© 2000 Merlyn Cox
© 2000 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
I recently attended a workshop on “Leadership in the 21st Century.”[1] It was led by church growth specialists who have been studying for many years the way thriving churches (about 10%) operate, versus those who are not (about 90%). It was a provocative and stimulating event, filled with insights that could benefit most organizations, especially churches and other nonprofit organizations. [2]
They found that thriving churches share a dramatically different way of thinking about the church’s mission, and also organize and operate in a fundamentally different way. Thriving churches share a purpose and vision of the future that “leads with the heart” and challenges people to identify and use their gifts. Most ministry in thriving churches is done by individuals and small cell groups gathered around them, rather than by committees that have been organized along the traditional lines of dividing ministries into outreach, mission, education, etc.
Such churches (or other religious or nonprofit organizations) will look rather chaotic to those used to-or addicted to, as these leaders argue — the traditional way of doing things. [3] Creative, thriving organizations, rather than being fixated on issues of control, are motivated by issues of empowerment. They are organized with an emphasis on “proscriptive” thinking — setting clear boundaries beyond which one cannot go, but within which anything is permissible, versus “prescriptive” thinking — telling everyone what they can and should do, and setting up myriad, redundant controls to monitor them. Organization structure in thriving churches tends to be organic, functional, and flexible — shaped and re-shaped by its overall goals.
Its primary concern is, how do you help people discover their gifts, and then train and empower them to use them to their best abilities? The bureaucratic maze of most churches and nonprofit organizations stifle and discourage creative initiative, and reward those who conform to the status quo. Serving the Kingdom of God, for many in mainline churches, becomes the same as serving the organizational institution of the church, a tragic and widespread misidentification, I believe, that most churches and denominational leaders fall into, despite their protests and rationalizations.
What does this have to do with the Urantia movement? We are clearly at the stage where organizations of many different kinds are beginning to emerge, and will continue to do so. The question for most is not if we should or will organize for a shared purpose, but how. Many have experienced the enervating effects of church or other religious organizations, and, embarrassingly, we now face the same “control issues” among organizations within the movement.
We should not have to be reminded of what Jesus stated so clearly — that we will never achieve uniformity of thinking; we can only strive to achieve a unity of spirit. We will not be able, nor should we try, to control the outreach of the growing Urantia movement through a central, bureaucratic organization — the Urantia community is too diverse, creative, “chaotic.” We should instead strive, I believe, for structures that are flexible, shaped by clear purpose, with wide, but clear, boundaries — structures that will allow and encourage individuals and groups to find their “calling” within the movement. We can recognize and rejoice that the Father has the infinite capacity to adjust according to the needs of each of his creatures, in each and every circumstance, and trust his Spirit to do his work as we do ours.
Jesus was truly a master of men; he exercised great influence over his fellow men because of the combine charm and force of his personality. There was a subtle commanding influence in his rugged, nomadic, and homeless life. There was intellectual attractiveness and spiritual drawing power in his authoritative manner of teaching, in his lucid logic, his strength of reasoning, his sagacious insight, his alertness of mind, his matchless poise, and his sublime tolerance. He was simple, manly, honest, and fearless. With all of this physical and intellectual influence manifest in the Master’s presence, there were also all those spiritual charms of being which have become associated with his personality-patience, tenderness, meekness, gentleness, and humility. UB 141:3.4
Bill Easum and Thomas Bandy of Easum, Bandy, and Associates. For more information on their books, resources, and workshops, see www.EasumBandy.com. ↩︎
Many of these insights are based on the work of John Carver, whose best selling books on public organizations have become required reading for many governing boards around the country. ↩︎
Kicking Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches, Thomas G. Bandy, Abingdon Press, Nash- ↩︎