Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Dawn — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:47:04 GMT

I do agree Michael Porter struck a nerve with his emphasis on effectiveness. I think too many ministries shrug their shoulders and say "Only God knows the impact of the ministry" without really making any effort to measure what can be measured. It's true we can't know the full Kingdom impact of any particular effort on our part to be faithful to what God has called us to do - but there are many things we can know if we take the time to set clear goals, define clear targets & budgets, and measure the tangible outcomes along the way. You said it well Connie when you alluded to the shadow mission that can creep in if we resist getting answers to the effectiveness question.

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Connie Hecker — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:11:33 GMT

Wow, Michael Porter really hit the buttons! Is "effectiveness" a dirty word in Christian circles? After church services today our team sat down and "de-briefed" and we had many similar comments as above and to Nancy I agree - we need to have clear goals and be "faithful" to them. (and what was the process of the casting of the vision and the determination of the goal?) If the goal of say a "housebuilding" project is to build community within the sending team, then all sorts of folk could be on that trip. If the goal is to show the love of Christ and share the gospel by meeting a physical need, (and other strategic hows) I think it is a very fair question to ask what skills need to be on that team to be effective. How many times are we just catching a great idea and riding the wave? Wow, that was a fun ride, but was God's purpose considered in the process? John Ortburg later talked about the shadow ministry. I think being fearful of the effectiveness question, and maybe a little off on our goals, could be one of those gradually descending paths into a shadow of God's purpose for us, and the church and all those offerings. I could go on, it was amazing how each talk tied in with the next. I hope we all continue to struggle for truth with these very probing questions.

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Chris Pozezanac — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:27:23 GMT

I was engrossed by Michael's tough questions. The example I kept thinking of is hurricane relief down here in Florida, we have so many non-profit organizations, government agencies, and churches that want to chip in after a disaster, that it is often difficult to determine if the resources are meeting the most critical needs. Often, we end up with confusion instead of order! I think have a responsibility to be the best stewards of the resources we have and we cannot use faithfulness as an excuse not to hold ourselves to a high standard in our charitable work. We gauge every other area of ministry with a metric for success - number of high school students, small group attendance, creativity in worship etc.. - serving needs the same standard. Otherwise we could be wasting the resources we are trusted with...and instead of solving hard problems, we're simply sustaining the existing smaller problems around us. We need to step back, and understand how to make full-blown commitments to making dramatic change in our communities!

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Andy McClure — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:37:36 GMT

To me, Michael Porter gave the church a quick kick in the pants... and by doing so, hopefully 'woke the sleeping giant.' The American Church has slowly moved into a self-serviving, not serving entity. So many speakers stated... we need to take personal responsibility for our faith-walk, motivation... the same can be said for service. The community will never know how much we care, until we get out of buildings and serve. His issue of: he will 'not building houses' needs to be read in context. He was talking about his place in serving the Kingdom would be better suited in working with governments on policy issues. Remember he said 'build houses.' I took this to mean... plural, or long term. He didn't say, but I think he was meaning... working a short term house project would be fine, but in the long term, he would serve better with leaders, negoiating for change. I think Michael would agree we need a break, a change in the landscape at times... I know Bill Hybels, Colin Powell and Jimmy Carter would agree.

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Traci Jackson — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:43:34 GMT

I understand what has been written about faithfulness - and I agree that our view of "most efficient" is not always God's - He is often amazingly INefficient from a human perspective. But what I appreciated about Porter is that he challenged our motives for the service we do - it's often about us, our need to serve & feel like we're doing good, our desire to have an experience. I think it takes a certain kind of courageous humility to say "Working in a soup kitchen is a wonderful thing, but it isn't the thing I'm to do - it isn't the way I can make the most return on the talents God has given me." We risk people thinking we're proud, arrogant, afraid to get dirty (and we must check our heart to make sure that isn't true). But I, for one, do not want Michael Porter spending hours on end at a soup kitchen when he may have the ability to end the need for soup kitchens at all. Too many of my own acts of service or evangelism have been more about me than the one I'm serving - Michael's talk has challenged me to really consider how I can love people best with the 'talents' God has given me.

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Mark Ward — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:23:24 GMT

Michael Porter is one of the world's great business theorists. I appreciate his insight into how organizations acheive effectiveness. That being said, Porter himself admitted that he doesn't know much about the church. One area where I would challenge Porter's assumptions about the church is in his definition of our goal. Porter defined success for the church as effectiveness. I would define it as faithfulness. To make the change from effectiveness to faithfulness doesn't change the need to think strategically, but it does change how we approach and measure success. To relate this to a Biblical story, the fact that it took Moses 40 years to get the Israelites from Eqypt to the promised land wouldn't rank high on many measures of effectiveness, but we know that it was faithful to God's leading. I left Porter's session challenged to ask the right questions about effectiveness. I also left thankful that God measures my success on the basis of my faithfulness, not on the basis of my results. What a gift of God's grace to us as leaders!

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Philip Petersen — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:23:26 GMT

Appreciated Dr. Porter's insights in bringing value to our communities. While it is essential to be strategic, there is another dimension a Christ follower considers in serving the needs of our community. Yes, we serve to accomplish a goal. But an important goal is also what the act of service does to the servant. If Jimmy Carter wants to sling a hammer on a Habitat Home, or Bill Hybels wants to serve soup in a soup kitchen, that's important soul-building stuff. Maybe it isn't the most strategic use of their talents, but it does something within them that is very Christ-honoring.

re: Dan Kimball Responds to Session 5

Tom — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:54:38 GMT

I did not hear the message but from the other comments I think I may have a sense for what Michael meant. Too often we have such a narrow view of ministry that we cannot envision how to use the skills of professionals in ministry. Therefore, we relegate them to manual labor. I agree that much can be gained when professionals interact with the "real world." But we must also find ways for them to use their God-given professional skills in a ministry context.