Pound for Pound

This metaphor ran through my mind that I have to work to develop but may have some potential. In boxing it seems that everyone wants to be a heavy weight because that is the glamour division. But the term "pound for pound" has been around boxing for a long time. People who follow boxing realize that heavy weight champs are often not the best boxers. Those in lower weight divisions may be better "pound for pound" but simply can't overcome the reach, height, weight and power of the upper classes. Therefore, we often hear the claim that so and so is the best fighter "pound for pound" in the world.

Churches like to be heavy weights too. That's the glamour division. We often really don't care how good we are just as long as we are in the heavy weight division. But I think churches need to focus on being the best pound for pound church out there. There are extremely good heavy weights out there. But there are also some extremely good light weights too.

Will Merging Really Help Further the Kingdom

On claim proponents of our joining the MCUSA have made is that we will be better able to build the Kingdom of God. I've wondered where they get proof of that since it seems that in almost all areas of society we can see examples of bigger not necessarily being better.

If bigger meant an increased capacity to build the Kingdom it seems that the largest religious groups in the country would then have the fastest growth. If I remember correctly (sorry I can't lay my hands on the stat right now) less than half of those top 15 groups are growing at all and are actually declining instead.

I ran across another piece of research concerning merging congregations. It stated that only 9% of merged congregations grew while most declined (average of -5.7%) faster than their denominations. (Carol Grigg, To Merge or Not to Merge: A Study of the Decision of Congregations to Merge (Doctor of Ministry Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995), published in 1996 by The Alban Institute, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1250W, Bethesda, MD 20814-3211, p. 13.) If this is what happens with merging churches shouldn't we be extremely careful about denominations?

The point is there are a lot of statements that are easy to say and seem to make sense. However research often shows that these statements are false. We need to be very careful about what we accept as truth.

A lot of directions I would like to go with this.

"There is something morally repulsive about modern activist theories which deny contemplation and recognize nothing but struggle. For them not a single moment has value in itself, but is only a means for what follows." Nicolas Berdyaev

Is this what happens when we are so purpose driven we forget our prupose? Does that make any sense?

Innovator's Dilemma

I haven't read this book but the editorial comments are interesting. Apparently the author claims that a great company can fail even if it follows sound business practices, takes care of it's customers and invests in new technology because of disruptive technologies. In other words, innovators have a dilemma. They can focus on their current customers or their future customers. The claim is that often focusing on one leaves out the other. The solution is to create a seperate subsidiary that focuses exclusively on emerging markets and unorthodox customer base.

Interesting to think about this and the church. I think we are getting much closer to the point were we become completely out of touch with the future church because we are so focused on the needs of the present church.

Denominations and Positive Nonintervention

The theory of positive nonintervention was practiced by Sir John Cowperthwaite as he served as the finance minister of Hong Kong. He believed that "In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster." The result was that Hong Kong was turned from poverty into an economic power and poverty was cut in half.

I wonder if this is true with regard to the relationship between denominations and it's churches. Cowperthwaite had to resist extreme pressure to support government programs to tackle some of their problems. These programs where well intentioned but against his beliefs in Adam Smith's free market ideas.

I think good intentions can be dangerous. It is easy to find ourselves going along with them when we should actually stick to principles. Is positive nonintervention a good principle for a denomination?

Innovation

A few years ago I was watching a tv show that was discussing the education system in America with ones in other countries. One segment was showing how the Japanese system produced better results. But I was stuck by a Japanese professor who said that in spite of their success he still felt that the American system had something that the Japanese were missing. He pointed to the fact that Americans had won many Nobel Prizes in various academic fields whereas very few Japanese had ever won. He felt that somehow the American education system produced innovators whereas the Japanese system didn't.

This article takes it a bit further. The author points to a ratio of orderliness to messiness. Cultures that are extremely orderly don't seem to trigger the imagination. Meanwhile, messy cultures have glaring needs that inspire people to be innovative in finding solutions.

A quick glance at my desk (and believe me, it will only take a blink of an eye) will reveal that I am one who helps skew the ratio in favor of the messy side. I hope this means I will be innovative or at least inspire visitors to my office to be innovative.

My question now is what affect this has on the church. If a church is extremely well ordered will it have a difficult time being innovative? Is this another advantage of being on the verge of chaos?

Positive Assets

One of the difficult things in thinking about church today is determining what are good qualities to have and which are actually getting in the way. In the past we have looked at size, money, stability and experience as high value qualities. Now we are beginning to see near chaotic complexity (I would be happy to simply use "chaos" here but so many people don't like it I've tried to pc it.), rapid flexibility & adaptibility, and being on the brink of instability as qualities that are actually closer to reality and therefore more usable.

Unfortunately thinking this way gives us the feeling that we are out of control and we don't like that. But as Annie Dillard writes, "We are most asleep at the switch when we think we control any switches at all." You'd think a good look at God's creation would cure us of this.

Dilbert Goes To Church

Scott Adams has made a good living poking fun at corporate America through his "Dilbert" comic strip. Yesterday I was walking down a hallway in the downtown Hilton Hotel and found myself making my way through some well dressed business people playing a game. It seems it was all part of a training program. As I read the title on the adjacent conference room I discovered it was a training program on how to conduct a training program.

The sad thing is that much of what Adams spoofs is applicable to the church. Do we really step back and think anymore? Or are we too pre-occupied with the latest and greatest "answer" to notice how ridiculous we are? I think I'll grab a clipboard and wonder around so people will think I'm busy now.

Expedition

Perhaps we need to talk more about church in terms of expedition instead of some of the other metaphors that draw attention to the individual. Some of the definitions for expedition fit nicely. 1 a : a journey or excursion undertaken for a specific purpose b : the group of persons making such a journey
2 : efficient promptness : SPEED
3 : a sending or setting forth (from Merriam Webster)

The part I like best is the thought about a group of people rather than a solo journey. As I think about famous expeditions I see a lot of great dynamics that are applicable to what I think we should be doing in the church.

Along with expedition I like the word navigation. I think there is something to helping each other navigate the rapids we face on our spiritual journey. Usually we need others to do so successfully.

Church Success

What do most people think determines success in a church? Obviously number one would be numbers. I suppose others would include finances, optimistic outlook, happiness, etc.

How about a group of people making progress on a spiritual journey to become like Christ? Mind you, progress is often two steps forward and one step back and there may be times when you go one step forward and two back. But there is a general direction and progress is made toward that point over the years.

Another metaphor I like, beside the "journey", is farm land. Increasing the quality of the soil is a hard task that takes years to accomplish. Work to improve the soil never stops. There are fallow periods interspersed between years great production. Weeds are a fact of life. New seed thrives in fertile soil. Etc.

One difficulty I have is getting my church to see success in the same way I do. I hear a lot about numbers, facilities, programs, etc. I think so much of it has to do with watching other churches and not really seeking what God wants for us.

Going It Alone

I read Wilkinson's "The Dream Giver" a few weeks ago and rather enjoyed it. I usually get turned off when an author becomes a franchise, which I felt was the case after the Jabez stuff, but he did a good job with this book.

One thing I noticed about his parable is that the main character is basically on this journey alone. Yes, there are people who help him but basically he is flying solo. I also got to thinking about "Pilgrim's Progress" since it is similar and, though it has been a long time since I've read it, it seems that the same can be said for it. It is basically a solo journey.

This raised the question in my mind if this is correct thinking. What role does church, community, etc. play in all this. It would be interesting to see a book written like The Dream Giver that includes a group of people on a journey instead of a single individual. It would be interesting to see how an author would deal with the dynamics between the individual and the group. How would the individuals big dream relate to the groups collective dream? How would the individuals of the group help, or hurt, each other.

I guess I am questioning whether we really do go on journeys like this or if we need to realize that we never do outside of community. Is it possible for our personal relationship with God to become too personal? Is it healthy to look at this as a solo journey?

Articulating Church

ONe of my frustrations is that I have a difficult time articulating what I think a church should be. It should be simple, really, but over time we have added a multitude of complexities and have lost touch with the simple definition. The hazard is that the words we would like to use in that definition have become "loaded" and so I hesitiate to use them. Leave it to the western world to complicate things so.

Some books that I find helpful in this are three books that I think every pastor should read once each year. They are "In the Name of Jesus" by Henri Nouwen, and "Under the Unpredictable Plant" and "The Contemplative Pastor" by Eugene Peterson. I know that those authors will automatically raise red flags for some people but who did you expect me to list, Maxwell, Warren, Hybels, Spader & Schwarz?

UB Conversations

I think blogging is a great way to share ideas and I wish I knew of more UBs who did it. I'm sure there are a few out there but I am not aware of them. Too bad. I think it would be a great way to share ideas and hold conversations in general.

I think some would use time as the excuse but since I think busy people are usually only people who feel a need to appear significant to the world, that excuse won't work for me. Rather, I think many are afraid of saying something in print that someone may quarrel with.

I also think there is a great fear of being misunderstood. Granted that does happen. But I think it is foolish to avoid technology based on that. We better learn how to get along with it because communicating through writing is only going to become even more central to our lives.

Denominations & Churches in the Construction Business

Many academics have the belief that there is no such thing as human nature. What we typically describe as human nature is actually a social construct. In this theory we humans are basically animals and therefore there is really no determining how we might behave except for the environment in which we live. Thus the great struggle to control government and education systems.

Obviously I reject this idea but I wonder if we too haven’t fallen into this type of thinking. In a Christian sense the wildcard here is the Holy Spirit. Just like the social constructionists listed above, many of whom claim to be Christians I might add, the church and denominations seem to have a strong desire to do an awful lot of constructing during the spiritual formation of the individual. Is this because they don’t trust the Holy Spirit? Is it because they are satisfied with external rather than internal transformation?

I suppose I’ve stepped on many toes here. I just get tired of the rush to legitimize our own existence by thinking we have to be in the construction business.