Author: Jeff

I’d like to take a brief, unplanned detour from what I said I was going to talk about in my last post to briefly offer some thoughts on one of the most common responses to the topics I’ve brought up in my series so far (here, here, and here). I’ll apologize from the beginning for two reasons: first this is going to be a slightly technical post and second, it is answering a specific counter-argument that usually comes up at this point in the conversation, which I personally don’t find particularly helpful to the conversation. But in talking with various ministers and church leaders, this is the first objection that inevitably pops up. The argument basically goes like this: if what you’re saying is true, why are megachurches doing so well, and why do they seem to be attracting 18-35’s? The short answer is, “I don’t think they really are…” but understanding why requires that we look at some broader data about religious trends in the United States. If you stick with me to the end, I promise some relevant takeaways for Restoration movement churches.

I should begin by saying that I’m not a sociologist, and I haven’t done any polling on this issue. I have no particular training in this area, and I’m sure a real social scientist might take some issue with what I say. I might be completely wrong about this, and as far as I can find, the research I’d really like to look at to help answer some of these questions doesn’t exist. If you’re a sociologist and interested in these questions, hit me up.

I should also say that I’ll be using some slightly new terminology in this post, just to keep things a bit more clean. Specifically, I will be referring to Generation X, and Generation Y. In the terms of the previous posts, Generation Y represents current 18-35’s, whereas Generation X roughly represents those born from the early 60’s until the early 80’s. There is some disagreement about where to draw the X/Y line, but it generally ranges from 1979-1983. By way of disclosure, I am 33, born in 1980, and therefore sit right on the border between these two generations – which allows me, in some ways, to speak in the native language of both groups, while not really being a part of either.

Ok. Let’s start by laying some groundwork. This post is going to be a bit more graph and numbers heavy than the previous ones, but I think it’s good to try to put some pictures with this thing. A caveat about my data: I’m drawing the religious data from the 2008 Pew Center Religious Landscape Survey, and my US Population demographics from the 2010 Census. Unfortunately, these organizations don’t bin their data the same way, so I’ve had to make an assumption that the 15-19 age demographic has a uniform distribution, and specifically that 18-19 year olds represent 40% of the bin. Given the fairly uniform distribution between bins (a max of about 2% variation between 5-year bins up to age 29) this seems fairly reasonable. Also note that because this is 2008 data, the 18-29 age demographic is now 23-34. Thus the 18-29 group basically represents Gen Y, with 5 years of missing kids who would now be 18-22. The 30-49 group would now be 35-54, and roughly represents Gen X, and the 50-64 group roughly corresponds to the boomers.

First, let’s look at the distribution of church members by age in various demographics. This graph shows the distribution by age of four religious groups set alongside the age distribution of the total population of the United States (shown on the left for each group, in orange). So in other words, 22% of the total adult population of the United States is in the 18-29 age range. If a particular group’s bar is lower than the orange bar, that age group is underrepresented in that particular religious tradition. If the bar is over, then that particular group is overrepresented. Because this is a fixed population, all bars add up to 100 (or, well, two add up to 99, due to rounding errors). In other words, if you are overrepresented in one area, you will necessarily be underrepresented somewhere else.

So what are a couple of quick takeaways from this graph? First, all groups are under-represented in the 18-29 demographic, compared to what we would expect based on the US population. In fact, the only religious group overrepresented among Gen Y are traditionally black churches in the Pentecostal tradition (and frankly, there may be some small sample size issues there). It is certainly true that non-denominational and Restoration heritage churches look better here, but even for them, the message is not all roses. Non-denominational churches in particular (and most megachurches would fall into this group) seem to be primarily a Gen X affair, with some Gen Y involvement, and almost no people who are older than boomers. Particularly worrying is a trend among evangelical Baptists, typically considered the largest and most influential evangelical Protestant denomination. Evangelical Baptists show one of the worst representations among Gen Y outside of mainline churches, at only 14%. The only non-mainline groups that do worse are fundamentalist non-denominational churches and Evangelical Lutheran churches, both at 12%, and Evangelical Presbyterians at 13%.

There are a couple of things I’d like to point out at this juncture related to Churches of Christ. The first, again, has to do with the issue of instrumental music. To be explicit, a capella churches of Christ draw better among Gen Y than instrumental Baptist churches, and equal to non-denominational churches, as a percentage of the members who attend. For what seems like the hundredth time in this series of posts, I will continue to beat the dead horse: instrumental music is not a silver bullet that will keep the Gen Y crowd in Churches of Christ. More on this later. Second, we should also note that Churches of Christ are the group with the largest overrepresentation among the “older than boomer” crowd. In other words, a lot of our members are, or will soon be dying off. This will rearrange the distribution of our various age groups, but will likely give the biggest “bump” to the Gen X crowd, not Gen Y.

Ok. Now is where I’m going to pretend to be a social scientist. Full disclosure: this is not my day job.

Let’s bring in a couple of concepts to discuss a bit more about what might be going on here.

We’ll start by defining a group of Christians present within each of these four age groups that we will call “consumer-oriented”. We can define this group roughly as “Christians who view church as a place where they consume religious goods and services.” It’s doubtful many people would say they believe this, of course, but I suspect we all know people who fit this mold. Phrases like “church shopping” wouldn’t make sense outside of this consumer oriented mentality. In other words, this group of people, when looking for a church, is, in a sense, shopping for a country club – they want to be a part of the church with the best benefits (worship, programs, ministries). To be clear, all of us do this to some extent, since nobody looking for a church tries to find the absolutely worst fit possible, but when I’m talking about someone in a consumer-oriented mindset, I’m talking about someone who is at least tempted to pack up and move the kids when a new church starts across town with a great youth group, or great preacher, or great band. Church is primarily about the goods and services I consume.

Consumer preferences are not the only factor at play here, though. There is also an issue related to mobility. By way of analogy, if you have a large house crammed full of stuff, there is a much higher barrier to moving than if you inhabit a two-room apartment filled with your furniture from college. In the same way that Gen Y’ers are more readily disposed to pick up and move across the country (which is easier to do if everything you own fits in your car), they have far fewer attachments to the institutional name-brands of their churches. Additionally, they haven’t (in general) built up years of history with a particular local community. I’ve met dozens of people in churches who have been a part of a local congregation for ten, fifteen, or fifty years who remain, not because they particularly like anything about what was going on in the church or the direction it is headed, but because of the personal relationships they have formed with other members of the church. This isn’t a bad thing – it’s just a reflection of the reality that once you’ve put down roots, whether in Peoria or Pine Grove Community Church, moving becomes much more difficult.

Let’s engage in a brief thought experiment. Imagine a city where there are 4 churches, each with 250 members. Half of the members in each church belong to a “consumer-oriented” mindset, and
the other half do not. Let’s consider a few scenarios related to mobility and market advantage. The trivial situation is when no church has a competitive advantage in the marketplace, and mobility is fairly high. In this case, we would expect things to basically maintain the status quo. There might be some movement, but not a lot. Conversely, if we increased the market advantage of one church until it had its run of the market while mobility remained high, we would expect to see almost all of the consumer oriented members flock to that church, as in this graph, creating, in effect, a mega-church.

Next, let’s think about the distribution of this consumer-oriented mindset within various age groups. Whether members of Gen Y are as consumer-oriented as previous generations is a matter for some debate, but there is at least evidence that Gen Y consumes in a very different way than previous generations. In the terms sketched out above, however, I think it would be fair to say that we would expect Gen Y to have a lower rate of “consumer-oriented” Christians than either boomers or Gen X. We’ll set aside for the moment how much lower. Regardless, we have noted that Gen Y is far more mobile between religious groups than Gen X or the boomers, primarily owing to life stage.

So if all of this is reasonable, what would we expect? We would expect some portion of Gen Y to be consumer-oriented, and because of their mobility we would expect the vast majority of that consumer-oriented group to end up at relatively few churches – the ones which enjoy a competitive advantage in a particular market. My suspicion on this is that the distribution would follow something like a power law, meaning that we might expect to see on the order of 90% of this consumer-oriented Gen Y group (across all denominations) in any given market split between one or two churches, and the remaining 10% spread across the rest of the churches. Which raises the question, “Just what percentage of Gen Y believers fit this consumer oriented approach, which tends to result in a megachurch?”

I don’t know that there are any good answers for that at the moment, but I do think there are some trends in the Pew Center data that may help us say some things. First, looking at the non-denominational (think: megachurch) data, it’s clear that the largest group within that demographic is Gen X. This isn’t terribly surprising, as the non-denominational movement was getting started in force right around the time Gen X was most mobile, from a “switching churches” standpoint. Given their more consumer-oriented tendencies, it’s not entirely surprising that these churches attracted mostly Gen X’ers and some boomers. If our mobility hypothesis is correct, we should expect that Gen X and boomers will be more likely to stay where they are at this point, unless they experience a major life change (death, divorce, new job, etc.). The barriers to moving are just too high.

As an aside, it is probably worth thinking for a moment about where this overrepresentation of Gen X within non-denominational churches came from. Non-denominational churches contain about 35% more Gen X members than we would expect based on their US population frequency. The data for Protestant denominations in general show that Gen X is slightly overrepresented (38% vs 36%), but this is most likely related to the relative underrepresentation of Gen Y. In Restoration churches, however, Gen X is significantly under-represented (36% vs 31%). Correcting for relative US population frequency, there are actually fewer Gen X’s remaining in our churches than Gen Y’s. Another way to say this is that there is indeed some wisdom to the idea that a significant group of people wanted more progressive worship services, and indeed have already left to find them. It’s just that those people aren’t Gen Y’s – they’re Gen X’s. And as we’ve discussed above, they have, for the most part, settled themselves in new traditions.

The final part of the data I want to point out deals with Gen Y’s in non-denominational churches, the category in which most megachurches are grouped. As we’ve already said, non-denominational churches are great at connecting with Gen X. But it doesn’t seem like they’re having the same success with Gen Y. Once we correct for population frequency, we see about a 29% decline from Gen X to Gen Y in non-denominational churches. In other words, while non-denominational churches may be more successful in attracting and retaining the Gen Y crowd than mainline congregations or evangelical Baptists, there is nonetheless a 30% generational decline in their effectiveness when it comes to reaching “young people”.

So what are a few takeaways?

First, in my opinion, the issue of megachurches reaching 18-35’s is a red herring and a misinterpretation of the data. It’s a red herring because, if the population distribution of churches follows the population distribution of cities – and there’s no real reason here to think it doesn’t – then megachurches are not the future, at least for most of us. It would be analogous to Des Moines secretly harboring an ambition to become as large and influential as New York City. For the vast majority of us, we won’t be a megachurch, even if we want to be. For every 20,000+ person church in America, there will be dozens or hundreds of 2,000 person churches, and for every 2,000 person church, there will be dozens or hundreds of 200 person churches. By and large, megachurches succeed because a) they have a competitive advantage in the marketplace of Christianity and therefore “attract” consumers looking for the highest quality provider of religious goods and services or b) they were the “first to market” and were able to capture a segment of people before anyone else was there. As a secondary aside, I would also point out that many megachurches are built around individuals who are uniquely charismatic (in a good way). Leadership transitions in these organizations are generally not smooth, making their long-term future a matter for some debate.

Furthermore, raising the specter of megachurches in the 18-35’s debate simply ignores the available data, which suggests that they are mostly a Gen X affair, with a significant falloff (almost a third) from Gen X to Gen Y, once relative population frequencies are taken into account.

Finally – and, hopefully this is viewed as good – the situation Churches of Christ find themselves in at the moment is, relatively speaking, fairly positive. When it comes to Gen X, there are a lot of “statistics” within our fellowship. But, at least so far, Gen Y has remained, remarkably, reasonably engaged (present company notwithstanding). And so, in a sense, the tradition is at a crossroads – not unlike, I would guess, the one that occurred shortly before the departure of a large section of Gen X from our ranks. My prayer would be that leaders in all churches – Church of Christ and otherwise – would have the wisdom to not address the issues that caused previous generations to leave, but would deal seriously with the issues causing the current generation to leave. We would do well to keep in mind what Dr. Jeff Childers reminds us – “big” is not a virtue. To paraphrase Dr. Chris Flanders, since Jesus commanded us to make disciples, and not attenders, we do not need to worship bigness as a marker of success.

Lord have mercy.

In my next post, I will, actually, talk about some ways the world has shifted, and hopefully brainstorm about how a changed church might connect with a departing generation.

Next: Part 5: Brave new world

In the first two posts in this series (here and here), I tried to suggest that, while they are easier to conceptualize and act upon, technological shortcomings (e.g. worship styles, visitor parking, new ministry programs, etc.) are not the main reason people in the 18-35 year age demographic are leaving Churches of Christ. Said differently, you could have Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman leading worship every week along with the best programs and ministries that money can buy, but if you have a church where the message is generic and the atmosphere inhospitable, you are not going to see massive long-term numerical growth among young people. As Mark Love would say, the era of, “if you build it, they will come,” is over – or at least seems to be something that doesn’t really connect all that well with the younger-than-boomers crowd. Keeping 18-35 year olds in your congregation requires more than turning down the lights and turning up the volume (side note: What kinds of assumptions about a group of people are required for a church leadership to think that this type of approach would be successful? It seems profoundly disrespectful, treating 18-35’s as extended adolescents who need to be placated with highly stimulating environments.). In my opinion, retaining 18-35’s will require serious interaction with fundamental cultural dynamics inside the church.

Or as I said in the last post, it’s not about innovation; it’s about identity. And interacting with identity is hard, and uncomfortable. Examining our identity means we might have to change more than the outside window dressings. Challenging our identity means that there might need to be some actual repentance – some turning – in the lives of our churches. It means wrestling with the idea that maybe we’ve been wrong about some things in the past, and in some cases maybe we need to ask forgiveness. It might even mean, in some extreme cases, that our churches as we know them need to die. Try running for leadership, or staying in leadership – or even interacting with leadership – based on that platform. That kind of change is hard. That kind of change is inconvenient, for everyone involved.

Because we are a bit removed from the first post, I think it’s probably important to issue a couple of reminders. First, since we’re talking about statistics, the most important thing to remember is that, strictly speaking, this blog is an n=1. In other words, I’m speaking from my experience here, rather than trying to tease out a statistically valid sample that would make a pollster happy, much less trying to represent this as everyone’s story. Certainly the reasons people leave are deeply personal, and unique. At the same time, my experience, while anecdotal, isn’t exactly insignificant either. I’ve spent a lot of time working with this age group in a pseudo-ministry capacity, and I’ve talked to dozens of people who’ve walked away over a period of ten to twelve years. I may be summarizing here, but there are real faces behind it, and not just mine.

Second, I want to affirm that many of these issues are not only problems faced by Churches of Christ, though we do have our own unique flavors of them. Some of them resonate with our heritage more than they would in, say, a mainline denomination. In other words, I want to make clear that I am not trying to single us out, and point out “all of the things that are wrong with the Church of Christ.” There’s plenty of dysfunction to go around in American Christianity, and I’m just pointing out the parts within Churches of Christ that I’ve either seen with my own eyes, or spoken to others about in detail.

Finally, and I feel this is particularly important given the scope of this post, my intent is not to be mean-spirited or overly critical. It’s hard to talk about leaving a faith tradition without sounding a bit critical, and maybe even bitter, but my intent is to be honest, and hopefully analytical more than disparaging. I am deeply grateful for my heritage, and as I said in the first post I want badly for it to succeed. I hope this may start discussions which can help with that process. Certainly I am not unsympathetic to many of the challenges churches face, and as I mentioned in the first post in the series, I know as well as anyone that there are no quick fixes to these problems. To borrow an analogy from the first post, “solving” these issues looks a lot more like therapy than it does engineering.

And so, what kind of identity do you find in Churches of Christ? If you’re a long time (or short time) Church of Christ member, I’d encourage you to stop, and take a minute before reading the rest of this post, and try to answer the following three questions, first from your own perspective, and then from the perspective of your congregation (think here about how your minister or elders would answer for your church too, if it’s different from how you would answer for your church):

1. Who do I/we believe that God is?
2. What do I/we believe that God is up to in the world?
3. If God is doing something in the world, what should my/our response be to that?

My guess is that if you are a long time Church of Christ member, you probably didn’t have the easiest time answering those questions with something other than Sunday-school responses (“God is love!”). And there’s nothing wrong, necessarily, with Sunday school responses – so long as the quick answer isn’t a reflection of the level of depth behind it. If you had a hard time trying to answer the three questions for yourself, my guess is you had an even harder time coming up with what your congregation’s answer to these questions would be. And that’s really sort of the point. If we as followers of Christ can’t articulate basic identity forming beliefs for our own lives, and if our congregations don’t have these kinds of questions on their radar either (or in some cases, give really, really, strange answers), then it’s not entirely surprising that some Churches are on the path they are. As they say, if you don’t really care where you’re going, you’re certain to get there eventually.

I could talk a lot here about how our fundamental Christian beliefs (or lack thereof) shape our experience, likely more so than the other way around, but this post is already going to be long. Perhaps in another, if there is interest.

So what is the trajectory of many Churches of Christ that worries me, and many other 18-35’s – enough so that we’re willing to get off the boat? I’d like to spend this post discussing four broad areas that for me are the most concerning:

1. Secularization and sectarianism.

I’m more and more convinced that Christianity isn’t appealing to outsiders
not because we haven’t made it *attractive* enough,
but because we haven’t made it *strange* enough.
–Mark Love

If you are even passingly familiar with Churches of Christ, you are probably aware that they have a strongly sectarian history. The common view among progressive members (and some more traditional members) of Churches of Christ is that this sectarian strain was a corruption of the early ideals of the movement’s founders. After all, wasn’t one of the original slogans of the Stone-Campbell movement was that we are “Christians only, but not the only Christians”?

In truth, however, the tension between sectarianism and ecumenism has always been present in the tradition, even from its founding documents (Last Will and Testament, Declaration and Address). Even today, many Churches of Christ on the more sectarian side of the spectrum would have no problem affirming Barton W. Stone’s final Item in Last Will: “Finally we will, that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late.” (Note: A. Campbell makes similar sectarian statements, but is far more verbose about it, leading to difficulties in finding an appropriate quote that doesn’t take up its own paragraph.)

If we’re honest, the sectarian playbook didn’t work so well even in the 1950’s, and it certainly doesn’t work very well today. A world which increasingly places the 18-35 demographic in contact with different ideas, cultures and beliefs renders a posture of, “We’re the only ones going to heaven,” – or even, “We’re the ones with all the answers,” – as strikingly discordant and unsustainable. That isn’t to say that churches don’t exist today which embrace the sectarian history of our past – they certainly do, and ironically my personal opinion is that, for a variety of reasons, these churches will survive longer than churches who have rejected sectarianism in unhealthy ways. But it is to say that strongly sectarian viewpoints are a major turn off for a significant portion of the 18-35 demographic, and churches which maintain a sectarian stance will have increasing difficulty attracting and retaining members.

Eventually, people in churches began to realize that the sectarian playbook wasn’t working, and some of them tried to implement a variety of technological changes to modernize the way the church did business. They softened stances on some traditional hot button issues. They tried to make church more approachable and less formal. They tried to make it more attractive, more “relevant”.

But in many cases, they weren’t really all that careful with how they went about it. It turns out that there are multiple ways you can address the problem of sectarianism, and many churches responded to the problem not by becoming more ecumenical, but by becoming more secular. In these churches, the good news about Jesus became, in essence, one more version of the good life, or simply another path to the American Dream. Teaching about the story of Christ was slowly and subtly replaced by a mix of pop-psychology and self-help, with Jesus mixed in only so much as was necessary to maintain the credible appearance of “church” instead of “social club”. Lessons became not a challenge to find your place in God’s ongoing story, or a reflection on what God has done and is doing, but “practical” five point plans to help believers “get something out of the Bible,” so they could deal with the day-to-day problems they encountered in life.

As Brian McLaren once noted, the contemporary gospel that most churches teach is “primarily information about how to go to heaven after you die, with a large footnote about increasing your personal happiness and success in God, with a small footnote about character development, with a smaller footnote about spiritual experience, with an even smaller footnote about social/global transformation.” This type of gospel doesn’t need repentance. It doesn’t require any change or turning. Most people can accept and believe this gospel just the way they are. After all, if the good news of Jesus means life after death and an increase in personal happiness and success now, with only the requirement that I generally attend church and hang out with people who are like me, sign me up!

The problem going forward, though, is that this type of gospel rings a bit hollow to many 18-35’s. For many people in this group, this brand of Christianity fails, as the quote at the beginning of this section states, not because it hasn’t been made attractive enough, but because it hasn’t been made strange enough. If there’s no tangible difference in the substance of the content I hear at church and at the Kiwanis club (and I’d encourage you to take a minute and look at their values), then why not attend the one where they have pancakes at their meetings (or is that the Optimist club… so hard to keep them straight)? Said differently, for 18-35’s, a community of Christ cannot be simply self-help and pop-psychology with a sprinkle of Jesus on top – they won’t waste their time with something that is seemingly so self-interested and narcissistic – nor can it be simply another philanthropic social club – there are plenty of those with better hours and fewer moral entanglements.

In his book Good News for Anxious Christians, Phillip Cary suggests – and I think he’s absolutely right about this – that a good model for where this trajectory eventually leads a church is the Unitarian-Universalist denomination. Cary: “Once you think that way about Jesus, you lose what is distinctively Christian about Christianity – though you may not realize it for a while. For generations, in fact, many Unitarians insisted that they had a better, purer form of Christianity than churches that were committed to incomprehensible doctrines like the Trinity. … [Today, t]hese post-Christian congregations have arrived at an important level of clarity and self-knowledge: they know now that they don’t want to be Christians anymore, and thus no longer have an interest in claiming the label ‘Christian.’ This really is an advance, spiritually speaking, because now they are in a position to recognize that the call to Christian faith is a call to change their minds and embrace a set of beliefs they don’t already have.”

Let me be clear that this is not just a Church of Christ problem – it’s a problem in almost every denomination, liberal or evangelical. But in Churches of Christ, it seems especially difficult to find congregations which do not represent one of these two extremes.

2. Brain drain.

In our time, by contrast, the popular view
is that the public nature of our witness
can be secured by wearing t-shirts with Christian slogans,
holding up banners with bible verses at football games,
or affixing witty religious bumper stickers to our cars.
If those around us take offense at our witness, however,
it is not because they have taken seriously the import of our beliefs;
they just find us annoying.
– Bryan Stone, Evangelism After Christendom

Are there highly educated, thoughtful, intelligent people in Churches of Christ? Of course. Do Churches of Christ, in general, foster environments that encourage and cultivate highly educated, thoughtful, and intelligent people? No.

Churches of Christ need to be honest about this. We have always been the back-country cousin of the Restoration movement who prided ourselves on being able to get by without those fancy educations that our rich, city-folk cousins in the Disciples of Christ had. As an (admittedly anecdotal) example, take the following comment from a Church of Christ preacher on a blog post I read a year or so ago: “I’m a suburban boy. Never really paid attention much in high school, and I only experience [sic] college for a year. I really don’t have any interest in appearing intelligent, or knowledgable [sic]. Trust me, you won’t hurt my feelings by catching me on some misquote of a man-made book, or anything else. I only have one interest: bringing the lost to salvation. This means preaching the word of God in its sound, and healthy wholeness. … It didn’t take me long to discover your over-complicated interpretation of God’s word. When a guy has to play mental gymnastics with the text, he is up to something. And it’s never any good.”

I will certainly grant that the ferocity of this particular individual’s anti-intellectualism is not the norm. But it is rare within Churches of Christ – outside of the academy, or churches largely attended by Christian College professors – to find places where actual thoughtful discussion happens. It is uncommon, for instance, to find ministers who read books other than generic, mass-market Christian spirituality or apologetics. Difficult questions and different viewpoints are often dismissed or suppressed. “Intellectual” discussions, when they do happen, are largely oriented around proving various arcane doctrinal points (e.g. “Was the serpent in Genesis 3 literally Satan?”), rather than exploring deeper theological realities. Sermons are often preached with seemingly little care given to whether their treatment of the text is accurate. Classes and lessons are distilled into five-point plans or reduced to soundbytes – if they ever progress past the point of softball questions such as, “What does God expect of us?” Issues which ought to be far more nuanced receive a black and white treatment. And so on.

When is the last time you attended a Church of Christ where the ministers or leadership had read – or even heard of – top flight theologians like Hauerwas, Brueggemann, or Volf? Or for that matter, when is the last time you attended a Church of Christ where the ministers and leadership had read top flight classic American authors like Steinbeck, Hemmingway, and Fitzgerald? Before anyone objects, I’m not saying that every person in a church needs to have a Ph.D. in theology or American Literature, or that our adult classes need to slog their way through Resident Aliens and Prophetic Imagination. But my experience in Churches of Christ is that most congregations do not have people (ministers, leadership, or otherwise) who possess the theological, cultural, and spiritual vocabulary necessary to speak meaningfully about the types of issues their churches are facing. And when congregations lack the words and categories to articulate the cultural and theological challenges they face, they become, in the words of Alasdair MacIntyre, “unscripted anxious stutterers”.

The problem for these congregations, as it relates to the 18-35 demographic, is that our Christian Colleges and campus ministries are increasingly teaching our children how to speak and think about God in terms that are not simply formulaic, cognitive, or experiential. As students who’ve grown up in Churches of Christ leave college, they are increasingly fluent culturally and theologically, yet after they graduate, they find themselves in congregations largely comprised of unscripted, anxious stutterers. Unable to find a conversation partner, our best and brightest are moving to places where their speech is understood and valued, rather than misheard or ignored.

It would be easy to think that the “solution” to anti-intellectualism would be the sort of hyper-intellectualism that is now making its round in some churches. It is not. The problem is not just that Churches of Christ have been anti-intellectual for much of their history, but that anti-intellectualism has been employed to shut down discussion and enforce conformity. Unfortunately, my observation is that the brand of hyper-intellectualism which is replacing it in some churches has much the same effect. We cannot replace a culture which is functionally mute about critical theological issues with one which excludes all people who haven’t read the right authors. I’ll be completely frank here: I don’t know what this looks like when it is practiced properly. But the extremes are easy to find. My prayer is that we will all find the middle.

Members in our churches should not be punished and ostracized for thinking differently, or as is often the case, thinking at all.

3. Women’s roles.

I have heard the bible
and have learned that Eve caused man to sin.
Well, if woman upset the world,
do give her a chance to set it right side up again.
– Sojourner Truth, Ain’t I a woman?

This is the next big issue on the horizon, and it’s going to be a doozy. And to be fair, it’s not just a Church of Christ issue. But it is a Church of Christ issue, and it is a major contributing factor in losing 18-35’s.

Suppose you had a member of your church who wanted to participate and give back to the community. Suppose this person was a trained therapist with a decade of experience seeing couples in therapy, and was trained to teach one of the most respected and well researched marriage enrichment curricula developed in the past twenty years by the person who developed the material. And further suppose this person was willing to teach the marriage enrichment class, for free, to as many couples in your church who wanted to come.

Why would a church say no to an offer like that?

Because the person in the above example is a woman.

Of course, it would be fine to offer such a class if it were taught by a man, or if the woman was married and her husband co-taught the class with her. It would also be fine if she met with individual couples from the church and taught the material in a non-church setting, or maybe if she taught it as a seminar on a Saturday. But it’s certainly not acceptable for her to teach a class by herself, in a church building, during a Sunday morning class time, where men are present, even if she is clearly the most qualified person in the congregation to do so.

Can you see why this might drive some people in the 18-35 demographic a little crazy?

Here is the bottom line: we have encouraged our daughters to go to school, to excel in their fields, and to use the gifts God has given them. They have become doctors, lawyers, judges, and managers of corporations, psychologists and even professors at Christian universities. To cite an extreme example, my sister attends church with a Federal Circuit judge, who, in her professional life, is charged with rendering decisions about the way laws are interpreted in one of the highest courts of our country (she was even short-listed to be a Supreme Court nominee, at one point). And yet, in most churches, she would be told that the extent of her God-given role within the local congregation begins and ends with baking casseroles, organizing the nursery, and mailing sympathy cards.

I want to drive this point home a little bit more: within our fellowship, we are blessed with a woman who has excelled in her field to the point where she may be called on to make decisions about a variety of issues which the majority of conservative Christians in the country consider of vital importance to the moral fiber and fabric of our nation, and indeed the church’s survival (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, etc.). Most of these conservative Christians would be proud to learn that one of the judges on the bench was a committed Christian, and would hope that her ruling would incorporate her understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ. It is deeply ironic, then, that while the majority of conservative Christians would be thrilled beyond measure if she quoted scripture from the bench during oral arguments, they would be shocked and offended if she quoted the same scripture on a Sunday morning between 9 AM and noon.

We cannot continue to use narrow, misogynistic, black and white readings of what are, in all cases, nuanced and complicated texts as a means to preserve a boys club within our churches. More precisely, we can, but an increasing number of our 18-35 year old women are going to feel dissonance between the positive way their thoughts, views, and talents are valued in the secular world and the negative way their thoughts, views, and talents are ignored or unused in the church.

I recognize that this is going to be a major issue. I also recognize and affirm that there are Joan Brandwyns in our congregations whose desires and ambitions are to excel as wives and mothers instead of pursuing a career. At the same time, spiritual wisdom, teaching Christ, and congregational leadership are not the sole domain of humans with a Y chromosome. Or at least they shouldn’t be.

4. Cultural homogenization, and lack of diversity.

The broader point (maybe) is this:
Churches of Christ, as they are at the moment,
are astoundingly bad at successfully connecting to people
even a little bit away from a certain template.
-Seth Martin, fellow 18-35 ex-CofC’er

In many ways, Churches of Christ are insider clubs. We have our own unwritten liturgy, and our own secret handshakes. But even when people have grown up as insiders and know the right things to say and do, they often find that congregations are simply not equipped to deal with them if they are not a “typical Church of Christ” person.

If you grew up in a Church of Christ, attended a Christian college/university, were married when you were 19-21, and had your first child when you were 22-23 (or at least 3 of those things are true), there is a good chance that you feel accepted and at home in a Church of Christ. Churches know what to do with you. You’re likely to have a group of peers in most congregations you attend. There will be people in most life stages whose experience is/was more or less like yours, and the programs of a typical Church of Christ are oriented around being attractive and enriching to people in your life stage. You are, as they say, on the fast track for eldership.

If, on the other hand, you are in the 18-35 age range and you don’t fit this template, most churches really don’t have a good idea of what to do with you, other than try to get you back on track. If you happen to be single, for instance, most Church of Christ singles ministries – where they exist at all – are structured to be dating factories (because singles’ main goal in life should be to get married). Most adult classes for married couples under 50 in Churches of Christ tend to be oriented around parenting (because all married couples should have children). And we haven’t even started to discuss a lack of awareness of single mothers, or people recovering from a divorce, or women who want to pursue a career and have children, or any number of other groups that traditionally haven’t been on our radar.

This is problematic for churches, because social trends over the past 40 years show that a) people are, in general, not getting married until later in life (the median age of first marriage increased from 23.2/20.8 M/F in 1970 to 28.2/26.1 M/F in 2010) b) married couples tend to be waiting longer after they are married to have children (average age of first-time mothers increased from 21.4 in 1970 to 25.4 in 2010) and c) couples, even within churches, are experiencing divorce at higher rates than in the past, and at younger ages (64 percent of divorcing women, and 50.5 percent of divorcing men are under the age of 25). In other words, the main characteristic that the 18-35 age demographic in 2013 shares with the 18-35 age demographic from 1973 is age, but almost everything else has changed. In spite of this, the broad message Churches of Christ continue to send to this demographic is that if you aren’t happily married with one kid in the nursery and another on the way, there is probably something wrong with you that needs to be fixed.

Ironically, a survey of members of Churches of Christ isn’t likely to pick up on this. Most Churches of Christ would self-report as inviting and welcoming for young people, and church leaderships often cite the abundance of young families in their churches, along with the overcrowding of nurseries and children’s classes as evidence that everything is just dandy.

Unfortunately, this can quickly become a self-reinforcing narrative. People who “fit” this narrow profile in Churches of Christ find them to be welcoming, friendly places with people who are warm, caring and understanding. But people who, as the quote above says, are even a little bit away from an expected template often feel so unwelcomed and unvalued that they leave before they are noticed at all. The result is that many Churches of Christ have become culturally homogeneous, and increasingly unable to understand, care for, or even notice people whose lives do not fit the common pattern.

Worse still, this becomes a positive feedback loop. Why should we focus energy and effort on singles when so few of them attend our church? The majority of our young couples have children, and would really benefit from a parenting class, but we don’t have enough classroom space or teachers to dedicate a class to young couples without children. Why don’t we have two classes for parenting (one for parents with young children, one for parents with children in the youth group), and then one class for anyone who doesn’t want to attend a parenting class? And we wonder why people who don’t fit the template feel like they are less important and don’t “belong” in the life of the church.

I understand that there are real and practical constraints on resources within churches. I get that finding classrooms and teachers is hard, and particularly if your church has less than 1,000 members, maintaining a critical mass of people in all of these life stages is a real challenge. I understand that all churches have to make choices about where they are going to focus their effort and attention. My observation, though, is that almost all Churches of Christ focus on the same life-stage demographic of people, and try to “fix” people who aren’t in that life stage to get them back on track.

If church leaderships only “accentuate the positive” and “focus on what’s ‘working’, so we can do more of that”, instead of asking why 95% of participants in classes/ministries/programs fall into the category of “people with children” and “people who would be here even if the building was on fire”, Churches of Christ will continue to become less diverse. Moreover, not only will they not attract people who aren’t in those two categories, they risk losing the 5% who still remain.

In my next post in the series, I’d like to give a couple of perspectives on how the world in general has shifted, and what that may mean for churches going forward.

Next: Part 4: Megachurches and actual statistics

In my previous post, I mentioned that my wife and I have recently left Churches of Christ, a heritage where we both grew up, and lived for many years. During our time in Churches of Christ, I was frequently asked about “why young people are leaving the church”, and what could be done to stop the bleeding.

Often these questions come in the form of surveys, which are distributed, collected, and never seen again. My personal favorite from one of these surveys was a well-intentioned question that asked, “How can we empower these brethren to feel a sense of belonging in our church?” My first response? We can start by not calling them brethren.

On one level, of course, that is a straightforward technological change (stop using a specific phrase). But the use of the term in the first place implies something about our culture that isn’t changed quite so easily. In a best case scenario, 18-35’s will roll their eyes and see the use of the term “brethren” as being old-fashioned, but not much more noteworthy than someone saying “thee” and “thou” in a prayer. But for an increasing number of 18-35’s – particularly females – the term “brethren” resonates not as old-fashioned, but patriarchal, offensive, and insulting.

To highlight the point I tried to make at the end of the last post, we can successfully address the technological change (don’t use the term “brethren”), and incorrectly think that doing so solves the deeper cultural issue (sending messages to females that they aren’t valued). Again, it’s easier to stop using a word than it is to grow a culture that truly values the talents and abilities of women (more on this in a later post). It isn’t to say that we shouldn’t make the technological change – in this case, we absolutely should, especially since it costs us nothing – but changing the technology without addressing the deeper cultural issue (i.e. “Why does the term ‘brethren’ offend some 18-35’s? And what does our use of the term (and the fact we don’t understand why it is problematic) say about the gap between our culture and theirs?”) may result in an iPad controlled locomotive.

In his book Stumbling on Happiness, the psychologist Daniel Gilbert explores why “most of us spend so much of our lives turning rudders and hoisting sails, only to find out that Shangri-la isn’t what and where we thought it would be.” Gilbert’s details a variety of reasons why people make decisions they think will lead to a certain outcome (in his case, happiness), but for a variety of reasons, cause them to end up in a very different place. “We insist on steering our boats,” Gilbert says, “because we think we have a pretty good idea of where we should go, but the truth is that much of our steering is in vain – not because the boat won’t respond, and not because we can’t find our destination, but because the future is fundamentally different than it appears [to us now].” In this post, I’d like to take some time to describe one particular technical issue – and the ways churches have responded to it – where I believe the future looks fundamentally different than many church leaders imagine, and then sketch out an alternate paradigm that hopefully reframes the challenge in a more hopeful light.

On the positive side, I think that most people in church leadership desire to make changes which will retain younger church members, at least conceptually. Unfortunately, my experience is that these same people a) often don’t understand the types of changes required, or the cost of implementing them and b) aren’t operating from a leadership model that equips them to make those changes, even if they do understand them. And so, what results is that many church leaderships make the changes they want, in the name of “what young people want” – which in many cases results in a proverbial rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic.

It’s not (really) about the worship.

“If we don’t change our worship style to be more progressive…
if we don’t have a praise team…
if we don’t add instrumental music…
then our young people are going to go somewhere else.”

If I had a dollar for every time I’d heard this from a boomer in a leadership position, I’d be shopping for some new toys on Amazon.com right now.

Let me start by trying to be fair. I realize this was a huge issue forty to fifty years ago. I’ve been to places that still operate their worship service like it’s the 1950’s, and I’ll agree, there needed to be some changes. I also understand that, even more so than most technological changes, altering worship styles is a programmatic, straightforward adjustment (if the political will exists) that brings immediate, tangible “results.” Things look/sound/feel different!

I’ll also grant that as people of God, we need to constantly be evaluating and reevaluating our “technology” of worship. If our worship services are functionally places where we intersect with culture (aside: I think it’s worth thinking about whether they should be), then we need to ask ourselves whether, we are communicating in a medium outsiders can understand (and if so, what we are communicating). If our worship services are a reflection of ourselves and, in some sense, a way in which we communicate with the divine, then trying to slow change by saying, “This is the way we’ve always done things,” is not just bad justification, it is no justification at all.

But here’s the bottom line: moving to more progressive services or adding instrumental music doesn’t do a lot to retain the 18-35 demographic. There are a lot of reasons for this, and I can’t list them all, but here are a few:

• Anyone for whom this is a serious, deal-breaker issue in the 18-35 age group is already gone. The lack of institutional loyalty among my age group means that we are not tied to a name as much as previous generations. And if we’re less tied to a name, then we’re more willing to leave and go somewhere else. And if progressive worship / praise team / instrumental music is a real issue for someone, they will have already left, because there are plenty of options (read: everyone else) that offer it. Jumping on the bandwagon simply means we are choosing to compete alongside and against everyone else in the “Christian marketplace”. Which means…
• If we go instrumental (or simply try to imitate it), we won’t be good at it. Most Churches of Christ, no matter their size, simply don’t have the talent base, at least at first, to pull off a good instrumental worship service on a consistent basis, nor are they willing to pay professional musicians like other churches. And so, if we want to compete against everyone else in a common sphere, we virtually guarantee that we will become the lowest quality provider of religious goods and services. Which means…
• If we are trying to compete in what amounts to a consumer-driven market, where people are searching for the best worship experience, and simultaneously we are the lowest quality provider of spiritual goods and services, not only will we not attract people, we actually may lose people because we no longer offer a distinctive worship experience – a market niche if you will. And we haven’t even started talking about how well that sort of thing goes over with the traditionalists. It is a situation with literally no upside.
• And at the end of the day, after we’ve gone through all that pain, what we will likely find is that many – maybe most – people who remain in churches of Christ in the 18-35 age demographic don’t actually care that much about the style of worship. It simply isn’t the major driving issue for them. Case in point: the church we attend now worships using instrumental music. This really isn’t my preference – it’s not the way I would do things if I were choosing how things were done. In the grand scheme of things, though, it’s a pretty small issue. I can live with it. I’ll remain in a place where the worship style really isn’t really what I want. And that’s exactly the point. Most people in this demographic find worship style as one of the first places they are willing to compromise – not one of the last.

I will acknowledge that there are people within churches of Christ who do care a lot about worship styles – but my observation is that most of those people tend to be 45 and 55, rather than 25 and 35, which is really a problematic dynamic underlying the worship wars and how they often play out in our churches. “We are losing young people because we don’t have progressive worship / praise teams / instrumental music” really becomes a cipher for church leaders to say, “We wanted progressive worship / praise teams / instrumental music when we were 25 or 35, and come to think of it we still do, so that must be the problem. Fixing it will keep our young people here.”

It isn’t, and it won’t.

Defining ourselves by worship styles – an activity which has consumed Churches of Christ for at least a couple of decades now – has not been a terribly productive enterprise. We have focused so much attention on changing or maintaining a particular worship technology that we have made external expressions of worship an end in itself. Even if you win the worship war, you really lose.

Here’s why.

It’s not a lack of innovation; it’s a lack of identity.

And because of our traditions,
every one of us knows who he is,
and what God expects him to do.
-Tevye, Fiddler on the Roof

Even in a song about tradition,
it’s not about tradition.
It’s about identity.
-Mark Nelson

I’m not opposed to innovation. I think all of our “ways of doing things” ought to be up for debate, and in places where we can change, update, and modernize while remaining true to our core beliefs (who God is, what God is doing, how we participate), we ought to do that. I’m a fan of things like electricity, sound systems, and most importantly where I live, air conditioning. Sitting in the sweltering heat because, “We’ve always done things this way,” or “They didn’t have air conditioning in the New Testament,” sounds laughable. And it should. As the saying goes, the world changes, and we change with it.

But here’s the thing: most churches do a pretty decent job, technologically speaking, of innovating. Put a different way, if you look at most Churches of Christ out there, across the entire ideological spectrum, they are, generally speaking, doing church better than they’ve ever done it before. They’ve got great programs, great worship services, great multimedia presentations, and great children’s activities. The “technology” is better than it’s ever been.

And people are still walking out the door.

And churches don’t know why.

I’d like to propose one idea: innovative programs and “technology” may attract people to churches, but they don’t keep them there. For an increasing number of people my age, churches are not measured by their ability to innovate, but by their identity, and more importantly their ability to be identity-forming. In other words, people are less concerned with questions like “Does this church have a well-executed worship service and exciting, high-quality programs for me and my children?” and are more concerned with questions like “If I stay at this church for five, ten, or fifteen years, and if I take the beliefs and values of this church to be my own, what kind of person will I be at the end of that time?”

The trouble for many churches, as I see it, is that innovation is largely identity agnostic. In other words, you can be hip, cool, and high-quality in your programming, and at the same time have an incoherent and disconnected set of core beliefs and values. A church that finds itself in this situation will indeed attract members on the basis of its programs, but those people will, at best, always be susceptible to jumping ship for the next place that comes along with better worship, better preaching, better kid’s ministries, etc. Moreover, for an increasing number of 18-35’s, a church which appears lively and dynamic based on its innovative programs, but whose core identity is hollow or missing entirely is unattractive and unappealing. Put differently, if I go to the place in town that has the best worship and children’s programs, but staying there 10 years turns me into a shallow, uncaring person, is that really a place I want to be?

Tying these points together, I’d like to close this post with words I wrote almost three years ago, at the height of a worship-war crisis in the congregation I was attending at the time.

Our strongest belief, however, is that our external observance of worship is not an end in itself. We firmly believe that external changes in our worship patterns do not cause internal changes in our hearts. Singing contemporary songs about love does not make us more loving. Singing “Amazing Grace” does not make us more gracious. With or without instruments, singing “Jesus is Lord” does not necessarily make it so, nor does singing about Christ make us more Christ‐like. Instead of focusing on external observances, we believe our effort and energy should be focused first on individual and communal transformation. People whose lives are ruled by graciousness worship differently than those who simply know about grace. People whose lives are witness to God’s peace worship differently than those who subordinate peace to their own power or desires. We believe that as people continue to be transformed into the perfect image of Christ, both their attitudes about and practice of worship necessarily change. Worship becomes a practice in service of a larger end, and its ultimate success is determined only by its service to that end, rather than evaluated in a vacuum. We believe God’s desire for us is not that our worship be more contemporary or more traditional, but that our lives and actions would be more loving, more humble, more patient, more joyous, more faithful, more gentle, more kind. In that spirit, while we understand the strongly held views of those involved on both sides, we mourn the realities of suspicion, fear, pride, greed, disrespect, and lack of consideration for the other which have caused tension and conflict, and brought us to this point. We pray first and foremost for God’s mercy on our church as we move forward.

In my next post in this series, I’d like to talk about some specific cultural (as opposed to technological) areas Churches of Christ have largely tended to ignore, and why they matter, and why they have the potential to drive 18-35’s away.

Next: Part 3: A road to nowhere

It’s official. I’ve become a statistic. I am now a part of the 18-35 age demographic that has left the church. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that I’m not attending a church, it means I’m not a member of The Church, which may only be something you understand if you grew up in my background. What it means, for practical purposes, is that in the studies and surveys that are done, I now count, and not in a good way.

I grew up attending a Church of Christ (“The Church”), and until recently continued to attend a Church of Christ. It was a place filled with quirks and problems, but they were the quirks and problems I’d grown up with. They were my people. It was a place I wanted to stay because, let’s face it, if everyone leaves, who is left? Be the change you want to see. Etc. And yet, I now find myself elsewhere. So how did we get there?

It’s a story that isn’t quick or simple, and can’t be told in a blog post. Some of it boils down to the fact that when we moved, we became a part of a new place whose problems were not our problems, and whose history was not our history. And ultimately we found ourselves feeling like a square peg in a round hole.

But I have experience in Churches of Christ, and some insight into how their leadership works, and how change happens. And if my experience has taught me anything, it is that the group to which I now belong – the “young people who no longer attend the Church group” – is used to justify most of the change related agendas that crop up in churches. I also know that most of the time the things I hear proposed that “our young people want” are in reality things that have no bearing on what people who are leaving actually want. And so, on the rare chance someone in some leadership position reads this, I thought I’d take a minute to outline a few of the broad concerns that encouraged us to leave (or didn’t).

Before I begin, I feel like a couple of caveats are in order. First, I love my heritage, and I really do want to see it succeed. This discussion isn’t a case of, “How the Church of Christ is awful, and why I’ll never go back.” Indeed, if I found myself in a location with a vibrant and healthy Church of Christ that was dealing seriously with some of the issues I will discuss, I would desire to be a part of that conversation. It is also not a case of finger pointing. I don’t have any one place or set of people in mind when I write this, and in complete fairness these problems are not unique to Churches of Christ, though we do have our own interesting flavors of them. And this is also not meant to be an exhaustive list – if I sat down in a room with a few of my closest friends, I bet we could double my list.

This is also not meant to be an attempt at solutions. Pointing out problems without offering constructive solutions is generally bad form, but there are two reasons I’d like to refrain from that: 1) With many of the issues I am going to discuss, the question, “How do we ‘fix’ this problem?” is, at best, misframed. These are not problems that can be “fixed” like you would change a flat tire. A better model might be something like therapy – how do we transform who we are as a church to be more like the image of Christ? 2) “Solutions” – such as they are – are certain to be deeply contextual and local. In other words, there is not a “one size fits all” solution, or even a general set of guidelines for what these changes look like where you are. I can make some comments on my context and locale, but that may not – and probably will not – apply anywhere else.

So here goes. There’s a lot to say, and putting it all in one giant post seems like overkill. My plan is to take the rest of this post to talk about a 30,000 foot issue, and then get into some more specific concerns in follow-up posts.

Let me start with a broad observation: the main way that churches and church leaderships tend to think about problems related to a loss of membership or lack of growth is in terms of technology, and by that, I don’t mean whether or not your church uses PowerPoint or has a Twitter account. In the late 19^th century, the great revivalist Charles Finney talked about the “technology of revival,” where he envisioned the human heart and mind as if it were a locomotive, full of dials and levers and buttons. Finney’s idea, which he used to great effect, was that if you learned how to pull the right levers and push the right buttons and turn the right dials, you could achieve the proper effect you wanted in people. For example, one of Finney’s techniques was called the “anxious bench”, where people considering becoming a Christian could come down to the front and receive prayer. Turning up the emotional temperature, long altar calls, and pointing out specific people in the audience by name were all fair game. Contemporary churches might call it coercion or even manipulation, but to Finney, it was simply technology. Cause, effect.

I would suggest that functionally, this is how many of us think about change within our churches. In other words, when we don’t like the direction things are going, our first tendency is to ask what buttons and levers we can manipulate to change course, instead of asking whether a steam locomotive is really the best means of cross-country transportation in an age of jet-airliners.

Since the 1970’s, one of the main trends in churches has been an attempt to manipulate technology to lower the barriers to entry for people who stopped coming to church because it was too stuffy, or formal. Many churches have tried to change their level of formality (e.g. “You can wear jeans at our church!”) or their style of worship (e.g. “We sing songs you hear on Christian radio!” or “We have a praise team!” or “We have instrumental music!”) or the style of the message (e.g. “Our preacher talks about really practical things!”). Now I’m not saying these changes weren’t, in some cases, necessary. I am saying that they are, at their core, technological changes. They are changes that are relatively separate and independent from our core identity as people of God. And on the whole, I’d like to suggest that people aren’t leaving because we need to push different buttons in the locomotive – they are leaving because they’ve grown up in a world of jet-airliners, and, while steam locomotives are nostalgic, they were designed for a world that no longer exists.

And to be fair, there is a reason why churches and church leaderships do this: it’s easy. Technological changes in churches tend to be evolutionary and straightforward, rather than revolutionary and intractable, and frankly technological changes are fairly easy so long as the political will exists. It doesn’t (usually) take a lot to get people on board with a change like visitor parking spaces, or a welcome center in the lobby. And honestly even technological changes on the scale of the worship wars are easy to conceptualize and implement, relatively speaking, in the scope of church change. Think I’m exaggerating? Consider trying to implement this change: create a broad culture of abundant generosity in your church. That’s not a technological change; it’s a paradigm shift. It’s learning to speak a new language, or be a new kind of people. And it’s not something where you can easily chart a roadmap from point A to point B, where a series of six innovative programs and ministry activities will get you where you want to go. In fact, it’s somewhat hard to know where you would even begin if you wanted to transform a congregation into a more generous reality.

And that’s sort of the point, and at the same time, the conundrum. Culture changes don’t usually come about as a result of programmatic and technological adjustments, but programmatic and technological adjustments are one of the few things church leaders have direct control over. And it’s certainly easier to teach (or attend) a class on generosity than it is to be a generous person.

The trick, of course, is that there are always technological changes that can, and should be made for the church to thrive as the world changes. The danger is that we only recognize the need for technological changes, and end up with an iPad-controlled steam locomotive. That’s better, perhaps, than one controlled by mechanical levers and dials, but it doesn’t help you much if you need to cross the ocean.

In the subsequent posts, I’d like to talk about some technical changes Churches of Christ have tended to dwell on, and some cultural changes they have tended to ignore, which contributed to our ultimate decision to walk away.

Next: Part 2: Why winning the worship war is a Pyrrhic victory