has placed you where you are” (62).

“God is making a statement about Himself through the leadership assignments He gives you. And He does not want you to pollute what He is doing by relying on a counterfeit source, namely, yourself” (92).

“God is using what He has given you to do not only to accomplish His assignments but to make you what He wants you to become” (93).

“It’s a dangerous thing to follow a leader who has never failed . . . Unexamined failure teaches you nothing” (96).

“The Christian leader’s walk with God is always on display” (111).

“Dignity is God’s signature written on the soul of every human being” (146).

“I fear we are witnessing the erosion of the nobility of sacrifice” (161).

“We tend to project our negative experiences with authority onto God” (173).

“It is foolish to talk about courage apart from something that needs to be done” (190).

I enjoyed this book. Crawford has a great way with words. He not only is an outstanding leader himself, but he has been around a lot of great leaders. He also shares personal examples both of his successes, as well as his failures. I also liked this book because Loritts not only thinks deeply about leadership, but also biblically.

If you are looking for a good book on leadership from a strongly biblical perspective, you may enjoy this one.

[rating:3]

(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011)

173 pgs

Doug Conant is the CEO of the Campbell Soup Company. Since his arrival in 2001, Conant has brought a stop to his company’s decline and helped it to experience a significant turnaround in profitability and employee satisfaction. Previously Conant was an executive at General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco. Mette Norgaard is a “teacher of leaders.” She is an expert on strategic leadership and learning and has worked with some of America’s largest companies. These two, a successful practitioner, and an innovative teacher, have partnered to produce this practical leadership book.

This book’s fundamental contribution is to focus on how leaders can maximize the numerous encounters they experience throughout the day with their staff and constituents. While these moments can often appear to be interruptions to their work, these authors suggest they are their work (xxxviii). They explain that “Touchpoints “describe the way that each of the many interactions leaders have with others during their workday gives them the chance to ‘touch’ someone: to influence, guide, provide clarity, inspire, create a sense of urgency, and shape the course of events” (xxix). The authors note: “Touch Points take place any time two or more people get together to deal with an issue and get something done” (2).

There are always three “variables” in a Touch Point: the issue, the other people, and the leader (3). “Every TouchPoint is spring-loaded with possibilities” (9). The authors note that using TouchPoints is “about gaining momentum instead of settling for compliance” (11). What makes these encounters so significant is that whatever you transmit in a TouchPoint is soon passed on to 5-6 other people directly associated with the person you dealt with (12). The key, the book states, is “to draw the line between not tolerating poor performance (which results in high standards) and not tolerating mistakes (which leads to compliance) (20). Readers are challenged that if they made twenty TouchPoints a week, they would experience 1,000 over the course of a year (24). What would be the impact on your organization if you had 1,000 meaningful encounters with those you led annually?

The authors suggest: “the average leader doesn’t change until the cost of not changing becomes greater than the cost of changing” (44). They also cite the insightful finding of Marshall Goldsmith that 70% of people judged themselves to be in the top 10% of their peers (88). Clearly there are people who are out of touch with their effectiveness!

The book has a helpful section on “Lead with Listening” (104ff). Clearly to experience meaningful encounters with those you lead, you must develop the ability to listen, and to hear what your people are saying. Interestingly, the authors encourage leaders to “forget about the PowerPoint slides and tell more stories” (116). Various studies continue to confirm that few things have the force of a well-told story.

There are three important aspects to a TouchPoint. First, we must listen intently. Then we must frame the issue. Third, we advance the agenda. All three are essential. Finally, the authors note that “ . . . when it comes to substantive issues, the final decision is seldom made in any one meeting” (134). For those of us who are driven to make decisions, this is probably good counsel. Overall, this book can be summed up with the question, “How can I help?”

This book addresses a significant issue in leadership: how to make your encounters with others significant. That is something I have been giving much thought to of late. Of course, Jesus was the Son of God, but do you notice how significant His encounters were? None were wasted! As a leader, how often do we leave people demoralized rather than inspired? How often do we waste an encounter by merely engaging in chit chat?

I found this book generally easy to read. It also focused on a specific leadership issue that drilled down into the subject. If there is a negative it might be that after a while you feel like the authors have made their point but still have more pages in the book to go. Nevertheless, this is a subject that every leader needs to be reminded of regularly. For those who may struggle with people skills or being inspiring or who regularly find themselves in conflict with others, this could be a good book to read next.

[rating:3]

(New York: Riverhead Books, 2009)

260 pgs

Daniel Pink addresses a subject that has intrigued me of late: why is it that some people seem motivated to excel and to make valuable contributions while others appear to be de-motivated and satisfied with mediocrity or worse? Pink writes this book from a secular, scientific standpoint. He cites numerous well-known behavioral studies. As with many secular studies, while it might not necessarily offer a definitive solution to humanity’s fundamentally spiritual needs, it does identify basic human needs that clearly are not being met in the ordinary work place.

Pink joins a growing trend of business writers who recognize that we are entering a post-Industrial age. The problem is that many businesses and organizations (including schools) are continuing to use industrial models to manage their people. Pink repeatedly laments that science has discovered truths about human nature that business and institutions such as schools have yet to properly adjust to.

Pink suggests that there are three fundamental levels of human motivation. The first, and most basic, is Motivation 1.0 This is our biological need for basics such as food and shelter. Unless these basic needs are met, the others will be superfluous (15). The second level of motivation involves what he describes as “carrots and sticks,” which are incentives of reward or avoiding punishment, labeled Motivation 2.0. Pink suggests that the Industrial Revolution used this motivational approach. Businesses and institutions assumed that people were unmotivated to work hard and had to be enticed through reward systems as well as monitored and supervised carefully so they did not slack off. The most common instrument of reward in the Industrialized Age was money. If you worked hard and were productive, you earned bonuses or pay raises. It was assumed that this monetary incentive was adequate to enlist desired performances.

Much of this Industrial Age thinking has been assumed as we have entered the age of the Knowledge Worker. Pink suggests we have entered the age of Motivation 3.0. Whereas Motivation 1.0 is an internal motivator (our grumbling stomach or parched, thirsty mouth), Motivation 2.0 is external in that it derives externally as someone dangles a carrot in front of us. Motivation 3.0 is internal. It appeals to our need for autonomy, mastery, and purpose.

Pink challenges conventional thinking on how to motivate people. He demonstrates through various studies that when people are offered money as a reward, their productivity can actually degenerate (8, 38). Further, in attempting to prevent negative behavior, applying punishments can actually encourage the very activity you are trying to discourage (51). Pink gives numerous examples such as citing the attempt to offer money in order to encourage more people to donate blood. What in fact occurred was that, once people were offered money for something they had been willing to give for free, they viewed their altruistic action as a job, and they were less attracted to do it. Pink also cites a study in Israel where parents were informed that they would henceforth be levied a small fine every time they were more than five minutes late to pick up their child. What in fact happened was that tardiness increased!

Pink notes that people have an innate desire for autonomy. As soon as it appears they do not possess this, motivation declines. He cites a study of artists whereby artists submitted ten paintings they had been commissioned to produce and ten they had created out of their own passion and enjoyment. An independent panel then judged the paintings without knowing anything of their background. Those paintings done autonomously were consistently rated much higher than those that had been commissioned by someone else.

Pink’s observation is that leaders must find ways to help their people work with as much autonomy as possible in order to develop mastery in their fields and to work with a sense of purpose. He notes that “profit maximization” cannot satisfy the way “purpose maximization” can (23). Pink also notes that goal setting can often produce undesired behavior (49). For example, if an auto repair company has a goal of a specific profit level, the mechanics will be tempted to overcharge or recommend unnecessary work in order to reach their goal. Schools often use the carrot and stick approach to learning, yet Pink demonstrates how this can often be demotivating and instead, merely encourage students to do what it takes to get ahead in the system.

Pink notes that performing algorithmic tasks that can be done mindlessly on an assembly line can be motivated to an extent with carrots and sticks. It takes little imagination or creativity and such tasks do not call for higher levels of creative and problem solving kinds of thought. However, Pink observes that much of today’s work calls for higher levels of thinking that finds new solutions and discovers new paradigms. To do this, one needs more than the possibility of a bonus. This heuristic thought is enhanced when people have the freedom to explore new possibilities without fear of punishment for not meeting quotas. Pink cites several extremely successful companies today such as Google that regularly allow their employees time to create new solutions and programs and to work on problems that they want to. Much of the best work being done by these companies is occurring when people are experiencing Motivation 3.0

Pink takes direct aim at modern management approaches. He notes that 33.7 million Americans presently telecommute to work at least once per week. He observes that the controlling, look-over-their-shoulder approaches to managing workers is becoming increasingly less easy or desirable to do (30).

He notes that traditional management looks for compliance and control (86). He notes that even the highly touted concept of “empowerment” is fundamentally “a slightly more civilized form of control” (90). He concludes: “In short, management isn’t the solution; it’s the problem. Perhaps it’s time to toss the very word ‘management’ onto the linguistic ash heap alongside ‘icebox’ and ‘horseless carriage.’ This era doesn’t call for better management. It calls for a renaissance of self-direction” (90).

Pink notes that money certainly is not bad. He suggests that employers pay their staff a decent wage so money is no longer an issue (33). He notes that once people are being paid a fair wage, money has more of a negative effect than positive when it comes to motivation. People will work for less money if they can have the autonomy to pursue projects that matter and that are personally fulfilling. Pink notes that rewards don’t work when they are “If-then.” That is, If you achieve these sales goals, then you will receive this bonus. Or if you do your chores, then you will be given your allowance. That is because when good behavior is purchased, we no longer do it for the intrinsic value of doing our best or contributing to a greater purpose than ourselves. Instead, our time and labor have been purchased and we are no longer masters of our own destiny, which is inherently demotivating (65).

Pink also distinguishes between Type A and B people and what he labels Type I (76). These are people who are driven by Motivation 3.0. Pink concludes: “We’re not designed to be passive and compliant. We’re designed to be active and engaged” (145). He notes that our current system in schools and business dumb people down to just following the rules and not standing out as being different. Interestingly, he also notes that at times, people who are merely driven to achieve their personal goals discover that they do not satisfy. Citing scientific research he writes: “’These findings are rather striking,’ the researchers write, ‘as they suggest the attainment of a particular set of goals [in this case profit goals] has no impact on well-being and actually contributes to ill-being’ . . the findings suggest that even when we do get what we want, it’s not always what we need” (142).

Pink’s book is divided into two parts. The first 145 pages lay out the tenets of his approach to motivation. The remaining pages are a “Toolkit” with various articles and materials for those who want to dig deeper into this subject.

I found this to be an interesting book. It surveys a number of behavioral studies and experiments I was familiar with, but he applied them specifically to the crucial field of motivation. He reminds me somewhat of Seth Godin in terms of his view of today’s workplace. He also utilizes interesting studies similarly to Malcolm Gladwell (who endorses this book).

I think every leader needs to rethink how they are motivating those they lead. This may be especially true for people who lead nonprofits. When we cannot offer money as a reward, we must be sure we are providing something of even higher value to those who volunteer their precious time. It was interesting to see how our commonly used methods of offering rewards and incentives to school children or even our staff could actually hinder the very behavior we are attempting to encourage.

Of course, being a secular book, there are times where you feel that he is observing the symptoms but cannot fully recommend the cure. He does not touch on the spiritual dimension of peoples’ lives, although this is becoming increasingly recognized as a major source of personal fulfillment today. This is not a long read as much of the page count is devoted to the toolkit. Because it is such a specialized focus, I won’t rate it as a 4 or 5. Nevertheless, it does address a subject of growing importance in leadership theory today and one that might well be worth giving some attention to in the days ahead.