Bradley N. Hill, a minister in the Evangelical Covenant Church, recently wrote an article for the Christian Century suggesting that the way most churches operate (an attractional model) will never effectively engage Generation Y (those he characterizes as being born between 1976 and 2000) for many reasons including:
. . . advertisement is just part of the background white noise of our culture. No impersonal website or advertisement, no program or event flyer, poster or radio spot will entice an unchurched, secular, raised-without-God Gen Yer into church . . .- Second, friends are the final factor . . . the only way to reach these young people is to be with them, to enter into genuine spiritual friendships and allow the flow to follow the natural terrain to Christ and, we hope and pray, to his church . . .
- Third, Gen Yers are suspicious of metanarratives, those stories that seek to give universal meaning and purpose to existence. For them, metanarrative is a mask for an agenda of power, self-legitimization and coercion. In the same way, they are highly suspicious of church invitations . . .
- Fourth and last, Gen Yers fail to see the relevance . . . They live in a world of pluralism, relativism, quantum theory, chaos theory, evolution, diversity, choice, energy and auras, karma and dharma, self-definition, social and environmental concern. Impervious to pitches, tribal, suspicious—when you think about it, it’s not their absence that is surprising but the fact that any of them are present at all.
So What?
The attractional model remains dominant in American churches despite having lost its effectiveness long before Gen Y entered adulthood. Leaders of mainline denominations are well aware of a continual membership decline that is several decades old. It is my hope and prayer that generational change, including those noted by Hill of Gen Y, will be viewed as an opportunity for to reverse the trend. In response, I propose:
- The first step is admitting deficiency. Many denominations have made progress in this step. Several mainline denominations are rethinking what it means to be a denomination in the twenty-first century. The two denominations I have been affiliated with most recently are engaged in this work now:
- The United Church of Christ
- Restructuring on the denomination level in process via United Governance (often referred to simply as Ugov)
- Denominational leaders are proposing new possibilities, including Clyde Steckel in his recent book New Ecclesiology & Polity (read my review here)
- The Presbyterian Church (USA)
- Restructuring on the denomination level in process via new Form of Government (often referred to simply as nFoG)
- Denominational leaders are proposing new possibilities, including Landon Whitsitt in his recent e-book: Open Source Gospel: Ten Commandments for the Future of the Christian Faith (read my review here) and a group of 45 pastors who published a letter calling the denomination “deathly ill” earlier this year
- The United Church of Christ
- The second step is taking bold action. Instead of updating church signs with expensive new technology or creating more programs that might attract diminishing numbers of new people, the church must learn to be the church primarily away from its campus (aka the place where the buildings are).
- Denominational reform is needed, but alone inadequate. My generational (I am a Gen X-er) distrust of large
organizations led me to begin calling myself postdenominational some time ago, even while finding my home in congregations that are affiliated with denominations. Many churches that attract primarily those in Gen X and/or Gen Y have dropped the denominational name from their signs and church name (and in many cases reduced funding). Local churches must not be satisfied with bold reform only on the denominational level nor may they consider it a viable option to wait for that process to be complete before beginning any changes of their own. - Rather than trying one new “program,” the church must rethink what it means to be a local faith community. These new understandings must remain fluid and lead to a significant change in congregational DNA. Failure must be accepted as a part of the growth process and new metrics must replace those from the generations old strategic plans that still play dominant roles in many decision making processes. A little over a week ago I reviewed Alan Roxburgh’s Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood, which effectively explains how churches can make this shift.
- Denominational reform is needed, but alone inadequate. My generational (I am a Gen X-er) distrust of large
- The third step is to learn from our mistakes. The church as it now exists is a thoroughly modern institution in need of a makeover for our postmodern age. When the next shift occurs, whether in another 400 years or just 40, we must be proactive and not slowly reactive as has been the case with the current transition.
I am cautiously optimistic. While the Reformation led from few to thousands of denominations, I believe the shift that is underway will offer an opportunity to reform and merge denominations as well as to embrace Christian unity in ways that were unthinkable in modernity (and with a modern view of denominationalism).
- Is your local congregation operating with an attractional mindset (great advertising and wonderful programs should attract new people)?
- Do you agree with Hill’s explanations of why Gen Y is largely remaining outside of the institutional church? with my suggested steps for moving forward in ways that will embrace not only Gen Y but also those a bit older (Gen X) and those who are not yet adults (including those who have not yet been born)? Why or why not?
- What percentage of your local congregation’s ministry happens on the church campus? If the percentage is currently substantial, what is being done or is being planned that will reduce that number significantly?