The real problem for ++Rowan is that the young have given up on him and churches in general. He would do better to contemplate why that is.

I agree with Michael Russell. Whether we "give up" on younger generations or not is of little consequence - eventually they will be societal, political, and church leaders, regardless. The real issue is why the Episcopal/Anglican church is standing still, waiting for the younger generations to come through its doors. That is not going to happen. We are called to change and called to grow and called to lead. We cannot do that if we choose dwell in the past in terms of church political structure, the concept of what it means to be the church, our liturgy, and social justice policies. The church talks big about following the Spirit but does not seem to understand that following means actually moving on - letting go of what was in order to embrace what can be.

Jennifer McNally

Mainstream churches have a problem; we are filled with aging people who gave much of their time talent and treasure to the life of the church. Pastorally they need assurance that what fed them through all the years of their giving and doing will be there to feed them through the final passion of their lives. Morally we are obliged to stay the course with them.

The independent churches and community megachurches have no such population, though they will in time. They can appeal to the edgy, energetic, questing spirit of youth and replicate in worship what they love in the culture. That is fine too.

Doing both simultaneously is hard largely because the finances are not their to do it. My wife who is on the faculty of Seminary of the Southwest was at a conference recently and reported to me that there was one characteristic of clergy that appealed to all age groups and drew them in: honesty. My first guess had been authenticity, but I accepted that as a subset of honesty.

If we have honest, authentic leaders and programs we position ourselves to be, well, faithful and that may well be attractive.

But we are also required to be out there among those populations with whom we wish to connect. On THEIR turf not ours. The real test is whether or not they see us relating authentically on their own ground, that might recommend us.

And the neat thing is we don't have to work especially at being cool, just honest in our common interests grounded on their turf. I am sure each of us has a place of common ground with youth where we could "journey" onto their turf and make connections. We need to do that without expectation that they will show up at our worship. We are planting seeds that may take years to germinate, but they are seeds none the less.

I suggest we intentionally be present without expectation on turf of young people where we have common passions. Resist the temptation to get them into the pew and just "be there".

Although I have voiced disagreements with some tactics and targets, I think Bishop and Mrs Packard and the other clergy active in the Occupy movements around the country are doing exactly what I have described. So have all the other geezers who have planted themselves there too. Seeds are being planted.

Michael, I like your point about being present on young peoples' turf. I follow a lot of conversations about young people in church, and so many of them are ah, woe is me, young people are like this and this, and leaving church because of this and this, and it becomes painfully obvious that the voices of these young people are missing from the conversation, except as they show up in survey results or someone else's sociological study. Observation and conjecture can only go so far; relationship and active listening are what I desire. And I know it's possible, because I am listened to, and I cherish my relationships with folks of all generations in my parish. Now, while I would hesitate to call myself "cool," I can certainly say that it's honesty--and a willingness to listen and engage--not a "coolness" factor that marks the people who've influenced my spiritual life.

Wonderful points, all.

I'd only add that one of the things I love about my parish is that our young people are very comfortable being themselves. Whoever they are, whatever they are, they are welcome. Perhaps more than anything, it's that unconditional love that draws people in. The rest, if that truly is our approach, sorts itself out.

Eric Bonetti

As a "young" person (28 yr old) in the Church, I've been wondering why no one really asks us how we feel or why so many of us stay away. It seems that so many people base their understandings on research, but, I feel, that does a disservice to us millenials. Maybe we just need to be asked...

Ok, John, here I am, asking. What do you want from church? If you are staying away, why? If you are in a church, but it doesn't feel like a good fit to you in terms of your generation, why? What turns you off? What brings you connection and fills you? I'm not in the "young person" category in church, but at age 41, neither am I completely old school. Right now, I see my role as a potential bridge between what was (I connect with much of the old traditions) and what will be (I see so much more, to come). So fill me in. I'm listening.

Jennifer McNally

Jennifer, thank you for asking!

I have asked many of my peers the same questions, over the past two years: I will give my personal responses and some of the general responses I received from them.

Personally, I too am a "traditionalist." My preference is for well-done, mystical liturgy, and, along with that, the sense of community that such a liturgy has the capability of perpetuating. However, that is a personal preference. Generally, I have been told, by many of the millenials I questioned, that they are truly seeking a sense of community - a place to belong and an identity to claim. Many "young adults", myself included, LOVE the social-justice aspect of TEC. It speaks to uniting the world in a positive way! So, overwhelmingly, we as TEC have that on our side. However, many of the complaints/frustrations, that I have come across, include the current trend to try to "modernize" the religious experience. It's not that millenials don't appreciate the intent, but it can, at times, come across as unauthentic. For better or worse, my generation is all about experience (I am of course generalizing), and from that, we make our decisions.

Now, for an even more personal answer. I am quite happy in the Episcopal Church, but that was a intentional on my part. I grew up in a very devote Ukrainian Orthodox family, but, while studying Theology, in grad school, I decided that a church the values liturgy, Eucharist, and tradition, while being willing to let people question, doubt, and explore, was a much better fit. Trust me though, the change wasn't easy - it was heartwrenching for myself and family and friends. However, after two years, I am completely convinced I made the correct choice and was not led astray by what I perceived as the Holy Spirit.

With that in mind, one of the other benefits, that not a lot of young people are aware of, is that each TEC parish has its own charism - it's own approach to community, liturgy, outreach, and so on. Perhaps, we in the Church should make those various options known...

Jennifer, thank you, again, for asking! I didn't mean for my previous post to sound condescending in anyway, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to listen (or in this case, read).

-John Shirley

John, you did not sound condescending. It seems everyone does (well, many people do) want to have this conversation, but for some reason it doesn't happen very often. I was looking forward to your thoughts and thank you for taking the time to write them.

I am interested to hear you say it is not the style of service as much as an authentic experience that your generation is seeking. Would you say the traditional language of liturgy - BCP, masculine imagery for God, organ music, etc. does speak to your generation, if it is done authentically? Or is a shift in language and structure - less formal, gender-neutral, more expansive imagery for God, any part of what it takes to speak to 20-somethings - and to move forward in general?

I realize this is not a conversation we can expect to bring great results in this forum, but yes, I am listening and thank you for sharing.

I very much agree with your last thought about each individual parish and congregation having its own ethos and its own gift. And I do think TEC in general could and should to more to hold that up.

Jennifer McNally

It would be wonderful-- not to mention a fulfillment of our mission as a church as well as "Church"-- to understand that it is the youth who are giving up on us.

Jennifer,

I don't believe it is so much our liturgical language or organ music. I have actually found the opposite to be true - it provides a sense of continuity for us. Many young adults crave a sense of historicity. Liturgically speaking, I have noticed that constant innovations turn us off. The authenticity aspect is actually more of the church being vulnerable - like we are - in world of uncertainty: economically, politically, and so on. I have crossed paths with some amazing clergy over the years, but, at the same time, I have encountered many clerics that aren't willing to engage with young adults - for a variety of reasons (some understandable, I suppose, and some perhaps a bit shallow). Our questions, our doubts, our fears, our frustrations, and even our inhibitions toward "Church" are addressed, on some level, by the larger "Church," but there is a need to meet young adults on a local level; to invite us into community; give us responsibility in accordance with our talents and gifts. Often we NEED to be told what our talents and gifts truly are.

We, as Episcopalians/Anglicans, are blessed with such a rich incarnational tradition, and at the center of it is Eucharist. I believe it is through community that we are able to reach the fullness of that Communion (saints past, saints now, saints yet-to-come, saints known to God alone, and saints who are saints by virtue of struggle for faith and love). I look out and see so many saints amongst my peers, but they lack a place to nurture their inherent calling; because, no one has spoken to, or personally invited to be a part of, the greater community.

Okay, I realize how impractical that approach is, and I am also aware that it is not a 100% guarantee (a hard line to sell as an investment in a time when many parishes are financially struggling - as a parish treasurer, I completely understand), but I maintain that when God became incarnate He took a chance; He took a chance with the Samaritan woman at the well; He took a chance when He called the disciples - to name only a few.

Christ's great callings were often personal interactions/communications. It doesn't mean that Photini (the Samaritan woman at the well) didn't ever question or doubt; then again, she might not have - we don't know. Likewise, we see Peter making a mess of his discpleship multiple times.

I suppose, my point is that the Church might not know it isn't stepping outside of itstraditional "comfort" zones (I apologize for the generalization of this comment): step out of the sacristy/parish office/parish hall/choir, and start engaging in personal conversation/interaction. I don't see it as the language being used, but rather the vehicle, or lack thereof, for it.

Our rich liturgical tradition feeds, strengthens, and encourages us, so I would argue for continuance of our Eucharistic settings, the BCP keeps us focused (a VERY valuable asset), and the inclusive language vs. non-inclusive language issue can be important, but I wouldn't see it as a barrier either way.

My "insight" might be lopsided, but I hope it is an encouragment for the future well-being of our Church.

P.S. I apologize for my grammatical errors! I should proof-read before I post! :-)