When I worked at IBM as a software developer in the late 80s and early 90s, we created rock solid software by following a rigorous process. We had to step through every line of code (down at the assembly level) in a debugger to demonstrate that every possible code path was successfully executed. We had a punishing series of data boundary tests, power interruption tests, error recovery tests, speed tests, and so on. Only after passing all of those tests perfectly did we hand the code over to the professional testers, who we had to personally reward if they found any bugs. We would have been ashamed to ship any software that was shown to be immature in any way.
The result was bulletproof, fully mature software. We had extremely few customer calls and spent very little on support. We didn't go out the door without what we thought to be perfect and full-featured. But it was also true that we were slow to market. The industry was fleet afoot, but we were plodding and slow. The perfect tortoise had trouble competing with the imperfect hares (our competitors). Being perfect didn't matter if you weren't available in the marketplace.
The Google model is different. They don't skimp on quality - they produce good code, but code that doesn't yet have all the features. They are famous for some programs being in the "Beta" stage for years. They have "labs" for a lot of their programs - experimental features without guarantees of quality for the users to play with (and report any bugs) long before they include those features in the official product. For example, I've used Google Docs for years, from the earliest days when it had only the most basic features. Over time, that software has matured into a product with a rich set of features. They are unashamed to show their software before it is fully mature. The result is (usually) good quality software but much quicker to market - software that is already in the game as it matures.
With respect for both companies, this comparison illustrates two approaches to discipleship. The first approach is the one many of us are familiar with. Don't "get in the game" of ministry and disciplemaking until after you feel fully mature, developed, and even tested. The expectation is to enter the "marketplace" nearly bulletproof, but the result is that we are very slow getting to market. Some never get to market at all, because they don't feel sufficiently mature.
The second approach to discipleship is to get to market quickly, not by skimping on quality, but getting in the game with just the basics and then maturing along the way over the years. Don't expect to have a full set of features early on, and even experiment with some ideas to see if they are fruitful. If not, stick with what you know works. Get into the game as soon as possible and grow there.
The twin dangers of the first approach are never getting in the game and the temptation to put on a false front of being a better, more complete disciple than you really are. We're supposed to reach bulletproof level, so we pretend to be more bulletproof than is true - we're ashamed to be seen as less than sufficiently mature.
Rather, we are works in progress, and can be in the game long before we have matured in the faith. We should not be ashamed for others to see that we don't have it all together, but are still being transformed by Christ. I suspect people are more impressed with Christ by watching followers mature right before their eyes rather than never really getting to know them until they are already far down the path.
No comments:
Post a Comment