ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Intrepid Lutherans - Church Growth Inroads in WELS.
Are There Any Book of Concord Inroads?
MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 2014
‘Church Growth’ Inroads in the WELS: An Analysis of the Website Home Pages of Ninety WELS Congregations
As reported earlier today, this post gives a “first look” at the results of an analysis of WELS congregational website home pages. This work was first proposed on Intrepid in September, 2013 (click here). As described in the proposal, the analysis was based on the information found on the website home page of selected WELS congregations regarding the Gospel, the Means of Grace (God’s Word and the Sacraments), and confessional Lutheran standards (the name “Lutheran”, the Lutheran Confessions and the liturgical service).
Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Methodology
One circuit was randomly chosen from each of the twelve districts of the WELS. Six to eight congregations were selected from that circuit for analysis. Only those circuits which had at least six congregations with a website were considered for the analysis. A total of ninety congregational websites were selected and analyzed according to the criteria described above. At least five individual lay people submitted input for each website homepage of each congregation selected. The individual inputs for each criterion for each congregation were averaged to minimize the effect of human subjectivity.
Analysis Results
A high level representation of the analysis is presented in the following chart. Vertical columns represent the average input for each of the criteria; horizontal rows represent individual congregational websites that were analyzed. For this first look, the results are grouped and reported by district, but the districts and congregations are not identified.
In the simplest terms, areas of green reflect confessional Lutheran standards clearly communicated on congregational websites. Areas of yellow reflect vague, incomplete, or minimization of confessional Lutheran standards. Areas of red indicate an absence of confessional Lutheran standards.
This analysis, as described in the original proposal of this project, was limited to the home page of each website analyzed. Clearly, the analysis has the potential of providing different results, perhaps very different results, if one were to “drill down” into those websites where additional pages existed. But the intent here was, in part, to see what congregational website planners and administrators considered most important. The assumption is that what one considers most important would be most obvious on a website, and therefore be present on the home page. As confessional Lutherans, we would expect to see evidence of:
Observations Made
In this “first look”, the following observations could be made. Each of the observations is stated in the context of the prevailing behavior.
A follow-on post will take into consideration any questions that might arise from this work, and examine the results in more detail.
Evaluation Criteria & Scoring Methodology
- The Gospel message – Score green: clear Gospel message, including both sinand forgiveness, yellow: vague Gospel message, without a clear presentation of sin and forgiveness, red: no Gospel message
- The Sacraments – the Means of Grace. Score green: Lord's Supper or Baptism is specifically mentioned, yellow: vague reference to the Sacraments, without specific mention of Lord’s Supper or Baptism, red: no mention of the Sacraments
- God’s Word – the Means of Grace. Score green: a verse from Scripture, yellow: a vague reference to the Bible or Scripture without a verse from Scripture, red: no verses from Scripture or references to Scripture.
- The Lutheran name – Score green: the word "Lutheran" is part of the congregation’s name and is clearly and prominently displayed, yellow: the word "Lutheran" is not part of the name, or is minimized in small font, red: the word "Lutheran" is not found on the home page.
- The Lutheran Confessions – Score green: a clear reference to the Lutheran Confessions, such as the Apostles' Creed or Book of Concord, yellow: a confession that is faithful to or consistent with the Lutheran Confessions, without reference to them, red: no confession consistent with the Lutheran Confessions
- The liturgical service – Score green: acknowledges use of a liturgical service, yellow: no mention of the form of worship, red: promotes a contemporary service, or doing their own thing, or promoting "breaking the rules" of worship
One circuit was randomly chosen from each of the twelve districts of the WELS. Six to eight congregations were selected from that circuit for analysis. Only those circuits which had at least six congregations with a website were considered for the analysis. A total of ninety congregational websites were selected and analyzed according to the criteria described above. At least five individual lay people submitted input for each website homepage of each congregation selected. The individual inputs for each criterion for each congregation were averaged to minimize the effect of human subjectivity.
Analysis Results
A high level representation of the analysis is presented in the following chart. Vertical columns represent the average input for each of the criteria; horizontal rows represent individual congregational websites that were analyzed. For this first look, the results are grouped and reported by district, but the districts and congregations are not identified.
In the simplest terms, areas of green reflect confessional Lutheran standards clearly communicated on congregational websites. Areas of yellow reflect vague, incomplete, or minimization of confessional Lutheran standards. Areas of red indicate an absence of confessional Lutheran standards.
This analysis, as described in the original proposal of this project, was limited to the home page of each website analyzed. Clearly, the analysis has the potential of providing different results, perhaps very different results, if one were to “drill down” into those websites where additional pages existed. But the intent here was, in part, to see what congregational website planners and administrators considered most important. The assumption is that what one considers most important would be most obvious on a website, and therefore be present on the home page. As confessional Lutherans, we would expect to see evidence of:
- our purpose, to spread the Gospel.
- the Means of Grace through which the Holy Spirit works, the Word and the Sacraments.
- the Lutheran Confessions, as they properly reflect the truths of Scripture.
Observations Made
In this “first look”, the following observations could be made. Each of the observations is stated in the context of the prevailing behavior.
- A majority of WELS congregational websites surveyed do NOT have a clear Gospel message on the home page.
- A vast majority of WELS congregations surveyed say NOTHING about the Sacraments on the home page.
- A majority of WELS congregations surveyed do NOT use a verse from God’s Word on the home page of the website.
- A majority of WELS congregations surveyed USE the name “Lutheran” on the website home page.
- A vast majority of the WELS congregations surveyed say NOTHING about the Lutheran Confessions on the home page.
- And finally, a vast majority of WELS congregations surveyed say NOTHING about the type of worship service on the home page of the website.
A follow-on post will take into consideration any questions that might arise from this work, and examine the results in more detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
24 COMMENTS:
Also, is the primary purpose of the website to say "we are a Lutheran church" or to focus on nudging people towards their Savior?
That being said, while one could argue that "it's not the job of the webpage to teach people [Lutheran doctrine]," when there's the amount of *red* (that is, false doctrine) ON THE HOME PAGE that I'm seeing here, we have a BIG problem.
I cannot say why a given church in this study would or would not include certain things on the homepage. I'm actually quite sure some of it is just bad web design or apathy about websites in general. Whatever the reasons, is it not clearly important for a church website (an online front door of sorts) to in some way clearly explain what that church is about?
In some ways, the primary purpose of a website really has to be "we are a Lutheran church" and defining what goes on (or does not go on) in that church because of its Lutheranism. I do not assume anyone knows what a WELS church is. I do want them to know why my Lutheran church is not "Lutheran" in the same sense as an ELCA church (i.e. that is not really Lutheran at all). I want visitors to the website to know what happens at my church, and that they will hear the Gospel of Christ Crucified and receive the blessings of Word and Sacrament there. Being clear about our identity is being clear that we do offer the pure Gospel through the means God has provided in our churches.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
Isaac Parson
You yourself admit: "Some may prove to have a solid confession on other pages of their site. Or, some may prove to have a lot of junk on their other pages that they don't have on their home page."
So, what's the point then? If no one can use any of this information in any definitive way, then so what? And more importantly, if this information, by your own admission, isn't definitive, then how can the title of this article state definitively that this is proof of "church growth inroads in the WELS"?
By the way, if you used these same criteria to judge the Intrepid Lutherans site, what grade would it get? I'm not sure what counts as "clear evidence", but by my estimation the IL site would get mostly reds. Why are you hiding "Who We Are" and "What We Believe" behind links? Are you trying to cover-up what you believe?
Daniel Sellers
Then, Isaac, you commit an apples and oranges fallacy in comparing a blog to a church's website. IL is not a church and has never claimed to be. We have no static "home page" at all. Even so, no one here is claiming to be holier than thou. Some objective facts have been presented. I'm sorry you seem to wish to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the objective facts presented in the article.
If you want to use church websites to make the case that church growth methodology is making inroads in the WELS, then do it. Make the case using actual evidence. Examine websites and find clear examples of it. (It won't be too hard to do.) But don't make assumptions or assertions based on an argument from silence.
Jim, yes, website home pages frequently served as a table of contents. Frequently those contents are in the header bars or the side bars. And yet, many find the opportunity, even with that information displayed, to still say more; a Bible verse, a simple Gospel message. The volunteers in this analysis were not looking for Cliff notes or overwhelming volumes of information. It doesn't take Cliff notes or overwhelming volumes of information to share the Gospel. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. One line. A simple Gospel message or a simple Bible verse. What is so difficult about that? And doesn't God himself promise that he will work through his Word? Why miss the opportunity?
Isaac, you said in two different comments that it wouldn't be too hard to find clear examples of Church Growth in the WELS. If it's simple to do, then how can you be so sure that it doesn't exist on the home page of a church website? Having looked at ninety of them. I can assure you, examples were there. As you said, it wasn't too hard to do. One example found the space on the home page to say they break the rules with regard to their worship service. They could have buried that in the website, but they chose to put it on the home page. There are many more examples. But don't take my word for it. Look at the home pages yourself. It was one of the reasons for doing this analysis and doing it across all of the districts; the ever familiar refrain "not in my church, not in my district, not in my synod". Part of the message here is that you don't have to look very hard, just as you said.
But look, we weren't even looking for the bad examples. They were there, but we weren't looking for them. We were looking for the positive things. Did they exist or didn't they?
There are certainly innocent parties in this analysis. For that reason, congregations and districts have not been named. It was also clear when looking at these home pages that there were novices and there were professionals doing the websites. But whether they were novices or professionals had little to do with whether there was a Bible verse or a Gospel message present. I saw simple website home pages with a Bible verse or Gospel message, and I saw professional website home pages that didn't.
Church Growth can mean many things to many people. One of the things it means to me is how much can someone say about their church and the things their church does without talking about Jesus. I saw evidence of this too. The programs, the projects, even the gimics. But the Gospel? Sadly missing.
Vernon
Honestly, however, all this report shows – merely a "first look" – is the results of applying standards that are important to genuine Confessional Lutherans to only the homepages of WELS websites. The standards that were applied are clear, their application was defined and limited in scope, and the results are what they are. There was no value judgment accompanying these results in this report, no condemnations hurled at the REDs, no unmitigated praise given to the GREENs, no assignment of good or bad to either as so many seem to infer (especially if one is reading the Facebook discussion at > 73 comments, so far). Like it or lump it – it just is what it is. Different standards and/or different application would very likely produce different results, as this "first look" fully admits.
Continued in next comment...
First off, as pointed out by others, the home page is one of the pages least likely to contain theological content. That information is usually reserved for other pages, such as a "statement of faith" page. You might as well have chosen to base your study on "contact us" pages. I won't accuse anyone of deliberately basing the study on a page unlikely to fulfill the study's criteria, but for anyone to not think that this is a serious flaw speaks to how poorly thought out this study is.
Secondly, several of the criteria themselves are dubious. A prime example is the insistence on reference to the Lutheran confessions--most visitors to a website probably wouldn't even know what those are; including this detail would be simply uninformative. Those who do know what the Lutheran confessions are, and who are interested in them, would certainly require more intensive instruction than is feasible via a congregation's website; for them, including this detail would be superfluous. To be frank, exposition of the Lutheran confessions is the role of catechesis and preaching, not a website.
Another questionable criterion is the use of the name "Lutheran." The oldest church listed in the WELS yearbook was originally named "The First High German Evangelical Lutheran and Reformed Church of Columbus, Ohio" during its early, unionistic stage. By the study's criteria as stated, this church would have been rated "green" or "yellow" if there had been websites in the 1820s. Such a criterion would clearly allow numerous "Lutheran in name only" congregations to receive a "passing" score in this category.
Insisting on mention of the Sacraments and liturgical services are also dubious criteria. The Roman Catholics talk about the Sacraments and the liturgy--but they aren't Lutheran. Using the criteria as stated, heterodox non-Lutheran churches could easily receive a passing grade in these categories.
Finally, the evaluation of websites based on whether or not a Scripture quotation appears on the home page is also a dubious criterion. As of this moment, John Hagee Ministries currently has a Scripture quotation on its homepage--does that make him Lutheran-leaning? Your study would have rated his website as "green" in this category.
Due to the faultiness of your criteria, even a heterodox church hypothetically could receive four or five "green" scores on your "Lutheran standards." Clearly, most of your criteria are either too vague or not truly distinctive of Lutheranism.
At this point, the study is salvageable, and the premise still has potential, but the criteria are in serious need of revision, and the data gathering needs to include more than simply home pages. Until that is done, the study as it stands is of very little value in quantifying "church growth" inroads in the WELS.
Eric Olafssen
But why are these particular standards important to genuine Confessional Lutherans? My answer: because (a) those who self-identify as Confessional Lutherans recognize that it is necessary to actually Confess something specificregarding Lutheran doctrine and practice; and (b) because Confessional Lutherans recognize that when they make their public confession, they are not just addressing a single audience, but are simultaneously addressing three important audiences.
In the case of (a), many new initiates into the controversy of today's Lutheran identity crisis, approach it not from the standpoint of Confessional integrity (most, due to catechetical failure, not having any idea what that really entails), but from the standpoint of general Evangelical sentiment, claiming that it sufficient to publicly proclaim, "We believe what the Bible says", in order to satisfy the integrity demanded of them by their professed Confessional stance. But this is wrong. Every Christian on the planet claims to "believe what the Bible says", and then gives his own explanation for what this phrase really means – they have to provide an explanation because the phrase itself can mean so many different things that it is essentially meaningless, other than to identify a person or a group as vaguely Christian. The fact is, it is NOT sufficient to say, "I believe everything the Bible says," or "We are a Bible Church," etc., because such a statement fails to answer the very next, and more important, question, "What do yousay the Bible says?"
Confessions answer this question for us. In appealing to the Confessions, we are appealing to what Lutherans uniquely say that the Bible says. In this regard, our Confessions are definitive – even more so given that our agreement to the Lutheran Confessions is not just rhetorical, but carries with it the force of Christian Conscience, as we agree to our Confessions, not merely rhetorically, but as a matter of self-identity, fully and eternally convinced of their testimony to the Truth of Scripture.
In the case of (b), many "Evangelical Lutherans," who forget that there is a specific Confession attending the label they apply to themselves (or worse, disregard it as unimportant), are under the mistaken impression that "Confessing their faith" simply means, "Telling the Gospel to the unbelieving World." While it true that the unregenerate are one audience to which our Confession can be directed, it is false to say that they are the only audience, or even the primary audience. Furthermore, while the Lutheran Confession, being centered upon the "Evangel", or the Good News of Justification by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Jesus Christ Alone, is inherently and uniquely "evangelical", our Confession does not primarily function as an evangelism tool. Its primary function is to both divide and unite, and it is addressed primarily to the heterodox and the orthodox, as well as the unregenerate. A Confession will make clear the separation of the unbeliever from Christ and from eternal salvation, while extending this promise to them in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A Confession will also warn the heterodox of their separation from the Truth of God's Word, warn them of the danger this separation represents to their eternal welfare, while attempting to restore them to the Truth through the application of Scripture and sound reason. A Confession will also announce itself to fellow orthodox believers, declare their unity in the Faith, and draw them into Fellowship. And it will accomplish all of these things in the pattern of sound words adopted by orthodox believers from throughout the history of the Church on Earth.
Continued in next comment...
Finally, there is no Confession apart from corresponding public practice that is calculated to demonstrate that Confession, in a way that, apart from mere words, announces both the separation of unbelievers from Christ and the separation of the heterodox from orthodoxy, recognizes and welcomes orthodox brethren into Fellowship, invites others to share in this unity through Faith in Christ and full acceptance of the Truth, and, by embracing the familiar forms of the past in the same way that the pattern of sound words is retained, assures the Christian that no ill-conceived innovation is being foisted upon him.
The fact is, a Lutheran Church is by definition a Confessing Church – a tall order in and of itself, and a unique thing on the landscape of American Christianity. As a result, strange though it may seem in comparison to the methods of pop-church evangelicals, the public representation of a Lutheran congregation ought to address itself, Confessionally, in both word and deed, not just to prospective new members, but to the unregenerate, the heterodox and the orthodox, whether prospects or not. And this includes its website (increasingly so, given the overwhelming ubiquity of the internet as a platform for public communication). Does this mean that a congregation's website must deliver a full dissertation on all matters of doctrine and practice? No. Not at all. Although, depending on the character of a given congregation and the nature of the community in which it is placed, a more thorough explanation of certain issues may be entirely in order. But what is expected by genuine Confessional Lutherans is that congregations applying this label to themselves publicly give well-balanced evidence that their name isn't just a placard, that their Confession is genuine. The six standards chosen by Mr. Kneprath and his team, and the relatively low thresholds they set for meeting these standards (like, "a Bible Verse," or "a simple Gospel message of some sort"), strike me as a very fair minimum. In my opinion, for Lutheran congregations to fail to live up to their Confession in these basic and very simple ways, disenfranchises not only their Brethren, but the heterodox and the lost as well.
Thank you Vernon, and team – I'm definitely looking forward to future installments.
Is that all the identity of a church is, a church building? One will know the identity of a church, in part, by what else they see on the website home page. What does a church stand for? What message will one hear if they go to this church building pictured on the home page? This is the confession that Douglas Lindee talks about. There is nothing scary or complicated or voluminous about a confession. Most WELS churches (I hope and pray) still have one in their worship service. It's called the Apostles' Creed. It doesn't take up that much space on a home page. And some chose to put it there.
Website advisors will tell you that pictures are good, but the first paragraph of text is especially important. You may have one opportunity to communicate with a website visitor. The first thing a website visitor may see is the home page of the website, and they may never go beyond that. What precious few words will you use in that first paragraph? Whose wisdom will you depend on to communicate your church identity? What is the single most important thing you could say?
It is faith that comes from the Word that saves. In that light, I think measuring the capacity of a church body's use of God's Word on the home page has value, at least in regard to defining the identity of that church body. If some people are not happy about what was found, I can understand that. I wasn't pleased with what was found either.
Vernon
Of course there was! The title says, "Church Growth Inroads in the WELS". How is that not a value judgment based on the results in this report?
I totally agree that you can find evidence of church growth inroads in the WELS by looking at websites. But that's not what this "study" did. Instead, it made assumptions based on a lack of evidence.
Regarding those who have been critical of the work done so far, I must ask, where was your input when the project was first proposed? At least one of the critics has been a regular visitor of Intrepid. His comments to posts date back to before the proposal for this project was first posted. The explanation of the work in this project was quite detailed in the proposal. The format in which the observations would be presented was there, just like it was in this "first look". The fact that the analysis would look at home pages was explained, and the reasons were given for why. The title of the work has not changed. So why the criticism now, and not then? Is it because it is so much easier to be critical after the fact?
The results of the work so far are simply observations. That is how the work has been presented and stated, as observations. Conclusions drawn are largely the conclusions of the reader. And I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as it is recognized who is drawing the conclusions.
I hope that the accusation of sloppiness is not being equated to and confused with the absence of precision. This work is not about precision. There can only be the illusion of precision in work such as this, and I'm not about to pretend that this work is precise. Many of those who saw value in this work, saw it for what it was intended, a revelation of trends regarding the criteria that were identified, criteria that were identified up front some months ago.
I would restate once again, this was an analysis of church website home pages, not the churches themselves. Those who claim this is an analysis of congregations are drawing those conclusions themselves.
I do appreciate the criticism, because it is the criticism that I will respond to in future posts. One of the critics brought up a comparison of what might be found at other church bodies. That made me wonder, how would a similar analysis of website home pages from the LCMS or the ELCA compare to that of the WELS. In searching for website links for WELS congregations, on a few occasions, I accidently ended up at ELCA congregations that happened to have the same name as the WELS congregation in that same city. Some names such as "Grace" or "Trinity" are quite common across denominations. In those few cases, just by looking at the home page of the website, I thought to myself "This can't possibly be a WELS congregation". On one occasion, it was obvious, since the pastor pictured on the home page was a female. In the other cases, it was less obvious then that, but still sufficiently apparent to make me wonder if I had the right church. In those few cases, I was somewhat relieved to find out that they weren't WELS congregations. So yes, there is much to be learned from the home page of a church website, and the fact that I could differentiate between denominations in those cases, based on the content of home pages validates that point.
Vernon
First, no one has said or implied that a red mark signifies "shame." If my website were evaluated (which it won't be, because we are not WELS), I would have at least one red mark. I am neither ashamed of that nor do I feel any need to rectify it, because I am happy with the information being confessed on an adjacent page to our homepage. Nor would the authors of this study criticize me or our church's website because we're not "all green." It's not "good vs. evil." It's an observation of trends in areas that are commonly indicative of one's confession. Defensiveness is uncalled for.
Secondly, you are twisting the facts and making things up when you claim that "you are being branded" as anything. Again, more unnecessary defensiveness. To be "branded," one must be identified. To say that someone is being "branded" anonymously is ridiculous. It is likely that your church's website was not even evaluated, much less identified or branded as anything. Calm down and apply reason rather than emotion.