Comments on: Should the Church Have More in Common with Apple? http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html Practical Stuff for Church Leaders Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:37:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anon Church Worker http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18800 Anon Church Worker Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:50:27 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18800 I've got to reply to this. I, too, read the Fast Company article, and have been having the same reflections as you. I'm posting anonymously, although nothing I say would get me in any trouble at work, I don't think. Yet I never underestimate the chances of being misunderstood. I've worked for 2 megachurches. One was more like Google, with lots of ideas from staff and congregation members that would percolate up. If someone had a vision for a new ministry, they were allowed to run with it. The church leadership might not give full support, but wouldn't stand in anyone's way, either. It was a good system, though a little disorganized and unfocused sometimes. And it created a climate of ministries competing with each other for limited resources. The one I work at now is very much like Apple. It is much more corporate in its feel, especially as a staff member. The church is based around an extremely talented senior pastor, who is an incredible communicator and visionary leader. The issues for my current church are the same as they are for Apple's: It all hinges on the leader. If anything happens to the leader, both the church and the company are in trouble. And the pastor knows this intellectually. But moving away from that model is much harder than understanding it. Does it work? Yep. But so did the other church. The key to making my current church work is the pastor. It works when you have a leader who is remarkably capable and talented. It would be a disaster, though, if a pastor was high control, low talent. My current church is more focused, more directed, and, as many would measure it, more "successful". But as a staff member, I feel like I have less say in things. For congregants, they're here because they like the pastor and trust his leadership. But I'm not sure this church would foster new ideas and leadership from laypeople the way my previous church did. Ultimately, ministries reflect their founders, and good churches will be structured to match their leader's strengths and minimize their weaknesses. I've been lucky to work at two very different churches and learn from both. I've got to reply to this. I, too, read the Fast Company article, and have been having the same reflections as you. I'm posting anonymously, although nothing I say would get me in any trouble at work, I don't think. Yet I never underestimate the chances of being misunderstood.

I've worked for 2 megachurches. One was more like Google, with lots of ideas from staff and congregation members that would percolate up. If someone had a vision for a new ministry, they were allowed to run with it. The church leadership might not give full support, but wouldn't stand in anyone's way, either. It was a good system, though a little disorganized and unfocused sometimes. And it created a climate of ministries competing with each other for limited resources.

The one I work at now is very much like Apple. It is much more corporate in its feel, especially as a staff member. The church is based around an extremely talented senior pastor, who is an incredible communicator and visionary leader. The issues for my current church are the same as they are for Apple's: It all hinges on the leader. If anything happens to the leader, both the church and the company are in trouble. And the pastor knows this intellectually. But moving away from that model is much harder than understanding it.

Does it work? Yep. But so did the other church. The key to making my current church work is the pastor. It works when you have a leader who is remarkably capable and talented. It would be a disaster, though, if a pastor was high control, low talent. My current church is more focused, more directed, and, as many would measure it, more "successful". But as a staff member, I feel like I have less say in things. For congregants, they're here because they like the pastor and trust his leadership. But I'm not sure this church would foster new ideas and leadership from laypeople the way my previous church did.

Ultimately, ministries reflect their founders, and good churches will be structured to match their leader's strengths and minimize their weaknesses. I've been lucky to work at two very different churches and learn from both.

]]> By: youthofarabia http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18740 youthofarabia Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:52:40 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18740 I struggle with both sides of the No. Using the CEO to approve or disapprove seems to me to break the concept of every member is a Priest and is to come directly to God. There seems to be a strong understanding of this CEO with the approval in mission agencies, and many churches. While it allows for a very homogeneous group, it subtly teaches that individuals don't have a relationship with God, they have a relationship with God via their Leader (and I thought this was addressed during the reformation when it was in place through confession). I think that the power of this is that they do seek to only give the best to the market. But that also means that they limit their "potential" buyers to those that can afford the best. This also subtly teaches that only the best deserve what is offered. That may work to a point in a culture where we can simply offer a church for every strata of society and every socio-economical breakdown. But will that work in places where they can only be one church for multiple language groups and socio-economic stata? Christianity is not a marketing tool. It is not a business. We never go out of business. Yes we can learn a huge lesson from no using a methodology that is now outdated to reach people. I admire Apple a great deal for their willingness to make the leap forward. Too often missions especially stay focused on what worked 100 years ago. BUT there is no bottom line for the church, unless no one is being discipled and evangelized. It isn't about money its about changed lives. I struggle with both sides of the No. Using the CEO to approve or disapprove seems to me to break the concept of every member is a Priest and is to come directly to God. There seems to be a strong understanding of this CEO with the approval in mission agencies, and many churches. While it allows for a very homogeneous group, it subtly teaches that individuals don't have a relationship with God, they have a relationship with God via their Leader (and I thought this was addressed during the reformation when it was in place through confession).

I think that the power of this is that they do seek to only give the best to the market. But that also means that they limit their "potential" buyers to those that can afford the best. This also subtly teaches that only the best deserve what is offered. That may work to a point in a culture where we can simply offer a church for every strata of society and every socio-economical breakdown. But will that work in places where they can only be one church for multiple language groups and socio-economic stata?

Christianity is not a marketing tool. It is not a business. We never go out of business. Yes we can learn a huge lesson from no using a methodology that is now outdated to reach people. I admire Apple a great deal for their willingness to make the leap forward. Too often missions especially stay focused on what worked 100 years ago. BUT there is no bottom line for the church, unless no one is being discipled and evangelized. It isn't about money its about changed lives.

]]> By: Speedlinking – July 16, 2010 « Thoughts of Resurrection http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18738 Speedlinking – July 16, 2010 « Thoughts of Resurrection Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:05:05 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18738 [...] A good question is raised at Should the Church Have More in Common with Apple? [...] [...] A good question is raised at Should the Church Have More in Common with Apple? [...]

]]> By: dmbaldwin http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18728 dmbaldwin Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:10:47 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18728 Hey Tim, Great post! I have some thoughts about your three bullet points above. Regarding the Senior pastor have that kind of role and veto power, I have observed guys like that and admire their leadership ability and ideas, but would never want to work with/for them. Just not me. Totally agree with where your questions are going with the second bullet point. We need to be open and transparent as leaders in the local church. We are leading people who are also Christ-followers who want to have input into the process. Obviously this process needs to be managed properly to make a difference. The third bullet point reminds me of my style. We do have a person on staff whose default is "no", mine is "yes". We joke that by saying yes, I probably arrive at no's more than he does. What he does is say, "No." to any idea that comes along and you have to talk to a "yes." With me I start out with a "yes" and let's work together to see how we can implement your idea, and many times together we arrive at a "no". He get's the bad rap, but I'm the one who get's to a "no" more than he does. Just some thoughts from this part of the world. Blessings, Dave Hey Tim,
Great post! I have some thoughts about your three bullet points above.
Regarding the Senior pastor have that kind of role and veto power, I have observed guys like that and admire their leadership ability and ideas, but would never want to work with/for them. Just not me.
Totally agree with where your questions are going with the second bullet point. We need to be open and transparent as leaders in the local church. We are leading people who are also Christ-followers who want to have input into the process. Obviously this process needs to be managed properly to make a difference.
The third bullet point reminds me of my style. We do have a person on staff whose default is "no", mine is "yes". We joke that by saying yes, I probably arrive at no's more than he does. What he does is say, "No." to any idea that comes along and you have to talk to a "yes." With me I start out with a "yes" and let's work together to see how we can implement your idea, and many times together we arrive at a "no". He get's the bad rap, but I'm the one who get's to a "no" more than he does.
Just some thoughts from this part of the world.
Blessings,
Dave

]]> By: Pete Wit http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18727 Pete Wit Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:52:53 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18727 Something the church could learn to look at would be the sheer number of ideas that float around places at Apple that never make it to finished products. I know that Google pays literally thousands of engineers whose job it is to take as many ideas as they can and pursue them as far as possible before they're determined to not work. And then only the very very best ever see the light of day, and when those do, they're polished to a mirror shine. Exploding creativity and the ability to lay down a "No" would be great things for many churches to develop. Something the church could learn to look at would be the sheer number of ideas that float around places at Apple that never make it to finished products. I know that Google pays literally thousands of engineers whose job it is to take as many ideas as they can and pursue them as far as possible before they’re determined to not work. And then only the very very best ever see the light of day, and when those do, they’re polished to a mirror shine.
Exploding creativity and the ability to lay down a “No” would be great things for many churches to develop.

]]> By: Andrew Conard http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18726 Andrew Conard Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:21:36 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18726 Tim - You raise some excellent questions. I respond most strongly to the veto power over everything held by one person. This cannot be sustainable at all levels of the church. If the lead pastor is unwilling or unable to pass off key decisions to others the congregation will be significantly limited in the scope of ministry and how far they will be able to share good news. I value a collaborative approach where everyone can be vetoed with enough reason and there is not one person who could veto anything. Tim – You raise some excellent questions. I respond most strongly to the veto power over everything held by one person. This cannot be sustainable at all levels of the church. If the lead pastor is unwilling or unable to pass off key decisions to others the congregation will be significantly limited in the scope of ministry and how far they will be able to share good news. I value a collaborative approach where everyone can be vetoed with enough reason and there is not one person who could veto anything.

]]> By: Bob http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18722 Bob Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:54:21 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18722 Tim, Great post on the influence of Apple in the church. I've long admired their creativity and design excellence, but like you work on a Dell. There is much that the church could learn from Apple, but like all businesses, the church can learn from them in context but should remember they are not a business . I posted a similar look at the Wired article: <a href="http://27gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/apple-day.html" target="_blank">http://27gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/apple-day.html</a>. As for saying "no", I think that is one of the most powerful words that church leaders seldom use. Tim,
Great post on the influence of Apple in the church. I've long admired their creativity and design excellence, but like you work on a Dell. There is much that the church could learn from Apple, but like all businesses, the church can learn from them in context but should remember they are not a business . I posted a similar look at the Wired article: http://27gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/apple-day.html. As for saying "no", I think that is one of the most powerful words that church leaders seldom use.

]]> By: Dave http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18720 Dave Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:11:40 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18720 Should the church be like Apple? No, and yes, of course. No. We follow a man, and are not pushing product but connecting people with the creator. We must be open source (Jesus' kingdom is not a closed system), and we are not dependant on human talents as deeply as Apple. Yes. Of course we represent (market) the gospel. If THE church were known for "quality" and stuff that "works elegantly," my church would spend a lot less time saying, "We are not who you think we are" trying to distance ourselves from the "church" label. And we should say no to many things that are not relevant, excellent, true, gracious, and full of faith in Jesus' ability to transform our neighbors. Should the church be like Apple? No, and yes, of course.

No. We follow a man, and are not pushing product but connecting people with the creator. We must be open source (Jesus’ kingdom is not a closed system), and we are not dependant on human talents as deeply as Apple.

Yes. Of course we represent (market) the gospel. If THE church were known for “quality” and stuff that “works elegantly,” my church would spend a lot less time saying, “We are not who you think we are” trying to distance ourselves from the “church” label. And we should say no to many things that are not relevant, excellent, true, gracious, and full of faith in Jesus’ ability to transform our neighbors.

]]> By: Jennifer A. http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18716 Jennifer A. Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:12:29 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18716 I think 'no' can be a good thing, because too many times pastors and administrations try to please everyone and end up spreading the resources and themselves to thin. Especially at small churches. There needs to be a constant openness to new ideas, but also a set vision and purpose that they need to fit into. That openness needs to be a constant engagement (as Corbett said) with the congregation...but that doesn't mean it can't end with 'no'. I think 'no' can be a good thing, because too many times pastors and administrations try to please everyone and end up spreading the resources and themselves to thin. Especially at small churches. There needs to be a constant openness to new ideas, but also a set vision and purpose that they need to fit into. That openness needs to be a constant engagement (as Corbett said) with the congregation…but that doesn't mean it can't end with 'no'.

]]> By: Corbett Reeves http://www.leadingsmart.com/2010/07/should-the-church-have-more-in-common-with-apple.html#comment-18713 Corbett Reeves Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:13:40 +0000 http://www.leadingsmart.com/?p=5724#comment-18713 One major difference is that with Apple, the sun rises and sets on the finished, delivered product. It's slick and sweet and people build tribes around ownership of their products. There's no engagement... that's not part of the deal. One major difference is that with Apple, the sun rises and sets on the finished, delivered product. It's slick and sweet and people build tribes around ownership of their products. There's no engagement… that's not part of the deal.

]]>