This is so true of many movements. I am not sure that these things are all bad. For example a lack of accountability can be a bad thing. We only need to look at the failed TV evangelists of the 80’s and 90’s and I am sure that some are still failing to realise this. But then on the other hand the opportunity to run ahead and be creative can happen in institutions. In fact it is often the institutions that allow the freedom for that occur.
When I look at so many of the voices of the Emergent church movement I see that most of them are safely locked behind the doors of institutions. Very often the institutions that they are spending so much time emerging from. I think that many of them would not be able to do the things they do like blog for example without this protection.
Don’t get me wrong I get as frustrated as the next person with the church. But I still love it and its people. I have found that in many cases it has fostered a climate of innovation and encouraged new things to occur. The church is in fact the ideal place for a ‘mucker’ because it can be so forgiving of failure or at least it should be.
I continue to be amazed at how movements can ossify and institutionalize. Organizational gravity inevitably pulls toward institutionalization. The justifications used by the bean counters, policy makers, and those who must have rules and regulation are legion: ..accountability..stewardship…excellence…can all be admirable labels for clubs that are used to beat innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit out of an organizational culture.
In my experience the only way to keep an edge and a step ahead of the maintainers is to recruit and empower a steady stream of what Edison called ‘muckers.’ They are the trailblazers who simply need running room and someone to believe in them. (http://www.undertheiceberg.com/)
Powered by Qumana