Generation Gap
One of the biggest challenges churches face as they deal with our cultural context is the simple median age of the congregants. In the PC(USA), that age is around 60. What that means is that most of folks in the pews came of age during the time when the church employed a model of ministry developed in the 1950s that emphasized Christian Education, local programs geared toward families (e.g., women's Circles, youth group, etc.), and pastors who were seen as part of the social fabric of their communities. As this generation came to lead their congregations, they simply brought forward the model that they knew. Because there was no generation following them to take the reins, that model persists in a context that no longer finds it useful, relevant, or meaningful. In other words, the children of the current generation leading the church have no interest nor use for the church as it is.
That's a hard truth, but the numbers supporting it are staggering.
Yes, we in the PC(USA) rightly celebrate our 2016 Youth Triennium, a gathering of mostly high school youth from all over the US, that drew 3000 or more young people for an exciting time of worship, reflection, fellowship, and thinking. But think for a moment about that number. In the Southeast, 3000 people was at one time the size of several of the flagship churches all across the region, representing only a small fraction of the total number of congregations--i.e., there were tens of thousands of Presbyterians in single presbyteries in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, or Virginia. 3000 people meant only that you were part of a multistaff church among other multistaff churches. So, what that number really represents is that we held a large conference, but it in no way means that there is a demographic shift afoot within the church--we are still growing older and the young are becoming more scarce. The church itself continues to shrink.
I believe we need to ask why--why did we lose our children along the way?
Some quickly argue that the root cause is theological. We stopped enforcing orthodoxy. We abdicated in the culture wars. Because we no longer stand for a code of beliefs and a moralistic rule for life, we lost our stance of authority. Yet, the truth is that even among evangelical youth, there is a skepticism about rigid moralism. The issues of sexual orientation, for instance, are non-starters for nearly everyone under 40, no matter how they define themselves religiously from progressive to staunchly conservative. They don't get why their parents go to battle over this issue at national church meetings. It is irrelevant. Instead, the younger generations take a far more libertarian stance toward theology--each can believe what they believe--that's their choice. Yes, there may be a call to at least center things on Jesus, but how that centering expresses itself is left each to their own.
Others argue that we focused on the wrong things institutionally--i.e., we threw all our resources into social justice, while neglecting the need for education, and even our practice of worship. The consequence was that a generation grew with little instruction in the rudiments of the faith. The Bible is an unknown work. The essential tenets of Reformed theology are lost on most, despite them being included still as a vow all ordained persons (Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, or Deacon) affirm as absolutely core to their work. Without basic knowledge, the younger generations have no comprehension of who we are and what we believe, hence, they see no importance or value in what we do.
Still others argue that we reduced the faith to a social construct--i.e., church membership was just part of reaching Middle Class stability in the neighborhood. No one believed much of anything, wanted sermons just to have sermons, wanted worship to be entertainment, and gradually required less and less of members in terms of embodying the faith, simply allowing Sunday morning to become a part of domestic routine. The generation coming of age now sees right through such depthless religion. They want values lived. They look for proof in action of claims that something is essential to life lived fully and completely. They want depth.
As I go about my work, I find there is validity in every one of these arguments.
In sum, the world changed, but the church didn't.
So, now what?
Well, that has yet to be seen. My own inkling is that every aspect of our faith community that currently resides within a set of standing rules, bylaws, manuals of operation, or Books of Order is up for re-examination. What I mean by that is that we cannot continue to live by an outmoded, outdated model of church. Change has to come. It is no longer an option. We have to be willing to examine our faith community from the steeple to the lawn--every point of our being--and reconsider what we're doing.
The only truly unchangeable is God. Are we communicating God meaningfully, appropriately, and vocationally? The fact that the median age continues to climb would indicate that we aren't.
God in Christ is the redemption of all creation. Are our practices in line with those of Christ? The Gospel indicates that his primary, unwavering practice was other-centered, self-emptying love. He radically welcomed every human being before him, offering them healing that meant unbinding them from whatever held them apart from God and their neighbors.
And that was pretty much it.
One of my presbyter colleagues, Rev. Jeff Hutcheson of San Francisco Presbytery, commented that as we look over our collective life, we see the Transfiguration lived over and over--as Jesus was gloriously revealed before them, the disciples sought to immediately build houses to freeze the moment in place, where in reality, Christ's glory was totally unfixed and unfettered--the establishment of the very first Building and Grounds Committe undid the ability to properly respond to Christ's glory! We've been building houses ever since.
So maybe we need to stop building churches for people to come to--instead, maybe we should be about taking the church to the people--live Christ in the world, worry about the institutional forms later.
Maybe.
Pope Francis has sparked an interest among the young that we have not seen in a long, long while. The reason is simple--he takes his faith with him into the world; he engages the world; and he responds in the compassion, grace, and mercy found in Jesus. No, he is not perfect. But even for us Presbyterians, firmly within Reformed Protestantism, he offers a model that appeals to the generation gone missing from our churches.
Maybe we should try it.
That's a hard truth, but the numbers supporting it are staggering.
Yes, we in the PC(USA) rightly celebrate our 2016 Youth Triennium, a gathering of mostly high school youth from all over the US, that drew 3000 or more young people for an exciting time of worship, reflection, fellowship, and thinking. But think for a moment about that number. In the Southeast, 3000 people was at one time the size of several of the flagship churches all across the region, representing only a small fraction of the total number of congregations--i.e., there were tens of thousands of Presbyterians in single presbyteries in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, or Virginia. 3000 people meant only that you were part of a multistaff church among other multistaff churches. So, what that number really represents is that we held a large conference, but it in no way means that there is a demographic shift afoot within the church--we are still growing older and the young are becoming more scarce. The church itself continues to shrink.
I believe we need to ask why--why did we lose our children along the way?
Some quickly argue that the root cause is theological. We stopped enforcing orthodoxy. We abdicated in the culture wars. Because we no longer stand for a code of beliefs and a moralistic rule for life, we lost our stance of authority. Yet, the truth is that even among evangelical youth, there is a skepticism about rigid moralism. The issues of sexual orientation, for instance, are non-starters for nearly everyone under 40, no matter how they define themselves religiously from progressive to staunchly conservative. They don't get why their parents go to battle over this issue at national church meetings. It is irrelevant. Instead, the younger generations take a far more libertarian stance toward theology--each can believe what they believe--that's their choice. Yes, there may be a call to at least center things on Jesus, but how that centering expresses itself is left each to their own.
Others argue that we focused on the wrong things institutionally--i.e., we threw all our resources into social justice, while neglecting the need for education, and even our practice of worship. The consequence was that a generation grew with little instruction in the rudiments of the faith. The Bible is an unknown work. The essential tenets of Reformed theology are lost on most, despite them being included still as a vow all ordained persons (Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, or Deacon) affirm as absolutely core to their work. Without basic knowledge, the younger generations have no comprehension of who we are and what we believe, hence, they see no importance or value in what we do.
Still others argue that we reduced the faith to a social construct--i.e., church membership was just part of reaching Middle Class stability in the neighborhood. No one believed much of anything, wanted sermons just to have sermons, wanted worship to be entertainment, and gradually required less and less of members in terms of embodying the faith, simply allowing Sunday morning to become a part of domestic routine. The generation coming of age now sees right through such depthless religion. They want values lived. They look for proof in action of claims that something is essential to life lived fully and completely. They want depth.
As I go about my work, I find there is validity in every one of these arguments.
In sum, the world changed, but the church didn't.
So, now what?
Well, that has yet to be seen. My own inkling is that every aspect of our faith community that currently resides within a set of standing rules, bylaws, manuals of operation, or Books of Order is up for re-examination. What I mean by that is that we cannot continue to live by an outmoded, outdated model of church. Change has to come. It is no longer an option. We have to be willing to examine our faith community from the steeple to the lawn--every point of our being--and reconsider what we're doing.
The only truly unchangeable is God. Are we communicating God meaningfully, appropriately, and vocationally? The fact that the median age continues to climb would indicate that we aren't.
God in Christ is the redemption of all creation. Are our practices in line with those of Christ? The Gospel indicates that his primary, unwavering practice was other-centered, self-emptying love. He radically welcomed every human being before him, offering them healing that meant unbinding them from whatever held them apart from God and their neighbors.
And that was pretty much it.
One of my presbyter colleagues, Rev. Jeff Hutcheson of San Francisco Presbytery, commented that as we look over our collective life, we see the Transfiguration lived over and over--as Jesus was gloriously revealed before them, the disciples sought to immediately build houses to freeze the moment in place, where in reality, Christ's glory was totally unfixed and unfettered--the establishment of the very first Building and Grounds Committe undid the ability to properly respond to Christ's glory! We've been building houses ever since.
So maybe we need to stop building churches for people to come to--instead, maybe we should be about taking the church to the people--live Christ in the world, worry about the institutional forms later.
Maybe.
Pope Francis has sparked an interest among the young that we have not seen in a long, long while. The reason is simple--he takes his faith with him into the world; he engages the world; and he responds in the compassion, grace, and mercy found in Jesus. No, he is not perfect. But even for us Presbyterians, firmly within Reformed Protestantism, he offers a model that appeals to the generation gone missing from our churches.
Maybe we should try it.
Comments
Post a Comment