Augustine Of Hippo Two Cities Assessment

---
name: augustine-of-hippo-two-cities-assessment
description: Analyze any organization, team, or project to determine whether it is built primarily on self-love (serving itself) or mission-love (serving its stated purpose), and identify pilgrimage dynamics.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.3428
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- two-cities-assessment
- writing
---

# Two Cities Assessment

Analyze any organization, team, or project to determine whether it is built primarily on self-love (serving itself) or mission-love (serving its stated purpose), and identify pilgrimage dynamics.

---

## When to Use

- Assessing organizational health and culture
- Diagnosing mission drift
- Understanding why a once-purposeful organization became self-serving
- Evaluating whether an institution serves its members or exploits them
- Someone asks "Is this organization healthy?" or "Why has our culture changed?"
- Strategic reviews of institutional direction
- Understanding political dynamics within organizations
- Evaluating whether to join, stay with, or leave an organization

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| organization | Yes | The organization, team, or project to assess |
| stated_mission | No | The official purpose or mission statement |
| observed_behaviors | No | What the organization actually does and prioritizes |
| indicators | No | Specific signs of either city's predominance |

---

## Augustine's Two Cities Framework

From *City of God*, Augustine describes two cities - not geographical locations but orientations of love that shape every human community:

### The Two Cities Defined

| City | Latin | Foundation | Characteristic | Relationship to Mission |
|------|-------|------------|----------------|------------------------|
| **City of God** | *Civitas Dei* | Love of God/Mission (*amor Dei*) | "Love of God, even to the contempt of self" | Institution serves its purpose |
| **Earthly City** | *Civitas Terrena* | Love of Self (*amor sui*) | "Love of self, even to the contempt of God" | Institution serves itself |

**Critical Insight:** These cities are intertwined in every earthly institution. No organization is purely one or the other. The question is which predominates.

### Key Concepts

**Amor Sui (Self-Love):**
- The institution primarily serves its own preservation, growth, and status
- Members serve the institution rather than the mission
- Resources flow toward institutional maintenance rather than purpose

**Amor Dei (Mission-Love):**
- The institution exists to serve something beyond itself
- The institution is a vehicle for mission, not an end in itself
- Resources flow toward purpose, using the institution as means

**Pilgrimage Status:**
- Citizens of the heavenly city are "pilgrims" - using earthly institutions without setting their hearts on them
- They work within institutions but are not defined by them
- They can recognize when an institution has drifted and respond appropriately

---

## The Assessment Process

### Step 1: Identify Evidence of Earthly City Dynamics

*Amor sui* manifests as:

**Self-Service Over Mission-Service:**
- Resources devoted to institutional preservation exceed mission needs
- Decisions prioritize what's good for the organization over what's good for the purpose
- "What's best for the company" means the institution, not its stakeholders or purpose

**Contempt of Mission:**
- Mission statements become marketing, not guidance
- Mission is invoked rhetorically but contradicted in practice
- Those who take the mission seriously are seen as naive or difficult

**Domination Orientation:**
- Seeks peace and order for control, not for service
- Power accumulation as goal
- Members exist to serve the institution

**Self-Referential Metrics:**
- Success measured by institutional growth, not mission impact
- Internal status games matter more than external impact
- Vanity metrics that serve institutional image

### Step 2: Identify Evidence of Heavenly City Dynamics

*Amor Dei* manifests as:

**Mission-Service Over Self-Service:**
- Institution willingly constrains itself to serve purpose
- Decisions prioritize mission even when institutionally costly
- "What's best for the company" means best for those it serves

**Mission as True North:**
- Mission actually guides decisions
- Tension between mission and institutional interest is acknowledged and resolved toward mission
- Those who champion mission are valued, not sidelined

**Service Orientation:**
- Seeks to serve, not to dominate
- Power used for purpose, not accumulation
- Institution exists to serve members and purpose, not the reverse

**Mission-Aligned Metrics:**
- Success measured by mission impact
- Willingness to look bad institutionally if it serves purpose
- Honest assessment of actual impact

### Step 3: Assess the Pilgrimage Status

How do members relate to the institution?

| Type | Relationship | Characteristic |
|------|--------------|----------------|
| **Pilgrims** | Using the institution for mission | Can distinguish institution from purpose; loyal to mission, not institution |
| **Citizens** | Identifying with the institution | Institution is home; its good is their good; struggle to see its flaws |
| **Captives** | Used by the institution | Exploited by institutional self-service; labor benefits institution more than themselves or mission |

**Key Questions:**
- Are members serving the mission through the institution, or serving the institution?
- Could members imagine the mission being served by a different institution?
- Are members free to critique the institution in service of mission?

### Step 4: Diagnose the Predominant City

Based on evidence, which city predominates?

| Predominance | Indicators |
|--------------|------------|
| **Strongly Earthly** | Mission is rhetoric only; self-service is open; members are captives or self-deceived citizens |
| **Leaning Earthly** | Mission is real but often loses to institutional interest; pilgrims are marginalized |
| **Mixed/Contested** | Genuine tension between mission and institution; outcome depends on specific decisions |
| **Leaning Heavenly** | Mission usually wins; institution accepts costs for purpose; pilgrims are valued |
| **Strongly Heavenly** | Institution clearly exists for mission; self-interest is recognized and contained; pilgrims thrive |

### Step 5: Identify Trajectory and Recommendations

Is the organization moving toward or away from its mission?

**Trajectory Indicators:**
- Recent decisions: mission-serving or self-serving?
- Who is being promoted: mission champions or political operators?
- What is celebrated: impact or institutional metrics?
- How is dissent handled: as valuable input or threat?

**Recommendations based on assessment:**
- For those within: pilgrim strategies, mission recovery efforts
- For those considering joining: realistic expectations
- For leaders: structural changes to reinforce mission-love

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Two Cities Assessment

### Organization
[Name and description of organization assessed]

### Stated Mission
[Official purpose]

### Evidence of Earthly City (*Amor Sui*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Severity |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| [Self-service pattern] | [Specific example] | Low/Medium/High |

### Evidence of Heavenly City (*Amor Dei*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Strength |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| [Mission-service pattern] | [Specific example] | Low/Medium/High |

### Pilgrimage Status of Members

| Type | Proportion | Treatment |
|------|------------|-----------|
| Pilgrims | [Estimate] | [How are they regarded?] |
| Citizens | [Estimate] | [How are they regarded?] |
| Captives | [Estimate] | [How are they regarded?] |

### Assessment

**Predominant City:** [Strongly Earthly / Leaning Earthly / Mixed / Leaning Heavenly / Strongly Heavenly]

**Key Evidence:** [Most significant indicators]

**Trajectory:** [Moving toward mission / Stable / Drifting from mission]

### Recommendations

**For Pilgrims Within:**
[How to maintain mission-focus while working within]

**For Leaders:**
[Structural or cultural changes to serve mission]

**For Those Considering Joining:**
[Realistic expectations and considerations]
```

---

## Constraints

- **Do not equate any earthly institution with the City of God.** Even the best institutions are mixed
- **Do not demonize.** Earthly city dynamics are human and universal; diagnosis is not condemnation
- **Be evidence-based.** Assessments must be grounded in specific observations
- **Acknowledge complexity.** Most organizations are genuinely mixed and contested
- **Respect the pilgrimage.** People within flawed institutions can still serve genuine purpose

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Example

**Input:** "Our nonprofit started 20 years ago to end homelessness in our city. We've grown to a $50M budget and 300 employees. But lately, board meetings focus entirely on fundraising and institutional sustainability. Our CEO is celebrated in the press but rarely visits shelters. Staff who question strategy are seen as not being 'team players.' Meanwhile, homelessness in our city has actually increased."

**Output:**

## Two Cities Assessment

### Organization
20-year-old homelessness nonprofit, $50M budget, 300 employees

### Stated Mission
End homelessness in the city

### Evidence of Earthly City (*Amor Sui*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Severity |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Self-referential focus | Board meetings focus on fundraising and institutional sustainability, not mission impact | High |
| Leadership detachment | CEO rarely visits shelters; celebrated for institutional prestige rather than mission outcomes | High |
| Dissent suppression | Staff questioning strategy labeled as not being "team players" | High |
| Mission as rhetoric | Claims to end homelessness while homelessness has increased | High |
| Growth over impact | $50M budget and 300 employees, but problem is worse | Medium |

### Evidence of Heavenly City (*Amor Dei*)

| Indicator | Evidence | Strength |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| Original mission | Founded with genuine purpose to end homelessness | Historical (may be diminished) |
| Staff concern | Staff are questioning strategy, indicating some mission loyalty persists | Medium |
| Service continues | Presumably still operating shelters and services | Unknown - need more data |

### Pilgrimage Status of Members

| Type | Proportion | Treatment |
|------|------------|-----------|
| Pilgrims | Minority (questioners) | Marginalized as "not team players" |
| Citizens | Majority of leadership | Celebrated and promoted |
| Captives | Unknown (frontline staff?) | Possibly exploited for institutional growth |

### Assessment

**Predominant City:** Leaning Strongly Earthly

**Key Evidence:**
1. Mission failure (homelessness increased) has not prompted institutional crisis
2. Leadership is rewarded for institutional prestige, not mission outcomes
3. Those who prioritize mission are punished
4. Board focuses on sustainability of institution, not achievement of purpose

**Trajectory:** Drifting from mission. The organization has undergone classic mission drift over 20 years: original purpose gave way to institutional self-perpetuation. The nonprofit industrial complex dynamic is present - the organization now needs homelessness to justify its existence rather than genuinely seeking to end it.

### Recommendations

**For Pilgrims Within:**
- Document mission impact honestly, even when uncomfortable
- Build coalitions with other mission-focused staff
- Recognize you may need to serve the mission elsewhere if the institution cannot be redirected
- Do not let "team player" pressure silence mission-first questions

**For Leaders:**
- Reorient board meetings: begin with mission impact data (homelessness trends), not fundraising
- CEO accountability should include frontline presence and outcome metrics
- Welcome questioning as mission-loyalty, not disloyalty
- Ask: "If we disappeared tomorrow, would the problem get worse or would someone else solve it better?"
- Consider: Does the organization's continued existence serve the mission or prevent others from serving it?

**For Those Considering Joining:**
- This is currently an institution that serves itself while speaking of its mission
- Frontline impact work is possible but will be under-resourced relative to institutional overhead
- Career advancement will reward institutional loyalty over mission effectiveness
- If you join as a pilgrim, expect to be marginalized unless culture changes

**Augustine's Warning:** "Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self."

This organization appears to love itself even to the contempt of its stated purpose. An institution that grows while its mission fails is a clear sign of *amor sui* predominating. The question for all involved: Does this institution serve the mission, or does it serve itself while invoking the mission?

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Augustine of Hippo** expert persona. It applies Augustine's Two Cities framework from *City of God* to organizational analysis.

For related analysis:
- Use **ordo-amoris-audit** for deeper analysis of priority disorders
- Use **confessional-analysis** for honest examination of specific decisions that led to drift
- Use **grace-before-effort** to understand what conditions would enable mission recovery