Beta Church
For nearly a decade the unofficial motto of the Facebook development team was “move fast and break things”.1 This motto emphasized the importance of innovation within the development team. In the early years it was common for whole segments of the site to suddenly change, causing widespread complaining and ultimately a better experience. For over five years Gmail was labeled as beta software — i.e. not finished and still in testing — in spite of the fact that millions of people were relying on it for their email communications.2 This freed up Google to continue testing and changing it without need for explanation when things broke unexpectedly.
There is a story, which is probably apocryphal, that says the seventeenth century church reformers would never call the church reformed, but would rather refer to it as the reforming church. The idea being that the church is always in a state of growth, innovation, and change. I have never seen evidence that the story is actually true, but I like the sentiment. Essentially it is saying that the church is always in a beta phase.
As much as I like the idea that the church is always testing and changing, so much of at least the western church feels like it is stuck and not innovating at all. Even things like the community church and emerging church movements were glazed over versions of old models. There seems to be a decades old model that says success as a church is large numbers plus a recognizable pastor. How is it that the church, who was at the forefront of science and art in the middle ages, is stuck in patterns that do not allow it to enter the twenty-first century?
According to Hill, Travaglini, Brandeau, and Stecker the keys to innovative leadership are co-working, providing a place where people want to belong that allows people to co-work successfully, and leading from behind.3 They surmise that what makes an organization innovative is not the leadership of a visionary but rather individuals working together to innovate. Leaders provide an environment that is welcoming of the individual’s talents and encouraging of them to work with the team.
The foundation of innovative leadership is an environment that makes people want to be part of it and to grow it into something even better.4 By providing this sort of environment it allows for people to work with each other and provides a safe space for disagreement.5 It is in disagreement that true innovation is cultivated. When both sides feel safe to explore their opinions without it devolving into competitiveness then true innovation can happen. This sort of environment happens not because of a visionary leader, but because the leader guides it into existence. Much like a shepherd who leads from behind, the leader of innovative organizations guides from behind.6
It is interesting that they use the example of a shepherd, since that is one of the most common metaphors for a pastor. It seems that we have lost the sense that a pastor’s role is not to be the general leading troops into battle, but rather the person that helps to guide the flock as they explore the limits of the faith.
For some time at Google they had what was known as 20% time. The essence of it was that employees could use 20% of their work time to work on anything they wanted. There was no constraint on the project being of use to the company. Some people worked on programming projects, others knit, and still others did research projects. The idea was that if people were allowed to explore their passions innovation would naturally grow out of it. Both Gmail and Google Maps are the result of employees using their 20% time to build a better email or maps system.7
It would be great if churches would implement a 20% time project. By empowering the laity of the church to pursue their passions within the church it is possible we could see the church start to grow in new and innovative ways. The only way that will happen is if pastors are willing to help cultivate those passions and hold on with a loose grip.
Perhaps if sometimes the church moved fast and broke things, it would not so easily be seen as out of date.
—-
1 Samantha Murphy, “Facebook Changes Its ‘Move Fast and Break Things’ Motto,” Mashable, April 30, 2014, https://mashable.com/2014/04/30/facebooks-new-mantra-move-fast-with-stability/.
2 Juliet Lapidos, “Why Did It Take Google So Long To Take Gmail Out of ‘Beta’?,” Slate, July 7, 2009, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/07/why-google-kept-gmail-in-beta-for-so-many-years.html.
3 Linda A. Hill, Maurizio Travaglini, Greg Braandeau, and Emily Stecker, “Unlocking the Sices of Genius in Your Organization: Leading for Innovation,” in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, ed. Nitin Noria, and Rakesh Khurana (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 613.
4 ibid. 621.
5 ibid. 617.
6 ibid. 635.
7 Adam Robinson, “Want to Boost Your Bottom Line? Encourage Your Employees to Work on Side Projects,” Inc., March 12, 2018, https://www.inc.com/adam-robinson/google-employees-dedicate-20-percent-of-their-time-to-side-projects-heres-how-it-works.html.
About the Author
Sean Dean
An expat of the great state of Maine where the lobster is cheap and the winters are brutal I've settled in as a web developer in Tacoma, Washington. As a foster-adoptive parent of 3 beautiful boys, I have deep questions about the American church's response to the public health crisis that is our foster system.11 responses to “Beta Church”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’d love to see churches adopt this 20% thing. I’ll call that grace. I heard a speaker define grace one time. He said that grace is giving the space and freedom for others to be idiots — or something like that. I got a chuckle out of that. I think there’s some truth to that.
If we remove the pressure to always succeed and not to be super conscious about what others think, we Christians, motivated by love would achieve better things for the kingdom.
I think your question of how the church gave up her prominence and preeminence in the arts and sciences is noteworthy. Indeed, the church did occupy that position but sadly lost it because of poor leadership in the church.
This is really good, Sean. I love being a part of a church where, “Everybody gets to play”. The founder of the Vineyard Movement had a lot of quips, and that was one. Essentially, we believe and espouse, as a movement, that everyone really is empowered to contribute to the Church and that the Priesthood of All Believers thing really meant something. Now of course, this plays out in each church a little differently, but in mine, it’s looked like students in junior high leading worship on an occasional Sunday, or letting a college-aged student bring the message, and not relegating the teaching pastor to be the leader for all things when that’s not really his gifting. I think we could do more to empower our church in this 20% model that you mentioned. I want to explore that further.
The 20% time thing is something that I have loved for a while. In fact I pushed for our company to institute a similar practice. What I’ve discovered is that the drudgery of client work can be overcome by allowing developers to experiment with their passions. I wonder if some of the boredom or burn out that we see affecting so much of the church could be overcome by encouraging church members to follow their passions. To be honest, I’m not sure how it’d be applied in a church context without encouraging anarchy, but I think if applied well it could results in something great.
Sean,
I love your analogy of comparing a tech start-up to the church. Your quote from our text is quite compelling, “…what makes an organization innovative is not the leadership of a visionary but rather individuals working together to innovate. Leaders provide an environment that is welcoming of the individual’s talents and encouraging of them to work with the team.” What would a local church look like that would embrace this approach? What do you think? Blessings, H
Obviously my post is ignoring the fact that there are a lot of things about fast iteration that are less than ideal. I mean Facebook moved fast and broke our electorate. I think in an ideal situation a “start-up” church would be made up of teams that are hyper-focused on particular aspects of the church. The pastor in this situation would work to keep them connected. That would be a start. There’s a lot to unpack with the idea, but I think it’s a good idea.
I like the specific terminology about the reforming church. We are quick to say “sempter reformanda” but still say “reformed” in the Presbyterian World. I am going to start being intentional about saying we are the reforming church and see what conversations that can start.
If you see any results from this change in language, I’d love to hear about it. (Also, because I’m that guy it’s semper (always) not sempter (badness))
While I was the Dean of Wellington at the Cathedral of St Paul, I adopted a principle I had used in six churches – spend the first complete year seeing, understanding, and participating in the lives of the people and community. Each time I have found that my original perspectives were wrong, and that to lead the church I needed to bend and reshaped myself to see a new future with different eyes. For example, the Cathedral is a form of ministry that is centuries old and it’s liturgical style runs on the rails of predictability. If I hadn’t understood this, then I would have failed to comprehend that Catherals worldwide attract a population of people who are often on the autistic/Asbergers spectrum. The reason, is that Catheral’s often provide predictability and stability in a world that is constantly changing. That is not to suggest that everyone is one the spectrum, of course, but it does lead itself to a community that struggles with change. So, leading that community meant realigning my own ego expectations, and knowing that the kind of leadership required in that place was different form anything I had done before. Too often church leaders fail to address the tension between client and external success measures. The question we must attend to in a client based model is, “who is the client?” Likewise, when comparing a church to a buisiness, what and who are the ends and means? The shepherd model you mentioned does precisely that, it looks at its people not as means, but as ends in themselves. The Shepherd navigates the changing terrain to protect, train, resource and enable the flock. So in a church or ministry context, what do reckon are the means and ends? How would you apply that to staff, congregation and those outside the church? That simple enquiry is kind of important.
I think ideally the congregation are the means and the ends, but not exclusively so. By that I mean that the people of the church working to engage the community would result in the people being the means to reaching the community, but they’d also be the ends in that the work to engage the community results (hopefully) in a greater spiritual discipline. I don’t mean to be trite about it, but I don’t see it as a simple binary choice. It’s almost always both-and.
Sean, you have articulated everything I have been reading and reflecting on for some time. Rather than “co-work” I have been reading about “co-creating.” It is very different than collaboration and requires the leader to lead from behind so as not to get in the way. The leader’s role is to identify who should be in the room, get them there, encourage them to innovate, then lead from the back. Great post! Very encouraging.
Tammy I am so happy that you see the difference between co-creating and collaboration. I’m actually spent on talk of collaboration – it is one of the most overused bits of jargon in my industry. I do love the idea of the pastor leading from behind. I’ve seen far too many churches get messed up because the congregation depends too much on the pastor leading them or the pastor tries to lead the congregation to a place they don’t want to or can’t go. Each congregation has their own DNA and it’s important for a pastor to get a feel for that in order to guide them deeper into their place within the Kingdom of God.