For the past several years I have been part of a handful of different church ministries. What I’m about to discuss here, however, reaches beyond ministerial leadership and into any type of endeavor.
I’ve been reflecting on James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. The subtitle says it all. Surowiecki has provided a helpful book along the lines of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference or Levitt and Dubner’s Freakanomics. Wisdom of Crowds is a smart book that makes us think about group dynamics, leadership, and the sheer complexity of the world in which we live. It is a book about an idea–the idea that all of us are smarter than one of us. You might say, “duh.”
If you accept the maxim that all of us are smarter than one of us, the question immediately becomes this, “how is one able to tap the collective wisdom present within diverse groups of people?” Such a task is difficult, as anyone in leadership can attest that collaborative efforts commonly produce only the sum of their parts–and seemingly nothing more. Some of us may be able to recount a time or two when a group we were part of did seem to generate more than perhaps was thought possible. The wisdom of the crowd was tapped, and the collective decision which resulted was better than what one person–or even a small group of persons–at the top of the hierarchy could have discerned.
One aspect of Surowiecki’s discussion that I found interesting was the importance of diversity in groups for making sound decisions. When a group becomes homogeneous, “they are great at doing what they do well, but they become less able to investigate alternatives.” It is possible to assemble a “dream team” that excels in one way of operating, leading, or generating certain types of concepts or ideas. Once that group reaches the peak of excellence in leadership, they move on to perfecting their particular way of doing things. The world may be changing around them, but the group becomes insulated and too homogeneous, thus leaving them unaware of adaptations that should be made.
Perhaps I’m being too vague. As far as this relates to church leadership, I think of large, booming churches that have committed themselves to excellence. Once such churches reach the pinnacle of perfecting their method, they constantly face the challenge of innovation. Someone within the organization must constantly be pushing the creative envelope, encouraging those on the leadership team to expand their thinking, remain sensitive to the people who are part of their communities, and adapt and change in order to best communicate the gospel. This isn’t easy. Once you perfect a form of church or a style of leadership, both the elders/pastors/leadership team and the congregation can become comfortable with that style. The decision to remain static will ultimately lead to decline, as the world outside of the homogeneous group continues to change. As was the case with the American car industry in the 1970s and 80s, who “manag[ed] its way into economic decline,” it is possible for church communities to maintain and manage their organizations into decline and even death.
One way to avoid this, I would argue, would be in agreement with Surowiecki’s claim that “Bringing new members into the organization, even if they’re less experienced and less capable, actually makes the group smarter simply because what little the new members do know is not redundant with what everyone else knows”(31). You must be careful in who you include on your team, however, as “cognitive diversity does not mean that if you assemble a group of diverse but thoroughly uniformed people, their collective wisdom will be smarter than the expert’s.” He goes on to say that “if you can assemble a diverse group of people who possess varying degrees of knowledge and insight, you’re better off entrusting it with major decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of one or two people, no matter how smart those people are.”
I admit, most of this is fairly common sense. In my experience, however, I have seen churches commonly rely on the expert–most of the time this is the Sr. Pastor or a small group of paid pastoral leaders. These people may be able to make good decisions on a fairly consistent basis. As church organizations become increasingly hierarchical, however, much of the congregation becomes passive and distant from the way in which decisions are discerned. Direction is entrusted into the hands of the few, rather than through created spaces within the life of the church where the Holy Spirit can be actively guiding the totality of the body. In large church communities, how many stories have you heard of “bottom up” movements of the Spirit, where a movement among a layperson or a group of lay persons eventually permeates the life of the church? I would love to hear those stories. Most examples I see of spiritual leadership are done in a top down fashion–the pastor or a small group of leaders spell out a vision, and hope that the people as a whole come on board.
The bottom line in my argument is this: how do we tap the wisdom of the crowd within a church community? How do church leadership bodies maintain diversity within their structure, allowing for people who represent differing viewpoints and perspectives to have a meaningful voice in discerning direction? One answer to this question, surely, is to continue to emphasize evangelism. If new Christ-followers come into the fellowship of believers, the church should pause long enough to hear their perspectives and be attentive to how this person sees the world. How might the perspective of new Christ-followers help us to more effectively minister and communicate the gospel to the world?
There are no easy answers. I would hope that church leaders would reflect carefully on the cognitive diversity which has been gathered in their decision making bodies. Would you say that diverse viewpoints are represented? Is the congregation able to discern, as a whole, the direction of the church, or is it in the hands of the experts? Are we tapping the resources of the entire body, among whom each member has been gifted with the Spirit of God?
Perhaps I see the church as far more organic than our Western, specifically American, lenses regarding the way that organizations should be structured will allow. When I read the New Testament, however, I see a group of people who are sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and have a simplistic enough structure to allow for collective wisdom to be shared and acted upon. There are clearly leaders within the Jesus movement, but all involved seem to be actively engaged in mission, not maintenance. The group seems to become increasingly diversified, and because of this fact it is radically engaging new understandings of reality. The life of discipleship I read about in the New Testament seems to be vibrant, alive, and on the move. It is my hope that the church communities of today would exhibit this same type of life.
What do you think?
Grace and peace.
Read Full Post »
Low-Hanging Fruit (John 15, anyone?)
Posted in Church Ministry, Cultural Commentary, Theology, tagged Christianity, Church, church growth, church health, church leadership, Jesus, ministry, vine and branches on June 30, 2008 | 1 Comment »
Yesterday Seth Godin put forth an interesting question I couldn’t ignore. Here’s an excerpt from his post:
So, what would you choose? One might be inclined to increase the efficiency of the vehicles with the best fuel economy, but you’d be wrong. Godin answers:
This seems counter intuitive, but it adds up. All things being equal (fleet and miles driven), the overall percentage of fuel which would be conserved on the lower end would easily outweigh the decrease in fuel consumption by the most efficient vehicles.
You can read the rest of Godin’s post here. This got me thinking: Jesus spoke of fruit in John 15, among other places. Thinking specifically of his discussion of the vine and the branches in John 15, Jesus states:
As far as churches go, many leaders think of productive, growing, and dynamic ministries as prime targets for investigation, excitement, and hope. People ask, “What is __________ ministry doing to increase in effectiveness, reach their community, and grow their church, and can it be replicated?” People want to be like the big boys (or considering that the Church is portrayed as the bride of Christ, the big girls (hottest babes?)).
Within the context of some of these booming churches, the focus is on evangelization and church growth, continuing much of the excellent work that has already begun so that the ceiling can continue to be raised. In order to continue this type of growth, these church ministries (and their congregants) demand excellence in staff hiring practices, desiring that the church only bring on the best quality staff people to lead that ministry, which results from time to time in large churches hiring the most capable people away from other churches. Ministries must be highly effective, with effectiveness usually measured by number of participants. When a ministry does take off, resources are placed behind that particular effort in order to push the envelope and continue to raise the ceiling. Overall, I’m not saying that this growth at the top is bad. It may just cause us to forget about the low-hanging fruit.
Godin’s post left me wondering–what is the low-hanging fruit in a denominational context, or in a local church context? I’m not thinking about ministries and churches in the process of dying–I’m thinking of church ministries that are producing some fruit and with a little help, encouragement, and additional resources, might come to produce a little bit more. I’m thinking of leaders who are tired and exhausted, yet continue to work hard, and could benefit greatly if someone would praise them and celebrate the work they are doing. Perhaps a little encouragement, a little investment in the life of someone leading a smaller ministry might go a long way and have great overall benefits for the Kingdom of God.
Of course, my thesis here supposes that we can identify churches and ministries that would fit the category of producing “low-hanging fruit,” which I concede would be difficult, if not impossible. Measuring these things would have to go beyond numbers, looking at other markers of spiritual health. At the very least, this idea serves as a reminder to encourage my colleagues and my friends in ministry, to listen to their stories from their church contexts (both large and small), and to celebrate the good work that God might be doing through their life.
Read Full Post »