Generations and Change

We live at the cusp of a new day -- well maybe, maybe not. What we do have before us is an array of options, directions we might take. The discussions about postmodernism center around the idea that objective truth is a difficult concept to define. That is, truth is a matter of perspective, a perspective that is influenced and impacted by one's context and experience. There are those who cling to the idea that there is objective truth, but ultimately they fall back on the claim that their understanding of truth is the only proper definition.
The upcoming election will, if things go to form, offer us two very different perspectives on life. One is formed by a life that began in the late 1930s, at the end of the Depression, a candidate that was a young boy during WWII, a teenager during Korea. The other was born during the Kennedy administration and came of age after the end of the Vietnam War. If Barack Obama was my brother, then he would be the middle child. I was born in 58, my brother in 63. The effect of generational differences is lifted up in an interesting op-ed piece in the LA Times today. I encourage a close read.
What is true, of course, in politics, is true in other aspects of life. That is especially true of the church. As a pastor -- who is 50 -- I stand in between generations and must try to find a way to bring young and old (and middle) together. That's not easy, because every study says we don't see things the same way. Not for instance the growing trend toward more liberal views among younger adults. It is reflected, of course, in political choices, but also in social views. Christian and Amy Piatt write:

Whereas 47 percent of those surveyed over the age of twenty-five say they voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election , and 52 percent voted for George Bush, 56 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five voted for Kerry, and only 43 percent supported Bush. Regarding homosexuality, 50 percent of those surveyed twenty-six and older say it should be accepted, while 39 percent say it should be discouraged. Within the eighteen to twenty-five age group, 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, while less than one third feel it is something to discourage. (MySpace to Sacred Space, p. 135).

What this says is that the church -- in all of its dimensions -- will face interesting choices. For years we were told that conservative churches were the growing churches, and anecdotal evidence if nothing else was telling us that younger people went to conservative churches. While there is some truth to this, the question should be this: why? My sense -- both from personal experience and from observation -- is that this has more to do with style than substance. That is, it has more to do with music styles and attire than it has to do with theology or even politics. But, if younger adults are trending in a more liberal direction, as studies suggest, will they continue to let style guide them, or will they begin to ask questions of the substance. The emergent church movement, which was born among evangelicals suggest that change is in the air. If you read the majority of emergent folks, they're trending Democratic and if they're not on the gay marriage bandwagon, they're done with gay-bashing politics.
So, do mainline churches have a chance to attract younger adults? Yes, but they must start listening to the younger ones in their midst. It also means learning to embrace not only the music styles of the young, but also their means of communication -- which is why I set up a Facebook group for my new church! To get a better sense of the question, I again recommend reading My Space to Sacred Space, by Christian and Amy Piatt (Chalice Press, 2007).

Comments

Popular Posts