The Perils of "Wannabe Cool" Christianity

[8circles]

 

 

I don't either. And statements like that are insulting.

 

There's a couple insulting themes going on in this thread. Some people never miss an opportunity to make themselves superior. And no, Im not talking about the OP nor do I attend a mega-church or a seeker-friendly church (if that's the appropriate term, can't figure out why any church would want to be seeker-unfriendly but some do think that's appropriate).

[Joanne]

I don't think the world is evil, or bad, actually God calls His creation good (to believe that creation is bad by the fact of its material make up is actually a heresy of Gnosticisim).

 

I think that some of us (perhaps the more introverted?) are particularly sensitive to how loud the world shouts, or even screams, all the time, so that is how we perceive it. Especially if you are around media.

 

 

 

That --pervading sense? that things out there are evil --less kind, less principled, superficial or "bad" is not found within Catholicism. I mean, I'm sure that there are some sour grapes, but that would be more of the person's own personality. It's not taught within the church, it's more of a Protestant thing with its roots in Calvinism.

 

I actually agree with you to the extent I am familiar with Catholicism/Catholic culture. I agree that the sweeping "doomsday" generalizations are often Calvinistic.

 

I like a lot of Gnostic theology. ;)

[justamouse]

There's a couple insulting themes going on in this thread. Some people never miss an opportunity to make themselves superior. And no, Im not talking about the OP nor do I attend a mega-church or a seeker-friendly church (if that's the appropriate term, can't figure out why any church would want to be seeker-unfriendly but some do think that's appropriate).

 

Then just don't read them.

[Joanne]

Every few months we have a thread like this. Seeker churches are awful so lets do Catholic or Orthodox. Sometimes I ignore the threads but not always. I don't go to these seeker type churches. Dh and I left the Catholic Church because the church we were attending had the priest rambling about Sandanistas and soap operas (and not using them as examples for some Godly point, just rambling), and the congregation would only mumble the hymns and prayers, WE felt like we were in a spiritually dead place. That was about 27 years ago and we have never regretted leaving the Catholic church.

 

Anyway, I go to a evangelical church that is nothing like what the above posts describe. No silliness, no legalism, and lots of two generation and three generation families, along with new members continually joining We have all ages at our services, though we do have a nursery for those who want that. There are no separate teen services or other ways of excluding people. Our name in normal and no one would be confused about what we are. There isn't anything going onlike what is described in those articles. Maybe that is why the college kids all come back and many who grow up in our church and stay in the area, marry and keep coming to church.

 

 

Here's what I spent my last few years as a Christian thinking: God calls people to community. Who the HECK am I to decide for others which community? (If you believe in a cohesive spiritual force) he's called people to conservative, "Bible" churches, to Joel Osteen's church, to seeker's church, to Youth Groups with X Boxes, and to home churches.

 

Jeez. Why can't people who believe in a Higher Power let that Higher Power be present, working, worthy, and full EVERYWHERE?

 

Otherwise, he's a lame Higher Power.

[speedmom4]

Every few months we have a thread like this. Seeker churches are awful so lets do Catholic or Orthodox. Sometimes I ignore the threads but not always. I don't go to these seeker type churches. Dh and I left the Catholic Church because the church we were attending had the priest rambling about Sandanistas and soap operas (and not using them as examples for some Godly point, just rambling), and the congregation would only mumble the hymns and prayers, WE felt like we were in a spiritually dead place. That was about 27 years ago and we have never regretted leaving the Catholic church.

 

Anyway, I go to a evangelical church that is nothing like what the above posts describe. No silliness, no legalism, and lots of two generation and three generation families, along with new members continually joining We have all ages at our services, though we do have a nursery for those who want that. There are no separate teen services or other ways of excluding people. Our name in normal and no one would be confused about what we are. There isn't anything going onlike what is described in those articles. Maybe that is why the college kids all come back and many who grow up in our church and stay in the area, marry and keep coming to church.

 

I sincerely wasn't trying to insult anyone or any church. I was just sharing my own experience and found the article spoke to my heart. I don't believe all evangelical churches are like the ones described and honestly those reasons are way down on my list of reasons for returning to Catholicism. But I have seen my own Protestant church and others in our area moving closer and closer to what was described in the article.

 

Elise in NC

[Heather in Neverland]

 

 

 

I think she's saying the world is "fallen." That's different than the gnostic idea of the world/creation being "bad."

 

Exactly. The world is fallen not evil. It is the difference between total depravity and utter depravity... Every aspect of the world is touched by sin but it is not as bad as it COULD be. Yes, I am a Calvinist and I still think this earth is a pretty wonderful place in a lot of ways.

 

 

[DawnM]

This is a HUGE reason we left our last church and went back to our more traditional church. Well, it is still evangelical, not liturgical, but not a church like the author talks about.

[grantmeawish]

Thanks for posting this. I haven't been able to quite put to words what was bothering me about my church but I think many of these reasons are my problems with it. I feel like my church is a machine. Cranking out programs, curriculum, leaders, and leaving the people in the dust. Yet they encourage us to join in on what Jesus is doing. These are all good things but why does it not sit well with me? I was one of those rebellious youths that left church for a long time and found the answers by seeking them on my own. I still actively seek answers and encourage my kids to do the same. I would love a very simple church with maybe a guitar and some conversation about the sermon afterwards and not so much tech! Does that exist or would these smallish churches desire to one day be like the more technological churches?

[Dmmetler]

I have a kid with SID-we ended up in a tiny, very "old school" Methodist church ( as in, the hymnal that was published when I was in middle school is still called the "New Hymnal"). Church school for kids spans everyone from toddlers to teens who haven't moved to one of the adult bible study classes yet, and you can count the kids on your fingers with some leftover. Worship is quiet, relaxing, and the pastor isn't exactly up on current trends. I love it.

 

One of the other moms and I have joked that we ought to advertise it as "Special sensory-friendly service" and see if that brings in the bodies. She has a son with autism, and has run into the same problems I did in most services-it was simply too much for her child.

 

 

[ktgrok]

OP, you are not alone. We walked out of a Protestant church during a disgusting, irreverent, stupid Easter service 3 years ago and threw ourselves into the Catholic Church after that. We have never looked back, we could never go back to that.

 

I've also walked out in the middle of an irreverant church service. It was a huge, multi media presentation with song and dance that was much more political rally than church service. I got tired of hearing how I should vote by the middle and left, only to find my son SCREAMING in the nursery, despite me having the pager they gave me, and them promising up and down to page me if he started crying.

 

I never went back to that marble tiled monstrosity of a mega church.

[SarahW]

Every few months we have a thread like this. Seeker churches are awful so lets do Catholic or Orthodox. Sometimes I ignore the threads but not always. I don't go to these seeker type churches. Dh and I left the Catholic Church because the church we were attending had the priest rambling about Sandanistas and soap operas (and not using them as examples for some Godly point, just rambling), and the congregation would only mumble the hymns and prayers, WE felt like we were in a spiritually dead place. That was about 27 years ago and we have never regretted leaving the Catholic church.

 

Anyway, I go to a evangelical church that is nothing like what the above posts describe. No silliness, no legalism, and lots of two generation and three generation families, along with new members continually joining We have all ages at our services, though we do have a nursery for those who want that. There are no separate teen services or other ways of excluding people. Our name in normal and no one would be confused about what we are. There isn't anything going onlike what is described in those articles. Maybe that is why the college kids all come back and many who grow up in our church and stay in the area, marry and keep coming to church.

 

 

 

fwiw, I attend a Protestant church, and it's not seeker-sensitive in any way, and we still have the problem of the original linked article and the article I linked to.

 

Though in my church the problem is not really "Jesus Movement" or anything like it, it's that everyone is still beholden to the Modernist ideas of the 1970's - if you throw out everything that looks old and "churchy" then the people will start pouring in. Didn't work then, and it still isn't working now. As far as I can see, the "seeker" churches have simply taken this idea to the nth degree by simply gutting Christianity and replacing it with insipid contemporary positive-think-talk.

 

Which is why I find parish meetings where a bunch of people over 40 are moaning about how we can't put together a teen rock event like "Big Church Down the Road" does and how our church would look better if we made it look more like a school building so annoying.

 

I'm glad your church is doing fine, but all it takes is a few people reading the "latest and greatest" idea from some book published by a mega-church pastor and you'll see how quickly the train can jump the tracks.

[JenniferB]

 

 

 

Here's what I spent my last few years as a Christian thinking: God calls people to community. Who the HECK am I to decide for others which community? (If you believe in a cohesive spiritual force) he's called people to conservative, "Bible" churches, to Joel Osteen's church, to seeker's church, to Youth Groups with X Boxes, and to home churches.

 

Jeez. Why can't people who believe in a Higher Power let that Higher Power be present, working, worthy, and full EVERYWHERE?

 

Otherwise, he's a lame Higher Power.

 

What's going on in this thread is expressing shared experience - God IS everywhere present, but Jesus also calls us to worship in Spirit and in Truth. This thread is full of people seeking and finding the worship in Spirit and Truth. God was with them before and He's with them now and they are more satisfied to worship Him and participate with Him in a sacramental way. They/we want to talk about that. It is good for us to talk about it.

[Joanne]

What's going on in this thread is expressing shared experience - God IS everywhere present, but Jesus also calls us to worship in Spirit and in Truth. This thread is full of people seeking and finding the worship in Spirit and Truth. God was with them before and He's with them now and they are more satisfied to worship Him and participate with Him in a sacramental way. They/we want to talk about that. It is good for us to talk about it.

 

I love talking about spirituality, God, and theology. I believe it is very good.

 

I believe it is limiting and unChristlike to decide what worship, fellowship, study, and spiritual disciplines should look like and be like for all people who believe. I think it is spiritual arrogance.

[JenniferB]

I believe it is limiting and unChristlike to decide what worship, fellowship, study, and spiritual disciplines should look like and be like for all people who believe.

 

I don't want to argue, but I didn't notice anyone doing that, only sharing disappointment vs. satisfaction in worship. If we can't talk about our disappointing experience because it might be someone else's satisfying experience, then we can't have much of a conversation.

[speedmom4]

 

 

I love talking about spirituality, God, and theology. I believe it is very good.

 

I believe it is limiting and unChristlike to decide what worship, fellowship, study, and spiritual disciplines should look like and be like for all people who believe. I think it is spiritual arrogance.

 

The original article was about the exodus of young people from evangelical churches in America and his personal experience. It resonated with me and I thought I would share. I don't think it's unChristlike to share my experiences with others. I certainly never said that all people should worship or experience Christ in a particular way and I didn't see anyone saying that either.

 

We should be able to share an opinion without others feeling we are bashing or generalizing.

 

I do appreciate your input though!

 

Elise in NC

[unsinkable]

 

 

This is our church. Our pastor says all the time that we "aren't going to like what I'm about to say..." or "Ushers- guard the doors" and then he proceeds to give Biblical truth that usually flies completely in the face of popular, politically correct thinking. We love it. Our church has grown and grown, and I think it's because our pastor just tells it like it is. He isn't trying to please anybody but God, and repeatedly tells us to live our lives the same way. There are many many "leaders" in the Christian community who aren't leaders at all but followers of the world. Very sad- they are leading thousands and thousands of people astray.

 

We also feel very blessed to have found the right church for us.

 

 

Catholic Mass isn't about what the pastor has to say, though.

 

So it's like apples and oranges to compare.

[Marylou]

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

 

Yeah, doesn't get much doomier and gloomier than that.

[milovany]

There's a couple insulting themes going on in this thread. Some people never miss an opportunity to make themselves superior. And no, Im not talking about the OP nor do I attend a mega-church or a seeker-friendly church (if that's the appropriate term, can't figure out why any church would want to be seeker-unfriendly but some do think that's appropriate).

 

I'm not understanding this post. Has someone offended you in this thread?

 

In the evangelical world, a seeker-friendly church is one that's more focused on getting unchurched people in the door than on building up the body of Christ already present. Some see it as "milk" rather than "meat" in the sermons, worship songs, activities, etc. So it's not that anyone wants to be unfriendly to seekers, of course, they just would prefer that the services be oriented toward discipling the believers that are there than having everything oriented at presenting the gospel in order to get as many people as possible to pray a "prayer of salvation."

[creativish]

I think the issues are more complex than what is mentioned in the article.

Our church is of the pre-"wannabe cool" variety and yet it is missing young people.

Our pastors are striving to figure out why/how to fix.

[Marylou]

I think the issues are more complex than what is mentioned in the article.

Our church is of the pre-"wannabe cool" variety and yet it is missing young people.

Our pastors are striving to figure out why/how to fix.

 

 

What does that mean, "pre-wannabe cool?"

[creativish]

What does that mean, "pre-wannabe cool?"

 

The church hasn't changed, still the same old traditions and services since before this "cool" trend occurred and the young members just aren't there.

[Slartibartfast]

I do think things need to change and evolve to reflect changes in technology. Sure, "quieter" churches are still going to be relevant but there is something to be said for awareness of changes in society and new tools in technology that could be useful in reaching people.

 

I don't attend the church I grew up in, not only because I live far away but that it stopped speaking to me when it started investing more into politics than Jesus. I want to talk about Jesus in church, I don't want to be told I am going to hell because of how I voted. *shrug*

 

I would rather spend more time on academic and well considered discussion than any sort of flash. There is a lot missing spiritually in many worship services.

 

 

We have been church shopping and I am finding it to be a real problem.

[Luanne]

This is a big reason that I have so much trouble with organized religion at all. That applies to every single church and denomination I have checked into. The truth of God's word is no longer relevant in any church I have been to (at least not in my area). Since the Catholic churches I know of lean toward living like the world and not being any different than anyone else, I don't see that as an upgrade.

[JuanitaL]

So, according to that article 70% of 18 - 22 year olds surveyed say they stopped attending church regularly? Is it possible, considering the age range, that may be caused from being away at college? My 19 year old hasn't been attending church regularly for the 2 years he's been at college, that doesn't mean he's "out of church", that means he's somewhere without a car and doesn't like his one option of a chapel.

[mamajudy]

This is my daughter's situation, as well. No car. She tried a group that meets on campus, but got discouraged because, after making friends there, she found out they had some major doctrinal differences.

[mamajudy]

But here's my dilemma: The cool wannabe churches are where I find the people who are spiritually on fire. The "quieter" churches seem to have spiritually dead people, or people who don't want to express their faith openly. I prefer the "quieter" less cool churches. I just wish the people in them were more on fire for the Lord and His work.

 

( Yes, I know every church isn't like this. I'm speaking generally.)

 

 

Don't be too quick to judge the quieter people as being less spiritually on fire for the Lord. Sometimes the quiet old lady who sits in the pew every Sunday is the one who spends hours every day in prayer for each person in the church, visits the sick, sends birthday cards to everyone or a note when a person is absent one week, etc. And her Bible is tattered and full of notes because she has been studying it for many, many years. On the other hand, some of the most outspoken people in the church, who seem to be so spiritual, are very shallow Christians.

[Seasider]

 

Don't be too quick to judge the quieter people as being less spiritually on fire for the Lord. Sometimes the quiet old lady who sits in the pew every Sunday is the one who spends hours every day in prayer for each person in the church, visits the sick, sends birthday cards to everyone or a note when a person is absent one week, etc. And her Bible is tattered and full of notes because she has been studying it for many, many years. On the other hand, some of the most outspoken people in the church, who seem to be so spiritual, are very shallow Christians.

 

I appreciate this line of thinking, mamajudy. If you don't mind me stretching it a bit, I will add that I am sometimes discouraged when church members/leaders seem to give off a vibe that I should be doing more at church (teaching SS, other church committee oriented projects, etc), when they have no idea what else I've been doing, unseen, with and for fellow believers who may not be part of the same local church.

[Laurie4b]

I find the article disturbing for two reasons : 1) it judges motives of the heart based on outward appearances: "they wanna be cool" and 2) the author has ignored solid research to substitute a theory as to why young folks are leaving the church--a theory which happens to fit with his judgment of motives. It makes me sad, especially in this season of Holy Week ( in the west).

 

Are the things he mentions evidence that the motivation is "wannabe cool?" One cannot determine the spiritual depth of someone by whether or not they dress in a hipster style versus a preppie style, versus robes etc. As an example, some of my clothing selections are hipster and I'm in my mid-50s. Someone could look at me and say that I'm trying to look younger than my age, etc. I didn't actually know my clothing choices were hipster until my oldest ds told me. The fact is that I wear a little cotton beanie because it covers the permanent hair loss I suffered from chemo, and that I started to wear scarves when radiation burns made it too painful to wear a bra. I mentioned it to someone at church that I'd discovered how useful the scarves can be and suddenly was anonymously showered with scarves! Now the scarves are helpful when I forget my breast prosthesis! They give me a little time before I can find some appropriate stuffing without it being super obvious! I also happen to like the way they look and am thankful that there are choices I have that work for my needs and don't look frumpy or odd.

 

One son wears hipster clothing (but not the skinny jeans ;) ) and is one of the most all -out committed people to Jesus that I know. Perhaps the pastors being critiqued by the author wear those clothes not to be cool and trendy but simply because they happen to like the fashion. Don't most of us make clothing choices based on whether the look kind of expresses who we are--which colors we like, what looks good with our figure, what expresses our personality etc?

 

And to the extent that a pastor dresses in a certain way to connect with the congregation, why is that not like Paul, who said he became all things to all men that he might win some? He adapted culturally and was different when talking with Jews than with Gentiles.

 

People look on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. The author doesn't know why these pastors make the choices they do, and to the extent that he guesses, he does not choose to think the best of his brothers.

 

Secondly, there is solid research about which factors are most predictive of children who grow up and continue in the faith as adults. These aren't Barna surveys, but longitudinal sociological studies done by Christian Smith and various co-authors. The two most predictive factors are:

1) the faith walk of the child's parents (this is the #1 predictor of the child's faith choices during the teen years and #2 for young adults)

2) whether the young adult had their own experiences with God in prayer and Bible study,etc as a teen.

 

What I observe in my area is that the churches with the highest proportions of college students and young adults have many of the outward characteristics cited in the article as reasons that young people leave churches. The reason that I hear most frequently from younger people who leave those churches is that there are so many people that they don't feel known. It's a problem of growth in young people, not a sense of shallowness of the faith encouraged there.

 

It's been my experience in life that one will find both deep and shallow Christians in whatever church or denomination.

 

And I think all of us need to be in prayer for people in positions of leadership in our congregations. Protestant clergy may have a particular temptation because the sermon is the centerpiece of the service and they are delivering it. Some actively take steps to counter this temptation and some don't. But clergy of other expressions of Christian faith are not without the same temptations, as we unfortunately read in the news.

 

I think it would have been different if the author had said, "I don't like loud music and I find a lot of techie stuff distracting, even though I'm in my 20s , so I prefer this other kind of church." Instead, he attributed negative motivation to the things he didn't like and made a huge logic leap to say that this explains why young adults walk away from the faith they were raised in.

 

Let's think the best of each other. There may be times to express something that disturbs us, but when we cross the line and attribute negative motivation to a brother or sister, we're in danger of the sin of judgment. It's a sin I have been harmed by and which I am working to notice and repent of in my own life.

 

ETA: I personally know a leader in the Emergent Church movement and the motivation was the opposite of being cool. It was instead a motivation to take a look at what humans had added to the culture of the church that had become a barrier to nonchristians being drawn to the church. I don't agree with a lot in the Emergent Church movement, and in some authors, there is perilous proximity to discarding orthodox theology. But to attribute "wannabe cool" as the motivation just doesn't line up.

[QueenCat]

You really can't tell from how a group worships whether or not they are truly committed.... Laurie4B, your thoughts are so close to what I was thinking.

[8circles]

Laurie4b I can't quote bc im on my phone but I so appreciate your post. Thank you for being truly gracious. And hugs to you.

[Clear Creek]

The article made me think of this video, popular among pastors/worship leaders:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

 

 

Sadly, I don't think the author of the article was judging the pastors' motives incorrectly. This sort of "wannabe cool" is taught outright at workshops at pastor's conferences. My husband (a pastor) has come home from more than one popular conference disgusted with what is being taught.

[fairfarmhand]

On a church sign we drive past to get to our church:

 

"He is risen. Woot! Woot!"

 

Which totally makes me :huh: :glare: :closedeyes: :confused1: :thumbdown:

 

I find this time of year...the crucifixion....the Resurrection....as a HOLY time. I think that sign makes light of a very serious aspect of the faith.

 

I would not go to that church, merely because of the sign.

[speedmom4]

I find the article disturbing for two reasons : 1) it judges motives of the heart based on outward appearances: "they wanna be cool" and 2) the author has ignored solid research to substitute a theory as to why young folks are leaving the church--a theory which happens to fit with his judgment of motives. It makes me sad, especially in this season of Holy Week ( in the west).

 

Are the things he mentions evidence that the motivation is "wannabe cool?" One cannot determine the spiritual depth of someone by whether or not they dress in a hipster style versus a preppie style, versus robes etc. As an example, some of my clothing selections are hipster and I'm in my mid-50s. Someone could look at me and say that I'm trying to look younger than my age, etc. I didn't actually know my clothing choices were hipster until my oldest ds told me. The fact is that I wear a little cotton beanie because it covers the permanent hair loss I suffered from chemo, and that I started to wear scarves when radiation burns made it too painful to wear a bra. I mentioned it to someone at church that I'd discovered how useful the scarves can be and suddenly was anonymously showered with scarves! Now the scarves are helpful when I forget my breast prosthesis! They give me a little time before I can find some appropriate stuffing without it being super obvious! I also happen to like the way they look and am thankful that there are choices I have that work for my needs and don't look frumpy or odd.

 

One son wears hipster clothing (but not the skinny jeans ;) ) and is one of the most all -out committed people to Jesus that I know. Perhaps the pastors being critiqued by the author wear those clothes not to be cool and trendy but simply because they happen to like the fashion. Don't most of us make clothing choices based on whether the look kind of expresses who we are--which colors we like, what looks good with our figure, what expresses our personality etc?

 

And to the extent that a pastor dresses in a certain way to connect with the congregation, why is that not like Paul, who said he became all things to all men that he might win some? He adapted culturally and was different when talking with Jews than with Gentiles.

 

People look on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. The author doesn't know why these pastors make the choices they do, and to the extent that he guesses, he does not choose to think the best of his brothers.

 

Secondly, there is solid research about which factors are most predictive of children who grow up and continue in the faith as adults. These aren't Barna surveys, but longitudinal sociological studies done by Christian Smith and various co-authors. The two most predictive factors are:

1) the faith walk of the child's parents (this is the #1 predictor of the child's faith choices during the teen years and #2 for young adults)

2) whether the young adult had their own experiences with God in prayer and Bible study,etc as a teen.

 

What I observe in my area is that the churches with the highest proportions of college students and young adults have many of the outward characteristics cited in the article as reasons that young people leave churches. The reason that I hear most frequently from younger people who leave those churches is that there are so many people that they don't feel known. It's a problem of growth in young people, not a sense of shallowness of the faith encouraged there.

 

It's been my experience in life that one will find both deep and shallow Christians in whatever church or denomination.

 

And I think all of us need to be in prayer for people in positions of leadership in our congregations. Protestant clergy may have a particular temptation because the sermon is the centerpiece of the service and they are delivering it. Some actively take steps to counter this temptation and some don't. But clergy of other exp<b></b>ressions of Christian faith are not without the same temptations, as we unfortunately read in the news.

 

I think it would have been different if the author had said, "I don't like loud music and I find a lot of techie stuff distracting, even though I'm in my 20s , so I prefer this other kind of church." Instead, he attributed negative motivation to the things he didn't like and made a huge logic leap to say that this explains why young adults walk away from the faith they were raised in.

 

Let's think the best of each other. There may be times to express something that disturbs us, but when we cross the line and attribute negative motivation to a brother or sister, we're in danger of the sin of judgment. It's a sin I have been harmed by and which I am working to notice and repent of in my own life.

 

ETA: I personally know a leader in the Emergent Church movement and the motivation was the opposite of being cool. It was instead a motivation to take a look at what humans had added to the culture of the church that had become a barrier to nonchristians being drawn to the church. I don't agree with a lot in the Emergent Church movement, and in some authors, there is perilous proximity to discarding orthodox theology. But to attribute "wannabe cool" as the motivation just doesn't line up.

 

 

I really appreciate your perspective but I find several points that I disagree with.

 

Number one, the author is saying that the reaction of the church to the exodus of young adults is the 'wannabe cool' tactic. It is not saying that the young people are leaving because of the change in church culture.

 

I also think people are getting their feelings hurt rather than looking at what this author is trying to say. He states many times that he and others his age don't like to be marketed to and they find it superficial. He isn't saying that the leaders of church are superficial but their methods. He states that young people perceive it as phony.

 

The author doesn't like the church using sex as shock value to attract his generation. It seems what he is saying is that it's insulting to think that is what interests people his age and what will bring them into church.

 

The author is trying to explain why many of his peers find the current culture of some evangelical churches off putting. He goes on to say:

 

I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true.

 

I think many people here are only feeling attacked instead of really looking at what he is saying. He is giving a reason why he feels young adults are leaving and why they don't want to return. The church is trying to use these tactics to bring them back in but it isn't working. It's time the church universal listens to his generation before we lose a vast majority of them.

 

Elise in NC

[speedmom4]

The article made me think of this video, popular among pastors/worship leaders:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

 

 

Sadly, I don't think the author of the article was judging the pastors' motives incorrectly. This sort of "wannabe cool" is taught outright at workshops at pastor's conferences. My husband (a pastor) has come home from more than one popular conference disgusted with what is being taught.

 

 

My daughters, who are resistant to Catholicism at this point, saw me watching this video. They had both seen it before and commented on how much like our Protestant church this video is. I don't think they see it as marketing but just how church is.

 

I think the author of the original article is a bit older and is cynical of any marketing. His generation is one of the most marketed to by Madison Ave in history. It makes sense why he would find churches marketing to him suspect.

 

Elise in NC

[*Lulu*]

 

 

I really appreciate your perspective but I find several points that I disagree with.

 

Number one, the author is saying that the reaction of the church to the exodus of young adults is the 'wannabe cool' tactic. It is not saying that the young people are leaving because of the change in church culture.

 

I also think people are getting their feelings hurt rather than looking at what this author is trying to say. He states many times that he and others his age don't like to be marketed to and they find it superficial. He isn't saying that the leaders of church are superficial but their methods. He states that young people perceive it as phony.

 

The author doesn't like the church using sex as shock value to attract his generation. It seems what he is saying is that it's insulting to think that is what interests people his age and what will bring them into church.

 

The author is trying to explain why many of his peers find the current culture of some evangelical churches off putting. He goes on to say:

 

I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true.

 

I think many people here are only feeling attacked instead of really looking at what he is saying. He is giving a reason why he feels young adults are leaving and why they don't want to return. The church is trying to use these tactics to bring them back in but it isn't working. It's time the church universal listens to his generation before we lose a vast majority of them.

 

Elise in NC

 

 

I didn't personally feel attacked because I know that our church's persona in our community is not manufactured, but an authentic embodiment of who we are and a result of our work in our local area.

 

I do, however, grow tired of other Christians pulling out their checklist of spiritual fitness and taking inventory of other believer's authenticity. (I admit I find myself doing it from time to time with some churches in our area that are, to me, very inward focused in thier ministries.) The article you linked had a definite flavor of that to me.

 

For me personally, I need a church that does not look so much like a traditional church. My personal history makes me much more comfortable in a worship space without a pulpit or a traditional kneeling rail.* To be able to walk the halls of our church without feeling my personal baggage dragging behind me is liberating. To be able to come as you are and find acceptance and love is worth more than you can know if you have never suffered at the hands of those professing faith in Christ. Our church is a refuge for many whose spiritual skin has been burned in traditional settings. For us it is not so much about being seeker friendly as it is about being a place of healing for the walking wounded.

 

As long as churches are populated by humans there will be plenty of examples of what not to do. Doesn't matter if the church is large or small, traditional or contemporary, independent or part of a denomination, Catholic or not,..........you get the picture.

 

 

* In case anyone was wondering, our altar table is front and center, our band is off to one side, and our pastor preaches from wherever he wants.

[Crimson Wife]

 

The church hasn't changed, still the same old traditions and services since before this "cool" trend occurred and the young members just aren't there.

 

 

My mom's church is like this (she's Episcopalian), and I find it very sad. My youngest brother formally joined it as a high school senior but I don't think he ever attends services unless he happens to be visiting my folks at Christmas or Easter. I am not sure whether he would self-identify as Episcopalian if someone asked him what religion he is.

[Aelwydd]

I wish there was a mockumentary about all the political themes that have come to infiltrate churches across the spectrum, including Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 

I'm profoundly tired of having spirituality and homilies reduced to an American or Western centric view of "conservative" and "liberal" beliefs, which have become catchphrases anymore for "good" and "evil."

 

I left the Assemblies of God denomination I was raised in when I was in my early twenties, because the churches I attended were obsessed, first, with "winning back the country for God," which often translated into vote in such-and-such Republican. Secondly, it was "let's show everyone how cool we are by getting louder and edgier music and other themes, like Hell House." Finally, it was the lack of any historical study into the roots of the early church, and the myopic "Bible-as-sole-and-infallible-source of doctrine and beliefs" that turned me off. Mostly, because without any outside context, the was used more like Magic 8 ball, in that you could get it to give you any sort of direction, depending on how you spun it.

 

Then, I investigated other Protestant denominations, including the Methodists, and the Presbyterians/Calvinists on the other soteriological end. I ended up rejecting both due to their respective one dimensional approaches to understanding Scripture.

 

After that point, I met my dh, who was serving in a traditional Anglican church. I was drawn to the liturgy and the history of the church. I ended up being confirmed, and married in that church, and had our ds baptised there.

 

However, even the traditional liturgical church fell into the same trap as the AoG did. That is, the priest put a heavy emphasis in his homilies on "traditional family values," and anti-feminist rhetoric, and taking definite political sides in regards to national affairs. When we visited other churches in our diocese, the message was the same. It was always "Submit, submit, submit, especially women. Crusade for the unborn, whose fate is always more important than the concerns of already-born humans. Show contempt for anything modernist, and wax eloquent on the glory days of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis."

 

Just like the AoG, this church shameless used the sacred to prop up personal power and agenda. Except, this time it was the sacraments and the Mass being used to draw people in, stead of the Bible.

 

I left that diocese, and traditional liturgical churches, and I will never return to that environment, as I have never returned to the folds of evangelical Christianity. In both cases, the same thing drove me away--hierarchal power and the desire to control others through fear and spiritual coercion. Like trying to put new wine into old wine skins by dressing up mortal considerations and imperatives with immortal and transcendent themes.

 

This is why even though I attend a "liberal" Episcopal Church, I am still wary of the wider church, because of it's "top-down" structure. It's why I cannot fathom joining an RCC or EO church--same problem, just different headquarters.

 

I agree with Joanne that there is a lot of spiritual arrogance out there that presumes that there is a "best way" to approach God. IMO, if there is a best way, it isn't in the prideful approaches used by so many groups trying to entice new visitors to their distinguished edifices. Sure, the approach being used in many evangelical churches is ridiculous in many ways, and shallow, and lacks substance. But, the data shows that young people are leaving religion--of all colors, traditional too--in large numbers.

 

That's because there's a sea change going on across the globe, and many people are fed up with top-down organizations, whether it's the 1% ruling from Wall Street, their wealthy pals sitting in Congress and heading up other governments, or the cloistered men of the cloth, who calmly issue blessings and their condemnation upon what will most likely protect and prolong their own hierarchy.

 

More people are seeking egalitarian relationships, person-to-person, community-to-community, and equitable footing. They are tired of seeing power corrupt over and over again. They understand that it's not simply a lack of holiness or goodness or whatever. No, power corrupts, period. And the love of money, which is the basis of power in our world, is the root of all evil.

 

So, younger people, especially, are increasingly rejecting the old paradigm. They are men and women, straight and gay, rich and poor, all different colors, and they're tired of being told that what they do in the "world" is unrelated or less important than what is done in the church. So a person is gay "out there," in the church, must be a eunuch. So a female corporate leader "out there" is locked out of the hierarchy of her EO or RCC or other church. It's a disconnect that many just don't want to entertain anymore, and so simply are leaving behind organized religion.

 

That's a theme I've been seeing more and more, and that's why I think that whether evangelical churches or traditional liturgical churches "win" the tug-o-war for young people's allegiance, the truth is the overall pool is shrinking to such a degree, that any win may be pyrrhic in the end, unless church leaders give up their love for the temporal and the transient.

[*Lulu*]

I think the larger problem is not the way we dress corporate worship up or down as much as it is this attitude of running our churches like corporations. While there are some business principles and models that can be applied to specific situations within the church AT SOME TIMES, a person's faith journey cannot be quantified in some mathematical equation.

 

More laser lights + skinny jeans - KJV version = faith

 

You see this mentality crop up a lot in conversations about church growth. Seats filled is not the same as souls fed. If the primary focus is on getting new people to the exclusion of caring for those already among your ranks your ranks will eventually shrink. Some churches are so good at pulling in new people that their overall numbers do not always reflect the revolving door they have become. Like so much of life, it is about finding a balance. But that takes work, and means extending each other a lot of grace.

 

Even when the other people may be wrong.

 

Maybe especially when the other people are wrong

[Juniper]

I wish there was a mockumentary about all the political themes that have come to infiltrate churches across the spectrum, including Catholic and Orthodox churches.

 

I'm profoundly tired of having spirituality and homilies reduced to an American or Western centric view of "conservative" and "liberal" beliefs, which have become catchphrases anymore for "good" and "evil."

 

I left the Assemblies of God denomination I was raised in when I was in my early twenties, because the churches I attended were obsessed, first, with "winning back the country for God," which often translated into vote in such-and-such Republican. Secondly, it was "let's show everyone how cool we are by getting louder and edgier music and other themes, like Hell House." Finally, it was the lack of any historical study into the roots of the early church, and the myopic "Bible-as-sole-and-infallible-source of doctrine and beliefs" that turned me off. Mostly, because without any outside context, the was used more like Magic 8 ball, in that you could get it to give you any sort of direction, depending on how you spun it.

 

Then, I investigated other Protestant denominations, including the Methodists, and the Presbyterians/Calvinists on the other soteriological end. I ended up rejecting both due to their respective one dimensional approaches to understanding Scripture.

 

After that point, I met my dh, who was serving in a traditional Anglican church. I was drawn to the liturgy and the history of the church. I ended up being confirmed, and married in that church, and had our ds baptised there.

 

However, even the traditional liturgical church fell into the same trap as the AoG did. That is, the priest put a heavy emphasis in his homilies on "traditional family values," and anti-feminist rhetoric, and taking definite political sides in regards to national affairs. When we visited other churches in our diocese, the message was the same. It was always "Submit, submit, submit, especially women. Crusade for the unborn, whose fate is always more important than the concerns of already-born humans. Show contempt for anything modernist, and wax eloquent on the glory days of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis."

 

Just like the AoG, this church shameless used the sacred to prop up personal power and agenda. Except, this time it was the sacraments and the Mass being used to draw people in, stead of the Bible.

 

I left that diocese, and traditional liturgical churches, and I will never return to that environment, as I have never returned to the folds of evangelical Christianity. In both cases, the same thing drove me away--hierarchal power and the desire to control others through fear and spiritual coercion. Like trying to put new wine into old wine skins by dressing up mortal considerations and imperatives with immortal and transcendent themes.

 

This is why even though I attend a "liberal" Episcopal Church, I am still wary of the wider church, because of it's "top-down" structure. It's why I cannot fathom joining an RCC or EO church--same problem, just different headquarters.

 

I agree with Joanne that there is a lot of spiritual arrogance out there that presumes that there is a "best way" to approach God. IMO, if there is a best way, it isn't in the prideful approaches used by so many groups trying to entice new visitors to their distinguished edifices. Sure, the approach being used in many evangelical churches is ridiculous in many ways, and shallow, and lacks substance. But, the data shows that young people are leaving religion--of all colors, traditional too--in large numbers.

 

That's because there's a sea change going on across the globe, and many people are fed up with top-down organizations, whether it's the 1% ruling from Wall Street, their wealthy pals sitting in Congress and heading up other governments, or the cloistered men of the cloth, who calmly issue blessings and their condemnation upon what will most likely protect and prolong their own hierarchy.

 

More people are seeking egalitarian relationships, person-to-person, community-to-community, and equitable footing. They are tired of seeing power corrupt over and over again. They understand that it's not simply a lack of holiness or goodness or whatever. No, power corrupts, period. And the love of money, which is the basis of power in our world, is the root of all evil.

 

So, younger people, especially, are increasingly rejecting the old paradigm. They are men and women, straight and gay, rich and poor, all different colors, and they're tired of being told that what they do in the "world" is unrelated or less important than what is done in the church. So a person is gay "out there," in the church, must be a eunuch. So a female corporate leader "out there" is locked out of the hierarchy of her EO or RCC or other church. It's a disconnect that many just don't want to entertain anymore, and so simply are leaving behind organized religion.

 

That's a theme I've been seeing more and more, and that's why I think that whether evangelical churches or traditional liturgical churches "win" the tug-o-war for young people's allegiance, the truth is the overall pool is shrinking to such a degree, that any win may be pyrrhic in the end, unless church leaders give up their love for the temporal and the transient.

 

You have stated some of my very own thoughts succinctly. The one side that tempers and softens my anger towards top down leadership in some traditions is the Monastic and Ascetic traditions that are still being worked out. Particularly the Ascetic side. I wish this was something we saw more of in America, but at least the monastic communities are multiplying.

[justamouse]

 

 

So, younger people, especially, are increasingly rejecting the old paradigm. They are men and women, straight and gay, rich and poor, all different colors, and they're tired of being told that what they do in the "world" is unrelated or less important than what is done in the church. So a person is gay "out there," in the church, must be a eunuch. So a female corporate leader "out there" is locked out of the hierarchy of her EO or RCC or other church. It's a disconnect that many just don't want to entertain anymore, and so simply are leaving behind organized religion.

 

That's a theme I've been seeing more and more, and that's why I think that whether evangelical churches or traditional liturgical churches "win" the tug-o-war for young people's allegiance, the truth is the overall pool is shrinking to such a degree, that any win may be pyrrhic in the end, unless church leaders give up their love for the temporal and the transient.

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way and experienced that. We've not seen that in our parish, so much of our congregation is new, younger kids, newly weds and college aged. They're pretty sick and tired of the flow. The very trad Catholic churches are flourishing. I mean, not a little, a lot, and some of the convents (nuns) are growing so fast that they can't contain the novitiates. I'm talking growth of 2600%, and all college aged. What they've expressed is that they like the truth, they want to know this is True, and they're ok with it not going with the flow.

[Laurie4b]

I really appreciate your perspective but I find several points that I disagree with.

 

Number one, the author is saying that the reaction of the church to the exodus of young adults is the 'wannabe cool' tactic. It is not saying that the young people are leaving because of the change in church culture.

 

I also think people are getting their feelings hurt rather than looking at what this author is trying to say. He states many times that he and others his age don't like to be marketed to and they find it superficial. He isn't saying that the leaders of church are superficial but their methods. He states that young people perceive it as phony.

 

The author doesn't like the church using sex as shock value to attract his generation. It seems what he is saying is that it's insulting to think that is what interests people his age and what will bring them into church.

 

The author is trying to explain why many of his peers find the current culture of some evangelical churches off putting. He goes on to say:

 

I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don't want cool as much as we want real.

If we are interested in Christianity in any sort of serious way, it is not because it's easy or trendy or popular. It's because Jesus himself is appealing, and what he says rings true.

 

I think many people here are only feeling attacked instead of really looking at what he is saying. He is giving a reason why he feels young adults are leaving and why they don't want to return. The church is trying to use these tactics to bring them back in but it isn't working. It's time the church universal listens to his generation before we lose a vast majority of them.

 

Elise in NC

 

I neither felt attacked nor got my feelings hurt. I feel sad when one Christian attributes negative motives to another Christian's behavior, whether I happen to share their preferences or not. I don't happen to attend a church such as he's describing and would not be drawn to one. But I know some excellent churches that are similar on the externals to what he's describing.

 

I agree with the bolded. That was what I was talking about. I'm not sure how long one finds it off-putting before one leaves. Much of the discussion on this topic has been, "I found that off-putting, too, so I left." So I'm not sure what I've misunderstood.

[mytwomonkeys]

i don't have a lot of experience with churches. i've only been part of a handful since my 20's, all of which are quite different (southern baptist for 5 years, church of god for 3 years, one awful non-denominational church for a year, methodist for 6 years, and our current church for 2).

 

aside from the one bad fit, i have loved all of our church homes. all preached (without shame) the never-changing gospel of Christ & each used ever-changing methodologies in communicating that truth. whether or not someone can drink coffee in the sanctuary is irrelevant to me. if the music is loud or people wear jeans, i don't care. in fact, i prefer it.

 

i care greatly about the mission of the church. what is being preached from the pulpit. what my kids are learning. how the leadership lives out the great commission from day to day. our current church was strictly mennonite for many years & about 15 years ago changed the way we do things. our current pastor grew up mennonite, but realized reaching our community was difficult because the congregation was totally exclusive and inwardly focused. this shift has opened up the congregation to include all walks of life now -- people that would never have attended previously (and we still have mennonites that attend and wear dresses and head coverings - while others are in jeans and flip flops). there is no strife or division among our members.

 

changing how we reached people did not compromise the gospel though. truth & love are not omitted. i'm certain there are churches that are are just trying to be "cool", but i pray that is more of an exception than the norm. i'm grateful for my church & past ones we've been blessed to be a part of.

[SarahW]

 

My mom's church is like this (she's Episcopalian), and I find it very sad. My youngest brother formally joined it as a high school senior but I don't think he ever attends services unless he happens to be visiting my folks at Christmas or Easter. I am not sure whether he would self-identify as Episcopalian if someone asked him what religion he is.

 

 

However, even the traditional liturgical church fell into the same trap as the AoG did. That is, the priest put a heavy emphasis in his homilies on "traditional family values," and anti-feminist rhetoric, and taking definite political sides in regards to national affairs. When we visited other churches in our diocese, the message was the same. It was always "Submit, submit, submit, especially women. Crusade for the unborn, whose fate is always more important than the concerns of already-born humans. Show contempt for anything modernist, and wax eloquent on the glory days of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis."

 

Just like the AoG, this church shameless used the sacred to prop up personal power and agenda. Except, this time it was the sacraments and the Mass being used to draw people in, stead of the Bible.

 

I've run in the circles that I think both of you are talking about, and I agree that it is a real problem. There seems to be this idea that IF ONLY we could turn back the hands of time to 1950, or 1940, or 1928, or 1662 that the world would be PERFECT and full of good little Christian people. Ugh. It's stupid. The past leads to today, so what will going to the past accomplish? Nothing. The fact that this mindset draws in a lot of racists and misogynists doesn't help.

 

But the traditional churches don't have to be this way, I have also been in churches where the tradition offered flexibility and the people in charge were open to the nuances of contemporary politics and to new philosophical ideas. It is these traditional churches that are growing. The "let's pretend to live somewhere else" churches will cease to exist with a few funerals.

 

And....yes, this is my articulation of what I think is main problem on the polar opposite side of the OP. :)

[mytwomonkeys]

my husband showed me this video. so funny. perfect for this thread :)

 

i tried to embed it here, but i have no idea how.