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?