Honestly, I think the thing holding my church back is the hierarchy of who is a valued church member. Socioeconomic status, race, age... These are the things that are considered when deciding which new programs will get the church's support. To be effective, we need to reach out to those that do not immediately benefit us in return (by giving money to the church, etc). This is one way to love 'the least of these' and one way to embrace the authenticity that is now a requirement to be taken seriously as a church. The greatest barrier? Those that are championing change are those that are immediately dismissed because of their 'idealism'.

I know it feels like an old topic, but it feels like styles of worship are still an ongoing battle within the church. It feels like there is a push from the more conservative factions trivializing the more contemporary styles of worship. Why can't we just accept that each of us responds to different methods?

Our church says, "Our hearts, our minds, and doors are always open to you." But in reality the Methodist church just defeated an amendment that says just the opposite. It seems you must pass the litmus test to gain membership. What advice can you offer to the hypocritical church?

A lifelong learner across the planet this is my first time to come across an Ivy League scholar who also happens to be a Christian. Whether Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford or la Sorbonne I personally have never met one to the point where I almost came to the conclusion that Christianity was simply incompatible with high learning. My local leadership of Pastor Wayne Schmidt at KCC was the first to persuade me that Christianity will survive all the incoming radical changes in the 21st century. Gary reinforced that same notion of staying true to core belief while at the same time being willing to radically change orthodoxy is now a requirement. The next 30 years will have more changes in science, technology and our perception of reality than everything we humans have done up to date, so all those institutions unable to adapt will become extinct. People like Schmidt and Hamel are firing of the path of the remnant Christian organizations that will survive.

"if it ain't broken don't fix it" is the silliest orthodox/mentality. It guarantees "sameness" year after year and promotes pseudo security. Under this type of thinking, the only thing that's growing is complacency.

One of the greatest organizational transformations needed is the progression from a 'telling' infrastructure to a 'listening' culture. Although great leaders have always employed the wisdom of actively eliciting feedback mechanisms from the front lines of their organization, the church -- while it will always be in the business of proclamation -- is especially prone to talking, preaching, presenting, and programming BEFORE really engaging the outsiders that need to be reach as well as the constituents who are traveling the life-long journey of transformation. The old models of hierarchy and management inertia too often minimize the need for creative participation in the stakeholders in multiple spheres of engagement that should mark effective church life and ministry in this century.

The term "church is an organism and not an organization" is often translated into the belief that there should be no hierarchy or structure or organization within the local church. Lack of hierarchy and structure and organization within the church creates an "organism" that is disorganized and not forward thinking. The result is the local church often stagnates, dies a slow death and apathy prevails during the process. An organism is a living body that has many interdependent parts that work "together". For parts to work together there has to be "a way" or "a method" or "a process" or a "structure". The human body illustrates this. Each part of the human body is organized to function together, each part knows what it does, each part knows how to do their part, and each part knows how to work with the other parts. They are mutually submissive to one another (which is Biblical). I believe biggest challenge in overturning this belief has two steps to the challenge : 1) How do we effectively change the thinking of a culture of church people that presently view forward thinkers, planners and organizers as being people who will make an organism into an organization --- into a culture of people who will veiw all people as being part of their organism including the forward thinkers and organizers and understand they all play an essential part of making the organism function with excellence. 2) Once the culture and thinking has been changed, the challenge then presents itself in how do we implement this into the practical daily life of the church.

In my opinion,we should be open minded to discuss the issues,topics as a whole.To teach the values of Church,religion or any spirtual belief,we have to be allrounded.Life is a challange & we should not be afraid of any challanges in our lives.Love comes from the heart & heart does not open untill & unless we purify our deep down unhealthy thoughts or beliefs.Superficial love does not bring change in us rather we are hidden under dark clouds. Be open,Be Fair & god will bring togetherness in the Humanity & Leadership will grow with GOd" Faith. Blessings . Veena Grover.

We left our last church because of the stagnation in thought and deed. They could not recognize that when they said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" wasn't appropriate in their situation. The thought process of how to evangelize the neighborhood and bring in new members (not bring people to Christ)was askew. The leadership refused to recognize it. There was no excitement about worship. More time was spent talking about "how to reach those in our neighborhood" than going out and reaching them. After wasting 3 years on a mission statement (my husband was in the working group) they failed to realize that the church is a community, but to invite others into the community you have to go out as an individual with the support of your community. We moved on to a church that is alive--and the past church started reworking the misson statement they had just finished. No one asked why we left after 19 years. How sad!

I think that the biggest area of orthodox that may need change is the idea of having orthodox at all. For whatever reason, we seem to rely on orthodox to move ahead, and the result is a painfully slow progression. By its very definition, orthodox is what is traditionally accepted, and because of that, we rely on progression only within the confines of tradition. Some local churches get it right, and progress based on new and fresh ideas, and an abandonment of orthodox altogether. Those that get it right, write about it. And then between doing it, documenting it, writing a book, and other church leaders reading it and having that "aha!" moment when they say "we need to do that!" the times have changed, and they're already 10 years behind, and those new ideas have become orthodox again. Ultimately, the church has one single goal: reach the lost. If we rely on tradition to do it, we'll lose every time, because human beings will always find new and creative ways to get lost, and no amount of tradition will help find them.

One thing I've been kicking around lately is how we challenge (literally the process) Christian folks to actually change their lives as the result of being a part of a local church. It's been my experience that many churches have sort of approached this from a Field Of Dreams place: if we teach it... they will change... Don't get me wrong- everyone out their teaching truth- that's awesome... I just believe that maybe if we somehow held people more accountable to it- or bluntly challenge them on a regular basis and involve people in an ongoing conversation about what this looks like played out in their lives there would be far greater results. I know some places are getting there- through small groups, etc. but it's what I'm thinking.

Lifechurch.tv had a great message this week addressing the fact that although our message must not change, our methods absolutely MUST. Check it out sometime this week at church online. http://live.lifechurch.tv

Sandy Miller, former Rector of Holy Trinity Brompton, home of the Alpha Course, has been heard to remark that as Christians we should "retain the contents (the message) and change the packaging (the way we do church), whereas we seem in many cases we seem to have done exactly the opposite." Would you agree that we need to get back to focusing on Jesus' words in Matthew 25:31-46 and take Christ's love to people wherever we are led to them anywhere in the world - homeless under a bridge, in prison, dying of AIDS in a hospice etc.?

Two challenges jump to mind. The first is we must stop associating a local church with something other than ourselves. We have such an organizational mindset that we think that unless the staff is present, the church is absent. We are "the church" and the work of "the church" is the collective service (ministry) we provide to the people we come in contact with to help them grow as a disciple. Each of us is a full time minister. When we go to work, the church is present at our workplace. The second thing we must challenge is the assumption that the leaders are the full time staff. They're the helpers as mentioned by Harvey Carey in his talk. We submit to them for teaching and some coordination, but we lead, each one of us. And we need to take responsibility for the people we know and our own actions and ministry to them.

OK, our church was a host site. I'm sure our staff went. One definitely didn't get the message...or else the established culture is that paid staff (50 folks, it is a big church) is in charge of everything. I suggested something. I was told "we already have that covered", but was I invited to help in some way? No, It was "too bad", another woman also asked and I told her the same thing. This is the second time I've run into this. I can lead a small group, but nothing else? Hmmmm, I'm glad I love the worship and my small group, or I'd find someother church that wanted my other talents. If we're all a vital part, big churches have to let go of this mentality!

@Mike Henry: amen. Really, amen. @Carol Voogd: perhaps Mike's comment above is precisely that issue. Maybe church leaders have gotten so used to the congregation adopting an "us versus them" mentality--the idea that the church is that bunch of people that are on staff and lead worship and preach, and not those that attend--that they've wound up adopting the very same philosophy themselves, and made the assumption that every volunteer willing to pour their heart and soul into something is just another "outsider" thinking they can contribute to an organization that they simply don't understand. It really makes me grateful that God hasn't given up on his church yet... I can just imagine how many times he simply shakes his head at us and says, "why don't you get this? how much longer must I put up with you?"... that really makes me thankful for his mercy and infinite patience.