The Church Is Going Backwards – And It’s A Good Thing
There are two issues that I’ve been thinking a lot about
recently, that in my opinion are moving the church backwards – in a
positive way. First – what I’m calling “The Open
Media Revolution.” I just turned in a new book
manuscript on the subject, and there are two things worth thinking
about. First – technology has given us the ability to interact with
each other, and have a two way conversation – think Instant
Messaging, email, PDA’s, Twitter, texts, and more. I grew up
with media being one-way as in network television. Whatever they
showed, we watched - no questions asked. Today, it's different.
Second, this method of conversation happens to be the language and
lifestyle of the millennial generation. This is the first generation
that was born into computers, and they understand them in a way no other
generation before them has. They also grew up knowing they could pick
the next American Idol by texting on their cell phone.
So they want a voice. The intersection of these two issues are about to change everything we know about communicating. It will change the way we do media, business, education, and even worship. Pastors – it’s not a one way conversation anymore. Figure out a way for your congregation to interact – to talk back – and to let their voice be heard.
I bring it up because the two way model is the model of the early church. While teaching has always been an important element of church life, the early church wasn’t as “preacher-centric” as it is today. Today, a church lives and dies by the personality and gifts of it’s pastor. But the early church knew better. During a typical worship experience many voices were heard from, and the services focused on being a dialogue, not a monologue. But since that time, the worship service has been “farmed out” to the professionals. Fortunately, technology and a new generation are setting the stage to take us back to that two way experience, and I think the church will be better for it.
The other issue is the Multi-Site phenomenon. At first, I wasn’t much of a fan until I started thinking about the cathedral model in the Middle Ages. The major cathedrals throughout Europe had services, but their main purpose was to be the “mothership” to all the local churches in their region. The cathedral trained pastors, had music education programs, were the center of doctrinal teaching, and provided the resources, leadership, and often financial help to all the smaller churches in the area. And today, the multi-site model does the same thing. A large mega-church in a major city, now is sending out many other campuses. But the main campus is the center for training, teaching, finances, and other types of resourcing.
In my opinion, it’s the second wave of the mega-church phenomenon – it’s taking the church back to smaller, local congregations, but this time with the help and support of a much larger “cathedral” if you will.
What are your thoughts on those two ideas?
I like both of your ideas. Unfortunately, the first statement "these two issues are about to change everything" was already outdated before you wrote it. ;) The phenomenon is almost exactly like the current wall street crash. Just as the law makers try to step in and clean it up, (reactionary-ism) Pastors are now forced to step in and find ways to make the connections as you well put it. I agree, but I hope you haven't given the pastors an out. It is not a "should" at this point. It is a "must". Name one person that wants to sit through a minimum 35 minute lecture on Theology (which is our current paradigm) given by one person who gives 3 points in 5 minutes and then repeats himself for the other 30 minutes plus. A blog would me much more affective (as yours is). The current paradigm is tragedy.
Great concept with the cathedrals as well. I have never thought of it that way.
Phil. Just by the way, I am the guy you met a couple of months ago in the Rockies. I mentioned my boss, Jac Redford, a famous composer TV and Film composer. I wasn't able to get to you through email, so I am writing here. I believe you now have my name and email.
Phil,
Amen, amen and amen! This two-way communication means those ministries who hold seminars, for example on God's Message in the Wall Street Turmoil, without perspective, for example, not mentioning one's own ministry and all invited speakers' ministries have opaque financesl. Right?
The trend will be towards maturity, for example transparent finances, and away from immaturity, opaque finances. This two-way communication means no more dictating conditions from the broadcast pulpit to one's own ministry advantage. Hallelujah!
Good call on the first one. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said we read to know we are not alone. I for one absolutley buy in to that idea, the idea that that we look for ourselves in everything, including our faith. While ever the communication is one way, it only partially scratches the surface of our thoughts. When we have the opportunity to respond it can go much deeper down and effect change in our values and attitudes.
I don't have any thoughts on the second idea.
Phil, I think these are two great observations. In the church setting, I find a better response from people, during the teaching/preaching experience when they are given the opportunity to talk back. They take away more, in many cases, because of their own involvement. The Multi-Site phenomenon is interesting. I really like the local models verses solely a Mega Church atmosphere - less likelyhood of getting "lost" in the crowd. The integration makes sense. In the back of my mind, even with all of the technological advances, the thought has remained that what still makes the most impact in a person's life is face to face conversation and interaction. (Very similar to how 'word of mouth' is still the best form of advertising.) Figuring out a way to employ technology to aid in this personable experience will be key.
Allen Paul Weaver III Author, Transition: Breaking Through the Barriers www.APW3.com