Religious Leadership and Digital Innovation: An Explorative Interview Study with Church Actors in the Swiss Context

Abstract

This study explores the impact of digital innovation on religious leadership in the Swiss context, based on qualitative interviews with church leaders and personnel. The findings reveal diverse attitudes towards digital media use, shaped by personal, theological, and contextual factors. The study identifies key motivators for embracing digital innovations, including theological imperatives to contextualize the gospel, the need to meet people where they are in digital and analog spaces, and ethical responsibilities to engage in the digital sphere. Interviews highlight a range of digital competencies and show that successful digital transformation depends on collaborative team dynamics and resource availability. Although digital practices are viewed as supplements rather than replacements for analog church life, they are seen as crucial for engaging modern society. The study concludes that digital innovation offers opportunities for multi-professional collaboration, strategic resource allocation and the development of empowering educational formats, ultimately aiming to foster a balanced, reciprocal relationship between digital and analog church practices and personal encounters, both within the individual local congregation and far beyond.

1. Introduction

The technological advances of digital communication media and, more recently, so-called generative AI, are bringing about significant changes for the pastoral ministry as well as the related understanding of presence, leadership, participation, and (multi-)professionalism. At the same time, these digital dynamics also influence assessments and concrete considerations regarding church innovation, which is currently a key topic in church strategy development in German-speaking countries, not least due to a sharp decline in membership numbers (EKD and KAMP 2024).

As the so-called CONTOC studies from 2020 (Schlag et al. 2023b) and 2022 (Schlag et al. 2023a, 2025) have shown, the dynamics of digital change provide church authorities with both considerable opportunities and challenges in their communicative practice, which affects areas such as worship, pastoral care, education, and community development. The CONTOC (Churches Online in Times of Corona) studies are international, ecumenical research projects examining the digital presence and practices of churches during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the second CONTOC study, conducted in 2022, looked at the consequences of the emergency measures taken by churches during this crisis. This second survey was primarily quantitatively oriented but also included some written response options. It explored how Protestant churches in Germany and Switzerland embraced the challenges of digital transformation, which digital formats—developed during or before the COVID-19 pandemic—will be continued, how employees in the church context perceive the potential of digital media, and what their needs are in terms of digital communication. It is noteworthy that many pastors and other church employees have returned to predominantly analog forms of presence after the COVID-19 pandemic, or regard analog forms to be the “essence” of pastoral and congregational encounter culture. Analyses of the qualitative material from the CONTOC studies show different assessments among pastoral staff and other church leaders regarding the opportunities and risks of digital media in church communication contexts. This indicates different degrees of digital affinity and different types of media use (Yadav 2025).

The empirical findings and typological classifications we made in these studies suggest that numerous different reasons and factors are responsible for each respective type of church digital communication, as well as for the concept of pastoral presence and congregational culture of encounter. These reasons can be personally, theologically or ethically motivated and are related to a specific, individual understanding of ministry and church. However, they can also be significantly influenced by certain assessments and experiences in relation to digital technologies and media. The CONTOC results thus far have underscored the need for in-depth research into the variety of reasons and factors for individual and institutional pastoral communication logic. Moreover, recent developments in the field of AI—particularly ChatGPT1 and other generative tools, which were not yet the focus of our attention in our CONTOC studies—are likely to constitute another important factor influencing digital innovation in a church situated within the “culture of digitality” (Stalder 2016).

In this article, we present initial findings from our explorative interview study contextualized within current research on profession, authority, representation, and agency, understood as meaningful social action, which in times of digitalization is shaped by the perception, selection, and interpretation of media content in one’s own life (Eichner 2017; Radde-Antweiler and Nord 2026) in the field of digital religious practice (Percy et al. 2019; Cheong 2021; Campbell 2021). With a focus on employees from the Reformed Church in Switzerland, this article, on the one hand, aims to explore how technologies shape religious and social dynamics, while seeking to examine, on the other hand, how religious actors perceive, support, and evaluate the use of technologies within their own religious institutions (concerning the topic of the “religious-social shaping approach to technology” cf., amongst others, Campbell 2010, 2012). Accordingly, in his above cited work “Culture of Digitality”, Felix Stalder not only examines the role of digital technologies within the ongoing digitalization of society but also explores how technological developments trigger sociocultural shifts that involve the negotiation of fundamental values. Therefore, our study aims to trace such negotiation processes among religious authorities within church institutions, specifically investigating how these dynamics and processes manifest through and within the use of digital media. In the case of church practices, aspects of history and tradition, as well as core patterns and values, are the orientating basis of these mediatization dynamics (Hoover 2009; Merle and Nord 2022) and negotiation processes (cf. Campbell 2012, p. 85). But in the case of our study, we aim to look more closely at how individual negotiation processes develop and align with these orientating foundations. The focus here is therefore neither on the institution itself nor on the believers, but rather on “religious authorities” understood in the sense of “digital creatives”, that is, an “emerging class of actors within religious and digital culture, performing unique media work that is motivated by a personal religious passion and agenda” (Campbell 2020, p. 193). In our research, however, we explicitly focus on individuals who are employed by the church or church institutions, in some cases, specifically focusing on these individuals because of their digital engagement. As a result, we consider questions of individual motivations and aims, as well as equipment and resources, especially in the context of an officially assigned ministry or other responsible role in the church context. Within this very specific framework, yet with a broad understanding of ministry in the digital age (Bourgeois 2013), our goal is to create a more comprehensive picture regarding the “constraints and contradictions that arise among a variety of opposing forces when people and technologies relate in highly connected and mediated contexts” (Cheong 2023, p. 334). Accordingly, we encouraged our respondents to help bridge this research gap by providing insights that enable us “to consider more deeply how communication is constituted with everyday, in-person, and mediated modes, with varying effects” (Cheong 2023, p. 338) from their individual perspectives. The findings may reveal where and how current negotiations are taking place, how authority is constituted in terms of responsibilities and decision-making, possibly also by reflecting specific orienting biblical, theological, or ethical foundations (Campbell and Garner 2016), and what key factors contribute to successful digital communication within church institutions. Additionally, they offer insights into how the actors themselves perceive these dynamics, how responsibilities are assigned and distributed, and what aspects will be crucial to consider in the future. The study also highlights individual accounts while emphasizing that, for the respondents, in-person encounters often play an equally important—if not sometimes an even more significant—role alongside digital communication in their professional field. The findings of our study can—in an even broader perspective—also help to explore in more detail the extent to which digital transformation is changing the structures of actor networks in ecclesiastical and theological practice, possibly even leading to changed control logics and thus ultimately to new forms of (interpretative) power in theology and the church (van Oorschot 2023, pp. 84, 90).

Thus, the overall aim of this article is to explore, in greater depth for the Swiss context, the thematic focus of this journal, “Mediated Communication and Ministry”.

It can be assumed that the respective criteria for digital innovation comprise a whole bundle of reasons and factors that are reflected on and “negotiated” within the local context of each ministerial activity, though often not explicitly communicated. We investigated this assumption as part of our study, which will be explained in more detail below.

2. Central Research Question, Structure, and Further Objectives of This Article

Our central research question is as follows: What reasons and/or theological motives influence church leaders to implement digital innovations in the church context, and how do digital media, especially AI, affect their role, work, and church practice?

In this article we will first provide insights into the results of the study by presenting the results of eight exploratory interviews conducted with church leaders and others holding positions of responsibility in the church in the Swiss context. These interviews focused on their assessment of digital change processes, their media usage, and the underlying (personal, theological, organizational, and technological) criteria. The analysis and interpretation of these interviews—in the sense of an operationalization of the aforementioned research question—is based on a hypothesis formation. This, in turn, is based on previous observations made in the CONTOC studies, from an exploration of the current research landscape and the analyses conducted in parallel by P.H. Cheong and L. Liu (Cheong and Liu 2025) and by I. Nord and L. Schleier (Nord and Schleier 2025) (see these articles in this Special Issue). Starting with the presentation of our hypotheses (Chapter 3), we will provide information on the chosen design and method of the study (Chapter 4), present the specific sampling (Chapter 5), and from there, proceed to conduct the analysis based on six hypotheses (Chapter 6). The article concludes with a summary and outlook (Chapter 7).

This article lays the foundation for expanding the number of interviews with church leaders in the Swiss context. The next step will involve comparing our findings with the results of the aforementioned “AI and Religious Leadership” project, linking them to current theoretical debates on agency and authority in the digital age. Additionally, we aim to provide concrete recommendations for digital innovation in both church and university settings.

This article also intends to provide an impetus for potential innovative church development under digital conditions in the sense of a reciprocal-theory–practice-theory process (“reciprocal learning”) by the following steps:

Providing insight into the conditions for successful digital transformation;

Encouraging reflection on possible theological reasons for the innovative and, at the same time, critical use of digital possibilities;

Raising awareness and motivating congregations and stakeholders by providing concrete examples of engagement;

Encouraging reflection on empowerment strategies for both digitally inclined and not-yet-digitally inclined people;

Exploring opportunities for multi- and interprofessional collaboration in the church context;

Sparking discussion on the use of resources and prioritization;

Encouraging universities as well as church training and further education to possibly expand their existing curricula.

3. Hypotheses

The hypotheses we developed in the initial phase of our study are as follows:

H1. 

Theological Reasons: Those in positions of responsibility and leadership who implement digital innovations in the church have theological reasons for their actions.

H2. 

Personnel Aspects: Those in positions of responsibility and leaders who venture to innovate in their congregations possess a higher level of digital competence. The majority of them have had positive experiences with digital possibilities.

H3. 

Understanding of Ministry: The implementation of digital innovations in a church context changes how church leaders and those with responsibility view their roles in two ways: on the one hand, internally, since digital affinity is required and responsibility is shared within the church with digitally competent congregation members, and, on the other hand, externally, due to competition with digital offerings and digitally accessible religious authorities.

H4. 

Local Aspects and Resources: The successful implementation of digital innovations in a church context depends either on the availability of financial, time, and personnel resources or on meeting a local need. Without such a targeted focus, difficulties are encountered when implementing digital innovations.

H5. 

Theological Understanding of the Church and Community: Church leaders who venture to innovate digitally do so in addition to the analog church. They want to meet people where they are, i.e., also in the digital space, but do not strive for a purely digital communion.

H6. 

Objectives and Visions for the Future: Those who implement digital innovations also have a vision for the future of the church, whereby digital innovation is seen as more of a supplement to the analog church rather than a replacement for it.

4. Design and Method

The starting point for this study was, on the one hand, the interest resulting from the mainly quantitative CONTOC studies to also examine the background of digital media use from a qualitative perspective. On the other hand, the research projects conducted by Cheong and Nord on the topic of “Religious Leadership and AI” have provided significant inspiration (see the other articles in this Special Issue). There was a constructive exchange with the researchers throughout the development of our study that led us to initially consider integrating some of their interview questions into our own study to ensure comparability of certain results. However, for the data analysis, we decided to pursue a slightly different methodological approach due to our differing thematic focus. This is explained in more detail later in this article.

This study focuses on Switzerland to ensure that cultural differences do not confound the analysis, as accounting for variability across multiple countries would require significantly more data. Given the available resources, this geographic scope provides a meaningful and feasible boundary for a robust investigation.

In 2023, Switzerland had a population of 8.96 million (Bundesamt für Statistik 2024). At the time, among residents of Switzerland aged 15 and over, demographics data showed that 56% identified as Christian, with 30.7% being Roman Catholic, 19.5% Reformed Protestant, and 5.8% belonging to other Christian denominations. Meanwhile, 35.6% of the population reported having no religious affiliation, a figure that has grown significantly in recent decades. The Muslim community accounted for 6% of the population, while Judaism made up 0.2%, and other religions represented 1.3%. Over time, there has been a clear decline in the number of adherents to major Christian denominations, particularly to the Reformed Protestant Church, while the share of non-religious individuals has steadily increased (Bundesamt für Statistik 2023). The issue of digital innovation is particularly important in the context of membership decreases. Firstly, it raises the question of how much contemporary religious practice will change in a digital culture and how far it will continue to develop outside of traditional institutional offerings in the future. Secondly, it raises the question of the extent to which church innovation strategies should consciously develop digital formats and expand their communication formats to increase their reach, maybe even inspiring a redesign of existing classical church offerings.

At the beginning of this research project in September 2024, online research was conducted to find out which digitally innovative efforts and initiatives exist in the church context in Switzerland. This revealed a broad spectrum of practitioners who are digitally innovative in a wide variety of ways. Three preliminary discussions were also held with leading actors from the church in order to obtain a general overview of the situation. These discussions were extremely stimulating and showed that certain church leaders are leading the way with great commitment and creative approaches. At the same time, however, it also became clear that digital change is progressing rather slowly in most congregations.

After this initial screening of potential interview partners, we initially selected eight people from different church contexts whom we had identified as interesting people with responsibility in the church context (mainly Reformed, but also Methodist and Catholic) due to their commitment, digital affinity, professional role, or social media presence. Attention was also paid to gender and age diversity, although there was a ratio of six male to two female interviewees. To counteract this gender gap in the planned continuation of the study, efforts will be made to find additional female interviewees accordingly. With this, the fact shall also be reflected that in the Reformed Church of Switzerland, the number of female ministers and leaders has been growing continuously over the last decades. The current report is an interim summary of the ongoing study and is therefore subject to the proviso that further findings may alter the data.

It turned out that the guided interview method is particularly suitable for addressing the central research question mentioned above. This method leads to targeted, guided verbal reflection by practitioners on their digitally innovative actions. Compared to other methods, the guided interview provides more opportunity for in-depth analysis and new insights. A focus group interview, on the other hand, was considered less suitable, as the speaking time of individual participants can vary greatly, leading to an unbalanced discussion. In addition, the average speaking time of participants in focus groups is often shorter and the risk of moderator bias is difficult to avoid completely. For these reasons, the guided interview was chosen as the most suitable method to ensure an in-depth and structured discussion of the topic. The interview guide was developed based on Nord and Cheong to ensure comparability, and additionally in accordance with the SPSS principle for creating interview guidelines (Helfferich 2011).

The eight interviews, plus an additional pilot interview, were conducted between the beginning of October and the end of November 2024. The interviews, each lasting around 50–70 min, were conducted digitally via Zoom (P1, P4, P8) and in analog form at the interviewee’s place of work (P2, P3, P5, P6, P7). The digital interviews were recorded using video, while the analog interviews were recorded exclusively via audio. These were transcribed using sonix.ai software, then checked and finally coded in a multi-stage computer-assisted analysis process using MAXQDA24 Analytics Pro (24.8.0) analysis software.

The content-structuring qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was used for the evaluation (Kuckartz and Rädiker 2022, pp. 129–56). This method is based on the fact that a category system is defined in advance—drawn from the interview guide and the hypotheses—which serves as the basis for reviewing the interviews. Such deductive categories function as keywords and are marked at the appropriate points in the interview transcripts. Over the course of the analysis, not only did specific subcategories and differentiations of the already defined topics emerge from the material, but also new, previously unconsidered aspects, which were then inductively added to the category system. The evaluation and categorization began at the end of November, lasted until mid-December 2024, and took place in several cycles. Three research assistants coded and repeatedly compared their codes. The final category system then forms the basis for the thematic structuring of the further analysis (Kuckartz and Rädiker 2022, pp. 71–103).

The following seven main categories were identified2:

• How do the respondents and their institution/church/community deal with digital technology? This concerns both basic use and personal experience, guidelines and values in dealing with it, as well as self-assessment of existing skills.
• Reasons for digital innovation: What are the reasons for venturing into digital innovation? All reasons and arguments given for the implementation of digital innovation are recorded.
• Change in theological understanding: To what extent is church practice being changed by digital innovation? Changes in the theological understanding of roles, church, and congregation, sacraments are covered, as well as the question of responsibility.
• Relationship between the digital and analog: What can be said about the relationship between digital and analog? Evaluations, strengths, and weaknesses in both respects are recorded.
• AI: Includes all statements on AI, both the actual and the potential use of AI in the church, as well as perceptions, definitions, and ethical considerations.
• Resources: What role do resources play with respect to digital innovation in the church context? This refers to financial, time, and personnel resources. All statements that provide information about existing or missing resources, or resource requirements, are recorded.
• Goals, plans, and future visions: Possible concrete goals and future visions or plans are mentioned related to digital innovation, including AI.

The strength of this method is that the individual categories and subcategories can be used to quickly access text passages on specific topics, allowing them to be examined in a comparable manner.

In order to preserve the anonymity of the interviewees, the statements were pseudonymized at a high level of abstraction. To ensure a certain degree of congruence, we will speak of person 1 to person 8 (P1–P8), reflecting the order in which the interviews were conducted (Mozygemba and Hollstein 2023, p. 24).3

5. Sampling

The sampling of the study is presented below in

Table 1. Overview of the Interviewees. Caption: P = Interviewed Person; M = male; F = female; Ref. = Swiss Protestant Reformed Church.

P	Age	Job Title	Gender	Setting	Denomination	Understanding of Digitality
P1	47	Theological employee (not in a leading position)	M	Urban	Roman Catholic.	Sees digitality as an unavoidable and helpful tool, even if it is mostly superficial and fast-moving compared to the analog world.
P2	48	Theological employee (in a leading position)	M	Urban	Ref.4	Enthusiastic about digitality, describes himself as a “digital immigrant”, sometimes finds the multitude of channels overwhelming.
P3	29	Churchwarden, (management consultant)	M	Urban	Ref.	Considers digitalization necessary without automatically viewing it as innovative, sees it rather as “state of the art” while acknowledging that it affects everyone.
P4	39	Minister	F	Rural	Ref.	Considers digitality a natural part of their everyday life.
P5	65	Head of department in a church organization/office	F	Urban	Ref.	Emphasizes the usefulness of digital tools for collaboration, sees them as part of social reality without the ability to replace human encounters.
P6	36	Minister	M	Urban	Ref.	Feels pressured by digitality, emphasizes the importance of analog, real-life encounters, especially in church contexts.
P7	31	Theological employee	M	Urban/Rural/Suburban	Ref., Lutheran, Orthodox	Understands the digital space as an integral part of creation and divine reality, and therefore believes in the need to be present there.
P8	37	Leader of a digital, monastic community	M	Suburban	Ref.	Prioritizes content and its practice over digital forms, but remains open to using digitality as a matter of course, provided it serves spirituality.

in order to provide an overview of the interviewees. Although not all the interviewees hold official “leadership” positions within the church or its institutions, we consider them digital leaders of the church in the sense that their work currently makes a strong contribution to the digitalization of church communication practices. Therefore, we refer to them as “leaders” in our text as well, applying this term to the whole group of experts that were interviewed.

6. Analysis

6.1. Hypothesis 1: Theological Reasons

Those in positions of responsibility and leadership who implement digital innovations in the church have theological reasons for their actions.

The central finding of the first CONTOC study was that COVID-19 had accelerated digitization in the church (Schlag et al. 2023b, p. 523). CONTOC² went on to show that, as soon as analog forms were made possible, the majority were reinstated. Only around 13% of respondents regularly offered digital church services in summer 2022, and most only used digital formats sporadically. A fundamental shift towards a digital culture in various areas of worship, pastoral care and education did not appear to be in sight (Schlag et al. 2025). Based on these findings, the question arose as to why those who continue to implement digital innovations in their church or organization even after COVID-19 chose to do so. This led to this first hypothesis, which deals precisely with these reasons. This was anchored in the questionnaire in question A5: “Are there faith-related or theological reasons that motivate you to use technology?”

It should be noted that there were different responses to the question about theological reasons. Some emphasized that there were no explicit theological reasons, others were unsure whether their reasons were theological, and others answered this question directly. It is interesting to note that, regardless of the classification of the answers into theological or non-theological, similar themes emerged in many responses. One exception was P5, who completely denied a theological justification for digital innovation.

The most common reason given for the implementation of digital innovation is the contextualization of the gospel in the contemporary world. This means that the church has a responsibility to constantly rediscover what its message means and how it can communicate it. It suggests “the incarnation of the biblical message or the gospel must also become flesh in the digital world” (P2, 30). Digital media are seen as an essential tool for fulfilling the church’s mission in today’s world (P1, P8). Various comparisons from the history of church are used for this, above all the letterpress during the Reformation. This shows that technological innovations have always been used to communicate the Christian message (P1, P8). However, references are also made to Charles Wesley from the Methodist tradition of the 18th century, who rewrote the “dive bar hits” of the time in order to reach the working classes (P6, 30). References are also made to the New Testament: “So Paul was able to travel because he benefited from the Roman roads and Roman connection networks […], he used the technology of his time, so to speak, for his evangelistic mission. And today we can therefore also use our, our technological opportunities” (P3, 27).

A second reason was also identified, which is recorded here as people-oriented. Seven of the eight interviewees shared the opinion that the church must be where the people are, and nowadays that means in digital spaces (P1–P8), that “…digital technology, including social media and similar, enables us to reach people where they are and at the level they are” (P7, 26). People listen to podcasts, read blogs, and are on social media, and the church needs to respond to this. There was a broad consensus that the church must be people-oriented and therefore also digitally active. However, there were several different interpretations and reasons for wanting to be where people are. On the one hand, it is about the fact that many people today spend a lot of time there, and on the other hand, it is about reaching people there who have been systematically excluded by the church’s analog offer so far and who need to be addressed (P1–P3).

The third reason also pertains to why the church must be where the people are, with a missionary perspective articulated in a reflective manner. We say “reflective” because at no point was it a matter of casually imposing one’s own convictions. Rather, these reflections focus more on the potential of being able to offer one’s own religious tradition in the digital space (P3, P4, P6, P8). Digital media create new opportunities for relational interactions and living Christianity together. This is very important, emphasized P7, citing the biblical passage Matthew 28:18–20, that you go to the people and interact with them rather than simply “shout at them from the church towers” (P7, 69). Similarly, P4 said that the digital space makes it possible “…to share God’s love in the digital space as well” (P4, 102).

The fourth reason given was that the church has a theological responsibility in the digital space. It is the church’s duty not to abandon the digital space to destructive or problematic actors (e.g., “Schwurbler”5 or fundamentalists), but to remain present with Christian values such as mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness (P1, P2, P4, P6, P7). This was also seen as an ethical responsibility of the church. “And clearly not to simply leave the authority to interpret biblical and theological topics completely up to others. Because there are really very, very difficult contributions that are uploaded in the theological area that should not go unchallenged” (P4, 102).

The fifth set of reasons are both theological and pragmatic. Four out of eight respondents had a somewhat purpose-oriented view of digital innovation, using digital tools only insofar as they serve the “mission of the church”, in other words, digitality not for its own sake but as a means to an end, whereby the end was defined differently: namely, as “encounters with people, accompaniment, perception of people and the shared questioning and reflection on each person’s different way of life” (P6), “relationful” being (P7), or “connectedness through silence” (P8). The following quote succinctly sums up these attitudes: “The danger with digitalization is often that you simply digitalize for the sake of digitalization. Or because it’s cool and […] it’s important for me to keep reminding myself that I’m not doing this […] because I think digital is cooler or something, but because I believe that we have a mission as a church community. I somewhat simplify it as service to God and service to people” (P3, 27).

The argument of increased efficiency also falls into this category. The strategic use of digital technology boosts efficiency, leaving more time for the church’s core mission (P3, P7). Ultimately, this is once again about the goal of the church.

Lastly, there were a few more theological reasons that were only mentioned by individual people. This included the theological conviction that God also works in the digital world, based on a holistic understanding of creation that encompasses all areas of life (P7). There was also the issue of delivering pastoral care and what that responsibility looks like in digital spaces, where there is an opportunity to be present and respond to people’s needs and fears (P4, P7). Another ecclesiological argument is that church development always needs new impetus and that it is essential to find new ways and means to continue developing and building the church with younger people, whose everyday life is often inextricable from the digital (P8).

For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that many church practitioners make theological considerations and also theologically justify their digitally innovative actions, though not exclusively, but also through other means. This reveals an understanding of theology that encompasses a diverse range of aspects and opens up a broad horizon. It seems to be characterized by a perspective on theology that is shaped by experience and everyday life, far removed from a fixation on dogmatic truths. Additionally, it is evident that the church itself is not strictly predefined in ecclesiological terms, but is instead understood in terms of its significance for accompanying people’s lives.

6.2. Hypothesis 2: Personal Aspects

Those in positions of responsibility and leadership who venture to innovate in their congregations possess a higher level of digital competence. The majority of them have had positive experiences with digital possibilities.

The general finding that media literacy is becoming increasingly important in today’s constantly digitizing world was also confirmed in the first CONTOC study in the church context. The question then arises as to what extent experience with digital opportunities and digital competence are related to the implementation of digital innovation. For this reason, the guideline interview asked questions about use and experience with digital tools, as well as competence and affinity. Specifically, questions A2 “How often and how do you use digital technologies such as apps, chatbots, social media or AI-enabled software and devices for your work?”, B1b “Do you enjoy using digital technology?”, and B1c “Have you had fundamentally positive, negative or neutral experiences with digital possibilities and tools?” refer to the former consideration. Questions A2b “What skills do you have in using digital technologies?” and B1a “Would you describe yourself as digitally savvy?” refer to the latter.

An attempt was made on two levels, to create a self-assessed competence profile on the one hand and an externally assessed usage and indirect competence profile based on the uses and experiences described on the other. An attempt was then made to establish relationships within the group of eight interviewees based on these two competence profiles, i.e., who in the group has a greater or lesser number of competences. These differences were illustrated, for example, by the fact that P7 talked about his programming skills, while P6 stated that he uses WhatsApp to communicate.

6.2.1. Affinity and Competence

There were three different self-assessments among the eight respondents, with five people rating their digital affinity as strong (P2, P3, P4, P7, P8): “Yes, by now I would say I’m not a digital native in the strictest sense with my age group. I spent my entire youth without a cell phone, but I am, I would say, a moderately experienced digital immigrant” (P2, 32). One person said that he has some technical skills, but is still learning at the same time, which is described here as having a “moderate affinity” (P1). Finally, two people described themselves as having “no affinity” (P5, P6): “No, no, really. I would describe myself as feeling compelled to engage digitally” (P6, 32).

These self-assessments are almost identical to the ranking of the competence profiles of the external assessment based on the aforementioned use and skills. P7 was classified as having a particularly strong digital affinity, as he was the only one with programming skills. P1, P2, P4 and P8 were also described as having a strong digital affinity, as they had similar skills in dealing with social media, Zoom, ChatGPT, etc. It must be said that P2 was more realistic about the possibilities of AI, as the others only used the free versions of ChatGPT and therefore also perceived it as very limited. “If I let the AI write a sermon, it would definitely be ChatGPT in the open, i.e., accessible, free version. Then very, very little comes back. So theologically it’s very thin”. (P4, 13). P3 was also considered to have a strong affinity; even if he did not use social media, he still had administrative rights via digital channels in the organization and had a great understanding of the logic of the digital world. For P5 and P6, the self-assessment was confirmed by their limited media use. P6 mainly used WhatsApp for communication, and P5 stated that she communicates via Teams and email.

However, what is fundamentally evident in all of them is that they have a basic understanding of the inherent logic of digitality (P1, 49; P2, 22; P3, 37; P4, 77; P5, 91; P6, 14; P7, 40; P8, 103). This is exemplified by “…the awareness that technology is always used as technology, always has its own logic and conveys its own message. […] So this [Mc]Luhan dictum the medium is the message. It makes a difference whether you listen to something via podcast or in a personal conversation” (P2, 22–23).

However, it turned out that even those who described themselves as lacking any digital affinity were partly involved in the implementation of digital innovation. This was primarily a criterion for the selection of interviewees, namely that they were involved in digital innovation in some way as leaders or people with responsibility in church organizations. So the question arose: Which other factors are important? And do these skills really not exist, or do they simply show up in a different area?

The following three factors proved to be particularly important: Competence, concern and teamwork. It was shown that the collective competence of the team is more important than how competent each practitioner is alone. This was illustrated by P6, who described himself as lacking technical skills, and yet his face can be found professionally in an online format. This is possible because they had the skills in the team or brought them into the team (P6, 20.24). It also shows that when the team share a conviction to influence the digital landscape, skills are mobilized and used to this end without the need for everyone to master them individually (P6, 26.30). Teamwork can act as a catalyst if the purpose is widely supported, or as a hindrance when it is not. The following

Table 2. Overview Affinity and Competence Caption.

Affinity P	Competence P/Team	Concerns Team	Implementation	Cases
Strong affinity	with P	in the team	P implements	P2, P7, P8
Strong affinity	with P	not in the team	P fights for implementation	P4, (P3)
Medium affinity	in the team	in the team	Team implements	P1
No affinity	in the team	in the team	Team implements	P5, P6

provides an overview of how these factors can interact. Teamwork is not listed explicitly, but it can be inferred from the entire row, so to speak. This should not be understood as a typology, which only makes limited sense with eight people, but rather as an overview of how factors such as the digital affinity of an individual P, the competence of a P or the team, and the concerns in the team lead to implementation.

6.2.2. Experience

The question now arises as to the evaluation of experiences with digital media. For P5 and P6, enthusiasm for its use remains limited, which is also in line with the findings regarding competence (P6, 34). “Well, there are things that I prefer to do instead and I don’t enjoy it much, so we have, I have colleagues in management who are, who are enthusiastic about it. I have reserved my enthusiasm for other areas. But it’s part of it and it’s taking up more and more space” (P5, 37).

For the others, a fundamental trend can be identified, namely that both positive and negative experiences with digital media are present. All reported both. P1 describes the experiences as “basically positive” (P1, 61). P2 emphasizes the “many opportunities and advantages”, in particular how “geographical boundaries are blurred and target group-specific options are made possible” (P2, 36). P3 also perceives digital opportunities as “predominantly positive” (P3, 33). P4 emphasizes that technical possibilities “make a lot of things easier” (P4, 56). P7 emphasizes how people “can make friends” in digital spaces and that he appreciates the “great open-source community” (P7, 38). P8 describes the experience as “predominantly positive”, saying that a “digital balance has been found” (P8, 69.71).

Despite the positive aspects, the following challenges are mentioned: P1 criticizes “technical disruptions” (P1, 63) and finds the “abundance of channels” to be “overwhelming” (P1, 34). P4 sees the constant availability as “challenging” (P4, 56) and criticizes “harassing comments on social media” as “annoying” (P4, 58). P7 points out the “hate on the internet” (P7, 38). P8 finds it “challenging but important” to distance oneself from it (P8, 71).

However, there is a unanimous consensus that the positive experiences outweigh the negative ones. The following statement sums it up particularly succinctly: “I also have moments of frustration, but it’s mostly positive, because then I imagine or I also have areas, especially in my work in the church, where it’s not digital and I find that much more frustrating than when it’s digital and something doesn’t work” (P3, 33).

The hypothesis that responsible individuals with higher digital skills and positive experiences are more likely to implement digital innovations is partially confirmed by the results. On the one hand, there are clear correlations between digital competence and positive experiences, which act as motivating factors for innovation implementation. People with an affinity for the digital world and a comprehensive skill profile, such as P7 or P2, actively and purposefully shape innovations. On the other hand, it is clear that digital skills and affinity alone are not decisive. Rather, it is the combination of individual commitment, a common concern within the team, and existing team competence that is essential. As P6 shows, even a person with a low affinity can be involved in the successful implementation of digital innovation through a competent team and collective conviction. In summary, positive experiences with digital possibilities, such as flexibility, addressing target groups, and technical facilitation, are predominant. Challenges such as technical disruptions, being overwhelmed by digital offerings, or negative interactions on the internet are present but are less decisive overall. The key lies in team-oriented cooperation, which can compensate for a lack of technical skill or motivation deficits among individual team members.

6.3. Hypothesis 3: Understanding of Ministry

The implementation of digital innovations in a church context changes how church leaders and those with responsibility view their roles in two ways: on the one hand, internally, since digital affinity is required and responsibility is shared within the church with digitally competent congregation members, and, on the other hand, externally, due to competition with digital offerings and digitally accessible religious authorities.

In order to record the influence of digitality on the understanding of the ministry and role of pastors and other church leaders, the following items were included in the interview guide: Question B2a “Whose responsibility is it in the church/your context to undertake digital innovations? If shared: How does the cooperation work?” and question B2b “How does this digital dimension change the understanding of your/the ministry/role in the church?”.

6.3.1. Responsibility

The two perspectives of the inside and outside cannot be strictly separated, but they nevertheless provide a valid structure. With regard to the internal perspective, it is noted that the question of digital affinity has already been discussed in Hypothesis 2. For this reason, it is only touched upon here in passing and is addressed in particular relation to the question of how responsibility within the church changes as a result of digital innovation. Different groups are mentioned with regard to responsibility, specifically cantonal churches (e.g., P3, 39; P4, 66; P7, 40; P8, 73), congregations (e.g., P3, 40; P4, 66; P8, 73), and church leaders (e.g., P2, 39; P6, 36; P8, 73). In general, the strong emphasis that everyone must be on board is striking: “I would say it’s actually everyone’s responsibility”. (P1, 38). The discussion of joint and shared responsibility is found among all interviewees (P1, 71; P2, 39; P3, 23; P4, 66; P5, 43; P6, 36; P7, 40; P8, 73). As already shown in Hypothesis 2, both team structures and competent employees are seen as relevant. Interestingly, three people also mentioned young people as a particularly digitally inclined group, in terms of responsibility: “So I think one aspect that is often overlooked in traditional churches is that the most experienced and natural users of digital innovations are, of course, young people”. (P2, 91; also P6, 36; P8, 73).

One person also expressed the idea that concrete activities in the digital area could “possibly” make the team more equal: “Digitalization has a tendency to make the different roles in a church community more equal” (P3, 42). However, it is also clear that we are only at the beginning of a journey here: “So you don’t do it overnight, but I think it’s a medium to long-term process that we have to go through together as churchwardens, pastors and employees and somehow find ourselves there” (P3, 23). Interestingly, this emphasis on moving forward together, working together, and establishing bottom-up structures, is found in P3, who works as a churchwarden and in management consulting (P3, 40).

Beyond individual specific groups, three people consider it important for digital innovation that there are people who are well versed and want to try out new things (P2, 39). It takes initiative and interest (P2, 38), “a desire for further training” (P2, 39), simply “desire” (P4, 66), and more courage (P7, 56).

Fundamentally, what is needed—and this is also where digital church offerings that were declared as embarrassing during the COVID-19 period come into play (P2, 38)—are people who are at home in both worlds, as well as specialists (P1, 194) or “knowledgeable, interested stakeholders” (P2, 39).

However, if value is placed on the congregations’ own initiative, this implies that the regional church level and the church management level should also take responsibility, especially in terms of finances and enabling tasks (P3, 39; P4, 66; P7, 40; P8, 73). This is because it is particularly problematic for pastors when digital engagement is an undisclosed part of their own working time (P4, 7).

6.3.2. Understanding of Office and Role

When it comes to the question of possible changes in role and office, the interviewees agree that changes are indeed already taking place or will take place in the future: “I would say that things are changing because we are becoming more digital. You come across very differently”. (P1, 77).

Each individual specific description is based on the respective professional background, but the basic tendency is the same; the conditions for the church and thus also the understanding of roles and ministry are changing: “Digitality is transforming the self-image” (P2, 41). However, P5 emphasizes that this may not apply to all pastors to the same extent: “But I think there are certainly also pastors where nothing changes as a result of digitalization because they try to avoid it as much as possible” (P5, 51). As already indicated above, this reticence is also noted more strongly among older pastors who, in the opinion of the interviewees, were less willing than younger people to embrace newer digital opportunities. However, it must be emphasized that those of the interviewees who belong to the “older generation” may not have been particularly inclined or eager to try things out, but they did support digital innovation in the respective organizations to the best of their ability.

P1, P2, P3, and P4 see a major change and therefore also an influence on the previous exercise of office and role in the fact that the digital possibilities result in a greater reach and expansion of the previous parochial boundaries in general. In this context, it is assumed that there could also be changes in external perception, both towards members and non-members (P3, 44).

Four pastors interviewed spoke particularly impressively about these changes. First of all, P4 noted the professional consequences of presenting her face in a different and more far-reaching manner than before: “And it’s all about people, faces and stories, especially on Instagram. Which is why it’s important to me that I don’t just post pretty photos, but also show my face. Which of course also makes me vulnerable, but also tangible” (P4, 38). In this respect, digitalization obviously also brings with it an increased form of public recognition (P6, 13). P8 put this succinctly: “People used to say that the office carries the person. Today, I would say the other way around, the person carries the office to a certain extent”. (P8, 75).

This presence can certainly lead to problematic exposure. At the same time, it opens up opportunities, such as being able to counter criticism of the church digitally. According to one interviewee, a “deeply responsible pastoral self-image” (P2, 42) remains possible. However, it is necessary to take time for reflection and to be aware of the inherent logic of the medium: “It simply needs people who are well versed and who also know the inherent logic of the media” (P2, 38).

There are also consistently balanced assessments of the relationship between analog and digital presence, and the relevance of both is emphasized. P6 says that for “me as a pastor of a real congregation […] it remains crucial that I remain available in analog form, remain approachable, even in the knowledge that people are immersed in a digital world” (P6, 45) or, as P7 succinctly puts it: “Hey, my pastoral ministry doesn’t end at the computer”. (P7, 50). Three of the interviewees also emphasized that people who use their digital services nevertheless also seek analog encounters with each pastor, for example, by requesting to have a coffee together due to geographical proximity (P2, 36), when requesting to have their child baptized (P4, 56), or in pastoral care encounters (P6, 74).

In summary, with regard to the hypotheses at the center of this study, it can be seen that the implementation of digital innovations in a church context has an impact on the understanding of the ministry and on the role of church leaders and people with responsibility, without providing a uniform direction. At the same time, the effect is closely linked to the church’s own self-image and understanding of digital opportunities in general. The responsibility for digital innovation is located in the joint activities of competent individuals at the church community level. At the same time, however, a significant financial and managerial responsibility is expected of the church leadership levels. However, whether active participation or broad involvement of staff or the entire parish community in digital innovation substantially changes the understanding of office and roles cannot be definitively confirmed by the present statements. It seems most likely that there will be a significant change with regard to the territorial expansion of the previous parochial boundaries and the associated blurring of pastoral responsibility and accessibility. It is clear that the interviewees consider digital affinity to be absolutely necessary either for themselves—if they have a such a professional responsibility—or for other people they work with professionally. The fact that they are competing with digital offerings and digitally accessible religious authorities, on the other hand, does not play a significant role in the question of digital innovation, at least not explicitly. Overall, a picture of change emerges that is characterized by openness, collaboration, and the need to combine digital and analog presence in a meaningful way.

6.4. Hypothesis 4: Local Aspects and Resources

The successful implementation of digital innovations in a church context depends either on the availability of financial, time, and personnel resources or on meeting a local need. Without such a targeted focus, difficulties are encountered when implementing digital innovations.

The interviewed persons were selected specifically because of their involvement in the implementation of digital innovation in some way. However, it should be noted that the working contexts are different in each case and therefore also require different resources. The statements regarding resources and local needs were anchored in the interview guide with question B3a “What specific local needs or challenges have you perceived in your congregation(s) that make the introduction of digital innovations appear particularly important or necessary?” and question B3b “To what extent do you see financial, time and personnel resources as key factors for the successful implementation of digital innovations?”.

6.4.1. Resources

The topic of resources was examined on two levels during the evaluation: on the one hand, the extent to which resources are regarded as key factors was explicitly asked from a meta perspective, and on the other hand, competencies, goals, collaboration, etc., were discussed, implicitly coding which resources are or are not available to the individual interviewees. At the first level, everyone agreed that resources are indispensable (P1, 39; P2, 44–45; P3, 51; P4, 77; P5, 63; P6, 43; P7, 56; P8, 85): “It’s, it’s essential. So […] someone has to have time for it. Yes, of course, it also costs money, especially initially. So when you buy a new system or something or carry out a project, it just costs money, it’s expensive” (P3, 51). P2 was also of the opinion that the church had to provide financial resources for this, but also mentioned the fact that digital media are easily accessible and can be scaled at will. This means that if someone understands the logic of media, they can go far with little money (P2, 44).

At the second level, however, the picture was less uniform. Relatively speaking, P1 and P2 had many resources at their disposal, namely financial, personnel, and/or know-how resources. P1 reported a broadly supported concern in the team (P1, 39.89), which can also benefit from the local church as a whole (P1, 39.71). There was also a partnership with a technical university, where collaboration between the church and technology was continuously being practiced (P1, 23). And if there was a need, they also received temporary support from specialists, for example, for social media (P1, 39). P2 reported existing financial resources (P2, 45–46). In addition, the P2 team followed the guiding principle that they want to rely as little as possible on external specialists and therefore bring the expertise into the team (P2, 12). This means that importance is attached to further training in which everyone can participate and learn, for example, how to set up a YouTube channel (P2, 39). P5 also confirmed the resources mentioned by P2, as she worked in the same organization but in a different function (P5, 63).

In contrast, the following three people had relatively few resources available: For P6, there were human resources in the form of media expertise in the team, as well as a willingness to receive specialist support for certain projects (P6, 20.24). However, there were no explicit job percentages for digital initiatives, as digital was not the organization’s core business (P6, 39). P8 had a 20% position for its digital work, with ecumenical cooperation in sight for next year (P8, 7.49). For P3, a 10% position in the secretariat was financed to support the organization in digitization processes (P3, 50). In comparison, P4 had almost no resources available. She had previously performed her digital work “on the side” (P4, 7). She was grateful for the new year, when she was promised 5% for the digital work, something she had spent several years fighting for (P4, 7). What can be seen as a kind of resource, however, is that she is part of a network that recognizes—and symbolically supports—this work and that she herself is also well connected with others who do similar things (P4, 7.58). This excludes P7, who mainly talked about the potential of how AI can be used as a resource and not actually what his resources are (P7, 77).

It can therefore be concluded: At a meta-level, there is a consensus that resources are essential for the implementation of digital innovations. However, when it comes to the specific resources available, the picture is more nuanced: While some organizations such as in the case of P1 and P2 have a comparatively high level of financial, human, or know-how resources, the resource situation is much more limited for others such as P4 or P8. These differences make it clear that the implementation of digital innovations is not solely dependent on the available resources. Furthermore, the concept of resources could be expanded at this point to include the idea that a cooperative team culture counts as a resource.

6.4.2. Local Needs

The focus should now turn to the question of local needs and their influence on the implementation of digital innovations. Here as well, a multi-faceted picture emerges: half of the interviewees mentioned that COVID-19 was definitely a reason why certain digital innovations were introduced (P3, P4, P6, P8). P3 and P6 mentioned streaming, which they started during the COVID-19 pandemic. At P6, streaming was still being maintained, and at P3, a discussion was now underway as to whether the streaming system could be sold again (P3, 46; P6, 41). At this point, digital innovation was discussed in general and not just those digital initiatives about which the interviewees were asked. P3 also added that donating via Twint6 was also a digitally innovative need that was responded to and that there were certainly more need for digital innovation in the local community, but that people were not aware of them (P3, 46). P4 described how COVID-19 has raised awareness that digital opportunities are relevant. Before that, she was rather alone in this concern and had to show, for example, with self-conducted statistics, that the WhatsApp status was very much clicked on by the community members and can serve as a form of advertising platform (P4, 74). P8’s project also had to be carried out digitally due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it turned out that it very much met a need at the time and was therefore still being continued (P8, 79).

P2, P5, and P7 were special cases, as they were not dealing with a conventional congregation and therefore did not address a local congregation need. However, P2 and P5 emphasized that they were indeed responding to a contemporary need with their initiative. “To reach a target group that is distant from the church, close to education and digitally savvy. Or there are different target groups, different milieus that we are aiming at, but the ones that have these three, these three characteristics” (P2, 6). P7 was of the opinion that the need for digital innovation in urban areas was perhaps mistakenly thought of first, but that he did see potential in rural areas (P7, 54). P1, on the other hand, denied the question of whether a local need was being addressed. It was more about a concern that was considered important and supported by the entire team (P1, 87.89).

The following

Table 3. Overview Resources and Local Needs Caption.

	Key Factor	Existing Resources	Local Need
P1	Yes	Many	No Other: Concerns of the team
P2	Yes & No	Many	Yes: To reach a target group that is distant from the church, close to education and digitally savvy Other: Not a congregation in the traditional sense
P3	Yes	Few (10%)	Yes: COVID-19 > Need for streaming, donate via Twint Other: There are certainly needs that we don’t know about
P4	Yes	None	Yes: During COVID-19 > Need for digital inputs Other: Pre-COVID-19, the request was not supported by the community or the leadership, P had to fight for it, but through COVID-19 the realization that digital needs exist is growing
P5	Yes	Many	Yes: This is the answer to current needs, namely the search for spirituality in the digital space
P6	Yes	Few	Yes: COVID-19 > Need for streaming, social media, then stayed Other: Main concerns of analog community
P7	Yes	-	- Other: Also a need in the countryside, even if you think of the city first
P8	Yes	Few (20%)	Yes: COVID-19 > Need for digital realization of contemplation, then stayed

presents the two areas’ results.

The evaluation shows that resources play a central role in the implementation of digital innovations. At the meta-level, there is agreement on their importance, while the specific resources vary greatly: Initiatives as in the case of P1, P2, and P5 benefit from extensive resources, while those of P3, P6, and P8 work with significantly fewer resources. As an exception, P4 shows that personal commitment can partially compensate for other lacking resources.

In the area of local needs, it is clear that these have become visible due to external events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases such as P3, P4, and P8 show that new digital formats often respond to such needs. At the same time, initiatives such as in the case of P2 and P5 address broader social trends, while P1 and P7 rate local needs as less crucial.

In summary, the hypothesis is largely confirmed: Digital initiatives that either draw on sufficient resources or focus on local or social needs have a higher chance of success. The importance of strategic action and personal commitment complements these two key factors and slightly relativizes the hypothesis in individual cases such as P4.

6.5. Hypothesis 5: Theological Understanding of Church and Community

Church leaders who venture to innovate digitally do so in addition to the analog church. They want to meet people where they are, i.e., also in the digital space, but do not strive for a purely digital communion.

The first CONTOC study investigated the relationship between online and analog formats with regard to church services. Almost two-thirds of respondents saw online formats as a complementary offering (Schlag et al. 2023b, p. 364).7 The question now arose as to how practitioners who venture to innovate digitally describe this relationship. To test this hypothesis, B4a was asked the following: “To what extent do digital opportunities change the understanding of church and community?” In addition, B4c was asked specifically about the possibility of a digital communion or baptism: “How does the digital relate to the analog in terms of sacraments, for example, communion and baptism? So would that also be conceivable in purely digital form?” The assessments of the eight practitioners surveyed are analyzed below.

6.5.1. Digital as a Supplement

On the one hand, the interviewees generally agreed that digital formats and activities can only ever be complementary to analog ones (e.g., P3, 64; P5, 81; P6, 51; P7, 75; P8, 93). On the other hand, it is nevertheless absolutely necessary to have a digital presence as a church in order for there to be people in a digital society and thus for the church to be able to fulfill its mission, even in a culture of digitality (P6, 30; P8, 17; P7, 52; P4, 9). This was also already mentioned in Hypothesis 1 as a reason for digital innovation. Basically, the respondents were concerned with perceiving and taking seriously the everyday world in which church members and interested parties live, which is characterized by digitality including social media (P5, 147; P8, 51; P7, 69; P3, 53).

6.5.2. Understanding of Church and Community

All respondents confirmed that their understanding of church and community was changing or had changed under the conditions of the digital world. In the interviews, however, the congregation was still primarily understood as an analog community that can also take place digitally (P2, 47; P4, 85; P5, 71; P6, 45; P8, 93).

On the one hand, digitality opens up new possibilities for connection (P3, 53f). The advantage of digital communication is that people can “also participate from a distance” (P4, 94). Another interviewee reported on the transmission of a church service to a care home. This was seen as a positive experience for the participants and was only possible through the use of digital media (P7, 58). One advantage of digitality is also the fluidity of church membership, as it is less clear who is a member and who is not: “And I actually find that […] a nice effect, which is also achieved through this accessibility of digital content, is, that the edges fray more, so to speak, and that the criteria of who is there now and who is not, multiply somewhere” (P2, 49).

On the other hand, one interviewee pointed out that “analog docking points” are also needed (P5, 81), expressing the certainty that people will become isolated if they only come together digitally: “Otherwise, I would feel like I was drying up” (P5, 87). Although digital innovation should definitely take place in the community, it should only ever be complementary (P6, 51): “So therefore community can be digital. I don’t want to play them off against each other. It is a complementary form, but it never replaces the real, analog reality in which we all live” (P6, 47). It was pointed out that in digital media, features like non-verbal communication and shared breaks are no longer possible and that they cannot look each other in the eye on Zoom: “So these are all factors that I think are limiting, in the medium term” (P2, 54). Another interviewee referred to the human need for closeness “and that means real closeness” (P6, 45). In this statement, as in that of P5, a different quality is attributed to analog community.

Digital media are an additional tool, but for a community that travels together as a community, the personal connection and sustainability of analog meetings, in contrast to the superficiality of digital meetings, is central (P1, 99.101). Another person stated, “we are actually a village, a global village” (P8, 87). Speed and flexibility, as well as the dissolution of boundaries and new forms of interpersonal connection, are brought about by digitality, which brings relief on the one hand, but can also cause stress on the other. Therefore, “one task in the digital space is to create places of calm” (P8, 87).

Overall, it is evident that assessments of analog and digital community and communication are each characterized by the idea of a deficit of digital forms or a fundamentally different quality of the digital compared to the analog. For some of the interviewees, this leads them to view analog community as more desirable and digital as merely complementary, while others emphasize the positive aspects of each, positioning the two things side by side as having different but equal value. No one suggests shifting church work completely to the digital space. The question arises as to why there is reluctance toward the full digitalization of church work. While a definitive answer remains elusive, several observations can be made. Firstly, the assumption that this reluctance is primarily due to resistance to change seems rather implausible. Compared to other actors in the ecclesial context, the respondents demonstrate a high degree of openness to innovation and have already implemented various changes in their practice.

At the same time, it remains unclear whether digital formats in their current form are truly being utilized to their full potential or whether structural and conceptual limitations exist that hinder further development. Furthermore, one might ask whether a purely digital form of community is indeed the most immediate next step or whether other hybrid models of the relationship between analog and digital engagement (Ess and Cheong 2012) may emerge in the future. Examples of this might include “convening hybrid and digital community, cultivating a spiritually wise digital habitus (centering), maintaining a posture of experimentation (experimenting), creating and curating faith-based media artifacts, connecting media theory to theological reflection (reflecting), and presenting authentically and pastorally online” (Garner 2021, p. 274).

6.5.3. Sacraments: Baptism and Holy Communion

The Catholic tradition has explored new interpretations of the sacrament of baptism under the concept of “baptism of desire” (Meckel 2019). This raises the question of whether similar theological approaches could also be considered for a digital form of baptism. However, this section deliberately refrains from providing a theological definition of the Eucharist and baptism. Rather, the aim of this question was to offer respondents a concrete thought experiment that required them to integrate theological understanding with the possibilities of digital implementation. The ways in which respondents reacted to this challenge were not only particularly insightful, their responses also provided substantive reflections. While the topic undoubtedly warrants further exploration, the purpose of this section is not to develop possible theological models for implementation but rather to analyze the reactions and perspectives of the respondents.

With regard to the practice of digital communion or digital baptism, a fairly uniform picture emerges among all respondents. Most of them are skeptical about digital baptism practices (P6, 47; P8, 95; P7, 62): “That’s not possible. That’s what I think. So, baptizing someone digitally, purely, I’m saying now, theologically that wouldn’t work at all” (P1, 107). There is a lack of wholeness: “You can be there, but you can’t have this atmospheric density. That is unthinkable for me” (P6, 47). For a baptism, you need “real water” (P8, 95). Only two people argued that digital baptism could be a solution in an emergency, e.g., if people could not physically attend a church due to danger (P2, 52; P3, 60).

Regarding digital communion practices, however, a more differentiated picture emerges from the responses. All interviewees consider this to be possible in principle. One interviewee has already organized a digital communion (P4, 98). Two others mentioned that it is precisely the Reformed understanding of communion that makes digital alternatives to traditional communion possible in the first place (P8, 95; P7, 62). At the same time, one Catholic interviewee justifies his rather critical attitude with his Catholicism: “So for us, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, is something so important, something so concrete, something edible, where I realize notice the advantage of the digital world, but that it will never be able to replace it”. (P1, 103). “It’s just not the same. It’s, it’s something else” (P2, 50), summarizes another person. Celebrating a baptism or communion digitally is a solution if it is not possible otherwise, e.g., due to long distances (P3, 58.60). P2 criticizes the fact that what communion is actually about “cannot be transferred digitally without interruption” (P2, 52). Last but not least, another interviewee says that it was primarily about the possibility of being touched, which is currently not (yet) conceivable digitally: “I can be touched by a sermon digitally, but it remains more fragmentary than when I am present at the event with my physicality” (P6, 47). Another person suggests experimenting and using as a benchmark whether people feel in community (P7, 62). If this is the case, “we are on the right track” (P7, 63).

One person reported in the interview about a colleague who had married people in the game “World of Warcraft” (P7, 65). Another person explicitly emphasized in the interview that digital communion practices were conceivable and feasible for them, but by no means digital funerals, baptisms, or weddings (P4, 98).

In summary, it can be said that the interviewees see digital innovations as a necessary addition to the analog church to reach people in their digital world. However, a purely digital communization is rejected, as the church and congregation are primarily understood as an analog community that enables closeness, wholeness, and personal connection. Although digital formats offer new opportunities for participation, they are perceived as limited in terms of quality. There is a clear reluctance to participate in sacraments such as baptism and communion in particular. Digital baptisms are hard to imagine, as the physical and atmospheric dimension is missing. There is a more differentiated attitude towards Holy Communion: while it is sometimes conceivable in Reformed contexts, others emphasize the irreplaceability of the physical experience. Digital sacraments are therefore recognized more as a plan B, but not as an equivalent alternative. Overall, it is clear that although digital formats open up new paths, they do not replace the understanding of the analog church, but rather complement it. Analog community remains an important core of church practice.

6.6. Hypothesis 6: Objectives and Visions for the Future

Those who implement digital innovations also have a vision for the future of the church, whereby digital innovation is seen as more of a supplement to the analog church rather than a replacement for it.

It has already been shown that the actors see digital innovation more as a supplement than a replacement for analog church formats and offerings. Since the objectives and future visions for their own work are closely related to what the interviewees see as the core of their work, this sixth hypothesis8 was anchored in the data material in two ways. On the one hand, the answers to question B5a “What is your objective for the church with regard to digital innovation?” were coded, as were implicit statements made by the interviewees about the core task(s) of their work and the church as a whole.

With regard to the interviewees’ responses, two major forward-looking topics can be identified from the data material. One comprises their opinions on the fundamental attitude that the church should adopt towards digital technologies such as AI in the future, while the second comprises concrete plans and goals for the work of the interviewees. Both are analyzed below. First, however, it should be noted that in the course of the interviews, three of the interviewees (P5, P6 and P7) pointed out how unpredictable future developments and changes in connection with digitality were for them (P5, 91; P6, 92; P7, 106). This comment can presumably be explained not only by the fundamental openness of technological developments and their influence on society, which is initially value-neutral. It could also refer to the fact that the interviewees (currently) feel that they are not yet in a position to make self-determined decisions, which could then become forward-looking in case of doubt. P6 himself explains this situation by citing a lack of competence, which makes it difficult for him to anticipate the future based on current developments.

6.6.1. Church as an Admonisher and Keeper of a Critical Eye

Six of the eight interviewees are fundamentally in favor of the church actively accompanying current technological developments, including in the field of AI. In the future, they see the church as having an even greater duty to evoke and contribute to ethical debates (P6, 100; P4, 131) and thus sensitize the public to dangers or problems (P6, 104; P2, 84; P8, 119); the church has a “guardian function” (P4, 40). P4, for example, warns how dangerous various developments in social media are, e.g., with regard to the mental health of young people in particular, or also with regard to right-wing parties that go viral with their videos on TikTok, and explains how important it is for the church to continue to be present on social media in the future (P4, 40). P8 refers to negative aspects such as today’s high energy consumption with all its ecological consequences (P8, 119). One interviewee refers to the ethical responsibility of the churches regarding their authority to interpret biblical and theological topics: “Because there are really very, very difficult contributions that are uploaded in the theological area that should not go unchallenged” (P4, 102). In the future, the church should therefore maintain a stronger presence on various channels, especially online channels, and thus remain capable of providing information.

In addition, the interviewees see a future role for the church in promoting media literacy and thus enabling discussion and critical debate (P2, 83; P7, 110). Therefore, there must also be “people in the church who are well versed in [the digital world], with a deep understanding” (P7, 110).

Overall, the church will have an even greater responsibility in the future to reflect on the phenomena of digitality and digitalization (P5, 147) and thus take a critical look at current developments and the associated consequences for society (P8, 119); in doing so, it must act wisely and responsibly (P6, 88): “And I think we as churches have an ethical responsibility to have a say here, and to help shape interpretative authority, and simply to show, hey, there is good news. There is good news: there is a way of working together that is constructive. It doesn’t always have to be a destructive clash”. (P4, 42). Accordingly, the church’s future in-depth engagement with digitality and digital technologies such as AI constitutes a task that can be derived from its mission to humanity and to stand up for a good life, even in a culture of digitality.

6.6.2. Concrete Future Plans of the Interviewees

Several interviewees expressed their general desire for the church to be more active in the digital sphere (P5, 96; P7, 77; P3, 23). One interviewee emphasized that the church must empower itself to provide its own fresh impetus for a digital society: the church should “implement digital ideas in the digital world, on digital media, that nobody has thought of yet. […] This only happens if you identify yourself with the digital world in which we live and don’t have the feeling that, yes, we have to do this now, because people no longer come to us and they are on these media for better or worse. And now we have to think our way into it, then we won’t get any fresh ideas, we have to identify ourselves and say wholeheartedly that I am part of an increasingly digitalized society” (P2, 64).

Accordingly, P3 hopes that “curiosity for technology” (P3, 115) will be awakened and encouraged in church education in the future. It is the task of the church “to create a place where you can [try out technologies, author’s note] without it having any massive consequences” (P3, 115). This is the only way to raise awareness of possible dangers, on the one hand, and to promote “a healthy interest and enjoyment of technology” on the other (P3, 115). Another person specifically envisioned managing a collection of tools that people working in the church could access. This would ensure that “in times of dwindling resources, we can of course still offer high-quality services, even with fewer people” (P7, 77). For the future, this means that people employed in the church will have to learn how to use these tools: “We need to know their strengths, weaknesses, limitations and possibilities […]. And there must also be people who teach other people” (P7, 108). The task of the church in the future is therefore both to focus on the digitalization of its own people and to ensure that they can pass on their know-how and skills.

Some of the interviewees would like their own work to have a greater reach in the future, including with the help of digital media: this is not only linked to the desire for greater networking (P1, 174; P3, 23), even across different national and language borders (P5, 127), but also to greater flexibility and the possibility of individual design and choice of formats for interested parties (P8, 127).

Two interviewees also believe that it is important as a church to be open to linguistic developments, which, in their opinion, are being accelerated by digitalization. One person emphasized that it is important as a church in the future not only to be where people are, namely online, but also to “learn to speak the language of the individual platforms” (P4, 37). Another interviewee assumed that, if not the language, then at least the meaning of theological terms such as “sin” or “grace” would change (P5, 92).

The responses described above indicate that the interviewees are open not only to working with digital tools and media, but also to the potential changes that these could bring.

However, some of the answers also deal with the question of how the church can strengthen analog togetherness in the future, which is considered qualitatively different, more genuine or even more direct, than digital community within the interviews (P1, 99; P6, P8): “We should really promote, protect and preserve real encounters, the authenticity of encounters, to the very end” (P6, 92). One person would like to use places of silence in the future to “create space where human contact can take place” (P8, 121). The current and future mission is to help people to find peace in the face of the distraction that digitalization brings with it, in order to enable an encounter with God (P8, 99). According to the interviewees, both the church and pastors have a duty to remain approachable in analog form as part of their mission for the world, especially in the face of the digitality of everyday life: “As a pastor of a real church community, it remains crucial that I remain available in analog form, remain approachable, especially in the knowledge that people are diving into a digital world” (P6, 46).

On the one hand, the interviewees see their own future task in continuing to actively use digital media and critically reflect on it, training their own employees and passing on their know-how. For them, digital media and technologies are a natural part of their everyday lives and the world in which they position themselves and act responsibly. On the other hand, they see themselves and the church as a whole as having a duty to promote, protect, and stand up for analog community and connectedness in the face of the digital world. In the broadest sense, one could say that the connection between the vision for the church and digital innovation is partly true. The data show that digital innovation is often linked to overarching goals and visions. However, digital innovation is usually understood as a supplement to the analog church and not necessarily as an expression of a comprehensive vision for the future. The connection is therefore not clear, but there are points of contact that indicate an interaction.

7. Conclusions and Outlook

As already mentioned at the beginning of this article, the central research question was as follows: What reasons and/or theological motives influence church leaders to implement digital innovations in the church context and how do digital media, especially AI, affect their role, work, and church practice?

After testing the hypotheses mentioned above in our explorative interview, we can conclude that the eight church leaders interviewed explicitly justify their digitally innovative actions in theological terms. However, this is not carried out in the mode of dogmatic propositional truths, but on the criterion of the extent to which church digital practice is relevant to everyday life. Here, both a profound sense of being called to the world and a deep awareness of their mission to spread the gospel play a key role.

The interviews clearly show that by having a high affinity for the digital world and a broad skill profile, these interviewed church leaders negotiate and can actively and purposefully drive digital innovation in their individual professional contexts. At the same time, a combination of individual agency and commitment, a shared team purpose and existing team competence, as well as team collaboration is of key importance.

It also becomes clear that the implementation of digital innovations has an impact on the understanding of the ministry and role of church leaders, although this varies depending on their own self-image and the attributed importance of digital possibilities. The interviewed church leaders generally see responsibility for digital innovation both at the level of the (entire!) church community base and at the church leadership level, particularly with regard to the financing and management of digital activities. Overall, there is a great willingness to engage in innovation processes if these are characterized by openness and cooperation as well as the recognized need to combine digital and analog presence in a meaningful way.

The interviews also show that digital initiatives that either draw on sufficient resources or focus on local or social needs have a higher chance of success. Here, too, the critical importance of the key factors of strategic action and personal commitment is clearly recognizable.

The interviewed church leaders see digital innovations as a necessary addition to the analog church in order to reach people in their digital world. At the same time, a purely digital form of community is clearly rejected. The interviewees continue to see the church and congregation primarily as an analog community that enables closeness, wholeness, and personal connection in an irreplaceable way. We also gained the impression that a broad, shared theological and popular understanding of what is seen as desirable and successful communal practice prevails in the church. In this respect, the presented visions of church, both analog and digital and often hybrid, are not aimed at creating exclusive community.

For the interviewed church leaders, digital media and technologies are an integral part of their own private and professional lives. The interviewees see their own future responsibilities as, on the one hand, continuing to deepen their active use of digital media and their critical reflection, and, on the other hand, training employees and passing on and intensively maintaining the necessary know-how as widely as possible. At the same time, they see themselves and the church as a whole as having a duty to promote, protect, and stand up for analog community and solidarity in the face of the digital world.

The reasons for this are diverse and cannot be reduced to a single denominator since all of the aspects mentioned above can result in individual cases of highly dynamic digital innovation in a church context. It is clear that professional authority and responsibility over questions of digital innovation are defined, whether through appropriate job descriptions or simply through the conscious, independently initiated adoption of these activities. In all cases, however, it is also evident that authority and responsibility do not stand “alone”, but must be constantly renegotiated with other “stakeholders”, as well as with the needs of the community and its members in the respective context, both in terms of the precise direction of this activity and the provision of necessary resources.

The answers of the digital experts do not immediately reveal any great future visions of a digital church under the current conditions. Nevertheless, a certain hopeful pragmatism shines through their statements, and it is noticeable that the strong pastoral crisis sentiment that we identified in the CONTOC studies was significantly less present in these interviews. On the one hand, this may stem from the fact that we did not specifically inquire about the interviewees’ current perceptions of the crisis during these interviews. On the other hand, it could be attributed to the interviewees’ evident openness to digital innovation, which enables them to focus more on what is feasible and, in some cases, visionary, rather than on phenomena that might indicate or predict a negative trajectory for the church. All the interviewees demonstrated a hopeful mindset, a willingness to think ahead, and an eagerness to experiment with new ideas. This mindset, along with how the overall picture evolves, will require further evaluation as the study progresses.

Overall, it can be said that the religious authorities we interviewed not only engage with issues of infrastructure and the negotiation of responsibilities but also navigate cultural, theological, and ethical, and sometimes even biblical-oriented deliberations. They grapple with the fundamental question: What can I still embrace, and where do inherent risks arise? This reflects an ongoing debate in which value-driven considerations play a significant role, extending far beyond the concrete activities they can implement within their professional field. In addition to technical and resource-related concerns therefore, another key theme emerges; the question of Where is all of this leading? and Where do we want it to go? The discussion unfolds on two levels: first, as an individual, personal reflection, and second, through statements about the church as an institution, contributing to a broader value debate and its associated responsibilities.

In this respect, both in the larger context of digital developments and, in particular, in the unpredictable field of AI, we see the protagonists of the church from our study proactively address these challenges, and thus by no means insist on following the same forms of church organization and communication they inherited. Of course, in the case of our explorative study, we are dealing with a deliberately chosen group of church leaders, most of whom have a particularly high level of digital affinity. The commitment and enthusiasm that they show for these innovations may therefore seem unsurprising. Nevertheless, this productive basic attitude, which was clearly recognizable in all the interviewees, could undoubtedly be of inspiring importance for a self-understanding of the church and its technicalities, both from a theological and ethical perspective. In terms of the possibilities of innovative church development under these digital conditions (see Section 1), the results presented so far provide a variety of impulses for both concrete church practice and university theological education for the church ministry and other church professions themselves under the conditions of the “culture of digitality”.