Ship of Fools: Are we abandoning our youth?

Thread: Are we abandoning our youth? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030123

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

OK, this is another if those "I had a thought and wanted to discuss it with others" threads.

A Facebook post reminded me that when I was a teenager and a Christian, in our town there were months YFC rallies, where all sorts of young people could get together, have teaching and insights that were relevant, and usually some music that was relevant.

I remember that we would occasionally have band play at school organised by the CU. It SEEMED that here were all sorts of places to be a Christian with others, and in an environment far more contemporary than church was. I mean, if you remember Ishmael in his punk era, that was quite something.

But what do we do now? There seems to be much less opportunity (IME, having worked with young peoples groups) to meet with others, and to meet others and to hear something that is presented in a relevant way.

Now I am NOT suggesting that we return to YFC rallies - they were very much of their time. I am not just being nostalgic ans wishing we could continue doing what was relevant when I was young. I am wanting to know if we have lost the sense of a corporate faith, of presenting and supporting Christians in their teens appropriately?

It seems that the usual answer is take them away to New Wine, Spring Harvest or Greenbelt. But that is not the same, because it is annual and national, not regular and local.

Or maybe I am wrong and missing something? Which I hope I am.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

There seems to be quite a lot of fresh expressions stuff going on like meetings in coffee shops and hipster events of church in a condemned warehouse while sipping Turkish apple tea and eating Mr Kiplings French Fancies with a pastry fork. Then there are the blogs, blog broadcasts and vlogs and and the picnics in parks with the Bible as the main dish of the day. It all seems to me to be a little clandestine in a way, arranged through social media for those in the know. It's a very different world from what I remember, but then that's da youf of today for ya.

On saying that, all of the above seems aimed at mobile young men and women of means and in employment. There seems to be precious little for the young teenagers. I don't know what its like where you are, but here both insurance and increased legislation borrowed from a Kafka novel has well and truly killed the church's ability to do pretty much anything apart from those large paid events.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I'm not sure what's available to local teenagers, but I think there are CUs in most secondary schools, as well as events like a county-wide Christian camp (though that's similar to NW I suppose in terms of only being once a year).

Our own church has a biggish Pathfinder group (about 25 11-15 year olds) and a biggish 15-19 group, and they all meet weekly.

It is different from what I did as a teenager - weekly joint CU with the grammar school, fortnightly Bible study, regular praise meetings at the local Elim - and yet I think there were only a few of us who did that.

So I don't know how different things are for yer average child who wasn't as involved as I was.

And, burned out cynic that I am [Biased]

I also wonder if any evolution away from regular biggish events is a bad thing, given how much emotional manipulation and bad practice I think I saw along the way.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't know anything about Youth for Christ, (except that I've googled it and it still exists) but on a congregational level Christian youth work is frequently struggling (as is children's work) outside of the most favoured locations and churches. It requires highly trained and often paid leaders, and most churches just couldn't afford to make the investment required. In many churches something would have to be sacrificed to create a youth-friendly environment.

The solution in some areas might be ecumenical youth activities.

[ 28. May 2016, 22:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

You have to be careful with youth rallies now, as under 18s are much more under responsibility of their parents. Resulting in fewer young people getting involved and fewer leaders willing to take responsibility.

For example, every time our choir wants to take an under 18 to the cathedral, their parent has to sign a permission form, and a named adult has to be responsible for accompanying them. We used to get large numbers of young people at the cathedral for these events, now there are only a handful.

It is quite understandable that checks have to be made, given recent high profile abuse cases, but youth work used to thrive on spontaneity and young people making decisions for themselves, which is not really possible now.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I find it hard to believe that most secondary schools have a CU. Maybe that's a regional thing?

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I guess it will depend a lot area to area, but two thoughts. One, that a lot of churches seem to struggle full stop to attract/retain youth, perhaps more so than when we were youth, so the apparent market is smaller, as it were. Although locally para-church groups like Young Life seem to do OK.

Two, from personal experience, I was involved in an ecumenical monthly "for anyone, from anywhere" event for youngsters a few years back. After a brilliant start it soon became really hard to get most of the churches along, even when there kids wanted to come. No aggro, no big theological punch-up, just no willingness to actually muck in other than when their own folk were speaking. Hugely disheartening.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Do you think, too, that some churches (especially those with only small numbers of young folk) were worried of losing them to other churches?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think, too, that some churches (especially those with only small numbers of young folk) were worried of losing them to other churches?

Nah. I think it's just an attitude of "boring hymns and hard pews were good enough for us in the 1950s when we were young so if they're not good enough for youth now it's their fault and so plplplplpl".

Enough people have said as much on these boards over the years.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

fwiw, the latest research suggests that, while the whiz-bang high-energy youth programs do get a good draw, they aren't particularly effective in creating "sticky faith"-- i.e. faith (or at least church-going) which lasts into young adulthood. Even mission trips were not particularly well correlated with sticky faith. The research here anyway suggests that integrating youth fully into the life of the congregation-- in leadership, in corporate worship, small groups, etc. in the same way you do adults is the most effective in creating that "stickiness". Which is good news for smaller churches, which tend to lean that way naturally.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There was a big shake-up in Youth for Christ about five years ago, at least locally. The local workers were laid off and, after checking, there isn't much around now. Those workers were partially funded by local churches and partly by the charity. All I can find now is a church supported worker some distance away.

I used to work alongside one of their workers on various voluntarily-run projects and was in contact with the new area coordinator when he was newly appointed. The youth worker is still working in the area, but is no longer part of Youth for Christ.

When she was employed by Youth for Christ, she was on a part-time contract, and her role involved running Christian Union type activities in the local schools - assemblies, lunch time clubs, alpha courses. I am pretty sure those activities were continued by the specialist RE teacher at the local secondary school, when that was a priority in schools. However, Gove's changes in the National Curriculum and the emphasis on the EBacc or Progress 8 in schools mean that there is no requirement to have a specialist RE teacher now.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Karl - I think it has moved on. Now it is "1970s MoR pop was good enough for us, and nobody else does it so we must be 'counter-cultural' so enjoy it. Because that is what Christianity is about. Being out of date."

I did say, I am not after doing what was done, I know that is from the past (TBH, I would probably have huge problems with them today anyway). I just wonder what has replaced them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[There's] an attitude of "boring hymns and hard pews were good enough for us in the 1950s when we were young so if they're not good enough for youth now it's their fault and so plplplplpl".

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Karl - I think it has moved on. Now it is "1970s MoR pop was good enough for us, and nobody else does it so we must be 'counter-cultural' so enjoy it. Because that is what Christianity is about. Being out of date."

TBH, there are still many churches around that prefer 'boring hymns and hard pews', but the number of young people attending such churches has been in steep decline for such a long time that their underrepresentation no longer arouses much comment or obvious concern. It almost seems like a natural state of affairs.

Some churches are hoping that people will 'return' to the church in middle age or later. But you can only return to something if you've already had it, and only a small minority of tomorrow's middle aged and elderly will have a background in the church or a knowledge of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

Integrating youth fully into the life of the congregation-- in leadership, in corporate worship, small groups, etc. in the same way you do adults is the most effective in creating that "stickiness". Which is good news for smaller churches, which tend to lean that way naturally.

Unfortunately, 'small' in the British context generally means churches of about 50 members or less, and many of these are likely to struggle to integrate young people.

Any significant and successful youth focus in a small church is likely to change the character of the church significantly, which the congregation has to be prepared for. I know a Baptist church where this has happened. It's a wonderful example of hard won success, but the pastor admits that when 25% of your congregation are in their teens or twenties, in a fairly deprived area, it has financial implications.

More generally, the researcher Peter Brierley has found that in Britain the larger the church, the higher the proportion of young people present. This doesn't respond to your concern about creating a 'sticky faith', which is valid, but it does show that small churches have a more urgent problem on their hands in simply trying to attract young people.

[ 29. May 2016, 11:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I may sound like a broken record, but my particular concern about this returns to the "nole me tangere" atmosphere in which we live. Spreading faith by contact does not work if explicit consent is required first, because there is no incentive to consent to something one does not understand.

All I can think of is that we have to do what we can, be as authentically loving as we possibly can to all, including young people, and take advantage as our culture is healed of its anxious aseptic obsessions.

[ 29. May 2016, 12:19: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

When I was growing up our church had youth groups covering 9-14/15 and 14/15-22: the cross-over in the middle was so that groups of friends weren't arbitrarily split and to allow that some people matured faster than others, and similarly the upper age limit was not usually reached except in the case of people returning from university during the vacs and having friends at the youth club. Juniors met in the week and seniors on a Sunday evening.

Although church based the youth clubs were not "X church youth club" branded - rather they were junior and senior Christian Youth Group, because people who attended the CofE church had friends who were RC, Presbyterian, etc, so membership was open to all young people who were regular churchgoers at their local denomination.

Meeting weekly, the emphasis was on fun activities rather than bible study, but there was one celebration of the eucharist a month led by the particular youth group to which all regular members of the congregation were invited, and that decision was made so that it didn't feel that 'the youth' were being shut inside a small enclave but rather were seen and valued as part of the mainstream of parish life.

The junior group went away twice a year for a weekend in a hostel near the river Wye and some serious canoe or kayak tuition. The seniors went away for a week every summer - often to a house run by Church in Wales nuns near the glorious beaches of Pembrokeshire - which had days filled with the usual beach activities but every morning there was communion with the sisters, and every evening there was a discussion group followed by Compline.

IME one of the things that has put a stop to youth groups in smaller communities is simple numbers, particularly if membership is restricted to just one church, and also that it seems the modern child no longer walks anywhere or they have a weekend job.

In my current church we are having a week away with our junior choristers this year, to which other siblings are invited, staying in a youth hostel, and we'll see how that goes. We don't have a youth group at present but one may arise after this.

So, are we abandoning our youth? No, but families are not coming to church in sufficient to make groups viable and there is a dearth of people prepared to run things like a weekly youth group. IMO a light touch is a better approach than just having a study & worship meeting - all attempts to form the latter being met with derision on the part of not just the children of the right age but also their parents.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find it hard to believe that most secondary schools have a CU. Maybe that's a regional thing?

Every school I've worked in had/has a CU - in Yorkshire and in the South West.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I see.

I suppose the South West is to be expected, as the churches are relatively strong there compared with everywhere else.

Yorkshire is apparently among the regions with the lowest levels of churchgoing in the UK, according to the Tearfund Report on Churchgoing. Perhaps there's some evangelistic intent in CU's work there?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

CUs are run BY kids and staff IN the schools so they will vary - but they all are likely to evangelise as well as provide fellowship

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
A Facebook post reminded me that when I was a teenager and a Christian, in our town there were months YFC rallies, where all sorts of young people could get together, have teaching and insights that were relevant, and usually some music that was relevant.

I am unaware of any youth programs in the churches of my youth other than Sunday school for the kids.

As to sticky faith, I am under the impression the youth whose experience of church is a separate service with separate music and behavior are not going to return as adults to a foreign to them style of church, so in having separate youth church we are changing what church will be like in 15 or 20 years if we want the kids to come back. Which is OK if change of style is done on purpose, but from what I've seen, people assume today's youth will "return to church" of a style that is not church to them.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As to sticky faith, I am under the impression the youth whose experience of church is a separate service with separate music and behavior are not going to return as adults to a foreign to them style of church, so in having separate youth church we are changing what church will be like in 15 or 20 years if we want the kids to come back. Which is OK if change of style is done on purpose, but from what I've seen, people assume today's youth will "return to church" of a style that is not church to them.

Precisely. Incidentally, it was at a YFC rally that I made my Christian commitment (Which was a crucial time for me). Among other things it was because it was an approach to faith relevant for me, away from the older church people. It was presenting Christianity as something that was appropriate.

What worriers me is that nearly 40 years later, the church is still as irrelevant to most youth. It has not really moved on even to the stage those events were at, never mind 40 years on.

I was reading today that more people in the UK claim to have no faith than claim to be Christian. I suspect, for many of these, if they did seek solace or a return to faith, they do not have such a clear connection with Christianity as a place to return to.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Another thing* that changed things in the UK, according to Mission-Shaped Children (2006) is the increasing secularisation of society.

The discussion points out that compared to the situation in the 1950s when 70% of 10 year olds were not in Sunday School, those youngsters weren't missing Christian influences entirely:

quote:
Daily Christian assemblies and RE were still part of every child's education ... and the uniformed organizations, choirs and other church activities reached large numbers of youngsters. Up until that time, most adults could say the Lord's Prayer and sing a few Christmas carols and well-known hymns at wedding and funerals.

quote:
Those adults who were ten years old in 1950, whether churched or not, had brought up their children in the 1970s when religion in school and children's organizations was actively discouraged, and the traditional Sunday school had become tired and lacklustre. Children who grew up in a culture that had marginalized religion in the 1970s are the parents of today's children, and have, for the most part, little if any experience of the basic knowledge that underpins the Christian faith to pass on to their children.

This second chapter discussing Nurturing Christian children goes on to discuss how that the requirements for teaching RE and assemblies were emphasised in different Education Acts.

Uniformed groups are less engaged - the Girl Guiding movement changed their promise in 2013 from "love my God" to "be true to myself and develop my beliefs" and it's a nightmare to get the girls to turn out for a Sunday parade. We'll get 25% turn out at most. (I've turned up for no-one to arrive so have gone home and we've taken ourselves off for a planning meeting rather than hang around for a dire all-age service.)

* the first chapter lists 14 different subheadings to consider, 12 of them influences changing children's engagement:

recent social trends;
employment changes;
mobility;
divorce and changes in family life;
free time;
a fragmented society
consumer culture and the effect on children;
childhood poverty;
legislation - the Children Act;
Education;
post-Christendom and the loss of a cultural heritage;
care arrangements for children

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't think an individual church need worry too much if they don't have a large number of young people - you need to look at the area as a whole. If there is one church in the area with a very successful youth programme, it might be better for all the local churches to support that, rather than to struggle to maintain lots of small groups.

Perhaps the other churches have different strengths, which can be encouraged.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think, too, that some churches (especially those with only small numbers of young folk) were worried of losing them to other churches?

I don't think so - at the time there was quite a good ecumenical spirit in the town. I'm not so sure now, partly because I'm less involved in such things so don't get to see it first hand.

I was only peripherally involved, but my personal take was that there was an element of "not invented here" (one local church seems excellent at doing the ecumenical thing when they're driving and it's all under their banner, but less so when there's no defined banner and/or another church is doing the heavy lifting), coupled with perhaps not quite enough getting-round-the-patch from the leaders to really get people to buy-in long term. There was a small element of "If we build it they will come", although largely it was just a matter of time and energy to bang heads against walls for a while.

It lasted a couple of years, although ultimately ended up only serving a couple of churches, rather than the four or five it could have done.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The thing is, the style and presentation of 1970s/80s YFC type rallies is as anachronistic to today's yoof as hard pews and old hymns.

Talk to my kids and they'll lose no time in telling you how unspeakably naff they found the YFC events they attended in their early teens.

They absolutely hated them. They were fine with Scripture Union cross-church events when they were about 9 or 10 but when after they were about 11 they found anything that smacked of enthusiastic religion intensely embarrassing.

Both girls retain some respect for the Christian faith but they've never really engaged with it since they were very young.

I don't think it's just my been round the block cynicism rubbing off on them ... I really do think that the kind of high-octane get down wiv da kids approach is seriously, seriously flawed.

The trouble is, I don't know what we replace it with ... and neither, I suspect, does anyone else ... which is why there is such a vacuum.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think we make a mistake if we assume that all youth like the "high octane" events that Gamaliel id describing. Certainly my son, when a teenager, went along for a bit, but then opted out saying they were too noisy.

Perhaps the answer lies more down the Fresh Expressions route of encouraging a more contemplative spirituality? Obviously there does need to be some clear Biblical "input" or teaching as well, otherwise the whole thing is too vague. Another suggestion is that one should talk about the faith from the ground up rather than the top down - that is, not beginning with thoughts about God but a discussion of the real issues faced by young people.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
A Facebook post reminded me that when I was a teenager and a Christian, in our town there were months YFC rallies, where all sorts of young people could get together, have teaching and insights that were relevant, and usually some music that was relevant.
I am unaware of any youth programs in the churches of my youth other than Sunday school for the kids.

As to sticky faith, I am under the impression the youth whose experience of church is a separate service with separate music and behavior are not going to return as adults to a foreign to them style of church, so in having separate youth church we are changing what church will be like in 15 or 20 years if we want the kids to come back. Which is OK if change of style is done on purpose, but from what I've seen, people assume today's youth will "return to church" of a style that is not church to them.

That's not what the sticky faith research is showing. The sticky faith research is showing that it is the separate service itself that is the problem. The research shows that the music style itself is irrelevant to the "stickiness" of the faith (although it may be relevant in the short term attraction). What is relevant to "stickiness" is whether youth are fully integrated into the larger corporate life of the church. "Silo-ed" youth programs don't aid "stickiness"-- integrating youth into your worship team (whether that's a praise band or a traditional choir), ministry teams, leadership (Trustees/elders, etc) in a real and not token way. Developing cross-generational friendships. Maintaining contact when they go off to college/career.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

One of the things I would have loved to have set up as a part of youth work is a quarterly youth-led service with support in the experimental evening time slot*. It would have been a way of introducing young people to how services work and including them in the running of the church in addition to being acolytes, readers and choristers and of using Roots more experimentally. But the same group who remove children from the church for their youth work weren't prepared to work with us. They wanted the young people to be part of the monthly lay-led all-age services as written by the adults leading them. That doesn't work in a way where they youngsters learn about writing the service, but being given set piece parts.

That church had a monthly Choral Evensong, talks, compline, Evening Prayer, monthly Labyrinth prayer and a roughly quarterly Taize service in that evening slot alongside annual services such as the Bereavement Service in the run up to Christmas and Stations of the Cross on Palm Sunday (while I was still putting it together). It was a way to ensure that there was something on at that time every week, so when choral evensong moved for some reason, the church wasn't deserted and empty.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I was a delegate at the URC General Assembly in 2012, when it was recognised that “there is an issue within the United Reformed Church when people reach the age of 26 and leave FURY [the denomination’s Youth Fellowship]. Some people find little support in their local church and many drift away from any engagement in the United Reformed Church”.

Assembly heard that “many people say that FURY has become their church, whilst some go as far as admitting that without FURY, they would no longer be a Christian. This is possibly due to the fact that, unlike in “traditional church”, in FURY people don’t feel they have to behave in a particular manner; they can be themselves”.

There were “real concerns about the integration of young people aged 20 to 40 during the transition period after leaving FURY” and it was suggested not only that “young people themselves must be encouraged to become more actively involved in their local church, but the churches themselves should also be forthcoming to work towards this integration. It was noted that “the experience of some young adults is that they are not given responsibility or fully valued within their local church”.

Inevitably the discussion was not fruitful: the "adults" could not recognise the culture-clash between younger people and the Church, while the young folk were (unsurprisingly) less than tolerant of "church culture", feeling that they had already made too many concessions in order to fit in. No easy answers here!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
They wanted the young people to be part of the monthly lay-led all-age services as written by the adults leading them. That doesn't work in a way where they youngsters learn about writing the service, but being given set piece parts.

I have come across the same issue: it shows, I suppose, a lack of trust by those organising the service, rather than a desire to genuinely listen to the young people.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things I would have loved to have set up as a part of youth work is a quarterly youth-led service with support in the experimental evening time slot*. It would have been a way of introducing young people to how services work and including them in the running of the church in addition to being acolytes, readers and choristers and of using Roots more experimentally. But the same group who remove children from the church for their youth work weren't prepared to work with us. They wanted the young people to be part of the monthly lay-led all-age services as written by the adults leading them. That doesn't work in a way where they youngsters learn about writing the service, but being given set piece parts.

Well, honestly, the latter group is closer to what the sticky research suggests is helpful long-term than giving them a few one-off "youth services". Of course, even better would be if they were given a real voice in writing the services, but having regular involvement in an ongoing service that is central to the life of the church is definitely preferable to the one-off "silo-ed" approach.

But again, that's talking long-term. The problem is churches like the immediate short-term gain. In the short-term, you're going to see more youth come out for the fun, hip, whiz-bang program. But the long-term "sticky" faith is built on relationships and feeling an important part of a faith community.

As part of the class I teach with first-year univ students, I send them on a church visit (within a particular academic assignment). Sometimes they end up (for a variety of reasons) visiting some tiny, dying church filled with elderly people 40 or 50 years their senior and not a single congregant under 50. I will cringe when I hear how they latched on to these young 18 & 19 year olds like bloodsucking leaches, often inappropriately trying to bribe them with donuts and rope them into leadership roles based on a 5 minute conversation.

But... quite often, my students will respond to these lame and inappropriate requests positively. They come back. They get involved. They teach Sunday School. They sing traditional old-school hymns in the choir where they are the only non-gray haired head (and usually the only person of color). It's weird-- but I think speaks to the truth that young people really really do want to be involved and feel needed and a vital part of something bigger than themselves, not just part of a mosh pit at a rave.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I was thinking more of the regular evening services as a way to reassure the adults that the young people could lead services and build their confidence, so that they could then lead the main service, or at least sections.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was thinking more of the regular evening services as a way to reassure the adults that the young people could lead services and build their confidence, so that they could then lead the main service, or at least sections.

Yeah, that makes sense. The goal should be to integrate them into the main service in the same exact ways that you would any other adult member of the church, not in a segregated group or on a segregated "youth Sunday" but in a fully inter-generational way. As you imply, it's the adults you need to convince that that's do-able, not the youth.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The thing is, the style and presentation of 1970s/80s YFC type rallies is as anachronistic to today's yoof as hard pews and old hymns.

Talk to my kids and they'll lose no time in telling you how unspeakably naff they found the YFC events they attended in their early teens.

They absolutely hated them. They were fine with Scripture Union cross-church events when they were about 9 or 10 but when after they were about 11 they found anything that smacked of enthusiastic religion intensely embarrassing.

Absolutely. But where are the places that they can be engaged with the gospel that is not embarrassing? Where is the places that they can meet with other young people?

I think the problem with leaving it to the one church in town that can support youth work is that this may not be the right environment for many. It is likely to be (as for us) the Vineyard church or someone similar, and if you have a problem with their theology, as I do, this is not ideal. How do we engage them with our church theology? How do we engage with them in a way that may engage them with normal church? In a way that means they may return later?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Perhaps they just need to feel ownership. I'm not going to pretend that I have an (or 'the') answer, but I do believe that the church could do itself a huge favour simply by being confident in what it is and what it has to proclaim. A lot of the time we seem to project an image of church at events that falls into the stable of self parody or a chasing after the next alpha. What most people see - and what most teenagers see - is a parody of church that smacks of weakness, embarrassment and a severe crisis of identity.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The goal should be to integrate them into the main service in the same exact ways that you would any other adult member of the church, not in a segregated group or on a segregated "youth Sunday" but in a fully inter-generational way. As you imply, it's the adults you need to convince that that's do-able, not the youth.

Unless older church members can really catch the vision of young people leading and consequently changing how church is done then avoiding segregation is impossible. And where are the church leaders who can really inspire such a vision?

A significant problem in Britain is that the average age of churchgoers, especially in the mainstream denominations, and outside London, is so high that it's very hard to see how the cultural gap can be bridged with regards to young Christians, or with regard to evangelism among young non-Christians. Here are some sobering figures:

-The average age of CofE worshippers was apparently 61 in 2010, according to one report; the average age in the population at large was 48.

-In 2011 over 50% of Methodists in the UK were 66-80 years old. 7% of the Connexion were between 20-40 years old.

-Peter Brierley calculated in 2005 that, in England, 57% of all churchgoers in their twenties were worshipping in London, which means that the other 43% were scattered thinly across the rest of the country.

- Again in 2010, 39% of churches had no one under the age of 11 years, 49% had no one between 11 and 14 years, and 59% had no one between 14 years and 19 years. (See here.)

The figures are better for certain evangelical churches and BME congregations. The point, though, is that with the age gap such a widespread issue, with the resources and the training obviously lacking to tackle the problems at a congregational level, and with church leaders mostly unable or unwilling to convince their most committed people (i.e. the older ones) that serious changes are desirable, we're surely past the point at which very many churches here might reasonably be expected to successfully tackle the absence of children and young people. (And of course, the 'young people' may be the parents of the 'children' - both are missing.)

At this stage, in this country, I think highly focused church planting would have better results than trying to change the culture of vast numbers of ageing congregations. Older people would get involved with new projects on the explicit understanding that they were there to serve, to share wisdom and to step into the unknown, not to demand that things be done in a familiar way.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Then we're stuffed.

The only church in our town with a significant youth ministry is the evangelical Anglican parish (which is a tad Vineyard wannabe - at least at leadership level).

As Shroedinger's Cat observes, that's tough shit for anyone who doesn't buy into that form of spirituality or faux-theology.

I don't know what the answer is. The liberals are imploding. Give the evangelicals their due, they're getting things done. Shame I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do what they do.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we're stuffed.

The only church in our town with a significant youth ministry is the evangelical Anglican parish (which is a tad Vineyard wannabe - at least at leadership level).

As Shroedinger's Cat observes, that's tough shit for anyone who doesn't buy into that form of spirituality or faux-theology.

I don't know what the answer is. The liberals are imploding. Give the evangelicals their due, they're getting things done. Shame I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do what they do.

It's all part of a pattern, albeit one I can't see at all at the moment. Forms of practice, even ones which have sustained several generations, are falling away. I don't believe that the evangelical form is anything more than a slight variation on the things that are more conspicuously dying, and I think it will fall away as well.

It is not at all clear what will grow, but human beings remain human, and God remains God. Beyond that, I wouldn't like to say.

This is so much less like the recent upheaval on the high street than certain people seem to want to pretend.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I can see that, Thunderbunk. Not sure what the answer is, though. Perhaps there isn't one.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I don't know what the answer is. The liberals are imploding. Give the evangelicals their due, they're getting things done. Shame I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do what they do.

Yeah, but you have the 'benefit' of age and hindsight in drawing that conclusion.

Also, wasn't it ever thus ? I presume a lot of us went through some kind of 'evangelical' youth work - in fact that's the premise of the original post isn't it?

I imagine most of the people in the thread are not in the evangelical tradition - or on the edges - and so are less likely to be in churches that have active 'youth ministries'.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As to sticky faith, I am under the impression the youth whose experience of church is a separate service with separate music and behavior are not going to return as adults to a foreign to them style of church, so in having separate youth church we are changing what church will be like in 15 or 20 years if we want the kids to come back. Which is OK if change of style is done on purpose,
The sticky faith research is showing that it is the separate service itself that is the problem. The research shows that the music style itself is irrelevant to the "stickiness" ... What is relevant to "stickiness" is whether youth are fully integrated into the larger corporate life of the church....

I chatted with the youth minister about my concern that post industrial west seems to be the only culture where ages don't mix. But we need each other, we learn from each other. I proposed activities youth and adult and elderly can all enjoy, such as sing-alongs, the easy to catch on old "camp songs" like swing low, when the saints go marching in, do lord etc. He said he has a fire pit great location for that sort of gathering.

Somehow we have developed a culture of people so segregated in narrow age bands people think they have nothing in common with someone just a few years different. That's unhealthy for us all.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then we're stuffed.

The only church in our town with a significant youth ministry is the evangelical Anglican parish (which is a tad Vineyard wannabe - at least at leadership level).

As Shroedinger's [sic] Cat observes, that's tough shit for anyone who doesn't buy into that form of spirituality or faux-theology.

I don't know what the answer is. The liberals are imploding. Give the evangelicals their due, they're getting things done. Shame I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do what they do.

We've GOT to do it with them. There is NO alternative. Which is infinitely more demanding of liberals than my trying to quietly subvert the Friday night Godslot for the hungry and house groups.

Put up or ...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...tough shit for anyone who doesn't buy into that form of spirituality or faux-theology.

Why faux?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Regarding my post above, church plants and youth work don't have to be evangelical. AFAIK Fresh Expressions are not presented as inevitably evangelical. In terms of worship style, I understand that some cell church set-ups are even liturgical.

But most non-evangelical churches simply can't afford to 'lose' committed, able-bodied members (lay or ordained) to transformational projects because such people are needed right where they are, keeping things going. They're usually expected to be focused on the needs of the majority of the people in front of them, i.e. the ageing adults.

IOW, the youth problem is actually an adult problem: there's a chronic labour shortage situation. Yet youth work requires not just anyone who's available, but the best people and the best resources, according to current thinking.

There are various ways of looking at solutions, but moderate Christians tend not to be entirely coherent about why they want more young people among them, so more theological reflection is required there, for a start. IME, if 'salvation' isn't the issue, then the reasons given are often rather self-serving (as the Methodist Revd. Martyn Atkins, a former President of Conference, has also noted). But really, who cares about that in the real world? Young people just want to be happy, they don't care about doing the church favours.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I was being slightly provocative, mdijon ... thinking about the old saying that the charismatic movement is 'a spirituality in search of a theology.'

I'm not saying there's no theology there. What theology there is, though, tends to derive from whatever tradition 'hosts' the charismatic dimension or inclination.

In the case of independent groups like the Vineyard they tend to pick and choose and draw on those aspects of traditional theology that 'fit' their world-view and approach. By and large, any theology they come up with themselves tends to be pretty dreck ...

[Razz]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Chris Stiles, yes, I do have the dubious benefit of age and hindsight ...

I was always uncomfortable about aspects of the evangelical/charismatic thing but when I was into it I was very much into it ...

For whatever reason, it's never really 'grabbed' my kids and I'm wondering why that might be. Have things 'moved on' and YFC-style evangelicalism not keep pace?

I suspect Curiosity Killed's list has a lot to do with it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Chris Stiles, yes, I do have the dubious benefit of age and hindsight ...

I was always uncomfortable about aspects of the evangelical/charismatic thing but when I was into it I was very much into it ...

Well, I was similar in some ways. Anyway, I was just trying to challenge the assumption that what we found unhelpful now may not be attractive to teens. In any case, even 'back then' not every teen found YFC that appealing.

quote:

For whatever reason, it's never really 'grabbed' my kids and I'm wondering why that might be. Have things 'moved on' and YFC-style evangelicalism not keep pace?

I suspect Curiosity Killed's list has a lot to do with it.

Well, as laid out above, YFC changed quite a bit in structure (and they were never that ubiquitous on a national level anyway). Similar initiatives found it harder and harder to get funding as time went on because differentiation in churches meant that it was increasingly difficult to keep every constituency on board. The larger churches were also much more likely to decide to pull funding and set up their own internal programs.

and increasing wealth/business nous/modern technology has made such things sustainable at smaller scales.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the case of independent groups like the Vineyard they tend to pick and choose and draw on those aspects of traditional theology that 'fit' their world-view and approach. By and large, any theology they come up with themselves tends to be pretty dreck ...

Any examples? (Not sure that dreck equals faux but anyway - I think this probably all comes down to you not agreeing with it rather than any specific allegation of fakeness.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

For more examples than I have time to list, mdijon. You've only got to read John Wimber's 'Power Evangelism' and 'Power Healing' to see what I mean.

In a nut-shell, there's an 'over-realised eschatology' there ... an impatience at the tension between the now and the not yet ...

Whatever the case, I was being pretty flippant with my throw-away 'faux-theology' comment.

I don't s'pose it's possible to have no theology or 'fake' theology - but I would suggest that it's possible to have ill-thought out and misconceived views posing as adequate theology.

Perhaps 'inadequate theology' would have been a better term to use - but again, that doesn't remove the subjective element in terms of my own reaction/views of these things.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
As to sticky faith, I am under the impression the youth whose experience of church is a separate service with separate music and behavior are not going to return as adults to a foreign to them style of church, so in having separate youth church we are changing what church will be like in 15 or 20 years if we want the kids to come back. Which is OK if change of style is done on purpose,
The sticky faith research is showing that it is the separate service itself that is the problem. The research shows that the music style itself is irrelevant to the "stickiness" ... What is relevant to "stickiness" is whether youth are fully integrated into the larger corporate life of the church....
I chatted with the youth minister about my concern that post industrial west seems to be the only culture where ages don't mix. But we need each other, we learn from each other. I proposed activities youth and adult and elderly can all enjoy, such as sing-alongs, the easy to catch on old "camp songs" like swing low, when the saints go marching in, do lord etc. He said he has a fire pit great location for that sort of gathering.

Somehow we have developed a culture of people so segregated in narrow age bands people think they have nothing in common with someone just a few years different. That's unhealthy for us all.

Absolutely. And the research shows that's what's really effective in terms of long-lasting faith. And they don't even need to be special programs like that-- really, just including and incorporating youth along side older adults in whatever you're already doing, but in real ways with real adult responsibilities and authority-- whether that's leading worship or teaching Sunday school or preparing the communion elements.

The problem is that it's long-term and small-scale, and requires "big picture" thinking rather than immediacy. In the short term, intergenerational programs like this aren't going to be a big draw. You won't get big numbers out for your usher training event like you will for a laser-tag/concert/amusement part event. So that makes it a lot harder to hype-- it's so much more exciting to report that "200 youth came out for our Summer Blow-Out Lollapalooza!" then it is to say "3 youth joined our ushering team".

But-- those 3 youth who were integrated into the life of the church and had an important role to play on Sundays are far more likely to still be in church10 years later. But they will likely have relocated through college or career so the church they're in probably isn't the one that included them. So the immediate, small-picture benefit of getting butts in our pews/ dollars in our offering plate/ or being able to hype a marketable draw isn't going to be experienced by the church that invested in him/her.

So youth ministry really requires a sacrificial, big-picture pov on the part of the church. It's not something that will pay back directly. It requires thinking of the big picture-- the big-C Church as a whole not our own individual community. It's very much missional thinking.

But again, the good news is that that IS something any church can do-- even a church of 20 elderly people (like the ones my students go to sometimes that I mentioned upthread). You don't need a big budget or big facility, you don't need a young hip youth pastor with skinny jeans and a soul patch. But you do need a missional vision and the willingness to take a risk and give youth real responsibility and authority. That requires trust.

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :

Hello, it's time for my biannual post (not that that makes it any more perceptive).

For me it was pretty vital to have a group of a similar age at church. Most of us stayed at church through our teenage years which was a big thing - we made friends, socialised, supported each other. To some degree the church was more facilitating this rather than 'doing youthwork'. You need a critical mass of young people to stay involved for this to work though.

The other thing that helped me was going on Scripture Union holidays. They weren't rally type events, and weren't overly raucous. Just gave plenty of time for people to simply be with each other, and have time out to dwell on and discuss their faith. (I guess almost retreat like in a way). I went to spring harvest once when I was 15 and really didn't like it.

I think my church (pseudo-charismatic, 'open' evangelical Baptist) does OK for the teenagers. There's certainly quite a lot of them so I hope so. Guess I won't find out until my kids reach that age though.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Thinking about what we’ve got going on locally now ...

Some of the churches have groups that cater for babies in arms to ones considering university and beyond.
Various holiday clubs, weekends away and camps.
A Christian organisation has relationships with 15 out of the 17 secondary schools and does RE lessons, away days, pastoral support etc for them.
One of the local cafes hosts term time meetings for young people in the area. Anyone who is of the right age can come to these if they want too, regardless of which local church they go too.
Regular events where the church youth groups get together to do stuff that young people like doing. Like dancing, playing games etc

Having asked my in-house young person, all of this was considered not meh. Praise indeed!

There is stuff going on quietly all over the place, but unless you have children of the right age, you’re unlikely to notice as it’s not of interest.

Now the Tubblet is older, I know what’s going on for her age group, but I couldn’t tell you what days the local toddler groups are on anymore. (Apart from the one that Rev T runs). When we needed them, I knew them all!

I don't think we are abandoning our youth, it's just that what's on offer isn't the same as we had when we were going up. Which is only right, as each generation needs and wants different things.

Tubbs

[ 31. May 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting observations, Quantpole (and give my love to all at your church).

[Biased]

My kids enjoyed the Scripture Union stuff too. I've never heard them slag that off, let's put it that way ...

I daresay it depends on the kid. No two kids are alike.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
what's on offer isn't the same as we had when we were going up. Which is only right, as each generation needs and wants different things.

Tubbs

And different personalities (of any age) need different things. So what is ultimately going to matter is that there is a range of opportunities, rather than just one kind of Christian expression.

I have read many books which are very good at pointing out what is wrong with the church today, and why it is not much good at attracting new members. But none of them were able to come up with a (to me) convincing solution. Which is a shame, because I read them all right to the end, just in case.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Could you tell us some of the solutions that they do come up with?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think that will have to differ too. I know my local church gets people who are attracted by our various social services or by the youth work. Some people were served and then come because they are impressed while others come to help serve. But we are in a very monetarily diverse (but altogether not rich) area, so this is what our area in particular needs.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could you tell us some of the solutions that they do come up with?

You probably need to major less on that praying stuff and that singing. I was humming "O God out help in ages past" to myself yesterday and found myself singing "O lots of strange Victorian words/all full of eths and ests..." I didn't get any further; it's not that I don't know what "from everlasting thou art God to endless years the same" meets, but doesn't it sound weird?

Ah, torn between incomprehensible Victorian faux-mediaeval English and modern cliché, but that way canters the ghostly Mesohippus.

Do I have a positive contribution to this thread, I sense people saying. I'm not sure. Most people I know that I'd class as young are not "put off" church any more than they're "put off" going to watch Ballet. It's just not on their radar, not something they do or want to do. They're vaguely aware of some mostly elderly God-botherers listening to some bloke in a frock and socks with sandals wittering on, but they don't really give it a moment's thought.

I envy them. A bit. Sometimes.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most people I know that I'd class as young are not "put off" church any more than they're "put off" going to watch Ballet. It's just not on their radar, not something they do or want to do. They're vaguely aware of some mostly elderly God-botherers listening to some bloke in a frock and socks with sandals wittering on, but they don't really give it a moment's thought.

But then when young people do go to Ballet or Opera they often/sometimes enjoy it. The problem is not the accessibility of the content, it is the barrier (or perhaps more accurately the perceived barrier) to access. I've been to a lot of different events in my life but the one time I went to ballet, I was blown away. One of the most memorable things I've ever done.

Look at the number of people who go to Shakespeare for fun (personally I can't imagine why). They're not all aged or Oxbridge types.

Of course, life is not a competition. Singing incomprehensible words is not any more holy than singing words in the modern vernacular.

But I think there is something to be said for refined tastes. I don't expect everyone to enjoy Stilton and most people don't the first time they try it. I'm glad I persevered and look forward to those few moments every year when I savour a nice bit of Stilton.

Similarly, I don't expect everyone to enjoy hymns and I can appreciate the reasons people like jumpy songs with simple words. At the same time, there is something satisfying about singing something with a bit of gravitas about it that you don't get from a modern chorus.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Yeah, I think that's where I was going with that. It was a bit stream of consciousness. To summarise, yeah, the hymns and words are a bit weird, but then again I don't think people are not going because hymns (actually I think some of the tunes are more offputting than the lyrics*), they're not going because they don't go. In my experience of occasional (Easter, Advent) services the church does for the primary school here to which parents are invited the hymns don't bother them because they just don't sing them.

I think it's possible to tinker with the content to keep people - and one of the drop off points is having children, I think - once they're past the colouring pictures of Mary Magdalene stage church can be an hour of trying to keep them reasonably quiet. I'd go as far to say as young parents are actually one group we're failing, which will surprise many who think they're doing a great job. Perhaps in some places they are. Round here, I'm afraid, not so much. A church hall with two people trying to find some way to occupy five children aged between 4 and 15 isn't really achieving a great deal.

I like Shakespeare.

*Someone (Church English Dictionary?) defined hymn as "theology with no or bad tune" and chorus as "tune with no or bad theology", but I digress.

[ 15. June 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

I have two teenagers. What makes faith stick for them, or not stick, just as for almost everyone of any age group, is whether they are loved by the Christian community they are with. The love, genuine, not forced, is what matters more than the programme or worship or anything else. It is the love she has found from Christians of her own age that had taken one of mine from SU camper to junior leader. Surprisingly this is in line with Jesus "By this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." Any person, young or not so young, who is not loved has been failed.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
I have two teenagers. What makes faith stick for them, or not stick, just as for almost everyone of any age group, is whether they are loved by the Christian community they are with. The love, genuine, not forced, is what matters more than the programme or worship or anything else. It is the love she has found from Christians of her own age that had taken one of mine from SU camper to junior leader. Surprisingly this is in line with Jesus "By this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." Any person, young or not so young, who is not loved has been failed.

This is all.
[Overused]

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Yes, the love of the church is important. I would like to add that, however genuine the love, it doesn't guarantee that a young person (or anyone else) will pursue a Christian faith. But it makes it a lot easier for them to explore the possibility if they want to.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Yes, the love of the church is important. I would like to add that, however genuine the love, it doesn't guarantee that a young person (or anyone else) will pursue a Christian faith. But it makes it a lot easier for them to explore the possibility if they want to.

Yes. It's strange (or not) how powerful it is, though.

I think I share on this thread already about my college students who go on church visits, and sometimes end up at some tiny, aging, congregation of 20 elderly folk older than their grandparents, singing poorly ancient hymns these kids have never heard-- who will immediately swarm them, offer them donuts, and then inappropriately ask them to teach Sunday School or lead singing without knowing a darn thing about them. Very awkward, lame, and socially inappropriate. We're surrounded by dozens of large mega-churches with all the youth-oriented bells & whistles, including cute members of the opposite sex in the college group.

And yet... a surprising number of my students return to these aging congregations. They come back to the place where everyone is older than grandma and they don't understand the words or the melodies of the hymns. They come back.

I think it has something to do with being loved-- and being needed.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That's been my experience too with the young people (heck, most people) we've worked with. They want someone to care.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To summarise, yeah, the hymns and words are a bit weird, but then again I don't think people are not going because hymns (actually I think some of the tunes are more offputting than the lyrics*), they're not going because they don't go. In my experience of occasional (Easter, Advent) services the church does for the primary school here to which parents are invited the hymns don't bother them because they just don't sing them.

I think it's possible to tinker with the content to keep people - and one of the drop off points is having children, I think - once they're past the colouring pictures of Mary Magdalene stage church can be an hour of trying to keep them reasonably quiet. I'd go as far to say as young parents are actually one group we're failing, which will surprise many who think they're doing a great job. Perhaps in some places they are. Round here, I'm afraid, not so much. A church hall with two people trying to find some way to occupy five children aged between 4 and 15 isn't really achieving a great deal.

You've got two different problems here.

One is that most young people are simply outside the orbit of the church and don't see that it offers anything that they need. Indeed, it's not something they even think about.

Secondly, by the time you've got down to five children of very different ages with two adults in a church hall the church in question is probably already short on adults willing to train and do the work, short on resources, and short on young families. The old ladies in the congregation may sincerely 'love' them (which, as others have said, is important) but if they're bored, and feel that what they're doing is uncool and marginal, and that the church has very little to offer, why would they want to be there?

I agree that churches in the second situation (which is the majority of British churches) need to focus on attracting adults first. Without adults there won't be the manpower, energy or resources to build up the youth work.

In the first situation you need to be a church that already has access to manpower, energy and resources, and you need have a vision to prioritise a ministry among young people. In most churches children and youth are a side issue, but that's not good enough in contemporary culture. The adults would have to be willing to drop a lot of what they hold dear. They'd have to sacrifice traditions. That would be a sign of love!

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Our evangelism committee recently met with three millennial members of our congregation. They said the appreciate five things in our congregation:

1. No judgement--we work at that.

2 We accept their doubts. We allow for questions about the faith.

3. We have no age barriers when it comes to lay leadership. They really were impressed when we had a 10 year old as the cup bearer in communion. BTW--we do not have a Youth Sunday--kids of all ages are encouraged to help with all worship.

4. One of them said he liked a pamphlet he picked up in the narthex. It was entitled "What Jesus said about Homosexuality" Inside it was blank.

5 They appreciate that we have blended services. We use a combination of traditional and contemporary. One of them who has played African Drums in our services, said he would be turned off if we went to a praise service. He said those services were so yesterday.

In other words we don't do anything special to attract youth, when we say we are inclusive we practice what we preach.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could you tell us some of the solutions that they do come up with?

There weren't really any. The books got all wishy washy and nebulous at this point, and then ended.

If you are short of time, you could always browse the last chapter of each to see what I mean.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

In other words we don't do anything special to attract youth, when we say we are inclusive we practice what we preach.

This is what we do. We're too small to be a useful sample to say whether it works or not.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

In other words we don't do anything special to attract youth, when we say we are inclusive we practice what we preach.
This is what we do. We're too small to be a useful sample to say whether it works or not.

I found myself pretty much in line with Gramps49's post, and depending on one's definition of youth, it seems to work too.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Y'see, I've a sneaking suspicion that the things that make church difficult for younger people are things that are often suffered in silence by older people as well.

Not always, of course, but does anyone enjoy singing an obscure hymn they've never heard of before to a tune that makes Morrissey seem melodically adventurous and Sisters of Mercy upbeat and lively?

(It's not always oldies - I'd put "Lord I lift your name on high" in this category)

[ 17. June 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Thinking about it as someone perhaps a little younger than many on here (35), I think the frustrating thing is that the old ways still work, it's just that not enough people any longer do the old ways. It's not a criticism because of course life (and time) moves on, but certainly an observation.

I was talking about this very subject the other day with some friends as we came out of a funeral. Most (about 30 from 50 odd people) were about my age and reasonably regular churchgoers; at least once per month. This is not something they have been all their life but something they've come back to. None, as yet, have children, so it's not about school places!

Some found themselves wanting to sing hymns again - after having been made to sing them every morning in school assembly. They just liked congregational singing, and the theology came later. These were state schools in the 1990s, so not that long ago.

The public school and military contingent had had years of compulsory chapel, and confessed that now church is "what you do" on a Sunday morning because it always has been and not going feels like missing out on an important part of life.

Others fell into it at Oxford because there was a network of college chapels laying it out on a plate, lower embarrassment barriers, and then in the wider city a choice of healthy, young congregations at every point of churchmanship from St Ebbes to Pusey House. They left Oxford, but the churchgoing stuck.

The conspicuous point, I thought, was that precisely none of any of this had been specifically youth orientated (at least liturgically).

Obviously, I recognise that there is a certain amount of privilege inherent in a post which is examining the after life of public schoolboys, Sandhurst/Dartmouth alumni, and former Oxford students, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as an observation none the less.

I'll leave it there as I suspect I'm in danger of rambling.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I think your penultimate paragraph is very important, actually. The vast majority of people are not in the category you were observing, and would find the whole culture you describe quite alien.

Again, not a criticism, just an observation. An important thing to draw from that is that as much as church was "something you do" to them, it's "something other people do" to the majority.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Obviously, I recognise that there is a certain amount of privilege inherent in a post which is examining the after life of public schoolboys, Sandhurst/Dartmouth alumni, and former Oxford students, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as an observation none the less.

I'll leave it there as I suspect I'm in danger of rambling.

I wonder to what extent that church connection is habitand where faith in God comes in?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Y'see, I've a sneaking suspicion that the things that make church difficult for younger people are things that are often suffered in silence by older people as well.

Not always, of course, but does anyone enjoy singing an obscure hymn they've never heard of before to a tune that makes Morrissey seem melodically adventurous and Sisters of Mercy upbeat and lively?

(It's not always oldies - I'd put "Lord I lift your name on high" in this category)

Of course, if someone hardly ever goes to church then most of what's sung there is going to be 'obscure' to them, no matter what kind of music it is.

But music is always going to be a controversial issue in church. (I quite like 'Lord I life your name on high' myself.) Perhaps there should be more FEs that don't involve much singing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Obviously, I recognise that there is a certain amount of privilege inherent in a post which is examining the after life of public schoolboys, Sandhurst/Dartmouth alumni, and former Oxford students, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as an observation none the less.

I'll leave it there as I suspect I'm in danger of rambling.
I wonder to what extent that church connection is habitand where faith in God comes in?

My guess would be that it varies from individual to individual and that it would be invidious to generalise.

Just saying.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Obviously, I recognise that there is a certain amount of privilege inherent in a post which is examining the after life of public schoolboys, Sandhurst/Dartmouth alumni, and former Oxford students, but I thought it was worth throwing out there as an observation none the less.

I'll leave it there as I suspect I'm in danger of rambling.
I wonder to what extent that church connection is habit and where faith in God comes in?

OTOH it seems that habit and faith do have a certain connection.

John Wesley was told to 'preach faith until you have it'.

The evangelistic concept of 'belonging before believing' supposes that people can become accustomed to the rituals and customs of church life before they personalise the message preached from the pulpit. We know from experience that church growth relies heavily on the children of members becoming habitualised to both the cultural and faith expectations of the group.

And some studies of secularisation start from the view that countless reductions and changes in religious habits, on a societal level, tend to precede the decline of faith.

On a personal level, though, Christianity obviously demands more than habit. Christians often eschew public religious rituals for a more private faith, and it could be argued that the NT doesn't do much to criticise them for that.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Well, you could argue that there wasn't much of a Christian culture in the NT anyway. Christianity was new and the church was new. There were Jewish traditions, but they didn't altogether fit in many ways, and Jesus hadn't been keen for them to be observed too closely.
The church I grew up in had the view that everyone had to have a specific conversion experience. The church I attend now definitely doesn't, but occasionally assumptions are made that everyone present considers themselves Christian, and that isn't always the case either.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The Bible isn't very prescritive about what the church should look like. That's why we've basically had to make it all up....

Regarding you other comment, in the mainstream churches, the boundaries between believer and non-believer can be rather blurred. It's easy to assume that unless an individual 'obviously' belongs to another religion he or she has benefited from some kind of diffusive benign Christian influence, and so is in some sense already a Christian. MOTR congregations won't dig to find how true this is.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Bible isn't very prescritive about what the church should look like. That's why we've basically had to make it all up....

Regarding you other comment, in the mainstream churches, the boundaries between believer and non-believer can be rather blurred. It's easy to assume that unless an individual 'obviously' belongs to another religion he or she has benefited from some kind of diffusive benign Christian influence, and so is in some sense already a Christian. MOTR congregations won't dig to find how true this is.

Indeed, even think of it in those binary terms-- you're either a believer or a non-believer-- is probably unhelpful, as many of us come to faith in a more gradual way. Which means at any given point in time folks in the congregation may be somewhere along that spectrum.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think there are pros and cons to this approach. It does give people space to develop faith in their own way without hassle or judgment.

In the British mainstream church context, though, it can be problematic. It de-prioritises evangelism, and makes it hard for churches to really nurture their people, because to do so would imply a shared trajectory, a common theological goal. And if there's no shared sense of the church being different from the world, or simply the nation, why bother with the church?

There's no simple solution here, and I accept that there must be realites that both kinds of church share. All churches negotiate with the culture around them.

Some commentators say that the popularity of certain churches has little to do with religion, and ISTM that there must be some truth in that if

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

... if a church is to grow in any way other than by transfer. Even young people raised in the faith need a certain something else to feel that they can belong.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
MOTR congregations won't dig to find how true this is.

We offer various opportunities for Christian formation - both for children and for adults, suitable for people at various stages of faith.

We don't present ourselves as thought police. If you want to be baptized, or confirmed, or received into the Episcopal Church, then there will be classes which you will have to take. But if you just want to come and sit in a pew and join in, we won't force anything on you. If you want to take communion, we won't ask more than you're baptized.

That's what I'd call nurturing - we offer things, and you come if you're ready for it.

But then, we do have a common theological goal. His name is Jesus. We're all at different points along the path, but the path leads to Him. If you want to go somewhere else, you're in the wrong store.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Round here we're demonizing them and the divided Christian men of three churches with 1% each of the village within a couple of hundred yards of each other are yet to man up. As I say elsewhere:

I peed off a friend at our church home group last night by being glib about neighbourhood youth alienation. That was before I read this:

"Countesthorpe resident Isobel Faulkner said her son Donny, 27, suffered from cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other disabilities and had to rely on a mobility scooter to get around.

Fighting back tears, she told the 200-strong meeting on Wednesday: "We've lived here 20 years now and my son has never had problems before.

"However, I'm now terrified every time he leaves the house to visit the shops or take our dogs for a walk.

"These youths have targeted him because of his disability. They throw mud and stones at him and abuse him by calling him foul names.""

This is VILE.

I'm STILL glib about it. Where are the MEN and women of our neighbourhoods? I fully expect the women to shame the men in to standing up. And I DO know what it's like. Big time. I lived on a tough estate in Wellingborough for about 15 years. When push came to shove ... I shoved. Stood up for my kids, my neighbours. Alone with my wife initially. I'm NOT advocating that at all. NOT advocating vigilantism, any kind of escalation, abusive, violent response. At all. I'm advocating a collective, strongly benevolent response by the whole community. Starting with the MEN. To protect the weak. Including alienated youth from themselves.

The men of the CHURCHES, of which there are three, divided: Anglican, Methodist and Baptist, one of which I'm a member for a start.

And yeah, it's easy for me, I'm moving from the village. I wish I weren't. And so, with no cost to myself, I lay down the challenge to the church men of this village to man up, to show the way.

It takes a village to raise a boy. Where is the village? Where is the UNITED Church supposedly at its heart?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I saw some twitter posts recently that struck me as relevant.

Someone (whom I don't know or follow - it was retweeted) was moving to a new place. She emailed a couple of churches asking if there was any system for giving lifts, because she has mobility problems.

One church didn't respond at all. The other one said "XXX church is nearer [the one that hadn't responded], we have passed your request on". No word, of course.

Her comment was that this was no way to encourage new (younger) people in. She probably won't bother, and she had made a whole lot more effort than most people would.

Then the churches complain that they have no younger people, who can't be bothered to get involved.

I do look back with nostalgia to the way that the churches across the city I lived in were enabling younger people to meet together and meet with God (mainly using para-church organisations, but still supporting them). And yet the church is still dying on its feet. So where will it be in 20-30 years time?

More importantly, where will the younger people growing up then get spiritual insight from? Where will there be the opportunities to engage with younger people with a Christian message? Will we be reduced to the ranting of the remaining extremists, which will put anyone off for life.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Churches not responding AT ALL to need. Tell me about it. I contacted every one within at least ten square miles of NE Cheshire, which is more than a handful, on behalf of a friend in need; every email for every church contact.

Nothing.

As for what's happening in our village, I'm leaving over the weekend and therefore NOTHING.

Edmund Burke comes to mind.

Don't worry, Islam will fill the vacuum.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

These non-responses are very sad, but I think we all know that most churches aren't set up to deal with ongoing serious health needs.

AFAIK there's little or no training for congregations to help them with members who have mental health problems. There's probably very little money to help make old buildings entirely friendly for members with mobility problems.

Churches that are in the throes of decline are likely to have very little energy just to think about these things in any depth. Of course, their lack of engagement makes their situation even worse, but I think church leaders in these kinds of churches can be so busy and overwhelmed that they don't feel able to take on any more projects.

I suppose there's room in the religious market for a very different kind of ministry that'll focus on these kinds of needs. But where is the money going to come from? Who would provide the incarnational leadership, the self-sacrificial lay engagement?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This was a guy living as responsibly as possible, like you or I would if we had to, in a field in their midst.

NOTHING.

He was run over shortly after, on his bike, cycling to work.

Hopefully it wasn't by a church member ...

"Knutsford City Limits"

[ 22. June 2016, 12:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If you're talking about a man in need of housing I should think that a fear of the unknown was a major factor the various churchgoers here.

Once upon a time the churches had an official role in helping the needy, but secularisation has meant that we now expect official state agencies or charities to come to the aid of individuals with problems. We'll fundraise for an organisation, but providing a bed for a homeless person we don't know - someone who may have mental health or addiction issues - is beyond our comfort zone and our expectations.

Moreover, these decisions depend on individual circumstances. Many elderly churchgoers live alone and will be afraid; others live with non-Christian family members who feel no need to be incarnational; yet others have small children, and in a world of 'health and safety' concerns wouldn't want to risk bringing in a complete stranger.

In a large city it would probably be easier to know what to do, because the churches there have ministries to the disadvantaged, there are food banks, the clergy are used to disadvantaged people turning up for help and have often worked out some kind of response, etc. State help may also be easier to access in a city, of course.

[ 22. June 2016, 13:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This was church staff.

People who put their email addresses on web sites.

There's NO excuse SvitlanaV2.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

True. I'm fortunate to head up our church's extensive ministry to the homeless. But we depend on a vast array of help-- a good, coordinated interdenominational coalition of churches, an unusually good relationship with the city that provides resources and funding, good support from local businesses that help with funding, a large seminary that also assists. It's an unusually high degree of cooperation-- and even with all that, we're stretched very very thin. If even one of those assets were not in place-- churches unwilling to work cooperatively say, or an antagonistic city or business community (as is the case in many, if not most, cities) and we'd be just as helpless as the churches Martin is seeing.

Then there's the issue of timing. Our efforts depend on a lot of advance planning/prep, great organization to pool these resources. When something happens outside of those parameters-- e.g. unseasonable weather that doesn't fit the pattern we're prepared to respond to-- we find ourselves scrambling or doing nothing. A one-off request would be just as difficult to handle.

The lack of response may signal indifference but it could also signify that feeling of helplessness-- wanting to help but unable to see how.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

There's NO excuse SvitlanaV2.

I wasn't saying there was an 'excuse' as such. I'm just trying to understand what was going on. What do YOU think was going on?

I feel that deep down you knew that these (middle class?) village churches were probably not going to be of much help before you contacted them. You were already critical of their theology and their general approach, and they were probably wary of any missives that came from you....

Contacting social services in the neighbouring town or city would have been practical,though. Is this what happened, in the end?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The lack of response may signal indifference but it could also signify that feeling of helplessness-- wanting to help but unable to see how.

It may also signify that the church "contact us" email address isn't consulted very much - if at all.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

But the lady wanting to get someone to help her to church, surely that is just a reasonable request, something that churches should be easily able to provide.

I can accept that major needs can cause problems and worries. I can see that a church of 20 people might be reluctant to offer help for every homeless person who comes to their attention - it can get overwhelming. That is not the problem.

It is about being prepared to make some effort to engage with the community. In a way that the community wants, rather than simply doing what the church wants to do.

In the end, it is not about being a church, being a Christian, it is about being a reasonable human being. It is really something when this is a standard that the church is struggling to achieve.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I was responding mostly to Martin's post. I agree that giving someone a lift to church should be fairly simple, although in my experience that can often escalate into something else, a much, much larger obligation. Not that that's an excuse, but it does make it somewhat more understandable.

Rather than complete apathy, I expect it's something more like bystander effect. In the original Kitty Genovose case, it was initially thought that the numerous witnesses who did not intervene or call for help were apathetic/ shockingly lacking in compassion. Interviews with the witnesses, though, showed they were in fact horrified by what they saw, deeply concerned, troubled for years afterwards. The lack of response seemed to have more to do with the number of witnesses and a feeling that "someone must have done something" (indeed, the witnesses kept asking themselves, 'why aren't the police here yet???' despite no one calling for help).

In this case, the fact that the request is broadly made may in fact be the problem. A specific request to a single, specific person might be more effective. Of course, if you are new to a community, that could be hard to achieve w/o just pulling names at random from a phone book.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

cliffdweller - I get where you were referring to. I just wanted to make it clear that even when the expectation is not that high, the church still fails. I can understand that where the request is very difficult, there is an argument for why they can't do it.

That doesn't excuse it. It simply means that, with a bigger picture, it may be that there is a good reason. I mean, so often, there is not, it is just narrow-mindedness and self-serving, but there might be justification.

But if you are running a church, and you cannot help one person to get there, who has asked to attend, that seems unforgiveable. How can you expect a group - any group - to care about homelessness, bullying whatever community issues, when they cannot even be self-serving enough to help someone come to a meeting? How welcoming is that?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

SvitlanaV2. It may not seem like it on SOF, but I know how to communicate appropriately. I was ASTOUNDED at the null response. To myself. Let alone to my friend. This isn't about a lift to church, it's about charity. Simple, Christian charity.

I LIKE you SvitlanaV2, that can't change, so it comes as a surprise that you extrapolated as you did. That's rhetorical by the way.

As I said, he, or rather she, as this is a person undergoing gender re-assignment, was run down, not over (as I originally said) to be accurate and suffered nasty superficial injuries needing hospitalization, plastic surgery, that sort of thing. There was a whip-round at work. She is an IT genius who was just starting on a contract job in the middle of nowhere. I'd been working with her for months. Known her for years.

She was found overextended and at the beginning of gender re-assignment when the crash of 2008 came. Lost her financial services IT job, had massive negative equity, lost EVERYTHING and ended on the street. Where on top of these blows she was assaulted.

She was supported in hostels in London while trying to network back in to IT. That finally delivered. Including her to the field near Knutsford. Which was rational given her resources.

I was her ONLY church contact. I thought she should have more. I was wrong wasn't I?

She now lives in La Linea and works in Gibraltar surrounded by Russian IT geniuses. How she managed between being run down until the compensation came I don't know. Being very smart, extroverted, disturbingly androgynously vulnerably beautiful it seems that Social Services DID actually do something. I'll ask her.

The church was like God. Absent.

[ 22. June 2016, 21:05: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
SvitlanaV2. It may not seem like it on SOF, but I know how to communicate appropriately. I was ASTOUNDED at the null response. To myself. Let alone to my friend. This isn't about a lift to church, it's about charity. Simple, Christian charity.

I LIKE you SvitlanaV2, that can't change, so it comes as a surprise that you extrapolated as you did. That's rhetorical by the way.
[...]
The church was like God. Absent.

If you thought I was being rude to you above I apologise; that wasn't my intention at all. I was simply considering previous threads where you've often given the impression of being critical of the churches you've engaged with, and that you in turn have been treated as a sort of 'token liberal' in some of them. IOW, if there's any 'history' between you and the churches in this village, it might have worked against a helpful dialogue in this situation.

But of course, I don't know. I don't know what relationship you have with the leadership in other churches, nor what your status is in your own church. If you'd got your own minister on board first, perhaps he could have used his/her authority to get appropriate assistance from others.

For the record, I do think it would have been Christlike and righteous if 'the [institutional] church' had responded to the need that you discovered.

OTOH, it strikes me that YOU were the church in this situation. I don't envision 'the church' as an institution on one side and individual Christians fighting lonely battles on the other. We're all 'the church'. You're a Christian, you understood the situation better than anyone else because this was your friend, and you responded. Your hands were God's hands, as people sometimes say. So ISTM that God wasn't absent. YMMV, of course.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hey, SvitlanaV2, we cool. You couldn't be rude if you wanted to be. And yeah, I got previous here big time. But I'm guilelessly guileful. The null response by the Church was a nail in the coffin of my expectations, all part of my Great Disappointment.

But as I've said, last week I was away with four charismatic evangelicals and another liberal and nine guys from the edge and it was bloody marvellous. Nobody was saved this year. Hooray!! The worst damnationist volunteer wasn't there. I missed him. He's a former Ratae enforcer.

Last year, when we baptized a guy (a nice BIG lad of 30 with a mental age of about a quarter that) after climbing up a river, the boss asked if I was OK with it, expecting me to be detached at best, I said I thought it was lovely and was moved to be part of it, lay on hands the lot.

My Hooray is about the char evo expectations not being met just like mine ent! And together we had the best time.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I don't always understand what Martin is saying, but when I do, I like him. [Smile]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The above posts criticise when churches don't help with transport and people in other kinds of need. I can't promise we get it right every time, but here are a couple of suggestions based on what happens at our shack - there is a named person who is transport coordinator. People needing lifts to church are paired up with those willing to offer lifts. There is a long list of telephone information / helpline numbers kept in church so that, in case of need or difficulty, those concerned can find out where best to obtain information and help. Perhaps being proactive in thinking these issues through, and providing relevant contact details, is a good initial way forward.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Something I learned recently. The most effective tool in getting millennials back to church is to invite them. Doesn't have to be to any special event, just tell them why you like your church and then invite them, "Would you like to come?"

The worst that can happen is that they say no.

But it might not be no forever.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

I've jut entered this thread and am gob smacked that no one has the sense to actually ASK young folk what they want in exploring Christianity.

You all talk about your experience in the past but how many of you are under 30? The past is the past.

I have worked with, trained and written children's materials for a great many years and we have always talked with kids to ask them what their opinions were and engaged with THEM.

The vast majority of churches don't engage with children or young people. They organise things FOR them - activities that aren't where they are at. Youngsters need a voice and making them part and parcel of the decision making process in a church is how to do it.

Child Protection is no excuse for not doing children's/youth work. If you want to do it you will and comply with safety - it's common sense today. Don't we want to keep kids safe?.

I work with 11+s at the moment. They hate "old fashioned worship" and equally hate people pretending to be trendy. They need people to listen to their concerns about life in a Christian context. Be a sounding board. Be real. It is possible to do it and make a difference - even when you just have 2 or 3, as I do.

Young people are people not objects. So please let's listen, hear and act on what they are saying.

That's what Jesus did. He told the disciples to get lost when they wanted to stop children approaching him, sent to mothers packing and talked to kids himself. Follow Jesus - talk to kids, listen to them.

Jesus didn't just work with crowds but individuals. So small numbers are just as important as large.

The church can be very selfish in only thinking of older folks and expecting the young to fit in. Both can co-exist if there is true concern, listening and compromise.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, Wild Haggis. But most folks are simply thinking aloud.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0