Change
Okay, so change became a buzz word over the past two and a half years. But before it was a buzz word and still for those happy with the way things are in life, change was a dirty word. For some, it was almost the equivalent of a four-letter word (even though it has six).
But change, as the cliche often notes, is the only constant in our lives.
And lately I’ve begun to think a bit about the rate of change (or flux for those of us who are geeks). Much of this comes out of a conversation I had with my brother regarding cell phones. Mostly how different the phones we have now are from those we had two years ago and how different those phones were from those we had nine years ago (or I had nine years ago). But also how quickly it’s changing. Cell phones, in a race for the edge in the market, are bringing out new phone after new phone. It seems like every month or so companies are releasing newer, slicker, faster, smaller phones. And that rate is a drastic difference from the rate at which they were released even three years ago. Not to mention when my mom first got a cell phone fifteen or sixteen years ago (back when they were bricks… almost literally. But I digress).
So I’ve begun to think about this with relationship to the church (because we always get here right?). If my generation and especially those who come after me are used to the rate of change in life being at a dizzying speed, if we’re used to a new cell phone every month or having the size of notebooks become so small we change the name to netbooks, then what happens when they/we enter the church and find change happens at a snail’s pace?
And really, I suppose my question is what happens in congregations where the average age is below 35? Are these congregations more likely to change at a quicker pace? Or will that become true in the future? Will change be quicker as our generation ages? Or will the change always be slow the change? Or will those used to quick change become so frutstrated with the pace and leave before it ever speeds up?
I’m curious to see what others think…
Hmm. I dunno. In our church, where the average age is less than 35, I guess things change pretty rapidly. We seem to mix up our whole approach to designing and implementing worship services pretty radically about once a year or so, for example. It’s all pretty dependent on who’s active in the community, what they’re excited about, how much time they have, etc. But the situation might be very different in a church with similar demographics but different starting assumptions.
Actually, with Common Table, we have almost no starting assumptions. For a church with a commitment to a particular denomination, or theological tradition, or something, I’d think it would be a different story. Without starting assumptions, no-one can really point at anything and say, “No, we can’t change X, because of Y” (where Y is a set-in-stone commitment to a particular practice, organizational structure, or doctrine). This creates the potential for a high rate of change. In practice, some things might change slowly or not at all because folks like things the way they are (which is probably the main reason things stay the same in any church, and is, in most cases, just fine – there’s no point in change for its own sake). But if there is momentum for change, it’s harder (in a church like CT) to prevent it by invoking some inviolate starting assumption.
All of which has little bearing on the question you were asking. Except maybe to opine that perhaps the rate of change has less to do with the demographics of a community, and more to do with the commitments assumed by that community. Which may, in fact, imply that the 35-and-younger crowd will become disillusioned with church communities which are more constrained by those change-limiting assumptions/commitments. Or not? I’m just sort of thinking out loud. *shrug*
Peace,
Croghan
Change is inevitable. This is true of the world, however we in the church are not of this world. That is not to say that the church should never change, but that change for the sake of change, especially change just because the world is changing, is not necessarily a good thing. Not necessarily bad either, but not necessarily good.
Those cell phones (do they even call them that any more?) are a perfect example. When I was in college (yes, it’s one of those “when I was your age” stories) we would get out of class and gather on the quad or in the student union and we would talk about anything and everything. We communicated fully, with words, tone, facially expression, gesture, and body language. We argued and debated and and agreed and disagreed and LEARNED. The other day I was visiting my daughter at Central Michigan University. I imagine Central is like any other university. All over the campus we saw kids walking alone, heads down, texting. Texting uses words only, which is only a small part of communication. I wondered as I watched these kids, if they were really better off.
There are advantages to change but there also disadvantages. The church has one tremendous advantage over the world. We have scripture by which to judge change. We do great harm when we try to cram the changes of the world into God’s word. Change? By all means. I’m all for it. But what I am not for is watering down the Gospel or soft peddling God’s word just to make it palletable to a broken world.
Those are some of my thoughts. At almost Midnight. Just as I change to a new day. It’s inevitable.
Mike,
Thanks for the thoughts. And I think you’re absolutely right about the starting point. I’m wondering if the starting point differs by generation/experience whatever (the willingness to change, etc…). I think this is probably true due to new congregations in mainline traditions who are pretty much okay with change. But I think what will be fun to watch is how those congregations are operating in 20 years. Are they still changing as the context changes or are they stuck in this time period?
Anyway, thanks.
Randy,
Thanks for the thoughts. While I agree that change for the sake of change isn’t a good idea nor is it faithful, I do think that as the context changes we must be able to change with it (but without changing the Gospel). I believe God is still speaking in this world and that will look different to somebody who thinks in 140 characters than somebody who wrote on stone tablets.
As for the technology/interaction piece – I think we are connected in some ways and disconnected in others. I’m sure some college kids only interact with people via technology, while others still choose to do so in person. Some of it is context. Even when I ride the Metro here in DC, I’m often listening to music and am disconnected from people because my headphones are in. But I’ve observed that even those who choose not to listen to music are often absorbed in a book or newspaper – they choose to be disconnected as well, but with a different medium. I was also recently on Ohio State’s campus and there are plenty of students who choose to hang out on the Oval – talking in person rather than via electronics. So yes, in some ways we can become self-absorbed into our technology and probably more disconnected from one another (a bit ironic being that much of that technology is used to “connect” us) but I’m sure that could and would occur even if we didn’t have it.