For the past 9 months now the CRC has been gathering survey information from Churches of Christ in their various identities. This includes what have traditionally been called Mainline, African-American, Non-Institutional, Non-Sunday School, Mutual Edification, One Cup and other, smaller types of churches. We have not included International Churches of Christ (ICOC), sometimes referred to as the Boston Movement, since they do their own reporting as an independent association of churches.
To date, we have received surveys from over 2,500 congregations around the U.S. This represents approximately 25% of the total number of Churches of Christ.
Over the past six weeks I have looked at over 500 church websites, verifying information about churches and getting a sense of how these churches portray themselves to their audiences. I have also been looking for evidence of whether the mainline Churches of Christ have actually sub-divided into smaller fellowship streams. In my mind I have begun to call the groups mentioned above as tributaries of our movement and subdivisions as streams.
My observations from looking at so many websites, as well as talking with others who know our fellowship broadly, is that our mainline church tributary has subdivided into at least three identifiable streams. I have given these streams names that make sense to me. Below are some preliminary observations that come from viewing their websites. As we get deeper into analyzing the surveys we will ask if these streams are indeed statistically identifiable and what characteristics tend to be most closely associated with those streams.
For many people, these streams might be viewed on a continuum that moves from what is perceived as “liberal” on the left and “conservative” on the right. Personally, I don’t find the Liberal-Conservative categories helpful or accurate, but given how those labels are so ubiquitous, they at least provide a starting point. A continuum that may be more accurate is how closely do these streams reflect a dominant, mid-20th century expression of a southern Church of Christ?
Starting at the continuum’s left, the first stream in the mainline tributary are the churches I call contemporary. These churches appear to be actively engaging our changing American culture as well as their neighbors. Their websites are typically full of pictures of their people, their worship, and their activities. The websites are designed for people who are not part of the church, but who may be looking for a church. There is a lot of explanation about what to expect and what will happen during a church visit. There is almost always some sort of Plan Your Visit tab that begins the connection process. The ministers are given top billing on the website as the church leaders, almost always with their pictures in relaxed attire, so potential guests will be able to recognize them on stage. The ministers are referred to as leaders or ministers, almost never as staff. Elders and deacons may be identified along with pictures, but they are not presented as the public leaders. A feature I have noticed that goes along with attendance size is that the larger the church the more likely it is the website will have direct contact information for the ministers, typically their email. The sense one gets from the website of a contemporary church is that it is an open church that invites people to engage with them as part of their spiritual journey.
The second stream of this mainline tributary are churches I call heritage churches. A friend of mine calls these “happy conservative” churches. Websites from these churches use language that is more associated with and recognized by people who have a Churches of Christ background. There are not as many pictures of the worship and activities of the church, and if there are pictures of people, they may be stock photos rather than actual photos. This makes it harder for guests to get a sense of what they might experience if they choose to visit the church. Instead of a Plan Your Visit tab there is most likely to be a narrative description of what the worship will be like: a cappella singing, Lord’s Supper, preaching, etc. There may be a nod given to “come as you are,” but the implied sub-text is the guest may not feel like one of the members. The ministers are typically referred to as “staff” and they will often be shown on separate pages from that of the church leaders, its elders and deacons. Pictures of elders, deacons, and staff are often more formal in composure and dress, with the men in suits and ties about half the time. The most common way to contact these churches is via a generic Contact form or an office@churchname.org email. There is seldom any personal contact information provided for elders or ministry staff. The sense the website communicates is that there is a expectation of what it means to be a part of that church that new people will need to learn if they expect to fit in.
The third and final stream of the mainline tributary are what I call traditional churches. Websites for these churches are most likely to be web 1.0 in style. They are word based with few pictures. The fonts and organization often feel like what church bulletins reflected in the late 20th century. In fact, these churches are the most likely to make available pdf downloads of their church bulletins. These traditional churches are also the most likely to use a Facebook page for their website. The language used is insider, Church of Christ language. For someone without a Church of Christ background it might sound like code words. There is seldom a Plan Your Visit type tab. The only contact information provided is typically a phone number or the generic office@churchname.org email. The leadership is definitely organized in hierarchy by elder, deacon, and ministry staff listed at the bottom. If pictures are provided, men will be in suit and ties. The implied message is formal dress is the appropriate attire for worship. The content of the website is designed to identify the nature of the church as an expected Church of Christ. The impression given is that potential guests are expected to meet certain requirements and should self-select themselves out if they don’t meet those expectations. Even as I write these words, they sound harsh, but that is the message I receive from these websites, so others probably do as well. The general tenor of the website is that the church is separated out from general culture and offers a place of safety and protection for those who are acceptable Church of Christ insiders.
In general, these three identity streams sit on a continuum. On the left are churches that are attempting to engage our culture with the gospel in ways that are understandable to non-Christians. They are intentionally opening themselves to and inviting new people to visit them, they present their ministers as their public leaders, and they offer an easy to engage path for not-yet-believers to explore the possibility of faith in Jesus and church life.
On the right are churches that are presenting themselves as verifiable Churches of Christ. They intend to protect their members from culture, providing a safe haven of tried and true church. For outsiders, these churches seem harder to connect with and may feel distant, aloof, disconnected, or strange. There is an underlying sense of antagonism towards anything that is not deemed acceptable in church practice, background, or lifestyle.
Our church websites portray a lot about who we are as churches. Our websites are now our new front door. If people are looking for a church, their most likely first move will be to look at our websites. What is your church’s website saying about you?