Support the Café
Search our site

The Quiet Group and the Change Group

The Quiet Group and the Change Group

By R. Channing Johnson

A while back, George Clifford wrote an essay titled “Is the Episcopal Church Going the Way of the Grange.” Like Clifford, I have taught undergraduate and graduate statistics (I call them “sadistics” in sympathy with students). I liked his analysis of the continuing decline of the Episcopal Church and of how budget allocations indicate that the main agenda of TEC is aimed at preserving the status quo of decline.

I maintain that the main problem may be that we tend to ignore the very rapid social change in America since World War II. We now have four different generations and a major cultural divide between those people above versus below the age of approximately 45. While many of us understand that there are some differences in worldview, beliefs, and values, we don’t understand how deep they are and cannot really articulate the differences that affect church participation and membership. As a result, we miss the imperative of change and the nature of appropriate adaptive response.

I became aware of the reality and pain of social change back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, first as chaplain of one of the Episcopal church-related colleges, then as a graduate student at large state university and as the vicar of an experimental ministry at a nearby Episcopal congregation. This was when we became aware that the children of the World War II generation had somehow managed to grow up without sharing their parent’s world-view, values, or beliefs. They declared the dawning of the age of Aquarius, celebrated Bishop Robinson’s little book on “situational ethics,” gathered as a mighty herd at Woodstock, and declared that “You can’t trust anyone over 30.” And now, we realize that this was just the beginning and that there was more generational change coming down the pike!

The experimental ministry at the nearby church brought me face to face with the pain of social change. We were seeking to break out of the “active clergy, passive laity” mode by providing an unpaid team of worker priests to conduct Sunday services but primarily to train the laity to carry out the greater work of the church, including pastoral, outreach and caring ministries. This “team ministry” was accepted with enthusiasm and participation by many, but barely accepted by others as an unwelcomed financial necessity. Then the riots at the nearby university broke out and the Episcopal Church got serious about the revisions to the Book of Common Prayer. I’m not sure which caused more pain and anger, but my Social Science response was to conduct a survey.

One survey statement alone identified two distinctly different groups within the congregation. That statement was, “In a changing world, the church ought to be a place of quiet and unchanging stability.” The group that affirmed this statement opposed the team ministry and the changes taking place in church and society, emphasized church building and staff, and were confident that “Young People growing up today will accept the ways of the traditional church.” The group that disagreed with this statement, supported the team ministry and the changes taking place within the church, supported social activism, and tended to define the church primarily in terms community rather than place. These differences between the “Quiet group” and the “Change group” were statistically significant at the point .001 level on the Mann Whitney U Test. (There, I’ll never mention statistic again!) There was no evidence that these differences were based on age.

This study was reported in 1971. Does it sound familiar today? The point is that, although change is staring us in the eye, change is unwelcomed and threatening to a significant number of people. This is the message of Toffler in Future Shock (1970). Change in modern society is coming so fast and furious that some people simply cannot adapt and are overwhelmed. Change is a threat when the church is seen by some as a place of quiet sanity, to be defended as such.

It’s probably fair to characterize older communicants (who make up the great majority of many congregations) as perfectly happy and at home in their churches. After all, their churches fit their cultural values and they tend to “do church” in the old familiar ways that they have come to love. The only problem is that they are growing older and the younger people and children are missing. Weren’t Little Bo Peep’s sheep supposed to return home after they grew up and married? What’s wrong with them, and why is it so hard to carry on a civilized conversation with them? The typical older communicant is happy with their church because it was shaped by the culture they grew up with.

We need to distinguish between the Gospel of Salvation and the culture within which the Gospel is presented. The Good News of God’s love in Jesus remains the same from age to age, but the culture within which the Gospel is presented has always changed with time and location. The Episcopal Church is 1800 would probably seem as strange to a typical Episcopalian as that strange (you fill in the denomination) church down the street. The Gospel is an unchanging gift. The packaging varies with our culture.

But American culture has changing rapidly from generation to generation. I believe that the rapidity and depth of change is something new, something that happened after World War II. The result is that the cultural packaging of the Gospel that is comfortable to the older generation, that they grew up with and came to love, is strange and unwelcoming to the younger generations. Simple statistics document that the younger of the young are the most deeply alienated from the church and that the overall level of alienation is increasing year by year. Statistics from Un-Christian (2007) by David Kinnaman shows that these young, disaffiliated persons agree that Christians are antihomosexual (91%), judgmental (87%, hypocritical (85%), and old-fashioned (78%).

This past April, Tamie Harkins, former Episcopal Chaplain to Canterbury Club at Northern Arizona University posted a blog item that went viral in its popularity. She outlined 20 actions that are “guaranteed” to bring young persons to your church. It was a magnificent cry for changes by a young post-modern voice. We ignore these changes at the price of our long-term survival.

The changes between generations in our society threaten us with decay and loss if we do not respond. But changes poorly selected and imposed can generate opposition and destruction and “the last state of that congregation is worse than the first” (see Luke 11:24-26).

I believe that change and how we address it is the heart of the crisis faced by the traditional churches today. I know that the problem can be addressed because I have experienced congregation coming alive. I have also seen congregations dying that ignore the challenge and other congregations dying because they did not understand the threat of change and the damage from opposition to change. I’ve written elsewhere about the nature and management of adaptive change. We don’t have to follow the style of the large evangelical congregations. We have a wealth of catholic diversity to dip into as we seek to live the Gospel with a change in the cultural packaging of the Gospel.

Consider the following changes that are far-reaching but non-specific enough that they can be designed for that individual congregation in its uniqueness:

Emphasize the church as community, not organization.
Recognize that life in Christ is more about relationships than following rules.

Understand that I am a forgiven sinner and treat others without condemnation.

Be far more attentive to human need and the brokenness around us.

These four adaptive changes seem to me to relate to learning to live the Gospel. We need more emphasis here. There are two other that seem to be more related to changes in our culture.

Promote greater informality in church.

Realize that worship is moving from the cognitive toward the expressive and joyful.

How can we attract the disaffiliated and the stranger if we do not live the Gospel with joy in their midst? Repentance is changing my life direction from one path to another. How can the stranger repent if he has not seen the great alternative of Newness of Life lived in his presence?

The bottom line is that adaptive change to reach out to the younger generations will involve change is us and how we live toward others. What a glorious opportunity! As we walk the path between death from inaction on one side and death from squabbling on the other, we discover the Shepherd who guides us and leads us into his promises. As Father Abraham said to Sara, “Come, Let’s get packed and find out where He’s leading us! Yeee Hah!”

R. Channing Johnson, PhD, is an Episcopal priest working in the Diocese of Arizona and the author of Where have all the Young People Gone, (2011).

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
C. Wingate

Older people split along these categories too; it’s not really true that they are likely all happy where they are.

And I personally am sick and tired of clerics who think that, because I’m over 30, I can be jerked around according to whatever whim they have for luring the twenty-somethings into the– well, not pews, pews are officially old-fashioned, no twenty-something would ever accept sitting in a pew. I once was a twenty-something too. And I came home from high school, and I looked up the ad for the local parish in the yellow pages, and I think I even called to find out what time services were. And then I went there and sat in a pew. Fortunately Sam Wysong did a traditional service and wasn’t blown about by the winds of anti-tradition, or I would have gone somewhere else. In Maryland parishes are thick enough on the ground to allow some modicum of parish-shopping. And I ran across the many, many white-haired clerics who for whatever reason couldn’t do a “traditional” liturgy (this was in the early 1980s, so we’re talking a “tradition” of less than a decade or so), and it seems to be just getting worse. And I’ve sat through any number of Change Sermons wherein these clerics tried to browbeat their parishioners into silence while they played with the liturgy. And now that I’m over 50, the sense I get from the Change party is that I can be taken for granted, and that my pledge can be taken from granted, and that my participation in church and especially in the choir can be taken for granted, and that keeping me in the parish can be taken for granted. And maybe the thinking is that if I get tired of this and look for someplace where I’m not being taken advantage of, my disappearance is unimportant, even though that means my teenagers will go with me. Well, they’re both pretty much traditionalists when it comes to the liturgy, so maybe they are lost causes too.

Look– this premise of generational opposition is destructive to community. Young adults should come into church, and be part of a community that includes all ages. When their ostensible needs are pitted against those of their elders, a struggle for control is inevitable. And the truth about the young is that they are not at all united in what they want out of church and how they see doing church. I like probably 70% of Harkins’s ideas, and I don’t think they are exclusive of this. And I don’t think, in perhaps the most important sense, they are exclusive of not Changing.

It’s really time for the church to get over the social revolutions of the late sixties. Look, I’m over fifty, and I was still in elementary school then. Nostalgia for the period among our older clergy needs to be set aside. It’s time to get on with regular parish life.

ncmama

Two notes: Her name is Tamie Harkins; her blog entry originated at http://www.fteleaders.org/blog/entry/20-steps-to-a-renewed-church/ and not the garbled entry that shows when ‘blog item’ is moused over.

Thanks for the lead.

Cheryl A. Mack (added by ~ed.)

Thanks Cheryl – changes made

Clint Davis

Yes Ann, and this article you’re referencing reflects my experience as a music director too. For sure, there is change that needs to happen, which is always the case, but the change isn’t what one might first think. The article above seems itself to lean on outdated expectations of change. In my experience, the next generation enjoys High Mass, but with their gay friends and in a nice pair of shorts and clean, neat flip flops. They appreciate a strong diaconal ministry to find opportunities for service and compassion-practice in the world at large. They want to hang out and enjoy one another after church in a space that is as magical and beautiful as the nave; plastic folding tables and florescent tubes aren’t going to cut it.

Obedience is about accountability to the highest part of themselves, not in doing what they’re told. Conscience must be supreme, and the next generation knows that; tell them why and how to engage with their conscience, and obey this with all their heart, soul mind AND body.

I feel like I’m rambling but I hope I’m making sense.

Ann Fontaine

Latest research does not really bear out this premise. Read here.

Michael

Like many Episcopalian or CofE, I have thought about this. You wrote

“Emphasize the church as community, not organization.

Recognize that life in Christ is more about relationships than following rules.

Understand that I am a forgiven sinner and treat others without condemnation.

Be far more attentive to human need and the brokenness around us.”

What ‘Anglicans’ have collectively failed to do is to pastoral, simply look after the local sheep. In the 1960-1980 period, social activism took TEC’s eye off the local ball.

Michael – some of your notes have not been published due to not signing your name – please for the future? ~ed.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café