We often find ourselves running from the system.  The system creates for us an unbearable expression of authority, crying to be deconstructed and reconstructed.  To do so would require the approval of those who operate the system and thrive in its authority.  Deconstructing the system affects control.  When you have fought so long for control, you do not easily give it up.

I found this past week a flawed system.  It needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed.  Power and control need to b in the hands of those who live within the context of the system, not those who hardly interact within it.

Being a systems guy, a macro-leader, and a believer in complexity (or chaotic systems), if I were asked my opinion of how to deconstruct the system, an opinion would be offered.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Wordpress 2.1
• Principles of a Decentralized System
• Combatting a Starfish Invasion
• Ubuntu Rocks
• Determining if a System is a Spider or Starfish

 Todays thought regards strategic planning, which has become prevalent in ministry.  Some argue that strategic planning is way too CEO and corporate, though strategic planning is fading even in the business world.  In addition, it can deter us from the move of the Spirit as we want to stick to the plan.  It’s one thing to be prepared, it’s another to stick to the plan.  Consider this thought:

If you want to know what happens to “planners,” check out the story of the 10 Bridesmaids in Matthew 25:1-13. 5 were strategic planners, and kept “to the plan” and trimmed their wicks accordingly. 5 were Scouts  – “Be Prepared”  -  since they had now way of knowing when the bridegroom is going to arrive. You always have to be in a state of expectation and awareness, constantly paying attention.  And the ones who went to the party were the Scouts.

The strategic planners have one of the most horrid things ever spoken about anyone said of them: “And the door was shut.” The doors of the future are being shut to us because we think “planning” not “preparedness.”

Do you plan or prepare?  Preparedness organic, an aspect of complexity or chaos theory.  It is sensitive to the moving and wooing of the Spirit.  Planning is wooden and rigid and structured.

Talk about that…

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Thoughtful Thursdays – Redemption vs. Liberation
• Thoughtful Thursdays – Liberation Theology
• Thoughtful Thursdays: Wanted – Pastors who love God deeply
• Thoughtful Thursday – Movement of our Faith
• Thoughtful Tuesday Quote

I love the book The Starfish and the Spider. I blogged through the book this past summer. It is certainly worth reading. Recently, I received an email that excited me because one of the authors of the book will be available to us as part of a live vodcast, (that’s a video webcast for those of you in Rio Linda) with Spencer Burke. Here’s part of the email I received:

Join us for a free webcast this Thursday at 9pm Eastern (6 Pacific) with Spencer Burke and Ori Brafman, courtesy of Soularize.net and Shapevine. Come experience firsthand the content and technology of this year’s learning party!

Ori Brafman is a peace and economic development consultant and activist. He is co-author of indie business cult favorite The Starfish and the Spider, about leaderless groups and what makes them so powerful.

Spencer Burke is a “pastor alumnus,” author, speaker and founder of TheOOZE.com. In Thursday’s interview Spencer will talk to Ori about the Church that primarily running as a Spider organization in a Starfish world; together, we’ll investigate Starfish front-runners and Hybrids—can organic and institutional models can live in harmony?

You can ask Ori and Spencer question, take live polls, and more. We’ll pull your questions from the chat window and answer them live via streaming video. There’s no software to download—Mac AND PC compatible; use any web browser with high-speed internet access.

WHEN: This Thursday, October 18—at 6pm pacific/9pm eastern

WHERE: http://Soularize.net/feedlive. Just click the “Preview” button and you’re in.

This will be worth your time.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

To achieve a decentralized system, the right leader must be in place.  The character required of the person that can allow such a decentralized and messy organization to exist is great.  It requires a person who is not worried about his own success apart from the success of those around him.  It requires a humility that not only realizes that the leader does not have all the answers, but also that the answers can be found in the creativity of those around him.  It also requires that the leader share the spotlight.

Leadership like this is leadership modeled.  That modeling is reflective of the character of the leader.  If the leader is not humble, he will not model humility.  If he does not have a genuine love for the success of others, he will not model it.  However, if humility is modeled, if shared success is modeled, and if the leader allows others to be part of or fully in charge of a creative solution to whatever issue arises, that modeling actually inspires and invigorates creativity within the organization.

Unfortunately, the contemporary models of leadership elevate the star, the one who had rocketed up the leadership ladder.  These men look good, talk well, and have a personality that can light up a room.  They are charismatic, charming, and powerful.  Sadly, many of them have little substance to compliment their style.

The ideal candidate for decentralized, messy leadership is one who heeds the words of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4:13:  “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”  In this passage, Paul gives us the ingredients of leadership in a decentralized culture.  Those ingredients are courage, confidence, and humility.

Paul says that the Christ-follower can do all things.  A Christ-follower exhibits confidence that all things can be done.  This is not an expression of arrogance, but of confidence.  The courage to attempt “all things” comes from the strength of Christ.  The person’s confidence is rightly placed, not in his own efforts but in conjunction with the Other.  His courage comes from the strength drawn from the Other.  Paul then defines the Other as Christ, and when one realized nothing can be done except through Christ, not only has he found the secret to living, but the ingredients for effective leadership.  For Christian leadership, the emphasis is placed on a God-developed charisma, not the transient aspects, such as personality, looks, and intellect.  It is based around substance not style.

In this model, a person realizes that apart from others nothing gets done well (humility).  Confidence is placed not solely in oneself, but realizes that others can accomplish great things as well.  When a leader appropriates these two ingredients, he can muster the courage to risk, experiment, innovate and even fail.  Modeling that confidence, humility, and courage often leads to an emboldened organization free to be creative and responsible.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Re-inventing Leadership 1
• It’s official!
• Re-inventing Leadership 3: Leadership Must Become Decentralized.
• The MIROR: Organic Leadership
• The power of rest

Since everyone else who blogs on SBC issues is taking a break, and since I have chosen not to post on the SBC in months, I’ll comment on the latest blog from Bob Roberts about what might be a great way to re-organize the SBC. Bob says (emphasis mine):

So as I’m sitting there, at the SBC last week a spiritual child and descendant of all these people, my heart began to break. What are we doing with all we’ve been given? How are we making the world different? How are we changing with the times so that we will be a convention that one hundred years from now will have more than a hundred million constituents? What would it look like if the SBC one and only mandate was to extend and live out the Kingdom of God in all domains in the entire world mobilizing the entire body of Christ? These are questions I focus our church on and our church planters on and other groups I work with. What if you focused 16 million people on that – but alas – others have tried to do the same thing, and it winds up being programs, and etc. and so on and so on and so on.

What would it look like? OK, just for fun – let’s dream . . .

First, we would re-orient the Cooperative Program. The largest amount of money we spend, and the most important budget our 45,000 churches focused on would be every single churches mission budget. If they’re going to feel that, they have to develop that. They can’t just send in their money and read stories of what other people are doing. Our greatest days that planted the greatest seeds were done without the Cooperative Program – it didn’t come on the scene until 1925 – long after our decades long movement had been going. It was a great program – it centralized things and allowed everyone to get to play a role. BUT, the world has changed. Everyone is connected, and everyone wants to play, and theologically as Baptist especially with our belief on world evangelization and congregational life we more than any group on the face of the earth we should do all we can to engage every Baptist to reach the world. The old paradigm of pray, give, and some go must change – and it is changing with new and younger pastors across the country – and as the early 20’s come into leadership it will change even more because they are more global and hands on than any generation we’ve ever seen. This is good not bad for us – it insures we’ll have a narrative and leaders – if we allow them to play ball. People want to be a part of an exciting story. It has to be their story – it can’t be someone else’s story of someone who lived a hundred years ago, or who is doing it now. They want their hands dirty – they long to be hero’s and we should as “religious” leaders use all we can to make them the heroes, not us. But, if they can’t because the funding issue prevents them from being involved because they have to give x % to the denomination, or they give the money but their members can’t be involved, – what is left for them to give. The CP has become very expensive for local churches wanting to do missional things. It comes to feel like a tax, I don’t think we’ll ever see a Baptist tea party – I do think young pastors will just quietly ease out in favor of playing ball with other networks and groups that allow and even encourage local churches to engage aggressively. If missions is the most important budget in the church, and God can speak to every single local church, why shouldn’t that church develop that 10% plus? At NorthWood, over 25% of our total receipts generally goes to missions – but not the CP in Nashville.

Second, we would begin to work collaboratively – which we don’t do a lot of now. The place in the convention where they do try this more than anywhere is the IMB – some churches are acting as strategy coordinators for countries – but what if every church was trained, mobilized and engaged in a city or people group around the world? This is the goal – no one would disagree on that. In the new book Wikinomics, Don Tapscott describes in brilliant form how the world is going to communicate and network in the future. Can you imagine what would happen if we had networks of doctors, educators, plumbers, electricians, janitors, and politicians who were using their jobs in every single local church to engage cities and they were networking – the smartest urban thinkers in the world around domains to engage it. This is going to happen, it is happening – why not the SBC? Can you imagine with our receipts of probably more than a billion dollars how we could change the world it that was put full force? Can you imagine large groups of laymen being the spearheads of solving many of our global concerns versus a small group of elite that hold the reigns to everything?

Third, we would we become an international movement – not a convention – not an American denomination. Why not be the first denomination to do this – let’s get out front and beat the rest! The Anglican church worldwide is making herself known – the American Episcopalian church has realized she can’t force her agenda of homosexuality on the rest of the Anglican world. The center of Christianity has shifted – we need the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs us. We have much to learn. I heard yesterday we are the 3rd largest unreached nation in the world behind India and China. I don’t know if that’s true, but it wouldn’t shock me at all. We are a mission field, and yet we are operating as if we are the ultimate sending place. Twenty years from now, I have no doubt the mandate of the IMB will not be to just be a “sending agency” for SBC missionaries, but a “receiving hub” of other missionaries wanting to come to America – as well as a mobilization hub to connect every single Baptist with every domain on all of society in the world. We will work collaboratively networking together Baptist(and probably other denominations and networks as well) worldwide to interactive, viral, decentralized movements.

Fourth, our leadership would be global. Yesterday I sat and listened to a significant international pastor meeting with a group of Dallas pastors, sharing how God has called his church from another country to reach out to America. He’s already starting churches here (a black African training white young men to plant churches in America!) and was challenging us and telling us where we were wrong. Wow, the tables have turned! His grandfather accepted Christ through American missionaries and he said he couldn’t stand seeing the American church continue in it’s current direction – that he was going to do something about it. He was in your face and at one point I didn’t know how to take him. Then, I began to think, how does an Eastern pastor feel when we show up and in our “American Bravado” we do the same thing. I though, I need to not be defensive, but listen to this guy – and wow, it was good. I’ve met Koreans, Indonesians, Egyptians, Jews, and other people from other nations who are coming here to plant churches – and not for ethnic people – but white people!

Fifth, our approach would of necessity have to be decentralized. This strikes fear in the hearts of institutional leaders – but I believe it’s because we misunderstand decentralization. It isn’t leaderless, someone at Google, Ebay, Wikipedia, Facebook, and Myspace is making money and driving stuff. It is speaking more of operational and engagement philosophy. This does not mean the institution dies – it can’t – that would be bad. I used to think institutions were bad – they’re not. As I began to work around the world I realized the importance of the institution of health, economics, governance, communications, etc. Faith needs her institutions as well. What does an institution do? It holds the narrative and the values of a movement. This is what I got from being a Southern Baptist – it lead to all that my church and I are involved in. Where institutions miss it, is when they confuse the methods with the values and stifle the move of the people with bureaucracies and power politics – then we have a large institution that ultimately will decline – because those who would continue the story go elsewhere where they can be a part of an on-going narrative.

Sixth, it would require a different kind of pastor and church leadership. We would move from great pulpiteers to great mobilizers, from studies to ditches, from committees of the elect to relationships of the hopeless and most needy, from reading the hottest religious books to reading God’s word along with history and sociology and current events so we can be as the sons of Issachar, from meeting to prioritize opportunities to everyone grabbing what God is sticking in front of their face. It is an utterly fantastic time to be alive and to be in the ministry. The opportunities and world that we live in today is like no other time save the days of the early church. I’m having a blast and I’m seeing all these young pastors having a blast – it’s because of the shoulders of ancestors long before us. We’re standing on their shoulders, they’ve hoisted us up, as they were in their day – so we must have in our day, young prophetic voices and old godly men who will let those young men stand up on their shoulders and drive the future.

Often I’ve been told when I challenged people, “we’re already doing this” but when a leader of an institution has to tell a constituent that – it ain’t happen’ a whole lot! These things will happen, we all know it, the only question is why and when will they happen? Will they happen because our convention has been driven into the ground because we don’t want to change and wind up loosing exceptional young pastors, churches, people, and money? Or will it happen because as in the early 1800’s as Baptist we felt the shifting of the wind on our face and jumped out in front.

Now THIS is a denomination I could get excited about.  This is great stuff, and I can’t think of anything I would add to his words.   And since this may be the last thing I ever post about the SBC, I thought this would be a good last post!

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Bob Roberts, pt 2.
• I’ve made Bob Roberts Blog!
• Bob Roberts!
• U.S. Islamic World Forum
• Glocalization – A

This continues our look at the book, The Starfish and the Spider.

All catalysts draw upon similar tools.

1. Genuine Interest in Others. To a catalyst, people are like walking novels. Information that most of us barely listen to is pure gold to a catalyst. And we can tell when a catalyst really cares about what we’re talking about. And when that happens, we tend to open up and reveal more about ourselves. The conversation naturally becomes more interesting, and we feel that the catalyst really gets us. It’s at that point, when we feel understood, that we are most open to something new and we become willing to change.
2. Loose Connections. Most of us have interesting personal conversations with a small group of our closest friends. But a catalyst is able to have these kinds of interactions with thousands; they actually thrive on meeting new people every day. Because they are generally interested in others, catalysts find these kinds of relationships highly meaningful.
3. Mapping. When you talk to a catalyst, he won’t just be intrigued by your stories, he’ll also be mapping out how you can fit into his social network. Catalysts think of who they know, who those people know, how they all relate to one another, and how they fit into a huge mental map. They just don’t know more people, they also spend time thinking about how each person fits into their network.
4. Desire to Help. Wanting to help is the fuel that drives a catalyst’s ability to connect people. It isn’t just part of being nice; it is an essential part of being a catalyst.
5. Passion. The catalyst is the constant cheerleader of the decentralized system.
6. Meets People Where They Are. There’s a difference between being passionate and being pushy. A catalyst doesn’t try to persuade people but rather relies on a much more subtle technique: meeting people where they are. When people feel heard, when they feel understood and supported, they are more likely to change. A catalyst doesn’t prescribe a solution, nor does he hit you over the head with one. Instead he assumes a peer relationship and listens intently. You don’t follow a catalyst because you have to – you follow one because he understands you.
7. Emotional Intelligence. Catalysts tend to lead with emotions. To a catalyst, emotional connections come first. Once there is an emotional connection, then and only then is it time to brainstorm and talk strategy.
8. Trust. It’s not enough to meet people where they are and to form emotional bonds with them; a catalyst must also trust the network. With a flattened hierarchy, you never know what people are going to do. You can’t control outcomes, and you can’t really reproach a member if he becomes errant. All you can control is whether people have personal relationships with each other based on trust.
9. Inspiration. A true catalyst isn’t just a matchmaker, he is also an inspiration to others to work toward a goal that often doesn’t involve personal gain.
10. Tolerance for Ambiguity. One of the most common answers of catalysts is, “I don’t know.” They are not absent-minded. They often don’t know because there aren’t concrete answers to these questions. Being a catalyst requires a high tolerance for ambiguity. That is because a decentralized system is so fluid that someone who needs order and structure would quickly go mad.
11. Hands-Off Approach. The most difficult and counter-intuitive element of being a catalyst is getting out of the way. In a command and control environment, you can closely track what is going on, but being watched and monitored makes employees less likely to take risks and innovate. At the same time, when left to their own devices, members of a starfish organization can become frustrated with the catalyst. “What are we supposed to be doing?” they may ask. But it’s precisely this question that leads people to take charge, giving members a high level of ownership over the organization.
12. Receding. After catalysts map a network, make connections, build trust, and inspire people to act, what do they do? They leave. If they were to stay around they may block the decentralization’s growth.

Obviously, the catalyst has a role in decentralized systems, but if we notice, this kind of activity is valuable in evangelism. The tools of a catalyst are similar to the tools of a Christ-follower wishing to reach their community. When Christ-followers exhibit these qualities, combined with the Spirit, people can be led to the feet of the Savior.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• The Second of Five Legs
• Youtube Tuesdays: Erwin McManus at Catalyst 2006
• Patrick Lencioni: Teams and Conflict
• Made Some Changes
• Combatting a Starfish Invasion

This continues our look at the book, The Starfish and the Spider.

Ironically, though the authors of the book seem to encourage a starfish-like organization, they propose ways to combat a starfish movement. The reality is that when a centralized system is attacked, they become more centralized. This is not how to defend against a starfish invasion.

The authors do, however, offer other, multiple strategies to combat a starfish invasion:

1. Change the ideology. Eliminating the catalyst of a decentralized system only makes the system more decentralized. When you go after circles in an open system, new ones quickly develop. Therefore, the part of a decentralized system that can realistically be combatted is ideology. But changing that is difficult. It takes a least a month of concerted persuasion to change someone’s ideology.

2. Centralize them. The moment you introduce something that becomes some type of currency in a decentralized system – say positional leadership, property rights, VIP tickets, funds, paid staff – the potential for centralization occurs. This is the way that the Apaches of the Southwest were eventually herded. The catalysts were given property rights and told to distrute the property. The catalyst turned into a CEO.

3. Decentralize yourself. The two previous strategies have been aimed at changing or reducing the power and effectiveness of decentralized systems. If you change the ideology, you alter the basic DNA of the organization. Concentrate power and you create hiearchy – making the organization more centralized and easier to control. The third strategy is to decentralize yourself. The best opponent for a decentralized system is another decentralized system.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Principles of a Decentralized System
• Determining if a System is a Spider or Starfish
• The fifth leg – Champion
• Chat with the author of The Starfish and the Spider
• The Second of Five Legs

This continues our look at the book, The Starfish and the Spider.

Open systems do not rely on a police force.  On one hand, there is the freedom to do what you want; on the other, you have added responsibility because there is no police walking around maintaining law and order.  Everyone becomes a guardian.  You become responsible of your own welfare and that of those around you.  In open systems, the concept of a “neighbor” takes on more meaning.

The reality of an open system is that within it you will have a few odd ducks; that will be normal.  But you also allow people to unleash a world of creativity and innovation.  It appears to be chaos, and to some degree it is, but it is not anarchy.

Rules and law come in when an organization looses its ability to trust those within it.  It is then that leadership develops into coercive leadership.   Because a small group of people have become bad apples, the whole organization goes on lockdown.  Creativity is stiffled.  Administrative work increases, meaning reports and number-crunching and other paperwork.

When churches want to become organizations where creativity is valued, they will have to trust the creative types.  They will have to allow for a bad apple or two.  They will have to give people the freedom to express themselves in appropriate norms and trust that God will work to create the proper boundaries of creative expression.

I remember hearing Ed Stetzer tell a meeting of Southern Baptists this year that all of our creative types have left the denomination.  Could there be any better realization that the SBC has moved from a decentralized system to a coercive, decentralized system?  When creative people do not feel trusted or feel the freedom to express themselves within the domains of a denomination, that means that rules, regulations, and suppressive norms have been established, and trust has been removed.  The rules are trusted, not people.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Re-inventing Leadership 3: Leadership Must Become Decentralized.
• Principles of a Decentralized System
• Leg Three: Ideology
• The Tools of a Catalyst
• Determining if a System is a Spider or Starfish

This continues our look at the book, The Starfish and the Spider.

A champion is relentless in promotion a new idea.  Catalysts are charismatic, but champions take it to the next level.  A catalyst’s charisma has a sublety to it.  Catalysts inspire and naturally connect people, but there’s nothing subtle about the champion.

Champions are inherently hyperactive.  Like catalysts, they operate well in non-hierachical environments, but they tend to be more like salesmen than organizer or connectors.  Selling is what they do.

In a decentralized organization, champions take over for the catalysts and make things happen on a much larger scale.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Standing on Five Legs
• Reframing Success: The Jesus Way or the Consuming Way?

This continues our look at the book, The Starfish and the Spider.

The fourth leg that makes the decentralized organization really develop and hum is the preexisting network. Put together a close-knit community with shared values and add a belief that everyone’s equal and what do you get? Decentralization.

Almost every decentralized organization has made it big was launched from a preexisting platform. The new comes out of the old. Unfortunately, centralized organizations are not good platforms to launch decentralized networks. They are not good for the following reasons:

1. If orders come from above, the membership migt follow, but they won’t be inspired to give it their all.
2. Leaders in top-down organizations want to control what’s happening, thus limiting creativity.
3. Centralized organizations aren’t set up to launch decentralized movements. Without circles, there isn’t the infrastructure for people to get involved and take ownership of an idea.

Decentralized networks, however, provide the circles and also empower membership and have a higher tolderance for innovation. The way many new open networks are being launched now is the internet. Being a decentralized network itself is the largest decentralized network and the ability to communicate quickly make this a perfect network to launch other networks.

The continued ability to launch new out of old makes a decentralized system perfect for launching movements. The movements in China related to the church is an example. The church planting movements of the SBC’s IMB is another. This now brings into clear focus why they are so disliked by the oligarchy within the denomination, and why the SBC itself is becoming more centralized: they do not like the lack of control and creativity this movement brings.

The way to kill a movement and a decentralized organization is to find a way to centralize it.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related posts:

• Standing on Five Legs
• The Big Idea: Changing Churches One Big Idea at a Time
• A LAMP, a WAMP and a website
• The Big Idea: Introduction
• The Tools of a Catalyst