2. The network is the organism.
The late management guru, Peter Drucker, in Managing in Times of Great Change (1995), wrote:
Every few hundred years throughout Western history, a sharp transformation has occurred. In a matter of decades, society altogether rearranges itself–its worldview, its basic values, its social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later a new world exists. And the people born into that world cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born.
Our age is just such a period of transformation. Only this time the transformation is not confined to Western society and Western history. Indeed, one of the fundamental changes is that there is no longer a â??Westernâ? history or a â??Westernâ? civilization. There is only world history and world civilization.
And if I may borrow from Thomas Friedman in The World is Flat:
Globalization 1.0 took place when travelers came to the “New World” in search of religious freedom, Globalization 2.0 saw the rise of American Denominationalism, while Globalization 3.0 (or glocalization) is seeing the rise of the network.
The following things happened in 1917:
–The U.S. ended its search for Pancho Villa.
–The United States paid Denmark $25 million for the Virgin Islands.
–The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Germany a day after Germany announced a new policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.
–The Congress of the United States passed a law banning most Asian immigration.
–The Selective Service Act passed the U.S. Congress giving the President the power of conscription.
–John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born.
–Arabian troops led by Lawrence of Arabia and Auda ibu Tayi captured Aqaba from the Turks during the Arab Revolt.
–In Nebraska, Father Edward J. Flanagan founded Boys Town as a farm village for wayward boys.
—The Southern Baptist Convention instituted the Executive Committee.
And 91 years, two world wars, the founding of the United Nations, creation and dissolution of countless countries, jet flight, a man on the moon, the technological revolution, and the digital age later, most of these are history and little about the last one has changed. In fact, in SBC life, most associations and state conventions utilize the same EC model adopted by the national body in 1917. So, multiple generations of humanity, countless innovations with spectacular results and incredible promise and the rearranging of the world’s structure have occurred with at least one major U.S. denomination still structured like it is yet 1917.
Not too many years ago, people with an eye to the times began to recognize the power of the network. Network theory began to be explored first as a discipline of mathematics, leading to further develops in areas like social networking propelled into the limelight by websites such as MySpace and Facebook. Organizations that really cared about efficiency began to look at decentralizing, using communication tools more and better, developing telecommuting and more, while the rise of the internet made it possible for people to develop deep, meaningful relationships with people they’d never met in person.
Networking, IMO, is the foreseeable future. It is the organism that will be the downfall of the rigid organizational structures that exist. As David Phillips put it in the previous comments,
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.
The rigidity, turfism, fifedoms and outright jealousy that exists in and between structures have closed them off to the future and, as Phillips suggested, they have already begun to turn on themselves and each other. The permeable membranes of networking take in the best ideas from each participant (sometimes the local government or art center) thus improving the functionality of the network and raising the chances of seeing ministry objectives met.
Churches do not need denominational structures to do exceptional ministry and to partner with other churches to do exceptional ministry. As more and more missional pastors jettison the archaic structures of decades (almost centuries) past, more and more vital ministry will be done through believers passionate for the kingdom and not willing to sit around waiting for a vote to change a committee name, a two year feasibility study or spending millions of dollars to pump life into a corpse.
Below is a simple chart of how easy networking is to accomplish (I know, no extra credit for artwork):
Each letter of the alphabet represents an autonomous, local church. Churches A-F have partnered together to start/fund/staff a crisis pregnancy center, churches G-I for a food pantry, churches J-L have adopted a school together, and M-P are planting a church. Then, churches B, E and G have joined together to do an after school ministry; I, J, M and N for a police and firemen outreach; D, E, F, J, K, N and O for a mentoring center; while A, C, H, L and P have networked to reach an unreached people group. Obviously their is no limit to the options.
What makes this differ markedly from the structured denominational approach is that every church chooses with whom it will network for each opportunity. There is no forced cooperation with those of divergent vision; contrariwise, the churches are networked together because of their similar vision. In the SBC the view has always been, “Well, it’s worth overlooking our differences to get about the main task of evangelizing the world and the CP is the best way to accomplish that.” While I believe firmly that mindset once was accurate, I no longer do. Networking is far better in both cost and, we will eventually find, results.
In the network suggested above, there is no bureaucracy, no need for a local office, no need for anyone to tell anyone what to do. Both the human resources and the financial resources lie in the churches. To continue to give money “because we’ve always done it that way” is poor stewardship at best and intentional ignorance at worst. I’m not saying that networks will never choose to have paid employees or an office building, but that those things will flow from the vision and strategy, not impede them. Acts 29, Glocalnet and The Upstream Collective are examples of some networks that have led the charge.
For many pastors who were raised in denominationalism, there is a guilt over leaving the system no matter how broken it is. For others there would be immediate resistance from the churches who cannot imagine any other way of collaberative ministry. But for some, there awaits the freeing idea that new wine skins must be utilized to handle new wine and that continuing to pay the “temple tax” whether exacted or only expected no longer holds any allure.
Another great post I wish I had written. I’ll reference you when I write something about networking in the next week or two. Man, I wish I had written this.
Comment by Camel Rider — May 23, 2008 @ 11:01 am
The good news is that in spite of a vocal group of folks who sound like they want big walls put up around each and every SB household the truth is that what you describe is exaclty what is happening. As I have attended M conferences while on Stateside Assignment I have attended several large churches where we were warned, ‘Hey, there are non-SB’s here!’ I was concerned at first. What about CP? What about Lottie Moon? One Church I visited supported over 40 non-SB M’s in addition to doing CP. Was this healthy? What I have discovered is that it is quite healthy. This particualar church and many like it give more than anyone to the CP and Lottie precisely because they are active across the board. The old paradigm was ‘a mile wide and an inch deep’ but the new one seems to be ‘Get the big pictue and give it all, lose the big picture and lose it all’. For myself, only insecure people are afraid of getting out and working along side others. Are there ‘theological diferences’ as we partner. Yes, but I am secure in my faith and practice and will not suddenly start shouting in tongues or baptizing babies if I hold ten minutes conversation with someone who disagrees with me.
Comment by Strider — May 23, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Excellent, Marty. I agree completely. The only difficulty that I see is how to get people/churches connected. It works in theory, but I have found it difficult to get the network started because of an initial lack of trust or identity. Denominational work, while inefficient is trusted because it is familiar. Personal networking is possible because people know one another. Organizational networking among churches still faces some hurdles during this transistion period because while the leaders may know one another, the congregants do not. The visibility that elicits trust is not there automatically and it has to be developed. How do you see that happening? We are working on that now with our India work, but it is very time consuming. Still, if you can get five churches working together without bureaucracy and high overhead, the results can be spectacular.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 23, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Strider, you’re right. Large churches have been doing this for years. They are able to do all kinds of things and still support the CP. Medium sized to smaller churches do not have the resources to do both. The large churches have done whatever they have wanted, given 2% to the CP, and have still had a seat at the table. But, if you are an initiating smaller church with vision, the CP does not work for you. It is a waste of your few resources. Better to do something that you can actually be involved in so that your people grow than just send money off to a bureacracy. The large churches understand this, but the SBC does not care as long as they send in $300,000 per year.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 23, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Hey Alan- This is the most cynical statement I have seen you make- you having a bad day? I will reply with a little jab of my own:
You said,
Medium sized to smaller churches do not have the resources to do both.
My response,
Then you should worship the God of the bigger churches and give up that poor medium church god. He’s got all the resources you need.
I love you brother!
Comment by Strider — May 23, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
CR-
Glad to be of help ;^)
Strider-
I, too, am glad for churches of any size that are willing to partner with a kingdom approach. Not wanting to speak for Alan but doing so anyway, I don’t think he means to imply that God is of limited resources, but it is unarguable that annually churches attempt to divide what are, for most, limited resources. Until God multiplies the resources available to Alan’s church, for instance, then we all must prioritize that giving to the kingdom. Large churches are quite able to send a few a few hundred $1,000 to the Mother Ship and still have a wad to “do missions” the way that is more preferred. In order for small churches to really be making somewhat of an impact (CP wise), they must give 10 or 12%, equalling $30-40k leaving very little for the networking type strategy that I’m proposing.
The question then becomes, “Is is more important to send the money to HQ or to send our own people to India building long term, strategic partnerships with national believers? The answer to that questions is not what it once was and will, IMHO, continue to move toward the networking model.
Alan-
The same way it is happening now: pastor to pastor and person to person. I already have 5 pastors praying about going with me in September to T–a. The requirements are that they will attempt to lead their churches into a partnership situation. Two of these pastors are near me, the other three I met through blogging: one in OK, one in WV and one in NC. I don’t have to convince all their congregants; they can do that when they return.
You are a visionary. In addition to casting that vision to your church, find a few guys who’s hearts are beating for the kingdom and invite them along on your next trip (which I hope to be in early October). You can be a network facilitator. It doesn’t have to start big; when it tips, it will be exponential.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 23, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I really hesitate to reply to this because I don’t want to sound condescending or rude. So, with the blanket statement: I really love and respect both you and Alan, here goes.
This is a basic discipleship issue. Kingdom resources. You get more by giving more. It is found in the words of Jesus and it is found in the ravings of lunatics like George Muller and Henry Blackaby. SB’s have believed in the CP for a long time now because we believe that God has given us a way to make a real differnce in the world by cooperating together. This new generation has discovered that they can not only give and pray but in today’s smaller world they can go and make a difference. This is not either or. Again and again I have seen churches who once they trusted God to send a short term team overseas to seek Him at work they have found truckloads of resources that they never dreamed of before. Churches who were struggling to pay light bills, once having dropped a pile of cash on the doorstep of missions have found God opening the floodgates. This limited resources thing of ‘we must make the hard calls with limited funds’ is faithless talk to me. Find out what God wants you to do and do it. Oh, and if this sounds like health wealth talk forget it. I am a firm believer that everything you have is to be used up for the Kingdom.
For the record I practice what I preach. God is faithful. I know you know this but sometimes we forget. Don’t forget.
Comment by Strider — May 23, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Thanks, Marty. That is what we are trying to do. It just takes a while and for some, they struggle to know what to give themselves to. I guess that is where the Holy Spirit comes in!
Strider, not meaning to be cynical. Marty nailed it in his response. God is not limited, but He only provides us with so much. The question is, how do we use it?
Comment by Alan Cross — May 23, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Strider,
I just saw your last comment. Don’t worry, I appreciate you as well and am thankful for the reminder. You are right. God does bless and provide as we give and trust Him. I am so grateful for the work of missionaries like yourself. What we are doing was initiated by IMB missionaries, so we would not be there if it were not for them. It does not have to be either/or, but as a stateside pastor seeing how things presently stand, so much of our money is not going to you guys to do the work. It is being spent in the U.S. or on bureaucracy. I have researched it. It is very frustrating. I also spent two years trying to change things and found that the system is unresponsive. So, what do you do? Keep sending your church’s money to a broken system just because SOME of it makes it to the missionaries, or do you look for other ways to fulfill the Great Commission? I wish that there was a healthy mixture of both/and, but that is hard to find. We still give to the CP, but we reduced it to have more room to do what we do in India.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 23, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Strider-
Faithless talk to one is kingdom reality to another.
It’s interesting that you are trying to convince two pastors who have led their churches to be involved in kingdom work globally that if we will have faith God will supply the money we need to continue to support a different mechanism of doing missions. I do believe that God will provide for churches to be able to be on mission both in their local communities and around the world, but, I can tell you from experience that you can plan and pray and motivate and have the faith of a bushel of mustard seeds, but there are plenty of times that you must choose what to do with $1,000 ’cause you can’t spend it twice.
“To whom much is given, much is required.” That’s true of wisdom as well and if we continue to ignore the foolishness of vastly inefficient, overlapping, bureaucratic structures for better, leaner, more focused opportunities then I don’t know why God would continue to give us an abundance. You bring up Muller. I’ve read the autobiography and the biographies and often thought of him personally and pastorally. He died with about $20 or so to his name. How much do you have? I have a lot more.
The reality is that there are hard decisions for pastors and churches when going about this kingdom business. Simply saying, “God has all the resources in the world,” is not an answer when demanded to give an account for the resources already in our grasp.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 23, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Marty , Dead on ! Networking is here and it is great. There are some in SB life that are networking to great effectiveness. Unfortunately the majority are not. Too many SB churches want to hand over money to the CP to do the work on their behalf. Kind of like the church hiring the minister to witness on behalf of the members. IMO It rings of a church abdicating their responsibility to the world.
God has blessed us to be a blessing (Gen 12), and I would take it further to say we are to be a blessing to the ethnos. I feel we are so side tracked with politics and self love that we are squandering that blessing and will miss the majority of what could be. Marty keep pressing onward, again great posts.
Comment by Ken — May 24, 2008 @ 7:16 am
I agree with Strider. If God has told you to do something, do it. Don’t look at the finances. Do it. He’ll make the loaves feed 5000. He’ll do it. The real question is not the financial provision; the question is whether you are listening to his direction.
A question – you are deconstructing denominations. I agree. But what of churches as we know them? Aren’t they just mini organizations that often fall into the same traps as denominations? And, biblically, what really is a church? it certainly isn’t what our society thinks of when it thinks church.
Comment by Bryan Riley — May 25, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
I have to add this. The church that Tara and I belong to felt God lead them to make this commitment: Anyone who goes internationally from the church receives support from the church. The minimum amount is $100 per month. It’s not in the budget. It’s simply a commitment and they have seen God honor it. They are sending out many people now and it continues to grow. It isn’t a big church, but it is growing. They’ve recently hired a missions pastor becasue of the growth in that area and are looking at developing a training program for missionaries.
Comment by Bryan Riley — May 26, 2008 @ 12:17 am
Great post Marty, and I for one am really glad to see intelligent discussion taking place about these issues. You all present great insights and challenging questions that we need to answer as leaders.
BTW Marty, now that Ph.D. classes are over, I would love to talk more about that “thing.”
Looking forward to more conversation.
Terry
Comment by Terry Leap — May 28, 2008 @ 12:09 am