De-industrializing The Church, Part 2

In my last blog  I spoke acerca changing our paradigms from an industry or megachurch mentality to One That is more sustainable in our post-Christian culture. The first two Were 1) incarnation over innovation and 2) Processes over environments, and the last two are 3) expansion and movements over 4) flat over hierarchical.

Three. Movement over expansion

It's a good thing That churches seek out ways to grow. After all, a local church is a living organism, and healthy organisms not only grow but played themselves. But to think of growth in terms of a larger movement THROUGHOUT a city or region instead of the result of a well planned expansion strategy for your church is not only less imperialistically to think, but to think larger rather than smaller.

That I have found churches That "movement think" They envision the role play alongside other churches as the kingdom of God goes forth In Their region or city. They have switched from "How can we grow in Influence in this city?" To "How can the Kingdom of God grow in Influence in this city?" They refuse to be tribal, territorial, arrogant, and dependent on the strength of their "brand." They not not not realize that the power lies not in a specific brand but in a deep comprehension of the Gospel present in the church at large in a region. There is always a collaboration (with other churches and parachurch ministries locally) Influenced by an impetus to flesh out the Implications of the Gospel for ministry Among Their neighbors. They see this vision as something to be shared and owned by not just one church, or a few sitting at the top of the clerical ladder, but by everyone.

These churches are concerned Not Necessarily With the short term success of Their Particular Local church (like That companies are always squeezing the bottom line at the end of each quarter), but With the long term success of the Gospel in Their city / region.

April. Flat over hierarchical

This last shift is Closely related to the previous one, Because a movement by nature has to be free. Missiologist David J. Bosch said that: ". The Difference between an institution and a movement Is that one crosses boundaries while the other guards them" According to Bosch, movements thrive when Power is distributed as fast as possible. It can not Afford not to give away power. On the other hand, logically Institutions will withhold power for self preservation. The hierarchical structure, Therefore, is the greatest invention defense to play the game at its best. The confidence of an institution is backed on policies and Those who hold offices while the movement's confidence is based on trust Among all who share a common vision. They see each other not just as co-workers but as friends and peers. In "The Starfish and the Spider," Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom write, "It's easy to rebel against a boss, it's much harder to dismiss your peers." The environment is forged Becomes That one where there's a high level of freedom But Also a high level of accountability.

I have personally found That this is not only a way to produce Highly Effective but a very healthy environment to be a part of. It is extremely freeing to distribute the pressure in a way That the load of the ministry and consequently sustainable Becomes bearable. The flatter the structure, the more it Relies on collective intelligence, the more it Stimulates creativity and the more it restrains large egos. ,,, Moreover, it Allows boldness and compassion, truth and love to shape the outcome of the mission.