Cause and [the Butterfly] Effect
There has always been a sort of underlying assumption that the sciences are measurable and immutable. The arts, on the other hand, have long been viewed as more subjective and less clear-cut. And as anyone who works with people knows, humans are anything but measurable and clear-cut. Highly relational fields like social work, psychology and certainly ministry are unpredictable and often chaotic.
Margaret J. Wheatly has written widely on the dichotomy between measurable, machine-like control vs. subjective, adaptive interactions in organizations. In her earlier work, Finding Our Way : Leadership for an Uncertain Time, she uses the framework of “old story vs. new story”. She encourages leaders to move away from an approach she characterizes “as a story of dominion and control”[1] in order to “evoke people’s innate creativity… solve complex problems… [and] create healthy communities.”[2] In her later book, Leadership and the New Science : Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Wheatly employs metaphors drawn from scientific discovery to focus on the “impact of non-material forces in organizations.”[3] She wants readers come to “a new (and ancient) awareness that we participate in a world of exquisite interconnectedness. We are learning to see systems rather than isolated parts and players.”[4] She emphasizes moving away from organizational planning toward strategic thinking.[5]
When my family landed in France 13 years ago, we learned the hard way about the difference between planning and adaptive, strategic thinking. Our supervisor at the time had sent us out with an elaborate step-by-step plan. Start by doing A and B and then C will happen. Don’t worry about X and Y because Z is more important. I’ll spare you the details, but some of the missteps we inadvertently made because we were executing that rigid plan were still following us around a decade later.
Over the years I’ve read countless books or listened to speakers with similar messages. Each one could be called “How to plant a church in 5 easy steps” or something similar. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for learning from others’ experiences and consolidating best practices. But these books often leave me frustrated and occasionally throwing the books across the room because my team and I are already implementing the plans and advice they lay out. But ministry, as with any relational-oriented field, is not a predictable science. Slowly, over time, we have learned to adapt, to contextualize to the local culture and to allow results to happen in God’s timing. While there have been seasons of lament when the fruit has been sparse, I have come to embrace 1 Corinthians 3:6-7 (NIV): “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.” God calls us to faithfulness and the fruit is in his hands.
The result of this long reflection is that I cheer alongside Margaret J. Wheatly as she champions systematic thinking and agility in the face of “frequent, unplanned changes.”[6] In a relationally driven work, the interconnectedness and the quality of our relationships matters all the more. In the same way, small steps forward can result in significant change in the long term. Wheatly explains, “From a Newtonian perspective, our efforts often seem too small, and we doubt that our actions will make a difference. Or perhaps we hope that our small efforts will contribute incrementally to large-scale change. Step by step, system by system, we aspire to develop enough mass or force to alter the larger system.”[7]
That brings me to the question of the butterfly effect. Developed by Edward Lorenz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor, the idea is to study complex systems. Lorenz theorized that “small variances in the initial conditions could have profound and widely divergent effects on the system’s outcomes. Because of the sensitivity of these systems, outcomes are unpredictable.”[8] I wonder what “butterfly” could exist in a ministry context. Could a relatively small change in how or where my team and I spend our time bring us into contact with different people, maybe people who are seeking God? Could a slight shift in priorities result in greater fruitfulness? I’m not looking for a magic bullet, but this line of thinking is encouraging me to take a risk and maybe try something new. Who knows what will happen?
[1] Wheatley, Margaret J.. Finding Our Way : Leadership for an Uncertain Time, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2005. 22.
[2] Ibid., 14.
[3] Wheatley, Margaret J.. Leadership and the New Science : Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2006. 54.
[4] Ibid., 158.
[5] Ibid., 38.
[6] Wheatley, Margaret J.. Leadership and the New Science : Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2006. 38.
[7] Ibid., 44-45.
[8] Vernon, Jamie L. “Understanding the Butterfly Effect.” American Scientist 105, no. 3 (May, 2017): 130.
About the Author
Kim Sanford
5 responses to “Cause and [the Butterfly] Effect”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A couple of thoughts came to mind as I read your post. First, I wonder how the sort of measurements conducted in complexity science might connect with your ministry — like, what are you measuring, and is there something different that needs to be measured? I also thought of a dissertation I was introduced to in the late 1990’s — “The Translatability of Christian Community: An Ecclesiology for Postmodern Cultures and Beyond” — written by Jonathan Campbell for his PhD at Fuller Theological Seminary. Not that you have time to read it, but his dissertation — written from the perspective of someone who wrestled with the tension of Christian mission in a postmodern, 1990s context, while wanting to employ some of the living systems thinking that was popularized by the “new science” that was in the water when Wheatley wrote her book — challenged my thinking about churches, church planting, and how the gospel is carried into different cultures, as much / more than anything I had ever read at the time. (Wow, that was a long run-on sentence. Sorry!) It is still in the back of my mind much of the time, decades later. I wonder how Campbell’s application might interact with some of what you are doing with GEM, as you think about new/different ways to go about your work. Just a thought.
Travis, you bring up an interesting point about what we measure in ministry. Our organization has metrics and they have been worked and reworked over the years that we’ve been on the field. But the thing that they can’t really measure, and this is something I need to think a bit more about, is the quality of the relationships that we have. In a relationally-driven field, obviously the quality of our relationships is extremely important, and yet it’s quite difficult to measure in any reliable way. Maybe this actually touches on your NPO project, so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.
Hi Kim,
You wrote, “So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.” God calls us to faithfulness and the fruit is in his hands.”
The purposeful look at relationships is the takeaway I got from Wheatley. And the RANDOMNESS. For this moment, I will call them Divine Appointments. As we continue to explore GoodSports Ukraine, my team are constantly thrilled by the “random” divine appointment that comes our way.
In the spirit of Henry Blackaby “Experiencing God”, we are searching for the work that God is already doing in in Ukraine. We then build relationships with those are doing the work and begin figure out “how to help.”
Initially random, these connections are the beginnings of the relationships that will help us weather this war time phase in Ukraine.
Shalom
Hi, Kim,
Connecting Wheatley’s work to the Butterfly Effect was excellent. You asked “Could a slight shift in priorities result in greater fruitfulness?” This comes with a resounding yes. James Clear who wrote the book “Atomic Habits” states “All big things come from small beginnings. The seed of every habit is a single, tiny decision.” Perhaps a follow up question to this thought would be “what could help leaders have more self-awareness or leadership-awareness to realize the slight shifts that need to be made early on so the butterfly effect can happen?
That’s a great follow-up question: What could help leaders more quickly get to the point of making the small shifts that are necessary to lead to greater effectiveness? My first instinct is to say something related to good coaching questions. I’m going to think more about how to implement this on my team. Thanks, Esther!