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

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.