The Critical Questions Churches Need to Ask in a Deconstructing Age: Thoughts from a Communication Expert on Trading in a Sermon-Centric Model to Facilitate Transformational Discipleship

 

The Critical Questions Churches Need to Ask in a Deconstructing Age

 

Thoughts from a Communication Expert on Trading in a Sermon-Centric Model to Facilitate

Transformational Discipleship

 

Several years ago, I had a pretty significant existential crisis. My career choice and ministry identity were on the line. The questions I was asking were based on some of the things I was learning in my college classes. To understand my internal crisis, I first have to explain the content we were discussing. So I’m going to dig into some academic concepts for a minute. Hang in there, and I’ll get to the juicy part next.

In college, every student was forced to take a basic speech class, no matter what their major was. And it was quite clear that no one wanted to be there. As expected, we took turns presenting halfhearted speeches, but since it was a college class, we also had a few textbooks to wade through. In our class texts, we studied basic communication theory. If you’ve ever seen this image, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

 

Communication Theory

In this class, and many of my Communications classes, we discussed the difference between transmissional (one-way) communication versus two-way communication that includes feedback and discussion. The reality struck me: even though we know psychologically and scientifically that two-way communication is more effective and formational in teaching and understanding new information, much of our culture is founded on one-way transmissional communication. For example, when you post something to social media, you are putting a message out into the world in a transmissional nature. People might comment, but there’s not really a good platform for two-way discussion and feedback. Newspapers, speeches, books, lectures, music, radio, podcasts…the list could go on….are all types of one-way communication. They are not bad in their very essence, but the amount of these mediums that permeate our world leaves little room for true two-way communication. When a caller calls into the radio station to make a comment or ask a question, they have a limited time to make a short statement and then the host takes back the reigns. It’s just the nature of things.

And while there are many one-way forms of media that we truly enjoy and have learned from, much of our media has taken us out of relationships. Posting on Facebook is different than telling your friend some good news. Listening to a podcast is different than meeting with your professor over lunch. However, in many ways, because of the sheer concentration of transmissional mediums in our culture, we’ve come to prefer the convenience and accessibility of these options.

Transmissional Communication and the Church

However, what really made me begin to ask questions is when I realized that much of the way that church programs and worship services are executed is based on one-way forms of communication. The modern American Evangelical church service commonly includes videos, announcements, and sermons which are essentially comprised of a person standing on a stage or screen talking at a group of people. It’s transmissional.

While there is no innate morality attached to these forms of communication, it does contrast starkly with the ways that Jesus taught in his ancient Jewish context. Even the ways in which education took place in synagogues and rabbinical contexts were very based on discussion and questions. Though there was a high value on knowing and interpreting the Scriptures which could be compared to Western methods of exegesis, there was also an emphasis on not just knowing the teachings of your Rabbi, but being like Him in character and lifestyle. This article gives incredible insight into the difference between western forms of learning versus what words and concepts were used in ancient Hebrew. Rabbinical teaching methods are not necessarily superior just because Jesus used them. Being an incarnational God, he used the culture and methods of the people He was with. However, it seems that Jesus utilized these forms not only because of His Jewish context but because He is a relational God who created his children for relationship. When these forms led to deeper relationships, he utilized them, and when they emphasized a cognitive arrogance and Pharisaical superiority, he challenged them.

Experiential Knowing and Relationship

From the creation of the world, a Triune (and therefore relational) God created humans in His image to be relational. We were created to know and be known by God and each other. And the way we were created to learn was created to be relational too. God could have given us a microchip to insert or an instant download of all the information we need for a full life, but that was not his method. He teaches us over time in the context of relationship. In fact, the Hebrew word “know” used for how God knows us throughout the Old Testament is the same word used when a husband “knew” his wife and they bore a child together. It is an intimate, close, experiential knowing. It’s not based on facts or scientific data. ‘To know’ is ‘to be in deep relationship with.’ And it is through this mode that we learn and grow and develop.

As toddlers, we learn language by mimicking the sounds we hear our parents making went they talk to us. We learn to walk by watching our parents and then taking their hands as they help us to our feet and support our wobbly limbs. Even as adults, when we talk about our best friend, we are not listing off facts we know about them objectively….we are sharing memories and stories and embarrassing memories we share with that person.

Western Education and Systematized Knowledge

This type of knowing is woven into our human nature, but it is not as prevalent in our western culture. I believe it is to our disadvantage that the American way has become so systematized. There are absolutely benefits to mass production of products and systems which provide needed services to large amounts of people. These resources are helpful and at times necessary. But the way our education system and culture is built to heavily emphasize cognitive factual knowing rather than experiential hands-on knowing has disadvantages. We are taught that if we just know enough facts and data points and processes about any given topic, we have mastery over it. Does that mean it’s possible for a teacher to lecture on the mechanics of how a car works without ever physically touching or fixing a car?

Systematized Bible Knowledge

This is an extreme example, of course. But from a ministry standpoint, I’ve seen it over and over. Students graduate from Bible college with extensive knowledge of theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, and church government structures. With this knowledge, they believe they are better equipped to work in a ministry context than the average churchgoer. But I have seen this lead to arrogance and a savior complex that does so much harm when these students enter into a ministry context. Because even though they have their theology nailed down, do they know how to counsel a grieving widow, how to direct a parent in crisis, how to walk a teenager through a deep season of doubt? The reality is, no matter how much head knowledge or theological training you have, it is not sufficient when placed into the context of relationships. On the contrary, I am very thankful for the Bible education I received at Bible school. And a minister who only has street smarts but no knowledge of hermeneutics or exegetical principles can be just as much of a red flag. Education is a gift and privilege, so don’t hear me saying that cognitive knowledge of the Bible is wrong. However, the way in which it is emphasized to the exclusion of relational knowledge and hand-on experience has negatively effected the western church.

Greek Influence on Western Thought vs. the way of the Hebrew

An excerpt from the book Learning to be a Disciple: The Way of the Master by Luella Campbell reads:

One of the most basic differences between the way we think and the way Hebrews thought was in the area of knowing versus doing. Western thought patterns follow the way of Greek thinking. Right thinking was important to the Greek while right conduct was what mattered most to the Hebrew. We see these differences most clearly in the way we handle the Scriptures. Greeks learned in order to understand. Hebrews learned in order to revere God.

Since we are still influenced by Greek philosophers like Plato and Artistotle, we want to apply their logically ordered ways, systematizing and organizing everything into carefully reasoned theologies. Think of the vast numbers of Greek-oriented theological colleges teaching well-organized theological systems from thousands of textbooks written by Western theologians and producing pastors and ministers who can spout theology and preach well-ordered sermons. However, they have not been taught how to deal with a heavily pregnant young mother leading a toddler by the hand who has just been thrown out of her home!

With a western theological education, you can probably preach a killer sermon. But ministry is more than transmissional communication. Let me say that again because it’s important:

Ministry is more than transmissional communication.

We lie to ourselves if we think that we can change the world with a podcast or make disciples with a brand. 

Measurable Ministry Vs. Making Disciples

And unfortunately, because we are not well versed in communication theory or the psychology of human development in the Christian church, we have become very susceptible to these lies. We have been taught that ministry can be measured through church attendance, baptism numbers, altar call responses, sunday school sign ups, small group participation, live stream watchers, podcast streams, or conference tickets purchased. But numbers lie.

The reality is: spiritual formation is not linear. It is not a simple walk from Point A to Point B. It includes two steps forward and three steps back. It includes tangents and rabbit trails and off-roading and back roads and winding trails and sometimes getting lost and sometimes finding your way again. It includes pain and questions and doubts and struggles and hurt and confusion and harsh realities and brokenness and darkness and chaotic moments. That’s why the truth of the resurrection provides hope.

If none of the chaotic moments existed, would we still sign in relief when we realized those moments don’t have the power to decide our destination? 

Being a disciple is not a technique we can master. It is a relationship we walk in day by day.

Therefore, making disciples is not a formula or technique that can be systematized, simplified, and mastered.

***Disclaimer here: I’m not saying that there are not best-practices or tips that work. I’m not saying we submit to a life of chaos without any goals in mind. But formulas without relationship often lead to Christians who know what they are supposed to do, and have nowhere to go when their formula falls short. Making disciples, as modeled by Jesus, includes walking alongside people when their world doesn’t make sense. From the Fall of Man when God seeks out Adam and Eve to the events in the Garden of Gethsemane…garden moments are a part of spiritual formation because they draw us deeper into relationship. We were never meant to avoid the confusion and the chaos or pass judgments about people based on their garden moments. Garden moments will never fit into our formulas unless our framework of discipleship is truly based on relationships.***

Though that might have been a bit of a tangent, I felt that disclaimer was important to clarify because I know someone may read my words and misunderstand my meaning. Once again, a pitfall of transmissional communication.

So….IF:

• God is relational
• He created us to be relational
• He wants us to know Him in a relational experiential way
• He desires that we know each other in a relational experiential way
• And he created us to learn over time within the context of relationship
  • which is the premise on which his discipleship model is based
• and true discipleship fosters deep formation and true transformation

THEN: our churches MUST utilize more forms of interpersonal two-way communication rather than ONLY transmissional mediums

You may be thinking, “my church has many forms of two-way communication like small group discussions.”

That is true for many churches, so I don’t want to minimize it. But, because of the way our western world thinks about learning and knowing, and therefore because our church structures are so sermon-based, we cannot escape the reality that our broader culture defines “church participation” as coming to a Sunday morning service and listening to a sermon. People are trained for passivity because transmissional communication doesn’t ask anything of them. So to invite them to get involved after passively sitting and listening to a sermon, is a hard leap to make.

Our church structure and the ways we’ve been taught in a western context to think about “what church is” and “what we do when we gather”, the frameworks we cling to, and the lenses we look through still have a bias towards a transmissional structure in which relational communication can take place instead of a relational structure in which transmissional communication occasionally takes place. Inviting people to participate in an intimate relational way doesn’t always feel natural because that’s not the structure of a typical church service. We invite people to a different program, small group, or sunday school to do this because it’s not the norm in “big church.”

Covid and the Rise of Transmissional Ministry Mediums

We see this reality very starkly in the aftermath of Covid. (Though the effects of Covid are not done, many churches have started to return to some state of normalcy.) In the chaos of Covid, many churches were forced to provide virtual options like Live streamed sermons. A live stream is a transmissional form of communication. And while many committed churchgoers were heartbroken by losing the opportunity to physically meet together, it seems astounding to me how many people preferred the convenience of watching a sermon from their home.

I once heard a podcast say that if we think about church in terms of releasing the most engaging sermon or the most influential worship, we will always fall short. We would then be competing with every podcast, YouTuber, Netflix show, and content creator out there. Churches can’t compete with a culture of content creation. There will always be something more entertaining, more thought provoking, or more inspiring at your fingertips. But, if the purpose of church is only to communicating truth through a transmissional communication medium, then it follows that a lifestream is entirely sufficient, and actually the preferred method to do that. If, however, a church body is for the deep intimate intentional relationship of being truly known and deeply loved by the people of God and formed by their prayers, their presence, and unity with Christ and His Bride, then a live stream will never be able to accomplish that goal.

By this logic, and through my own research and experience of this topic, it follows then that in a church/discipleship context, we should prefer relational/transformational/two-way communication mediums over transmissional mediums.

My Existential Crisis

So…on to my existential crisis.

I am a writer and a speaker.

My entire professional identity and platform….my ministry….the thing that I do….is transmissional.

Writing is a one-way communication method. Speaking is a transmission of information with very little two-way engagement or feedback.

Had I chosen the wrong career path?

The opinions, beliefs, and theories I crafted throughout college about the most effective means of communication didn’t align with my ministry. The forms of communication my career was based on were transmissional.

I truly didn’t know how to reconcile the two. As I sat in classes discussing these concepts and learning to articulate my thoughts, I felt torn and I was scared.

I had only ever pursued one career path. And it’s within an industry that puts a heavy emphasis on building a platform and creating an audience. If you want to be successful in this industry, you gain followers, you get subscribers; you collect people to transmit your message to.

I wrestled with this. Because my goal was never to have the most followers or the biggest audience. In fact, I don’t even like social media that much from a personal standpoint. When I’m hanging out with my friends, I am horrible at responding to texts because I would rather be present with the people in the room than on my phone.

From an industry standpoint, that’s a problem. If I ever want to get a book published, I am supposed to have tens of thousands of followers. That’s when a publisher will begin to take you seriously. This is for legitimate reasons: they want to know that people will buy the book. But it puts me in an awkward position.

In my writing too, how do I justify utilizing such a transmissional medium when I believe so strongly in the transformation of two-way communication within deep relationships?

And even though I’m a speaker, do I believe giving a speech or presenting a message is the most effective way to teach? Does speaking foster intimate relationships with a Triune God or does it foster more head knowledge?

The Questions Ministry Workers Must Ask

I deeply hope and fervently pray that every person in ministry is asking these questions of themselves.

Pastors: even though God has given you a talent for preaching – is your message best communicated through a sermon?

Ministers of every type: is the format in which your ministry engages people the most effective way to foster life transformation?

Creators: even though you are gifted in content creation – is the truth most clearly portrayed through your medium?

Are you preaching, content creating, or ministering that way because that’s your preferred medium or because you’ve thought of the way that your people need to hear/experience your message? Are you asking what they need first or are you doing what you’re good at first?

If these questions don’t lead to some sort of existential crisis, then we might just be doing ministry the way we do because it’s the way we’re used to or prefer or happen to be good at. However, it may not be what your people need at this moment.

Building my Kingdom

My last year in college, I wrote a 60,000 word book. This book was the culmination of my entire life and education up to that point. The manuscript, even in its raw form, is something I strongly believe the church would benefit from. And at the end of my college career, my professor told me, “don’t let this book sit in a drawer somewhere collecting dust.”

So after I moved into my first apartment, and the manuscript sat in a drawer collecting dust, I panicked.

So I watched as many Youtube videos as I could about how to get published and how to build a platform. I even met with someone who worked for a prominent publishing company and I messaged back and forth with someone working for a prominent Christian magazine. I got all kinds of advice about all of the things I would need to do to be taken seriously.

But there came a point where I realized I was doing it all out of my own power. And I was doing it with a prideful attitude, trying to prove myself to an unforgiving industry. And that wasn’t why God made me a writer.

So he told me, “Stop building your kingdom. When it’s time, I will build what needs to be built.”

I needed to trust Him.

Just because I was good at something and felt a calling toward a certain ministry didn’t mean I needed to do it now, that I was ready for it, that it would serve the church best at this moment, or that this was what God’s people needed to hear now. There’s a certain type of hubris that we need to let go of if we are to be effective in ministry. You are not God’s gift to mankind to save his people from themselves. God has given you gifts to cultivate and utilize within His Church, but if your gifts become intertwined with your ego (like mine have at times), they can cause more hard than good. We must have the humility and dependent obedience to wait for God’s timing and submit ourselves to his process of maturing and sanctifying us. It is in this humility that we let go of the need to prove ourselves or see specific results, and we are freed to selflessly serve in the way that people need.

Around the same time that I was learning this, I had a conversation with Christian author Asheritah Ciuciu. I asked her about platform building and branding and all the tips from inside the industry. What she told me still sticks with me today: “Speak to the people who are already listening.”

She emphasized a humility in my approach. Rather than trying to build a bigger platform to fulfill my needs, I should be asking what the people who were already engaging with my content needed from me and serving their needs.

As I thought through my theology of media and my methodology in ministry, I came to a conclusion. One-way mediums and two-way mediums are neither good nor bad. I will not build my mindset on either. I want my communication style to be Incarnational.

Incarnational Communication

The incarnation shapes my understanding of these topics deeply. God did not just transmit information to us, he came to dwell with us. He entered into our context and he walked with us. Jesus used communication models from his time, but only to the degree that they drew his disciples deeper into relationships. No medium or communication style is perfect. Many forms of social media have biases toward self-promotion. Many writing/lecture styles of communication have a heavy bias toward downloading information to the listener without knowing the details of their everyday life. However, there is a way to accomplish each of these communication mediums that is more incarnational.

How can we use social media incarnationally?

What are ways that posting a picture on Instagram can draw people deeper into relationship with God, others, or myself?

I’ve found that creating content that is vulnerable online is a way to be incarnational. Showing my flaws and my struggles draws people to message me with their own stories. Posting things that remind people they are not alone can draw them to be more authentic with the people around them instead of hiding behind well-curated facades. Posting a Facebook post that asks questions wanting to learn rather than making statements trying to teach tends to open doors relationally rather than alienating people. Creating Tiktoks that show a real life of a real person or talk about my real struggles draws people into community.

How can we use writing incarnationally?

Much of my theology on this has been informed by the Epistles. There are several epistles that start or end with a note saying, “I wish I could be with you face to face, but since I can’t right now, I send my love through this letter and hope to encourage your church from afar.” It begins a discussion that is meant to be continued among their church community and when the writer rejoins them in person. Books, blog posts, letters, poems, and website copy can all accomplish this purpose.

How can we use speeches, lectures, sermons, and teaching incarnationally?

I like to put an emphasis on transforming head knowledge to heart knowledge. This isn’t what every audience needs. But my context is often people who have a lot of Bible knowledge that hasn’t transformed their life. I like to teach in a way that takes concepts you already know and frames them to draw you deeper into union with God, unity with His church, and honest self-reflection that leads to real-life transformation.

However, whether this is what your audience needs or not, the key ingredient to Incarnational teaching is humility. Teach in a way that connects with real life. What are the questions your listeners are asking? What doubts keep them up at night? Where do their pain points show up? If you teach something that’s so factual and cognitive that it doesn’t connect with those raw moments in life, it will never lead to transformation. A statement can be 100% biblically true and still communicated in a way that never connects with the real life of the person you’re teaching. Incarnational teaching requires that the teacher is humble enough to enter into their listener’s lived experience. Teaching with a pretentious or self-righteous attitude gets you nowhere. This requires that you know you still have things you could learn or ways you could be shaped by your audience, which draws you deeper into relationship. It requires that you listen to their felt needs instead of passing judgment on what you think they need. This can be hard to do in a one-off lecture or speech. So in those scenarios, I try to learn as much as I can about the group, and then rely heavily on imagining some pain points that are common to human nature and empathizing with them. Empathy for the real-life struggles of your listeners is important because without it you can fall into the self-importance trap again. Empathy leads you to identify how you would feel in their shoes which also leads you to identify that you could easily struggle or doubt or sin in the same ways they might. You are of no more spiritual importance than they.

And incarnational teaching, if possible, leads into deeper relationship. Are you available to talk to your listeners afterwards? Is there a place they can contact you? Is there a discussion that can happen among their group based on your message?

All of these things are often easier in the context of pastoral ministry because you know your congregation/group and ideally you are able to cater each message towards them because you know them deeply.

However, incarnational teaching especially gets more complicated with the introduction of a video camera.

Incarnational Communication in a Disembodied Digital Age

With the introduction of video cameras, live streams, social media posts, and the reality that much of our world now exists online, we now face questions about disembodiment. When you Facetime with someone, is it the same as standing face-to-face? No doubt, it feels closer to embodied interaction than texting does. You can look them in the eyes….kind of. But every time we watch a video of someone or hear their digitized voice come through the screen, we are experiencing a disembodied version of them. At that moment, we are not interacting with a version of them that physically takes up space in a room. They are merely a face on a screen…not in a body, and therefore: disembodied.

We have become so used to this reality that it doesn’t seem strange to us. In fact, throughout all of the Covid shutdowns, we were grateful for Zoom calls and Facetime because it was the closest we could get to embodied interaction. But with the onset of Zoom fatigue and screen exhaustion, we realized it’s still not the same. We weren’t created for disembodiment. We were not created to be all-present. We were created to be physically present in a single location and a single moment in time and interact with those there in the room with us. Social media and video chats still have their benefits, and allow us to keep in touch in ways that were never possible fifty years ago. However, it was not meant to be a primary means of interacting with the world.

By it’s very definition, disembodiment is the opposite of incarnation. Jesus took on flesh, to become embodied in human form. His example for human communication involved becoming more present, more involved in a single moment, and more rooted in human relationships. He didn’t utilize a hologram in the sky…he took on human form to walk with us. Therefore, though there are obvious benefits to disembodied mediums, we must utilize them with caution. What are the ethics and ramifications of doing incarnational ministry through disembodied mediums? Is Virtual Reality church a good idea? Is a live stream sermon really the same as being in the room?

Podcasting Church

This methodological quandary is discussed near the end of the popular podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill by Christianity Today. A couple of episodes discuss how pastors of large churches and mega-churches have approached live streaming and podcasting to massive audiences. Where they might have catered their sermon illustrations to local events or stories within their congregation, they now felt the pressure to use illustrations that were accessible to a larger audience. In a way, this sacrificed the intimacy and directness of teaching to their own congregation. It was less incarnational.

I dealt with the same questions in a recent speaking engagement of mine. We decided to record my messages, and even put a mic on me to increase the audio quality. And there was a moment when I asked, “Should I look at the camera occasionally? Should I speak with my hypothetical online audience in mind?”

My first message included the least audience engagement and was probably the most accessible to online audiences because it included the most general illustrations. This video will be the easiest to repackage and present to a general audience. From a media standpoint, it’s versatile and has the greatest potential reach. But it’s not incarnational.

In fact, it would be easy for me to put much of my focus on mastering every speaking best practice so I could go up on any stage and perform well. From a technical framework, that would be what made me the best speaker. If communication was only about mastery over techniques and formulas, that would be the pathway to becoming the greatest speaker.

The Incarnation of a Retreat Speaker

Because my goal is to be incarnational, there are ways in which those techniques fall short. In fact, for this particular youth retreat, my messages became better the more I began to know the names and faces and circumstances of the students in my audience. As I got to know them, I used more specific illustrations and engaged with the audience in more specific ways that related more personally to their context. By entering into their context, learning about them, talking with them, and developing a relationship with and a love for them, I became better able to minister in a way that made sense to their context.

It was a whirlwind trip and I only had about 12 hours to develop these relationships, so there wasn’t exponential progress made for this introvert. But when I left, I felt sad. I had grown to love these students in a way that made me want to spend more time with them and enter further into their context.

When I left, I asked myself what I was most proud of. I didn’t leave feeling proud of how I performed as a speaker or feeling like I had conquered the stage with a commanding presence and a persuasive message that would make people want to applaud. Instead, I felt proud of the ways I was able to tweak my messages to relate more fully to the particular context and lived experience of the specific group I was speaking to. The group I spoke to was more fully known by me when I left than when I arrived. And because this incarnational mindset draws me deeper into relationships, it has motivated me to continue praying for them even though my speaking gig is over.

This dynamic is incredibly difficult for a speaker specifically because in most contexts, we are called to spend just a couple of days with a group that we know very little about. It’s also hard to have meaningful discussions or develop any relationships over the period of a couple hours or a couple days. That’s not how relationships work. That’s why discipleship was meant to consist of walking with a few people over a period of several years. That’s what Jesus modeled. So my participation as a speaker at an event cannot make disciples like a youth group leader or pastor can. But with this incarnational understanding, the goal of my transmissional communication is always to lead into deeper relationships with God, others, or myself. I want an audience member to spend more time with Jesus as a result of my message rather than knowing more about Jesus.

The last two messages of this recent retreat will be more difficult to repackage than the first. Some aspects are too specific to that audience. The illustrations won’t all translate to the average listener online. But my goal was not to podcast to the masses. My goal was to know and be known by God and others through an incarnational approach to communication. And that was accomplished.

Identifying a Path Towards Incarnational Ministry

We have no lack of ministry tools, mediums, forms of communications, Bible studies, Christian content, etc, in our world. As believers, we need to be asking ourselves how we can use the communication methods that God has given us in a way that makes disciples, cultivates relationships, and draws people into deeper union with Christ and his church. We should start by identifying which communication methods being used are NOT doing that. Are transmissional mediums our best option? There may be another way to communicate a message that is more two-way. But for the messages that are transmissional, we must ask: what is the most incarnational way to do this? How can I communicate in a way that cultivates relationships, community, and discussion beyond just this message?

IF:

• ministry is done in the context of relationships
• life transformation happens through incarnation
• discipleship and learning happens in the context of knowing and being known

THEN: The church needs to evaluate its communication styles and mediums used judging by these standards. We should not view our ministries within the context of how many can be reached (measurable numbers preferring a mass audience which means life transformation is not as likely). Instead, the church needs to evaluate our ministries within the context of how deeper relationships and true transformation can be cultivated.

What I’m not Saying:

It’s always a bit funny for me to write posts like this because so often people assume when someone is arguing against one thing, they are arguing for the polar opposite to take place. But the truth is rarely found in the extremes. I believe that life transformation can take place in a variety of church contexts and a variety of ministry structures. I am not arguing for the dismantling of the modern-day church. I don’t even think it’s called for to entirely cease a sermon-centric church service. Transitioning to a sermonless discussion group is not necessarily the answer. But I want to open our minds to the broad range of possibilities. The church as a whole is likely the greatest culprit of “doing things because they’ve always been done this way.” We form structures and patterns and models and then we attach an unspoken moral superiority or spiritual hierarchy to this certain way of doing things. That is what I propose we dismantle. We need to be asking more questions. We need to hold our ‘ways of doing ministry’ with an open hand, willing to adjust as necessary. What worked at one time, may not be the best method for all eternity.

Sometimes we feel threatened by the fact that culture is always shifting. Many feel that the ideas once regarded as honorable living or American values are now often seen as closed-minded and intolerant. This leads people to respond with fear, defensiveness, and a stronger grip on the methodology their church uses. But maybe it’s worth listening to critique and shifting our methods to align with the needs of our shifting culture. A ministry structure that worked 100 years ago might not be the best for today. Your theology might remain the same, but your ways of engaging with people should be open to adjustments. Humans don’t like change. It’s in our nature. It’s uncomfortable. But are we willing to change if it is what’s best to build God’s Kingdom?

Would you feel uncomfortable if you went to a church service where no sermon took place? Why? Does the teaching of God’s Word only happen through sermons? I hope not. And yet, our cause for discomfort in a sermonless service might be because we feel teaching has not been prioritized. What does it look like for learning to be prioritized? How does a congregation learn? How are humans formed? What elements lead to true life transformation? What formats of communication would create space for your congregation or ministry participants to truly thrive? Are these questions you have asked yourself?

How can you as a leader be more incarnational? How can you enter further into the context of your people, your neighborhood, or your city? Teachers and pastors can portray a sense of knowledge and having all the answers that makes people uneasy about asking their deep questions. How can you be known as not just a teacher or minister, but also a friend, an advocate, and someone who walks alongside people through the hills and valleys of life? Maybe someone needs to eat dinner with you more than they need to hear a message from you.

What might it look like for our church structures to be shifted away from transmissional communication mediums? I don’t know the answer. In fact, the answer might look completely different for each individual church community based on the needs present in their context.

When we talk about changing our ministry methodology to meet the needs of an ever-changing culture, I fear that your mind is jumping straight to “the Seeker Movement” where churches invested thousands of dollars to make worship services more like concerts and sermons more like motivational conference talks. They utilized big events, guest speakers, and expensive mediums to draw people in. But the initial problem with this movement was not the heart for the lost, it was the reaction. People were scared that the church was becoming too antiquated, so they made reactionary changes out of fear. In practice, these made the church more transmissional. The purpose for me bringing up questions that seem to challenge all our church norms is so we can avoid reacting to the culture, and instead make changes that are well thought through, intentional, and purposeful. Instead of making reactionary changes after a cultural phenomenon makes us panic, we can make smart forward-thinking changes that build God’s Kingdom from the inside out!

My Anglican Experience:

There is a cultural shift over the past decade, especially in cities, where young people who grew up in nondenominational church contexts are being drawn back into liturgical church structures. Why?

I started attending an Anglican church for a couple of years after college. What felt refreshing to me is that the liturgy facilitated something to participate in. I wasn’t just sitting and listening to a sermon. In fact, the sermon was only a small portion of what we did together on a Sunday. It truly felt to me that I was gathering with the whole congregation and participating in something sacred with them. The pastor was not the single most important player and the sermon was not the single most important event.

I imagine the shift a decade or two before, towards more modern churches with polished worship experiences and artful stage presences stemmed from a similar motivation. People who grew up in basic low budget churches found it appealing to be part of a congregation that felt relevant and a service that felt like an experience.

The reality is, no matter which way the pendulum is swinging people want to be part of something.  Congregants want to be part of a participatory faith. They don’t want to only be fed application points from the pulpit. In fact, the rise of public scandals in church leadership has only added to the public distrust of celebrity pastors. We don’t need a celebrity to put on a pedestal. We need a space where we can work out our faith together. A place where we can bring our pain and our doubt and our struggles. A place where people weep with us, laugh with us, celebrate with us, worship with us, pray with us, and ask questions with us. If you have experienced this within a specific small group or community at your church, that’s such a gift. Our hope and prayer should be that every person walking through our doors has this experience, and that is usually not the case. Let’s change that.

The Deconstruction Movement

We live in an age where deconstructing your faith is common, encouraged, and sometimes trendy. And I’ve heard mixed reviews in the church on the phenomenon. I’ve heard a lot of narratives about how people are giving in to the culture, slipping down a slippery slope, falling away, losing their faith, and leaving the church. Did you notice all the buzzwords in that one sentence? In some ways, while these narratives do cause real concern for people, they can also be dismissive. The burden is placed on the person falling away. And to be sure, there are people that leave the church because they don’t believe in Jesus anymore and turn away from their prior beliefs. But I’ve found an increasingly common phenomenon in the deconstruction movement is for people to reject the evangelical church structures while maintaining a relationship with Jesus. You’ll hear buzzwords like exvangelical, or relationship instead of religion, or a rejection of organized religion. But many of the people that have been hurt by the church structures or cultures (that sometimes aren’t even biblical nonnegotiables), still believe in Jesus and still maintain a personal relationship with Him. In these cases, they have not fallen away from their faith entirely like our “leaving the church” narratives emphasize. In many cases, they might be changing their belief systems or adopting theology that your church doesn’t agree with, but they are not walking entirely away from their personal faith. So, in these cases, it’s important to be asking – what about the evangelical church/organized religion was so hurtful or harmful that they walked away?

Is the thing that caused them to walk away a biblical non-negotiable? Or is it a method or cultural norm that we can more easily give up so that more people aren’t hurt?

Of course, there may still be contributing factors that are personal choices and differences in belief, but maybe asking those questions will identify things that can be changed or adjusted. We should be humble enough to ask ourselves the hard questions. Because our norms might not be worth the harm they are causing. At best, some of our structures are ineffective modes of teaching and communication, and at worst they may be stripping people of feeling loved, embuing them with dignity and agency, and inviting them into a Christlike community apart from churchy norms Jesus didn’t endorse.

Look around at the church at large. Look around at your specific ministry.

Who is zoned out because they’ve heard it all before? Who has eyes that are glazed over because they know how to fit in, but don’t know how to thrive? Who isn’t sitting in the seats anymore because they’ve been hurt? Who went and found another church? Who only attends online anymore?

Why? Are there patterns there? Are there common reasons people leave, or disengage, or feel hurt?

If we’re going to pay attention to the numbers, those are the number that tell the truth.

Not every case will be an opportunity for reconciliation, or even present a wrong that needs to be righted. Sometimes people just had different preferences, different opinions, changing beliefs, etc. And it was in their best interest to move on as they grew. And sometimes their hurt is just a side effect from being in community with imperfect people. We can’t be petrified of hurting people or only aim to please 100% of the time. But if there are patterns, they are worth evaluating. As imperfect people with imperfect church structures, our patterns always have a tendency to be woven with sin. So if our churches have a trail of people leaving or disengaging, there might be something to repent of. Even if people left because of a decision you stand by, there may be something about the way it was handled or communicated that caused unneeded harm.

Pay attention to the numbers for who leaves, who distances themselves, and who disengages. Those numbers might tell you something worth listening to.

Because when we just celebrate the numbers for who attended your latest outreach event (even though five years from now, there may be no significant lasting impact with 90% of attendees), but we don’t mourn our losses, we are not growing into a community where people can be better known, better loved, and better invited into discipleship and community.

The Shepherd’s Heart

As people in ministry, we are called to reflect the heart of our Shepherd. In fact, pastors are called to fulfill the role of shepherd for their church. Our Shepherd left the 99 to bring back the 1. We think about this parable in terms of “unbelievers” and “the unsaved” because God does have a heart for those who have never known him. But He also has deep compassion for those who do know him and feel homeless within His Church. Jesus prayed that we would be one with the Father, and therefore one with each other. Unity between the Bride of Christ is one of the most important identifiers of the global church. So when people walk away from the church, it should grieve our hearts deeply.

As a person in ministry, you know this. I’m sure you’ve wrestled with these thoughts. You’ve grieved these losses. And you’ve wondered what needs to change. I’m right there with you. I stand with my feet straddling the border. I have one foot in the church and “the inside view” of ministry work, and my other foot in the deconstruction movement and the church homelessness. The tension is killer. I see all of the fallout from harmful leadership cultures, celebrity pastor brands, unbiblical church cultures, and consumeristic communication mediums. I see the toxicity of conservative Christianity’s fearful legalism and hypocritical judgment, and I see the problematic pendulum swinging in progressive Christianity. I could talk about problems within the American church for hours.

But I also deeply love the church. If there’s one thing I love almost as much as I love Jesus, it’s His Bride.

(*I do define the Church as those who have a relationship with Jesus, but I don’t think we can separate the people from the structures and liturgies which have kept us together and given us ways to express our faith together throughout the centuries.)

Yes, there are so so so many problems. But Jesus is deeply in love with His Bride and he longs for the day we will experience the true unity and deep love that he intended for us to experience together. I will weep (happy tears) at the marriage supper of the Lamb because it will be the true fulfillment and consummation of everything I have longed for my whole life. So, when it grieves my heart to see all the hurt and pain and problems in the church, I just can’t bear to let go. I want to be part of making it better. I want to lay down my life to help Jesus’ Bride experience more heaven on earth and less death and destruction. I believe that we can help the unity and the love and the beauty of that marriage supper be a reality now even though it won’t be fully fulfilled until heaven. Our role in churches is to pray and advocate for, “thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven” to be real now in your church building, in your church structure, in your city, in your neighborhood, and in your nation.  (And sometimes advocating for unity looks like confronting the cultural norms and asking the hard questions, out of all humility and love. We are not anarchists or crusaders *God forbid!* But unity requires sacrifice, and sometimes it hurts to create the structural and organizational changes that will truly create the unity we seek.)

If we intend to build the Kingdom of God, be known for our love, make disciples, and facilitate deeper participation, deeper healing, and long-lasting life transformation – we need to ask more questions. We need to challenge our ways of doing things and be willing to change them when we identify a better, more incarnational way. And as we do this, valuing people rather than programs, we will build a Kingdom filled with diverse churches with diverse ways of doing things, so that every person from every background has the opportunity to be part of an incarnational community that is deeply engaged with their local community and individual needs. Fighting for that unity is totally worth the sacrifice!

To close, I want to leave you with some passages from God’s own Word casting the vision for what this could look like:

John 17:20-26

Revelation 7:9-12

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:

All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying:

 

 

Articles Referenced:

The Learning Pyramid

Study Shows Students Learn More By Taking Part in Classrooms that Employ Active Learning Strategies

Students Learn Best When

Learning the Five Methods of Learning Hebraically

Experiential Knowledge of God

Learning to be a Disciple: The Way of the Master

Zoom Fatigue: Staying Embodied Online

A Body of Work