The announcements of layoffs and budget cutbacks at Church of God Ministries have generated considerable concern in recent discussions in which I have been involved. The news is somewhat unsettling, although not everyone is panicked. Some see this merely as a necessary adjustment that organizations need to regularly go through as they rationalize their activities, especially in a time of economic downturn. I am not convinced it is that simple.
These financial challenges, as Dr. Duncan pointed out in his recent letter, have been developing for quite some time and are reflective of much more profound challenges facing us.
First, I believe this is indicative of the bigger struggle that we continue to have over becoming a "denomination", even though we tend to deny that this remains an issue. C. E. Brown's suggestion that there is a difference between "organizing the church and organizing the work of the church" is true, but we nevertheless remain uncomfortable with intentional structure and organization, even to the point of this attitude being detrimental at times. The debates earlier this year over our hyper-congregationalism illustrates this. Sadly, however, we tend to divide on this issue at the extremes, and fail to see more reasonable solutions that both respect the dynamic nature of the church, and insure cooperation and accountability. The result of all this internal tension is a relatively low level of commitment to national and, in some cases, district organizations.
Second, these struggles with centralized organization are not just limited to the Church of God. There are also some broader trends at play here. The wisdom of centralization is increasingly questioned and dismantled across many sectors of our society, including government, business and religion. Our information age has spawned a new approach for cooperation: non-hierarchical networks. For example, at one time it made perfect sense for centralized, denominational missions organizations as missions endeavors were very complex and costly for individual congregations. But now, churches want to get personally involved in missions, even sending their own missionaries and establishing direct contact with churches and ministries in other lands through regular communication, direct giving, and missions trips. Merely sending money to a national mission organization does not have the appeal it once did. The lesson in all of this could be that an organization like Church of God Ministries may have a greater role in facilitating networks than actually delivering services. As simple as this sounds, it would be a radical change.
Third, the challenges we face can also be attributed to the lack of a coherent, consistent, and compelling vision for our movement. This is not any one particular person's fault (or responsibility), although it does reflect our current lack of and distrust of strong leaders. All of this reflects a steady erosion of purpose since our founding almost 130 years ago. Our movement was based on some very clear ideals, and was later reinforced by a church-historical eschatology. Since that time we have become much more geographically and sociologically diverse; our theological positions have been refined; there has been a great urge to identify with mainstream Evangelicalism; and there are other voices and groups effectively proclaiming aspects of our message. Certainly attempts have been made to cast a new vision for the movement, but none have captured widespread enthusiasm or acceptance.
In light of these reflections I believe that this is a critical time for Church of God Ministries to continue the process of reinventing itself. Or even better, for our movement to define itself and then reinvent Church of God Ministries to serve that purpose. Obviously this is a grand challenge, and not one that can happen in a short amount of time. But, it needs to happen, and we must be committed to it now.
These financial challenges, as Dr. Duncan pointed out in his recent letter, have been developing for quite some time and are reflective of much more profound challenges facing us.
First, I believe this is indicative of the bigger struggle that we continue to have over becoming a "denomination", even though we tend to deny that this remains an issue. C. E. Brown's suggestion that there is a difference between "organizing the church and organizing the work of the church" is true, but we nevertheless remain uncomfortable with intentional structure and organization, even to the point of this attitude being detrimental at times. The debates earlier this year over our hyper-congregationalism illustrates this. Sadly, however, we tend to divide on this issue at the extremes, and fail to see more reasonable solutions that both respect the dynamic nature of the church, and insure cooperation and accountability. The result of all this internal tension is a relatively low level of commitment to national and, in some cases, district organizations.
Second, these struggles with centralized organization are not just limited to the Church of God. There are also some broader trends at play here. The wisdom of centralization is increasingly questioned and dismantled across many sectors of our society, including government, business and religion. Our information age has spawned a new approach for cooperation: non-hierarchical networks. For example, at one time it made perfect sense for centralized, denominational missions organizations as missions endeavors were very complex and costly for individual congregations. But now, churches want to get personally involved in missions, even sending their own missionaries and establishing direct contact with churches and ministries in other lands through regular communication, direct giving, and missions trips. Merely sending money to a national mission organization does not have the appeal it once did. The lesson in all of this could be that an organization like Church of God Ministries may have a greater role in facilitating networks than actually delivering services. As simple as this sounds, it would be a radical change.
Third, the challenges we face can also be attributed to the lack of a coherent, consistent, and compelling vision for our movement. This is not any one particular person's fault (or responsibility), although it does reflect our current lack of and distrust of strong leaders. All of this reflects a steady erosion of purpose since our founding almost 130 years ago. Our movement was based on some very clear ideals, and was later reinforced by a church-historical eschatology. Since that time we have become much more geographically and sociologically diverse; our theological positions have been refined; there has been a great urge to identify with mainstream Evangelicalism; and there are other voices and groups effectively proclaiming aspects of our message. Certainly attempts have been made to cast a new vision for the movement, but none have captured widespread enthusiasm or acceptance.
In light of these reflections I believe that this is a critical time for Church of God Ministries to continue the process of reinventing itself. Or even better, for our movement to define itself and then reinvent Church of God Ministries to serve that purpose. Obviously this is a grand challenge, and not one that can happen in a short amount of time. But, it needs to happen, and we must be committed to it now.
