What’s next for the Church?
I’m in the middle of working on an exciting project that will be taking a look at the future of the Church. I’m going to be working with a group of ministry leaders from throughout the country to consider what innovation looks like in the Church. I’m also going to ask those same leaders to peer into the future and give us a glimpse of what they think churches will look like in the future. It’s going to be a fun project, and I can’t wait to give you more details in the coming months.
I need your help though. As I connect with these leaders, I’d like to ask them all the same set of questions to get their reactions. Here are the questions I’ve been considering for the last several weeks:
- Innovation defined. How would you define innovation?
- Is it biblical? Does God want churches to innovate? Did innovation happen in the first century church?
- Ingredients for innovation. What does innovation look like in today’s churches? What are the ingredients for innovation in the local church?
- Opportunities for change. What’s happening outside the Church that should influence innovation inside local churches?
- Obstacles? What are the enemies of innovation in churches? What are the challenges churches will have to overcome to experience innovation?
- Leadership. How can leaders help create a culture of innovation?
- Technology. How will technology including the use of media and the Web influence churches in the future?
- Arts. What will the role of the arts (music, drama, video, etc.) be as the Church moves into the future?
- Community impact. How are innovative churches trying to engage and impact their communities? Does innovation look different in different communities?
- Size. Does size matter? What about smaller churches and those with limited financial resources? Or, is innovation harder for larger, more established churches?
- Cultural influence? Do you believe the Church has influenced past cultures? Do you think the Church can still influence culture today?
- Measures. How will we know if innovation is working? How should we measure the impact?
- Future. What do you believe will be the most significant differences between churches of today and churches of the future?
That’s my current list. What’s your reaction? Are there key topics that I’m missing? What do you want to know about the Church in the future? How would you answer these questions?
Great list of questions….as of late, I have been curious about how the pre-churched in our community, people who have not even thought about attending our church, view our inovation. Do THEY think it is inovative or do they think we are wild kid on the block who is trying to be cool.
tony -
great questions.
How about something like, “how are you equipping the next generation of leaders to be innovative?”
Great questions Tony. I like Charlie’s comment about the next generation of leaders. That “passing the torch / mentor” concept is big.
Some additional ones I might suggest:
- How will your church embrace the retiring generation of baby boomers? To what extent are you prepared to harness their resources (time, treasure, talent) because they are not employed full time?
- Ethics. As science increases its influence into radically altering the way we live, how is your church positioned to be a thought leader in explaining/defining/defending ethics and morality.
- Race/Language. How are you prepared to reach the people of different ethnicity and language in your community? Particularly with the rapid growth of Spanish, Portuguese, and Korean, among others.
I realize this strays a bit from the “innovation” theme, but perhaps you have a way to bring them in. I’m looking at this from the context of where demographics are going in the future, and then working backwards from that and how the church can lead or lag behind.
Can’t wait to see your final feature!
Oh yea! This conversation is very helpful. Mark K. just submitted these additional thoughts:
“One question for me is what the dangers of innovation are. What dangers do we have to watch out for with innovation? Where do we draw the line?
“Also: Is innovation good by definition? How do we know when innovation is needed? Do we pursue innovation for the sake of innovation or do we need a compelling reason for it? What would be examples of legitimate and illegitimate reasons for innovation?”
Good stuff. Keep it coming.
tony
Does constant innovation belie or subtly and unconsciously convey a subtext that undercuts the fixed and unchanging mission of the church?
Target: although culture and social norms present a shifting and evolving environment in which people are addressed, do the core issues of meaning, value and forgiveness really change?
Lots of good nuts and bolts questions. However, a few key areas I see missing…
1) Post-churched. What is happening among those who used to attend and aren’t anymore. Who are these people and why aren’t they in instutional congregations? Are we writing them off as not being into our thing or are we innovatively building a bridge?
2) Simplicity. At what point does our creativity become a stumbling block to the Gospel? At what point is it complementary? How do we balance creativity with simplicity?
3) Being. If the Sabbath is the pinnacle of the Creator’s original creating, how does that play into what we do in our desire to minister? In other words, what drive to do more needs to be tempered by the health of just “being” with God?
4) Success. What does success look like when everyone defines it differently? What does the ideal team look like to evaluate whether or not this is happening… without stacking the deck on one side of the tension?
Lots of great questions.
Here’s a few quick thoughts: Innovation defined (in part): 1: a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation. —Hopefully the collective church continues to study and experiement and produce (by God) new angles for community and mission. Innovation is a big need, especially when it’s intentional on mission.
As for the future of the church, here are a few more thoughts…1)Will the set up change from platform to round? Many churches are using different set ups to create a place for church people to engage each other and not just a speaker, is this a blip on the screen or a future change in the making. 2) Small groups are still a big focus in many churches, but in some sense the “small group” mentality isn’t cutting it, it’s becoming another program. Will house churches, under the umbrella of bigger churches, be the next wave? And, with over 30,000 people downloading Rob Bells sermons each week (I think it’s week, maybe month) will small communities begin to start out of podcast listeners? What effect will podcasts have on the church? How will this innovation change the make up of what we do?
Sorry, more q’s than answers.
Tony,
Thanks for the invite to participate. I think many of these questions and responses are right on. Here are some other ideas:
1) Innovation is not the issue in my mind. Transformation is. So…what is the linkage between innovation and Transformation? Innovation is fine as long as it contributes to transformation.
2) One of the key issues (mentioned above) for the future is reaching 3 distinct groups of people:
* De-churched (those with a church background who left mad/sad/frustrated)
* Un-churched (no church or religious background)
* Faithful Lost (these are committed faith folks who are lost without Christ and trapped in other religions/cults, etc….I think we will see more and more of this in the years ahead).
3) I think Mark Driscoll and those in his genre have it really right…the church must be BOTH attractional (think really great mega-churches like Grainger!) AND missional (think Externally Focused Churches friends). So…innovate away inside the building with the latest and greatest (we try!)…BUT..don’t limit it there…how are we being innovative OUTSIDE the 4 walls of the property?? We simply must believe in “the miracle of AND”…it is not OR, but AND!
That’s enough for now…I’ll see you in September at ICC and maybe we can chat some more!
I received a kind note from Stuart Briscoe earlier today. Among other things, he had this to share:
You need to understand that I am 75 years of age and have been active – and still am!! – in ministry for more than 55 years. This means I have more history than future and therefore as is common with my kind of old fogy I tend to look back as well as forward. Your emphasis is “The future of the church” but my first question is “Are we giving careful attention to the 2000 years’ history of the church?” “How did we get here? What did the “cloud of witnesses” do right? What are the non-negotiables that cannot be and should not be changed? What is good in “Old” as well as what is “novel” in “innovation?” G.K. Chesterton said “Never remove a fence until you know why it was erected in the first place.”
Secondly the future of the church needs to be explored in light of what we DO know about its future – the rest is speculation. What do we know? “I WILL build MY church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Its His church and the building of it is HIS responsibility. Granted we are called to be agents of His activity but the underlying principle that we need to explore is “what constitutes the unique working of Christ actively building His church?”
Thirdly – as I spend most of my time now in the developing world I note that you make no mention of the universal church. My experience there tells me that the real action is taking place in the most unlikely places and not in the North American continent and so perhaps a healthy exercise for you would be a careful study – on the ground – of the burgeoning church in the developing world where I doubt if they have heard of innovation but they are very familiar with tested and true ministry which I summarize as “Preach the Word, love the people and pray that the Spirit moves.”
Fourthly although it may not sound like it I am open to change and regard it as necessary on occasion in a changing world. But I differentiate between “Style” and “Substance.” The former can change, the latter must not. My concern about innovative movements is that so much of the emphasis seems to be on “Style” and less than adequate attention is being given to what it means to preach the Word, really love the people and know what it is to pray the Spirit moves. And worse in some segments of the “emergent church” some rather scary tampering with “substance” seems to be underway although I recognize this is not a characteristic of all emergent movements.
Fifthly you ask whether or not the church has affected culture. Take a trip around many parts of Europe and see if you can find a city without a cathedral or a village without a church and take a look at the U.S. founding documents and the answer is obvious. But the big issue in both these instances is that those who built the cathedrals and wrote the founding documents were not seeking to be “relevant” – they were showing the relevance of an unchanging truth to those who needed to know it. My concern about many attempts to be relevant to contemporary culture is that we seem to be prepared to trade some of our uniqueness for acceptance and in so doing barter some of our faithfulness for relevance. We don’t need to make truth relevant we need to show and explain and apply it in all its Spirit empowered relevance and see transformation happen. That’s what I would like to see in the future!!
I hope these ramblings may contribute somewhat!! Blessings,
Stuart Briscoe, Minister at Large, Elmbrook church, Brookfield, Wisconsin.
Although I am 50 years his junior, What Stuart said (and much more eloquently than I ever could have) pretty much laid out what I have been thinking about typing the last few days.
Maybe I am focusing too much on semantics, but in my (limited & young) thinking, I don’t think the church can innovate. I think it can only act innovatively.
Nothing in the mission we have been assigned is new. We can’t come up with the iPods or Blackberries or (___insert innovative product here____) of what God wants us to do. He makes it clear to us and there’s nothing we can create to improve on it or make it more appealing.
From a cultural standpoint, at least in the American culture, it seems as if churches are considered “innovative” only when they are the first on the “church circuit” to ride the coat-tails of whatever is cool in pop culture at large. I know I have limited insight, and am completely open to suggestions, but I can’t think of one “innovative” thing a church has done BEFORE some company in the marketplace has done it.
Which brings me to my closing point…I read this in my devotional the other day and for some reason it has really been simmering in my mind. “The church ceases to be spiritual when it becomes self-seeking, only interested in the development of its own organization.” (Oswald Chambers).
Sometimes I know I just need to take a step back, and just be. Be used, be humble, be quiet and just be a shell of a person with no trappings or hinderances between the Spirit working through me to do whatever part he has for me in reconciling others to him. A difficult thing to do, but something to strive for.
Sorry this got a a little random…
I’ve YET to be in any church that meets the definition of the word innovative, though I hear many churches use the term to describe their approach. Instead, a better set of descriptors might be: artistic, clever, hip, inspired, resourceful or even atypical. But these descriptors are really only accurate IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CHURCHES, not the culture at large.
Does a church need to be Innovative? And if so, in what context? Certainly, as has been mentioned above, innovations such as the iPod or Blackberry are new technologies that the church, per se, isn’t going to create but instead utilize. Similarly, the church isn’t going to have the opportunity to create a new fad or pop-culture trend but will readily adopt it (TV show and movie thematic sermon series) in an effort to appear relevant.
Yes, the church should be innovative (leaders instead of imitators), but to do so will first require church leaders to understand that our definition of “innovation” is often inaccurate.
Dictionary.com defines the word Innovative:
adj 1: ahead of the times; 2: being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before.
Far too often, however, we promote our churches as “innovative” only to set up the attendees for a bait-and-switch. For example, if you’re going to use the Spiderman theme for a sermon series, then make the full connection between this comic-book superhero and the super-power of God – not a tangential spin that looks at the web that Spidey casts as a metaphor for a web of lies. The tie-in is marginal and could easily have avoided the Spiderman theme – but that wouldn’t look as cool on a post card or movie-theatre advertisement, and so a bait-and-switch (we offer one thing that will get you in the door, but will largely ignore the thing that got your attention so that we can force-feed you our propaganda) leaves the attendee feeling ripped off – nay, LIED TO.
Said another way, it is totally OK to take a sermon series and play off of pop-culture as long as the tie-in is legitimate and you get the correct copyright permissions to do so (and do go quoting “Fair Use” because your planning is so lax that you don’t have time to get permissions). Our communities don’t expect us to photo-copy our culture – they expect us to be different. So we should leverage technologies, themes, concepts and practices that help us achieve our goal of communicating truth without the bait-and-switch actions that turn off the unchurched.
Similarly, being creative is a goal many churches try to attain, with one church in particular billing itself (mainly to other churches) as “the creative church”. I’m in total agreement that church should be creative in reaching their communities, but I wonder if many of these churches understand the difference between the creative presentations of the Gospel versus the creative rip-off of the culture? Just because your stage was set up to look like a Lenny Kravitz concert doesn’t mean you’re creative – it simply means you’re good at copying culture.
Real creativity and innovation is hard to do for an organization (the Church, if you will) that’s not been an influencer of culture for a long, long time. I believe that a two-fold approach is necessary to see real change:
1) Resourcefully equip your church to meet the relational needs of people. This will involve the improved use of technology (audio, video, lighting, computers, database management, etc.) and the adoption of new pastoral models that include production managers, project managers and IT managers as not only people devoted to specialized tasks, but as true pastors who lead a team of lay people to utilize their gifts in these areas.
Let’s face it: when it comes to technology, the church as a whole lags far, far behind the culture and thus continues to feed the impression that we’re out-of-touch.
2) The re-igniting of the arts within the church. If I hear of another “Creative Arts” ministry within a church that limits the “arts” to music and drama, I think I might puke. The “arts” include both traditional art (painting, sculpting, acting, singing, playing an instrument, etc.) and digital art (electronic painting, 3D modeling, voice acting, digital editing, etc.) and should be a major focus of both churches and seminaries to re-evaluate how we include artists in our ministry training.
As true art is inspired, real innovation and creative thinking will develop beyond the mere duplication of culture back to the influencing of culture. As this happens, the secular world – ever in search of new and innovative ideas – will start to see the church as a true innovative force.
We’ll measure our results by the impact we make on our local communities in how we interact and influence people outside of our church walls. The greatest measurement will be how seamlessly our people take the paradigm of innovation out to the marketplace. Will our Artists and teachers develop community service opportunities that look nothing like what’s available in our local communities today? Will the church be viewed as a community center that’s open 7 days a week and as heavily populated on Thursday afternoon as it is on Sunday morning? Will we create opportunities to redeem the culture through our community involvement instead of forcing our community neighbors to come to our (not their) facility and participate in a way that’s culturally out of context with their lives?
Our obstacles are age old:
* Change – not a mere modification – is really hard.
* Cost – technology, in particular, doesn’t always scale down to allow a small church to leverage it as well as a large church.
* Control – it’s hard to manage more than we’re used to managing. Most churches stay small because we can manage (control) a smaller size.
* Commitment – real innovation and creative development is expensive in three ways: people, equipment (resources) and time. Because it’s hard to manage that which we don’t understand well, many leaders will fail to give the freedom and flexibility to the technology pastors and artists that are so desperately needed in today’s church.
Fortunately, there are companies and ministries that are led by people who are part of churches but who are not staff members or seminary-trained to limit their context.
Companies such as Fellowship Technologies, Renewed Vision, Worship House Media, Purpose Driven Ministries and Youth Specialties are not only creating resources for churches but are providing indirect leadership and pointing the way for greater effectiveness in our local churches.
We must support and partner with these organizations in order to de-program our mindset from one of institutionalism into one of practical ministry innovations. This will require far more than the purchase of their products or services.
In the end – or the new beginning, if you will – churches must learn to creatively communicate to their local culture if they ever hope to be a leading innovator to the masses.
Tony
Great project. Here are some comments I made on Monday Morning Insight.
for my purposes the ‘we’ below is the general idea of church or God’s people/community.
Will we define innovation in economic terms, business terms, technological terms?
Are we innovating for its own sake or to advance the kingdom of God? simple answer is to advance the kingdom of God. but we should be slow in bringing this as our answer.
What is the cost of innovation? This should be considered in two ways, cost to NOT innovate and cost TO innovate. What will we lose and what will we gain?
How does the current wisdom on innovation pertain to the issues in the church, i.e. “that at least 50% of innovations fail to accomplish the goals or dreams that they were birthed with.”
What will we do with failure of our innovations?
Actually I see two issues in his questions, one is about innovation which implies planned or deliberate change or improvement to the “way we do church” or what it means to be a Christian in our time and in our place.
the second question is one of future. What will the future look like, and what will the future church look like?
they are similar questions but not the same. each can have impact on the other. i personally believe that the future question should proceed the innovation question. if we can see some of the future needs, pressures, trends we can then begin to look at what needs to change, or where we need to innovate in the church.
I define innovation as a new groove. Mixing up the same old way of doing things. It doesn’t have to necessarily be a new thing… maybe just a new way of looking at an old thing. But, it can be a new thing, too.
• Obstacles? Fear of new experiences. Inclusive bubbles. Adversity to change. Trying too hard to be something you’re not.
• Size. Innovation at its core comes from a state of mind that flows into the values of a church. Size doesn’t hinder innovation, atrophy does.
• Leadership. How can leaders help create a culture of innovation?
Give people the room to explore and take chances. Show them how to continue engaging in culture with a new filter. Discourage people from isolating themselves inside the church.
I think they’re great questions… I hesitate to add more. It just seems like there are so many of them. It makes it look like a really big assignment that people don’t have time to add to their already too big pile of things to do. Anyway to collapse the question to make the L O N G list less intimidating? Like a cliff notes version of your list?
I am 54 years OLD (caps intended). I have been in the ministry 20 years. Also, I have been teaching church growth for 16 years. I have been involved with music for forty years. (That’s right-I am old :-))
As a musician with a degree in music, I have played/sung/experienced almost every kind of music imaginable, in church and out of church. I have served in different kinds of churches and observed countless other kinds of churches, and personally experienced “worship wars” and other kinds of “wars” in the church. I write all of this, to say the following:
In response to the question above “What’s next for the Church?”, here is what I would place my money on, (if I could make a bet):
(For example): Just as bell-bottom jeans were stylish back in the early seventies but are now in fashion again (just like so many other trends and fashions that follow the same pattern), I would bet that sooner or later we will see a trend in church growth that will be similar to a former trend in how we do church. Not exactly the same as before, but a new version of the old (maybe a chance to go “back to the future” and have an opportunity to re-do). Just a thought.
Applause to Anthony! Major Ditto’s to the whole of your essay.
Anthony said, “If I hear of another ‘Creative Arts’ ministry within a church that limits the “arts” to music and drama, I think I might puke”. I vicariously heave with you. Drama? that so passe, or haven’t you heard?
The “mold” for church today needs to be re-examined for parts of the body. There is no One Size Fits All. Stuart Briscoe’s comments are the absolutes, the unchangeables. We can continue to study the “native” language of those who we seek to communicate with and then use their venacular. That isn’t innovation yet, just sound communication. It will take breaking the box that shapes us to enter the realm of innovation. This starts with the mentality of the church.
Holding hope for the future is tough when innovators are seen as the “unmanageable side” of the body spectrum. Artist’s are generally innovative communicators. Yet, they are the last hired, first fired in the church. Priority for innovation is not a precedence. How do we propose to lead the culture instead of following it? I get a huge kick out of a pastor who asks for counsel and says, “I want to be relevant”. I suggest, some mild ideas like holding a service at the local soccer field, creating a custom street theatre piece at the drag strip, starting a tow truck ministry or talking about sin in very pointed terms through a storytelling service? “Oh no, I meant come up with a better power point” he smirks. We must understand that you can’t hire innovative communicators if you yourself don’t even know the questions to ask in the process.
We sometimes view gadgets as innovation. The “fad” of media puts flash before substance in some cases. The new rage has Staff’s madly declaring the need for high priced gadgets. Yet, they ignore the substantive “art” of storytelling. Relational connection in all art forms trumps all. We are raising a new generation of staff who operate cool toys, brag about their relevance and then miss out on optimum impact of their medium.
Without a mindset of innovation we will only see as now, pockets of innovation. This pocket leads in creating a new trend-standard-pattern to be copied until the next rush to be “relevant” (10 years behind) occurs. Alas, tis where we are and with this reality in mind…the simple message of the gospel is and will remain the future for solid churches. Innovators can not abandon hope. We must continue to provide creative leadership.
Oh…Tony, can I grobble,beg and whimper (insert puppy dog look here)or use any other technique to participate/serve in this project? email me at imaginuitymedia@yahoo.com
Anthony like to hear from you again.
Gang, I really appreciate your participation in this dialogue. Very helpful. It’s going to really benefit this specific project, and, generally, I think this helps me consider what God is up to in the local church. Keep the comments and questions flowing.
tony
The conversation that is taking place is great on this subject. I just wanted to make sure that during your conversation with these pastors that you include churches of all sizes. I am a young pastor, with a young church, and while I strive for true innovation I also realize that we have a lot of work to do. Including the smaller churches to the conversation (gaining their input), insures that we are not left out of the results. A real challenge is innovation without the massive resources of larger churches. That is the dialogue that I would like to have! Look forward to more information…