Tod Bolsinger

A Cure for Denominational Depression

I’m a pastor in a denomination that is in the middle of (yet another) divide. I sat through another discussion about exiting churches at our Presbytery meeting a couple of weeks ago. It was like being part of a divorce negotiation with a couple that still loves each other yet one spouse can’t fathom being married any longer.

The parties involved are trying really hard to be civil, to be respectful, to be fair.  All in all, they are doing a good job.  This is a Presbytery with a lot of mutual goodwill. If anything, it’s the kind of place where a “good” divorce could happen.

And still it was so depressing. It would be easy to lose heart.  It would be tempting to let this swirl of inside-baseball continually be confused with where the real “game” is being played.  I know I have in the past.

But thankfully, I am now looking at this moment with a different set of lenses; a distinctively ecumenical and evangelical perspective.  Like two lenses that are bringing an otherwise blurry moment into focus, I feel as if I have been given a gift of seeing today from the vantage point of the future.

Recently I accepted a position at Fuller Theological Seminary—yes, a distinctively evangelical school. But it is also a school that is dramatically ecumenical.  Fuller has students from over 100 countries and over 60 denominations (and many of those fall in the “non-denominational” category).

Perhaps it’s because of that exhilarating, multi-denominational, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual pool that I swim in each day that I find myself moving more quickly through the depression to the hopeful moment before us. 

Yes, my denomination is in the midst of a painful divorce.  As the adult child of divorced parents I can tell you that this type of pain won’t be solved by having long talks about having long talks about how we should have long talks so that we can really hear each other.  (Oh, we all wish that it would…)  

Those who are “going” really left a long time ago. (So far, not one church in our presbytery that has entered “discernment” discerned that they should stay…)

Those of us who are staying are spending enormous amounts of energy and effort into trying to either convince them to stay or to give us more “alimony.”

And meanwhile… the mission is still there.  The world outside our door is still waiting for witness.   

Oh, we—who are so caught up in months of meetings about millions of dollars—say that this is about mission.

Those who are leaving for another denomination say that the mission of Jesus Christ is hindered because of deeply held theological differences that demand realignment. 

Those who are staying say that the mission of Jesus Christ is being hindered because those who are leaving are taking their property and purses with them. 

 Really?

So, you think that making a new denomination is the key to renewing the church?  How 19^th century of you.

And we think that more money is the key to more mission?  How 20^th century of us.  

The 21^st century is upon us. And it is beginning to look really, really different.   

That is what I see everyday.  The global church is growing with little organizational structure and few resources while we westerners who are so focused on maintaining our share of the Christendom-dream are in free-fall.   

Every week this past quarter, I worshipped in a chapel service that is representative of a wide swath of traditions and languages (recently someone prayed in Icelandic!).  Our school teaches in English, Spanish, Korean and will soon feature Mandarin Chinese.  At commencement, the gathered crowd went wild when a graduate unzipped his regalia to reveal his native country’s national team World Cup jersey.

Every day, I have conversations with bi-vocational church planters, filmmakers, NGO interns, artists, scientists, psychologists, missionaries, entrepreneurs, theologians, historians, anthropologists and yes, a whole pile of would-be pastors, who don’t really focus all that much on which initials are on their business cards. 

While the unity of the church is never served and the witness of the church is only hindered by division, the discussions around dividing have now become at least as detrimental as the issues that divide us.  

To my denominational friends, caught in this depressing discussing, let me urge you to consider: 

It’s time to hug and weep and pray and bless and say goodbye to those who are leaving (at least for now…who knows what will happen)

 …and get back to work.  

 Join hands with those who will work alongside you, build bridges with all the baptized.  Strengthen fellowship with anyone who will break the bread and share the cup.  The world is just outside our door.  The future is calling us, the global church is way ahead of us and the Great Commission beckons us all.   

Related articles

One Source, Many Streams: On Being Presbyterian in a Parched World #pcusa #mgbcomm

The Whisper that Made Me Leave My Church

Butter Knives in the Final Frontier #PCUSA #leadership

My Dad can fix anything with a butter knife.  In Dad’s hands a simple kitchen instrument that just that morning had been instrumental in making PB & J sandwiches for school lunches, becomes, at once, a screwdriver, a paint scraper, a pry bar, a file, a lever and even a small hammer.  It is really a wonder to behold.  When I was growing up, if some small home repair was needed, more often than not he wouldn’t turn to the big tool chest in the garage, he would just summon me to go to the silverware drawer and bring him a butter knife. 

After two years of reflecting on what is needed to help the church face an uncertain future and changing world, I have come to think that what we need--even more than new structures, organizations, fellowships and denominations--are the kinds of people who can renovate it with butter knives.

Bob Johansen, Distinguished Fellow for the Institute of the Future, describes what he calls a VUCA world, that is a world that is ‘volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous.” As Johnson puts it in the title of his best known book, “Leaders make the future.”

It was this spirit of imagination, play and innovation that infused the now-reconfigured Mid Council Commission.  In one sense, our hope was to give the “makers of the future” a new set of tools, a new ‘shop’ to experiment in, and a new sense of permission.  Our 300 page report was an attempt to recast every presbytery to fullfill Thomas Friedman’s charge: "We need 100,000 people in 100,000 garages trying 100,000 things-in the hope that five of them break through." 

And it was turned down flat. Barely even read or considered, let alone debated or discussed. The central idea rejected; a portion sent back to a new commission to be made more palatable to the present realities.  The shiny new tool box, the experimental work place and the bold call for creativity and permission silenced by an avalanche of “no” votes.  You can almost see the lights in the garages click off, the new tools, still in their plastic wrap shelved, unopened, untried. 

But in all honesty, it was expected.  Or should have been.  Johansen uses language that could have been the headline summary for the Pittsburgh Assembly, “You cannot listen for the future if you are deafened by the present or stuck in the past.”

But in this changing world, the leaders of the future will not be overwhelmed by either present or past, but will excitedly, “imagine alternative structures and love to play around with them to see what new things they can create.” They will be ‘tinkerers’ according to Johansen or, as Steven Johnson in his study of innovation has written, those who can “cobble together” the parts and pieces in front of them with the tools at hand for a new discovery.  Like the Houston engineers in the film, Apollo 13 who had to make a new air filter with only some small parts or the orbiting astronauts would succumb to their own carbon dioxide, the leaders of the future will need to be creative, persistent, resilient and able to make the future out of the parts and pieces of what we’ve got.  

It became crystal clear to many of us at the General Assembly that another “study”, “conversation,” “task force,” or even commission will not bring change to the church.  The church will not change until we get a change in leadership. Either we need new leaders who are ready to make the future or the current leaders of every level of the church must find a courage and creativity that has so far eluded them.

The leadership we have today is indeed “perfectly designed for the results we are getting.” It is leadership that is well-schooled in managing divisive politics through zealously guarding the status quo and then wringing hands and blaming the system when nothing changes.  “This is what it means to be Presbyterian,” one high ranking leader rationalized.  In Apollo 13, the lead engineer, mindful that not only the mission but the lives of his colleagues are at stake, yells at an excuse-making subordinate, “I don't care about what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do.”

Over the summer I have talked to several emerging leaders who are not letting the failure of nerve of the stakeholders of the status quo stop them.  They are not wringing their hands in futility.  They are not throwing up their hands in frustration.  They are not worrying so much about the initials on the door or whether another commission (or another denomination) can somehow save us from ourselves.  They have thumbed through the Form of Government, taken notes on the best practices of their peers and partners, started conversations across theological lines and started looking past the arguments in the presbytery meetings to the opportunities in their neighborhoods and the needs in their cities. 

They are not waiting around for another Assembly.  If good things come from the earnest people who are in the broader conversations, they are all for it.  But, there are people to reach and neighbors to love and good news to be proclaimed.  There are new worshipping communities to build and old congregations that need to be renovated.  They are going to keep thinking about what a congregation, a presbytery and a denomination CAN do, not what it was supposed to do.  Even if they don’t have the tools they might have had, they are not going to let that stop them.  They are too busy in the basement with their butter knives, making the future.

I’ll be tinkering with them.

Brian McClaren on The Future of the Mainline Church

From a video interview with Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PCUSA.  #MGBComm

"One of the most important behaviors and practices (for mainline congregations in this huge cultural shift)…is to encourage the development of new congregations that are different--creative new congregations…focused not on competing with existing congregations for a share of the religious market… but on the 'spiritual but not religious.' How do we help those people rediscover a vibrant faith in Christ and a life-transforming community of faith?  Those new communities is where the future is.”

 

Gus and Hal PLANT a Church: A Vision to Move Churches Forward.

Gus can’t walk, Hal is blind.  Alone they would each be what we sometime call “shut ins”.  Octogenarians both, they don’t get around very easily on their own.  But put them together, as they usually are, and those limitations don’t limit then all that much.  Gus sits in his wheelchair and gives direction, Hal pushes the wheelchair and follows Gus’ lead and together they get to where they want to go.

The first time I thought about Gus and Hal was at the New Church Development Conference that our church hosted for the Presbyterian Church (USA) Church Growth ministry.  The NCD pastors and team members in attendance were given an assignment to practice their observation and analysis skills in our community.  Teams spread out over a twenty mile radius and then came back with reports on what they saw.  As each team reported in, I scribbled notes.  It was as if I had been lent the eyes of a church planter to see my own community. 

But there was another tone to the church planter’s reports.  Sitting in the midst of our recently refurbished church campus, most of them couldn’t help but feel wistful at the abundance of opportunities they could see, and the lack of resources that they had (especially compared to our “established” church).  That is when it dawned on me.  The church planters are Gus: they can see but they don’t have the means to get to the needs.  The established churches, like my own are Hal: they have the energy to push, but can’t always see the need or opportunity.   Alone, we don’t move.  Together--Hal pushing Gus, Gus leading Hal--we travel into the midst of new places to do new things we could never do alone. 

In other posts, I offered Gus and Hal and their collaborative partnership as an opportunity for pastors to ward off burnout by returning to a vision of leadership that is closer to the New Testament model of partnership.  I have also suggested that the key for Gus and Hal (and Lewis and Clark) was to be humbly aware of our limitations, but focused on using our strengths.  In this post, I want to suggest that we consider this model for whole congregations. 

What would happen in our denomination if every church had a partner new church development?  What if for every blind, but energized Hal, there was a visionary, but lame Gus?  What would happen if each church saw the possibilities of this kind of collaborative partnership for both congregations?  Even more, what would happen for the mission of Christ?

A Friend Gave Me an IPad and I started thinking Missional Thoughts...

Two posts in a three part series about "attractional vs. missional" language for Presbyterian Global Fellowship are now up at their blog site.  There have been some interesting opinions expressed, too. You can read part 1 here and part 2 here.  The last part is still to come. And to think that the posts were all inspired by opening a really amazing gift from an incredibly generous friend.  UPDATE: Part 3, the conclusion of the series, is here.

The Problem with “Going Pro”

What do Wayne Gretzky, Bart Starr, Isaiah Thomas, Ted Williams and many, many pastors have in common?  They were once great players who became woeful coaches. 

I know, it’s an interesting tidbit about the superstar athletes, but what does this have to do with being a pastor? 

In my last post, I reflected on the complexity of being a pastor and the toll it often takes on leaders.  In this post, I want to offer another piece of Pastoral Complexity:  We are mostly confused about our calling.  That is to say, we often become pastors without realizing what the job really is. 

Most of us who end in the pastorate do so because someone experienced our ministry skills and encouraged us to consider it as a vocation.  In short, most of us were about the best lay leaders in our churches, organizations or missions and somewhere along the way someone heard us teach, heard us pray, saw us at a bedside or were part of a successful ministry program that we headed up and they told us that we were so good, that we should “go pro.”  (And most often, was mostly about “preaching”.  If you could preach or teach the Bible better than most, then it was assumed that you were called to be a pastor.)

And so what did we do?  We headed off to “professional ministry school” (i.e. “seminary”) or took a job on a church staff with the assumption that now the only thing that was going to change was that we were going to be PAID to do what we used to do as a VOLUNTEER.  (And, really, what’s not to like about that?)  On top of that, once we got our “professional association card” (i.e. “ordination”) we then became the resident “pro” for all kinds of wonderful and meaningful family and community “religious events” (like weddings, baptisms, funerals, invocations and such).  For most of us, this seemed like it would be the best possible world.  Our friends and family were proud of us, our home churches affirmed us and we now got to be paid (ok, not much pay, really, but the “ego perks” were nice) and “freed” to “do ministry full-time.”  We were now expected to be the resident “pro”, the “star player”, the “free agent” who brought the “home team” great results.

But… there is one really big problem.  Being pastor really isn’t about being the star player.  It’s really about being a COACH.  When you get ordained, you don’t get on the playing field, you go to the bench.  You are not the “resident professional Christian” but the leader of a community of mission. 

And that leadership calling is very, very different than most of us expected.

When you become a pastor, your domain is away from the stadium lights and cheering fans and off to the “practice field” where you, in the words of Paul, “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). And let’s face it, many of us who are quite gifted at teaching, preaching, counseling and care are just not all that good at “equipping the saints” for teaching, preaching, care and mission. Like Bart Starr or Isaiah Thomas, we are much better at taking the ball into our own hands than we are at leading a team of players. 

For many star athletes, however, perhaps the hardest parts about the adjustment from “player” to “coach” however are the things “away from the field.”  Deciding who “plays” and who doesn’t, managing conflicts, developing strategy, motivating players (who are sometimes pretty unmotivated) and making personnel decisions for the overall health of the team.  Many famous athletes who were great in the game wither under the criticism of the press and the second-guessing of the fans, and grow weary of the “drama” of the locker room and front office. 

In the same way, when most pastors are interviewed about the hardest parts of their job, they talk about how seminary didn’t prepare them for strategic planning, conflict resolution, organizational leadership and staff supervision, (let alone personnel issues, building projects, and administering preschools and the like.)

Even more, this “equipping” and “coaching” ministry is often much more about conflict, change management, and attending to a relational “system” than it is about teaching the Bible or training eager lay people to “share their faith” or serve others.  Again, most pastoring (at least in congregations) is far more about LEADERSHIP than anything else.  And that is pretty different than what we signed up for.

If that wasn’t enough (and this is where it gets really complex….) The REAL players…the laity, would mostly rather that we DIDN’T coach or lead them either.  Most lay people, truth be told, don’t want to be players, they want to be “Fans.”  They want the “Pros” to do the ministry. (That’s why they sent us to seminary, isn’t it?).  They don’t want to suit up and take the field any more than we want to go to the bench and coach them. 

And so…soon, we all fail.  Before long the “coaches” start just asking to play (like pastors who only want to preach and teach and do visitation, you know “real ministry”) and the “players” become spectators.  And the mission of a community of God’s people who are seeking to live out the Kingdom of God is really what gets benched. 

Of course, there are some “players” who become great coaches.  And that “adaptation” is what I want to write about next time.

Starfish and the Spider #11: Chaplain? CEO? Or Something else? Hybrid-Starfish Leadership

For many years, the ideal of a pastoral leader was a “Chaplain”. A pastoral care-giver, who prayed, taught the scriptures and administered rites of passages.  Churches built sanctuary’s and chapels in the middle of town.  In a Christendom world where the purpose of the church was to be “religious service providers”, being a chaplain was an important and necessary role.

As culture began to change, the church took on the role of meeting the felt needs of people who had left behind or looked beyond the church and faith.  The church became “life services providers” offering healthy recreational opportunities for kids, marriage enrichment classes, groups for support and social needs.  Downtown churches sold their chapels and sanctuaries, moved to the suburbs and built “campuses” with gymnasiums and coffee shops and bookstores.  This rich amalgam of services needed leaders who were not only preachers and pastors, but administrators and fundraisers.  The Chaplain gave way to the CEO.

But if the world is shifting again and the decentralized network is once again (See The Acts of the Apostles for an early version of this model!) the most effective means for being a witness for fulfilling a mission statement, than a new type of leader is necessary. 

And this, of course, is where the subtitle of Brafman and Beckstrom’s The Starfish and the Spider is terribly misleading.  No matter what the cover says, a hybrid-starfish network is certainly not a “Leaderless Organization”.  And even the authors admit as much:

“Managing a decentralized network requires someone who can be a cross between an architect, a cheerleader, and an awestruck observer…At their best catalysts connect people and maintain the drumbeat of the ideology.” (p. 207)

In the last post, I discussed the importance of “shared values”, what Brafman and Beckstrom call here the “drumbeat of the ideology.”  This responsibility cannot be overstated in a decentralized organization.  If Leaders do nothing else, they must protect, preserve and promote the shared values of the organization.  If this “intelligence” is lost, the organization dies. 

However, there is more to decentralized leadership than being a “custodian of values.”  And in a healthy “hybrid-starfish” it actually takes two types of leaders.   Sometimes they are found in the same person, often they are not.  But the partnership between “Catalysts” and “Champions” is the key to an effective “hybrid-starfish organization.”

In the words of the authors, “Catalysts Rule.”   Catalysts are those who inspire new ideas,  (“A catalyst develops an idea, shares it with others and leads by example.” p. 94) connect people, form circles, (“Circles don’t form on their own.” p. 93) and then usually fade into the background.  (Mary Poppins is a catalyst.)  She changes the family that enters and then flies away.  Catalysts are restless, contagious, curious souls who see possibilities within possibilities  generates ideas, leads by example, gives away the ministry and fades into the background eventually. 

But as important as a Catalyst is, even they need a “Champion.”  While Catalysts are visionaries, Champions are implementers. Champions take the ideas and vision of the Catalysts and make it stick, they “sell” the vision, they insure its survival and they usually stick around (Think Maria Von Trapp instead of Mary Poppins). While Catalysts are natural connectors, Champions are natural promoters. (“A champion is relentless in promoting a new idea.  Catalysts are charismatic, but champions take it to the next level.” p. 99.)

Together they create the leadership center for the ultimate goal in a decentralized system: Networks of healthy, engaging, growing, mutating circles of shared values.

Now here is the most important thing: neither Catalysts nor Champions are CEOs.  They don’t fill the roles they fill because of position, power, prestige, but because of personality, passion, and purpose. They are not necessarily the people at the top, in fact, they’d prefer if there wasn’t a top.  But make no mistake, if there is a healthy network, it is usually the work of a catalyst and champion. 

So what is pastor to be?
Chaplain?  Yes, at times.  We add value to the network with our particular skills and training.  When people need us to be a preacher, teacher, care-giver or convener of rituals and services, we offer them.  CEO?   Yes, At least in a few of the roles. But less than we used to be.  In a truly HYBRID-starfish organization, that is both strong and healthy there will always be some need for fiduciary responsibility,  administrative savvy strategic initiative, generative thinking and a public face for the organization.   Catalyst?  Again, yes.  Serving as “architects,” “cheerleaders”
 and “awestruck observers” connecting people and maintaining the drumbeat of ideology.”  But I believe that the very best Catalysts in a healthy organization are visionary lay leadership that arises from the ground up. 

I contend that for the health of the organization, a pastor has to function most often as a Champion.  When the pastor functions as a champion, the catalysts emerge.  The organization becomes “catalytic”, the whole environment nurtures creativity and innovation, while resolutely reinforcing the SHARED vision and values.

Being a Champion Leader is where I will pick up this series next post.

Starfish and the Spider #10: Really, Really Important Rule #8

Recently, the Emergent Network accepted the resignation from their National Director and announced that they would not be filling the position.  In a thoughtful, interesting move that has inspired considerable conversation about the future of the whole “emergent” concept, Brian McClaren makes this interesting comment that gets to the heart of the “organizational” conversation: "We know how to run traditional organizations. We don't know how to run networks. [But we know] there's a place for leadership in networks."

So, what is the place of leadership in networks?  

I believe that this is the single question that must be answered in order for organizations, especially organizations like churches that have had a long history of centralized leadership, to become more decentralized and “starfish-like”. 

In Brafman and Beckstrom’s book, The Starfish and the Spider, they highlight what they call “Rule #8”.  Or what I have called “Really, Really Important Rule #8”: 

“Shared values ARE the organization.” 

In a Starfish organization, the shared values or “ideology” is the “fuel” of the organization.  When the shared values change, the organization changes.  In fact, the only way to change a Starfish organization (for better or worse) is to instill new values.  And that “ideology-instillation” work cannot be underestimated.  (Indeed Brafman and Beckstrom see this as the primary missing ingredient on the war on terror and they have even been asked to consult with the US military on it.)

Instilling and protecting the shared values, “ideology,” “DNA,” or “intelligence” in every cell is the primary work of leadership in a network.  And nowhere is this more crucial than in the work of the mission of Christ in an increasingly diverse, de-centralized, “flat” world.  (Indeed “Rule #10” is “flatten or be flattened”. In other words, this just may be a matter of organizational survival for the church as we know it.)

If churches are going to become “hybrid-combo” organizations that effectively carry out the mission of the Kingdom of heaven, then the primary work of leadership is shared values-work. 

While this certainly includes lots of communication (what Brafman and Beckstrom call "maintaining the drumbeat of the ideology"),
it is also about education, (teaching the values)
inspiring mutual discipline and accountability (keeping the values) and
wise collaborative discernment (determining when missional effectiveness requires change. As Collins and Porras have written in Built to Last, the first task of leadership is determining “what will NEVER change” and then being willing to change EVERYTHING else.)

Now, in an institutional model with a highly centralized leadership, one can argue that shared values can be “enforced” through power, position or other incentives.  But a decentralized network requires VOLUNTARY submission to shared values.  Indeed, the values must truly be “shared.” And the work of leadership in a network is about cultivating the healthy environment for those shared values to guide all creative, energetic, decentralized endeavors.

In the scriptures, we see this “Rule #8” concept put forth by Paul in some of the strongest language of the New Testament. 

If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

What we are calling “shared values”, Paul terms as the “same mind”.  And that “same mind” is more than thinking the same way, but also about common cause, common care and a shared commitment to look out for the others.  Paul continues:

 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:1-2, NRSV)

Creating a network that fulfills these verses is certainly leadership challenge enough.  Keeping decentralized cells working in collaboration for a greater mission and keeping one cell from “eating” another and destroying the body cancer-like is a huge task in any organization. 

But that is not all that “Starfish leaders” must do.  Which is where we will pick this up next post.

When Jim Buys Pam His Parents' House

In a recent episode of The Office, Jim, recently engaged to Pam, took a leap and bought his parents’ house.  He doesn’t ask Pam’s opinion, doesn’t even tell her about it.  He just buys it for her as a wedding gift.

By the time he is taking her through the house, the look on his face reveals that he thinks he may have made a mistake.  The ugly reg shag carpeting, the picture of a clown that is superglued to the wall, even the thought of his parents’ bedroom (“I’m not allowed to go in there,” the new “homeowner” says), are all kind of sad, even creepy. 

You can almost see it playing out in his mind, “Why would she like this old house?  She probably wants a new one.  She wants HER OWN house…”  But finally, when Pam sees that Jim has already begun to organize the garage into an art studio for her, she bursts out into a smile.  “You bought me a house!” she exclaims and they hug each other and it is wonderful. 

Pam sees the gift as an expression of love and the sense of humor they share.  They see the potential and enjoy thought of making it their own.

It’s old, out of date and filled with memories that are a bit too much to even consider actually… But it is theirs.   And it also a bit sweet and a symbol of love, history and yes, a family.  So Jim and Pam will make this old house their home through lots of love, hard work and plenty of funny, awkward moments.  (What will they do with that clown picture?)

In many ways, this is the way that I see my life work.  Renovating an old, out of date house into a home for a new generation.  That is why I work in a denominational church and that is why, while I am so interested in the things that are “emerging” and “organic” and “post-whatever”, I am still firmly situated in a mainline church.

I am a renovator more than I am a builder.  I love the old bones, the memories and even the awkward clown pictures on the wall.  I love the old stories that cause you to laugh out loud even when they are sooo awkward and I love the sense of history in a “place” and the way that often, below the red shag carpet and under the layers of silver wallpaper are hardwood floors that just need some elbow grease to be beautiful again and carpentry that speaks of a craftsmanship from another time.

This is also why for the past several weeks, I have been offering a series of posts inspired by the book, The Starfish and the Spider.  In it, I see the possibilities of an organizational structure that could help old, out of date churches return to the “bones” and “hardwood floor” of an earlier era.  I see a way of being the church that can create a new “home” out of an old house.

When I read the book, I was immediately taken by the similarities between the early church and the “hybrid-combo” organizational structure that the authors commend.  What has been interesting to me has been that, aside from Alan Hirsch's recommendation, there have been otherwise so little conversation about this book in church circles   (Though there have been some good ones that I have highlighted along the way).  Indeed, in an increasingly “flat” and “decentralized” world it is probably a matter of organizational survival (whether we should even care about that, is, of course, a whole other topic to consider!).

Most creative types would rather start from scratch.  Renovating an old house with red shag carpet and a clown picture on the wall is not nearly as fun as a brand new house or a plot of land and your dreams in your head. 

But it is how old houses become the homes for the next generation.

In the year ahead, I will increasingly use “It Takes a Church” to discuss leadership and church life.  Less theory and more practices.  Less visioning and more deliberate action steps.  Less dreaming and arguing and more elbow grease.   What are the things that actually transform the lives of people, and the life of the church that is Christ's body?

And I’ll do so by returning to my series on the Starfish and the Spider and getting to perhaps the most important points, starting with this one: What does a “head” of a starfish actually do?

Starfish and the Spider #9: Hybrid Fuel for a Missional Journey

I drive a Prius.  I also drive a big 4WD GMC Yukon.  I always joke that one car is for preserving the environment; the other car is for enjoying the environment.  And I choose which car I am going to drive depending on…the environment.  That is the particular type of environment that I am going to be driving in. 

Most of the time, driving the Southern California freeways or shuttling to and fro the church office or meetings, my hybrid-fuel Prius is exactly the car I need.  But when we are carpooling a crowd, taking our teen and pre-teen kids and the two dogs on a road trip, or especially when we head off for skiing in the Sierras, it’s pretty nice to have a big four-wheel drive.  Again, two different cars for two different uses, but for one family with one overall goal to be good stewards of both our family life and God’s good earth.

But this really is just an illustration of a larger point that I want to make about The Hybrid Combo Organizational Structure of The Starfish and the Spider. 

Very often, I am asked about the values of a more decentralized organizational structure.  Why is it necessary?  Is it just trendy?  And really what does it accomplish? 

Decentralization is not a goal, it’s a strategy.  Effective missional communities of faith that reveal the Kingdom of heaven in a particular community is the goal.  (What we call at SCPC being “A Community for the community.”)  “Hybrid combo” structure where there is centralization around the things that need to be protected and passed on (like values, theology, resources and assets) and decentralization around specific expression of ministry, allows churches and other non-profit organizations to have a variety of ministries to match the different needs in a community.  Decentralization, done well, and held together through specific, clear, shared values allows a much greater variety of expression of ministry with greater diversity and creativity.   When the terrain calls for a big, slow 4WD SUV, you can use it.  When not, you can use a Prius.  The terrain, environment, culture or “missional context” determines what strategy you use, not the “vehicles” that you are most comfortable driving.

Let me use another “fuel” illustration to clarify my point.  In one of my favorite passages in Brian McClaren’s book A New Kind of Christian, Neo writes to a seminarian who wonders how churches that were formed and successful during the heyday of modernity are going to be able to change and adapt in a post-modern world. Neo uses the illustration of gasoline stations that had to offer both “leaded” and “unleaded” fuel back in the days when some cars still ran on leaded and the change hadn’t been entirely made to unleaded. Until there all the cars made the transition to the new fuel, stations had to offer both.

For the past few years, since reading that passage, that is the way that I have seen the work of bringing renewal in mainline congregations.  As long as we have “leaded” folk whose faith and faithfulness is “fueled” by more “attractional”, “programmatic”, and church-campus focused ministries, we’ll  offer them.  But as we seek to reach out to more unchurched “unleaded” people, we’ll have to find other “fuels” to ignite and empower their faith journey.  A church that only offers "leaded fuel" will soon run out of people to energize.  A new church can determine with "fuel" to offer based on its missional intent and environment. But a church that is trying to bring renewal within an existing church structure (like my own denomination), will need to offer a variety of fuels. (Something that is even more dramatized by the rise of all kinds of “alternative fuels”, is it not?  What a great metaphor of the varieties of spiritual experiences that are out there today.)

So, for example.  As a church we have wanted to have a more "missional Advent and Christmas season."  We have offered our congregation a number of ways to express their faith in service and generosity.  Have highlighted The Advent Conspiracy and encouraged families to refocus on simplicity, giving and service.  

In the past two weeks we offered two distinctly different Christmas “outreach” events.  One was a pretty traditional, “leaded”, Christmas concert.  Choir, orchestra, carols, a message.  It was beautiful, and our people sang their hearts out.  Over 1000 people came out for it.  Mostly older folks, many with tears in their eyes as they heard the old carols sung by a choir.  Some families, mostly there to hear their children sing.

But the second event, while still focused on outreach, was pretty different.  Our English-speaking congregation, partnered with our new Hispanic Congregation and offered a “Christmas Festival” in a local neighborhood park.  Santa, music, crafts, bounce house, face painting, a woman in our church just showed up and offered caricature drawings.  We made 1000 tamales.  Everything was free.  Just a big free Christmas party in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood park.  500 people took part.  (Which we thought was pretty amazing for the first time doing this.)  A lot of church members did both events.  But do you know who was front and center involved in this event?  Many of our young families, young adults, and teenagers… with our Hispanic congregation in the lead.  In other words, a lot of people who wouldn’t come out for a concert were “fueled” by a service project.  (And the attendance at our Hispanic service went up by 30% the following Sunday.)

As we move forward with a missional vision, attempting to shape a church out of the "environment" where the mission is launched (to use Michael Frost's description), we will need many different strategies, many different circles of relationships, many new experiments and endeavors if the Mission of the Kingdom is going to be the “central organizing principle” of our church.  At the same time we are going to need to continue to protect our shared values, faith and Kingdom commitment so as not to become competing factions.

What is so encouraging to me is that whether it was a group of senior citizens inviting their neighbors to hear some good Christmas music at the church, or a small group of teenagers serving in a park, their faith was “fueled” by very different experiences, but they were oddly enough heading in the same direction.