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.
8 comments:
"Christianity is always one generation from extinction."
You agreed with the statement. I would agree with one clear caveat -- "In a world unaffected by God." If we live in God's world, the statement can't be true given Jesus's words, "I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18) If Christianity is predicated on what we do and say, then the statement might be true. Christianity is not. Now, having said that, we must always be diligent to find out our errors and correct them.
I'm interested, however, in the thinking that warns that "1/3 of a generation is anti-church." Really? Only one third? Because the biblical version is more like "many" and those who are not are "few". I suspect that people who warn of such things are buying numbers like "75% of Americans are Christian" with a false definition of "Christian".
So, carry on. Good things to address. Just trying to keep in mind that 1) the Church is not in jeopardy and 2) what we expect is "few", not "many" and don't allow numbers to drive doctrine or practice without regard to Scripture.
Point well taken. Clearly God will superintend the Church through whatever might come against it. I've always taken the quote as more of a caution against failing to "train up our children" and that's the sense I was using it here.
This whole thing is made slightly more difficult because I also believe in the sovereignty of God and that He's going to call whoever He chooses to call and these sorts of strategies are not going to change that.
The other side of things is that I believe that the Church does need to be God's kingdom on earth and that community of all generations is a good, healthy thing.
I hadn't thought about the fact that we should expect the percentage to be higher not lower.
I think that the biggest issue with this discussion is that if the Church doesn't adapt, then we will have people thinking that being a Christian without the community is a rational choice, and that it encourages the "spiritual/not religious" trend we see.
It's interesting that in his point about culture, it seems pretty clear that what he is looking for is a church that is not being subsumed by the culture, but one that is truly acting a ways counter to the culture. This tells me that he is not looking for a "social gospel" kind of church, but a 1 Peter kind of church. For some reason I find this reassuring. Even though I have problems with some of the points or how he's expressed them I really think he's looking for a challenging, authentic, Biblical church.
I agree with you, which is why I said, "So, carry on. Good things to address."
I haven't seen a link to the source of the original article. Do you have it?
I can post it when I'm on a real computer, or you can go to the source of this, it's in his post.
I didn't see the reference to "his post" or I'd go there. Who? That would do nicely.
He whose name can't be mentioned.
Dan.
Oh, thanks! I don't go there; wouldn't have thought of him.
I'd be interested in your take one you read the original article.
Post a Comment