Strategic Plan

[AzA]

(I wasn't sure which of the suggested threads people wanted to expand on... so carry on... If you've already commented, feel free to cut/paste/develop your answer.)

If you were asked to oversee development of an 80-year strategic plan for the Christian Church -- 2009-2089 -- what would you want in there? What would you not want in there? Why?

 

[djconklin]

Just so you know, in business and technological forecasting* we don't plan that far out. Too many unpredictables can come into play.

What we would do is set a goal for 20 years from now. Then we ask what do we have to accomplish in 10 years to get to that goal. Then ask the same question for 5 years to get to the 10 point and then ask the same question for next year to reach where we want to be in 5 years.

* Short book: An Introduction to Technological Forecasting, edited by Joseph P. Martino (London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1972).

 

[JonMiller]

Almost anything could happen in 80 years, from an end of life on earth, to the 2nd coming, to us all being connected by machines mind to mind, to having biologically changed our DNA.

JM

 

[AzA]

Just so you know, in business and technological forecasting* we don't plan that far out. Too many unpredictables can come into play.

What we would do is set a goal for 20 years from now. Then we ask what do we have to accomplish in 10 years to get to that goal. Then ask the same question for 5 years to get to the 10 point and then ask the same question for next year to reach where we want to be in 5 years.

* Short book: An Introduction to Technological Forecasting, edited by Joseph P. Martino (London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1972).

Our field does strategic planning so I'm aware of current practices -- cheers.

Would you like to attempt an answer?

 

[AzA]

Almost anything could happen in 80 years, from an end of life on earth, to the 2nd coming, to us all being connected by machines mind to mind, to having biologically changed our DNA.

JM

What kind of church would you like your great-grandchildren to see?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Aza,

This was my answer:

1. More emphasis on building relationships between people and less emphasis on creating and promoting a product.
2. More Jesus, less religion.
3. More instruction regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ and fewer self-help books and sermons.
4. A form of Christianity that is more fully integrated into the culture and that is less a segmented subculture.
5. More emphasis on that which God has done and is doing and less emphasis on that which Christians do.
​

How would you answer your question?

BFA

 

[sentipente]

I would want the church to focus on species identity instead of group identity. In its present formulation group identity is being waved as species identity.

 

[djconklin]

Our field does strategic planning so I'm aware of current practices -- cheers.

And that field would be? Cheers!

 

[Avonia]

Become a Christian community that helps other Christians understand that it's nearly impossible to be "lost." And directly challenge world views that separate our family members into "saved" and "lost" groups.

Embrace and incorporate other wisdom traditions.

Work in the world - not work to escape the world.

Honor science.

Share Sabbath sans the insistence that people change their day of worship.

Use our resources more wisely. We are currently spending too much money funding the club - not the work the club could be doing.

 

[sentipente]

Become a Christian community that helps other Christians understand that it's nearly impossible to be "lost." And directly challenge world views that separate our family members into "saved" and "lost" groups.

We can't have both if we maintain the word "nearly."

 

[Avonia]

We can't have both if we maintain the word "nearly."

Nearly is important because of our confusion around two things. The first is what "we" are. The second is what "lost" means.

 

[sentipente]

Nearly is important because of our confusion around two things. The first is what "we" are. The second is what "lost" means.

Absolutely correct.

 

[AzA]

How would you answer your question?

I don't know if I can answer the question in full just yet, because I haven't written it. But thanks to your question I've now sat and thought about it for long enough that I'd want to write it!

For the time being, let me describe the goal. The goal would govern the plan design -- its substance, parts, timeline, context, and limitations. And my goal is.... dismantling the Church so that by the 80-year-mark it would not exist. That probably sounds nutty, lol.

I'm seeing a cracking eggshell, broken open and discarded so the nurtured chick can do its thing. I understand the Church as a transitional phase, not an end point; it's a catalyst, not the product; a waystation and neither base camp nor summit.

I don't think mankind was created to be the Church, nor do I think the Church was designed to swallow up, dominate, or outlast the rest of creation. I think mankind was created to be mankind, operating in a particular way in the context of the world, with whatever tools emerged during the process to support that.

So that target of WorldAfterChurch would be the driver for my plan. And I'd develop the timeline backwards from there.

I can see a couple of issues with the process, one of the tallest being...

Who wants to abdicate?
Most of the old revolution plans required the leaders to de-appoint themselves or their class, and they never did make it to that point. If the regimes themselves didn't fall apart well before Dismantlement, they fell apart because none of the leaders wanted to be the ones to dethrone themselves. None was committed enough to the target that they would yield to it in the present. "May the target meet us tomorrow if I can still hold onto power today." Something like Augustine's "Make me continent but not yet," lol.

My sense is that the only king who wants to abdicate (like Edward VIII) is the king who has found a good enough reason to, who realizes that what he's giving up can't compete with what he's gaining, even if his stodgy hangers-on can't fathom why he'd make the choice. The plan would need to include teaching all "kings" the rationality and higher value of abdicating.

But also the abdication of the "kings" is only half the story. The other half is having no successors ready to take their place. Edward was succeeded by George. Every coup leader has someone ready to cut his throat and take his chair (kinda like the last 10 or so kings of Israel, hehe). So the plan would also need to educate the stodgy hangers-on about the merits of the target and provide for their evolution into people fulfilled by roles much more meaningful than kingship. I think we were made for more than where we are.

In 80 years I would love my great-grands to sit in my lap and say "Granny AzA -- tell us another story about 'church'" -- and not have them know a thing about it. I wouldn't mind having forgotten either.

The second big question is
What's WorldAfterChurch? Like, what is it?
It might take me another day or so, but I could probably describe it. I think it would tie into the heaven thread.

I would want the church to focus on species identity instead of group identity. In its present formulation group identity is being waved as species identity.

Was this the issue you said was "an issue for the pulpit"? How so?

 

[sentipente]

Was this the issue you said was "an issue for the pulpit"? How so?

We have come to the place where the pulpit still governs the pew. Nothing will happen until the pew takes over the pulpit or the pulpit undergoes an internal transformation.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I don't know if I can answer the question in full just yet, because I haven't written it. But thanks to your question I've now sat and thought about it for long enough that I'd want to write it!

For the time being, let me describe the goal. The goal would govern the plan design -- its substance, parts, timeline, context, and limitations. And my goal is.... dismantling the Church so that by the 80-year-mark it would not exist. That probably sounds nutty, lol.

(1) By "the Church," are you referring to the SDA church or to Christianity in general?

(2) When you suggest that "the Church" will not exist, do you mean in its present form or entirely? Is there a Biblical basis for the ongoing existence of something called "the Church" (though it may taken an entirely different form from that which we know today)?

I'm seeing a cracking eggshell, broken open and discarded so the nurtured chick can do its thing. I understand the Church as a transitional phase, not an end point; it's a catalyst, not the product; a waystation and neither base camp nor summit.

I don't think mankind was created to be the Church, nor do I think the Church was designed to swallow up, dominate, or outlast the rest of creation. I think mankind was created to be mankind, operating in a particular way in the context of the world, with whatever tools emerged during the process to support that.

So that target of WorldAfterChurch would be the driver for my plan. And I'd develop the timeline backwards from there.

Do you see this as also being God's objective?

I can see a couple of issues with the process, one of the tallest being...

Who wants to abdicate?
Most of the old revolution plans required the leaders to de-appoint themselves or their class, and they never did make it to that point. If the regimes themselves didn't fall apart well before Dismantlement, they fell apart because none of the leaders wanted to be the ones to dethrone themselves. None was committed enough to the target that they would yield to it in the present. "May the target meet us tomorrow if I can still hold onto power today." Something like Augustine's "Make me continent but not yet," lol.

My sense is that the only king who wants to abdicate (like Edward VIII) is the king who has found a good enough reason to, who realizes that what he's giving up can't compete with what he's gaining, even if his stodgy hangers-on can't fathom why he'd make the choice. The plan would need to include teaching all "kings" the rationality and higher value of abdicating.

But also the abdication of the "kings" is only half the story. The other half is having no successors ready to take their place. Edward was succeeded by George. Every coup leader has someone ready to cut his throat and take his chair (kinda like the last 10 or so kings of Israel, hehe). So the plan would also need to educate the stodgy hangers-on about the merits of the target and provide for their evolution into people fulfilled by roles much more meaningful than kingship. I think we were made for more than where we are.

In 80 years I would love my great-grands to sit in my lap and say "Granny AzA -- tell us another story about 'church'" -- and not have them know a thing about it. I wouldn't mind having forgotten either.

The second big question is
What's WorldAfterChurch? Like, what is it?
It might take me another day or so, but I could probably describe it. I think it would tie into the heaven thread.

Hopefully, you've noticed enough overlap between my reply to your question and your reply to your question that you understand that I'm not taking pot shots.

BFA

 

[AzA]

The OP referred to Christianity. I'm happy to leave it there for the purposes of discussion, folding in SDAism into that category. We could also expand to consider other exclusive religious systems, but dealing with them as well might be an even bigger task.

As to your second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So, perhaps you might develop your point and position, and I'll catch up to you.

I think there's room for perceiving God's objective in what he seeded here and pronounced good.

Sure, I see the overlap.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The OP referred to Christianity. I'm happy to leave it there for the purposes of discussion, folding in SDAism into that category. We could also expand to consider other exclusive religious systems, but dealing with them as well might be an even bigger task.

As to your second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So, perhaps you might develop your point and position, and I'll catch up to you.

I think there's room for perceiving God's objective in what he seeded here and pronounced good.

Sure, I see the overlap.

I'm asking whether you hope that, in 80 years, there will no longer be an entity known as the church (in whatever form that entity may take)?

BFA

 

[JonMiller]

One thing I would like to see is that our good preachers/pastors/etc won't be given over to our successful churches. Once a church is successful, the good preachers/pastors/etc should go on to work on/with a new church.

A group of Christians who are strong in their faith shouldn't need the efforts of a great pastor/etc. Something is wrong if this is the case.

I mean think about it, did Paul or even John Mark stay in one place? Did the great preachers of the early Christian church spend their focus preaching to Christians, or to those who weren't Christian?

I am afraid that us in the Adventist church (in the States, at least) are just as lazy as everyone else. We want good preaching/etc for ourselves and don't actually want to do the work to be good active Christians ourselves.

So I agree with Senti that it is a problem that the pulpit governs the pew. That is only needed among those who are still new or those who have 'backsliding'. The fact that maybe it is needed suggests serious problems in the church.

JM

 

[AzA]

I'm asking whether you hope that, in 80 years, there will no longer be an entity known as the church (in whatever form that entity may take)?

BFA

The parenthetical makes it a bit difficult to respond, BFA.

But my primary interest is in the human family's maturation, not in the longevity of our social forms. I respect those forms for what they offer, but am always looking for ways to improve on them with care for where they limit our development.

We want good preaching/etc for ourselves and don't actually want to do the work to be good active Christians ourselves.

So I agree with Senti that it is a problem that the pulpit governs the pew. That is only needed among those who are still new or those who have 'backsliding'. The fact that maybe it is needed suggests serious problems in the church.

How would you define a "good active Christian," Jon?

 

[JonMiller]

Someone who can maintain their relationship with God, and show fruits of it, without needing to be hand held by other people.

JM