









































1
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

A R T I C L E

Ecclesial Futures
 2025
DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

Making Sense about Churches’ Engagement 
with Technology: A Post-pandemic Reflection 
on Digital Ministry

Heidi A. Campbell and Meg Boone

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic marked a pivotal moment for religious congregations, compel-
ling them to navigate profound technological, theological and social disruptions. This 
article employs sensemaking theory to explore how congregational leaders inter-
preted and adapted to the challenges of digital ministry. Sensemaking theory offers 
a framework for understanding how people make sense and meaning out of complex 
situations, like to global COVID-19 pandemic. The article investigates church leaders’ 
experiences as documented by the Tech in Churches During COVID-19 project, a three-
year study of how Indiana churches utilized and integrated technology to sustain 
community and worship amidst the pandemic. Findings highlight shifts in leaders’ atti-
tudes toward technology, from seeing it as a peripheral tool pre-pandemic to an essen-
tial component of ministry afterwards. The study also reveals generational differences 
in technology adoption and decision-making, reflecting diverse approaches to main-
taining theological and communal identities in a digital context. Despite technology 
offering unique opportunities for outreach and inclusivity, concerns about the sustain-
ability, burnout and authenticity in tech ministry persist. This research calls for further 
exploration of equitable technological integration, intergenerational collaboration, 
and the relationship between faith and digital tools in post-pandemic reality.

Keywords: Congregations, Church, Covid-19, Pandemic, Sensemaking, Technology

1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic was a critical moment for religious congregations, disrupting 
established liturgical patterns and practices and forcing rapid technological adapta-
tion upon them. For many religious leaders, the pandemic presented unprecedented 
challenges, requiring many congregations to reevaluate their roles, strategies and 
methods of engaging their community. Technology became an essential tool, 



2
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

2

enabling connection online at a time of social isolation. This shift raised questions 
about the nature of worship, community, and identity in a digital age. This study 
uses sensemaking theory as a lens for understanding how and why religious leaders 
approached technology in distinct ways during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Derived from social and organizational psychology, this theory explains how individ-
uals and groups interpret information and make sense of their experiences. It helps 
explain how individuals seek to logically make sense of new and challenging situa-
tions, especially when previous experience are not adequate resources to deal with 
present circumstances. We argue that religious leaders, tasked with maintaining 
continuity, engaged in a process of sensemaking in their technology decision-making 
related to ministry practices. Applying sensemaking theory helps to highlight issues 
congregations and leaders need to consider when seeking to prepare for future 
ecclesial disruptions.

Approaching churches’ technological decision-making around the pandemic as 
a form of sensemaking highlights several issues leaders were forced to navigate. 
Pastors were thrust into a new cultural space, a technological environment where 
social and spiritual interactions became primarily mediated experiences. By engaging 
with sensemaking theory, this article explores three key research questions:
 – How did congregational leaders “make sense” of the necessity of using tech-

nology during the pandemic?
 – How do congregational leaders continue to “make sense” and justify using tech-

nology in their religious ministry/work?
 – What questions and issues does technological and ministry sensemaking raise for 

the further study and support of congregational engagement with technology?

The article answers these questions by applying sensemaking theory to identify the 
rationale and responses behind church leaders’ decisions about which tools and 
platforms to use, as well as to frame new patterns of practice. By drawing on data 
presented in Campbell, Osteen and Sparks 2023, this article uses sensemaking theory 
as a lens to help explain church leaders’ technological decision-making processes in 
Indiana and describe the rapid response required of them to new technologies.

2. Studying the COVID-19 Pandemic, Congregations 
and Technology Engagement

While there is an extensive literature on the theological and practical use of tech-
nology in church congregations and worship settings, dating back to the early 2000s 
(e.g. Hipps, 2005; Soukup, 2008; Hutchings, 2017), this article specifically focuses on 
research regarding technology use and choices made during the COVID-19 pandemic. 



3
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

3

This period significantly disrupted religious worship, prompting many scholars to 
investigate congregational adaptation to technology and the implications of their 
choices in more nuanced ways.

One scholarly concern was the implications of rapid digital adoption on religious 
communities, especially the impact on their buildings and relationships. Many 
scholars focused on the ways churches’ experiences in virtual spaces influenced 
congregational understanding of what it means to be a faith community. For instance, 
Dein and Watts (2023) explored how online services reshaped interactions between 
congregants, creating tension between those who saw digital accessibility as positive 
and those who showed concerns about the perceived lack of “authentic” fellowship 
offered. Similarly, Makhutla (2021) emphasized that while social media, particularly 
Facebook, aided in maintaining congregational connections, some of these same 
churches voiced concerns about the long-term impact of livestreaming worship on 
their community relationship.

A second research theme was concerns about the “digital divide”, illuminating 
disparities in many congregations regarding technology access and skills among 
congregants. Village and Francis (2020) explored the social fragility of rural churches, 
showing that limited resources hindered their ability to adopt digital solutions. Kühle 
and Larsen (2023) expanded on this theme, examining how inequities in internet 
access exacerbated challenges for smaller, rural congregations, forcing many to 
rely on minimal solutions such as recorded services uploaded to social media. I also 
(Campbell 2023) argued that the move to online worship revealed to many congre-
gations for the first time that they were impacted by the digital divide, due to a lack 
of resources and expertise, which complicated their digital transition. These findings 
align with broader analyses of digital inequalities (Connolly, Costa-Font & Srivastava 
2025), which explored systemic barriers to technology adoption during the pandemic 
across various sectors.

Third, scholars raised questions about the cultural and theological implications of 
digital gatherings and how they altered, or even threatened, established aspects 
of liturgical worship. While the theological challenges posed by digital worship to 
established ecclesiological models have been explored for more than a decade (e.g. 
Campbell and Garner 2016; Berger 2018; Kurlberg and Phillips 2020), scholarly atten-
tion increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Edelman et al. (2021) 
found that while digital rituals created inclusivity for individuals with disabilities or 
in remote locations, they often left participants feeling disconnected from sacred 
spaces and personal interactions integral in worship. Francis and Village (2022) 
explored how Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical clergy within the Church of England 



4
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

4

differed in their acceptance of digital tools, reflecting broader tensions between 
tradition and innovation. This suggests scholars must reflect on online worship calls 
for the rethinking of the nature of traditional missional and ecclesiological practices 
(Kurlberg and Phillips 2020).

Fourth and finally, sustainability and burnout in tech ministry emerged as a pressing 
concern. Benton and Girdley (2023) emphasized that both clergy and volunteers 
faced significant fatigue, exacerbated by the dual demands of doing digital and 
in-person ministry during the pandemic. Griffin’s research (2021) reported many 
pastors contemplated transitioning to secular careers due to the pressures of 
ministry during the pandemic, highlighting the need for clergy training in managing 
conflict during times of high stress. Researchers have also highlighted concerns 
about the sustainability of digital ministry post-pandemic, especially as pastors and 
volunteers reported burnout ( Johnston et al. 2022).

This literature underscores that the pandemic was a pivotal moment of both tech-
nology growth and stress for clergy and congregations. Collectively, these studies 
highlight the need to approach the COVID-19 pandemic as a unique period of forced 
transformation for faith communities who had to make dynamic changes to estab-
lished systems and practices, often before they could fully reflect on the implications 
of those choices. To better understand what occurred, we offer sensemaking theory 
as a framework for analyzing how church leaders navigated technological adoption 
and negotiated the impact of their choices.

3. Sensemaking Theory as a Tool for Studying 
Churches’ Response to Technology

This article argues that church leaders’ responses to technology during the pandemic 
can be better understood through the lens of “sensemaking theory.” Sensemaking 
theory originated within organizational psychology as an approach to studying how 
individuals and groups interpret and respond to ambiguous or complex situations. 
Karl Weick, a pioneer in this theory, defines sensemaking as the process of “retro-
spective interpretation” where individuals and organizations construct meaning 
from past experiences to make sense of the present and guide future actions. Central 
to this theory is the idea that individuals do not passively absorb information, but 
instead actively create narratives to explain what they encounter in their environ-
ment (Weick 1995). According to Weick, sensemaking is driven by a need to situate 
oneself in new social contexts and understand one’s place and role in the emerging 
space of change.



5
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

5

Sensemaking occurs when organizations face disruption or uncertainty – moments 
when old structures or ways of operating no longer work, which aptly describes 
the situation in which most religious leaders found themselves at the onset of the 
pandemic. People use their social interactions and existing knowledge to interpret 
the situation, derive meaning and make decisions. Weick’s framework emphasizes 
that the environment itself is “enacted”, meaning that people do not simply react to 
the environment but shape it through their actions and decisions. This notion that 
individuals and groups seek to create a sensible, understandable environment is crit-
ical in understanding how organizations adapt in times of crisis (Maitlis and Chris-
tianson 2014).

Over time, scholars have expanded the application of sensemaking theory to the 
fields of Communication, Information Science, and Human-Computer Interactions to 
study the social and interactive aspects of how individuals create shared meanings 
through communication. Instead of viewing sensemaking only as a retroactive prac-
tice, scholars have utilized it to explore dynamic meaning-making practices, exam-
ining how individuals conceptualize information seeking and use in active learning 
situations (Savolainen 1993; Ancona 2011). However, whether applied to active or 
past situations, sensemaking theory is fundamentally about studying how people 
create a plausible narrative about an event or social interaction to constrict a shared 
understanding of a situation that can be communicated to others (Sandberg and 
Tsoukas 2015).

Both Deborah Ancona from Information Science and Karl Weick from Organiza-
tional Studies have contributed to the development of sensemaking theory. While 
they highlight different characteristics of the theory, they overlap in three areas. This 
includes (1) seeing sensemaking as both an individual and communal enactment, 
(2) drawing together experience and perspective to construct a shared meaning or 
mental map, and (3) actively creating a plausible conceptual environment to contex-
tualize the current situation and aid in both instrumental functioning and compre-
hending times of change. We argue that enacting sensemaking strategies was crucial 
for many groups, including religious organizations, during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
It provides a way to understand and explain how religious communities, espe-
cially congregations, interpreted and responded to the many external disruptions 
and forced changes they faced regarding technology adoption. For instance, when 
churches were forced to close their doors during the pandemic, leaders quickly 
turned to digital platforms to maintain community and continuity in worship. This 
rapid shift can be understood as an example of sensemaking in action, as church 
leaders extracted cues from their environment, such as the need to keep worship-
pers connected and the limitations of in-person gatherings, and enacted new 



6
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

6

solutions. Many churches relied on platforms like Zoom and Facebook to continue 
worship, but this digital transition was not without its challenges. Church leaders 
had to reinterpret what it meant to gather and worship communally. By conceptu-
ally constructing new spaces for spiritual engagement leaders attempted to create 
meaning in a time of uncertainty.

Moreover, the role of identity construction in religious sensemaking cannot be over-
stated. Religious groups, deeply tied to collective identity and shared values, often 
interpret and navigate change through theological frameworks. As Sandberg and 
Tsoukas (2015) highlight, sensemaking in organizations is not just about finding plau-
sible solutions but also about maintaining consistency with existing identities. In this 
way, the transition to digital worship was not merely a technical decision, but a redef-
inition of religious practices that required building links to theological and communal 
values.

In this article, we employ sensemaking theory as a means to reflect on and explain 
how religious leaders and congregations respond to change, particularly during the 
COVID-19 crisis. The theory’s emphasis on identity, social interaction, and collabora-
tive interpretation helps to explain not only how religious leaders and congregants 
navigated ambiguity and uncertainty during the pandemic but also how religious 
congregations continue to reflect on and make technology decisions in ways that 
maintain their community and theological identities in the digital age of post-pan-
demic reality.

4. Technological Decision-Making in the Tech in 
Churches Project

This article centres around the findings of the Tech in Churches During the COVID-19 
Pandemic project (see https://www.techinchurches.org/). This three-year research 
study took place between 2020 and 2023, seeking to understand how Indiana 
churches integrated digital technology during the COVID-19 pandemic and its 
broader implications for congregational life. Funded by the Lilly Endowment and in 
partnership with the Center for Congregations’ “Connect Through Tech” (CTT) grant 
programme, this study tracked the impact the move towards online worship made 
on 2,700 religious congregations in Indiana in the USA. Each received a technology 
grant of up to $5,000 to help them purchase equipment, Wi-Fi, or platform subscrip-
tions, enabling them to transition from traditional in-person worship to online 
worship in early 2020. The project sought to investigate the practical, social and 
theological choices made by these congregations and their leadership. Central ques-
tions included how churches utilized grant funds, how technology shaped pastors’ 

https://www.techinchurches.org/


7
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

7

and congregants’ perceptions of ministry and community, and what challenges and 
opportunities arose from the adoption of digital tools.

The research was conducted in three stages to address its objectives comprehen-
sively. The first stage focused on how church leaders navigated decisions about 
technology during the pandemic’s early days. The second explored how churches 
perceived and articulated the relationship between faith and technology. The final 
stage examined the long-term impacts of these technological changes on pastors, 
congregations and church practices. Data collection methods included qualitative 
analysis of notes and transcripts from “Tech Talk Sessions” involving 478 church 
leaders, a discourse analysis of the grant application and reports submitted by grant 
recipients, and a survey of 246 leaders in congregations involved in this project. 
The transcripts of the Tech Talk sessions, grant applications, and final grant reports 
were provided to the research team by the Center for Congregations, which initially 
collected this information. These were treated as anonymized secondary texts, 
which were thematically analysed. Survey data was collected directly by the research 
team. The survey instrument, data collection and informed consent process were all 
reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Texas A&M University, 
where this research took place. The study produced three major reports and five 
“Tech Trend” papers, which collectively documented findings from 2020 to 2023.

The research revealed several key insights. In the first report, findings highlighted 
the immense pressure on pastors, who often became de facto technology coordina-
tors, taking on additional responsibilities without shedding existing ones. Churches 
aimed to recreate a digitally mediated “Sunday morning feeling” but faced challenges 
such as volunteer burnout and difficulties engaging elderly members in the online 
transition (Campbell and Osteen 2021). Despite these struggles, the shift opened 
new opportunities for outreach and engagement, allowing churches to connect with 
geographically distant individuals and previously unreached groups. The second 
report explored how pastors used CTT grant funds to rapidly build online worship 
capabilities (Campbell, Daly, Osteen and Wallace 2023). Technology was often 
described as a “needed blessing”, enabling churches to sustain their mission and 
reach new audiences. The report also noted that small and rural churches, which 
received the majority of grants, often depended on these funds to overcome signif-
icant technological barriers. By the third report, the study shifted focus to the 
post-pandemic era, examining how churches’ attitudes and practices toward tech-
nology had evolved. Many congregations reported increased acceptance of digital 
tools, though differences in adaptation emerged based on church size and the age 
of leaders (Campbell, Osteen and Sparks 2023). While technology helped churches 



8
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

8

innovate and sustain their missions during the pandemic, the shift also raised ques-
tions about the nature of authentic community in a digital space.

Overall, the project emphasized the transformative potential of technology for 
churches, as well as its capacity to foster innovation and the challenges it poses to 
traditional conceptions of worship and community. By documenting these experi-
ences, the research contributes valuable insights into how faith communities navi-
gate the interplay between digital tools and religious practice. In this article, we focus 
on the findings from the final report of this research project and what it reveals about 
how church leaders made sense of the numerous decisions, changes, and new skills 
they had to adopt during the pandemic.

5. Making Sense of Technology Engagement During 
COVID-19

Campbell, Osteen and Sparks 2023 provides insights into how Indiana church leaders 
navigated integrating technology over three years during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 
the following two sections, we highlight specific practical and conceptual shifts made 
by church leaders and congregations in their use and thinking about technology. 
All quotes and information shared in the remainder of this article were taken from 
this report and/or the research data collection related to the survey findings. In this 
section, we address the first research question of how congregational leaders made 
sense of the necessity of using technology during the pandemic.

5.1 Pandemic and Technology as Agents of Forced Change
In this study, leaders highlighted technology as a factor leading to significant changes 
in their congregation. However, it is important to note that the prime cause for tech-
nology adoption was not the technology itself, but rather the pandemic crisis that 
brought these initial disruptions. Technology, instead, was a solution adopted by 
many churches to solve the problem of the forced closure of congregations. Some 
leaders and congregations seemed to initially blame technology for challenges 
encountered during moves to digital worship. This was because for most churches, 
adoption of digital technology was not a gradual process, but a sudden necessity. 
However, this blame-shifting could be seen as a coping mechanism for the stress 
that adopting technology caused. As one pastor from Greencastle, Indiana, summed 
it up succinctly: “COVID made us start using technology. We did not have a choice.” 
Anxiety about technology could also be tied to the fact that most congregations in 
this study were not technology outsiders; pre-pandemic, only 25% of churches in the 
study reported using digital media in their services. However, by December 2021, 
71% of the studied churches had embraced live streaming and other online tools. 



9
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

9

Churches with smaller congregations, especially those in rural areas, often faced 
more struggles with technology, as they reported they often lacked even basic tech-
nology resources (lack of computer or Wi-Fi in the church) and so experienced a 
steeper learning curve. This highlights that technology was often, at least initially, 
viewed in a critical light by some as a way to draw attention away from the continued 
instability and uncertainty caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

5.2 Technology Applauded as Ministry Game-Changer
Despite the concerns and stress that technology caused for congregational leaders, 
many reported that it also presented unprecedented opportunities for expanding 
their community and ministry into new local and global contexts. Many congrega-
tions leveraged Facebook, with usage skyrocketing from “a little” (30%) pre-pan-
demic to “a lot” (63%) post-pandemic. One church shared that uploading recorded 
services to Facebook became a critical method of communication.

Livestreaming services became a game-changer for many churches, opening their 
service to a broader online audience and ways to connect with previous members. 
This enables them to see online church services as a form of outreach, rather than a 
member-focused gathering. Many pastors reported that technology enhanced acces-
sibility for members in ways they had not previously considered. Online services 
now offer people access to live transcription and the ability to control the volume 
of music and preaching. This contributed to some leaders shifting their view about 
online services from being a temporary stop-gap solution to a potential for expanded 
ministry. A church in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with a congregation of 75, shared that 
“Live Streaming is allowing us to reach those we otherwise would not be able to.” 
These shifts were not merely about maintaining connections during the pandemic; 
they also enabled churches to expand their ministries in ways previously unimag-
inable, reaching shut-ins, elderly members and geographically distant individuals. 
What technology disrupted was established systems, practices and expectations of 
what a church gathering is. What technology offered was an innovative glimpse into 
what the church could look like.

5.3 Congregations Stretched As Technology Decision-Making By-
Passes Established Processes

The technological decision-making processes religious leaders had to undergo 
during the pandemic challenged previous church systems and protocols. Leaders 
commented that pre-pandemic, congregational decision-making processes were 
often structured, lengthy affairs. It often involved multiple stages of information 
gathering, introduction of change to a select group, discussion and debate, proposal 
evaluation, and members’ feedback. It could also raise issues of practicality and 



10
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

10

resources alongside considerations about church tradition (such as liturgy, theolog-
ical praxis). One pastor reported having to make immediate decisions about tech-
nology within the first few weeks of the pandemic, which disrupted this normal 
process and increased anxiety for leaders and members. In order to ease these 
tensions, pastors often presented technology as a temporary or practical measure to 
members or church leadership, a pragmatic solution to an immediate problem. This 
helped alleviate or subvert some congregational concerns, as long-term use was not 
part of the decision-making conversation. Another pastor is focused on the instru-
mental nature of what technology allows them to do, to mitigate debates about the 
potential impact of technology choices. Others, however, found themselves having 
to follow pre-established decision-making protocols, which often slowed down the 
implementation of tech solutions and seemed to increase rather than lessen anxiety 
about technology. Technology implementation also created anxiety because few 
churches in this study used technology in their services, and only 3% of churches 
pre-pandemic considered it an integral part of their ministry. However, based on the 
2023 survey during the post-pandemic period, this number had increased to 17%, 
reflecting a profound shift in attitudes.

Church leaders, however, learned that framing technology as a pragmatic decision 
made under pressure often impacted their congregations and budgets, leading to 
the purchase of tools based on immediacy and necessity. Some leaders expressed 
regret for buying more than they needed, in terms of numbers or device capacity, 
or purchasing platform subscriptions they did not need, or acquiring second-hand 
items that were not system-compatible. They reported that these purchases might 
have been avoided if they had even briefly considered a long-term technology 
strategy or undertaken a more thorough review process.

5.4 Technology Choices Influenced By Generational Associations
By far, the most common technology adopted by churches in this study to stream 
services was Facebook. Its usage skyrocketed amongst congregations from being 
used “a little” (30%) pre-pandemic, to “a lot” (63%) post-pandemic. Many churches 
reported that uploading recorded services to Facebook and creating a congrega-
tional Facebook page became a critical method of communication between leaders 
and members during the pandemic. This study showed that a preference for using 
Facebook is not surprising, as leadership dynamics and generational affiliation 
seemed to correlate with technology decisions directly. The age of church leaders 
directly shaped technology platforms chosen by congregations, as the primary age 
range for pastors in the study was 50-70. The study found younger leaders favoured 
platforms like Instagram and Twitter for church communication and livestreaming, 
while older leaders heavily relied on Facebook. For example, 83% of leaders aged 



11
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

11

60–70 used Facebook extensively compared to 58% of those aged 20–30. Notably, 
this generational difference in social media platform preference – adults over 50 
primarily use Facebook while youth under 30 use Instagram most – mirrors research 
findings in other studies correlating digital media preference to specific age groups 
(Pew Research Center 2024). Leaders reported that when considering what tech-
nology their church should adopt during the pandemic, they often went with what 
was familiar or most comfortable to them and other church leaders. Selecting a 
digital platform that was familiar or already used by the church seemed to alleviate 
some stress around technology choices for both members and leaders. It also high-
lights the importance of paying attention to generational differences in technology 
use and familiarity when making technology decisions that serve the whole congre-
gation. Such consideration may also help mitigate congregations’ stress related to 
change and technology.

6. Making Sense of Continued Technology Engagement 
in Post-Pandemic Churches

This study also highlights that conversations about technology decision-making 
are not yet done for churches, even though the COVID-19 crisis is over. This section 
addresses the second research question of how church leaders continue to make 
sense of their use of technology post-pandemic. Specifically, this study found that 
leaders still require negotiation and justification of technology adoption and use 
with their congregations in two areas.

6.1 The Digital Divide is Still Present, Impacting Many 
Congregations

Despite churches adding new digital resources to their ministry toolboxes, many 
leaders realized they are still behind the digital curve. Leaders reported making 
progress in learning about and using digital media. However, the “digital divide” 
remains a significant concern, particularly for smaller and rural congregations. The 
study found larger churches had a tech advantage, in terms of resources and pre-ex-
isting infrastructure, with 59% of those with over 500 attendees already utilizing tech-
nology before the pandemic. In contrast, only 22% of smaller churches with under 
100 members had done so. This disparity meant that smaller congregations had to 
make more drastic adjustments during the initial stages of the pandemic, with 63% 
implementing technology for the first time. Many relied on basic tools like recording 
and uploading videos, as shared by a church in West Lafayette, Indiana, which used 
Facebook for weekly sermon discussions. These smaller churches often struggled 
with funding and expertise, and the CTT grants played a crucial role in bridging this 
gap. However, challenges persist, as many congregations still lack the resources 



12
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

12

to integrate digital tools into their ministries fully. The resistance and technolog-
ical hesitancy exposed underlying theological concerns related to digital justice, as 
limited access impacted congregations’ ability to connect. The study suggests that 
embracing digital tools could foster inclusivity and bridge generational divides in reli-
gious communities, reinforcing the need to shift how churches perceive and inte-
grate digital media into worship.

6.2 Long-term Congregational Technology Integration Requires 
Continued Evaluation and Learning

As many churches continue to incorporate facets of technology into their worship, 
pastors face ongoing concerns about balancing technology use with traditional 
forms of ministry. Burnout among leaders is a recurring theme, as the demands of 
managing both in-person and digital platforms take a toll on them. A Kokomo church 
noted the importance of congregational support during their pastoral transition and 
the pandemic, which helped them navigate these challenges. For many, livestreaming 
remains central, not only for worship but also for expanding discipleship initia-
tives. A church in Marion, Indiana, shared that they used grant-funded equipment 
to create a curriculum for their discipleship pathway, illustrating how technology 
can be leveraged for long-term ministry goals. However, leaders continue to wrestle 
with questions about fostering authentic community in a hybrid model. While many 
respondents expressed optimism about technology’s role, they acknowledged that 
it cannot fully replace the interpersonal connections that define congregational life.

7. Technological and Cultural Sensemaking in Post-
Pandemic Churches

This section examines how sensemaking influences church leaders’ decisions 
regarding technology for their congregations in 2023 and beyond. Specifically, we 
highlight two ways in which the construction of specific narratives, emerging from 
leaders and congregational use of technology, framed post-pandemic views of digital 
media in ministry and worship.

7.1 Congregational Shifts in Views of Technology
A key category in the study is the shift in attitudes towards technology before 
and after the pandemic. Pre-pandemic, many church leaders viewed technology 
as a peripheral tool rather than an essential part of their ministry. However, the 
pandemic forced many churches to adapt to online worship formats, and post-pan-
demic church leaders rapidly showed a much more positive or neutral attitude 
towards technology. This shift could be analysed using the concept of “enacted envi-
ronments” from sensemaking theory. Sensemaking theory posits that organizations 



13
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

13

enact their environments, meaning that the actions taken by church leaders, such 
as implementing live streaming and social media outreach, were not just responses 
to the pandemic but also a way of constructing new digital environments for their 
ministries. For instance, the transition from negative to neutral or positive attitudes 
towards technology, especially the increased use of platforms like Facebook, can 
be analyzed as a process of identity construction and sensemaking where church 
leaders sought to adapt their theological and community identities to a new digital 
context. By applying sensemaking theory as an interpretive lens, researchers can 
explore how church leaders, facing forced changes, constructed new narratives 
around digital technology, ultimately shaping the direction of technological use in 
the post-pandemic period.

7.2 Generational Differences in Technological Decision-Making
A second way the use of sensemaking impacted congregations’ views of technology 
was seen in notable generational differences in response to technology within 
churches. According to the study, younger leaders (under 40 years old) tended to 
embrace social media platforms like Instagram and Twitter. In comparison, older 
leaders (in their 60s and 70s) leaned more towards using Facebook for communica-
tion and outreach. This provides a rich context for applying sensemaking theory’s 
focus on the social aspects of decision-making, where generational identity plays a 
crucial role in interpreting and responding to the crisis.

These generational differences were not simply about technological competence, 
but also about how different age groups constructed their identity about technology. 
For example, older leaders who may have initially resisted adopting digital tools 
could have gradually come to see technology as a necessary part of maintaining 
their religious mission. This change can be understood as a process of sensemaking 
in which these leaders redefined their role within their congregations and adapted 
their practices to ensure continuity of worship and community. The study finds that 
church leaders aged 60+ were more likely to use Facebook as their primary platform, 
supporting this interpretation, as it reflects the leaders’ process of incorporating 
technology in ways that aligned with their personal and communal identities. Sense-
making theory helps to explain the generational identity differences that influenced 
not just technology adoption but also how leaders made sense of their evolving role 
within the church community and how these decisions impacted the congregation’s 
engagement with digital platforms. This strategy highlights the dynamic, ongoing 
nature of sensemaking, where each generational group actively negotiates their 
responses to the pandemic’s disruptions.



14
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

14

8. Lessons Learned by Leaders on Navigating Times of 
Change

By returning to the three areas highlighted in the literature review on key traits of 
sensemaking – individual and communal enactment, construction of an experience 
of shared meaning making, and situating the event in a new environment where 
functional and conceptual resources exist – we can see how church leaders enacted 
the process of sensemaking. We also suggest it points to a process leaders can enact 
to prepare for future times of unexpected change.

When churches were faced with the sudden disruption of in-person services, this 
required both leaders and their congregations to engage in personal and corporate 
sensemaking. This required leaders to recognize the urgency of responding to the 
situation thrust upon them, and realize a technology-driven ministry was their best, 
and often only, solution. A pastor from Greencastle, Indiana, stated, “When COVID 
made us [start using technology],” highlighting the reactive nature of this decision 
(Campbell et al., 2023). Church leaders had to adapt quickly, often learning on the 
fly, with pastors shouldering the burden of setting up and operating new systems, 
which added a new layer of responsibility to their roles. However, this was more 
than a pragmatic decision, and leaders had to recognize that technology adoption 
and adaptation brought with it liturgical, ecclesiological and theological challenges. 
This meant leaders had to present and “sell” the idea of digital worship to congre-
gations, who had mixed pragmatic and theological concerns. Evidence from this 
study suggests that pastors who engage leadership teams and/or congregational 
members in discussion and buy-in about technology adoption before it is imple-
mented find greater long-term acceptance of digital ministry. Also, for those in tech-
nologically hesitant or resistant congregations, framing the technology transition 
not as a choice, but as a necessity, or the only solution to social-distancing restric-
tions, seemed to help leaders and members accept a move to online worship. This 
shows the importance of corporate sensemaking in the initial adoption of a digital 
ministry solution and the need for communal engagement in naming and imple-
menting change solutions.

The next trait of sensemaking highlighted is creating a space and attaching meaning 
to the new experience in ways that connect with the already established identity 
of the group. This demonstrates how leaders have transitioned in their views and 
framing of digital media over time. In this study, we observed congregational leaders 
shifting, often subtly, from a pragmatic framing of technology to a more missional 
focus. While many leaders presented technology as the only viable option to continue 
services at the onset of the pandemic, by late 2020 to early 2021, many leaders in this 
study began to stress the realized opportunities online worship offered.



15
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

15

Leaders justified the continued use of technology by emphasizing how it offered 
expanded reach to new audiences and even new opportunities for established 
church members with different limitations. One leader from Richmond, Indiana, 
proudly shared, “People appreciated the livestreams”, especially those who had to 
continue social distancing due to health issues (Campbell et al., 2023). Leaders notice-
ably adapted their narratives to highlight the positive aspects of online worship, like 
allowing former or long-distance members to reconnect with the church or offering 
an accessibility alternative for older members who had challenges accessing areas 
of the physical church building. By highlighting how technology served to enhance 
the church community and ministry, it presented digital tools as strategic assets for 
their old members and new online visitors. Many pastors describe online worship as 
allowing them to reflect on their faith community and how it could function. Seeing 
and describing the church “enhanced” or “reimagined” by technology presents 
an image of Church 2.0 or a Digital Church that could offer new forms of church 
outreach, better maintain social connections, and engage with a broader, more 
diverse audience.

Finally, by presenting digital worship as a new experience, but one that extended 
their established goals and mission, played an important role in congregational 
buy-in to technology. Leaders noted that once members were able to get over their 
initial fears about technology and adjust to the technological learning curve, seeing 
digital worship as extending what they had already been doing helped the congre-
gations become more comfortable with this new way of doing church. This also 
proved important as leaders began to justify continued technology use post-pan-
demic, emphasizing its ability to reach broader audiences and support new forms of 
community engagement. Sensemaking helped congregations reframe new practices 
as part of their evolving identity in response to external change. While the context 
in which the worship service was new, leaders sought to conceptually stress the 
ways the services had often not been changed. Instead, they remained connected 
to their historical and liturgical tradition. Highlighting the area in which congre-
gational worship remained constant was an important part of the leaders’ sense-
making process. Leaders also encourage congregations to see technology as a tool 
to empower them to adapt practices for a specific moment and challenge, rather 
than as a replacement. This helped congregations not only accept the digital tools 
but also begin to see them as a new but potentially integral part of church ministry 
in the twenty-first century.

Sensemaking happened as leaders saw technology adoption as a communal negotia-
tion, creating a new experience of church for people, as technology required a shift in 
worship practices. However, the also enable them to maintain their connections and 



16
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

16

mission during this uncertain time not just to try and understand this new world, but 
as a way to process their mistakes and victories into teachable moments, enabling 
them to keep moving forward with the constant ebbs and flows of change brought 
on by the pandemic. Overall, these three aspects of sensemaking played a crucial 
role in helping leaders adapt to the technological and social changes brought on by 
the pandemic and responses to change. Churches, like other organizations, had to 
adopt new patterns of communication and collaboration to make this transition and 
establish new practices. As outlined by Maitlis and Christianson (2014), sensemaking 
is social, with decisions often being made collectively in response to external pres-
sures. This is particularly important in religious organizations, where decision-making 
involves negotiation among clergy, leadership teams, and congregants. The collabo-
rative nature of this process can be seen in how congregational leaders in the Tech in 
Churches project reported seeking input from their communities regarding if, when, 
and how to implement digital worship. Spadaro (2014), suggests the digital revo-
lution requires church members and leaders to critically reflect on how they think 
about and practice Christianity, and may be an uncomfortable process for some. 
This points to a need for ongoing dialogue about how congregations can maintain 
the authenticity and integrity of religious practice in the face of forced technological 
adaptation and change.

9. The Future Study of Congregational Technological 
Sensemaking around Digital Ministry

The findings from this research point to several areas that require further study 
regarding the ongoing and evolving relationship between churches and technology. 
This section addresses the study’s third research question, about what issues the 
technological and ministry sensemaking process highlights for further study and 
support of congregational engagement with technology.

One issue for exploration is how churches can balance integrating digital tools with 
maintaining the communal and spiritual experiences central to congregational 
life. Many leaders noted a shift in their views of technology, from a peripheral tool 
pre-pandemic to an integral resource post-pandemic. Future research could explore 
the long-term theological and social implications of this change. Another impor-
tant question concerns the sustainability of technological innovations. With many 
churches reporting burnout among staff and volunteers, how can congregations 
develop models for digital ministry that are both effective and sustainable? Further-
more, the findings highlight disparities in technological adoption across church sizes 
and demographics, suggesting more attention is needed to consider how smaller 
and rural congregations can overcome resource limitations and bridge the digital 



17
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

17

divide. Finally, the generational differences in technology use among leaders suggest 
that investigating how intergenerational collaboration can shape future technology 
decisions in congregations is warranted.

Building on these questions, researchers and religious leaders concerned about the 
future of religious congregations’ engagement with technology should delve deeper 
into the sociological and theological implications of technology use in churches. 
Themes such as how digital platforms redefine congregational understanding of 
what it means to be a faith community and how liturgical worship should (or should 
not) be modified to accommodate technological affordances warrant further study. 
This is particularly true as hybrid and online worship formats are becoming normal-
ized in churches.

We also suggest researchers should further investigate how digital tools influence 
perceptions of religious authority and leadership, especially as congregants increas-
ingly consume sermons and other content remotely. The role of social media in 
shaping congregational identity and outreach presents another avenue for explo-
ration, particularly given its increased use during the pandemic. Moreover, future 
studies should examine the impact of digital technology on inclusivity within congre-
gations, such as its role in engaging marginalized or elderly members. In addition 
many churches grappling with resource disparities, researchers should prioritize 
studies that explore strategies for equitable access to technology and training. This 
would ensure that congregations of all sizes can effectively integrate digital tools into 
their ministry. These investigations could provide vital insights for faith communi-
ties navigating the intersection of tradition and innovation in an increasingly digital 
world.

Finally, this research suggests that sensemaking theory offers scholars and theolo-
gians a valuable framework for understanding how church leaders navigate techno-
logical disruptions and frame their decision-making. It draws attention to narratives 
leaders may create to justify technology innovation, while stressing this engage-
ment does not threaten their communal or theological identity. It also demon-
strates that key characteristics of sensemaking offer religious leaders a template for 
preparing new processes of communal reflection and adaptation during moments 
of unplanned change.



18
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

18

About the Authors
Heidi A. Campbell is Professor of Communication, affiliate faculty in Religious Studies, 
and a Presidential Impact Fellow at Texas A&M University. She is also director of the 
Network for New Media, Religion and Digital Culture Studies, and has authored over 
100 articles and books on themes related to digital religion, including Digital Creatives 
and the Rethinking Religious Authority (2020), Digital Religion: Understanding Religious 
Practice in Digital Media (2021), and Digital Religion: The Basics (2023). Contact: heidic@
tamu.edu

Meg Boone received her Bachelor’s in Journalism and Master’s in Communications 
from Texas A&M University. She is currently pursuing a career in Public Relations 
in Dallas, Texas. She served as a research assistant on the Tech in Churches project 
between 2024 and 2025.

References
Ancona, D. 2011. “Sensemaking: Framing and Acting in the Unknown”, in The Handbook for 

Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being ed. S. Snook, N. Nohria and R. Khurana, 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 4–19.

Benton, A. L., and A. P. Girdley. 2023. “Clergy and Compassionate Leadership: A Tightrope of 
Fatigue and Satisfaction During COVID-19”, Journal of Psychology and Theology 51 (4), doi: 
10.1177/00916471231182735.

Berger, T. 2018. @ Worship: Liturgical practices in digital worlds. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, H. A. 2023. “When Churches Discovered the Digital Divide: Overcoming Technolog-

ical Inaccessibility, Hesitancy & Digital Reluctance During the COVID-19 Pandemic”, Ecclesial 
practices 10 (1): 36–61. doi:10.1163/22144417-bja10046

———, S. Osteen and G. Sparks. 2023. We’re Still Here: Reflections of the Post-Pandemic Digital 
Church. Network for New Media, Religion, & Digital Culture Studies. Available from https://
oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/200172

———, et al. 2023. “Mission to Serve Tech: Churches ‘Lock Down’ Technology During The Global 
Pandemic”, available from http://128.194.18.20/handle/1969.1/197075

———, and S. Garner. 2016. Networked theology (engaging culture): Negotiating faith in digital 
culture. Baker Academic.

———, Jennifer Daly, Sophia A. Osteen and Andrea Wallace. 2023. “Mission to Serve Tech: 
Churches ‘Lock Down’ Technology During the Global Pandemic”, available electronically 
from https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/197075

Campbell, Heidi A., and Sophia Osteen. 2021. “When Pastors put on the ‘Tech Hat’: How 
Churches Digitized during Covid-19”, available from https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/
handle/1969.1/194959

Connolly, G., G. Costa-Font and D. Srivastava. 2025. “Did COVID-19 reduce the digital divide? 
A systematic review”, Health Policy and Technology 14 (2), Article 100979, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2025.100979.

Dein, S., and F. Watts. 2023. “Religious worship online: A qualitative study of two Sunday 
virtual services”, Archive for the Psychology of Religion 45 (2): 191–209. Doi: https://doi.
org/10.1177/008467242211453

mailto:heidic@tamu.edu
mailto:heidic@tamu.edu
https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/200172
https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/200172
\\nas-1\projects\Radboud University Press\Ecclesial Futures\2025\Campbell and Boone\1 Originelen\1 Input\Manuscripts\ 
http://128.194.18.20/handle/1969.1/197075
https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/197075
https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/194959
https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/194959
https://doi.org/10.1177/00846724221145348
https://doi.org/10.1177/00846724221145348


19
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef21714

19

Edelman, J., A. Vincent, E. O’Keeffe, P. Kolata, M. A. Minott, K. Steurzenhofecker, J. Bailey, C. 
Roding Pemberton and D. Lowe. 2021. British Ritual Innovation under COVID-19. Project 
Report. Manchester Metropolitan University. URL: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/630667

Francis, L. J., and A. Village. 2022. “Reading the Church of England’s Response to the Covid-19 
Crisis: The Diverging Views of Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical Clergy”, Journal of Anglican 
Studies 20(2): 185–97. doi:10.1017/S1740355321000267.

Griffin, B. A. 2021. “Challenges of pastoral leaders: Maintaining resilience while contemplating 
transitioning out of ministry”, https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/etd/379/

Hipps, S. 2005. The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How media shapes faith, the gospel, and 
church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hutchings, T. 2017. Creating Church Online: Ritual, community and new media. London: Rout-
ledge.

Johnston, E. F., D. E. Eagle, J. Headley and A. Holleman. 2022. “Pastoral ministry in unsettled 
times: A qualitative study of the experiences of clergy during the COVID-19 pandemic”, 
Review of Religious Research 64 (2): 375–97.

Kühle, L., and T. Larsen. 2021. “‘Forced’ Online Religion: Religious Minority and Majority 
Communities’ Media Usage during the COVID-19 Lockdown”, Religions 12: 496. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rel12070496

Kurlberg, J., and P. M. Phillips (eds). 2020. Missio dei in a digital age. London: SCM Press.
Maitlis, S., and M. Christianson. 2014. “Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving 

forward”, Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 57–125, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/194165
20.2014.873177

Makhutla, N. E. 2021. “Effectiveness of Using Social Media for Preaching During Covid-19 Lock-
down”, Pharos Journal of Theology 102 (2). doi: https://doi.org/10.46222/pharosjot.102.22

Pew Research Center. 2024. Social media fact sheet (13 November). https://www.pewresearch.
org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

Sandberg, J., and H. Tsoukas. 2015. “Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constit-
uents, limitations, and opportunities for further development”, Journal of Organizational 
Behavior 36 (S1), S6–S32, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1937

Savolainen, R. 1993. “The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered 
approach to information seeking and use”, Information Processing & Management 29 (1): 
13–28.

Soukup, Paul A. 2008. “Technology, Theology, Thinking, and the Church”, Grace & Truth (A journal 
of Catholic reflection for Southern Africa) 25 (3), 4–17.

Spadaro, A. 2014. Cybertheology: Thinking Christianity in the Era of the Internet. New York City: 
Fordham University Press.

Village, A., and L. J. Francis. 2020. “Faith in lockdown: Experiences of rural Church of England 
clergy and laity during the Covid-19 pandemic”, Rural theology 18 (2): 79–86.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070496
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12070496
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1937

	_Hlk196385349
	_heading=h.1fob9te
	_heading=h.30j0zll
	_heading=h.nnmsehcn559g

