When the cat's away the mice will play

Well it looks like i should quit blogging more frequently!  What a great week i missed including:

Richard Beck talking about snobbery and also the way we use the word "conversation."
Matt Flanagan on OT genocide and Ken Pulliman 
Richard Fellows crunches the numbers on Erastus
Steve at Undecpetion goes to town on penal substitution
Ben Myers offers some thoughts about a theology of scholarship
Gary Hamel is back with a vengeance, not least these posts on St Andrew's Chorleywood (an anglican church in the UK) and W.L. Gore and associates
Donald Millar comlains about his unwarranted promotion to leader in the emerging church movement and Tall Skinny Kiwi joins in the complaining about unfair labelling
James McGrath provides some help in deciphering scholar talk
Maggie Dawn shows how BP is mentioned in the Bible although Madeleine Flanagan wonder if the yanks might let the russians nuke it?

Except, of course, i didn't really miss it, i just gorged out at the weekend.  Enjoy :-)

Brian Tamaki and Gary Hamel

Brian Tamaki made headlines in NZ recently with his extraordinary accomplishment to get 700 men to swear an oath of loyalty and obedience to him and his lady wife. Now most pastors would be happy merely with 700 people actually turning up to hear them preach every couple of weeks but Brian needs more commitment than that. Now the thing that is interesting is the way that Brian Tamaki already has a very committed congregation that tithe huge amounts of money and have allowed him to establish one of the largest churches and Christian social service providers in Auckland. Admittedly there is a high drop out rate, but there is with all large churches. In terms of church growth and finances he is the most successful pastor in the country. Why should he need MORE? It sadly speaks of an insecurity with the informal relationship that exists between most church leaders and their congregations. He no longer wants to work to bring people with him, he wants to be able to assume their compliance. Only a few church leaders believe they have the power of life and death over their congregations, and certainly as far as evangelical/charismatic churches go most pastors know that they must bring people with them rather than just demand obedience.

Gary Hamel in two excellent posts on his management blog, how to tell if you are a natural leader and the hidden cost of overbearing bosses, unknowingly critiques Brian Tamaki by arguing how organisations need to move away from formal authority (which demands things from the top) towards accountable and decentralised leadership:

In traditional power settings, key decisions have to be approved by one’s superiors, but merely explained to one’s subordinates. This reality often tempts managers to ignore the disquieting views of direct reports, and to content themselves with compliance when they should be seeking genuine commitment. The result: employees who can no longer be bothered to bring troublesome truths to light and are unlikely to go the extra mile.

Now this is cutting edge management theory but it is something those who claim to be Bible readers should have known for a long time (try reading 2 Samuel or Romans 12:1-8 for example!). Formal rigid power structures are simply not appropriate to churches because they disenfranchise the people of God and instead put all the responsibility for discerning the mind of Christ on the "anointed few." Brian Tamaki's excess is unfortunately only an extreme example of a much wider trend among evangelical/charismatic churches to treat the pastor as an some sort of anointed leader CEO instead of demanding that he or she (but lets face it it's mostly he) actually "equips the saints for the work of ministry" (Eph 4:12). The leader that wants to see Christians going the extra mile in their dedication to building the Kingdom of God doesn't need an oath of obedience, they need to edify, involve, and empower all the members of the body of Christ.

But this empowerment of the whole congregation is not just for the sake of the Kingdom and the members, it is also for the sake of the pastor. The pastor who places themselves above reproach or criticism is surely heading for disaster. Tamaki complains that in forming this "covenant" he has done nothing wrong... "I didn't steal or sleep with the church secretary," he says. The problem is he has created the exact environment for himself where he is most likely to do such things. Surrounded by people who wont dream of criticising or warning him if his behaviour becomes risky or questionable it is surely only a matter of time before some scandal ensues. Power corrupts. If Brian really is a "man of God" then he will be seeking to make sure he is not corrupted by the power he has as the leader of such a large church. The only way to do that is to surround yourself with people who will disagree and criticise you and keep you honest (and yes Brian if you are reading this, I do volunteer to help!). 700 men sworn to stand up when you enter the room and silence those who criticise you wont help one bit, sorry.

Let me know what you think :-)

PS. For another perspective on leadership see Simon Walker's trilogy on leadership, the undefended leader, reviewed by Paul Windsor here, here, and here! I'm yet to get hold of the books, but after the enthusiastic endorsement of Paul and others I think I need to.

Subversive Management Theories for the Church?

Just had a really interesting chat this morning. A friend of mine who is a business analyst at a large company was telling me about some of the management theories that were currently being implemented/discussed in his company. I was struck straight away by how powerful these ideas could be if we applied them to church. Let me know what you think :)

Blue Ocean Strategy.

In a nutshell: It's a big ocean, don't waste your energy competing with everyone else find a niche that is all your own.

For the church: how many towns have four or five churches singing the same songs, preaching the same messages and running the same programs. Evangelicals are the worst at this. We tend to 'fish in the same pond' when there is an ocean of need out there. Let's have some diversity. Get all the local churches together and all agree to do something different. That way we will stop using our time and resources doing exactly what the next guys down the road are doing just as well!

Communities of Interest

In a nutshell: Instead of having all the different people in all the different departments solving all the same problems on their own. People with similar skills and responsibilities network and share information, ideas and strategies. These networks can grow throughout the company and to include other stake holders.

For the church: In a town where 5 churches are all running childrens/youth/homeless/elderly minstry why dont they all team up, share resources, and work together? More than this, if your church doesn't run a particular ministry but someone in your church has a particular passion connect them to a group in another church who share that passion that they can get involved with. Shouldn't we see the other churches in our locality as 'stakeholders' in the same gospel mission as us and form a 'community of interest' around bringing God's restoration and renewal to our neighbourhoods?

No Job Titles

In a nutshell: By taking away titles you empower the whole team. When a stranger comes in to make a sales pitch they have to make it to everyone. Instead of the leader being the one responsible for seeing things through, it becomes everyone's responsibility.

For the church: Could we really do this? Have a community without job titles and management structures? Where we're not all accountable to a 'minister' but to each other? Where no one has a 'position' but can only get others to follow them by virtue of their proven character and abilities?

Now obviously these would all need some serious Biblical reflection, and we definately shouldn't be just implementing the latest management theories into the church just for the sake of it. But these secular management theories seem to offer a good critique of some of the secular management theories we already use in the church, but take for granted.