We Live in a Time of Discontinuous Change

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

There has been a fair amount of discussion about last month’s Celtic article dealing with the changing landscape of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). I want to follow up for the next several months developing some of the themes I have been sharing in a number of places – with Presbyterian Women, the officers, and at the annual meeting. This month, I am going to focus on “discontinuous change.” Going forward, I will address “adaptive” versus “technical” solutions; and also how Chula Vista Presbyterian Church may navigate the turbulent waters ahead.

We live in a time of discontinuous change.

Things are always changing, so change by itself is not surprising. What is surprising is when things change in an unpredicted or unforeseen way.

The illustration being used in Presbyterian circles comes from Tod Bolsinger’s description of Lewis and Clark’s expedition to the west; he talks about “Canoeing the Mountains.” When Lewis and Clark set out to explore the west and find a rout to the Pacific Ocean, they planned to travel via waterway. It worked fine until they arrived at the Rocky Mountains. Their canoes were not helpful. Building better or sleeker canoes would not solve the problem. The situation had changed in an unpredicted or unforeseen way. Their mission did not change, but the means by which they pursued the mission changed; they dropped the canoes.

Organizations that have failed to adapt to discontinuous change are too numerous to cite. Two examples from the same field help illustrate the importance of recognizing and responding to discontinuous change: Kodak and Polaroid. These are two long-standing companies – “heritage” companies – that were dominant players in the photography world a generation ago. They produced better and better products for film. They did not recognize the impact of the development of non-film – aka digital – photography. People still liked taking pictures; however, they were not bound to film as the media to capture their images.

From Wikipedia:

Kodak has long been known for its wide range of photographic film products. During most of the 20th century Kodak held a dominant position in photographic film, and in 1976 had a 90% market share of photographic film sales in the United States. Indeed Kodak's ubiquity was such that the phrase "Kodak moment" entered common lexicon as a personal event that demanded to be recorded for posterity.

Since the late 1990s, Kodak has struggled financially as a result of the decline in sales of photographic film, and 2007 was the most recent year in which the company made a profit. As part of its turnaround strategy, Kodak has focused on digital photography and digital printing. For Kodak, it was too little, too late. Kodak filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, 2012.

Polaroid has a similar story. Again from Wikipedia:

On October 11, 2001, Polaroid Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Almost all the company's assets (including the "Polaroid" name itself) were sold to a subsidiary of Bank One. They went on to form a new company, which also operates under the name "Polaroid Corporation". It stopped making Polaroid cameras in 2007 and stopped selling Polaroid film after 2009, to the consternation of many users.

The renamed "old" Polaroid now exists solely as an administrative shell. Its bankruptcy was widely believed to be the result of the failure of its senior management to anticipate the effect of digital cameras on its film business. On December 18, 2008, the post-reorganization Polaroid Corp. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota.

On January 5, 2010, Polaroid partnered with Lady Gaga, appointing her as Creative Director for the company. A press release stated that she would be the "new face" of Polaroid.

The point is: both companies were stuck trying to refine and improve their old products and did not understand that the landscape had changed. Again, people still want pictures; they just did not need film to get them.

A similar phenomenon is taking place in mainline Christian denominations. Presbyterians are not unique in the struggles we are experiencing. Mainline denominations came to prominence as an outgrowth of efforts to help local congregations join together to train leaders, to facilitate foreign missions, and to get the best possible curriculum. Each brand had a particular emphasis. If you moved from one town to the next, you would know what you were getting if you went to the Presbyterian, Methodist, or Episcopal congregation. The minister would have come from one of the denomination’s seminaries. The liturgy would have been produced and approved by the denomination. The ethos of local outreach was, “If you build it, they will come.” As a result, mainline denominations cemented their institutional positions through strong administrative hierarchies/bureaucracies and owning property.

Two major developments eroded the foundations upon which denominations stood: travel and technology.

Travel: The increased ability to move from place to place has had the consequence of people moving out of neighborhoods and also from town to town. Most people do not live in the neighborhood where they grew up. Instead of knowing your neighbors and all their business, now most people do not know their neighbors’ names. As a culture, we are functionally nomadic. Americans roam from place to place, making short-term acquaintances, developing friendships during short-term projects and then moving on. The sense of community that served as a buttress to keep everyone in their own tradition no longer exists.

Now, the congregation here at Chula Vista Presbyterian is a bit of an anomaly in the number of people who have lived in their current homes for more than twenty or thirty years. Yet even those long-time residents will talk about how Chula Vista has changed around them and how they do not know their neighbors like they did a generation ago.

Technology: This one almost does not need an explanation; we all know how the world has changed. Abby, my twelve – almost thirteen – year old daughter does not know a world without the internet. Talking about discontinuous change: what have e-mail, UPS and Fed-X done to the U.S. Postal Service? What have Facebook and Twitter done to e-mail? What has Amazon.com done to Borders Book Store? What did Hotwire, Cheaptickets and Orbitz do to the travel agency business?

Advances in technology have further eroded the connection between the local congregation and denominations. Technology has changed the landscape; local congregations no longer need denominations for either curriculum or foreign missions. Better, more professional, and theologically sound curricula is available from independent producers. Even more telling is that congregations can generate their own materials that are more professional in production value than the denominations can. This Celtic you receive is decidedly low-tech; if we wanted to invest a little bit, we could produce a glossy, magazine-style document. (We are not going to do that – we have other things that are higher priority than our publication prowess.)

As for foreign missions, the ability to travel easily and affordably has made it more possible for local congregations to send their own people for short-term trips. Technology has made instant communication with long-term missionaries possible. I have a friend who uses Skype during the worship service to video-conference with a missionary in Kenya in real time. I participated in a meeting in January in which we used Skype to include one of the participants who was in Taiwan. Why use a denominational bureaucracy when you can have instant access and relationship with the people you support?

Further still, in terms of training leaders, denominations have ceded responsibility for the education of leaders to academia. For the PC(USA), there are eleven affiliated seminaries; all of which have been jettisoned from direct accountability to the denomination. Success

Many denominations are in serious decline because they have not seen or responded to the changes that have taken place. Change comes slowly because people have invested their time and energy in the old ways. Change comes slowly because it means giving up efficiency and pattern and power. There also is the very real specter of idolatry: that somehow God intended this bureaucratic institution to be the full and final expression of his church. What has not changed?

The issue is not whether people still need the gospel – they do. It remains true “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”

The issue is not whether people still need a community – they do. It remains true that God commands us to “love one another as I have loved you.”

The task for Chula Vista Presbyterian Church is to be intentional and discerning about obeying God’s command while seeking to bearing witness to Jesus Christ to the community to which we have been sent.

In the months ahead, I will use this column to address some of the missional challenges we will face as we encounter discontinuous change. That said, I think it is probably important to note that God is not waiting for us to get it right before acting in our midst. Just one quick example: following the Daybreak service, we have seen the need and desire to start a Sunday School lesson and fellowship time. Not only has God raised up young families with children active and happily (even dancing) during worship, God also has raised up people interested in serving to teach and train them. The credit all belongs to God.

That is plenty for this month. Blessings!

Your brother in Christ,

Bob Davis