Back To Millenials, sort of...

I noticed something on my chest of drawers the other night that surprised me.  

I would have assumed that before the author wrote and published his 12 Theses, that he might have engaged in what legal types call Due Diligence.  This is the process where people do research into the subject of interest.   In this case, had the author done a bit of research, he would have found a couple of things.  One, he would have found that there is a seminary in CA that is actively engaged in researching and engaging with solutions to how The Church and millennials interact.   Two, he would have found the existence of a volume based on research conducted by the Barna group (a copy of which I found on my dresser).

Now, maybe I'm a little strange, but if I was going to write a series of 12 points claiming to speak for millennials regarding their detachment from The Church it seems reasonable to actually do the research and find out what's actually being done.

So, my current plan is to complete the series of posts on the individual points, then to take a look at the Barna research and also see what else is out there to see how it lines up with the authors complaints.

Well said.

https://winteryknight.com/2017/05/18/economist-walter-williams-explains-how-to-not-be-poor-2/

 https://winteryknight.com/2017/05/17/reversing-the-american-trend-of-borrowing-and-spending-too-much/

 https://winteryknight.com/2017/05/15/study-sex-reassignment-surgery-does-improve-mental-health-of-transgender-people/

All three of these posts have one thing in common.  They are full of multiple sources of actual data.  It's interesting that  many people make arguments in favor of the behaviors/ issues addresses in the three posts above, yet have absolutely no response when shown this sort of data.  

How much of modern liberalsim is just a flat out lie?

In recent years that liberal/progressive side of the American political spectrum has tried to make the claim that the DFL and liberal/progressives in general stand for certain things.

Things like.

Freedom
Choice
Non violence/pacifism
Free speech
Better education
Improved race relations
Civility in politics

Yet everywhere we look we see the opposite.  

The only free choice the left will fight for is to choose to have abortions..
As we look at all of the protests over the past 10 years how many of the violent protests, riots, or sieges been undertaken by conservatives for conservative causes.  FYI lets compare how Tea Party protesters behaved and left the site of their rallies as opposed to the Occupy folks.

Where do we see free speech being stifled and limited?  Liberal universities.  What do they do if they can't intimidate the school or speaker to cancel?  Threaten or engage in violence.

Let's do some correlation between school districts with poor performance of voting patterns.  Why is it impossible to break the bond between the teachers unions and te DFL?

Recently there has been a news story about some racial threats at a local university.   This particular institution is a hotbed of liberal thought, (my current AmeriCorps member graduated from this school and is a self described "bleeding heart liberal") much more liberal than the already left leaning universities in the country.   The story was about the outrage caused by racist, threatening notes left on peoples cars.  The school jumped out and talked about how the doer would be punished and there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  Until they found out that in was one more hoax.  All of a sudden, the hoaxer was going to get off with a less severe punishment, and .....   You get the drift.    Of course, all the cities full of "institutional racism" are cities where the institutions are controlled by the DFL.   I could go on, but why.

Again, we've lust seen an instance where a school yearbook (Teachers unions support what political philosophy), in one of the most blue of the blue states, contained a page where one of the students wanted to (nonviolently) decapitate President Trump.   We just saw that 92% of all the news stories about Trump have been negative.  We see DFL members of congress ready to begin impeachment proceedings irregardless of the results of any investigations.  Again, there are more examples than I could list here.

I could be mistaken, but it sure seems like the American political left has done a 180 and has embraced the opposite of what they've always claimed to stand for.

Maybe they just need to be more honest about what they stand for.

Intermission

As I get halfway through this series about the article on millennials and the church, it seems like a place to stop for a moment and talk a little bit about tone.

While the author is clearly raising good issues and questions, I don't think that style and tone can be discounted.   By choosing to couch every one of his points as blanket sweeping indictments of things "the (entire) church" is either not doing or doing wrong, I think the author makes his task more difficult.

I think it's safe to say that the fault does not lie entirely with any one generation or institution.  I think it's also safe to say that, in general; blanket, sweeping, generalizations about the mistakes and wrongs of others aren't the most productive ways to communicate.

In the case of this conversation I can say with absolute certainty that there is at least one seminary that is actively working with a number of churches on strategic ways to engage with the millennial generation and to better engage them in the life and mission of The Church.  Given that fact alone, it calls into question the validity of many of the positions the author takes.

It seems to me that perhaps a better angle would be to find churches and people who are actively engaged in this conversation and implementing many of the things he says he wants, and to engage with those churches.  Isn't at usually more effective to take the positive approach "These are some people who are heading in the right direction let's work together.", than to simply point out what you perceive as the wrongdoings of others?   Further, is it really necessary that every single church be everything to every demographic group?  Isn't it OK if maybe a few churches might want to focus elsewhere?

A break in the list

I've become aware of some conservative millennials who have started to make a name for themselves via social media and other alternative means.   There are two in particular, Matt Walsh and a young woman who identifies as the Conservative Millennial.  I haven't followed everything either of these two have said, so I don't really know to what degree we agree or not.  What I do find interesting is how the left responds to both of these young conservative voices.   What I've done a couple of times is to read the comments threads on various posts that they've done.  In one case watched part of a video in which one of them responds to comments and emails.   What I find really hard to believe is the amount of exceedingly vile, demeaning, violent, threats leveled against these folks for simply exercising their 1st amendment right of free speech.  I'm not going to post links, because they're pretty visible and can be found.  What I am going to say is that this sort of attacking of those who disagree can't be helpful to the cause.  Ultimately who is going to feel the fallout from the following?

Late night "comics" suggesting all sorts of vile inappropriate things about Trump.
Comment thread personal attacks including threats (or hopes) of death, rape etc.
Riots and violence.
Death threats and attempts to injure or kill police officers.
Democrat office holders spewing ridiculous "millions of people will die in the streets"rhetoric.

The list could go on.

But seriously, in 2018 when the midterm elections come around all of this base and vile crap will be appropriately and completely connected to candidates running in the democrat party.  Not only connected, but the folks who engage on this kind of thing are the democrat party base.

Just a bit of advice, perhaps a bit more proactive in toning things down might be helpful.  It won't happen, and the results will lead to more excuses and more excesses down the road.

It's just possible, that this kind of thing just might backfire badly enough to further diminish the democrat minority at virtually all levels of government and provide enough sympathy to carry Trump to a second term.

#5

The "you can't sit with us" affect.

OK, I agree, many (perhaps most) churches struggle with how to graciously and genuinely welcome people who are "different".   It's kind of human nature.  Of course, this works both ways and I'm quite sure millennials can be just a cliquish as any other group, maybe more so.

"Until the church finds a way to be radically kinder and more compassionate than the world at large,..."

100% agree.

 "...we tell outsiders they’re better off on their own. And the truth is, many times they are."

That message might get unintentionally sent, but it's not true.  Christianity is built around community, unfortunately those communities are composed of fallen, sinful, flawed humans who don't always do things the best way.  This seems like one of those situations where both sides might be better offering some grace and understanding.

His proposed solutions

• "Create authentic communities with a shared purpose centered around service."

No objections to the concept, by why arbitrarily limit what these groups center around?  Why not a group focused on authenticity and accountability?  Prayer? Bible study? I'm just not sure arbitrary subjective limits are helpful.

• "Create and train a team of CONNECT people whose purpose is to seek out the outliers on Sunday mornings or during other events. Explicitly teach people these skills as they do not come naturally to most of the population."

This is already happening all over the place.  Of course it's a good idea, it's why churches are doing it.  Is it being done perfectly? Of course not.  But, how rational is it to act as of the fact that something isn't being done to your subjective standards, therefore isn't being done or attempted anywhere?

• "Stop placing blame on individuals who struggle to get connected. For some people, especially those that are shy or struggle with anxiety, putting yourself out there even just once might be an overwhelming task. We have to find ways to bridge that gap."

I'm not sure that suggesting that people might have to go outside of their comfort zone in order to get plugged in at a church is actually blaming.  Like many things, it's a two way street and you can't lay all the blame on one side or the other.  Of course to suggest that this is unique to millennials is also simply foolish, this is a universal issue and to frame it like this seems to be inviting more division rather than unity.

Can everybody on all sides of this issue do a better job, should the church be better?  Yes to both.  But acting as if no effort is being made on the part of the church, while absolving millennials of any responsibilities for their own behavior doesn't seem productive.

#4

"We're tired of you blaming the culture"

On the surface this is an easy one to disagree with, simply because we live in a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christianity.   A culture where we're told that "science" robs life of meaning, that tolerance rules unless you're conservative or Christian.  Where abortion is  virtually a sacrament and inviolable.  A  culture that denies the existence of Truth and absolutes.

Clearly the Church needs to address the role of Christians within a hostile culture.  For example, 1 Peter is a great place to start.

But, in this case, the heading is misleading.  What the author is asking for is that effort be put into being different from the culture, rather than simply talking about what's bad about culture.

I agree, that much like Peter in his letters, the Church needs to focus on hope, identity, and holiness in a hostile culture.

However, I have two points to throw out.

1.  We are seeing more and more churches that are being submerged by the culture, who are actively trying to become more acceptable to the culture rather than trying to stand out as Peter suggested.  If the author is correct that this is a broadly held belief of millennials, then there are at least as many churches that should be avoided because they've surrendered to the culture as those who "blame" the culture.

2.  The author suggests a book by Craig Groeschel as a resource.  That's an interesting choice given that Groeschel is the pastor of a megachurch which is presumably engaging in exactly what his book suggests.  This, of course, undercuts the point of the entire piece that the church isn't doing anything to engage millennials.

"Perhaps it’s easier to focus on how terrible the world is out there than actually address the mess within."

I completely agree (as does 1 Peter) that the focus should be on holiness, hope, and our true identity rather than how bad things are out in the culture.

His solutions

• "Put the end times rhetoric to rest and focus on real solutions and real impact in our immediate community."

Maybe not totally, but clearly I agree that we should adapt the 1 Peter strategy and do this.

• "Explicitly teach us how our lives should differ from the culture. (If this teaching isn’t happening in your life, check out the book Weird: Because Normal Isn’t Working by Craig Groeschel)"

Again I agree.  The problem is that there is an increasingly large segment of the Church that doesn't want to hear how our lives should differ from culture.  They'd rather pass out food to the homeless, flying they're rainbow flag high, participate in pride parades, and only mention Jesus when they have to.  Of course, that means the Jesus must be censored (or interpreted through a new hermenutic) so that anything but the social justice/socialist "jesus" is hidden.  If this is the type of church millennials seek, then I think that's a pretty good target.

The problem for the article as a whole is (like many of his other points), these churches do exist (or can be planted), and to claim otherwise is just to ignore reality.

#3

 Point #3 “Helping the poor isn’t a priority”

This is a tough one for a few reasons.  

1.       1.   Because I agree that, as a rule, the church should be more involved in helping the poor.

2.       2.  The dichotomy between doing “church type” things and helping the poor is a false dichotomy.

3.       Many churches (and more importantly) Christian para-church organizations are helping the poor.

4.       3.  So much of how both “the church” and society has gone about “helping the poor” is turning out to be demeaning and unhelpful. 

4.  Again, I have to point out how hard it is to deal with the broad sweeping generalities.

“My heart is broken for how radically self-centered and utterly American our institutions have become.”

In a general sense, I’d tend to agree, but I’d argue that from a historical perspective it’s been much worse.  I’d also argue that there is a trend among churches in the US that is moving in the opposite direction.

This may be too fine of a distinction, but I would argue that if one looks at Jesus and the early church we see two things.

1.        1.  The job of the church is to make disciples and equip them so that they can most fully love God and love others.

2.     2.   Churches don’t love others, believers/disciples do.  

It seems like the better measure is not trying to impose an artificial, arbitrary standard regarding how churches spend their time, but instead look at what individual Christians do.   One thing we learned at our church is that in many cases the amount of money and time that went ministries and organizations we had supported, was vastly eclipsed by the amount of money and time our church members invested “outside” of the church.

The author suggests imposing a 50% rule, which he claims is Biblically supported/mandated.  Sorry, don’t see it anywhere. 

Suggestions

“Stop creating more Bible studies and Christian activity. Community happens best in service with a shared purpose.”

My experience definitely agrees that community, in service around a shared purpose, is often very powerful.  But, to suggest that this is the “best” way to achieve community, I don’t think that’s warranted.    If we look at the whole concept of Spiritual Gifts and how the Body works together, it’s clear that there is no one “best” for everyone.  We’re all wired differently and not everyone experiences community the same way.  Not that this is an excuse to avoid service, just to point out that Bible studies and discipleship, and prayer, and fellowship, and eating together are all valid and important parts of Christian community.

“Survey your members asking them what injustice or cause God has placed on their hearts. Create space for them to meet and brainstorm, and then sit back and watch what God brings to life.”

The assumption is that this is not happening, anywhere.  Clearly this is a mistaken assumption.  I see it happening in multiple churches as well as outside of specific individual churches.   To the extent that this is not happening, I agree that it should be happening, but even a cursory look around would demonstrate that this is not a universal problem.

“Create group serve dates once a month where anyone can show up and make a difference.”

Most churches I’m aware of have service opportunities far more frequently than once a month, in fact once a month seems a bit ungenerous.    I’m sure there are churches that don’t do this, but I can’t believe it’s anywhere near a majority.  

I’d suggest that if a group of millennials went to a church as had a service opportunity they wanted to spearhead and run with, I’d be shocked of the answer was no.

One last general thought, this doesn’t really seem like a “millennial” issue as service is and should be something that crosses generations.  Again, my personal experience suggests that millennials serve in lower percentages than other generations.

#2

Point #2 “We’re sick of hearing about values and mission statements”

While I admit to a certain degree on discomfort with all of the efforts put into identifying values and crafting mission statements, it’s a little disingenuous to make this suggestion is a piece at least partly written to make the point that millennial’s values aren’t being taken seriously.   In fact, two paragraphs after the above title, the author actually proposes a mission statement. 

So, I’ll agree with him that there is a disproportionate amount of time put into trying to re-state the simple, but it’s clear that he agrees with the value of such statements.  It could be argued that Jesus was the first to the mission statement parade with the two now known as “The Great Commandment” and “The Great Commission”.  I guess if one is going to follow Jesus, then it’s OK to have a mission statement.

Solutions

“Stop wasting time on the religious mambo jambo and get back to the heart of the gospel.  If you have to explain your mission and values to the church, it’s overly religious and much too complicated”

I mostly agree with this although I have a few reservations.  1.  In today’s church we see people coming from increasingly diverse backgrounds and cultures, given that reality, it seems reasonable to have some sort of unifying principles around which the church can gather.   2.  If his underlying thesis is correct (that millennials are hostile to “the church”, then it seems reasonable that having some sort of unifying principles is helpful to those who are looking so that they can get a sense of what the focus of the congregation is.  3.  Both the author and Jesus did exactly this, so it seems like more of an issue of time involved and complexity, than of the existence of mission/values statements.

“We’re not impressed with the hours you brag about spending behind closed doors wrestling with Christianese words on paper.  We’re impressed with actions and service.”

No argument, if a church is going to have a mission statement, then it’s clear that a failure to live up to that mission statement is a huge problem.   Now, “actions and service” is a pretty subjective measurement, especially for a group who is skeptical of the church and significantly uninvolved.   Of course, if one is going to apply the “actions and service” standard to one group (“the church”), then it would make sense to apply the same standard to another group (millennials), wouldn’t it?   I’d be curious to see statistics regarding millennials charitable contributions and volunteerism levels compared to other generations. 

This item points out one of the major failings of this entire piece.  “the church” is really a spectrum.  It’s not monolithic, it’s not all the same.  So, to treat “the church” as such is problematic.  I can point out plenty of churches that are all about “actions and service”, and I can point out plenty that are not.  The author’s problem is that he is not willing or able to take the time to differentiate between the options, but instead chooses to paint with a broad brush.   The churches who thrive on “actions and service” are there, maybe he’s just not looking hard enough.

Finally, I’ve spent that last 10 years working for a Christian organization involved in providing affordable housing worldwide.  Our entire effort is focused on engaging volunteers in the mission and the process.  I can state categorically that (in my experience) if the author’s claim is correct (that millennials want “actions and service”), that millennials are not living up to what they expect from others.

I know that my experience isn’t representative of anything broader than my experience, but after 10 years of working with 2,500-3,500 volunteers per year I think I might have a tiny bit of data to base my opinion on.

#1

Point #1, “Nobody’s listening to us.”

Let’s be honest.  The statement as written is completely false on its face.  I’ve already provided 3 places where this is actually currently happening, I’m quite sure there are others, these are just the ones I know about.

“Millennials value voice and receptivity above all else. When a church forges ahead without ever asking for our input, we get the message loud and clear: NOBODY CARES WHAT WE THINK.”

I’ve personally watched the damage caused to a church when the “greatest generation” wouldn’t develop and pass on leadership to “baby boomers”, so I understand the inherent danger in failing to develop next generation leadership and to value input from the next generation.  This is a legitimate and reasonable issue to be concerned by.  

“Why should we blindly serve an institution that we cannot change or shape?”

You shouldn’t.   Although, I’d be willing to bet that a significant number of millennials do exactly that when it comes to other institutions. 

The author’s proposed solutions.

“Create regular outlets to discover the needs of young adults both inside and outside the church.”

As I pointed out Fuller Seminary (among other places) is already engaged in this very process, perhaps finding and engaging with areas where this is already happening would be a positive step forward.

“Invite millennials to serve on leadership teams or advisory boards where they can make a difference.”

One of the (millennial) executive leadership team members at our church made this exact plea two weeks ago.   I’d point out that it’s hard to ask folks who aren’t already attending or engaged at some level.   It seems unreasonable to pick random millennials “off of the streets” and install them in leadership or advisory positions simply because of their generation.   But, in a general sense, this also is a pretty good, if not earth shattering, suggestion.

“Hire a young adults pastor who has the desire and skill-set to connect with millennials.”

Good suggestion.   Although the assumption behind the questions suggests that this is not happening.  I know for a fact that it is.  I also know for a fact that millennials are actively engaged in church planting efforts with some degree of success.  I could also point to one church with a millennial (or at least near millennial) senior pastor.   In short, it’s a good idea, and it’s already being done, maybe not often enough, but it is being done.

A series of responses to why millennials aren't fans of church

Introduction.   Before I get to the individual points, I’ll deal with his introductory material.

Clearly there is a lot of material that won’t get covered in detail, but I hope to hit some of the high points and specifically areas of agreement (at least partial). 

“It seems all-too-often our churches are actually causing more damage than good, and the statistics are showing a staggering number of millennials have taken note.”

Clearly, this statement is a huge overstatement.  It’s so general and unsupported that it really has little value and probably serves to undercut any future positive things he has to say.   The best he has is his citation of a study about what millennials “believe” to be the case.    Simply because someone believes something, doesn’t make it true.

“Where is the task-force searching for the lost generation?  Where is the introspective reflection necessary when 1/3 of a generation is anti-church?”

One answer to the first question is Fuller Seminary. A couple of answers to the second question are, the Twin Cities metro area and Omaha.  I’m quite sure there are others.  One must wonder how hard the author actually looked before asking his questions.

Probably the biggest problem in interacting with the piece in question is the tendency of the author to address things in broad sweeping generalities with a generous dose of hyperbole thrown in.   His treatment of both “the church” and “millennials” as if they are monolithic homogenous entities makes serious discourse difficult.   Because when someone says “No one is doing…”, all that is necessary to falsify the claim is to point out one example of that particular thing being done.  Also, it’s abundantly clear that there are churches across the country doing (or trying to do) virtually everything he addresses.  The question becomes, “Why not find the churches heading in the direction you manifesto suggests, and point them out for praise?”.   This is a valid and important question I believe, but one that will probably not be answered with any specificity.  It’s obviously easier to point out what you perceive as wrong, instead of searching out and encouraging what you think is right.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the recent study that shows that roughly 30% of millennials still live with their parents.  While there certainly are extenuating circumstances, I’d suggest that any generation who have such a high degree of dependence might not be the best example to follow.

Finally, I’ll say that for years people have said that Christianity is always one generation from extinction, and I believe that to be true.  So, clearly reaching this generation is critical.   Unlike the author, I look at the student/young adults in leadership positions, as well as my son and his friends who are actively engaged in preparing for ministry and leadership roles both in and out of church, and I think that maybe there’s hope after all.   I also want to state up front that this is a conversation that I am very much involved in at an actual church in the real world, this isn't theory.  I truly want to have this discussion and hope that there are answers.