June Cleaver is dead. So give it up
June Cleaver is dead. So is Ward. And Wally. And, the Beaver, too.
Actually, the Cleavers only existed on television from 1957 through 1963. But, they were the real American family.
In some ways, we still believe the Cleavers of Mayfield actually existed. We programmed church to cater to the Cleavers who were consistent, dedicated, followed Dr. Spock, and predictable.
But, that family doesn’t exist. Actually, it never did.
What does exist is a radically different family in the 21st Century. And, church needs to be different in order to have an impact.
I keep coming back to this question with haunting regularity – are we willing to change to meet the challenge of a new generation?
Meeting the challenge of a new generation requires us to be radically different. That may mean different programs. That may mean different schedules. That may mean church looks radically different than it did 40 years ago.
It means that we have to challenge the status quo. It means we must look at the objective. It means the way we always did things needs to be evaluated.
I’m perplexed by the mentality of protecting the program to the point of going down with the ship. The goal is not to save the ship. The goal is to get to a destination. The ship is only a means to get there. If the current ship is sinking, then find another ship.
If the Beaver did something like staying on a sinking ship, Wally would say, “Beav, that was pretty dumb.”
I’m ready to try out a new boat. Is anybody else interested in staying afloat?
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 27th, 2010 at 5:43 am and is filed under Christianity, Church, Leadership. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
A Tale of Two Sons -John MacArthur
Crazy Love -Francis Chan
Primal -Matt Batterson
Radical -David Platt
The Noticer- Andy Andrews
June 27th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Frank,
Nice post. I love the part on challenging the status quo and evaluating. I’m a little concerned with the nature of your generalization. Your “change” emphasis with lack of specificity almost sounds a recent presidential campaign theme.
From my experience it seems very easy to sit on the sidelines and grumble. Though I know you have been far from the sidelines for many years, I am curious about specifics.
I’m sure all of your readers assume that you referring to your own local church. So what specific program do you think is geared toward Wally and the Beave? And what specific changes would you recommend? What programs would you end? It has to be frustrating for any in leadership to ready your “sinking ship” terminology with no specific plan recommended (but only generalizations) as what to do. How does church need to be different specifically in order to have an impact?
I look forward to your response.
FTW
June 27th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
My post in isolation of any other information could appear that i am sitting on the sideline complaining. As you know, that is far from the case. I have been manning the oars for many, many years. Some churches are tackling the challenge and dealing with it effectively. Others are not. The biggest difference I see in the models is a willingness to evaluate the objective rather than maintain the program.
Personally, I am moving toward a focus on community groups rather than Sunday morning Bible study. i can’t speak for others, but I believe my energies will be best spent with greater impact in a community group setting. I am making that shift after more than six months considering the change and evaluating my six years teaching young adult Sunday school. Also, i am working toward a more intentional approach to mentoring. I have evaluated intentional mentoring approaches and have focused on a model I want to implement. I am developing that structure now and plan to launch the first group in January.
I have made several posts over the past month or so that have pointedly challenged the status quo. My observations are based in a passion for the future of the church, specifically for the future of my local church. I believe the the measure of success in spreading the gospel in the future will be dependent on our willingness to follow God’s leading in shaping a church for this generation that is locally and globally missional, compassionate, and intentional. The church that has impact will be radical, primal, relevant, engaging and scattered. It will not be a building. It will not be a fortress. It will be an organism. It will infect the community. It will not need systems to generate attendance. Excitement and energy will not be created. They will be natural elements of worship.
You have challenged me to verbalize specifics where I have presented generalities. That’s good. My observations are not seminary developed but forged in the trenches. They are not polished. They are questions seeking answers. But, without asking the questions, we will never begin seeking the answers.
June 27th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I’m understanding your initial post in a brand new way with the specifics of how you are changing and adjusting. Very cool. I knew some of that was brewing in you from our recent talks…but until you gave the specifics my mind was free to wonder. You really are a great writer. I’m glad you are blogging and hope you will continue to do more!