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.