"We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At"
My first reaction is that this is not an either/or situation but a both/and situation. If these folks are looking for a Biblically based church, then both preaching and mentoring should be a part of the community.
"Preaching just doesn’t reach our generation like our parents and grandparents. See: millennial church attendance. We have millions of podcasts and Youtube videos of pastors the world over at our fingertips."
Again my first reaction is, "So what?", could it possibly be that the problem is not with "preaching" but with the millennial generation?
Of course, this first sentence is nullified by the second. They all fine with being "preached at" as long as they can choose who it is and do it at their convenience.
"Millennials crave relationship, to have someone walking beside them
through the muck. We are the generation with the highest ever percentage
of fatherless homes."
1. I hate to break it to him, but every human ever is wired for relationship. Maybe that's why all the NT church language is in the context of relationship.
2. Sometimes it just might take looking for these kinds of relationships, rather than waiting for them to seek you out.
"We’re looking for mentors who are authentically invested in our lives
and our future. If we don’t have real people who actually care about us,
why not just listen to a sermon from the couch (with the ecstasy of
donuts and sweatpants)?"
1. They're out there, looking for folks to mentor, but they won't find you on the couch.
2. Again, it's not the concept of a sermon, but the fact that it's all about convenience.
3. Unless you're actually in places where older mentor types hang out, how do you think you'll ever meet them?
Solutions
- Create a database of adult mentors and young adults looking for someone to walk with them.
- Ask the older generation to be intentional with the millennials in your church.
As with the last point, I don't have a problem with either of these. I do have a problem with the attitude that this needs to be done for them and that it's all the "older generation's" fault. We're back to both/and. We're also back to the fact that there are thousands of churches out there doing this already, it's just a matter of finding them. Or, heaven forbid, plant one.
8 comments:
If I may make one minor suggestion to consider: Sometimes, when people rant about a legitimate concern they may have (and millenials abandoning church IS a legitimate concern, if you care about the church and its survival), your points you raise may not mean to be taken literally (as in "NO ONE is doing ANYTHING about this..."). It's a rant to raise concern and to say, Here are some general concerns I have, I hope you listen and take them seriously...
They're not looking for you (generic you) to take up the ideas, point by point and tell them why they're factually mistaken. They're raising a concern.
So, for the person who takes on the concerns, point by point, and says "here's where you're factually mistaken, here's where you're factually mistaken...," they are missing the greater point and thus, pushing away, rather than helping, even though that may be the intent.
Sometimes, people just want to have their concerns listened to.
Of course, I don't know this guy from Adam, just pointing it out for what it's worth...
Sorry. It all still sounds like irrational whining to me. I don't recall even thinking like this in my younger years. That could be because we knew that church was for worship, not a stand-in for our security blankets.
Perhaps it's this "mentoring" thing. I'm going to allow that I might not be understanding what it is from the perspective of these tender souls, and how it is supposed to manifest in reality. More directly, what's the difference between preaching and mentoring. I'd say that some kids would reject mentoring because they feel they are merely being victimized by preaching.
Dan says they're raising a concern. The article has lots of words but says very little about what the problem is. Still seems to me that the problem is them (or at least, him). It's Church (or the church) on their terms is what they demand.
Dan
So as long as you label something a "rant", it's then excused from having to conform to reality?
The problem is that you are assuming that the original was a "rant" based on your presumptions and desires, you have no basis to make any objective declarations about the nature of the original.
Further, is a "rant" the best way to actually engage with someone or some group to actually encourage change.
I'm going to reiterate something pretty much makes your comment pointless. As I've pointed out multiple times, this conversation is being had in numerous places and millennial have numerous options where the things he wants to happen are happening. In short, his underlying premise is not factually correct.
I can't see that a "rant" about a situation that doesn't actually exist as presented is a positive way to get the change the piece says the author wants.
Or maybe your just satisfied with a shallow surface level reading and simply want to disagree with anyone who doesn't buy into your facile interpretation.
I guess you're not really interested in having an actual fact based discussion about the piece, but rather in uncritically acceptance of his theses.
One can affirm the intent of a piece and provide support without being uncritically accepting of it.
That is the point I'm making.
Do with that what you will.
~Dan
Yet, you accept it uncritically and disparage anyone who wants to look more deeply at the reality of the situation.
For example, do you think the author might have reacted differently had he known the extent of the effort being put into this situation? Do you think that it's important to accurately assess the problem and the the solutions will be more appropriate if based on the actual situation rather than a misunderstanding of the situation?
It seems clear that you have some personal reasons why you have decided that this piece is above analysis and constructive criticism that don't necessarily relate to either the content of the piece or to the analysis.
Thus again we see the notion that the left acts contrary to their words manifesting yet again. Can we "agree to disagree", or can't we? Make up your mind. I disagree that the millennial even has a legitimate beef. Craig disagrees that there isn't any real efforts to address the whiny beefs of the millennial. Dan disagrees with our daring to disagree.
Art,
You have to note the fact that Dan hasn't really interacted with anything of substance on this topic. He's been quick to point out what he believes we've done wrong. He's given excuses as to why we shouldn't take the piece at face value (It's hyperbole, it's a rant). Yet, absolutely zero on the substance of the piece, on any of the specific points raised, nothing. To be accurate, he hasn't even acknowledged that I believe this subject, the piece, and the questions raised to be worthwhile or that there are areas where I agree.
Just excuses and criticism. Shoot, the fact that the author contradicts himself doesn't even seem to make a dent in Dan's support.
Post a Comment