Tod Bolsinger

The Blessing of Blogger's Block

A quick glance back at the date of my last post will let the reader know that I have been suffering a bit from “blogger’s block” for a while now.  Not that I haven’t had any thing to write.  Since I last blogged I have written a dozen sermons, hundreds of emails, the prep work for a Leadership Open Space Gathering, and several revisions of our Presbytery’s proposed Vision for Mission Design.  It’s not that I haven’t had anything to say, it’s just that I found myself stuck about what to say next in this series that has captured my blogging attention since early in the fall.  And attending to, instead of resisting that “stuckness” finally led me to understand something about myself and my role as a pastor and leader that I had been silently resisting.

So, with apologies to anyone who actually missed this blog while I was working it out, I think I may be on to something.  To recap, back to where I was….

A year ago I read a book by Rod Beckstrom and Ori Brafman called “The Starfish and the Spider” that challenged me to start thinking about the way in which organizational design can limit organizational effectiveness.  I was challenged and fascinated by their insights.  Further, while they never mentioned the early church as an example, it was clear to me that if they had looked at the New Testament, there would have been ample reason to include the first century church as evidence of the success of an organization of circles and shared values. 

At the same time, I was working with a team of people from Los Ranchos Presbytery on a reworking of our Vision for Mission Design.  The Odyssey Group, as it was called, was working out a shift in our presbytery from being primarily a “regulatory body” to a “missional learning community.”

Meanwhile, at the church where I serve as Senior Pastor, we have been in the middle of a reconfiguration of our church leadership culture from a “pastor-centric” to “collaborative” model.  This process had started in earnest in June 2007 when I had invited in Kevin Ford of TAG to consult with us based on the concepts of his book, The Transforming Church.

At the center of all of this discussion was an ongoing to and fro around roles and responsibilities.  Especially leadership roles and responsibilities.  Most specifically the Pastoral roles and responsibilities.  (And notice the plural in roles.)

I was using my blog to reflect upon the insights of Beckstrom and Brafman and had written a dozen or so posts on a roughly once a week basis when I got stuck trying to work out the last piece on the roles of a pastor. 

In my last post I had written about pastors as catalysts, but even more than that, pastors had to be champions.  Something that I truly believe.  Indeed I need to finish this thought because I believe that it is as a “champion” to a community filled with catalysts and connected people that a pastor finds the kind of fulfillment and energy that makes ministry so rewarding. 

But…this is where I got blocked.  Other thoughts kept running around in my head.  Thoughts about staffing a church team, about the roles of pastors and lay leaders together, about who gets paid in a church system and why, and how in an organization of “circles and shared values” there is a crucial “adaptive shift” that must take place that is so difficult for most communities of faith to do that they never make it.  Thoughts that led to questions that I couldn't answer and even worse, questions that led to more questions.

Every time I wanted to hold up the role of Champion as the main role for a pastor in a “catalytic and connected community”, I kept feeling this, “yeah, but…” sticking like a sliver in my mind. And after just sticking with the unanswered questions and continually raising them in different circles, I stumbled on an insight that has been staring me in the face all along.  Even more than being a Champion of Christian catalysts and their ideas, Pastors especially had an even more important function in a community that is so wedded to who they are as pastors and leaders that it has been overlooked.

The primary role of pastors in a church community, the role that we are most equipped for, most eager to do...
the role that probably got us into this in the first place and the role that we probably left behind somewhere along the way as we became more experienced and successful...
the role that if we could recapture it and if our church’s would let us live it out would keep us pastoring longer...
The role that many, many churches are just to fearful to let their pastors pursue is that of…

Learner.

This is what I needed to figure out how to say.  Pastors are not primarily Chaplains or CEOs, and only secondarily Catalysts and Champions.  We are, are at least we once were, Learners, students, disciples.  And as we reconnect to and live out that primary calling as learners we best serve our churches. 

Further, if we are recast as the CLO of an organization (the Chief LEARNING Officer) we guide our churches into the organizational shift that is most necessary if our churches are going to remain vital in a changing world.  This shift has been at the heart of the redesign of our Presbytery, the restructuring of our church and the renaissance of my calling as a pastor. 

It’s the shift from an “Expert-Centered Organization” to a “Learning Community”.  (Which will be my next series of posts after I put up the "Champion" piece.)

For me, the blessing of blogger’s block was reconnecting to the part of me that was resisting becoming the “Starfish and the Spider” expert.  Even blogging has a tone of “I know this and need to share it”.  I was struggling with writing about something that wasn’t fully formed in my mind.  About writing about what I was learning, what was changing, and how I was shifting.  And that led to me being “blocked”.

When people asked me when I was going to post again, I went from feeling irresponsible to finally feeling free.  And all it took was for me to honestly answer, “I don’t know.”  I didn’t know when I was going to post again, because I didn’t know when I was going to figure out what I needed to figure out.  And once I embraced that ‘ignorance’, ‘insight’ followed.

Because I am at my best when I admit what I don't know.  Being a learner is what eventually led me to be a pastor. Being a committed passionate learner is what led me, paradoxically, to become a leader.  When I am leading from my ignorance, (instead of my expertise), I am ironically leading best.

In the upcoming posts, I’ll explore this notion of being the CLO of a Learning Community as the heart of leadership for a changing world (and especially at the heart of pastoral leadership in a changing world.)

But for today, I just want to give thanks for a blessed and fruitful blogger’s block.

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. 

Starfish and the Spider #8: Moonlighting and The Hybrid Combo.

With the economy being the way it is this year, our family savings taking a big hit and a growing concern that we could be in this for awhile, I decided that instead of simply plopping more debt on the credit cards this Christmas, I would undertake a very simple new business endeavor, a little Christmas “moonlighting” as it were: I am selling some of my barely read books.  In the past two weeks, I have been able to make enough cash to help our family buy some of our Christmas gifts and have been pleasantly surprised at how easy it has been.  Now, did I take a few boxes down to the local used bookstore?  Did I advertise in the paper and run my own “Garage Sale” type book sale?  No.  I am selling them through Amazon Marketplace, the E-bay-inspired “peer to peer” sales program that is both safe and easy. 

Notice: I said “safe” (both for me as the seller and my customers) even before "easy". 

Amazon and Ebay are two of the classic “Hybrid Combo” examples that Brafman and Beckstrom use in the Starfish and the Spider as the future of organizations.  The key to the combo is that no matter how “easy” it is and “fun” it is (not to mention far more affordable) to shop through a completely decentralized network (Like Craigslist), there are always going to be those who are wary of giving their financial information to complete strangers where there is no guarantee of security.

So, E-bay (a decentralized “Starfish”) bought PayPal (a secure “Spider”) and made a “combo” company that has now been copied by others like Amazon.  When I sell a book on Amazon Marketplace, I list it on the website, I wait for it to be sold, when it is I package it and send it.  Amazon collects the payment and then pays me every two weeks (minus a small commission). I never see a credit card number, I barely even interact with my customers and they with me.  They don’t even see my real name unless they go looking for it. 

I am part of the decentralized “Starfish”, Amazon provides the secure “Spider” for financial information and millions and millions of dollars and products pass from one person to another.

In an increasingly decentralized world with lots of potential for illegal mayhem, Security is the one item that must remain centralized.

(A personal illustration: Just two weeks ago, we had our credit card number stolen and someone in India tried to buy a really nice new global satellite telephone.  Thankfully, our credit card company noticed that the purchase was unusual and stopped it from going through, they have since given us a new credit card.)

What does this have to do with Starfish thinking in churches and other non-profit organizations?  It shows the beauty and necessity of thinking in terms of the “hybrid combo”.

While simple organizations, house churches, and “organic networks” can function entirely as “Starfish”, as soon as there are “assets” to secure (and not just financial!), there needs to be some kind of centralized system of security and accountability.  (What Richard Chait and his colleagues have deemed “fiduciary” responsibilities in the best book on non-profit governance that I have read, Governance as Leadership). 

By “fiduciary” matters, I don’t simply mean our money and our stuff (like property, equipment, pension accounts, insurances and the like), but everything that we must “faithfully” (that is the root word in “fiduciary) protect and pass on.  For a church that is also the theology, the traditions, the values and vision (what Jim Collins and Jerry Porras refers to as “what will never change”).  These are the “spider” concerns; the matters that require a “head” person or organization and they are matters of utmost trust that require utmost accountability and security. (As I told my Session, the governing board of our church: “If we fail to in our fiduciary responsibilities, we will lose our positions, our jobs, our ordination, and maybe even our freedoms.”)

But once those things are clearly secured in a centralized structure, then EVERYTHING else can and should be decentralized.  Once fiduciary matters are securely centralized then nothing else need be.

Nothing else?  Then how do we keep one “cell” from taking over the whole body in a “cancer-like” mutation?  How do we insure unity of purpose and principles?  How do we keep each decentralized circle working in a healthy network together?  What keeps everything from breaking down and breaking apart?

The answer is in what else gets “distributed” from the head: Not just power, authority and control, but also values, vision and mission.

What makes a Starfish different than a Spider, is that while a Spider has a head that controls the actions of the limbs, in a Starfish, every cell has within it the “organizing energy”, the “intelligence” or “brain” of the whole Starfish.  And the fundamental leadership task of a successful hybrid-combo organization is getting that “intelligence” into every cell.  Which is where I will pick up next post.

Starfish and the Spider #6: Chinese Starfish, Missional Living

I want to lift a comment on an earlier post from The Missional Network blog, with gratitude for this nice summary of  The Starfish and the Spider and the link to this video on the Underground House Church Movement in China.  This video demonstrates what I have said whenever I have been asked to speak on The Starfish and the Spider in church circles:  If Brafman and Beckstrom had known about it, they would have absolutely used the early church as a prime historical example. 

While more and more forms like this are becoming evident in the global church, I think the most pregnant line of thinking is how these Starfish examples and transform and energizing established but declining churches in the west.

 

  I also want to add some links to my friend, Craig Williams' ongoing (but sporadic) reflections on both The Starfish and the Spider and Kevin Ford's The Transforming Church.  Craig, a church planter who now serves as a nationally known coach and consultant to church planters and church plants, writes on missional issues with both of these books in mind. 

If "Starfish" is my current favorite organizational model, Ford's Transforming Church is the "leadership manual" for those who want to see the church be transformed from a "consumeristic" to "missional" mindset. Since I have other things to explore, I'll let Craig carry the ball on The Transforming Church, but highly, highly recommend it as must reading for those who still believe that the church--even as it is today--is worth trying to transform.

Starfish and the Spider #5: The Stuff that Makes us Spiders

A few weeks ago, I spent some time with a pastor who had recently been “fired” from his church.  Ostensibly, the precipitating cause of his removal was to raise a theological question about a matter that most Christians in the world are pretty unclear about.  But as he described this heartbreaking situation, it became clear that another issue, unspoken, but looming so large was actually way more important than any theological nuance: Buildings.  Property.  A Large beautiful church campus and all that that entails…high profile ministry, large indebtedness, lots of anxiety.

The pastor explained to me that 15 years earlier he had been called to take over a struggling suburban congregation.  He came in as a young preacher with a bit of edge to him, and his personality became the personality of the congregation.  It was fresh, compelling, even controversial.  And the church grew.  And grew.  And grew.  He is a really good preacher.  A compelling personality and yes, has an “edge” about him. 

But a growing church led to a new campus and new buildings and a big building project.  The church attracted new people who were drawn more to the success and size and programs that a large church could produce than to the edgy preaching and prophetic ministry of the preacher that had grown the church in the first place.

And these new people soon made their way into leadership, committed with all good intention to help this gifted preacher ‘manage’ the church so that it could sustain the growth, pay the bills and continue it’s upward spiral of success. Until the pastor, in his characteristically abrasive way, started rubbing the ‘wrong’ people the wrong way. 

Eventually, the pastor was deemed too controversial for such an ‘established’, growing, church (indeed, a ‘star’ in the denomination).  And he was out.  Now the pastor runs an inner city home church network that is dedicated above all things, as he told me, to “NEVER have a building.” 

In the Starfish and the Spider, Beckstrom and Brafman tell the compelling story about how the Apaches avoided being conquered by first the Spaniards, then the Mexicans and then the Americans.  Centuries after the mighty Aztecs had been overthrown with all their wealth and culture and power, the rag-tag Apaches were still confounding the United States government with their decentralized “starfish” ways. 

Until finally, the Americans figured out how to conquer the Apaches: Give them cows.  Cows were valuable commodities that could produced guaranteed nourishment for decades.  But cows also required that the nomadic, “starfish” Apaches, had to settle down in one place and put someone in charge of the cows.  And then, they could be contained, controlled, even conquered. 

Now, some may immediately jump to the conclusion that property and possessions are inherently wrong. (Indeed, that is the conclusion my pastor friend has understandably come to.)  But, I am not.  In fact, as a pastor, I have spent the better part of the past ten years leading our church through just the kind of extensive building program that my pastor friend had undertaken.  (Thankfully, I still have my job.) 

I contend that thoughtful, careful stewardship of resources is one of the responsibilities and opportunities for insuring a lasting legacy of an organization.  When Brafman and Beckstrom write of the “hybrid-combo” that seeks to decentralize most of an organization, it seems to me that what should remain centralized is the responsibility for that thoughtful stewardship.  If you have anything that is worthy of protecting and passing down, then some centralized form of leadership is necessary and that may be the ONLY role for a "head" of a "starfish".  (What Richard Chait and colleagues deems “fiduciary responsibility”.) 

But one of the most important realities for any organization to face "head" on is that organizations change when they get stuff.  And to put it even more bluntly:

Stuff changes organizations.  It is ‘stuff’ that turns a starfish into a spider.  It is usually ‘stuff’ that will keep a spider from becoming more starfish-like, even if that transformation is exactly what needs to occur to accomplish our mission.

Mostly, it is unconscious.  (I would dare say that if anybody from my pastor friend’s church reads this, they’ll protest loudly that it was NOT about the buildings but about his theology!) But more often than not the unspoken driving force behind an organization being overly centralized, overly fiduciary and overly regulatory, and dramatically under-performing in its actual mission, is the drive to protect the stuff.

If we are going to have effective missional organizations than we must have candid conversations around this conviction:

When we stop protecting our mission and start protecting our stuff we lose our mission.

Starfish and the Spider #4: The Head of the Starfish

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.

Starfish and the Spider #3: What good is a Starfish anyway?

All of my friends who have read The Starfish and the Spider have told me that the first 158 pages were both interesting and frustrating.  The stories of the power of decentralization were compelling and engaging.  What’s not to like about the “little” apaches taking on the “big” Spanish Army?  Or decentralized Napster wreaking havoc on the centralized music industry?  Or rag tag Al Quaeda…oh.

That’s when the frustration set in.  While decentralization is very effective at attacking, confronting and deconstructing (or in some cases destroying) centralized entities, what good are they?  What can they do that is constructive? 

As one of my older friends commented in a most exasperated voice, “What good are starfish?  They just lie there.  At least Spiders build webs.” 

Even the stories of positive “starfish” organizations like Craig’s List and Alcoholics Anonymous had a frustrating downside:  They don’t make money.  They can’t pass on assets in an enduring way that can last beyond the personalities of those running the “circles”. 

So, what’s the answer?

Some, in applying this starfish thinking to the church, have advocated a return to home churches or informal networks of Christians without any formalized (and especially paid) leadership.  No buildings, no foundations, no bylaws, no structure.  Just Christians hanging out together for Jesus doing the mission of Jesus. 

But what if you already have assets like a building?  Or you want to provide for some security for leadership so that they can stay put and shepherd the flock?  What if you want to start a hospital or university to carry on the mission? Or what if you want to insure faithfulness to a vision beyond the personality of the founder?  (I have no idea what will happen to “Craig’s list” after “Craig”.)

As soon as you buy something or “resolve” something or pass down something or pass on something, you have a “head” of some kind.  And the informal, organic, spontaneously splitting starfish becomes a “spider”.  Remember how the US Army conquered the Aztecs?  They gave them cows.  As soon as they had stuff they had to settle down and protect it.  And in many ways, that is what has happened to so many of the home churches or informal Christian groups I have known.  They were changed as soon as they had something to protect.  And in most cases, that was cows…but kids.

As soon as you want a children’s ministry, or a youth program or you want to insure that there is something for your kids that is safe and secure for them to belong to or to grow into, you become a spider in some way.  Indeed, security always leads to centralization of some kind.  (Which is why Ebay bought PayPal and why every decentralized online merchant relies on some trusty centralized banking system so that people will give them their credit cards.  Would you give yours to some stranger named “Craig” just because he has a list?)

Which is why on page 159, the light bulb goes on.  This is when the authors introduce the idea of the The Combo Special of the Hybrid Organization.  Figuring out this "Hybrid Sweet Spot", this right combination of some centralization and some decentralized is one of the most important ongoing decisions for any changing, adapting organization. 

This process of discerning what must be centralized for the sake security and what can be left decentralized for flexibility, creativity and adaptation is the key leadership question of our age. 

And so, ponder with me:  What MUST be centralized in a healthy organization and why?   What is necessary for good, constructive decentralization?