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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks!