Geoff Surratt has posted a response to an article made up of some blog posts I did a while back about the multisite church model. I appreciate his tone and would love to meet him and converse more about the subject. In his response, however, there are a number of things that are not adequately reflecting my own thinking. It may actually be better to read all the blog posts to get a complete picture of what I think, as the article is only a portion of my thoughts.
I will respond to his response simply to clarify, but will probably let things stand where they are after that. We are brothers and, while we do the kingdom work differently, we are both serving the King and I am glad about that. Everyone that I know who speaks of Geoff speaks highly of him, so I have nothing but respect for him even if we do church differently.
Anyone who has actually read my books or knows me would understand that I do not believe that a church must have a preacher up front (whether or not he or she is in another room several blocks away). I also do not think that a church must have independent resources or not rely upon a larger organization in order to be a church. My thoughts are that in order for the church to spawn a multiplication movement it must have its own independent ability to reproduce and not be dependent upon another organization. I have no problem calling a congregation a church if it is dependent on a larger organization. Whether the pastor is preaching in front of the crowd or several blocks away is irrelevant to me as to whether or not it is a church.
Actually, I do not see a Sunday worship service as paramount to defining a church. If the people are just an audience it isn't a church in my book. I have always said a church is "a spiritual family together on Christ's mission." Of course a multisite church can be a church, but I do not think the Sunday service is what makes it so.
I have committed my life to releasing church multiplication movements. That is what I was writing about, and I do not think multisite releases true multiplication movements...addition, but not multplication. I believe multiplication is proven true when the fourth generation and beyond is manifested, something we have yet to see from the multisite phenomenon. But hear me when I say that church addition is a good thing, especially when the churches are started by transforming people from lostness in to light. Transferring membership from one church to another doesn't really count as even church addition, does it?
Now to be fair, there is a difference in my mind between multisite and video venue, and in my article it is the video venue approach that I am taking issue with the most. I do believe it accentuates our dependency upon personalities and encourages our consumeristic problems and celebrity status in Christendom. I know good men are preaching the gospel in this way, I am not doubting that, in fact many people I consider friends are using this method. I don't question that in some cases lives are being changed and leaders are being developed. I do think, however, that there are longer term implications that should be considered when looking at this approach.
I do have one curiosity though: Is multisite "church planting" or is it "one church in several locations"? It seems like Geoff wants it both ways, and I'm not sure that is helping to clarify the issue. Why is it called church planting when we are counting missional results, and then it is one church when attendance and offerings are being counted? I am not questioning whether or not a multisite church is a church, but I do not think it is a good church planting model, and certainly doesn't release multiplication movements. It is really the logical conclusion of 20 years of church growth strategy, but when compared to church multiplication strategy it is not so sound. Addition is still better than division and subtraction, but multiplication is the only way we will fulfill the great commission to the ends of the earth.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Fool's Word Spreads Farther Today
There's an old proverb: "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." This statement isn't from Solomon's proverbs, though he had something similar to say: "Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise." (Prov 17:28) Again he says, "Where there are many words, transgression is unavoidable." (Prov 10:19)
With air travel, hyperfast trains, cell phones, satellites, instant global news coverage on TV and pushed right to your cellphone we are in the midst of a shrinking world. Globalization is connecting us all so that every news story affects everybody almost instantaneously.
Thomas Friedman, in his book The World is Flat, tells us that the world is not just getting smaller with modern technology, but it is also getting flatter. What he means by this is that everyone can now publish their thoughts creating a world where we can all stand on somewhat equal footing. Whereas it used to be that only a privileged few could be published, today with Youtube, facebook, blogs, twitter, myspace, print-on-demand and Amazon.com anyone can publish their ideas. If you have a good idea it can get published and be available to the world.Unfortunately, the opposite is also true, it is amazing how many stupid things are being published today.
Ignorant and naive people who have strong uninformed opinions are able to publish their views anytime they like with little or no repercussions. I'm amazed at how often reviews are posted of books that have obviously not been read. Accusations that have absolutely no basis in truth can be spread instantly and the one who starts the lie has no penalty, in fact, he or she may even gain encouragement for it. Recently I have been accused of plagiarism, being against relationally strong churches and of not believing in elders or deacons...all of which is false. Anyone who actually knows me or read any of my books would no otherwise.
So how does one respond to a fool who spouts off without any true foundation for their thoughts? That is not always an easy question to deal with.
I learned a long time ago not to argue with a poor review or a loudmouth fool. Solomon does write: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4) I like what Ed Stetzer once tweeted: "Don't argue with angry bloggers. It's like wresting with a pig-- you both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Getting in the mud with a fool is not usually a worthwhile experience.
But just to demonstrate the tension of what to do with such things, Solomon says in the very next proverb: "Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes." (Prov. 26:5) I guess there is a time and a place to say something, but I do not recommend arguing with them. If you can say something to expose how uninformed and foolish the comment is, without getting into a debate, than I suppose that is the way to do it.
Friends, may I simply suggest that we be a little slower to publish thoughts that are not thought through or substantive? We've all said things we wish we could get back, but in today's world, those regrettable words go farther and last longer. We should also stop giving any credence and audience to the fool. Those who hear the fools message and receive it become fools themselves. When they pass it on they multiply foolishness.
Paul also has some wise counsel for us: "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." (1 Tim 5:19)
Unfortunately, TMZ, People and US magazine and the many tabloids are showing us that bad news and false news are often more desirable than wisdom and truth. I do not want to shut down the right to free speech, but WE are the ones who need to create an environment of health and wisdom, and we can do so by simply being wiser in our own comments.
With air travel, hyperfast trains, cell phones, satellites, instant global news coverage on TV and pushed right to your cellphone we are in the midst of a shrinking world. Globalization is connecting us all so that every news story affects everybody almost instantaneously.
Thomas Friedman, in his book The World is Flat, tells us that the world is not just getting smaller with modern technology, but it is also getting flatter. What he means by this is that everyone can now publish their thoughts creating a world where we can all stand on somewhat equal footing. Whereas it used to be that only a privileged few could be published, today with Youtube, facebook, blogs, twitter, myspace, print-on-demand and Amazon.com anyone can publish their ideas. If you have a good idea it can get published and be available to the world.Unfortunately, the opposite is also true, it is amazing how many stupid things are being published today.
Ignorant and naive people who have strong uninformed opinions are able to publish their views anytime they like with little or no repercussions. I'm amazed at how often reviews are posted of books that have obviously not been read. Accusations that have absolutely no basis in truth can be spread instantly and the one who starts the lie has no penalty, in fact, he or she may even gain encouragement for it. Recently I have been accused of plagiarism, being against relationally strong churches and of not believing in elders or deacons...all of which is false. Anyone who actually knows me or read any of my books would no otherwise.
So how does one respond to a fool who spouts off without any true foundation for their thoughts? That is not always an easy question to deal with.
I learned a long time ago not to argue with a poor review or a loudmouth fool. Solomon does write: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4) I like what Ed Stetzer once tweeted: "Don't argue with angry bloggers. It's like wresting with a pig-- you both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Getting in the mud with a fool is not usually a worthwhile experience.
But just to demonstrate the tension of what to do with such things, Solomon says in the very next proverb: "Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes." (Prov. 26:5) I guess there is a time and a place to say something, but I do not recommend arguing with them. If you can say something to expose how uninformed and foolish the comment is, without getting into a debate, than I suppose that is the way to do it.
Friends, may I simply suggest that we be a little slower to publish thoughts that are not thought through or substantive? We've all said things we wish we could get back, but in today's world, those regrettable words go farther and last longer. We should also stop giving any credence and audience to the fool. Those who hear the fools message and receive it become fools themselves. When they pass it on they multiply foolishness.
Paul also has some wise counsel for us: "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." (1 Tim 5:19)
Unfortunately, TMZ, People and US magazine and the many tabloids are showing us that bad news and false news are often more desirable than wisdom and truth. I do not want to shut down the right to free speech, but WE are the ones who need to create an environment of health and wisdom, and we can do so by simply being wiser in our own comments.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Church Planting is Messy, by Guy Muse
Church planting is messy because people are messy. Four nights of every week are spent training four different groups of church planters. All are in various stages with their newly forming house church groups. Anyone engaged in church planting will quickly find they are up against some messy situations.
We usually approach the tough messy questions from three angles. I admit to having used the first two, but believe the third is the best.
1) The urge is often to run to my library of heavily marked writings and see what David Watson, Neil Cole, Curtis Sergeant, Wolfgang Simson, Tony and Felicity Dale, Steve Atkerson, George Patterson or Frank Viola have to say about the matter. After all, they are the CP experts, right?
While I have greatly benefited from the writings and teachings of these, I have learned that each case is fairly unique to the particular situation. Therefore there are few copy-and-paste answers that work neatly every time.
2) A second solution is to come up with a string of related Bible verses. Sew these together into a logical argument, and voila! you have a Biblical answer taken straight from God's Word. Most times this approach will be accepted because no one wants to be seen as questioning God's Word. But is this an accurate way of handling Scripture and answering people's real life questions?
While I admit that we have used both of the above ways to answer problem situations, I'll save the third approach until after describing some of the kinds of issues and questions we deal with on a weekly basis.
What follows are just some of the dozens of practical questions we dealt with in last week's training times.
- When we had the Lord's Supper this week as a meal, like you said was the NT practice, we had mostly non-believers present. We felt bad leaving them out of the meal so we invited them to share with us. Did we sin?
- We have eight people ready for baptism in our house church. When I shared this with my pastor he told me I had done a good job, and that the church was planning a baptism service for late May. Since we were taught in the training that it is the responsibility of disciples to baptize ASAP those they win to the Lord, I asked him if it would be all right for me to baptize them myself now? He said no. The church would get into trouble with the denomination if he allowed such a thing without proper credentials of the one baptizing. So brother Guy, "What do I do? Obey my pastor like Hebrews 13:17 tells me (in the most widely accepted Spanish translation 13:17 literally says, 'obey your pastors and be subject to them')? Or do I do what I think is the Biblical mandate for disciples to baptize their disciples? Who do I disobey? If I choose to disobey my pastor, there will be serious consequences for me and my family in the church."
- In one of the most exciting new church plants, it was revealed this past week to be led by a brother who has destroyed the last two churches he started due to his immorality. With the training received from us, this brother has now started a third church. This week we were confidentially made aware of the situation. While the brother seems repentant for his past sins, do we allow him to continue with the new church plant? Who decides what should be done in these situations? Are we who have been invited to train some kind of authoritative ruling body to decide these kinds of issues? What will this do to their faith once the ugly truth comes out? Who will take over the new group and continue the work with them?
- If the Bible speaks of bread and wine as being the two symbolic elements of the Lord's Supper, why do we substitute the Biblical wine for grape GatorAide, grape Kool-Aide, grape juice, grape soda (all very common practices in evangelical churches here)? If we can substitute anything purple in color for the Biblical wine, what is to keep us from doing the same thing with the bread? Can rice or cookies be substituted for the bread, and mora juice (black berry) if we don't have wine and unleavened bread?
So what is the third way we approach matters in giving answers to these kinds of questions?
3) Rely on the Holy Spirit for his wisdom and guidance into all truth. He is the author of truth. For dozens of years I have read His Word, and read countless books on subjects related to God's Word. The Spirit living within brings to mind all this stored knowledge and experience. When asked these kinds of questions, I trust the Holy Spirit to speak through me and answer in a way that brings Glory to God and honors His Word.
Some questions are pretty straight forward as revealed in Scripture. For those situations, it is a matter of speaking the truth in love. But for most of the situations we encounter that aren't clearly addressed in the Bible--such as the above kinds of questions--we must be careful to not just tie together a bunch of Scriptures from Proverbs, Luke, and Acts and make them say what we think should be said. I can certainly do this. I know God's Word. But this approach to Scripture has been extremely harmful to the Body of Christ in my opinion, and has gotten us into more tangled messes than even the original problems.
Will you pray for us that the Lord would give us much wisdom and humility in all these matters? We simply don't have the perfect answers for all the questions that get sent our way. But I do believe we have the Holy Spirit who was given to us by Jesus to help lead and guide us into all truth.
What do you think about all these matters? How do you go about answering the tough and messy questions that arise from your own ministry and church planting?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Globe Gathering April 9-11, 2010: A Spiritual Pilgrimage of Organic Church People to Globe AZ
[For a few posts I want to delve into what we are doing in Globe AZ in April and why.]
For several years now we have hosted an organic church movements conference in the So CA area. They’ve been good, but something has always bothered me about them. They tend to draw people we are not aiming for and do not draw the people we were intending.
The conference was meant to be a gathering of our folks, those who are practitioners on the field doing organic church. Our Greenhouse and frontline disciplemaking are meant to be the front door to the movement, not the annual conference. The conference was meant to be a time of connecting people from all over that are at work in the fields to learn from one another and encourage each other in the difficult work we have all been thrust into.
Last year, we held a meeting to relentlessly scrutinize our conference and other stuff we do. This is our habit, nothing is sacred and everything can be improved upon. We asked ourselves if we are missing what God wants in our conference. Perhaps we need to do a big front door conference to introduce people to the missional movement. The other possibility is that our medium isn’t connecting with our message. We decided to launch a big missional church conference in late January or early February and just surrender to the direction our conferences have been going. However our planning hit a snag and the conference was canceled, just as the Verge Conference was announced in Austin, which turned out to be all we hoped for and more. We also realized that we do not have the muscles to pull off such an event and that some of our friends and associates still working in "mega-church-world" have a better chance of doing that.
So with Verge and the H2H Labor Day conference well in place, what are we to do with our annual conference. We realized that God wanted us to go back to our original intention, and to bring the medium closer to our message. That is why we are doing a more outdoor Woodstock-esque conference. Matching our own culture the Globe Gathering will be family based, relational, grassroots and for our own organic church people that are in the fields.
We will learn around campfires, on hikes and staying together in tent-city. Rather than a big conference in a classy hotel with big named speakers, name badges and workshops, it will be burning man with clothes on and a more obvious spiritual center, message and focus. This will be less agenda driven and more experiential and relational. More like a Rainbow Gathering of like-minded people who share a passion and a calling, it will be a call to people to come from all over the world on a spiritual pilgrimage. It will be Woodstock without the excess. It will be organic, movements, and a journey. You will leave with more and better friends rather than a notebook full of pages you will never look at again.
Well, this is what we are hoping for. We are doing something that costs less and can pay off in far greater ways. We are taking a risk. We don’t know if this will work or not, but we have never been risk-averse, so why not try?
http://www.cmaresources.org/globe
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Comfortable in my own skin
This week I had lunch with an old friend that was on my High School water polo team (isn’t Facebook something). He looked good and I was glad to catch up. He was able to fill me in on how all my old teammates are doing and what they are now up to. One is the team physician for an NFL team, another is a high powered attorney for a major LA law firm. One is owner and operator of several restaurants in the LA area. He asked me what I am doing. I started to tell him and was able to express how Jesus had really changed my life.
Lately I have answered this question by saying, I am a founder and director for a non-profit organization that helps resource people to follow Christ and start organic churches. That usually raises more questions about what the church is and is not. I also tend to say, I am an author as well. All of this is true, but none of it truly expresses who I am or what my true role is.
Then he asked me a question that I really struggle with answering these days. He asked, “Are you a minister?”
In earlier days that was an easy question to answer. It was a slamdunk: Yes. I was a pastor of a church--a “real” church (tongue in cheek). I went to seminary, was ordained by my denomination and would preach sermons every Sunday to a congregation that spoke of me as their pastor.
The Lord has taken me down a different path in the last ten years, however, and I do not fit in the old paradigm any longer. I tried to explain that, but it isn’t easy since our language has not caught up with the new expression of the church.
When I am not on the road, I spend a relaxing Sunday morning getting a coffee and a light breakfast while I read the paper, my Bible, and journal a bit. I am part of a church but it meets in a home on Wednesday evenings, and I am not really a pastor. I no longer preach sermons or have elder meetings. I do not do much pastoral counseling or supervise staff that run programs.
In these days, I can no longer just say I am a pastor. I function in a more apostolic role, but I can’t see myself putting that on my business card anytime too soon. As uncomfortable as I am with describing my new role in the kingdom of God I am far more at home now than when I was in the old system. It isn’t really important that I have a title or clearly understood role as it is that I fulfill all that God has called me to do one day at a time.
Today I believe that every follower of Christ is a minister. All who have the Holy Spirit are ordained. I love the new paradigm much more and am glad to discover my identity in this movement.
Lately I have answered this question by saying, I am a founder and director for a non-profit organization that helps resource people to follow Christ and start organic churches. That usually raises more questions about what the church is and is not. I also tend to say, I am an author as well. All of this is true, but none of it truly expresses who I am or what my true role is.
Then he asked me a question that I really struggle with answering these days. He asked, “Are you a minister?”
In earlier days that was an easy question to answer. It was a slamdunk: Yes. I was a pastor of a church--a “real” church (tongue in cheek). I went to seminary, was ordained by my denomination and would preach sermons every Sunday to a congregation that spoke of me as their pastor.
The Lord has taken me down a different path in the last ten years, however, and I do not fit in the old paradigm any longer. I tried to explain that, but it isn’t easy since our language has not caught up with the new expression of the church.
When I am not on the road, I spend a relaxing Sunday morning getting a coffee and a light breakfast while I read the paper, my Bible, and journal a bit. I am part of a church but it meets in a home on Wednesday evenings, and I am not really a pastor. I no longer preach sermons or have elder meetings. I do not do much pastoral counseling or supervise staff that run programs.
In these days, I can no longer just say I am a pastor. I function in a more apostolic role, but I can’t see myself putting that on my business card anytime too soon. As uncomfortable as I am with describing my new role in the kingdom of God I am far more at home now than when I was in the old system. It isn’t really important that I have a title or clearly understood role as it is that I fulfill all that God has called me to do one day at a time.
Today I believe that every follower of Christ is a minister. All who have the Holy Spirit are ordained. I love the new paradigm much more and am glad to discover my identity in this movement.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Seed of an Organic Kingdom Movement
The organic nature of any movement is found within the seed of life. Every seed contains the life of the tree within, remaining dormant and waiting to be released. You cannot substitute that seed for anything else and expect real results. A lemon seed will never produce an apple tree. The genetic code within can only produce the results it has been designed by God to grow into. We reproduce after our own kind and can do no other. We must plant the true seed, not a seed substitute.
Peter tells us that the seed within is not capable of dying and will result in a transformed life when planted in soil prepared for it:
All living things are created to procreate. The church is a living thing that is also to reproduce after its own kind. But we must recognize that the life is found in the seed, not in a program, a curriculum, a charming personality or dynamic resources. There is no substitute for the word of truth in a heart purified by confession of sin and ready to act in simple obedience.
Inorganic things can produce but not reproduce. As Christian Schwartz once said: "A coffee maker can make coffee (praise the Lord) but cannot produce new coffee makers." Those who follow Jesus are the fruit of God's Kingdom, as such we carry within the seed of life for the next generation. To not reproduce is to deny our very internal nature and is counter to God's design.
The growth occurs when the seed meets soil that is pure and cleansed and ready to obey. The growth can only come from within and not be produced from the outside in by any sort of teaching, programming or coercing. The growth occurs "all by itself" (Mark 4:28). You cannot make someone or something living grow. Paul said he planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but only God causes the growth. (1 Cor. 3:6-8)
As my mentor George Patterson once pointed out:
Peter tells us that the seed within is not capable of dying and will result in a transformed life when planted in soil prepared for it:
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. (1 Peter 1:22-23)
All living things are created to procreate. The church is a living thing that is also to reproduce after its own kind. But we must recognize that the life is found in the seed, not in a program, a curriculum, a charming personality or dynamic resources. There is no substitute for the word of truth in a heart purified by confession of sin and ready to act in simple obedience.
Inorganic things can produce but not reproduce. As Christian Schwartz once said: "A coffee maker can make coffee (praise the Lord) but cannot produce new coffee makers." Those who follow Jesus are the fruit of God's Kingdom, as such we carry within the seed of life for the next generation. To not reproduce is to deny our very internal nature and is counter to God's design.
The growth occurs when the seed meets soil that is pure and cleansed and ready to obey. The growth can only come from within and not be produced from the outside in by any sort of teaching, programming or coercing. The growth occurs "all by itself" (Mark 4:28). You cannot make someone or something living grow. Paul said he planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but only God causes the growth. (1 Cor. 3:6-8)
As my mentor George Patterson once pointed out:
Every time we eat, we eat the fruit of God's tremendous reproduction power given to plants and animals. Look around out of doors; it's everywhere—grass, trees, birds, bees, babies and flowers. All creation is shouting it! This is the way God works!... We ourselves don't make the church grow or reproduce, any more than pulling on a stalk of corn would make it grow.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Go Small to Go Big
I am a big thinker. Some people assume that because I do church in a small way that I am opposed to big things, and that is vastly untrue. I will not be satisfied until the whole world is changed and you can’t do that in a single church, but you can with many small ones. But the way to effect the global is to start with the microscopic.
Seth Godin boldly declares, “Small is the new big.” Contrary to the way we usually think, the way to big is really to go small. Of course this is counter intuitive. So often we try to make something grow bigger and end up doing less than we could. Jesus used the parable of leaven to show the effect of a small thing on a massive scale. He also often referred to the smallest known seed as having huge potential for earth shaking results (Matt. 17:20).
In his hugely successful book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things can make a Big Difference, Malcom Gladwell identifies three characteristics necessary for an epidemic-type spread of a trend, idea or even a virus itself: “one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment” (he calls that moment the “tipping point”). He devotes an entire section of his book to “the law of the few,” in which he cites example after example of how huge epidemic-type movements began with very few people. In fact, that is only how they begin.
Not every small thing is powerful. It matters what is within the small package. A grain of sand and a grain of wheat are both small. One has the God-given potential to eventually feed the hungry world. The other can be the catalyst to create a blister or a pearl—but only one.
Before we can change the world we must be able to change a single life. But we must change a life in such a way that the same life is able to do it all over again with someone else. That is best done in small ways that eventually affect the global. When you are looking to spread an idea virus by coordinating larger groups to do so, the whole process breaks down. But if it is as simple and small as one life to another, the virus can spread easily and each person carries the contagion.
A tiny microscopic virus is bringing an entire continent made up of dozens of nations to its knees in Africa—AIDS. This virus is passed on person to person in a very predictable manner but it spreads almost unhindered. It spreads because those infected have an internal motivation to continue doing what spreads the virus. In combating the virus we are not just trying to figure out a way to stop the virus itself but to stop the behaviors that spread it, and that is the hardest part, because it is against the natural drive in the people.
Why is small such a big deal? Small does not cost at all. Small is easy to reproduce. Small is more easily changed and exchanged. Small is mobile. Small is harder to stop. Small is intimate. Small is simple. Small infiltrates easier. Small is something people think they can do. Big does not do any of these things. We can change the world more quickly by becoming much smaller in our strategy.
If I can be vulnerable for a moment I want to share with you my greatest phobia. Until now, this was a secret known only to my wife and three kids (and boy do they have fun with it), but it is time for full disclosure. I am not afraid of large dogs, strange people or standing in high places. I have no problem in the dark or an enclosed place. I have a phobia about bugs. There, I said it. An individual bug doesn’t really bother me. I am glad to remove a spider found in the bathroom by one of my daughters without hesitation. It is when bugs swarm that I am creeped out. This has always been my greatest nightmare. Even as I write this and imagine it in my mind I feel shivers on the back of my neck. The feeling of ants all over my legs is the worst! I hate it.
The truth is we should all be a little freaked by swarms of insects; they are so overwhelming that there is almost no defense. You can have a double barrel shotgun and an automatic machine gun at the same time and you are absolutely defenseless against a swarm of killer bees. You can shoot at the swarm, and you may even hit a couple of the bees, but the swarm doesn’t even need to duck when you shoot. It will come without any slowing or adjustment after you have fired all rounds. And that is also why a decentralized movement can literally be unstoppable.
While for years now the church has invested in growing larger, the new missional movement is trying to get smaller in its focus so that it can get bigger in its impact.
Small is the new big.
From Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church.
http://bit.ly/afvcU1
Seth Godin boldly declares, “Small is the new big.” Contrary to the way we usually think, the way to big is really to go small. Of course this is counter intuitive. So often we try to make something grow bigger and end up doing less than we could. Jesus used the parable of leaven to show the effect of a small thing on a massive scale. He also often referred to the smallest known seed as having huge potential for earth shaking results (Matt. 17:20).
In his hugely successful book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things can make a Big Difference, Malcom Gladwell identifies three characteristics necessary for an epidemic-type spread of a trend, idea or even a virus itself: “one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment” (he calls that moment the “tipping point”). He devotes an entire section of his book to “the law of the few,” in which he cites example after example of how huge epidemic-type movements began with very few people. In fact, that is only how they begin.
Not every small thing is powerful. It matters what is within the small package. A grain of sand and a grain of wheat are both small. One has the God-given potential to eventually feed the hungry world. The other can be the catalyst to create a blister or a pearl—but only one.
Before we can change the world we must be able to change a single life. But we must change a life in such a way that the same life is able to do it all over again with someone else. That is best done in small ways that eventually affect the global. When you are looking to spread an idea virus by coordinating larger groups to do so, the whole process breaks down. But if it is as simple and small as one life to another, the virus can spread easily and each person carries the contagion.
A tiny microscopic virus is bringing an entire continent made up of dozens of nations to its knees in Africa—AIDS. This virus is passed on person to person in a very predictable manner but it spreads almost unhindered. It spreads because those infected have an internal motivation to continue doing what spreads the virus. In combating the virus we are not just trying to figure out a way to stop the virus itself but to stop the behaviors that spread it, and that is the hardest part, because it is against the natural drive in the people.
Why is small such a big deal? Small does not cost at all. Small is easy to reproduce. Small is more easily changed and exchanged. Small is mobile. Small is harder to stop. Small is intimate. Small is simple. Small infiltrates easier. Small is something people think they can do. Big does not do any of these things. We can change the world more quickly by becoming much smaller in our strategy.
If I can be vulnerable for a moment I want to share with you my greatest phobia. Until now, this was a secret known only to my wife and three kids (and boy do they have fun with it), but it is time for full disclosure. I am not afraid of large dogs, strange people or standing in high places. I have no problem in the dark or an enclosed place. I have a phobia about bugs. There, I said it. An individual bug doesn’t really bother me. I am glad to remove a spider found in the bathroom by one of my daughters without hesitation. It is when bugs swarm that I am creeped out. This has always been my greatest nightmare. Even as I write this and imagine it in my mind I feel shivers on the back of my neck. The feeling of ants all over my legs is the worst! I hate it.
The truth is we should all be a little freaked by swarms of insects; they are so overwhelming that there is almost no defense. You can have a double barrel shotgun and an automatic machine gun at the same time and you are absolutely defenseless against a swarm of killer bees. You can shoot at the swarm, and you may even hit a couple of the bees, but the swarm doesn’t even need to duck when you shoot. It will come without any slowing or adjustment after you have fired all rounds. And that is also why a decentralized movement can literally be unstoppable.
While for years now the church has invested in growing larger, the new missional movement is trying to get smaller in its focus so that it can get bigger in its impact.
Small is the new big.
From Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church.
http://bit.ly/afvcU1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)