An important trait for businesses, of all kinds, is to be consumer friendly. If those intended to purchase the goods or services provided by the company are turned off by their interactions with the company, especially those unrelated to the product itself, they will be less likely to continue to be consumers of that company's products even if they like the goods/services provided by the company. For example: If the place that makes a decent burger down the street is habitually unclean with rude employees, won't you go someplace else? If your doctor's office is conveniently located, staffed by friendly people, and appointments take place on time, as long as your doctor is competent, won't you continue to go to that doctor?
In business, these things are obvious, and companies that ignore them do so at their own peril, if competition exists in their market, they will lose customers until they make the experience of their customers more user friendly. Those who fail to take customer relations seriously end up in bankruptcy sooner or later.
But what about the Church? Is the Church supposed to be user friendly? That really depends on what you mean by that. It is important for a church to have a decent website, convenient parking, handicap accessibility, competent and safe childcare, proper lighting and sound in the sanctuary, service times that work for the community they are in, and other such similar things which are positive, not negative, factors in the relationship between a church and its congregation and potential new members. Are there churches that ignore these things, making it more difficult than it has to be for people to be a part of that church? Certainly, and everything else being equal, they will lose congregants to similar "competing" churches, and tragically some people who experienced that less than friendly interaction with a church will cease to go to church anywhere.
Where the discussion gets sticky, and controversial, is when the desire to make church user friendly spills over into the core functions of the church itself: worship, proclamation of God's Word, discipleship, and outreach to the unsaved and those in need. If the church in question molds these areas into what their consumers (congregants) want, are at least the church thinks that they want, they risk creating a man-centered experience that puts the emphasis on pleasing people not God. Whatever they build, even if it is wildly popular, won't stand the test of time nor will it please our Heavenly Father, for the Church gathers together to honor God, not please ourselves. On the other hand, if the church in question sticks rigidly to their way of doing things, ignoring what their consumers (congregants) want, or even purposefully working against it, they risk emptying out the place and leaving themselves with a remnant who actually like the way things are, but no real potential for bringing in anybody new. Both extremes are not hard to find in the wider Church today. There are plenty of churches whose ministry feels an awful lot like they're trying to entertain people more than they are to transform people, and there are a lot of churches where the "its our way or the highway" approach has them on life-support.
This is, like so many things in society, a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors by and large went to the local parish church that was nearest to their home (transportation being so much of a bigger deal back then). That church was in almost every aspect a mirror image of its neighboring churches in how they did things, thus the experience for the consumer (congregant) would have been almost the same even if they had traveled further. Today, it is not uncommon for most people who attend church to drive past a few, if not dozens, of churches on their way to the one they attend. With denominational loyalty at all-time lows, churches feel pressured to be "attractive" to potential new members.
What is needed, as in so many things in our lives as Christians and as the Church, is balance. Balance between what the people want and what they need, between doing things the same old way, and following the latest trends. A spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, perhaps, but not a cup full, and not a "eat it, its good for you!!" approach. If we remain in balance, we can focus upon doing what we do, as a church, in a way that honors and pleases God, and we can do so knowing that it is ok to tweak how we do what we do, as long as we keep honoring and pleasing God as the reason why we do what we do.
Should your church update its music to be more user friendly? Perhaps, music changes over time, we're not still using Gregorian Chant are we? Should your church consider using a translation of the Bible that is easier for people to understand? It might help, as long as the preaching remains centered in God's Word no matter which translation is used. Should your church start a new poverty relief program, update the way it does discipleship, or consider a new approach to evangelism? If things are not working well now, it is certainly worth studying to see what else you could do, there isn't any virtue in continuing to do things in a way that is failing.
In the end, the Church exists to make disciples of Jesus Christ, it is our one "product" our one indispensable "service", something that we must always do with honor, truthfulness, integrity, and dedication to serving others. How we do that very thing is open to change, different approaches work better in different locations, and at different times, but we have nothing else to offer, so if we aren't doing that, whatever else we're doing won't make up for it.
Should the Church be friendly? Absolutely. Easy to approach and join? You'd better believe it. More concerned with what the people think than what God requires? Not at all. Willing to compromise our core beliefs to give people what they want? Sorry, no. We have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, regardless of whatever else may change over time, that must always remain the same. So go ahead, be more user friendly, just do so in a way that is in balance, that honorably maintains the Gospel of the Apostles, no matter how it is packaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment