Examples or Metaphors - not both

At most conferences people who are giving speeches take the approach of sharing metaphors or specific examples of what they are talking about.  I have found this to be radically annoying and not helpful.  

Why?  

When someone gives a few examples of how "this thing" works, they give a specific example.  The problem is it is generally too specific and people are curious, but quickly discount the example as "able to work there but that would not work in my setting."  So a couple of specific examples are generally flashes in the pan.  Cool to see, but difficult to cook with.  

Another 'write off' of a few specific examples is that people do not own that idea.  There is some program that works in some area, people are generally not able to sustain that idea in their context because they really do not own the idea.  This 'lack of ownership = unsustainable" idea is on display when someone tells you, "you know we should really be doing ______.  You should make that happen."

If, however, you were to give more that a couple of examples for an idea then you are onto something.  If you were able to give somewhere in the ballpark of 20 examples of where/how this "idea" is working, then you begin to shut down the thoughts of "that will not work in my context" because you give people the ability to see how their context can be navigated to implementation.  If I hear of a prayer program in schools in one location, I will discount it.  If I hear of 20 prayer programs in schools, I am more apt to get excited on how I can implement that in my context.  

On the other end of the spectrum of giving a few examples, a speaker will often give one metaphor.  However, these metaphors are often 'heady' and the fear is getting too heady without giving specific examples of how the idea looks on the ground.  Which is why speakers do not spend much time developing the metaphors too much and jump right to sharing a few examples.  Then we are right back into the problems of sharing just a few specific examples.  

However, if a speaker develops a metaphor deeply and fully then it will capture the imagination of people to problem solve their own context.  When we problem solve ourselves then we have ownership to the idea and thus up the chances of success and sustainability.  

Let me violate my comments above and give just one example.  

Recently I heard the metaphor of the church as an airport.  The speaker went on to say that airports are never destinations in of themselves.  No one takes a vacation at the airport for a week.  The only time the airport as a destination was a good idea it was made into a fictional movie with two big movie stars in order to sell the movie.  

That was all the development the presenter did on this metaphor and the metaphor was dead in the water.  The metaphor was too heady and too abstract and people forgot the metaphor all together.  If however, the presenter had developed the metaphor more it had the chance to capture the imaginations of people.  Perhaps he could have asked:

• Where do people check their baggage?
• Who is responsible for flying the plane?
• Who is designated to work in the lost and found area?
• What does a passport look like in your church?  
• Do you have a security check point?  
• Are you profiling?

And on and on.  This metaphor, when developed, leads to a number of ideas on how to do/be Church.  

When the metaphor is not developed in favor of giving a few examples, then both the metaphor suffers and the people listening discount examples and do not build the metaphor.  

So give me examples or a metaphor.  Don't try to do both.  

Learning that listening to a expert in a common place about how listening to an expert in a common place is not good

It is a rather common and popular thing these days in the world of church leaders to critique the way we are doing church.  I do it on this very blog with some predictable constancy.

A common point of critique of the Church is essentially summed up by a number of quips - "The way we are working is not working."  "They like Jesus but not the Church." "We need to rethink Church and be a missional outpost" "We need to be less church focused and more Kingdom focused."  

I could go on, but I think you get the point. 

While on many levels I agree with these sound bytes, the way in which they are shared is often the greatest point of frustration.  

All of the seminars I have been at which talk about "rethinking Church" there is a tendency to talk about how we can no longer expect people to come to church in the ways people came to church in the past.  We cannot just build a building, slap a cross on it, call it a church and expect people will fill the pews each week.  We have to think beyond the walls of the church and be "incarnational" and "missional".  They tell us that we cannot keep doing what we are doing and expect different results.  

The thing is, the way these seminars are set up they look a lot like the expression of church they are critiquing.  

A group of like minded people gathering together to listen to a middle-aged person (generally male) standing on a stage talking about changing behavior in order to generate different results.  

I find it annoying and unimaginative at best, and condescending at the worse. 

If you want people to see Church expressed differently, then you have to show people.  The medium really is the message on this matter.  

What would it look like to have a church seminar that was open source/space?

Shameless plug and self promotion

It is an honor to be asked to speak any where.  Clergy are asked to speak at sacred moments in peoples' lives and for that it is rather humbling.

Clergy are supposed to be communicators at heart and so to be asked to speak is not uncommon in the life of a clergy person.

It is something else to be asked to come and speak to other clergy (or your peers of any profession I would imagine).

Still humbling, but a bit more scary.  Why I am included in this line up I have no idea, but you can be sure I will be the most uncool person speaker.  (Plus I might not be the most 'inked' person either,)

*UPDATE* It has been brought to my attention that I am not the only one who is responsible for this opportunity.  There are a number of excellent, hard working, creative, and articulate people who worked hard on the Fort Worth Dish Out who could just as easily speak but are unable to take off from work to do so. While this update is a bit too late in the "blogosphere", it is never too late to remedy a situation.

Nadia Bolz-Weber. Way cooler than me