4/7InkzHVUEQeEdU9vpc1tikzEhChrKmPfvXI-FSDBrBQ

transforming the church

It’s VBS Time

Is VBS A Waste of Time and Money?

I was recently with friends my age. We were all children in the 50s and 60s. We began remembering summer Bible schools. We came from different denominational traditions, but we had one thing in common. Vacation Bible School was a pivotal start in our faith journeys. It wasn’t our youngest years that we remembered—the years when we pasted cotton puffs on construction paper to make sheep. It was our older years, when we put together skits and did service projects and just had a great time.

One friend commented that her family moved one summer and the Bible School she attended eased the disruption in her life. She had friends when she started school the next fall.

Bible School used to be two weeks long—long enough to build community, change faith habits and make an impact on a congregation.

The concept of VBS began to fade when mothers began working.

Soon the energy waned. A two-week school, staffed by volunteers, was too much like work.

With parents out of the house, older children had their summers scheduled. No longer able to volunteer, parents looked to enrich their children’s life with paid camps which would advance their child’s academic progress — sports camps and academic enrichment camps. Cost, when it’s not the church, is no object. These paid camps tend to challenge the youth and make it worth the parental sacrifice.

Instead of emulating the trend, beefing up their summer programs, and adjusting the economic model, churches slowly began to cut back or eliminate VBS.

Two weeks became five days, with instructional time limited to less than two hours. The impact of the school became negligible. Nothing replaced it.

Volunteers to work with older children are the hardest to recruit, so only the youngest children are now served.

The Church couldn’t do things they way they used to. We pretty much stopped doing anything but going through the motions. They made it easy for kids to stop coming at just the age when they need incentive to stay engaged.

Working together to solve problems has never been a strong point of the Church. The most common attempt was to go together to hold a community VBS and that benefited the host congregation more than the others. That sort of thinking soon died.

The value of VBS to a congregation is in the immersion, in building new faith awareness and engaging families. They are of real value when they are part of other programming.

When VBS is a short, stand-alone event aimed at only the youngest children, who are perhaps too young to even carry the memory into their adult lives, they are of little value.

There is barely enough time and energy to hold classes. Engaging in follow-up, the real value of a VBS,  is next to impossible.

The failure of VBS is a failure of the Church to adapt. We can’t do VBS the old way, so we won’t do it all or just create a minimal experience to say we are still doing it.

The core problems of VBS were never addressed.

Problem 1: Lack of volunteers

If VBS is your best and most promising outreach to the community, it might be worth  paying people and making sure they are trained to do a great job. In the church we tend to keep spending money on the same things (that aren’t working).

Problem 2: Busy kids

Instead of developing a more challenging summer program which would keep children challenged and engaged, we made it easy for them to drift away. Reversing this will be tough. Families find time for things that are worth their while.

Problem 3: Cost

Parents pay for all those other camps that they are sure will benefit their children. They just might be willing to pay for a summer faith program that offers the same opportunities for growth.

We believe that a faith-based summer program can still be a major asset to a congregation. It must be more professional in approach. Activities must be challenging. Families must be engaged and VBS must be part of larger church experience.

VBS has been neglected for several decades—decades of decline all around. It still has possibilities but reviving it will require some funding, at least initially. This will require church entities to work together—always a challenge, but so very needed.

VBS-aid

What if instead of congregations joining together to host a school, they joined together to train a team of leaders which would travel from congregation to congregation?

We put together a concept three summers ago which attracted interest from congregations. None of them wanted to pay even a modest sum to attempt it. Instead, they all did nothing that summer (and every summer since).

The hierarchy partners we approached would very much benefit from a cooperative program with congregations. It would build good will, which will eventually benefit them in their mission. They had other priorities, we were told. At the same time, they cried about few people entering vocations. They just couldn’t see that the program we were trying to develop would introduce church careers to youth. As it is, youth are absent from church life during the years they ponder their future.

We think the program is still worth trying. An experimental year could be funded for $100,000 and benefit eight to sixteen congregations that couldn’t run a program like this on their own. 

The concept calls for teams of trained teachers (college students) to provide the leadership to a congregation. Four to eight congregations in the same 20-mile radius  would share the expenses but have the benefits of the school being in their church. The traveling VBS-team will spend two weeks in each congregation.

Pooling the resources of several churches will make it affordable for all.

2×2 would still like to pioneer this concept. If your small church is worried about your future and want to take a new approach to revival, try to find a few other congregations in your general geographic area to see if VBS-aid might restore a summer ministry to your congregations and contact us.

It’s too late for this year. But if enough congregations commit by Christmas 2013, we’d love to put a first team together to test the concept. (The program is interdenominational.)

Here’s the basic information.

By the way, Redeemer had a six-week summer program for neighborhood children, so we have some experience.

05 Jul 2013

What Are We Risking . . . and Why?

In the unending quest for transformation, churches in our area have been asked by their regional leader to take risks.

Sounds very daring!

But look before you leap!

What are congregations being asked to risk and why?

We presume our leaders are asking us to change. They are never very clear on how. Just change. (When they bring their experts in to to evaluate, they usually try to set things up the same old way.)

So what are our leaders expecting to happen now?

They could be looking at society and seeing a spiritual desert. They could be concerned for the troubled individuals, broken families, the children who live in two houses with torn parental loyalties, the outcasts of society, the people who struggle with illness and addiction, the jobless, the homeless, the youth who feel left out, or the lonely and unnoticed in general. They could be concerned with the growing number of people who do not know God and can’t pray.

They could be looking more globally at a world of injustice, hunger, disease, tension, prejudice and discrimination.

Most Christians would agree that if these were the major concerns, taking risks and making changes would be well worth a congregation’s efforts.

Unfortunately, the changes sought by the Church are economically based.  The risks we are being asked to take are so the Church can survive—that the hierarchy can survive— just the way it always has. No changes there!

Small churches have proven to be resilient. Immigrants and pioneers, uprooted from the established Church of the Middle Ages, came to America and started the Church anew. These small churches survived for hundreds of years. They changed over the years without prodding. Many actually grew!

The cost of hierarchy is weighing down the small church. The need for change and risk today is because hierarchies are failing.

They don’t intend to fail alone.

Change will happen in the small church when hierarchy demonstrates that they, too, can take risks and make significant changes. This doesn’t mean cutting ten percent of the staff or freezing salaries. It means revisiting everything they do. Reallocating initiatives more in line with the modern world. Changing the way they relate and communicate with congregations, and how they value the contributions of members—all members.

It means looking at our relationships with our schools and seminaries and our social service agencies. Are they serving the mission of the Church or have they adopted a secular mission while expecting support from the Church?

It means examining what is expected of professional leaders at every level. If pastors can be settled in ministry for 10 years while statistics steadily drop — and be applauded for nothing but having a satisfied congregation — well, it’s the same problem academia has with tenure. Security tends to trump mission.

Things are just fine here. Let someone else take the risk. Ten years to retirement.

The Church will not survive the present age without taking risks. Let’s make sure the risks are for the mission of the Church, not the survival of our comfort and way of life.

And leaders, congregations are more likely to take risks when we see you in front of us, not prodding (or picking our pockets) from behind.

30 May 2013

Transforming the Role of Clergy in the Future Church

Transformational Ministry Requires Structural Change

Part of the challenge facing today’s Church is that the role of clergy and how they relate to congregations must change. Changes have already occurred in the numerous short-term and part-time pastorates. This is likely to continue while our expectations remain in the past.

The monetary demands on congregations have grown while the source of funding has been steadily dwindling.

Clergy spent decades griping about being highly educated but poorly paid. They had a point, but the resolution of their complaints has put their services out of reach for many congregations.

“Too bad!” might be a quick response.

The fact is that every church that fails diminishes the mission of the whole Church. Small churches reach more people. The economics of fewer larger churches make economic sense but don’t really work.

Fewer recent college graduates are entering the ministry. Today, candidates for ministry are often mature adults. Some are nearing the end of their careers—drifting from a professional calling. As older servants of God, with established families, lifestyles, and debts, they are looking for economic security and as little disruption to their settled lives as possible. Since clergy often view themselves as CEOs, the pay expectations are the pay expectations of older professionals.

The talent pool in which all congregations fish for leaders is crowded with candidates who can make only part-time commitments within tight geographic parameters. The pool of available talent may not fit congregational needs. Yet it is the role of regional bodies to place their rostered leaders in their rostered churches. Lots of square pegs in fewer round holes. That translates to unhappy clergy and congregations. Conflict often results.

That’s one side of the equation.

On the other side of the equation—the congregational side—an ongoing revolution has been underway. People have stopped attending church. The Sunday morning worship demographic is upwards of 50+.

The younger demographic—the demographic absent from church—represents well-educated career people, whose varied expertise is hard for professional church leaders to recognize if it competes with their own.

This is only part of the picture.

The needs of congregations change so dramatically that they are difficult to define and fill when the need is greatest. Community demographics, once stable for generations, now shift every few years. Congregations using the “settled pastor” model can easily be left with beloved leadership that is unable to serve the changing neighborhood. Decline sets in and everyone is afraid to make changes. We are church people. Nobody likes to complain—even those charged with the welfare of the congregation.

It is fairly clear that most congregations can no longer afford a full-time theologian in residence. Even if they could, it might not be to their mission advantage. The skills of theologians are no longer a congregation’s most urgent imperative.

Theologians are trained in the art of preaching — pulpit to pew communication. Modern church leadership must concentrate on communication beyond pulpit to pew. The pews are nearly empty.

Communication in today’s world is person to person. Very pastoral.

Money spent on making sure a good sermon is provided to a dwindling number of listeners is money that cannot be spent on reaching the people who are not in church—a key mission.

Yet the pastor’s salary is the foundation of every church budget.

The power in the world has shifted to the individual. This changes the way individuals think. We are no longer wired to understand the need to gather on Sunday morning—especially if our presence in Church does not recognize our abilities.

This trend is not likely to reverse. The Church is going to have to adapt.

In the Church, we see a structure that cannot budge. It continues to make unrealistic demands on the few people who remain loyal.

It is disheartening to be a lay person in today’s Church.

The typical congregation of the future, large or small, needs communications experts, education experts and service providers. We need business and entrepreneurial skills. It will be the rare pastor who can fill every need. It is unlikely that the growing pool of second career clergy perceive these skills as part of the role they are adopting late in life. (It may very well be the demands for change in their first careers that inspired them to turn to the Church.)

The day is coming when clergy will not be called to one congregation long-term but to multiple calls defined by skill sets which they will provide to congregations only for as long as they are needed.. They may join teams of clergy with complementary skills. Congregational budgets will detail mission tasks and will no longer allocate a large sum to one pastor.

This is an economic necessity and it will further empower the laity.

And then the Church might be transformed.

19 Mar 2013

The Church’s Missing Silver Bullet—Dialog

The Church Is Ill-prepared for the 21st Century

The Church is coming kicking and screaming into the Digital Age.

It carries historical baggage that is making the journey very difficult—and is causing the Church to miss out on tremendous opportunity.

The Church is entering the Social Media Age with a long tradition of one-way dialog.

Most of us know that by definition “dialog” is two-way.

But the Church does not know this. That’s why it seems perfectly natural for a pope to Tweet to his followers but announce before clicking “Enter” on his first message that he has no intention of following.

Church leaders tend to think that when they are standing in the pulpit they are engaging their listeners. That’s their idea of dialog.

Church leaders tend to extend the pulpit to all other interaction with congregations. Meetings and Assemblies are carefully managed.

Ridiculously short time restrictions prevent dialog.

There is a vetting process for who will engage in church dialog. Clergy get first access. Lay people with a proven track record of support for clergy get second place. There is no third place.

In our region and denomination, it was the custom of our present and last bishop to bypass the elected leaders of a congregation and request to speak to the whole congregation. Request is not the right word—demand is more accurate.

The strategy sounds so open and democratic. It is in fact manipulative.

It is disrespectful to the elected leaders who know the congregation’s issues the best and are elected to represent the interests of the congregation—the whole congregation.

It engages congregational members with less knowledge of issues and various levels of commitment to the total mission of a congregation. As they view the disrespect shown for the congregation’s leaders, they are appropriately fearful of speaking out.

Dialog is shut down.

Church leaders are fooled into thinking they have led people. They have intimidated people.

What might happen if the church leaders came to congregational leaders with one simple question—How can we help?

What might happen if they then sat back and listened?

It may be the single most important step in achieving transformation.

This has never been easier or more possible—however unlikely.

The Church needs to buy a pair of listening ears. They are rare but not expensive.

18 Mar 2013

Small Churches: Don’t try to swim with the big fish

disruptivePutting Disruptive Innovation to Work
Principle 3

Doing what the natural competitors consider unattractive or uninteresting

Many business books show in great detail how companies that act in the right way can crush existing competitors. Successful disruptors almost never seek a head-on collision with established competitors.

Interesting advice. Churches almost never take it. Most churches set out to be like every other church within their denomination. Many of them fail.

This is the root of the thinking of the pastor who claimed the East Falls neighborhood had enough churches and therefore Redeemer didn’t matter. There is an assumption that all churches do the same things in the same way.

This is the thinking of church professionals. Church members know that every church is not the same. They know their attendance means more to them than just sitting in the pew and walking through the weekly rituals led by a different ritual leader. That’s why members who move from one neighborhood often hop in the car on Sunday morning to travel 30 miles to the church that feels like home to them. That’s why people shop around when they move to a new neighborhood. That’s why people care. We need more churches that are different.

Small churches cannot survive if they try to minister in the same way large churches do. This doesn’t mean they are unable to do strong and worthwhile ministry.

In our Ambassador visits, we saw several churches doing things differently and well.

  • Prince of Peace, Lawncrest,  has made reaching out to varioius immigrant groups the cornerstone of its ministry.
  • Prince of Peace, Plymouth Meeting, is centering on issues that relate to family problems—serving families with members with autism and focusing on the effects of bullying within the family structure.

These are ministry niches that larger churches bypass. Remember, from a regional body’s viewpoint, a primary purpose for ministry is support of the regional body.

Unfortunately, there are other examples, some of whom are probably on Synod’s endangered list. (They deny they have one, but they referred to it in court. They claimed Redeemer was the first of six churches they intended to force into closure. Five congregations can thank us for slowing the slaughter.)

Larger churches would see service to these segments as charitable outreach. The efforts would not support their budgets. The bigger the church, the bigger the burden of the budget. Attention given to these ministries is therefore limited to the typical church budget for charitable outreach. If you are guessing that this is a minimal figure, you are probably right.

People served by these niche ministry churches would be lost in larger churches. It would take years to prove their leadership worth. If they are going to be active, they are going to be part of smaller ministries.

Redeemer, East Falls, learned this lesson. Naturally, older members discussed finding newer members who were “like them.” But they were with able to see beyond themselves, as painful as it may have been at times.

There was no need to maintain a mainstream-style church in face of neighborhood apathy for the way churches usually do business. It would have taken tons of money to support a minister for years to rebuild this kind of ministry after a decade of synodical neglect. But Redeemer was able to rely on other strengths. We had a decades-old reputation for having good daycare programs that the neighborhood traditionally supported. As a congregation we were open to the diversity that visited us. We had a part-time pastor for three years who facilitated this openness. We had lay talents that could serve and bring others into service quickly.

We built a valuable ministry around our strengths and did not try to fit our strengths into the mainline vision for church growth. We were succeeding.

Unfortunately, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America did not understand Redeemer. They were blinded by what they thought was easy access to our wealth. A lot of good ministry effort in East Falls has been wasted.

Disruptive Advice to small churches: Find a niche ministry that the bigger churches can’t serve and pursue it doggedly.

10 Dec 2012

The Church and Its Elusive Goals

disruptiveGood Enough Can Be Great

Let’s look at the second principle of Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work.

 Noting that “good enough” can be great.

Many innovators seek to leapfrog over existing solutions, essentially hoping to win by playing the innovation game better. Disruptors win by playing the innovation game differently. [emphasis in original] Disruptions are all about trade-offs. Disruptions typically do offer lower performance along dimensions that historically mattered to mainstream customers. They aren’t bad along these dimensions; they are good enough. But they more than make up for that — in the eyes of their customers — by offering better performance along different dimensions.

This is very applicable to church life. Congregations are bombarded with demands to transform. We are competing to reach a standard that no one has measured. The drama sets congregation against congregation as they vie for attention from their regional body in access to professional services and standing. Transform becomes conform.

Concentrating on growing can be frustrating. It can discourage people who never joined church to work to reach other people’s goals. New members need time to settle and mature.

Sometimes churches are exactly the right size. They can afford their pastor. They can maintain their building. People know each other and are sensitive to one another and their community. They work well together and are confident enough in their sense of mission to welcome new people.

So why can’t we accept congregations the way they are? Is the push to grow important to the mission of the church or is it important to maintaining the three budgets each congregation is expected to support (their own, and those of the regional body and national entity)?

Churches will grow if they are growing for the right reasons. Their way of achieving their mission may not suit church professionals, but it may be good enough—at the moment. It may be great.

Redeemer was good enough. Redeemer was great at what it was doing in mission work — which no one else was doing quite the same way. We were not replicating a model foisted on us from above but we were innovating in ways from which others could learn and which we could afford and had the talent to support.

We don’t know what would have made the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America happy.

  • We had grown five-fold since Bishop Almquist’s interference in our ministry in the late 1990s. SEPA didn’t know that because SEPA ignored us for a decade. When faced with the facts, they simply refused to count the new members. “White Redeemer must be allowed to die. Black Redeemer — we can put them anywhere.” (Bishop Burkat)
  • We had achieved diversity, a stated goal of SEPA.
  • Our members spanned the age ranges and was no longer top heavy with older Christians.
  • We had several pastors interested in working with us.
  • We had some money in reserve.
  • We had lay leaders with diverse talents that complemented those of professional leaders.
  • We had a ministry plan that had the potential to create ongoing revenue.

We were and are good enough. We might even be great.

But recognizing Redeemer’s unique ministry didn’t meet SEPA’s agenda. They needed us to fail so they could justify taking our property (which their Articles of Incorporation forbid, but who cares).

So they quickly, in a blink of an eye, acknowledged our success but followed it with criticism for not achieving it under their direction. (They were AWOL.)

Since they kicked us out of the ELCA, we’ve visited 52 congregations. We know our ministry is just as active and effective as those who sat in judgement over us. And it is unique. We don’t have a food pantry. We don’t sign up for every charity run. Our kids don’t go to Synod youth events. But we do support ministries in other countries. All our kids and families had an opportunity to attend church camp. We have developed a social media ministry which reaches 1500 people a month. We’ve made a project of connecting with other Lutheran congregations. We have fought to maintain congregational polity, which will someday benefit every other SEPA congregation. We continue to meet for worship and ministry weekly.

If we had tried to be like bigger churches we would not have been able to accomplish the things we did. We did our own thing with our own resources and remained true to our mission. If we had concentrated on emulating bigger congregations we would have failed. All of our resources would have been spent keeping up with the St. Joneses. We found areas of ministry in which we could excel and make a difference.

We were good enough, we like to think, to be welcome in God’s house.

We were not good enough, we know, to be welcome in the ELCA.

09 Dec 2012

Web 1 (Ready), Web 2 (Set), Web 3 (Go!)

This is the second in a short series of posts springboarding from an article in The Jewish Week, written by Rabbi Hayim Herring.

Lagging Behind the World We Hope to Reach

I attended a convocation of churches this weekend. About 20 churches met to celebrate the Reformation, conduct some business and listen to some teachings offered by their bishop.

Today, as I waited for Hurricane Sandy, I went through the delegate list and visited every church website — at least those that had websites.

The websites were without exception static “brochure” web sites. A couple were very nicely designed, with full presentations of their ministry. Several others were minimal sites provided by directory services. A few had Facebook websites but they had done nothing with them except list service times. I was the ninth visitor to one of them, which indicates how effective they are.

Only one provided content that might attract traffic from outside their existing community and that was minimal.

As the Web matures we are starting to identify its evolutionary stages.

Web 1 describes the early days of the web from the early 90s, when organizations struggled with clumsy html code to produce static pages with no interactivity. Using the web well meant hiring some help. Help with technology is not on the approved list of church expenses. Organists and sextons are expenses church people understand. Web masters? Not in the budget. Pity! Web masters have real potential to influence the growth of a church! This has become easier.

News flash: You no longer have to know code to create attractive sites. Anyone can do it.

The move to interactivity began about 2004 and has been mushrooming. This is Web 2. Unfortunately many churches are locked in the frustrations they encountered in the infant days of Web 1. If fear of code and technical ability is stopping your church from using the web, relax. The web has become almost as easy to use for originators of content as it is for consumers of content. It is becoming more powerful every day — and that’s no exaggeration.

We can now become involved with the people who visit our sites. Isn’t Involvement why churches exist?

Web 1 influenced the world. Web 2 changed the world.

Most churches are barely embracing Web 1. This failure is creating a widening gap between them and their communities. Catch up is going to be a tougher and tougher hurdle. Still, there is a hesitance to believe that the web can be of value to church mission.

This is foolish.

  • The web can connect your congregation’s members.
  • The web can connect your congregation to your community.
  • The web can connect you to other churches with similar or complementary missions.
  • The web can connect you to the world.

It has never been easier to go out into all the world, yet the Church is late to the airport!

Congregations were never meant to live in isolation, yet we often do — barely aware of what the congregation a few blocks away might be doing. We view other churches as competition, not potential partners.

We are defying our mission.

Rabbi Herring discusses this in the essay we referenced in two previous posts (1 and 2). He suggests that organizations, including religious organizations are poised to enter a third era of Web capabilities— Web 3.

Having lived in the interactive era of Web 2.0 for not quite a decade, we have an understanding about the nature of online community, the need for a vital organizational web presence and the requirement of interactive and dynamic communication with constituents. While still in its early evolutionary stages,

I’d like to suggest that we are already in transition to a Web 3.0 environment. Web 2.0 meant that Jewish organizations needed to replicate their bricks and mortar presence online. Bricks and mortar and bytes and click ran parallel to one another.

Web 3.0 means that defining principles of online social media, like collaboration, co-creation, improvisation and empowerment must now be practiced in the physical world. In other words, the characteristics of the web that enable individuals to self-direct their lives must now flow back into all organizational spaces: in someone’s home, on the web or inside institutional walls. This is definitely another paradigm shift for organizations.

Rabbi Herring’s observations are astute. Those few congregations that have embraced the power of the media are about to take their interactive and collaborative experiences and transform what goes on within their brick and mortar churches. It will be the elusive formula for transformation.

We at 2×2 are starting to dip our toes into this water, cooperating with some of the churches that correspond with us. It’s exciting, It’s a little scary. But it is invigorating and promising.

Those that haven’t bothered to understand Web 1 and are oblivious to Web 2 will not reap the benefits of Web 3.

Someone said recently . . .

Bragging today about avoiding the internet is like bragging you can’t read!

Hey, Church, it’s your choice!

photo credit: gualtiero via photopin cc (retouched)
29 Oct 2012

A Reformation (Transformation) Message

Things tend to need reforming along about the time that we are most satisfied.

We have been Lutherans for nearly 500 years. We know how things should work.

  • Every church should shall have a pastor.
  • Every congregation should maintain a building.
  • Every congregation should support an organ.
  • Every viable church should have 150 supporting members.
  • Members should tithe.
  • Parents should place the scriptures in the hands of their children and bring them into the fellowship of the people of God.
  • Christians should live in harmony.

The list used to be a little longer.

  • Every pastor should be male.
  • Women should wear hats in worship.
  • Children should be confirmed before they are welcomed to the Communion Table.

Today, the “shoulds” of church life are not the reality. They may never again be reality. Maybe they never were. And they always bear reexamination.

And so the Church presents a new “should.”

You should transform.

Just how we are to do this while worshiping the “shoulds”  of the past is left to us to figure out without much guidance.

Perhaps the first step in church transformation is to reexamine the list of “shoulds.”

Place that list next to Scripture to see which are mandated and which are manufactured for the convenience of leaders now or long, long ago.

That’s what Martin Luther did. We “should” emulate that!

28 Oct 2012

More Pastors; Fewer Preachers

Let’s face it. One of the biggest challenges for small churches (and that includes most churches) is meeting the costs of professional leadership. Salaries and perks are the bulk of the budget.

At the first sign of financial distress, what do most churches do? Call a part-time minister.

What is the priority of every part-time solo minister? Preparing for worship and Sunday morning.

Often, that’s about all a small congregation can negotiate from their leaders. It is the frequent source of conflict.

Sunday morning preaching alone does not grow a church, especially when the sermon is delivered to only a few dozen part-time listeners. But the pressure on congregational lay leaders is to grow and transform or else, while all the congregation’s resources are tied up satisfying the salary requirement for a requisite pastor—whether that pastor is helping the congregation grow or not.

This must change.

Education is coming to realize that the responsibilities of teachers are changing. There is no longer any need for thousands of biology teachers working to craft a lecture on photosynthesis when just one expert educator can thoroughly cover the topic online, complete with visuals and links to enhance the lesson. This role can be competitive to ensure quality, but duplication in every school district is no longer necessary. The old model for education, born of pre-Information Age traditions, will soon be obsolete and recalled as quaint.

It is projected that the typical class day will flip. Listening to lectures will be the homework. Class time will be spent with instructors facilitating discussions, problem-solving and projects—what used to be called “homework.”

Similar changes will benefit the Church. Small churches do not have to devote scarce resources to pay theologians to craft a sermon on the same topic as a several thousand other pastors. This model belongs to the ages.

It may once have been necessary when information was harder to come by and many members were illiterate. As the economic model of Church shifted to totally monetary compensation, it has been pricing small churches out of existence. This is a shame. Small faith communities still hold the greatest number of total denominational membership. People like small churches. Soon, only the privileged will be able to afford to live in Christian community. The Church will have defeated its own cause.

Today, we need more pastors and fewer preachers. We need comforters, advisors, peacemakers, innovators, advocates, teachers and leaders. Knowledge of scripture and church teaching is still important in performing these roles. But the expense of dedicating one full salary to every congregation for the primary purpose of filling a Sunday pulpit is imperiling the entire Church.

If small churches are to return to prosperity, they need hands-on pastoring more than expensive preaching. Just as in education, the Church must turn its priorities upside down. Thoughtful preaching can be provided online and delivered by anyone who can speak well. Professional staff will free a day or two for hands-on interaction in the community.

This is already beginning to take shape. Luther Seminary’s online preaching helps (www.workingpreacher.org) is a resource that covers each Sunday’s lessons from the Common Lectionary. Many seminary professors from varying traditions comment on the lessons, helping to free the time of hundreds of pastors. 2×2 fashions both its Daily Devotion and the weekly object lesson from this online discussion.

Meanwhile, online preaching is being honed to an art. The temptation for many preachers is to post their ten-page sermon manuscript on-line. These do not fit the habits of online readers.

Online preaching must conform to the new rhythm of modern life. Pastor Jon Swanson broadcasts a short devotional reading daily and elaborates more fully in his blogs. 7×7 (very short daily devotion) and 300 words a day (a longer—but still short—daily blog lesson). He is growing an enthusiastic following — including 2×2.

All of us pioneers in the social media world have analytics at our fingertips. We can test and hone our skills, using actual data. Pastors preaching in sanctuaries have to guess and wait a week to correct their course.

The role of ministers must change if ministry is to remain affordable to most congregations.

Now would be a good time to start.

23 Oct 2012

Imagine: A New Church for the New Age

2x2 is merging the First and Fifth Estates.The Church of the last five decades is doomed.

But that it is good news.

We have spent these post-World War years of prosperity building a model for success that only a small percentage of congregations can hope to sustain. Many congregations exist and serve amid this atmosphere of hopelessness. It is not uplifting.

There is no need to wallow in this failure, pointing blame at the people, society or the clergy.

It just doesn’t matter. The model of Church as contained in a building and managed by a person trained in theology is about to be replaced. It’s long impending doom is at last being recognized. It was born of an era when the larger church controlled wealth and a feudal mentality, providing for its support, was ingrained.

When we found ourselves living in capitalist, industrial, corporate economies, it all began to crumble. The maintenance expenses exceeded the means of the communities we intended to serve. People became less and less engaged as more and more was expected.

No need to mourn this passing! What is going to evolve is going to be so much better!

The changes will be enabled by the First Estate (the Church) harnessing the power of the Fifth Estate (the web).

Imagine.

Here are just a few ways the Church is going to be transformed.

STRUCTURE

OLD: A hierarchy manages all education, communication and publishing, assuring that doctrine and tradition are maintained.

NEW: Congregations will seek help beyond denominational lines. It will be readily available to them online at a fraction of the expense.

OLD: A hierarchy oversees the placement of qualified leaders, with long “settled” ministries being the measure of success, making sure their salaries and benefits meet prescribed standards. Meanwhile, these desirable, settled congregations are constantly urged to “transform.”

NEW: Congregations will forsake the single pastor model as poor use of their resources. They will seek qualified help for specific short-term challenges and form ongoing relationships with several pastors. Flexible teams of ministers will serve without affiliating with any one congregation.

MISSION

OLD: A centralized office seeks theologically trained candidates, immerses them in a culture, provides additional training, and places them and their families all over the world. Congregations participate by giving offerings. Missionaries return every few years and make a tour of congregations to solicit continued support.

NEW: Individual congregations will begin to make contact with like-spirited Christians all over the world online. Denomination will be reflected in their actions not in their management. Many members will correspond, share and pray for one another with weekly engagement. Members of all ages will be online pen pals with multiple Christian fellowships. Eventually, congregations will raise money to send a few members of the congregation to visit, strengthening bonds begun online. The network of online churches will crisscross the world.

WORSHIP

OLD: Large structures with a dedicated building, common liturgy and accepted “playlist” of hymns is replicated across the country every few miles. One certified theologian is given status to repeat the words of our Lord from the Bible. Church members participate in assigned roles. Their names are listed a month in advance in the bulletin.

NEW: The structure of worship will embrace many cultures. Multiple church members will lead. Sermons will be preached online by the best articulators of the Word. Local discussions will elaborate on the Word. Members will become accustomed to weekly, spontaneous participation. Published liturgies and hymnals will be passe.

EDUCATION

CURRENT: Sunday School begins at age three and ends at age nine with desperate attempts to fill in the gap between childhood and old age with confirmation, youth ministry, singles clubs, and adult forums, following expensive curricula supplied by church hierarchy. Less than five percent of the congregation participate.

NEW: Churches, via their web sites, will link members to meaningful online forums, supplementing them with local engagement either online or in church. Short daily learnings will replace hour-long classes. Congregations linked online will share their resources and traditions.

STEWARDSHIP

OLD: Church members are encouraged to pledge to the maintenance of their building and sustenance of their clergy. Regional bodies, seminaries, and various social service entities within the church beg for additional funds. The national church adds to the appeal for dollars supplied by the same small pool of people.

NEW: Church buildings will have to multi-task their usage in the community to afford their cost. Many communities will rent or borrow appropriate space in the neighborhood. Regional bodies will provide fewer direct services. Their staffs and budgets will be trimmed substantially. Church social service agencies will completely abandon church affiliation as they recognize that cord was cut when they began seeking public funding. Congregations will choose to support service agencies that resonate with their sense of mission, regardless of their affiliation with religion. This will be an opportunity for church members to personally witness in the secular environment.

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

OLD: Members are expected to attend worship regularly and to live within an easy commute of a church building.

NEW: Members can be anywhere in the world and participate in community online. Online statistics will be published along with membership and giving numbers.

TODAY

Much of this is already happening. 2×2 is part of this evolution revolution and already experiencing many of these transformations.

 

22 Oct 2012