If you’re not in the market to buy a new car, when you read your local newspaper, do you even bother to look at the advertisements, often full-page and in vivid color, from local car dealerships? For the vast majority, the answer would be not often, if at all. And this is true because it just doesn’t enter your thinking so you quickly turn the page.
It is often the same about Christianity and local congregations. There is a significant portion of the population that doesn’t give Christianity or a congregation a single thought because it just isn’t something that is on their mind. In other words, they aren’t in the “market” to consider Christianity or find a congregation which to join.
It’s even often the case that these people don’t even think negatively about Christianity or the congregation because they don’t think about those things at all.
Why am I bringing all of this up? A recent Pew Research Center study has shown that many Christian groups (Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, American Baptists, etc.) are getting older. For example, this study shows that of the Presbyterian Church, USA, 70% are older than 50. In the United Methodist Church and UCC, 60% are older than 50. In the ABC, it’s 48%.
One of the results of the aging of congregations is that there can be a tendency to hold and stick to the ways things were done decades ago, and those ways produced results because they were fashioned for a particular period of time and, therefore, saw success.
The problem is this – we no longer live in that world. We live in a different time, a time where there are many for whom Christianity or congregations just isn’t even a fleeting thought in their minds.
The model has changed from what was (congregations as local programmatic centers of activity) to what connects with people now (a movement or a cause). I will let Bill Wilson, the president of the Center for Healthy Churches, share it with you in his article as found on ethicsdaily.com.
“Local churches in the U.S. functioned as programmatic centers of activity for the last half of the 20th century. Embedded in a supportive “churched” and Christian culture, their role was to provide offerings that inspired, entertained and educated those who chose to attend. Those who attended a local church tended to look alike racially and socioeconomically. They were the “good people” in the community.
Churches knew their place in the social order. They were the privileged majority, with Sundays and Wednesdays reserved for their activities. They benefitted from their status and their employees were accorded a place of authority and respect in the community. Attractive buildings and professionally trained staff were important, as attendees had many options to choose from when it came to churches.
Denominational headquarters churned out a vast array of material, themes and conferences that reinforced and dictated local church programs. Extensive training at multiple levels was provided to assure the purchase and implementation of denominational curriculum and emphases. Denominational staff members were superstars who were accorded immediate respect and status. The system was funded by local churches, which were expected to funnel larger and larger amounts of money up the economic food chain to support missions or various ministries.
The seeds of the demise of the programmatic era of local church life were sown in the 1960s. Cultural norms regarding race and sex began a season of societal upheaval that continues today. The Vietnam War, as well as the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr., signaled a cultural brokenness that was undeniable. Trust in institutions and leaders began to steadily erode.
Though it would take 50 years to fully emerge, the post-church, post-Christian era of American life was on its way. Today, we live, work and minister in a very different world than existed 50 years ago in 1966.
Is this bad news or good news? It depends. Perhaps it is an opportunity for the church to connect with its original design.
The first century church found itself in a minority position in culture, surrounded by competing ideologies and accorded little status or privilege. In that challenging setting, the church not only survived, but it thrived in ways not seen since. A movement was started that swept over and around obstacles and gradually transformed the culture in which it was birthed.
Movements are vastly different than programs. For the American church to thrive in this new cultural milieu, I believe we must adopt movement thinking and recognize the limits and hindrances of programmatic thinking.
Movement thinking is:
1. Driven by passion, rather than obligation.
With the demise of external cultural pressure to attend church or be identified as a Christian, those who choose to attend out of a perceived need or calling, rather a sense of duty or obligation will increasingly populate the 21st century church. Movements always capture your heart.
2. Fueled by a sense of personal call.
Movements across the centuries have always been spawned by a personal conviction to right a wrong or share a powerful value. Whether the issue was women’s right to vote, civil rights, gun ownership, environmental issues, right to life, combating sex-trafficking or a million other causes, a movement depends upon personal call and conviction as its source of power and motivation.
3. Focused on a goal.
Movements know where they are going and what their goals are. Everything is evaluated based upon whether or not it advances the group toward the ultimate goal. Movements run lean on overhead.
4. Marked by collaborative efforts.
Movements are often the coalescing of multiple smaller groups around a shared goal. Allies are discovered as the journey toward a goal is pursued. The inevitable competition among personalities and groups is swallowed up in the relentless pursuit of a shared agenda.
5. Guided by movement, not rhetoric.
As the very name implies, movements prize progress toward an agreed-upon end. Those who only want to talk and posture are quickly exposed and marginalized as the movement moves past them. Leadership becomes the ability to get something done.
6. Motivated by celebrations of progress and stories of change and accomplishment.
Movements intrinsically know that stories are the powerful fuel that motivate and provide meaning to its members.
7. Characterized by saying “no” to those things and people that distract from the goal.
Clarity around a goal enables movements to ignore the temptations to diverge from their calling. Politics and culture are seen as temptations, not solutions. Is your church practicing programmatic thinking or movement thinking? Far too often, we find churches still employing a programmatic mindset while expecting movement-like results. To do so is a set-up for frustration and failure.
Healthy churches are recognizing that the era of programming is giving way to a season in which we rediscover our movement roots. The challenge of today is to gradually redirect our approach from pushing programs toward launching and sustaining a movement. It is hard, but good and necessary work if we are to thrive.”
Just like I have often heard the Holy Spirit say to me, I say, “We get to choose the path.”
Which one will we choose?