ie:missional teaching. glocalizing. living. serving. repenting. incarnating. loving. repeating.

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.