The UMC Needs to Forget Being The UMC

by Robert Rynders on January 14, 2013

in Innovate UMC, United Methodist Church

As I mentioned in my “response to the responses” post, the book 10 Rules For  Strategic Innovators, by  Dartmouth professors Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, lays out a strategy on how to innovate a new business out of an established business model. In fact, the authors argue that existing businesses have an extraordinary advantage over a stand-alone startup. Existing businesses are in a position offer an immense amount of resources and ability to quickly build out a new structure and business model.

The UMC finds itself in this unique position with unique resources, carrying the potential for new growth through innovative new ministry initiatives and church plants.

One of the successful innovative ventures, born out of an existing company, that the authors outline is New York Times Digital. Facing a declining print subscription base, The NYT created its digital division to utilize the internet to reach an emerging digital audience and create new revenue streams. As much as we hate ads and paywalls it’s hard to argue that this venture was a failure. Success, however, only came because they were able to overcome three key challenges: forgetting, borrowing and learning. The authors argue that innovative initiates fail because they fail to grasp one or more of these challenges.

What I’ve offered below are only highlights of how I understand Govindarajan and Trimble’s challenges of forgetting, borrowing and learning, to work and how they can help us during an era of innovation in The UMC. If you want more in-depth and probably far more accurate information you will need to read the book.

#1: Forgetting

My good friend and colleague,  James Kang, is famous for making the bold statement, “In order for the United Methodist Church to succeed, it must first stop being the United Methodist Church.” On the surface it’s a provocative statement. But do we really need to tear it all down and create something new? I don’t think so. However, I do think he’s right in the sense that we must do some selective forgetting. We don’t want to forget our doctrine, heritage, some of our polity and our connectional system. But in creating new ministries in new contexts we must forget some of our bad, misguided and outdated habits. This will involve some retraining of current leaders but also recruitment of some leaders outside of The UMC that do not carry much of our denomination’s dysfunctional DNA. We want folks who would fit well with our doctrine and polity but do not cling to our institutional baggage.

Successful church planters and revitalization leaders tend to forget well, because they are trained on how to grow churches through building relationships and creating relevant ministries for their contexts. Taking too many people from existing dysfunctional ministries is an example of a barrier to forgetting. It’s hard to design new DNA when there are too many people in the ministry who come from the DNA you are trying not to replicate.

Although he didn’t intend this resource to be about “forgetting,” church planting expert, Jim Griffith, outlines 10 common mistakes that church planters make that actually speak to many of the things we need to forget. Things such as too much focus on an unrealistic mission/vision (Dan Dick recently tackled this), failure to continue to reach new people after launch, fear of talking about money, too much focus on a worship service as the only way to grow and connect people, etc.

#2: Borrowing

Borrowing is a concept that we often fail to fully take advantage of. We have a vast amount of resources that are underutilized or misappropriated. One immediate point of contention between new ministries, established ministries and the overall institution is how resources are used to support the new ministry. Of course this includes money and new projects need the proper amount of funding from the institution in its early years. Resources can also include people, help from established ministries, meeting space, materials, existing contacts and relationships, etc. The new ministry will want to choose wisely the specific and amount of resource links to the institution, because too many or improper links can lead to a failure to forget. Borrowing can cause tension because established ministries often want to protect their membership and resources, in fear that the new ministry will put them out of existence. Borrowing can also frustrate the hierarchy if they do not see the ministry growing fast enough or accomplishing its goals. Borrowing requires a strong advocate at the conference level (ahem, CIO) for the new ministry who can obtain the proper resources for the new ministry and help justify the use of those resources to the hierarchy.

#3: Learning

Learning is perhaps the concept that we neglect the most. A strong learning process can help new innovations become successful and over time makes innovation faster and more efficient. If we can create stronger learning processes we can adapt faster to an ever-changing world. This takes a change in attitude around failure. New ministry planters and the hierarchy have to become comfortable with and honest about failure, otherwise learning will be difficult. Successful learning requires a stronger focus on predictions (as opposed to benchmarks) and the ability to effectively evaluate new ministries with self-interest and self-preservation influencing the learning process as little as possible. Indeed, as the authors argue, a leader should be evaluated on their ability to learn, adapt their model and revise their predictions. Of course learning only counts if we actually do it. Learning should ultimately lead to better execution and the ability to better decide whether a new endeavor should continue or be shut down. Up front, learning can be slow and expensive. Over time, however, our ability to learn should lead to quicker successes and less costly endeavors.

In future posts I will be offering some case studies from current UMC ministries whose success or failure can be evaluated based on the ability or lack of ability to overcome these challenges.

Until then, I would love to hear from you in the comments. How can we be better at forgetting, borrowing and learning?

  • http://www.facebook.com/amodei Andrew Amodei

    Awesome article!  I’m curious where you would locate campus ministry in the spectrum of practices we need to forget, borrow, and learn?

    • http://www.robrynders.com/ Rob Rynders

      As someone who spent five years as a Wesley Foundation director, I think the most important thing to forget is that WF’s are not just holding pens for self-identified UM college students. Campus ministries have the biggest opportunity to be innovative and reach new students because they tend to have a fair amount of freedom and while student turnover can be frustrated, it can help if you need to switch up the DNA. I think campus ministries have to move more towards acting like new church starts than simply serving as chaplaincies.
      Borrowing is the biggest challenge, however. Annual conferences and local congregations could do a far better job at resourcing WF’s. WF’s could also do a better job at soliciting resources from their alumni, as well.

  • http://lenguadelaz.blogspot.com/ Brandon Lazarus

    I realize this is a broad post, not getting into specifics but I would add to the learning section the need to share learnings, especially failures. It is implicit in your post but I think it’s important to make it explicit. Too often when sharing about new ministries, we share our successes. People hear about successful ministries and they want to know what made them “successful”. Equally important, if not more important, is what made them “unsuccessful” up until that point. We need to be willing to share our failures with others so that they can learn from our failures. Also, in many cases ministries fail because it simply wasn’t the season for it. Other people may find themselves in a season that is ripe for the very ministry that others failed with.

    • http://www.robrynders.com/ Rob Rynders

      Yes, Brandon! Couldn’t agree more. I hope to make that more explicit in the upcoming case studies I’m working on.

  • Taylor Burton-Edwards

    Rob–

    A trouble is… I’m not sure we can really call NYT Digital a success. Yes, there are more subscribers, but this has not led to an overall increase in ad revenue (the principle form of revenue for NYT and most news and magazine publishers, online or otherwise) but in fact a continuing modest decline.

    Is NYT Digital a model of forgetting, borrowing and learning (especially, on all three counts, from over 15 years of failures to launch with previous pay to play efforts by NYT)? Yes. Is it a model of actual business success? That’s just not yet clear.

    For more on the bigger story with NYT Digital, see this piece: http://news.yahoo.com/york-times-digital-subscription-growth-doesnt-offset-ad-112311259.html

    • http://www.robrynders.com/ Rob Rynders

      Hmmm. The questions to ask is if they are trending toward profitability and where they would be without NYTD? I would argue that the innovation itself has been successful because the overall losses would have been devastating without the ability to create NYTD. It’s successful because they have a way forward. There are still kinks to be worked out and further innovation to happen in order to attain profitability. What’s The UMC’s way forward? No plan we lead us to “sustainability” or “vitality,” however we measure those things, in just a few years. However, an effective way forward will show us some trends and signs of life, early on.

      • Taylor Burton-Edwards

         I would agree the UMC lacks a “single, coherent” way forward. But we actually do have a lot of “little ways” forward after GC2012, and, like the NYT, it’s too soon to tell whether or how they’ll be effective.

        One of the core challenges we face– if not THE core challenge– is one that has no yet been put onto the front burner. It’s not about “structure” in the sense of how we organize conferences and general agencies. It’s about how we function as a global church. That’s by far the largest opportunity AND fiscal threat to our denomination– at once the biggest platform for a future with hope AND the biggest unsustainable reality, in every way, that we are living with. And very little was done by or proposed to GC2012 even to begin to address that as seriously as we really must.

  • Chuck Gommer

    You want to hold on to “too much”…..the central undertsanding of who we are…”the symbol and symbol bears of God’s grace” is enough….the rest is baggage…and should be forgotten.   As long as the hierarchy  continue to control the “purse strings”….ministries of “newness and renewal” can not be realized.  Time to let go of the “institution”…..it has served us well…but not we must “tranistion” into a “new form”…a “new energy”…a new passion….something that more closely resembles the “kingdom”!

Previous post:

Next post: