Scale

Maybe the pandemic will wean us from our addiction to scale. Economies of scale is a fiscal strategy which tells itself "the more we do this the better we will get at it, the costs will go down and profits will rise. As a manufacturing strategy it has worked in industries as diverse as automobile manufacturing and modern electronics.

Interestingly, each of these industries also have examples of success based not on scale but on higher quality and/or scarcity. You can spend more for less scale. The manufacturer making profit from performance gains...or even cachet. They could build more Ferrari's if they wanted to. They don't so that the price for each unit, along with the margins for the manufacturer stay high. In the computer industry this is called the Apple tax. And no one thinks that these industrial choices are accidents. These are examples of companies which either forsake or cleverly manage economies of scale to achieve specific financial goals.

Not all experiences scale, particularly those based upon relationships. For example, lots of marriages don't make you better at it. The experience of being married will not improve at scale. I am persuaded that applying economies of scale to other relation based  experiences rather than improving them actually changes them. And as you might guess, my primary concern is the Church

Churches of every size are working through the issue of regathering for worship. This is like walking blindfolded in the rain through a minefield whilst wearing scuba flippers. And the minefield for every church is different. This is not an operation that benefits from economies of scale. The premise of following what the big churches do is of little help to the small or medium sized. The experiences of urban churches won't help much in rural areas, and a congregation which skews to an older demographic cannot apply processes prepared for a church of younger participants.

If economies of scale are a poor way to emerge from our present crisis maybe it's time to rethink them the rest of the time.

"Go make disciples" is both strategy and mission. Growth in demographically receptive areas is and has been the result.  Scale as a strategy does grow demonstrably bigger churches. The verdict is still out on more disciples. And the ultimate question remains. If your results have become your strategy have you changed your mission? In education this flip-flop of allowing result to dictate strategy is called outcome based education. What think you of that? What would you think of calling your churches mission outcome based evangelism? Mayhaps, we should just stick with the Biblical process of making disciples...leaving the results to God. Reporting results yes, counting new disciples, of course, but never confusing the means and the ends.

Because there is nothing worse than using economies of scale as your guide only to discover that what you have tried to do can't actually be done. That the organism sought is sacrificed upon  the alter of the organization actually built.

Finally, let me return to where we began. Maybe the real virus we are fighting is the virus of rampant addiction to scale.  Biggerism. Fascination with size. A vision for the church which sacrifices quality for quantity. And maybe the time to fight this virus is right now as we emerge from our cocoon of socially-distanced safety. How can we have deeper relationships? How can we have more focused worship? How can we probe the limits of Christian giving to the poor and sick? How can we preach Jesus more faithfully and engage disciples more completely? Maybe those questions should replace How do we get back to scale. Maybe Covid-19 isn't the disease... maybe it's the cure. That's my Bobservation for now.

Right Thinking About Rights

There is no such thing as an absolute, unlimited right.

I realize that many will take umbrage at that statement so allow me to elaborate. This is crucial considering the state of the body politic and the social contract which undergirds it. The concept of rights as it is commonly understood is derived from the Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Interestingly the point I am trying to make comes further in this same paragraph;

That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The Declaration does not absolutize individual rights it contextualizes them in community. In elaborating upon our experiment in democracy Mortimer Adler defined what he called the American Testament as consisting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address. The first defines the reasons for separating from England and the purposes to which this new nation is called. The Constitution is, arguably, the most boring of the three. It is a manual for governing.The bill of rights was attached as the first group of amendments, but the heart of the Constitution is the blueprint for tripartite, shared governance. In the Gettysburg Address Lincoln issues a civic call to repentance and reflection. So these founding documents provide:

• Identity
• Structure
• Conscience

Context, Community Contract. It is less about individuality than it is about defining who, what, where, when, why, and how we should treat one another. So beyond any specifics, the documents libertarians look to, in and of themselves tell me that any “right” I have is constrained by who I am in the broader context of who we are.  We have chosen to structure our society in this fashion and to accept  the moral and ethical imperative to extend that identity and structure to all inhabitants.

Back to my first point. These “rights” are not absolute. Rights exist in formal and informal contextual matrices Rights include responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities are embedded in relationships. These relationships have rules and restrictions to allow for the beneficial exercise of those rights in such a way that they do not endanger the relationships which give them form.

For example; my wife and I just returned from Carmi. She drove home as I distributed the food (DQ baby). She drove the entire trip on the right side of the road. Why? Because in our country the embedded matrix of our “right to drive” has the restriction that we drive on the right hand side of the road. In fact when learning how to drive we call the manual…the Rules of the Road. Driving on the left hand side in defiance of the rules, no matter how vociferously you object will result in losing the right. Other irresponsible behaviors include driving while intoxicated, driving while texting, driving recklessly. As an individual we have to choose to restrain ourselves according to the rules in order to exercise the right. A society in which this principle no longer operates is at best dysfunctional and at worst collapsing.

Application; you have a right to not wear a mask in public. When, however Grayville First Christian Church re-emerges we will require masks to attend worship. That is to say the relational matrix of our “church” is choosing to limit the exercise of our “right” responsibly, by not endangering others. That does not mean that we are dull-witted, fools inhabiting a deep-state, Orwellian nightmare. It merely means that we refuse to use the plea of “my rights” as a cover for selfish, irresponsible behavior. Rights, responsibilities, relationships, rules. That is how a society works. My guess is that the rights many claim are not permitted to the small children in their homes because that kind of utopia does not exist in the fallen world. Wives do not commonly accede to their husband's "right" to have sexual relationships with other women. The claim of unfettered rights is essentially the claim of a cad or a child. I do not care for either to be the measure of civility.

I know, some of you will object. It won’t be because your analysis is any better than mine. It won’t be because you have principle behind you. It will be because until we choose otherwise we inhabit a story wherein we simply will not be told that we have no right to touch the tree in the middle of the garden.

Musings

I have been working on plans for emerging from sequestration when the time comes. It’s harder than you think. Social distancing is more than just an inconvenience. It is certainly not an infringement upon personal liberties (the first of which is “life” which for some is only preserved by reliable, responsible social distancing). Not killing someone should not be seen as a burden but as a kindness I can extend to those I love, respect, worship with, and in my case: care for.

Be that as it may, we hope that within a few weeks we can begin the process of gathering again for worship. If we are to do it within the next few weeks-say the first week of June-that requires preparation. And like I said to begin this post it’s harder than you might think it is. If space keeps people healthy and safe, and gathering reduces that space then the thing you are replacing space with had better be as good at keeping the virus from infecting someone. Wow! What a sentence-I don’t care if the grammar police flag that one-it’s staying! We are reacting emotionally to this thing because we have been emotionally compromised if not infected by the virus of solipsistic isolationism. In other words-we are selfish and we want our way; to go to church, go to the store, go to a restaurant without a mask, without space, without any protection at all.

Here is something Paul once wrote which I think is pretty relevant.

“Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3 ESV)

The wide road to hell is paved with the words “I’m not gonna.” I’m not gonna comply. I’m not gonna wear a mask, I’m not gonna stay inside, I’m not gonna be responsible. But make no mistake;  "I’m not gonna" is the motto not of the heroic but the selfish. Imagine where we would be if Jesus had said “I’m not gonna be born, I’m not gonna go to Jerusalem, I’m not gonna go to the cross.”

It’s hard because the “I’m not gonna’s” are louder than the “not my will but yours.”