THE CHURCH ISN'T GREEN

Within higher education there is a concern that the “bubble” has popped and that traditional, on-cite institutional learning may one day come to an end. This is largely in part to the lack of sustainability of institutional learning. With the increased demands on faculty to produce valuable research while taking on greater numbers of students in a climate that requires a substantial degree of transparency. It is likely that the traditional higher education institution will remain, but with such great resources going into remaining viable while making statistically insignificant contributions to student learning beyond technical skill development, it will likely be a vastly different and significantly smaller entity than it is today. Most research is indicating that traditional higher education institutions are increasing enrollment, but are unable to make significant impact on student development. There are a couple of exceptions to this cycle. The first is with technical training. Undergraduate students who are able to persist to their junior and senior years are developing technical skills that will prepare them to perform the immediate skills necessary in their respective disciplines. However, those same students are significantly lacking in their liberal education, social development, and fundamental undergraduate skills. The second exception is in graduate education. A graduate degree will only become more important as a larger percentage of Americans earn their undergraduate degrees. The downside of this is that the influence on graduate education is only taking more away from undergraduate education. All of this is happening in a climate that is unofficially requiring undergraduate education. There are new options earning credibility. Online education is quickly becoming the most logical option for many students. But the culture is established. Graduating high school students are indoctrinated with the idea that a college degree is their best option regardless of their preparation or interest. Once the student gets to school, if he or she is able to persist, will likely not learn very much. If the student graduates, he or she will likely have a technical education or perhaps research, but will still seriously lack in any developmental education. The student will likely make more money than a student who didn’t go to college and will probably reflect on his or her time at college with satisfaction, but will not be any better off developmentally (or prepared in the basics of education) than the person who decided not to go to a traditional college.

This industrial approach to education can be seen in the church too. Higher education and the institutional church are cousins. There was a time, however, when they were more like brothers though. The church, over the past few years, has faced many of the same issues of higher education. Despite individual churches growing to mega-institution levels it has been unable to make fundamental impacts on the spiritual development of its members. Members, however, reflect on the institution with satisfaction and are gaining the technical skills associated with Christianity. But the vast majority of the effort goes into maintaining the viability of the institution. This doesn’t mean that the church is irrelevant. In fact, like higher education, it is incredibly relevant. But it is not productive. This, again, is not to argue that people are not gaining anything from the church. Like higher education, people do go through it and are more prepared for accomplishing what they want to accomplish. But in large, members are lacking in the fundamentals of faith development and the skills necessary for faithfulness. And like higher education again, there will be those that go on to graduate level education. But the core of its mission has been compromised with maneuvering the complexities of a changing culture. And one final comparison to higher education, this doesn’t mean that it should close its doors. It may simply need to consider its mission, its identity, and how it will engage the world. The church may not be necessary for everyone, it value needs to be linked to what it CAN do, it needs to address those things that it isn’t doing, and it needs to acknowledge that the current structure, while probably being maintainable, is not sustainable.

And that is the point. Sustainability, in education, environmental issues, or spiritual development, means that the structure allows itself to maintain its integrity while providing opportunities for growth. The current structure requires growth in order provide its integrity which defines its structure. That industrial and capitalistic approach worked fine for the past 150 years, but the world is changing and requires sustainability to survive. I believe that the organization will survive, but only for those organizations that adapt. And adaption from a sustainability perspective first and foremost asks the question if it should survive. No church will survive in latter part of the 21st century until it is willing to not survive. Sacrifice, ironically and quite appropriately for the church, is the first step for the sustainable church.