I can be hard on the church sometimes, so let me switch gears today and offer some positive thoughts about the idea of “corporate” church. There are probably hundreds of ways it’s true that the church is not a corporation and no shortage of ecclesial deconstructionists to point this out, but I’ve noticed one aspect of this critique that feels a little – what’s the word? – lazy. I suppose I see this in two ways. The first is simply a quick dismissal of any principle of organization or interaction that we think is too wooden as “corporate.” If you’re going to make that claim, think things through enough to back it up.
For instance, I know I’m oversimplifying a bit but any venture can be analyzed by looking at “ends” and “means” – or in other words, what we’re trying to accomplish and what we’re doing to accomplish it. Corporations (or “the corporate world”) pursue some goals that are compatible with the church’s goals and others that aren’t; and they seek to reach their goals using some methods that are compatible with the church’s and some that aren’t. And vice versa. For instance, one of the church’s “ends” or goals is to make disciples of Jesus and teach people to do everything he commanded. For the most part, this will not be an end that corporations share. Corporations tend above all else to pursue a profitable bottom line; this is not a major goal that churches share.
But the lack of compatibility in some instances – okay, the far majority of instances – doesn’t mean there’s no legitimate overlap. For instance, both might identify working in teams as the best method to reach their respective goals. Both might identify environmental responsibility as one of their ends (and in both cases, this will not be at the top of the list). Both might determine that annual or bi-annual reviews are the best way to hold one another accountable to doing our work and doing it well.
What I noticed a while back in myself and others, and this is the second point I’m getting at, is that sometimes we pastors want to reject corporate methods for stuff like time management, task tracking, or yearly reviews, because we’re lazy. We don’t want to set goals because we don’t want anyone to hold us accountable to them. We don’t want to intentionally re-structure our workdays for maximum output because we like dilly-dallying or being vaguely “spiritual” (whatever that means).
Anyway, I hope I’ve made my point clearly enough. At the end of the day, I’ll keep screaming as loud as the next seminary grad that the church mustn’t uncritically embrace the business mentality. By and large, I still think this is the caution most of us need to hear. But in the back of my head I’ll now be asking myself if I’m objecting because this means or end is truly out of line with faithfulness to God’s kingdom, or simply because it demands more of me than I want to give.
to tell the truth 
John Sichting said:
Once again I find myself agreeing with you. (One of these days I will disagree and try to do so forcefully.) Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about one of the Seven Deadlies — sloth. And with the same accent as you suggest here. It’s not that I don’t stay busy. If anything I “work” too much. But to be more targeted (as much as I hate that word)…yes, that might be a good thing.
Perhaps after I get through this very busy week I will realign some priorities and chart out a more disciplined course.
Perhaps.
David Fish said:
Gary Zustiak put me on to this book: Winner, Lauren F. (2012). Still: Notes on a Mid-Faith Crisis. Harper Collins.
In it she discusses the 7 deadly sins, and cites Saul Bellow, and a friend named Geraldine, as equating busyness with sloth. Geraldine tells her, “Laziness may have been a problem for nineteen hundred years but not anymore. Busyness is the new sloth.”
That concept resonates deeply within me.
Alexander Megarit said:
The notion that the church might avoid corporate tactics out of laziness or to preserve non-accountability is an interesting one. We have obviously discussed this topic at great length, and there is one area that it brings to mind. That is, if we are looking at those that work in the church as the heads of a corporation, and those that attend the church as the employees (disciples), then is it a proper/necessary tactic/means of corporations (accountability and increased “productivity”) that should be put on the “employees?” I guess what I’m asking is, is it the responsibility of the working members of the church to hold those attending accountable in the same way that a corporation would? And what would that look like? Or is this just another example that separates the two?
paule270 said:
http://churchpolitics.net/
My new blog. Just in case you were wondering. LOL. Moving to Boston in two weeks. Got hired as Director of Christian Education for a United Methodist Church. Who figured? haha.