I’m watching what seems to be a documentary from the 1990s about church revitalisation.
It may be a little bit dated, but I’m sure the basic principles will come back into style again.
It is also has a number of very skilled character actors playing very charming characters.
Mary Wickes as Sister Mary Lazarus is wonderful.
Thanks to Byron at the Snot Blog for pointing out this crisp yet creamy comparison between effective organisational culture and vanilla slice.
From the article:
Vanilla Slices, and our quest to find, describe, and prescribe the perfect one, is not dissimilar to our passion for good organisational culture.
You may think that’s a stretch, but let me explain.
The Connection
Vanilla Slices are so simple and clear.
A layer of foundational pastry, a much bigger layer of delicious custard, another layer of pastry to hold shape, and then a slither of icing.
And what is culture?
Foundational standards – emotion and relationships – a top layer of boundaries to hold it all in shape, and a slither of PR.Read the post at MWAH.
I literally have no idea what’s going on in the AFL. Which I think means not a lot has changed. Teams on the up will improve, teams on the decline will slip.
Over the last ten or fifteen years a few teams have circumvented this cycle by instituting a club culture that has gotten away from boom or bust cycles.
Others have a club culture that means success is not attainable, even when they have lucked into a relatively talented list.
NRL results were interesting, primarily because it seems as if last season’s major under-performers, North Queensland, have recovered a lapse last season. Didn’t expect Souths to click so fast under their new coach.
NRL (last round 5/8; season tally 5/8)
Souths
Melbourne
North Queensland
Cronulla
Newcastle
Easts
Parramatta
Wests
AFL
Richmond
Collingwood
Melbourne
Adelaide (at home)
Sydney
West Coast
Saint Kilda (if they can’t beat Gold Coast at home it’ll be a long season)
Greater Western Sydney
North Melbourne (who always lose round 1)
I grew up with a church system that had two bodies, one tasked with spiritual and the other tasked with temporal matters.
It is not a helpful distinction in so far as everything is spiritual and practical. At its worst the ‘temporal’ body can use its power to veto the plans of the ‘spiritual’ body, effectively putting themselves in charge. At its best the ‘spiritual’ body works with the ‘temporal’ body in developing plans and the ‘temporal’ body sees its role as enabling the decisions of the ‘spiritual’ body, not as determining whether they should happen.
Our system allows for members of the ‘spiritual’ body to be automatic members of the ‘temporal’ body, which generally means they could get their way if they wanted, but, from a governance perspective, the notion that control of what happens rests with the ‘temporal’ body creates an unproductive dynamic that is resistant to change and protects the status-quo.
From Dan Hotchkiss:
Some congregations have two, or even three, top boards, all responsible directly to the congregation. Sometimes the division reflects an old-fashioned mom-and-pop dualism: The board of trustees (pop) controls the money, while a program board (mom) does most Of the work. Sometimes one board is said to be responsible for the “business” aspect of the congregation, while the other takes charge of the “spiritual” part. Have I made it clear yet that I don’t like this way of splitting up the universe? Whoever controls “business” ends up having ultimate control of spiritual matters also.
Dan Hotchkiss, Governance And Ministry, Rowland & Littlefield, 2016, pg 44.
