I don’t think of myself as much of a leader, but actually since I place my ideas and writing “out there,” I don’t have much of a choice in the matter. Most likely, I will, somehow, lead someone. Is this my goal? Nope. I enjoy being a galvanizer, instead. Yep, A good natured provocateur. So, really a person with some unique information, ideas, and know how that fosters and encourages good leaders and good followers (a.k.a. cooperators). As you will see, a good leader is just a looney loner, until a few key people help him or her to build momentum. As a certain kind of trust is built, it is these linchpin people who “make it happen”. I think of it as sort of the knife and needed friction on the flint that produces heat and spark.
If you’ve been faithfully reading my blog, I’d like to thank you very much. I really appreciate you, and I ask that you can help me be more than a “lone looney,” or lone loser. This funny video below will unpack that.
In some respect, we all need followers, even as much as we need to be followers. It helps to link up with people who like you and what you do. People will will invest in your growth. They transmit your message or product for you. It’s just not enough to have an idea, even a great idea. A faithful network is more important because it is the fuel to share something. I found this video on Guy Kawasaki site alltop.com. It’s from the TED conference. Derek Sivers, of CD Baby fame, delivers a great and useful message.
Questions to ask yourself: Who am I helping by following and building a bridge of trust to other followers?
Who can I partner with who understands the importance of both leading and following?
Who needs to hear my message?
Who’s message do I enjoy hearing?
So, let’s help each other. Let’s build momentum. Who do you follow, and what kind of followers to you need? Let us know.
In his new book, boneYARD: creatives will change the way we lead in the church, John O’Keefe tackles an issue rampant in the United States: the overwhelming trend of dying and dead churches. He also speaks to a pet topic of mine: the prevalent misguided practices that give churches supposed membership growth. [What I’ve called, “Poaching from the Choir”.]
You may know of John through his creative project ginkworld.
Here are his interesting answers to 6 questions about the issues discussed in boneYARD. Your comments or questions are welcome.
1. John, you use the terms “industrial church” and “conceptual church”, and so on, referring to eras. Can you briefly explain the terms you use; and -Do you think most churches are caught somewhere in the middle, or have they been fallen behind?
The industrial church is a church that centers on the principles of “Maxwellian Leadership.” The ideas that grew out of the Industrial Revolution, where there needs to be a “CEO” (Pastor) and “Vice-CEO” (Associate Pastors) to control the organization. The central motive of this style of leadership is to see the church as a business, and everything the leader does centers on benefiting the organization. People are seen as assets and they are used to benefit the organization – “what will help the church.” They are very logical, linear, and focused on profit. For them, profit is defined in terms of the offering and getting people in the pews. But, if the attendance is going down, and offerings are going up they do not see a problem. I read an article earlier where it explained how the Evangelical Lutherans are declining in numbers (most churches are), but that there was no reason to fear because giving was on an increase.
The conceptual church is forming today. Leadership (if that is even a valid term in a Conceptual Age) focuses on the organism; the organization holds little value. Everything a conceptual leader does focuses on the person, the organism, and centers on how we relate to others. In the Conceptual Age we think in terms of personality traits of a conceptual leader; people have personalities, machines have qualities.
While some are in the middle, struggling to find their voice, even fewer are in front of the curve, in my research I have found most churches are far behind the curve. They are stuck in the idea that they need to keep doing what they have always done, and those outside the church need to change to fit into their world.
2. Do you think it’s apt to say that for a great many churches, an increase in membership has more to do with (as I like to say) “poaching believers from other churches”? (Or poaching from the choir.)
I love the visual of “poaching.” Sometime back I wrote an article entitled “Three Kinds of Fishing” where I saw the possibilities as pole fishing, net fishing, or tank fishing, but I love the visual of poaching. I believe most churches are growing because of poaching. Poaching is easy for the church. I love churches that advertise on Christian Radio; the question we need to ask is “Who are they trying to reach?” I don’t know any “non-follower” listening to Christian Radio. Churches that advertise on Christian Radio prove the point. Their ads are targeted to those already going to church and say, “Come to our church, our pastor is cooler, our music is better, our service is exciting, and we will not bug you to get involved.”
Some churches even go as far as to count people who come from other traditions as “new believers.” The Baptists and the Non-Denominational Church of Christ are the ones who do this the best. I use to attend a church is Las Vegas called Central Christian (Currently about 15,000 people), when it was just over 300 people. One of my family members was attending the church also and he was required to be “re-baptized” in order to become a leader in the church. Even though he had been a follower for years before he attended the church. They counted him as a “new believer.” Soon, he left Central and started to attend a Southern Baptist Church in the area, and was required to be “re-baptized” and was counted as a “new believer.” These churches count everyone who was not baptized in their method as a “new believer.” This inflates numbers, sure – but more than that, it tells everyone who is not “one of them” you are wrong and we are right.
3. What’s the difference between church growth and kingdom growth? and, What is your best nugget of advise for those in ministry regarding church growth and kingdom growth?
Church growth centers on growing an individual church, so taking from another church is seen as an easy form of church growth. Kingdom growth centers on growing the Kingdom, and sees people in other traditions as part of the church universal. Kingdom growth centers on not caring what church the person is involved with, but that they understand the love and grace of God. When I was at 247 we use to have teens coming to all our events, and many times those teens would ask about our services. I would encourage them to get connected to the churches their parents attended and go as a family.
I think the best thing I can share with churches today is to not concern yourself with growing your church, center on growing God’s Kingdom. When we focus on growing God’s Kingdom we move out from the walls of the church, and into the communities we are called to serve. We desire to share the message of hope with people, who need to know the love of God through Christ, and we are avatars of Christ to the world around us – we are the incarnation of Christ to the world. Our care is more for inviting people into God, and not into our church.
4. There will always be left-brained thinkers. If the new era of leadership is right-brained, as you say, what should these people do?
Change, embrace their right side. Keep in mind, being right brain dominate does not ignore those who are left brain dominate. The idea in a Conceptual Age is that right brains will be the dominate side and left brains will play a subordinate role. In my research I came upon a study I mention in the book that says 98% of us are born right brain dominate and creative, while 2% are born left brain dominate. Over time, our educational system causes those numbers to flip, causing 2% to be right brain dominate and 98% left brain dominate. It is amazing that our educational system flips the numbers to left brain dominance. This is because, in an Industrial Age, we need more left brain thinkers to “oversee” others.
5. In your opinion, does the “bone yard phenomenon” (of vast numbers of churches closing) have anything to do with apprehending church and/or the church building from a materialist and modernist vantage point? And how can we do better?
While I believe it matters little where a community of faith gathers, for the industrial church the building has become an albatross. Some churches spend more on building upkeep then they do on ministry and care. Between salaries, mortgage payments, utility bills and upkeep a major part of the budget is spent just to keep things going. Because of that, the leadership focuses on keeping the building afloat, and less on reaching those who are not followers of Christ. So, they strive and strive to increase the numbers in their pews to fill their coffers and less on bringing people into a life changing reality that Christ offers all people. This is one of the reasons I believe the church is comfortable with poaching. If they are poaching they are attracting givers who will help keep the building going.
6. With all the churches closing, and new ones not meeting the needs, is there any way out of the boneyard?
You bet there is. I see all the churches closing as a good thing, not a bad thing. I see the churches failure to reach a new generation as a good thing as well. Why? Because it is causing us to wake-up, and move out of the church. Many churches are waking up to the realization that what they are doing is not working, so they are now open to change. The only thing that is holding them back is that they do not know how to make the change. Keep in mind, deciding to change and actually changing are two different things.
Conversation about change is a waste of time, we simply need to change. The future looks bright for the church willing to make the change and reach a conceptual mindset. While boneYARD is not a program, I believe it is a good starting point to make those changes.
Thank you, John.
If you would like to try for a free signed copy of boneYARD, leave a comment, and tell us if you’ve seen churches closing in your region, Or, tell us the approximate % of worshipers per Sunday in your church that may be the product of poaching.
Do you think pleading just another way of going too far?
I was never a fan of the plea, “Pretty please” with or without cherries on top. Asking for something: Should this ever be paired with an ice cream sundae type of association? I don’t think so. Food and petitions should stay in separate categories, just like tea and coffee. Or drug addicts and congressmen.
ain't too proud to beg?
Does pleading scream, “I’m really needy and pathetic!”
Probably sometimes.
However, maybe *direct asking*–if it’s not too annoying–can put something in front of the right person, at just the right time. Something they don’t even know they want just yet, and then blamo, a need is filled. The world is a slightly better place. I said -slightly-.
Maybe pleading, when done properly, is just posturing, timing, and passion meeting in a perfect storm intersection of opportunity.
Well, whatever you call it, I’m going to give it a try:
(So brace yourself)
If you haven’t subscribed to this blog, please do.
It’s quick, convenient, and reversible (if need be).
(I will not spam your inbox…it’s not how I roll).
Being a subscriber means that my blog posts will get sent straight to you with no fuss or bother.
You needn’t even make here to see what’s cookin’.
You’ll never get behind, but at the same time, you’ll be in control.
Conveniently, there are links in the direct email that can get you here in a jiffy, if you’d like to contribute.
It’s good times.
(To get plugged in, click the button on the right that says, “Wow. So simple. so easy. yes!”)
I’m not sure if that’s begging, pleading, asking nicely, or none of the above, but it’s really the most direct approach I’ve ever tried. I hope you’ll subscribe.
And -Thanks for reading this blog, in any form. It means a lot to me that you came by.
I have developed a bit of an old fashion view of “genius”. Roman empire times “old fashion”. “Genius” was a term given to an outside entity of sorts that basically lived in the walls, and helped out with problems and other matters with a “spark of genius,” a kind of superior energy and creativity that had to come through a human vehicle, and come to fruition cooperatively. A person who “had a genius” had to listen to that genius. His brilliant triumphs would not be completely his doing, nor would his failures of genius. Some of the blame or credit was due to the genius. It had a way of keeping people more human I do believe, not puffed up with vanity and hubris, or unduly in despair for a bit of a lazy genius.
Somewhere along the line (I’m guess during the human-centered “reason” and experimentation of the Enlightenment Age) the term genius came to mean “a person who has brilliance”. A deep shift happened, if you noticed. Genius sourced in the person alone. “How advanced and sophisticated,” some might say. But wait. No one could imagine the stress that would put on people, especially highly creative people (think: writers, poets, artists, inventors, innovators, thinkers, etc.) who would now have to be solely responsible for producing genius worthy outcomes, and items, repeatedly.
Ever wonder why genius and madness are so closely tied? I think, that’s part of it. It’s hard to separate the creative aspect from the non creative aspect in a person. It’s hard to not take failure (or success) personally. I do believe it (“genius” or the process of the initiation of the truly great) has something to do with an intertwining, interaction, or crossover point with us and the Divine (our Creator).
A better, and less destructive way to define “genius” is to realize our success and failure is partly our doing, but partly something that comes to us and overshadows us. It’s better to realize the “gift of genius,” which would be not at all personal brilliance that start or ends in an individual, but instead an ability to be aware, receptive, and collaborative with others, and most importantly what must be higher and beyond our ourselves. A “touch of genius” could be said to be when everything involved hits just the right harmonic cord, and something revolutionary is borne, something is unearthed, or a creative act generates new life.
If you were to say, “Lisa, you’re a GENIUS!” I’d smile, and feel flattered for about 2 seconds. Then I’d realized the bigger truth going on. Very little has much to do with me. I’m not a genius, but sometimes I listen and detect better than at other times. To people who’ve heard my thoughts, ideas, or read my papers, they might hear some original thinking, or novel theories, but I really doubt I was the first source for them. At best it was a strange cooperation of experiences, education, preparation, creative exchange and communication, and a touch of something I can’t put my fingers around, and will not attempt to take credit for.
This “invention” pictured here below is a simple example of just a bit of a “touch of genius”. Check it out.
Why is it? It uses resources, readily available, to move beyond their supposed potential for a well-needed purpose. Is it every paper clips destiny? Probably not, but with a “touch of genius” perhaps, a they serve a purpose that is quite helpful and transcends the assumed norm, the typical, or the mundane.
The people of our interactions deserve the same kinds of treatments and communications as these seemingly simple paper clips–At work, play, ministry, home life, social life, and all the rest. It’s the spark of genius, in cooperation with what is above and beyond us, that is needed to produce not what is hoped for or expected, but what is just out of reach, and just beyond our human imaginations. Groups and Communities can link up with “genius” too.
We can only see what’s been done, or what’s right in front of us. “Genius” doesn’t work that way. It’s a way of collaboration, even relinquishment to do the unexpected, even with simple “instruments” to create the extraordinary.
What thoughts do you have about genius?
If this is new to you, or fascinating in some way (positive or negative), please link to this article.
Here’s something you may have not considered before: Outsourcing.
“Wait,” you say, “That’s a dirty word. That’s like saying, ‘I hate Grandmothers,’.” Oh, no, it’s not. Get a grip. Outsourcing is simply getting someone else to do something for you quicker and less expensively than you could do it yourself. Most of the time, time isn’t what you have. And, of course, money? Well, almost no one has that. So you leverage what little money you have to get what you need, specifically. A global marketplace means the world is flat.
Think about it, research, busy work, follow-up calls, answering emails, e-commerce, networking, and much more could be subcontracted, so you could save a lot of time, and maintain your main focus.
Soon I’ll update this with how my outsourcing is going.
