Authority is legitimate power which is vested in leaders within formal organizations and involves a legal right to make decisions which may be supported by sanctions.

Influence represents an ability to affect outcomes and depends on personal characteristics and expertise. Here are seven distinctions between authority and influence:

• Authority is the static, structural aspect of power in organizations; influence is the dynamic, tactical element.
• Authority is the formal aspect of power; influence is the informal aspect.
• Authority refers to the formally sanctioned right to make final decisions; influence is not sanctioned by the organization and is, therefore, not a matter of organizational rights.
• Authority implies involuntary submission by subordinates; influence implies voluntary submission and does not necessarily entail a superior-subordinate relationship.
• Authority flows downward, and it is unidirectional; influence is multidirectional and can flow upward, downward, or horizontally.
• The source of authority is solely structural; the source of influence may be personal characteristics, expertise, or opportunity.
• Authority is circumscribed, that is, the domain, scope, and legitimacy of the power are specifically and clearly delimited; influence is uncircumscribed, that is, its domain, scope, and legitimacy are typically ambiguous.

Church leaders/officers such as elders and deacons certainly have a degree of God-given authority, but influence is almost always preferable to authority if at all possible.

The post then identifies six forms of power in educational institutions, but the parallels can, again, also be found in churches:

• Positional power: the power of individuals who have an official position in the institution.
• Authority of expertise: the power that is vested in someone because of their acknowledged expertise
• Personal power: individuals who are charismatic or possess verbal skills or certain other characteristics may be able to exercise personal power.
• Control of rewards: power is likely to be possessed to a significant degree by individuals who have control of rewards, and are inevitably perceived as powerful by those who value such returns.
• Coercive power: the mirror image of the control of rewards may be coercive power, and rests on the ability to constrain, to block, to interfere, or to punish?
• Control of resources: control of the distributions of resources gives power over those people who wish to acquire them.

To these I would add:

• Administrative power: The use (abuse) of procedure and bureaucracy to further a personal agenda.
• Political power: Decisions are based on considerations unrelated to the particular issue or case.

I could go on, but the list is sadly already way too long. How wonderful it would be if we could simply trust in spiritual power, authority, and influence; and prayerfully pursue God’s glory and the good of souls by the power of the Holy Spirit alone.

• A Stanford study found that Chinese call-center employees who worked from home were thirteen per cent more productive.
• Another estimated that a ten-per-cent increase in telecommuting could save a hundred billion dollars in lost time and expenses.
• By putting home at the center of society, it reintegrates work and family.
• By cutting down on physical commuting it cuts emissions and saves the environment
• Flexible work arrangements produce higher employee satisfaction, motivation and engagement as well as lower staff turnover.

But, as part of her so-far-successful efforts to turnaround and rebuild Yahoo, C.E.O. Marissa Mayer has banned all telecommuting.

So why’s a futuristic company like Yahoo rewinding the future?

It’s realized that for all the benefits of telecommuting, there were three areas where more was being lost than gained.

1. Loss of informal communication
It’s much harder for telecommuters to have the kind of informal and unplanned interaction that shares knowledge, challenges people to see things from another’s perspective, gets them out of their mental ruts, and stimulates creativity and productivity. Less communication means less collaboration.

2. Loss of trust
Telecommuting makes it harder to foster trust and solidarity. Face time is still the best way to build relationships. Studies have found that even occassional face-to-face meetings of “virtual teams” significantly increased trust and boosted performance.

3. Loss of energy
Yahoo’s office was virtually empty on a Friday, demoralizing and sucking the life out of the rare few who did turn up to the ghost town.

Telecommuting to church?
If this is true of Yahoo, how much more of your local church. You might be able to get better sermons online, or it might be just so much more “efficient” to simply listen to your pastor’s podcast. But if you regularly “telecommute” to church, you are losing more than you are gaining. You are losing valuable opportunities to learn from the “chance” meetings with other Christians in the foyer, in the corridors, and in the car park. You are undermining trust and unity between Christians. And you are sapping vital energy from the demoralized body of Christ.

So push yourself out of bed, get in the car, and get along to your local church. You’ll learn surprising lessons from the most surprising people, you’ll build valuable relationships, and you’ll get and give morale-boosting energy.

Those who have left the church often give the same answer. Both groups have encountered Christians, experienced their inconsistencies, and decided, “If that’s Christianity, you can keep it.”

Even those of us who remain in the church are often deeply disappointed and discouraged by the failings and double standards of some fellow-Christians. Of course, some are Christians only in name, but not in reality. However, even the best Christians have blind spots and inconsistencies that baffle and upset us.

Fallen angels
We might not see them at the beginning when we are first converted. In the first bloom of Christian love, we might even think that some Christians and preachers belong to angelic ranks. But, before too long, our initial impressions are discovered to be initial illusions and we might even wonder if it’s the fallen angels we’ve fallen in with!

Sometimes we too are tempted to give up and withdraw from our churches in angry disgust, but usually we just keep going along, inwardly seething or perhaps loudly criticizing the failings of others.

Satanic strategy
At the root of this disillusionment is the successful satanic strategy of turning our attention away from Christ and towards Christians. The more the devil can keep people thinking and talking about Christians, the less people will be thinking and talking about Jesus. And the more people think and talk about Christians instead of Christ, the more dismayed and downcast we will become. When negatives outweigh positives, there’s only one way to go, and that’s down.

I’ve certainly fallen into this soul-sapping habit at various points in my life, and I’m sure most of us succumb to it to some degree or another. Tomorrow I want to outline strategies that will shift our attention away from the double-standards and the no-standards of some Christians, and to lift our eyes and hearts upwards to the soul-elevating Christ.

However, speaking in the most general terms, let me give twelve basic differences I’ve noticed in my five years in the USA. And I’m basing this not so much on own church here in Grand Rapids but on the exposure I’ve had to many Christians, churches, ministries, and conferences across multiple States – although most of it’s been in the Reformed tradition.

1. American churches are bigger: Scottish churches maybe average between 50-80 regular attenders, many are far smaller, and most of them are declining in size. There are far more large churches in the USA, and churches on the whole are bigger

2. American churches are richer: Obviously this follows from #1. However, I’ve been stunned at the incredible generosity of wealthy Christians in the USA. I’ve especially seen this in the donations to the Seminary, but churches also greatly benefit from the large hearts and wallets of those whom the Lord has blessed with material wealth and steward that gift for His glory.

3. American churches are younger: It wasn’t until I came here that I realized how disproportionately few young people there are in most Scottish churches. Why? See #4.

4. American churches have a greater stress on Christian education: The widespread lack of Christian schools in Scotland partly explains the lack of young people in Scottish churches. American Christians make Christian schools or Christian home education a top priority in their lives.

5. American churches are more complex: There are far more meetings, activities, clubs, Bible Studies, Youth Groups, etc., in America. Scottish church life is relatively simple. Many churches simply have a midweek prayer meeting in addition to two Sunday services.

6. American preachers use more paper: There’s much more reading of sermons in American pulpits. Most Scottish preachers take some limited notes into the pulpit, but they don’t seem to depend on them so much. Consequently, Scottish sermons are less polished but maybe more personal and passionate.

7. American sermons are more lecturely: Most American sermons are teaching sermons for Christians. In Scotland, while one sermon is usually a teaching sermon for Christians, the other is usually preached specifically to the unconverted. There’s expositional teaching in these evangelistic sermons too, but it’s clear that they are preached primarily for the conversion of lost sinners.

8. American churches are more diverse: Although most American Christians wish for more ethnic and cultural diversity in their churches, there is certainly more than in most Scottish churches.

9. American pastors are more specialized: Most Scottish churches have one paid pastor. And that’s it. No more staff. That means Scottish pastors have to be generalists, doing everything. American churches have larger staffs that result in more specialization, and sometimes the strange phenomena of pastors who only preach but never visit or counsel the sheep!

10. American churches have more pastors who are “Doctors”: While Scottish Christians value education, they are quite suspicious of ministers who pursue doctorates. This is partly historical – academics ruined our Seminaries – and partly because they’ve seen the damage that ambition to be a professor can do to a person. That’s why, when I was given my D.Min. I put it in the bottom drawer and didn’t tell anyone in my congregation. I didn’t even tell my parents!

11. American churches are more optimistic: I don’t think this is so much a spiritual trait as a national characteristic. Americans in general are a more optimistic, can-do people (is this changing?), resulting in more welcoming, friendly churches.

12. American sermons have more jokes: Thankfully not true in my own church, but wearisomely true in many churches.

So, anyone want to immigrate? Which way?

51% of the Fortune 500 companies began in a recession (according to the Kaufmann Foundation). This partly explains why Clayton Christsensen, a Harvard business school professor, has claimed that the recession “would have an unmitigated positive impact on innovation…The breakthrough innovations come when the tension is greatest and the resources are most limited. That’s when people are actually a lot more open to rethinking the fundamental way they do business.” In other words, scarcity can be an opportunity, a boon rather than a bane.

That’s a truth in the spiritual realm as well, and provides the flip side to yesterday’s post about the risk of catastrophic victory. There is the possibility of a blessed “defeat” for the Church or the Christian. We would not have Psalm 51 without David’s spiritual recession. We would not have Paul’s letters to the New Testament churches without their divisions and disasters.

I’ve seen churches lose half their members and prayer meetings come alive. I’ve seen pastors leave churches “in the lurch” but “coasting” elders transformed into leaders. I’ve seen Christians lose their income and grow in grace. I’ve seen Christians lose loved ones in tragic circumstances and grow in love to God. I’ve seen a murderer sentenced to life imprisonment find true freedom in Christ. Spiritual recession, scarcity and loss provide us with opportunity for spiritual breakthroughs and for fundamental re-thinking of our spiritual lives. How can you turn your defeat into a victory, your bane into a boon, your recession into prosperity?

Picture: 2006 © Michael Zysman. Image from BigStockPhoto.com

The passage of the present health care bill will be a catastrophic victory for President Obama. So argues Peggy Noonan in her most recent WSJ article as she analyzes the administration’s misjudgment of the public mood. Noonan also looks back at catastrophic victories for previous administrations and predicts that the Republicans risk a catastrophic victory in the 2010 elections.

Perhaps Noonan has inadvertently provided an explanation for why the church of Christ is often defeated, divided, and depleted? God is saving her from the risk of catastrophic victory – a victory which would result in long-term harm rather than health. In the Old Testament, God could have given Israel total victory. Instead He allowed hostile nations to remain as thorns in their sides to keep His people needy, humble, and looking to Christ through sacrifice (Judges 2:3-4). In the New Testament, God could have established perfect churches. Instead we find the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Thessalonians, etc, with all their problems and needs.

And perhaps this explains our personal defeats and disasters as well. Like Paul we are given thorns in our flesh lest we should be “exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). This thorn kept Paul needy and seeking Christ’s all-sufficient grace.

In other words, though the Devil can turn our victories into defeats, God can turn our defeats into victories.

Picture: 2009 © Chris Lamphear. Image from BigStockPhoto.com