Author: MASadmin

Scott McKnight asked if churches are adjusting to the rise of the number of single people in our society? According to the most recent census data, only 48% of households are husband-wife households. There appears to be a demographic shift in how households are defined in the United States with some places, such as Manhattan and San Francisco having over 40% of its population located in one-person households. The world is changing! And how are there people in Manhattan who can afford to live alone? That’s the burning answer that I want to know.

Actually, the statistics are fascinating and as the Metropolitan New York Synod begins to analyze where it currently lives, this statistic should be taken into consideration. But who are these single people? I think, in many ways, that’s a tricky question. Although I think it would be possible to assume that these people are mostly young individuals – I think that the more likely answer is that these people are middle aged and over. As the population increases, the divorce rate stays high, and widows keep being created, many single households are gray. Now, if that is true, then it is possible that churches like the ELCA (which are graying anyways) are naturally evolving themselves to reach out to that demographic. But maybe not. In fact, the bigger issue at stake maybe that the church will need to change on how it assume community is created and sustained. The assumed default social networks for individuals, marriage and roommates, no longer exist like they used to. We’re probably living in a world where the default opportunities for connections and networks no longer grip people like they use to. And as part of the transient generation/class in Manhattan, as I discover that I am the one who stayed while everyone seems to leave, I’m realizing that social networks are not as easy to form as they use to. And if that is true, then the church – an organization that is, above all, defined by relationships – much acknowledge this and change accordingly.

This is a fascinating thing to think about on Trinity Sunday when pastors across the country struggle to share what the Trinity means to parishioners. I have yet to preach on Trinity Sunday and I’m sure I’ll struggle with it once I do, but the image of the relationship between Father-Son-Holy Spirit as a cornerstone of our faith seems to align nicely with our recent demographic data. The assumptions about where relationships are created no longer applies. Churches, in many ways, have to work harder to be places where relationships between people, as well as between individuals and Christ, can be harnessed and focused. I think, in many ways, that is part of the underlying component behind what it means to be “welcoming.” Welcoming doesn’t mean smiling at newcomers who enter the door but, rather, being willing to be in relationship with these new people. It means being incarnational with our neighbors. And that is a wonderful butt-kicking thing for me to hear because as I sit in the pews during these summer months, when I’m on my summer “break,” I find myself not wanting to engage with people who show up to worship at my church for the first time. I want to worship as a participant and to let the service, that I adore, wash over me. But that’s a trap in many ways. The reality is that it is through forming relationships that I live out my baptismal calling. Being washed over is fine and dandy but it is only part of the story. There is a world where connections don’t exist like they use to and, as a church, we’re being called to be the body of Christ in the world. We cannot assume that people are able to form their own networks or assume that traditional social networks, such as marriage, are the primary norm through how the church should engage with people. This means that the church can’t be a meat market to create couples, thus allowing the church off the hook when it comes to working hard to maintain social networks. The church needs to engage the singles, the married, the young, the old, the just-graduated, the newly-widowed, in an engaged and loving commitment. We need to invite them into our own Trinity and walk with them for as long as they are on this earth.

The New York Times has a good article this morning dealing with religion on Twitter. The article focuses on the use of twitter among “evangelicals” and the megachurch set. The primary message from the article, I think, is that existing networks can leverage themselves through the use of social media to reach out to new audience. And there is a subversive element with social media as well, like a mild form of the Arab Spring. For women, Twitter can be useful in developing influence and networks outside the traditional male hierarchy of the church. And it seems that Twitter can also be an effective way for new churches (and, as an aside, is it becoming a thing for young women/couples forming house churches in the evangelical world?) to reach out to new audiences. Sure, in many ways, this can be primarily a tool to reach audiences that are already like yourselves (i.e. they have to use twitter, be able to afford the devices to use twitter, and care about social media) but twitter, and social media in general, can be effective at developing and maintaing relationship networks.

I love that twitter is sending out an executive to reach out to religious leaders (though, of course, us mainliners are left in the dust). I dig that they used analytics to see how often religious tweets are re-tweeted. I dislike, immensely, the implication that KJV verses are, on average, less than a tweet in length but, well, taking bible verses out of context is a thing that we’ve been doing for thousands of years and my campaign against that won’t stop it from happening. But I’m drawn to the theory that inspirational messages have a draw on the internets. Now, I know this is true and I’m sure you do too. In fact, if you’re a child of the internet who came of age in the late 90s, you have been in many grueling battles against the “inspirational” emails that your extended relatives sent to you and 3000 other people. Animated gifts, giant letters in pink and italics – we have seen it all. In fact, we have seen so much, we are no longer feel anything when we see them. We just quietly notice that they have spread to facebook and, with little fanfare, we hide those posts from our newsfeed. The war continues even though the battlefields have changed.

Now, as a proponent of social media, what am I to do with these inspirational messages? Do I join the bagwagon? Do I reshare every bible verse that the ELCA facebook page puts out? I’m not really sure yet. From my experience, bible verses, photos of people, and interactive type posts get the most responses. But there’s a danger lurking in this use of social media, I think. The danger is, of course, in promoting the gospel at the expense of the law. There’s a danger is being Joel Osteen rather than Melanchthon. There’s a danger in devolving Christ into 140 character soundbytes that make us feel good rather then letting the gospel exegete who we are and where we are. Even the proverb quoted in the article by Bishop Jakes “Your words will tell others what you think. Your actions will tell them what you believe” is problematic mostly because I don’t see the challenge in those words. I think it is meant to be a challenge to people but I don’t see it. Now, this could just be my fault – I might be too jaded, bitter, or too much of a hipster/gen-xer to truly believe that such 140 character tweets can challenge anyone. It’s a statement sent to a self-selecting group of people who push a button to receive those kinds of messages from Bishop Jakes. It is a statement to people who already, to some degree, buy into it. It, to me, lacks teeth. But should social media have teeth? Should tweets be mini-sermons where the truth about the world is told and the gospel spoken? Or should it be used in different ways? The executive in the article mentions that she tries to get preachers to be personal on twitter. If true, then there might be a different thing going on here. What people are looking for is a kind of connection to spiritual leaders that feels personal and more real; a single serving feeling of connection to the people who can be seen as representing God on earth. And if that’s true, then I think churches should embrace its use, not because it replaces pastoral care but because it furthers connections in a different kind of environment (and possibly a world that is more alienating than the past). And as much as we try to restrict religion to the private sphere, religion is social. Connections and community matter. And anything that can further that (hey, where two or three are gathered…), then we should do it.