More thoughts on the Rachel Held Evans/ Millennial Debate

Bullseye-Plumbing-Toilet-Image

After sleeping on it, I realized that the title of my last post was a bit too melodramatic.

Since a new crop of blog posts have chimed in during the past 24 hours, I  thought I’d address a few points. In response Rachel’s statement that the church should “sit down and talk” with Millennials, Brett McCracken at the Washington Post writes:

“How about the opposite? Millennials: why don’t we take our pastors, parents, and older Christian brothers and sisters out to coffee and listen to them? “

Here’s the deal, Brett. It’s simple relationship dynamics. When a member of your family has a list of complaints, you sit down and listen to them. No matter how absurd you may think their complaints may be. A classic example is the toilet seat question; if you have women in your family and you keep the toilet seat up, you’ll hear about it. If you’re like a lot of guys, you might wonder why it’s a big deal.  But you’re never going to solve the problem by sitting the female members of your family down to tell them why they shouldn’t be upset about the toilet seat.

Earlier in the column Brett states that the answer is “decidedly not to sit the Millennial down and have him or her dictate exactly what they think the church should be.”

Notice the contrast between Rachel statement and Brett’s. Rachel asks for a conversation, and Brett equates a conversation with dictation. Later on McCracken says that:

“Part of the problem is the hubris of every generation, which thinks it has discovered, once and for all, the right way of doing things. “

Except hubris isn’t always a bad thing. The Boomers had the hubris to believe that African Americans and women deserved equal rights. Gen X’ers had the hubris to believe that rock music deserved a place in worship. I could go on, but the point is that there’s no harm listening to young people. If you feel that listening to people means submitting to their whims, then you’ve got issues.

I think it’s time to get past the coy dance that’s taken place the last few days. None of the writers I’ve critiqued are willing to say it, but their point-by-point answer to Rachel’s post can be summarized as follows:

– Millennials are lying or misguided when they say they prefer the high church style of worship.

–  The substance in evangelical churches is just fine, and tinkering with it would produce disastrous results.

– It’s more important to stand against things than emphasize what you’re for. And the Culture Wars should rage on. And there’s no way we’d contemplate a truce with those evil scientists!

–  Every question we can think of has a predetermined answer. And if you believe otherwise, don’t ask it.

–  Gays welcome in the church? Are you serious???

–  Millennials are lying when they say that they want to be challenged.  They might be telling the truth about wanting to be peacemakers, but that’s because they don’t realize that the best way to handle our enemies is to bomb, torture, or kill them.

–  Jesus has always been in the church. If Millennials don’t see that, then it’s their fault.

–  Sure, Millennials long for Jesus. But they have to fall in line if they want to find Him.

– Ultimately, the church doesn’t care whether Millennials stay or go. If they stay, they should drop their grievances. The way to resolve these issues is to just not have them in the first place.

Like alcoholics, in order for the church to solve its problems, it needs to admit that it has a problem. Unfortunately it still has 12 steps to go.

One thought on “More thoughts on the Rachel Held Evans/ Millennial Debate

  1. Pingback: URL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>