Spirit of Organization

Should the pastor also be an elder? Should elders approve all decisions? What is the function of a board of elders? Some might say that the function of the elders is to care for the spiritual needs of the congregation. Does this mean that the elders should not make decisions about the physical facilities of the church? I don’t think so, because the physical environment affects the spiritual environment. All of these are questions about structure and they all lead to a larger question: “Has God mandated a specific, clearly-defined, unchanging, and universal structure for His church? Many Christians believe that He has.

I want to question this belief. The source of my questioning is two-fold. First, I don’t see the support for it in the Bible. Second, such an idea conflicts with my understanding of the purpose and nature of organizational structure. Structure should not be rigid and unchanging, but rather it should be one of the most flexible aspects of organizational design.

I believe the first-century church was able to function as a kind of self-organizing chaos because the early Christians truly believed that Jesus Christ was directly and literally present in their midst and the He exercised the role of Chief Executive Officer for the decision-making process of early Christian leaders. One of the most intriguing things I find in this discussion is the similarity between the New Testament church and recent theories of organizational structure that emphasize removing hierarchical barriers and that see structure more as a process of emergent adaptation.

I believe that structure should be the most flexible aspect of an organization. Structure needs to be dominated by and bend to the will of strategy. Structure is an instrument or means for achieving the strategy; it is a servant of strategy.

I recognize, however, that this is rarely true in practice. People are more likely to fight for their sacred structures to such an extent that they end up forgetting the original core values that created that structure in a time and place that it truly functioned to serve the strategy. A church that gives preeminence to structure will always be heavy in management and very light in leadership because leadership has to do with change. Such a church is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

What we need to realize is that the alternative to change is obsolescence and that is far more painful than change. The question is how to manage change while at the same time protecting our core values and strategic focus. The bottom line is that we need to get back to our roots, the roots of the Great Commission to cross cultural and societal barriers as we seek to help people connect up with God through His Son Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. All structural concerns should bend to the service of this end (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

In his book, The Learning Paradigm College, John Tagg says that integrity “entails that we continuously maintain the vision by changing practices, by adjusting [the] work on the periphery so that it makes a good fit with the core” (p. 288). I consider myself a conservative both politically and theologically. However, I’ve observed with dismay how my fellow conservatives often don’t seem to be able to make a distinction between the core of their conservative values and the peripheral ways in which these values are expressed. In fact, over time, it seems like groups experience a relentless shift away from the core toward an ever-increasing focus on the periphery.

Charles Handy used an illustration of an “inside-out doughnut” to describe an organization that knows how to focus on the core while empowering its people to act responsibly and autonomously on the periphery. The core of the doughnut, instead of being empty, is full. This is the part of our work that is essential to what we are supposed to be doing. It represents our core values. The outer ring of the doughnut is empty (hence the inside-out doughnut). This outer ring represents “our opportunity to make a difference, to go beyond the bounds of duty, to live up to our full potential” (p. 70). This, says Handy, is “our ultimate responsibility in life, a responsibility always larger than duty.”

Too often, we conservatives make the outer limits of the doughnut the sacred zone that must not be tampered with and we so focus on that external doughnut skin that we may even forget completely what the core was all about. At some point, there is a shift and what once was the periphery becomes the core. Jesus had a run-in with a fundamentalist religious group called the Pharisees where He tried to make this point with them, but they weren’t listening. Jesus said to these religious leaders: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin [valuable spices in the ancient world] and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23, NASB; See also Micah 6:8). What a great visual image of focusing on the peripherals! One can imagine these persnickety old men with their bearded faces bent down over a table, carefully separating ten percent of their spices so they can give their tithe at the next temple worship service, all the while ignoring their own ruthless treatment of outsiders, their racism, and their love for money.

Churches are notorious for turning the peripherals into sacred cows. I know of a church that was considering the possibility of building a new worship center. I overheard one of the women of that group say: “I’m all for it as long as it looks like a church.” My thought was: “Since when did “looking like a church” become a core value of Christianity? What about serving people? What about helping people get connected with God?

Everyone knows the story of how the Swiss watch companies lost the market to the digital watches. How might the story have been different if these companies had focused on the core value of helping people to keep track of their time, rather than focusing on making mechanical watches? There seems to exist this natural tendency to slide into a mode of defending the solution to such an extent that we forget what the problem was. And once we forget what the problem was, we fail to understand our current problems and we fail to foresee those problems that are on the horizon.

[Post a Response]

Works Cited

Tagg, John. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. Bolton, MA: Anker. ISBN: 01740-0249

Handy, Charles. 1994. The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN: 0-87584-643-2

New American Standard Bible. 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 23:23.

Vision is one of those ancient words that has been brought back into the world of modern organizational theory. It is also one of those concepts that are so difficult to define but that everyone knows it when they see it. What exactly is a vision and why is it so important? Why is it that so many organizations seem to be in a drift pattern, with no clear direction, slaves to daily routines, having no connection with ultimate meaning? To understand what vision is, perhaps we need to first understand what it is not.

A vision statement is not a guarantee of success. While having such a statement is important, without implementation, a clearly defined vision will accomplish nothing. It’s a little like the great debate that James was having when he argued that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Vision without implementation is dead.

A vision is not wishful thinking. A real vision does not occur in a factless vacuum (Kotter, 1997). It comes about through “a tough, sometimes exhausting process of gathering and analyzing information. People who articulate visions aren’t magicians but broad-based strategic thinkers who are willing to take risks” (p. 27).

A vision is not simply a mantra that emanates mystical energy merely by vain repetition. It will accomplish nothing if all it does is hang on the wall, carved into a granite plaque. It can only accomplish its task when it has become the life blood and heartbeat of the organization. It will propel the organization toward excellence only when it has become a heartfelt sense of direction that is well-informed and backed by a team of workers willing to put forth great effort to bring it about (Read more…)

[Post a Reply]

Cited

Kotter, John P. “What Leaders Really Do.” In Leadership: Understanding the Dynamics of Power & Influence in Organizations, ed. Robert P. Vecchio, 24-34: University of Notre Dame, 1997.