Last week in Indianapolis, I spoke at Christian Theological Seminary -- "Church Outside the Box," was the title they chose -- and engaged in dialog with three panelists.

We had a grand time up front. I spoke with passion and the panelists responded in spirited debate. But then the moderator invited the audience to ask their questions. Surprise! Their questions went directions we hadn't anticipated.

Go deeper, said one person. We're already beyond denominational woes. What lies ahead?

How do we address a dangerous world situation? asked another.

What specifically should we be doing? Asked one of several people who arrived ready to move on and now wanted guidance.

Last week in Indianapolis, I spoke at Christian Theological Seminary -- "Church Outside the Box," was the title they chose -- and engaged in dialog with three panelists.

We had a grand time up front. I spoke with passion and the panelists responded in spirited debate. But then the moderator invited the audience to ask their questions. Surprise! Their questions went directions we hadn't anticipated.

Go deeper, said one person. We're already beyond denominational woes. What lies ahead?

How do we address a dangerous world situation? asked another.

What specifically should we be doing? Asked one of several people who arrived ready to move on and now wanted guidance.

I don't fault us for guessing wrong. But I wonder why we were guessing at all. We could have started by asking questions about their questions. We might still have said what we said. Preachers, after all, tend to keep preaching the same sermon until they get it out of their system. But we would have been engaged in a more transparent transaction with listeners.

Churches have a long history of being "provider driven." Leaders make decisions about what they want to provide, and then they offer it and expect, or hope, it will be received enthusiastically. I don't think this "provider-driven" approach has ever worked well. It certainly doesn't work now in what is clearly the age of the "customer." From Web usage to car sales, from social networking to basic life decisions, users are in charge.

The best Web sites, for example, are "user-driven," enabling users to express their needs and to make decisions about what they see. The best church programs start by asking members and visitors to name their needs and yearnings. Instead of simply posting a service schedule, the church invites users to imagine God addressing their needs.

This is a profound shift. It moves away from church as an aloof institution and toward a "listening community." It seeks to respond, not to direct. It agrees to be bound by outcomes -- if something isn't working, stop doing it.

In the Church Wellness Project, we call this being a "Listening Church." For many congregations, this will be an easy shift to adopt; for others, it will be profoundly difficult.

Tom Ehrich is a writer, consultant, and leader of workshops. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. The church wellness project may be found at www.churchwellness.com

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

wrote on November 29, 2007

Title: Yes, but with caution Tom Erlich's article is excellent and I thank him for writing it and Outlook for posting it. We will be a far better church when we ask what people need and would support with time talent and treasure. When we determine what programs and events people would enjoy participating in and to which they'd actually want to invite their friends, we are much more likely to grow in faith and in number. Fr. Erlich has expressed exactly what we, as Presbyterians in the PC(USA), deeply desire in our own denomination - for those making the decisions to actually be in conversation with those whom the decisions affect. We need those at the top levels of church government to listen to the Sunday morning pew-sitters and the Christmas and Easter crowd. This, I believe, is the right way to do ministry. BUT, there is a caveat here, as well. While we must meet people where they are, must reach out and offer avenues people will actually take into deeper relationship with Christ, we must also make sure we don't allow those avenues to head in the wrong direction. As the good Dr. Sunquist taught me so well, church must always be a balance of movement and institution. Movement because without movement we become stagnant, institution because without institution we become rootless drifters. HOW we invite and lead and teach people to grow in their relationship with Jesus should be creative and open and should be a bottom-up way of 'doing church.' (Thank you, Dr. Peters.) WHAT we invite and lead and teach people to participate in must be God's own Truth, not our opinions or a watered down 'gospel of nice.' (Dear Stu!) When we lose sight of the HOW or the WHAT we wander into the wilderness of decline on the one side or heresy on the other.

Show/Hide comment form