Regarding "either/or"/ "both/and", I totally agree.

In order to reach everyone, it is imperative to be broad in an outreach approach, of course. With regard to not missing out on an entire generation (outside of young people raised in the church), it will be imperative to figure out how to resonate with Millennials. This isn't so much trying to figure out how to get a young intern to get along with an older accounts payable employee - In that case, everybody needs a job. Not everybody feels as though they need a church - the UCC - thus figuring out how to reach out to a long-term sustainable population will be imperative for survival. 

Somehow your doctrine and my doctrine didn't mesh.....and that's the problem. At this point in my life I would rather be about what Jesus said, not something about Jesus. All of my concepts of social justice come from this, the prophets and other parts of the Jewish testament that Jesus used.

When you start addressing doctrine you immediately start dancing on the head of a pin that needlessly chases people away.

I'm not worried about conservative churches growing or not. Actually I'm not worried if the UCC grows or not (although I would like it to do so.) I'm worried that what we are doing as a church is the right thing to do...everything else is simply a means to that end.

I am so happy to have made someone nervous. A nervous response implies that there has been a challenge to an established method of action has been questioned, and that this has triggered reflection. This very much excites me. And, of course, thanks for sharing all of your thoughts, concerns and feelings. You were quite generous to do so.

I also want to note that the final piece of this case study, the next one, will be a synthesis of the past observations, responses to those pieces, what has been tried, what has worked, and what hasn't. In it, I'll clear up the confusion that I've created regarding how I paint the UCC (which Wendy has also addressed below):

I agree with your assessment that the church is a place to know and serve, but as Wendy points out, the way that young people are becoming more and more likely to do this is not just being exposed by way of service, but also by way of service.

The upper-hand that the UCC, or any church, for that matter, has over an organization like Amnesty, is a common language / morality (for the most part) as represented by an internalized mythology. There are shared stories that aren't just embedded into our lives, but into the very DNA of modern culture. Over time, when working at a secular organization, despite doing a ton of great, well intentioned work, there isn't necessarily this powerful language that supports why we're doing good, what we define as good, how it serves ourselves and the universal brotherhood of man. There's rhetoric, and a lot of that rhetoric is supported by modern history, and modern figures we can look back on who fought for "good" and "justice," but even their stories often resonate because they were driven by the stories that are shared within the church.

One of the reasons why young people have trouble buying into a national NPO or global NGO as their lifelong charity is because it's hard to have Faith in an institution, or anything for that matter, that doesn't have a story or guiding philosophy that's over a thousand years old.

(Hell - Google realizes this too - as relative as their code of conduct "Don't Do Evil" is, "evil," even if it is totally undefined by context, is at least a concept that has roots (and is also the reason that "good/bad & good/evil" have been popular modern political buzzwords from Marx through Reagan/Bush)

With a church, there's a core consistency built into any of the good (or bad) that the church does. Whatever it does, for whatever reason it does it, it is because of X, Y, Z philosophy. As an NPO/NGO changes  over time for internal/external reasons, especially if there is no local presence that gives a potential supporter a feeling as if they're free to participate/give feedback, core philosophies, if they're not being met by the organization as a whole, can seem flawed/forced.

The church always has a core text to go back to, and for mainline churches, the freedom of interpretation is somewhat localized, thus subscribers, if they feel like things aren't going in the right direction, can a) have faith in the direction on the basis of the core, thus redirect their efforts to another initiative (action on the local level) rather than ditch the organization/institution altogether.

Also, I would respectfully disagree regarding the standing of "dogma." Beyond "just" meaning "doctrine, theology," it's the conservative presumption that it is a system of belief that should remain unquestioned that makes it dirty to a generation of young people who generally feel as though that many of the systems we're reliant on for a sane/stable society should not only be questioned, they should be destroyed and start anew (thus, to me, dogma and the idea you presented are one in the same). Again - this is a reason why I feel as though the UCC would, on the surface, at least, would be an attractive church, so long as it can be presented to those suspect of "church" in a way that isn't scary.

"We shouldn't be shying away from the Gospel - the theological claim that Jesus is risen from the dead and has thereby forgiven and redeemed us - simply because it may sound 'dogmatic' to some."

I'm not saying to shy away from the Gospel - I'm simply saying that the Gospel, to many young people today, is not a selling point. For example, many (and this is not an exaggeration) of my friends couldn't tell you that there's a difference in belief between a mainline Protestant, an Evangelical Christian, and a Catholic (in fact, I just asked an employee at a coffee shop in his late 20s, to which he responded, "I have no idea.") For many, as I've stated in other comment responses, Jesus Christ, or churches of any kind, remind of George W. Bush, molestation scandals, and religious war (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm). I understand the passion that goes into preserving "the essence," but let me ask you this: If you were advising, for example, a school that was organizing a class architected to correct misconceptions people in the US might have about the religion, would you suggest to them that they feature in the commercials versus from the Koran, arabic writing, traditional dress, etc. because all of this represents the essence of what's trying to be conveyed? Or would you acknowledge that the audience might have some prejudices that need to be overcome before lessons can be observed, thus it would likely be smart to avoid imagery that turns off the ability to receive the message rationally?

The truth is, the UCC has lost 400,000 members in the past decade. Putting the church out there on the table may feel good, but thus far it hasn't proven to be a very effective recruitment strategy.

From your response:

"What makes us unique is the reason we do social justice: because we love God, and we know that loving God is inseparable from loving our neighbors (and our enemies, for that matter).  If we market ourselves primarily as a social justice group, though, we lose that which makes us who we are as church--the Gospel!"

I am not saying to market yourself primarily as a social justice group - I'm suggesting that in order to successfully resonate with a generation suspicious of the church, the delivery of your message should more-carefully consider demographics. Again, a 400,000 person loss is pretty extreme.

When I was a teenager I was a radical atheist and the only way that I came to be exposed to any Christian imagery was Johnny Cash, eventually Nick Cave, and then Jay Bakker (via a Rolling Stone article). Had it not been for these outlets keeping this alive through this time, I very likely wouldn't have returned in my 20s. And even during my 20s, I was extremely suspicious and suspect of Evangelical Christians (thanks again to various politicians) until I worked with a bunch of really fabulous, really wonderful young people on volunteerism projects and saw them through this lens before seeing them through the my biased lens.

Ryan,
I have to respectfully and completely disagree with you! I think Millenials are all about social justice as both a path of spiritual discovery and as an expression of their faith. Telling me what to believe first and then inviting me in won't work. Asking me to help with a cause I believe in and then sharing your story, on the other hand........

I think Alex is spot on here. I think the UCC could serve a whole lot of people who do not watch TV (I don't even own one anymore-had to watch the Still Speaking commercials on YouTube), and like me, live in a city with half a dozen UCC's, not one of which can pull off anything but traditional Sunday morning service. My current UCC keeps valiantly trying, but part of the issue is that Millenials gather on the net; not in the narthex. 

Social justice talk on twitter and facebook would bring together a huge congregation of people that brick and mortar UCC's will never see, and I think the UCC would be smart to embrace that.

Respectfully submitted,

Wendy Bartlett

Bath UCC, Bath, Ohio

Thanks for checking in / adding your insight. I'd love, at some point, to connect about your work.

"The successes we had in our high school youth group were based largely on word-of-mouth from the kids themselves and doing things that they wanted to do (sometimes with some prompting)."

This is, more than anything else, exactly what I'm saying.

Simply:

With regard to Millennials, word-of-mouth is a superior to top-down messaging. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media tools make spreaking messages in the former fashion exponentially easier. At the same time, messages better resonate when the groups receiving them find they're pertinent or desirable in their own language - and "language" doesn't stop at words, necessarily. Sometimes, in order to be exposed to an idea that is different or alien, the initial language of experiences should be formed by taking into consideration the audience's wariness.

Even though I was old enough to be one of their parents, I connected with them through listening to them and being "present" with them.  There was a lot of pressure from within the church to do things that the high school youth had always done in the past or things that the long time members thought the kids should be doing, but we met them where they were and connected the things they were struggling with in theological rap sessions.  

Bingo. As someone who has, in various venues, worked with teenagers in a mentor capacity, I hear what you're saying loud and clear. I'm working on the content/program committee for a youth leadership seminar, and we recently had to change an exercise about hate-speech that had to be 25 years old, thus resonated with none of the participants from the past few years. And, due to the age of the past organizers, there wasn't the comprehension of what it's been like to be raised in a post-Hillary v. Obama atmosphere, thus this was overlooked.

Similarly, when I worked for Blunt Youth Radio for a short period, I was so inspired by watching young people learning by passively absorbing. At Blunt, teenagers are taught how to make radio shows, and in the process, by way of being granted confidence through technical skills, they are taught how to and encouraged to research various topics - by making these shows, they learn about the topics at hand. It's like the episode of the Wire where the school takes the "corner kids" and teaches them by asking them question / interacting with them in the language, terminology, and frame-of-mind of the streets. They learn by becoming convinced they're not learning - or they're not forced to absorb a message whole-sale.

Janis,

Thank you so much for your response. 

Two things come to mind -

1) It is important to keep long-term goals in mind when addressing loss/growth. With any of the suggestions I am making, I have long-term sustainability in mind. This isn't ultimately about growing the congregation next quarter, but ensuring that, done right, it can bring people in over the course of the next year. Further, while these issues may not be of top concern for older members of the congregation, particularly those who yield more power (by showing up), they are issues that resonate with young people more than with any other generation beforehand (not just because their young - studies in both Morley Winograd's Millennial Makeover and Eric Greenberg's Generation We contrast the attitudes of young people today against those of Gen X and the Boomers at the same age). They might be creating something of a stir now, but in order to appeal and engage in the long-term (when older members die, leaving the congregation to no one), youth attitudes should be taken into consideration and, to some degree, accomodated to for [potential] short-term loss/long-term gain.

2) I'm not quite clear on how smaller congregations have less resources for other groups - Is this to imply that less money is coming in by way of collection? Or by advisory/person-power? Beyond person-power, and some initial investment on the part of a local organizer, what I'm suggesting wouldn't actually cost anything (with the exception of the grant-giving suggestion I made, and those funds can be raised on the part of a group). Further, engaged intelligently and challenged accordingly, the groups I am suggesting - social action/justice conscious groups in particular - can raise their own funds / perhaps some funds for the church in the meantime. For example, via Twitter, Avi Kaplan and Stacey Monk, over Thanksgiving, raised $10,000 in two days to build a class in Afica. Even if the national church's only effort was to hire on someone schooled in implementing social media to work with congregations/groups interested in taking on tasks like that one, it would be a step in the right direction.

3) What you're saying is that it was focusing on issues and welcoming the GLBT community has led to smaller congregations. What I'm saying is that this has happened, in part, because these acceptances haven't been properly leveraged on the part of the church to bring young people in the door. Frankly, I know a lot of young people with spiritual or religious tendencies who don't go to church because all they know of religion is, first and foremost, George W. Bush and wars related, in part, to religious fundamentalism. If they knew about a church that had a real intimate community base, there's a chance they would participate, but this niche isn't being leveraged in part because a leading attitude is that these movement's initially lost members.

4) I don't think it would necessarily make sense to use Facebook as a communication tool for the congregation, especially if the congregation isn't on Facebook. But using it as a way to let younger members, the 30 and under crowd, what the church is up to is a great idea. And if that's what it's being used for, there's nothing stopping you from working with a younger member of the congregation to set up a group or a fan page to highlight the interesting and compelling things your congregation does.

Here are some great resources re: examples and further suggestions:

• Social Media and Ministry 2.0
• As I noted in the post, the Cathedral of Hope has done a fabulous job with on and offline community integreation. 
• And also, the same way that you wouldn't have looked to the newspaper industry for cutting edge success stories in digital media implementation (RIP newspaper industry), it's important to also look for the successes elsewhere. For example, remember how a relatively mainstream politician, one whose edge was clearly his content and desire for social good, was aided to victory in part by a social media campaign? 
• Or even, on a much smaller scale, how a relatively small arts venue relies on Facebook to spread the message of upcoming events, thus drawing larger crowds, for it.

Bill,

Thank you for your response.

I think that the suggestions could ultimately work in the local setting, and in some places it does already to some degree. I know that the Cathedral of Hope, both in Dallas and Houston (and elsewhere, I'm sure) is doing great things with regard to using the web in order to create more outreach, action, and communities opportunites and to use said opportunities to connect the congregation accordingly. They're somewhat dynamic in their presentation/design/etc., but a local church need not go all out by way of design, or signing up with Convio, in order to provide these opportunities.

Really, all that I'm trying to suggest is this -

1. Social media strategy is sustainable in the long-term only when backed up by content. 
2. In my experience with the Millennial Generation, and with regard to various studies that take into consideration our feelings about social justice, community, and religion (regarding, specifically, a suspicion towards Dogma and increasing openness to spirituality and religious tolerance), Congregational, social justice-minded churches have more than enough leveragble content (news, community-building opportunities, charitable focus, etc.) to build social media outreach strategy upon.

The chuch is the old school social justice league. Here, I suggest that focus be put on taking opportunities for action and organization that exist within congregations, and on opportunities that could exist, to:

• retain members who might, in their exploratory 20s, be tempted to go outside of the church to whet their appetites
• appeal to Millennials who might be interested in a church experience, but have a preconceived notion of what "church" is and stands for (i.e. perhaps I won't go to check out a church on my own volition, but I would like to check out a talk on Darfur - when I'm there, I'll be able to get a sense of the Church's interests, community, etc. 

I think that each local church can take some of these suggestions and apply it accordingly. What I am addressing here is is really "best case scenario" - This is, in part, what I'd suggest if I knew the UCC were interested in at least guiding, or offering support to, clusters of churches interested in moving more towards this route. I'm offering these suggestions because it would appear to me that the national UCC has, like many others have, come to think, "In order to retain, we need to employ new media strategies." And they have a blog, and social networking sites, and it's well designed and all of that - but what we learned last year, social media successes don't come from having a social media presense - it comes from integrating it into a bigger plan. If there is nothing that social media is bringing anyone back to - just the church as it exists now - social media is only there for those in the church interested in social media. In order to bring new people to the table, it needs to redirect them to opportunities they might have otherwise been unaware were available.

Further, some of the suggestions intend to fascilitate better organization among social action communities within congregations, which I will touch on in the next entry. 

Regarding the "digitial divide," this is a forever thing. In his 1991 standup routine No Cure For Cancer, Dennis Leary says: 

I'm sick of my generation getting called the TV generation. "Well all you guys do is watch TV." What did you expect!? We watched Lee Harvey Oswald get shot live on TV one Sunday morning, we were afraid to change the fucking channel for the next thirty years. "This show sucks." "Yeah, but somebody might get shot during the commercial. Now hang on!"

Similarly, my generation found that video on YouTube, were able to look it up on Wikipedia, discuss it on message boards, and so on, and there's no going back. Television is an inherently untrustworthy medium, as far as many of us are concerned. The only people who have a chance of having a voice are the monied, and the only direction that messages go are from the top down. Also, the messages can only take one form - as I pointed out in the piece, a commercial comes on, spends 29 seconds talking about all the good an organization does, and in the last minute it explains that its a church. Fine. But if the Millennial viewer has a perceived notion of what churches are, what they do, and what they're responsible for, they see the commercial as top down propaganda. If they hear it discussed organically in a conversation coming from people / sources / avenues they trust, and there are opportunities for follow-up research, then there's a chance of retension. 

Clay Shirky breaks this down in his book Here Comes Everybody, but he sums up all of these ideas in the essay Gin, Television, and Social Surplus. 

So, do I think that one day 10 years down the road, when I'm 35 I'll be kicking back, watching the news, and trusting commercials? No. I'll likely be old-fashioned in some way in comparison to what kids who are now 5 but will then be 15 will be dabbling in, but the top-down, one way medium as we know it today is dead to me.