Rather than add a "comment"

Given I started to make comments related to CEO/General Secretary in the "Feeling a bit off-side" piece I thought I'd be better placed making it a discussion all of its own.
So, here's the beginning.

The CEO "concept" can 'fit' within a Christendom model because it too bases itself in Greek, rationalist, linear-logical, analytic processes. These are about becoming more precise, more discriminating, more specialist, and the related infrastructures include clearly defined authority/power roles, insiders and outsiders, and where the opinion of experts counts the most. A problem is, this begins to sound more like the limited accessibility of Gnosticism (where “only smart people count” and “you must prove you are worthy before entering the next stage”) than the universal accessibility of following Jesus Christ.

For holistic, interconnected, organic network kinds of thinking (typical in non-Western and non-paradoxical cultures), the overall organizational systems seem to be far less hierarchical, or based on hyper-specialization than traditional Western analytic/linear/”logical.” They tend to recognize more complementarity among diverse elements, and perhaps more “flatness” and networks and movements in their organizational systems. A problem is, all the human issues of power and control are still intact.

Meanwhile, the paradigms of the West are flipping back to pre-Christendom processing styles, or to fused East-West styles. Both of these organic or mystical approaches tend to favor symbiosis (relational connections as integration points), or paradox as integration points. These inherently support “flat structures,” not our typical churchy pyramid infrastructures. Dean Eland makes a good point re all of this (some of my ideas come from that direction) with his discussion on 'networks' in www.urbannetwork.org.au

The lands of the West are "scorched" (and the current Australian drought provides some good imagery - although we'd really love lots of rain!) and “we” (Christendom churches/leaders) ourselves have done this. Time now for new paradigm possibilities to move in that may have been dormant, waiting for their providential moment. We just need to be sure that we develop Christ-honoring structures atop these paradigms, lest we make a similar mistake to Christendom, only now in a different direction.