How much change can a structural change produce?

            At our 2009 Biennial in Pasadena, CA the American Baptist Family will face the task of voting for a proposed new structure that intends to bring change in different fronts. After several years of dedicated effort on the part of the General Executive Council (GEC), a writing team, a transitional team, and the General Board we have finally arrived at a place of change that is comfortable enough for everyone to move forward and introduce it to all our constituents. Change is a funny thing: on one hand we cannot escape it; on the other we always resist it. This particular change was motivated by the desire to streamline our operation as a denomination with the goal of reducing costs, plus the need of finding a way to overcome the theological and ethical differences that polarized us and left us bleeding.   A word about change             There are different levels of change as popularized by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline (Doubleday Business-Oct 1, 1994). The depth of change is directly proportional to the length that it takes to produce it. 

EVENTS are activities that take place at one point in time. A workshop that lasts one hour or two, a homecoming that takes place during a weekend, or even a revival that stretches for a whole week are just examples of events. Many of our churches think that events can produce real change, but more often than not that’s not the case. Events affect very little change in the life of an organization. TRENDS, on the other hand, are more extended time wise. A trend may last three months or three years, but the point is that they are seasonal and over before we know it. Trends produce short lasting change in an organization. For example, a discipleship program may last three months and may change the life of the congregation for some time. But inevitably, things resort back to usual.             If you imagine the pyramid to be an iceberg, the line in the middle is equivalent to sea level. Both events and trends are very noticeable and exciting. Under the line, though, we find the types of change that produce long lasting results. STRUCTURES change the whole operation of an organization by lending a new framework to do business. Typically, institutions change their structures every fifteen to eighteen years. Finally, we find MENTAL MODELS. These are the guiding paradigms by which the whole organization lives and subsists for generations. A change of mental models is revolutionary, and often times it just happens, perhaps as a result of God’s burst into human history. 

            As we move into Post-modernity, many mental models are changing even when we don’t intend to do it. I believe that is the case with this structural change of the American Baptist Churches-USA. There are in particular two changes that will force us to think differently, and we’ll have to retrain our minds to do that. Main changes 

            One of the most remarkable changes in the ABC new structure is the shift from a legislative emphasis to a missional one, leaving the adoption of positions and resolutions to be decided by the local churches at the regional level. Therefore, when we meet together as a denomination at our Biennials we will sit at the Missional Table to discuss issues pertaining to our common mission and ministry in our own communities and around the world.              This is truly a return to our origins as a Baptist Missionary Society. Historically, local churches realized they could not individually reach out the world with the gospel, so they came together with the objective of multiplying their resources by joining in the missional venture. Moreover, staying away from legislating about issues lifts up the Baptist principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of the church. (The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms by Walter B. Shurden, Smyth & Helwys Publishing-Aug 1997) 

            The second important change proposed by the new structure is to morph into a federation model of relating where the national Boards will be interrelated but not interlocking. The number of members of each Board (NM and IM) will be reduced and they will be exclusively members of their respective Board, and not members of the General Board also. This will give them autonomy and freedom to conduct their business without being tied up to the meeting schedule of the General Board, or having to render double duty by serving in both, the General Board and their own.             As I said before, I believe these two changes will force us to think differently, especially in relation to issues of representation and identity. For a number of years we’ve been accustomed to lifting up issues that, we believed, molded our identity as denominational family. Even having a minority report was a part of such identification. As we have been unable to reach agreement on issues in recent years, we have seen our identity threatened and our community jeopardized by division. In the future, if this new structure gains the support of our constituents, our communal identity as a Baptist body will be defined by the missions we carry on together. Likewise, the federation model will help our national Boards to be defined by their focus on mission rather than by their membership at the General
Board. 

How does the new structure impact me?                        The possibility of no longer having Statements of Concern at the national level will place that burden on us at the local and regional levels. Most regions have abandoned the practice either by decision or by default. Some think it’s too divisive, others just didn’t have any impetus left for it. In the new structure we will have to assume the responsibility of stating concerns, adopting positions and defining issues the Baptist way, creating accountability systems for ourselves.             A very practical difference we will experience is in the representation system. All the regions will have only one representative to the Board of General Ministries. However, each region will nominate five such representatives; these names will go to the Leadership Pool from where the Nominating Committee will choose the candidates to present at the Biennial. In nominating the five candidates to the Leadership Pool, each region will try its best to offer diversity in terms of urban, suburban, rural,large, small, and mega church; ethnicity; race; gender; age; geography; language; culture; clergy/lay; physical ability; and economic class. 

            The voice of the local church will be mostly heard at the Mission Summit that will take place during each Biennial. The goal of the Mission Summit is to discern and articulate broad priorities for American Baptists for the upcoming biennium and beyond. The deliberations of the Mission Summit shall include a consideration of implications for the ministry of the local church. (Proposed by-laws)              Finally, an important way in which this new model will touch all of us is financially. The new Board of General Ministries will be consistently smaller, and the national boards will pay for themselves. All this will result in savings of 39% over the current costs.              All and all I’m excited about these changes and I believe they’ll be very positive. It will take us some time to getting used to them, but in the end we’ll be stronger in our mission, though looser in those things that kept us locked in for so long. 

This entry was posted on 15. November 2008 at 23:26 and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.