Don’t know why this didn’t publish, but I just found it in my draft file.

I’ve been devouring Darrell Guder’s (and others) foundational book, Missional Church:A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. First published in 1998 this prophetic call for change is both affirming and wrecking many of my ideas and convictions of living as an incarnational community. Two things amaze me. First, is the fact that I am just reading this book now, and second is that, for the most part, this book seems to be completely ignored by most church leaders. I’ve found myself getting so into reading that I actually have to go back and re-read whole sections because there is so much good stuff in here. The writers do a great job of pointing out the fact that the church must be open to change in order to respond not only to the culture surrounding it, but also to what God is doing in that culture. Followers of Jesus must recapture the idea that living as a “church” is not about a building, or offering programs, or even having a weekly time of worship and teaching (as good as those things may or may not be). Following Jesus is, first and foremost, about living together as a sent people: a people on mission to proclaim and demonstrate the in-breaking of the reign (kingdom) of God.
Guder writes (you may have to read this a few times to get the full effect of it):

“It is not hard to see that at many times in the church’s history this central affirmation of good
news [the kingdom of God is at hand] has suffered a pattern of omission or ‘eclipse’. Two tendencies
in the long history of Christendom help to explain this troublesome pattern. First, the church has
tended to separate the news of the reign of God from God’s provision for humanity’s salvation. This
separation has made salvation a private event by dividing ‘my personal salvation’ from the advent of
God’s healing reign over all the world. Second, the church has also tended to envision itself in a
variety of ways unconnected to what must be fundamental for it–its relation to the reign of God.
If it was Jesus’ announcement of the reign of God that first gathered the fledgling church into a
community, and if that church grew and matured around the way that reign found meaning and hope
in His death and resurrection, then the church must always seek its definition with the reign of God
in Jesus as its crucial reference point.”

The question then becomes, what does it mean for a community of God’s people (the local church) to be defined by the fact that “the Kingdom (reign) of God is at hand. How does one as an individual and as part of an intimate community live that out so it is “good news” for the actual community that we live in? I’d love to hear your thoughts and answers, and maybe I’ll post some of mine later.

A few weeks ago we had to take our Bichon Frise puppy in to get groomed. She had been spayed the month before and had developed some nasty “mats” in her fur. The groomer said that it was hopeless. The only option was to shave all the hair off and let it re-grow. Sooo, Fergi was shaved, and she ended up looking like a rat. Not very attractive, but necessary for her to be the super cute dog she really is. This got me thinking…

In fact, I think I even came up with a new term, institutional matting (IM). IM is what happens when a successful organization becomes so comfortable in itself that it stops exposing itself to risk or challenge. When an organization does this it subtly begins to grow stagnant and institutionalize, forgetting the very values that made it vibrant and successful. If this process remains unchecked it will eventually begin the downward spiral to complete loss of effectiveness and even institutional death (a fate worse then death in that an institution can hang on for a long time sucking resources and creativity that could be applied in successful organizations). The problem with matting is that the very thing that keeps it from happening (challenge, risk, change, obstacles) are the very things that a successful organization seeks to avoid to remain “successful” (Much like Fergi and the brush).
Once an institution develops “mats” it takes a drastic effort for them to be removed. This is where re-visioning, outside consultants, and new executive hires come in to play in order for the institution to become revitalized. Unfortunately many times this process is only a band-aid. Unless the entire organization buys into and commits to the re-visioning or the new leaders vision (which in turn brings the side effect of becoming a differently focused organization), those “mats” will remain, and while they will temporarily seem to be gone they will soon  reappear more matted then ever.
While I’m not an expert on institutional lifecycles or theory, I have experienced matting first hand and have seen the disasters that it can cause. I’m wondering if the same solution that was employed for Fergi needs to be employed with Institutional Matting. When the vibrancy of of a cause and a mission have faded, and a successful cause has made the turn to institutionalism and risk-management, perhaps a “shaving” is in order. Perhaps all the trappings of institution need to shaved off, and the organization brought back to the heart of what it was established for in the first place. All the trappings of risk-management, “stewardship”, and “success” must be stripped away if the organization wants to re-become what it was created to be in the first place. Scary proposition, but perhaps just like for Fergi, it is a necessity.

So anyway, thats about all I have developed on that right now. I’d love to hear your thoughts if this has proved true in your experience. AND I’d love to hear your ideas on how to build “brushes” into organizations to keep them from matting.

On a side note, have you noticed this tendency in your personal life? I’ll have to think about that one.