Well, you don’t know what we can find
Why don’t you come with me little girl on a magic carpet ride?
Steppenwolf
In this series thus far, I’ve attempted to demonstrate the reasons why I believe bureaucratic denominationalism in America is on a decline that will not reverse and will end with the disintegration of the structures that we know. For the purpose of clarification, let me say that I am not opposed to the efforts of denominations to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. Without a doubt, some major denominations have in the past been very effective at those attempts, but, owing to changes in our world, have lost the ability that they need to continue any semblance of that same effectiveness in the future. For that reason they will continue to decline. Therefore, my remarks have not to do with “saving” any denomination and should not be taken in the context of denominational renewal.
In this post and the next few, I will posit a way forward in the Post-Denominational era. Note that it is “a” way forward, not “the” way forward, as I make no claim of exclusivity of ideas since multiple sources have influenced my thinking. With that foundation I offer the following thoughts.
1. Fluidity is stability.
The problem with bureaucracy is that it is inherently inflexible. The multi-layered construction can only be supported by the rigidity of a virtually inflexible skeleton. The larger the organization the more complex, almost without fail, its inner workings. In fact, the exceptions become the examples of how things should work, but most companies cannot make make the recalibrations necessary to achieve the kind of flexibility that everyone agrees would be better for both the company and it customers.
Though the actual definition of bureaucracy refers to a system of government in which the most important decisions are made by employees rather than elected officials, the dysfunction of a preponderance of those systems has virtually made it a synonym for an organization marked by inefficiency and waste, while bureaucrat equals a person who is completely unqualified for the position held and whose decision making is marked by incompetence. (The truth of that is seen with the popularity of Dilbert and The Office.)
Bureaucracies develop as a result of a search for organization and distribution of responsibilities in a time of expected or actual growth and/or expansion. Once reaching a critical mass, however, they begin to repeat the very issues the multiple layers were instituted to solve. In a flat world, rigidity is not stability; it is death.
Going forward, the only stability that an organization can seek is fluidity because that is what it will take to remain in existence. The ever increasing flow of information in our age is almost beyond comprehending, bringing us to the point of needing to make accurate snap judgments (what Gladwell calls the “blink”), while advances in technology have made it possible for immediate communication between decision makers. Entities that have structured themselves for fluid decision making will be seen as the ones upon whom you can depend. An example:
Envision a denominational entity that has resources for a project in Boston or Bangladesh and there is a church (or small network of churches) that has resources for mission projects. The denominational structure has been created for the purpose of providing stability, while the network has been created to bypass bureaucratic inefficiency by enabling quick decision making. The request works its way up the denominational structure, through levels one, two, three, etc and finally back to someone who has the authority to either “okay” or “veto” to the proposal. The M on the field has spent an interminable amount of time waiting. Could be weeks, could be months and could end just as unfunded as when it was first proposed.
On the other hand, a request goes to a church or network of churches that have already committed to Bangladesh or Boston as a place of specific ministry. The request comes to them, it is affirmed for the M (there doesn’t have to be much home base discussion because the M is trusted to make the decisions; that’s why there is a relationship with them in the first place). Within a week or two, the money is wired and the project has begun.
When the M has another need, who do you think he/she will go to first? The second group, of course. Fluidity necessitates that enough trust is placed with the M that requests made on the field are not second guessed by people an ocean and half a continent away.
Consider partnerships at the local church level as well.
A local school needs supplies for a project that the district cannot afford. A creative teacher suggests contacting a couple of churches for help. Church A receives the request, funnels it to the pastor who brings it before the deacons who then take it before the Finance Committee who have a couple of questions, so it goes back to the deacons who have a few more questions for the pastor, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The pastor of Church B send it to the Community Missions Leader who, knowing that the function of his/her team is to create or find partnerships, fires off an email to the team with a 48 hour response time, gets approval, calls the principal of the school and takes a check by three days later. Again, when the next need comes, the school will call Church B without a second thought.
The reason that fluidity is stability is because the fluidity of the church or network of churches provides the stability needed for the person in need for the ministry to continue in a timely fashion, while the “stability” of the b’cracy provides only uncertainty for the person waiting. The provider of blessing needs to be fluid so that the need of blessing can actually receive it.
Next up: The network is the organism.
I personally think it’s evidence of the real, down-front, hard-core end times. As in End Times.
Adam and Eve had God’s “mantle” so to speak, in the garden, but they blew it.
Up comes the nation of Israel, ditto for them, and they blew it. Pharisees, anyone?
God sends Jesus, who starts the Salvation-By-Faith Church; He’s crucified
Then the Salvation-By-Faith Church blows it, too (can you say CR, Gay Priests, etc etc) and now I think the only thing in the Kingdom that counts is producing fruit. And so we live in an era when Pastors get perverted and on CNN, churches get sued, 60% of the people who belong don’t go, etc etc.
Sounds like the Real Thing to me.
Comment by Bob Cleveland — May 19, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Marty, what you are describing is exactly what our smaller church does all the time. Fluidity means we can move to opportunities quickly. But as you pointed out, that comes out of trust.
I’m hoping to build “refinery capacity” in here so that as we interact with the networks around us (the city govt, other churches, schools, civic organizations) that when opportunities present we can “refine” them by channeling them to who would do the best job and trust them to enlist the support. An example – we wanted to do movies in the local parks this summer. Had feelers out to the city and turned out that the local Heritage Museum wanted to do it too. Three come together one afternoon, come out with movies and concerts through october. Now I’m working within my network of local churches to put it over the top. One afternoon is all it took because of the trust we have with each other.
It can happen, but things really have to change in the SBC to see that kind of speed.
Comment by David Wilson — May 19, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Bob-
I’m in friendly disagreement. What you are describing is problematic of the church in the West. If God was dependent on the West for “God, Inc” to survive, then He’d be in trouble. Since the kingdom has moved and God continues to work all around the world, I have no reason to believe that we are near the end.
David-
I like the term “refinery capacity;” can you develop further what that means?
Comment by Marty Duren — May 19, 2008 @ 10:14 am
I agree with Marty. I think the issue is significant in the US. It’s rampant in our denomination and in our sending agency. We have people sensing the call of God on their lives, affirmed by their local church, referred by their leadership and yet it takes 1-3 years to get to the field. And then once on the field it gets harder. We recently sensed strongly that we were to pursue a transfer to a different field, before our term was up. This was affirmed by countless people including our leadership and yet we were turned down, why? Because it went against a policy. I even had one person tell me that God wouldn’t lead me to do something against our policies. Really?
I think fluidity is the way of the future and those stuck in the bureacuracy will realize the stream has moved around them and they are no longer in the flow. I think we’re already seeing this. We’re no longer the center of the Christian world.
Comment by Camel Rider — May 19, 2008 @ 11:04 am
One of the most fascinating possibilities that will happen out of this decline is the increased permeable nature of the boundaries that are now in place. Chaos theory would tell us that while there are indeed boundaries, those boundaries 1) are constructed by an attractor (which I consider the kingdom of God) and 2) are permeable enough to allow easy entrance into and out of the system, thus maintaining the fluidity of the system.
The boundaries in place in denominations cannot survive; when the boundaries are not permeable, the organism becomes a parasite, and to survive it has to eat itself, thus killing itself in the process. Permeable boundaries allow the organism to take in fresh nutrients, integrate them into the system, and thrive and grow.
Our denomination cannot allow this because of a trust factor; rather, the lack of trust. It refuses to release information and because of this, the creatives who can fix it don’t know what is going on and if they do find out, the system sabotages them.
It will only be when the leadership of our denomination and others relinquish the faux control they think they have that the organism and system can change.
Comment by David Phillips — May 19, 2008 @ 11:45 am
“Refinery capacity” comes from our current problem with gasoline prices. There’s plenty of oil to be had, but it cannot get to the consumer because we don’t have the refinery capacity to meet demand. In other words, we are stuck with an inelastic system. Any shocks that affect either demand or supply cannot be managed because of this choke point. We haven’t built any new ones in years, apparently.
When you used “fluidity” as a need it pushed that into the “refinery capacity” matrix for me.
We are hopelessly limited here locally by the glacial movement of the association (2 years to study the NEED for change????) the policies and procedures of government agencies, and the entrenched committee on committees model in so many churches.
So for me, building “refinery capacity” is establishing networks built on trust and communication among PEOPLE in the groups who are doers not hearers and who can get things done. They can bypass the policies or get them changed. They know who inside to call to get things done now. So if an opportunity comes up, we can start moving in the right direction with a few people, then work our networks to get the rest of the specific things we need. Other nonprofits do this all the time. Check with the Relay for Life folks – they know who to call for tents, sound equipment, food, publicity etc way before the next year’s event because they have built up the capacity over the years.
If a church in Spain, or Nigeria, or one of the “Stan’s” or elsewhere overseas needs specific help (or of course one in the US), we ought to have the “refinery capacity” built up outside the bureaucracy of the SBC to “get’r done” now, and we’ll keep working on organizational change. You can see this beginning to occur with The Upstream Collective ( http://theupstreamcollective.wordpress.com/) and probably other orgs I’m not familiar with. But I’m getting educated about such efforts and really want to see New Hope participate in them.
I can’t wait in every case to follow the “rules”. If there’s an opportunity now to do ministry that offers the gospel and reaches out to people in the love of Christ, I need people within the system who know how to get things done. Yeah we’ll work to get the policies to come around, but we’ll do it WHILE we’re getting things done.
Hope that helps,
David
Comment by David Wilson — May 19, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Dang, Phillips-
Did you intend to write my entire next post? At least I have a good quote to start things off ;^)
Wilson-
My thesis is that it can’t happen in the SBC, thus the rise of networks.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 19, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
I’ve actually been seeing this for years. I gave it the college try with the SBC for a couple of years just so I could say I tried. And, I did. But, I saw networks being the way back then. We actually had a meeting tonight with a group to discuss this very thing. It is happening, whether people like it or not. The question is, how fast can you move?
Comment by Alan Cross — May 20, 2008 @ 1:17 am
Ummm….sorry? This stuff really gets me going…I love this kind of thinking. I could talk about this for hours!
Comment by David Phillips — May 20, 2008 @ 5:48 am
I’ve actually been seeing this for years. Did Al Gore just leave a comment?
David Wilson-
Did you get my email?
Comment by Marty Duren — May 20, 2008 @ 6:55 am
Yep, converting to CDT will be 1 – 1:30 my time and that’s doable. I’ll ring you then
David
Comment by David Wilson — May 20, 2008 @ 9:46 am
David Phillips has desciribed our denominational issues in a “dead on” way via the virus analogy. That said, together with my assertion of agreement with Marty that God doesn’t need the SBC or the western church to keep “God Inc.” afloat, I offer the following food for thought . . .
. . .what if the denomination “becomes” the network? Are we even holding this out as a possibility? Although I freely admit that some entities will not change and will thus “eat themselves” eventually, there are parts of this thing called the SBC that will perpetuate, and they will be valuable contributors to Kingdom advance in the west, and across the world.
As a DOM, I know this statement will be rightly taken as biased, but I have to suggest…instead of starting a whole new network, why not start with the one you have; the local association? Maybe in some areas its not possible, but it seems to be working well here, and where it is working well, why re-invent the wheel?
Call my Pollyanna, but I just don’t think we are finished as a denomination. To be sure, we are shrinking, and if we survive, we will look very, very different in years to come. But as one on the “inside” I am aware of far too many who “get it,” and I really believe this “remnant” is sufficient to get us through a needed transition.
Comment by Joel — May 20, 2008 @ 11:54 am
No, Marty. It would have been Al Gore if I had said, “I invented this stuff years ago.” :) I guess that I poorly said that I was seeing this as the natural flow of things about 5 years ago and then I got caught up in the SBC stuff starting late 2005. I met you guys and I became hopeful that there was a possibility of change, so I gave myself to it for longer than I should have. All of this is in retrospect, of course. I am glad that this conversation is kicking up and that there is the possibility of doing some of the things that I was hopeful for a few years ago, but put on hold to focus on the SBC. I agree with you that any time or energy spent on redeeming the SBC is time wasted. So, let’s get on with the future and stop fooling around. That’s what I meant, but it probably didn’t come across the right way.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 20, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Pollyanna-
I don’t know why your comment got moderated. Maybe you were thinking some evil thoughts about me? ;^)
Could the denomination become the network? No, but the churches could. Networks depend on no b’cracy for cooperation, whereas the denom requires it for its very existence. I agree we could start with the association, but not the way it currently works and I don’t see too many DOMs looking to put themselves out of work.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 20, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Joel, down here the associational horse isn’t just dead, it has started to resemble the churches by pulling churches from other associations and calling that growth. When churches are looking at going portable, it’s building a building. When everyone is using a variety of materials, they’ve gone back to being Lifeway shills like in the 1970s. I’m waiting for the DOM to come by pushing the new Baptist hymnal and the growth spiral.
To get ANYTHING done, I have to go around the dead horse.
David
Comment by David Wilson — May 21, 2008 @ 12:04 am
Let me ask, and I offer this for sake of conversation and my own thinking through of the issues:
Is the desire to make ministry decisions as quickly/efficiently as possible a product of our own Western worldview or is this really something we must strive for?
Here are some random thoughts: This is really a new idea in the grand scheme of things. In the era of Lottie Moon and before, ministry decisions took 1-2 years as letters went by ship back and forth to China. As I read through the Scripture, most of the things we can read about in a few minutes took months and years to actually come to pass. Of course, they did not have the opportunities we have to make things happen faster.
In my personal life, I always want to accomplish everything now and am impatient when I have to wait — especially when it comes to ministry. I’ve found that sometimes God makes me slow down and wait for his timing. I’m too impatient. Also, in retrospect, some of the ministry decisions I have made quickly turned out to be bad decisions in the end. Perhaps had I not been so eager, I would have made a more wise decision. Still, there are many opportunities that are missed because of red tape. ARGHHH!
I guess what I’m asking is, How do we balance the urgency of the evangelistic task, the opportunities that new technologies and structures afford, with making sure we make wise decisions, are good stewards, and wait on God’s timing?
Blessings,
Todd
Comment by Todd B. — May 21, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Todd-
That is a good observation and one about which I have given much thought. I think either scenario could be an issue, thus a need to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit.
One of my favorite stories from the Bible is the changing of water to wine at the wedding in Cana. According to John, Jesus had never performed a miracle before this. Listen to Mary as she instructs the attendants:
After spending the previous 30 years with the Lord, though she might not have known exactly what He was up to, she knew that He could deal with the problem.
What has always caught my attention is that there was not a command to pray about what He said to do. It was a comment from the “early Nike” period: Just do it.
Missional churches, I think, see prayer as the preparation to act on the revealed direction of God, to prepare for the specifics of joining God on His mission. They stay ready for each and every opportunity recognizing that, “Whatever He says to them,” they should, “Do it.” Paul said to the Ephesians, “Pray for me that a door may be opened that I may preach the gospel.” When those doors opened, are we to believe that he was not going to walk through them? The prayer was the preparation. Peter’s vision of the animals on the sheet did not come while he was “toiling in prayer” but while he was waiting for lunch. Paul’s vision of the man from Macedonia did not happen while he was on his knees facing Jerusalem, but during the night time hours (Acts 16:9, 10). That they were focused on prayer is evident from verse 13 when, on the Sabbath, Paul and his team were seeking a place of prayer.
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was a preparatory engine for the inclusion of Gentiles into the church, thus verifying that followers of Christ were not merely relegated to being a sect of Judaism. Scripture records that their monumental decision was not after much prayer, but after much discussion (v. 7, 12, 19). This is not to suggest a lack of prayer, but that prayer had already prepared them for the decision that they needed to make. If I may borrow the style of the Ecclesiastical writer, “There’s a time to pray and a time to get on with it.”
While I do believe in the necessity of prayer, Iâ??m persuaded that at least as many kingdom opportunities are missed, not only because we are waiting for a possible will of God for which we must pray, but by overlooking the revealed work of God into which He would have us to enter and we could have had we been prepared by prayer.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 21, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Marty,
Your point on prayer is well taken.
I think that there will remain a place for CP missions, despite the bureaucracy, but there will be a more hybrid approach needed. The examples you cite show the need for more fluid structures in terms of funding actual projects. For personnel, however, there have always been two models of funding and, for my money (no pun intended) the benefits of cooperative missions outweigh the drawbacks for funding personnel. IMB personnel generally are better paid, have better benefits in terms of insurance, retirement, etc., and have greater job security than their counter-parts who raise their own support. Further, missionaries do not have to use their furlough time raising money. For those who give to missions, the mission boards can provide the necessary oversight as well as developing and over-all strategy for reaching the unreached peoples of the world. Also, smaller churches, even if networked, often do not have the resources to actually send a missionary.
On the flip side, as more churches and networks become involved in funding mission projects, church planting, or even become involved themselves, missionaries will not have to go through all the red tape to request money from the board (which is in short supply for such projects). Opportunities will not be missed. More people are participating as world Christians, and the mission boards can spend their money on sending more missionaries.
I think that a hybrid approach may be the best one — CP missions giving for personnel, churches and church netwroks giving and going for mission and church planting projects — provided, of course, we can resolve the dispute on the IMB personnel policies. This is the approach the IMB is trying to move toward.
Do think such an approach is viable?
Blessings,
Todd
Comment by Todd B. — May 21, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
â??When the facts change, I change my mind â?? what do you do, sir?â?
-John Maynard Keynes
All that about missionary funding, retirement, no furloughs for fund raising etc. granted. They do far better than yours truly does here on the American Bible Belt mission field.
But I’m not believing we need North Americans in anywhere near the numbers we see now doing what they are doing now. We need natives teaching natives. Your average NA carries too much cultural baggage and is accustomed to too many of what the rest of the world would call luxuries. We need to leverage technology, connect with people already “embedded” with people groups whether they be SBC or not and be far smarter about how we approach the whole mission enterprise.
We are reflecting in our missions efforts what many other institutions in our culture are in the habit of ding, that is we are fighting the last war.
We need a Counter Insurgency strategy and the IMB is being run by Curtis LeMay types who think more “bombs” will make it more better. No it won’t. But I guess if you withdraw from other Christians because they don’t square with your tertiary theology, that’s the strategery (misspelled on purpose) you’ll come up with.
Todd, I want to believe what you envision could come true – I really do. But you are seeking incremental changes over time, and I see the time to change as not just past, but way in the rear view mirror.
David
(and yes my glass is half full)
Comment by David Wilson — May 21, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
Todd-
And this guarantees neither their happiness, effectiveness or strategic placement. There are plenty of M’s who are self funded, getting their own insurance and retirement and, let’s not forget, that the IMB doesn’t send as many as it could, some are left to find their own way anyway. Whether or not IMB M’s have to use their furlough time raising support is quite beside the point as they are still expected to spend their furlough time in churches telling their stories. An independent M does basically the same thing…and then takes an offering.
Do I see both/and? I really do not for all the reasons elucidated before. I’m not saying that an entity of some sort to serve as an information resource would not be helpful (though Operation World does pretty good for an independent deal). In fact, the IMB has more in depth information than almost anyone in the world and it is FREE to local churches who need it. From that perspective combined support is helpful.
But David is right. The incremental moves you seek to accomplish your thinking are just as gradual as Darwinian evolution…and just as likely.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 21, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
David,
You said,
“But Iâ??m not believing we need North Americans in anywhere near the numbers we see now doing what they are doing now. We need natives teaching natives. Your average NA carries too much cultural baggage and is accustomed to too many of what the rest of the world would call luxuries. We need to leverage technology, connect with people already â??embeddedâ? with people groups whether they be SBC or not and be far smarter about how we approach the whole mission enterprise.”
This is one of the most important and correct statements ever uttered in Blogdom. Until we realize this, we are all just whistling past the graveyard of Western missions. There is an indigenous church now. Our role is to assist, not lead.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 21, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
This is my first time to add to a discussion on a blog. Most seem to be too much speaking past each other. This seems to be an open, low tension discussion of the realities of the mission effort. I am glad to see that.
I am in the Balkans as an independently funded m but working with IMB ms who are working along side of good local people who have few resources and very little encouragement each day. We see the Gospel being accepted by people who in the past have not had opportunity to hear the Truth.
The Ms have an exit strategy that means they assist others to do the work so the Ms can move on to other places. Sometimes it takes years of drinking gallons of hot tea one cup at a time to be accepted and to be in place at the right time to offer assistance that is accepted.
One friend of mine found two young men who had been invited to Brazil to attend a Baptist Seminary there. They were sent back to Ukraine to start churches but needed on field mentoring that he could provide. He did not start their churches but he was available to help them understand the process and encourage them as they were church planters.
I agree with the network process. The is main part of my focus here is to see what is needed and find someone who can provide short term help for that need.
There are many other stories from the field that should be a part of your discussion. Good positive reports of the reality of being on the field. I think you should invite some the field people to be a part of this excellent discussion.
Comment by CharlesPyles — May 22, 2008 @ 11:55 am