***Please read the disclaimer

If the email blast we send was a web page, would anybody ever read it?

If the bulletin was a blog, how many comments would it have?

If the Sunday school announcement was a facebook status, how many people would tag it?

We probably have a command and control system that is characterized by a top down hierarchy.

This is good because it is one component to a healthy system, organization, body, etc.

The rest of it is most likely a system described by Steven Johnson his book Emergence (p. 77) which "learns from the ground level, a system where macrointelligence and adaptability derive from local knowledge..."

This part of the equation would be decentralized groups of people seeking out the information and connections they need to grow in their ministry and place in God's Mission.

Some of the characteristics to consider when interested in moving toward this component of organization:

More is different: There needs to be something called "critical mass". This is real tricky because this is what leads to getting stuck on the numbers. An event cannot be judged only by how many people come, but the reality is if you have 235 kids on the role and only 10 of them show up for the retreat- you are not going be have a faithful community. The retreat can still be awesome, but sheer numbers do figure into the equation. More people, more interactions, more growth.

Ignorance is useful: Not everybody who comes to the event or joins the community needs to know the mission, vision, and purpose statement and what the metrics are. In fact the less the participants know themselves about the overall complexity of what you are doing the better. Some people just want a job to do and be done with it. This is OK. Remember the mainframe top down structure with the mandates and the core values is already in place.

Encourage random encounters: This is where we sometimes work against ourselves. The missions person should be in dialog with the director of children. You as director of missions shouldn't be the point person or go between for missions laity and children's staff or even laity. Encourage (or at least try not to dissuade) such encounters in the name of chain of command protocol or "keeping things clean".

Look for patterns in the signs: OK this is where we can really unleash some of our pent up have to be relevant, need to have an impact and something to report at the staff meeting that we did: find out what's going on. Don't worry about dictating the course all the time. Try to understand the prevailing winds and the patterns. Go Thomas Jefferson: figure out where people walk the most before you pour the sidewalks.

Pay attention to your neighbors: Not only be kind to everyone you meet because they carry a heavy burden, have as much Martin Buber I and Thou action as you can cram into a day. (Please observe Sabbath if you really get into this). The object is to stumble across one another. Don't worry so much about the activity calendar so sterile. Mix it up when you can.

***The views expressed here are not necessarily those of status quo. Please consult your doctor and seek medical help for decentralized thoughts that last for more than 4 hours. Lack of invasive emails and unwarranted Sunday school solicitations may result in actually developing real relationships. Do not operate pulpit support while seeking genuine life transformation. Brochure racks may show some signs of emptiness. Failure to have your name to appear in, like, every other bulletin announcement as the contact may empower someone who really cares about the ministry.

How to (or not to) find a good ministry team member

What's the purpose of a ministry team?

Labor pool, but that's really a guild

Rubber stamp, but that's really a puppet regime

Accountability group, but that really should have the word anonymous after it

Ministry legislators, but that's really a board

Staff booster club, but that's really a staff booster club

Empowered leadership team, but that's hard to control

Group of agenda holders, but that's just a group of agenda holders

An opportunity to get people involved, but that's really a member assimilation program

At any time a ministry team might take on characteristics of any and all these groups.

As we pick and choose who would be best on our ministry team:

Who is a one cause wonder and who wants to help us all live better lives?

Who thinks the church should really take on this cause and who wants to live out this cause?

Who likes hanging out with "like minded people" and who's ready to subordinate their interest for the greater interest of the organization?

Who has expressed interest?

Who is already active to some degree in the ministry?

Who wants to change the world and who is delusional?

The process probably starts with determining if I am able to identify myself as the person I am looking for.

If I'm not, who's going to help me be that person?

They might be a good ministry team member. Or not.

White towels and dead chimps

In boxing, the "corner" throws in the white towel when they feel like their boxer is taking too much punishment even though to people who don't know him, he seems to be gamely fighting on. The referee is willing to let the match go on, but the people who know the fighter best can tell he's done and nothing good is going to happen if he keeps trying to win.

I saw a documentary one time about a group (troop?) of chimps. A baby chimp died, but the mother kept carrying the carcass around for weeks. The other chimps who seemed to realize that the baby was dead didn't intervene. They let her "work it out" for herself.

So: when to employ the white towel strategy? When to employ the dead chimp strategy?

Anybody who takes on leadership of a ministry will no doubt encounter some brutal beatings and some still born events and activities.

It might be up to us to let the leader come to terms with the fact that the ministry of the community development isn't relevant and they are just taking on unnecessary punishment or hauling a stinking carcass around.

As difficult as it is to ignite or inspire someone into acting out their call and discover their vocation:

maybe the hardest thing to do is to pick up the white towel or to watch as they carry around something that is dead.

Protecting a vulnerable fighter.

Letting a loving parent carry a dead baby.

Tension.

The importance of knowing your Relational Model Theory

Relational Models Theory is an idea of Alan Fiske that proposes that all people interact with one another through essentially one of four models:

Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad or group as equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social domain in question. Examples are people using a commons (CS with respect to utilization of the particular resource), people intensely in love (CS with respect to their social selves), people who "ask not for whom the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee" (CS with respect to shared suffering and common well-being), or people who kill any member of an enemy group indiscriminately in retaliation for an attack (CS with respect to collective responsibility).

In Authority Ranking (AR) people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates. Examples are military hierarchies (AR in decisions, control, and many other matters), ancestor worship (AR in offerings of filial piety and expectations of protection and enforcement of norms), monotheistic religious moralities (AR for the definition of right and wrong by commandments or will of God), social status systems such as class or ethnic rankings (AR with respect to social value of identities), and rankings such as sports team standings (AR with respect to prestige). AR relationships are based on perceptions of legitimate asymmetries, not coercive power; they are not inherently exploitative (although they may involve power or cause harm).

In Equality Matching (EM) relationships people keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. Common manifestations are turn-taking, one-person one-vote elections, equal share distributions, and vengeance based on an-eye-for-an-eye, a-tooth-for-a-tooth. Examples include sports and games (EM with respect to the rules, procedures, equipment and terrain), baby-sitting coops (EM with respect to the exchange of child care), and restitution in-kind (EM with respect to righting a wrong).

Market Pricing (MP) relationships are oriented to socially meaningful ratios or rates such as prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or cost-benefit analyses. Money need not be the medium, and MP relationships need not be selfish, competitive, maximizing, or materialistic—any of the four models may exhibit any of these features. MP relationships are not necessarily individualistic; a family may be the CS or AR unit running a business that operates in an MP mode with respect to other enterprises. Examples are property that can be bought, sold, or treated as investment capital (land or objects as MP), marriages organized contractually or implicitly in terms of costs and benefits to the partners, prostitution (sex as MP), bureaucratic cost-effectiveness standards (resource allocation as MP), utilitarian judgments about the greatest good for the greatest number, or standards of equity in judging entitlements in proportion to contributions (two forms of morality as MP), considerations of "spending time" efficiently, and estimates of expected kill ratios (aggression as MP).

I have been working under the misconception that one of these will work for me all of the time (subconciously). And so the task has been to get everybody to buy into which mode I decide works best.

The lesson of this theory might be to try to recognize which system is in play for which person or group of people you are interacting with. It's possible that you might be in multiple modes with the same person depending on the circumstance.

You can devote as much time and energy as you wish trying to get yourself and/or others to employ which ever mode you want.

But the real work may come in understanding what's going on in your relationships and moving closer to connections and engagements because of them.

Or even better: in spite of them.

Your on switch

I have a friend who is always willing to come and speak to most any group most any time. As long as the subject matter has remotely to do with theology or maybe leadership and group dynamics, he's in.

He requires very little prep or much info on the specific topic.

Just tell me when and where and flip my on switch, and I'm good to go.

I always appreciated that when I needed a "piece" on theology or leadership which he could always provide.

But I also kind of resented that because it seemed kind of rote and maybe not necessarily heartfelt.

I remember hearing Tony Campolo for the first time speak at a couple of events at a church and feeling that he too had an on switch that somebody flipped. He did his schtick and was on his way.

It felt a bit inauthentic. A little icky.

I've come to think that not only is the on switch a ok thing: it's kind of important to have your "go to" talk that you can share about at a moment's notice.

Your personal core values of ministry, where they came from, and why you believe them, and where they are going.

Hopefully once you develop your on switch "ministry take", you'll be able to rattle it off with little or no notice.

But the next time you hear mine: I hope it'll be a little different and maybe even slightly contradictory to what you heard the last time.

Otherwise it's just a schtick.

And that's not funny.

Wondering about wonders and wonder

G.K Chesterson wrote over 70 books and his faith journey included stints as a Unitarian, Angelican, and a Roman Catholic.

For me, his philosophy that "Every human transaction, therefore, whether social or economic, is an opportunity either to dignify or to exploit our fellow man." is best summed up by a quote variously attributed to him as something like ""The world will never starve for want of wonders; only for want of wonder."

Let's say it's time to evaluate the ministry.

Given this thesis: does it work for you or against you?

So, the habitat build has lost it's interest for people. It's become rote and all they really want is our money. We need a more compelling story. Like Extreme Home Makeover.

The missions program has lost it's appeal. We need a live satellite phone hook up with our missionary partners during worship (both services).

Our worship has become liturgy by numbers. We need some compelling solos or a quartet. Or a little girl to sing.

The first hurdle is to understand wonder- a collective lump in the throat of the community as well as wonders- I think we can get the lead guitarist from the church across town (I've heard he's not happy there.)

But: we can't just bring in more wonder.

One person's wonder is another persons wonders. We need a dialog.

Like always.

And maybe this time it could be tell me about the last time you experienced wonder during worship, missions, etc.? And maybe: were there any wonders involved?

Would it help to admit that we are hungry for both?

Failure to Launch

Isn't just a pretty bad movie. (The talking squirrel was the nail in the coffin.)

I was glad I made an appointment for my visit to the Apple Store the other day.

When I got arrived, there was a ton of people gathered waiting for help.

I keep up fairly well with the goings on of product releases of Apple and I was pretty sure nothing major was really in the works.

I asked the salesman what was up and why there were so many people there on this particular day.

"I don't know," he said, "we launch a lot of stuff. It's hard to tell sometimes what the crowd is about."

Upon further review, I think the crowd that day had to do with the i-phone and some of the antenna problems.

But point made.

Launching stuff has to do with involvement and learning about what we do that works and doesn't work. Call it kissing a lot of frogs or breaking a lot of eggs. How we engage people or not has to do with launching stuff. Lot's of stuff.

If you decide this is the strategy you'll employ to engage the most tribes in your care, there is probably one thing you'll have to do.

Let go.

Of having to have everything go the way you want.

Without sacrificing a common what and why you are doing it.

But then again if you don't go the launching stuff route:

It's easy to get to everyone who comes your way for ministry.

And nobody will have to worry about whether or not they set a time to see you.