Church? No Thanks…
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, April 22, 2008
- Viewed 208
- (53) comments so far
Findings from the study, in which 1,023 adults, ages 18 to 30, were surveyed, reveal that 97% of dropouts give specific life-change issues as their reason for leaving. Only 20% of the dropouts predetermined their post high school departure.
“The most frequent reason for leaving church is, in fact, a self-imposed change, ‘I simply wanted a break from church’ (27%),” according to a LifeWay report summarizing the study. “The path toward college and the workforce are also strong reasons for young people to leave church: ‘I moved to college and stopped attending church’ (25%) and ‘work responsibilities prevented me from attending’ (23%).”
Following are some similar findings cited by the Youth Transition Network (YTN), a coalition of some of the nation’s largest denominations and ministries that are working together to help reduce the dramatic loss of youth from the church:
“An Assemblies of God study showed a loss of 66% of their students within one year of high school graduation.”
“A Southern Baptist transition project estimates an 82% loss of youth within one year of high school graduation.”
“Fifty to eighty percent of high school students walk away.”
“As someone who recognizes the importance of an ever-growing faith, especially during the college years, these are staggering statistics,” said Cyndi Forman, campus minister of the Baptist Collegiate Ministry (BCM) of Georgia Tech and Emory University. “The statistics are sad, disappointing and dangerous, all at the same time.”
You can read more here at OneNewsNow...
FOR YOUR INPUT: So… has your church been successful in reaching this age group, or are you an unfortunate part of these statistics? How do you think your church can change to fill this void?
Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Open the doors. Where are all the people? Seventy percent of the people, 23 to 30 years old, are nowhere to be found in church on a regular basis for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22. They become church dropouts, according to a 2007 study from LifeWay Research. These students who attended a Protestant church at least twice a month for at least one year during high school are leaving the church, and most of them are doing so during their first year of college...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Peter Hamm on Thu, April 24, 2008
Andy,
What Brian said!
I’d add that I am actually done (for now) debating the importantce of communicating God’s great news with cultural relevance (the definition of which is NOT a moving target but the practice of which IS a moving target) in this forum.
CS on Thu, April 24, 2008
Daniel:
That’s an interesting perspective that you have regarding being saved and being outside of the walls of a church for so long. In those years, how did Hebrews 10:24-25 affect you in your walk with Christ?
Brian L:
“NO ONE here is trying to say that preaching the gospel is irrelevant. It’s very tiring to hear the same ol’ “If you mention relevance you automatically mean that you don’t preach the gospel” refrain. This may not be what you’re trying to communicate, but that’s what comes across…”
Actually, more of my emphasis this time has been focused on how the preaching of the Gospel has been conspicuously absent from youth groups and how social activities are instead made the norm. So many kids are dying today without the knowledge of the saving grace of Christ, even though they dutifully attend church and participate in age-related groups within their churches. This is a travesty, and relates back to the numbers of people who fall away in that 18-30 age range.
I did mention relevancy insofar as my last post, in line with Andy’s comments. I believe that the sensationalistic entertainment and adherence to fads and novelties going on is a distraction to the preaching of the Gospel, but that is not totally related to this topic.
—
CS
threegirlddad on Thu, April 24, 2008
Peter Hamm: Jesus told stories to people they could understand because of who they were and what they did. The parables communicated in a culturally relevant way.
Brian L.: Yet He chose to come to earth in a way that was relevant: as a human who spoke the language of the people. He came in a way and spoke in a way that would be understood by those He was trying to reach.
When the disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables, what was His answer?
Peter Hamm: He did NOT spend a lot of time defining theological terms, and dare I say it, he didn’t spend NEARLY as much time exegeting scripture as he did just teaching how to follow God and Love Him and Love Others.
Umm…wow. What is your Scriptural basis for making those assertions?
Peter Hamm: Paul… I love how he quotes pagan poets to make his points,
Yes, indeed. But what would that look like now? Let’s say that I’m back in college witnessing to a group of people educated in classical literature, and I quote Shakespeare or John Donne in order to make a point. Would that pass your “culturally relevant” test?
Peter Hamm: how he uses sports metaphors to illustrate the idea of living the Christian life… stuff like that.
So, yeah, if it takes a motorcycle jumping through the air to make a point that will communicate the Gospel to somebody, I’ll do it!
I like sports metaphors, too—especially, for example, what Paul says in 1 Cor 9:26: “Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air.” (NIV)
Two questions: Barring some sort of language barrier, have you ever met anyone who didn’t understand that verse the first time they read (or heard) it? And can you help me understand how you use a motorcycle jump to construct an equivalent metaphor for Christian life?
Peter Hamm: Culturally relevant simply means that I am communicating in a manner which will make sense to the people I’m communicating to, using the culture of the day, the language of the day, the communication tools and idioms of the day.
Well, again, what does this look like in practice? Do you mean that when you’re speaking to people who know nothing about agriculture, that you simply don’t bother with the any of the parables that use farming analogies? Or do you mean that you reword those parables in some way? And what, precisely, do you have in mind when you refer to “the language…and idioms of the day”? How current does our speech have to be in order for you to consider it culturally relevant?
Andy on Thu, April 24, 2008
Let’s remember the point of this article. This is how the issue of relevance came into the discussion.
The original question was why do kids leave the church in droves when the get to a certain age. Many posters here have said that the reason kids leave is because the church is not relevant. They further go on to point out that we need to be relevant, just like Jesus was, and that’s the solution to not losing our kids.
OK, let me see if I follow:
(1) If the church wants to stop losing kids, then we need to make the gospel relevant to their lives.
(2) Look at Jesus, He was the ultimate person who made the gospel relevant.
This so called ‘answer’ has been bounced around forever, and what this ‘need to be relevant’ misses is this:
VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WHO FOLLOWED JESUS LEFT HIM!!!
So, according to the logic of many who have posted here, the problem is that we’re not relevant, and we need to be relevant like Jesus, and then, just like Jesus, we won’t lose our kids.
So, if we try to relevant the way that Jesus was, as many of you suggest, than we should EXPECT to lose most of our kids, since that is exactly what happened to the ‘relevant Jesus’ many of you speak of.
Could it be any plainer by YOUR OWN SUGGESTIONS and YOUR OWN STANDARDS that way you say we should do did not, and does not, work.
And too carry on just a little bit more, to make sure you understand what you guys are saying, let me spell it out. Either:
(1) Jesus didn’t attempt to be relevant (In which case then why should we) OR
(2) Jesus did attempt to be relevant but it didn’t work to keep people around.
But unfortunately, many here want to have it both ways and say that we need to be relevant like Jesus, and that is the solution to us losing kids.
I’m sorry, but the biblical record doesn’t allow for that opinion at all.
As a matter of fact, the biblical record only allows for this: Jesus told stories that had some relevance to those who heard him, but that relevance had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether they continued to follow him. Nothing.
So why do you guys think it’s the solution for us if it wasn’t for Jesus?
DanielR on Thu, April 24, 2008
Andy, I would say that the church I grew up in DID preach the Gospel. I believe they were wrong on some points, but they did preach the Gospel. The problem, as I see it, was that they were preaching the Gospel in the same old way that had reached the previous generation, but they weren’t reaching the younger generations. KJV only is not going to reach young minds who do not yet understand the Gospel and are not going to understand it any easier in arcane language. The older generations had heard the Gospel preached exactly the same way their whole lives so they didn’t understand why young people weren’t listening or understanding, and if it was good enough for them when they were growing up the problem must be with the young people. It could not possibly have been that Brother James or Brother Billy simply could not relate to young people and did not know how to communicate with them.
We can argue all day about the meaning of relevant as it relates to church and whether church needs to be relevant, but if the Gospel is being preached and not being heard or received or understood by the youth in the church then something’s not working.
CS, Hebrews 10:24-25 did not affect my relationship with Christ. I think I did my best to live in accordance with verse 24, not because of the verse but because that was the way I was taught to live. As for verse 25 I assume you are referring to meeting together for worship, which obviously I was not doing.
Peter Hamm on Thu, April 24, 2008
threegirldad,
Last time… I don’t want to be drawn into this again.
Because as I said, I’m really not willing to take the time to prove this point… again… in this forum.
Just one disturbing thing, though… when I mentioned Jesus lack of exegetical theological preaching and definitions of theological terms and you asked for a scripture to show that, I can only ask if you are kidding. The VAST bulk of Jesus teaching is devoid of the kind of exegetical preaching that many seem to feel is the “one right way” today (not that I don’t appreciate the kind of preaching that these folks do, I do… I really do). He told stories and parables… LOTS of them. He gave specific instructions about how to live life… LOADS of it. Read any chapter or two of the Gospels and you are confronted with it.
He died for us, but first he lived among us and told us how to live, not just how to believe.
I defined cultural relevance just fine, thanks. This particular site, MMI, has always a great place for discussion about innovative and relevant ways to bring God’s good news to people in our time and place. Some of you disagree with the idea that we should use what appear to be far too “entertaining” methods in order to do that.
Perhaps there is a site where they talk about how misguided the modern church is all day that you’d like to join in the conversation at that place. This is, I’m hoping, not it. And I don’t think it was the original point of this post either.
Andy on Thu, April 24, 2008
DanielR said:
We can argue all day about the meaning of relevant as it relates to church and whether church needs to be relevant, but if the Gospel is being preached and not being heard or received or understood by the youth in the church then something’s not working.
Again, by applying that same standard to the ministry of Jesus, and the mass falling away that took place, we’d have to conclude that the gospel that Jesus preached was “not being heard or recieved or understood”
The error that you and others here are making is the error of pragmatism, that is, trying to define ‘what works’
That is not our job, our job is to follow Christ’s command to preach the gospel, and to disciple true believers. We should rejoice when the true gospel is preached, even if it seems not to have had any effect. And we should weep when a false gospel is preached, even if, and especially if, the response seems to be good.
Peter Hamm on Thu, April 24, 2008
Andy writes
“The error that you and others here are making is the error of pragmatism, that is, trying to define ‘what works’
That is not our job, our job is to follow Christ’s command to preach the gospel, and to disciple true believers. “
Scary oversimplification. If everybody knew HOW to best preach the gospel and disciple true believers, this site and others like it would not exist. It is indeed our job, with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, to figure out how to do that in our world.
Andy on Thu, April 24, 2008
Peter Hamm:
Two simple questions, please answer:
(1) Should we do what Jesus did?
(2) Did what Jesus did work? (In the area of attracting and keeping people involved)
And since you are done posting on this, let me answer for you:
(1) Yes, of course we should do what Jesus did (Just as you say)
(2) No, it didn’t work, not by the standard that you are trying to work out in this discussion.
The reason you are having a problem with this is that you, and others who insist on trying to find what works, is that you don’t realize that question #2 is totally irrelevant.
Our job is to preach the gospel. Period. It is God who saves people. Period.
It’s either that or, by your standards, Jesus was very, very unsuccessful at His ministry and should have spent more time here with you guys so you could teach Him how to do it better.
Peter Hamm on Thu, April 24, 2008
Andy,
Yes, I’m trying to bow out of the discussion… but…
yes, what Jesus did worked. It worked by God’s standards, not man’s.
Should we do what Jesus did? Churches like mine insist that that is just what we ARE doing… For instance, our tagline is “Reaching People, Changing Lives” and when we explain that to people in our membership class, we always state that WE reach people, and GOD changes lives. (So we only have to do half our mission statement… pretty sweet…)
“Our job is to preach the gospel. Period. It is God who saves people. Period.”
I AGREE! But that does NOT mean that the method we use at different times is inconsequential. Certainly Jesus changed emphases and methods from time to time and so did Paul, depending on the audience and the place. That is ALL WE ARE SAYING and that is, for me, the original working out of cultural relevance.
“It’s either that or, by your standards, Jesus was very, very unsuccessful at His ministry and should have spent more time here with you guys so you could teach Him how to do it better.” I don’t know what any of us has said to make you say something like that. Your rhetoric could tone down just a little, if you don’t mind.
Brian L. on Thu, April 24, 2008
threegirldad,
(I’ve got three girls myself - and two boys!)
You mention Jesus’ use of parables. My response is that while they didn’t always understand the point, they at least understood the words. Jesus didn’t speak to them in English (not even KJV English - gasp! ;p).
The fact of the matter is that even speaking the same language, there can be misunderstanding. My guess is that though you and I seem to be disagreeing on this, a thorough examination of the two of us would probably find that we agree more than we would disagree, at least on the essentials.
He used figures of speech and idioms they recognized - sheep, vineyards, landowners, grapes, etc. He didn’t speak of cattle ranches in Wyoming, Ferraris, or Donald Trump.
Also, the Scripture says that one of the reasons for the parables was specifically so that some would NOT understand Jesus’ message and be saved.
I am joining Peter by leaving this discussion. We’re beginning to strain at gnats, and I don’t like to have bugs in my mouth!
Blessings on you guys.
DanielR on Thu, April 24, 2008
Andy, if you are so convinced that Jesus was a failure why are you a Christian? If his ministry was such a failure why is Christianity so widespread? If you don’t believe in what Jesus taught, go back to being Jewish and only read the Old Testament. Or since you seem to believe you know better than Jesus, start your own cult.
Preach the Gospel your way, don’t worry about reaching young people, don’t worry about saving lost souls, disciple your true believers (only those that believe exactly as you do), and leave the rest of the church alone to do God’s work.
You seem to believe everyone but yourself is preaching false Gospel. What happened to make you so cynical?
CS on Thu, April 24, 2008
Brian L:
“He used figures of speech and idioms they recognized - sheep, vineyards, landowners, grapes, etc. He didn’t speak of cattle ranches in Wyoming, Ferraris, or Donald Trump.”
I think you’re touching on the key thing here. Yes, when we speak to the masses to spread the Gospel, we can use modern-day analogies, such as Ray Comfort’s use of a parachute in talking about “putting on Jesus.” When I spoke to some kids about trust and faith, I used their skateboarding helmets as a reference that made sense. This takes the Gospel and makes it relevant and practical to them in modern-day vernacular.
But when “cultural relevancy” changes the source of the Gospel, such as church services being about lovemaking talks or “how to improve your business” sermons, that’s where there are problems. I believe this is the frustration that Andy, threegirldad, and I feel with regards to this topic. More specifically, in reference to kids, they never hear the Gospel in a relevant way or not, because they’re being busily chatted about sex, drugs, and rock and roll under the veil of “cultural relevancy,” while motorcycles zoom overhead.
(Andy and threegirldad, do correct me if I have spoken presumptuously here.)
—
CS
Andy on Thu, April 24, 2008
Daniel,
I never said that I thought Jesus was a failure. My point was (please reread), when YOU set up attracting and keeping people as the standard, and YOU set up cultural relevance as the standard, then YOU make Jesus Christ out to be a failure.
I think the point I’m trying to make is this:
Many people here think the way to reach young people is:
The Gospel Plus Something Else
Whether that Something Else is cultural relevance or cute stories, etc.
I think the way to reach young people is:
The Gospel.
And the reason I think we shouldn’t add that Something Else is that as soon as you do, people begin to have discussions as to whether or not that Something Else works, or what would make it more effective for reaching the lost.
Eventually, and this happens all the time, the issue then becomes whatever that Something Else is, and the gospel takes a back seat. Go back and look at the posts in this discussion, everyone is supporting their favorite Something Else.
Or, as Paul says:
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.
threegirldad on Thu, April 24, 2008
To Peter Hamm and Brian L:
Well, I’ve utterly failed here, and that’s a disappointment. Since you’ve both expressed a desire to end your part of the discussion (in Peter’s case, more than once), my only intent with this post is to explain a few things, not bait you or provoke you into coming back. I’m trying to avoid any comments that would do that. Sorry if I fail (again).
Peter, I’m not the least bit interested in “talk[ing] about how misguided the modern church is all day.” Sorry for leaving that impression. I am</b interested in talking about whether the modern church has <b>to some degree lost its way or overreacted in our attempt to correct the obvious shortcomings of churches one and two generations ago. I’m not a slave to the KJV translation (still love reading it, though), and as speaker of languages other than English, I’m pretty sure I get the importance of idiomatic speech and cultural differences (and, of course, those two issues can and do exist even in places where everyone, or almost everyone, speaks the same language). Nor do I summarily reject every church practice that didn’t exist before 1950 (or whatever date you would regard as the appropriate watermark reference point).
Brian wrote: My guess is that though you and I seem to be disagreeing on this, a thorough examination of the two of us would probably find that we agree more than we would disagree, at least on the essentials.
I certainly trust that this is true, and have no reason to believe otherwise. In fact, I don’t disagree with anything you said in your final post—except for that bit about straining at gnats. How ironic. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
Well, lots of other questions and comments, but I’ll leave it at that. If either of you is so inclined, feel free to email me (threegirldad at hotmail dot com).
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Post a Comment