Much as the music industry and the information/printing industry is changing, the church is going open-source.
How prepared is your church for this revolution? Please pass the link to this essay on to all the leaders, elders, pastors, etc. in your church. Discuss it together.
Christine Peterson coined the phrase “open source” in Palo Alto, California in 1998 during the Netscape Navigator discussions, but the principles go all the way back to Henry Ford, who succeeded in getting all the early US car makers to share patents which made parallel production of (very similar) automobiles possible.
In the broadest sense of the concept, Microsoft’s MS-DOS, not being wholly controlled by its host, IBM, launched a creativity revolution in software back in the 80′s. iTunes has changed the way music is bought and sold. Wikipedia has more or less replaced Britannica. The proliferation of free smart phone “apps” (a word no one used a president or two ago) is virtually infinite.
The world is going open source.
This has implications for the church:
1) All of your members have access to free Bible teaching and sermons from all over the world. It used to be that you, as a local pastor, had a monopoly on reaching and teaching them. Our church, Robinwood, reaches 100 times more people on its podcast than in person on Sunday mornings. Sample it at: http://tinyurl.com/ycgxvva
2) Open source is a challenge to monetize. Making money in an open source world is an uphill battle. Churches will need to look at creative income streams (we’ve done it before!) and church staff numbers will decrease vis-a-vis the size of the congregation. More and more pastors will be bi-vocational.
3) Christian denominations will not be able to maintain closed systems with solid lists of member churches and will not be able to control their clergy rosters. People in the open source world are getting used to an “opt in” mentality and can “friend” or “follow” you with a click. Peer relationships will matter more. Having your name on an official roster will matter less. The “name brand” denominations are currently raging against this revolution (even with record-company-like lawsuits!), but the ones who embrace it will survive. Their control over client congregations and pastors is evaporating. It will have to be replaced with attractive “opt in” branding and mentality. Denominations will have to earn and keep followings. And they won’t get to vote on this being the truth.
4) Seminaries will not be able to maintain monopolies on training new leaders. The ones that succeed are those that will go open source. Open source is cheaper, but it also attracts less money. Seminaries will have to become more trans-local and interactive. Those with an attractive branding and “opt in” vibe will thrive.
5) The monopolies on resources (remember that standard-issue icon: the official denominational hymnbook?) will disappear. Books will always be with us, but they will be produced POD (print on demand) and new media will proliferate.
6) Pastors who cannot attract large followings in social media will need to look for something else to do vocationally. They won’t have the chops to make it in the brave new world. If you can’t attract sheep, you’re probably not a shepherd.
7) Volunteers will become more important. Volunteers built Wikipedia. They are motivated, not by money, but by mastery and freedom. Click on the link for an amazing overview of this.
8 Your church’s media and branding will have to be integrated. One ping should activate and energize all of your media expressions. The good news: All of your social media and open source presence put together is cheaper than putting out a weekly church bulletin.
9) You will have to earn a following in a whole new way. But the human relational side will not go away. In fact, it will become more important.
Bless you. Follow me on Twitter @RobinwoodChurch
33 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 11, 2010 at 3:41 am
Sarah Whittenburg
I will be interested in how you interface this with CORE and the new
Synod that is forming…I can see decentralization happening and a few other things. I am wondering how this essay dovetails with your essay
on “Why Lutherans Can’t Evangelize”…just the input coming into a Lutheran church from a myriad of sources throughout the world is staggering to imagine. Will be intereting to read the responses. Your
essays always provoke a lot of comment which is healthy for everyone.
June 12, 2010 at 2:14 pm
tim bergren
It seems to me that CORE, LCMC, et al, are at risk of becoming “replacements” or palatable alternatives to the ELCA—rendering themselves as useless as its preceding body.
Regardless of where our churches are “landing” they continue to be largely pastoral-centric with an attractional/program-oriented ministry. It’s exciting to consider how an “open source” future could finally break us out of the cycle of professionals doing ministry and put it squarely in the hands of the people. Instead of leadership being defined by position or title, it will hinge upon one’s ability to invest in and influence others to become and train disciples.
June 11, 2010 at 4:30 am
Alan Beck
Dave, I agree with you but what is with #6? You know that, the success of a sub-Shepherd is never determined by the size of the sub-flock he tends.
More likely, they won’t have the chops to make the brave new world theirs.
That’s why we can only be renewed by the transforming of our minds, through the fall and maybe perfected in western culture we divide everything in our minds, we need see with the single eye of – Luke 11:34
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
It was the same Jesus teaching the multitudes, sending out the 70, in the boat with the 12, and asking the three to pray with him in the garden.
June 11, 2010 at 4:38 am
David Housholder
Good thoughts, Alan.
If you are a shepherd, you have sheep. And God put a reproductive mechanism into sheep
.
Too many shepherds heading out to new pastures not looking back and realizing they have no sheep.
June 11, 2010 at 5:20 am
Alan Beck
That shines new light on Revelation2:4-5 ‘But I have this against you, that you have “LEFT” your first love. ‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place–unless you repent.
The deeds we did at first were learn the rudiments of the faith, not the modalities we forces those rudiments into.
In the Neil Peart interview I tweeted #faithlife earlier in the week, after 30+ and at the pinnacle of his profession found a mentor, went back and set up the drums difference, held the sticks different, and paraphrasing – relearned what I already knew from a different direction and it payed off in spades.
June 11, 2010 at 4:45 am
Wendy Housholder
I think that, with this all happening, the relational side of church life will become more important than ever. What draws a person to a church can be very different from what draws a person to stay there. Having heard a great podcast or an intriguing tweet may bring a person in the door, but it’s the welcoming spirit of the people and the power of God that will keep them coming. Are we ready to do what it takes to enfold them, to teach them, and to bring them closer to a relationship with the Lord?
June 11, 2010 at 4:57 am
Alan Beck
Wendy, yes truth upon truth building up not diminishing the others, the kingdom as the wedding feast, the shepherds and their flocks, the family, and ultimately the Father, Son and Spirit.
June 11, 2010 at 9:11 am
Bret Hern
Well put, Wendy — and why while on the surface I agree with David about the need to engage folks through different media (point 6), there has to be a “there” there. As the attractional model morphs into the missional model, pastors who well and truly pastor will be able to thrive.
June 11, 2010 at 5:45 am
Ted Carnahan
Decentralization, indeed! I’d add two thoughts:
1) The mainline will be forced to critically engage outside perspectives that they previously could ignore. Their people are already learning from them. Lutherans in particular will have to take this as an opportunity to claim our particular identity in conversation with new voices from Evangelicalism.
2) Copyright is becoming outdated. As you noted, digital media and POD give the ability for media, hymnody, etc. to proliferate. But copyright is the tool the publishers, including church publishers, are wielding to quash collaboration and prop up outdated business models. If the church’s mission is to spread the message about Jesus, and music (for example) is an important way we do that, then why should we encumber that with copyright any more than is absolutely necessary?
June 11, 2010 at 6:26 am
Tom De Groot
Just started reading your blog a few weeks ago, great stuff! I’m a student at Bethel Seminary and serving at a Lutheran church in SE Wisconsin. Thank you for all the excellent insight.
There’s a great book by Peter Block titled, “Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self Interest” that really speaks into this concept in the corporate and non-church organization world. As I read it, and just read your post, I’m amazed at how this model seems much more biblical than the way we’ve been organizing “church” for so many years.
June 11, 2010 at 6:32 am
PhyshBourne
thank you for that insightful blog entry… it sounds very much emerging churchy… but… what about a sound doctrine?
June 12, 2010 at 7:26 am
tim bergren
Institutional denominations have been able to uphold “sound doctrine?” Hmmm…
June 11, 2010 at 6:58 am
Steve Thorson
Excellent and provocative. Good to see you at FaithLift.
June 11, 2010 at 8:42 am
Rusty Gates
I appreciate what the blog is trying to say, but what bothers me is that these are things that we as ministers should be doing regardless of the condition of the society around us. If the church is only now going to attempt to join the conversation of the open-source world I fear that it is way behind the game.
While these developments have happened at fios light speed (that’s fiber-optics) they did NOT simply appear one day. They developed and changed and grew. I fear that the reason many churches have fallen behind in their interaction and relationship with the open source world is primarily the unfortunate habit of acting like a fortress against the evil world instead of living missionally within it.
Furthermore, I think that it is important that ministers be bi-vocational in the first place. Look at Paul – tent maker/apostle. This allows us to serve among the lost, live among the broken, and love those that would otherwise never step into our gathering places very much mislabeled as “churches.”
June 11, 2010 at 9:12 am
Tim Ruscher
I think the old mindset that “closed source” institutions were there to protect sound doctrine is crumbling, and for good reason. In the last decade there have been countless Catholic priest scandals, and challenges to orthodox doctrine in the anglican and lutheran churches that have actually been successful. Even in the evangelical camps, the emerging church and postmodern thought is taking a huge foothold on the church.
Perhaps paradoxically, open source church means we have the freedom to fight all the more fervently for sound doctrine because we don’t have to pretend to accept other ideas for the purposes of candidacy, promotion, “unity,” or fear of fiscal or political retribution.
I want to go to seminary, but because of the elca situation, I have waited for resolution, for the open source doors to be opened for seasoned veterans of ministry and not just rogue 20-somethings.
June 11, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Buff Delcamp
Dave,
Very thought provoking. I’m in “kindergarten” in all this. What is “opt in” mentality? What is “opt in” branding?
June 14, 2010 at 6:08 pm
David Housholder
“Opt in” is a whole different way of looking at institutional membership.
A social organism has a “vibe” and a branding.
People can opt in or opt out. It’s up to them.
And if they opt in, they can develop relationships.
The “opter” is now in control. In the past, it was the institution that was the gatekeeper. This distinction is crucial.
June 11, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
Good stuff. Any of you who did not click the link and watch the video should go back and do it now. It’s fascinating.
June 11, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Steve Thorson
I agree, Randy. AND I have a question… is there any way to aggregate comment streams so I can see here what people are commenting on facebook and vice versa? Anyone want to invent that if it’s not already invented?
June 11, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Saint Rodney
Wow! That video was great. I now feel a little smarter knowing that.
June 12, 2010 at 7:00 am
Mark Anderson
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your thoughts. Sometimes it seems the “world is falling apart”. Perhaps “the world is falling open” would be more appropriate.
At Living Water Muscatine we have chosen to embrace and drive change wherever needed or possible. I think the plus side of all this is we are reduced to a greater dependency on Jesus.
June 12, 2010 at 7:11 am
David Housholder
Love the sound bite: “the World is falling open!”
June 12, 2010 at 11:41 am
Kati
I can see this coming, too. But it’s a little scary, I think. Along with what Wendy said… The Bible shows example of the Holy Spirit working through people, face to face. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit lives inside our physical bodies. With less and less physical interaction among people, I’m sure God will still work. But there is something about BODIES that he especially intended to work through. So, how can you be so sure that non-twittering congregations are going to die?
June 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Steve Thorson
Yes, Kati, relational is +++ but some churches aren’t actually “relational” on a deep level. Someone said spiritual growth doesn’t happen well when just staring at the backs of other people’s heads. I think it’s time to put proportionally more of our resources into relational ministry and less into event production, with as much of that relational ministry being face to face as is the case with the population we’re called to serve. My across the street neighbor Tom can never be reached through social media, though I just “friended” his two grandsons on facebook… my son is deeply committed to the hard core music scene and preaches at venues every chance he gets. We’re SO diverse these days… It’s not realistic to get everyone together in big rooms and sit politely and anonymously worshiping. The “open source” needs to be the opening OF the source too… the Word getting OUT of the building… I’m rambling but the point is that relational stuff is so important but that people “relate” in different ways.
June 12, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Janis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Being a software developer, “open source” means to me that the original code (program) can be parsed, edited, and any other wise used to suit whatever any other developer thinks people need. Most of the time the original code ends up unrecognizable, albeit slick and and often very useful.
Yes, I am entirely impatient with the church in its technological journey. We definitely need to use those tools, but isn’t all of this “click-to-buy” an opportunity to show the contrast between faith and purchase? Can’t I go somewhere to get a rest from the instability and constant updates of my gadgets? Is there somewhere to go that doesn’t require hacking and clicking? Isn’t it better for me to learn how to put up with the maddening quirks of my fellow parishioners, and know that they won’t “unfriend” me because of my own quirks? Can’t there be *something* that is unchanging in my life?
The church offers something truly unique. An app won’t sell if it does what a thousand other apps do. I buy and sell apps, but I can’t bring myself to buy and sell what is holy, and I can’t keep it under my redhat (Google it) if the line between the two looks blurry to me.
I think seminary should require a class not just in technology content, but in methods to keep pace with it. My vision is that each class session begins and ends with a fan-buzz-free, analog prayer.
BTW (by the way), POD is way passé. If I can’t read it on one of my screens, I don’t want it, unless it’s a deliberate e-free timespace.
July 8, 2010 at 5:14 am
David Housholder
POD is Print on Demand and will be 25 percent of the book market in a few years. The wave of the print future. I make a lot of money, personally, with it. Hardy passe.
June 12, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Janis
One more question, why on earth do I have to pay upwards of $20 for an electronic copy of the NRSV?
July 7, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Kevin Gooding
Janis, you don’t. At the Oremus Bible Browser (http://bible.oremus.org/) they have the complete NRSV.
June 12, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Open Sourcing | Teachings from the Trail
[...] out David’s thoughts on the topic here. He primarily writes for pastors and church leaders, however, I think as “consumers” of [...]
June 12, 2010 at 10:38 pm
P Paul Pedersen
Thank you David, for you make me think and question and look in new ways. I would like to share an idea I heard Chuck Swindoll speak on many years ago. His question was “Is this a place of worship or do we worship this place?” Over the years I have used this turn of phrase to ask questions. Is this music of worship, or do we worship this music? Is this a service of worship or do we worship this service? (and the big screens) Now I ask, is this a denomination of worship or do we worship this denomination? A final question I ponder is how we make this electronic media a part of worship and not to worship this media. As emails and IM are being surpassed by Facebook etc, what will the next advances be to surpass Facebook? I recently heard a Google exec. say that Ipads, Iphones, Blackberry, Droids, etc. would replace laptops as our main source of communications within five years. Even today we can reach in a pocket and in a few touches read a Bible, do a cross reference, a search, down load a sermon, read one of your great journal pieces and communicate from places all over the world. What will we be able to do in 5 years and what will it look like? God’s speed my friend and thank you.
June 13, 2010 at 6:40 am
Allen
I believe the Internet is an asset that church’s need to exploit to thrive. However, church settings serve many purposes, so an Internet-only church would ebb and flow just as a ‘traditional’ church. I think those churches that grow will see a leader embedded locally and nationally. A strong local presence will still be key. Having attended an event at Beach Cities Community Church this past Friday evening for children resolidified in my mind one of the key reason’s people go to church – laying a good moral ground for children. It is hard to establish that in an Internet only world.
June 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Jason Kramme
This is a good heads up, David. It raises an important caution for folks who are planning large building projects for a young population that has no interest in paying the mortgage. While there’s another solid 20 years of giving that will come from the boomers, I think that the church needs to start planning for the day when my generation (the busters) and the millenials take over leadership. While that day may mean that many of our church buildings will go into foreclosure, it also means that many of our church people will head back into the communities that they live in to proclaim the Gospel they’ve been hiding in a building since 313. What a world it will be when the Gospel is finally open-sourced!
July 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Marlene Wilkinson
I think this all depends on the culture of your church. If your church is faithfully taught the importance of the local congregation and that it is God’s invention for the growth of both individuals and the church, anything they get from open source they will share with their local church, to which they are committed.
That is certainly the case at church180, Newcastle, Australia, where the congregation last month raised $106,400 odd for missions spending over the next 12 months. Every year we do more. And the church continues to grow.
We certainly don’t hide in a building, but influence our community.
Every blessing in your journey with God in Christ.