ISKCON Constitution

On the one hand: Pastor Ted Haggard, former pastor of megachurch New Life and head of US parachurch organization National Association of Evangelicals. Caused a huge fallout when his covert homosexuality was revealed.

"The reason I kept my personal struggle a secret is because I feared that my friends would reject me, abandon me and kick me out, and the church would exile and excommunicate me. And that happened and more," he says.

- Haggard says he still struggles with sexuality, MSNBC

On the other hand:

Same Same 2008 - Meet the 25 most influential gay and lesbian Australians for 2008. news.com.au gallery

Now, moral pronouncements about homosexuality per se aside, what has the effect been, and what is the ongoing effect of forcing gay persons in ISKCON into the closet?

My personal observation and experience is that it has caused, and is causing, a culture of duplicity to develop in the management of the society. This duplicity and compromise of integrity then provides a vector of entry for other things.

You cannot have sattva, illumination, when people are being forced to present two faces.

This is part two of a review of Newton Maloney's Living with Paradox: Religious Leadership and the Genius of Double Vision. Part 1 of the review is here.

Paradox, something that involves an inherent contradiction, is central to religion. Paradoxes of religious leadership involve two essentially true propositions that appear to contradict each other.

As an initial example, Maloney presents a discussion on evangelism by the late Christian theologian Karl Barth. On the one hand people choose God - they make a choice when they become religious. In a practical sense a lot of preaching is convincing people that choosing God is good for them. In this sense the decision to become religious is like other important choices that people make in life - they weigh up the options and make an informed decision.

At the same time Barth was convinced that God chooses people rather than being chosen by them. When people dedicate their lives to the Lord they are acknowledging that they have been chosen by Him. In that sense Barth saw only one difference between those in the church and those outside it: those inside realized that they had been chosen, while the people outside didn't yet.

So these two truths are seemingly opposed. One is psychological: that people choose God. The other is theological: God chooses people.

This is just one of the paradoxes that pervade religious life.

Maloney then goes on to describe how a number of meetings, of both secular and religious groups, might look alike to observers from another planet. Eric Berne's book "The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations", a book I read while in Melbourne for the recent Yoga Asana Championship, describes the mechanics of groups and organizations of human beings who come together to achieve specific goals. In this sense they are all alike. However, a religious organization is distinct in that it has faith in a supernatural reality as a central ingredient.

To a secularist this would simply be a special case of psychological motivation. Richard Dawkins would compare it to belief in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus. However, it is not so to Maloney, who accepts the existence of this supernatural reality, and thus acknowledges a fundamental, categorical distinction between religious and secular organizations. No doubt he would also draw a distinction between religious and pseudo-religious organizations.

Remaining aware of both the similarities and the distinction between religious and secular organizations is another of the paradoxes that religious leaders must bear in mind. The organizational life of a religious organization has a theological basis. At the same time it is involved in a day-to-day practical reality. Keeping both of these in sight at once is vital for success.

Maloney cites Jim Collins and Jerry Porras' book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, a study of uber-successful businesses. These two researchers discovered that the leadership of these companies had developed the ability to live with paradox without fanatically trying to suppress one side of it or the other. They referred to this ability as the "Genius of the And", as opposed to the "Tyranny of the Or".

The types of paradoxes that religious leaders must grapple with differ from those that business leaders must face, but the skill with which they must do so it no less vital to their success.

In the case of the paradox of evangelism, neither side encompasses the entire truth. To emphasis either the human side or the divine side to the exclusion of the other would be artificial. Both effort and grace are needed. Both divine mercy and free will are involved.

Those who deride any effort to convince people on logical or rational grounds or to "meet them where they are at" in terms of their temporary identity and self-interest miss the human side. Those who rely entirely on material arrangements and see themselves and their efforts as the exclusive cause of evangelical success miss the divine side. Both are incomplete and in that sense "wrong". Both are at the same time "right", but only complete in their understanding when they equally and simultaneously acknowledge the other side of the paradox.

Maloney divides the eight central paradoxes of religious leadership into four distinct categories. They are:

• Paradoxes in the Religious Leader's Role
• Paradoxes of Perspective
• Paradoxes Built into the Structure of Religious Congregations
• Paradoxes of Congregational Mission

In the next post I will summarize the first of the two "Paradoxes in the Religious Leader's Role".

I just finished reading "Living with Paradox: Religious Leadership and the Genius of Double Vision".

I'll post points from it over the next few weeks.

Here's an initial one, sparked by a post on Namahatta.org: "Home-based Devotees to Donate--but the Institution Must Reciprocate!"

The author of Living with Paradox makes an important point: a church or religious organization like ISKCON is *not* an institution - it is an organization.

An institution is something that pre-exists and is recognized after its existence. It continues to exist whether people want it to or not, whether they contribute to it or not. The institution exists first, and then a mission may or may not come. The example of an institution is the family.

An organization, on the other hand, is a group of people who come together to fulfill a mission. The mission comes first, then the organization. The organization arises from the voluntary participation and contribution of the people.

ISKCON is not an institution. It is an organization.

This is an important point. Leaders who describe ISKCON as an institution and treat it as such will find that this conception misleading and ineffective. Treating it as an institution will bankrupt its volunteer capital. Understanding it as a voluntary organization is a more realistic and powerful paradigm.

Here's an interesting case study in centralized organizations versus decentralized ones. See my post on the book "The Spider and the Starfish" from mid-year for some more background on that dichotomy.

David Haslam has put together a proposal for the ISKCON GBC to create an online ISKCON Guru database.

In the meantime, while he waits for the bureaucratic process to grind through and authorization to descend from the comissariat, someone else has already done it: ISKCON Gurus.

It remains to be seen how much traction the existing ISKCON Gurus project will get, and how Dave's one will do if it happens.

Is there a lesson in this? Welcome to the world of real-time. Centralized organizations cannot adapt at the same pace as a distributed one, unless they decentralize decison-making by empowering the line level.

In this case, Dave could just do the database, and then present it to the GBC for endorsement. The GBC may baulk at that, because he didn't get permission to act before he did it. However, this way the GBC has lost the initiative. Can they regain it by applying more resources to their project than the existing one can? Maybe. Google will be the ultimate arbiter.

I'm working on the follow-up to my bestselling book "On Leadership". It's called "On Rulership".

The extended title is "On Rulership and the Volunteer Varnashram Society".

• Understanding who you are and being more that, and helping others to do the same is the essence of Leadership.
• Engaging others in systems and arrangements that allow them to use their strengths and abilities cooperatively in service to the Lord is the essence of Management.
• Protecting these people and this arrangement is the essence of Rulership.

Here's one point that I'll be developing in the book:

Transparency and accountability are important in Rulership. The other day I had a conversation with a friend, and when I mentioned these values he said: "These are democratic values", and began talking about electing leaders.

Transparency and Accountability are not exclusively democratic values. I work for a corporation where leaders are appointed (on the basis of performance). There are no elections - however, both transparency and accountability are core values of the organisation.

Varnashram society is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. People do not become leaders through election, but through courageous engagement and demonstration of ability over time.

Even so, people do vote - with their feet. They can choose to participate or not. Therefore transparency and accountability are crucial to the volunteer varnashram society, and for there to be a balance in the system so that people are protected by rulers who serve them by serving the system that serves them.

Live from his hideout deep behind the former Bamboo Curtain, David Jorm riffs on life in China and the re-introduction of varnasrama social organisation in a modern context.

David Jorm on China and Varnasrama (ogg, 5 MB)

It's not often that the ISKCON GBC and Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja agree, but they seem to see eye to eye on this issue.

Lack of retirement planning for leaders is a major problem in ISKCON.

It's all good to say: "Leaders and officials in ISKCON should all be volunteers!"

However, in practice, what will happen is that people will give large sections of their life to ISKCON, and not receive a pension or contribution to a retirement fund in return. Two things result from this:

1. These officials have no support in place for their old age. This may lead them to give up their service for something more economically feasible, to divert funds illegally for themselves, or to just end up on skid row.
2. Being in the position guarantees them at least a place to live and some facility and security, so they'll hang on to it as long as they can. This means that new blood doesn't come through the organization.

Personally I am going to pay my staff market or slightly below market rates, just like American Protestant churches such as New Spring and Northpoint do.

My thought this morning:

Preachers should be compassionate. Administrators should be just.

When mercy replaces justice in a land, the people are left unprotected by the rule of law.

One of the great things about our modern political systems is that they are based on the idea that everyone should be protected by the rule of impartial law. There are no favorites, no elites who can act with impunity.

Of course the real deviates from the ideal in a number of cases, such as police violence, or political corruption, but these are recognized as deviations from the system, not part of it. Police are prosecuted, politicians jailed. No-one is above the law. We no longer have as a given "the divine right of Kings" - the idea that the King (or someone) is above the law, that the King makes the law, rather than that the law makes the King.

That system lead to many abuses of power, and continues to lead to abuse of power whenever it is implemented in an organization, whether it's a country or a cult.

When we suspend the fair and impartial rule of law, whether it's in the name of mercy, favoritism, or corruption, we remove this protection from the society and it's back to the bad old days of "it's all about who you know".

So by all means preachers, be merciful. But if you play the role of an administrator, be just. That is mercy.

Back in the day, shortly after Srila Prabhupada left this world, when the GBC found out that Jayatirtha Swami was taking LSD they went to Srila B.R. Sridhara Maharaja. Srila Sridhara Maharaja told them: "This is your first test, your first decision, your first pronouncement. People will judge the tenure of your administration based on this decision. Will your administration be characterized by justice or mercy? That you must decide."

The GBC decided on "mercy", and rather than applying an impartial and just measure they opted to cover up what was happening and try to restore Jayatirtha. The result was a disaster, and the reverberations of that decision are being felt even now.

Perhaps the GBC members were thinking: "What if that were me? What would I like to receive? Justice or mercy? Of course I'd like the mercy, so I'll give that."

Whether they were thinking that or not, this interpretation is inevitable.

When we look at advanced devotees such as Pariksit Maharaja, however, we see something else. When he was cursed to die he accepted this as his destiny. Due to his karma he had become implicated in the situation, and to get out of his karma he had to surrender to the Lord, not try to fight his way out.

Administrators administer justice for the purification of the individual and the protection of the social body. As an administrator as you do that you accept that in the same position, having performed the same actions you deserve and must receive the same treatment.

One of the big problems in ISKCON is that as a society it is not run on the impartial rule of law applied justly across the board. Its management structures are more akin to feudalism or tribalism.

Recently I've been discussing the role of the GBC (as both a global body and a local managerial person) with a friend. He expressed to me that it depends on the person in the position.

That's backwards. The person should perform the duties of the position, the duties of the position should not match the person. It is not a hereditary position where you're stuck with whoever you get, or a reward for long service where it gets given to anyone who sticks around long enough to get it.

At least not if it's meant to be a serious organization.

What do you think? Am I out of it, or on to something?

In the different yugas different conditions prevail.

In Satya yuga, the "age of truth", conditions are such that the balance of power lies with the brahmanas. Everyone is a paramhamsa in this age and there is no varnashram, so everyone is a brahmana. In this age the process of self-realization is meditation.

In Dvapara-yuga, the "second age", which usually follows Satya-yuga, the process of self-realization is Deity Worship. In this age the balance of power lies with the Ksatriyas.

In Treta-yuga, the "third age", the process of self-realization is Vedic sacrifices. The balance of power lies with the vaisyas.

In Kali-yuga, the "age of dissent", the process of self-realization is congregational chanting of the Holy Name and the balance of power lies with the "common assistants", as Srila Prabhupada refers to them in ISKCON's 1966 Constitution (clause N.1).

The "wisdom of the crowd" (the community) produced more analysis of Resolution 311 in one week than the GBC produced at all. It also correctly predicted the outcomes of the Resolution.

There is a powerful lesson in this.

ISKCON's GBC practically has no budget. However, they have potentially at their disposal a human resource that a multi-million dollar organization could never afford.

If they can figure out how to engage with it.