Tag Archives: church

What the Church can learn from Newsweek and Tina Brown

by on October 25, 2012

Tina Brown

I heard an interesting piece on NPR earlier this week with Tina Brown, the Editor of Newsweek Magazine, who has recently announced that they will shut down their print edition and go fully digital by January. I admire Tina Brown’s risk-taking, her leadership and her bold vision. I think her controversial magazine covers are an example how art and perspective can snag even our information-soaked, buzzing attentions long enough to pause and simply look at them. I’m impressed with her latest move to shut down the old and jump into the new. It’s a gutsy move, and there is no shortage of naysayers that it will work.

I think most church leaders could take some notes from Tina Brown. She’s surrounded by people who have said “We’ve always done it this way” and “It will never work” and “But what about _______.” It’s not easy to block out those voices and trust your intuition, even when you feel pretty convinced that you’re onto something. It’s not easy to try something that hasn’t been done before.

I couldn’t help but think of the parallels of print/digital journalism and traditional/emerging church while I was listening to her interview. She realizes the world has changed, much as she adores the old one. She doesn’t hate print magazines. It’s not anger or indifference running her engine. She’s adapting, she’s willing to notice trends and real world changes and she knows it’s just not going to work any longer to pay for a weekly news magazine. That’s respectable enough. But what’s really impressive is that she’s figured out how to change AND stay true to what Newsweek does best- how to dial it up, expand it, move it around, cut out the excess. The Daily Beast is one example of this. It’s a well-known and widely used website for people looking for their daily (and hourly) news. It reports with immediacy. But it also provides a variety of  levels of interaction. If you want the cheat sheet of the day’s top stories, you’ve got it. If you want a more in-depth look at an issue, here’s a column. You want video, photos, opinion pieces? Sure. I realize lots of sites do this. I happen to think The Daily Beast does it really well. And I’m eager to see them translate their print magazine to digital.

I heard one commentator say that not all print journalism is dead. The New York Times is doing fine, and is projected to do so for a good while. The problem is, not everyone is the New York Times.  In the same way, not every church is the Catholic Church, or the Episcopal Church. They may be able to keep things the same for a while and add a few new things along the way. But for the majority of us, and certainly for those of us in emerging churches, we don’t have any illusions about becoming that “stable.” We aren’t seeking print journalism, so to speak. That train has long left the station. We’re trying to figure out what being church means in the digital age- how to dial up what we do well, how to create multiple points of entry for people at various stages of faith, how to connect through not just talking and not just ideas but creative pursuits and multiple intelligences. And that requires some risk-taking. It certainly requires an ability to listen to your gut more than you do the naysayers. Because let me tell you, few people thought Journey Church would be around 14 years later.

Kathleen Deveny, in a 2009 article at The Daily Beast about earlier changes at Newsweek, said she believed there was a future for the magazine, because ”while there is no shortage of information out there, we believe there is a scarcity of insight.” I think that about sums it up for my thoughts, too. There’s no shortage of spiritual information and practice out there. What people are looking for isn’t the round up of weekly news. What we need, and what the community of faith can provide in a unique way, is insight, embodiment, relevance, and meaning-making. With all the noise coming at us nonstop, we  don’t need more information. What we want is some depth, some context, and lots of space for interaction and experimentation.

Comments { 0 }

Moltmann on Church Reform

by on October 31, 2011

Happy Halloween, all! Today’s Moltmann quote comes from The Church in the Power of the Spirit in a section about the form of the church as fellowship on page 317:

 

The church will not overcome its present crisis through reform of the administration of the sacraments, or from the reform of its ministries. It will overcome this crisis through the rebirth of practical fellowship. The reforms of evangelization and the administration of the sacraments, and the inescapable reform of the church’s ministries, will spring from the rebirth of fellowship and friendship among the rank and file. The one certainly cannot take place without the other, but the starting point lies in the congregation and its form as fellowship. Fellowship in word and sacrament, fellowship in the profession of faith, fellowship in the institution and the  hierarcy, become lifeless and are petrified into formalities with which people can no longer identify themselves, if fellowship among the congregation’s rank and file is lost, and if friendship is not recovered from the ‘grass-roots.’”

 

I like this section for at least two reasons. One, I confess that I just might explain my entire task as a pastor of an emerging community of faith by saying it is an attempt at rebirthing practical fellowship. What I mean by that is we try to structure our communal life in such a way that it gives us the tools and practices we need to become who we think we ought to be becoming. What I also mean by that is participation in the life of the community itself is a practice, because if you stick around long enough you will have to endure some conflict, or personality issues, or differences of opinion, and it’s in those moments where the fellowship can really give way to practical Christian life application. (Not to make it sound like a title on the front cover of a trendy new Bible) If we want to reform, there’s no shortcut. It’s a lot of practice, every day, with the same people, continually seeking those places of growth and grace. The hidden shadow-point Moltmann makes here is that the church can be a place where practical fellowship is less than fully present…a gauge which we should take seriously if we’re pastors.

The second reason is that I believe firmly in the power of friendship. I believe firmly in its transformational power, to put it more strongly. It’s why I continue to give my time and energy to the work of Emergent Village. It’s why I believe in keeping intentional friendships with other clergy across a number of denominational lines. It’s why I enjoy hanging out with people whose thoughts vary greatly from my own. Reform happens in, with and through friendship. It’s true personally, and it’s true communally.

Comments { 0 }

Churches that Copyright are not Churches

by on October 21, 2011

This morning Twitter was all a-flutter with news that Mars Hill Seattle has sent out Cease and Desist letters to other churches with the same name.

For years, I have watched church copyrighting become a trend.  Most closely, this has happened at the megachurch that resides just on the other side of the highway from us, Watermark.  When they began, copyrighting was one of the first things they did, because they had their eyes set toward the future, which they intended to be filled with conferences and satellite churches and books and other copyright-related things.  Before we get any further, let me be perfectly clear:  I applaud their desire to think big.  I applaud their vision of extending what they are doing as far as the eye can see.  However, I have a SIGNIFICANT problem with their assumption that to do so requires legal copyrighting.  What that communicates to me is not their desire to be a group of people who are intent on spreading good news and equipping people, but their desire to be a group of people KNOWN BY NAME (and not the name of the One in which they are doing so) who does these things. And that, my friends, is a HUGE, HUGE difference.  It is, to put it as bluntly as I can, the difference between a church and a corporation.

Corporations have the goal of expanding their brand.  Churches have the goal of expanding the Kingdom.  These things do not equal one another, and I would argue, the former prohibits the function of the latter.

But let’s move on to Mars Hill.  First of all, I’m disgusted that this move has come only after Rob Bell has decided to step down as Lead Pastor at Mars Hill in Michigan.  It’s as if Mark Driscoll was too scared to make this bold move before that, because everyone knows Bell is more well-known (and frankly, more liked) than Driscoll.  That to me feels sickeningly underhanded.  They have shared a name and a public profile as two churches for over a decade. Why now?  (I do know that Mars Hill Graduate School, also located in Seattle, has just undergone a name change to become The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology. I don’t know the specifics of the process or whether it came from similar legal pressure, but I do know they’ve been debating a name change for years in order to distance themselves from the assumption of affiliation with Mars Hill Church.)

As you can tell from my comments above, I already find it theologically suspect (if not abhorrent) when a church copyrights at all.  But this becomes even more odious still when the very name copyrighted is something that has been recognized and shared by people of faith for over two thousand years.  What in God’s name gives a church the right to attempt to copyright something that wasn’t theirs in the first place???  Can you imagine what kind of letter the Apostle Paul would write to Mars Hill if he were around?!

“To the church in Seattle called Mars Hill, I appeal to you to be united with believers across your continent whose church carries the same name. For I have heard troubling reports that you have instigated quarrels among you.  Was Mars Hill crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Mars Hill? Your boasting is not a good thing. And haven’t you heard me say that when you have a grievance against someone (and do you really think the name of your church constitutes such a grievance?), you are to speak with your fellow believer in person? Do you dare take something to court and seek legal means before you settle it by using the wise among you? You may recall in my first letter to the Corinthians that I declared lawsuits and legal quarrels are already a defeat. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? Why not allow the petty concern over church affiliation confusion to lay at rest rather than seek the glory of raising up your own church name? Do you not know that wrongdoers of such a kind will not inherit the Kingdom of God?”

I pastor a church called Journey.  In 1999, I’m pretty sure we were among the first to be named so.  As of this morning’s Google search, I found 70 pages of hits showing churches with that name.  It’s not ideal, and I do often get people who ask whether we are connected to the Journey here or there.  It can be a nuisance.  As a matter of full disclosure, one of those churches is located in DFW.  We learned of them a few years ago when they had just begun and we immediately began receiving voice messages and emails from people trying to find them instead of us.  I looked at their website and realized we shared the exact same name-Journey Community Church.  I called the pastor. We met for coffee.  We shared stories about who we were and what we were doing.  I told him we were very used to being confused with other Journey churches, but it might create a regular headache to share the same exact name in the same exact city. What can we do to alleviate that?  He was very emotionally tied to the name and, though they had not even begun meeting regularly yet, he was pretty adamant about not changing the name, even slightly for the sake of differentiation.  I will openly admit to being frustrated. (I will also admit that, had it been me, I would have opted to differentiate the name somehow out of respect for a church just miles from ours that had already been around for nearly a decade.)  So I understand the frustration of names. I really do. Everything under the sun these days seems to have “Journey” in it (including, I’ll say, a Bible study by Watermark called “Join the Journey” whose massive banner on their church, in the same font as our old font, was so confusing for some people that they wandered around Watermark thinking it’s where we met).  I also will say that I have seen other churches use our ideas in all kinds of ways. One church website a number of years ago basically plagiarized half of our website, including our core values statements. (Mars Hill Michigan strictly prohibits such a thing, so they have their own issues with copyrighting it seems.)

I get it.  It’s incredibly frustrating, not to mention dishonoring to the hard work and passion we put into it, to have another church come along and just take what you’ve done without asking permission or saying thanks or even sending you a five dollar love offering for the time it saved them not to have to come up with something on their own. Journey would have a far bigger budget if all the people who have gotten ideas from us over the  years would have left us a minor monetary thank you before returning to their massive buildings and pension plans.  I GET IT.  And maybe what we do need is a conversation about how to share things openly and respectfully in a digital world where idea-poaching is so prevalent.  Maybe we need to talk more about something along the lines of Creative Commons as a way of respecting one another’s contributions.  However, what we DON’T need is lawsuits, copyrights, or cease and desist letters.  Never for one second would I consider SUING any of these people to have them change their name, or stop using our verbiage or ideas. Never would I consider claiming that our Journey is the only Journey that can exist, because we were one of the first to employ the name.  The very thought is ridiculous, even when our shared name confusion is at its highest.

Because at the end of the day, we are ALL finding inspiration from a story that isn’t ours, and that has been freely and graciously given to us.  We  have been instructed and even commanded to take this story and to share it and to pass it along.  I don’t care how many books you’ve sold, or great church ideas you’ve employed.  We all owe our inspiration to the Holy Spirit, and she does not charge.

We are all people trying to be faithful to a story that has been around for far longer than any of our churches or ministries have.  NONE of us came up with this song.  None of us were original enough to create the ideas we share Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. We each have our own unique perspectives, some may have stumbled upon a way of communicating them that really strikes a chord with a lot of people, but we are all singing along to a song that is much bigger than we are.

The story of God is not a commodity.  The church is not a corporation.  The Gospel is not for sale.  The inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not carry a price tag.  And if we treat them as such (and boy, have we), we need to hang our heads and receive some ashes and repent.

 

Comments { 18 }

Church as Adventure

by on September 13, 2010

I am in a The Church in the Power of the Spirit mood today, so here’s your Moltmann Monday excerpt, italics mine:

“In peaceful times the church could affirm itself by demonstrating the unbroken and unaltered continuance of its tradition and traditions.  People appealed to these things, trusting in the permanent element in time’s changes, and in what is repeatable in the accidents of history.  In times of unrest this is no longer convincing…Today we are living in a time of transition whose future we can as yet hardly perceive.  Many people are painfully conscious that what was valid once no longer holds good.  But what is going to be and what is capable of enduring we do not know…The tradition to which the church appeals, and which it proclaims whenever it calls itself Christ’s church and speaks in Christ’s name, is the tradition of the messianic liberation and eschatological renewal of the world.  It is impossible to rest on this tradition. It is a tradition that changes (humans) and from which they are born again.  It is like the following wind that drives us to new shores.  Anyone who enters into this messianic tradition accepts the adventure of the Spirit, the experience of liberation, the call to repentance, and common work for the coming kingdom.”                                           -p.2-3

I’d first like to point out that Moltmann wrote this in 1977, which merely proves my theory that we could have found ourselves less behind the proverbial 8-ball if we had listened a bit more closely to his ecclesiology back then.  Because I can bet those of you in positions of church leadership have had this conversation far more recently than that.  And it would have been helpful to have had Moltmann’s voice in that conversation reminding you that the whole idea of resting forevermore in some particularized tradition of the church is the silliest thing anybody could ever imagine.  It is antithetical to the very tradition that IS Christ’s church, which is renewal and rebirth and general messy upheaval.  So good luck with that.

I am not sure if we have been clear in communicating to people who are entering the communal life of the universal church that in doing so they are accepting adventure, liberation, repentance, and a shared commitment to common work for the Kingdom.  Today I’m particularly thinking about how I don’t think we have been clear on the first bit about adventure.  I wonder if this is why change and fluidity and open systems often prove so difficult to produce inside our churches.  I also wonder if this is why people expect the church to bring them comfort and stability and then feel jaded and discontented when it doesn’t.  (I feel despair in thinking about what happens when the church DOES bring only comfort and stability, too.)

It’s tricky (and at times tiring, honestly) to live inside a tradition that is most definitive about the fact that is continually in motion.  You can’t blame us for wanting to put some stakes down every now and again.  Maybe we should instead be mindful that the stakes we put down aren’t so deeply grounded that they keep us from proclaiming the tradition of messy, slow, clunky and (eventually, we pray) beautiful transformation.  It would be a shame to lose out on all that adventure.

Comments { 2 }

Should church be fun?

by on September 23, 2009

Here’s a question to start your Wednesday morning. A friend and I had a lively discussion the other day about whether or not church should be fun. What do you think?

Comments { 4 }