J.R. Briggs
Attempting to behold the miracle long enough without falling asleep
-
Generation Flux and the Future of the Church
My favorite magazine is Fast Company.
This may seem like a strange combination as a pastor, but for an apostolically-wired visionary (sometimes to a fault) like me who doesn’t mind taking risks for things that are significant, this magazine is pure candy.
It forces me to think differently.
I read different perspectives.
It gives me a pulse on culture.
I am challenged to think about the future.
I am entertained.
And I am pushed to new areas and levels of creativity because I am thinking about things I normally wouldn’t think about in my ‘normal circles.’
Now, FC is a business entrepreneur magazine. For a pastor who has strong convictions that the church should not borrow or adopt business practices for church leadership, I have to use a great deal of discernment when I read. Sometimes there is dissonance in me when I read, but I try to embrace the turbulence, even if it makes me dizzy. It makes for great discussions and debates in my head. Sometimes there is crossover and agreement, but there are also dominant themes of empire expansion when I am called to submit to the kingdom of God.
Recently I read an article in the most recent issue called This is Generation Flux: Meet the Pioneers of the New (and Chaotic) Frontier of Business that made my head spin. Again, while it deals purely from a business perspective (and not a ministry one) I found myself asking many questions about what implications – good and bad, big and small, direct and indirect – this might have on the Church in North America.
The premise of the article is this: the current state of business, technology and communication are in such a fluctuating period of chaos and experiencing rapid rate of change that only those who adapt will have any chance of surviving. This sounds like a “survival of the fittest” meets technology approach. In a way, it is. However, it brings up several provocative -even haunting – questions about how institutions have been run in the past and how they will have to be led in the future.
As a pastor, of course, I make the obvious connection to the chaotic, messy, uneasy, rapidly shifting and turbulent culture we’re experiencing in the North American Church. This institution, of course, is Christendom, which has been a part of our heritage for over a thousand years. We’re impacted by Christendom so deeply, that we don’t even know much it has gotten into the bloodstream of North American culture. But the cracks of Christendom are growing larger to the point that they can no longer be ignored. Watch this very well done video created by the good people at 3DM and narrated by Mike Breen.
Will we be adaptable enough to move as the Spirit blows? We have a saying at our church: the structure must submit to the Spirit. Easy to say, hard to actually do. Read Matt Steen’s thoughts on what the Church can learn from Kodak, which overlap and intersect with what I’m attempting to communicate here.
A few years ago I wrote a post on the vital need for the Church in North America to rethink how we “do church” – and why adaptability is so key to the process. Its less stable and more scary, but it gives flexibility and the opportunity to provide new avenues of possibility as Christendom crumbles.
I also wonder about the value of staying put. We live in a microwave culture. Read this post from Mike Breen on a similar thought. How do we teach people to use ovens correctly in a microwave culture?
Do me a favor: Read the Fast Company article. Consider these questions below and dialog with me about this topic.
[ 1 ] When it comes to the Church, what will always change? What will also remain the same?
[ 2 ] What’s the difference between feeling the urgency that things must change and we must do it now and the assurance that this is Jesus’ church and nothing (not even the gates of hell) will prevail against it?
[ 3 ] How does this inform our church structures? How does this article not inform out church structures, and therefore we should be careful not to draw out too many conclusions from it?
[ 4 ] Where is the role of loyalty in a culture that is always looking to move to the next biggest, coolest opportunity? Where is the staying power? Is it “uncool” to stay with a place for so long? Is it smart to be flexible and adaptable or is it just veiled consumerism?
[ 5 ] What implications does the leap frog approach to careers have on the mindset of the people in our churches?
[ 6 ] The article states: “The vast bulk of our institutions – educational, corporate, political – are not built for flux. Few traditional career tactics train us for an era where the most important skill is the ability to acquire new skills.” Does this apply to the Church as well?
[ 7 ] Should this mindset of adaptability that expects people to move around when new opportunities arise be encouraged in the Church – or frowned upon?
Quinn said...
1Not sure what you are asking in question 6. Is the Church as an institution built for flux? No, it’s an institution built around an unchanging being and has largely developed institutional norms that discourage change. Does the Church as an institution train its members for an era of flux? Probably not; some churches really make an effort to engage people outside of the Church, but like the article says, there are no perfect role models. Does anyone really have a good handle on how to live in the world but not of it?
In regards to your question 1, the poor will always be with us. Since the beginning of time, haven’t the needs of the poorest of the poor always been food, shelter, and money? This will always be a part of the Church. But outside of the poor, the way we interact with each other has changed and will continue to change, which means that the way we “do” church needs to change, and the way that individuals come to understand Jesus changes. I don’t mean that prayer, Scripture, discipleship, etc. stop being important, but the way we do these things changes, and it affects how we see Jesus. For example, think about how the definition of “friend” has changed in the age of Facebook, and how many people use Facebook to connect with church groups. Do we account for this when we tell people that they have a friend in Jesus? I know this is a somewhat superficial example, but a generation based on internet friendships is going to have a very different understanding of what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
02/5/12 1:54 AM | Comment Link
Mashabelle said...
2People in giant corporations, crowded street markets, suburban America- everyone is struggling to cope with the changes that are discussed in this article. It’s a fascinating idea to try to imagine a church that would learn to adapt to ambiguity. What would such a church look like? What should such a church look like?
On a slightly different note, there was an article in the New York Times a few days ago that discussed the idea of the “protester”, as a generic [clean shaven] young person with a clear understanding that something is amiss in the world, but a less than clear idea as to what might be done. I think it is a nice counter-viewpoint to the GenerationFlux idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/brooks-how-to-fight-the-man.html?src=me&ref=general
02/5/12 2:34 AM | Comment Link
J.R. Briggs said...
3Quinn – good thoughts. So know the question becomes HOW do we go about training disciples to be adaptable? I think much of it lies in training how to engage culture, listen to the Spirit and think like a missionary.
What do you think?
02/5/12 8:59 AM | Comment Link
J.R. Briggs said...
4Mashabelle – Thanks for the article link. Yes, it certainly has been making the rounds. I’ve seen it linked many different places.
Do you know of a church that is adaptable?
If not, what would have to happen for a church to be adaptable and flexible, where the structure always submitted to the Spirit? Would love to hear your thoughts…
02/5/12 9:04 AM | Comment Link
Matt Steen said...
5Thanks for linking over to me!
#6 is an interesting question for me. While I understand Quinn’s point that we are built around an unchanging being… but I think that we need to be built for some degree of cultural flux.
I have seen too many churches handle flux badly, and are now coffee shops, cool looking homes, or night clubs. They didn’t adapt well to what was going on around them… and they were unable to maintain the system that they developed for themselves.
My sense is that only when churches begin to develop disciples who are flexible and adaptable will the church be in a place to deal well with flux. My personal soap box in this conversation is developing Christ Followers who are able to think critically about matters of faith… instead of being consumers of religion that are dependent on the weekly spoon feeding in a Sunday service.
02/6/12 8:50 AM | Comment Link
Quinn said...
6When you first posted, I thought about the marketplace of Jesus’ time. I mean the physical marketplace, as in “Jesus was walking through the marketplace.” To my understanding, the temple was a part of the marketplace; it was a part of the city center. That leads me to believe that the original church had to deal with change and engaging culture just as much as we do today. If we pursued this line of thinking, we could pull out some lessons based on what we know from anthropology or sociology- e.g. we know that physical environment affects interactions, so how did the early church interact, and how does that need to change because of changes in the physical environment?
I’ve also keep thinking about the church in Ephesus. It was an important business and cultural center in its time, so there was a need to engage culture, and there was a lot of change going on. In Acts 19, there is a story about a religious conflict among the Christians and non-Christians, but it seems that the riot might have been due to business interests rather than religious ideology (the Man was getting us down even then). Then we have the book of Ephesians, which I see as a pep talk to a church dealing with a volatile cultural environment (i.e. a culture in flux). From my understanding, 1 and 2 Timothy were directed to Timothy while he was in Ephesus, and Paul gives him directions on how to be a church leader. And then there is the message to the Ephesians in Revelation 2, which I am not sure applies to this line of thought, but perhaps the first part of the message is a commendation for their work in engaging culture and dealing with change, and the second part is about the part of church life that should never change. So I think the text has examples of engaging culture, and we could pull some lessons from that.
I would also point out that as far as training disciples to be adaptable, the Church should recognize that there needs to be training opportunities for people who don’t plan on going into formal ministry. Not everyone is going to take seminary classes or intern at a church for a year. Perhaps the Church is not good at engaging culture because its leadership training is so removed from culture.
02/9/12 5:28 PM | Comment Link
J.R. Briggs said...
7Quinn –
Intriguing last line of your comment: “Perhaps the Church is not good at engaging culture because its leadership training is so removed from culture.”
If so, then what might effective training of pastors look like in the future?
02/9/12 7:47 PM | Comment Link
Quinn said...
8I don’t know. Scientists get their “real world” experience from working in a lab. Maybe seminary should have more labs.
02/15/12 11:07 PM | Comment Link