4 Things I Often Get Asked by Gen Y and Z Christians
Beginning in 1979 I worked for a decade with a wide array of technologies, followed by over 25 years of ministry. Most of the questions I strove to answer as a minister were common among fellow Boomers and younger friends, regardless of religious affiliation. During my next vocation I observed that the questions have changed or taken on more meaning, especially for Gen Y and Gen Z Christians.
Beginning in 2012 I began a transition to my third act, consulting and speaking. Since then, I’ve interviewed over 850 members of all ages in churches and used surveys to reach much larger numbers. The locations of my activity include the Midwest, the Heartland, the Southeast, the Northwest including Alaska, the Southwest, Asia-Pacific, and Canada. One of my consultations was with a church from a very different history than that of my affiliation, and with different doctrines and structures. However, when it came to people between about twenty and the late thirties, the questions have pretty much been consistent across regions and affiliation boundaries.
It’s clear that the radically changing context in both society and the church requires more thoughtful answers. For each of the following four questions I’ve attempted to avoid telling people what to think and instead focused on how to get the right answer specific to the situation.
1. How should I address dysfunctions in the church with our leaders?
This question comes from people of all ages but touches a frustration that younger generations tend to feel more acutely. I recall a memorable classroom discussion about dysfunction when I was fifty years old, back in 2010 at Lipscomb University. The class was Survey of Conflict Management, and we were discussing congregational dilemmas. The ages in the graduate class ranged from the early twenties to the mid-sixties. The professor made a statement that went something like this:
"When a church is stuck, and you are not able to get the leaders to see what's really going on, you have four choices: do nothing, leave, blow it up, or constantly nudge. Doing nothing and leaving can both result in “I wish I would have” regrets. Blowing it up leads to unpredicted outcomes for everyone, including blowback on those who lit the fuse. But nudging can eventually wear down the establishment. Sometimes a series of nudges from a variety of sources opens the system to change. Multiple nudges eventually make the pain of the status quo greater than the pain of change. That’s when good things begin to occur. And there are many ways to nudge.”
The classroom buzzed as we discussed the nuances of each of the four categories. A few years later I began helping individuals and teams learn how to nudge as part of my consultations. Here are some examples: A well-developed survey and unbiased interpretations. Ongoing training workshops with new concepts and tools. Role-plays where people perform roles different from or even opposite to their real-life role. A consultation that performs an analysis of the gap between the ways subgroups see things. A well-facilitated townhall meeting. A respectful and private gut-honest grievance letter to a leadership group.
Be forewarned, when we have an important conversation that draws attention to an elephant in the room or a naked emperor, we should not be surprised at the discomfort that follows. Prodding can be risky and can result in marginalization or even worse. My generation didn’t have social media to go and vent our frustration, for instance about controlling leadership that refuses to listen or see our point. I was forced to develop my theology, study the journeys of others who experienced what is commonly referred to as “the dark night of the soul,” and refine my strategies in addressing issues. I’ve seen that complaints delivered without a patient and godly spirit make it impossible for people to listen—“I can’t hear what you are saying because your behavior is drowning it out.” Overstated grievances and viral whining can be off-putting, but Jesus clearly endorsed persistently appealing to be heard by decision-makers in official processes over a just cause, in a story that could be called “The Persistent Nudge of the Widow” (Luke 18:1–8).
2. How can we introduce different ideas to our local congregation?
I’ve seen churches operate along the continuum of closed systems (all ideas originate with intimate insiders, and decisions are made by a few) and open systems (responsive to members, intra-dependent, collaborative). My brief two-part answer assumes a congregation that is on the open side of the continuum. Let’s first talk about orientations. Anecdotally speaking, there are two kinds of orientations, and each are good—the convergers and the divergers. I’ll explain.
Some of the greatest moments in Scripture occurred when people assembled to move in unison across a sea and peninsula, construct a tabernacle, lead an army, build a city, or rebuild a city’s walls and its temple. These moments called for “convergers” such as Moses, Bezalel, Oholiab, Deborah, Solomon, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Other great moments in Scripture occurred when Hezekiah broke multiple norms by holding an ecumenical Passover, when Jesus performed miracles on the sabbath, and when Paul and Barnabas began converting the Greeks without clearance from the elders in Jerusalem. These moments called for “divergers.” And some of the individuals mentioned above could operate as both.
Similarly, we need both convergent thinkers and divergent thinkers today. Convergent thinking solves problems with the well-established wisdom. There would be no church without seasoned and wise builders (1 Corinthians 3:10–15). It is always beneficial for outside-the-box individuals to learn how to build with established practices if they want to be taken seriously with their new ideas.
Divergent thinkers can seek alternative pathways when situations call for new approaches. I’ve noticed that young, creative individuals who are highly engaged in the work of ministry tend to be better at solving certain unfamiliar problems because they have very little to unlearn. You’ll never hear them say, “Let’s go back to the way we did it back in the day.”
Influencers from both orientations, left to their own devices, can lead a congregation to either disorder or dogmatism. Sometimes more progressive disciples become adamant that “what got us here won’t necessarily get us there,” while more conservative disciples might only appreciate what seems “tried and true.” I’ve consulted where implosions occurred because the tension between these worldviews was mismanaged. It’s good to avoid extremes (Ecclesiastes 7:18). We benefit most when we value both orientations. The person who has the new idea should avoid overly denigrating the old paradigm, and vice versa. Both need to remember that today’s new idea will be tomorrow’s old-school idea.
The second part of my answer has to do with pathways. In an ideal world, a faith institution would have an established practice or path for engaging with new ideas. It might include a protocol for introducing the idea (to whom, how, what platform, etc.). For instance, the leadership might ask for an initial paper or conversation. When questions are proposed and answered, the next step might be the presentation of a more developed idea to a group. These are early steps of a pathway.
Most churches don’t have clear pathways, but you can develop one organically. If I was a 20- or 30-something member presenting an older group of leaders with an idea related to worship music styles, formats for meetings, implementing house churches, or doing some form of justice work, hopefully I would start by making sure I understood more about their situation and its challenges. In that way, I could better determine how to proceed in presenting the idea rather than overfocusing on the idea itself.
A good process enhances the chance that the substance of an idea will be heard. I’ve witnessed the different outcomes between having a pathway and not—the win-win for everyone concerned versus good ideas going nowhere because they were presented too impulsively and without sufficient consideration.
3. Why is unity often conflated with uniformity among senior leaders?
There is more to unpack than the two words imply, because neither fully captures ideal togetherness. Unity can be described as “the state of being one, as of the parts of a whole,” but uniformity is “the state or quality of being uniform, or the same.” The best way we can talk about the difference between unity and uniformity is to look at diversity. The greater the diversity the weaker the sameness, but healthy diversity strengthens unity. Creation, the human body, and the assorted features of early Christian churches are examples of unity with diversity.
Not everything uniform is bad. Unvarying approaches in church life can come from the desire to experience familiarity and the ease of accomplishing something when everyone is operating from the same plan. Uniformity is also tied to safety, clarity of direction, and meeting immediate needs. We like uniform rules imposed on construction in a city known for earthquakes or fires, such as Chicago or San Francisco. Uniform practices can ensure wholeness in all sectors, including church.
Unhealthy uniformity comes from a desire by leaders to impose their generationally oriented values or tastes. When someone wants to control the behaviors and choices of others or force the outcome of events, individuals can start to feel like mindless minions, pawns on a gameboard. Even though there are Diotrephes-type narcissists who occasionally manipulate the church (3 John 9–10), I perceive the most common reason that many senior church leaders cherish uniformity is because it was emphasized early in their spiritual formation and is associated with their good times and notable successes. I still benefit today from the influences of more senior folks, though my entire educational trajectory steered me toward critical thinking, open questioning, and occasional dissent.
Many Christians who champion doctrinal unity over uniformity are not aware of an even higher expression of togetherness. I’ll explain. The Greek word henotes is used in Ephesians 4:3— “the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace.” This unity ideal is the starting place, not the target of our Christian togetherness. A more developed sense of unity is associated with another Greek word homothumadon(Romans 15:5–6), sometimes translated “with one voice” or “with one accord.”
Homothumadon is formed by two words, homo, which means one or the same, and thumas, which can mean spirited or passionate. The resulting word means progressive harmony, such as a group rushing along toward a shared cause greater than the sum of their individual interests. We can think of various musicians with different instruments playing along in harmonic progression. Luke used the wordhomothumadon to describe the occasions when the believers met together for fellowship, prayer, and making major decisions out of concern for collective interests of the church (Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 8:6; 15:25).
I see some champions of nonuniform unity being just as mistaken as those who believe that unity implies uniformity. When someone fails to properly collaborate, cooperate, or coordinate with the greater community while pursuing new beliefs and practices, and then presumptuously disseminates their conclusions, they are being disunifying and sometimes even reckless. It is not working “with one accord” to run ahead and promote revelations on a complex topic before they are tested within the impacted community (1 Thessalonians 5:20–21).
Those who cherish uniformity, as in “We all do the same things, the same way, everywhere,” will soon die or retire. But let’s not settle for bare unity on tenets of faith and then do everything as we see fit (see Deuteronomy 12:8). When we seek wisdom, we can experience homothumadon while working together on the things that really matter. Wisdom can be gained from carefully selected reading, training, mentoring, and engaging with church representatives and teachers (Nehemiah 8; Acts 15). On July 31, 2021, I will have been a Christian for forty years. During this time, I’ve experienced far more benefits from inquisitive seekers who listen and collaborate than from those who are not tethered by brotherhood coordination and are self-assured in their opinions (Proverbs 18:2).
We can move beyond the unity versus uniformity tension by humbly leveraging our diversity through listening to Christians with various gifts, backgrounds, experiences, and expertise. This is how we can learn to speak “with one voice,” which is much better than mere agreement on a few doctrines.
4. How should Christians engage with society on matters of justice?
This topic is too wide for a blanket answer, but I propose some foundational measures.
First, decide on your framework. I’ll hyperbolize for clarity. Are you coming from a Judeo-Christian set of values, which focuses on impartiality, investigations, and things like due process and innocent until proven otherwise, or are you operating by a model that has predetermined the innocence or guilt of parties based on their cultural or organizational status, skin color, gender, or age? That’s often the difference between biblical justice and the Civil Rights Movement on one hand, and the current social justice movement, on the other.
Second, determine whom you really represent. It is natural and human to share in the apprehensions and sorrows of the times. When it comes to influencing change, especially in vocal and visible ways, our messaging is important. These moments provide opportunities to exemplify the thoughts of God (1 Peter 4:11).
Third, be careful with the word of God. I can’t keep track of how many times I have heard someone refer to Jesus’ knocking over the tables in the temple to justify the protests during which people were hurt. During the height of the mayhem in Chicago I led a well-attended webinar called The Temple Protest of Jesus. My goal was to help restless Christians understand what was going on in Jerusalem at that moment, the specific offenses of the establishment that Jesus challenged, and the correlations to today. Certainly, Jesus would not have approved of the total pillaging of our local BestBuy, twice, or the destruction of many restaurants when employment was hard to come by during the pandemic. If we are called to protest, let’s do it like Jesus would.
Fourth, strive to grasp how early Christians addressed secular authorities. From my research, I have deduced that they spent less time in challenging world leaders than in seeking to convince them of a different worldview. The conditions for when they submitted to versus disobeyed governors and emperors baffle believers. During the same bedlam that we saw throughout Chicago, I conducted another webinar, How Early Christians Engaged Govt. Authorities (During Unrest). There is a compelling case from studying the apostle Paul and a second-century teacher named Justin that we should use disorder to boldly draw attention to another way of life in the kingdom, and continually showcase justice through our lives.
From the first century onward, Jesus’ followers disapproved of infanticide, child prostitution, abortion, gladiatorial games, human sacrifice, and the popular acceptance of suicide. They made their cases in personal example, writings, and occasional conversations. Progress took a long time, but all such practices became illegal and nearly disappeared. The church honored women alongside men in ministry, discouraged polygamy, and established the world’s first orphanages, hospitals, and nursing homes. And as far as we can tell, they were bridge-builders, offering mercy to the perpetrators; and they avoided othering, scapegoating, and bigotry, unlike what we see in many so-called advocates of justice. Like Jesus, they saved their ire for religious hypocrisy. The world’s first social justice movement focused on him and his teachings, and on bringing people to the same knowledge.
There are more things to cover about generational questions and concerns, which we all view through our own lenses. Gen Y and Gen Z Christians will find out from watching what happens with the next group, the Alpha Generation, that the latest generation is not always better or worse. Each group will stand or fall on its own merits, and not every member of a generation or subgroup fits the stereotype.
In a future installment I will tackle 4 Things That Warp Our Grasp on Reality. We will look at the influences and dynamics that polarize us and derail our best intentions, and what we can do about it.