“Even the visionary companies studied in Built to Last need to continually remind themselves
of the crucial distinction between core
and noncore,
between what should never change and what should be open for
change,
between what is truly sacred and what is not.”
Jim Collins
Jim Collins
states that enduring organizations have two dominant characteristics that are
complementary opposites. The first is a
strong conviction about core ideals that never change; these are purpose and
values. The second is a clear
understanding that everything else must change in order to preserve the core. Collins says it takes clarity and discipline
to understand which things in the organization belong to which category.
People who
populate our churches often demonstrate little clarity about the difference.
Take Sunday school as an example. Few know that the origin of Sunday school
dates back to 1780. Four purposes or
needs were identified in the community and Sunday school was an experiment as a
means of addressing those needs. As the
idea of Sunday school spread and the culture changed, the four original needs
became reduced to only two: building relationships and nurturing discipleship. These two remain as the core purposes of
Sunday school.
If Jim Collins
would to look at our example, he would say that the core that should never
change would be building relationships and nurturing discipleship. He would then identify the noncore, or method
for accomplishing the core objectives, is the traditional Sunday school hour on
Sunday morning.
Simply, what the
church is about is the core, or the essentials, and not about the method. Building relationships and nurturing
discipleship is at the core of our mission. The method, the traditional Sunday school
hour, is not. The question before the
church is, “Are you emotionally attached to the method or the core?”
Jim Collins is
correct, of course. Sometimes emotional
attachments get in the way of intelligently discerning the difference between
what must never change and what can change, the difference between the core and
the noncore.
Make no mistake.
The Sunday school example should not be heard that I am against Sunday school. Nor is it my intention to eliminate Sunday
school from our ministry. I use this as
an example of the difference between what is “method” (Sunday school hour) and
“core” (building relationships and building disciples). When we realize that it is the “core” that is
important and not the “method”, then we can explore additional methods for
advancing the “core.”
I have invited a
few of our leaders to share with me in a period of discernment. From the outside, their work together may be
called long-range planning. Though this
is what they will do, their real work will be to clarify the difference between
what is at the core of our mission and what is merely method. As our world changes; so do methods. Rotary style phones were only a method, the
idea of easy communication is a core. Rotary
phones have been replaced; the core value of easy communication has not. I wonder where the rotary phones are in our shared
approach to ministry. And once
identified, are we prepared to get over our emotional attachments to them for a
more effective approach?
Joy,