The Electoral College, SEC Football, NFL QBs, & Church Demographics

Back during the election, Sports Illustrated had a fascinating article about the change in electoral college votes since 1950 because of population shifts.  What was revealed in those changes was that many of the states in the sunbelt had seen huge population shifts, such as Georgia, Florida, Texas and California.  States such as Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa saw pretty dramatic drop offs.  By region, it almost perfectly mirrored the shift in power we've seen the last 60 years in college football.  In 1942, UGA's Frank Sinkwich was the first player from a Southern school to win the Heisman Trophy, and he came to Athens by way Pennsylvania.  Now, you can rattle off Southern Heisman winners like clockwork from the last five years, and they were raised in the sunbelt.  What does that tell us?  The SEC might not keep winning the national championship every year, but the talent isn't going anywhere.  Southern teams have more talented kids to choose from simply because people keep moving to warm weather climates.  There's no fighting it.  It's simple demographics.

So what do you do with demographics?  You adjust.  The NFL adjusted.  In the last 10-15 years, more high schools are running spread-type offenses, which has led to a shortage in pro-style quarterbacks available to colleges.  Colleges have also implemented changes in offenses, being more innovative to use players' natural talents instead of forcing QBs who are not pure pocket passers into pro-style systems.  There was a time when I was growing up that that San Francisco 49ers actually had Joe Montana and Steve Young on the same team.  Now, not even all 32 teams have decent QBs, and are even having success with much less traditional-style QBs.  The Redskins made the playoffs and have a bright future with Robert Griffin III, but they chose to change their scheme by drafting for talent rather than push a scheme without the talent.

What does that have to do with church?  Last Sunday, I went to two different churches in Washington, DC -- one a traditional church with traditional music, one in a renovated historic building with a modern band and music.  Now, you need to know that the traditional church has been around for a long time, and has a huge facility.  The music there was terrible.  Not the style, the talent and execution.  It was just bad.  I can appreciate God-gifted classical musicians.  This was not good music.  It was sub-par.  The modern church was barely over a year old and had a band that couldn't have had a member over 25 years old...and they were awesome.  They sounded like a CD turned up.  This scene is going to play out over and over because of demographics.  Will the church adjust?

I pastor a modern, rock-n-roll church, but I grew up sing hymns every Sunday in a traditional church with an excellent music ministry.  I appreciate excellence in music to honor God.  It's simply going to be harder and harder for the Church to find excellence in classical music because of demographics.  How many 15-25 year-olds do you know that are called to music ministry are trained and talented in classical music?  How many do you know that are serving in music ministry that play guitar or drums and are feeling called to serve the church?  It's not even close.  The largest and fastest growing churches in America (and the ones pumping out people called to ministry) are modern, contemporary churches.  In 25 years, it's going to get harder and harder to find talented people called to ministry in classical music.  The big churches will be able to find them because they have the most influence and will pay the most money.  Power colleges in talent-rich states like Alabama, Southern Cal, and Georgia still run pro-style offenses because they can get those quarterbacks, but many colleges have adapted and run offenses that match the talent.  So, the question will start becoming for each congregation:  Are we a power church that can get the talented and called musicians? 

My fear is that one of two things will happen.

1. Churches will stick with a form, a system, and style despite the lack of talented and called people to fill those positions.  So, they will end up with called people who love the style, love God, and love the Church but are not talented.  The ministry will suffer and new people, particular unchurched people, we'll be turned off because most of society appreciates excellence.  This is like the football team that continues to run a pro-style offense with a sub-par QB when there are 3-4 kids on the team that could excel running the spread.
2. Churches will stick with a form, a system, and style despite the lack of talented and called people to fill those positions.  So, they will get someone talented (because there will always be people talented in classical music) but who is not called, maybe someone who is not even a believer.  This will hurt the Church, and God will not bless it.  People will wonder what happened, but they won't be able to see the compromise the crippled the ministry, all because of a style.  The scary part is there will probably be a talented and called kid sitting in the pews every week, but he plays the guitar.

Understand that this is not a condemnation of the Church.  I love the Church.  I want what's best for her.  I don't expect this to change tomorrow, but we've got to think about the future.  The demographics are simply changing, which means our expectations and practices have to change if we're going to reach the next generation for Jesus.