You know those couples that find a way to get into arguments about things of little consequence? You listen to them fight and the whole time thinking "who cares"? Well I am part of an institution that loves these fights.
The latest instance of this is over church membership. There is an amendment to the Methodist "constitution" that would allow anyone to be a member of the Methodist church (of course,the issue is not this black and white but that is not the point).
Here is why I am thinking "who cares" through this whole thing. Membership in the UMC means absolutely nothing! Seriously. I attend a church with over 7,000 on the membership roles. This number would be lower if the UMC didn't make it so dadgum difficult to take people off the membership roles (you basically have to be dead or asked to be taken off, there is almost no other way without the church jumping through some significant hoops). So, we have over 7,000 on our membership roles but only about 3,700 in attendance despite the fact that part of the membership vows are to be in attendance. Also, the amount of people regularly giving to the church falls well below the 7,000 despite the fact that supporting the church with gifts is part of the membership vows (and for those of you that define this as serving in the church, the level of involvement there is not 7,000 either). I can't know for sure but I am guessing that we don't have 7,000 regularly praying for our church, again despite the fact that it is part of the membership vows. VOWS, you know those things you say at your wedding. Should carry more weight than they do. I am not a legalist, but what does membership mean? I stand on my case that it means nothing.
On the other hand, we have "non-members" that I know are fulfilling the membership vows. Some might ask, "Well, why don't they just join then?" And I would ask, "Why should they if it doesn't mean anything to anyone else?"
So, my question is, "Why are we fighting this battle?" Why aren't we spending our time asking ourselves, "Why isn't our membership living up to their vows?" and "How can we challenge and help our membership to do so?"
And, instead of spending so much time making it easier for people to get on our membership rolls, why don't we spend some time making it easier for churches to take people off membership rolls? That would at least give those rolls a shot at integrity and meaning.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
I'm Quitting Morality . . .
That's right, I am quitting morality! Truth is, I have been trying to quit for about 10 years now.
Sometime around my graduation from college I began to realize that almost all of my life choices had been self-serving. There are many people that graduate from college and begin to realize this (and there are many that never learn this lesson), but most of them are repenting from their partying, drinking, casual sex, and living for the moment. I, on the other hand, made it through college without a drink or drunkenness (which is easy because I think beer is nasty!) and without falling into the trap of sex before marriage. My decisions were based on a list of rules for right living. I knew that if I broke these rules that I would just be creating trouble for myself. My morality was primarily self-serving.
During the season immediately following graduation I decided to make a change. I decided I would quit morality. This didn't mean that I began consuming massive amounts of beer in order to get drunk, nor did it mean that I began racking up numbers of sexual encounters. What it did mean is that I traded the selfish motivation of my morality for a selfless motivation. I quit morality in favor of worship.
For the past 10 years I have been trying to live the everyday life and make the everyday decisions motivated by the opportunity to bring glory to God. I have learned that I don't have to earn God's favor or his forgiveness, that has been freely given. And, because of that, I have been freed to make my life decisions motivated by His glory and not my own. Every decision is an opportunity to bring glory to God or to rob him of his glory in favor of my own. At times this is a heavy weight to carry, but the joy I find in bringing him glory as I follow his way of life is more satisfying than anything else!
Sometime around my graduation from college I began to realize that almost all of my life choices had been self-serving. There are many people that graduate from college and begin to realize this (and there are many that never learn this lesson), but most of them are repenting from their partying, drinking, casual sex, and living for the moment. I, on the other hand, made it through college without a drink or drunkenness (which is easy because I think beer is nasty!) and without falling into the trap of sex before marriage. My decisions were based on a list of rules for right living. I knew that if I broke these rules that I would just be creating trouble for myself. My morality was primarily self-serving.
During the season immediately following graduation I decided to make a change. I decided I would quit morality. This didn't mean that I began consuming massive amounts of beer in order to get drunk, nor did it mean that I began racking up numbers of sexual encounters. What it did mean is that I traded the selfish motivation of my morality for a selfless motivation. I quit morality in favor of worship.
For the past 10 years I have been trying to live the everyday life and make the everyday decisions motivated by the opportunity to bring glory to God. I have learned that I don't have to earn God's favor or his forgiveness, that has been freely given. And, because of that, I have been freed to make my life decisions motivated by His glory and not my own. Every decision is an opportunity to bring glory to God or to rob him of his glory in favor of my own. At times this is a heavy weight to carry, but the joy I find in bringing him glory as I follow his way of life is more satisfying than anything else!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Redemption Lost?
LOST is a multi-layered show. The idea of being lost has a literal layer (so, there was this plane crash . . . ) but it also has a metaphorical layer. Each of the main characters on the show have lost their way. Locke and Jack both have lost their identity walking in the shadows of their fathers. Kate grew up with daddy issues as well and her and Sawyer are linked together by their killings of vengeance. Hurley lost who he was after finding the winning lottery numbers. Sayid seems to wrestle with the desire to be good and the necessity of being evil. Jin wrestled with the same thing as Sayid and seems to have come out as a good guy but now his wife seems to be filling the role of evil by necessity. Much of the show has been about these characters finding redemption.
But, redemption seems to be a dead end at this point. I can't get my head around there being any hope for deliverance. Those who had been lost returned home only to find out that home wasn't what they were looking for. So, now they have returned back to the island. So, if home isn't deliverance then what is? To this point, the only character that I know of that has found redemption was Charlie and he died sacrificially. (Interestingly enough, sacrificial death worked for Charlie but it doesn't seem like it has for Locke).
If redemption is found on the island, then what does that mean for the "others"? Unless there is a way for the "others" and the "losties" to live together then I don't see hope for deliverance. And, what part does the Dharma initiative play? We have three groups of people who have all at times seemed evil and at others innocent. I can see one (maybe two) groups being found to be good, but not all three. How could three groups of innocent people be so diametrically opposed to one another? As I watch LOST I gotta think redemption is going to have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
It may seem like I am putting way too much thought into a TV show (but then again, it is not just a TV show :)). However, I think art (and I count LOST as pop-art) is a reflection of real life. Here is the thing. As confusing and grey as all the characters and groups of people in LOST are, I think it is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, as we look at world affairs how do we determine who the good players are and who the bad players are? Like the different groups in LOST the different nations have hints of innocence and evil. The reason for this is the humanity that makes up these different nations. As I look at the world, I am convinced that if we are to hope for redemption it will have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
But, redemption seems to be a dead end at this point. I can't get my head around there being any hope for deliverance. Those who had been lost returned home only to find out that home wasn't what they were looking for. So, now they have returned back to the island. So, if home isn't deliverance then what is? To this point, the only character that I know of that has found redemption was Charlie and he died sacrificially. (Interestingly enough, sacrificial death worked for Charlie but it doesn't seem like it has for Locke).
If redemption is found on the island, then what does that mean for the "others"? Unless there is a way for the "others" and the "losties" to live together then I don't see hope for deliverance. And, what part does the Dharma initiative play? We have three groups of people who have all at times seemed evil and at others innocent. I can see one (maybe two) groups being found to be good, but not all three. How could three groups of innocent people be so diametrically opposed to one another? As I watch LOST I gotta think redemption is going to have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
It may seem like I am putting way too much thought into a TV show (but then again, it is not just a TV show :)). However, I think art (and I count LOST as pop-art) is a reflection of real life. Here is the thing. As confusing and grey as all the characters and groups of people in LOST are, I think it is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, as we look at world affairs how do we determine who the good players are and who the bad players are? Like the different groups in LOST the different nations have hints of innocence and evil. The reason for this is the humanity that makes up these different nations. As I look at the world, I am convinced that if we are to hope for redemption it will have to come from someone or something other than the characters involved.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Where are the attacks on Easter . . . oh, there it is.
So, I was thinking earlier this week that this year has seen a drought in books and news stories attacking Easter. You know, books or stories on the Gospel of Judas or the James Ossuary. It seems that every year around this time someone is looking to capitalize on Easter from a secular perspective (of course, there are plenty of Christian books that do the same but you would expect that). I am not so much bothered by the books themselves nor am I threatened by them. I know there are people that have differing viewpoints. The timing of their release is what bothers me. I understand it, it is just either annoying or obnoxious.
In terms of this trend, this year has seemed eerily quiet.
Then I ran across a book by Bart Ehrman just this week in Barnes and Noble. The title caught my eye (and of course it was on a display table because of Easter). The book is called Jesus Interrupted. I picked it up just long enough to roll my eyes (again, not because of the subject or perspective but because of the timing).
Well, Bart was on Colbert last night. Colbert, for those of you who don't know, has taught Sunday School at his church (Catholic if my memory serves me correctly. and, correct me if I am wrong). Anyway, here is the video:
Ben Witherington has a good review/critique of the book (long) that can be found here and here.
In terms of this trend, this year has seemed eerily quiet.
Then I ran across a book by Bart Ehrman just this week in Barnes and Noble. The title caught my eye (and of course it was on a display table because of Easter). The book is called Jesus Interrupted. I picked it up just long enough to roll my eyes (again, not because of the subject or perspective but because of the timing).
Well, Bart was on Colbert last night. Colbert, for those of you who don't know, has taught Sunday School at his church (Catholic if my memory serves me correctly. and, correct me if I am wrong). Anyway, here is the video:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bart Ehrman | ||||
| ||||
Ben Witherington has a good review/critique of the book (long) that can be found here and here.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
ID Part 1
Paul's letter to the Colossians is one of my favorite letters found in the New Testament. This letter is underappreciated in my opinion. For me, this letter addresses some of the toughest challenges we have as Christians in our western culture. The letter addresses gnosticism (been around forever, but repackaged recently as The Secret), our identity (why don't we talk about this in the church?), and religion as idol.
One of the main themes (if not the main theme) in this letter is defining who Christ is, who we are in light of who Christ is and how we are to live in light of who we are in Christ. Some might claim this is actually three themes, but I would argue that these three are parts of a whole that can't be separated.
Too often, we approach the Bible looking for the "what". What am I supposed to do? What am I not supposed to do? When we do this we minimize our faith to a legalistic morality. I am not sure how you can take the Bible as a whole and imagine that this is the primary message God wants to communicate through His Word.
Instead, we must begin with the "why". Why should I live the way the Bible instructs me to live? What is my motivation? Colossians (and the Bible as a whole) begins with who God is and then defines who we are (identity) in relation to who God is and only then does it move on to discuss the implications of this. Think about the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul, and yes, even Mary.
The NIV has headlined Colossians chapter 3 as "Rules for Holy Living". I believe this is evidence of our tendency to jump to the question of "what am I supposed to do" instead of starting with the motivation or who we are in relation to who God is. I believe a more accurate title for this chapter would be "Characteristics of a Holy Life". This reflects the importance of God's redeeming and sanctifying work in our lives as opposed to the idolatrous idea that somehow we can make ourselves holy buy following a list of rules.
One of the main themes (if not the main theme) in this letter is defining who Christ is, who we are in light of who Christ is and how we are to live in light of who we are in Christ. Some might claim this is actually three themes, but I would argue that these three are parts of a whole that can't be separated.
Too often, we approach the Bible looking for the "what". What am I supposed to do? What am I not supposed to do? When we do this we minimize our faith to a legalistic morality. I am not sure how you can take the Bible as a whole and imagine that this is the primary message God wants to communicate through His Word.
Instead, we must begin with the "why". Why should I live the way the Bible instructs me to live? What is my motivation? Colossians (and the Bible as a whole) begins with who God is and then defines who we are (identity) in relation to who God is and only then does it move on to discuss the implications of this. Think about the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Paul, and yes, even Mary.
The NIV has headlined Colossians chapter 3 as "Rules for Holy Living". I believe this is evidence of our tendency to jump to the question of "what am I supposed to do" instead of starting with the motivation or who we are in relation to who God is. I believe a more accurate title for this chapter would be "Characteristics of a Holy Life". This reflects the importance of God's redeeming and sanctifying work in our lives as opposed to the idolatrous idea that somehow we can make ourselves holy buy following a list of rules.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Future of the UMC
Here is a pretty good article on the future of the Methodist Church. While I think my tolerance for the bureaucracy of the denomination is not as high as the author's I think he makes some good arguments.
http://www.genxrising.com/2009/03/denomination-in-dock.html
The question I have is, "how do these changes take place when the leadership of the denomination seems focused on keeping the status quo and whenever anyone challenges it/them they are written off as 'jumping ship' or 'not a team player'?"
Thoughts?
http://www.genxrising.com/2009/03/denomination-in-dock.html
The question I have is, "how do these changes take place when the leadership of the denomination seems focused on keeping the status quo and whenever anyone challenges it/them they are written off as 'jumping ship' or 'not a team player'?"
Thoughts?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Great Post
Tim Stevens is a pastor at Granger Community Church (a United Methodist Church). He posts this response to the Christian Science Monitor article that I briefly referenced a couple of posts ago. Check this post out at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m386YV2CNSD51Y.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Pathetically Accurate Quote
I take three magazines by subscription. Relevant, FASTCOMPANY and Entertainment Weekly. I only get one magazine by subscription. For some reason FASTCOMPANY and Relevant either can't keep up their part of the bargain, the US Postal service just wants to make me crazy, or two said magazines just plain don't like me.
Anyway, there is a great quote in Mark Harris' column about the whole ugliness that is Chris Brown and Rhianna. The part of the quote I was drawn to wasn't really about this situation, but rather a commentary on our American culture. In describing Rhianna's path to fame Harris writes,
"She lived the American Idol dream and didn't even have to stand before the judges and make that most creepily self-absorbed of all American Idol arguments--the one that goes, I deserve this more than the next guy because I want it sooooo much. That line of reasoning, by the way, probably deserves to be inscribed on the tombstone of this decade as it limps toward its internment."
Too true. So how do we, as the church and individual followers of Christ, lead in writing the inscription on the tombstone of the next decade differently?
Anyway, there is a great quote in Mark Harris' column about the whole ugliness that is Chris Brown and Rhianna. The part of the quote I was drawn to wasn't really about this situation, but rather a commentary on our American culture. In describing Rhianna's path to fame Harris writes,
"She lived the American Idol dream and didn't even have to stand before the judges and make that most creepily self-absorbed of all American Idol arguments--the one that goes, I deserve this more than the next guy because I want it sooooo much. That line of reasoning, by the way, probably deserves to be inscribed on the tombstone of this decade as it limps toward its internment."
Too true. So how do we, as the church and individual followers of Christ, lead in writing the inscription on the tombstone of the next decade differently?
Commentary vs. "What Am I Going To Do About It?"
So, there have been a couple of posts that I have thought about writing the last couple of weeks. One about my thoughts on the recent secession of a quickly growing, 700 member church from the UM denomination (probably guaranteeing them more effective ministry and envious complaining by the UM pastors in the area) and another about the fact that there has been a 15% drop of self-professed Christians in the last decade (which the author seems to be willing to make huge leaps in logic to attribute to the rise of mega-churches, that apparently are all built on consumerism by definition). I have a lot more I could say on both of these. And, I have made the mistake of over simplifying the issues and my response to both; a mistake that will cause some readers to respond harshly. Fine, my fault.
Here is the thing, though. Why? Why should I spend an afternoon pontificating, pointing fingers, taking side and then defending my position? Does that really do anyone any good? If I have to choose between engaging in social commentary or doing ministry, I am going to choose reaching out and serving others. Some people don't have to make this choice. They have time to do both (and I am not patronizing here; many people don't have two kids at home, other hobbies, etc). It's not that I don't want to engage the conversation. In fact, I stick my toes in the water from time to time (sometimes motivated by curiosity and sometimes motivated by my own ego). However, every time I do I have to deal with the conviction that I am not using my time faithfully (just to be clear, this is a personal issue; I am not accusing anyone else of being unfaithful for engaging these conversations).
Action is the bottom line. When the structure of the Methodist church becomes too big of a barrier for fulfilling my calling, I will leave (not out of the realm of possibilities). If I think the state of the church is in bad shape (and it may be), then I am going to do everything I can to be faithful in being a part of the church that I think we as Christians are called to be.
Do I have opinions on these issues (and others)? If you know me, you know I do! But until I feel lead that my opinions will make a bigger difference then my actions....well, you get the picture.
Here is the thing, though. Why? Why should I spend an afternoon pontificating, pointing fingers, taking side and then defending my position? Does that really do anyone any good? If I have to choose between engaging in social commentary or doing ministry, I am going to choose reaching out and serving others. Some people don't have to make this choice. They have time to do both (and I am not patronizing here; many people don't have two kids at home, other hobbies, etc). It's not that I don't want to engage the conversation. In fact, I stick my toes in the water from time to time (sometimes motivated by curiosity and sometimes motivated by my own ego). However, every time I do I have to deal with the conviction that I am not using my time faithfully (just to be clear, this is a personal issue; I am not accusing anyone else of being unfaithful for engaging these conversations).
Action is the bottom line. When the structure of the Methodist church becomes too big of a barrier for fulfilling my calling, I will leave (not out of the realm of possibilities). If I think the state of the church is in bad shape (and it may be), then I am going to do everything I can to be faithful in being a part of the church that I think we as Christians are called to be.
Do I have opinions on these issues (and others)? If you know me, you know I do! But until I feel lead that my opinions will make a bigger difference then my actions....well, you get the picture.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Communication Lessons from the 2009 Election
As I watched the election last year I couldn't help but notice a huge disparity between the practices of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. I have read a book called Tribes by Seth Godin the influenced my observations. If you are leading a group of people (even if you do so without positional influence) it is a great read. I think churches have a lot to learn from observing these two campaigns.
Let's face it, Obama had a lot going for him in building his campaign. However, I am not sure he would have been successful if he hadn't done the following things (remember he was unknown before this past campaign). Those of us who are church leaders should be asking ourselves which campaign most reflects the way we are leading our movements. Look past the politics here. This post has nothing to do with that!
1. Message--The Obama campaign found a central message of hope and transformation that captured the hearts of its supporters. The McCain campaign never found a message.
This should be the easy part for churches, but for whatever reason it is not. We go off message way too often (ironically we often times we play politics instead of church). The church must keep the transformational message of hope that is the Biblical story as its central (if not only) message. And, we must preach as such! The Gospel message is not burdensome, it is freeing and hopeful. We must quit pointing out how hopeless the world is and individuals are if we are not going to point them to the power of Christ to transform.
2. Movement--Obama's campaign was built around the idea of a movement. McCain's campaign was built around the idea of a government. I think most people would recognize this. However, pinpointing the things that made the difference might be hard to do. Obama was certainly the leader of this movement, but the thing that made it a movement was that Obama invited others to participate and took the steps to communicate that those at the grassroots level were making a difference.
The church needs to re-energize our people in the movement that is the church. We have to break out of our institutionalism. (As one of our staff members said yesterday, "We got to get our people off their duffs"). We have to re-engage our people in the idea that it is their calling to make a difference in the world with the message of Jesus (spoken and lived).
3. Masses--Obama's campaign involved the masses. The McCain campaign involved the elites. Now, some may argue with this. I have a friend that worked for the McCain campaign in New Mexico and she was certainly not working with the elites. McCain's campaign (primarily the VP candidate) talked at length about the average Joe, but it seemed talk. On the other hand, the Obama campaign went to great lengths to communicate the importance of the masses (and by the masses I mean the regular guy) not just through word but in every form of presentation. Everytime Obama spoke there was a crowd of people standing behind him. McCain usually had a banner. Obama's crowd was always excited. When McCain did have people behind him it looked like death (seriously). No one was excited. The event that really motivated me to highlight these differences was the results night. McCain had an invite only results party (you may say he just knew he wasn't going to win, but this had been his MO the entire campaign). Obama did all he could to accomodate everyone who would show up on results night (this was his MO, remember the convention being held at Bronco stadium? brilliant!). McCain built his finances on large donors. Obama built his finances on many people giving little amounts. Now I don't have the numbers to prove this, but this is certainly the way these campaigns were presented and that is the perception that the public had of both campaigns.
Churches have to figure out how to break free from the 20-80 rule (20% of the people doing 80% of the work). Often times I think this has to do with the way we communicate and represent the things the church is doing. We have to get the cameras off the leadership and get it on the congregation. We also have to quit targeting the "elite" only because they have the most to offer individually and start targeting the crowd because they have too much to offer collectively.
4. Communication/Use of Technology--Obama's campaing successfully used the new forms of communication (and consequently the new forms of community). McCain's campaign stuck with the tried and true. The statistics on Obama's following on the web, social networking, text messaging, youtube etc. vs. that of McCain is mind boggling. Click here to see some of the data. Obama harnessed the power of peer to peer influence that occurs through these mediums. McCain relied on mediums of communication that are becoming increasingly antiquated. This use of mediums also contributed to the tribe mentality. This occured because Obama announced things (like his VP candidate) through text-messaging, etc. Those that subscribed were thus "in", concreting their place in the tribe.
Churches are so far behind this curve it is painful. We are still investing so much money in print-and-mail materials that people have been ignoring for years. We can do this so much cheaper through email, web, etc. People may still ignore it but at least were sinking WAY less money in it. Even better would be to communicate to our people through invitation/subscription means. The congregant subscribes to the updates/announcements/news they want to hear and aren't bothered with all the other noise. In terms of reaching out to others, we don't do this from a centralized voice. Instead we equip our people (the masses, the movement) with the tools to communicate to their friends. They know better than a central figure what their friends need and will respond to. E-cards, social networking, text messaging, etc are all tools that we should be building and equipping our people with.
5. Presentation--Obama's campaign did production extremely well. McCain's campaign production look amateurish. If you watched the McCain campaign at all, this was painfully obvious. The transitions of music, speakers, mic's being on/off, sound levels, etc were all awful. At the announcement of McCain's VP candidate (the climax of that campaign for most people) the timing was way off. They played the same video twice to try to fill time (making the video and announcement totally anticlimatic). The announcement was made and McCain and Palin were both late taking the stage (again, anticlimatic). Obama on the other hand not only knocked most of his speeches out of the park, but so did his production team. Like it or not production is part of the message (and not just the delivery of the message). Presentation matters.
Just like in communication, many churches are way behind the curve here. Many churches think this is superficial. You can debate that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it matters. The thing is, many of the churches that might claim this is superficial are doing it really well and that is the traditional churches. They know who they are and do traditional very well. This is good! I commend them for this (now there are many traditional churches that don't do this well). The thing is, when churches that are doing more progressive forms of church and worship and talk about the importance of presentation the traditionalists have to recognize that presentation has been important for them as well, it has just looked different.Presentation may be superficial (I don't agree with this, but this argument may not matter), but presentation still matters (and this is really the point).
So, I have been intending to write this post for four months now. In my tardiness there have been a couple of other people that have written on the subject. You can see them here and here. For some real research on this check out the link in item number 4.
What would you add to this list? What would you disagree with (remember, I don't want to discuss politics here, that is not the point)?
Let's face it, Obama had a lot going for him in building his campaign. However, I am not sure he would have been successful if he hadn't done the following things (remember he was unknown before this past campaign). Those of us who are church leaders should be asking ourselves which campaign most reflects the way we are leading our movements. Look past the politics here. This post has nothing to do with that!
1. Message--The Obama campaign found a central message of hope and transformation that captured the hearts of its supporters. The McCain campaign never found a message.
This should be the easy part for churches, but for whatever reason it is not. We go off message way too often (ironically we often times we play politics instead of church). The church must keep the transformational message of hope that is the Biblical story as its central (if not only) message. And, we must preach as such! The Gospel message is not burdensome, it is freeing and hopeful. We must quit pointing out how hopeless the world is and individuals are if we are not going to point them to the power of Christ to transform.
2. Movement--Obama's campaign was built around the idea of a movement. McCain's campaign was built around the idea of a government. I think most people would recognize this. However, pinpointing the things that made the difference might be hard to do. Obama was certainly the leader of this movement, but the thing that made it a movement was that Obama invited others to participate and took the steps to communicate that those at the grassroots level were making a difference.
The church needs to re-energize our people in the movement that is the church. We have to break out of our institutionalism. (As one of our staff members said yesterday, "We got to get our people off their duffs"). We have to re-engage our people in the idea that it is their calling to make a difference in the world with the message of Jesus (spoken and lived).
3. Masses--Obama's campaign involved the masses. The McCain campaign involved the elites. Now, some may argue with this. I have a friend that worked for the McCain campaign in New Mexico and she was certainly not working with the elites. McCain's campaign (primarily the VP candidate) talked at length about the average Joe, but it seemed talk. On the other hand, the Obama campaign went to great lengths to communicate the importance of the masses (and by the masses I mean the regular guy) not just through word but in every form of presentation. Everytime Obama spoke there was a crowd of people standing behind him. McCain usually had a banner. Obama's crowd was always excited. When McCain did have people behind him it looked like death (seriously). No one was excited. The event that really motivated me to highlight these differences was the results night. McCain had an invite only results party (you may say he just knew he wasn't going to win, but this had been his MO the entire campaign). Obama did all he could to accomodate everyone who would show up on results night (this was his MO, remember the convention being held at Bronco stadium? brilliant!). McCain built his finances on large donors. Obama built his finances on many people giving little amounts. Now I don't have the numbers to prove this, but this is certainly the way these campaigns were presented and that is the perception that the public had of both campaigns.
Churches have to figure out how to break free from the 20-80 rule (20% of the people doing 80% of the work). Often times I think this has to do with the way we communicate and represent the things the church is doing. We have to get the cameras off the leadership and get it on the congregation. We also have to quit targeting the "elite" only because they have the most to offer individually and start targeting the crowd because they have too much to offer collectively.
4. Communication/Use of Technology--Obama's campaing successfully used the new forms of communication (and consequently the new forms of community). McCain's campaign stuck with the tried and true. The statistics on Obama's following on the web, social networking, text messaging, youtube etc. vs. that of McCain is mind boggling. Click here to see some of the data. Obama harnessed the power of peer to peer influence that occurs through these mediums. McCain relied on mediums of communication that are becoming increasingly antiquated. This use of mediums also contributed to the tribe mentality. This occured because Obama announced things (like his VP candidate) through text-messaging, etc. Those that subscribed were thus "in", concreting their place in the tribe.
Churches are so far behind this curve it is painful. We are still investing so much money in print-and-mail materials that people have been ignoring for years. We can do this so much cheaper through email, web, etc. People may still ignore it but at least were sinking WAY less money in it. Even better would be to communicate to our people through invitation/subscription means. The congregant subscribes to the updates/announcements/news they want to hear and aren't bothered with all the other noise. In terms of reaching out to others, we don't do this from a centralized voice. Instead we equip our people (the masses, the movement) with the tools to communicate to their friends. They know better than a central figure what their friends need and will respond to. E-cards, social networking, text messaging, etc are all tools that we should be building and equipping our people with.
5. Presentation--Obama's campaign did production extremely well. McCain's campaign production look amateurish. If you watched the McCain campaign at all, this was painfully obvious. The transitions of music, speakers, mic's being on/off, sound levels, etc were all awful. At the announcement of McCain's VP candidate (the climax of that campaign for most people) the timing was way off. They played the same video twice to try to fill time (making the video and announcement totally anticlimatic). The announcement was made and McCain and Palin were both late taking the stage (again, anticlimatic). Obama on the other hand not only knocked most of his speeches out of the park, but so did his production team. Like it or not production is part of the message (and not just the delivery of the message). Presentation matters.
Just like in communication, many churches are way behind the curve here. Many churches think this is superficial. You can debate that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it matters. The thing is, many of the churches that might claim this is superficial are doing it really well and that is the traditional churches. They know who they are and do traditional very well. This is good! I commend them for this (now there are many traditional churches that don't do this well). The thing is, when churches that are doing more progressive forms of church and worship and talk about the importance of presentation the traditionalists have to recognize that presentation has been important for them as well, it has just looked different.Presentation may be superficial (I don't agree with this, but this argument may not matter), but presentation still matters (and this is really the point).
So, I have been intending to write this post for four months now. In my tardiness there have been a couple of other people that have written on the subject. You can see them here and here. For some real research on this check out the link in item number 4.
What would you add to this list? What would you disagree with (remember, I don't want to discuss politics here, that is not the point)?