penny for your thoughts

curious to know what the (small) readership thinks of the following statement:

sunday school does not equal small group.

thoughts in the comments.

ready go: open-source church

a phrase you have heard a lot lately is open-source. open-source is the opposition of closed-source. and mostly it is something you hear about in the tech world, where software and programming development is paid for at a premium. there are those out there, though, that see an intrisic value in developing software and programs such that others have a say in it, can change or modify it, or use it freely.

google and apple tend to be the two examples used in this argument. but an interesting thing is happening as we inch toward a post-christian society in america. people are beginning to talk about open-source church. there are ideas percolating that people hope will revitalize the church in a new and fresh way. i have been thinking about this idea a lot and am curious what other think when they hear open-source church.

ready go: open-source church...your thoughts, comments, questions, etc. are all welcome.

vitality of the church

i recently participated in a survey about the structure and design of my denominational church. one of the questions in the survey asked the respondents to comment on what it meant for the church to be vital. below is my response to that question.

"Vitality within the church looks like diverse populations interacting to bring about authentic worship and participating in life giving, loving, and dignifying mission, community building, education, growth, and evangelism. I would be remiss not to also mention that vitality in part is driven by a desire to seek deeper communion with fellow members of the community through communal interaction both within and without the church. Most importantly, however, a vital church is one that is not defined by the actions of Sunday, rather the robust actions of the members throughout the week in their diverse settings. "

what did i miss? where did i err? what are you thoughts about what makes a church vital?

unChristian

perhaps the most significant book written about the demographics of the church (more on what this means in a moment), in my opinion, is unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity...And Why it Matters, by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. David Kinnaman is the President of the Barna Group, which does research and produces studies on a range of issues and aspects of the church, and Gabe Lyons is the founder of Fermi Project, "a broad collective of innovators, social entrepreneurs, and church and society leaders working together to make positive contributions to culture" (it's straight from the jacket of the book).

a little book background -- David and Gabe did over three years of research, interviews, and study about this topic before they wrote a book. it was originally an idea that Gabe brought to David as the one who could do the research and that struck a deep chord in David, and so now we have a very significant book to read and make sense of. they didn't write the book and give a prescription for the church and how to live out a more genuine faith. nor do they suggest that there is only one correct way to approach the things that their research indicated were deficient.

so what did the research actually show. without actually re-writing the book here in this space we will suffice for a very short synopsis of the research findings. know that they were researching the perceptions, feelings, and responses of those who are in the age range of 16-29. these are people typically referred to as "young adults" whatever that means. there was a sophisticated questionnaire that was completed in which people ultimately, for the sake of the research identified themselves as either insiders or outsiders in relation to the church. in other words, their responses either indicated that they identified themselves as those who would claim a christian identity or those who would not claim such an identity, and it is the latter group of people whose responses were significant for the study, but only in as much as they played a strikingly different tune than the responses of those inside the church.

from their research the authors determined there to be six broad categories in which the respondents identified the christian faith by. in more plain terms -- if you or they were to hear the term christian and then were given certain questions to answer about christians, this was how they responded. the perceptions were that christians are hypocritical (saying or believing one thing but doing something different), focusing on getting converts (concerned with saving others for the sake of doing so at the expense of a genuine care for the individual), antihomosexual (it's self explanatory except for the fact that the perception was that this was lived out in a hostile way), sheltered (out of touch with reality, old fashioned, stayed in their ways, boring), too political (in as much as christians are overly concerned with their political agenda which is dominantly right-wing conservative), and judgmental (quick to judge others without a loving and caring attitude of concern or even showing the love we proclaim).

the research backs this up, tremendously. and it is disturbing. this is not how i want others to see me or to see the faith that i proclaim. i hope that i live my life in a different way. i suggest that if theses issues concern you, you read the book and think about the creative possibilities of living and relating to other people that might begin to work against these perceptions. i do believe that the church can make a difference. the church is only a functioning organism in as much as individuals make it up and their intentional action makes a difference in the world we live in.

i try to live my life in a loving, life-giving, and dignifying way. no matter who i meet and who they and their circumstances are, i owe that much to them because they are human. that is enough. i do this by trying to be intentional, honest, open, loving, and vulnerable with everyone. this means that i must take risks, but it is ultimately the most satisfying way for me to live, without pretense or masks.

on a final note, i want to say something about David Kinnaman. he is a nice guy. i met him at a conference we were both speaking at. he and i were able to go to dinner together with a group of people and chat for awhile. he is a caring individual. he takes interest in what others are saying and is engaged with what their interests are. in short, he is a normal guy, who is trying to make a difference by alerting people to what his research has shown. and for whatever reason, this gives me comfort. he didn't ask for a lot when he came to speak and he was just a down to earth guy who missed his kids and wife because he was traveling so much. he accidentally stepped into semi-celebrity.