(the continuation of) a letter from an exhausted/exasperated young person who has a complicated love/hate relationship with the church
PART 2 of 3
Given the unexpected response of the first part of my “letter,” Part 2 has invariably taken a new direction given many of the reactions and issues that were brought up after its posting…from comments on the original post, blog responses written throughout the web, and personal conversations I’ve had throughout this past week with people.
Unfortunately the same reactive defensiveness by which I have been buffeted in the past (and that I communicated was a strong source of my frustration) was present in many of the responses. (Not all, mind you. There were many people that stated my letter communicated their same frustrations. A very telling, albeit disheartening, fact). This is definitely a conversation that needs to occur and would greatly benefit from happening face-to-face…but more on that in Part 3. For Part 2, I would like to spend the majority of this post dealing with some of the aforementioned issues.
It has been pointed out in numerous comments and blog posts that young people are simply self-centered and narcissistic, desiring that everything be all about them when it comes to church, community, etc.
Of course they are.
But let’s not just be partially honest about this–let’s be COMPLETELY honest. Every generation in the church is self-centered and narcissistic to some degree, desiring that everything be all about them when it comes to church, community, etc. Young people, contrary to popular opinion, do not have a monopoly on this unfortunate attribute.
[And yes, I'm making a generalization here as I am wont to do. As we are all wont to do. Of course there are people who don't fit the general characteristics of a certain generation or demographic or denomination. But for the sake of brevity and to prevent this "letter" from becoming a novel, please allow me the concession of making a few generalizations and trust that yes, I am indeed also aware of the various caveats to each generalization and comment I make.]
We all, for the most part, filter everything through our own subjectivity and personal experiences and preferences. Did the orange upholstery on those pews just appear out of some vacuum of pure objectivity? No–someone made a decision at some point in time that orange would be an appealing color choice. Did the floral wallpaper in the church kitchen come from the same vacuum? Of course not. Again, someone had a preference for that aesthetic and chose to purchase it and cover an entire room with it. The same can be said for our orders of service and the songs we sing: someone or some people, at some point in time, made a decision based on a variety of subjective factors.
So of course young people are subjective in their desires of having cultural preferences present and represented in their churches…but so are previous generations. This isn’t anything new.
Why is it, then, that only certain cultural artifacts are allowed to be baptized into orthodoxy? At what point (or under what conditions or after which year) do things that are normally up for discussion suddenly become non-negotiable and relegated to the status of “the way things have always been?”
Do previous generations forget that at one point many of the songs that are now considered sacred were just as controversial and unappealing to the generations before them? Do they forget that at one point Isaac Watts (considered one of the godfathers of ‘modern’ hymnody) was considered a near heretic because he had the gall to write and sing songs that weren’t directly from Scripture? Do they realize he was just a young person when he started, and that he did so because he was bored with what he considered to be dull and lifeless music being sung within his church? Do they forget that the church didn’t accept him and that, instead of quieting down and going with the proverbial flow, he instead participated in a new “Noncomformist” church in which those songs could be sung? Do they realize who most likely wrote the vast majority of ‘standards’ now contained within their church’s hymnal?
How selfish of him! How completely narcissistic to insist on worshipping God his own way rather than the way God obviously wanted people to worship Him! I mean, c’mon…that whole “Joy to the World” tune? What an absolute ruckus! Why couldn’t Mr. Watts just settle down and realize church wasn’t about him, but about God, and that the songs the generation before him liked singing were actually the only songs God preferred to hear? God clearly gave us the Book, and he clearly told us which songs he wanted sung by including the Psalms. Don’t question that. Don’t worry about creating any “original songs of Christian experience.” God already took care of it for us.
(Although tone and tenor doesn’t always translate well through the written medium, I hope you hear the sound of my tongue firmly planted within my cheek.)
***
Why is it, then, that young people are primarily considered selfish and narcissistic in wanting certain cultural trappings represented in their churches/communities, yet the cultural trappings of previous generations are spoken of in much different terms, or in ways that indicate “This is just how it’s always been?” Because that’s simply not true. It’s not how things have always been. ”This” (whatever ”this” may be) is simply how it’s been for a certain period of time and for a certain group of people who find those ways preferential.
And this is why statements such as “Just worship how God wants to be worshipped” don’t hold up very well. Sure, a statement like this sounds wonderful and super spiritual…but what does it mean? What does it look like to incarnate that sentiment within our churches and communities?
If I were to think on that statement, and consider possible ways in which God might have made it known to us how He, in fact, does want us to worship, I would immediately think of Isaiah 58 where God says something along the lines of: “Isn’t this the kind of fasting [/worship] I’m after…?” He then goes on to provide a short list of things He really seems concerned about such as fighting injustice, spending oneself on behalf of the down-and-out, dealing with issues of poverty and hunger and exploitation.
Nothing about music genres. Nothing about a preferred order of service. Nothing about church decor/architecture or the images used on bulletin covers.
Which could mean a couple things: (a) God doesn’t really care about worship styles (not in the sense that he doesn’t have any concern for us, but in the sense that he gives us an immense amount of freedom and creativity to do what we want as free and creative beings, and within that there many equally valuable and valid possibilities), or (b) God actually doesn’t want us performing services and only wants us doing the things he lists. So no more singing, no more trappings of anything organized.
If we go with Option A, some much-needed discussion needs to be had because we need to realize/admit that there are a litany of styles and preferences and possibilities for church services that we haven’t even begun to explore yet (or we have, and maybe we’ve forgotten them and need to bring them back) and that there are a lot of different ways of going about this.
If we go with Option B, then we have some pretty serious demolition to do because God probably isn’t too happy that we’ve been spending all this generously given money to build buildings and pay electric bills and purchase new carpet and additional wings for the sanctuary and new chairs for the worship center (or pews, even) and pay people to crunch and balance numbers for bills being paid with money that should instead be used to eliminate debt and alleviate suffering and buying clothes for naked people and meals for hungry people.
And for those who may not find either of these possibilities much of an option…well, this shift taking place within the church is going to be that much more uncomfortable. Because if something as ‘small’ as musical preference can cause so much heated debate, then just imagine how the shifting from one epoch into another, of entire world-views and understandings of what it means to be a human being or made imago Dei are going to be handled.
Because there is a shift occuring.
This is bigger than just “young people have never been satisfied with the church.” Cultural trappings of music and images and decor are the languages in which deeper issues of identity and community are being discussed and explored by young people. Issues of acceptance (who’s “in” and who’s “out”) that were so obviously black-and-white for previous generations are not at all so for younger ones. Ideas of what is “proper” or “disrespectful” are changing (not all bad, not all good), and although attempts at just “getting us back” to some Midnight in Paris-ian utopia may be well-intentioned*, they just aren’t going to be successful. The more we move forward, the more the landscape is changing…and will continue to. As I said in Part 1, the substrate upon which the church of the previous era was built is fundamentally changing.
Does this mean that all churches need to be singing contemporary music on Sundays? No (and for the record, a worship song released in 1992 is technically no longer “contemporary”). But space needs to be made–whatever that looks like–for those who walk and live upon this new substrate to explore ways of worship that are relevant to the world and culture in which they exist. This may mean a mixed-style service. This may mean a church-within-a-church. This may mean an existing church helping form/start a new one. This may mean a deeply contextual idea and incarnation that may not apply to any other church or community.
But, if nothing else, it means at least this much: a conversation needs to take place.
A respectful, empathetic conversation about how two cultures (or more) can exist in the bes possible way at the same time as the worlds in which they live seem to undergo a continuing disconnect.
This may mean concessions. It may mean experimentation. It may mean wondering how our service might look to others who don’t find these specific sounds and sights comforting (or even welcoming, for that matter). It may mean truly thinking about the other, not just feigning it or telling someone else to do it while we continuing enjoying things in ways we always have. Such conversations may not lead to actual understanding between generations, but they will hopefully result in an actual attempt to understand one another.
And that conversation–while it may not be the ultimate solution–is at least a step forward in dealing with the present situation and frustration felt by so many.
____________________________________
*I once heard a sermon, the point of which was literally: “If we could just get back to the way things were in the 1950s, then everything (society, families, the church) would be a whole lot better off.”
16 comments
Again, thank you for your wise posting. What you are addressing, what has not been honored, points to the numbers of people leaving the church. The conversation it essential to have and I so appreciate that you are trying to have it with those still inside the church. There really are many folks who long for the church to open itself to the living Spirit of God. And take heart, there really are churches out there that are doing that. Peace.
Shannon
All I can say is, If we can dream it up, we can do it. Who is to stop the Holy Spirit from blowing where she will? Who says one size has to fit all? Worship, doing justice, loving our neighbors is not about the institution. It’s about people getting inspiration and energy from God and from each other as we let God work through us for the Kingdom. The institution can both frustrate and help. (Let the dead bury the dead. You, follow me). A sense of humor will go a long way here!
Again, thoughtful and well-stated.
It’s “wont” – as in “I’m making a generalization here as I am wont to do.”
That is all
Truly appreciated.
And not a word about “towing the line”? Although I will admit that trying to initiate change in most institutions is like pushing rope up a wall! Generally we are asked to ‘toe the line’ that someone else has drawn in the sand. (And where are all these alleged hyphens?)
Totally agree. One quip I read a pastor say was, “If the fifties ever come back, my church is ready.” In my church, I’d say the 1980s.
It’s very true of a number of churches, and the process of figuring out how to minister in the middle of this awakening is confusing and challenging, and definitely has its low points.
Thank you for writing these. Our church is living this debate right now, and it’s not much fun. Your writing, with its concise elegance and clarity, helps articulate a perspective that is very hard to hear for some! Keep writing. We wait for part 3 with bated breath.
Nice response, Ron. I’ve found that many people have never stopped to consider the difference between cultural traditions and Christian traditions. My former employer outlawed all alcohol consumption and required that male faculty and students keep their hair short — in spite of the fact that Jesus Christ once turned water into wine, and in all likelihood wore his hair long while doing so. My employer seemed wholly unaware of any irony or contradiction in their policy.
It may be that some gentle and thoughtful push-back like yours can help people recognize what is truly essential to Christian community and worship, although my experiences suggest that change — when it does come — tends to be frustratingly slow. Whether the young people of the church will have the forbearance to wait for that remains to be seen.
Ron,
Thanks for bring’n all this up and for allowing responses.
I’m a veteran of much you’ve written about and it’s extremely frustrating.
The time and energy it demands drains a pastor to the extent he’s prone to just leave that church and many times vacate his pastoral call from God. There are many wounded pastors who are injured/stressed both mentally and spiritually from this lack of unity, in the local body, you’ve written about.
I’m writing to simply say that:
1. churches whose main focuses are on evangelization and missions are less likely to need “the conversation.” And on the other side of that coin;
2. churches who aren’t involved in evangelization and missions; let alone, are not equipping their members for this, I’ve found right smack in the middle of desperately in need of “the conversation.”
That, for me, boils down to a question of “focus.”
Allow me to illustrate:
Two men, were overheard, coming out of their worship on Sunday a.m.
Man 1says: “I sure didn’t get much out of that.”
Man 2 responds: “It wasn’t for you.”
Question: Which of the aforementioned churches would you expect to hear that conversation?
That’s my point.
Where the church is radically not keeping the Gospel proclamation and missions in the forefront, they’ll miss out on God and focus on themself and their individual wants and their false needs.
Where the unity of and in the gospel is non-existent and the thought is “worship is for me” “the conversation” may be a refreshing attempt to bring harmony. But, not until the focus on “it’s all about God” gets into every believers heart the biggest red-neck (I’m one) 4 wheel drive monster truck with a 600 horsepower engine will not be able to pull the hearts together.
Great contribution to the Discussion of a vital issue.
Part 2 does a lot to fill in a gap that I thought I saw in part 1. It recognizes that this generation is not the first one ever to have issues with the old farts. The current younger generation sometimes seems to think it discovered social change based on technological innovation. Back in my youth (late 60′s to early 70′s) a lot of my generation was up in arms about how we had discovered (among other things) social justice, peace, authenticity, long hair on men, and sex (at least the hetero form). Didn’t all exactly work out as many people hoped or feared.
I don’t know what this means to the conversation we certainly need to have, except to recognize that while the specifics vary, social/cultural/generational change is a universal phenomenon. With God’s help we have gotten through it before, and we have to keep trying to get through it preserving the best of both the old and the new.
Keep talking, Ron.
You speak with a greater sensitivity and gentleness than some of us might! Some/many of us are already voting with our feet, some of us choosing Option B and beyond.
It’s hard to know how things will go. Perhaps this is the way the church will end, not with a bang but a whimper (to paraphrase and plagiarize T S Eliot). Perhaps the proponents of “This is just how it’s always been!” (often identical to “This is just how it’s supposed to be!”, or Fundamentalism) will broaden their viewpoint to include more historical background. Perhaps we will learn to get along with a wide variety of understandings, and learn to get along with each other.
The biggest fight I ever had at my parish where I was an associate for 4 years was whether or not we could move — MOVE — a pseudo-Victorian parlor chair from the Narthex into another building. We moved it. And then we were required to MOVE IT BACK. I assure you, this was not a position held by the youth of the parish. So this trumped up story about how “young people just want it their way” is a bunch of b.s.
Thanks for the great response. I’d been waiting and looking out for part 2. Glad to see it — and can’t wait for part 3.
This is good. I like the conversation that is getting going. Here are two things I’ve taken away from this, or what I’d like to add:
1. The premise in pt. one that the church is the answer to the world’s ills is too assumptive. While I believe the Church invisible is God’s chosen mechanism for the message of salvation, changing the world is dependent on an act of God, not humans depending on God. It’s too big now, and the world is simply too evil for the Church to change it.
2. And coinciding with that I believe this shift of epochs is nothing less than the Second Coming itself. You’re right, things are going to change, but not something we can handle nor something within our control. Or what we we’ve been expecting for that matter. Jesus is going to step on the stage one last glorious time, and forever God’s people (and I don’t define that, only He can) are taken from this dark place.
I suggest arguments over worship style or how people find community, or whatever, are distractions from submission-true humility before our Creator. I love to think and imagine what would happen if every last one of God’s people (again, defined by Him not me) submitted to His Voice. I call it the Holy Spirit. Before I knew Him, I would have called it my conscience. What I would believe would happen would be a people who heard God when He called and then more people would be ready for that Day. We would get out of our own way and God could finally have a people show the world what He is like, His character of mercy, love and eventual judgment.
We don’t get to pick when God intervenes in history. We don’t get to pick the ending of the Story (in that I mean the Story of Redemption). God has that well in His control, even if it doesn’t appear so now.
Yeats, the Irish poet, used the image of the gyre – a widening spiral – and said the center cannot hold. The backdrop was the changes in the world wrought by WWI. Everything was shifting at once; agrarian to industrial, social contracts were in flux from the “upstairs/downstairs” way of being to something more fluid, economies were in tatters and political boundaries and nations’ borders shifted like lines of yarn in the wind. One age was winding down, while another was winding up. That cusp point was full of turbulence, but also full of possibility. This time feels as though it has a lot of similarities.
When there are too many variable factors to track it’s helpful to find even a small fixed point from which to observe the shifting winds. If we think our culture is a puzzle, think about the powder keg of competing interests that was first century Jerusalem. Remember the struggling Scribe who asked Jesus which “law” was most important? Jesus gave two (the irreducible minimum?)”Love God first and your neighbor as yourself.”
The forms will shift. The forms MUST shift in order to have life within them. But the substance is the same. So how do we discover new variations on this ancient dance without doing violence to our dancing partners? Surely one aspect is to stay on the dance floor. Let the music shift from time to time, take care for your neighbor and let’s dance!
I can hardly wait for part 3. What is being portrayed is exactly what I have been seeing…you say it ever so clearly, or as clearly as it can for all are dfferent. How would you describe our culture today? Yes, the church appears to fight any change, but done gradually, with patience and listening not just talking/complaining, it can be done. And if not, the idea of 2 separate services, within the church, or one in the church and another on the perifery. Strange concept but feasible, but how to reach these young adults, if they were not churched before what will bring them in? What will keep them here? Will this group be continuesly changing? Will this ensure growth? Many questions, few sure answers. I hope you continue to mull over what you have expressed, I am indeed listening. Looking for answers. You have given me the best insight into this situation, please do not stop. The idea expressed in going back to the 50′s is a return to community, not fundamentalism, freedom of expression, and thought. The right to be who we are, not what others want us to be. I hope to hear more from you soon.