Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Thoughts on a Discontinuously Different Generation

Last week I attended a presentation by David Kinnaman, President of Barna Group, entitled “You Lost Me Live” – the premise of the event was to present the Barna Group findings on 18-29 year-olds that had grown-up in the church, but subsequently left the church. Not surprisingly, there is a book version of the findings (entitled “You Lost Me”) which covers pretty much the same material as the presentation.

Having read the book ahead of time, I was a bit disappointed that the live event didn’t delve deeper into application – now that we have the stats, what do we do about it, what are ideas that are working in some places to reach the 18-29 year-olds and keep them engaged in a life of faith, or even from the 18-29 year-olds themselves (though there was a little of this in the event) about specifically what drove them away from the church.

I’ve had time to think through some of this, and I’m really not that disappointed in the event itself. Like any event one attends, it has its purpose and that purpose may not always mesh perfectly what I would like to get out of it. Afterall, many people lit-up the Twitter-verse (is that the right “hip” phrase?) about the value of the event. I suspect many of these folks are like my wife (who attended with me) and found great value because she had not read the book. So for all of those folks – I’m glad you could get the information because I think it is helpful and important as we consider how the church engages a large number of people who otherwise feel alienated and disengaged.

Here’s what sticks in my craw. (okay, if that phrase doesn’t tell you I’m old, I don’t know what does). The response from some of the attendees to the material presented. I suspect that the response I will highlight here reflect a large number of people in many (particularly mainline) congregations across the U.S. and this disturbs me when I think about the future of the church.

Example 1. A 30-year-old panelist made the comment from the stage “what we are looking for from the church is a place where we can ask the hard questions about life and not be judged.” Seems like an innocent and reasonable request. Twitter lit up with a response “Wanting space to ask hard questions without being judged is like wanting a 0 calorie delicious cake. It exists, but its not healthy” (you can check-out hashtag #ylmlive to find it, I copied it verbatim). Wow, that’s an unfortunate statement. I can’t imagine that I would be serving in a church right now were it not for my parents, my church, and my friends giving me space to ask some hard questions and wrestling to find the answers (or in some cases, continuing to wrestle with hard questions).

I am sure the person that tweeted this response is well-meaning, but this is exactly why 18-29 year-olds have “checked-out” of the church. They’ve been told that there are absolutes and that wrestling with questions about life, science, morality, and countless other topics have absolute right and wrong answers. But as a friend of mine who is a church consultant stated, “the world really is 50 shades of grey.” Until we as the church grab a hold of the fact that we cannot impose 100% absolutes on every aspect of life, we will continue to lose the battle of being able to speak into the lives of our children and grandchildren. And when we shut-down the conversation before it can happen, we tell people “your ideas don’t matter, and therefore you don’t matter.” and frankly, the God that I know thinks that all people matter – going back to Genesis 1 – God created and called it good!

Example 2. A panelist was sharing her story of being a “young person” in a place where many of the employees are over the age of 50. Different generations think differently, they sometimes have different ideas. She has come to terms with that. She commented that she was trying to make some suggestions for ways things could work a bit better or be handled differently and she and her ideas were met with a man who said “you’re not 40 yet, you need to put in your years, work hard, and eventually your ideas will be welcome.” That comment left her feeling hurt, and again I think rightfully so (see my last blog) ... So again, twitter lights up with this comment (again, copied verbatim) “A millennial got her feelings hurt because somebody told her she "wasn't 40 yet." How do you not hurt a millennia's feelings?”

Now, one could read this one of two ways I suppose, but my sense is that what is being asked here is this “sometimes the truth hurts, so if your feelings get hurt by the truth, then what can I do about it?” And the answer lies in Jesus own words, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Now, I’ve probably said this before, if not in a blog then certainly somewhere – this assumes we love ourselves, which is a tall order for many. But think about not that her feelings were hurt, but what was said to cause it – “honey, you’re not old enough to contribute your ideas” – to which she could have responded, “okay, I can vote, drink, marry, rent cars, buy houses, fight for my country, and run for several political offices but I can’t contribute to society by putting my ideas out there and having them taken seriously within the church?”

Seems to me something is missing in this conversation and that is why 18-29 year-olds have left the church. What is missing is the idea that they can be taken seriously. That they have valid ideas and valid ways of thinking that are different than the way those who are 30+ years-old, 45+ years-old and 65+ years-old were raised to think. Why? Because, as Kinnaman points out, this generation has grown up in a society that is discontinuously different than any that have come before it (and if you don’t understand that statement, I suggest you read You Lost Me, and take seriously what is being talked about by a generation that will soon be making more of your decisions than you might want them to).

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Taking My Ball and Going Home…

We all have heard the phrase spoken. Generally dealing with someone who is acting “childish” around an issue. Maybe we ourselves at one time or another have done it (I have vague memories of doing this, or something like it when I was young – my brother might have memories of it happening on multiple occasions).

I’m taking my ball and going home” usually ends with a pout, a lower lip extended, and maybe even an audible “humph.” 

As people get older I think the tell-tale signs after the phrase tend to go away, maybe even the phrase itself goes away, but the sentiment behind the phrase continues to be there.  And the fact remains that what it really is about is two people having a disagreement about something and one person deciding that rather than continue to talk about the issue -or admit they might be wrong or admit they are in the minority (even if they are right) or arrive at a place where the two people agree to disagree - that they will end the argument by walking away. Or in the case of the “game” metaphor – make everyone else stop playing because the ball has been taken and the game must cease.

Welcome to the polarized climate of America these days.  I think the current Presidential race only amplifies what is an underlying attitude of Americans.

I watch Facebook in the wake of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates and I see people firmly digging their heels in on their side and being unwilling to listen to conversation from the other side.  I see people who when you try to engage in conversation about their perspective simply clam up and tell you how stupid you are to not see their side of the issue.  I have watched adults who rather than engage in conversation about issues they don’t agree with get up and walk out of a room.  To me this is nothing more than taking their ball and going home. And I think this might be the worst thing facing America.

I listen to a variety of talk radio shows, many of which are hosted by people who hold political views I don’t agree with.  Part of the reason I do this is to sharpen my own understanding of what I myself believe.  When I hear someone say something that doesn’t ring true for me, I ask myself “why doesn’t that ring true?” and I then list my arguments against it.  Unfortunately many of these radio talk show hosts are such bullies that they won’t let anyone who disagrees with them engage in conversation, they simply shut them down and tell them they are wrong (or worse).  They change the direction of the conversation in such a way that those who disagree with them simply can’t make a point – and this causes those who listen to these shows to think that the host is always right. Often the hosts themselves will claim a “victory” over the caller, but I think when the hosts do this to callers they are taking their ball and going home (if they actually left the airwaves it wouldn’t be looked upon favorably by their advertisers).

No doubt if you read much news you’ve heard about Florida resort owner David Siegel (wonder if there’s any relation to Bugsy Siegel, ha!) and his letter to employees which essential says that if Obama wins the election that he will be forced to lay people off due to the increased taxes that he is expecting to pay.  I read the letter. I think Siegel makes some very good points, but I question the conclusion that he comes to.  Does he really have to shrink his business?  Is there not another way to respond to the stress he is obviously feeling working 7 days a week 365 days a year? If I worked the kind of hours Siegel claims to work, I would want to retire too, but not because of policies of a particular government leader.  I would wonder why I’m killing myself over a business when there are other interests in my life – but I’m not David Siegel, I’m not going to tell him how to live his life.  I empathize with his position, but I think his conclusion is nothing more than deciding that he’s tired of playing the game of business in America because instead of winning in a landslide, the game is close and his strategy has to change to keep him from falling behind or losing.  His conclusion is that the only change he needs to make in his strategy is to take his ball and go home (or to the Bahamas), but I think there could be other options (though I admit, I could be wrong since I don’t know the first thing about the resort industry).

So, why would I take the time to share these thoughts?  It’s because I’m tired.  I’m tired of people who rather than doing the hard work of engaging with those that we disagree with in civil discourse would rather label and blame the other and quit playing the game.  I’m tired of people saying “I can’t succeed because –insert person from ‘other’ group here- is preventing me from succeeding.”

In the Gospel lesson from which I preached this last week, Mark 10:17-31, Jesus tells the rich man “sell all you have and follow me”. My sermon talked about how we all have some kind of “riches” we aren’t willing to give up – our ethnic heritage, our denominational affiliations, our theology, our ideology, whatever it is.  These get in the way of us being able to be human beings together and work together in the world. YES these are important – they shape us and inform who we are as people and how we react to the world around us, but they are NOT the only reason we exist and the only way by which we should be identified in the world.  And they certainly shouldn’t be classifications that keep us from relating with others.

As a Christian, I believe that God created all that is in this world and called it GOOD.  I also believe that God created human beings Imago Dei (in the image of God).  That means (and this is hard to admit sometimes) that the radical conservative AND the radical liberal AND everyone in between are all made in God’s image! Maybe this is what was meant when God told Moses “I am”

So, rather than taking our ball and going home can we be willing to stay for the conversation?  And when decisions are made that we don’t agree with can we move forward together rather than waiting for things to fall apart so we can say “I told you so.”  Because if anyone is going to tell us that, it should be God.  And I think we can all agree on one point … God is God and we are not God!

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

A Generation Left Behind?

Welcome to the world of the blog. The article below is in no way polished or complete. It is a work-in-progress and thoughts from my head on an idea. I would love your thoughts, comments, and responses (be kind, but feel free to refute what I offer). I’ve been kicking these thoughts around a while and wanted to get them “printed” in order to get some feedback on the idea.  Thanks in advance for wondering with me … and bearing with my scattered thoughts.  Article …. starts …. now…………………..

We live in a changing world, there is no question about that. I would venture to say that the world has always been changing, dare I say “evolving,” from the time of creation. Many social scientists and interpreters of culture will tell us that the rate of change has increased in the last 500 years and even more in the last century. The advent of technology has allowed information to be conveyed more and more rapidly.

I’ve mentioned before in this blog that I’ve become something of a student of generational change. I am intrigued by how people born of a certain area and geography think in a particular way. I am further intrigued by how that thinking is lived – particularly in the church.

I have read a number of books and articles on this phenomenon and I’ve been formulating an idea in my head about why this seems particularly problematic in this century. I mean, let’s face it, there is nothing new in the idea that one generation doesn’t always agree with the next. Take the example of Elvis Pressley and how the “teens” loved him while their parents thought he was “nothing but trouble” (to put it mildly). Look a bit more classically at Romeo & Juliet – their parents just couldn’t see how their love could transcend family battles. I’m sure for every generation back to creation it wouldn’t be hard to find instances where the generations butted heads.

As we consider the current generation and its relationship to older generations, we are faced with the reality that the speed and accessibility of information conveyance is light-years beyond what it was even fifty years ago. Fifty years ago the speed and accessibility of information conveyance was light years ahead of 100 years before that – so you if you plot it on a graph, you are looking at an exponential curve.

Here’s an example. A 15-year-old student is asked to write a paper on the presidential election that happened just 3 months previous. In 1932 that student would have had only newspapers and magazines to rely on for information – maybe some first-hand accounts. The student would have written the paper by hand with pencil (or pen) on paper. In 1968 that 15-year-old would have had newspaper and magazine articles but also television and radio news reports, possibly even a book that had been written and published, but even in 1968 a 3 month window would have been pretty tight for such publication. This student might have written the first draft of the paper by hand, but likely would have turned in the finally draft having used a typewriter. In 2000 the student not only has all of the resources previously mentioned, but (assuming access to a computer) the internet which logs articles written around the world, opinions by various people, and even video of the events of the election as they happened. This student would have likely started their first draft on the computer and edited it before printing it out for the teacher. Zoom forward to 2012 and students will have even faster access to the internet and these resources so that in literally seconds they can pull together the information for such a paper – and they can probably pull the information together (copying and pasting from various sources) on their phone while they are waiting for their lunch and then send the final result electronically without ever having touched a piece of paper in the process!

Now, understand that information on any topic is now this readily available. Information that used to take months to make available is available instantly. Where it used to take a week to have film from an overseas event, we can watch it as it happens. The Encyclopedia (which used to be the gold-standard for research) had an information lag-time. Essentially by the time it was published, some of the articles may have been outdated. Now, via the internet a student can learn about the most up-to-date research on cancer (or any other topic) with just a few clicks!

All of that is a long introduction to my point … as generations change so does our pecking order in society.

It used to be that in order to learn enough and experience enough of the world to be able to make highly informed decisions one needed time. Time to read and digest the information as it became available. Time to gain experience in an industry or on a job. This is becoming less and less true. (now, I readily admit there is still something to be said for experience)

I was listening to a talk radio show the other day when the host (a male in his 60’s) made a comment about a “young kid” who couldn’t possibly have the knowledge to make the statement he did because of his age. Well, yes, for a person 60 years old, when he was 30 he would not have had access to the information that today’s 30-year-olds have at their fingertips. But in our information-soaked world, even a fifteen-year-old has information that might have taken 20 years to collect in the past.

I think this becomes particularly problematic for a generation that has been told they have to “pay their dues” in order to be in a position of authority only to find that people half their age are able to come in with similar knowledge and speak with the same authority.

It used to be that as one got older their “years” counted for a certain amount of knowledge that simply could not be attained any other way. Now, that is not so much the case. Which leads me to wonder if, in some way, we have begun to displace a generation that has been waiting for their “turn”?

As I think about this, it seems that Boomers have tried their best to live with “a foot in two worlds.” One is the world of their upbringing in which they still needed to read books, newspapers, and learn from those who had done it before. A world in which the longer one did something the more one was seen as an authority in that field. The other is a world where information is readily available and information is only as good as the latest update of your technology. Where a 15-year-old can download and digest the drawings, articles, videos, and commentaries that were previously “out of reach” to the younger generation.

Imagine it as having a foot on two different tread mills – one where you are walking a steady pace and the other has you jogging or maybe running. How challenging to keep a foot in both of those worlds. You ultimately need to jump on one tread mill or the other unless you are really talented with your ability to balance. And depending on which treadmill you choose, you have just joined a different generation – one older than you or one younger than you.

As a pastor, I now bring this back to the church. A church in which the “older generations” are largely the norm. Statistics have shown that mainline churches (of which I count myself a member) are aging. It seems that we have largely decided which of the two treadmills we will place ourselves on. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we are able from our treadmill to reach out to those who are traveling on other treadmills or if we are simply going to continue at our own pace and let the others do their thing?