Some great comments. Thanks for taking part in the discussion.
Obviously the demographic of the pastor or instructor is important. But surprisingly, if given a digital solution, some will try it.The reason I suggested text messaging is because current research (and this could change tomorrow) indicates that Twitter and Facebook are now skewing older. Teens or young adults are no longer the only 'early adapters'.
I think part of the solution is building a real community and certainly social media can have an influence on that.There was a time, maybe two or three generations ago when social life revolved around the church. And so a young person was confirmed with peers with whom they had grown up. Now, so many are 'dropped' into confirmation with no real connection to the community of faith. So it's just as easy for them to drop out.
Music or style of service may have something to do with hanging around, but most of the 'contemporary' congregational song is keeping the Baby Boomers happy and bears little resemblance to what the teens listen to. We talked to some teens a few years back and their reaction to the music question was that if they want 'contemporary music' they'll download it or go to a concert.
How can the church help parents understand that the Christian faith is not based on baptism, confirmation, marriage and funerals and that it is not something 'done' but something you are because of what God has done? There are some who suggest that the early teen years is not the best time for them to tackle faith issues because they are too busy finding out who they are. I know I learned a lot of my basic Bible knowledge in a basement after-school Bible study before I was 12 and it's stuck with me.
How do we engage teens (and adults) where they are rather than expecting them to show up at church?
I know it's important for them to attend church to receive the God's gifts of His Word and Sacraments, but how do we begin the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think you bring up a good point about "contemporary worship." I personally don't mind it, but the people that really like it were teens when this music was popular on the radio, maybe thirty years ago!
Before I was a Christian, let me tell you, we spent no little time making fun of "Christian music." We thought it incredibly lame.
However, it was interesting that when encountering chnating (usually on movies) there was always a shared sense of the Divine.
Ian,
Amen to your insights about teenagers' views on so-called "contemporary" Christian music. I wish more of your generation had this understanding.
Going beyond personal preferences, I believe teenagers and young people are more astute than given credit for. Most understand -- perhaps (if you'll permit an unfair generalization) better than the Boomer generation -- the transcendence of worship. They know the Divine Service is not supposed to be entertainment.
Any efforts by the church to retain or attract people based on "What do these people LIKE?" are misguided, however well-intentioned they may be.
Kudos for keeping the focus on "What vehicles shall we use to give particular people what we all NEED?"
Hmmm... No ideas at the moment, but I like your SMS idea.
Thought I'd weigh in on the what-NOT-to-do end of things.
An intriguing bit of research about the worship music discussion: http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/lotw/04-03/04-03-04.php
("Yours, Mine, or Ours: Teenagers' Perceptions of Church Music" by Dr. Barbara Resch.)
I don't think they (online communities) are necessarily "skewing older" because young people are losing interest; I think that older adults and seniors are finally starting to catch the wave. Facebook, for example, started out as a social network for College students. Studies show now that at least 85% of the College/University student population in North America have Facebook (and it's believable, too - a show of hands were given in my English lecture; everyone's hand went up for "Do you have Facebook?" ). Then, they started allowing registrations from Highschool and the older world. I can't think of any High School students that I know that are without a Facebook profile, and most of the friends that I have in Junior High got Facebook in Grade 7 or 8 (naughty, naughty ;). Text messaging is just so limited in the connection it can make; most teenagers text message so often that it's become an expensive instant messenger. Not only that, but, if you haven't noticed, it's practically impossible to type a coherent sentence on a phone keyboard without spending 3 or 4 minutes on it! And those that *can* type faster always stick to the impersonal "texting lingo" that's become rather infamous for confusing old people ;) . I just feel that text messaging would be a less-successful resource, but, then again - who's to say we shouldn't be using everything we can to try and make teens feel like they belong to the very body of Christ?
Personally, I don't think the conversation should be starting when youth are 12 or 13...parents should be making faith part of their family's lifestyle from the time kids are little. You're absolutely right that youth who are 'dropped in' to confirmation easily 'drop out' of church afterwards. Like it or not, youth will usually mirror their parents' attitudes towards coming to church/being involved. As a child, I don't recall being particularly 'engaged' in worship, but that wasn't the point! I learned the fundamentals of faith through being in service, learning in Sunday School and talking with my parents. Both of my parents were very involved in aspects of congregational life (Sunday school, church council, youth group - you name it) and without their influence my life might be very different. It's easy for parents and youth to pass the responsibility back and forth (parents say "the kids don't want to come" and kids get the impression that it's not important because it's not a priority in their family.)
I suppose that's all easy for me to say because I don't have kids, but I honestly don't think the church stands a chance in keeping youth involved if their parents aren't in full support - that might mean some sacrifices on both sides, but if it's something that's truly of value then it might be time to examine priorities.
Nat said pretty much exactly what I wanted to. I've heard many conversations in Lutheran circles about "how to retain the confirmands" and am always surprised whenever the first thing mentioned *isn't* the fact that kids tend to do whatever their parents are doing, and what their parents discipline them to do. All other ideas about being technologically astute, valuable as they may be as a supplement, are irrelevant next to this point.
As a youth leader, I started a Facebook group with our church's youth, and have them all (and their parents) on email contact lists for event updates. This has helped somewhat with building community and keeping people aware, but it remains that the only active youth are the ones whose parents are there pretty much every Sunday. We're not going to "attract" people just by having another social networking group.
As a young adult convert to Lutheranism myself (about 5 years ago), I see part of the problem as congregational. Many churches simply expect their kids to disappear and aren't especially interested in going out of their way to show them that they are an important part of the body of Christ, and that they are missed when they are gone. They are simply allowed and expected to vanish.
But what I really don't understand (having never gone through teenage confirmation myself) is what parents are or aren't telling their own kids about confirmation expectations. I intend to tell my own kids that they are saying, by this rite, that they want to be *more* involved in church, not less; have more responsibility, delve more into God's Word than they have been before, be called on more to be an integral part of the church community; and that they are actually expecting me as their parent and the church as a whole to come alongside them and discipline them in this. I fear that parents may actually be telling their kids: "Just get this over with, and then you can do whatever you want on a Sunday morning; I'm through with disciplining you. You're on your own."
[As a side-note, I want to voice my agreement with Nat. Her words echo a similar discussion which has been recently taking place on my blog in a post entitled "Stemming the Tide of Church Youth Dropouts" (see it here.)]
As a 21 year old myself, I'm not sure I'd quite agree with your comments on "contemporary worship" music. Granted, the name is a misnomer - it's not "contemporary" per se (at least not large parts of it; there is in actually some Contemporary Worship Music (CWM) in the form of rock worship music and the like, although I personally find it somewhat distasteful). But then, even the very word which describes our worship services ("liturgy") is itself a misnomer. It literally means "the people's work" or "the public work" in Greek which, of course, is not at all what we mean in Lutheran circles. We stress how God works for His people in the Divine Service, not how we the people perform a service to God.
CWM's popularity is not restricted to the babyboomers, of course. The musical style (if not the lyrics themselves) are often praised by people who are themselves not Christian. In specific, I think of songs like "I can only Imagine" by MercyMe which became a cross-over hit in secular circles as well as Christian.
I think the real issue here is not so much a matter of musical style (which must in all honesty be admitted to be adiaphora), but rather that of (a) theological content and (b) artistic execution.
Of (a), I think it's fair to say there are many CWM songs which are exceptionally strong theologically, songs which Luther himself would have been proud to sing (see, for example, "In Christ Alone" by Keith Getty and Stuart Townsend). Likewise, there are many weak CWM songs. Each song must be evaluated on the merits of its own individual strengths and weaknesses (much as we in the Lutheran church have always approached the evaluation of hymns. There are many good hymns and there are many terrible ones. We have had to select some while dismissing those theologically and/or musically bad).
Of (b), I think, there is also something to say. In many churches, while the music itself (whether traditional or "contemporary") may be theologically sound, its execution is frequently less than impressive. I don't mean the musicians per se. Organists, pianists, and worship bands are generally well-practiced. But the congregations themselves (in both traditional music services and contemporary music services) too often sing without passion and gusto - a sad statement for a denomination previously known as the "Singing Church."
If you'd like my opinion as a young adult myself, I'd say one of the primary reasons youth and young adults don't take the Divine Service seriously is not because of musical genre; rather, it is because they do not see the actual members of the church themselves taking part with any measure of enthusiasm. They perceive the church (rightly or wrongly) as being disinterested in worship; small surprise they don't give it a second thought).
I had the privilege, Monday evening, to attend the opening worship service for the Central District Conference. The church was filled with pastors, their wives, and laymen who are ardently following God - and this was evident in their worship. Voices thunderingly proclaimed common belief in the words of the Apostle's Creed; strong and passionate voices nearly shouted out the hymns. If only such earnestness was readily visible in the average church service perhaps teens and young adults would be willing to take the matter more seriously.
Post a Comment