Streams from the River of Faith

The Christian church could be seen as a river.  Yet this river has some streams flowing from her source.  It used to be that those streams might be defined by the three major branches- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.  Then those streams would have branches snake off.  Protestant might then branch off in denominations- Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist.  But this river is changing.

We might instead of thinking of denominations consider labeling those Protestant branches as faith personalities or traditions.  I wrestled with this.  Consider.  Methodists who leave a Methodist church are not necessarily going to join another Methodist church.  Folks are not staying with a denomination.  A person might be a member of a Baptist, Presbyterian, and then a Methodist church in his/her life.  This is a growing trend.  A person may not see himself/herself as Presbyterian or Baptist anymore.  Now I teach Baptist heritage/history so this of course troubles me because I believe each denomination does have something to offer the larger church and does define how each local church ‘does church.’  Yet I don’t think we’ll all blend into one church.  Hardly!  I believe the personalities/traditions define us and are larger than denomination.

So what are they?  Mainstream, evangelical, etc?  Those terms no longer work either.  So here is what I propose:

Liberal  Moderate     Conservative     Fundamentalist
Bear with me a moment.  A person may not know this but when he/she visits a church he/she has a certain faith perspective/personality.  And when visiting they may not know why but they ‘connect’ in a church and do not in others.  Now programs, preachers, and friendliness play a part but yet for real commitment and involvement something has to connect to make the person feel this is ‘right’.  They can’t always articulate it but it is there.  So JOHN SEEKER is Presbyterian and visits a Presbyterian church but yet he is very conservative (not quite fundamentalist but leaning that way) and finds the local Presbyterian church personality to not ‘fit.’  That church is more moderate to liberal and he doesn’t know why but it isn’t ‘home.’   They deal with social issues, have women in the pulpit, and are not preaching about politics.  He visits a Bible church that has a local congressman visit that day.  They talk about major moral issues.  They pass out voter guides.  They use the KJV Bible and there is much talk about getting saved.  He feels at home.  He is a kindred spirit.   SUSIE VISITOR tries a local Lutheran Church.  She was Lutheran in the mid-west and tries this church.  Women can’t lead.  They are not fundamentalist but seem to be very conservative.  She doesn’t connect.  She goes to another Lutheran church that is welcoming to women.  They aren’t extremely liberal but are more moderate.  She has found her home.  She stays Lutheran but it is more about the connection than the denomination.  Are you seeing what I see?

The landscape is shifting.  Now churches do not fit neatly in either of the four boxes.  Some might but not all.  A church can lean between moderate and conservative.  A church can be conservative with moderate and fundamentalist members.  But the further away from one category you get the less likely you’ll find folks from the outer categories.

For example- a church that is moderate strongly may have a few folks on the moderate/liberal side and a few on the moderate/conservative side.  But far fundamentalist will lead to conflict and fighting.  A church that is conservative leaning fundamentalist will not have strong moderates or liberals.  And on it goes.

When calling a pastor the minister and church need to consider this.  Can churches changes? Slowly and with bloodshed. A church that is moderate might move either to the left or right (but not far left or right without much blood or years).  A pastor who is fundamentalist should consider this before taking a strongly moderate pulpit.  A moderate who is leaning liberal should consider this before taking a conservative leaning fundamentalist church.  Making sense?

What about defining those labels.  That’s tricky. I hesitate to try.  The more left a person/church is the more it is open to higher criticism of the Bible, women, social issues, working with other denominations/faiths, etc.  The more left the church/person is then the issue of homosexuality being open and accepted- from welcome but not affirmed to welcome and affirmed.  The more to the right one is the more women can’t lead, moral issues are conservative, politics show up more, evangelism trumps social issues, etc.  And homosexuality goes from loving the sinner/hating the sin to open damnation of homosexual from the pulpit.  Folks who are moderate to conservative obviously would move in appropriate directions from those two poles.

I hate to define but this is what I’m beginning to muse/ponder.  The Hartford material I recently commented on indicates that spiritual vitality being felt in a church shows up more in more liberal and more conservative churches (The two ends of the poles).  Why?  I believe because they know who they are and mainly in unison on issues folks usually fight about.  The rest of us are diverse on a host of issues which opens the door for conflict and conflict leads to spiritual distress.  I have no solution for that one!

So what does this mean?  I’ll muse on that next blog.

Musings about “The Decade of Change” Part 2

As I continue to reflect upon the Hartford Report (see two blog articles ago and also last one).  I see two major themes that the church needs to deal with in the 21st century.

ChurchHealth

I can’t say it enough or loud enough.  Churches that do not know how to handle their differences will struggle with spiritual vitality.  Just check out the data.  The Church will have diversity and there are issues that are huge but we must work to maintain healthy ways of communication or we will not be able to fulfill our work and ministry.  Folks simply will not come or at least stay in a unhealthy system.  Ministers need to learn family systems theory and basic church health issues.  Church leaders need to be learning this as well and the body as a whole need to learn and see modeled such behavior.  Bible studies on being the church, sermon series on the church, and open discussions about health and conflict need to begin long before there is an issue.  When things are going ‘well’ the church needs to talk about how to maintain health.  I person should not wait until they are in the ICU before they learn about proper dieting and exercise!  And thus a church needs to deal with this as an ongoing and routine way of being church.  Anxious presence, triangle relationships, manipulation, and other issues need to be taught and discussed.

Innovation

I believe the second theme is innovation.  It is true that more and more churches are becoming contemporary in worship style.  Yet not all churches can do this well.  Some churches would do well with adding another service rather than converting the existing service over.  Others may not even go in this direction.  And yet the key of innovation is something all churches can do and should do.  If a person could pick up the worship order from today and compare it to the one from 2005 then 2000 and 1995 and see it be the exact same order then innovation doesn’t not exist.  Boredom and apathy set in and folks lose focus in such situations.  See my suggestions in my previous blog.  A church can stay traditional and still be innovative.  I believe that churches were only one service exists blending some contemporary pieces in may be the only real big ‘change’ but the innovation can be present no matter the style.  Robert Webber wrote years ago about using ancient future worship on Sunday.  There are creative and innovative ideas that are hundreds of years old.  And they are new to those who have never experienced them.  We also can borrow and learn from other Christian traditions.  We can also set the creativity of the folks in the pew free to use their gifts in different ways.  Having folks make and present banners for worship, write original drama and music, read and speak, and using their own gifts will open up new energy and passion.  Simply doing some things differently and experimenting can make positive changes.  I wouldn’t change everything every week!  But slight and ongoing changes can be done from time to time that create a new sense of vitality and life.

I don’t propose these two themes as ‘cure alls’ for the entire church.  Issues of missions, small groups, church education, and other areas that need to be addressed are equally important.  But these two areas I believe are crucial for the church of the 21st century. If the church is fighting or boring then all the small groups, new programs, and other items will just be spinning wheels.

I’m passionate about other aspects of the church. I believe we must demand more from our adult discipleship.  I believe we need to offer opportunities for real spiritual transformation and also for serious Bible study.  I believe discussions on theology and Scripture are needed.  I believe a quality children and youth program is important. I also believe a church must be missional and reach outside the walls of the institution.  I believe a hands on approach to ministry is going to draw people in rather than simply sending a check. Yet I believe in stewardship and supporting our global partners.

Blessings,

Derik

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Musing about the “Decade of Change”

My previous blog deals with the findings of the Hartford Report.  I appreciate the fine work those folks do and commend their research to you.  On their web site you will find several resources/reports that are very helpful.  I particularly like their reports on church conflict and growing churches.

As I reflect upon the date that describes the changes and current status of the church 10 years into the 21st century there is so much to ‘muse’ about.

One could read it and try to determine a ‘magic bullet’ to ‘fix’ his/her church.  Remember this data is a description of what has occurred in the past 10 years but we can’t determine if the next will continue this path or whether there will be new trends.  Also there are many churches who do the same things the growing churches do and fail too grow numerically.  I also believe an over emphasis on numeric growth can be short sighted and dangerous.  While it is true that if a church does not grow numerically in time this is a deadly but a church can also grow numerically and not be spiritually healthy.  I’ve always stressed church health over church growth.  I believe if a church is healthy then growth will happen.  But real growth is not possible to maintain in an unhealthy church.  And the Hartford report backs that up.  One aspect is clear in this report and in previous research (again read their church conflict report on their web site) that if a church is unhealthy in conflict it will lack spiritual vitality and growth.  Conflict will kill growth.  So be healthy.  Learn to handle differences in a healthy way and people will be drawn to just such a fellowship.

Another issue to think about is how the church really is connected to what is going on globally.  The economic downturn hit the church hard.  It is true churches were not financially as strong as they should be before this crisis (only 30 percent described themselves as financially strong) but the crisis dropped that number to 14 percent.  That means almost every church you drive by is not growing financially and is having trouble paying the bills.  Almost every church I know has had to make ‘ends meet’ and is not able to expand ministries or do what needs to be done in their community.   In fact, one of the issues that leads to conflict is financial.  Therefore many churches entered the 21st century with the US economic crisis leading to members with the inability to give as previously and this led to major conflict which led to lower attendance and even worse financial problems.  Each fed the other.  Churches that were already unhealthy fought and the downward economy just fed the fuel to the fire.  This had impacted the high level of pastoral terminations, lower attendance, and the overall decline of denominations.

Now I do not believe it is fair to say it’s only the economy.  It is also not smart to think that if we can improve the US economy the churches will grow.  It is true that a better economy will help already healthy churches.  Churches where members are good stewards would have more money to do more.  But for those who fell into chaos and conflict it will take a long time for those churches to recover (if they can).  Hurt feelings over forced terminations and church splits will not disappear with a stronger stock market.  The damage has been done in many places.  And it isn’t just money that has hit the churches over the past ten years.  Folks have stressed they are ‘spiritual but not religious.’  This will not be an easy trend to reverse.  Folks are not going to come back to the church just because the job market looks better.  If anything once they have more money to do more they will find more things to do on Sunday than church.  I also would not turn to the stock market or government to save the church.  That will never work!  Our help is God and not Wall Street not DC.

Another interesting item is the worship issue.  Contemporary worship is growing.  But so is ‘innovative worship.’  Churches that simply are not contemporary in personality often find themselves fighting over the issue.  Or they try it and it doesn’t work.  Again is this a magic bullet?  Not necessarily.  It is true this is a issue that is not going away and contemporary worship will grow in American churches.  Even those that do not convert their entire worship style to contemporary are finding themselves using contemporary pieces in their traditional services.  This will continue.  But not all who do this will grow.  I believe it will work for many.  Many will start new services and those will be contemporary.  In fact many churches will add new services and the survey shows that those with more than one service grow.

But is contemporary the only way to go?  Not necessarily.  Traditional churches also grow.  But the key is in the word ‘innovation.’  The churches that have done the exact same things forever are struggling.  But any church can be innovative with splitting into warring camps.  A Roman Catholic church that switches to Latin Mass sometimes experiences growth.  A church that begins adding liturgical elements grows.  What?  The ‘key’ (I hate that word) is that they did things ‘different’.  People like diversity and people get set in their ways.  Change can cause conflict (especially in unhealthy churches) but some change is possible in any church.  Slight and small adjustments over a course of time can create excitement and energy.  And these changes can’t then become ‘law’ and nothing new can happen.

Why not switch items in your worship service from time to time? Do the choir’s anthem earlier and not just before the sermon (but don’t switch it forever….move it around from time to time).

Move the children’s sermon around-do something creative in it- or add one!  Or add new leaders in it.

Involve youth and children in worship.

Add drama.

Revamp the order of worship (You can do this and stay in the same style).

Add the Lord’s Prayer.

Use litanies, candles, responsive prayers- and it doesn’t have to be every Sunday.  Variety is the spice of life.

If you use power point screen some Sunday don’t!!!!! Or alternate how often you use it.

Include interactive prayers, moments in the service.

Have the choir sing form somewhere other than the choir loft.

Casual dress in the summer.

Silent prayers if they aren’t used too it.

Others can speak/lead parts that ministers usually do.

Have children collect the offering (or youth).

Move furniture around (if seats move reset the room).

Preach from a different place than the pulpit.

I would suggest a pastoral worship team invest in resources, workshops, and meet with other churches and find out what is going on elsewhere.  If you did everything I listed on one Sunday it will be crazy.  One element above is often enough.  And tweak it from time to time and try new pieces.  Just don’t stay in a rut.  Folks should say, “I wonder what I missed today?” (If they are absent).  They shouldn’t be driving down the road on vacation and look at their watch and say, “Right now they are doing the doxology!”

More later.