| ||
This post is building on my previous post, where I suggest that churches that try to attract one particular demographic or generation, to the relative neglect of others, fail to fulfill the biblical call for the church to be the Body of Christ. Within the enormous Christian subculture in America, we gather into different churches based on common worship preferences, common levels of education, common race, common social classes, and common generations. The Gospel, however, calls believers to a particular kind of commonality: fellowship of the Spirit in Jesus Christ. The flaw with the plant-all-churches-for-all-people approach to ministry (that espoused by Warren and Kimball) is that it waters down God’s call for Christians to be the Body of Christ –– a body which includes all sorts of parts, often from different classes, races, and generations. This is not to say that Christians should seek diversity at all costs; Spanish-speaking congregations will have limited fellowship with those who speak only English, and patronizing bids for the inclusion of token minorities in white churches or poor families in affluent churches only trivialize what the gospel calls us to do. Furthermore, black and white churches in the United States, for example, have an ongoing legacy of hurtful relations that must be worked through slowly and sensitively. It may yet take decades or longer for such divisions to be overcome. However, intergenerational divisions lack such a daunting legacy, and a failure to overcome them suggests not an insurmountable breach but an unwillingness of churches to accept the implications of the gospel. The fellowship –– koinonia, “commonality” –– to which God has called us is a sharing of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). The loaf of which we partake, the baptism we have received, and the Spirit we have been given to drink (1 Cor 12:13) all unite us into the Body of Christ. Therefore the fellowship to which God has called us and which we must pursue is fellowship in the Body of Christ. Paul writes,
Paul insists that the Corinthians who possess prestigious spiritual gifts cannot look down upon or ignore those whose gifts seem less honorable or less important. All parts of the Body are necessary. Corinth’s divisions focused on prestige; those I’m trying to address here are generational. So in terms relevant to the question at hand, we might say that if young people seem to lack the gifts of maturity and self-control, older members cannot for that reason claim they are not part of the Body. If older people lack the gifts of energetic passion and accepting new ideas, younger members cannot for that reason claim they are not part of the Body. And even if GenXers lack the gift of humbling themselves before the wishes of older generations and accepting as brothers and sisters those who have failed to make the leap to the postmodern mind set, I cannot for that reason claim they are part of the Body. Obviously, few Christians would officially exclude other age groups, but how effectively do we obey Paul’s command and show “equal concern” for other generations or suffer with them when they suffer? Many young ministers prefer to plant new churches rather than deal with the hang-ups of older generations of Christians. And even in existing congregations, generations often merely tolerate one another, without forming real relationships. Our efforts maintain a superficial peace, but they fall short of God’s call. |
May 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Last Sunday, Skip Heitzig preached a sermon here at Calvery Chapel of Albuquerque. He recounted the story of Paul’s extended sermon at Troas, during which a young man fell asleep in his perch in a third floor window and promptly fell to his death. Skip translated the two Greek words used in the text to estimate that the young man was between the ages of nine and 14. He also noted that not even Paul could go on and on and on without putting some poor congregant to sleep.
Now, earlier that morning and prior to the sermon, I’d read your posting. That got me wondering why anyone would be surprised a very lengthy sermon on adult matters would put a young fellow to sleep. It also got me to thinking that a pair of sermons, one for the adults and one for the youth, would have accomplished two things: 1) shorter sermons; 2) enough room in the church so members of the congregation would not have had to put themselves at risk to hear Paul preach.
A consideration for pitching to different demographics was not the point of Skip’s sermon, of course. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what his point was because I dozed off . . .
May 13th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Hey Charles, welcome to the blog. This is a good point you make, and it reminds us that encouraging cross-generational relationships can’t just mean cancelling the youth program and expecting the kids to act like adults.
To do what you’re suggesting, you could either (1) have two sermons (one for adults, one for teens) in two different places, or else (2) somehow combine material for both groups in the same worship service.
Most churches (from what I understand) are taking option #1, which has the strength of giving the teens something they can be interested in but the weakness of separating them from the rest of the church. (I’ll get into more of that in my next post.)
Personally, I prefer pushing for #2, which has the strength of constantly reminding both young and old that both young and old are part of the church. Its weakness is that each group doesn’t get as much content that appears directly relevant to itself. For me, though, empathy for one another in the church is a more important lesson than anything that’s going to be said to *either* group on a weekly basis, so the trade-off is absolutely worth it.
Here’s the problem: many, many head ministers only care about young people in the abstract. In other words, they want the church to have something for the teens, but they don’t think it’s worth taking away time from what they want to do with the adults.
It takes a lot of patience and a lot of skill to plan a service that is both challenging for adults and engaging for teens, but I think it’s what we’re called to. But a lot of churches just punt instead.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Scott, have you ever planned such a service? As one of those “head ministers” I would love to see that modeled. I have tried to do some of that at Sunrise, but it is very hard and the punt often comes because we don’t know what else to do. What does that look like?
May 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hmm, yeah, that’s a good question.
From being in y’all’s services, I like the kids’ time that you do, and of course a lot of churches do other things like short kids’ sermons. And then I believe y’all have Bible class for the young kids at the same time as the sermon, right? We do that at my church here too, and I think it works well. But I do think it should just be for kids to to about age 13––after that, we should find ways for them to be with the adults.
So then the trick is involving teenagers. One thing is having the teens help lead services on a regular basis, which, again, most churches do. I think the key here, though, is that they’re doing this as members of the church, and not just on a youth Sunday (though those are fine too) where they get to have their kind of service instead of an adult service; that just maintains the divide between adults and teens.
The other thing is, even helping lead is only going to be meaningful if they feel like they have relationships with the adults in the church already. So it might be that the best way to encourage teens to participate in a worship service is to do stuff outside of the services to help build community with the adults. Then when they show up, they’re already a part of the community, and when they participate, they’re doing it less as a teen and more as a person.
As to the service itself, in a lot of places I’m sure shorter sermons are a good place to start. And that’s better for adults, too––in my experience, I can usually pay attention to a sermon for about 25–30 minutes, after which I’m waiting for it to end. Charles’s quip about dozing off is really true for most people, I think, and it’s not just a matter of whether a person “cares” or not.
I never have an easy time following something that I don’t already know something about, and so sermons need to explain context that pulls people in. I would think it’s also good when church coordinate Sunday school with the sermons (South Mac does this, right?). That way, people have the ideas from Scripture in their heads already when they hear the sermon, and it makes it easier to engage the preacher. With teens, I would think you could do the same thing, by studying Scriptures for the sermon before they get there.
And then, it might be possible to have different sections of the sermon where you suggest application for young people, versus application for adults. I wonder if any churches that have both a head minister and youth minister ever coordinate, where a section of the sermon (in the regular service) actually consists of the youth minister getting up and talking directly to the teens about what the main preacher has just preached on.
This would require the two to work together, which I know is hard with the insanely busy schedules both kinds of ministers tend to have. But I bet it would be effective.
Those are my first thoughts. What have you tried (or want to try), Micah?
May 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I have tried a couple of things. The easy one is using video. I my experience teens seem to like looking at a screen. So incorporating video in my sermons is something I do for teens. It worked pretty well on Easter. I had about 15 minutes of video bookending my sermon. I actually got a comment from a teen on that one.
At times I have tried to include the younger kids too. I had them all sit together on the front row and I actually interacted with them by asking questions. I had some of the adults comment that they enjoyed that experience.
Our kids classes include the jr. high ages, so the high school are with the adults. I think we just need to expect more out of our teens in general. If they are given “adult” baptism in their early teens, then they should be expected to live adult spiritual disciplines.
I have actually been considering pushing for a format change in our worship service. I would shorten the traditional sermon time to about 15 minutes and give it near the beginning of the assembly (this would include all adults and kids). Then we would conclude with some kind of discussion/ bible class settings for adults and kids broken up.
May 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
See, I would keep having the kids up front for questions every week, even if it eventually gets old for the adults. Because I don’t think it will get old for the kids, and it will remind them every week that they are a part of the whole church. It’ll also remind the adults every week that the kids are part of the church.
I have this kind of odd belief that everyone should find something in the worship service they don’t really like––otherwise (to over-simplify), the church is either (1) pandering to a common denominator, or else (2) attracting only one kind of person.
1 Cor 14:26ff says, “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up…for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.”
In other words, the church is made up of different people with their own agendas for what should go on. Guys like Rick Warren and Dan Kimball want to pick a particular set of things to do, and then use that to attract the kinds of people who like those things. They reason that another church down the road can do a different set of things and attract a different group of people––so everyone can find a church they like.
This is reasonable from a wordly perspective, but it’s precisely what I’m opposing here. I think Paul is saying that the church should do its best to incorporate all the different concerns and preferences, but without letting one perspective dominate. (This includes, I think, the minister’s perspective; even though I don’t usually like Praise and Worship music, I should use it because it’s upbuilding for a lot of people.)
So when the kids come up every week, if there are some adults who get tired of it and think the kids should go have their class in another room, then those adults need to learn that having patience for people with different needs and interests is part of being the church.
But there’s a catch. A service has to have something for a given group of people, or it’s not fair to expect them to sit through it. If nothing in a worship service is aimed at teens where they’re at, then it’s not reasonable to expect them to just act like adults and be happy with it. It sounds like the videos you show are a good example of engaging them in certain ways during the service––and then it’s fair to ask them to do their best to stay engaged for the rest of it.
I see Sunday worship as a spiritual discipline in more than one way––not only knowing God through worship, but learning to have empathy for one another and to love one another by both getting fed and stepping aside to let others receive what they need.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hey Scott, sorry to be out of the cybersphere for so long- finals and family obligations sucked up my time for a while. I like what you’re doing here (although I agree with some of Jason’s comments on your previous post, but I don’t want to reopen that discussion). Too many people who are concerned about diversity in the church try to force an artificial diversity that doesn’t reflect the demographic context of the congregation in question. You’ve avoided that trap by focusing on a fairly universal element of diversity.
It seems to me that a stronger commitment to Gospel-centered preaching might be part of the answer here. Large segments of the church have drifted into issues-based preaching that is supposedly more “practical,” but sermons on ‘five tips to a better marriage,’ ‘aging with dignity,’ or ‘how to share Christ at the office’ don’t really address my “needs” as a single young adult student. You’ve conceded the usefulness of affinity-based small groups, which would be a perfect venue for discussing these topics. On the other hand, everyone needs to be reminded of the essentials of the Gospel. You’ve referenced I Cor. 12, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Paul reiterates the basics of the faith 3 chapters later. If we spent more time on proclamation and and less on application, we’d have a better platform for unity in the congregation. Not that I’m totally opposed to application; I just think we ultimately have to trust the Holy Spirit to really drive the point home. Much as I dislike ritual and liturgy, I have to admit that a certain degree of that can also help bridge the generations.
Thoughts?