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.
2 comments:
Long story, but this one is kind of my personal tale. When we moved to a new city because of my wife's job at a church, I was faced with being this introverted "outsider" who was just someones husband. I could have pouted and waited for people to "include" me, but I decided that things would be better if I took some initiative, got out of my comfort zone and sought out some places where I could be a part of something. I'm not bragging as much as pointing out that I'm inherently sympathetic to people like me.
I do suspect that if I attempted to make inroads at a church with a more theologically/politically liberal slant, that I would find it difficult to be accepted without some degree of sacrificing my beliefs. That;s just based on how tolerant the political/religious left is of folks like me.
Here's another possibility. If you are a member and see someone with whom you are not familiar, what's stopping you from introducing yourself and making the shy person feel more welcome by YOUR actions?
But if you're the shy guy, where do you get off believing that everything should come to a stop by your presence? That everyone should ignore that which is before them in order to keep a wary eye out for the shy newcomer? Again, "me, me, me".
Post a Comment