Monthly Archives: December 2006

Life of a minister

I just got back from an emergency — late at night — won’t get much sleep before church tomorrow — tired —

Sounds dramatic, doesn’t it? Maybe you pictured me on an emergency call at the bedside of some deathly ill person. But it wasn’t anything like that.

We’ve been having problems with the boiler at church, I went down to check before I went to bed, and sure enough the heat was out and the building was chilly. I hit the reset button on the boiler, it came on for half an hour, went out again. So I called Advance Heating, waited for the repairman to come out, and then waited to see if it would be a quick fix. It looks like he’s going to be there for a while longer yet.

Not a particularly dramatic story. Most of my life as a minister is not particularly dramatic. At least we’ll have heat for the worship service tomorrow morning. Good night.

Church 2.0: opening the conversation

My posts on Church 2.0 have already brought some interesting responses. Nick Arauz gave me permission to post his email query about Church 2.0, and my response:

Hi Dan,

I’m a UU in Brooklyn. I’m just starting work on a web strategy for the UU church here, and I stumbled upon your recent blog posting about church 2.0.

I’ve got a background in innovation strategy and design, with a heavy emphasis on integral business practice, social media, and participation-driven, co-authored brand development, and naturally I’m quite interested in social change and political action as well. I’m hoping to bring a lot of my experience into the new web site we are developing for the UU church here, and I’m curious if you’ve started on any of the things you mention in your post.

I’ve been looking for examples of spiritually-oriented websites that do a good job with this. I’ve found a lot of Unitarian Blogs, but not so many churches that really put it all together ( “Church 2.0” to use your phrase). I’ve been very interested in using the best of web 2.0 (RSS, Blogs, Podcasts, Vlogs, mobile, etc) to make the UU experience a more natural fit with the way many younger UU’s communicate and use all the other media in their life.

I’d love to connect with you sometime and discuss it a bit. Perhaps there are resources or insights we can share to make this more than a local happening.

best regards,

Nick A

To which I responded:

Dear Nick,

The only congregational Web site I know of that is actually doing a little of this is that of the Church of the Larger Fellowship (CLF) [whose Web site appears to be down this weekend], but CLF is an online- and mail-based church to begin with — they have to do this kind of thing. And even they don’t do nearly as much as they should (I used to be on their board, and was their interim religious educator in 2002-2003, and I feel that only now are they doing some of what they should have been doing back then). The young adult branch of CLF, Church of the Younger Fellowship (CYF), does a lot more.

A few of the larger Unitarian Universalist congregations have good podcasts, etc. — but so far the ones I know do it as a lower-priority adjunct to their face-to-face church. They are not seeing the Web as another entry point to their churches, nor are they working towards user-generated content such as comments, nor are they allowing user-organized content. Several UU ministers and some DREs are doing Web 2.0 via blogging, but as far as I know no minister’s or DRE’s blog is officially recognized (let alone sanctioned) by their congregation.

Prairie Star District has based their district Web site on a wiki platform. All district leadership get passwords, and can contribute. That’s getting closer to what I’m interested in.

The UU institutions that are making use of the Web in the most interesting ways are not typical face-to-face congregations. Face-to-face congregations don’t yet see what’s in it for them, and often the leadership cadre of face-to-face congregations is dominated by people who don’t even know how to use Web 2.0, let alone apply that same model to church. On top of all this, our face-to-face congregations are notoriously conservative in their institutional methodology.

I think part of the problem here is that we are entering uncharted territory. I haven’t found many spiritually-oriented Web sites that do any of this well. What I think has to happen is that some of us simply have to begin experimenting with Church 2.0 without asking for permission and without looking for deminational support, working outside and around existing leadership structures and their methodological conservatism. Church 2.0 is going to have to be D-I-Y “open-source church,” not limited to proprietary, strictly controlled, old-fashioned institutional architectures. That doesn’t mean we won’t have structure to what we do — we will — but it will be based on a different kind of architecture.

So what we need to do right now is to simply start doing Church 2.0, or whatever you want to call it, and exchange indeas and information with others who are doing it.

Here’s what I’m doing right now:

  • My blog, obviously. My blog is really my own personal project, but I do find that people in my congregation, and quite a few visitors, read it. It’s impacting my congregation already.
  • Working on the logistics of distributing audio recordings of sermons. Distribution is never as simple as just doing podcasts — for us, distribution is going to have to include podcasting, standard downloads, and audio CDs.
  • Maintaining and constantly revising our church Web site with careful reference to Web stats; i.e., making sure we’re giving visitors to our Web site what they want. (By the way, traffic at our church Web site has quadrupled in the past 16 months.)
  • Training committee chairs and event planners to use our online church calendar more effectively (a big part of Church 2.0 is going to be training existing membership in new techniques).

Near term projects will probably include a church leadership blog, where Board and committees can post meetings notes, and get comments.

Long term projects may include live audio and/or video streaming of worship services; interactive study sessions where the minister asks for input into the sermon (these could happen online and/or face-to-face); a church governance and history wiki that could help orient newcomers; some kind of online social networking.

What are you planning, or already implementing?

Oh, and can I put your email message on my blog, along with this response? — the more we keep this an open conversation, the better.

Cheers,
Dan

Rev. Dan Harper
First Unitarian in New Bedford, Mass.
www.uunewbedford.org

(After I wrote the above reply, I went back and took another look at the Church of the Younger Fellowship Web site. I hadn’t checked it out since it first opened, and it has come a long way. They are already doing Church 2.0 in many ways — I especially like the member map — but like their parent organization, CLF, they lack much connection to face-to-face churches. In my vision, Church 2.0 operates more like MeetUp.com and craigslist.comonline, but place-based, too — whereas CYF and CLF are place-independent.)

So let’s open up the conversation. If there’s enough interest, maybe we can set up a Church 2.0 wiki to allow freer sharing of ideas (conceptual ideas, and proven ideas).

Participate in the Church 2.0 discussion on the Church 2.0 wiki! Update: Church 2.0 Wiki was taken down after a year — it never quite got critical mass of contributors.

Church 2.0 and networking

In an article on social networks in the winter, 2007, issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, Joel Podolny writes:

Think about the last time a person told you that he or she was going to do some networking. Did you feel slightly repulsed? A little wary? To most, the term “networking” means using other people to get what we want… [and] sociological studies verify that when people attempt to build networks — even for good deeds — they convert relatively few to their cause…. At the same time, sociological studies also show that networks power social change…. If networks are necessary for social change, but netowrking is repugnant, what’s a social crusader to do?

Podolny says that if you’re going to build a network to power social change, you have to treat people both as means (to create social change) and as ends in themselves (to power personal transformation).

Churches are social networks that start out by treating people primarily as ends in themselves. In so doing, churches become robust communities — similar to “voluntary associations” in the theology of James Luther Adams — that create space within mass democracy where individual persons can be treated as individuals.

Church 2.0 takes that a step further. Church 2.0 encourages, trains, and supports individuals to create small groups within the larger congregation — both face-to-face groups, and virtual groups. Church 2.0 also encourages, trains, and supports individuals to create small groups that extend into other congregations via Web-based and other new media — and to create small groups that extend into the wider community. The boundaries of Church 2.0 are more porous than Church 1.0, because attendance at Sunday morning worship services is no longer the primary criterion for participation in the church community.

In a related story titled “Networks Online and On-land,” in the same issue of Stanford Social Innovation Review, Allison Fine reports:

Since 2001, Meetup.com has been working at the intersection of online and on-land activism, connecting more than 2 million people through more than 10,00 local clubs, dedicated to everything from pug dogs to Elvis to libertarianism [and Unitarian Universalism!]. Relationships are started online and then are strengthened and deepend by in-person activities.

Scott Heiferman, a co-founder of MeetUp, sums up the thinking of many connected activists. “How do you start an association today?” he asks. “Do you need a building in Washington? No, you go online.”

Increasingly, as Church 2.0 takes hold, we’ll see new churches start up through online networking, move to face-to-face small groups, and finally to a face-to-face, place-based church. But a Church 2.0 congregation that starts this way will never let themselves be limited to mere place-based networking.

Church 2.0’s combination of networking that treats people as ends in themselves, porous boundaries, and communities that are both place-based and online will be very powerful indeed. Church 2.0 will result both in more personal transformation, and more social change.

Brainstorming Church 2.0

Tonight, Peter Bowden and I went in to Boston to check out the Emergent Church service in downtown Boston (more about that in a later post). On the way back, we stopped in at Diesel Cafe in Davis Square to have a cup of coffee and talk about how we could radically rebuild Unitarian Universalist congregations.

“You’ve heard of Web 2.0?” I said. Web 2.0 is a vague term which includes things like social networking Web sites, blogs, YouTube, wikis, and so on. “Well, I want to do Church 2.0.”

Peter liked that term. “Yeah, if we even say ‘Church 2.0’ that immediately implies that all other ways of doing church are just a little bit outdated.”

So then we started brainstorming what Church 2.0 might be like.

First principle is simple: Church 2.0 is relational. It depends on building decentralized connections between people. But Church 2.0 uses a variety of modalities to build connections between people, and not just traditional Church 1.0 modalities such as Sunday morning worship services and committee meetings. It also uses new technologies to help people connect, including:

  • Streamed videocasts of worship services (for shut-ins and people who just couldn’t/wouldn’t come to church that week)
  • Podcasts of sermons you can listen to on your commute
  • Minister’s blog(s), and blogs by other religious professionals: DREs, musicians, etc. — where you can exchange ideas and comments with church staff
  • Other blogs?
  • A wiki for lay leaders, to facilitate transparent and accessible governance
  • Regular email delivered by a service like “Constant Contact,” so you can customize the kinds of email you want to get from the church
  • Maybe some kind of social networking site?
  • What else?

Not everyone is going to have good Web access (although Church 2.0 will have computers with Internet access available during social hour), and not everyone is going to want to use all the different modalities. That’s fine. The real point is that Church 2.0 doesn’t exist in just one modality — it’s not just Sunday morning worship and social hour, delivered to a relatively passive congregation by a small group of lay and professional leaders. Church 2.0 exists in a decentralized web of interactions. And the different modalities each deliver slightly different content. For example…

  • Regular Sunday morning worship with a sermon
  • Podcast with recorded sermon, reading, and one or two pieces of music from Sunday morning
  • Midweek video reflection with that week’s worship leader, a self-contained reflection that also leads in to the week’s worship service
  • Email version of the “Wayside Pulpit” delivers a quote to your email address each week, which relates to the upcoming sermon topic
  • An online sermon discussion group (forum or moderated email list)
  • Discussion group during social hour to help the preacher plan the next week’s worship service

…all of which relate to Sunday morning worship, but each of which addresses the topic of Sunday morning worship slightly differently.

We also brainstormed a little on how Church 2.0 will help congregations meet the needs of church members after peak oil. The Web site of Church 2.0 would have a map of the surrounding region, showing where church members live (click to send email, though you don’t see the email address), and where regional small groups meet (click to get contact info).

That’s about as far as our brainstorming got. Some of the ideas we came up with are crazy or impractical, no doubt about it. Some are just stupid. At this point, we’re just brainstorming. But both of us feel pretty strongly that we need to be looking at radical change in the way we do church — and that we don’t have much time to make that change happen.

Participate in the Church 2.0 discussion on the Church 2.0 wiki!

Generational differences?

Carol and I took a walk this afternoon, and while we were walking we each complained about two different organizations we belong to:– call them the Hippie Organization and the Staid Organization.

“They’re just not focussed on their mission,” said Carol of the Hippie Organization, to which she belongs. “They’re spending thousands of dollars on [name of program deleted], but they’re requiring that their big annual conference make a profit. It should be the other way around, they should subsidize their conference because it’s better at promoting their mission.”

“I know the feeling,” I said. I told her how the Staid Organization, to which I belong, has had a mission statement that sets very low expectations, asking very little of its members. “I give them credit for working on a new mission statement this year, although it’s not guaranteed that anyone will do anything differently once the new mission statement is in place. But something’s got to change.”

We traded stories back and forth about how we’re plotting to change these two organizations from the inside. Finally, Carol said, “I’m tired of all these middle aged men who don’t do anything.” (I’m a middle-aged man, but I didn’t take offense because I knew just what she meant.) “I feel like the Baby Boomers, people who are older than us but younger than my parents, are stuck in their ways. I think there’s a generational difference.” Carol belongs to Generation X.

“You know, I hadn’t thought about that, but — yeah,” I said. I told her that most of the people in Staid Organization are older than I am, and are Baby Boomers. “Technically, I’m a Baby Boomer, too,” I continued, “but I’m barely a Boomer. It seems like the Boomers who lived through the 60’s got really good at criticizing and tearing down institutions, but they’re not so good at institutional maintenance and direction.”

“Although if you really look at the Baby Boom generation,” Carol said, “only about nine percent of them actually were involved in the counter-culture, and the rest were just like Tricia Nixon. But now all the Boomers are proud of the whole 60’s rebellion thing. I’m just not interested in that:– ‘protest, protest, protest!’ It doesn’t really get anywhere.”

We also talked about when it’s time to cut our losses, and resign from the organizations. I’m giving Staid Organization another six months; Carol is giving Hippie Organization another two months. We each have limited time and energy, and don’t want to waste it on organizations that don’t seem to be going anywhere.

Is the generational difference between the Boomers and the younger generations really significant from the point of view of institutional life? It may well be true that Boomers are more intrested in being rebels and less interested in being good institutionalists — not each and every Boomer, but the generation considered on average. And it may be true that Boomers are more likely to have a modernist mindset and less likely to be postmodern systems thinkers — it seems that each succeeding generation contains a few more systems thinkers. (Research on generational cohorts seems to support these two views to a certain extent.) But do these generational differences actually affect the flesh-and-blood people in your congregation?

So now I’d love to hear how my readers perceive generational differences in congregations (or other institutions and organizations)….

If you respond, please say which generation you were born into, based on Strauss and Howe’s generational divisions in their book Generations [summary]:– G.I. Generation (born 1901-1924); Silent Generation (1925-1942); Baby Boomer (1943-1960); 13th Generation, a.k.a. Generation X (1961-c.1981); Millennial Generation (after 1981).

Marriage equality event

I just got a call from the Marriage Equality Coalition of the Southcoast. Apparently, opponents of marriage equality plan a demonstration on the steps of New Bedford City Hall this Saturday, December 9, to express their displeasure with elected representatives who have supported marriage equality. The Coalition will have a “respectful, non-challenging presence” across from City Hall from 11-noon, mostly to show our region’s elected representatives that there are plenty of supporters of marriage equality.

Religious liberals in Massachusetts have taken a strong stand supporting marriage equality. I wanted to let readers of this blog know about this event in case you live nearby and wish to show your support for marriage equality. Although I am scheduled for another event at the same time, I will be there for at least part of that hour.

December morning

The alarm went off at seven o’clock this morning, just as it does every morning in our house (except Fridays). I staggered out of bed. “It’s dark,” I said.

It was indeed dark: not just because the sun rose at four minutes to seven this morning, but because the clouds were thick and heavy and dark. Something was hitting the skylight.

“It’s raining,” I announced authoritatively, still swaying slightly and waiting for my eyes to fully open and come into focus.

“No it’s not,” said Carol, her voice muffled by the pillow. “I’ll bet it’s snowing. It’s supposed to snow this morning.”

As usual, Carol was right: that was snow, not rain, coming down out of those thick dark clouds.

“Blah,” I said, and stumbled off to the shower. The water in our apartment takes forever to get hot in the morning. I made the mistake of getting into the shower too soon. It wasn’t cold, but it wasn’t warm. Blah, I thought to myself.

I managed to get dressed and cook breakfast, but even the nice pot of hot tea didn’t cheer me up. I pulled on my winter coat and kissed Carol goodbye.

As I turned to walk out the door, she started to whistle:
“Oh the weather outside is frightful
But the fire is so delightful
And since we’ve no place to go
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.”

Suddenly my mood lifted. I whistled back:
“When it snows, ain’t it thrilling
Though your nose gets a chilling,
We’ll frolic and play the Eskimo way:
Walkin’ in a winter wonderland.”

By the time I went out the door, we were both whistling.

And sure enough, the sun came out by mid-morning.

Things they never tell you

I had the privilege of preaching up at the Medford Unitarian Universalist church this morning, while Hank Peirce, the minister in Medford, preached down here in New Bedford. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Medford is a great church, and it was fun to preach there. But I got thrown off my regular Sunday morning routine, and I didn’t drink as much water as I usually do. By the time I got back home, I was parched and I drank about quart and a half of tea.

One of the things they never told me in preaching class was that preaching (or any public speaking for that matter) dries you out. Which, if you think about it, makes sense:– when you speak you have to push lots of hot, moist air out of your body, and that inevitably will dry you out. Fortunately I took voice lessons at the Old Town School of Folk Music, back when we lived near Chicago, and my voice teacher told us that singing dries you out. If you get dried out out, your vocal chords don’t function well, so you can wind up straining them. She taught us to drink lots of water while we were singing. Though she told us that we should drink luke warm water, because cold water can chill your throat, which causes your muscles to tighten up, which means (once again) that you can wind up straining your voice.

To you this probably seems like such a minor point, but it really does make all the difference to me in my line of work.

No More NaNoWriMo

National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) officially ended yesterday. I had signed up, and I got nearly 19,000 words written, out of a goal of 50,000 total words. Then work intervened — an unexpected memorial service, craziness in the office, too much to do generally. I’d come home, and all I wanted was to sit and do nothing. Writing a novel involved too much mental effort. So I stopped.

My older sister, Jean, had warned me:– November is a bad month in which to try NaNoWriMo. She did it in July. Maybe I’ll try again come July….

This past week, work slowed down enough that I actually had energy to engage in mental effort when I came home. But instead of resuming work on the abandoned novel, I found myself picking up an old book project that I had gotten stuck on about three years ago, and had filed away. I’m not going to say any more about this project, except to say that I finally seem to be getting somewhere with it.