Fireflies
Metronomes
Hebredes Revival
Locust Swarm
Subscribe To My Podcast
Blog Archive
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Update: Visiting Churches, Preparing for our First Meeting,
Two weeks ago, the four of us (TJ,Dan,Jessica,and myself)got together to discuss the whole church thing - just to see if we were all on the same page. TJ and I were very encouraged by the meeting. Here is the list of topics we discussed.
1. What is the Church?
2. What is the focus of the Church (inward or outward)? (Discipleship / Evangelism)
3. What would you like to see in a Church? (What kind of things do you expect from a Church?)
4. Are you interested in starting a Church together?
5. Do you have any concerns or reservations?
At the conclusion of the meeting we were all in agreement and decided we should move ahead with our plans.
At the end of the meeting I asked everyone to suggest a book for us to go through together. This would give me the joy of simply preparing the teaching without any agenda of my own creeping in. Jessica suggested Colossians. So I have begun preparing to teach on this book starting in our fourth week of meeting.
TJ suggested that if we are going to have a discussion about the teaching I should let people in on where we should be each week. Everyone thought this was a good idea, so You can find a copy of the outline and a rough schedule as well as a thought map of the letter on blogginglogos.
Over the last two Sundays we have visited a couple of churches. Scofield Bible Fellowship, and a house church headed by the father of one of TJ's co-workers. The purpose was to get an idea of what some non-traditional meetings looked like and to think about what we liked and what we didn't like.
The first three times we meet together officially as a group we will be rehashing some of the material on this blog - but with the opportunity for discussion. The topic will be THE CHURCH and topics will include.
What is the Church?
What is The Authority and Structure of the Church?
What is its Mission and What is the Nature of Ministry?
Dan and I were thinking that it would be a good idea to record these meetings so we can make them available to anyone who wants to get an idea of what our group is like.
1. What is the Church?
2. What is the focus of the Church (inward or outward)? (Discipleship / Evangelism)
3. What would you like to see in a Church? (What kind of things do you expect from a Church?)
4. Are you interested in starting a Church together?
5. Do you have any concerns or reservations?
At the conclusion of the meeting we were all in agreement and decided we should move ahead with our plans.
At the end of the meeting I asked everyone to suggest a book for us to go through together. This would give me the joy of simply preparing the teaching without any agenda of my own creeping in. Jessica suggested Colossians. So I have begun preparing to teach on this book starting in our fourth week of meeting.
TJ suggested that if we are going to have a discussion about the teaching I should let people in on where we should be each week. Everyone thought this was a good idea, so You can find a copy of the outline and a rough schedule as well as a thought map of the letter on blogginglogos.
Over the last two Sundays we have visited a couple of churches. Scofield Bible Fellowship, and a house church headed by the father of one of TJ's co-workers. The purpose was to get an idea of what some non-traditional meetings looked like and to think about what we liked and what we didn't like.
The first three times we meet together officially as a group we will be rehashing some of the material on this blog - but with the opportunity for discussion. The topic will be THE CHURCH and topics will include.
What is the Church?
What is The Authority and Structure of the Church?
What is its Mission and What is the Nature of Ministry?
Dan and I were thinking that it would be a good idea to record these meetings so we can make them available to anyone who wants to get an idea of what our group is like.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What is Ministry? - Ministries are not part of a Church's Identity
The conventional wisdom in church planting literature is to target an under-served niche in a community. To develop programs that serve that niche, and then become well known for those programs - to build our identity on them. We are the church that does this, that or whatever. I disagree. As I have stated elsewhere, the church is a unique community which grows up around our devotion to the person of Jesus.1
There is a temptation to build our church's on the strength of our programs. The well known expression from the movie Field of Dreams comes to mind "if you build it, they will come". If you want more young people, change the worship style. If you want more young families, start a daycare. There is nothing wrong with having these things, but they should arise out of necessity, not as lures to attract new members. People who are drawn by the Word become committed disciples, people who are drawn by the programs or the image of a church are often just shoppers. Jesus is the only solid foundation on which to build the church. And the church is built through the preaching of his words. (Matthew 7:24-27)
The word "program" is often used to refer to the ministries in the church, but it is entirely the wrong word to compare to ministry. The word program means to write ahead of time, while the biblical meaning of the word ministry is service. (see diakonia or leitourgia)
Ministries grow out of the lives of serving members of the church, not out of the church on an institutional level. So you cannot fully program a church before you open the doors to its members. Paul talks about gifts being given to the body for the good of the whole church. (1 Cor. 12:7-11; Eph. 4:15-17) The idea that you can fully program a church before you open the doors is riddled with problems. First, it denies the concept of universal priesthood, by discouraging members from playing an active part in the life of the church because they are only there to be served and not to serve. Second, it assumes that one has a full understanding of the ways in which the spirit is going to move in a community. YOU have identified the need, and YOU have determined the strategy. There is no room to follow the leading of the Spirit. No hope of adapting to new needs without serious re-evaluation and re-structuring.
If our identity is truly in Christ, this means that ministries will rise and fall as people come and go in the life of the community. It means that ministries will arise from needs rather than wants or expectations. We cannot be known as, the church that does this or that. We cannot be the church that has that cool street ministry, that great worship band, or that wonderful daycare program. We cannot build an identity which defines us for the foreseeable future, because the future is unknown to us.
If Bob is a gifted counselor, we are blessed when he uses his gift in the life of the body. If we hire a counselor, Bob may never get the opportunity to use his gift and the body will suffer. If we allow the Spirit to raise people up to meet the needs of our community, we must be willing to accept the fact that our church may grow in unpredictable directions - but it will grow. We must be willing to accept that Bob may leave and take his counseling experience with him. This does not mean we should scramble for a replacement. It could simply mean that we are preparing to enter the next stage of our existence.
There is a temptation to build our church's on the strength of our programs. The well known expression from the movie Field of Dreams comes to mind "if you build it, they will come". If you want more young people, change the worship style. If you want more young families, start a daycare. There is nothing wrong with having these things, but they should arise out of necessity, not as lures to attract new members. People who are drawn by the Word become committed disciples, people who are drawn by the programs or the image of a church are often just shoppers. Jesus is the only solid foundation on which to build the church. And the church is built through the preaching of his words. (Matthew 7:24-27)
Programs ≠ Ministry
The word "program" is often used to refer to the ministries in the church, but it is entirely the wrong word to compare to ministry. The word program means to write ahead of time, while the biblical meaning of the word ministry is service. (see diakonia or leitourgia)
Ministries grow out of the lives of serving members of the church, not out of the church on an institutional level. So you cannot fully program a church before you open the doors to its members. Paul talks about gifts being given to the body for the good of the whole church. (1 Cor. 12:7-11; Eph. 4:15-17) The idea that you can fully program a church before you open the doors is riddled with problems. First, it denies the concept of universal priesthood, by discouraging members from playing an active part in the life of the church because they are only there to be served and not to serve. Second, it assumes that one has a full understanding of the ways in which the spirit is going to move in a community. YOU have identified the need, and YOU have determined the strategy. There is no room to follow the leading of the Spirit. No hope of adapting to new needs without serious re-evaluation and re-structuring.
If our identity is truly in Christ, this means that ministries will rise and fall as people come and go in the life of the community. It means that ministries will arise from needs rather than wants or expectations. We cannot be known as, the church that does this or that. We cannot be the church that has that cool street ministry, that great worship band, or that wonderful daycare program. We cannot build an identity which defines us for the foreseeable future, because the future is unknown to us.
If Bob is a gifted counselor, we are blessed when he uses his gift in the life of the body. If we hire a counselor, Bob may never get the opportunity to use his gift and the body will suffer. If we allow the Spirit to raise people up to meet the needs of our community, we must be willing to accept the fact that our church may grow in unpredictable directions - but it will grow. We must be willing to accept that Bob may leave and take his counseling experience with him. This does not mean we should scramble for a replacement. It could simply mean that we are preparing to enter the next stage of our existence.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Examples: Article "Why YOU should plant a Church"
The original post was submitted to Open Source Theology, by Bob Hyatt on 25 February, 2005 - 22:31. I attempted contacting the author for permission to post it here, but I did not get a response.
In the early days of our church planting adventure I spent some time seeking out other church planters, hoping for some wisdom and encouragement. Man, did I get a wake up call.
There seem to be two distinct schools of thought in the church planting community. The first is “This is hard. Are you sure you want to do this? You don’t look like you’ve got what it takes… I’m not so sure you should do this! Have you prayed about it?”
Gee… thanks.
The second school of thought starts off sounding much like the first, but then takes a dramatic turn: “This is hard. What do you need? How can I help you? Man, what an adventure! Let me pray for you.”
Do you hear the difference?
The sad truth is I heard a whole lot more of the first than I did of the second. To be honest, it was discouraging to hear such defeatist talk from those on the front lines of the revitalization and renewal of the church- church planters themselves.
*I KNOW I CAN DO IT… IT’S YOU I’M NOT SO SURE ABOUT*
Let’s just put it out there. You have to be a certain type of personality to jump ship from the institution, the known, the safe and head off into the uncharted waters of church planting. It’s not for everyone… and for the A-type personalities who often make up the ranks of those who have jumped, those who are sailing those uncharted waters, when we see others getting ready to do the same, a common first impulse may be to wonder who they think they are… don’t they know that this church planting thing is for the few, the proud, the best of the best? And since we’re doing this different, emergent-type thing… we really don’t need more competition, do we?
Better to weed out the weak.
I actually had church planters tell me disdainfully that church planting was the “sexy” new thing and I better think twice before I just jumped on the bandwagon. I was “assessed” in a 45 minute conversation and found lacking.
It’s a good thing I didn’t listen to the discouraging talk of the A-type personalities I encountered… that I felt called to do this, that I realized that God loves it when people step out in faith and start new churches… and it’s a good thing I remembered that this is kingdom, not competition.
*WHY NOT?*
It makes sense to weed out the weak when you start with the basic assumption that no one should step out and plant a church unless specifically instructed to by God and unless they have “what it takes.” I like to approach it from a different viewpoint.
Why shouldn’t you plant a church?
Most people when asking themselves that question usually come up with three common reasons…fear, finances and failure.
Fear? Is it scary? Yes, of course it is. But for me, a turning point was realizing that I had never really done anything in my life that required actual faith. Yes, I had picked up and moved to Europe for two years. Did that require faith? I had a great salary waiting for me, a church community to integrate me, and the knowledge that if it didn’t work out, I could always just find something else to fall back on. Faith? Sort of, but not really.
I came to the point in considering church planting where I realized that I simply didn’t want to get to 70 and look back never having taken an actual step of faith… never having started something, never having begun a journey whose end I could not clearly see from the beginning. I didn’t want the regret of not having taken a shot at a dream of mine.
Finances? Sure- that was a consideration. When we decided to plant the church we had just bought a house and gotten pregnant. I knew that looking back this was either going to seem like a great step of faith or a complete lack of common sense. I suppose the jury is still out on that…
But we had to decide, my wife and I, that if taking this step cost us our house, set us back financially… that simply wasn’t too big a price to pay for God’s kingdom. If we did what we felt we needed to do, and there were financial costs, so be it. We’d rather see people come into relationship with God than have a house. We’d rather see those who have given up on church find community again than have a new car. We had to ask ourselves “What is the absolute worst thing that could happen if we do this?” And when we really started looking at it, it just didn’t seem like that big a deal.
Failure? In a conversation with a good friend on the day we decided to plant this church, he asked me a great question: How will you define failure? I realized through our talk that failure wasn’t if we did this and had to close the doors in a year because not many people showed up and we couldn’t pay the bills. Failure would be if we failed to love the people God did bring us, if we failed to love each other in community, if we failed to feed, clothe and otherwise care for anyone. That would be failure… not if we simply failed to achieve any type of long term momentum and institutional stability.
I realized that for me personally, failure would be if I didn’t even try.
If you do this might you fail? I guess it depends on how you define failure.
They say 80% of church plants fail. I don’t know about that… all I can say is that I think that many church plants that seem to be failures by the standard of “Did they make it?” were probably great adventures for many involved, probably introduced people to Christ and probably made a practical difference in the lives of some people who really needed those small, “failing” churches.
I think that the biggest failures in the church planting world aren’t the ones who function as a community for 1, 2 or 5 years and then disband to go do something else. I think the biggest failures in the church planting world are the churches that never even get started, for whatever reason- whether because of fear, because of lack of encouragement or simply because no one asked “Well, why shouldn’t we?”
*ENCOURAGING CHURCH PLANTING BY ENCOURAGING CHURCH PLANTERS*
All this has left me at a place where I really want to encourage those who are at the end of their rope, banging their head against the institutional wall, feeling like those they really love and want to see introduced to Christ are beyond the reach of modernistic, institutional churches.
You can do this.
It’s not rocket science.
Through my experience in church planting I have learned that there’s a hard way to do this and an easy way. The hard way involves plans and proposals, hundreds of thousands in seed money, denominational strings and a host of headaches. “Start with a bang!” they will tell you. “Mailers to every home in three zip codes!” they will advise you. A full band! Complete children’s ministry! Advertising!!!!
Don’t listen.
Start small. Raise some support, trust God for the rest and get a job at Starbucks if need be. Let your community be what it will be. Refuse to do for the people who come the ministry that they should do for themselves. Concentrate on laying a foundation of community and common core values and let your church grow organically without superimposing a grand “vision” on it.
When we were still in the dream phase of this thing people would ask me- “What will it look like?” I grew to love answering “I have no earthly idea.” All I could say was that if a bunch of cloggers and bluegrass musicians showed up, well… we’d be the clogging church. If a bunch of skate punks showed up, we’d be the skate church. I wasn’t out to niche target-market our community, and so felt great freedom to just sit back and watch what happened. I still feel that freedom…
Like I said, it’s not rocket science. You can do this thing. Just look at the guys Jesus started with…
*THE QUESTION*
No- not everyone should plant a church. Not everyone is called, gifted or able… but just the fact that you’re thinking about it says something. Just the fact that you want to tells me a lot. And if you actually step out and do it? Well… that says volumes about you, about your courage and about your faith in the God who is advancing His kingdom all around this world.
The question isn’t “Why should I plant a church”… it’s why shouldn’t you! Here’s what I know: God loves it when His people take a step of faith. He will go ahead of you, with you and behind you in this adventure. If you love those He brings you, you will be a success whether it lasts for a year, two years or the rest of your life.
So go ahead- take the leap. Plant a church! And let me know how I can help.
Bob Hyatt is husband to Amy, father to Jack and lead pastor to the evergreen community in Portland, OR (www.evergreenlife.org). He is also in the beginning stages of launching the nextChurch network (www.nextchurchnetwork.org), dedicated to encouraging church planting through encouraging church planters.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Examples: Article "Ways Women Lead"
(post - in progress)
An article entitled "Ways Women Lead" by Judy B. Rosener was published in the Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec 1990. Unfortunately there is not a freely viewable copy of it online or I would direct you there. In the article Rosener makes several observations about what she calls "interactive leadership" that are in line with our model of leadership.
Interactive leadership seeks to encourage participation at all levels of an organization by sharing power and information throughout the organization. I will try to relate these insights to our project.
Encourage Participation
The traditional way of doing things is to have the professionals run the show and have the laity cary out their instructions. However, the concept of the priesthood of all believers implies that we each have part to play in the life of the Church. Traditional leadership models have a way of disempowering lay members of the Church, which effectively stunts the Church's growth. I remember a story about Mother Theresa in India, mourning over the fact that the Church there was so impoverished for the lack of a priest to administer the sacrements. Imagine that - where so many saw such a wealth of blessing poured out from heaven, Mother Theresa felt poverty because there was no ordained man to administer the sacrements. The Ecclesialogical assumptions that underlie the Catholic Church in this case prevented a perfectly well equiped body from functioning to its full capacity.
A Church is not the kind of organization that needs such a direct command/control structure. When Moses' authority to lead the Israelites was questioned, God immediatly defended his role as leader (see Numbers 12), but he was leading people across a desert. Even though we may be crossing a spiritual desert is no justification for a form of leadership that requires unquestioning obedience. In the New Testament, the Bereans are commended for testing Paul's claims with their own appeal to an objective authority the scriptures Acts 17:11.
When the Church is structured like a business there are so many slots to fill and when they are full, others are limited in their capacity to participate. Opening up the formal structure to multiple participants creates a built in redundancy that prevents the breakdown of a system due to an illness or sudden departure of key persons. Multiple worship leaders, mutiple teachers, multiple pastors with authority recognized by the group is actually a good thing.
Allow people to contribute in meaningful and significant ways. This means that the kind of participation that is allowed must be allowed to have a significant impact on the life of the Church. When peoples input makes a visible difference that is what encourages them to participtate. Why are people so disenchanted with politics? Because they feel their voices are not heard. Because they believe that no one cares what they think. Because they feel like their contribution is insignificant.
Share Power and information
Power and information are the treasures of command/control models of leadership. The people who hold them are in charge because they hold them. If power is too widely distributed groups become unruly and difficult to manage, and if information is too widely distributed the amount of feedback around decisions would result unintellligable cacophony. But unless we are leading people through a real desert, we do not need to hold on information and power to ensure our control over the group.
New insights into organizational theory show that groups can actually make better decisions than individuals.
Some animals exhibit forms of collective problem solving that rival or even surpass groups
An article entitled "Ways Women Lead" by Judy B. Rosener was published in the Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec 1990. Unfortunately there is not a freely viewable copy of it online or I would direct you there. In the article Rosener makes several observations about what she calls "interactive leadership" that are in line with our model of leadership.
Interactive leadership seeks to encourage participation at all levels of an organization by sharing power and information throughout the organization. I will try to relate these insights to our project.
Encourage Participation
The traditional way of doing things is to have the professionals run the show and have the laity cary out their instructions. However, the concept of the priesthood of all believers implies that we each have part to play in the life of the Church. Traditional leadership models have a way of disempowering lay members of the Church, which effectively stunts the Church's growth. I remember a story about Mother Theresa in India, mourning over the fact that the Church there was so impoverished for the lack of a priest to administer the sacrements. Imagine that - where so many saw such a wealth of blessing poured out from heaven, Mother Theresa felt poverty because there was no ordained man to administer the sacrements. The Ecclesialogical assumptions that underlie the Catholic Church in this case prevented a perfectly well equiped body from functioning to its full capacity.
A Church is not the kind of organization that needs such a direct command/control structure. When Moses' authority to lead the Israelites was questioned, God immediatly defended his role as leader (see Numbers 12), but he was leading people across a desert. Even though we may be crossing a spiritual desert is no justification for a form of leadership that requires unquestioning obedience. In the New Testament, the Bereans are commended for testing Paul's claims with their own appeal to an objective authority the scriptures Acts 17:11.
When the Church is structured like a business there are so many slots to fill and when they are full, others are limited in their capacity to participate. Opening up the formal structure to multiple participants creates a built in redundancy that prevents the breakdown of a system due to an illness or sudden departure of key persons. Multiple worship leaders, mutiple teachers, multiple pastors with authority recognized by the group is actually a good thing.
Allow people to contribute in meaningful and significant ways. This means that the kind of participation that is allowed must be allowed to have a significant impact on the life of the Church. When peoples input makes a visible difference that is what encourages them to participtate. Why are people so disenchanted with politics? Because they feel their voices are not heard. Because they believe that no one cares what they think. Because they feel like their contribution is insignificant.
Share Power and information
Power and information are the treasures of command/control models of leadership. The people who hold them are in charge because they hold them. If power is too widely distributed groups become unruly and difficult to manage, and if information is too widely distributed the amount of feedback around decisions would result unintellligable cacophony. But unless we are leading people through a real desert, we do not need to hold on information and power to ensure our control over the group.
New insights into organizational theory show that groups can actually make better decisions than individuals.
Some animals exhibit forms of collective problem solving that rival or even surpass groups
Concepts: Myths of Management
The following is an expert from a paper I wrote on Leadership.
Regine and Lewin, note several Myths[1] surrounding the concept of leadership which grow out of the linear/mechanistic world view: The myths of Autonomy, Control, and Omniscience. Much of the failure of historic models of leadership can be attributed to instances where one acts on these presuppositions, and fails to achieve the desired results, or where one expects outcomes based on these assumptions which are unrealistic.
The Myth of Autonomy
Ellis and Fisher (1994) observe - that groups tend to perform best as the complexity of a task increases, and that groups are better at judgment than individuals are.[2] This is not to say that “groups” become necessary as complexity increases. Human relationships are mutual by nature, our identities are formed in relationship to others, and our actions are nearly always reactions to the myriad of other individuals who influence us. This insight reveals the inadequacy of classical leadership models. As John Donne famously said, “No man is an Island.” Consequently, one would expect to find evidence of a different model in the New Testament, in fact we do.
In Trinitarian theology, the doctrine of perichoresis describes the interpenetration of the members of the Trinity. Through the process of redemption, this interpenetration is extended to us as we are found in Christ. The Christian Community is to be understood then, as a series of interpenetrating relationships. This is reflected in Jesus prayer, “even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:21).
In the New Testament, you see a growing tendency toward mutuality in community life and the decision making process. There are several instances where the church makes decisions collectively. In Acts 1:15-26 for instance, the Apostles are choosing a successor to Judas, they allow the body to put forward a suggestion. Unable to come to a resolution, rather than making the final decision, they decide to cast lots. The decision to choose this procedure is significant because it could reflect the fact that the disciples did not feel they were in a position to make the final decision where the body had not reached consensus. The epistles are not addressed to leaders but to the congregations as a whole. When the first deacons are selected in Acts 6, the whole church chooses them. The whole church also settled the dispute over circumcision in Acts 15:22. The Apostles occasionally made unilateral decisions when they had to, but as Erickson notes, We find no instance of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership or control.[3]
The study of Complexity reveals that we are all in dynamic reaction with our environment and are very much a part of the process that creates that environment. We do not exist in isolation but we exist and have our being in a web of relationships.[4] The old model of leadership is inadequate, because it operates on linear and unidirectional assumption about the flow of influence. The complex nature of human interaction demands a model that recognizes the mutuality and interconnectedness of human relationship.
The Myth of Control
John Gardner states that “Leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured to be, and followers almost never as submissive as one might imagine.”[5] Human organizations are complex systems, as such, they are not subject to direct control. Keene notes,
We tend to see our organizations and us as members of those organizations, as separate from our environment. We seek to control that environment and experience frustration when it behaves in a way that is incongruent and in conflict with the operations of our organizations. [6]
In the end, leaders cannot lead where followers will not be led. Classic forms of leadership, with a direct control methodology, must therefore resort to coercive means to force cooperation. This tactic, while effective in some instances, cannot guarantee cooperation and points to the ultimate futility of direct control. The world simply does not work that way.
In the gospels we see Jesus, the ultimate authority, unable or unwilling to command compliance. When people go away disappointed like the rich young ruler (Mt 19:22), or overwhelmed by it, like the crowd who left him (Jn 6:60); he does not try harder. He simply lets go. If the Word, who created all things did not seek to directly control people, why should we expect to. True authority commands, but it does not coerce. Leadership is not about getting people to do what you want, or getting them to do other than what they would normally do. To quote Burn’s, The leader’s fundamental act is to induce people to be aware or conscious of what they feel – to feel their true needs so strongly, to define their values so meaningfully, that they can move to purposeful action.[7] While the old model of leadership operates on the assumption of direct control, complexity demands a new leadership that understands that the most we can hope for is indirect control.
The Myth of Omniscience
“It is impossible for leaders to have and know all the answers.”[8] This myth is closely related to the myth of autonomy. One reason noted by Abelson and Levi (1985) is that, individuals are limited to their intellectual and information-processing capabilities. The limitations of a group are much less in this manner for they are able to draw from a more extensive collective pool of information and talent.[9] The founder of Systems Service Enterprises, Susan S. Elliott states, “I can’t come up with a plan and then ask those who manage the accounts to give me their reactions. They’re the ones who really know the accounts. They have the information I don’t have. Without their input, I’d be operating in an ivory tower.”[10] In first Corinthians 13 we see that the church has been given a variety of gifts, but not all gifts have been given to everyone, yet all the gifts are needed for the healthy functioning of the body.
A second reason is that human organizations exist on two levels, the micro-level of our day to day lives, and the macro, level of cities, nations, businesses and the Church. In the New Testament we find that the church is never given a big picture or grand strategy. They are given basic instructions (the Great Commission Mt. 28:19-20). The great Apostle Paul, is not given one either. He is told simply, to take the Gospel to the gentiles and their kings (Acts 9:15-16). In his book, Emergence, Steven Johnson compares the relative scales of humans and ants to their relative communities.
The decision-making of an ant, exists on a minute-by-minute scale: counting foragers, following pheromone gradients. The sum of all those isolated decisions creates the far longer lifetime of the colony, but the ants themselves are utterly ignorant of that macro-level. Human behavior works at two comparable scales: our day-to-day survival, which involves assessments of the next thirty years or forty years at best; and the millennial scale of cities and other economic ecosystems. – We interact directly with, take account of – and would seem to control – the former. We are woefully unaware of the latter. – That macro-development belongs to the organism of the city itself, which grows and evolves and learns over a thousand-year cycle, as dozens of human generations come and go.[11]
Historic models of leadership relied on the wisdom of the individual or the elite, in place of this; complexity theory would replace this with the collective intelligence of the body.
Historic models of leadership, which attempt to practice direct control, and rely on the autonomy and knowledge of the leader, while functional in relatively stable environments (characterized by the isolation individual agents, and low vertical and horizontal communication within organizational structures,) only work because the system is essentially “unhealthy”. With increased connectivity between agents and greater communication of relevant information vertically and horizontally within the system, direct control does not work as well. Simply speaking, the empowerment of local agents decreases the manageability of social networks. Miroslav Volf writes,
People in modern societies - have little sympathy for top-down organizations, including for churches structured top-down. The search of contemporary human beings for community is a search for those particular forms of socialization in which they themselves are taken seriously with their various religious and social needs, in which their personal engagement is valued, and in which they can participate formatively.[12]
Empowered agents demand more direct input into systems in which they participate. Leadership is then confronted with a choice; either dis-empower agents through repression and coercion, or adopt a non-linear approach to organizational life.
[1] Regine, 17-19
[2] Irving 234
[3] Erickson 1098
[4] Keene, p 16
[5] Wren, 185 (from John W. Gardner, “Leaders and Followers,” Liberal Education 23 (2) (March-April, 1987).
[6] Keene, p 16
[7] Burns, James MacGregor. 1878. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
[8] Regine, 19
[9] Irving, 234-235
[10] Wren (Ways Women Lead). (153)
[11] Johnson, 98-99
[12] Volf, 17
Bibliography
Collins, Jim. (2001). “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.” Harvard Business Review (January) 66-76
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker 1998
Ford, Leighton. Transforming Leadership. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1992
Irving, Justin A. “The Benefits, Challenges, and Practice of Team Leadership in the Global Context.” In
James G. Coe, Strategies for Effective Leadership: U.S. and Russian Perspective (pp. 227-246).
Johnson, Steven. Emergence. New York: Scribner, 2001
Keene, Angelique. “Complexity Theory: The Changing Role of Leadership”. Industrial and Comercial Training Vol. 32. No. 1. MCB University Press. pp 15-18
McCloskey, Mark. “Toward a Working Model of Transformational Leadership” (unpublished).
Regine, Birute and Roger Lewin. “Leading at the Edge: How Leaders Influence Complex Systems.” Emergence, Vol.2, Iss. 2. (2000) pp 5-23
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998
Wren, J. Thomas (ed.). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Works Cited From Wren
- Gardner, John W. The Cry for Leadership, pp 3 ff
- Burns, James MacGregor. The Crisis of Leadership, pp 8 ff
- Couto, Richard A. The Transformation of Transforming Leadership, pp 102 ff
- Rosner, Judy B. Ways Women Lead, pp 149 ff
- Gardner, John W. Leaders and Followers, pp 185 ff
Regine and Lewin, note several Myths[1] surrounding the concept of leadership which grow out of the linear/mechanistic world view: The myths of Autonomy, Control, and Omniscience. Much of the failure of historic models of leadership can be attributed to instances where one acts on these presuppositions, and fails to achieve the desired results, or where one expects outcomes based on these assumptions which are unrealistic.
The Myth of Autonomy
Ellis and Fisher (1994) observe - that groups tend to perform best as the complexity of a task increases, and that groups are better at judgment than individuals are.[2] This is not to say that “groups” become necessary as complexity increases. Human relationships are mutual by nature, our identities are formed in relationship to others, and our actions are nearly always reactions to the myriad of other individuals who influence us. This insight reveals the inadequacy of classical leadership models. As John Donne famously said, “No man is an Island.” Consequently, one would expect to find evidence of a different model in the New Testament, in fact we do.
In Trinitarian theology, the doctrine of perichoresis describes the interpenetration of the members of the Trinity. Through the process of redemption, this interpenetration is extended to us as we are found in Christ. The Christian Community is to be understood then, as a series of interpenetrating relationships. This is reflected in Jesus prayer, “even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:21).
In the New Testament, you see a growing tendency toward mutuality in community life and the decision making process. There are several instances where the church makes decisions collectively. In Acts 1:15-26 for instance, the Apostles are choosing a successor to Judas, they allow the body to put forward a suggestion. Unable to come to a resolution, rather than making the final decision, they decide to cast lots. The decision to choose this procedure is significant because it could reflect the fact that the disciples did not feel they were in a position to make the final decision where the body had not reached consensus. The epistles are not addressed to leaders but to the congregations as a whole. When the first deacons are selected in Acts 6, the whole church chooses them. The whole church also settled the dispute over circumcision in Acts 15:22. The Apostles occasionally made unilateral decisions when they had to, but as Erickson notes, We find no instance of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership or control.[3]
The study of Complexity reveals that we are all in dynamic reaction with our environment and are very much a part of the process that creates that environment. We do not exist in isolation but we exist and have our being in a web of relationships.[4] The old model of leadership is inadequate, because it operates on linear and unidirectional assumption about the flow of influence. The complex nature of human interaction demands a model that recognizes the mutuality and interconnectedness of human relationship.
The Myth of Control
John Gardner states that “Leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured to be, and followers almost never as submissive as one might imagine.”[5] Human organizations are complex systems, as such, they are not subject to direct control. Keene notes,
We tend to see our organizations and us as members of those organizations, as separate from our environment. We seek to control that environment and experience frustration when it behaves in a way that is incongruent and in conflict with the operations of our organizations. [6]
In the end, leaders cannot lead where followers will not be led. Classic forms of leadership, with a direct control methodology, must therefore resort to coercive means to force cooperation. This tactic, while effective in some instances, cannot guarantee cooperation and points to the ultimate futility of direct control. The world simply does not work that way.
In the gospels we see Jesus, the ultimate authority, unable or unwilling to command compliance. When people go away disappointed like the rich young ruler (Mt 19:22), or overwhelmed by it, like the crowd who left him (Jn 6:60); he does not try harder. He simply lets go. If the Word, who created all things did not seek to directly control people, why should we expect to. True authority commands, but it does not coerce. Leadership is not about getting people to do what you want, or getting them to do other than what they would normally do. To quote Burn’s, The leader’s fundamental act is to induce people to be aware or conscious of what they feel – to feel their true needs so strongly, to define their values so meaningfully, that they can move to purposeful action.[7] While the old model of leadership operates on the assumption of direct control, complexity demands a new leadership that understands that the most we can hope for is indirect control.
The Myth of Omniscience
“It is impossible for leaders to have and know all the answers.”[8] This myth is closely related to the myth of autonomy. One reason noted by Abelson and Levi (1985) is that, individuals are limited to their intellectual and information-processing capabilities. The limitations of a group are much less in this manner for they are able to draw from a more extensive collective pool of information and talent.[9] The founder of Systems Service Enterprises, Susan S. Elliott states, “I can’t come up with a plan and then ask those who manage the accounts to give me their reactions. They’re the ones who really know the accounts. They have the information I don’t have. Without their input, I’d be operating in an ivory tower.”[10] In first Corinthians 13 we see that the church has been given a variety of gifts, but not all gifts have been given to everyone, yet all the gifts are needed for the healthy functioning of the body.
A second reason is that human organizations exist on two levels, the micro-level of our day to day lives, and the macro, level of cities, nations, businesses and the Church. In the New Testament we find that the church is never given a big picture or grand strategy. They are given basic instructions (the Great Commission Mt. 28:19-20). The great Apostle Paul, is not given one either. He is told simply, to take the Gospel to the gentiles and their kings (Acts 9:15-16). In his book, Emergence, Steven Johnson compares the relative scales of humans and ants to their relative communities.
The decision-making of an ant, exists on a minute-by-minute scale: counting foragers, following pheromone gradients. The sum of all those isolated decisions creates the far longer lifetime of the colony, but the ants themselves are utterly ignorant of that macro-level. Human behavior works at two comparable scales: our day-to-day survival, which involves assessments of the next thirty years or forty years at best; and the millennial scale of cities and other economic ecosystems. – We interact directly with, take account of – and would seem to control – the former. We are woefully unaware of the latter. – That macro-development belongs to the organism of the city itself, which grows and evolves and learns over a thousand-year cycle, as dozens of human generations come and go.[11]
Historic models of leadership relied on the wisdom of the individual or the elite, in place of this; complexity theory would replace this with the collective intelligence of the body.
Historic models of leadership, which attempt to practice direct control, and rely on the autonomy and knowledge of the leader, while functional in relatively stable environments (characterized by the isolation individual agents, and low vertical and horizontal communication within organizational structures,) only work because the system is essentially “unhealthy”. With increased connectivity between agents and greater communication of relevant information vertically and horizontally within the system, direct control does not work as well. Simply speaking, the empowerment of local agents decreases the manageability of social networks. Miroslav Volf writes,
People in modern societies - have little sympathy for top-down organizations, including for churches structured top-down. The search of contemporary human beings for community is a search for those particular forms of socialization in which they themselves are taken seriously with their various religious and social needs, in which their personal engagement is valued, and in which they can participate formatively.[12]
Empowered agents demand more direct input into systems in which they participate. Leadership is then confronted with a choice; either dis-empower agents through repression and coercion, or adopt a non-linear approach to organizational life.
[1] Regine, 17-19
[2] Irving 234
[3] Erickson 1098
[4] Keene, p 16
[5] Wren, 185 (from John W. Gardner, “Leaders and Followers,” Liberal Education 23 (2) (March-April, 1987).
[6] Keene, p 16
[7] Burns, James MacGregor. 1878. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
[8] Regine, 19
[9] Irving, 234-235
[10] Wren (Ways Women Lead). (153)
[11] Johnson, 98-99
[12] Volf, 17
Bibliography
Collins, Jim. (2001). “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.” Harvard Business Review (January) 66-76
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker 1998
Ford, Leighton. Transforming Leadership. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1992
Irving, Justin A. “The Benefits, Challenges, and Practice of Team Leadership in the Global Context.” In
James G. Coe, Strategies for Effective Leadership: U.S. and Russian Perspective (pp. 227-246).
Johnson, Steven. Emergence. New York: Scribner, 2001
Keene, Angelique. “Complexity Theory: The Changing Role of Leadership”. Industrial and Comercial Training Vol. 32. No. 1. MCB University Press. pp 15-18
McCloskey, Mark. “Toward a Working Model of Transformational Leadership” (unpublished).
Regine, Birute and Roger Lewin. “Leading at the Edge: How Leaders Influence Complex Systems.” Emergence, Vol.2, Iss. 2. (2000) pp 5-23
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998
Wren, J. Thomas (ed.). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. New York: Free Press, 1995.
Works Cited From Wren
- Gardner, John W. The Cry for Leadership, pp 3 ff
- Burns, James MacGregor. The Crisis of Leadership, pp 8 ff
- Couto, Richard A. The Transformation of Transforming Leadership, pp 102 ff
- Rosner, Judy B. Ways Women Lead, pp 149 ff
- Gardner, John W. Leaders and Followers, pp 185 ff
Thursday, March 5, 2009
What is a Church? - Introduction
God promised that one day his Kingdom would take over the administration of this world, and all evil would be destroyed, bodies would be healed, tears would be dried and justice would prevail. It is an image that appears many times in scripture. While humans are called to participate in this Kingdom they are not the ones which bring it about. Daniel compares the Kingdom to a rock that is not cut by human hands (Daniel 2:34-35). The author of Hebrews calls it a city whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11:10) And when Jesus told Pilot “My kingdom does not have its origins in this world,” (John 18:36) he meant it does not happen through the planning or striving of human beings, nor does it need them to defend it. Like the proverbial iceberg the vast majority of the Kingdom exists in God's world; and God is the driving force behind its expansion. What we see in the Church is only the tip, the leading edge of something immense that will one day fill all of creation.The Church is the vanguard of the Kingdom, breaking ground as the first signs of the reign of God in this world, and if this is true, it's structure and growth should likewise come from His design and work and not our own. We find support for this in passages like Matthew 16:18, when Jesus is commending Peter on his faith. He says “on this rock I will build my church. Jesus did not say that Peter will build it, nor any of the other disciples, Jesus says he will build it. Lest you think I am reading too much into this language, take a look at Acts 2:46-47 which says “the Lord added to their number daily.” Scripture clearly identifies God as the builder and architect of the church. And 1 Peter 2:5 which says “you as living stones are being built up into a spiritual house”. Consider the book of Acts which shows how God personally directed the expansion of the Church into areas his disciples had not considered. Acts 10 (Peter and Cornelius) and 16:6-10 (Paul's vision of the man from Macedonia). God is clearly the source of the Church's growth.
This conviction points to the possibility of a new way of doing church, a simpler way, a less expensive way, a way that is less organizational, more organic, and infinitely reproducible. A way that I believe honors the scriptures and reflects the insight of the early Church as it spread across the Roman Empire. It calls for a reexamination of three fundamental questions.
- What is the composition of the church?
- How is it organized?
- What is its function or its mission?
As we answer these questions we will discover that the best way to build on the foundation of Christ is by reiterating what he has already done - not by adding something else to it.
"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work." - 1 Corinthians 3:11-13
wiac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
