Young People and Community

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

I am becoming more surprised in my time here because I am witnessing that the old understanding that younger people want community to be a tad misleading because it is the younger people who tend to isolate themselves while our older members are constantly going to lunch together, have game nights at each others houses, holiday dinners, service projects and just being loving toward each other. I look back at my grandparents and recall that in their hey day they were gone several nights a week being with their friends. They bowled once a week, had meetings at the lodge, bingo night, dancing (my grandparents were not Nazarenes) and family dinners. I look at my generation (20s -30s) and it seems most of my friends are more interested in tweeting about what they did rather than invite someone else to participate in the actual activity. Is it possible that those of us who are truly living in the post-modern age really do not know about community even though we claim we desire it?

I copied this post from the post-traditional church thread because I cannot stop thinking about it, but I think it's a different question than that of what a post-traditional church looks like.

I have not read Robert Putnam's book, Bowling Alone, but I believe he addresses this issue. Based on a class presentation I heard, I think he identified the increase of "features" in people's homes as one of the causes of decreasing social engagement (better quality televisions, video game systems, internet, etc.). That may be one cause. I don't know if rural, suburban, or urban setting is a factor. I would also guess that geographical distance between members of a community makes a difference too. I'm sure there are lots of factors. Regardless, I have no idea how to go about building community among people who would just as soon stay home and do their own thing. And the hardest part is that I find myself struggling to even want to build community as opposed to staying home and doing my own thing.

Has there actually been a societal shift? Are young people less likely to engage in community? If they are engaged, are they less likely to genuinely connect? If this is really the direction our culture is heading, how do we address it?

I just looked on Amazon and noticed that Robert Putnam wrote another book called Better Together: Restoring the American Community. Possibly, I should read that.

[Todd Erickson]

There's also been a huge shift in where people live. The 60's brought a new type of housing area: Suburbia. And Suburbia, unfortunately, is the sort of place that you have to leave to get to anywhere you might want to do anything.

If you've been working all day, the last thing you want to do is drive half an hour away to do something else, unless, one supposes, it involves drinking.

[Gina Stevenson]

There's also been a huge shift in where people live. The 60's brought a new type of housing area: Suburbia. And Suburbia, unfortunately, is the sort of place that you have to leave to get to anywhere you might want to do anything.

If you've been working all day, the last thing you want to do is drive half an hour away to do something else, unless, one supposes, it involves drinking.

Yes, a sad supposition, too easily assumed, considering all the drinking accidents over the years. Now, that is something that needs to be done at home, rather than going elsewhere and then trying to drive back home! [no, I don't drink at home or out. ]

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

There's also been a huge shift in where people live. The 60's brought a new type of housing area: Suburbia. And Suburbia, unfortunately, is the sort of place that you have to leave to get to anywhere you might want to do anything.

If you've been working all day, the last thing you want to do is drive half an hour away to do something else, unless, one supposes, it involves drinking.

I think you are right about suburbia, although, I don't know why residents of suburban neighborhoods don't know their neighbors. And most suburban areas also have shopping centers or restaurants nearby, so it's possible to get together in a restaurant or whatever without driving too far. I guess the change is that work, church, and home are no longer united geographically, such that your co-workers and fellow church-goers are also your neighbors.

The proliferation of drinking among young people (although certainly not a new thing) is, in some ways, another manifestation of the unwillingness to engage with others. While it is often said that drinking decreases inhibitions, it also decreases the ability to process ideas and emotions and the ability to connect by means of a person's full mental and emotional capacities, therefore diminishing any ability to actually engage with others. As I listen to the stories of people who drink often, their stories are almost all about drinking, which eventually begin to all sound the same and not all that interesting. I think that many who drink together are afraid of being alone, but are also afraid of being fully present with others without some sort of excuse for their behavior to hide behind. In my opinion, it's just another wall.

[Billy Cox]

Has there actually been a societal shift? Are young people less likely to engage in community? If they are engaged, are they less likely to genuinely connect? If this is really the direction our culture is heading, how do we address it?

When God says in Genesis, "it is not good for the adam to be alone", it's not just a description or an editorial comment. It is more of a pronouncement. People instinctively seek connection.

Where are they seeking connecton already? Why? If one particular group seeks connection in a way that's unlike our mode of connection, are we quick to express our disapproval?

I don't know that the church needs to address the issue of connection, as much as try to get out in front of it rather than shouting condemnations from behind.

[Billy Cox]

The proliferation of drinking among young people (although certainly not a new thing) is, in some ways, another manifestation of the unwillingness to engage with others. While it is often said that drinking decreases inhibitions, it also decreases the ability to process ideas and emotions and the ability to connect by means of a person's full mental and emotional capacities, therefore diminishing any ability to actually engage with others. As I listen to the stories of people who drink often, their stories are almost all about drinking, which eventually begin to all sound the same and not all that interesting. I think that many who drink together are afraid of being alone, but are also afraid of being fully present with others without some sort of excuse for their behavior to hide behind. In my opinion, it's just another wall.

It's funnny... My non-church friends would say precisely the same things about people who live in the church's orbit. Precisely...even down to all our stories being about church activities which all begin to sound the same, the fear of being alone, and our tendency to hide behind religious language and practice in order to avoid being fully present.

Reading/discussing scripture and praying together can be just as superficial and pointless as a game of beer pong - maybe even moreso.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

It's funnny... My non-church friends would say precisely the same things about people who live in the church's orbit. Precisely...even down to all our stories being about church activities which all begin to sound the same, the fear of being alone, and our tendency to hide behind religious language and practice in order to avoid being fully present.

Reading/discussing scripture and praying together can be just as superficial and pointless as a game of beer pong - maybe even moreso.

While I certainly understand and appreciate what you're saying, I think my question is about whether young people are reluctant to involve themselves in the lives of others in any setting, whether that setting is a Bible study or a bar. I think the Bible study setting might lend itself more easily to engagement in others' lives just because everyone (hopefully) is sober, but what I fear is that whether it's a bar or a Bible study, it's too easy to go and do the thing you're doing without ever talking about the concerns weighing on people's minds. Everyone leaves their concerns at the door when they go in and pick them back up when they walk out. While I think that tendency is true across all age groups in almost any setting, I think young people have just abandoned the facade and don't even bother to go to the Bible study anymore, thus closing the door on connection before it can even happen.

I'm really not trying to make any big pronouncements about how all young people are or how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I'm just trying to understand what I think I'm seeing in my own life and in the world around me. It could be that I have a completely skewed perspective due to the fact that I'm primarily surrounded by people who know they are at a transitional point in their life and will not be around long enough to bother building deep relationships. That's why I wanted to put the question to the Naznet community.

[Steven Burton]

This is a book done by an ex sociology professor of SNU you might find it interesting on the topic http://www.amazon.com/More-Front-Por...0959430&sr=8-1.

[Todd Erickson]

Being a Geek, I participate in LARP events twice a month (usually running from 7 PM to midnight/1 PM) and the occasional tabletop game (also running about 4 hours). I know of friends who participate in other kinds of gaming, whether online, or Magic The Gathering related. There can be alcohol with these events, but there most often isn't.

Many of my friends who are engaged in the RPG community have 1 or 2 games every single weekend. And they may spend much of their intervening evenings planning, writing, emailing, preparing.

These events can contain upwards of 20 people (or a lot more, in some cases/occasions). And we're generally the least social group out there.

But once again, people can get irritated talking to gamers, because most of what they'll have to talk about is, sadly, game.

[Billy Cox]

I think the Bible study setting might lend itself more easily to engagement in others' lives just because everyone (hopefully) is sober, but what I fear is that whether it's a bar or a Bible study, it's too easy to go and do the thing you're doing without ever talking about the concerns weighing on people's minds. Everyone leaves their concerns at the door when they go in and pick them back up when they walk out. While I think that tendency is true across all age groups in almost any setting, I think young people have just abandoned the facade and don't even bother to go to the Bible study anymore, thus closing the door on connection before it can even happen.

If connection isn't fostered by the Bible study, then abandonment of the facade would be no worse than propping it up?

One of my perennial frustrations with the church is the tendency to ask the question, "how can we facilitate connection among people?" without first asking the question "how do people connect with others?" and comprehending a realistic answer.

What we often end up with is people who get together for an hour or so almost every week, and then never interact outside of that time slot. That strikes me as artificial - not useless but failing, to promote interpersonal connection.

I think it's a great topic for discussion though.

I'm really not trying to make any big pronouncements about how all young people are or how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I'm just trying to understand what I think I'm seeing in my own life and in the world around me. It could be that I have a completely skewed perspective due to the fact that I'm primarily surrounded by people who know they are at a transitional point in their life and will not be around long enough to bother building deep relationships. That's why I wanted to put the question to the Naznet community.

The Erikson developmental stage for young adults is called 'intimacy vs. isolation', so this line of questioning is apropos. Seeking connection is certainly a strong driver for young adults, but is by no means automagically successful.

[Gina Stevenson]

One of my perennial frustrations with the church is the tendency to ask the question, "how can we facilitate connection among people?" without first asking the question "how do people connect with others?" and comprehending a realistic answer.

What we often end up with is people who get together for an hour or so almost every week, and then never interact outside of that time slot. That strikes me as artificial - not useless but failing, to promote interpersonal connection.

True, too often. What bothers me yet, after how-many years alone again, is how it's gone in recent years ... instead of just being "a person," my status is apparently considered. There's been more of that: "Well, let's see ... when won't my husband be home, so we can get together?" rather than just including someone when there might be couples around, too ... enough exclusion already when widowed ... just keep excluding because of status ....................

Oh, yeah ... we can let you go to "women only" things, too.

[sorry for the skepticism here ... I've held it in for a long, long time ... again, considering when my husband was alive, we didn't exclude dependent on status ... so b/c we did/had not, it was a bit of a shock to me ... now it just saddens]

[Timothy Bullington]

This is a book done by an ex sociology professor of SNU you might find it interesting on the topic http://www.amazon.com/More-Front-Por...0959430&sr=8-1.

Another great book I had to read (I was dreading it) at seminary in my community ethics course was Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of american community by Putnam. It turned out to be one of my favorite books from school. It does social and demographic studies (includes church, political, and other social organizations). It tracks our community habits from the 20's through 40's, the birth of the boomers, to the late 80's and early 90's. It was a very enlightening read of how we got from there (strong sense of responsibility to community) to here (strong sense of responsibility to the self).

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

Another great book I had to read (I was dreading it) at seminary in my community ethics course was Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of american community by Putnam. It turned out to be one of my favorite books from school. It does social and demographic studies (includes church, political, and other social organizations). It tracks our community habits from the 20's through 40's, the birth of the boomers, to the late 80's and early 90's. It was a very enlightening read of how we got from there (strong sense of responsibility to community) to here (strong sense of responsibility to the self).

Yes, I mentioned that book in my initial post, but I have not read it. Does Putnam present any conclusions in the book as to how to deal with some of the societal shifts? Have you personally found any ways to deal with the decreasing sense of responsibility to communities?

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

I'm still wrestling with this question of young people and community. Partly in response to that, I'm working on an independent study cultural exegesis class. I've been putting together my book list in response to some of the questions raised on this thread. So far, I have:
Evangelism After Christendom - Bryan Stone
Doing Local Theology - Clemens Sedmak
Better Together: Restoring the American Community - Robert Putnam
When Helping Hurts - Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert
Lost in Transition - Christian Smith
No More Front Porches - Linda Wilcox

I think my guiding question is "What does the church have to say to a post-Christian culture?"

I am having a hard time narrowing down the direction I would like to go for an answer. Is authentic community part of the answer? Is it more important to first identify characteristics of 21st century American culture before even beginning to answer? Is ministering to the physical needs of those around us part of the answer?

I appreciated the thread asking what our "good news is", and I think that is an important component of the conversation. However, it is a lot easier to articulate a gospel than live it. So maybe part of the question is not just what does the church have to say, but what does the church have to do?

I am kind of just doing some *verbal* processing on this. However, if anyone has any book recommendations or other opinions along these lines, I would love to hear them.

[Dale Cozby]

I am sorry that I do not have the time to read all the postss except the first one but would like to add afew thoughts.
In my church over the last ten years I agree with the thought young adults isolate themselves. I also did some study on this and found that research supports this conclusion.

A few things that I have seen and found out in research are:
Young people connect through social media more often thant anyother method. Texting, Facebook, Myspace etc.
Most everyone under the age of about 30 maintains a very small group of trusted friends(2-4) who gather in regular intervals.
For guys the reason to gather is to engage in games. Video games played online together and what is called a LAN party. Game nights among friends. The other is to do a sport event but even then it is more like being in a small group inside a giant group.
For girls they seem to go in for a night out doing something, eating shopping, dancing....
For young parents the choices are even more limited and happen further apart. Most have a very small babysitter pool, consisting of the grandparents and perhaps a sibling.
Church activities are limited to worship and a rare fellowship event and an even rarer service event.
Most young people according to the research shows they have only 1-2 close friends and a large minority have no close friend in which they can confide.
Now in my church the under 30 crowd lives in various suburbs sometimes many miles apart. They work for corporations that require servants that can work pretty much anytime thus making leadership or even attendence irregular. Most of them are unhappy with thier jobs even if the money is decent. Few have college backgrounds and this may contribute to the job issues.
I see the young adults struggling with so many areas for a lot longer than I had to back in the 1980's. Steady work that you like, serving in the church, stable homelifes, etc. Perhaps these areas of instability contribute to the spiritual instability/weaknesses many of them show.

I can see the problems, but I don't yet have any working solutions to it other than going with the flow and fitting in to the way they interact best I can.

I will read more when I can....thanks for the thread I look forward to some help from it .

[Paul DeBaufer]

I am sorry that I do not have the time to read all the postss except the first one but would like to add afew thoughts.
In my church over the last ten years I agree with the thought young adults isolate themselves. I also did some study on this and found that research supports this conclusion.

A few things that I have seen and found out in research are:
Young people connect through social media more often thant anyother method. Texting, Facebook, Myspace etc.
Most everyone under the age of about 30 maintains a very small group of trusted friends(2-4) who gather in regular intervals.
For guys the reason to gather is to engage in games. Video games played online together and what is called a LAN party. Game nights among friends. The other is to do a sport event but even then it is more like being in a small group inside a giant group.
For girls they seem to go in for a night out doing something, eating shopping, dancing....
For young parents the choices are even more limited and happen further apart. Most have a very small babysitter pool, consisting of the grandparents and perhaps a sibling.
Church activities are limited to worship and a rare fellowship event and an even rarer service event.
Most young people according to the research shows they have only 1-2 close friends and a large minority have no close friend in which they can confide.
Now in my church the under 30 crowd lives in various suburbs sometimes many miles apart. They work for corporations that require servants that can work pretty much anytime thus making leadership or even attendence irregular. Most of them are unhappy with thier jobs even if the money is decent. Few have college backgrounds and this may contribute to the job issues.
I see the young adults struggling with so many areas for a lot longer than I had to back in the 1980's. Steady work that you like, serving in the church, stable homelifes, etc. Perhaps these areas of instability contribute to the spiritual instability/weaknesses many of them show.

I can see the problems, but I don't yet have any working solutions to it other than going with the flow and fitting in to the way they interact best I can.

I will read more when I can....thanks for the thread I look forward to some help from it .

Hmmm, maybe I'm younger than I think I am. I identify with almost everything on the list, especially when it comes to friends.

[Susan Unger]

Hmmm, maybe I'm younger than I think I am. I identify with almost everything on the list, especially when it comes to friends.

Me, too.

[Steven Burton]

I not sure about the steady work that you like though. That one seem pretty specific for an over all assumption.

[Sarah Smith]

I'm not sure things are really so different than they were in Middle Ages when I was a young adult

People are busy, and people do seem to stay connected. Jobs take up a great deal of time, as do families. Then there are all the chores that go with those.

Younger and older adults both may also be involved in the whole dating scene.

I think back to my grandparent's day, and think it was much the same. People do connect during the business of life.

So I guess I wonder what connectedness is supposed to be not happening? I live in a college town, so the younger adults are incredibly busy. Don't think many are hiding out away from people.

Now, admittedly, there seem to be many folks seeing something I'm not seeing. I hope someone will be more specific as to what "unconnectedness" is happening.

[Dale Cozby]

Sarah I think it is more how they connect than anything. Electronic connections are number one. In a busy culture we have become too busy for church stuff or else church has become less relevant to daily community life.
It often feels like it as we prioritize how and where we will invest our time and resources, church usually falls behnd, work, sports teams, workouts, dance lessons, movies, video games, TV shows, chores, dating and of course relaxation and sleep. If we can get all of those other things done in enough quantity to be happy then church is left out. Church as a community is often treated like going to the dentist or doctor. We only go when we feel we have a problem and they can make us feel better about ourselves, then it is off to the lake, or back to the other routines of self improvement and enjoyment.

The church has lost the role of a place for meaningful fellowship, self-improvment, helping achieve purpose, joy and happiness in life. Perhaps it is because we have spent too much time on increasing peoples assurance of a hope for eternal life and its peace that the value of church in the here and now has been lost.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

Church as a community is often treated like going to the dentist or doctor. We only go when we feel we have a problem and they can make us feel better about ourselves, then it is off to the lake, or back to the other routines of self improvement and enjoyment.

My church (which has a very high percentage of young(er) people - mostly under 40) has 1,054 people on the membership, but an average of 650 in attendance each week. I assumed this was because there were 400 members who had stopped coming but just had not been removed. I just found out last week that actually there are about 250 people who come every week. The other 800 tend to come once or twice a month, as it fits into their schedule, thus resulting in about 650 every week. As one who grew up going to church twice on Sunday, every Wednesday, and often for other activities throughout the week, that is very foreign to me. But it seems to fit in with what you're saying...people tend to make church a lower priority and only go when it fits into their schedule.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

I am sorry that I do not have the time to read all the postss except the first one but would like to add afew thoughts.
In my church over the last ten years I agree with the thought young adults isolate themselves. I also did some study on this and found that research supports this conclusion.

A few things that I have seen and found out in research are:
Young people connect through social media more often thant anyother method. Texting, Facebook, Myspace etc.
Most everyone under the age of about 30 maintains a very small group of trusted friends(2-4) who gather in regular intervals.
For guys the reason to gather is to engage in games. Video games played online together and what is called a LAN party. Game nights among friends. The other is to do a sport event but even then it is more like being in a small group inside a giant group.
For girls they seem to go in for a night out doing something, eating shopping, dancing....
For young parents the choices are even more limited and happen further apart. Most have a very small babysitter pool, consisting of the grandparents and perhaps a sibling.
Church activities are limited to worship and a rare fellowship event and an even rarer service event.
Most young people according to the research shows they have only 1-2 close friends and a large minority have no close friend in which they can confide.
Now in my church the under 30 crowd lives in various suburbs sometimes many miles apart. They work for corporations that require servants that can work pretty much anytime thus making leadership or even attendence irregular. Most of them are unhappy with thier jobs even if the money is decent. Few have college backgrounds and this may contribute to the job issues.
I see the young adults struggling with so many areas for a lot longer than I had to back in the 1980's. Steady work that you like, serving in the church, stable homelifes, etc. Perhaps these areas of instability contribute to the spiritual instability/weaknesses many of them show.

I can see the problems, but I don't yet have any working solutions to it other than going with the flow and fitting in to the way they interact best I can.

I will read more when I can....thanks for the thread I look forward to some help from it .

Thanks for sharing this. This has been my experience too. I hope through my reading to find research that either confirms these observations or can tell a bigger story. I'm also hoping to find some resources that offer some "solutions." I put that in quotes because obviously the idea isn't to re-create the past, so I'm not even sure how to define the goal, let alone find a way to reach it.

[Sarah Smith]

Thanks Dale!

I don't see the church as having ceased to hold the role you mentioned in your last paragraph but only because I haven't experienced that being its role in the past.

Realize of course I come from small communities and close knit families. All those good things you mentioned did indeed happen, just none of them was ever seen as the purpose of the church.

I confess I have a hard time seeing the church as somehow supposed to provide a rich social connection unless people are already in that sort of connection.

That is to say, if a person hasn't made friends or extended family outside of church, I doubt they will find them in church. I'm not even sure they should expect church to fulfill all those roles. I see it more as an extension of our social connections, not the sole source of them.

[Billy Cox]

I'm still wrestling with this question of young people and community. Partly in response to that, I'm working on an independent study cultural exegesis class. I've been putting together my book list in response to some of the questions raised on this thread. So far, I have:
Evangelism After Christendom - Bryan Stone
Doing Local Theology - Clemens Sedmak
Better Together: Restoring the American Community - Robert Putnam
When Helping Hurts - Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert
Lost in Transition - Christian Smith
No More Front Porches - Linda Wilcox

I think my guiding question is "What does the church have to say to a post-Christian culture?"

I am having a hard time narrowing down the direction I would like to go for an answer. Is authentic community part of the answer? Is it more important to first identify characteristics of 21st century American culture before even beginning to answer? Is ministering to the physical needs of those around us part of the answer?

I appreciated the thread asking what our "good news is", and I think that is an important component of the conversation. However, it is a lot easier to articulate a gospel than live it. So maybe part of the question is not just what does the church have to say, but what does the church have to do?

I am kind of just doing some *verbal* processing on this. However, if anyone has any book recommendations or other opinions along these lines, I would love to hear them.

Check out 'So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore' by Jake Colsen.

[Billy Cox]

Now, admittedly, there seem to be many folks seeing something I'm not seeing. I hope someone will be more specific as to what "unconnectedness" is happening.

When I am in a church circle and the topic of how young adults are so disconnected comes up, I take that as code for the perception that young adults are disconnected from the church.

I think that many young adults avoid the church because unless they are married, gainfully employed, and are at least interested in having children, the church sees them as overgrown teenagers and treats them accordingly. Figure out how to change that, and young adults will love the church.

[Billy Cox]

My church (which has a very high percentage of young(er) people - mostly under 40) has 1,054 people on the membership, but an average of 650 in attendance each week. I assumed this was because there were 400 members who had stopped coming but just had not been removed. I just found out last week that actually there are about 250 people who come every week. The other 800 tend to come once or twice a month, as it fits into their schedule, thus resulting in about 650 every week. As one who grew up going to church twice on Sunday, every Wednesday, and often for other activities throughout the week, that is very foreign to me. But it seems to fit in with what you're saying...people tend to make church a lower priority and only go when it fits into their schedule.

I think there is a great deal of insight to be gained here. First of all, for those who attend once or twice a month, why do they attend at all? (not a rhetorical question) Surely they don't hope to maintain a circle of Sunday-only friends with that pattern of attendance?

For that same group, what sorts of activities DO merit their weekly attention? What could we in the church learn about that?

I have heard for years that people are sooo busy, but I think that's a cop-out. For all of their busyness, people somehow find time to do what is truly important to them. The church tends to grouse about those things not being 'ultimately' important and then wonder why this nagging doesn't translate to more regular church attendance.

[Steven Burton]

When I am in a church circle and the topic of how young adults are so disconnected comes up, I take that as code for the perception that young adults are disconnected from the church.

I think that many young adults avoid the church because unless they are married, gainfully employed, and are at least interested in having children, the church sees them as overgrown teenagers and treats them accordingly. Figure out how to change that, and young adults will love the church.

Yup that is pretty much how I felt until I became married and gainfully employed. You never really feel in a community at church unless it is large enough to have singles already. And even then you can still have trouble fitting in there due to difference of hobbies.

[Todd Erickson]

It's weird looking at this and trying to figure out what's positive about it.

What I keep hearing is:

A. Church is not there to provide you with friends.

B. Church is not there to make you feel good.

C. Church is not there to give you answers.

D. If the things that make you you aren't found at church, then that's just too bad, and you need to find them elsewhere, but in a Godly way.

Which, I guess, is all fine. But at length, it means that whatever church is for, it's not about me, it's not about my problems, my failings. It's about God.

Which means that I can come to church defeated, and go home the same way.

I can come to church alone, and go home the same way.

I can come to church irrelevant, except for metaphysical statements about how Christ died for me and loves me as I am, and then go home irrelevant as well.

The church makes it clear in the popular realm that there are lots of enemies...gays, feminists, etc. That the voice of Christianity is found among the Republicans, who, in the popular media, have a voice of exclusion and hatred. And there are resonances with that (semantic range) within the church that may never get addressed, no matter how inaccurate it is. There are especially enemies among other Christians...false teachers, heretics, etc.

It's easier to stay home and read a book.

It's easier to go to a ball game and cheer over a favorite team, and thank God for the sunny weather.

It's easier to drop a fiver in the cup of somebody with a sign at the off-ramp.

I don't have to hate anybody, I don't have to exclude anybody, and I don't have to be reminded of my own irrelevance.

The church wants me to grow up, and get the right Gospel, and make a theological assent to a number of factors, and give part of my paycheck, and teach others to do the same, and then go home.

Sometimes, it's difficult to find hope anywhere around the church. Everybody's speaking a different language, and when that language turns to sacrifice, there's little to no love in it, just a lot of duty.

I don't come to church to get told that I need to go elsewhere to find myself, but that's what I get told anyway. I don't find people to talk to at church, I don't find people to help me with my struggles. I struggle alone, and I do my best not to think about it.

But then, once again, church isn't for me. It's not about me. So...yeah.

Or, in some sectors, church is all about me, and other people like me, so long as we're a certain exclusive group. And anybody not in that group...well.

People can sense that exclusiveness, that "we only want people who want this". If the church has defined it's culture, and is making a stand for it, then maybe that stand is having the appropriate response, in the end.

[Billy Cox]

I don't come to church to get told that I need to go elsewhere to find myself, but that's what I get told anyway. I don't find people to talk to at church, I don't find people to help me with my struggles. I struggle alone, and I do my best not to think about it.

But then, once again, church isn't for me. It's not about me. So...yeah.

There is a lot here, and I hear your heart. Just want to respond to this part. It is the nature of religion to write-off those who seem not to get it, those who are unwilling or unable to play the game. You are not alone though, and don't let anybody (including yourself) tell you otherwise.

Those who say that the church is not for you are gravely mistaken.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that what we increasingly have to face is that church is no longer a societal norm.

In the past, you went to church, even if you didn't care for it, because everybody went there. This created an illusion of normalcy.

However, this is no longer the case, and people will generally not go somewhere that makes them feel actively uncomfortable or unwelcome unless they adhere to a specific set of beleifs, practices, and outlooks.

Since the law of Christ is Love, this is hardly surprising...church often asks you to become something before you can truly love (I envy those who can skip this step, and go straight to the love. I am not, it appears, one of them) and this issue with resonance is very clear, I think, to our current generation...they grow very irritated with claims that specific things are necessary when they can see that they aren't.

The conversation I hear about this from the church seems to be "well, if they would just accept that they need to be like us, then things would be fine". Because in the end, it doesn't matter what your programs are, or your music style, or any of that. If people can tell that it's about the outward elements, rather than the heart, they're going to have a lot of trouble sticking around.

[Sarah Smith]

Probably part of our debate is we haven't settled what the purpose of the church is.

Some see the purpose is to proclaim the truth of God. If that is its purpose, then whether or not an attender gets his or her felt needs met is irrelevant.

If the purpose of the church is to provide emotional connection for the attenders and meet their felt needs, then the truth of God may get lost.

It is no secret that I believe the purpose of the church is to proclaim the truth of God. That makes some people intensely uncomfortable, since it also includes some rather unpleasant truth about ourselves in the unregenerate state.

But I just don't see the young adults around me as any less connected than they ever were, married or single. More are unconnected with the church, yes, but that can be for good as well as bad reasons. The good can be that the unsaved no longer flock to church because "everybody does."

Those that find connection with others easy probably already have strong ties to family, friends, coworkers, etc. Those that find connection in other affinity settings difficult will probably find connection with others at church difficult also.

Let me give you an example: I do free parttime daycare for a single dad. We are careful to include him and his offspring in our holidays, part of our vacations, Sunday meals, sporting activities, etc. He never reciprocates and does complain that our church, of which he is member, does nothing to make singles feel comfortable and included. It does have other singles besides him and does offer a variety of activities. We are a smallish church, so we don't have separate Bible studies for married and singles, older and younger, male and female adults. All of us from about 14 up are together. Reality check is that what with jobs, families if they have them, college courses, hobbies, etc he is correct that no one is focused on whether or not he is getting his felt needs met. Of course, I don't think most of us are focused on whether or not our own felt needs are being met.

We have lives, we are living them mostly happily, and we do all we can to include him.

It may be selfish, but to me that seems enough.

But I do the same service for another family, and the single adult in that family is very connected to others and not having the same issues.

Which leads me to conclude connectional people find church a rich source of connection, and nonconnectional people don't.

Now, like Todd mentioned, some of us are just as happy with a book.

I fall into the both/and category, not either or. I'm happy unconnected but also enjoy and have many many connections.

I think our younger adults may just be connecting in ways we older adults find "different", not more, less, better, or worse.

[Marsha Lynn]

I have not read Robert Putnam's book, Bowling Alone, but I believe he addresses this issue. Based on a class presentation I heard, I think he identified the increase of "features" in people's homes as one of the causes of decreasing social engagement (better quality televisions, video game systems, internet, etc.). That may be one cause. I don't know if rural, suburban, or urban setting is a factor. I would also guess that geographical distance between members of a community makes a difference too. I'm sure there are lots of factors. Regardless, I have no idea how to go about building community among people who would just as soon stay home and do their own thing. And the hardest part is that I find myself struggling to even want to build community as opposed to staying home and doing my own thing.

Well, now it's official. You're just part of the latest trend: http://www.larknews.com/archives/673

[Todd Erickson]

I don't want to stay home, but I do want to engage. Church is not built to help me to engage, but in fact, to disengage.

My nephew Brayden has left the church wholesale, and considers himself an atheist. But he is the most moral and ethical person I know, and he has devoted himself to becoming the sort of person who can go out into the world and serve people in the way that Jesus did.

Maybe "church" is so caught up in serving the Kingdom of the Afterlife that anybody who wants to deal with the Kingdom of this life simply isn't the right audience for it. In which case, good job church, keep rocking on.

[Marissa Lynn Coblentz]

I don't want to stay home, but I do want to engage. Church is not built to help me to engage, but in fact, to disengage.

Todd, you've mentioned that you enjoy getting together to play games with people. What about that group invites you to engage more than the church does?

[Todd Erickson]

Todd, you've mentioned that you enjoy getting together to play games with people. What about that group invites you to engage more than the church does?

It's interactive, and encourages me to be creative and think on my feet, and use my talents.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It's interactive, and encourages me to be creative and think on my feet, and use my talents.

Church should do that.

[Ryan Pugh]

It's interactive, and encourages me to be creative and think on my feet, and use my talents.

Todd, I think you'll resonate with this: The Death of Preaching

[Benjamin Burch]

Todd, I think you'll resonate with this: The Death of Preaching

Ryan,

How would you square this post above, with this post you led me to the other day?

They seem fundamentally at odds to me. Maybe you could help me.

[Ryan Pugh]

Ryan,

How would you square this post above, with this post you led me to the other day?

They seem fundamentally at odds to me.

The way I read this post, the author's intent is to call preacher's to a greater awareness of the role of proclaiming the word. It is not simply to give some life application or insight, but the role of proclaiming the word is to "reveal Christ-- Christ as the full revelation of God the Father, Christ as the only Savior of the world, Christ as the true and rightful King of this world, even now!" Going further, when the word is rightly proclaimed, our only response is to the grace offered through Eucharist, as we proclaim the Lord's death until he returns again, are offered life as we participate in his death, and are made into the body and blood of Christ so that we may once again enter the world in order to be broken and poured out on behalf of the world.

The primary point of the post is that proclaiming the word faithfully leads us to the Lord's Table.

The way I read this post, the author would not disagree with the purpose of proclaiming the word as it leads God's people to the Table but would call preachers and church leaders to proclaim the word faithfully using various methods that lead their congregations to the Table. I don't think Tim Baker is arguing for the death of proclaiming the word but rather the death of one person giving a half hour speech. He wants to see church's engage people holistically so that they may be led to the Table (maybe he wouldn't say it like that, but I think he would).

Maybe you could help me.

I hope my perspective helps a little, but maybe I'm missing what you read that makes these post fundamentally at odds.

[Benjamin Burch]

The way I read this post, the author's intent is to call preacher's to a greater awareness of the role of proclaiming the word. It is not simply to give some life application or insight, but the role of proclaiming the word is to "reveal Christ-- Christ as the full revelation of God the Father, Christ as the only Savior of the world, Christ as the true and rightful King of this world, even now!" Going further, when the word is rightly proclaimed, our only response is to the grace offered through Eucharist, as we proclaim the Lord's death until he returns again, are offered life as we participate in his death, and are made into the body and blood of Christ so that we may once again enter the world in order to be broken and poured out on behalf of the world.

The primary point of the post is that proclaiming the word faithfully leads us to the Lord's Table.

The way I read this post, the author would not disagree with the purpose of proclaiming the word as it leads God's people to the Table but would call preachers and church leaders to proclaim the word faithfully using various methods that lead their congregations to the Table. I don't think Tim Baker is arguing for the death of proclaiming the word but rather the death of one person giving a half hour speech. He wants to see church's engage people holistically so that they may be led to the Table (maybe he wouldn't say it like that, but I think he would).

I am not convinced that he would in fact say that. But maybe he would

I hope my perspective helps a little, but maybe I'm missing what you read that makes these post fundamentally at odds.

I'll illustrate:

2. Say something interesting. Please. We don’t forget your messages because we’re forgetful people. You’re just not saying anything that makes a difference to us. Try drawing a picture of the image you want us to leave the room with, and plan everything around that image. Protect that image, and don’t allow anything in your message that detracts from it. Dig into your soul for your own questions and explore them, inviting us to dialogue with you. Consider the questions you can’t answer and unleash them on us.
While you’re crafting all of that, remember that we’re adults who live real lives. Pithy, easy to follow, “three simple steps” got tired in the 90′s. We don’t want you to make it easy, we want you to make our difficult lives make sense. Stay away from the easy messages and please, please don’t feed us the doctrine you learned in church history class. Want help planning your sermon topics? Go to a Christian book store, look at the book titles, and say the exact opposite things.
And by the way…we don’t need any more messages against the president, against current culture, against non-believers or other denominations. Engage us with stories from your life, ones that make sense.

Seems to go directly against this idea:

The proper response to the preaching of the word should not be, "Oh, that's a great little insight. I think I'll go apply that." I think it ought to be, "O God, what are we going to do now?"

Maybe it is just the way I am reading it. But it still seems to center on the sermon being a place where we're given some idea, concept, or even "advice" of sorts. I wouldn't put it past me to be reading this wrong.