Liquid Church
Friends...
I can't seem to get straight on this one and could use your help.
Most of you know that Faith Church is a "turned around" church (35 Lutheran in worship, avg age 65 six years ago -- 200+ in worship, growing leaders, growing mission today). I know that I often post with passion and certainty here...but that is always because we are in the midst of our own growing and struggling here at Faith Church.
We have some amazing, solid leaders in place -- and more emerging regularly. One of our core values is that ministry and mission is done in teams, with at least 2 co-leaders and identified mentor for the co-leaders. Ministry emerges from the bottom up. People get a heartburst for it, and we go crazy encouraging it and tyring to support it.
Here's the issue I'm struggling with: Kids in our Ultimate Adventure children's ministry are growing -- moving on to middle school. We all know the need to help them grow as disciples. The universe of parents know our DNA -- still they come to me and say, "We need something for our teenagers." I agree with them and encourage them to do something about it. Here's what they do: they enroll their kids in midweek or Saturday night programs at a few other churches in our area (i.e. Willow Creek).
I'm struggling with the ala carte approach. I believe that if these parents think it's important, they should do whatever it takes to build it in our church. Especially I struggle when self-identified leaders start the multiple-church-attendance thing. I feel like I'm leading with half-committed people. The argument I have with myself is that their commitment is to growing disciples -- and if being active in multiple churches helps that them do that, okay. Then I think about the value of committed community where the believers held everything in common.
Guide me, please.
Darlene and all...
What I'm struggling with is what is the nature of missional community? I think I'm going to just get very transparent -- and if I'm way off base and it reveals some shallow thinking on my part, you all can tell me and I'll be the better for it:
I guess I'm wondering what it means to be church today. The way we're doing it feels boutique-ish, i.e. a person says: "I've got this church over here that I like to go to because I like the music and the preaching. I've got this church over there because I like this small group. I've got this church the next town over because they have Awana for my 6 and 8-year-old. And I like this other church up the street because my 12-year-old digs it. And then I go to this other church because sometimes we like to do other stuff on Sundays and they have a Saturday service."
It feels fragmented and consumer-driven to me. I realize that it's getting needs met -- but something is just feeling "off" about it to me. It feels like a world of "I go to church (actually church-es, plural) to get various needs met for me and my family" vs. a world of "We don't go to church, we are church, and we are forming together -- me and my whole household -- as a specific community with a specific DNA -- because church is something we 'are'."
I'm rambling and struggling to think this through.
Bruce
From Tom Bandy
I think your perception of a fundamental shift in thinking about faith community is right on ... but you are probably too far ahead of your leaders right now. They are still suburban middle-upperclass white folks living in a sea of broken families and too much disposable income ... and are obsessed with their kids.
Already we know that multi-track worship leads inexorably to different "congregations" that address the different needs of family members ... and that worship attendance is shifting from the family as the primary unit of worship, to the peer group as the primary unit of worship. You are pressing the matter even further, but realizing that entire faith communities are aimed not at family units, but at peer group units ... and that because peer group units are far more unstable than family units, the faith community that "fits" actually changes and evolves faster than any institution can keep up. Hence, the a la carte menu.
So it makes sense that the strategies of "doing church" must change. And that probably does include a shift away from fully subsidized church staff ... just as it is a shift away from programs to "learning environments" and "synthesis opportunities".
A few days ago Bruce shared with me privately a great article about the emergence of Christian Banks and faith-based lending institutions ... another sign of the emergence of faith community around Christian Retail. In an "omni-symbolic world of post-literate tribes" (as I called it in my previous email), you need to place yourself worker-priest-style at some nexus of communication where you help people synthesize their lives. That's really what this bank is, for example. Where better to help people of all ages synthesize the a la carte menu of postmodern living, that sorting out economic priorities and problems?
From Tom Bandy
Bruce:
I think the reality is that spirituality today is an "a la carte world". But its not just because people have a consumer mentality. It's also because we are moving into what I call an "An Omni-Symbolic Society of Post-Literate Tribes" (see chapter 2 of my new book Mission Mover for an outline of eras in history identified by learning methodology). This is a multi-media, multi-communication, and mobile world in which people connect with not one, but several meaningful "symbol-systems" at one time ... that only partly uses reading and curriculum as a tool ... the key element of which is their "tribal" relationships in a peer group.
You certainly see this in youth ministry. Teens travel (literally and figuratively) in tribal relationships, and connect with symbol-systems rather than institutions. They may go to an institution, but there is not loyalty to the institution per se ... but to the symbol system of meaning that they perceive it to represent. In their tribal minds, there is a unity or a connection between institutions (like churches) that is mystifying to us, but quite "logical" to them.
The key need is for some kind of mentoring help to synthesize all the systems of their omni-symbolic world. If you can develop a youth ministry that specfically provides that kind of synthesizing power, then wherever they wander, they will still come back to you. And you (your church and its DNA) will become the more decisive influence on their lives. It's sort of like youth wandering all over the city, but returning to the same coffee shop to talk over their discoveries. I imagine a youth ministry that is really just an "Amazing Discovery Sharing Time", where youth can simply articulate and discuss (laugh at, weep about) all the crazy things they have encountered in their "travels". Sort of regular convention including Lewis and Clark, Cartier, Coronado, and other explorers who trade secrets, discoveries, and maps.
Tom Bandy
From Another member
Bruce said:
It feels fragmented and consumer-driven to me. I realize that it's getting needs met -- but something is just feeling "off" about it to me. It feels like a world of "I go to church (actually church-es, plural) to get various needs met for me and my family" vs. a world of "We don't go to church, we are church, and we are forming together -- me and my whole household -- as a specific community with a specific DNA -- because church is something we 'are'."
Yes! You've captured the feeling exactly.
Wouldn't it be interesting if congregations could INTENTIONALLY partner together to provide a menu of discipleship opportunities - building on the various strengths, leaders, visions, etc. We worked on that in my previous call - it was hard for that group of church-goers to get the concept - but new folks who came in didn't have those kinds of boundaries. Team ministry - cross-congregational - even, dare we say, cross denominational - Whew! could be wild.
From another member
Bruce:
I think the issue has to do with being the Body of Christ. (The metaphor doesn't really work here, either, because the whole Church is the Body of Christ, sigh).
But it has to do with being a part of a community of faith (really belonging to the community of faith -- really being invested in it -- really committed to what that particular community of faith is doing for further God's reign on earth).
As long as church is a collection of individuals "buying" a product or service, the community is not fully formed.
I'm thinking out loud, so this may not come across very clearly. I belong to a community (I'm not talking about having my name on the membership rolls -- I mean really (in my heart & soul) belong) because what the community is doing is something I want to be involved in doing, too and it is something I cannot do by myself -- and it is something that other communities are not doing (or are not doing as well or as conveniently close to where I am).
I think, from what you've described that the parents are really not fully "in" the community that is your (plural) dream for Faith Church -- that is they are not invested in making the mission of Faith Church come to pass because it is not a mission that they, too, are neck-deep involved and committed to.
Part of the problem, of course, is that we are all part of a culture that is individualistic and consumeristic -- and we are very much that way, too (because we were raised in that culture) -- so we Americans have a difficult time really grasping what it means to be that committed to a community (maybe some families).
Jesus' group and the early church were that way -- but they also were the product of a culture that was group oriented (as is the mid-East still today in many ways) not individualistic. (see Social Science Commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels.)
Anne
From Tom Bandy
we are church, and we are forming together -- me and my whole household -- as a specific community with a specific DNA -- because church is something we 'are'."
Yes! You've captured the feeling exactly.
Wouldn't it be interesting if congregations could INTENTIONALLY partner together to provide a menu of discipleship opportunities - building on the various strengths, leaders, visions, etc. We worked on that in my previous call - it was hard for that group of church-goers to get the concept - but new folks who came in didn't have those kinds of boundaries. Team ministry - cross-congregational - even, dare we say, cross denominational - Whew! could be wild.
Debra and Bruce:
To be honest, I read Debra's post as the old vision of the ecumenical movement ... and I see Bruce's post as still locked into an old "body of Christ in residence" or "diocesan" model of thinking.
I think, Bruce, that you are still thinking "church" (and Debra is following that up by thinking programs, ministries, and so on). You need to think "spiritual life", "pilgrim band" ... and stop using the diocesan, "body of Christ in residence" model. The postmodern world will not be addressed by simply networking more "bodies of Christ in residence" together. That led to denominations.
Think "monastic", not "church". That's what is happening. Not just youth, but all kinds of people, are concentrating on developing a spiritual life ... not hunkering down in a church. That spiritual life is going to be very fluid, and as we go on "pilgrimage" the band will change over time, and we will be nurtured in different places, among different peoples, at different times.
The body of Christ in residence AT ITS BEST thinks that "church is something we are". But even that is not enough ... that does not capture what the spirit is doing today as in the 4th-10th centuries. For monastic, pilgrim, or body of Christ in motion people, "church is Jesus ... Jesus is church" and to be in companionship with Jesus is to be the church. There are no structures assumed in this. It is a "liquid" church ... fluid ... and it has almost nothing to do with preserving the family unit, just as it has almost nothing to do with marriage ... it is all about peer partnerships, pilgrim relationships, shaping a lifestyle around Jesus. That's "monastic".
I think you see the questions, but you are still looking for answers in the body of Christ in residence.
we are church, and we are forming together -- me and my whole household -- as a specific community with a specific DNA -- because church is something we 'are'."
Yes! You've captured the feeling exactly.
Wouldn't it be interesting if congregations could INTENTIONALLY partner together to provide a menu of discipleship opportunities - building on the various strengths, leaders, visions, etc. We worked on that in my previous call - it was hard for that group of church-goers to get the concept - but new folks who came in didn't have those kinds of boundaries. Team ministry - cross-congregational - even, dare we say, cross denominational - Whew! could be wild.
Debra and Bruce:
To be honest, I read Debra's post as the old vision of the ecumenical movement ... and I see Bruce's post as still locked into an old "body of Christ in residence" or "diocesan" model of thinking.
I think, Bruce, that you are still thinking "church" (and Debra is following that up by thinking programs, ministries, and so on). You need to think "spiritual life", "pilgrim band" ... and stop using the diocesan, "body of Christ in residence" model. The postmodern world will not be addressed by simply networking more "bodies of Christ in residence" together. That led to denominations.
Think "monastic", not "church". That's what is happening. Not just youth, but all kinds of people, are concentrating on developing a spiritual life ... not hunkering down in a church. That spiritual life is going to be very fluid, and as we go on "pilgrimage" the band will change over time, and we will be nurtured in different places, among different peoples, at different times.
The body of Christ in residence AT ITS BEST thinks that "church is something we are". But even that is not enough ... that does not capture what the spirit is doing today as in the 4th-10th centuries. For monastic, pilgrim, or body of Christ in motion people, "church is Jesus ... Jesus is church" and to be in companionship with Jesus is to be the church. There are no structures assumed in this. It is a "liquid" church ... fluid ... and it has almost nothing to do with preserving the family unit, just as it has almost nothing to do with marriage ... it is all about peer partnerships, pilgrim relationships, shaping a lifestyle around Jesus. That's "monastic".
I think you see the questions, but you are still looking for answers in the body of Christ in residence.
From bill Easum
Bruce there are two issues here I think, if I read you correctly. First, the starting of some core ministries shouldnt be left to chance and should be started by the paid leaders and driven by lay people. If you didnt have something for teenagers, you should see that it is started since it is a basic ministry. Then equip the laity to staff it.
On the other issue, what you are dealing with here is the liquid church approach of the consumer mindset.
From Bill Easum
Bruce you seem to be struggling with what it means to be the church. Most of the churches today arent really churches. That is part of the problem. Im referring to the article you sent to me the other day about faith in the work place. that is where the church should be doing ministry rather than at the church. You will continue to see the liquid church grow as churches continue to pander to the needs of poeple rather than transforming them into the likeness of Christ, even at faith.
From Bill Easum
Bruce, think of youth ministries as paying your dues while you disciple both the youth and adults. Youth arent the future of the church but without a great youth ministry people will travel. Did you read the liquid church? I think you are right in one thing, more and more churches may have to find new ways to fund the budget, like sharing the tithe between one or more churches through payment for services. UGGGGH. Unless they each develop their own ministries. does this make any sense.
From Bruce
Referencing Tom's post :
Okay. I don't argue. But I ask then, what the heck are we doing (am I doing) particating with the leaders of Faith Church in pursuing (propping up?) a church-in-residence vision? A pilgrim band needs neither building nor staff (except the wooden kind). By your lights, shouldn't we shut it down? I can accompany people in developing their spiritual life a lot easier without propping up a way-station and trying to make a payroll.
bc (still petulant)
From Bruce
Okay. I don't argue. But I ask then, what the heck are we doing (am I doing) particating with the leaders of Faith Church in pursuing (propping up?) a church-in-residence vision? A pilgrim band needs neither building nor staff (except the wooden kind). By your lights, shouldn't we shut it down? I can accompany people in developing their spiritual life a lot easier without propping up a way-station and trying to make a payroll.
bc (still petulant)
From Bill Easum
That’s exactly what a lot of people in the house church movement are asking..
From Bruce
Okay...and at the same time I just finished reading your article on phases of a church planting movement.
So, if you have that vision, don't you need to build a base station for the movement? In fact, the article says that it's base station for a movement planting base stations for a movement planting base stations for a movement, ad infinitum.
Let's say a local church says, "This (base station for a movement) is what we hear God calling us to be." Then, don't you say to key leaders: For us to have the strength necessary to be a church planting base station, we need to have these certain pieces in place -- and it must start with you. Therefore, don't run down the street to another church to consume from them what we need to build here. Build it here."
And then what do you do when they tell you to go fly?
(a) You say, "Oh....you weren't serious about the vision. Sorry, my mistake. Let's remake this thing according to the vision you really have. And by the way, the last day of staffing for the mistaken vision is today."
or
(b) You say, "No...we're in agreement on this vision -- and enough leaders around here are in agreement -- either paint or get off the ladder."
Am I missing an alternative? Am I making sense?
From Bill Easum
This is what you say and if it doesn’t pan out you move on. It sounds as if there is still a lot of left -over dysfunctional DNA running around. Leaders have to lead even in a permission giving environment or servant empowering organization - within boundaries which have to be set.
From Bruce
Yes and no. It's dysfunctional DNA -- but not leftover. And this gets to where I said this conversation would shine light on a leadership failure on my part. It's new DNA -- trying to be liquid and permission giving with new people...new leaders...new staff...but blinking (sometimes) around the boundary-setting. We're learning -- and our learning is incomplete. This conversation is filling it in.
From bill Easum
Blinking is a NO NO for the leader. it is better to lose people than to blink.
From a participant on the listserv
Bill replied: Blinking is a NO NO for the leader. it is better to lose people than to blink.
My question:
Given the reality that no leader can know everything necessary to function in today's climate, what does "blinking" look like? There are a lot of times when a person just has to say, "I don't know" and, to many, that can look like someone's blinking. Help me out here in terms of what you mean by "blinking" Bill...
I don't read what Bruce is going through so much as a "blinking" kind of moment...maybe it's more of a "rubbing my eyes" kind of moment to help regain some clarity(?)
And, when I look at some of the leaders I know today...I think it might be better if they blinked a little bit now and then, rather than stubbornly hold onto something that is no longer relevant...
I'm mostly just curious about how you define "blinking" though...
From Bill Easum
Steve said he blinked at holding people to the DNA. that is a no no and has nothing to do with being right or wrong. The congregation has agreed on the DNA or the founding pastor has set up the DNA. DNA becomes useless as a boundary agent when it is not followed. Leaders can not be permission giving without very set boundaries in which people can do whatever will enhance the DNA. This isn’t about ministry or programs, it is about behavior.
From A Respondent
Bruce,
I have hesitated to contribute to your questions until now because
there is so much in them and also because so many good responses have
been made, but I understand, from personal experience, your struggle,
doubt and ambiguity and I want to stand with you along with the others.
1. Pastors and church leaders serve "in between" modernity and
post-modernity. Even turned around and turned on structures and
attitudes are compromises between the thoughts and processes of the two
eras. Post-modern consumerism vs modern brand loyalty. Allow your core
leaders the possibility that they are facing the same ambiguity as you
are in this situation and work through it together.
2. Your teens do not share your dilemma. They are post-modern. Their
loyalty to Faith church, the cool church down the road, their school,
their sports team, their burger place is of the same order - low. The
key discipline in post-modernity is not how to be loyal, but how to
make good choices.
3. Consider life phases and stages of faith in your thinking. The
attraction of the cool church may be only marginally to do with their
leaders' planning and commitment or that of Faith church and more to do
with a kind of fickle peer pressure. The cool church is in with the
crowd (for the moment). So note the phenomenon and include it in your
data about your local teen micro-culture, but don't let it faze you.
4. Think life journey and Christ's involvement with it rather than
programs. What can Faith Church do to bring Christian discernment and
support into the processes of making a clean transition from childhood
to adulthood, a happy transformation of family relationships from
dependent to inter-dependent and for them to hear a divine call to
serve and share their God-given gifts with others and to be well
equipped practically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually to do
so. It is this level of engagement in teen ministry that will allow
your leaders to see that they can support their teens at the cool
church while remaining at Faith.
5. The teens micro-culture and the parents of teens micro-culture are
linked but separate. Your leader's possible change of church may
reflect a question about Faith's ministry to the parents of teens
micro-culture more than teen ministry or leadership loyalty. The
decision of the leader to "drop" a well-founded and formed loyalty to
Faith may point to a whole area of parental fears about parent-teen
relationships that needs addressing, at least personally and probably
generically.
6. A way forward may be to recognize that teens spend more time hanging
out with small groups of friends than in organized programs and work
with a kind of cell group/house group program for teens, perhaps with a
complementary cell group program for their parents.
Bruce, everything I see and hear about Faith is "way cool." Its because
you struggle with dilemmas like you have raised in this thread that
Faith is what it is. I have no doubt that your openness and trust in
Jesus, and that of your leaders, will take you beyond this dilemma -
and into the next one!
Adelaide, South Australia.
From Bill Easum
Become high commitment now. People are going to migrate as well as consume. nothing you can do about it. the more high commitment the less they will do it, but some will still do it. the difference between faith and a larger church is that you know it when one migrates. they don’t due to size
Bruce:
I agree with Bill's summary above ... big or small, the reality is that people migrate. But the urgency to raise expectations for spiritual growth, mission, discipleship, etc. remains constant. Migration becomes consumer mentality only when churches lower their expectations so much that they accept anything.
From Bruce
This is what I've been trying to ask -- obviously not very well. My point has been to be able to evaluate how to respond and what to think when KEY leaders want two different things: a thriving, growing church of committed, outwardly-focused disciples ... and migration from one church to another based on their particular need of the moment. Becoming high commitment means to me that highly-committed core leadership doesn't migrate. They build what they need into the church in which they choose to lead.
From Tom Bandy
This is helpful. The key word for me is "leadership". I think you always have higher expectations of leaders than members. And yes, I do not expect leaders to "migrate". That suggests that the leader is having a "heartburst" for mission, but not trying to create a team to follow that mission in their church. So they shouldn't be leaders. Sooo ... I can tolerate a degree of migration among my members ... it is inevitable ... but I really can't tolerate that kind of migration from my leaders. If there is a gap in mission, they need to bring it to the church and help the church do something about it.