Blog Posts
When We Crowdsource the Church: The Challenge of Digital Recommendations
Whether through social media, or increasingly, through AI chatbots, we are crowdsourcing our church-going, leaving decisions about church attendance and membership to the wisdom of our connections (or the algorithms of ChatGPT).
Photo by Rodion Kutsaiev on Unsplash
I recently stumbled upon a social media post from an area parent. She was looking to take her young children to church for the first time, and needed recommendations. She wanted a church that was welcoming, inclusive, and ostensibly non-denominational (though I wonder if she was actually looking for a non-partisan congregation). Dozens of other area parents responded to the post. Most recommended the area megachurch for its great kids programming. Some suggested the up and coming congregation that may soon become a megachurch. Only one person suggested a Mainline Protestant church with liturgical worship. Nobody recommended a church because it provided an encounter with the living God, a taste of divine grace, or an experience with the presence of Christ. This is unsurprising, as social media is poorly suited for such depths. Taken together, these comments revealed what social media users prioritize when discussing our church-going: amenities, programming, and not too much in the way of commitment or formality.
Crowdsourcing is a digital and public form of word-of-mouth recommendation. When we crowdsource a decision, whether we are looking for a restaurant recommendation or a realtor, we are asking the public web for opinions. There is certainly some wisdom built into crowdsourced decision making. We crowdsource decisions for the same reason that pollsters seek large, representative samples. Obtaining a large quantity of opinions helps us to see certain trends: which options are most popular, which choices are easiest, which offerings are the least controversial. We also crowdsource for the same reason we check online reviews. It’s a fast method of consideration, far quicker than face to face or phone conversation. This explains why it’s such a popular form of consideration in our social media landscape, why so many young parents rely on digital opinions to make decisions for their families. The efficiency of crowdsourced decision making explains why some have crowdsourced their church affiliation. Why sort through the abstraction of theological commitments and doctrine when word of mouth recommendations are a click away?
Photo courtesy of Ryan Panzer
Whether through social media, or increasingly, through AI chatbots, we are crowdsourcing our church-going, leaving decisions about church attendance and membership to the wisdom of our connections (or the algorithms of ChatGPT). As AI systems collect more of our personal data, they will become more confident in their ability to prescribe a church home. Ironically, at last glance, Google’s AI-powered Gemini chatbot only seemed capable of recommending Mormon churches to my family. One wonders about the possible LDS affiliations among Google’s software engineers.
Despite Google Gemini’s inability to recommend more than one denomination for my family, parents will continue to turn to AI for their church-shopping. And it will do so by scouring the web for reviews, social media posts, and church websites. So unless one asks a chatbot for a liturgical, mainline Protestant congregation, we might expect an algorithm’s recommendations to mirror those of parents on social media. Chatbots, as it turns out, are unsure what to do with theological or doctrinal nuance.
I worry about the crowdsourcing of the church in a culture enveloped by AI. In his book “The Innovative Church: How Leaders and Their Congregations Can Adapt in an Ever-Changing World,” Scott Cormode of Fuller Theological Seminary invites congregations to faithfully innovate. He urges church leaders to adapt for the future by utilizing spiritual practices to make “spiritual sense” of the “longings and losses” and the community. This is a wise approach for a time of rapid change. Yet I wonder if any church leader will take such a thoughtful approach when chatbots and social media users alike prefer programming, popularity, and relevance instead of spiritual wisdom. Our culture’s preference for crowdsourcing therefore contests wise and faithful practices of innovation.
A church leader might respond to this challenge by enhancing their online reputation. They could source online reviews and step up their web development. They could fill their social feeds with images and videos of all their church had to offer. By doing all of this, they might make it more likely that a chatbot - or a parent on social media - would suggest them during a crowdsourced conversation. But this approach seems contrary to the church’s call to proclaim the Word and administer the sacraments. Does building up one’s digital relevance make God any more present in the congregation? Does a popularity amongst the chatbots make our congregations any wiser or more discerning?
Perhaps the best thing for a church leader to do amidst this tension is not to do more but to do less, not to speed up but to intentionally slow down: to commit to returning to the spiritual practices of prayer, discernment, and contemplation. As Brian McLaren teaches, “Spiritual practices are ways of becoming awake and staying awake to God. Through these practices, we might inspire a few in our community to invite their connections. Such a recommendation would result not from our relevance or vibrancy - but because these practices facilitated an encounter with a gracious God. When we create the space and practices for such encounters, we are unlikely to grow our congregations through crowdsourced recommendations. But we will remain rooted in our mission in an ever-changing world. Such rootedness is crucial as AI pushes us deeper into technological disruption.
Ryan Panzer
Ryan Panzer is the author of “Grace and Gigabytes: Being Church in a Tech-Shaped Culture” (Fortress Press, 2020) and "The Holy and the Hybrid: Navigating the Church's Digital Reformation" (Fortress Press, 2022). Ryan has spent his career in the worlds of church leadership and technology. He received his M.A. from Luther Seminary while simultaneously working for Google. Ryan serves as a learning and leadership development professional in the technology industry and as a speaker and writer on digital technology in the church. Ryan also serves as the Resident Theologian at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Madison, WI. For more writings and resources, visit www.ryanpanzer.com.
Church Anew is dedicated to igniting faithful imagination and sustaining inspired innovation by offering transformative learning opportunities for church leaders and faithful people.
As an ecumenical and inclusive ministry of St. Andrew Lutheran Church, the content of each Church Anew blog represents the voice of the individual writer and does not necessarily reflect the position of Church Anew or St. Andrew Lutheran Church on any specific topic.
Preaching the Word in a World of Memes
Digital technology has triggered three transformations in how we communicate, or use our words. Each of these transformations in our words has significance for those called to preach the Word.
Language constantly changes. This explains why Merriam-Webster adds new words to the dictionary each year. Last year, their editors added “Rizz” (slang for charisma) and Deepfake (an AI-generated deception), along with approximately 1,000 others. But it’s clear that we’re living through changes not just in the words we use, but in how we use those words.
Digital technology has triggered three transformations in how we communicate, or use our words. Each of these transformations in our words has significance for those called to preach the Word.
The first transformation is that of pace. Our written communications accelerate with new technological developments, conditioning us to send, receive, and react at faster speeds. It takes far less time to compose an email than to write a memo by hand, leading to more frequent communication that is less thought out and often more intense in tone than before the rise of electronic messaging.
The second transformation is that of length. As we communicate faster, we communicate with brevity. Our written words are often devoid of detail or context, subjecting our messages to an ambiguity of meaning. The standard character limit for a text message has historically been 160 characters, just longer than a Tweet. Opinion and judgment fits within this word count, though nuance and supporting detail are often left out.
Because of this ambiguity, a third transformation has occurred. Perhaps in response to the lack of contextual clues in rapid textual communication, the written word, once textual, has become pictorial. From emojis to GIFs, the words of the digital age are often illustrated. To live in a tech-shaped culture is to communicate through a mash-up of text, image, and symbol.
One of the most popular forms of this new pictorial language is the meme. A meme is a widely known visual that is typically annotated with text. Writing for The New York Times on the history and meaning of the meme, writer Alexis Benveniste defined a meme as a “self-replicating” unit of knowledge, one that “rips through the public consciousness.”
Memes are the reason why a friend may make a controversial point with an image of a smug-looking coffee drinker inviting you to change his mind. They explain why a co-worker may have used an image of the character Boromir from “The Lord of the Rings” to tell you why your idea wouldn’t work, or why your significant other expressed skepticism about your ideas using a picture of Fry from “Futurama.”
By some indicators, the typical Millennial views 20-30 memes every day, usually through messaging channels or social media. Millions of memes are shared daily on Instagram, making them one of the leading sources of content in our social feeds. Meme-based communication is so popular that some companies, most notably Google, even have internal meme generators on employee intranets.
Alongside emojis and GIFs, memes are a daily experience within our tech-shaped culture. And this experience is undoubtedly influencing not just how we communicate - but how we learn, and how we come to believe in something
The popularity of memes, GIFs, and emojis shows that our communication is losing the capacity for abstraction. As our culture comes to expect additional visual context via a meme or emoji, we also come to expect that language will appear alongside an external reference point. Ideas that spread tend to connect to shared cultural experience. Jokes are told in relation to pop culture events. Political arguments are made relative to sports images. Business decisions are made alongside the context of sitcom characters. These visual references have become a stand-in for the crucial contextual details that accompanied the written word in a more analog age.
The emergence of a world of memes has significant implications for preachers and pastors. When we step into the pulpit, we are proclaiming the unseen, telling of a God whose action in our world can feel subtle, even invisible. This stands in contrast to a culture whose communication preferences are becoming increasingly visual.
This also challenges our ability to teach the foundational doctrines of our faith. Salvation, justification, and sanctification are abstract concepts that defy simple visualization. Indeed, we preach the good news of a triune God, whose relational nature is challenging to define through images.
I am not suggesting that preaching ought to involve more memes or emojis, or that our sermons would be more effective if accompanied by a popular animated GIF. The last thing the church needs is to subject our sermons to pop culture references, or to inundate our congregations with attempts at cultural relevance.
Instead, I think the implication is that the preacher must work to anchor the unseen promise to concrete stories and experiences. To preach effectively in a digital age is to tilt the balance in our message away from abstraction and towards the lived stories of God's work in our contexts. By doing so, we ignite the imaginations of our context so that others might visualize how God shows up in the particulars of our time and place. While our surrounding culture utilizes references to media and entertainment, we will reference the particularity of God’s work within our context.
In a meme-loving culture, congregants don’t need a snappy reference to the latest movie, sporting event, or awards show.
But they might need a sermon that helps them to visualize the specifics of how a member of the community has experienced the in-breaking of a relational God. They might benefit from a Bible study that helps them to consider the promises of God and how they have specifically supported a fellow congregant through challenging times. These references to specific people, places, and stories are the references our proclamation needs to reach a meme-based culture.
Preaching the Word to a world full of memes will require us to give new life to this ancient and sacred story. That new life emerges when we shift from the abstract to the concrete, from theoretical concept to lived experience.
Ryan Panzer
Ryan Panzer is the author of “Grace and Gigabytes: Being Church in a Tech-Shaped Culture” (Fortress Press, 2020) and "The Holy and the Hybrid: Navigating the Church's Digital Reformation" (Fortress Press, 2022). Ryan has spent his career in the worlds of church leadership and technology. He received his M.A. from Luther Seminary while simultaneously working for Google. Ryan serves as a learning and leadership development professional in the technology industry and as a speaker and writer on digital technology in the church. Ryan also serves as the Resident Theologian at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Madison, WI. For more writings and resources, visit www.ryanpanzer.com.
Church Anew is dedicated to igniting faithful imagination and sustaining inspired innovation by offering transformative learning opportunities for church leaders and faithful people.
As an ecumenical and inclusive ministry of St. Andrew Lutheran Church, the content of each Church Anew blog represents the voice of the individual writer and does not necessarily reflect the position of Church Anew or St. Andrew Lutheran Church on any specific topic.
The Case For Reducing (Temporarily) Church Technology Usage
In this trajectory, the church takes a temporary step back from its current tech usage, in order to reflect on the resources most aligned to a ministry’s purpose.
Photo by Ales Nesetril on Unsplash
The rapid development of AI will change digital ministry. It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that the digital ministry in 2026 will look nothing like the digital ministry of 2023, which looks nothing like the digital ministry of 2020. We cannot know for certain how or even if church leaders will learn to do ministry alongside AI. But we know that change is coming. If we are to give ourselves and our communities sufficient time and energy to experience and experiment with these changes, a digital decluttering may be necessary.
AI tools will certainly disrupt and in many cases displace the technologies of today. The technologies that we relied on during the pandemic will, in many cases, not be the technologies we use five years from now. By decluttering our digital toolkits, we make space for experimentation and discernment on how to thoughtfully use AI for ministry.
GIven the magnitude of the shift to AI, I would argue that the church needs to adopt a practice of experimentation, to both learn and critique these systems. We cannot learn to use AI in a way that complements our mission if we are too busy posting to last year’s trendy social media site. And if we are to experiment with what AI could look like in the church, we must change the current trajectory of digital ministry.
2020 represented an abrupt lurch forward, with most ministries adopting new digital tools. While some churches have stopped live streaming services and offering Zoom options for meetings, many continue to offer some form of hybrid ministry. Today, churches continue to add new tools to their technology stacks: better cameras, more sophisticated streaming software, new social media channels, upgraded A/V equipment, and more recently, generative AI tools. This technological addition comes at a cost. Three years of continuous technological growth has called into question the sustainability of digital ministry efforts, leading in some cases to burnout.
But just as continuous digital addition is not the ideal trajectory, complete digital disconnection is equally problematic. Visitors continue to experience churches for the first time through live streaming. Members continue to worship online when they are unable to attend in-person. Messaging and social media technologies continue to extend conversations and story-sharing beyond the walls of the building.
There is a third trajectory that represents a compromise: a trajectory of purposeful technology usage that is aligned to mission and vision, that provides sufficient space for experimenting with AI.
In this trajectory, the church takes a temporary step back from its current tech usage, in order to reflect on the resources most aligned to a ministry’s purpose. Likely, this will involve stepping back from some of the live streaming efforts we have adopted in the last three years. Churches should not continue to use every app, service, or software added during Covid. Nor should we be bound to offer a digital format for every church gathering, as some attempted towards the end of the pandemic. What we once thought of as digital ministry essentials: social media, live streaming, and digital content, ought to be revisited in this moment.
Live stream worship, arguably the standard model for digital ministry, is a resource-intensive effort requiring considerable coordination and staffing. If we are to make the space for AI experimentation we may need to reduce the level of effort currently allocated to online worship. For some ministries this might mean broadcasting one service time, rather than all. For others, this might involve streaming some weeks rather than others. Some may choose to automate the live streaming process entirely, utilizing A/V resources like a pan-tilt zoom camera or the Mevo webcam to reduce the overhead involved with worship production. This is the time to compromise on production value in order to free up energy and resources for trying new technologies!
By reducing technology usage in the short-term, we create the bandwidth to experiment with emerging tools that will help us to foster a greater sense of connection and belonging across our communities. While we don’t yet know the specifics of what this will involve, AI will give us tools that can make online worship more immersive and spiritual practice more enriching. It will give us the tools to create new types of content that deepen the bonds of Chrisitan communities, and provide us the means of articulating our faith stories.
In addition to creating the space for AI experimentation, this moment of intentional digital pruning ensures we are not using technology for the sake of using a trending tool. This leads us closer towards a more purposeful vision of technology in the church. At a time when it is so easy to subscribe to new software, upgrade to new hardware, and test new digital platforms, purposeful ministry requires us to say no. At a practical level, churches could resolve to end next year using the same number, or fewer, digital tools than they are using today.
The work of Cal Newport can be instructive to today’s church leaders, which provides a philosophical foundation that we can apply towards our experimentation with AI. Newport, a computer scientist and author, has written extensively on purposeful uses of technology that lead to greater alignment with vision and values. In his 2019 book, Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World, Newport writes:
“Digital minimalists see new technologies as tools to be used to support things they deeply value—not as sources of value themselves. They don’t accept the idea that offering some small benefit is justification for allowing an attention-gobbling service into their lives, and are instead interested in applying new technology in highly selective and intentional ways that yield big wins. Just as important: they’re comfortable missing out on everything else.”
Now is an opportune time for ministries to revisit their values, to reflect on mission and vision, and to ask if our digital tools lead us into mission or merely make us busier.
Three and a half years since the start of the pandemic, the church ought to re-evaluate our relationship with technology, ensuring these systems take us to where God is calling. AI represents an immense change. Hearing the voice of God can be challenging during periods of transition. By temporarily reducing our technology usage, we provide space to hear God’s voice as we step into the unknown.
Ryan Panzer
Ryan Panzer is the author of “Grace and Gigabytes: Being Church in a Tech-Shaped Culture” (Fortress Press, 2020) and "The Holy and the Hybrid: Navigating the Church's Digital Reformation" (Fortress Press, 2022). Ryan has spent his career in the worlds of church leadership and technology. He received his M.A. from Luther Seminary while simultaneously working for Google. Ryan serves as a learning and leadership development professional in the technology industry and as a speaker and writer on digital technology in the church. Ryan also serves as the Resident Theologian at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Madison, WI. For more writings and resources, visit www.ryanpanzer.com.
Church Anew is dedicated to igniting faithful imagination and sustaining inspired innovation by offering transformative learning opportunities for church leaders and faithful people.
As an ecumenical and inclusive ministry of St. Andrew Lutheran Church, the content of each Church Anew blog represents the voice of the individual writer and does not necessarily reflect the position of Church Anew or St. Andrew Lutheran Church on any specific topic.