Thoughts and insights on all things 'Gathering'.

I have worked with a number of entrepreneurs over the years and there are some common themes and characteristics in their lives. One of them is extreme focus and a personal identification with projects. They start things, grow them and then start looking for exit strategies. In non-profit work there are very few exit strategies – especially for founders.

A familiar and common characteristic of entrepreneurs founding ministries is sooner or later they start looking for other partners. First, they lose interest in it but want to see it go on. Second, they wake up and see the project is almost completely dependent on them financially and that makes them uncomfortable. They don’t like to think about their capital being committed for an undefined future. Third, either the project becomes far more expensive than they thought it would be or they take a financial hit and are no longer able to support it by themselves. In each case, they discover the value (often for the first time) of “partnerships”. Entrepreneurs, by nature, do not typically partner well and often only as a last resort.

Too often they find the project is so completely identified with them and their funding that others see it as a privately owned property. Of course, this is probably how the founder sees it as well. It has the founder's face all over it and is so thoroughly merged with that person that others cannot see themselves being a part of it. They cannot imagine it being anything but a private venture looking for “other people’s money.” It looks like someone having a child and raising them for ten years and then looking for someone else to take over or help with the expense. In many cases, they want help with the “child” but don’t expect to make concessions in the vision or operation. They think others should be interested in this project that has been so important to them and it is just a matter of finding the donors and convincing them.

For others, they have waited too long and created an organization so dependent on their funding that the time required gradually to find more funders interested makes a transition to partners difficult. They have been focused for so long on shaping and crafting it that they gave no thought (or very little) to a time when there would be a need for others to come alongside. They never designed it to have other investors/funders.

Then there are those who run out of money to support it and they find themselves in a crisis. It could be from a financial downturn or it could be they had the resources to fund the growth but not an ongoing operation. Typically, they start looking for traditional donors thinking they can now present themselves as another grant opportunity for them. That’s when they discover how unusual they are in the minds of most traditional donors. That’s another topic!

So, what might entrepreneurs starting ministries do from the outset?

1. Think about how much it takes to make a ten year commitment and put the money aside if you want to have total control.

2. From the outset start thinking about how to design the project to easily allow for other funders.

3. Recognize that after about four years the project will be seen as your pet project and it will be very difficult to find others unless you do the hard work of redesigning it.

4. Finally, don’t discount the option of ending it instead of finding partners. Some things just have a life for several years and their purpose is fulfilled.

Ross Douthat’s article this week in the New York Times titled “Can The Working Class Be Saved?” starts with a reference to Charles Murray’s latest book, “Coming Apart.” “What’s brilliant is Murray’s portrait, rich in data and anecdote, of the steady breakdown of what he calls America’s “founding virtues” — thrift and industriousness, fidelity and parental responsibility, piety and civic engagement — within America’s working class, and the personal and communal wreckage that’s ensued.”

There may be one more founding virtue as well. It’s what Lord Moulton in a 1924 essay in “The Atlantic Monthly” called “obedience to the unenforceable.” What’s that? “There are three great domains of Human Action. First comes the domain of Positive Law, where our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed. Next comes the domain of Free Choice, which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom. But between these two there is a third large and important domain in which there rules neither Positive Law nor Absolute Freedom. In that domain there is no law which inexorably determines our course of action, and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would. The degree of this sense of a lack of complete freedom in this domain varies in every case. It grades from a consciousness of a Duty nearly as strong as Positive Law, to a feeling that the matter is all but a question of personal choice. Some might wish to parcel out this domain into separate countries, calling one, for instance, the domain of Duty, another the domain of Public Spirit, another the domain of Good Form; but I prefer to look at it as all one domain, for it has one and the same characteristic throughout — it is the domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable. The obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself.

“The dangers that threaten the maintenance of this domain of Manners arise from its situation between the region of Absolute Choice and the region of Positive Law. There are countless supporters of the movements to enlarge the sphere of Positive Law. In many countries — especially in the younger nations — there is a tendency to make laws to regulate everything. On the other hand, there is a growing tendency to treat matters that are not regulated by Positive Law as being matters of Absolute Choice. Both these movements are encroachments on the middle land, and to my mind the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land of Obedience to the Unenforceable. It measures the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its existence and area testify to the way they behave in response to that trust. Mere obedience to Law does not measure the greatness of a Nation. It can easily be obtained by a strong executive, and most easily of all from a timorous people. Nor is the licence of behavior which so often accompanies the absence of Law, and which is miscalled Liberty, a proof of greatness. The true test is the extent to which the individuals composing the nation can be trusted to obey self-imposed law.”

Watching the struggle between the extreme poles of our current politics has only underscored the wisdom of Moulton’s insight. It is not heavier regulation or more free choice that is the single solution to the rift in our nation today. It is the breakdown of personal responsibility and adherence to the self-imposed law that is in jeopardy. What we need is what Moulton described as people able to enforce these laws upon themselves.

One of the most pronounced trends in the non-profit world in the last ten years has been the number of men and women in business careers making a transition to the non-profit world. While most assumed there would be some differences in the way those two worlds operated, I think many discovered they had no preparation for how different they are! Making a lateral move from business leadership to non-profit leadership was more of a shock than they knew it would be and it has taken them years to make the adjustment. Many have not made the adjustment and chosen to go back into business or join boards. The two worlds have different rules, incentives, values and assumptions as well as different realities.

It is only recently that I have been noticing another shift. People on staff with churches are moving into the non-profit world by establishing their own 501(c)3 organizations. In the same way, they are learning that the traditional non-profit world is not the same as church. Most people would assume those worlds would be fairly similar but they are not and the differences are important.

Men and women on the staff of churches have had to learn not only about the cultural differences between churches (different language, values, incentives, etc.) but also the unique operating principles of each.  

First, church staff have typically never worked with boards. They might have been managed by a pastor or executive pastor but they have never faced the unique relationship between a governing board and an executive director. In fact, the legal requirements and expectations of a non-profit governing board are far more demanding than those of a most often distant deacon body or church committee.

Second, most churches have budgets and the operating budget provides the funding for the program. Staff are not responsible for raising their budget. In fact, they are discouraged from doing it as that competes with the overall operating budget of the church. While many staff have learned how to raise additional money for special projects from church members they have typically not been asked to raise a whole operating budget.

Third, church staff understand the politics and systems of their church. They understand the “ecosystem” of their congregation and the needs of that body. However, they have very little experience in understanding the complexities and needs of the larger community. By necessity, they have become expert in a well-defined organization but a community where many non-profits navigate and compete for support of all kinds is foreign to them and they do not factor in how much they will need to learn about that community.

I think this is a trend that will only increase – especially with younger staff who are uncomfortable being confined to one place and want to “make a difference” in the world. They recognize the church is not “the world” in which they want to spend their lives. They have different expectations and this is going to play out in interesting ways.

In our last blog we looked at how Paul encouraged Timothy to take seriously his role as an example to the other believers. We continue by seeing Paul telling Timothy where he needs to focus and at the same time tells his elders how they can learn from him if they are wise. They can learn from his speech. In the same way, we can learn from their straightforward and enthusiastic speech of our younger members. What has too often become a professionalized process with specialized language for us is still a thrill for them that is often hard to articulate. It comes out not as “That looks very effective and efficient” but as “Oh, sweeeeet!”

They can learn from Timothy’s life. You’ll see some pictures and videos in the upcoming conferences that are illustrations of how the younger people in The Gathering are going out into the world and giving not just their money (or family’s money) but spending a part of their lives in remote and extremely challenging places. They are taking risks that make some of us more than a little uncomfortable – even queasy - but they are part of a generational wave of volunteers, pioneers and explorers. The new missionaries we might say…but they don’t call themselves that.

They can learn from Timothy’s love and faith. Watch for it. Listen to the stories of passion for people all over the world and the extraordinary expectations of our young friends who have a calling to fulfill and not just a career to find. They are in Uganda, in India, in Cambodia, in Haiti, in China, in Russia and Rwanda, in Europe and Ethiopia, in Canada, in Latin and South America, in Australia - and everywhere they are going they are stimulating faith and exhibiting the love of Christ. I wish you could see all the pictures and hear all the stories of what they are doing because they believe the power of the Gospel is as real today as it was in the past.

Finally, Paul says the young Timothy will be an example of purity for us. Not just sexual purity but a purity of spirit and purpose. A purity that is not jaded or cynical or diluted by comfort. It is a purity that comes from a fresh and compelling experience with the Spirit of God and an openness to new ways of seeing His kingdom come on earth.

I cannot imagine a better place to be in the next several years. Our future is here in these young people and I want us all to realize as profoundly as did the Apostle Paul that they have much to teach us and are not simply here to learn. These are our “samples” we show to others to describe The Gathering and over the next five years we want to steadily increase the number of Timothy’s at The Gathering. Not just to make us younger on average but to be examples for us to renew our hearts and imagination and enthusiasm for God’s call in our lives. Listen to our friend Paul again. “Do not neglect your gift and the responsibility of it” I want to challenge the young participants here tonight to take on the responsibility of teaching us, being examples for us, inspiring and challenging us and showing us through your lives, your faith, your purity and your speech what it means to be joyful and generous and committed.

“Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.”

If you’ve ever been to a football game at the University of Oklahoma, you’ve experienced the “Boomer/Sooner” yell. One side of the stadium shouts out “Boomer!” and the other side responds “Sooner!” This goes on for quite some time. Quite a long time, actually. I only bring it up because it reminds me that there are many of us boomers who have become elders much sooner than we expected. This has not gone unnoticed at The Gathering. In fact, I’ve had a couple of friends ask why there seem to be so many young ministry leaders showing up on the programs at the conferences. It’s intentional…and it’s intentional because our direction for the next five years is to actively encourage more and more young givers as participants and young ministry leaders as resources to The Gathering.

I’ve been mulling over the Apostle Paul’s counsel to Timothy and what he said there is just as relevant for us. “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.”

Paul didn’t tell Timothy to spike his hair, become a youth pastor in his first church and limit himself to concerts and beach trips. Instead, he was to teach all the believers. Believers of all ages and maturity. That’s how we need to view our younger participants and leaders now. We don’t need to start a “children’s church” for The Gathering. Rather, we are in a unique place to start learning from those who are young. It’s a simple illustration but think about who taught you to use your first computer. Your son or daughter probably or even your grandchildren. Who taught you who to use email? Who taught you how to program your Blackberry? We’re already being taught by the young in so many ways.

Paul then encourages Timothy to take seriously his role as an example to the other believers. He’s not to depend on their being models for him but he is to take the responsibility of being an example of spiritual maturity for them. An example of what? An example of a mature believer. The word “example” really means a sample – a taste of what you are about to have. I loved examples in my math classes because I needed to see something tangible first. Something that I could follow and know it was not just a theory. In the same way, Timothy may be young but he has much to teach them about their own walk with Christ. They should be looking to him as a taste of what they can expect in their own lives and not the other way around. He should be respectful but not reluctant. In our next Blog entry we’ll continue this look at how Paul urges Timothy on as an example for other believers. It’s an example we could all model.