Red Letter Christians

We Need More Cannibals

by Christian Piatt Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Today’s article is the third in a series I’m creating this week on inspired vision. On Monday, I wrote about how the nostalgia preached about in contemporary politics actually leans on a system of privilege. Yesterday, I explored a new model for education that could well mark a historic turning point in how we learn.

Today, I’ve been thinking about why it’s important for an organization, be it religious or for-profit, to be more cannibalistic.

In the late 19th century Kodak emerged as a trailblazing company that ultimately brought photography to the masses. An American-born business, the golden boxes of film became synonymous with family photos and even professional photography. As a little guy, I had one of their Instamatic cameras, and I remember the eager anticipation of sending of the film and waiting the two weeks or so to get the results back.

Suffice it to say the landscape for film and imaging has changed radically in the meantime.

Now, practically every electronic device we carry has a still picture or video camera embedded in it. And for less than a thousand dollars, a photography enthusiast can buy a camera that not only shoots digital images that rival most professional film renderings; they also can shoot high definition movies and edit the videos on their laptop computers.

It may not surprise many that Kodak has suffered greatly at the hands of this digital revolution. The company has failed to post a profit in many years, and recently filed for bankruptcy.

What is amazing is that this same company, now buckling under the pressure of this new technology, is the very entity that created the thing that ultimately would be its downfall. Kodak engineer Steven Sasson actually was the first person reportedly to invent a digital camera, back in 1975. The original prototype took only black-and-white photos at a resolution of 0.1 megapixels.

By comparison, some smart phones now come with cameras included in them that shoot at as much as 140 times that resolution, with full color and sound.

Kodak’s response to this new technology was, effectively, “That’s great! Tell no one.” They shelved the prototype, recognizing the potential threats to their film-based business, and went about their work as usual.

Of course, the invention did not remain a secret for long. Companies like Sony and Fuji jumped on the concept and began developing it into what would become a multi-billion dollar industry. To illustrate the seismic shift, Nokia sold more camera phones in 2008 than Kodak sold film-based cameras. But by this point there were too many other competitors that were years ahead of Kodak, employing the very concepts their employee had created.

But because of their fear and resistance to change, they now are dying by the very sword they forged.

Its future now hinges on a handful of seemingly anachronistic bets, including residuals from patents and a competitive price point on ink and computer printers (which some might argue are increasingly obsolete these days too). Though spokespeople for Kodak are optimistic, there’s a reasonable chance the firm may eventually be absorbed by a larger digital technology business, or worse, may fade into oblivion, only remembered fondly as the company that brought film to America.

At the time of Kodak’s bankruptcy declaration, Apple Inc was valued at 25,000 times that of Kodak. Though Apple too has been though many ups and downs, former CEO Steve Jobs often noted that it was the company’s persistent willingness to fail that also allowed them to be successful in the long run.

So what does any of this have to do with cannibalism?

This quote was from a recent National Public Radio story about the Kodak bankruptcy:

“If you’re not willing to cannibalize yourself, others will do it for you,” said Mark Zupan, dean of the University of Rochester’s business school. “Technology is changing ever more rapidly, the world’s becoming more globalized, so to stay at the top of your game is getting increasingly harder.”

This is precisely what apple and Jobs have been willing to do, time and again. And it’s precisely what Kodak resisted, which has led them to where they are today.

Kodak had the opportunity when Sasson presented them with this groundbreaking new technology to embrace it and become the frontrunner in new imaging technology. But this would have meant changing everything about how they did business. Instead of looking inward at itself, taking those resources that were not pointed toward this new vision and re-purposing (cannibalizing) them to achieve the vision, they shelved the thing that would be their downfall, fearful of change and hopeful that, somehow, everything would just go “back to normal.”

In business, and in organized religion and politics, there is no such thing as “back to normal.” Every day, a new “normal” is established, and it’s incumbent upon those serving the needs of people to understand this, turn fallowed resources into the ground and use these “small deaths” as the foundation for new life.

More often than not, particularly in the case of churches and denominations, we determine that a return to some idyllic moment in the past is what we truly need to find our footing. That, or we simply bury our head in the dirt and go about our business as usual until it is inevitably unsustainable.

We have at our fingertips everything we need to move forward into this new millennium with bold clarity and passion. But it requires a willingness to hold nothing of the institution as sacred, devouring that which has ceased to serve our mission effectively and re-committing ourselves to inspired – some might argue Pentecostal – vision.

I often cite Buenaventura Durruti when he said “The only church that illuminates is a burning one.” Thought this may strike terror in the hearts of those who embrace the institution of religion too tightly, it also can serve as permission-giving freedom to change, to imagine and even to fail along the way.

The fires of change will come regardless. Whether we use them as a refining tool or allow them to be the death knell of our organizations is up to us.

—-
Christian Piatt is an author, editor, speaker, musician and spoken word artist. He co-founded Milagro Christian Church in Pueblo, Colorado with his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt, in 2004. He is the creator and editor of BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE and BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS. Christian has a memoir on faith, family and parenting being published in early 2012 called PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a Due Date.Visit www.christianpiatt.com, or find him on Twitter or Facebook.

Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

PrintFriendly
  • Drew

    The entire article is pointless; you talk about the need for change, but then give zero examples of what the change would be.  Are you running for political office?

  • Drew

    Christian,

    Your website has links to buy your books, links to “donate’ money to your music tracks, a link that simply says “hire me,” and you have money-generating Google Ads all over your website.

    In your biography on this website, you hawk three different books, your money-making website, and your twitter and facebook accounts, which link back to your money-making website.

    Furthermore, I’ve noticed a trend of you rarely talking about Christianity but rather talking about hot-button issues of the day and writing inflammatory stuff that seems written to get web hits and thus generate Google Ads revenue.

    So here is a “banned question” for you – is your mission to spread the Gospel or is it to be inflammatory and make money?    I am beginning to think it is the latter.

  • Zach R

    I’ve never read anything so clearly about nothing.

  • http://twitter.com/nokoryous Kory Mereness

    Did the ending of this article say that churches should evolve like surviving businesses to survive, then say that they shouldn’t exist?

  • Drew

    Christian attaches his own meaning to the quote, which is where your confusion stems from.  The quote literally means that the only illuminated Church is one that is set on fire.  However, you can take it as a personal challenge to change the church into one that is illuminated without being set on fire.  So yes, it is a challenge to “evolve.”  However, like Obama, the call for change is not followed by what “change” looks like.  The problem is in the details; there are none.

  • Drew

    “On the one hand, evangelical good news may focus on individual
    salvation; on the other, there is no salvation until the collective
    suffering of all of God’s people is relieved.”

    There you go again… posting in your personal blog, just blatantly making up stuff based on our own feelings and political biases.  You may have taken my original post above as a joke, but I was pretty serious.  I think you are heretical in order to make money.

  • Mac

    I do not agree that we need more cannabis.

  • Jennifer A. Nolan

    This might be something for the chronically poor to think about: people languish and fail because they (we) spend their lives clinging to a relationship, a job, or a welfare program they think will keep the wolves at bay. The wolves are only fooled and baffled for a little while; then cometh the deluge. Perhaps it’s time for more than just certain manufacturers and religious bodies to reclaim their fallow resources for new and better uses; the lost and neglected have a horrible habit of wasting the resources they have in their heads.

    These “commenters” on this post are in the same fix with their spiritual lives. God may very well be leading some Christians on to better and more inspiring modes of worship. Even the most long-wearing, classic hymns and liturgies show what fashionable headpieces of an outmoded era they are. This makes God look like a fickle clothes horse to some of us mortals, but that’s the nature of creativity, of which the Lord is the ultimate Source.

blog comments powered by Disqus