On technology and reflection…
In the spring of 2007 I opened an account at twitter.com. At the time it was all the buzz among Silicon Valley types, so I thought I’d see what all the hub-bub was about. The “prompt question” on Twitter was “What are you doing right now?”, and the idea was for people to send text messages from their mobile phones throughout the day in answer to that question. The idea became known as microblogging – short posts that generally consist of fleeting thoughts or status updates. Because Twitter was designed around SMS text messages, Twitter established a 140-character limit for each post – the same limit that exists for SMS messages. Users could also choose to “follow” (or subscribe to) others peoples’ Twitter feeds.
I did a couple of “tweets” (the annoying term for posts on Twitter), and left it at that. The idea of continually posting the trivialities of my day seemed a bit too narcissistic for me. And there became a juvenile contest among tech insiders to see who could get the most followers on Twitter. Because I already had a standard blog, and a Facebook account (where I could post status updates if I wanted), Twitter seemed largely redundant and unnecessary.
Of course, for whatever reason, Twitter – like Facebook before it – has now started to catch on among the mainstream public, and the continual references to it have prompted me to reflect a bit on technology and culture. As I’ve stated in other forums, it’s been difficult for me to see Twitter as much more than a narcissistic, mutual-masturbatory echo chamber. I will concede that other people find it useful – perhaps even I will at some point. But some of the comments in support of Twitter have left me scratching my head, and have caused me to wonder about how we adopt new technologies without much rigorous reflection.
For example, a discussion of Twitter (and an argument for its usefulness) came up a few weeks ago on an email discussion group I participate in. It was right about the time that the U.S. Air jet crash landed in New York’s Hudson river. Somebody stated that, thanks to Twitter, they knew about the crash within minutes of it happening. It was simply assumed that this was an incredibly useful thing – all made possible by Twitter.
One question I have is this: Why do I need to know that the U.S. Air jet went down in the Hudson at the moment it happened? Unless I had a friend or loved one on the flight (extremely unlikely, given the limited number of people in the world I personally know, the number of flights on any given day, and the rarity of plane crashes), or I was in a position to render immediate physical assistance in the rescue operation (again, extremely unlikely given the total surface area of the earth and rarity of plane crashes), I have no immediate need to know about the crash. Aside from the rather childish “bragging rights” for having heard about it before anyone else, what purpose can that immediacy possibly serve?
Some might respond with, “Well, you could immediately start praying for those on board the plane, and those involved in the rescue operation”. And that’s certainly true – I believe very much in the power of prayer. But since I believe that God exists outside of our timeline, and isn’t constrained by temporal considerations, I believe that I can pray about it after the fact and that the prayer still “counts”. God isn’t bound by immediacy.
A broader subject that doesn’t seem to receive much serious reflection is how new communications technologies – including things like Twitter and Facebook – affect the ways in which we interact, live out our communal lives, process ideas, and view concepts such as friendship (and other relationships). There seems to always be two camps when it comes to new communications technologies: one predicting the demise of culture because of the new technologies, and another uncritically adopting the new technologies while regarding those in the first camp clueless, alarmist Luddites. But as these two camps cite studies supporting their position, and lob verbal grenades at one another, there never seems to be any middle ground of calm, rational dialogue about both the potential benefits and pitfalls of the technologies.
Technologies are almost always a mix of benefits and risks. For example, more opportunities for information and entertainment, while also enabling unhealthy isolation. It’s these types of issues that I’d like to see us, as a whole, become more reflective about, without having to worry about being labeled as too exuberant or too fearful about technology. For example, here are a couple of questions I’ve been pondering:
1. What effect do sites like Facebook and MySpace have on the concept of “friendship”? It’s clear that sites like these allow people to connect with one another in ways never before possible, and that can be a great thing. But is the person I sort of remember meeting at a party two nights ago really my “friend”? What are the characteristics of friendship? How do these sites enhance or distort the idea – and practice – of friendship?
2. As we adapt more to communicating via “tweets”, attempt to follow the feeds of hundreds of Facebook and Twitter friends, and get our general news and information in the form of short summaries delivered via RSS feed, how does that affect our ability – and willingness – to think and communicate deeply about things? In the midst of the constant barrage of input from email, text messages, IM, Facebook, Twitter, phone, radio, TV, video games, and iPods, how do we carve out space to be truly present with other people, and to hear the still, small voice of God?
Anybody care to disengage from the chatter long enough to engage in the dialogue?
What we can learn from the newspaper industry
I’m several episodes behind in my listening to This Week in Tech (TWiT). A few days ago I was listening to an installment from early July, and one of the topics discussed was the changing paradigm for newspapers in the internet age. Their particular example was the Tampa Tribune, whose editor came to the realization that the online component of the paper was no longer just an adjunct to the printed version – they needed to start viewing the printed version as an adjunct to the online content. And that if they don’t make this shift, NEWSPAPERS WILL DIE.
That shift in approach involves all sorts of changes to how the business of publishing the Tribune is carried out – economic, structural, and procedural. When news is a commodity easily acquired for free from a huge array of sources online, how do you maintain a business model?
There are a couple of things that papers like the Tribune are focusing on: becoming more “hyperlocal”, and shifting from becoming merely a dispenser of news to becoming more a facilitator for discussion. Becoming “hyperlocal” means focusing more on local issues and activities in the local community. In the Tampa Tribune’s case, one result was to shut down their Tallahassee bureau, since Tampa locals were less interested in Tallahassee happenings, and the local Tallahassee paper could probably do a better job of covering that scene (and putting it online for anyone to see).
Becoming a facilitator for discussion of the news means shifting from a one-way model of dispensing information to a two-way model that includes feedback and discussion. While there has long been a limited feedback loop in the form of letters to the editor, this new model of feedback and discussion is immediate and has a very low barrier to entry. And many old school reporters and writers don’t like this new model – they’d rather dispense to the public, not discuss with the public.
Why am I writing about newspapers? Well, I see a lot of similarities to the church. If the church wants to keep new generations engaged, it needs to
a) become more “hyperlocal” in its mission and outreach, providing many opportunities to serve those in need within the local community in a very active, hands-on way, and
b) shift from becoming merely a dispenser of theology to more of a facilitator for discussion about theology, faith, and living the gospel – including letting worship be more of a dialogue rather than a monologue.
Church and the whole person
Emergent Village recently featured a post that is essentially a summary for a newly updated book called UnLearning Church. The book discusses the need to be aware of the different ways in which some people – especially younger people – are wanting/needing to engage the gospel. A couple of excerpts:
“UnLearning churches realize that people become engaged through environment and experiences. Such churches develop an environment that frees people and allows them to experience God in closer and deeper ways than they’ve ever experienced before. Too many people believe they cannot find an experience of God in the institutional church.”
“UnLearning churches focus more on connecting people to meaning than to activity. Fifteen years ago, we would have emphasized getting people to show up for church programs and listen-and-learn meetings. We would have sponsored a seminar and gauged its success by how many attended. Now we measure success by asking “How are people finding life change and purpose through the experience?†People are not looking for church meetings so much as for life meaning. We want to know if their church experience makes a difference in their relationships, parenting, Christian witness, and stewardship.”
While there’s a danger in focusing solely on personal experience and ignoring teaching/study/learning, churches would do well to consider these ideas. I’ve put the book on my “to read” list.
Yeesh
So apparently there’s this “controversy” over Lowes home improvement stores advertising “family trees” rather than “Christmas trees” in a printed flier. In fact, some of the people protesting Lowes are linking directly to an article on snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/familytree.asp
It’s clear that those protesters pointing to the article on snopes didn’t even RTFA. Lowes has said the wording in the ad was an error and was missed during proofreading, and that indeed there are many displays in Lowes stores for “Christmas” trees, “Christmas” ornaments, etc.
Whether the ad was a mistake or not, why is it that Christians always get their panties in a bunch over stupid-ass stuff like this? I guarantee you there are a great many American Christians who are more upset about this than they are about people dying in Burma, Darfur, or Rwanda. Why is it that our priorities have gotten so messed up? I’m certain that God doesn’t feel threatened by a retail chain calling a bunch of molded plastic a “family tree”. So why should we?
Is it any wonder that Christians and Christianity aren’t taken seriously in our culture?
And they’ll know we are Christians by our misguided reactionary boycotts
By our misguided reactionary boycotts
Yes they’ll know we are Christians by our misguided reactionary boycotts
Wal-Mart To Sell Jesus, Religious Action Figures
I saw this on Digg this morning. Apparently Walmart is going to sell Bible action figures in some of its stores.
Here’s the original link:
http://www.local6.com/news/13686443/detail.html
Here’s the Digg posting, with well-deserved commentary in the comments:
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Wal_Mart_To_Sell_Jesus_Religious_Action_Figures
And here’s the actual website selling the action figures:
http://store.messengersoffaith.net/taofgltost.html
All of this reminded me of a posting made on the rec.music.christian Internet newsgroup over a dozen years ago by a net acquaintance of mine named Andy Whitman. His posting was in criticism of a new line of “Action Heroes of the Faith!” dolls being sold at Christian bookstores across the country. His criticism caused quite a stir among some of the readers of the newsgroup, so he responded to them with the following. It communicates, better than I could, my feelings about the latest offering of Bible action figures.
Okay, I’m in a foul mood, and that probably colors my perceptions on life, the universe, and everything for the time being, but I’ll do my best to restrain my tongue.
I’ve received a half a dozen or so email messages over the last couple of days questioning my salvation and wondering why I bother to disturb the peace and unity of rec.music.christian. Apparently this is a result of my posting from last week where I suggested several new products for the Christian bookstore market, among them being AbbaWear, evangelistic toast, Phileo Mignon steaks, etc. Apparently some people have interpreted this posting as “mocking Christianity” and “mocking Christ.”
Since I don’t have the time or the inclination to respond individually, let me attempt to address the issues raised in this newsgroup. I apologize if this is the wrong forum, but I don’t have several hours to devote to responding to a bunch of email messages, and I’m hoping that I can address the issues collectively.
First, I am a Christian. Not a particularly good one, but if you put me on the rack and grilled me on my doctrinal positions I’d probably pass muster. I’m trying, with God’s help, to have my life reflect what I believe. The last thing I want to do is mock Christ. Nor do I want to mock Christianity, or other Christians.
In fact, I care about these things very much. And because I care about these things it disturbs me when I see the faith trivialized, and when I see the complexity and richness of the biblical revelation reduced to slogans and caricatures. And, unfortunately, I see this all the time in Christian bookstores, the very places where I would *expect* to find help. It disturbs me to see David, one of the most complex human beings I’ve ever encountered, reduced to an Action Hero of the Faith doll, as if this man who was full of faults and full of faith could be reduced to Rambo in a loincloth. It disturbs me to see bookshelves full of “Ten Easy Steps to …” titles, as if the Christian life was a matter of studying programs and techniques. And it angers me to see so-called Christian companies marketing “Truth Clothing”, turning the gospel into mere crass commercialization, something that Jesus had little patience for in his dealings in the temple.
So do I want to mock Christ, Christianity, Christians? No. But I want to mock those businesses whose business is to make the faith palatable for the masses, who want to turn the tough, lifelong journey of walking with God into a matter of what you wear, and what techniques you follow, and what cute little sayings you tack up on your wall. Do I want to mock that? You bet I do. Because it’s a lie. *That* is not Christianity. And I simply don’t buy the pious rationalizations of, “well, God can use it anyway.” God doesn’t *want* to use it. It’s crap. He wants you to know *Him*, not the dealers at the Jesus Mart.
And I’m getting carried away. Sorry. But I do get frustrated by it all sometimes. I hope this at least partially explains my views.
- Andy Whitman
Live from the Sr. High retreat
.flickr-photo { }
.flickr-frame { float: left; text-align: center; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
The God of Irony
I just got home from sitting in on a Budget and Stewardship committee meeting at Eastridge. It’s getting to be that time of year again, when church members will be asked to give just a little more than last year. I was asked to be there as a representative of the communications committee. They want my committee to make a DVD, with footage of Eastridge activities and interviews with certain people and narration and background music, to send to all the members of the church as we approach Stewardship Sunday in November.
As I sat listening to the discussion, I just sort of smiled to myself at God’s sense of irony. Just as I’ve been feeling increasingly ambivalent about the church (though excited about ministry), and feeling more and more that I’m being called away from the church in order to do ministry, I find myself in charge of making a video to get people excited about the church.
Who says God doesn’t enjoy a good laugh?
Can you get there from here? (part 2)
Last week I raised some doubts that major changes to the approach of “being the church†would be accepted or embraced by the established church. I’d like to expand on those thoughts a bit more, and try to explain the basis for my doubt.
I already talked about the fear and trepidation we experienced at Eastridge with relation to getting a contemporary worship service established on Sunday mornings. Not long ago I was talking with some ladies at church – ranging in age from early-50s to late-70s – about some of the characteristics of younger generations. Some of those characteristics are ones I’ve mentioned here before:
* a distrust of institutions and hierarchy
* a poor opinion of Christians
* a strong desire for community
* more experiential than philosophical in their approach to truth
* more interested in local, hands-on service than writing checks to an impersonal agency
* not as interested in church “membership†(at least as we currently define it)
As I talked about these characteristics, a couple of the ladies seemed increasingly perplexed and troubled. After I had commented about my desire to try and work around some of these issues in an effort to reach this demographic (and I hate using such a marketing-driven term, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment), one of the ladies said something along the lines of “Well, if they used our facilities, I’d expect them to become members and support our churchâ€.
Part of me understands the mindset she’s operating from – it’s an institutional mindset, and it’s the paradigm she has for understanding “churchâ€. For these women (and for many people), the institution provides the framework for understanding the body of Christ, and so to serve the goals and priorities of the institution is to serve Christ’s church.
But how do you approach “church†when the people you’re trying to reach generally don’t give a rip about the institution or its priorities? And what institution, operating from a mode of self-preservation, would even encourage the pursuit of ministry guided by such scandalous and blasphemous thoughts? Even if an institution had a desire to reach such people, I suspect that the long term goal would be to attract them with some new method(s), and then “institutionalize†these folks as quickly as possible.
My goal would be almost the opposite. If we were to attempt to reach some of these folks at Eastridge, through an alternative worship gathering and an alternative approach to “being the churchâ€, I would try to shield them from the institution as much as possible. Or, perhaps a fairer way to phrase it: I would try to shield them from the institutional aspects of the PCUSA.
I would lean towards viewing such a group of people as a “sub-congregation†of the larger congregation – a church plant within our own building. To be clear, I don’t see it as completely isolated from the larger congregation. I think there can and should be opportunities for interaction. But rather than forced social events, I think such interaction can best be fostered through service opportunities, where both “contingencies” have the opportunity to work together beyond the church walls. From there, perhaps a more organic interaction could begin and grow.
I also feel strongly that we would need to downplay (and/or redefine) the notion of “membershipâ€. In many ways, the current notion of church membership almost works against the church. We send people through new member classes, thinking and hoping that as members they will be more invested in and committed to the life of the church. But in reality, once most people finish the membership process, they feel like they’re “doneâ€. Becoming a member is viewed more often as a destination rather than a starting point.
Think about it – if membership resulted in more commitment and participation in the life of the church, then how come the same 10%-20% of a congregation always carries out 70%-80% of the ministry? So if there’s no significant correlation between membership and commitment, why are we so fixated upon membership (beyond bragging rights)?
If we are going to insist upon a membership focus, can we at least redefine what it means to be a “member’? Maybe we can define membership to mean a commitment to actively worship with, study with, pray with, pray for, serve with, and support one another, and to show God’s love and grace to whoever we can.
In any case, it seems to me that the cards are stacked against any of this happening within the current institutional structure, for the following reasons:
1. We need radical, not modest, changes to the way we operate if we hope to reach most folks in this culture.
2. The institutional hierarchy will resist (if not reject) radical change.
3. Most local Sessions and/or congregations are averse to radical change.
So that’s the basis for my skepticism. I know that with God, all things are possible. But it doesn’t follow that with God, all things are probable. 
Can you get there from here? (part 1)
I’ve been thinking more about emerging church / institutional church paradigms. This ties back to what I posted a few weeks ago about the church I long for vs. the program-oriented church. In terms of Eastridge, both Pastor Jim and Pastor J.P. have indicated interest in trying some new things. I very much appreciate their willingness to consider some “outside the bounds” ideas. Pastor Jim mentioned the existence of a group in the Presbytery that met recently to talk about declining membership and what the Presbyterian church could do to attract new members.
I’m glad people are asking these questions, and I hope they continue to do so. At the same time, I can’t help but think that, in many ways, trying to incorporate things that are significantly different within the existing institutional framework is problematic.
Eastridge is in the process of establishing a weekly contemporary worship service. There have been some pilot services this summer to give people in the congregation a chance to see what a contemporary-style service would be like, and to work out what’s really required to do one on a regular basis. It will go weekly in early September. I think it’s long overdue, and it will minister to a lot of folks at Eastridge. It’s taken a long time to come together, and it’s met some resistance and criticism. “It’s too loud”. “You make us stand too long”. (Uh…you do have free will, you know. You can sit whenever you’d like). “I don’t like the headset microphones worn by the pastors”. There have been lots of Session meeting discussions about why we’re changing anything. Some people will likely leave Eastridge over it, because while we’re only changing one of the Sunday morning services, we’re changing their service.
And here’s the deal. The approach of “being the church” that I’ve been contemplating makes the fear and trepidation associated with establishing a contemporary service seem like nothing by comparison. The contemporary service represents a stylistic change to one of the Sunday morning worship services, and though to some in the congregation it’s akin to setting their entire world askew, it’s really a relatively minor change in the grand scheme of things. Though there’s a worship team, and contemporary music, and the order of the service is a bit different, it still has all the elements of a fairly standard worship service. And that point was emphasized over and over again by several people as we discussed the issue during session meetings, in an effort to address the fears and concerns of those who were less than enthusiastic about the idea: “It’s really not that different”.
While there are stylistic elements associated with some of the things I’ve been thinking about, many of the ideas represent a fairly significant paradigm shift in the way people think about being the church. And I have to admit – I have a hard time seeing such a different approach being embraced by the establishment.
I’ll post more on this next week…
An attempt at being constructive
If you’ve read my previous posts on the subject of the church, you know I have some criticisms of the church in its current institutional form(s) – our structures, our focus, our methods, our approach. There’s a lot that we could be (and should be) doing differently.
Part of the reason for my posting such criticisms is to vent frustration. But they’re also posted in hopes that it might get people in the church to start thinking about what we do and why we’re doing it.
I know that criticism can easily be a one-dimensional, negative exercise, and I’ve probably been guilty of that on these pages at times. So I’ve decided to respond to my own criticisms by trying to write something constructive. Rather than simply talk about the ways that the church is falling short or is mis-focused, I’ve decided it’s time to “put up or shut upâ€, and present some ideas abut how the church should (and actually could) be focused.
Case in point: I’ve been critical of the “programmatic focus†of the church – the “We need to offer lots of programs to attract new customers†approach. I don’t believe that programs are inherently bad or evil. But I’m wary of programs for a few main reasons:
1. Programs are often the starting point, rather than an intentional (and dynamic) response to an intentional (and dynamic) purpose/mission statement of a congregation.
2. Programs often exist either because a) they’ve been in existence for years (sometimes decades), and they come to be considered sacred, or b) other churches (often those churches considered to be “successfulâ€) have a certain program, so our church should have one so we can compete in the church marketplace.
3. Every program that’s in place takes resources – in the form of peoples’ time and energy (both those that plan and lead the program and those that simply participate), as well as the church budget. And often these spent resources have little to do with the fundamental call of the gospel.
So if I were starting a church (especially one that would seek to connect with the unchurched as well as the “churchedâ€), what would the focus be? What would be the basis around which all church activities would revolve? I’ve actually given this quite a bit of thought in the past few months, and here’s what I’ve arrived at.
A) Exploring/deepening spirituality
Spirituality is in. Even unchurched folks (sometimes, ironically, especially unchurched folks) are open to spirituality. Now, many of them may initially be wary of or even hostile to the Bible, so one would need to tread lightly in terms of how one approached Bible study, and would likely have to deal with some unorthodox ideas. I’m not suggesting that scripture be avoided – the Holy Spirit can move powerfully through the reading and studying of scripture. But that’s just it – we have to rely on the Holy Spirit’s ability to convey Truth to folks, rather than our own. To paraphrase Eugene Peterson, it’s about hanging around people while they acquire a taste for grace.
B) Pursing transparency
I believe that most people, at their core, long for the opportunity to be more transparent. They long to be able to put aside the brave face, the veneer that they “have it togetherâ€, and to be open about their doubts and struggles. Unfortunately, church is often the last place that happens, because while the church says it’s a place for broken people, it often doesn’t want to deal with brokenness and messiness. Sure, the pastors often deal with it, but the average church member would rather not have to really face other peoples’ messiness, because it’s uncomfortable and awkward. In many ways I think that the Presbyterian Church, with its emphasis on things being decent and orderly, is a hostile environment for the disorderliness in most of our lives. The church I long for would embrace messiness.
C) Serving those in need
Let’s be honest – most people (even those in the church) aren’t actively looking for ways to help the less fortunate. But in my experience, when people are given the opportunity and put in a situation where they can make a real difference, they begin to discover a sense of meaning and passion that helps them move beyond themselves. Unfortunately, most of the time when the church asks people to “serveâ€, it’s to serve the church and its programs – be on committee, organize a building campaign, benefit the institution. And even more unfortunately, many people end up being drained by the experience rather than energized by it.
Certainly there are needs that must be met within the fellowship of believers. Yet I can’t help but think that if the church could shift its focus more towards serving those outside the church rather than serving itself (see point 3 above), its members would be more inspired and more committed, and the church would be much more effective at reaching the culture.
These three elements – exploring spirituality, pursuing transparency, and serving those in need – would form the tripod – the basis – for a fellowship of believers. And I don’t think you’d need a lot of programs to accomplish it – you might not need any, at least in the conventional sense of the term. But I believe that these could serve as the foundation for a vibrant, committed, real, messy, and effective church.
Anyone want to help?
Church Marketing – Part 2
So I’m finally just about done with the new brochure for Eastridge. James and I decided to go with a brochure that we could print ourselves, and that could be easily updated by the office staff as information changes (which meant designing the brochure in Microsoft Word). We bought a color laser printer using the “Brochure” line item in the Communications Committee budget, so the brochures can be printed a few at a time as needed.
I came up with the basic layout, which is predicated on the capabilities of the folding machine in the church office. James supplied the design elements. If early feedback is any indication, I think people will be generally pleased with it.
And the content and approach is almost precisely what I didn’t want it to be. (See my earlier post on the topic).
But as I thought about it more, I came to realization that the brochure probably needed to reflect what the focus of our church really is, as opposed to what I wish it was. Eastridge is a program-oriented church – that’s our focus. We are about a smorgasboard of programs that we assume and hope will draw people in, with the accompanying assumption that people will encounter Jesus through the programs. And maybe that is the most effective way to attract a certain segment of the population who are church-shopping. The bottom line is that I’ve decided to stop playing the role of Sisyphus, and to just leave the rock at the bottom of the hill.
At any rate, I can soon check that project off my list…
Thought for the day…
So I’m thinking of creating a new blog category called “Ways the PCUSA is MUBAR”…
Channeling…
I have a large stack of books on the topic of the emerging church, most of which I’ve yet to find time to read. Yesterday I began reading “Stories of Emergence”, and as I was reading Mike Yaconelli’s introductory chapter, it was a bit eerie to read many of the same things I’ve posted previously in this weblog regarding the church and worship. It was almost like Mike was channeling through me when I wrote that stuff a year ago. Freaky. But also cool, especially since Mike was someone whose passion and approach to faith I respect a great deal.
I still believe that the church as an institutional structure is missing the mark (interesting that that’s the term often used in explaining the idea of “sin”), is too focused on preserving itself and its structure, and is so “set apart” that it can do little earthly good for those lacking membership cards. I’m still not sure whether it’s worth even bothering with attempts to change the existing structure from the inside, or whether God is calling me to “be the church” outside of the existing boundaries. The institution is, without a doubt, an old wineskin.
I’ll definitely be wrestling with these issues as I finish out my term as an elder…
2005 Mission Trip
We had a good trip this year. Problem-free travel, no major blow-ups between people, and we got 5 houses repainted.
Thought for the day…
“For many of us [in the evangelical community], the world exists for the church. It is like a strip mine, and people are mined out of it to build the church, which is what really matters. In the new emerging postmodern theology and spirituality, that image is terrible. It mirrors the raping and plundering of the environment by our modern industrial enterprises. In it, the church is another industry, taking and taking for its own profit. How different is the image of the church as the apostolic community, sent into the world as Christ’s hands, feet, eyes, smile, heart.” – Brian McLaren
Church policies, and why I keep getting closer to saying goodbye
I just recieved an email from the administrative assistant at church. I got the email because I’m currently on Session (the board of elders) at my church. In the New Testament, the elders provided spiritual guidance and wisdom to a community of believers (not that I think of myself as particularly wise). In the Presbyterian Church (USA), “elder” means “you’re in charge of a committee”. I think I prefer the biblical model. I’m half-way through my 3-year term, and I’ve discovered that being an elder amounts to about 5% spiritual guidance and 95% administration of a committee that you don’t necessarily feel called to lead.
Sometimes, between our monthly meetings, we take care of pressing administrative details via email votes so that we don’t have to have a special meeting. And I appreciate the fact that we do this. But many times, those emails, like the one that came a few minutes ago, read like this (the names have been changed):
“Bob and Cindy Smith would like to have their son, Christopher, baptised at the 10:00 am worship service on June 26th. Please vote yes or no.”
What the hell am I voting on here? Our church has 1100 members – I don’t know Bob and Cindy Smith. I don’t know where they’re at spiritually, whether they understand the meaning of baptism, or anything. Anyway, like I’m going to deny baptism to someone?
I don’t blame our administrative assistant. She’s doing what she’s supposed to do given PCUSA policies. But it demonstrates just how inane, ridiculous, and stupid many of those policies are. And the more I’ve thought about it, the less hopeful I’ve become about the future of the denomination. Certainly I’m becoming more skeptical about my place in it…
The "self-ism" of American Evangelical Christianity
Let me begin this post by stating that I consider myself an evangelical. This post isn’t meant to bash evangelicals in general, or evangelicalism. But it is meant to criticize a pattern that has emerged among many American evangelicals and churches – namely, a preoccupation with the self.
In many ways, this focus on the self is an outgrowth of the fortress mentality that prevails among evangelicals – that the world is an evil place, and we should wall ourselves off from non-Christian elements. And this fortress mentality is a somewhat understandable, though (I believe) unbalanced, response to the scriptures that call for followers of Christ to “be holy”.
Certainly, there is evil in the world – to be blind to that would go against the scriptural admonition to be “wise as serpents”. And to uncritically accept the trends, values, and output of the larger culture, or continually immerse oneself in it, is surely damaging to the project of trying maintain a Godly outlook and view of things. But the notion of erecting a wall to keep evil at bay seems misguided to me, because in my experience, there’s nearly as much evil within Christendom as there is in “the world” – it’s just that a) it sometimes takes different forms, b) we work harder to hide it, and c) we tend to use our beliefs to justify it.
At any rate, this focus on self manifests itself in at least a couple of ways:
* Evangelicals tend to listen a lot to “Christian radio”. Certainly there’s value in being edified in one’s faith on a regular basis, but many evangelicals seem to adhere to a philosophy of “all edification, all the time”. Not only is this very self-focused, but it prevents those Christians from truly understanding popular culture, and thus from lovingly approaching and understanding the mindset of those who we are called to reach with the good news of the gospel.
* Evangelical churches tend to have a preponderance of self-focused study groups – how to have a healthy Christian marriage, how to have a healthy Christian family, how to have a better spiritual life – and a comparatively meager number of opportunities for serving those outside the church.
Most of these ideas have been rattling around in my head for a few months. One thing that brought them to the forefront was a litany that was included in the Maundy Thursday worship service at Eastridge a few weeks ago:
Leader: We are ready to serve as Jesus served,
People: those closest to us: family and friends.
Leader: Our service reaches out, as the service of Jesus did,
People: to touch the powerless, those deemed to be worthless, and troublemakers.
Leader: It is hard to make the sacrifices we need, to meet crying needs;
People: yet we have a pattern before us, of Jesus the Compassionate One.
Leader: He went out of his way to identify those poor in resources, and poor in spirit;
People: and the strength of our discipleship is tested by his example. Amen.
Those words would have been more meaningful to me if we as a congregation were engaged in any significant efforts to actually “touch the powerless, those deemed to be worthless, and troublemakers”. As a whole, we are not. Yes, we have a list of agencies that we send money to, which comes from our church budget each year. But we provide no training, almost no encouragement, and few opportunities for members in terms of getting out into “the world” and serving those less fortunate.
I don’t want to paint the picture that we do nothing. We do provide a small out-building to store food for the Lincoln Food Bank. And our church has committed to supplying a team to serve dinner at The Gathering Place once every six weeks. But in terms of regular, on-going, hands-on service opportunities provided through the church, there are precious few.
There’s been a focus at Eastridge lately on spiritual growth – personal spirituality, strong marriages etc. And, more recently, a focus on providing more fellowship opportunities within the congregation. And I want to say, to be clear, I think those are all great and wonderful. I just would like to see a better balance between activities and opportunities that focus on “me”, and those that focus on the benefit of those outside the church walls. Heck, in my experience, serving others can be a great opportunity for both spiritual growth and fellowship – we could kill 3 birds with one shot, so to speak.
Such a change in balance might actually slow my rate of disillusionment with the institutional church.
Church Marketing
The next major task of the Communications Committee that I’m in charge of at church is to update our “church brochure”. This has actually been on our plate since I inherited the committee over a year ago, but got put on the back burner due to last spring’s Capital Campaign and the website update.
The previous chair of the committee had gathered an impressive collection of brochures from other churches. Some of them present their church’s programs like a brochure from a bank, outlining the portfolio of accounts they offer. Looking through the brochures I can’t help but get a LendingTree.com type of impression – “When churches compete, you win!”.
So my overall goal as we begin this undertaking is to avoid the “Look at everything we have to offer you!” approach, and instead try to present the information in this context:
“Here are ways that you can be a vital member of the Body of Christ, to accomplish His mission in this world”.
That seems like a more appropriate use for a church brochure.
Of course, at least 95% of the opportunities for involvement at Eastridge are focused strictly on interacting with people within the congregation, as opposed to showing the love of Jesus with the rest of “this world”. But that’s a rant I’ll save for another post…
Currently reading…
Marcia, Mark and I have started reading “The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix”, by Brian McLaren. So far it’s a pretty good read.
Tunnel…light?
I’ve been helping lead a project to redesign the Eastridge website (both in terms of appearance and function). Committee and group representatives can now easily log in to the site and update their group’s information via simple text boxes. We (the Communications Committee, which was mostly James Ehly and I) started the process of selecting a suitable open source package last summer. We had hoped to have the new site ready to turn up in late fall, but that didn’t pan out. Then the target slipped to the first of the year. When January 1 came and went, I was determoned to turn it up by the time of the EPC annual meeting. That meeting was January 30th, and we did turn the site up that day (even though there are a few information holes to be filled).
Once some of the lingering issues get resolved in the next 2-3 weeks (we found out yesterday, for example, that the site doesn’t display correctly in IE 5.5), I really would like to turn my energy back towards getting an alternative worship gathering established at Eastridge, with a corresponding worship team to help carry it off. I wanted to start it last spring but got sidetracked with the Capital Campaign (see a previous entry) and then the website update.
Here’s hoping…
A (Perhaps Not So) Modest Proposal
(Note: The following is a letter that I’m contemplating sending to the PCUSA leadership. Some of the material includes thoughts and ideas previously posted in this weblog – I apologize in advance for the redundancy).
To the commissioners of the General Assembly and the Department of Constitutional Services of the Presbyterian Church, USA:
Greetings from the trenches! This letter has been some time in the making, and is the result of a great deal of thinking about the church and culture – two things that, I’m sure you’re aware, are intersecting with less frequency each day. It is my hope and prayer that this trend can be reversed, but I believe there are some fundamental challenges before the church that must be dealt with if such a reversal is to happen. I don’t purport to be a particularly profound source of wisdom in these matters, but I do have some ideas that I feel compelled to throw out into the public sphere – ideas that I believe could help the church regain its connection to a culture that is vastly different than that which existed from the time of the reformation to the middle of the last century.
Allow me to provide a bit of information about myself. I am 40 years old (on the cusp of being a “Buster”, if you adhere to those generational classifications). I was baptized in the Presbyterian Church as an infant, and raised going to church and Sunday School. I was confirmed as a 9th grader, and served as a deacon during my last two years of high school. Shortly after graduating from college and moving to Lincoln, Nebraska in 1986, I transferred membership to Eastridge Presbyterian Church. As I was completing college I began to feel a call to youth ministry, so for the last 17 years I’ve been a volunteer youth worker at Eastridge, primarily in the Sr. High youth program. I’m also nearing the end of my first year as an elder.
Much of much of what is contained herein is triggered from my observations, after many years as a youth worker, that an increasingly fewer number of young people – many of whom were extremely active in the youth program and church during their high school years – are returning to the church after graduation. As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s a trend indicative of the culture at large – an increasing number of people, especially those under 40, have no interest in and see no need for the church. Most churches that are gaining members are doing so at the expense of other churches. There are very few new believers – people are simply transferring memberships from one congregation to another.
I would guess (and hope) that the leadership in the PCUSA is aware of the monumental changes that have been underway in our culture for the past 30-40 years, and our shift into what people are referring to as a postmodern culture. I would also guess (and hope) that you are aware of some of the basic characteristics of the postmodern mindset:
* truth is increasingly viewed as subjective rather than objective
* claims of objective truth are seen as attempts to gain power over others and/or tell them how to live their lives
* institutions (including the church) are fundamentally suspect
* hierarchy is increasingly less tolerated
* spirituality and spiritual seeking are seen as good things
* people tend to have a very positive view regarding the person of Jesus, and a very negative view of Christians
* etc.
Much of this has been corroborated in conversations I’ve had with folks in the 20-40-year-old age group. An increasing number of volumes on these phenomena have been published in recent years as well – some dealing only with postmodernity, and some dealing with postmodernity and the church, such as:
Reggie McNeal’s “The Present Future”
Spencer Burke’s “Making Sense of Church”
Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian”
Alan Jamieson’s “A Churchless Faith”
Dan Kimball’s “The Emerging Church”
Hopefully all of these are on the radar of the PCUSA leadership. McNeal’s book, especially, should be required reading of every pastor and denominational official.
Churches – especially mainline denominations (and certainly including the PCUSA) – have been bemoaning a reduction in membership for years. Part of the problem, at least from my perspective in the trenches, is that in the face of a culture that is decreasingly interested in and served by our institutional forms, we (the church) insist on largely maintaining those institutional forms – forms of a bygone era. It seems a somewhat irrational position – to acknowledge cultural changes, but be unwilling to respond to those changes in a significant way and then complain about the culture’s lack of interest in us. Nearly all the attempts at “change” I’ve seen are programmatic – deploying some particular methodology or program to attempt to attract people into a structure that they clearly have no interest in. I scratch my head when I see evangelism programs that are primarily designed to “get the word out” about a particular church – as if people don’t know that churches exist in their town (the buildings kind of give it away), or aren’t generally aware that worship, bible study, and other gatherings happen there. People generally know all this – they just don’t care. I’m convinced that the key to reaching this culture with the gospel is not publicity or programs – it’s a matter of institutional structure and fundamental priorities.
I realize I may be stepping into a sacred pasture full of happily-grazing bovines, but I’ll continue anyway with the following thesis: Institutions are created to help realize or advance a particular purpose or cause. As such they can be thought of as a tool which is put into the service of the cause. (In the case of the church, the cause is of course the gospel of Jesus Christ). The problem with institutions is that, more often than not, they tend to take on a life of their own, and, in the case of the church, either become so intertwined with the cause that the institution and cause are seen as the same thing, or the institution becomes the primary object to which the original cause becomes subservient.
Herein lie the difficult and uncomfortable questions. How much of what we do, both at the denominational level and at the local congregational level, is done for the primary purpose of maintaining the institution, as opposed to advancing the gospel? We want to believe that the PCUSA exists to serve God (and I believe that it many ways it does), but in what ways are we really holding the institution as sacred and expecting God to adhere to our structures? Has our taxonomy of being the church and following Jesus (i.e. the Book of Order) become that which we hold most sacred?
I believe the governmental and organizational structure of the Presbyterian Church made sense and served a purpose for the culture in which it was created (the “modern” era which existed roughly from the enlightenment to the middle of the 20th century). I believe the Presbyterian Church can still serve a purpose in the postmodern culture. I believe that the theological positions of the PCUSA are sound. However, some of the hierarchical structure, and certainly much of the (arguably inane) minutia in the Book of Order, are antithetical to the postmodern mindset that is predominant in the brave new world we’re entering. I’m not advocating an absence of governmental structure – I believe guidelines and a set of checks and balances are crucial in maintaining a healthy and theologically orthodox church. But the preponderance of directives in the Book of Order, by default, places the emphasis on the institution rather than the cause for which the institution was created.
My proposal for a way to begin dealing with this dilemma is two-fold. One element is more general in nature, the other more specific. The general element is this: Deliberately encourage the PCUSA, at all levels from denominational headquarters down to local congregations, to pass all of their activities, programs, goals and policies under the microscope of the question posed earlier: Is the primary reason for doing this activity/program/goal/policy to advance the gospel, or to serve, obey, and maintain the institution? In other words, are we primarily doing this to meet institutional requirements, expectations, and/or traditions, or to communicate and demonstrate the love and good news of Jesus to a hurting world? I realize that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the question is still a sound one to ask. I also understand that it will probably take a while for many people (both clergy and lay-people) to get their head around the project of disentangling the church that Jesus founded from its current institutional form. The denomination should assist with this process.
The more specific (and uncomfortable for institutional advocates) proposal is this: Undertake a comprehensive program for review and evaluation of the entire Book of Order. This review would be carried out NOT by the PCUSA’s Department of Constitutional Services, but by diverse groups of lay people “in the trenches”. Their goal would be to start with the assumption that nothing in the Book of Order is sacred, and then attempt to hash out what makes sense to people in the emerging culture while also keeping a constant eye to scripture. Keep in mind that this doesn’t involve mucking with Presbyterian theology (the Book of Confessions) – this strictly deals with structural elements of how the church works, and how it should work in the emerging culture. I propose the following:
* Divide the Book of Order into manageable segments – something that could easily be discussed at some length within a 4-6 week period.
* Each segment would be reviewed by groups in multiple congregations, representing a diverse range of congregation sizes and geographic regions.
* Each local review group would include one person each in their teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s (assuming those age groups are represented within the congregation).
* Each local review group would include 2-3 people who are not a member of any church, and who don’t necessarily have any desire to join one. The primary purpose here is not to evangelize (although it would be wonderful if people were drawn into a local fellowship of believers through this process) – it is to get feedback and input from the people that the institution, in its current form, is not reaching. The local church would offer some form of compensation for their time (e.g. gift certificates to a local restaurant, etc.).
* Each group would spend at least 25% of their time together in prayer, asking God for wisdom, discernment, and guidance. This time of prayer should be at the beginning or the end of the gatherings so that the non-church folks could have the option of participating in the prayer time or not.
* The local pastor would be allowed to sit in on these discussions to observe and occasionally explain the past reasoning for certain rules, but NOT to defend or advocate the current rules, since most church members would likely defer to the pastor’s position on the issues, and many pastors would likely advocate the status quo.
* Each group would provide consensus feedback on their section of the Book of Order, intentionally weighting the non-church participants’ input heavily (except in such instances where that input may run counter to generally held scriptural principles). In doing so, each group would rewrite their assigned segment according to their consensus.
* Feedback would be returned directly to the Department of Constitutional Services. All feedback would be posted on the PCUSA website, organized (at least temporarily) according to the current Book of Order organization, so that anyone who was interested could see how various groups responded.
* The Department of Constitutional Services would then “average” the responses into a new governing document, organizing it with input from Presbytery and/or Synod volunteers.
All effort should made to keep the above process free of political wrangling by factions on both the left and the right within the denomination. This process should not be an opportunity for any group to “gain ground” on any current denominational issue, highly charged or otherwise. The purpose is to establish a structure that is conducive to reaching the emerging culture with the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
I realize that such an exercise – having lay people essentially develop a new church structure rather than enlisting “professional theologians” – would require an unprecedented amount of trust in the Holy Spirit. I also realize that the resulting document from such an endeavor would undoubtedly look significantly different than the current Book of Order (not to mention a corresponding complementary organizational change), just as a church that was focusing on the gospel first rather than the institution would likely look very different than the church today. But that’s good. In fact, it’s more than good – it’s crucial. We need to be willing to discard the old wineskin. Efforts to maintain an institution that is increasingly impotent when it comes to reaching the mainstream culture with the message of the gospel are misguided and run counter to Jesus’ commands in scripture. I believe that the PCUSA has the potential to be a powerful tool in the service of the gospel to the emerging culture, but only if it is willing to back off from its current institutional focus and institutional demands of people. To put it another way: The current institutional, “join and support our club” focus needs to give way to a more expansive, less restrictive “join the movement” approach.
Jesus said in Matthew 16:25, “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it”. I believe the same applies for the institutional church. If we focus on saving the institution, we’ll continue on our current downward spiral. But if we’re willing to jettison our institutional priorities, and focus on being the hands, feet, and mouth of Jesus to a world of brokenness (both inside the church and out), we as a church will thrive. The gospel is sacred: our institutional forms are not.
Thanks for entertaining the thoughts of a broken, frustrated, yet hopeful traveler. May God give us wisdom and guidance as we seek to help one another walk the narrow path, and others to find it.
In Christ,
Kyle Griffin
Assorted quotes from "The Present Future"
Here are a few quotes from “The Present Future”:
“The current church culture in North America is on life support. It is living off the work, money, and energy of previous generations from a previous world order…Please don’t hear what I am not saying. The death of the church culture as we know it will not be the death of the church. The church Jesus founded is good; it is right. The church established by Jesus will survive until he returns. The imminent demise under discussion is the unique culture in North America that has come to be called ‘church’. This church culture has become confused with biblical Christianity, both inside the church and out.” (p. 1)
“A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith. They contend that the church no longer contributes to their spiritual development. In fact, they say, quite the opposite is true.” (p. 4)
“Faced with diminishing returns on investment of money, time, and energy, church leaders have spent much of the last five decades trying to figure out how to do church better…Consultants, parachurch ministries, denominational headquarters, and publishing houses prod and push the church toward whatever the current fad is…offer small groups…focus on customer service…return the church to basics…All this activity anesthetizes the pain of loss. It offers a way to stay busy and preoccupied with methodological pursuits while not facing the hard truth: none of this seems to be making much of a difference.” (p. 7)
“The point is, all the effort to fix the church misses the point. You can build the perfect church—and they still won’t come.People are not looking for a great church. They do not wake up every day wondering what church they can make successful. The age in which institutional religion holds appeal is passing away—and in a hurry.” (p.10)
“An entire industry of church growth experts, seminars, tape clubs, journals, and books all target church leaders who want to upfit their congregations to be competitive in the church market…There were church growth ratios to consider (how many dollars each parking place produced, how many contacts it took to close the deal on membership, how many relationships it took to ‘assimilate’ someone, how many people could be served by a staff member, and so forth). There was human psychology to consider (what color offering envelopes helped people give more, what level of building capacity constituted ‘full’). There were management issues that came with the growth of staff. There was strategic planning to help break through the growth ‘barriers’. There was the need for raising unprecedented amounts of money, requiring massive financial campaigns and a requisite growth in stewardship savvy.” (p. 24-25)
“The target of most church ministry efforts has been on the church itself and church members. Just look how the money is spent and what the church leadership spends time doing…The church that wants to partner with God on his redemptive mission in the world has a very different target: the community. In the past if a church had any resources left over after staffing Sunday School, and so on, then it went to the community. In the future the church that ‘gets it’ will staff to and spend its resources on strategies for community transformation. Members obviously have needs for pastoral care and spiritual growth. It is critical that these be addressed. However, I am raising the question of how many church activities for the already-saved are justified when there are people who have never been touched by Jesus’ love?” (p.32)
“We will see more and more people, in the church and out, who have the call, the ability, and the finances to resource their own ministry passions in the community. They will not wait for the church to catch up.” (p. 33)
“Hitting the streets with the gospel means adopting a new way of thinking on several levels. Kingdom thinking challenges church thinking. Kingdom thinking does not force people into the church to hear about Jesus or maintain that church membership is the same as kingdom membership…Taking the gospel to the streets means we need church where people are already hanging out. We need a church in every mall, every Wal-Mart supercenter, every Barnes and Noble…I recently met with a church that is lamenting their lack of Sunday School space. Yet within two miles of this church facility are over a dozen restaurants that don’t open until eleven o’clock on Sunday morning. Why not put Sunday School classes in these restaurants? If you guarantee the manager fifteen to twenty lunches, I guarantee you he’ll figure out a way for this to happen. Why not offer this ministry to restaurant employees who are not going to get to any church on Sunday because of their work schedule?” (p. 34-35)
Currently reading…
Wow. I’m tempted to suggest this book for everyone on Session at Eastridge. And everyone at PCUSA headquarters in Louisville, KY.
Evangelism revisted
There’s been a lot of talk at Eastridge in the past couple of weeks about evangelism. The rationale is, I think, fairly sound: fewer and fewer people are identifying themselves as Christians. More and more people have no church affiliation whatsoever. Certainly there is a great opportunity in terms of the number of folks that could be potentially reached with the gospel. And reaching such folks is certainly one of the tasks facing the church (both Eastridge and the church universal).
However, the methodologies typically utilized by the church are, to me, suspect. We tend to think in terms of “evangelism programs” – orchestrating evangelism into an Amway-like sales rally, where we think that if we come up with an attractive sales pitch or gimmick, and motivate the faithful, we’ll be able to successfully sell Jesus to the masses and, most importantly, get more people to join our particular Amway club.
I find at least two things troublesome about this approach. One is that, especially in the current cultural climate, programs tend not to be as effective as they may have once been. Besides, it seems to me that evangelism should be a natural by-product of discipleship, rather than a forced program. In other words, as people grow in their faith and their walk with Christ, their lives should be increasingly lived in a way that makes those around them notice the difference and want to know the reasons behind it. If that’s not happening within a given congregation, then the focus should be on finding new and creative ways to develop disciples within the congregation, knowing that evangelism will take care of itself.
The other troublesome thing about this approach is the form that such evangelism programs sometimes take. One of Eastridge’s “evangelism consultants” earlier this year told about a church that had a motorcycle rally as an outreach event. I see a couple of potential problems with such an event. One, a church’s version of such an event is likely to be seen as lame by those who like motorcycle rallies and who have actually been to “real” motorcycle rally events. Two, and more importantly, I think “gimmick” and “Jesus” are pretty much mutually exclusive, or at least should be.
I can think of another couple of problems with the way churches tend to approach evangelism. They both arise out of not understanding (or even trying to understand) the mindset of the people they want to evangelize. One is the notion that evangelism is primarily (or even significantly) an issue of publicity – that if we can just get the word out about our church and our programs, people will come…as if people are going to say “You mean there are churches in this town? You guys worship on Sunday mornings? I never knew that!”.
The second is the notion that most people really do want to be involved in a church…it’s just that they’re waiting for someone to invite them. Now, there may be a few who fit this description, but by and large the general population knows that churches exist, knows where they are located, and knows that worship, bible study, and fellowship take place there – they just neither care nor have any interest in being a part of those activities.
Am I suggesting that there’s no reason for evangelism, that we give up trying to reach such folks with the gospel? Not at all. But the bottom line is this: most people know about churches. If they were interested in being a part of what’s currently going on at churches, they’d already be there. We need to stop trying to entice people into a structure that they see no use for, and instead work to find new ways to address the needs and sensibilities of this culture. Our forms – the way we conduct worship, organize ourselves, “do” church – have been shaped by past cultures (in some ways infected by cultures of the past). The message of the gospel is sacred, but our institutional forms are not. We need to find new ways to be the church – ways that can connect to a culture that desperately needs Jesus. And in this culture, that connection is most likely going to be one-on-one, one person at a time, through the daily living out of the gospel by followers of Jesus – not high-return, “bang-for-the-buck” evangelism programs.
SocialVibe