How The Boomers Affected My Generation

[JD Sherrow]

Dr. Keith Drury has taught at Indiana Wesleyan University since 1974. Currently he is Assistant Professor of Religion. He speaks for my generation.

Why Boomers resist the “Emergent fad.”

Emergents trying to convince Boomers that there is a new generation with new needs that requires new approached often meet a brick wall from Boomers. Boomers say, “I’m tired of chasing fads in ministry.” Why is it that boomers (my own generation) are so resistant to the emergent generation’s claims that the church must change or die?

Frankly boomers are weary of change. My generation pioneered change! We are the ones who overthrew hymns for choruses, screens for hymnals, paper agendas for verbal ones. It is my generation who invented the idea of a “generation” that must be reached by lecturing the oldsters about boomer needs and boomer values and “what boomers want.” We used “boomers” and “outreach” to install our own preferences in both worship and church management in our own revolution of the 80’s and 90’s. We coerced the oldsters to give up their worship styles, management approaches and even their architecture in order that we can “reach the coming generation [boomers, us!] with the gospel.

Eventually we won—we enshrined our own preferences as standard operating procedure in the church—“tradition.” In the process we became our parents—we got protective of our own traditions. Thus, my generation is tired of chasing new generations and “new fads.” We have either forgotten our own speeches or we now doubt that our revolution accomplished much outreach after all (other than reshuffling the Christian population among churches). Revolutionaries always become conservatives once they succeed. We don’t have the energy left to learn what Postmoderns are like and to be quite honest many in my generation do not even care. We cared little for the needs and preferences of the oldsters when we revolted to change the church in the 1980’s and 1990’s—and now we care little about the needs of the youngsters now that we are firmly in control of everything. We care deeply about things—but mostly we care about our own generation—that may be our besetting generational sin. After having won the war we are tired of battle. We now longer have an appetite for revolutions and are now comfortable with things the way they are. Of course “the way things are” is they are like we wanted them, or mostly so. We now forget all those 10 point lists of “what Boomers are want and how the church can change to reach them.” Or if we remember them we now scoff at them and no longer think they are totally accurate. So when someone younger comes up with a new list claiming their generation is different than ours we are simply too weary to even inquire into the matter so we blow them off.

And to be quite honest with you, as we boomers have aged we are less sure that we actually did the right thing in the violent overthrow of our parents’ traditions. We are admitting to each other that we did some pretty manipulative things to overthrow the oldsters and now we’re not totally sure we made a gain for the kingdom. Have we really reached the tons of unbelievers we claimed our musical styles would bring in? Is the quality of discipleship greater now than when we took over? We doubt this now that we are approaching 60 as a generation. All this makes us suspicious of the next generation’s agenda and their certainty that the “church has to change or die.” We don’t dismiss postmodern/emergent thing because my generation is evil or selfish—but because most boomers are just tired of revolutions or we are beginning to doubt the gains of our own revolution, thus the claims of the next one. When we were trying to convince the oldsters they had to "change or die" we got miffed when they retorted, "people don’t change and the gospel doesn't change." We hated hearing, "I don't buy it that the coming generation needs things packaged differently--why copy the world?" Now we find ourselves saying similar things.

Emergents, we need you to be patient with boomers-turned-oldsters..." the definition of a conservative is ‘former revolutionary.’" And we boomers need to remember ourselves in the 1980's when we were arguing, "boomers like bright sanctuaries and fast upbeat music” when we hear the next generation say “Emergents like dark sanctuaries and slow reflective music.” We boomers may not like what the Emergents plan to do with it, but to whom else can we pass on the church? We’re stuck with the emergent generation. They will inherit the earth. Perhaps we boomers need to confess more publicly some of the errors in approach and effect of our own revolution. Who knows, that may help the Emergents avoid some our mistakes? That's my bet (er, ah, I mean "hope.")

[Don Sherman]

Maybe there is something about Sacred Tradition.

[Brad Mercer]

I think most people of any generation are uncomfortable with changing from that with which they are comfortable. I think most people who oppose change are trying to get personally comfortable and most people who push for change are trying to get personally comfortable.

Maybe "love your neighbor as yourself" means being willing to sacrifice my own comfort to allow God room to transform me, and beyond that being willing to sacrifice my own comfort to allow me to be an agent in God's transformation of others.

[Don Sherman]

Brad, I think that is an oversimplification. It's more than just about comfort. Those who push modern rock into worship services don't seem to care about how others think about it. I heard our pastor say from the pulpit to those who expressed concern ("complained" in his words)- "get over it". How is this a sacrifice on their part?

[Brad Mercer]

Brad, I think that is an oversimplification.

Maybe; I've been guilty of that on more than one occasion.

Those who push modern rock into worship services don't seem to care about how others think about it. I heard our pastor say from the pulpit to those who expressed concern ("complained" in his words)- "get over it". How is this a sacrifice on their part?

I don't know them. I don't know whether it represents sacrifice for them or their own comfort. And I don't care what kind of music any church has in their services. And if people in the church resent each other and are feuding among themselves, I only care secondarily at best what the surface issues are about which they feud.

The disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus and asked on behalf of John if Jesus was the one. Jesus just said to go tell John what they'd seen: the lame walking, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, and so forth.

I think that's a good response to questions regarding whether the format of a worship service reflects a spiritually healthy church, is theologically sound, and effectively culturally translated. If I see in my church sinners being saved, believers being sanctified and saints becoming deeper and sweeter and more loving, I hope to find it in myself to support whatever that church is doing, no matter how different or alien or new it may seem to me, because those are the results I mean when I pray for "revival". If, on the other hand, I don't see those things happening in my church, then I hope to find it within myself to become deeply dissatisfied with how my church does things, no matter how familiar and comfortable they may be to me.

JD Sherrow has posted several things that appear to me to be saying (although I may be misinterpreting his intentions) that boomers took something valuable from him and that he finds emotional satisfaction in the notion that they are going to experience pain like his when the generation after them hurts them the way they hurt him. He seems to want them to know what it feels like. I believe that that pain is real and deep and deserves healing. I think we need to find ways to facilitate God's healing for ourselves and each other, and I don't think choosing the right musical style can really do that, because I think the deeper issue for all of us, regardless of the apparent issue, is about where we get our own sense of worth, rather than about whether the church sings my kind of music, or elects me to office or supports the program in which I've invested myself, or whatever.

I think if there are deeper issues of pain and worth, grace can touch those and make us a genuinely loving people. If it's really just about music, we may be doomed, because the possibilities seem to be limited to choosing one style or the other, assuring that half the people will be unhappy, or blending the two, assuring that everyone will be unhappy half the time.

The church surely has to be meant for something more glorious than that.

Brad

[Roland Hearn]

Yup, I'm with him.

[Hans Deventer]

I think the deeper issue for all of us, regardless of the apparent issue, is about where we get our own sense of worth, rather than about whether the church sings my kind of music, or elects me to office or supports the program in which I've invested myself, or whatever.

Just wanted to highlight this one :basic03

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I've already said it around here, but I'm going to keep pressing it. The emergent "fad" (as Drury derogatorily put it), while having slight generational characteristics, is not the result of a generation. I wish this preconception would go away.

In addition, worship style ("modern rock" as said above) is a subcategory of the emergent discussion.

Emergent cannot be easily paralleled with seeker sensitivity.
Try early Methodism instead. Dr. Hal Knight does a very decent job of noting this. HERE's a short paper he wrote (http://www.umerging.org/uploads/media/John_Wesley_and_the_Emerging_Church.pdf) and HERE's an article on a presentation he made at Nazarene Theological Seminary (http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2006/10/nts-session-3-hal-knight.html).

[Don Sherman]

So no one thinks the music is all that important. Yet it is all about the music. Pastors generally take a hands-off approach to it and enjoy the phenomenal growth in attendance and giving. Most of them say their sermons are most important and how we "get them in" doesn't really matter, it's "my sermon" that counts. Much of the musical lyric is banal in the praise songs we sing and the music doesn't match the message. Music in worship has overshadowed and dominated the whole scene. Worship=Music/Singing. Without a beat, it is stale and boring to our ADD society that seeks instant gratification on all levels. Their jesus must have 29 dimensions of compatibility to meet their felt needs. Worship doesn't include responsive readings, corporate prayer (what's that?), or silent meditation. Church has become noisy and distracting for true worship - and everybody has to be happy, exuberant, enthusiastic and plastic.
Sorry. That's my assessment in a nutshell.

[Brad Mercer]

Church has become noisy and distracting for true worship - and everybody has to be happy, exuberant, enthusiastic and plastic.

So is that your assessment of your own local church, all churches, certain churches you've visited or read about, all churches with drums...? When you say "Church has become...", what church do you mean?

I have to tell you, by the way, that I'd hate to go to a church every Sunday like the one you describe.

Brad

[Joyce Miller]

Methods, gimmicks, and fads will result in a crowd like the crowd of 5000+, while true worship and faithfulness result in a crowd like the "crowd" of 4 women and John at the cross.

Attending church services designed for the millenial generation is not my preferred style, so personally I'm working hard to try to stop finding fault, and concentrate on His word, asking him to work in me. One of my college students told me that she was dreading that service with all the old music, referring to the performance of Handel's Messiah! I'm finding that if we don't tell the next generation WHY we find such joy in our worship tradition, that they won't be able to fully participate in styles other than the current performance style that's prevalent in many churches. I think too that bringing diversity of worship styles can be refreshing.

[David Cash]

So is that your assessment of your own local church, all churches, certain churches you've visited or read about, all churches with drums...? When you say "Church has become...", what church do you mean?

I have to tell you, by the way, that I'd hate to go to a church every Sunday like the one you describe.

Brad

I think I'd hate that kind of experience too, Brad.

If I can take a sidetrip, is it possible that our idea of worship is changing? I notice that the color photography on my church's bulletins tends to feature people with their hands in the air and happy or admiring faces. I don't want to say that this isn't worship, but in the past, we tended to picture worship with images of praying (folded) hands. I think I see something similar in the way churches tend to call the musical part of a service "worship" especially if it leans contemporary. This isn't obviously an exhaustive study, but my impression as one who has lived his entire life in the evangelical world is that worship is moving from quiet and sober to exhuberent in a large number of services.

I'm not in the mood today to put a value judgment on such a trend, so I'll let the rest of you go back to the main point of the discussion.

David Cash

[Brad Mercer]

Methods, gimmicks, and fads will result in a crowd like the crowd of 5000+, while true worship and faithfulness result in a crowd like the "crowd" of 4 women and John at the cross.

So, what results in a crowd like the crowd of 3,000 who were saved in one day? What results in people "being added to their number daily"? Was Jesus using methods, gimmicks and fads that we should avoid when he drew the crowd of 5000+? And is a decline by a local church from a large attendance to a small attendance really sufficiently explained by the superior adequacy of their worship? The Church of the Nazarene grew dramatically in the first half of the 20th century in the U.S. Was that because they were guilty of indulging the crowds in gimmicks and fads? The Nazarene church in the U.S. is no longer growing and in my home educational zone is, in fact, declining in district after district. Is that because we've finally discovered true worship and faithfulness?

Isn't there a verse in the Bible that says "and I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to myself?"

Are we really content to die as a denomination in the developed world and comfort ourselves on our deathbeds by attributing our deaths to terminal faithfulness to correct worship? Does that really kill churches? Is that really what Jesus meant by drawing all men to himself -- that he'll kill the churches for being faithful? Can it really be true that the "gospel" is not good news at all, but really so repulsive that if we're faithful enough to it it will keep people away?

Brad

[Roland Hearn]

Methods, gimmicks, and fads will result in a crowd like the crowd of 5000+, while true worship and faithfulness result in a crowd like the "crowd" of 4 women and John at the cross.

This was a joke right? Are you seriously suggesting that God is more honored by four people being faithful than if four thousand had been gathered at the foot of the cross? Are you suggesting that if a group of 5000 people have gathered in Jesus name than it can only be the result of fads and gimmicks and therefore false or inferior worship?
The shepherd had 100 sheep, he lost one, he went looking for it, the glory is in that he brought it back to the other 99, he didn't sit on a hill saying "I sure am glad I got this one, the other 99 can become wolf fodder now because I've got the only one that counts." Numbers matter and while it is not a matter of at any price including the gospel it is a matter of 'by all means win some."
I will gladly and quickly concede this: any time new worship methods are faddish, gimmicky and trivial they are worse than old fashioned glory filled praise services. There are plenty of examples of precisely that. It does not follow however that all contemporary worship services are devoid of true worship or theological bankrupt, nor is it true that a predominantly traditional style worship service is always going to be a God honoring event. The thing that makes the difference is God Himself, I'm pretty happy to go where He is going.

[Joyce Miller]

What my statement was trying to say is that "methods" resulted in large crowds and true faithfulness resulted in smaller crowds, That's not the same thing as large crowds are ONLY a result of methods and small crowds are ONLY a result of faithfulness. The cause and effect are not reversible.

Of course, there were and are cases of large crowds being faithful, but the usual rule is that when you are using a new method, such as giving away food, more people will participate than when you ask for sacrifice, such as giving for the building fund. If you've found methods to build a large faithful congregation, one whose Sunday night and Wednesday attendances are nearly the same as Sunday morning, I would sincerely love to hear about them. We certainly could use the advice because we truly want to build God's kingdom and not make excuses.

[Joyce Miller]

This was a joke right? Are you seriously suggesting that God is more honored by four people being faithful than if four thousand had been gathered at the foot of the cross? Are you suggesting that if a group of 5000 people have gathered in Jesus name than it can only be the result of fads and gimmicks and therefore false or inferior worship?


No, it wasn't a joke; it's hyperbole. And I'm mystified at the misunderstanding of what I said because no way was I suggesting what you delineate here. For comparison, let's say "Drug A results in 5000 deaths and Drug B results in 4 deaths." That sentence does NOT say that if you see a dead person that they died from, or even took, drug A and that if you see a live person, they took Drug B. So of course, the same LOGIC follows that I did NOT say that 5000 disciples can only the be result of gimmicks. I had no idea that my original reference to two actual biblical events would be so misinterpreted.

[Brad Mercer]

If you've found methods to build a large faithful congregation, one whose Sunday night and Wednesday attendances are nearly the same as Sunday morning, I would sincerely love to hear about them.

If that's the definition of faithfulness then no, I wouldn't have any thoughts on how to accomplish it, nor any interest in making great sacrifices in the attempt.

Brad

[Jon Twitchell]

I would have to ask how and why we think that three corporate worship services are a measure of devotion and commitment? I have yet to find that model described anywhere in scripture.

I would far rather see members of my congregation actively engaging their neighborhoods, workplaces, and families with the Good News than simply retreating back into the church building for an additional two hours each week.

I generally believe that Sunday Night and Wednesday Night "services" are an excuse to be busy doing the things we want to do so we can avoid doing the things that God would prefer us to do. I also think that those "extra" services provide a great opportunity for those who attend to exercise pride over those who are somehow less spiritual because they don't attend.

(Before I'm misunderstood, let me disclaim my sentence: 1) I don't believe that all Sunday and Wednesday night programs are ineffective. 2) I don't believe that everyone who attends those programs is either a)necessarily prideful, or b)not doing the work of the Kingdom. However, I do think that additional programs like those allow us as individuals to be more focussed on programs than on producing the fruits of the Kingdom of God.)

[Barbara Moulton]

I have to tell you, by the way, that I'd hate to go to a church every Sunday like the one you describe.

Brad

Me too. WHenever we have discussions like this, it seems this type of church does get described. However I can't say I have been in one myself...although I have been in many churches which use modern worship music.

[Joyce Miller]

I would far rather see members of my congregation actively engaging their neighborhoods, workplaces, and families with the Good News than simply retreating back into the church building for an additional two hours each week.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'd like to comment further, but oh well...

[Marsha Lynn]

I think most people of any generation are uncomfortable with changing from that with which they are comfortable. I think most people who oppose change are trying to get personally comfortable and most people who push for change are trying to get personally comfortable.

How about this theory? We like change we control. We dislike change that someone else controls. When the "boomers" were in control, they liked the changes they were making. They were behind the change and part of the change. When the next generation takes the reins and starts making the changes, the boomers, like the generation before them, suddenly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of not knowing what's going on, having change happening around them without any opportunity for them to control it.

I keep trying to persuade people that the way to do change with less resistance is to involve all of those affected by that change in the decisions being made. The statement that people don't like change is patently false. Just try offering people a new car of their choice and see how many turn you down on the basis that they don't like change. There may be a few, but not nearly a majority, even though a new car does indeed mean learning new things and adjusting to change.

Maybe "love your neighbor as yourself" means being willing to sacrifice my own comfort to allow God room to transform me, and beyond that being willing to sacrifice my own comfort to allow me to be an agent in God's transformation of others.

Maybe so, but I'm still probably going to take steps to ensure that change being put in place by other people does not leave me looking stupid because I can't keep up with and appreciate the new rules. If it comes down to "lead, follow, or get out of the way" and there's no place for me in leadership and I don't find a compelling voice to follow, I have little choice but to get out of the way.

Marsha

[John Kennedy]

Marsha, having been a situation where the 'apostles of change' came on like 'gang busters' and made it clear that clear that it was a case of 'our way or the highway', I took the highway to a church whose way of worship genuinely feeds my soul. I probalby should hunt 'em up and thank them for incredibly enriching my worship, but, somehow, I don't think they'd understand.