I came across an interesting book,
The Future of Work, by Thomas Malone, when I was reading Eric Raymond's essay
The Cathedral and the Bazaar. For those interested in the story of Linux and
opensource software Raymond's (developing) essay has become required reading.
Raymond talks about the fact that
internet technology made it possible for a hitherto unimagined number of hackers (coding experts - not to be confused with nuisance 'crackers', although in common parlance this mistake is often made,) to address the bugs (problems) that invariably arise when writing computer code. Coding problems in large programmes that would have been almost insurmountable to a small number of people, become relatively
manageable with enough people working on the problem. 'Many eyeballs can tame complexity', he says, referring to the fact that modern software is too complex to be written by one person alone. It has to be a collaborative work, and the crossover points of that collaboration are often the cause of the programming problems.
In 'The Future of Work' the impact of technology upon business is explored. Malone argues that increasingly we are moving from a centralised to a decentralised model of organisational structure. The suggestion is that the changes that we have seen in other areas of human
organisational groupings, from feudal landlords to democratic
governments have been facilitated by various technologies (
eg literacy) are going to effect
business too, in ways which we have only just begun to imagine.
What is it that enables these changes to happen? Malone argues that it is the cost of
communication plummeting that facilitates new modes of working.
I have always been
fascinated by means of
communication and believe that a
communication task is it the heart of the Gospel. These changes in
communication mode are one of the things that have inspired me to explore the area from the perspective of Christian theology.
It was as
communication improved that larger and larger models of society were able to form, to the extent that kings,
emperors etc. could rule vast areas, using written decree as the means of
communication. When the printing press brought about the revolution of literacy for the masses, a new form of rule and governance was created in the form of democracies. Along with the ability to
communicate, the human desire for autonomy and freedom brought about dramatic change. Now we are in the
midst of another revolution, the technological on, and the same human desire for freedom, is already
heralding in another era of freedom from the large
bureaucracies of business corporations.
Models of Church organisation have not always mirrored the developments that we have seen throughout human history in a concurrent way, but there is little doubt that the different models of leadership, organisation and governance that we have seen in human society can also be detected in the variety of Christian churches that we encounter.
Some churches, to this day, have large centralised hierarchies which operate on a global scale. Power is held centrally; the decision making process filters down the line, with those at grass roots level having little decision making power. Other churches, network and offer association in much looser and more informal ways, with grass roots thinking having an ability to be
disseminated through things like websites,
facebook groups etc. Cafe church is an example of this perhaps. Interesting to note though that the churches which have not had
hierarchical structures as part of their life are not just the new kids on the block, non-conformist congregationalists being an example.
Is it possible that Church decentralisation could have a real impact on Church life in the future? Perhaps it's already happening, but like decentralisation in
business, we can't see it whilst we're in the midst of it.
In the Methodist Church of Great Britain a dramatic change has been taking place especially in the last 50 years, namely a rapid contraction of the number of members. Arguably as a result of this Methodism, as an organisation, does not have the power and influence it once had, but in this instance, unlike in the business world, the change was not driven by factors such as 'cheap and plentiful communication'. Many other factors have been part of the picture. Methodism, like many other 'legacy' churches, faces the challenge of how to respond to the situation we find our selves in. Are there proactive responses we can make? Have we in recent years only been reactive to challenging situation we find the Church in? Often that's how it's felt to me.
Malone again:
'When most people think about decentralization (sic), they stop at loose hierarchies. That is, they think of decentralization as the delegation of many decisions to lower levels in
hierarchies. But what if power were not
delegated to lower levels? What if, instead, it
originated there? How much energy and creativity might be unlocked if all the members of an organization felt in control?'
There is a
distinctly patronising tone about recent encouragement of 'the laity' in the life of the Church, especially when the
initiative comes from 'above' and has the unmistakable appearance of merely being a
desperate response to the fact that the old ways are proving unsustainable.
How refreshing if the drive towards new
creativity and energy in the life of the Church were not from a reactive response of
desperation, but a confirmation of our belief that God is not one 'on high' but one who networks with the people in life transforming ways which bring a whole new meaning to the word power.
