Consulting, Coaching & Chatter

I received a question from a recent seminar participant that was buried in one of the comments. I started to answer it there, but when I finished I realized it was way too long to be just a comment … so I repost it here.

The question was “So, how does one confront the “Fog Horns” that create so much conflict in the transforming church? And the words to use? While I enjoyed reading several of your articles, I did not readily find anything on the subject.”

The following response is predicated on the need to confront a congregational controller after they’ve “misbehaved.”

Step one: Develop congregational expected behaviors. If you don’t do this, you cannot effectively move on to step two. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP. I’ve written about this is a number of other posts, so I won’t belabor it here. Except to say again, do not skip this step!!!!!

Step two: Rely on Matthew 18:15-17 when someone misbehaves.

• After an incident, the pastor or board chair immediately visits the controller one-on-one and says, “As a congregation, we’ve agreed that we will not treat one another like this. Your behavior wasn’t in keeping with our expected behaviors. This cannot continue.” If an apology and repentance is offered, the issue is done (until the next time, if there ever is a next time). If, on the other hand, the controller refuses to repent and/or makes excuses or turns the blame on the board/pastor/committee/church etc., conflict resolution goes to the next level.
• The pastor or board chair reports to the executive committee (if the board is over 12 people) or to the board the response. Then two people, the original visitor and one other (typically an elder or a senior member of the board/executive committee) goes to the controller and says, essentially, the same thing as in the first visit, except this time the controller is told that the behavior will not be tolerated and that it must cease. If the controller repents, the issue is done. If not, the conflict resolution goes to the final level.
• The two visitors next report to the board (the whole group this time) about the visits. The board should discuss the issue and the behavior. If the board agrees that the behavior was and is inconsistent with the congregation’s expected behavior covenant, then they have no choice but to invite the controller to appear before them. If the controller comes (highly unlikely in my experience), the board then informs the controller that the controller’s behavior is unacceptable and if the behavior does not immediately cease, then the board has no choice but to remove the controller from all leadership positions and to instruct the controller to not return to the church until they have decided to behave otherwise … and if they so decide, the controller must seek reconciliation beginning with the pastor and then the board.  In other words, show the controller the door and tell them to not come back until they’ve had a change of heart.

Is this easy? No. I’ve had to do it four times during my ministry career. It’s painful and hurtful and unpleasant. But in every case … and I mean every case … when a controller is removed, there is a collective sigh of relief by the congregation. Attendance goes up (after the supporters of the controller leave in protest), giving goes up, and the spirit of the church improves significantly. Oh, and one other side benefit. Other would-be controllers notice … and when they act out (and they will), you’ll seldom have to get past the one-on-one confrontation. They know the congregation means business - and that they’re not afraid to be faithful to Jesus and his conflict instructions.

Bill Easum and Tony Jones are in the midst of a conversation about the Emergent Church at the Emergent Village website … it’s called a Blogologue. I’m keeping up with it and enjoying the ride. One of the comments on “Part 2″ caught my attention though, and in the midst of another conversation I’m having with a local pastor, it got me to thinking about one of the most common misunderstandings about the early church.

There’s a saying that when you’re lost in the woods it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. That’s never more true than when the average Christian picks up the book of Acts and reads about the early church. Because we are so embedded in our culture, whenever we see the word “Church” our enculturation takes over. Sure, everyone knows that church isn’t a building, it’s a people … a called out people at that. But the fact is, I’ve yet to meet the pastor, let alone the lay person, who doesn’t slip by saying that they “go to church” or that there’s a meeting “at the church.” In our culture, church is a place and Christians are the people who go there.

And so when the average reader reads the book of Acts … or any of the letters following Acts … then it’s difficult not to allow the brain to impose much of today’s culture on yesterday’s church. So, try something. For a moment think about the church at Thessalonica. Paul wrote at least two letters to that church. What do you suppose that church was like? Ask yourself questions like (1) How many members did the church have when Paul wrote the letter to them? (2) Where did they meet? and (3) What would “worship” have looked like?

As for members, first remember that the New Testament never speaks of members … the elect, yes … members, no. There were definitely believers and non-believers, but that was pretty much the dichotomy. As for numbers, there were probably only a handful or two at first. Where did they meet? In homes, in the marketplace, here and there. What did worship look like? Good luck with that. Remember that they didn’t have Bibles … though they had a couple letters from Paul, they certainly would not have considered them holy writ … and the Hebrew Scriptures were pretty much reserved for the Jewish folk, plus you had to be fabulously wealthy (and literate) to afford a single scroll, let alone a complete set. So, no scripture reading, no psalms, etc. In fact, the clearest picture we have of their gatherings is found in Acts 2:42-47 and Acts 20:7-9. In both of those passages, we see that informal was the order of the day. They ate together, they hung out together, and when there was “preaching” it was dialog, not monologue or even “proclamation.” Conversation. Try that this Sunday during the “sermon time.”

Was the church a diverse community? In it’s larger manifestation, yes. In its local manifestation? Not very. Check out 1 Corinthians 1:26 where it’s clear the majority of the participants were of the lower classes. Because the local manifestation of the church met in homes, they tended to be more homogeneous than not. The larger church was clearly multi-ethnic, but there’s little evidence that this translated into the local setting. Indeed, the opposite is actually the case. Sure, some Jewish Christians hung out with some non-Jewish Christians, but that behavior was rare, as evidenced by the practices in Acts and the letters.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not taking a swing at what we practice in our “doing” church today. It would be nice, IMHO, if the church practiced being the church rather than waiting until Sunday morning to “do” church, but that’s not the point. The point is that when the emergents and the incarnationalist and the organics talk about the early church, we can’t stop at the Reformation or even the early pre-Reformation church to get an idea of what the early church looked like. And we can’t presuppose that it’s anything like today’s church because it wasn’t (try telling your congregation that from now on they’ll be spending most meal times with each other and that they will need to hang out with each other daily from now on; that the local weekly meeting will be in homes, not a church building … and each local manifestation will only be as large as what will fit in a living room;  - oh, and no more preaching, but dialogos - conversations - beginning immediately; and I’m not touching the implications of Acts 4:34 where the church made sure that NONE of their brothers or sisters were in need).

One last comment … we are given very little guidance on how to “do” church in the New Testament. However, there is a LOT about how to “be” church in the New Testament. Perhaps that’s what’s really important. I’ve always thought that if God wanted to give us a model for doing church, our New Testament would look like our Old Testament and we’d even know what materials to build our baptismal fonts … or the dimensions of the baptismal pools.

I’m in the midst of a fantastic conversation with a pastor of the Reformed persuasion and the topic of targeting worship for particular demographics, micro-cultures, etc. came up. He suggested that some consider targeting to be less than okay and that he “resists” the target terminology.

That’s not an uncommon notion in the church today. When I suggest that a worship service become more focused in its approach to reach a particular segment of the community, or when an additional worship is warranted and I recommend a missionally focused service, there’s regularly some pushback. There are a number of ways church leaders have expressed why they think targeting is wrong, but ultimately it comes down to the fear that targeting is exclusionary.

I get that. I really do. In fact, I get that all the time. But the fact is, I’ve yet to attend a worship service that wasn’t targeted. Oh sure, some are more broadly targeted than others, but every worship service I’ve ever attended has, in fact, been exclusionary.

Take for example a “traditional” worship service. By traditional I mean that hymns are sung from hymn books; traditional instruments (or no instruments) are used; there may be responsive readings; traditional language is used such as doxology, invocation, and benediction; and prayers are often written rather than extemporaneous. Of course there are alternative practices that could be listed, but you probably get the idea. These traditions, as wonderful as they may be, presume a congregation that is both familiar and comfortable with them, in other words, a “churched” audience that has significant history of being churched. When a thirty-something family with no church memory shows up in a church like that, it’s not unlike dropping into your local Greek Orthodox church or a Mosque and then trying to figure out what’s going on, what’s being said, and then wondering how to worship in that setting. Everything would be foreign to us and the chances of us experiencing the wonder of worship in that setting would be slim.

But at least our traditional service is presented in the mainstream culture … the average person could understand it, at least. That’s not necessarily so. Traditional services often use words, traditions, and rituals that make no sense at all to the typical unchurched person who almost certainly hasn’t memorized the Lord’s Prayer and doesn’t even know enough to ask “Sins, debts, or tresspasses?” Today’s “mainstream culture” is media and image driven. That’s how people learn today, but the traditional worship is print and auditory driven. Today’s music (actually for at least the last 50 years) is beat driven. Traditional hymns are lyric driven. The differences can go on and on.

The point isn’t that traditional worship is outdated and ought to be ended. By no means. There is an important place for traditional worship and when a congregation is filled with those who appreciate and love traditional worship (not always just seniors), a lot of energy should go into producing an excellent traditional service. But let’s not fool ourselves: Traditional Worship Is Targeted.

What about a “blended” service? There are the exceptions (and almost every pastor who’s wedded to traditional churches think their congregation is one of them), but in the vast majority of cases, a blended service tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. Regardless of the micro-culture that attends a blended worship service, virtually everyone is going to have to compromise their own proclivities to experience worship. Those who live and die by the organ are going to despise the guitar and keyboard. Those who value the freedom of expressive worship will resent the explicit order of service. Etc. Blended services try to target everyone but ultimately discovers there is no “everyone.”

Let’s be honest here. The Bible is exclusionary in its inclusivity. Even Jesus said that he’d come for the Israelite … but then he made sure that there were provisions made to reach each one. No single congregation can reach everyone, and they weren’t called to. The “Church” (capital C) is called to reach everyone, but we have to realistically share the load with one another. Targeted worship simple recognizes the reality that not everyone is going to relate to the style, methods, music, language, etc. of a particular worship service. As Paul said, therefore, we must become all things to all people that by some means we might reach some. That may mean we keep our traditional worship service - maybe even make it more traditional - and start something “new” that missionally targets a different micro-culture.

Those who’ve read any of my church renewal/small group books or who are familiar with my work with Easum, Bandy & Tenny-Brittian know that when I speak about DNA, I mean the six strands that answer the question “Who is this congregation?” A congregation’s DNA can be found in every part of the local church - the leadership, the members, and can even be found in participants who’ve been hanging around with the church for as little as three months. I define those six DNA strands as:

1. The Mission
2. The Core Values
3. The Bedrock Beliefs
4. The Expected Behaviors
5. The Compelling Vision
6. The Strategic Focus

In earlier entries, I’ve mentioned the need for congregation’s to work on expected behaviors early on in the discovery/discernment process. I return to the DNA topic because there’s been a LOT of conversation lately on the EBT Advanced Leadership Forum (an online coaching service that’s part of the EBT Community) about the congregational Bedrock Beliefs.

On that forum, much has been made of this particular strand of DNA … and honestly, it’s a very important strand. However, as I watch leaders from around the world struggle with their congregation’s Bedrock Beliefs, I wonder how much of it is all that necessary.

One definition of Bedrock Beliefs that has been put forth by my partner Tom Bandy is that Bedrock Beliefs are those beliefs you turn to for strength in times of trouble. Examples would include “God comforts us in times of trouble” and “God accepts us no matter who we are.”

I like the imagery of this, but when I work with churches I find it almost impossible to pin down these kinds of statements on a church-wide DNA basis. On a personal basis, no problem. I know what my Bedrock Beliefs are in times of trouble. But when it comes to helping a church define what the core of their heart is, I take a different tack.

When I help a church discern their Bedrock Beliefs, my purpose is to help them get to a bedrock place where they can, as a congregation, build a foundation that won’t shatter when someone lobs a theological grenade into the room. I’ve seen far too many churches get into a fray about what a small group of individuals find core, but the congregation as a whole finds tangental - but without defined Bedrock Beliefs there’s nothing to keep the fray from becoming a fight.

Now, before I write another word … I totally agree with Tom Bandy who says that Bedrock Beliefs are not a congregation’s systematic theology. That would simply be too much for any congregation to swallow. But it is the place where the congregation can agree and then can deflect the grenades.

Some congregation’s are confessional. “Officially” they already have their bedrock beliefs defined for them. I’ve yet to be in a church in USAmerica where that was actually the case, but at least it’s somewhere to start. But for those non-confessional churches (and even some of the confessional churches), congregation’s often come to the understanding that Jesus is the bottom line. Their foundation for their core values may well get stated, “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and we call on him as our Lord (boss, CEO, etc.) and Savior.” In general, few Christians disagree with this as the foundation. Great. Step one done.

If Jesus is the foundation of the faith, then everything gets built on that. I’ve found that churches find they can summarize their beliefs what Jeff Hubbard, a close friend, named “The Four Greats.” Jesus gave us four “great” commandments that can crystallize the Bedrock Beliefs for many congregations. (1) Jesus gave us the Great Invitation: Follow Me. In other words, we’re called to do what he did (and more) and to value what he valued. (2) Jesus gave us the Great Commandment: Love God. Our lives are meant to revolve around honoring God in all we do. (3) Jesus gave us the Great Commandment: Love Others. Everything we do and think and say must go through this filter: Is it loving? And not just is it loving, but would they receive it as loving? and (4) Jesus gave us the Great Commission: Make Disciples. That’s why we exist … that’s why the church exists.

When churches adopts the Jesus and the Four Greats as their Bedrock Beliefs, it helps put focus on what’s important when those “Grenades” inevitably get lobbed into Small Group meetings, Sunday School Classes, Board Meetings, and so on. Here’s one way I coach congregation’s in how to deflect (or even diffuse) those moments: “You know, that’s an important belief, but when it comes to what this congregation believes and practices, we lean on Jesus and the Four Greats. Anything else … anything … simply isn’t worth dying for or arguing about.” If the query comes again, just keep deflecting it. You might even turn to Paul’s words to Timothy to avoid senseless controversies (2 Tim 2:23-24), and since this belief isn’t a core belief in the congregation ….

Is there more we may all hold in common? Perhaps. But in general, Jesus and the Four Greats tend to cover it pretty well. And it heads off a lot of controversy.

I recently completed teaching a college course on Evangelism In Your Context. I had students from all over (east of the Rockies) and a good time was had by all. The majority of the students were either pastors or staff members of churches and the sheer number of Ahas! was gratifying. Perhaps the most common Aha! I heard was when they understood that evangelism isn’t going to happen while the pastor or staff sit in their offices. Leaders have to lead, meaning they have to get out of their offices and do evangelism, not just bang on the pulpit and berate the congregation for not doing it. As goes the leader, so goes the flock.

In the midst of the course, my partner Bill Easum and I had a conversation about evangelism and leadership and the role of the two. The result of our chat was the development of two seminars that we’re going to be presenting in October. In Cleveland on October 17-18 we’ll be leading a conference called Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism where we’ll train church leaders how to create a church full of evangelists (in the good way, not the stereotypical wild-eyed prophets). Then in Chicago on October 24-25 we’ll lead a conference on Leading With Impact, which looks at what it takes to lead and have a glocal impact.

If you’ve not been to one of our conferences, these would be great ones to get your feet wet. They’re pretty inexpensive ($75 each if you register before October 1st) and they’re pretty centrally located. If one’s not near you, don’t despair … we’re scheduling events coast to coast in 2009. LA, Philly, Washington DC, Tulsa, and Detroit are all in the negotiating stage, so if you can’t afford to travel and you can afford to wait until next year sometime, then keep your eyes open for upcoming events.

With that said, here are two links to get more information about the two events. Hope to see you there!

(back) Becky, Toni, Shannon (front) James (Britt), Katrina

We’re celebrating T-B Day today, although the real date is August 21. T-B Day is the anniversary of the day the adoption for my three youngest children - Katrina, Shannon, and James (AKA Britt) - became final. It’s a special day in our lives and we always try to have a grand time. We’re thinking picnic on the Missouri River for the celebration.

Adoption is one of those important concepts in the church too. Sure, there’s the whole theologic part that says when we become disciples of Jesus then we’re adopted as Children of God (see John 1 if you somehow were wrongly taught that “everyone is a child of God”). Adoption is equally important when it comes to how guests in our churches become part of the tribe. For instance, after a small group has been meeting for over 6 weeks, and in as few as 4, it becomes a “closed” group. That means those members of the group, no matter how well intentioned, have created enough history together in terms of stories shared and events witnessed that it’s difficult, if not impossible, for a guest to “break in” to the circle. Unless … the group as a whole decides to adopt the guest. Then, with adamant intentionality, they recreate themselves as a new group. This re-creation can be facilitated by each member sharing their personal life story within a spiritual framework (such as, their faith story that culminates in how they came to be a disciple of Jesus, etc.).

In a family sized church, i.e., churches typically between 0-50ish, the only way a guest becomes a family member is for an intentional church-wide attempt to adopt them. If only a handful of people engage in the adoption, the guest is unlikely to become part of the family and will drift away from the church. This, by the way, is why so FEW family sized churches ever jump past their size-ceiling. It’s work to adopt someone … whether it’s three young children or a family of guests.

So, if you want to grow your “family,” I heartily recommend adoption. Whether it’s my three youngest awesome kids (okay, the youngest is 22 now), or a guest in your small group, or a new family is your church … adoption is the answer to many of life’s and church’s little questions.

It’s said that the average leader spends 80 percent of their time doing little that will further their mission. That means that the important stuff gets short shrift by a bunch. What would happen if the average leader spent 80 percent of their time on the real important stuff … on those tasks that would further their mission the most? Well, they wouldn’t be average leaders anymore. They’d be excellent, high powered leaders.

Before I reveal the five things every church leader must do every day, let me remind you of the one thing every leader must have before they can even be as good as an average leader. This is Curley’s “one thing” that you have to figure out. The One Thing is your personal mission … your purpose … the reason you get up each morning. The sad reality is that most leaders I work with fumble around, mutter a bit, and get flustered when I ask them what their mission is. How can a leader know when they’re on task or not if they don’t know what their mission is? How can you know what tasks are important and which tasks are not if purpose is a mystery? It’s been said that without a mission, we live in a fog and simply respond to whichever foghorn is loudest at any given moment. So, what’s your mission? If you can’t spit it out immediately with conviction and commitment, stop reading now and go get it figured out. (BTW, my mission is to be a source for spiritual transformation … it’s not only what I do, it’s who I try to be).

So, with mission in hand and heart, here are the five things every church leader must put on their to-do list every day.

1. Spend an Hour in Prayer. Though this should be obvious, according to scads of research the average Christian leader prays less than three minutes each day. Jesus asked Peter if he couldn’t pray “just one hour.” That should be our daily minimum requirement.
2. Project Your Day. Take a few minutes before your feet hit the floor in the morning to look ahead in your day and project how you would like each of your upcoming interpersonal interactions to manifest. How do you want to interact with your spouse? Your children? The barista? Your secretary? Those in the committee meeting? Your networking lunch with the newest church member? And so on. Play the interactions though your mind and commit the time and your interactions to the Spirit.
3. Meet/Introduce Yourself to at Least One Stranger. The point here is to have a conversation with someone you don’t know. Get to know people in your community that you’ve never met. I know in some small towns this can be a challenge, but take the challenge. Go find someone and get to know them. And if you’re “bad with names” make sure to get a business card and to jot down a few of the important details you learned about this new acquaintance.
4. Take Care of that One Thing On Your To-Do List that You Don’t Want to Do … and do it now. Great leaders take care of business no matter what. It doesn’t make any difference if they don’t want to. They do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission. So, whatever it is you’re putting off, get it done.
5. Reflect On Your Day. The final thing to do each evening before you close your eyes is to take the time to reflect on your day. Did you accomplish the important stuff or were you caught up by the “urgent”? Did all your interpersonal interactions play out like you’d hoped? Are there relationships you need to repair tomorrow? Undone tasks you need to deal with tomorrow? Socrates wrote that the unexamined life isn’t worth living … so take the time to examine your day so you can “do better” tomorrow.

There are at least another five must-do’s for your to-do list, but do these things and I can promise that you’ll begin to rise above the average leader mark.

In December, my new book on Evangelism will be released by Chalice Press. Hitchhiker’s Guide to Evangelism takes a peek at the “new” evangelism needed for reaching today’s world. Let’s face it, if the ways we do evangelism were really working, our churches would be filling up. But that’s clearly not the case. Indeed, in North America we’re not just losing the battle of the church, we’re losing the war. Less than 15% of North Americans will find their way to a church this weekend … and the numbers are dropping sharply.

What’s not working is trying to cajole our church members into doing evangelism like it was done “back then.” Back then you could knock at a door, do a quasi-real survey about checking the religion practices of the neighborhood, and then dropping “the” question towards the end: “If you died tonight, do you know for sure you’d go to heaven?”

It’s not that this method never works anymore. It still does in some communities and with some people. The question to ask is this: Is it worth alienating 98 people, people who will have had their worst fears about the church realized when you show up at their door, in order to share the Gospel effectively with 2 people?

The main problem with this kind of evangelism is that in some circles, this is the only “method” of conversion. I call this the Paul method … conversion happens at a specific moment in time. Paul’s version of conversion has become the model, and yet it is the most invasive, most intrusive, and most aggressive of almost all other evangelism models. And, I’d add, that if Jesus was the one who’s knocking you off your horse, that’s one thing … but I’m not Jesus - and neither are the many “evangelists” who press for a conversion “experience.”

The second problem with this kind of evangelism is that it bolsters the notion that being a Christian is mostly a matter about what you believe. The problem with “believing” Christianity is that this is what’s gotten us into this black hole. Seventy-eight percent of USAmericans “claim” to be Christian. And by the definition that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus, they are Christians. So praying the “sinner’s prayer,” walking an aisle, or even being baptized doesn’t necessarily mean much. I won’t argue about the salvific value of these actions … I’ll even surmise that they may be all that is “necessary” (but I’m not the one doing the judging - see Matthew 25). However, the “conversion” model of evangelism puts so much emphasis on the act of conversion that too often living a Christian life becomes of secondary importance and emphasis.

Now, I’m not advocating that we stop … there are times and places for conversion invitations (see Glenn Kelley’s recent blog entry on Youth Evangelism). But I am suggesting that there’s a better way for the rest of us.

The “New” evangelism is really a very old evangelism. Instead of it being about conversion, it’s about having spiritual conversations. It’s about first being a part of something, such as a friendship, a small group, a work group, a service group, a cause, etc. It’s about exploring the faith by watching it modeled, by associating with it, by practicing it before deciding it’s about believing and accepting and converting. This “new” evangelism is what the twelve apostles experienced. There is no discernable moment when Peter or Andrew of John or James or Matthew or Thadeus or any of the others “became” a Christian. Was it when they left their professions? When they made the great confession? When they walked on water (or not)? When they denied or fled at Jesus’ arrest? When they ate breakfast after the resurrection? When they were on the road and Jesus ascended, even though some doubted? After Pentecost? The fact is, we don’t know. We can guess. We can speculate. But we simply cannot be sure.

Conversations. Modeling. Living such a radically different life that someone actually does ask us about the reason for our hope … people are asking you, aren’t they? Living in community. All this is part of the “new” evangelism.

For those of you who are completely baffled by the title, let me explain. This morning I got an update email from Twitter.com, with whom I’m a registered user. Now, for the uninformed, Twitter is one of the newest social networking opportunities on the Net. It’s 140 words that answer the question “What are you doing?” Those who “follow” you get an instant update about what you’re doing. And those whom you are following also post once or twice a day and you get updated on what they’re doing. So, for instance, another church consultant whom I follow (and who follows me) posted that he was on vacation this weekend in Virginia. As you may know, I was at the World Convention for the Christian Church this weekend and I ran into our mutual publisher. We were chatting and the publisher asked me whether or not I’d heard from yon consultant … they hadn’t been able to reach him. I let them know he was in Virginia and that he’d be back on Monday. Now, I only knew that because he Tweeted.

Now, you may be wondering why a guy who’s ADHD needs another distraction on his screen. And the fact is, I don’t. On the other hand, those who are using Twitter effectively are posting helpful information for their readers … helpful tidbits that point them to resources and/or let them know what sort of resources you are encountering that they might be able to tap into. For instance, someone who lived in Tennesee and saw me Tweet that I was in Nashville could have Tweeted me for a meet-up. Or they could have asked me to greet a particular participant they knew was there. Or perhaps asked me for a copy of a resource that was available. There are all sorts of ways that someone knowing I’m in Nashville (or in Louisiana, MO like I was today) could be helped.

Which brings me back to God Almighty. Like I said, I got an email notification that God Almighty has begun to follow me on Twitter. That surprised me for a moment … but then I thought, well, I already knew that even before the “comic” (I’m not sure I’m amused) started “following” me. I’ve decided that I’ll check in on his Twitter account every so often just to see what he might say, but for the time being I guess I’ll behave like I actually live in Missouri … I’ll wait and see for him to Show Me before I’ll start “following” him. At least as far as his Twitter account is concerned.

BTW, you can follow me, if you’d like, by going to www.Twitter.com.

I visited a church recently … a LARGE church … that everyone told me was so edgy when it came to technology. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement and it prompted me to write the following article that appeared in the Easum, Bandy & Associates On Track Ezine. I put the first paragraph below so you can decide whether you want to read it all or not.

Oh, and just a final note. This whole article was inspired by a conversation with Glenn Kelley at Church Medic (and Vinehosting). Thanks, Glenn!

- - -

I visit a lot of churches. A lot. And because of who I am and what I do, I just can’t help it – I wear my consultant’s hat, at least a little bit. Over the past year, I’ve taken a particular interest in checking out how the church uses technology. I’ve visited a number of mega-churches, a number of soon-to-be mega-churches, middle sized churches, and small churches and one thing I’ve found in each one … none of them are using current technology in worship effectively, if at all.

In general terms of cutting-edge technology, let me quickly dispel some current misconceptions. Just because you have a website, even an attractive website, doesn’t mean you’re cutting edge technologically. Although a website with a memorable and easily found URL (and thus search-engine optimized) is no longer an option, most church websites are hopelessly outmoded and outdated. Web 2.0 is the new standard, not the next-best-thing of the future – and if you don’t know what Web 2.0 is, then my point is proved. If your site doesn’t support or include discussion groups, wikis, social networking opportunities, blogs, RSS feeds, and other user interactive opportunities, then your site is emphatically not Web 2.0.

Another serious misconception is that if you’re using an email list to notify members of what’s going on, then you’re communicating in the most effective way to the younger generations. Not so. Turns out that Baby Boomers are pretty tuned in to email still, but get younger than fifty and in general you just as well be sending your email to the black-hole of cyberspace. None of my adult children (the youngest is twenty-two and the oldest is thirty) even check email anymore. That’s so retro … except they don’t use that word anymore, making me so retro! (My son said the correct term is “Old school” … I knew that.)

<Read the whole article>