Note I am not saying 'Business as Mission' ... but reflecting to what extent current management has influenced mission planning and whether or not this is a good thing. ie Management by objective etc etc.
Personally I have found both John Kotter and Jim Collins helpful in thinking about managing the process of transformation - but always with the nagging certainty that neither God nor Kingdom building can be managed and that He is always at work doing the unexpected, that what is important to Him is often not quantifiable at all, and all we are ever doing is playing catch-up with Him! I think it was R T Kendall who wrote "The purpose of every generation is to find out what God is doing and align itself with that."
There is much to reflect on but it 'pains' me when I read or hear leaders who have stated "I define the vision of the Church clearly, in other words say where the bus is going, then people can decide whether or not they want to be on the bus!" Now this sounds plausible, in fact we might hear it in any other sphere of our lives - be it Sport, Politics, Business, etc. But it demands success, and demonstrable fruit .... yet much Kingdom fruit is hidden - which can then so easily be dismissed as unsuccessful. What pains me still further is when I feel the tendency to say it myself ... I hope I will always have the grace to recognise that my mind has been conformed to the world beyond that which it is helpful to be.
I see how this could/should be the case in terms of a ministry or organisation ... ie WEC focuses on Unreached people - so anyone committing to work with us should have a heart commitment to that aim. If they don't then when the trials come, and they will, then there is a temptation just to walk away and find another cause to attach to. But, and this is my 'pain', is this appropriate for the Church as the body/family of Christ?
Is that sentiment a luxury of leaders in the west where people who leave have a choice of having somewhere else to go. What if your Church is the only Church in your people group/City/Region - your only link to the body of Christ? What about Church as body or as family? If I so clearly define what 'my family' is to be like and my Son/Daughter choose to not be like that they do not cease to be my son/daughter or part of my family... etc etc.
The problem is that Churches that adopt this approach appear successful because they become, by definition and design, full of people committed to the cause ... but what about those who are left by the wayside as the process unfolds? Perhaps hurting, feeling rejected, etc etc. Is this acceptable to Christ or business thinking gone too far?
The Church can seem to be full of 'bright, shiny people' ... 'celebrating celebrity' ... no matter how often it is stated that this is not what it is about - read the Twitter feeds ... how does 'holiness, humility, righteousness' express itself in such context, or how can 'fear, failure, suffering' ever have the freedom to be expressed and explored?
What does success look like in terms of Church? More people? Deeper levels of devotion to Christ? Are the outcomes quantifiable at all? Who decides ... us or the One who is Head of His Church?
Really enjoyed the first of the web articles noted below especially reflecting on the fact that good Organisational Development is but one stage ... not the first, and not the most important ... Character and Godly behaviour will always be more important than slick business practice - even if organising ourselves better can 'sometimes' make us more fruitful.
Still much to ponder ... I wonder what Father thinks of all of this ... as He continues to build his Church through all of us!
In preparing I found the following two web articles helpful - which I commend to the reader!
http://www.missioncouncil.se/download/18.244c2fbe120dce4c6af80002276/Churches_in_Development.pdf (esp p28 0 implications for OD) and http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/what-would-jack-do.html?page=0,0 (Some reflections on the Willow Creek GLS)
Who are you? I have never been a great fan of labels when it comes to describing members of the body of Christ. eg. he is anglican, she is Baptist, they are Charismatic, etc. etc. I remember once causing a man to become increasingly hot under the collar when he asked me who I was? To which I replied I was a disciple (follower) of Jesus. He was meaning which Church did I attend (presumably so he could classify me and decide whether I was bona fide or not) and my answer did not bring him peace, but I refused to go any further. Why? Because, as I said, I am not a great fan of labels, but also because for me there is a very important distinction between primarily identifying myself with Jesus and identifying myself with Church. Of course, I recognise that by becoming a follower of Jesus I become part of the body of Christ, but that can be very distinct from being a member of a Church. To me this is the crucial difference between vibrant faith and dusty religion. ...
Right on!
ReplyDeleteI'm particular what troubles me is taking marketing and economic models and ideas and assuming they always fit in a kingdom context. Sadly the idea of being "professional" or "businesslike" is seen as justification without pausing to think that such ideas are not predicated on kingdom values.