I am not sure the issue is necessarily one of control. Viewing an interaction as one of power invariably leads to a belief that one party must win and the other lose.

A more effective approach is one of engagement, in which both sides work to get what they need.

How might that work in a parish setting? The answer is complex and varies according to local circumstances, but it involves inclusion, tolerance and embracing the characteristics that make us each a unique person.

In the case of young people, my observation is that they tend to be assigned roles in our church. Kids are great as acolytes, for example, but not as members of the vestry. Kids can have fun at an event, but we don't really trust them to help plan the event.

Yet, the reality is today's youth are well educated, aware, and articulate. Sure, pulling young people into out-of-the-box roles will sometimes cause discomfort for all involved, but it's that sort of engagement that leads to retention of young people and promoted cross-generational understanding.

Eric Bonetti

Rather than assuming that any one demographic is more worthy of control/participation/whatever, I think it would be better to integrate all demographics into the life of the Church. Gen X et al. no more have the exclusive Mandate of Heaven than the Boomers. It seems to me that instead of supporting the notne too subtle subtexts of Western youth-oriented consumerism, making sure the Church is truly intergenerational would fit in more with the countercultural mission of the Church.

What do I think? I think it is an incredibly "age-ist" statement.

It is fraught with stereotyping and character-assassination. And simple, plain-faced error.

It's been my experience that we have difficulty getting 20&30-somethings involved, not locking them out. The Boomers are there (where-ever 'there' is) in large part because they now have the time and the money.

When I was 30, I had a full-time job, a wife with a full-time job, and three kids with full-time lives. My wife and I barely had time to breath, let alone sit on a committee or go to a convention for 5 days.

I have kids in their 20's whose lives seem even busier than mine was. Where in the heck are they gonna find time to "join in"?

If memory serves me, didn't our GC creater specific provisions to include a certain percentage of "youth" in our restructuring and committees? Wasn't that done by boomers?

C'mon...hows about a little perspective here, huh?

Kevin McGrane

I might hear it with more ageist overtones if Tom Erich wasn't a baby boomer. Part of his sentiment must have something to do with what I have observed, and that is that many of the Boomers who want to retire cannot because of their financial condition, given the economic climate over the past few years. In the latest CPG statistics, it looks like there is an avalanche of retirements coming in the next few years amongst the clergy, given the huge number of priests in the Episcopal Church who are Baby Boomers. Regardless, whether lay or ordained, the broader point that I would make is that regardless of our age group, we must allow ourselves to be adaptive for the sake of the mission of the church, given that the world around us is so rapidly changing. Baby Boomers don't have a monopoly on poo-pooing ideas because, "that's not the way we've always done it!"
Sean Ferrell

Sean, that someone is a Baby Boomer them self doesn't automatically mean they can't hold ageist views. Baby Boomers cut our teeth on ageism, after all. We're the ones who have been pushing (or allowing ourselves to be used in Madison Avenue's push of) youth-worshipping culture in the first place. Look how very popular products are that promise to erase signs of aging these days, both for men and women. Look at the plasticized faces of those who can afford to use plastic surgery to look younger. We're conditioned to worship the idol of Youth, so a Boomer in favor of policies that consign their own generation to the rest home so that Youth could take control might simply be do true to our generation's false principles that that they are willing to be self sacrificing for them.

You think it's ageist and unfair?

Just try being a 30 year old lay person at a vestry meeting.

Just try it.

Why, Adam? What's been your experience in that regard? And what did you think serving on the vestry was going to be like before you were elected?

Adam - What do you think -- none of us have never been the youngest person on a vestry -- I have even been patted on the head and chucked under the chin -- so what? -- get over yourselves and get to work - your deeds will show more than your whine.

All - I hope the general tenor of the comments so far doesn't snowball into more of the same. Comment threads tend to go in a direction determined by the earliest comments -- path dependency. I don't like our current path.

Is there a way to discuss Ehrlich's thesis and not take things personally? And if not, does that prove his point in some way?

Why not give personal experience? - there is no other view IMO --- some of us debate by putting stuff out there and getting push back - not from reasoned previously considered points of view-- a different sort of discussion than you want?

I think Mr. Ehrich’s age is irrelevant. His statement is what it is: age-ist stereotyping. Quite incendiary.

And Mr. Ehrich’s comment that many boomer are addicted to control, like alcoholics, is not exactly a statement to engender quiet, thoughtful discussion. He meant to be provocative, and he’s getting it.

Yes, I’ve been 30 in a meeting, and I’ve been 40 and 50 and now 60. I’ve been frustrated in every age, and I hear what Adam is saying, but that is the nature of committees: frustrating. What is a camel? A horse that was designed by committee. Committees are usually a mess. I hate ‘em.

What a lot of us need to consider is the Dawning of The Third Chapter. It’s the flip side of the Age of Aquarius. The Third Chapter is the age between 50 and 75 in a person’s life. It used to be the period when people retired or died. Today, it’s an age when you are no longer young but you aren’t old yet, either. It’s totally new to human existence. Uncharted territory, so to speak.

Third Chapter folks are not ready/unable to retire to the rocking chair. And they aren’t volunteering for the cemetery. And we are just as creative and risk-taking as anyone else. I usually side with the risk-takers in the crowd. I would suggest to Adam that he not look to allies among like-aged people, but like-minded people. Shaine Claiborne is 30-something, and Robin Meyers is 60-something, and are both radical in their approach to Christian life.

Kevin McGrane.

I found this article engaging ( I'm almost 60). I read it with an eye to the context in the Canadian Church where the average age of active stipendiary clergy across the country is over fifty years of age--over a decade higher than the "work force" as a whole. The Canadian bishops have been challenged on this, but no action seems imminent. Apparently the Holy Spirit has tied their hands.

If it sparks discussion then the article will have served a good purpose. As for the article being "ageist", I would take that argument more seriously if the church weren't so, well, old.

There is a distinct boomer culture, based on their shared experiences, which shapes their views and experiences. It is worth remembering that not everyone shares those perspectives. Perhaps fear of losing power (metaphorically being packed off to a nursing home) is a valid concern, but just maybe it might be worthwhile for institutions to hear the social and cultural perspectives of other cohorts.
The funny thing is that whenever anyone points this stuff out the accusations fly like crazy. "Ageist stereotyping," "stop complaining," being told to "get over yourself."
Though in my 40s now I remember being less than welcome as a member of parish committees and other church structures when I was in my 20s and 30s. Sure, I was welcome to pledge, and to help pass out bulletins in the back. But it was as if someone said, "don't ask questions at annual meetings because you haven't been here since 1975 like we have. Don't suggest changes to the search process and don't pretend to understand the workings of the vestry. Only Our Cohort gets those things.") I did the sensible thing: I quit trying. Church is for baby boomers. (Adam, take note. Until what we might politely call demographic transitioning kicks in, the only accepted perspective is the boomer perspective.)

Dennis Roberts
Chicago

Sorry you gave up Dennis. Having grown up when church leadership was for old white men (whether they even believed in God or not) Guess I am sad to see that now there is opportunity for some of us - we are told - get out of the way. Once when I was a 30 something on the vestry I brought up what do you think God wants us to be doing about xxx - they looked at me like I had 3 heads. LOL

I don't think anyone needs to get out of the way. I was in a particularly toxic parish (I'll send it to you privately) and I am still staying away after that bad experience. I show up for some Easters and some Christmas eve services. I won't be back but others might.
Anyway, no one should be pushed aside. Throw the doors open wide.

I dream and work for a Church that I hope will one day take the Body of Christ seriously enough to practice and honor intergenerational ministry regardless of the context.

Weston Mathews
Middler @ Virgina Theological Seminary

I've had a very positive experience: I'm a 20-something vestry member, and I love it! I am grateful for the input of my elders (some of whom have been at my parish since before I was born), and I feel that they are also grateful for and respectful of my input. Sometimes it would be nice to not be the *only* person on the vestry not eligible for AARP (the clerk and associate rector excepted), but I think that multigenerational communities and leadership are really powerful and can work well regardless of age and generational difference -- provided there is abundant communication and respect from all parties. Boomers don't like to be told they're no longer vital or capable of innovation and should stand aside or step down; I don't like to be told I should quit my whining and get over myself (which to me feels like being told that my experiences do not matter).

I feel for those who have not had the same open and welcoming experience as I have -- and as an attendee of the Young Adult Festival at GC, I heard plenty of stories sharing frustrating and negative experiences. Without sounding too idealistic, I truly hope communication and collaboration can bring us together and enliven the church.

Adam, I'd still like to hear about your experiences on your parish vestry - what made it so frustrating? Are you finding the vestry process too much of a rubber-stamping process, or what? What's the age breakdown on your vestry? (Full disclosure: I'm a man "of a certain age" serving my first term - and maybe the youngest one there).

Here is the comment I tried to leave on Tom's post on ENS:

The words “cede control” seem provocative and divisive. They suggest that those over 48 years of age have nothing to offer the church – after all, the Boomer generation (according to generational demographics) did not end until 1964. Can we not put this battle between Boomers and GenXers behind us and get on with respecting everyone’s gifts and doing the ministry to which we are all called…together?

Alissa - when said stop whining and get over it - I was not saying that to all of your generation - if you are not doing that -- does not apply.

An interesting discussion.

1. When a not-Boomer/Millennial in leadership does offer an experience of working within the institutional church, the response is pretty disheartening. Instead of listening and reflecting, it's the ol' "uphill both ways in the snow" routine. What's that communicate? You want us to show up, but not enough to actually challenge or do anything of substance. Doesn't that just make you the same person who patted you on the head?

2. It shouldn't be surprising that seeing church leadership through the prism of power is the way the issue's being framed. That's precisely the way we've framed every issue in the Episcopal church for the last 40 years. So why be surprised when that lens is the lens your children view you?

3. It only took 3 posts before the ad hominems on Tom Ehrich started to flow. Why's that?

4. Here's the reality: the Boomers have, for the last 20-odd years, run every institution in the US. From Churches to Congress and everything in between. If things are in a dire state, it's because of the choices Boomers made. If Millennials/Young Adults aren't showing up, it's because the perception is that game is rigged against our participation. This comment thread as exhibit one. So the question has to be asked: Who is in power to give that perception?

If I'm wrong, that's cool, show me and I'll happily adjust my thinking. But pawning off legitimate experiences and complaints as "whining" and "ageism" simply proves the point Tom's making.

Allow me to offer a positive experience.

For the better part of the past three years, I have been the senior warden of a parish working through a very lengthy transition process. I just turned 36. For most of that time I was working alongside an interim priest who was pushing 80. Average our ages together and we work out to a typical Episcopalian.

My tenure has been one of the most fulfilling experiences of my life. I think most people would say my term has been successful, whatever that means. And maybe that's got something to do with my age, but we shouldn't fetishize it. Because I was supported every step of the way by a vestry who was mostly at least 2 decades older than me, and constantly pushed and encouraged by a priest more than 40 years my senior, whose mission was to encourage lay leadership. I'm not going to say my age didn't matter, because I think it did in a way I can't quite put my finger on, but the key thing was that our priest and I had a shared vision for our parish. Maybe it's just that sometimes packaging sells the product.

I made legions of mistakes, but never felt villified because of them. Others with a long history in the parish helped temper my excesses, but left me feeling free to be creative.

And God bless retired people who have the time to be the treasurer, assemble the bulletins, and conduct the business of the church during banking hours.

What's happened in our parish is not a generational divide, but generational cooperation. Today was our new rector's first day in the office. She's in her early 40s. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited to be teaming up with someone who grew up watching the same tv shows I did. And I'd be wrong to say that her age doesn't matter to our congregation, and might make her more effective in some ways that I can't yet define. But Jesus needs all of us to do his work, boomers, gen-xers, and millennials alike.

Brendan O. Hale

Isaac, two observations: (1) as much as I hate -ism words, there's not much question that Western culture puts a high premium on youth; it has for a while. More importantly, according to the Census Bureau, Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. The lower edge of the Boomer generation hasn't even reached retirement age yet. It's legitimate to label a call for people in their 40s to "cede power" to the "young" ageism. It's a particularly strong sort of ageism to see people in their 40s as "too old" and that they should get out of the way. (2) Boomers have been running things for longer than 20 years, I think. The upper edge of the Boomers just hit 66. I think you can argue that Boomers started to take power in the 80s, and of course before that point our culture was already geared to pander to us. Yeah, Boomers have had a lot of influence for a while. And it will probably stay that way for another decade or two.

Hi Bill,

You're undoubtably right that ageism is a real issue; I just don't think that's the way it is here. Instead, the ageism issue is being used to deflect the conversation away from the very real discussion about the way church structures inhibit participation from the young, and to whether or not the article is ageist. It's a defense mechanism, and not addressing it as such seems unhealthy. It protects us from making change, and that's what concerns me about the charge. Maybe it's ageist, maybe it isn't, but so long as we're talking about ageism we're not talking about power structures. The (group) ego is secure.

I roughly timed the "Boomers in Charge" time frame from the '92 election, but you're right we still got some time to go. I listen to Marc Maron's podcast on occasion, and one of the things he's quite open about is his own mid-life breakdown as younger comics succeeded and he didn't. He found himself contemplating suicide... Not because he wanted to die but because it was the last way to secure immortality. He was placing his own value in relation to others' perception of him; ie, a narcissist. A 20 year old who's mad because Kim Kardashian is famous and he is not is being 20; when you're 50 and mad that she's famous and you're not, that's a pathology. When you're 20 and mad you're not able to be on a committee because someone else is, you're being 20. When you're 50 and you're mad you're not on a committee anymore and someone else is...

Maron eventually pulled himself out of it by starting his podcast and explicitly becoming a mentor to younger comics and, via the podcast, everyone else's mentor; to put it bluntly, the only way he could live forever was to invest in the next generation.

In church terms, that means in the 18-35 age range. And we're doing better about that, but it's a mixed message; the perception seems to be that those in power simply want to be seen as accepting young adults, and not actually doing the accepting. What needs to happen is the older generation become mentors to the younger, in much the way that Brendan's story illustrates his relationship with the interim and the vestry.

Likewise, young adults have a responsibility to consistently make older generations feel valued and listen; they've done this more times than we have and we'd be stupid not to follow their lead. What do older leaders feel experts in? How do we tap that experience as the power shifts? But again, so long as the debate is being framed as ageism (and -isms are where we're most comfortable), then we're not having that conversation.

Tom Erich's theme reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. It is a tale of two societies, one of which enabled its citizens to live incredibly long lives. The long lived society was less agile, less able to adapt to a changing world. In the abstract, it's a valid concept. Would it be possible to appreciate the value of change and agility without demonizing an entire generation of people?

The Episcopal Church has been a champion of diversity and inclusion for a long time. Perhaps we should also apply these concepts to age. Diverse viewpoints are an asset as we reach out to minister to a diverse community. If Tom had advised us to reach out to the youth and include them in decision making positions such as the vestry, I would agree. Let's leave it at that.

Easy answers are usually bad ones - pointing to one group as "the problem" is an easy answer. It's why I despise Occam's Razor.

Our priest is in his early thirties, and doesn't seem unhappy. I'm a Gen-Xer (who are in their late 30's to mid-40's now) and I've not seen one age range as being a problem. Control freaks come in a wide variety of ages, shapes and colors!
Maybe "The Problem" is one that has to do with the church itself and its insistence on a model that really doesn't work in a society in which religion no longer equals automatic respect?

Political life is much the same: I see predominantly Boomers in the - ahem - problem party in the U. S., but there are very young extremists, as well. Paul Ryan is not elderly, nor, really, is Romney. In the same way, one can't say Biden or Obama are spring chickens! I'm not of an age to be personally insulted by Ehrich's thesis, but I am offended by the panicky, sloppy thinking.

-Mark Brunson

I can see a helpful essay asking those of us who are older - how are you mentoring and making space for others who have not yet found it? Rather than shoving us out the door with the rude - time to fold your tents - an invitation to think creatively and generously - or to tap into what many of us are already doing. For instance, some of us have helped engineer getting younger deputies elected to GC - how about asking how we did that?

It's obvious that we need to figure out ways to open up leadership to people who have traditionally been silenced and marginalized. That may mean looking at how leaders are chosen *and* supported at the parish level, as well as for diocesan and national committees. Entrenched power is one issue, but perhaps there are others, such the expectations placed on Vestry people, committee members, convention delegates, and so on. Lack of mentoring may be another contributing factor.

In our parish we revised our by-laws a few years ago and made sure that term limits were in place for both Vestry and Nominating Committee. Rigorously enforcing term limits goes a long way toward making sure the same people don't serve over and over again. This year we are also working with a task force that is training us to look at other issues of power and discrimination in parish life. Do we still have problems? Of course we do. This stuff is complicated and involves systems that predate the Baby Boom by many years.

I find the sloppy reasoning and sweeping generalizations in essays such as Ehrich's frustrating. Personal stories, such as the ones told in these responses, have an important place in moving us forward. (Sharing frustrations helps uncover the patterns of injustice and identifies the people affected.) But conflating the behaviors that happen in parishes with a wide variety of other social phenomena does very little to move us forward. Broad statements about birth cohorts do little to uncover strategies for change. I'd rather hear more about what people of all ages are actually doing and the kinds of interventions they think would move us forward.

Is the vestry model universal throughout the AngIican Communion? Are there other models in use at which we might take a look?

Relative to personal stories about new positions: Great idea!

I first expressed interest in the diaconate back in 2009, and went through the discernment process while attending the diocesan School for Ministry. I was made postulant in Feb. of this year. I started my final year at ESM in Aug. and just started my unit of CPE this week. I will do what we call a “Fourth Year” afterwards, essentially completing a residency at another parish under the direction of the rector and a senior deacon. If all goes well, I am ordained sometime in 2014, God willing, and be assigned a parish as their deacon. It has been a very trying, and very rewarding, experience. But I am a neophyte postulant, and will be a brand-spanking-new deacon in the next 18 to 24 months.

I’ll be 63 when ordained.

My dreams for a deaconate would be to work in a rural parish where we might be able to start a contextual bible study with parishes outside of the Ozarks, connecting with urban parishes, even well-to-do suburban parishes. Also a co-op for food and repairs for home and auto. Also a program to create an alternative economy in which the rural poor are not so helpless against an economy that exploits them. I have LOTS of ideas…

So, does this make me a control-freak boomer who is causing “mainline Protestant churches, which are literally dying under the weight of old ideas, old methods, old expectations and old leaders who behave as if they would rather see their congregations die rather than yield control”? Or am I one of the new vanguard of change agents as a newly minted deacon? And does my age have zip to do with any of this? (I suggest it does, in that I am far less fearful of challenging the status quo than I was at 30. And I am confident that most of this can be pulled off.)

Thoughts?

Kevin McGrane

Ehrich wrote, “Protestant churches … are literally dying under the weight of old ideas, old methods, old expectations, and old leaders who behave as if they would rather see their congregations die than yield control.” Spot-on, Ehrich. Yes, it’s provocative. It should be required reading for everyone on any church committee.

Try to be a younger person willing to serve but yet marginalized by older people who just HAVE to do EVERYTHING the way they’ve always done it! I assure you that I have had experiences not just of frustration, but of dismissal. No, I won’t expound on them with details in this public forum. But every time, at the root, there is a group of old church leaders who cannot envision change. Sadly, much of the time, it’s a group of old church leaders who cannot see the NEED to change anything. (And the use of the adjective old is appropriate here in referring to age, get over it.)

Kevin McGrane, it’s not just having time, it’s being stuck in the same work & communications models.

Yes, Isaac Bradshaw, the game is rigged. The game should be transparent and people should WANT to play time and time again.

Ann Fontaine: Thank you so much for your radically hospitable comment:
>>so what? -- get over yourselves and get to work - your deeds will show more than your whine.

First off, I'm not a vestry member, I'm the Music Director. I'm not just some 30 year old who shows up and complains or whines and doesn't "go to work." I spend more hours each week on Church Work than anybody except the Communications Director and (I assume) the priests. Coming from a Roman Catholic background, I have studied the BCP (reading it and the full commentary by Marion Hatch) and several books on Anglican tradition to make sure that I'm not simply importing Roman customs into an Episcopal liturgy. My wife have spent the last two years running a high school Bible study (largely attended by non Episcopal teenagers). I server on a Diocesan committee. I spend hours and hours each week working to select music that works within our community.

So, thanks for your condescension. If I wasn't so used to it by now, my feelings might be hurt. But any 30 year old who still manages to put up with organized religion has developed pretty thick skin.

The real issue though is that, as far as I can tell, my works and my whine speak with equal volume. Church leadership has largely hit the mute button on both.

Susan K: thank you for your comments. Could you explain what you mean by "the same work and communication models" please?

Issac: could you explain how the game is rigged, please? And what game are you referring to?

Thanks to you both.

Kevin McGrane

Adam - -- great keep it up. I will tell you that the churches I know have lots of complaining and no action. We would love someone like you on the Bishop's Advisory Committee (what missions have instead of vestries) -- what I see is people who say "I would come to church if you did xxx" We try that and after a few months and they don't show for it -- we give up. Paying for child care and not having any kids for 6 months tho that is what was said would be the key to their attendance. And as to not being allowed "in" -- you would have loved being a woman of any age before 1970s - we just formed our own groups and pushed ahead when the door was barred. There are lots of ways to break through the concrete of "the way we always did it"
Perhaps that is what is happening outside the institution now days. All good.

For a little history click here.

If you are paying for childcare so that people can come to church while their children go somewhere else, you have already failed at caring about young people coming to Church.

Adam - obviously you did not read what I said - in response to what the young people asked for - we provided child care and Godly Play-- they asked to have a time in worship with out their children - (the kids come in for communion). We are trying to LISTEN and respond. In our Spanish service - we have the kids in church. So we aim to please but obviously there is no pleasing you. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Kids belong in church. Period.

Don't ask the people who aren't coming what they want. Ask the people who already come how to get more people like them.

It's funny that Boomers are being blamed for standing in the way of change in this thread, while in other quarters we stand accused of being Sixties holdovers in favor of never-ending ecclesiastical turmoil and change. If people get it sorted out what kind of corporate whipping boy they want Boomers to be, I hope they let us know.

Also, unless we've barred everyone over the age of 66 from Episcopal parishes, we probably don't represent all "old church leaders."

"Kids belong in church. Period."

The alternative to having Sunday school during the Liturgy of the Word, after which the kids join their parents for the Liturgy of the Table, is in many cases probably not to have Christian Ed for children at all, I suspect.

The Liturgy is the foundation for Christian Education.

My generation grew up being sent off to Children's Church. Is it any big wonder we mostly have no connection to the liturgy.

Those of us who were blessed to be part of communities where children STAYED IN LITURGY are the ones who stay in liturgy now.

Bill, those aren't entirely different things. To have constant change, you have to be in control.

No, sorry Adam - your expecting the Liturgy of the Word to be a one size fits all affair. I don't think it's realistic to either expect the preacher to reach a second grader and an adult with the same sermon, or to expect either one of them to patiently abide a sermon directed at the other. It's not fair to anyone involved to expect the Liturgy of the Word to substitute for Christian Ed. And in many places, the idea of having families show up an hour before Mass so that everyone can go to Sunday school and then attend the whole service is a thing of the past.

Different parishes have different needs. If laying down immutable laws like "Children must always be present for the entire service, period" is an example of the sort of new ideas we have to look foward to, I'm not sure getting the Boomers out of the way will really solve our problems.

Also, my recollection of Children's Church is that it tried to be a kiddy service, which is not what we're talking about. I also think that in many places the children never joined the adults in the liturgy at all.

Yes, C Wingate , but if we're always standing in the way of new ideas in favor of the way it's always been, we can't also be responsible for never-ending experimentation.

Sure, Kevin McGrane, I’ll explain what I mean by church committees being “stuck in the same work & communications models.”

Does this describe your church or diocesan committee meeting? Boardroom-style, gathered around a large table, printed minutes from last meeting before you, printed agenda distributed at the start of the meeting, participants must be present in person, paper handouts for everything. At the start of the meeting the last meeting’s minutes must be approved. After this meeting, the last meeting’s minutes can be published. People must wait on an email or a monthly newsletter to learn what went on. Anything that comes up before the next meeting must wait for the next meeting to have any official discussion.

Contrast that to a 2012 workplace where even not-so-young people work: online collaboration, online conferences including people in offsite locations, decisions made outside of face-to-face meetings are the norm. Discussion is moderated yet can be organic. Publication online is quick, and offers commentary, which the committee members participate in. New topics have prior collaborative document sharing, and online meetings can and are called rather than just follow a set, infrequent schedule.

So, Adam, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment here. It's 2032. A bright, energetic young adult approaches you and says: "Hey, this week I read a great book on telling Bible stories to kids! It provides techniques that seem like a lot of fun and the rationale for doing it that way is really interesting. The authors say we should provide a child-centered space where kids can respond in an age-appropriate way."

What's your response, Adam, in 2032, to this enthusiastic young adult?

@Kevin - It's rigged in exactly the way you described in your first thought on this thread; namely that the system favors those with disposable income and time against those who don't. If you stick with the same structures that are time and income prohibitive, it becomes impossible for young adults to acquire the necessary skill and knowledge to be leaders in a complex organization like TEC.

@Bill - It's all contextual. If change is the norm, then "not change" is the change, if that makes sense.

@Anne - I hear your frustration; but part of the problem is that the question itself assumes a power structure that Millennials aren't going to find helpful. It assumes a position of power; "We have stuff you need, and we'll give it to you because you need it." Millennials are aspirational consumerists. They buy things because it projects what they hope others see them to be. Widget A may be an inferior product to Widget B, but if Widget A is perceived to make be what I want others to see me as, then that's what gets bought.

So if you want Millennials to participate, the better way is to ask, "How can we put you to work? How can you help us do things better?" But for that to work, the asker has to actually believe that things need to work better. Which is Tom's point all along.

Susan K: thank you for the clarification. Now I understand. And yes, I’ve been in those “formal” meetings, which is why I can’t stand them. It’s like trying to run knee-deep through molasses. I work in the second environment you describe, and have for much of my professional career. It has also been my experience that even some of the online meetings are un-necessary. Personally, I think we “meeting” too much, but then I always need to realize that a parish is communal effort, and I think community is lost online.

((I’m a sales rep, and I am very task-focused. Online meetings on the fly are highly tasked focused, so I like ‘em. But…are they community-building? I have had to learn that they probably are not. We think they are, but are they? Instant, yes. Broad-based, yes. But, do they substitute for looking someone in the eye? Hearing the tone of their voice? A touch? Is a text message really “being there” for someone? In a parish, shouldn't relationships trump task?))

I’m probably veering off-thread here. Sorry about that. But I now understand what you are saying. In our diocese, ESM put on a seminar on hunger, 150 people attended, and nearly the entire thing was planned via email and texting. It was very successful.

Kevin McGrane

Righto. Continue to denigrate the opinions of the passionate 30 year old. See how many more of us show up.

Issac: thank you for your response. Now I get it. I was confused by the term “rigged”. I took it as “intentionally organized to favor one over the other and cheat the outsider”. I think you mean it as “organized to exclude some unintentionally”. (Or maybe you DID mean that it is “intentional”.) :)

How would you “un-rig” the current situation? From what you said just above, it seems as much about sincerity as it is in organization. If the PTB ask, they need to be sincere in the asking. But I would not ask “How can we put you to work?” but rather “What would you like to see? To do?” (Although I am not in a position to ask anyone anything, frankly….) Is the issue structural, or relational?

Kevin McGrane

P.S.: I'm not kidding. I'd appreciate some concrete suggestions.

Adam, did you interpret my question as "denigration"? I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to say that 20 years goes by quickly and people of good faith have different, passionately-held beliefs.

You have a deeply-held, well-earned belief, to which you are fully entitled. Let's say you spend the next 20 years making manifest that belief. It's 2032 and you have a church that works the way you believe it should, with adults and children worshiping together.

As a (still) bright and passionate 50-year-old, what is your response when the *next* generation wants to move the wheel 180 degrees?

I am particularly interested in an issue that Isaac and Kevin have raised. If there is a way to make it possible for lay people who do not make their living in the church to be involved in church policy making during the years in which they are raising children, I'd love to hear about it.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it is possible through increased awareness of existing generational prejudices to make it possible for young clergy and staff to rise more quickly to positions of authority. But I just don't know if that can be done for people in, say, their mid 20s through late 40s or early 50s, who have school-aged children. If these folks don't work in the church, they don't received any of the ancillary benefits that church professionals receive for pouring volunteer hours into the institution. For me, anyway, the desire to coach my kids in sports and be close to home during the school year was way, way stronger than the desire to be a General Convention deputy or something of that sort. I don't think I am unusual in this.

And you should hear my ideas about seminary reform...defintely a no-starter in many circles.

Yikes-a-rama! =:D

Kevin McGrane

Disagreement is not denigration. Neither is a failure to give preference to one's suggestions necessarily either exclusion or the disdain of older generations for the passion of the younger. Maybe people disagree for reasons that have nothing to do with age. And maybe people don't really react very positively to a message whose subtext seems to be "everything you know is wrong and you'd better listen to me if you know what's good for you."

@Kevin - I don't think it's intentional; I think it's just the way that the structure has evolved, and there's an element of inertia, too. That being said, I do think there's an element within our polis that find their identities so wrapped up in ecclesial power-broking/politics that contributes to that inertia. Original sin suggests that every human institution is going to resist change towards a Christ- and Gospel-focused existence; the Church and its members being no exception.

As for specific changes, that's probably too long for a comment box. I would say this, though: anytime structural reform takes place, we need to be sensitive to who is doing the reform, because that's where the new structure is going to find its foci. GC2012 did a great job of displacing established powers out of the restructuring task force. That needs to be followed up with keeping those members out of whatever new structures come out of that process. Otherwise, all you've done is changed the titles on the name tags, Politburo-style.

I will say this: I think we'd do much better if we split the temporal administration from the spiritual. IE, let vestries do their original function to administer property, set long-term overarching policy and law-keeping, and balance budgets. Do we really need an ordained chairperson to help lay people decide which lawn service is going to cut the parish grass? Let a dedicated group of clergy and lay people be the mission-focused leadership, to pray and discern about immediate mission needs.

Instead of forming an "Outreach Committee" and trying to do a program of outreach in perpetuity, let the mission team create ad hoc "project teams" with a specific shelf date and review. In 2012, our outreach project could be supporting a food pantry; out of a group of 10 that were involved in directly supporting/organizing for the pantry, perhaps 2 will make that their primary ministry in their life. In 2013, the Children's Home. In 2014, a Homework Club (with a catchier name, obviously) run out of the church basement. 2015, a LGBT Teen group. You catch my drift.

The advantage for Millennial leadership development is that it allows a regular cycle of new voices and resists the creation of fiefdoms within the parish. The process is transparent and open to anyone's involvement, explicitly seeks fresh ideas, and moves the locus of missional leadership away from clergy and onto the lay members. The question changes from "How can we (clergy, existing lay leaders) get you to do what we want you to do?" to "What can you do make us stronger, better?"

Aware of the charge of reductionism, I must nonetheless say that Fr. Erich's thesis needs to be seen simply as a commentary on the age-old issue of dealing with generational change. To me it's just an example of the fact that in some eras of history, transition from one generation to another is fairly easy and ordered, while in other eras -- perhaps such as ours -- it is more difficult and fraught with fears and concerns that seem important and even vital.

Not meaning to be pollyana-ish, I will likewise say that the process will happen as it happens, and as in all the rest of human history, the synthesis resulting will not please everyone, but it will please enough people that the church will go on, in a different form perhaps, but it will go on.

The measure of the "success" of transitional change, I think, will be shown more in grace, inclusivity, and positive energy than in "winning or losing" per se.

But 'twas ever thus, I guess.

thanks Peter - please sign your name next time. ~ed.

I apologize for the histrionics. My wife and I just had (and, apparently, lost) this fight with our parish.

The thing that bothers me the most about the discussion related to kids in worship (And, really, most of the other things I find myself in disagreement with leadership over) is the nature of the discussion itself. Matters of practicality, non-offense, and "we've always done it that way" continually win out over a scripture-centered way of understanding the issue.

Just once, I'd like someone to say, "Adam, you're wrong" and then follow it up with an explanation of how Jesus would approach the situation. Mostly I'm told some version of "that's not how we do things here" or (often) "you may have a good point, but you're being too argumentative." (That last part is probably good advice, but it doesn't really deal with any at-hand issues).

At any rate- to answer the thought-experiment above. I would hope that if I spent the next 20 or 30 years building a church that follows the Gospel and respects our traditions, while still being relevant to contemporary society, that in that case, it would never occur to anyone that it would be a really good idea to exclude children from liturgy. And if it did, I would calmly explain to them what it was like back in the day when we did that sort of thing, and how awful it was.

Is it my imagination, Adam, or did you just consign every parish that doesn't allow the kids to explore the Word in an age-appropriate setting and then join their parents at the Eucharist to the category of irrelevant and non-Gospel based? And while you were about that, you also seemed to project your own experience on the rest of the Church as something universal. Why is it so out of the question for some parishes, at least, to experience this arrangement as something other than awful? Why is your experience normative?

The Episcopal Church has been struggling for a long time to include ALL of God's people. Children are a part of that, or at least, they should be.

But Adam, you make it sound as if parishes that do what I've described are consigning the kids to outer darkness. What goes on in Sunday School in those parishes is at least as much the Episcopal Church at work as what goes on in the Liturgy of the Word. It's not "excluding" them - it's giving them the opportunity to engage the Word in circumstances that allow that to happen, which I doubt that sitting through a sermon does for most grade-schoolers. Children aren't simply miniature adults.

I would agree with what your describing for a non-liturgical, sermon-based Sunday service.

But the Liturgy of the Word is so much more than a single person talking (At least, it ought to be). In terms of engaging children, Liturgical worship seems (to me) to be especially suited to the task. We stand we singe, we sit, we listen, we speak, we listen, we stand, we sing, we listen, we sing a bit more, we sit, we stand....

If readings were proclaimed with meaning and passion (as is done some places, and others not so much), if the music is engaging (which can happen in any style, as long as the congregation and musicians have a passion for what they are doing), if the processions are more than people ambling from one pace to the next, if prayers are prayed with solemnity and exuberance- if and when liturgy is living up to its fullest and best expressions, children (in my experience) find their place quite easily and naturally.

"...we singe..."

I saw this happen earlier this year, when Father knocked the thurible against the edge of the altar by mistake and hot coals went everywhere... ;-)

OK, you have a point about the music. Less so about the readings IMO - I'm of the "stop emoting so much and let the text speak for itself" school of thought. Even with lots of "passion," though, I think most scripture readings are pitched a little to high for most kids ("Mommy, what's a demoniac?").

Of course, the ideal solution would be to have everybody show up before Mass and have both adult ed and SS then. I wonder what percentage of Episcopal parishes do anything like that? For that matter, I wonder how many Protestant congregations still stick to the old Sunday School pattern of my youth?