At my core, I\u2019m a Jesuit.*<\/p>\n
While I may not be a card carrying member of the Society of Jesus, I have practiced Ignatian Spirituality for years by doing The Exercises<\/em> and meeting with a spiritual director. I understand myself to be a \u201ccontemplative in action.\u201d All that to say, most of the concepts presented by Chris Lowney in Heroic Leadership<\/em> were familiar to me, though the stories of various Jesuits expanded my understanding of the spiritual practices that I have adopted as my own.<\/p>\n While I am a fan of all things Ignatian, I agree with Arthur Paul Boers assessment that, \u201cLowney\u2019s attempt to secularize the Jesuits is troubling.\u201d[1]<\/a> Jesuit practices are deeply rooted in faith and dependent upon Christ\u2019s work in a through the person. To imagine that one could be transformed into the likeness of Christ without the participation of the Holy Spirit is as crazy as Paul and Elder suggesting that human beings can discuss controversial issues in \u201can unbiased or, at least, a balanced manner within a framework of depoliticized discourse.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Lowney rightly explains that what sets apart Jesuit leadership principals is that they are less focused on what one does, and more interested in who one is, insisting that the Jesuit nuestro modo de proceder<\/em> has \u201ca lot to say about who leaders are, how leaders live, and how they become leaders in the first place.\u201d[3]<\/a> But despite his desire to make this \u201cway of being\u201d accessible to those with a secular worldview, Lowney himself cannot explain how one attains \u201cself-awareness, ingenuity, love and heroism\u201d apart from God.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Let\u2019s take the pillar of ingenuity, for example. Lowney asserts that the characteristic that distinguishes Jesuit ingenuity is not the resulting behaviors, but rather, \u201cwhat makes these behaviors possible<\/em> in the first place. Loyola didn\u2019t merely exhort recruits to be adaptable and creative; he ensured through the Exercises<\/em> that recruits would adopt the demeanor, attitudes, and worldview that make adaptability and creativity possible.\u201d[5]<\/a> Qualities like indifference and discernment are decidedly spiritual in essence, and to insinuate that they can be honed in a spiritual vacuum seems disingenuous.<\/p>\n And while I am bothered by Lowney\u2019s endeavor to offer what, in essence, is spiritual transformation apart from the Spirit of God, I\u2019m even more concerned by the fact that many churches and mission organizations, also feeling the impact of a \u201cleadership deficit,\u201d have done just the opposite. Setting aside the values epitomized by the cross, they\u2019ve turned to secular sources for a solution. Don\u2019t get me wrong, I\u2019m not against pastors and missionaries drawing insights from the wisdom of great books like Edwin Friedman\u2019s Failure of Nerve[6]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>or Susan David\u2019s Emotional Agility.[7]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> We have much to learn from psychologists, sociologists, ethnographers, etc.; regardless of their worldview. They offer us universal truths that can and should inform our work, and like Augustine, I believe that all truth is God\u2019s truth. But I am frustrated by churches and mission organizations that are being run more like capitalist corporations and less like Kingdom cooperatives because they have chosen entirely secular models of leadership and strategy without evaluating them according to the standards and ethics of Christ.<\/p>\n And then here\u2019s what can happen:<\/p>\n Let\u2019s say a mission agency needs to have a certain number of missionaries on the field to remain viable as organization. This is because the missionaries raise the funds to go on the field, and the sending agency takes a percentage of those funds for overhead costs, which includes the salaries of all the home office employees. The mission agency in question needs 300 units** to stay above water, but it currently only has 270 units. The bottom line is, they need to bring in 30 more missionary units, so that those 30 units will raise support, and then the agency will get the additional overhead needed to say solvent. So the mission agency gets a little more lenient in their recruitment process, reduces the educational and work experience requirements, and compromises on some screening issues when interviewing aspiring missionaries. The objective becomes keeping recruitment numbers up rather than discerning the call of God on a person\u2019s life. From a business standpoint, this is the right thing to do\u2014it puts the emphasis on the bottom line. But from a Kingdom standpoint, this is a lousy thing to do\u2014it puts people and ministries at risk.<\/p>\n And where is Christ in this solution?<\/p>\n And then there is the constant demand to do ministries that will elicit more financial support, regardless of whether those ministries are needed or relevant. Missionaries are pressured to be \u201cleaders\u201d and \u201cinnovators\u201d which leaves little room for collaboration with and submission to indigenous ministries. But people don\u2019t want to fund \u201cservants\u201d they want to fund \u201cmovers and shakers,\u201d so that is what mission agencies demand that their missionaries be. And there is no mention of personal transformation, or the \u201cself-leadership\u201d that the Jesuits cultivate.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n And where is Christ on this agenda?<\/p>\n My project is exploring missionary sustainability and effectiveness in the 21st<\/sup> century, and one of my fears is that missionaries are not effective and are leaving the field early because too much has been compromised in the screening process, the cultural integration process, and the personal development process. And my suspicion is that this is happening because mission agencies are being run like corporations.<\/p>\n What would Ignatius say about that?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n *Well, as Jesuit as any woman (except perhaps Juana of Austria) could have been prior to 2014, given that the Order was exclusively male until recently. I’m glad to see that they have broadened their decidedly egalitarian stance to include women.<\/em><\/p>\n **A \u201cunit\u201d for a missionary sending agency is either a single missionary or a missionary family. In other words, a single woman counts as one unit; but, a married couple also counts as one unit, as they are a joint source of income for the agency. <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Arthur P Boers, \u201cGod\u2019s Soldiers: Adventure, Politics, Intrigue, and Power–a History of the Jesuits,\u201d The Christian Century<\/em> 121, no. 21 (October 19, 2004): 62\u201364.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Trisha Welstad, \u201cCritical Thinking: Pragmatism, Answers and Irony,\u201d accessed November 9, 2017, http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/critical-thinking-pragmatism-answers-and-irony\/.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Chris Lowney, Heroic Leadership: Best Practices from a 450-Year-Old Company That Changed the World<\/em>, Reprint edition (Chicago, Ill: Loyola Press, 2005). 15.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Lowney. 9.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Lowney. 127. Emphasis mine.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Edwin H. Friedman, Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>, 10th anniversary revised edition (New York: Church Publishing, 2017).<\/p>\n