Our eyes—and brains—can be tricked into thinking something is true when it’s actually not. In the graphic below, all the squares are totally straight. Yep, even the warped ones in the middle. The smaller black and white squares cause the lines to appear curved, but if you place a straight edge next to any of the lines, it’s apparent that nothing is actually distorted.

I was recently complaining to myself as I was filling my car’s tank about how expensive gas was. When I was a child, the gas stations near our house had a wacky out-of-control price war that brought down a gallon of gas to nineteen cents.

Yes, I’m that old. But here’s some perspective…

Way back in 1958, gas was averaging only 31 cents per gallon. But when adjusted for inflation, the cost comes to $3.27 in today’s dollars. What’s more, back then the American motorist drove 9,500 miles a year while getting only about 14 miles per gallon. The average car today gets a little over 25 mpg and we drive not much more: about 11,000 miles a year.

In that same year, the median income for households in America was $2,666. Adjusting for inflation, that would be roughly $28,200 today. But today, the median household income is $47,620.

With some perspective, the good old days may not have been as good as we remember. And, of course, for perspective, ask any person of color how pleasant 1958 was in America.

The danger of idealizing the past is that it paralyzes the ability to change in the present.

As we’ve stated before, there can be no growth without change, and there can be no change without letting go of something…and the something is typically associated with the past.

This raises some questions: what is memorialized in the organization you’re a part of? Is it a past that is idealized? What has caused the fear of change in the leadership? Is there actual data to move beyond anecdotes and unquantifiable feelings?

Perhaps it’s time for a straight edge.

Dave Workman – Elemental Group

Read more blog posts by Dave Workman

The post The Power of Perspective appeared first on ChurchPlanting.com.

He had adapted a construct from the late author Phyliss Tickle that described the landscape of modern Christianity and the Church (capital C) in quadrants.

The quadrants were labeled as Liturgical, Social Justice, Renewalist, and Evangelical.

The terms could be described thusly:

Liturgical

Liturgical had to do with churches that lean on a liturgy with aspects of rituals and symbols. These churches often center on more contemplative practices. Think: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, etc.

Social Justice

The Social Justice quadrant are churches that focused on rectifying social inequalities that are typically structural and systemic, such as poverty, racism, environmental, and gender injustices. Stewardship, reparative work, and reconciliation may be primary underpinnings.

Renewalist

Renewalist represented a wide variety of churches that champion experiencing the Holy Spirit and sign gifts. It includes Pentecostals, charismatics, and Neo-Pentecostals, and denominations like the Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland), Church of God in Christ, and various churches within the renewal movement.

Evangelical

The Evangelical block typified churches primarily identified by a focus on personal transformation as in a “born again” experience, with an emphasis on gospel proclamation. It can include fundamentalist leanings and often a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

The danger inherent in this is when a church or group is so entrenched in their quadrant that they fail to see any value in the other blocks.

Taking a myopic ministry approach, these “quadrant dwellers” are often suspicious or dismissive of any view other than their own.

In considering the graphic, two philosophic views could be:

1. What if the global Church is already best represented by all of these aspects?

In other words, it’s okay that certain segments focus on one (or two) of the four factors. Put them all together, and a holistic view comes into play. And at the very least, each of the quadrants would respect the emphasis of the others and even share in the total flourishing and appreciation of the “capital C” Church and its facets.

Or…

2. What if each individual church (or movement/denomination) practically functioned with aspects of all four?

If I remember correctly, I think Tickle suggested that a new movement might emerge that blended pieces of all of these. It’s interesting to think how that might look in praxis.

My own leaning is the latter option.

It seems to me that synthesizing core elements of each quadrant within a cultural context would be a pretty amazing church—incorporating elements of contemplative practices, infusing compassionate justice for marginalized people, welcoming the power of the Holy Spirit, and loving to see individual lives transformed and reconciled to the Father.

The sweet spot would be in the center of the graphic, in the heart of the Jesus icon. It seems possible to me—and deeply fulfilling—to see a local church becoming more than an individual quadrant. Can’t we walk and chew gum?

Where would you place your church in the graphic? And are there other quadrants that you’d want to pursue or at least understand and learn from?

Dave Workman | ELEMENTAL CHURCHES

Read More Blog Posts by Dave Workman

The post Are You A “Quadrant Dweller”? appeared first on ChurchPlanting.com.