Selectric
“…No organization, without exception, has made it from one age into the next. As we move from the industrial into the information age we are shaping Microsoft to be the single exception to that rule.” Bill Gates 1989
At the 1961 press conference rolling out the Selectric, Gordon Moodie, general manager of IBM's electric typewriter division, said the new machine "represents an entirely new approach to typewriter design and function." The most striking feature of the Selectric was that it had no typebars. In their place was the golf-ball type element encircled by four rows of raised characters. With the unique golf-ball technology, the Selectric would come to dominate the office landscape as no other typewriter ever had or would. According to sales numbers the Selectric reigned for more than two decades before IBM stopped marketing it. According to repair shops that specialize in fixing and selling the ground breaking typewriter there remains a committed core of customers who have nearly deified the Selectric.
In the Selectric, IBM had mastered the typewriter as a modern machine of business. Even today, if you are looking for a solid, reliable typewriter there is not a better option than a used Selectric. But there is not much demand for typewriters anymore. Personal computers and their spawn, the Personal Digital Assistant, and the digital (texting) phone have made typewriters obsolete and entirely reformed the function of any organization.
For a time in the early 80’s as the laptop computer was passing by the typewriter in useability, there was an attempt to combine the two in the Brother Digital Type series, a typewriter with a display screen. While mildly profitable for the Brother Corporation, it was a passing fad. There is only so much that can be done with a typewriter before it is a computer. And many organizations were finally forced to take the plunge from a typewriter to computer culture.
I know, this column is about revitalization and I’m supposed to be writing about churches. I think I just did.
The challenge for any organization is sustaining itself into the next generation. Sustaining done poorly is “finding people to support how we do things around here.” Sustaining done well is “offering what we hold sacred to those we’re trying to reach in a way they can hear.” I believe our falling down, and the reason we have a Vital Faith committee, is we’ve done more of the former than the latter.
Bishop Carcano has challenged us by calling us to our missional purpose: to be the church reaching out into the world. So when I read the comparison below by Harold Percy, I thought it might be a helpful resource for starting conversations within congregations that are serious about thriving into the next generation.
MAINTENANCE OR MISSION?
1. In measuring the effectiveness, the maintenance congregation asks, "How many pastoral visits are being made? The mission congregation asks, "How many disciples are being made?"
2. When contemplating some form of change, the maintenance congregation says, "If this proves upsetting to any of our members, we won't do it." The mission congregation says, "If this will help us reach someone on the outside, we will take the risk and do it."
3. When thinking about change, the majority of members in a maintenance congregation ask, "How will this affect me?" The majority of members in the mission congregation ask, "Will this increase our ability to reach those outside?"
4. When thinking of its vision for ministry, the maintenance congregation says, "We have to be faithful to our past." The mission congregation says, "We have to be faithful to our future."
5. The pastor in the maintenance congregation says to the newcomer, "I'd like to introduce you to some of our members." In the mission congregation the members say, "We'd like to introduce you to our pastor."
6. When confronted with a legitimate pastoral concern, the pastor in the maintenance congregation asks, "How can I meet this need?" The pastor in the mission congregation asks, "How can this need be met?"
7. The maintenance congregation seeks to avoid conflict at any cost (but rarely succeeds). The mission congregation understands that conflict is the price of progress, and is willing to pay the price. It understands that it cannot take everyone with it. This causes some grief, but it does not keep it from doing what needs to be done.
8. The leadership style in the maintenance congregation is primarily managerial, where leaders try to keep everything in order and running smoothly. The leadership style in a mission congregation is primarily transformational, casting a vision of what can be, and marching off the map in order to bring the vision into reality.
9. The maintenance congregation is concerned with their congregation, its organizations and structure, its constitutions and committees. The mission congregation is concerned with the culture, with understanding how secular people think and what makes them tick. It tries to determine their needs and their points of accessibility to the Gospel.
10. When thinking about growth, the maintenance congregations asks, "How many Lutherans live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?" The mission congregation asks, "How many unchurched people live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?"
11. The maintenance congregation looks at the community and asks, "How can we get these people to support our congregation?" The mission congregation asks, "How can the Church support these people?"
12. The maintenance congregation thinks about how to save their congregation. The mission congregation thinks about how to reach the world.