This morning's edition of The Alban Weekly, the Alban Institute's electronic newsletter, had a wonderful article dispelling some myths that congregations buy into to believe their communication is going smoothly when, in fact, they may need to be addressing some issues.

Below are the myths and the "short version" of Alban's explanation, but I really encourage you to read the whole piece.

Myth 1: We’ve got a mission statement, so we’ve figured out who we are.
A mission statement is simply one small way among many that a congregation can communicate its heart and soul. In fact, everything about a congregation communicates.

Myth 2: Our identity is rooted in our faith.
In the same way that individuals within any faith tradition bring specific gifts in service, so faith communities have particular values and emphases.

Myth 3: If we focus too much on figuring out our own identity, we may become self-absorbed.
While focusing on congregational identity all the time would definitely cause an imbalance, many congregations are already out of balance in that they focus too little on the way their actions, publications, and use of symbols communicate their priorities and the distinctiveness of who they are.

Myth 4: We don’t need to think any further about the implications of new communication technology because we already use it well.
[Using new technologies] doesn’t mean [a congregation is] communicating wisely. Congregational leaders need to consider how everything the congregation does—communication technologies as well as things like programming and the use of physical space in the building—speaks about the congregation’s priorities.

Myth 5: We’re a traditional congregation, and we have chosen not to use most of the new communication technologies. We’ve figured out our identity; it’s the same as it’s always been, so why complicate things?
All congregations need to periodically rethink and explore who they are and what they value. While I do think new communication technologies offer some wonderful opportunities for congregations, I would never suggest that congregations need to use all of them. I do argue, however, that everything congregations say and do contributes to their identity. Therefore paying some attention to the issue is wise, no matter what forms of communication are used.

Myth 6: We avoid the new technologies because we’re leery of the consumer culture, and we don’t want our congregation and even our faith to turn into yet one more consumer item.
Everything we say and do communicates what we consider to be important, and what congregations communicate about faith values shapes how members act on their faith. Therefore, from time to time, congregations need to stop and evaluate what they are communicating.

Myth 7: Our congregational values are being communicated effectively through words. Our pastor and leaders preach the sermons and put a lot of thought into the words used in our newsletter and on our website.
People are increasingly influenced by images as well as by words. With the move away from a word-based to an image-based culture, leaders of congregations need to do some careful thinking about the role of visual communication in our time.

Myth 8: We’ve got a great Web designer and newsletter editor, and our newsletter and website are terrific.
In this increasingly visual culture, forms of visual communication such as layout, photos, and graphics need to be evaluated to see if they communicate the desired message, particularly if one person is choosing most of them. I believe that all the new communication technologies have created the necessity for “critical friends,” people who understand the importance of the new forms of communication for congregations and, at the same time, are willing to look at those forms with a critical eye.

Myth 9: If your heart is in the right place, communication takes care of itself.
Just as individuals with good intentions can benefit from learning listening skills for their personal relationships and speaking skills for their oral communication, so congregations can benefit from considering the implications of the ways they communicate and what they are communicating. In this age of rapidly proliferating communication technologies, this task of evaluation is even more urgent.