fbcgalt: all
ages and backgrounds
return to:
pastorob
at
www.pastorob.com/rob’sblog.htm
Pastor Rob Patterson 653 A Street Galt, California 95632 209.745-4665
This following compilation of articles has been offered as an introduction to some of the issues involved by seeking to follow through on one of my core beliefs:
The ministry of the fbcgalt should interact with all ages and backgrounds
Any input you may have could prove helpful as I continue work toward my doctorate (and as I attempt to offer Leadership in our own local church). Of course, the views below do not represent my views or the views held by other thinkers at pastorob.com
Becoming Family — Understanding Each Other
God has composed the body, the church, so
that every member is significant. The members should have “the same care for one
another” (1 Cor. 12:25 NASB). In order to have this care, understanding between
the generations is necessary. To promote understanding, this article will
address the characteristics of each generation and explore their unique needs.
The church library plays a prominent role in promoting this vital understanding
by providing needed resources.
A generation is a group of people who are connected by their place in time with common boundaries and a common character.1 A generational persona embodies attitudes about family life, gender roles, institutions, politics, religion, culture, lifestyle, and the future. Each generation possesses a personal biography. Howe and Strauss have proposed that to describe the persona of a generation, three attributes must be identified: perceived membership in a common generation, common beliefs and behaviors, and a common location in history.2 “Common beliefs and behaviors of a generation show its members to be different from people born at another time.”3 Each generation develops an adherence to certain fundamental beliefs, actually a worldview that shapes a generation’s direction from youth through old age.4 The span of one generation is approximately the length of a phase of life.5
Although the generations live in the same world, they do not experience the world in the same way. Generations tend to think and act in unison on many matters.6 In order to understand the generations, examining the characteristics and needs of each generation will be helpful.
Elders and Builders Generations
One in every eight people in our country is sixty-five years of age or older, and the fastest growing segment of the population is among persons eighty-five or older. These generations known as the Elders and Builders generations have much in common. Their characteristics are similar. They are nationalistic and value economic security and strong family relationships. They approach issues with purpose and are not excited about change. They advocate hard work, commitment, and diligence and most view technology as a nuisance. Members of these generations tend to be loyal and accept authority. Elders and Builders value family and appreciate institutions. The faith of choice of both groups is Christianity. They favor absolutes, approach problems linearly, and make plans and stick to them. The favored leadership style of these two generations is authoritative.7
Elders and Builders have similar needs. They have been referred to as the “Silent” generation and the “Get It Done” generation respectively.8 These generations, as with other generations, have the basic needs for love, acceptance, meaning or purpose, relationships, and understanding. In addition to these basic needs, or to meet these basic needs where the persons are in their journey, they are more comfortable with activities that are structured and have purpose. Seventy-five percent of the nation’s wealth is in their hands, and they like to give generously to the church and charities. They are disciplined, so they need to have places of service. Because of their need for relationships, they usually prefer small churches.
Elders and Builders need to feel that they still matter. I shall never forget a small Methodist church family in Alabama who ministered to my father as he struggled with the decline of aging and the battle with lung cancer for two years. They visited, called, sent cards, ministered to the family, and continued to keep him informed although he was homebound. What a way to minister to a generation to whom we owe so much!
Baby Boomer Generation
The Baby Boomer generation, persons born between 1946 and 1964, altered fundamental assumptions of behavior of the Elder and Builders generations. With this generation came a shift in attitudes, values, and beliefs. Boomers are different in characteristics and express their needs in ways that are different from the previous generations.
Boomers are characterized as individualistic, dominant, and mastering everything they touch. Their idea of success includes not only acquisition of wealth but attainment of emotional and psychological happiness. They seem to fear powerlessness and are concerned primarily with their own comfort and powers. They have been characterized as the “Me” generation.
Boomers favor change if it promotes their goals, and they evaluate issues by considering the outcomes. Education is important to this generation, and they consider size of office, perks, and access to power as significant employment issues. They desire to be in authority. Boomers will battle for progress and supremacy because they believe in themselves. They factor facts and want to be on the cutting edge. In leadership, they favor a person who is a driver.9
For the Boomers, retirement will acquire a new negative meaning. The goal will not be to retire, but to replenish or reflect or pray.10 Boomers have been characterized as rebellious, affluent, and independent. They are the most educated generation and tend to be activists. Their descriptive name is “challengers.” They are cause oriented and presently set the agenda for the nation. Their interpersonal relationships tend to be weak, but they favor people over programs. Boomers tend to be down-to-earth and experience oriented.
The worship Boomers favor is celebrative. They want multiple options in studies and stress lifestyle evangelism. Boomers are a spiritually searching generation.11 This generation does not want to follow the company format but wants meetings so they can express themselves fully. They do not see themselves as rule-bound slaves but are more interested in a comfortable environment.
Baby Buster Generation
Some writers describe the Baby Busters as the generation born between 1965 and 1984. Their idea of success differs from the Boomers’ idea. The Busters desire social influence and respect and a clear meaning and direction in life. Busters seem to have struck a balance between the concerns of the two preceding generations. They are concerned with quality-of-life issues. Busters are vitally concerned with relationships. They desire to have a meaningful purpose in life yet want to live in comfort. Characteristics include an intense interest in protecting the natural environment. Busters are process oriented and believe that treating persons with care and concern is more important than the product produced.12 To Busters, people are important and valuable, not because of their economic potential or productive capacity but because of their value as persons. The value of friendships and the depth of friendships are very significant to the Buster generation. They tend to value friendships and their relational network over their jobs or possessions.
Institutions tend to be irrelevant for Busters, but they see faith as a means of building relationships. Agreeing with Boomers, they see moral truth as relative. Members of the Buster generation desire to grow and develop personally. Because of this motivation they want to be part of every process. They need to dialogue, explore, and shape stories. They want to know about personal experiences. Team leadership is most appealing to them. Leaders who appeal to this generation must be authentic and genuine. Busters are suspicious of leaders who are smooth talking with big visions.13
Bridger Generation
Other sources have described the Busters as consisting of persons born between 1965 and 1976 with the Bridger generation comprising persons born between 1977 and 1994. This group has been characterized as religious though not necessarily Christian. They resist any claim that one faith is superior to another.
The world of the Bridgers is multiracial and multicultural. Their economic world is divided between the “haves” and “have nots.” They have been reared predominantly by working mothers; only 71 percent live with two parents, so they are growing up with the most fragmented families of any American generation.14
Bridgers are described as more confident and ambitious than the Boomers. These characteristics are reflected in the attitudes of Bridgers who were college freshmen in 1993. Rainer reports that fewer attended college because their parents wanted them to go; a larger percentage attended in order to get a better job, gain a general education, make more money, learn more about things, and prepare for graduate school.15
Stress is a major characteristic of the Bridger generation. They have experienced during their growing up years the highest crime rate ever. They are confused about leaders in our nation whose actions do not appear to match their words, so they have been described as politically confused. Issues of sexuality have added additional stress particularly because of the increase in the number of AIDS cases.
The majority of the Bridgers have known few boundaries, standards, and rules, so they frequently are viewed as an independent generation and as being very serious. They are a visual generation that reads less than the previous generations but prefers to watch television. They worry about money but seem to have more than any other generation.16 Other influences that have shaped them are the lack of an extended family, vanishing gender roles, and the rapid change in society that is driven by advanced technology.17
The church must understand this generation if we are to reach them. They need challenges biblically because they are eager to learn and are most likely to respond to high expectations and the demands of discipleship taught in Scripture. Churches must reach out to this generation with unconditional love, mentoring experiences, biblical preaching, and effective Bible study.18
Mosaic Generation
The Mosaic generation, born after 1984, is partially identified with the Bridger generation (1977-1994). Barna describes this segment of our population as less cynical and pessimistic than Busters, more self-confident, with a greater emphasis on self-reliance. Mosaics are comfortable with paradoxes and have no interest in institutions. They have grown up entirely in the age of technological innovation and so rely upon this technology. Special attention to the teenagers and the college students of today is important because of their number and their potential impact on society and the church. They have been called, in addition to Mosaics, Millennials.19
Howe and Strauss see this group as pleasant, cheerful, helpful, and community oriented. They focus on teamwork, achievement, modesty, and good conduct. They view them as much like the Elder and Builder generations and perhaps one destined to dominate the twenty-first century. They may become America’s next great generation.20 With this group, a service ethic already appears to be emerging built around ideas of collegial rather than individual action. They are supportive of civic institutions and involved in doing good deeds. They appear to be prepared to accept challenges, live up to their elders’ trust, and triumph over whatever history has in store for them.21
For sixteen years, I have been privileged to share life experiences with the leaders of tomorrow, both in the local church and in a seminary classroom. What a refreshing experience to be challenged by these future leaders. They keep me humble and cause me to be grateful to God for having survived the pain and agony of my own teen and early adult years.
My experience has been similar to Barna’s. My observation is that these Millennials have been and are highly spiritual and exhibit intense interest in spiritual matters. They thoroughly enjoy and are active participants in the Spiritual Formation small groups required at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
Most of these future leaders are serious about their purpose in life and few see their lives as directionless. Barna characterizes their belief system as a combination of Christianity, pragmatism, Far Eastern traditions, and utilitarianism. They are more focused on God than on the institutional church.22 They believe that the development of character is more crucial than achievement and that each individual must assume responsibility for his or her own world.23
Zoba has challenged Christians with the question of whether our churches are empowering or inhibiting young people in their search for the face of God.24 Youth of today need experiences, participatory services, connection with others, and leadership that empowers others. Most churches are word based while youth today are visual and technological. They like stories and desire mentor-mentee relationships.
To meet the needs of youth, churches need to be people centered, inclusive, and dynamic. This group is accustomed to change at a fast pace. More persons in this age group are attending non-denominational churches. Many desire a return to humility in ministry and a renewal of mystical practices or spiritual disciplines.25 Gallup and Jones have noted that the youth generation is the group to watch because of their sheer numbers. “Forty percent of the world’s population is nineteen or younger.”26 According to Mark Matlock, current methods of evangelism are not working, and ninety-six out of one hundred teens will be lost for eternity unless the church figures out a way to reach them.27 George Barna sees that the challenge for Christian leaders is to learn how to communicate with this generation and get them to understand and embrace God’s Word without compromising it. This generation wants spirituality and faith experience, not the traditional routines and dispassionate worship they see adults doing at the typical church.28
Reaching the Generations
Every generation has a generational persona with distinct attitudes about family life, gender roles, institutions, politics, lifestyles, and the future. Each generation possesses its own personal biography and develops an adherence to certain fundamental notions and worldview that shapes the group’s direction from youth through old age. Their common location in history gives them a collective persona.29 We must, however, never forget that a generation can allow plenty of individual exceptions. Categorizing persons can be detrimental, unwise, and unfair. As Christians we must remember that each person is a unique creation of God, redeemed by Christ and gifted for service. Churches, colleges, and seminaries must be aware of the uniqueness of each individual.
The role of the church, according to Barna, is to influence all dimensions of culture rather than be shaped by the culture. The church must be alert and assertive in representing God in the world to the best of our ability. The church has a mandate to shape the future in alignment with His purposes and for His glory.30
The question confronting the church is, What does this age-stage fragmentation mean? Can we learn to communicate cross-generationally? Will we learn to pass along our faith to young people, many of whom may feel alienated already from traditional religious communities?31 I believe we can and must! We can, as Barna advises, “introduce them to authentic Christianity; do so with sensitivity and let God’s Spirit handle the rest.”32 Churches can help them with their real problems, a side of faith that often gets overlooked by churches and church leaders, according to Barna. Also, church leaders can provide youth of today with lifestyle alternatives.33
Although the characteristics and needs of various generations have been examined, a concern for older people is inevitably a concern for all age groups. As a professor of social work and having worked with persons of all generations in therapy and educational settings, I agree with Nancy Henkin that “generations are interdependent, not distinct, discrete entities.” Henkin challenges us as Christians to look holistically at our communities and view each generation as an asset. “We need to develop creative strategies for meeting the needs and utilizing the talents of all age groups.”34 We need to promote interdependence in our churches. Intergenerational interaction will help churches face the challenges of the future.
In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, the country’s young and old share an experience that can bring all generations together. We have an opportunity to become a more mature nation.35 As Christians we also have the opportunity within the church to become a community of care as we grow in our understanding of each other.
1Gary McIntosh, Three Generations (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Fleming H. Revell, 1997), 9.
The Bridger Generation Book Review by Christian N. Temple
The Bridger Generation. By Thom S. Rainer. Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, 1997. 190 pages.
When one begins to read Thom Rainer one is immediately struck by the fact that he is nothing if not thorough. One gets the impression that if he had not been called to the Christian Education ministry Rainer would be quite comfortable as a statistician. In his 1996 book Effective Evangelistic Churches , he proved himself a master of statistical assimilation in analyzing 576 self-named Southern Baptist evangelistic churches. In The Bridger Generation, he moves from assessing the statistics of how Southern Baptist churches are doing evangelistically, to how today’s teens and young adults are doing spiritually and metaphysically.
In this book, he attempts to identify that generation of youth he calls The Bridgers: “A generation of seventy-two million people born in the years 1977 to 1994.”[1] According to Rainer, they are the second largest generation in America behind the baby boomers and are the bridge to the next (now present) millennium. In addition to identifying bridgers’ identity, character and culture, he also attempts to discover the church’s best means of reaching this unique group of people who will shape our future. In doing so he asks how has the church responded to them, and how will it respond from here on out? Thom S. Rainer is the founding dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. He is the author of six books and numerous other publications. He holds a Ph.D. in evangelism from Southern seminary.
When reading Rainer in general, and Bridger in particular, one is immediately impressed with the huge amount of research conducted by the author. As stated above, Rainer can never be accused of being less than painstaking in his examinations. Throughout the pages the reader consistently comes across statistics about the bridgers’ lives, such as the high rate of divorce among their parents, their belief in vanishing gender roles, their preoccupation with “rights,” and their disbelief in moral absolutes.
Rainer spends many pages informing the reader through text, statistics, pie charts and tables, that the bridgers are on the slippery slope of an amoral existence and a Christ-less eternity. The problem is, there is not a lot of new discovery uncovered in The Bridger Generation. In essence, Rainer is not telling us much more than we already know, either from the daily news or personal interaction with bridgers. While reading the book, this writer was found to often think, OK, I know all this, but what do we do with it? We understand that today’s youth is multi-cultural, amoral, self-centered, materialistic, inclusivist, tolerant, and universalistic to the extreme. Tell me what to do about it.
In fairness, Rainer does close each chapter with a section named The Church Responds. In these concluding paragraphs, he mentions what the church is presently doing and what it should strive to do. Much of this recommendation is good, such as when he says “With loving firmness, the churches that reach bridgers in the next century will confront people… and teach that to reject Christ as the only way of salvation amounts to rejecting Christ altogether… The churches that reach the bridgers in the next century will not compromise the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ”[2]. Amen. But while this is assuredly true, it is also assuredly known by those who are targeted by this book—Evangelical pastors and leaders who are ministering to this generation.
Yet much to Rainer’s credit, while presenting the known truth he rejects the dumbed-down methods of seeker sensitivity so frequently preached today. He does affirm our need to reach the bridgers where they are, and to become all things to all men, that we might by all means save some (1Cor 9:22), but not at the cost of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
The danger in a book like this that makes distinctions between generations of people is the implication that there is a need to alter the gospel for differing generations. By sanctioning the term Bridger Generation, we are setting them apart as a different taxonomy of person, such as was erroneously done with teenagers. While there is some uniqueness to bridgers, they are not all that different from their parents, grandparents, or any generation of people. Jesus called his own generation evil and adulterous (Matt 12:39). The method for reaching the bridgers is the same it has always been for all of mankind: preaching Christ crucified (1Cor 1:23).
Rainer’s best chapter is chapter eleven, The Church: A Real and Present Hope for the Bridger Generation. This reviewer arrived here exalting “Finally!” While it is a solid chapter, it is again somewhat disappointing as nothing in it is really earth shattering or new in reaching the bridgers. Perhaps that is only right, as there cannot be a new gospel? Rainer says, “It is my prayer in the midst of the data, trends and analyses, you have been challenged. I pray you see the urgency of the hour to reach this generation now, not later.”[3]
Yes, the challenge is clear, and of highest importance. Yet one gets the feeling that much of the “data, trends and analyses” could have been pared back, and this would have been an effective pamphlet rather than a full-length book. While Rainer has achieved his goal of identification of the Bridger Generation, and naming methods for reaching them, if the reviewer tackles another Rainer book, he will assuredly read the last chapter first.
If Bridgers meet modern day equivalent of the biblical Jew and Greek, seeking after both experience and knowledge, then Paul’s words ring as true for them as for any other generation: “For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1Cor 1:22-24, nkjv).
1 Rainer, Thom S. The Bridger Generation. Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville. 1997. page ix.
Top 10 predictions for the Church by 2010
by Dr. Thom Rainer
Thousands of builder
generation-led churches will close,
many church
plants will set their attendance cap to 300,
and other projections for the next five years.
I have some level of enjoyment looking at old predictions. Those pundits of the
past seemed very informed at the time of their predictions. Years later they
often look like some of the most uninformed people in their respective fields. I
realize that I take the same risk in projecting trends for the church.
Predictions are precarious in any field, and maybe particularly so for the
church.
The American church has seen more changes in the past two decades than in the
previous eight decades combined. Who would then be so audacious to foretell for
the church? Such is the risk I take in writing this article.
Please understand that I make these predictions with less audacity than it might
appear on the surface. My research team and I have studied more than 4,000
churches and interviewed tens of thousands of church leaders, church members and
unchurched persons. I do not have a crystal ball or prophetic abilities. The
trends you are about to read are based on current developments, which I have
simply extrapolated to the future.
Trend No. 1: The increasing
interest in spiritual warfare.
The wildly popular Left
Behind book series is only symptomatic of the increasing interest in the world
of spiritual warfare. And after the many pronouncements of the reality and
presence of evil after Sept. 11, 2001, people across America are seeking answers
in a world where evil is a present reality.
How will church leaders
respond? There will naturally be extremes present in any movement. On one hand,
some churches will continue to ignore the reality of the demonic world as if
Ephesians 6 has little to do with their day-by-day existence. On the other,
there will be churches that see demonic activity in every phase of the church
life.
Church members must be
taught the biblical balance of the supernatural world. Church leaders must also
be taught the biblical precepts of spiritual warfare. In a survey we did of 23
seminaries, only seven taught courses related to spiritual warfare, and leaders
of those seminaries indicated that the courses were among the most popular.
Trend No. 2: The closing of
50,000 churches by 2010.
Thousands of churches
are on the precipice of closing. The conventional wisdom was that churches were
tenaciously stubborn, and could keep going for years. But those churches were
led by the builder generation, those born before 1946. The churchgoing builders
attended churches out of loyalty and tradition. They would often remain loyal to
a church despite deteriorating quality and attendance.
But boomers, busters/Gen
Xers, and bridgers - those born between 1977 and 1994 - have no such loyalties.
They see no need to remain with a church that exists out of tradition and with
little care for the quality of the ministries. Though I am not happy to report
this trend, the fading of the builder generation indicates the death of one out
of eight churches in America today.
Trend No. 3: A surge in the
number of churches whose attendance is below 300.
A trend that may
somewhat offset the loss of 50,000 churches will be the starting of new churches
with a planned attendance cap. In other words, from the point of birth of these
churches, the members will not let attendance move above a predetermined cap,
most commonly in the 200 to 300 range. When the attendance approaches the cap,
the members will plan to start another church. Of course, the daughter church
will have the same philosophy of size and ministry, so the number of these
smaller churches will continue to grow.
Why will these churches
proliferate? Both the Gen X and the bridger generation include millions of young
adults who desire the intimacy present in a church of 300 or less. But they have
been unable to find many small churches that offer quality preaching, childcare,
youth programs and the like. Therefore, they will start their own churches with
a focus on quality while remaining relatively small.
Trend No. 4: The incredible
influence of the bridger generation.
Those born between 1977
and 1994 will do more than just start new churches. There are fewer Christians
in this age range than previous generations, but their impact will be more
profoundly felt than the larger numbers of Christians in the older age
groups.According to our research, as few as 4 percent of the 72 million bridger
generation may have a born-again experience. Yet that 4 percent will practice a
radical Christianity. They will take their faith more seriously, and many will
go into dangerous mission fields, willing to give their lives for the sake of
the gospel.
The bridger generation will
not be satisfied with business as usual in the churches. And those churches that
desire to reach the second largest generation in America's history better be
prepared to give more than lip service to the cause of Christ.
Trend No. 5: The increasing
demand for clarity and conviction in doctrine.
Led by the bridger
generation and Gen X, those who come to the churches of the 21st century are
increasingly seeking to learn the tenets of the Christian faith.
They are not satisfied with
coming to church for the sake of coming to church. They desire to know more of
what they believe, and they insist that the church and its leaders express
conviction about these beliefs.
The churches that survive
and grow in the years ahead will provide numerous opportunities for members and
seekers to learn more about the faith to which they adhere.
Trend No. 6: Stabilized
church attendance with declining church membership.
It is no easy task to
measure church attendance in America. Even in a single church, measurement
standards are often inconsistent or nonexistent. Many of the polls of recent
years suggest that church attendance has been mostly stable for the past four
decades. Our own samplings, however, indicate that church attendance declined
from 1975 to 1999, and that attendance has been level for the past three years.
Attendance leveling must be
seen as a positive development in light of a quarter-of-century of declining
numbers. But church membership, largely stable for decades, is showing early
signs of erosion. Is this trend healthy or unhealthy?
We believe that the better
indicator of church involvement is attendance rather than membership. But the
early indicators of declining membership may not be negative signs. Many church
leaders, frustrated with nominal and nonexistent members, are purging their
rolls. One large church recently removed 10,000 members from its rolls. Yet the
attendance in the church has seen healthy increases. It would appear that the
positive perspective of this trend is that more church leaders are taking church
membership more seriously.
Trend No. 7: The emergence
of "homegrown" ministers in 30 percent of all full-time ministry positions in
the local church.
Most followers of
American church life would express surprise that churches increasingly are
finding full-time ministry staff persons within the ranks of their own
membership. Our sampling found that 8 percent of all staff ministers were
"homegrown."
We have been amazed to see
the number of such ministers increase significantly in the past three years. The
proportion has doubled from 4 percent to 8 percent just since 1999. Based upon
these trends, we anticipate that nearly one out of three full-time staff
ministers in the local church will be called from the ranks of laypersons in
that particular church by 2010.
The implications are many.
One obvious benefit is that each of these ministers will have an intimate
knowledge of the church. The minister will certainly believe in the core values
and the church's vision. And training time will be minimal since an orientation
to the church will not be needed.
But a possible concern is
the lack of formal and theological training of the minister. Some churches,
realizing both the advantage of homegrown ministers and the disadvantage of
their having no formal training, have partnered with seminaries to have the best
of both worlds. Watch for this trend to grow in this decade.
Trend No. 8: An increase in
intentional evangelistic ministries focused on children and youth.
Our research shows that
82 percent of American Christians became Christians before the age of 20. While
this statistic is note-worthy, even more amazing is the number of Christians who
accepted Christ before the age of 14 - 75 percent, according to our research.
A casual observer would
probably expect churches to be intensely involved in evangelistic activity based
on some awareness of the young people's receptivity. An additional impetus, it
would seem, would be the large numbers of this generation. Most of them belong
to the bridger generation, the second largest generation in America's history.
The young people born between 1977 and 1994 exceed 72 million.
But the reality is that
relatively few churches are intensely intentional about evangelizing or
pre-evangelizing children and youth. Most churches seem to ignore their own
data, which shows, according to our research, Vacation Bible School to be the
most effective evangelistic tool used today. Most of the highly intentional
evangelizing activity for young people has been led by parachurch organizations.
We see a reversal in this
trend. Early signs indicate a significant interest by local churches in reaching
and evangelizing children and youth. Some of the most innovative new church
buildings are for youth and children. Church leaders are examining closely the
numbers of conversions of young people.More leaders are becoming increasingly
aware of the competition for the souls of America's youth. Mormons, Jehovah's
Witnesses and Muslims, to name a few, have not been shy about proselytizing
young people. Look for more churches to become highly intentional about reaching
children and youth.
Trend No. 9: An increasing
number of churches with succession plans for their senior pastor or minister.
An abundance of
research has made clear the importance of the senior pastor or minister in a
local church's health or growth. Yet most churches have no idea what will take
place when their present pastor leaves.
In our survey of 312
churches, only seven had some type of plan in place for when their pastor
resigned, moved or died. We believe, however, that the trend will develop where
more and more churches have some type of plan in place.
Why do we predict this
trend when the current evidence seems contrary? A few significant churches have
established succession plans, and many other church leaders are observing
closely. Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY, one of America's largest
churches, has a clearly established succession plan in place. Even though Senior
Minister Bob Russell will not retire for several more years, Associate Minister
Dave Stone is already in place to take the leadership helm.
This trend is beginning to
take root in some mid-size churches with attendance of 300 to 700. We believe
the number will grow.
Trend No. 10: The emergence
of a children's minister as the third full-time staff minister.
We are frequently asked
the "best" priority for calling and hiring staff ministers. Which position,
after pastor, should be our second staff person? Should that person be full-time
or part-time? Which position is next? The questions seem endless.
The traditional hiring
pattern has been pastor, music/worship, and then numerous possibilities for the
third. The third position may include minister of education, discipleship,
missions, administration, or youth. The context and needs of the church, as well
as past patterns, typically determine the choice.
In recent years, we have
seen an increased interest in hiring a children's minister as the third staff
person. In a recent survey of churches with three ministers on staff, 17 percent
had a children's minister. The youth/student minister or the
education/discipleship minister was still the dominant choice (53 percent and 27
percent, respectively), but children's ministers are gaining ground
significantly. Undoubtedly, an awareness of the issues related to trend No. 8
influences church leaders in this direction.
(This article was
originally published online at www.churchcentral.com and reprinted here with
permission of the publisher.)
Thom S. Rainer, Ph.D., is
the president of Church Central Associates LLC and founding dean of the Billy
Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth at The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary. He is considered one of the leading experts on the church
today. He has also served as a pastor and interim pastor in 10 churches and has
consulted with more than 300 churches, denominational entities and other
religious organizations.
Mark I. Wegener
The following article is a revised version of a speech Pastor Wegener, senior pastor at Woodlake Lutheran Church, Richfield, Minnesota, made before the National Leadership Assembly of the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation in St. Louis, Missouri in December 1998. Wegener is also the president of the National Gamaliel Clergy Caucus.)
What we call something does make a difference. It may be true that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet," but chances are if we started referring to that flower as a "stinkweed" not many people would get their noses close enough to sample its aroma. What we call it does make a difference.
Consider how we have adjusted our nomenclature in reference to the work of local ecumenical organizations of churches affiliated with national networks like the Gamaliel Foundation, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), the Pacific Institute of Community Organizations (PICO), and the Direct Action Resource Training (DART) group.1 For decades, we have referred to the work of such networks as "church-based organizing." This implies that churches can band together and work towards common goals to improve the quality of life within their neighborhoods and communities.
Recently we have learned to recognize more clearly how our working together can strengthen our churches internally. So now we have learned to call our work "congregation-centered organizing."
Although the two terms are mutually complementary, they do suggest divergent perspectives. "Church-based" focuses outward; "congregation-centered" focuses inward. What we call something does make a difference.
So the question at hand is this: How are we to talk about the work of church-based, congregation-centered organizing these days? Which words can most effectively inspire others to share our vision and support our efforts?
Not too long ago, we were moved by the rhetoric of "peace and justice." Why don't we hear that phrase any more? If that particular phrase is not grabbing our imaginations, what kind of rhetoric will compel our allegiance?
What follows is an attempt to reformulate our language around today's issues. It is a proposal to employ the language of "investment" and "community" as powerful indicators of what we are up to as members of church-based, congregation-centered organizations.
Know Your Generation
First, consider our generational location. Social analysts commonly divide our population spectrum into three broad bands: the "builder" generation, the "boomer" generation, and the "buster" generation.2
Broadly speaking, the "builders" are those born before or shortly after the end of World War Two. The "boomers" are those born during the so-called "baby boom" from 1945 to 1965. The "busters" are from the two decades after the baby boom went bust, that is, from 1965 to 1985. (The so-called "bridge" generation, those born after 1985 whose maturing years will bridge the 20th and 21st centuries, are only beginning to be analyzed.)
Each wave has defining characteristics. The "builders" grew up under the influence of the Korean War and the old-fashioned patriotic sentiments of the two world wars. The "boomers" grew up with the Vietnam War--long and disillusioning, expensive, unpopular, and ineffective. The "busters" experienced the Gulf War, which in contrast was short, efficient, and highly effective.
Again, the "builders" were print-oriented and grew up under the influence of radio. The "boomers" were more media-oriented and were the first to experience the ubiquitous influence of television. The "busters" are now more electronic-oriented and witnessed the rise of the computer.
High on the list of values for "builders" were patriotism and duty; "boomers" valued education and quality; "busters," competence and relevance. In terms of their relationships with others, "builders" found themselves to be loyal and dependent; "boomers" were more supportive and independent; "busters" are largely disconnected and interdependent.
Or, to put it another way (bear in mind that we are painting with broad brush strokes; these generalities will not apply to every individual) "builders" are loyal and respectful; "boomers" are supportive but questioning; and "busters" are thoroughly disconnected and rejecting.
Church members from the "builder" generation gave considerable support to global missions. "Boomers" were more interested in larger world-wide concerns, while "busters" are focused on more local community issues. Related to this is another key insight: the older generations, "builders" and some "boomers," can be motivated by appealing to their sense of commitment to a cause and by presenting them with a significant challenge. But the younger generations, most "boomers" and "busters," are more inclined to respond to opportunities to join in communities and to show compassion, especially compassion for children.3
This suggests that we will be more effective in enlisting people if we are clear about how our work will foster compassionate communities in our midst.
One final characteristic is important here, related to financial resources. "Builders" grew up under the lingering influence of the Great Depression. For them, money is something that is to be saved.
For "boomers" however, who grew up during the period of post-war economic expansion, money was never in short supply. For them money is something that is to be spent.
For"busters," who have matured during less secure economic times, financial prosperity is not guaranteed. They can no longer assume that a good education will translate into a well-paying job, a household can survive on a single income, or they will be better off than their parents. For them money is something to be invested.
Therefore, we need to pick up on the language of investing and learn to see how our work is a way of investing in community. More about this later.
Where Shall We Work?
Second, consider our social location. Community organizing efforts typically begin in declining central-city neighborhoods and predictably focus on issues such as crime and public safety, drug-dealing and prostitution, renters' rights and housing stock, fair taxation and quality education, and jobs and economic opportunities.
In recent years it has become increasingly obvious that these inner-city issues cannot be solved apart from the political realities of their larger metropolitan communities. This is why the issues of urban sprawl, metropolitan ecology, and suburban control are now high on our list of priorities.
Historically, there has been a tendency to define issues in terms of inner-urban versus exurban, to pit the city against the suburbs. Now we are beginning to discover that the pie doesn't slice quite that neatly.
At a gathering of Twin Cities clergy, the presenter drew a bull's-eye on the board, a target with four rings. In the center was the urban core; next came the more affluent city neighborhoods. The third circle represented the inner-ring suburbs, and the fourth, the outer suburbs.
One might expect that in such a group the greatest number would have come from the inner-city, a substantial but fewer number from the rest of the city, a smaller number from the first-ring suburbs, and few, if any, from the second- and third-ring suburbs. However, when the group was polled, those present represented--in approximately equal numbers--the urban core and the inner suburbs! Only two or three came from the affluent parts of the city; none came from the outer suburbs.
In other words, those in the first and third rings on the bull's-eye have found they have enough in common to warrant working together.
To the degree this holds true elsewhere, we can anticipate growing alignments between the urban core and the inner suburbs, which is a significant insight, especially when connected with the next item.
Thinking Economically
Third, consider our economic location. The important part here is that we need to think in economic terms, because economics is the key for interpreting our self-interest.
In 1998, our Twin Cities organizations realized that if we want living wage jobs for our people, businesses need to locate in the core cities. We also knew that thousands of acres of prime commercial and industrial property are available, except for the fact that they are polluted.
But city officials said they didn't have the funds to clean up the so-called "brown fields." County officials said it wasn't their problem. The seven-county Metropolitan Council funded sewer expansion throughout the region, but didn't do much for the central cities. State officials had the money, but don't want to throw it at the cities.
Our strategy was to get representatives from across those jurisdictions just to talk to each other and work together. When we talked to urban Democrats, we argued that we need clean-up monies to enable jobs for the central cities. When we talked to suburban Republicans, we argued that cleaning up brown fields would be good for business. Everybody wins on this one.
And now we have the legislation that has opened up more millions of dollars for this purpose in Minnesota than anywhere else in the nation. The point is not just that we were able to tap everyone's self-interest for a win-win solution, but that the self-interest was defined in economic terms.
Minnesota State Representative Myron Orfield has garnered a national reputation around issues related to urban sprawl; these too are described largely in economic terms. He often mentions the "injustice" of taxing central-city residents who own $50,000 homes in order to subsidize the sewers of suburbanites who are building $300,000 homes.
But the telling factor will not be the inequity of the "justice" factor as much as the inequity of the "financial" factor.
University of Minnesota Professor John Powell has documented how the circles of poverty and race are for all practical purposes coterminous. He explains how everything depends upon wealth--not the size of your annual income, but how much you have been able to accumulate.
He often tells the story about his father, a black man, and his father's army buddy, a white man, and how they both bought $20,000 homes when they got out of the service. His father bought a house in the city, his friend, a house in the suburbs. Some decades later, the friend's house is now worth over $100,000; his father's house is still worth $20,000. The issue is economics.
The important point here is that we need to think in economic terms, because economics is the key for interpreting our self-interest.
Drawing Conclusions
Now we are ready to draw some conclusions. Church-based, congregation-centered organizing has an enviable legacy of addressing issues of social justice, especially in central-city neighborhoods that have deteriorated past their prime.
To address the systemic causes of urban decay, we have learned to think in broader terms which encompass entire metropolitan areas. Specifically, we have learned to build alliances between central-city neighborhoods in the urban core and residential neighborhoods in the first-ring suburbs.
Two generations ago, the suburbs were where you went if you wanted to escape from the city. Today the suburbs are the place where the city spills over. And the same issues at the heart of our inner-city concerns--crime and public safety, property values and housing stock, children and quality education--are now becoming the key issues in the first-ring suburbs.
Furthermore, the most common factor that unites these issues for people in both city and suburb is economics. How can a declining or at best stabilized tax base continue to support quality schools? How can we protect our property values and ensure that our neighborhoods will remain good places to live? How can we prevent the best jobs from leaving our communities?
Furthermore, other forces in our society decrease our opportunities for easy interpersonal interaction. Front porches open to public sidewalks are replaced by fenced-in backyard patios. Automatic garage doors and windows closed to accommodate air conditioning reduce the chances we will see or hear our neighbors. Extended families living under one roof or even in close proximity are a thing of the past. It is little wonder, then, that the "buster" generation longs for a greater sense of community.
If we put the two concepts together--our preoccupation with investing financially in our economic futures, and our need for communities in which we will be valued--we may tap into a strategy for ministering across urban-suburban borders and across generational lines. In short, we need to define our mission as investing in strong(er) communities. Such language has the power to tap into the self-interest of both central-city and inner-suburban residents in ways that will enable them to work together for their common good. Especially in light of one more factor.
Centered on Jesus
So finally, consider our religious location. Nearly all of our organizing networks are aligned with Christian churches, and that means being centered upon the person of Jesus. Whether we focus more on the Jesus-of-history or the Christ-of-faith, this one in whom our faith is grounded is also the one who impels us into community service and action.4
First, it is clear that Jesus was a teacher or a prophet. His disturbing one-liners, his surprising stories ("parabolic riddles" we might call them), his sermonic lessons, his insights into the reign of God, his "love your God, your neighbor and even your enemy" ethics--all combine to explain the power of his teaching. We might call him a provocative sage.
Second, it is clear that Jesus was a healer. Although it is true that the records never show Jesus searching out people to be healed--rather, they came to him or were brought to his attention--in every case he responded sympathetically. What is remarkable about the stories of his many healings is not merely that he performed the miracles, but that he performed them on people who were in such desperate straits.
For the most part those who benefitted from Jesus' healing touch were people who had been consigned to the margins of society--leprous men, menstruating women, demon-possessed crazy people, foreigners, children, and the like. We might call him a compassionate shaman.
Third, it is clear that Jesus was an organizer of sorts. At a time when his compatriots were defining a more exclusive Jewish identity, designed to preserve their heritage from being compromised under the pressures of the Greco-Roman world, Jesus was calling for a more inclusive fellowship based on unmerited love and forgiveness. His circle of friends included an amazing variety of personalities, some less respectable than others. We might call him an egalitarian subversive.
We must assume that because Jesus' agenda was so counter-cultural, it was inevitable that his opponents would try to eliminate him. In the end they succeeded, of course, and he was condemned by the political authorities to death by crucifixion. But, as we also know, his movement refused to die, and it was not long before his followers had experienced the impact of his resurrection and were continuing to organize communities in his name throughout the empire.
There is scant chance we can stretch this sketch of Jesus' ministry to the point where we can safely affirm that he had an economic or financial agenda. Although, if the locus of his ministry was among the impoverished peasant classes, there must have been some economic self-interest at work there.
But the several portraits of him as provocative teacher and compassionate healer and community builder do support our present-day strategies.
To the degree that our work does build stronger communities, whether within our own congregations or outside our parish boundaries, we will be replicating the work of the earliest Christian churches and the work of Jesus himself. We will be living out our roles as disciples of Christ and witnessing to the power of his transforming presence in our lives.
The bottom line, then, is that we can dare to redefine our church-based, congregation-centered organizing efforts in terms of investing in strong(er) communities. Because what we call something does make a difference.
Endnotes
1. For a helpful introduction to Gamaliel, IAF, PICO, and DART, see Helene Slessarev's "Saul Alinsky Goes to Church," Sojourners (March-April 2000), pp. 22-25.
2. Gary L. McIntosh, Three Generations: Riding the Waves of Change in Your Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).
3. Kennon L. Callahan, Twelve Keys to an Effective Church: The Leaders' Guide (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 76-83.
4. For an excellent survey of current historical Jesus research, see Mark Allen Powell's Jesus as a Figure in History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998).
Mark I. Wegener is senior pastor at Woodlake Lutheran Church, Richfield, Minnesota.
Selling
to the Generations
Part 1 - Age Groups & Attitudes
by 1998 Robert C. Brenner, MSEE, MSSM
Age plays a critical role in customer buying
decisions. In fact, the generation into which we are born has as much impact on
buying and purchasing decisions as income and education. Our shared experiences
determine what motivates us toward or away from a sale.
Broad-based marketing directed toward a wide
consumer audience is being replaced by targeted, "one-on-one" marketing focused
on specific individuals. Nowhere is the concept of generational selling more
important than here.
Most Americans fit into one of four generation
categories. "Mature" buyers were born between 1909 and 1945. Comprising 26% of
our population, they include the depression-era kids and the war babies.
"Boomers" (also called "Baby Boomers") joined our world between 1946 and 1964.
They are the largest group at 78 million (30% of our population). "Busters"
(also called "Baby Busters," "Generation X-ers," "twentysomethings," and
"Generation 13-ers") were born between 1965 and 1980. There are fewer of them
(busting the birth growth curve), yet at 45 million strong, they comprise 17% of
our population. "Millennials" (also called "Generation 2001-ers") were born
after 1980. Many will graduate from high school in 2001.
These four generational groups have unique
characteristics, and it is to these characteristics that you must design and
develop your marketing strategy. Their buying motivations are tied to the
underlying values that they possess-values based on shared experiences. By
understanding these values, you can tailor your products, services and
communication to meet their needs, aspirations, and desires. This knowledge
alone gives you an advantage is sales, today. Let's explore the values of these
generations so you can develop a plan to sell to each segment. Not everyone will
fit these typical characteristics, but overall, the following descriptions are
unique to the generation defined.
The Matures are between 53 and 89 years old.
They were influenced by the Great Depression, World War II, the atom bomb, and
the GI Bill. They remember the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Vietnam and the
radical 70s. They lived through severe economic upheaval and frightening
dangers. They grew up in tough times when simple things were rationed, when
saving for a rainy day was considered prudent, and when morals and ethics
defined the character of an individual. They appreciate discipline, hard work,
and self denial. They are overall social and financial conservatives.
Matures are slow to embrace anything new. They
distrust change and would prefer the status quo. They saved their money and
consider retirement and leisure time suitable rewards for sacrifices made
earlier in their lives. They appreciate and buy products that satisfy their
basic values. Their shared experiences have and will continue to drive their
consumption of products and services.
Baby Boomers are between 34 and 53 years old.
This generation is the most populous and influential of all. They were born to
post-WWII prosperity when the economy expanded rapidly. Boomers have enjoyed
unprecedented opportunities in education and in employment. They are the "feel
good" generation, who take good things in life for granted. They share an
expectation of prosperity and affluence. They are the "me" generation, who feel
entitled to a "good life." To them, autonomy is key. They want to do it by
themselves, and they want to be individual.
With parents who dedicated their lives to
giving their children more than they had, Boomers are the "spoiled" kids of this
century. They are more self- absorbed, and typically seek instant gratification.
Yet, they are more tolerant than other generations. They are typically liberal
and feel that money will always be available to buy everything for everyone.
Boomers want to share their perceptions of "good" with others. They expect
prosperity, yet they believe they have a right "to do their own thing." Boomers
embrace social programs easily. Yet, most seek purpose and personal fulfillment
in their lives.
Boomers are also the shocked generation.
Throughout the past decade, they have seen their ingrained sense of entitlement
ripped apart by unmet expectations. For many, high-paying jobs, large houses and
multiple cars evaporated with the employment, the careers and the lifestyles
that were so severely impacted by massive layoffs in the late 80s and early 90s.
This global workplace shift produced a shock wave that will be felt for the next
20 years. It's clearly influencing the next generation, the Busters.
The Busters, or Generation X-ers, are between
18 and 34. They are shell- shocked products of changes that are ripping apart
the fibers of society, the family and the workplace. They see new technology
rapidly changing their world, and to them, nothing is permanent, nothing seems
absolute-as though life is a video game. Busters are constantly buffeted by
tumultuous change. They saw the Berlin Wall crumble and were directly affected
as political, corporate and social structures imploded worldwide. They watched
their parents suffer devastating job losses, and they became wary and uncertain
about their own future. Busters are disillusioned with almost everything. They
have been called the "why me" generation and the "whiners." They feel they are
reaping the sins of their forefathers. Thus, some call them "Gen 13-ers" after a
medieval fable where the 13th generation is the last to suffer from a curse on
their predecessors.
Where the Boomers are idealists, this
generation is pessimistic and blame Boomers for today's problems. Busters are
reactive, yet introverted. They appreciate "cocooning" and "getting away." Yet
they are quite social with their own generational group. They think communally
and often make decisions together.
With low expectations of the "good life,"
Busters feel that their future lifestyle will be less than that enjoyed by their
grandparents. Pushed by their parents to get a good education, they now find
future employment comprised of temporary low-paying jobs and short project
careers. They consistently face layoffs, displacement and being "between jobs."
They live for today and don't believe they will ever enjoy the Social Security
promised to all Americans. Over half of them come from broken homes or live in a
"blended" family. The Busters are the first of the "latch key" kids. They've
been jostled, jolted and pushed back and forth by everyone and everything around
them. With a very low trust level, they fear that you too, aren't sincere. And
they desperately want something real in their lives, something lasting. They
seek truth in life and in others around them.
The Buster generation can also be
enthusiastic, ready and willing to take on challenges. They accept hard work as
necessary but are less willing to start at the bottom. Many feel they deserve
the best jobs and often migrate toward technical careers where the pay is
better. They are learning to accept change in their lives.
Yet rapid change IS the way of life for the
Millennial generation born since 1980. This generation is under 19 and
represents a refreshing mindset as they join Boomers and Busters in society and
in the workplace. Having watched their parents and grandparents grapple with
change, Millennials are growing up in a world that is constantly in motion,
constantly revising and restructuring itself. To them, change is normal. And
visual. They experienced the Gulf War through the video arcade realism of
television.
Through it all, Millennials are developing an
amazing optimism and a conviction that the future will indeed be better for all.
They appear well- grounded and wise for their young age. They feel that
preceding generations have made huge mistakes. It's as though the Boomers and
Busters held a party and then left the mess for the Millennials to clean up.
They recognize problems in our world, and they want to correct perceived wrongs
in society, government and in relationships.
They aren't as radical as the Baby Boomers or
as materialistic as the Busters. But they are goal oriented and highly motivated
toward their perceptions of success. Each seems to have established specific
objectives with a clear path toward achievement. Most are generally pleased with
themselves and are already planning for marriage and a family. Although most
accept divorce as an acceptable solution for an unhappy marriage, they want long
term relationships. Most plan to marry before they are 26 and on average, plan
to have three children.
This generation admires their moms and their
dads but trust their grandparents even more. Yet they have little trust for
Generation X-ers as a whole. They plan to vote, but will determine their own
candidates. They are generally evenly dispersed across the political spectrum
but don't believe any political party has all the answers. They remain
pessimistic about the performance of government leaders, lawmakers, and the
media. Uncertain about the direction America should take, Millennials search for
solutions. And they plan to find them.
Millennials feel that their greatest advantage
is being born in a technological society. They are optimistic about their job
future and consider education critical. To them, every citizen has a
responsibility to improve education. Millennials believe that they have more
educational opportunity than their parents, but they also believe that
educational institutions are not doing an adequate job. Nevertheless, they
respect teachers and plan for lifelong learning experiences.
Many feel that positive race relations are
hampered by government intervention and biases of certain minority groups. They
feel these groups actually prevent races from developing mutual understanding
and respect. Millennials expect to change this. Most are color-blind when they
relate to other people. They accept each other as individuals, little different
from themselves.
Each generation has unique characteristics,
and each generation responds to specific focused advertising. In Part 2, we'll
explore how you can use generational marketing to win in the battle for sales
dollars.
Consider this issue as it involves a Stamp Collecting Club:
Recruiting the Baby-Buster Generation By Karen
Weigt
Published March, 1993 in "Across the Fence,"
Wisconsin Federation of Stamp Clubs, APS Chapter 350
karenweigt@cs.com
A recent newspaper article described them as "consummate pragmatists," driven by excellence and practicality, with an apathetic sense of loyalty. The description refers to the baby-boom generation, which includes the 30- to 40-something crowd noticeably missing on today's stamp club membership roles. Needless to say, this generation of members is essential for clubs to continue to exist.
Clubs in smaller communities report a special lack of active members in this age group, and their elderly and declining memberships face a two-fold problem: (1) to recruit the boomers to the hobby, and then (2) pull them into their clubs. While their problems may be enhanced because they have a smaller populace from which to draw, they do have the advantage of being able to more easily reach their life-saving new blood. Their publicity isn't competing with the numerous other events and activities available in larger cities.
Hope is on the way with regard to recruitment, but I'm afraid it won't be until the years 2005-2010, when the "baby-buster" generation enters its third decade. At that time, the hobby can expect a return from recruiting efforts of that generation, which began in the early 1980s. Can our clubs hang on for another 12-15 years? And, can it be assumed that the busters will be more amiable to club participation than the boomers are today?
Regardless of how the busters may react, the problem remains that clubs and the overall hobby have an immediate gap to fill. If the characteristics of the current 30-40 age group are accurately described above, the approach might be to concentrate on introducing these individuals to the practical aspects of the hobby. Emphasis on philately as an inexpensive outlet to be enjoyed as a family might appeal to them. Clubs must offer concrete benefits of membership, such as group orders to obtain discount supplies. The boomers also might be more receptive to clubs that maintain a sense of structure.
The bottom line is that if the hobby and our clubs aren't serving the needs of this generation, its constituents will quickly be moving on. While I'm not totally sold on all this "psyche-babble" (to borrow a Rush Limbaugh term), I believe it's worth more in-depth consideration, and I welcome your comments.
return to:
pastorob
at
www.pastorob.com/rob’sblog.htm
Pastor Rob Patterson 653 A Street Galt, California 95632 209.745-4665
This compilation of articles has been offered as an introduction to some of the issues involved by seeking to follow through on one of my core beliefs:
The ministry of the fbcgalt should interact with all ages and backgrounds
Any input you may have could prove helpful as I continue work toward my doctorate (and as I attempt to offer Leadership in our own local church). Of course, the views below do not represent my views or the views held by other thinkers at pastorob.com