What the Church can Learn from Apple [3of4]

Yesterday, Mac fanboys/girls across the globe stared at their twitters, facebooks, engadgets and newsfeeds waiting in breathless expectation for Apple to unveil their newest gizmo.  I will admit to being pumped as well waiting for the unveiling.

Apple, of course, produces electronic equipment (computers, iPhone, iPods, accessories, software, and now the iPad); the church couldn't be further removed from its business model!!

However, Apple also produces something else: anticipation. This week as the unveiling took place, every Mac-lover waited with baited breath on the "new" thing that Apple will release to the consumeristic masses.

Me? Not a Mac-head, no iPhone, not even an iPod. But still I got excited and read the news for the new wonder.

A while back, The Daily Saint had a post up on how to build anticipation. His site is gone now but it still exists in my feed reader (foreeeeeeever muhahaha), so here's his bullet points verbatim:

1. Promise results...and deliver.  Stick to a plan and deliver the goods.  A deadline.  A report.  A presentation, whatever.
2. Be a person of your word.  If you lay out a gameplan, stay with it even when times get tough. 
3. Be a person who is passionate about follow up.  Write notes.  Make calls.  Pay attention to details.
4. Cross your t's. Little things matter a great deal.  During your weekly review, double check the details.
5. Organize weekly.  Don't just show up on Monday, bring your A-game as a result of planning for the week.
6. Conceive powerful ideas.  Go public with your notions of change.
7. Listen to those who've been there before.  There are folks in your workplace and in your industry who know things- tap into their insights.

For the church, I would submit the following ideas about building anticipation for your church's events.

1. Do what you promise to do.
• Apple promises something big, they deliver an iPhone. They promise it will rock the planet, and it does. While we accuse Steve Jobs of really overhyping and creating the reality distortion field, for the most part, Apple does deliver.
• For the Church, don't pull the rug out from people. Especially in service project areas, we tend to scale it back after we see who has shown up. If you promise that you'll repaint a barn, repaint the whole thing, no matter how few of volunteers show up. Do it anyway.
2. Integrate and connect areas of ministry.
• Discipleship is not static, nor should our ministry areas be.  By creating a flow of people from one discipleship area to the next, you may find that (1) fiefdoms of ministry areas don't occur and (b) people are more well-rounded and think more holistically of the church's ministries.
• This creates anticipation in that people can look forward to changing ministry positions every so often and engaging a new challenge.
  
3.  Innovate and simplify ministry goals and celebration-points
• One of the criticisms of Apple and Steve Jobs is celebrating tiny advancements as "breakthroughs" and updates of products as "overhauls."  While exaggeration isn't becoming, celebrating the little changes and advancements in ministry certainly engages and affirms people. Like wikipedia, small incremental changes result in big things, so celebrating them is essential!

Discuss: Thoughts on how the church can better utilize anticipation in the context of ministry?

Thanks for reading and welcome to our visitors!

Read more...

New Series: How to Hack the System

16 months ago we started a new project together: a blog talking about Christianity from a computer and religion nerd's perspective.  We called it "Hacking Christianity" and have been tinkering with various Christian systems ever since.

But amidst all the star wars posts and humorous videos, on occasion one may look at the blog entries and perceive there's not much hacking being done.  Or is there?  

Hacking is simply a hermeneutic: a way of viewing an object.  In this case, following the HX Manifesto, we are exposing new or novel interpretations or presentations of Christianity so that they break into people's closed systems of opinions about Christianity.  Some are bad hacks which close up people's perceptions further.  Some are great hacks which open up new biblical interpretations or allow the Spirit to flow easier.  We need to look at what fundamentals are at play in making these hacks work.

Starting July 8th, there will be four weekly entries in a series about what fundamentals are at play in this hacking hermeneutic.  We will be comparing classical definitions of "hacking" with hermeneutics with our approach here at HX.  You will enjoy it.

Here's a short roadmap of the month:

1. Defining "Hacking" in the Post-Information Age of Church.
2. Won't Hacked Systems be broken and unsustainable?
   
3. Are Hackers really creating Open Source Theology?
4. Hacking in community: Where will we end up?
   

Thoughts at the outset?

Read more...

Progressive Church: Radical or Rational? [3of4]

This is part three of four parts on Rational/Radical Progressive Churches. Read the whole series for the background!

Continuing our conversation on the two different sides of Nate Silver's Progressive chart, there's one element that, by the label, differentiates Rational and Radical progressives: rationality. By naming one group "rational," Nate automatically places the the radical progressives in the irrational camp. Nate seems to ascribe them with being irrational in implementation (wanting drastic change not incremental change) which isn't as easy to achieve. Some commentors on the article seem to agree,

One thing of interest I might point out is there does seem to be a larger amount of paranoia on the radical progressive side. While in truth corporations get away with A LOT behind closed doors, it’s always interesting how many radical progressives, who are seemingly intelligent people, will believe the most elaborate and implausible conspiracy theories about them. (IE thousands of individuals involved in a 9/11 coverup, all working together, all keeping things quiet)

Read on to see how radicals (including political figures like Cindy Sheehan) tend to move to the fringe and lessons for the radical church on how to keep on message.

There does seem to be constellations of issues in radical progressivism, perhaps not out of emotion but out of like-mindedness. This like-mindedness can be a hinderance, however. Taking on the System, by the DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, talks about how Cindy Sheehan was originally very captivating and emotion-wrenching to people as she began her stakeout at the Bush ranch asking for his apology for sending her son to die in the unjust war in Iraq. But eventually, she was tolerant of other supportive groups to stake out with her, which watered down the radical message she was trying to proclaim

Sheehan's tolerance of the likes of communists, socialists, PETA, and others watered down the narrative with subplots, as it were, and tarnished her credibility in the long run...[which] effectively created the type of circuslike protests that Americans had already seen a million times before.

Taking on the System, 186

In other words, radicalism is always being lumped with other radical groups, which waters down the message. Whenever a figure tries to be everywoman (like Sheehan) they get lumped (or allow to get lumped) into the greater fringe movement and that neuters their effectiveness. But don't blame the media, this is often intentionally done by the progressives themselves:

The principal difference, historically, between these two Enlightenment streams is that liberalism was the ideology born of the middle classes: business. In other words, those desiring to acquire democratic rights for themselves to the exclusion of those "beneath" them. Recall, please, how many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. Radicalism, on the other hand, was the ideology born of the workers: those exploited by business. In other words, those desiring democratic rights, including the economic sphere, for all. So, of course, liberalism positions itself as rational, and radicalism as irrational. It's important that the workers be seen as irrational in their desire to end their exploitation.

What does this mean for progressive churches? Be careful of the company you keep so as to not water-down the message. It's OK to be radical in your message and actions (Jesus was! MLK was!), but in order to avoid diffusing the energy, the radical church must focus on one radical message at a time. There's a reason why there are so many political organizations...they each have a topic they are passionate about and there are rational and radical groups for each topic.

It takes message focus to cut through the clutter, and it takes message discipline to keep from being distracted by the chatter. If you are going to be a radical church, pick something to be radical about and stay the course.

Thoughts?

Read more...

Progressive Church: Radical or Rational? [2of4]

If you remember from yesterday's post, Nate Silver of 538 differentiated between two kinds of progressives. Check out the graph here, then come back.  ((waits)) Welcome back!  So, as you can see, there's two broad paintbrush strokes of progressivism divided into rationals who strive toward incremental change and radicals who strive toward significant upheavals.

We are tempted to go piecemeal and point out line by line how this may be faulty or accurate.  But for this second of four series, let's focus on why this is important: it helps people cease "us v. them" mentalities as it forces us to stop naming "other" groups as one unit.  In this situation, people who do not consider themselves to be "progressive" can look at the list and better understand the variety of progressives there are.  A commentor on the original post elaborates:

Excellent thoughts, Nate, and would suggest that your list of traits differentiating 'rational progressives' from 'radical progressives' has an even more pragmatic use: Conservatives have used the broad brush stroke of what you've defined as 'radical progressive' to define ALL liberals and ALL progressives, as well as pretty much EVERYONE who is not them!

I would also say the same thing for people who consider themselves to be liberal/progressive: they also often paint conservatives as all one brush stroke!  So being able to show a continuum between two different "sides" can show that there are tensions in both sides also.

If you look at the graph, you will see the tension, as Pastor Dan states, is between idealists and pragmatists.  I think the basic tension in any label is between those who envision the goals of their cause and hold others to those goals, and those who would compromise for a piece of the goal or a subgoal.

The Church, then, is rarely a single unit, but is a place where the conflict of ideas takes place: liberal, conservative, progressive in idealist, pragmatic, and mixed forms.  There will be those who will not let go of the dream at all costs, and those who will allow concessions for the greater whole.  There are times when being pragmatic and allowing the slow drip of progressivism is the way to go...and there are times when progressives cannot back down on the fundamentals.  And there are times to realize that even progressive churches are conservative when we hit touchy areas where the wounds are still raw...

Even in churches that have become more and more echo-chambers, there is a great diversity between those who are willing to bend and those who are in it all-in.  I think that malleability v. unyielding tension is present in any church regardless of how homogeneous they may self-identify.

Thoughts or comments?  This post would be much better if I had a "diversity of conservatism" chart as well so it doesn't feel so one-sided.  Anyone who knows of one, leave it in the comments!

Read more...

Progressive Churches: Rational or Radical? [1of4]

A few days ago, wicked smart guy Nate Silver on 538 (a statistics and polling site for the 2008 election) has wandered into philosophy as he distinguishes between two different forms of progressivism: rational progressives who favor incremental change through reform, and radical progressives who favor the swifter change of revolution.  Check it out:

While I take issue with some of the dichotomies and stereotypes in general, this serves as a helpful building block for discussion.  Of course Silver is talking about progressive philosophies primarily in politics, but I can see parallels in churches too.

So, time for a mini-series!  I will be talking about it for the rest of this week, so whether you want to better see which type of progressive you are, or are looking to not categorize your progressive friends into one big pot...check back this week!

But in the meantime, initial thoughts on this chart?  What sticks, and what stinks?  Post in the comments or on Google Friend Connect at the bottom of the page!

Read more...

What the Church can Learn from Apple [2of4]

Image via CrunchBase, source unknownThis is a four-part series on "What the Church can Learn from Apple (the computer and media company)."  Read the whole series here. 

We talked last week about the Apple brand and the "branding" of its products.  This week we are going to talk about their focus on simplicity and lifestyle technology, and what insight this offers church programming.

One of the selling points of the Apple products is "they just work."   The focus on simplicity and the user experience means that Apple products generally underperform their Windows-based counterparts in the same categories, but do so with an ease of use that Windows works hard to match.

The primary opponent of Apple is, of course, Microsoft.  As an example of the divide between Apple and Microsoft, here's a video comparing the packaging of the Apple iPod if it were done by Microsoft.


We are tempted to laugh at some yahoo's poking fun at Microsoft.....but this video was made by Microsoft as a training video. There's obviously something fundamentally different in the ways Microsoft and Apple market and develop their products...and the key sticking point, it seems, is simplicity.

There's a reason for that.  Steve Jobs, according to analysts, is driven by the belief that customers didn't just need more powerful technology; rather, customers needed a better experience with technology.  They didn't need complexity; they needed whatever the product was to do its job and do it intuitively.

For almost 30 years, even after being removed from Apple, Jobs has dedicated his life to make technology and our lifestyle seamless. In a world of complexity, a marketing angle like that has reaped million$.  And like the video, it often seems that Microsoft seeks to make our life have more options and more potential, but also more complicated with less focus on the customer experience.

The Hack

We see in the competing business models of Apple and Microsoft the tension that is held in church programming and practical theology.  Keep in mind these are caricatures in distilled form, not perfectly descriptive.

Programming: How "overwhelmed" are visitors to the church's program opportunities?

• Microsoft: "We can offer a whole page or two's worth of our ministry opportunities, ensuring by a shotgun blast (wide area) we will hit everyone's felt needs."
• Apple: "We can offer just a few ministry and mission opportunities, the ones we feel are the most important, and put our resources into them."

Worship Style: How many  angles does worship work?  How many different stories are told each service?

• Microsoft: "We can focus on intricate theological subtleties, ensure the music has perfect theological resonance, ensure that every possible theological question and viewpoint is addressed and figured out in complex worship."
  
• Apple: "We can offer simplistic worship, sing P&W songs that are one word only ("Alleluia" anyone?), focus on one or two points that are relevant to lifestyle if not well theologically-reasoned or biblically contextualized (but they ARE prooftexted!)"

Activism & Missions: Are we a single-issue church or do we have many issues?

• Microsoft: "We can focus on filling the needs of everyone in our community, spreading our resources thinly over all the area in the hopes that we are fulfilling the call of God to "care for the stranger in our midst.""
• Apple: "We can focus on one to three areas of need and do them deeply.  We can do a food pantry, which includes drumming up donations and offering nutrition classes for struggling families.  We can do one thing simply and well."
  

Church Focus: Do we simplify ministry to appeal to one demographic (more or less) or do we offer a diversity that draws everyone?

• Microsoft: "We can focus on the great diverse tradition of the church, encourage interaction and dialogue with the tradition and history of the church, as what was good for the Saints is deep enough for us."
  
• Apple: "We can focus on the individual, tailor worship to him/her (like Saddleback Sam), and let everything hinge on that character's experience." 

I know that simplistic polemics are not good arguments, but the tension illustrates one fundamental challenge of the church:  Do we simplify church or make it more complex and intricate? If we parallel Apple and the Church:

• Apple seeks to integrate technology into your lifestyle;
  the Church seeks to integrate spirituality into your lifestyle.  
• Apple sells products that augment a lifestyle;
  the Church offers ways of being that radically change a lifestyle.
• Apple embraces a brand that "thinks different";
  the Church embraces a Christ who "thought different."

We can do this all day.  But the fundamental challenge, one that Apple is succeeding in, is how to integrate the "religion" into lifestyle.  Do people respond to multiple complex options that they can self-select into?  Or do people respond by seeing deep and concentrated efforts onto a few areas of focus, missions, activism, or worship?  These are contextual questions, as in any context an Apple or Microsoft-style church may be appropriate (I suspect megachurches have to become complex), but for smaller-to-medium-sized churches, the questions of complexity or simplicity are important questions.

So what model is your church: Microsoft or Apple?

• Does it have multiple options of ministry;
  or is there concerted efforts to focus on a few missions?
• Does it have a strong rather-uniform identity;
  or a complex one formed of many groups?
• Does worship focus on only one style of worship (traditional or contemporary);
  or are there multiple streams in a single worship service (or multiple services, more likely)?

I'm not saying one or the other is better.  It's just two different models that ask "how do we integrate lifestyle and the Church?" and answer in two different ways.

Your Turn.  Thoughts?  Welcome to our visitors and comments are appreciated!

Read more...

What the Church can Learn from Apple [1of4]

Image via CrunchBase, source unknown

This is a four-part series on What the Church can Learn from Apple (the computer and media company).  Read the whole series here.

There's often reference to the "Religion of Apple" or the "Cult of Mac."  Back in October, CNET ran a story called "Apple (and its Branding) like a Religion" (hat tip to Church Marketing Sucks).  In the blog referenced in the article, there's multiple instances that compare the Apple "Brand" to a religion.  For instance, from a movie called MacHeads:

For many Mac people, I think (the Mac community) has a religious feeling to it. For a lot of people who are not comfortable with religion, it provides a community and a common heritage. I think Mac users have a certain common way of thinking, a way of doing things, a certain mindset. People say they are a Buddhist or a Catholic. We say we’re Mac users, and that means we have similar values.

Let's get one thing out of the ballpark: I can't wrap my head around that Apple is a religion.  Religion is based on experience or questions of the unknown and intangible; Apple iPods and products are known entities that you can touch and taste.  There's no faith involved other than nebulous feelings of trust for a Brand when they let you down and put out a shoddy product once in a while.  Therefore, Apple is not a religion.

That is not to say, however...that the branding of religion and the branding of Apple share similar qualities. 

People identify with a brand based on several factors other than simple marketing prowess: they have experience of the brand or fear of the unknown (ie. trying an unknown brand).  There's a level of rational thought, of course, by choosing a quality product, but there's also a sense of connectedness to one's friends which are Mac-users or "my family has always been Methodist."  It's the branding of the object, be it religious or secular, that has commonalities.

What is Apple's Brand?  One has only to look back at their famous 1984 commercial to see what their brand has always been about:

That's right: Think Different.  In other words, Apple has always claimed the underdog status in the computer wars, and always has.  Apple's story an antagonist has deep roots: they went against IBM in the 80's and are against Microsoft today. Their marketing goal was simple: just the idea of something different is enough to energize the base.  We saw this with Barack Obama this year; we see it more and more as established brands lose market share to newcomers and established denominational churches lose membership to emerging and unaffiliated churches.

We see this underdog 'branding' in church and politics today.  Evangelical Christians and politicians claim they are under persecution and oppression, like they always have...even through they have been in power for the past 8 years.  Even when reality says something different, the reality distortion field, it seems, is in full effect.

In closing this section, the tension for Apple, is what to do with the 'brand' when it must choose between being diffused and sticking to its roots. As the video MacHeads states above, Apple "is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic."

• Apple hesitates, for instance, to enter into the rapidly growing netbook category (including my beloved EEEPC) because cheap products is definitely not in their sales pitch.
• While Mac sales are skyrocketing in homes and schools, the enterprise solutions offered are still meager and weak.  This is directly related to Steve Jobs' areas of weakness in this category as he considers that to be Microsoft's area and the image of white rows of Macs parallels the constant hammering against the rows of beige boxes in corporate America.  As one commenter on CNET said "Jobs may be what is right with Apple. But he's also what's wrong with Apple."

In short, branding is not a religion, but it is the way how a company (or religion) explains itself.  By sticking to its tried and true brand, Apple continues to lead as it taps into a generations' yearning for "something new" and "something different" through its brand.

The Hack

I've been called out on "Is hacking just marketing?" I must agree that marketing and hacking are similar at the outset, but I hope to show in four installments how hacking gets at the root questions better than simple marketing adaptation.

So the overriding question is what is the 'brand' that your church has, or what 'brand' do you assign churches in the area?  Does the church use phrases like "come enjoy Holy Eucharist and Word and Table" or "Come join us for community celebration"?  Does it say meet in the Narthex or come to the Vestibule?  There's nothing wrong with these phrases and using proper terminology, folks........but to think of it a different way, Seth Godin in his companion to his book Tribes talks about the value of tribes making their own language (the Emergeant Church is good at this too).  We have a Christian "churchy" language.  But the difficulty is Narthex, vestibule, Eucharist, etc, are not this tribe's language, it is our parents/grandfathers' tribes' language.  It is hard to get this generation of people seeking 'newness' excited when the language they hear remind them of snoozing on Sundays.

Like Church Marketing Sucks writes about the newest Apple iPhone,

But I don't think any of [the Apple pundits] summarized the changes as succinctly as Apple did on their web site: "iPhone 3G: Twice as fast. Half the price."...I don't know what "3G" means, but "twice as fast" is something I can get my head around.
And the lesson for churches is an obvious one. If you can simplify your language and put it in terms an outsider can understand then you're communicating.

So the question to wrestle with for a week is "what is your brand?"  And is it championed by you, or has it been assigned to you? 

• Some churches embrace the brand, like Saddleback Church specifically markets to "Saddleback Sam" (see Bill Bishop's book The Big Sort).  That's their brand and they stick to it to create a uniform church situation (more on diversity next week).
• Do you choose to be the "white church" in a Latino neighborhood?  Or was it assigned by you because of tensions between Anglo and Latino ways of doing things?
• Do you choose marketing to politics by using products or do you emphasize the people affected?  The church in Detroit recently prayed over SUVs, while every other church would hear testimonies from auto workers.  What kind of 'brand' is it that chooses to raise up products rather than people?

I know there's lots of unresolved questions; that's why this is a four-part series. :)  But I think two of the main questions from talking about apple's brand are:

1. What is your 'brand'?  Do you embrace it, or has it been assigned to you by the community (like Apple's brand of being a rebel: championed by them first, or assigned to them first)?
2. How do you expand your 'brand' while retaining your essential mission (like Apple looking at netbooks but being unwilling to sacrifice quality)? We'll talk more about this next week.   

Thoughts?  Questions?  Offer any feedback in the comments, or using the FriendConnect box below this post.  Thanks in advance for the conversation.

Read more...

What the Church can Learn from Apple [preview]

Image via Wikipedia 

Starting this coming Wednesday, HX has a new series coming: What the Church can Learn from Apple.

Yes, it will be shamelessly modeled after the successful (if not very commented-on) series on "What the Church can Learn from Wikipedia."  Check out that series here.  And yes, it will be less intellectually-heavy as that series...I learned my lesson on shorter, concise blog posts!  Your comments are welcome, since we have lots of new people since then!


I believe there are relevant lessons that the Church as an institution can learn from both online phenomenon (Wikipedia) and the against-all-odds phenomenon of underdog businesses that tap into something (Apple).  We are not talking about fundamental changes to beliefs; more likely operating changes and adaptations that have emerged from these areas. 

For the scoffers that say the church doesn't need secular advice, you are welcome to ignore HX.net on Wednesdays. ;-)  I don't force you to read this blog!

But the rest of you, look for it on Wednesday.  Some starter questions:

1. People read speculation like crazy about the upcoming products from Apple.  Why is there such fervor over new products?  What does Apple do that causes this?
2. Apple's product mantra seems to be "simplify and interconnect": everything is simple and works together.  In your church structures, are things simple and interconnected, or very complex and disconnected?

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take....my iPod!"

Read more...

Hacking the Apostle's Creed : Born of the Virgin Mary

This summer I'm doing a sermon series on the Apostle's Creed, drawing from Justo L. Gonzalez's book The Apostles' Creed for Today, in an attempt to help the Creed make sense to our contemporary views.  Some parts will be reconciled, some parts may have to be left out.  But hopefully you'll never read the Apostle's Creed the same way again!

Part I: I believe in God the Father Almighty

Part II: Maker of Heaven and Earth

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only son our Lord.
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, 
Born of the Virgin Mary

When we talk about the Birth of Jesus, we can't help but talk about how it was a virgin birth. Now some Christians don't find it necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth. That's just a story. That's someone's idea of how Jesus might have been born. There were other pagan deities who were born to virgins around the time of Jesus. The Gospel writers were making Jesus seem important.

To others, a virgin birth is essential. How else could Jesus be a divine person, coming from God? It makes perfect sense: the God who opened Sarah's barren womb so she could bear Isaac, Rebekah's miraculous birth of Jacob, Rachel's miraculous birth of Joseph...this God who empowers barren women proves that their children are the result of God's involvement. This God must have been involved in the birth of Jesus. The virgin birth must be true.

But to the writers of the Creed, it's not about the virgin birth.  Stay with me.
It is true that the Creedal writers were affirming the Virgin Birth by calling Mary the Virgin Mary. But their belief that it happened mattered much less than that it happened to one particular person. It's identifying that Jesus was born of this Mary, this woman, Mary the Virgin.

The reason why requires some Christianity CSI, some putting together the clues.
Last wee, we talked about how "God the Maker of Heaven and Earth" was written against people who said the God of the Old Testament was a different God than the God of Jesus.
This week it is a similar problem.  Marcion of Sinope's contemporaries, the Gnostics, said that Jesus could not have been born of a woman.
In the gnostic Gospel of James, it reads that when Mary was in the manger, there was a bright flash of light, and Jesus appeared next to her. Really.

Why? These heretics couldn't stand the idea that Jesus was born of a woman.
Birth, it's a messy time. Blood and water, pain and joy.
The real messiness of human life begins in the messiness of birth.
And for the Gnostics, with their soul/body dualism, birth was too messy a way for a dignified son of God to come into the world.  There's no way Jesus, son of God, could be born of a woman.
Jesus must have just appeared, wrapped in white cloths next to Mary, already potty-trained and never woke up crying at 4am.

To which the Creed says otherwise.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only son, our Lord.
It doesn't matter if the virgin birth was real or an allegory.
It only matters that Jesus was born of a woman, in the fully human way, mess and all.
Jesus was fully human and fully divine. But most importantly, Jesus was fully human.

Today, we still struggle with this messiness.

We still struggle with the idea that this Jesus that we believe in was fully human.
That would mean Jesus was involved in the messiness of life.
We know from Scripture that Jesus forgave sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, religious authorities.
But today we rarely preach that Jesus would welcome an illegal immigrant, would forgive a murderer, would forgive Osama bin Laden, would forgive me, you.
Jesus is too concerned with other things, and demands my purity.
I can't let Jesus get dirty. Jesus is God, Jesus is pure and clean.

But in reality, Jesus is found in the messiness of life.
In the Scriptures, Zaccheus was probably the biggest train wreck in town and Jesus picked him. This is the Jesus who leaves the 99 to find the one. He reminds us that the sick need a doctor, not the healthy. He makes wine for party goers who have already had too much to drink.
Jesus is messy when it comes to following the rules and engaging the lost and lonely. Perhaps he is too messy for most religious people and certainly for the disgruntled religious crowds mentioned in the Scripture today.

This text of Zaccheus and the Apostle's Creed are reminding us that the fully human Jesus reaches out to messy fully human people.
There's a challenge for us today. If we don’t have any relationships with the messy marginalized, the misunderstood, the outcasts, the sinners of this community, perhaps we’re part of the country club Christianity crowd.
If we’re to follow the messy Jesus and not the clean, sterilized Jesus, we will choose to:

• We go against conventional wisdom
• We eat with the wrong crowd
• We drink with the wrong crowd
• We love the wrong crowd
• We assist the wrong crowd
• We advocate for the wrong crowd
• We heal the wrong crowd

The hardest thing for Christians to do is be a little messy
in the interest of loving those who have lost their way.
But Jesus was scandalous first,
and we only need to follow his example.
Jesus is looking for disciples who don’t always follow social customs, follow all the rules, and who are always neat and proper.

We need help to not repeat the mistakes of the past.
To the gnostics, Jesus was clean and pious.
But the birth of Jesus Christ was messy.
Our faith today has become clean and pious.
But Jesus reached out to a man named Zaccheus who was a mess, and transformed his life.
Who are the messy people whose lives you will be reach out to today?

Read more...

Hacking the Apostle's Creed : Maker of Heaven and Earth

This summer I'm doing a sermon series on the Apostle's Creed, drawing from Justo L. Gonzalez's book The Apostles' Creed for Today, in an attempt to help the Creed make sense to our contemporary views.  Some parts will be reconciled, some parts may have to be left out.  But hopefully you'll never read the Apostle's Creed the same way again!

• Part I: I believe in God the Father Almighty...
  

 Maker of Heaven and Earth

 Often we repeat the Creed saying things that sound so simple.
Of course we believe in God, maker of heaven and earth.
But during the time of the creed, that very phrase was hotly debated.
Do we really believe in the God who made heaven and earth?

You see, there was a very influential cleric named Marcion.
Marcion of Sinope was a second-century Christian theologian who was excommunicated by the Church. Why? Amongst other reasons, Marcion rejected the Hebrew Bible. Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms..all were someone else's bible, not the Christian church's bible.

So, why is this relevant? Why would we be talking about Marcion when we are talking about the phrase "We believe in God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth?"

• Where is the story where God creates the heaven and the earth that we read today?
• Where is the lineage of Jesus, Jesus' ancestors found?
• Where is the definition of the Messiah found, the Messiah whom Jesus would become?

By claiming God was the Maker of Heaven and Earth, we are rejecting attempts to divorce Christianity from our Jewish brothers and sisters. In reality, and when we say the Creed, we are affirming our Jewish heritage. This is very important for us, but it was moreso important for those during the second century when the creed was written. With all the theories by Marcion and others, the church needed a compass to guide them through the storm. The Creed became that, and by affirming "God, Maker of Heaven and Earth" they were affirming their Jewish roots.

But the Creed is saying something else, something eternal, something that we still struggle with to this day.

Marcion claimed that God of Jesus was different than God of the Hebrew Bible. Marcion was influenced by gnostic writers who were his contemporaries, who said that all things material were bad and all things spiritual were good. Thus if the Hebrew Bible God created this world in which we are trapped, then the God of Jesus came to free us from enslavement. The one who traps us in the material prison can't be the one who breaks us out! They must be different gods! The God of Jesus saves us from our earthly deaths....You see how both of them claimed that the material world could never be reconciled with God.

By saying God created both heaven and earth, the creed can be a safeguard against spiritualism, which means only the spiritual world is God's concern and love. By saying God created both the heavens and the earth, they are saying all of creation is God's concern.

But today, spiritualism is alive and well.

When a former pastor of mine was asked why the church turned a predominantly missions trip into an evangelism trip, he said these words:

"When we make the planet better, it is temporary.
When we save souls to Christ, it is eternal."

To this day, I struggle with that statement. I'm sure some of you are shaking your head disagreeing that evangelism is better than missions. I'm sure some of you are nodding that evangelism is better than missions. But both of them, either valuing spiritual returns (spiritualism) or material returns (one understanding of materialism) over the other, are what the Creed is trying to change. If God is maker of heaven and earth, then anytime you care for the spiritual or material needs of people, you are doing the work of God.

What is most important is that we help people and care for Creation. In Genesis 1, we are given dominion over Creation. What we should do is match our gifts with the mission God is putting in front of us.

• If your gifts are with building and giving people a better quality of life, you are caring for Creation
• If your gifts are with sharing the Gospel, you are caring for Creation
• If your gifts are with prayer, praying for people even when you are not physically able to be with them, you are caring for Creation.
• If your gifts are with giving money, donating your gifts to make things happen, you are caring for Creation.
• If your gifts are with children, teaching and empowering them, then you are caring for Creation.

It doesn't matter how you do it. What matters is if in that moment the recipient of your care feels the love of God. It doesn't matter how they get there, it matters that one of their needs (material or spiritual) is being met. By helping others, we are caring for Creation.

Every action that cares for others is caring for God's creation, and it is that holistic mission that God calls us to today.
Thoughts?  This series is more in sermon form (even though I cut out a lot!) than the other series, but hopefully that won't dissuade you from interacting with it!

Read more...

Hacking the Apostle's Creed : God the Father

This summer I'm doing a sermon series on the Apostle's Creed, drawing from Justo L. Gonzalez's book The Apostles' Creed for Today, in an attempt to help the Creed make sense to our contemporary views.  Some parts will be reconciled, some parts may have to be left out.  But hopefully you'll never read the Apostle's Creed the same way again!
 

I believe in God the Father Almighty...

In both the Apostle's Creed and the Lord's Prayer, they begin with similar words:

• I believe in God the Father,
• Our Father, who art in heaven.

In both these prayers, they both right out of the gate affirm God as father.

For some of us, this is a comforting image, God as a nurturing parent, who is strong and willing to save God's children. But for others, a patriarchal God whose gender represents violence and authoritarianism...this is a troubling image indeed.

Today, many do not recite that section of the creed like we skip the parts in Methodist hymns that we don't like...like acting like we are coughing when reciting blood language or military hymns. The image of God as male is too broken, too hurtful: the male God has legitimized man as the head of families and has neglected the talents of women in the parish.

Is this first line of the Apostle's Creed reconcilable?  We must see why it was written that way to find out.

We think of Fathers as loving and close to us. My lay leader a few weeks ago preached about fathers who are dedicated to their families. The example was Joseph, who even though his young bride was pregnant with a child not his own, he stayed with her. We think of Fathers, at least stereotypically, as loving and close to us.

This would be a foreign concept to the writers of the Creed.

In the Roman Empire, the father was the paterfamilias, the master and distant figure to his children. Children and slaves alike were not "close" to their paterfamilias. It was more like a kingdom where the father rules all, all children bow to him, he could kill his own children or offer them the reins of the family. The paterfamilias ruled all.  In fact, fathers did not touch their children, give them hugs, but would only touch them to render punishment, or to pass on the family on their deathbed to their successor.

So the image of father was not loving, but of power and authority.  When they spoke of God as Father, the image is not one of love and closeness, but of power and authority.  God the Father is the paterfamilias more powerful than all other paterfamiliases. "He" is the pater-paterfamilias, the father above all other fathers, with more earthly authority than the highest of other families.

In feminist theology, we subvert the image of God as Father. To show aspects of God as mother.  But we see here that the image of God as father was already subversive and counter-cultural.  By the naming of God as Father, early Christians affirmed the power of God and limited the power and authority of earthly fathers.

Matt 23:9, and call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father -- the one in heaven.

By using the Creed in this way, the people were saying good news to those who suffer under paterfamiliases.  Paterfamiliases no longer held total power over you, you unloved son, you daughter soon to be sold as property, you slave, you spouse. There is a stronger father to whom you are a child. And this father has authority over all the earth!

This was subversive and dangerous! If a Christian said this in the Roman Empire, they would be effectively saying "I now belong to another household" which may lead to earthly wrath!  Jesus says as much in the Gospel of Matthew. He says he has come to set son against father, daughter against mother. If a son becomes Christian in a pagan household, there would be wrath, punishment, even death at the hands of the family's very father!

We can now see this Creedal section in a new light.  Perhaps the Creed isn't endorsing God to be male, but is saying this: you can be part of a new family that isn't part of a bloodline. You who suffer under a paterfamilias can become part of God's family.  In short, by declaring God to be Father, the Creed was subverting Fatherhood as it was then understood...claimed a higher father than the bloodline of the paterfamilias.  Creedal compilers used the term "God the Father" to empower and embolden the underprivileged to draw closer to God, even if it meant they were cast out of their earthly families.

So, what are we to do with this image?  Certainly Feminist theology can accept an originally subversive father God, right?  Well...no. 

• God's power is depicted as analogous to the power-over structure that paterfamiliases enjoy.  This type of hierarchical power does not sit well with feminist and especially process viewpoints of God.
• In worship.hacks, we are sensitive to language and images of God.  Even if the Father language for God was meant to subvert and to challenge, it is still gendered language for God without a proper balance.  No matter the intent and the history, the effect is always to present God as male.  Which is problematic.

These concerns, even against the possible intent of the writers of the Creed, render it a difficult line to manage in the context of Worship.

What's the worship.hack?  Perhaps the hack here is to do what the Creed compilers did: affirm an image of God that fills the hole in your life.   "God the Father" was placed in juxtaposition to the powerful paterfamiliases.  Perhaps then we can replace "God the Father" with "God the Mother" who tenderly cares for you even when your own mother has failed you.  Or "God the Creator" who makes all things for the good...even you.  Or "God the Coach" who affirms your contributions even from the bench.

If you feel comfortable, while in the worship service, say a different role in place of "Father" if that's what empowers you.  That's what the Creedal writers did, and it's OK for you to do so as well. People may yell at you and say by changing the words of the Creed you aren't really reciting it.  Just tell them you are "hacking Christianity" and they will understand.  Maybe. :-)

The hack here is to re-claim the original intent behind the Creed and translate it for today, not to throw it out completely. That's what we're gonna be doing in this sporadic summer series, and I hope you enjoy the next several ones too.

Thoughts?  Comments are welcome and first-time visitors are welcome too!

Read more...

From Spider to Starfish Churches [4of4]

This series is focused on The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom. Come check it out every Wednesday in June!

• Part I: To Consolidate or Decentralize?
• Part II: Starfish Culture needs Starfish Churches
• Part III: Starfish Churches are Leaderless
  

For our last section on this series, let's apply this directly to the problem of leadership in churches. Jeremy Pryor, at From Eden to Zion, offers this scenario:

Perhaps pastors should imagine that they are going to have three more years in their parish as pastor—and that there will be no replacement for them when they leave.

*blink* whoa.  Powerful scenario.  In essence, it is asking what if you had to turn a spider church (a hierarchical church) into a starfish church or else it would die.  Hmm...what would this mean?

If they acted as if this were going to happen, they would put the highest priority on selecting, motivating, and training lay leaders that could carry on as much as possible of the mission of the parish after they left. The results of three sustained years of such an approach would be quite significant. Even revolutionary.”

Absolutely.  This form of ministry focus gels nicely with our Starfish churches discussion on leadership.  By empowering the laity and removing hierarchical leadership, a revolution will certainly occur in the church.

Greg Ogden also has the above scenario in his 2003 book Transforming Discipleship. However, he embraces a leadership system that simply refines the spider church.

Better to give one year or so to one or two men [sic] who learn what it means to conquer for Christ than to spend a lifetime with a congregation just keeping the program going.

I'm definitely not with this approach to concentrate knowledge and leadership on a few disciples.  I know that's the way JC went, but a mass appeal is stronger for decentralized churches (which is what you'd end up with) rather than replacing the pastor with a few pastors, who would be stuck in the same power-over system.

That said, you do need catalytic leadership, and perhaps that's what Ogden is getting at.  You do need a few people who can turn the tables upside down in a structured way, and then let them step aside.  Finding that sweet spot of leadership is tricky, but necessary in the Brave New World we are in.

Initiatives like bootstrap networks map out here the steps for catalytic leaders to amass renewal within their organizations.

Your turn: if you had only three years left in your parish, either as pastor or knowing your pastor will be gone, what would you do?

Thanks for considering the question, and welcome to our visitors!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Starfish Rules

Read more...

From Spider to Starfish Churches [3of4]

Image via WikipediaThis series is focused on The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom. Come check it out every Wednesday in June!

• Part I: To Consolidate or Decentralize?
• Part II: Starfish Culture needs Starfish Churches

We talked the last two weeks about how churches (along with major businesses in society) consolidate their resources when they feel like they are losing ground. This is called a spider response, because it makes them more spider-like as they concentrate more and more power in the head. What is needed instead is a starfish response, where you reach out to more grassroots kinds of ministry.

How can church leaders move their churches to become less spider-like and respond more like a starfish, with decentralized, grassroots efforts?

It's simple. Stop being a leader and start leading.

In The Starfish and the Spider, the authors make the case for a different kind of leadership: catalytic leadership. A catalyst is any element or compound that initiates a reaction without fusing into that equation. For example, nitrogen and hydrogen together will do nothing. But if you add iron and they become ammonia. Great analogy right? Where we are gonna find leaders of that quality to radically change people? Here's the fun part: The iron is unchanged, and ammonia has no iron in it! Just the presence of iron facilitates the chemical changes.

So, catalytic leadership is the type of leadership that changes people's lives, but does not seek to integrate into them, or become a part of them. This is wild territory for churches. Church leaders so often have their churches become dependent on them: it's not a meeting unless the pastor is there, no hymns can be chosen unless the music minister chooses them. Leaders like and abhor events to hinge on their presence, and our denominational systems focus leadership squarely on the pastor.

The easiest way to explain is to compare two movies: Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music. In The Sound of Music, Maria joins and stays with the family she is charged with. In Mary Poppins, Mary cares for the family...then leaves on her umbrella. Instead of leading her family forever, she inspires them to change, then moves on.

This fits exactly with what Hugh Hewett of TownHall.com is trying to say when he writes about the Death of the Alpha Leader

This is a world in which documents handed down by well-meaning alpha males result in a stifled yawn. However, this same world moves to the edge of their seat upon realizing that the responsibility to change the world need not be their legacy or burden. On the contrary, the creation of culture is the calling from which history speaks.
...
Servant leaders have the ability to provide a new type of leadership. A collaborative mentoring and releasing of people with varied and mystical gifts in order to create culture. Alpha leaders value control, servant leaders value collaboration. Alpha leaders value individualism, servant leaders value community. Alpha leaders value affluence, servant leaders value influence.

So, what are the characteristics of a catalytic leader? The authors identify several characteristics of this kind of leadership:

1. Genuine interest in others.
2. Numerous loose connections, rather than a small number of close connections.
3. Skill at social mapping.
4. Desire to help everyone they meet.
5. The ability to help people help themselves by listening and understanding, rather than giving advice ("Meet people where they are").
6. Emotional Intelligence.
7. Trust in others and in the decentralized network.
8. Inspiration (to others).
9. Tolerance for ambiguity.
10. A hands-off approach. Catalysts do not interfere with, or try to control the behavior of the contributing members of the decentralized organization.
11. Ability to let go. After building up a decentralized organization, catalysts move on, rather than trying to take control.

Think of the ministry possibilities that can come from catalytic leadership!

• If orders come from above, then it takes work to motivate the masses. But if the masses get excited about it on their own, then ideas can take off. This is antithetical to spider churches as leaders want to control what is happening. By ceding control, fresh ministry options can come forward.
• From the checklist, #5 "Meet people where they are" assumes that when you give advice to someone in a counseling setting, you are creating a power hierarchy. Pastors may want to assume a peer relationship where they inspire change without being prescriptive or coercive.
• From the checklist, #1 "Genuine interest in others" can mean that if you don't find disciples around you, you aren't asking the right questions. Everyone is passionate about something; find out what!

The takeaway from this post is this: The most powerful aspect of catalysts is that they are not interested in creating empires...they are interested in sparking movements. To this end, catalysts are better at being agents of change rather than guardians of traditions. You may be playing with dynamite, but find or become a catalytic leader, and people will come for miles to watch you burn.

Thoughts on catalytic leadership? Welcome to our visitors, and comments are welcome!

Read more...

From Spider to Starfish Churches [2of4]

This series is focused on The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom. Come check it out every Wednesday in June!

• Part I: To Consolidate or Decentralize?
  

We talked last week about how churches (along with major businesses in society) consolidate their resources when they feel like they are losing ground. This is called a spider response, because it makes them more spider-like as they concentrate more and more power in the head.

However, spider responses do not work versus starfish organizations or culture. Thus, we're going to examine what a starfish response may look like. In other words, instead of centralizing and consolidating authority, what might it look like if we respond from a grassroots level? Read on for more...

Starfish are unaffected by SpidersWe remember from last week the examples of Skype and Craigslist, which took the power away from the spider organizations. The same with the third example: the US Government's pursuit of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. They were attacking it like a spider organization: kill the head (bin Laden) and it will go away. What they slowly learned was it is a leaderless starfish movement: bin Laden doesn't approve each attack; rather, members adopt the ideology and copy what has worked in the past, then strike out on their own. To combat a starfish culture is like fighting a Hydra: too many heads and they grow back!

The Spider church loses against a starfish cultureMoving away from violent metaphors, it is clear that one reason why the church is losing relevance is not some centralized opponent, but from decentralized culture which finds meaning in its own channels. So, how can the church become relevant to that which has no central hub?

There are two responses (okay three*, but the third is untranslatable) that Brafman and Beckstrom outline of how to respond to a decentralized culture. They are to empower and emulate the starfish organization.

Starfish culture often responds to societal shifts.Empower the starfish culture. A stronger starfish culture means that their values will shift from individualism to communal. For example, the best way to combat terrorism is to raise the value of life for those whom terorrists use as expendible fodder. By raising the quality of life, such as using Jamii Bora Trust microloans, you remove the anger and the hopelessness, and people will live in hope rather than give their lives to al-Qaeda. Give people something to hold onto, rather than nothing to lose.

• By putting missions at the forefront, the Church can gradually make their community's lives better and defeat the hopelessness that plagues our culture. I've always believed that missions is the best evangelism, but more than that, by improving conditions and livelihood, churches can gradually change a society's ideology. What better way to combat hopelessness AND raise the church's reputation at the same time?

Starfish knowledge resides at the edges of society.Emulate the starfish culture. The best match for a starfish is another starfish. By decentralizing the hierarchy, you can open up avenues of communication and interaction and really learn something. When American Airlines was stumbling and having money issues, they realized that knowledge resided at the edge of the hierarchy. In Tulsa, OK, the American Airlines mechanics had built a "Monster" machine that took dull drill bits (which would normally wear out quickly) and sharpen them. By doing so, they saved their team money, and by emulating that practice at other AA shops, AA was able to reduce costs.

• By reducing the hierarchy and allowing for decentralized ministry to emerge, the Church can lower the barriers to ministry. As written about in The Church and Wikipedia, allowing for grassroots ideas of ministry to emerge can come up with more relevant and easy forms of ministry.
  

Starfish Churches are most relevant to Starfish culture.In short, by becoming a starfish church we can better respond to a starfish culture. Open systems don't necessarily make better decisions; but they can respond more quickly because each member has access to information and can make direct use of it. Brafman & Beckstrom's third principle of open systems (starfish organizations) explains:

An open system doesn't have central intelligence;
the information is spread throughout the system.

Starfish stand between spider churches and starfish culture.Finally, why do we need to do this? Ultimately, the Church is called to be peacemakers. Starfish churches can serve as the bridge point between spider churches and an apathetic community. For example, when internet standards were being adopted, there was a struggle between two platforms to host websites on (one by Microsoft, one by Netscape). As consumer choices degraded to Mac v. PC levels, an open source grassroots project called Apache became well-enough supported that it presented an easy third choice for webhosts. Now, somewhere like 50% of all websites use Apache. Rather than being forced between platforms, the open-source decentralized Apache presented a middle way.

• In the same way, between the entrenched churches that cannot change their mindset and an echo-chamber culture, starfish churches can serve as that bridge, that safe place between two parties that can lead to a revival amongst them both.
  

Between two camps, the middle way is the way of peace.In short, open systems can help ease tensions between entrenched parties: church and culture. And it is that tension between the echo chambers of church and the echo-chambers of culture that starfish churches are most adaptable, relevant, and able to produce forms of ministry which empower all people around the table.

Your turn. What do you think?

• What examples of starfish churches have you experience with?
• What are examples of ministries that are relevant to decentralized society?

Thanks for commenting, and welcome to our visitors!

* the third option is to Centralize the starfish culture. When the US Government was dealing with the Apaches (the Native Americans, not the web servers!), they were decentralized and fierce warriors whose leadership was constantly changing and thus indestructible. What did the US Government do? They gave the Apaches cattle, and by giving them a limited resource, the entire culture changed to protect and exploit this resource. Then the US Governemnt was able to eradicate and domesticate them. See why I saw it as exploitative?)

Read more...

From Spider to Starfish Churches [1of4]

This series is focused on The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom. Come check it out every Wednesday in June!

The church is in crisis. United Methodist attendance is in decline, the Southern Baptists are...not baptizing, and, most importantly...google searches of God, Christian, and Bible are dropping. The sky is falling!

Some would call it a failure of leadership, both on the local and national levels. But in truth, what is happening to the Church is the same thing happening to large businesses and conglomerates: we become spiders when we should become starfish.

What do I mean by that? In The Starfish and the Spider, Brafman and Beckstrom write about the difference between spiders and starfish.

• Spiders have a head...chop off the head of a spider, and it will die.
  
• But with a Starfish, there is no head: the central nervous system is spread throughout the body. Indeed, if you cut off a limb, it will regrow. If you chop it in half...both will regrow, and then you'll have two of them!

You see the difference? Spiders have central authorities that call the shots. Starfish have spread out systems without a central authority.

In other words, the difference between spiders and starfish is the difference between centralized and decentralized organizations. And it is by choosing to become spiders that churches are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the world.

Challenging Organizations

Whenever a large organization is challenged, it tends to become more spiderlike: it centralizes authority at the head. Some examples:

• Falling advertisements and classified ads leads to mergers between newspapers to scrape together what ad revenue was left into one place.
• Increasing competition in the long-distance phone companies, long split apart by decentralization, have now began consolidating again.
  
• The US Government, after 9/11, centralized authority under the Department of Homeland Security. While it helps to make agencies work together, it makes them more bureaucratic as they now have to answer to just one person...and it's not the President, an elected and (sometimes) accountable leader.

When challenged, we tend to centralize power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. But what is the source of the crisis? In every case above, the reason for the increasingly centralized authority was because of a threat from a decentralized group.

• Classified ads fell due to the popularity of Craigslist, a free service where anyone can buy or sell anything, based on region. No need for you to pay $25 to put an ad in the paper, you can upload pictures and no-word-limits for free to Craigslist. Anyone can use the service without a central authority editing or filtering submissions.
• Long distance phone calls, even though cellular phones are the main culprits, are also being taken over by Skype users: internet-based phone calls that do not use "minutes." No minutes being used by the phone = no revenue for telephone companies.
• After 9/11, the US Government went after bin Laden like they would Tony Soprano: take out the mafia don and the rest of the organized crime ring would crumble. But in cell systems like al-Qaeda, bin Laden doesn't call the shots; they operate independently.
  

Challenging Churches

Now, what about the Church? In what ways are we increasingly centralized to cope with the changing world?

• On a Conference level (for UMs), we are shrinking conference numbers and increasing their geographic size. As my friend Becca Clark laments, while there are great administrative advantages to centralization, the strained personal and professional relationships from boundaries and distance to travel. Indeed, given the larger swaths of authority, one of my pastor friends is in a clergy group with other denominations because they are closer together!
  
• On a local level, Churches form united parishes between different denominations to lower building and administration costs and provide a collective place for ministry. The merits of united or federated parishes can be debated, but it is along the same lines of spiderlike thinking: consolidate or perish.
  

Like the above examples, we are becoming more spiderlike by shrinking authority and consolidating power in fewer and fewer people. Why? Churches are becoming more centralized because they are losing ground to decentralized forms of communication. What kind of communication?

• Churches used to be the social outlets and hubs; if you wanted to get to know people, you went to church! Nowadays, they are not so much part of the social fabric in an increasing number of communities. I've seen better opportunities for networking at Singles night at Whole Foods!
• Churches used to be the law of the land, the ruling authority. But years of increasingly shrill entries into public life have left even non-shrill churches in the shadows as people lump all of religion together. Communication improvements of "gossip" chains like Twitter, blogs, and web forums make it easier to leave religion at the corner.

I write all of the above section not to lament and want it back...heavy-handed religion and good ol' boys clubs are not my ideas of church! But we are still operating as spider churches and denominations in an increasingly decentralized world. In a sea of starfish, how can spider churches catch anything in their webs?

How to Respond?

Sorry friends, here's the catch: This first post outlines the problem. The next three will outline ideas on how to deal with it.

I figured the analysis alone would generate enough discussion. So to make sure we are on the same page, what do you think? Is the major problem confronting churches that we are increasingly centralizing our experience in a decentralized world? Are we really just doing great work, but people's circles of interaction are so small that they leave the church out?

Finally the ethical dilemma:

• Should the church even try to reclaim a centralized space again? (Constantinian church)?
  
• Or is church really better when it is a decentralized movement (ie. the Apostolic church under persecution of the Roman Empire)

Finally, for those of you who do not have the book, Methoblogger Richard Heyduck has three posts on the basics of the book: check it out here.

Thoughts on the above? Thanks for reading.

Related articles

• Starfish Rules [via Zemanta]
• New Church Holds Service In Bar To Reach New People [via Zemanta]
• Metallica to bloggers: don't review our music [via Zemanta]

Read more...

New Series: Starfish and Spider Churches

Wednesdays are becoming Weekly Wednesdays, where I'll post one of a series of posts that all connect or are around a certain theme. In May, the theme was "What the Church can Learn from Wikipedia" and it was well-received.

Starting a week from today, the last four Wednesdays in June will be on a book: The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom

As a teaser, there's one trait that both Spiders and Starfish share: they both have many legs. Starfish have five, spiders have eight. If we found two similarly colored and textured spiders and starfish, at first glance, they may look similar, right?

• Think of what happens when you cut off the head of a Spider...it will die. There is nothing to run the rest of the legs, so the Spider dies.
• But what about a Starfish? There is no head, the central nervous system is spread throughout the body. Indeed, if you cut off a limb, it will regrow. If you chop it in half...both will regrow, and then you'll have two of them!
  

Over the next month, we'll look at the characteristics of churches and see how they fit into the two categories above: Spider Churches and Starfish Churches

• In our denomination, most of our Churches are Spider Churches: they have a hierarchy, they are leader-driven, they are bureaucratic and inefficient, slow to change...and yet they sustain movements and structure accountability in ways that are helpful.
  
• However, there is potential for change into Starfish Churches: leaderless movements that are people-driven, adaptive, and rely on relationships for authenticity. In short, the kind of churches that are empowered here at HX.net.
  

If you want to better converse with me for this series, pick up a copy of The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations online or at your local library.

And come back every Wednesday in June for conversation!

Read more...