The Strong Challenge – Changes and Choices.

During my final Strong Challenge church visits, I ventured out to compare two very different approaches to offering this package of messages. I kept my variables somewhat consistent by visiting two mainline churches. The Strong Challenge designers, Crossroads, come from the non-denominational branch and have taken some heat for being too secular in their approach to “church.” So I mixed in two churches from traditional branches of Christianity (United Methodist and Presbyterian) to see how they utilize an “outside” spiritual training program. 

Turns out, the two main results I observed last week held true for this week:

1.       The same equipment doesn’t produce the same training. The two mainline participants used only half the equipment provided. Neither church showed the mini-documentary of a “champion’s” personal use of the spiritual-discipline-of-the-week. Also, neither church strongly emphasized the critical role of small group participation. One didn’t even offer new people the opportunity to sign up for a group. I admit a little disappointment. I knew the program’s details and didn’t feel as though I was offered the whole program.  

2.       The personal trainer’s (pastor’s) approach determines the training’s direction. This week’s experiment showed denominational doctrine was a key element in the trainer’s approach and the program’s direction.

The week’s spiritual discipline, Study, hit one church’s sweet spot. In this experiment, I felt as though the pastor took the program’s main concept and altered it to mesh with his denominational beliefs and training. Like taking a cardio workout and altering it to look and feel like a Pilates program.

The other church was less overt in its modifications, perhaps for two reasons: 1 – Their denominational doctrine aligns more naturally with the original program’s direction; 2 – The congregation’s mission and culture synchs better with Crossroad’s approach to spiritual training.

Observations from this week led to another result:

3.       The local church culture (congregational values, customs, perspectives, mission, and purpose) influences the program’s implementation. My mainline church visits provided the opportunity to experience significantly different cultural settings for The Strong Challenge. Beyond denominational approaches, the two churches live and work in different community types. One church was planted in rapidly growing suburbia almost two decades ago. The other has thrived in a changing community for almost 160 years. As with last week’s churches, it became apparent the sway local culture holds over program implementation. From worship customs to scripture perspectives to small group values and purpose to community relations, The Strong Challenge was modified to support each church’s unique culture and mission. 

Did changing The Strong Challenge’s program elements diminish its potential impact?

 

It depends upon who’s evaluating the results. Any program has to be comfortable enough for participants to buy into it, but also challenging enough to yield a desired change. My hunch is that each of these mainline churches altered its approach to fit within their congregation’s comfort zones, while targeting some common challenge areas. Whether or not those changes will ever bear fruit probably won’t be determined for some time to come.

Overall, my observations have proved to me that there are many good choices available, even though each church may change some program elements and offer different variations of the same training concept. 

If it seems overwhelming to sort through these differences, take comfort in knowing that we have many good choices for our spiritual training. With a little bit of advance research, we can select the program we want based on the program’s equipment, direction, the trainer’s approach, and the culture of the place we choose to train.