Archive - July, 2009

The Connected Church: Before You Log On

Navigating the stormy seas of the web...

Navigating the stormy seas of the web...

When I first moved to this city, my wife and I began our search for a church home. I, like many others in my demographic (20-30 year olds), began this search online. Now, I’m biased here because I’ve always been disappointed in church web sites. I have a bit of a background in technology, especially web-based technology, so I admit that my perspective is already skewed. I don’t typically view so many church web sites all at once, so this little binge on church web sites was immensely frustrating. I was literally turned off of some churches based on their web sites alone.

Fickle? Perhaps. But we live in a connected world now, and these churches were failing to connect.

What was wrong with these sites? I’ll let others speak for me. Consider these responses to my “why are church web sites ineffective?” question on twitter:

It comes down to being cheap & perceived unimportance, IMO. (http://twitter.com/manovotny/statuses/2556424452)

Outdated design & content. Too much info. Pics of bldg – not ppl (http://twitter.com/lightenupgear/statuses/2556758121)

no one takes junk sites and trifold brochures seriously, thats for drug awareness campaigns not the places we form our faith (http://twitter.com/joe_makes_art/statuses/2555392201)

There’s been a lot of discussion lately on technology in the church. While I’m obviously a Lutheran, churches across the world and across all denominational divides are struggling with the ever-changing technological landscape. It’s not really a new problem though. Churches have always struggled to adapt to changing environments. In some cases the church struggles because they are too slow to change. In other cases, churches willfully refuse to adapt, claiming that the timelessness of the message should not bend to the latest trends.

While the latest technology may be a trend in and of itself, the concept of the web will not go away any time soon. We’ve opened a huge can of worms. People are more connected than ever before. The world is shrinking. We are becoming, more and more every day, a global community. While facebook and twitter may be replaced six months from now with some other trending technology, the constant crave for connectivity reflects a paradigm shift in human interaction. Never before has it been so easy to spread a message or connect to someone across the globe. Whether church leadership embraces technology or not, the church is already online. Your church members are already e-mailing, instant messaging, tweeting, and facebooking. Why, then, are so few churches successful when it comes to their online ministry? How do you even measure this success?

I’m a geek at heart, so I’d love to just start a run-down of current technologies and explore their applications for a church. But, I feel the need to address a few underlying issues that I see. Mainly, what causes the struggle between the church and technology? Is online success for a church as easy as creating an account and logging on? Are there any prerequisites for online ministry?

For churches that want to be online but can’t seem to make it work, what are we missing?

Continue Reading…

The First Argument

The first argument I had with a Lutheran pastor was about infant baptism.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get infant baptism. I find no example of it in the Bible. I’ve read Luther’s treatment of it in his Large Catechism and I still don’t get it (perhaps I’m just “simple-minded and unlearned,” as Luther calls those who disagree with the practice). I understand all the reasons for how and why infant baptism still counts as baptism in the eyes of God. I get that Biblically, it probably doesn’t matter when a person is baptized as long as they believe and are baptized at some point. What I don’t understand and what nobody has answered adequately for me is:  what Biblical foundation supports the practice? Every example of baptism I can find in the Bible is of an adult. (These adults all seem to have also first believed, but that’s a whole other can of worms.) The examples that aren’t specifically adults are vague at best (such as the reference to a family being baptized).

Now, I’m not arguing that infant baptism is somehow invalid. I agree with Luther’s assessment that it is the Holy Spirit that validates baptism, not a person’s belief. I also agree that God does work in and through those who have been baptized as infants, further demonstrating that infant baptism functions as intended. But neither of those points address the underlying question of why infant baptism became standard practice and has remained through the ages. I sort of thought the whole purpose of the reformation was to do away with traditions that seemed to have little or no Biblical foundation. If that’s the case, wouldn’t post-belief baptism (credobaptism) be more appropriate? Not any more valid, mind you, just a closer match to Biblical practices.

I really feel like in any church, you ought to be able to point at a practice and ask “what Biblical foundation does this have?” and be able to come up with an easy answer. I also feel that this should be especially true in a Lutheran church, considering its history and development. While an answer exists for infant baptism, it seems far from easy. It seems to be supported more by the Catholic background of the Lutheran church than a solid Biblical foundation.

Granted, I don’t see this as “primary doctrine”. I don’t see the age of baptism as having an impact on your relationship with Christ or on the grace Christ’s death and resurrection bring us. I can’t imagine God turning someone away who simply got wet at the wrong time. The problem, for me, is that the Lutheran church seems to have a lot of practices that stem not from the Bible, but from tradition. Yet this same church claims “Scripture alone” as one of its guiding principles.

Am I the only one that sees a disconnect here?

Liturgy: Beauty and Beast

Not long ago, I attended a contemporary worship leader conference with some big names in modern worship. Matt Maher was one of the key participants. For those who don’t know, Matt Maher is best known as the author of the song Your Grace is Enough. This song is played in modern worship settings in countless churches every week. I just checked, and Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) lists it at #13 in their CCLI Top 100. If you tune to a Christian radio station, give it maybe 20 minutes, and I bet you’ll hear it. Especially if your Christian radio station is as repetitive as mine…

I only say this to establish this fact:  in terms of modern worship, Matt Maher is A Big Deal.

That being said, Matt Maher is also Catholic. I’ve always found this to be amazing. I’ve been leading groups with this song since its release and when I heard he was Catholic, I was somewhat amazed. Here’s a snippet of his lyrics:

Great is Your faithfulness O God of Jacob
You wrestle with the sinner’s restless heart
You lead me by still waters into mercy
Where nothing can keep us apart

So remember Your people
Remember Your children
Remember Your promise O God

For Your grace is enough
Yeah Your grace is enough
Yeah Your grace is enough
Yeah Your grace is enough for me

Now, his Catholic background amazes me for a couple of reasons. One, quite simply, is theology, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.

The other is that he’s written a driving, pulsing, lively worship song that is embraced by churches across the denominational spectrum… and he’s done it all while being a part of a church steeped in age-old traditions and rituals… and organs. Such a dichotomy.

Maher is also interesting because he’s brilliant. Seriously, brilliant. A small group of conference attendees (perhaps a dozen of us were in the room) sat and listened to him talk for a couple of hours one day. I’m not sure I saw him breathe at all. The man has an amazing memory. Combine this with unique insight and wit and you’ve got someone that I can listen to for a while.

What was he talking about for 2 hours? Liturgy.

Completely off the cuff.

With no notes.

At all.

I thought the talk was going to be about meshing modern worship with traditional churches, at least that’s what I was hoping for. He never got to that topic (which he apologized for later). Instead, he walked us through the entire church calendar of the Catholic church, a calendar almost identical to that of the Lutheran church. And through this odd, lively Catholic, I found an appreciation for liturgy.

Maher addressed the fact that many “modern” churches are attempting to throw off “old” traditions in order to meet new generations where they are. His opinion seemed to be that while this approach may be successful in the short-term, these churches ultimately end up either bringing back some elements of these traditions later on or simply creating new ones that seem very similar to the old ones. He seemed to be saying that if you’re just going to come back to the same traditions you threw off, why throw them off to begin with?

He began to discuss the liturgical calendar of the church as an example of this, but I don’t think he ever got around to tying it back to his original point. Primarily because he was so clearly passionate about the liturgical calendar, that he distracted himself right out of the original topic of the discussion. And none of us seemed to mind…

Maher understood the liturgical calendar so well that he saw beauty in it. The liturgy follows the life of Christ from birth to ministry to death to resurrection and the descending of the Holy Spirit. It gives the church a way to ensure nothing gets missed, as the entire life of Christ is important to the walk of a Christian. Maher stepped through this calendar section by section, from memory, and with a passion that was contagious. Through him, I began to see the beauty in it as well.

While I can definitely see a beauty now in the liturgy, it still prompts some questions from me. The biggest question I have on this is:  how can the church ensure contextual relevance if it is locked into a set path through the scriptures? In non-liturgical churches, pastors discern the needs of the congregations in their care and select scriptures and teachings appropriate for those needs. But in a liturgical setting, the scriptures have already been selected. Wanna’ know what the sermon is for this week? It’s Mark 6:1-13. Wanna’ know next week’s? And the weeks after that? It’s all mapped out. We’ve got it all covered. Some Lutheran pastors, I’ve noticed, force themselves to “lock in” with the liturgical calendar and won’t stray from it. So while the church may have a need to hear a certain scripture or a certain topic addressed by the pastor, they may not be able to get it since the pre-selected scripture for that week has already been determined. Or worse still, a pastor may discern the need correctly and attempt to force the pre-selected scripture to fit an application that is out of place. These square-peg-round-hole sermons are immediately noticeable.

So while I see that a non-liturgical church can miss some important aspects in the scriptures as they strive to maintain contextual relevance, I also find that the occasional lack of contextual relevance in a liturgical church seems to be missing something. Is it possible to get the best of both worlds?

What Makes Me New?

IMG_1506

Old in the shadow of new.

So we’ve established (and I believe we can all agree) that the Lutheran church is old. So, what makes me so new?

For one, my age. I’m a 20-something, soon to be 30-something, meaning I fit into a demographic that is largely missing (forgotten? ignored?) in the Lutheran church. I can’t blame this entirely on the Lutheran church of course. 20-30 something males is a demographic largely missing in ALL churches, not just Lutheran ones. However, from personal experience (your mileage may vary), I’ve found that some other denominations (and yes I count “non-denominational” here) seem to do a better job of reaching out to my particular demographic. I’m sure at some point I’ll get into the “why?” of all this, but that’s beyond the scope of this particular post.

Another thing that makes me “new” is the time I’ve spent in Lutheran churches. I was raised in Southern Baptist churches and have only recently migrated to the Lutheran church for my wife. I say recently, but it’s been about 8 years now. So, I feel it’s long enough to have learned a few things about the church, and short enough to still consider myself “new”. One of the things I’ve found is that most Lutherans I encounter, especially in the south, were either born into it quite literally, or came over from a Catholic upbringing. In either case, most Lutherans seem very comfortable in the traditional Lutheran church environment because they’ve spent most of their lives either in the same environment or in one that feels very similar even if the theology differs.

Since I essentially defected from the Baptist church, I don’t feel “at home” in a traditional liturgical setting. I could barely spell liturgy until I joined the Lutheran church. The robes looked funny. The constant sitting down and standing up was tiring. Even the language seemed different. My Baptist church sang old hymns. My Lutheran church sang OLDER hymns. My Baptist church dunked. My Lutheran church sprinkled. My Baptist church had parent/baby dedications. My Lutheran church had confirmations. My Baptist church had a Bible. My Lutheran church had a BIGGER Bible… and a Lutheran Book of Worship… and a Catechism or two…

It all seemed pretty foreign to me. But hey… I’m new. I figured I’d get used to it, but I don’t know that I ever will.

The bottom line for me is that while I recognize that the message of Christ is timeless, the church should recognize that the delivery of this message may not be.

Let’s take hymns as an example. Hymns have been, and will continue to be, an important tool for churches to ensure that the church body is communally exalting Christ and proclaiming the word of God publicly. I get it. I understand the purpose of them. However, have you read a hymn lately? Especially an old hymn traditionally espoused by an old Lutheran church? The English language has changed so much over the years that quite frankly, the words of these hymns make very little sense to me now. Granted, I may just be too dumb to understand them, but even when I can understand them, they don’t feel like my words. They don’t feel like they come from me. Is this really what I want to say to God in song? The text in the Bible that I read is newer than most of the hymns that are sung in a traditional service in a Lutheran church. I remember hating hymns when I was a kid growing up Baptist and those hymns seem like rock songs compared to the ancient songs being sung in some Lutheran services I’ve attended. Beyond the lyrics not making much sense in the context of today’s society, the music makes very little sense. As a musician, I find the tone and the pacing of the music of most old hymns to be completely inappropriate for a worshipful mindset. Why would I sing a song of praise in a slow, march-like, minor key? This is the same sort of musical approach that the writers of a funeral dirge would take. Most of these songs are not timeless classics, they’re just plain old.

Even the buildings themselves and the trimming of the interiors seem to be begging people to be uncomfortable. You walk through a big red door and all of a sudden you enter another world filled with wood and stone and robes and strange colored stoles… oh yeah, and organs. I find myself distracted by all of this. I’m supposed to be focusing on God, or on my own need for grace, or on the sacrifice Christ made, and instead I can’t stop thinking about how weird it is that the pastor is wearing a funny little rope around his waist. I don’t think I’m alone here. I don’t think I’m just being insensitive. I’m sure that all of this tradition has a purpose. It’s just that instead of being symbolic for me, it’s a distraction from what I believe should be the central focus of worship on a Sunday morning (or any other time for that matter). Some may argue that it’s because I don’t understand the symbolism. Believe me, I do. I’m inquisitive by nature so when I don’t understand something I ask or read up on it. I understand the intended symbolism for much of what I’ve mentioned here. But understanding the intent of it doesn’t mean that it works for me.

Why does so much tradition get handed down through the life of the church? Why is it so slow to adopt new traditions, as long as they don’t compromise the message? It seems like the churches that are reaching my demographic are the ones that are sort of continually reforming themselves, stripping away the trapping and trimmings of tradition while trying to stay true to the message of Christ. What would Luther say to this? Would he have 95 theses for today’s church? Would he be out of line if he nailed them to the door of my own church?

How Old Is Old?

Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in NYC. Completed in 1904 and remaining mostly unchanged as the city grew up around it.

Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in NYC. Completed in 1904 and remaining mostly unchanged as the city grew up around it.

Ok, I’ll say it. The Lutheran church is old. It’s old for two specific and distinct reasons.

It’s old because it started a long time ago.
This guy Martin Luther started it all. Luther… Lutheran. I dunno, could just be a coincidence. Luther was a troubled soul (but then, aren’t we all?) who wrote up a list of things wrong with the church and nailed them to a church door in Germany. He wanted normal people to read the Bible, but they couldn’t because it hadn’t been translated in their language. So instead of griping about it to a publisher, he set about translating it himself. The whole thing. Into German. From scratch. Some people rarely open their Bible to read it. This guy spent so much time in it that he could translate the whole thing. We could learn a thing or two from him… But, I digress. My point is, the church is old. How old? Well the list of things being nailed to the door happened in 1517. He published a full translation of the Bible in 1534 (although he finished the New Testament in 1522).

Yes, it’s that old.

It’s old because its members are old.
Seriously. They’re OLD. Even the statistics I could track down are old. In 2001 (yep, 8 years ago is the last time they cared enough to do this), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) sponsored a series of surveys across a sampling of 422 congregations. Here we show the average age of ELCA church attendees compared to the US population.

attendees_age

See anything interesting? Personally, I found a couple of glaring issues with this comparison. While 20 and 30-somethings combine to make up a pretty significant percentage of the US population, they’re an endangered species in an ELCA church. Likewise, if you’re 70-something, you’re in a minority in the US population and yet you’ll find plenty of blue-haired companions in a typical ELCA congregation.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that… I’m just sayin’. If you visit a Lutheran church as a 20 or 30-something, you may feel a bit out of place.

Here’s another interesting peek into their statistics:

clergy_age

This data is more recent (2008) and shows the average age of clergy in Southeastern Synod (solid red line) compared with that of the ELCA as a whole (blue dashed line). I pick on the Southeastern Synod here only because that’s the synod my church is a member of. Yep, they’re mostly between 50 and 60. Now, I don’t want to pick on 50-somethings. I have a lot of respect for the wisdom and knowledge a person can develop over 50 or 60 years. My issue is with a 50-something year old minister trying to relate to a 20 or 30-something year old churchgoer.

Now, if you combine these two factors, you create a perfect storm of old. Old ministers and old members in an old denomination with old traditions.

This is my story of being new in an old church.