A Church Beyond Belief - Religious Trends

Get Ready for Generation Z

3/11/2015

Just when we thought we understood a new generation, things are going to change. Meet Generation Z!

Generation Z is the current label for those who follow the millennials. They have yet to receive a catchy moniker, and people have yet to agree when this generation began. Some say the mid 1990s while others begin in the early 2000s.

Whatever we end up calling them and whenever they began, this cohort shares some interesting characteristics.

·      While millennials are known for oversharing on social media, Generation Z values their privacy. They are more apt to turn off GPS locators on their phones and use social media that self-destructs (Snapchat).

·      They prefer image-laden forms of communication (Instagram).

·      They suffer from FOMO (fear of missing out), so the speed of response is valued over accuracy. Maybe this is giving rise to the sentiment that “Texting is a brilliant way to miscommunicate what you feel and to misinterpret what other people mean.”

·      Their attention span is much shorter than that of millennials, and therefore they seek “snackable content.” They give something a glance, and if it appears too much to read, they move on.

·      Nearly two-thirds say that online gaming is their favorite form of entertainment. They’re driving the Twitch phenomenon, which is a gaming/e-sports social network.

·      When not in school, they’re virtually always online.

·      They’re quite sedentary, and health issues and obesity will be a concern.

·      They care about the world and want to be involved in causes that make a positive impact.

I have no answer as to how to best connect with Generation Z, but it is clear that it will be different than with previous generations.

What I do know is that it may be time to end our fixation with millennials (of which I’m guilty!) and broaden our focus. We risk being so obsessed with one generation that another generation may pass us by.

Michael S. Bos

Generations

2/10/2015

Who coined the term “millennial” and why is it important?

In 2000, William Strauss and Neil Howe published Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, and with it the term “millennial” quickly became a part of our generational parlance.

What most people don’t know is that they introduced the concept of “millennial” within a larger framework for understanding generations. In their seminal work Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 (1990), they put forth the thesis that there is a fourfold cycle in American history. In understanding each cycle, they believe one can better understand the role and identity each generation takes in it.

They state it this way: “The cycle draws forward energy from each generation's need to redefine the social role of each new phase of life it enters. And it draws circular energy from each generation's tendency to fill perceived gaps and to correct indeed, overcorrect) the excesses of its elders.”

The four cycles are as follows:

·      The first cycle is “High” in which institutions are strong, and society has a strong sense of cohesiveness and consensus, which also leads to conformity.

·      The second cycle is “Awakening” in which a new generation looks upon the “High” as a time of cultural poverty and attacks institutions in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy.

·      The third cycle is “Unraveling” in which institutions are weak and distrusted, and individualism flourishes.

·      The fourth cycle is “Crisis” in which institutional life is torn down and rebuilt. Civic authority revives, cultural expression finds a community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group.

·      After a period of “crisis,” there is a turn to a societal “high” and the fourfold cycle continues.

Strauss and Howe label our current era a time of crisis, and they predict that millennials will become the new civic leaders who will rebuild institutions and promote social cohesion. This flies in the face of the current trend of labeling millennials as detached from institutions and distrustful of people. If we give any credence to Strauss and Howe’s thesis, we may be overlooking an important role millennials will play in the future.

We are quick to define and confine generations to labels we have given them. But whatever we think of the fourfold cycle of history, it reminds us that a generation’s self-understanding and role changes over time. Therefore we had better be ready for some surprises as millennials age and (re)define who they are.

Michael S. Bos

Describe Your "Ideal" Church

11/21/2014

What millennials say may surprise you. The Barna Research Group did a study of their views on worship space, and the results show they prefer:

·      A sense of community (78%) more than privacy (22%)
·      A sanctuary (77%) more than an auditorium (23%)
·      A classic setting (67%) more than a trendy one (33%)
·      A quiet space (65%) more than a loud one (35%)
·      A casual environment (65%) more than a dignified one (36%)
·      A modern feel (60%) more than a traditional one (40%).

These preferences don’t necessarily mesh together. Barna summarizes it this way: “herein lies a cognitive dissonance common to the young adults interviewed in the survey. Many of them aspire to a more traditional church experience, in a beautiful building steeped in history and religious symbolism, but they are more at ease in a modern space that feels more familiar than mysterious.”

This reminds us that the reasons people have for attending church can be complex and complicated. For church leaders, it is a temptation to boil down a generation’s spiritual quest to the “one thing” that will resonate with all. If only it were so simple.

What we do know is that those who seek a church, including millennials, do so because they desire to connect with a community that welcomes them to share in the journey of faith. And it’s easy for us to forget how risky a step this can be.

When people enter a church for the first time, it can be a tense, anxiety producing moment. They are intensely searching for any clues that will help them know what kind of church it is, whether they’ll be welcome, and what is expected of them. And when those clues are absent or confusing, they probably won’t be back.

It is critical for us to examine the clues our facilities and our congregations give about who we are. Are we communicating that people are welcome where they are and for who they are? There is no one way to go about this. But we all need to ask whether the subtext of our church environs makes clear we are a place you can belong.

Michael S. Bos

The Reshuffling of Religious Affiliation

10/30/2014

One of the difficulties in building community is that people can be fickle in their commitment. They join a congregation and participate for a period of time; then they disappear. Some see this as exemplifying our growing individualistic attitudes. Claude Fischer, who analyzes social and cultural change, sees it differently. He says, “it is not that Americans are individualistic, they do believe in community, but it is a community that is voluntarily chosen and rechosen every day.”

People are certainly rechoosing churches. Studies show that nearly half of all Americans have changed their religious affiliation by changing churches, denominations, or faith traditions. Some change because they’re frustrated with church doctrine or dogma. Others change because they married someone from another tradition. Still others change because they wanted a different worship style. (Interestingly, of those who were raised with no religious affiliation, half will be belong to a community of faith as an adult.)

This phenomenon has been labeled as a consumer mentality that has spawned competition between providers of religious goods and services. However, what people overlook in this reshuffling of religious affiliation is that we are a highly mobile population. According to the U.S. Census, 35% of Americans have moved at least once in the last five years. Therefore necessity as well as choice is driving the redistribution of church members.

If there is good news in this, it is that people are still choosing and rechoosing community. As patterns of affiliation change, in the end, we still yearn to be connected and a part of something larger than ourselves.

Michael S. Bos

People Want More Religion in Politics?

10/15/2014

There has been much discussion of a recent study by the Pew Research Forum’s Religion and Public Life Project. The study found that nearly three-fourths of all Americans believe religion’s influence is waning. Most Americans don’t like this (see our post “Changing Our Religion to Match Our Views”). The study concludes that most want religion to play a greater role through involvement in politics, of all things.

That conclusion has drawn attention to the study. But while the invocation of politics incites various sentiments, two questions must be asked soberly: what does it mean to say that religion’s influence is waning? And, what sort of influence is both possible and needed now?

Our work offers clear answers to these questions. First, the American legacy of a few, well-organized religious institutions is clearly in decline. The conflicts that embroil every historic religious body signal the end of historic assumptions. Specifically centralized organizations are shifting toward localized spiritual communities. The shift is both bemoaned and welcomed.

Second, the capacity of religious America to align with political life has become fluid and unpredictable. Irish Catholics, for example, may not be as solidly Democratic as they once were. The new pluralism derails older patterns of political and religious intersection. In that sense religious influence is waning.

In a different regard religion’s influence may be growing. The capacity of faith to promote local community is advancing. As various authors show, notably Robert Wuthnow, religion is a prolific source of community and gives rise to impressive forms of service. The jury remains out on how much civic good this new religious style can engender. But it clear that faith and community engagement are intertwining in new ways.

How far “spirituality” and “community” may extend remains to be seen. But the Pew study suggests a deep longing many are trying to address.

William L. Sachs

The Heart of Conflict

10/7/2014

It’s hard to believe that we didn't see it coming: the rise of religion and religious conflict in the world. Just decades ago scholars and diplomats were dismissive of religion and its global influence. Case in point: Henry Kissinger’s 900-page tome on diplomacy, published in 1994, does not address religion.

Today views have changed. The eminent scholar of religion, Philip Jenkins, has said that “the twenty-first century will almost certainly be regarded by future historians as a century in which religion replaced ideology as the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood and, of course, conflicts and wars.”

Must we accept this as inevitable? Are religious people prone to be embroiled in conflict? We are witnessing armed insurrection by religious extremists, denominations dividing and congregations splitting, while seminary faculties protest and strike. Religion seems defined by conflict.

The pattern is familiar. Lines are drawn, people cease speaking to one another, friendships end. Litmus tests intrude: are you with me or against me? Zero-sum thinking triumphs: there must be winners and losers. So things go downhill.

Conflict in religious life is often traced to theological differences: liberal versus conservative, progressive versus orthodox. There is obvious truth in the distinctions, if only because many people cite them. But the source of religious conflict lies deeper.

What is really at stake is who we are called to be as religious people, and how we are going to get there. What is our relation to the world nearby and far away? What stance do we strike in regard to cultural and religious difference? How does our distinctive religious identity relate to the diverse identities around us?

This raises soul-searching questions about the malleability of religion. Some want religions to be set, static, fixed for all time, and they refuse to negotiate new ways of being. Others embrace change, but are unclear about its means and ends. Both draw lines in the sand and divide.

This is the heart of conflict: must we stay the same or should we change? If change, then how? There are no ready answers. But the way toward answers is to ask the questions together. This divide will not be bridged by supplying more information or data to one another. It is a relational gap. Coming together and daring to listen as well as speak, is the beginning of the answer. By God’s grace it will surface, if we seek it together.

Changing Our Religion to Match Our Views

9/30/2014

We have always carried the notion that religious commitments shape our social and political views. But research shows the opposite may be true. We also change our religious identities to match our views.

Mark Chaves notes this phenomenon in American Religion: Contemporary Trends. This began when religion and politics became intertwined with one another, and the use of “Christian” became associated with those carrying a conservative political agenda. Chaves observes, “After 1990 more people thought that saying you were religious was tantamount to saying you were a conservative Republican.” When people began to feel that Christianity no longer represented their views, they began identifying as having no religion.

For millennials, this continues to impact their views of the church because they carry the perception that “Christians are primarily motivated by a political agenda and promote right-wing politics” (Kinnaman & Lyons in unchristian). Sadly, the legacy of mixing religion and conservative politics continues to shape religious identities as a new generation increasingly identifies as non-religious.

If congregations have any hope of engaging those who have left their religious identities behind, they need to communicate clearly that they’re interested in people’s lives, not their votes. It’s not that one’s faith can ever be divorced from one’s political views, or that at times people of faith need to seek political change. But when it seems the sole reason congregations exist is to support a political agenda, people have no problem leaving the church behind and self-identify in other ways.

Why They're Leaving

9/23/2014

Steve McSwain made a provocative statement about why people have left the church. He said, “They have left, not to abandon their faith, but precisely because they wish to preserve it.”

There are trends that support his thesis. Gallup polls reveal that 78% of Americans say that religion is fairly or very important to them. And 75% say that if Americans were more religious, it would be positive for American society. While there remains robust support for religion, apparently the church’s role in this is becoming less important. Church attendance has continued to decline with fewer than 20% attending church on Sundays.

As congregations seek to stem the tide of membership loss, some things have been learned along the way.

People will never be shamed into the pews. They seek the space to explore faith.

Worship service makeovers (bring in the band!) aren’t enough. As Rachel Held Evans wrote, “What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.”

People aren’t looking for churches that are relevant—though intentional irrelevance isn’t helpful! People want to belong to a community that is real—a place where you’re accepted for who you are and where you are in life.

Perhaps the waning interest in congregational life isn’t because of a growing skepticism about faith itself. Maybe it’s because of the character of the communities that have formed around faith. If so, the challenge before is not rethinking the faith. It is the call to reshape our communities so that they better embody the way of Jesus.

Can We Be Spiritual Without Being Religious?

9/15/2014

Sam Harris is at it again. He’s created a buzz about spirituality vs. religion in his new book, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. In doing so he’s tapped into the hot topic that captured headlines last year: the rise of the “nones” and the growing number who describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.”

What is intriguing is that there is much being said about this without defining what is meant by “spiritual” and “religious.” Without creating a debate about meanings, it seems at its core that “spiritual but not religious” is shorthand for “I’m done with institutional religion but haven’t given up on the idea of something that transcends us.”

This is understandable because institutional religion is often perceived as the perpetuator of dogma and religious obligations. And the perceptions of these two things by the public are not pretty, as Dallas Willard captures well: “Dogma is what you have to believe, whether you believe it or not. And law [religious obligations] is what you must do, whether it is good for you or not.” With this understanding, who would want to be part of a religious institution?!

However, being spiritual and being religious share something in common: they both involve relationships. “Religion” involves shared beliefs and practices among people, and “spirituality” involves a connectedness to one’s self and others. Because of this, those who are spiritual but not religious are finding ways to be in community. And if this is done for any sustained period of time, new institutions will emerge that have "religious" overtones because of the norms that are shared. And so the cycle continues. In the end, it may be hard to be spiritual but not religious.

Perhaps the message being sent by those who are spiritual but not religious is that they are not interested in rigid institutions that care little about people’s questions and struggles. Instead they would rather leave the institution and create alternative communities that embrace people for who they are and where they are in life.

This should be a wakeup call for the leaders of the institutional church. The institutional church may not survive in its current form, but there will always be a place for communities that provide spiritual belonging.

What If Everyone Won?

9/8/2014

Nearly forty years ago, Richard Dawkins published the highly influential book The Selfish Gene. In it he says, “Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.” The reason: “because we are born selfish.” Even though Dawkins eventually softened his views, the notion of the selfish gene remains popular and continues to fuel our imaginations about who we are destined to become.

Take, for example, the popular program “Breaking Bad.” In an early episode the main character takes an instant dislike to someone he does not know. Walter White, a high school chemistry teacher diagnosed with cancer, has become a producer of methamphetamine, an addictive illegal drug. “Why” is the haunting question that gripped huge audiences for five years.

The answer surfaces when twice Walter sees a BMW convertible with “Ken Wins” on the license plate. While Ken shouts into his phone, full of self-importance, Walter sets a windshield washer on the battery. This produces an explosion that incinerates the BMW. Walter leaves with grim satisfaction on his face.

Both his trail of destruction and the show’s appeal crystallize in that scene. While claiming to seek money he can leave to his family, Walter’s motivation is revenge. He is tired of seeing other people win. He is convinced that he is smarter and should have been recognized adequately. He won’t rely on anyone again. He will outsmart everyone and even use people. As he slowly dies, he will create drugs to destroy others. Such is the depth of his anger.

Evil takes root in isolation and in feelings of being overlooked and dismissed. As Walter’s evil grows, alongside his cancer, he hides the secret of his drug production. Human contact becomes incidental to his obsession.

Belonging, as congregations encourage it, can counter such isolation. Worship, prayer, group discussions not only shape personal faith, they shape character. Here there can be reality checks. Here people can be honored and welcomed. Here you no longer feel alone or overlooked. Here you can learn that your actions affect others.

In congregations you can be forgiven and healed, especially amid crisis. That is the magic of belonging. Everyone can win.