At the Core (Part 1)

So far I've addressed three of the barriers pastors have cited as preventing them from adopting or further using social media. For the next few weeks I'm planning on addressing the central findings of the research: The promise and danger brought on by adopting social media. Specifically, the promise of a community with deeper and stronger spiritual connections; the danger of individuals who have lost touch with other Christians. This week, I plan to address the beneficial power of social media to strengthen the community. Next week, the focus will shift to the dark side of the technology. Finally, in two weeks, I'll take some time to take a look at how the church can negotiate this challenge.

For today, the benefits. One of the most common comments from pastors about the benefits of social media was the idea that this new technology can strengthen relationships in the community. Building community is the essence of ecclesiastical existence. Churches are created so Christians have a home to fellowship with others. We share our victories and defeats. We hold each other accountable for those times when we fall short. Most importantly, we embrace to share the love of God as it flows through us. There's a reason churches are referred to as faith communities. It should be no surprise that a technology designed to simplify connections would be perceived by church leaders as a powerful tool. As an aside, the comments I make in this post do not assume that all churches have adopted social media. In fact, many have not. When I refer to the comments of pastors, they were made as perceptions of the medium, regardless of whether or not they were using it. So here's the thing, even pastors that have not adopted social media found it powerful. Their use of social media as a community development tool fell into three categories: Prayer Concerns, Encouragement, and Distance Communication.

Communicating with individuals at a distance was the most common theme throughout the interviews. Pastors talked about social media as it if had the ability to maintain community in cases where physical presence was impossible. For the most part, shut-ins were cited as the biggest possible growth area for online media. Kind of an interesting perspective considering many pastors cited the absence of internet connection as a barrier to organizational adoption. Still, the thought was that people would appreciate the ability to stream the service online if they were prevented from leaving. Snowbirds (People who leave town for the winter and return in the spring) were the second most commonly cited audience for online streaming. These individuals are more likely to have internet access, and a willingness to participate. At the same time, only a small handful of churches had readily adopted technology to stream the service online. Some were offering audio files of the weekly sermon, but most pastors merely noted the possible benefit of the technology, considering it a great opportunity to help people stay connected whether they can't leave the house, disappear for cold weather, or travel for work.

The second most common theme relating to social media as a community-building tool was that of prayer needs. This theme, however, was not without controversy. On one hand, many people suggested that Facebook was a great place for sharing issues with the congregation. Some pastors even described situations where a simple Facebook post put clothes on a family's back or sent the pastor quickly to the bedside of a dying father. On the other hand, others voiced concerns over privacy issues, citing the ability of anyone to post anything. There is merit in this fear, especially when dealing with amateur computer users. What could be considered appropriate conversation for fellowship time following a service might be inappropriate when shared in online space. Part of avoiding these concerns while taking advantage of the strengths is related to an understanding of the relationship between prayer and social networking. Theologically, we need to consider why we share concerns with other people, and with whom we share those concerns. Most churches have some form of intercessory prayer group. Many of these groups walk a fine line between being a prayer meeting and a gossip fest. Facebook has the potential to go either way, but from the conversations I've had, the sense is it leans toward the latter. The potential of social media to operate as a tool for prayer is positive, but our leaders need to understand how they can be used, and educate their congregation.

The final theme in using social media for community building was related to encouragement and support. There was a sense that Facebook provided an ability to share in the triumphs of others. Not only did it give us this opportunity, it also made the process of support easier and more convenient. A process that once required active notification, like a phone call or a face-to-face visit, can now be done through simple and passive means. Instead of seeking out information, like a youth doing well at Quiz Bowl or football, the information is presented to us in the news feed. Instead of having to seek out the individual, our response can be as simple as clicking "like." What we end up with is a situation where we can develop community by promoting numerous small acts of love and recognition. Moreover, these acts of love can come from people with whom we may not have the strongest or deepest relationships. One of the most effective elements of my ministry, when I was a youth director, was involving older members in youth activities. Older members were given the opportunity to experience anew the joy of spending time with teenagers (yes, there is joy in teenagers), while the youth developed relationships with adults who loved them unconditionally and yet were not their parents, or even connected in to their parents' social network. Social media offers us the opportunity to share the love of God with EVERYONE in the community.

So three reasons why new communication technologies can develop community: Distanced Communication, Prayer Concerns, and Encouragement and Support. I feel as though a word of caution is necessary here. First off, most pastors were quite amenable to the idea of adopting new media, they were just unsure about how to make progress. Most considerations of these new technologies were placed in a paradigm of church that views the building and the administration as the central clearing house for information. When streaming video was considered, it was done so in the context of one-to-many communication that has defined religious media usage for a century. When considering prayer requests, the assumptions were focused on a pastor informed of every medical procedure, illness, or other private need. Encouragement was perhaps the one area where social media have been embraced for their strengths. In the case of prayer concerns and distanced communication, to adopt new media in ways that reiterate traditional media, like radio and television, is to negate the interactive potential of new communication.

Here is my advice: If you are considering adopting new media in your church, ask why you are considering adopting it. Then, consider the potential of the media, and embrace it. If you plan to stream your services live, provide a chat room where people can discuss the service as it happens (for the really brave, find volunteers to staff the chat room, responding to questions and providing contact info). If you are considering providing audio or video files of the sermon, offer a discussion board, or at least a Facebook group where people can discuss the topic throughout the week. Taking this route, the pastor should toss in their two cents a few times each week so the conversation keeps going. If you are thinking about how to use social media for prayer concerns, consider what information comes into the office, and how people share truly personal concerns. Then, provide a way, either through the website or through some other form of media, for people to respond to the needs. Prayer works best when the community is made aware of needs. Finally, if you aren't already using some form of social media to provide encouragement and support, start. Even though it's nice to get accolades for our tremendous accomplishments, social media allow us to give those little words to sustain us between mountaintops. Banquets are great, but we need snacks to get us through the day.

Not so fast!

Last week I talked about the more concrete barriers that held us back from adopting social media. This week I'm going to continue on the same line of thought in terms of why churches are not adopting these new media forms, but I'd like to veer a little more toward the fears that churches have about the use of social media. The purpose of this post will not be to debunk, insult, or diminish the fears churches feel. Instead, I'm going to focus solely on what pastors have said about the potential dangers of social media. In general, these fears fall into four categories: Opposing content, gossip, safety, and disconnection. The first three are more physical and come with specific examples to justify their presence. The third is far more abstract both in its conceptualization and its rationale. For the sake of time this blog post will address the first three. A future post will try to tackle the challenge that is disconnection.

In 27 interviews with Methodist pastors across Michigan I asked about their perceptions of social media. Specifically, I asked what they felt were the benefits, uses, and harms. Throughout those conversations some interesting perspective arose. The most common theme was that social media was an amazing tool because it facilitated the construction of stronger faith communities. At the same time, this form of communication was dangerous because it encouraged a sense of disconnection from physical attendance. Although this perspective represented an overwhelming majority of thoughts, other underlying fears crept into the discussion as well. Particularly, pastors and youth directors mentioned the devastating power of gossip, challenges to people of faith from the presence of opposing content, and the constant threat internet users are under from those who wish to do harm. In some cases, churches have adopted this new form of communication and done little, or even nothing, to ward off the dangers. In other cases, churches seem somewhat paralyzed by their inability to address those fears. Most churches lie somewhere in the middle, attempting to walk the line between open communication channels and administrative oversight. For each of these fears there is, of course, a grain of truth. At the same time, many underlying concerns are unfounded. Let's take a look at each one.

Of the concrete fears cited by pastors and preventing adoption of social media, the most common one is gossip. The idea that people can, with a quick flick of the enter key, spread malicious, hurtful untruths around the world is devastating to an organization focused on the construction of healthy, supportive communities. A number of pastors and youth directors even shared horror stories about an individual in their congregation making a post to Facebook that quickly had devastating effects on members of their congregation. To be sure, there is significant danger in the expediency. If anything, social media reinforces Mark Twain's assertion that "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." Perhaps now we might say, "A lie can travel all the way around the world before the truth even finds its shoes." So we can't discount the danger in social media as a tool for gossip. On the other hand, an outsider sitting in on an intercessory prayer group meeting (face-to-face) might often consider the content of the meeting to be purely gossip. As people of faith, we are interested in the lives of our brothers and sisters. Social media provides us with a tool to maintain accountability and, ultimately, provide the healing love that can only come from other Christians. That isn't to say we should all poke around in other people's business, but (to paraphrase one individual's responses) the church cannot offer that healing if the brokenness isn't seen. We are all broken and, if the family is functioning properly, we are going to hurt each other. Just as social media accelerates the speed at which that harm can be done, so too does it accelerate and facilitate our ability to respond with the healing power of Christ's love and reconciliation.

The second fear pastors cited in my conversations with them was the idea of opposing content. This is a slightly broader category that refers to the presence of comments that diminish, disrespect, or otherwise devalue beliefs that are central to the faith. Such criticism can take the form of blatant posts on a church's wall that slam central tenets of the faith. They can also take the form of comments intended to belittle an individual for their beliefs. Opposing content can additionally be statements from clergy that misrepresent or undermine the teachings of the church. Although each of these forms of opposing content can be detrimental to the church, they also open the door to further discussion about topics pertinent to the faith. For example, if an individual foes out of their way to post critical comments on the wall of the church, it becomes an opportunity for evangelism. The trouble with this scenario is that most people who would go out of the way to post on the wall of a specific church would likely already have a damaged relationship with those individuals (Do you see where this is going?). Social media can be a tool for, not only reconciliation, but reconstruction. When a community is faced with an individual who feels alienated, marginalized, or harmed, it becomes the role of the church to open our doors and our arms. The same response can be given to the individual who experiences harsh criticism for their beliefs. What would it say to the world if an army of believers stood up and said, "even if this person has a problem, we still love you?" In an environment where numbers mean everything (i.e. SOPA/PIPA, Susan G. Komen for the Cure), one critical comment can be countered by a community. Moreover, as dramatic shifts in cultural norms and values taking place, the church should take a vital role in facilitating the conversation. What can be considered opposing content to one individual could be the basis for a new and deeper understanding of God for another. The point here is that social media can easily become a place for the destruction and minimization of God, but it also holds the potential to flood the world with The Message. Unlocking this potential, however, requires participation and some churches are simply not capable of engaging in that conversation.

Safety was the final fear pastors cited in my interviews. Out of all three, this one was the most concrete and the most worldly. The idea of safety on the internet is becoming a hot topic in academic literature, especially as it pertains to children. In terms of churches, though, the fears are again both solidly grounded in fact and somewhat disconnected from reality. Although there were a number of different themes that I might get to in a future post, I want to touch on the two most common: Images and Prayer Concerns. The idea of images on the church website or Facebook page is a sticky one because there is legitimate legal ground to be worried about. Using images of people for publicity purposes can get a church into a lot of trouble, especially when the image is of a minor (here's a nightmare for you: Mom moves kid to hide from abusive father, picture on Facebook gives away location...). At the same time, much of this form of content is actually contributed by the individuals themselves. We still need to fight through how some of this works, but the bottom line is, there is real danger in unfettered pictures and identity tagging. At the same time, this is a door for church members to take a more proactive, participative role in their church. The same is the case for prayer concerns. Praying for one another is central to the mission of most churches. Going back to the beginning of the denomination (mid 20th century), we created complicated phone trees to get the word out in times of need. In the last 10 years or so, we moved to email. Now we can get the message out even faster. But we worry about letting the wrong message slip out. Again, there is need for concern. Some prayer needs are confidential and should remain so. However, most concerns benefit from the instant response available through social media. It goes back to information control. There is no danger in my sharing personal information if I find no danger in sharing that information. The challenge is to create the culture where people know the difference.

You might have noticed the common thread in my responses to these fears. I feel like I should reiterate the fact that I am not trying to diminish or marginalize the fears listed above. They all have legitimate grounding. Instead, I have tried to point out the double-edged nature of social media. On one hand, this is a powerful tool for building our community and introducing individuals to the power of God's love. On the other hand, these tools have the potential to harm the church deeply. Here is my advice to church leaders and those seeking change in the church: If there is a fear that seems to challenge the use of these tools, and this fear seems insurmountable, avoid these communication forms. Let others go before you and learn from them. If your organization has adopted these tools without regard for their dangers, take a moment to consider which issues might be most salient to your congregation. Consider what damage could be done, and think about how to prevent it. My final suggestion is this: It is impossible to address the dangers we see in social media through technology alone. Reacting to gossip in constructive and effective ways, using opposing content to foster and facilitate conversations that lead to a deeper understanding of God, and teaching people how to protect themselves and their loved ones in online environments all sound like perfect jobs for the church. Instead of ignoring changes in communication patterns, or keeping the sheep away from the Valley of the Shadow of Death, let's embrace the change. I encourage church leaders to carry the mantle of responsibility and engage their congregations. Just because people in your congregation are "old" doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't broken.

What Holds Us Back

So I've finished collecting and transcribing all of the interviews. The next step is to consider what I've heard and develop some codes. So far, I'm following three strains of consideration: Barriers to Adoption, Fears vs. Realities, and Administrative Control. I'm eventually hoping to develop each of these strains into a paper along with a note on what pastors think Jesus would use Facebook for. Over the next couple weeks I'm going to address each of these three topics separately, suggesting some of the themes I've seen. Fell free to add anything I might have missed. I'll start with the concept of adoption barriers.

One thing that was revealed through interviews with 25 pastors and youth directors throughout Michigan is that almost everyone has a website, and only slightly less than almost everyone uses Facebook in some way. At the same time, everyone is unhappy with how they use these technologies. One or two people are satisfied, but feel that there is a lot of room to grow. It is interesting to me that we have this new tool to use, we know what it can be used for, but we just can't bring ourselves to put the effort into developing the technology further. I'll explore this struggle in a future post but for now, I want to address a little bit about what is holding churches back from moving to the next step. It is important to add at this point that I'm not suggesting that all churches must adopt social media and develop amazing websites that include streaming media and high-tech gadgets. That is a legitimate and intentional decision the church body must make. It needs to be noted, though, that many churches are making that decision.

Regardless of whether or not the church has made the decision to adopt new communication technology, forward motion (adoption, maintenance, or improvement) hinges on three barriers: Time, Manpower, and Skill. These barriers are both interdependent and independent. Nonetheless, all churches deal with all of them at some level. Time refers to the idea that adding new methods of communication makes demands on someone's time. It plays off the perception that updating and maintaining new media requires hour of investment, or even just minutes. Manpower refers to the need to find an individual willing to accept responsibility. It plays off the perception that media control must rest in the hands of a specific individual. Skill refers to the idea that developing and maintaining new technologies requires a particular skill set only certain individuals possess. It builds on the perception that computers are for young people or geeks.

Time is probably the most obvious barrier. We all know people who spend way too much time on social media. They have it on their screen throughout the entire work (or school) day. They pull it up on their phone during every second of down time. Even individuals who are more tempered in their usage patterns can't deny the ability to get lost in social media. It's even possible that you are reading this now because you clicked on my Facebook link and voila. Many pastors cite time as a primary reason for not adopting social media or further developing their website. I know, duh. Here's what makes it interesting: When I asked pastors what demands were placed on their time from the process, none could clearly articulate what it was that took so much time. Now, I'm not suggesting that adopting new communication technology doesn't demand more time, but I am suggesting that there may be a slight disconnect between what new media do, and how new media work. One thing pastors need to think about is the idea of control. Perceptions of organizational communication media stems from bulletins, newsletters, and similar media that grant full power to office staff over content control. One of the benefits afforded by new media, however, is the ability to allow the community to create and maintain content (a future blog post will explore the fears behind this). Pastors are busy people, they have numerous demands on their time. Adding social media maintenance to their honey-do list is likely a heavy burden if they are not already engaged. Responding to this problem requires the church placing a higher priority on their media strategy and taking on the responsibility of communication themselves.

Turning to the community requires commitment from the community. The second barrier that pastors discussed was that of manpower. Churches are nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and often work with an enormous volunteer labor force. Two problems arise from this: quality and consistency. Just because Joe is a web developer by day, and offers to build the church website, doesn't mean Joe will have the time to develop the same quality site as he does for the Fortune 500 company that writes his paychecks. Even if we put Joe in charge of the website, that doesn't mean that we have a plan in place for maintaining the website when Joe is relocated, or just loses interest. United Methodist churches often face the problem of being small, old congregations. We struggle to find people to hand out bulletins on Sunday morning, let alone take time every week to make changes to a website. Moreover, many churches don't feel that their aging congregation is interested in the work done to maintain the new media. It's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" argument. To be sure, I am not suggesting that all churches build a Facebook page or a website just because they can. As one pastor described his administrative process, they would rather wait until someone comes forward to take on a responsibility than beg someone to grudgingly take it on. From this perspective, communication is often overlooked or placed lower on the priority list because there is a perception that no one in the church is willing to take it on.

The third barrier pastors discussed was that of skill. There is an important difference between skill and manpower. Manpower refers to the need to identify someone who is willing to do little more than take on the responsibility. Skill is a set of abilities required to complete the task. In our aging congregations, we often have large populations of individuals who fit the stereotype that "newfangled gadgets are just not for me." It is important to note that there is rarely outright resistance to organizational adoption of new technologies, simply unwillingness to go along. The latter is often more destructive than the former. In organizations struggling with outright resistance, at least the leadership knows where the boundaries are. When large populations are unwilling to support and adapt to changes, leaders face a frustrating tasks as costs rise exponentially. The barrier of skill is based on the assumption that using new media requires a skillset possessed by only specific populations of individuals. So many advances have been made in technology interface that learning to build a website or maintain a Facebook page requires minimal skill level. Although many churches will struggle from adoption because they don't have a large enough population of individuals with necessary hardware or access, many churches use this as an excuse to move new media adoption lower on the list of priority.

So it comes down to priority. I cannot emphasize enough that I am not advocating for a blanket remedy to changing communication patterns. Each church must decide for themselves where communication rests in their list of priorities. The lower you place it, the harder it will be to bring people into your church. Again, simply building a website or creating a Facebook group page will not bring people into your church. However, growth does not come from the best donuts or the loudest worship band, or any of the other minutia much time in church council is spent debating. Growth comes from a strong sense of a loving, caring, organized community. Building an effective community requires effective communication between members. Effective communication requires an intentional, planned, targeted method of interaction that connects people in whatever way they communicate.

So what can we do about it? First and foremost, decide what your church is willing to invest in. Deeply ingrained in the culture of our churches is the sense that every single congregation must be growing... It's in the Bible, Jesus said it, it's our Great Commission. Here's the thing, Christ called Christians to spread his word. That doesn't mean that your own individual church has to be growing by leaps and bounds year over year. In fact, if your church is called to be in service to the community evangelism (in the "butts in the seats" sense) might even be detrimental. If you are called to service, serve. Serve with your heart, serve with your mind, serve with every ounce of strength.

On the other hand, some churches feel the call to embrace others in their community and grow in numbers. If this is you, commit to communication. If you are a pastor who is afraid of what might happen if you give up the reigns of control, have faith in your community. Have faith that God will move through the conversations that people have. Encourage the movers and the shakers of your congregation to move beyond support and actually participate. The best way to ensure that online interaction will be safe and effective is the stack the deck. Get the safest and most effective people on board, producing content.

Laypeople also have a responsibility. If your church lacks in its communication, bring it up. Challenge the church council. If you know of other individuals who make use of social media, start a group. Take back your church (sorry for the populist attitude). The most amazing change in how people communicate is that interaction no longer requires the blessing or permission of those in power (Although both would make the process simpler). Show the people in your church how much they can stand to gain (and save) by adopting new forms of communication. At the same time, it is necessary to build a cohesive strategy. I'll close with a few questions to ask as that strategy is designed:

1.) What media do we currently use that are effective?
2.) What media do we currently use that are ineffective?
3.) Where are the redundancies in our system?
4.) Are those redundancies effective or necessary?
5.) What new forms of communication could we adopt?
6.) Would those new forms of communication be effective?
7.) What media would be most effective for which messages?

These are just a few questions to get you started. If you use them, get through them and want more, let me know.

The next blog post will address the perceived fears that accompany new media adoption.

"Contemporary" Worship and Music

I've grown up in the United Methodist Church. My parents were good little churchgoers, dragging me there every Sunday. When I was old enough, I even joined the United Methodist Youth Fellowship on my own volition. When I went to college, I was an active part of Wesley House, the UM campus fellowship. I have even had paid positions at a United Methodist camp (where I met my wife), and as a full-time youth director.

Growing up Methodist, I learned that music is the most absolutely essential element of the service. Dating back to the incredible talent of the Wesley brothers, Methodists have always been guided by music. Even UM churches with organs that died years ago have organists who can play the out-of-tune piano, skipping the missing keys, and even playing the A flat in the key of C because they know it sounds like an F. We have a hymnody that stretches from traditional Gregorian chants through the entirety of the 20th century. We love to sing. Whenever Methodists gather, be it for the Sunday service, or even a simple Ad-board meeting, somehow we slip music in. And we do it well. If you don't believe me, attend a service at Annual Conference. The sanctuary is full of Methodists who, in the words of John Wesley, "sing lustily." We show our love of God not by standing out, but by standing together. It is almost impossible for Methodists to sing a hymn while seated. Our bulletins are covered with little stars, denoting that "the congregation is invited to stand, if able." We don't need a miracle worker in the front raising people out of their wheelchairs in front of everyone, we only need an organist to play the first line of "O, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing!" The air moving through those pipes is enough to make the lame to walk.

I bring up the idea of music because it seems to stand at the forefront of worship committee conversations. United Methodists are an aging population. Our congregations are slowly dying - and by dying, I mean, literally, people in the congregations are dying of old age. The reaction in many churches has been to introduce "Contemporary" or "Blended" worship. Unfortunately, what these words actually mean, and what congregants think they mean are two different things. To most administrative councils, or worship committees, these words refer solely to the style of music used in the service. "Contemporary Worship," to many church councils, means replacing the organ with drums, guitar, and keyboard while eliminating the need for a printed bulletin by installing a projector and using PowerPoint. "Blended Worship" is understood to mean you replace half of the hymns with "Praise and Worship Music." The rest of the service stays pretty much the same in both cases, save for the idea, in theory, that worship will be more "relevant" (one of my favorite buzz words in ecclesiastica). In practice, most of the changes amount to the pastor strumming along to songs from "The Faith We Sing" on his classical guitar. In other words, Methodists have a hard time talking about our service in terms that don't revolve around changing the music.

In reality, "Contemporary Worship" has nothing to do with music. One of the most striking results from my research, both in what I've read, and in what I've learned from conversations with pastors, is the meaning of "Contemporary Worship." Although pastors have a hard time talking about their contemporary services without mentioning the musical style or the presence of a projector, their words have a broader connotation. The contemporary in Contemporary Worship does not refer to music, or to video. It doesn't refer to the pastor's casual dress or the latte you carry with you into the sanctuary. Underlying all of the comments, behind all of the literature is the idea that people have left the mainline denominations because our service hasn't changed in decades.

Currently, the Methodist service is based in a culture where communication only went one way. We had people at a lectern, then radio, followed by television. All of these media had something in common - There was no opportunity for reaction. True, if you heard something on the radio or saw something on TV you could mail a letter, or even make a phone call. Either of these media, however, were slow, and required significant investment to continue the conversation. Someone had to take the time to read your letter and respond by writing one of their own. A phone call required someone to be on the other end of the line to move the discussion forward. Moreover, in both cases, including multiple people in the discussion is difficult. The service is designed with this same paradigm. A pastor stands in front, and the rest of us listen. As we leave, we make sure to let the pastor know how much the message "spoke to us." We can then head home and wait until next Sunday. Perhaps we'll participate in the Wednesday night activities, but we take nothing, and have little opportunity to remember and apply the weekly message.

New forms of communication have changed us. Websites, streaming, and social media offer us the opportunity to respond immediately and respond to each other. What this new method of interaction has done is blur the lines between our different lives. Where once we had multiple personalities that never overlapped, smart phones, social networking, and a constantly-on perspective have removed many of those distinctions. One could lament the loss of that line, but one benefit of this change is the demand for more relevant and consistent faith. People who communicate without this line don't want to be a part of a church that preaches faithful living from 9-10am on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, followed by a long time period until the next service. These individuals want a faith that blurs the line between church and not church. They want a lesson on Sunday that challenges them in concrete ways to grow and change for the rest of the week. They want to be engaged in faithful living in every aspect of their life.

That's where music comes in. Simply replacing organ music with contemporary music doesn't make your service contemporary. Contemporary services require engaging and empowering relationships. True, music, attire, and video are all vehicles for translating messages into more relevant terms, but these are a means to an end. It is possible to have a contemporary service using the hymnal and an organ. What makes the service contemporary is the recognition that connection with the faith community does not end when the light of Christ is carried from the sanctuary. Contemporary services last the entire week. They continue to engage the faithful in multiple ways throughout the week. Music is just dressing. It makes the service more comfortable to individuals engaged in popular culture. When people are shopping for a faith community, they are looking first for a place where they can feel a part of a family, second a place where they can grow, and last an opportunity for entertainment. Positive worship experiences help, but the worship service is a function of the faith community, no the other way around.

So here is my first thought connected directly with my research. Keep an eye on this site for further updates and findings. My intention is to post some of the findings that arise as I analyze hours of interview data. Take a look and leave a comment. Let me know if I'm barking up the right tree, or if I'm way out in left field. I'd love to hear your opinions.