In his seminal presentation at the Presbyterian Global Fellowship gathering of 2007, missional theologian Michael Frost gives a beautiful description of a first century “ekklesia” (the word from which we get the word “ecclesial” or “church”).
Frost says that whenever a village got big enough that it needed to keep its children and animals safe, it would put a wall around the village and install a big gate whereby strangers could enter.
Whenever a men got to be past the child-bearing years and had a grown son, (excuse the (culturally sexist tone of this illustration), he would hand his son the family business that that he would have mentored him into since he was a child. Then that “semi-retired” man with white in his whiskers (who was probably about 40 years old or so), would do what “semi-retired” men would do. He would regularly gather at the city gates with all others who had ‘white in their whiskers’, all other fathers, grandfathers and uncles and they would together make themselves available to help the villagers discern wisdom whenever there was a conflict, an issue, or a something that could help the village. These men, these elders, would serve the whole village by being the people who would together determine and insure whatever was in the best interest for the good of the whole village.
Whenever a young man would have a problem within his family or within his community, whenever he was unsure of what to do with fortune or misfortune, whenever he was in conflict with another man or another family, or whenever he wanted to try something new, he would seek out the “elders at the gate”. They would counsel him and then set him free to carry out what was in the best interest of the community.
According to Frost, the word that describes the gathering of the elders at the gate is the ekklesia. The ekklesia is the group of people who “add value to the village of which they are a part.” The ekklesia is the community of wisdom and discernment within the community that would add the value to the larger community. The ekklesia didn’t control the community, but served it by insuring that the “good of the whole community” was represented in every decision of every part of the community.
This illustration highlights what I would call is the purpose of the “head” of a “starfish”. Of course, starfishes don’t have heads, do they? That’s what makes them starfishes and not spiders as authors, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom remind us.
But for Brafman and Beckstrom the model of organizational life (which I am arguing is the best model for “ekklesial” life) is the “hybrid combo” where there is “centralization” or a “head” that is very small, very specific and entirely functioning around protecting what has been entrusted and needs to be past down.
Just like the way that a village didn’t need walls until it needed to keep its children and animals safe, an organization like a church only needs to be centralized in the things that need to be entrusted and past down (what Richard Chait in his book, Governance as Leadership, terms “fiduciary” elements.) The “head’s” job is to protect that which “adds value” to the greater community. (Which, as Michael Frost persuasively points out, is exactly what the church should be about—we “add value” to the greater community.)
Everything else can be “decentralized”. Every other structure, group, system should be about expressing that “value add” within the community. Once we are clear on what we must protect and pass down and once we have created a way of doing so that is safe and agreed upon, then we can encourage and allow growing, catalytic circles that build on existing “networks” so that the “DNA”, the “shared values”, the “mission” and “vision” of the “head”, the “elders” can be expressed throughout the village for the good of the whole village.
This the original understanding of the ekklesia, the church, is exactly what a church structure should be today also. The church must be organized so that the only thing that is centralized in the “head” is that which should be “protected and passed down”. As long as every circle understands and has within it the “wisdom of the elders” (the values of the organization, the DNA of the head—pick your metaphor), then it is free to “add value” to the whole community, carry out the mission and express it in anyway it can.
In a missional church, understanding this hybrid-combo structure is crucial. Determining what can and should be “protected and passed down” and what should not is the crucial act of discernment that takes the wisdom of elders in leadership. In this model, there are two things that MUST be centralized: Share Values and Resources.
The first of which is crucial. Shared Values or what Brafman and Beckstrom call “ideology”…the corporate identity, the values and vision, the “DNA” of the organization, is what gives the organization life. If Shared Values are not “protected and passed down” then the organization ceases to be. Indeed, as Brafman and Beckstrom write in their most important “Rule #8”: Values ARE the organization."
The second of which is potentially very dangerous. Resources change everything. Resources when handled wisely can insure the survival of the organization into the future. But resources can also lead to a starfish ceasing to be a starfish.
And understanding this delicate balance of what MUST be protected and what CAN be potentially so dangerous to protect is the next topic of discussion.
Recent Comments