In the Company of Travellers – Season 2, Episode 6 Transcript

Season 2, Episode 6, Marcus Svedman

Jo Johnson: Welcome again to In the Company of Travelers, a podcast from the Wycliffe Global Alliance. I’m Jo Johnson.

Hannes Wiesmann: and I am Hannes Wiesmann. Hi Jo, and welcome to our listeners. We continue conversations with ministry leaders on the topic of organizational Christlikeness and this season we are looking specifically at discernment.

Jo Johnson: Yeah, the conversations have been especially helpful and thought-provoking. Who’s our guest today, Hannes?

Hannes Wiesmann: For this episode, we are talking with Marcus Svedman. He’s the board chair for Folk and Spräk, which is the Alliance organization in Sweden. He’s also the regional director of the International Broadcast Association, a mission organization focused on Scripture engagement.

Jo Johnson: Yeah, Marcus has lots of experience in discernment, including taking steps of faith with some bold organizational decisions.

Hannes Wiesmann: Here then is our Conversation with Marcus Svedman. Welcome Marcus. Thank you so much for joining us to explore the topic of discernment.

Marcus Svedman: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it.

Hannes Wiesmann: Marcus is a board chair of Folk and Spräk, the Alliance organization in Sweden and as his day job, he is the regional director of the International Broadcast Association, a Swedish mission agency which connects with Wycliffe work in Scripture engagement among the least reach peoples and welcome to you Jo as well. Good to see you.

Jo Johnson: Hi there Marcus. Could you start us off with an example from your life where you found yourself in a situation where discernment was needed?

Marcus Svedman: I was reflecting and thinking of how long have I been on the Wycliffe Sweden board and realized that it’s a bit more than 10 years. And about 10 years ago, we had one of those major changes in the organization because the missions director or the leader had resigned a bit earlier than expected and we found ourselves in the situation of having to replace him quite quickly and at that time I was part of the committee looking into who are we going to choose for the new leader to present to then an additional extra annual meeting for the organization to elect a new a new leader and that kind of process of interviewing it demanded some discernment and reflection. So that’s where I’m going to start in in that end if that’s fine with you.

Hannes Wiesmann: Yeah, sure. Sure. So how did this process unfold?

Marcus Svedman: First of all, I’d like to just say that the person who was for some years before had been good at the documents, you know, the administrative side of it to have guidelines and to have a connection with legal authorities with personnel, HR and things were working on to put things neatly in order in the office. But at the same time, the organization was declining because missionaries were coming home from the field and there’s less assessment or finance coming into the office and there were some problems and different kinds. So we knew we needed also some different personality type some different kind of leader for a new season that would make Wycliffe Sweden or Focus Broke more known in churches and maybe help us to fund raise more and to find new vision for yeah moving ahead into the future. So it was I wouldn’t say a crisis but it was not only that it was unexpected that the person left at that time but it was also in in an important season.

We had finally after some interviews two candidates left and we looked at the CVs the credentials and we discussed in the board back and forth and it was between having a a safe very experienced person that had good track record and everything that would be stable or to have this other person that had a little bit more I wouldn’t say controversial but it wasn’t really main line in the in the church denominations and had been more of a some people would call an apostle or entrepreneur that start things and and really go for things and then you know do we dare to take this entrepreneur who will definitely not stand still or just be inside the box but will start things and just try things and so on and that’s was one of those times where we really had to pray and to discern and to think and weigh back and forth. But we ended up having a clear consensus and felt peace about the more risky choice. But looking back now almost exactly 10 years later because that was early 2016, I I think God by his grace led us in the right direction because we have grown a lot over that last 10 years.

Jo Johnson: What would you say has helped you as a as a committee to be willing to take that risk?

Marcus Svedman: First of all, we’ve had a good harmony in the group because if you have people with very strong personal opinions about things that they force on others, you know, it can be tension. But I think we’ve all of us realize that we come from different denominations, different churches and organizations and we’re all there for the kingdom of god and for bible translation in general not to have our own agenda too much and that has helped to to seek the best for the organization. So I think in that sense we’ve that has helped a lot and another just to mention that another example of that is that we had government funding for a long time which helped us especially with the literacy projects and some pre schools and things on that side because tax money from Swedish government cannot of course go to evangelism but for social development projects. But then over the years there were more and more strings attached to it and more and more details of how we are to run the projects in order to receive the funds. And at one point if I remember right it was maybe 3 years later or something 2019 we had a similar situation where we had to say do we dare to say no to the government support and say that we’re not going to apply for money now for 2020 to the next few years but actually not hand in a new application and have to withdraw a couple of project proposals a little bit in in West Africa I think it was in Cameroon and something else that we had to scale down but that was also one of those things that we prayed we discussed a lot pros and cons in the board and then we decided let’s not apply and be free because then if we don’t have those restrictions then we can use the Bible in literacy trainings for example and be more overtly Christian in what we do. And at the time we didn’t know but a couple of years later this new partnership with global partnerships opened up. We had no idea about that at the time but now our budget has more than doubled. So somehow the Lord that and I don’t take any credit personally for this. This was a group decisions both of them, but I was I was part of those situations.

Jo Johnson: I’d love if you could unpack a little bit. You said right at the beginning you were in the situation where a decision needed to be made quite quickly. It wasn’t super urgent, but it was not something that you could take a long time about. And then you ended up taking this slightly riskier choice. How do you navigate the process of feeling the urgency to come to a conclusion and yet going at the same at the right speed to make a good decision?

Marcus Svedman: Yeah, it’s a balance and I don’t know, of course, it was going quick. We had to have an extra meeting because I think the election was in in January and we couldn’t wait until a normal time in May and to have several months pass without a leader. So we had to to do it but at the same time I don’t remember exactly how many months but it was a process you know to have the adverts out and have people apply and select among the applicants and make some interviews and then down to the final two candidates. So it still took some time. It was a balance. I wouldn’t say we rushed it but we were under some pressure. We did some face-to-face meetings more extra meetings with the board and I think at times you need to pray together and to have some time to discern together. It’s not easy just to rush those things too much.

Hannes Wiesmann: Listening to these two accounts of a discernment process, it seemed that the quality of relationships that you had within the board was very key to help you navigate that.

Marcus Svedman: Yes. And I would say the chairperson at the time Ragnhild has been in in missions for many years and been through many things that helped us a lot because if you have a person that is not afraid of the storm that just very calm it calms the group so that helps a lot at that time I was not chairman so really I have to give a lot of credit to her she did it very well.

Hannes Wiesmann: Any other lessons that you can draw or that you could share maybe at hindsight what was helpful for this group to have that quality of relationships?

Marcus Svedman: I think a sense of urgency and that in the talks we understood that we saw what was happening that the financial model of having a lot of missionaries in the field and part of their missionary support helped the office back in Sweden of running and now that is slowly coming into an end and we have to find new ways of visiting churches and … attracting monthly donors and all of that. It was like even if it wasn’t extremely urgent, it was an existential threat for the organization and that of course raises the motivation in the board and for everyone to realize that we need to do something and just playing it safe might not be good enough. So I think in the first occasion by electing the leader to find a strong leader with a lot of potential I think it was the right thing to do. And I’m very happy that we made that decision because I don’t know what would have happened otherwise. And on the second occasion with the funds also, you know, it’s um I don’t know how much I should mention, but one question was, you know, very sensitive in crystal circles with abortion and how you interpret the human rights issue with the United Nations and their guidelines. So imagine then a literacy course in Chad for example or something and in the training The guidelines from the authorities that we were under said that you have to inform the women where to make a free to make an abortion without even informing your husband and things like that because it’s the human right for the women and for us we say if that came out to those who are supporting Wickliff Sweden that we would be under such criteria it could be also be a very bad thing for the organization and we ourselves were not comfortable with that as a board. So we said if these are the new guidelines that we have to submit by those rules that we cannot have a literacy training without mentioning human rights including this and this those were the things that were under pressure. But then of course other mission organizations they might just continue to receive some funding but try to navigate the rules in a way that is still doable. But it’s not easy to end up in s such difficult situations. Yeah.

Hannes Wiesmann: So you said in the beginning that the board you had good harmony in the board. I I have to confess that to me that’s a little bit of a trigger word because harmony could also mean we are not capable of addressing tough issues. I’m assuming this is not what you meant.

Marcus Svedman: I would say that we trust each other in the group. So you can express an opinion and that’s allowed and you agree to disagree so to speak. So it’s not that we could not have different opinions but that we would not take it personal. or be offended by it and we can continue to work together without um any hard feelings towards each other. So I would say a group where there’s trust and that could work together. Yeah, let’s put it that way.

Hannes Wiesmann: Yeah. Yeah. How does that sit within the Swedish culture at large?

Marcus Svedman: Well, some of us we don’t like conflict. So we if you want to avoid conflict then maybe people keep quiet with some of those opinions, but that in the long term of course runs the risk of that you’re not united, but no one really dares to express it clear enough and then you can have those tensions under the surface, so to speak. I guess that could be one problem in in some cases, but we like the consensus. We like also to agree together in in boards and in in government that it’s a clear majority for choices we make.

Hannes Wiesmann: So I I’m assuming the consensus at least means at the end of the process, you want to

Marcus Svedman: at the end of the process, we don’t like making, let’s say, for example, you have 10 people. You don’t want to go uh 64 or something. You’d like to find a position that have a stronger majority, not having those close calls, but agreeing on something more to continue talking until we find something that we can all agree on. And I guess that’s church culture, too, that some churches want the church board to be unanimous. that that is not nobody who’s making reservations against the decision or anything but at the end that the board can be united.

Jo Johnson: I find this very interesting. We were chatting with a lady earlier in the week who was talking about decisions being made for the good of the community rather than the good of the individual. And it seems like this is similar in that the decision is made by really working through absolutely every issue so at the end that you can feel like you’re standing together in that decision rather than one person pushing everyone else in a direction they don’t want to go. I think sometimes we see groups particularly boards where there’s one or two people trying to wield some power that the others don’t. So I feel really encouraged actually that that is how the board in in Wickland SW and made these very key decisions is that they didn’t stop halfway through processing that they went right to the end and they took the time to do that even though they felt like it was an urgent matter that needed a decision.

Marcus Svedman: And then coming to the big annual meeting where you know all members are invited for vote of confidence in the board and so on. If the board was not united in in big decisions then then they would appear divided before the whole group that would be also very difficult situation. So I think in the long run definitely it’s worth some more discussions in the board to agree on something together.

Hannes Wiesmann: I would like to circle back on your comment about avoiding or not avoiding conflict. Any advice how to how to embrace conflict or or be brave to enter conflict in a constructive way?

Marcus Svedman: I wonder what people who know me would they would maybe laugh on this because personally, I might be the one that is saying too much or not avoiding conflict enough and you know more of being like the prophet in the room who has to be the truthsayer about something. So maybe I’m not the one that is always avoiding conflict but we adapt to the situation and see what is needed. So just I’m trying to say I don’t know if I’m the right person to ask how to how to do that in the best way but I guess we complement each other you know.

Jo Johnson: Oh and that’s also very true you know in the board you need somebody needs to be very aware about the finances and someone else about the workers’ rights and someone is a church leader and someone has the knowledge from the field of the organization we have to complement each other otherwise there’s a danger also that it will tip at some point

Hannes Wiesmann: you being a person who does not shy away from conflict how do you encourage people who want to avoid conflict to actually I I say conflict is an underused resource usually. So I’m I really think it’s something that we benefit from learning how to do well.

Marcus Svedman: We’ve had one person that I we’ve had that discussion that I have to remind myself almost to ask so what do you think about this or what is your opinion about this or please can you weigh in on this that some people will also not just speak on their minds on situations unless really encourage to and that then would fall back on on the chair to actually make that happen at some point and not just allow those who speak most to have have their say all the time but try to listen to the whole group.

Hannes Wiesmann: Yeah. Yeah. And possibly also explicitly invite contradiction.

Marcus Svedman: There are more than one side to things. Yeah. So we need we need to dare to see that and sometimes not to force decisions too quickly to say that yes We have discussed this. Now maybe we don’t have to decide today. We can come back next time and allow some time for people to process also knowing what needs to be decided quickly and what can wait a little bit.

Jo Johnson: I love the idea that everybody is bringing different expertise to the table and if you don’t hear from everyone, you’re not actually able to make a well-informed decision because if the person who knows about finances or the person who knows about churches doesn’t contribute, then maybe the decision you’ll make is not completely balanced. And so part of discernment is actually hearing from everybody who’s at the table. I think it’s very easy for some of us to make quick judgments and then think we’re right without really taking the time to draw in all the all the information that we need to make the right decision. So yeah, I love that. as a way of functioning. I think that’s a really great idea.

Marcus Svedman: and that then plays into that it’s actually an important role to be on the what do you call that election committee or something who u suggests names for the board to be elected and sometimes that can be an overlooked position or not enough time spent on but it’s very important to see to it that we have a good variety of people and knowledge and even networks you know as being coming from different denominations and organizations being represented on the board. So that’s not easy to make it happen, but to try to have that.

Hannes Wiesmann: Yeah. Combined with a quality of relationships that allows the individual members of the group to actually speak and engage because if you only have different people but they are in constant loggerheads with each other, it doesn’t help.

Marcus Svedman: And to maintain that openness and trust, you need some physical meetings you know these days when we have a lot of zoom meetings and other digital meetings that’s not enough sometimes we need to come together you know with an overnight weekend meeting or something have 24 hours together where there’s some informal time to talk around the meal and other things to get the group together especially when there’s new people coming on board and someone’s leaving someone’s joining and to That’s another work if having this model of leadership.

Hannes Wiesmann: I think we all agree with that. But I’m curious what would you say is the reason why is that that face to face adds something that online cannot do?

Marcus Svedman: Well, we joke and sometimes says the most important ideas or decisions are taken by the coffee machine or and there’s some truth to that that even though we write and prepare the nice agenda and we sit in the meeting whether it’s a conference room physically or like this in a digital meeting. It’s in other situations sometimes where you share more freely and ideas pop up and discussions start and things happen. We need that.

Hannes Wiesmann: Yeah. It’s maybe when we when we are relaxed that some things can come up that if you are in the formal setting of working through an agenda on a zoom call is just not possible.

Jo Johnson: At least you have both end so that they can complement each other. Yeah. I think it comes back to the time thing as well. I think in the west can make doing things as efficiently as possible almost a god. It’s something that we place above so many other things. But actually relationships are not formed in 5 minutes at the beginning of a Zoom meeting. They are formed by sitting over a meal or like you say chatting while we’re waiting for the coffee to finish making. Or it’s understanding what’s going on in each other’s lives, not just what our opinions are. about things. I think we need to understand how we are as whole people not just in a work environment or a board environment. So yeah, it’s a good reminder not to just make it all about work but that the preeminence I think of relationships.

Marcus Svedman: So reflecting back we also happened then a couple of years later to move u the office from the outskirts of Stockholm to Upsala and more in academic town with in one way more churches around and things but many things came out of it that were all tied to the process of electing a new leader and when he was appointed many things started to happen so sometimes I think what would have happened back there if we have picked the other guy instead you know what would have been the different path of Wycliffe Sweden we’ll never know but decisions um have an impact.

Hannes Wiesmann: I’m glad that you are happy with the decision you made back then and I can see how it benefits not only Folk and Spräk but the wider Bible translation movement. So let’s pretend that I stopped the recording and we are around a coffee maker. What would you like to add on the topic of discernment?

Marcus Svedman: Well, God knows what we don’t know. And of course, the Holy Spirit knows what’s happening tomorrow and next year that we cannot plan for. And sometimes it’s when you look, you know what happened last year and before you see how God has been guiding us and it’s not really that we are conscious in the process but sometimes it’s when we look back that we see that the hand of God or the grace of God was there and um I think the confirmation comes like this afterwards sometimes we don’t know when we are making the decision always if it’s the right one but later hopefully we can look back and see that God led us in a good way.

Hannes Wiesmann: thanks again to Marcus I was particularly impressed by the combination of risk-taking faith alongside the discernment that the board of Folk and Spräk have engaged in and how that has changed the direction the organization’s taken. To our listeners, we would love to hear from you about this topic as well. How can they share their thoughts, Jo?

Jo Johnson: The best way is to email us at info@wycliffe.net. We really hope to hear from you with any comments or questions. you have in light of this conversation or even just about the podcast in general. That’s all for now. Travel well, Hannes.

Hannes Wiesmann: Thanks, Jo. And travel well, everyone. Until we meet again in the next episode.