I read a new study released by The Barna Group on Six Reasons Young Christians Leave The Church. Again, it’s another statistic that saddens me. I am beyond being classified as young right now, but I totally relate to what this study found:

1. Churches seem overprotective.
2. Teens’ and twentysomethings’ experience of Christianity is shallow.
3. Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
4. Young Christians’ church experiences related to sexuality are often simplistic, judgmental.
5. They wrestle with the exclusive nature of Christianity.
   
6. The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt.

I can already hear a lot of so called “mature Christians” looking at the study and condemning younger Christians as being shallow. Heck, it even states that in reason #2! However, it’s not just young Christians that feel this way. How many times have we spoken to someone about attending a church service only to hear the response, “Church just isn’t relevant to me. I have a personal relationship with God and I don’t need to go to a place where all they want to do is take my money and ask me for my time.” I hear stories like this about the church far too often. It’s particularly saddening to me though when it applies to the younger generation. Mainly because the younger generation may find the church irrelevant because they aren’t hearing answers to their questions as shown in Scripture or they just find it boring. I think the two go hand-in-hand.

The contemporary church moves towards seeking to connect with people through modern, guitar-driven music and dynamic preaching. In the end, I feel it’s better-suited to drawing in Boomers rather than Millenials. If the church fails to connect with the younger generation, how does that play out for our future?

The reason this is on my mind and weighing heavy in my heart is that I have been sensing a call to action lately. A lot of passions lie outside of what typically is viewed as taking place within the church and after being engaged in so many conversations about how many people feel they are close to God, yet distance themselves completely from the church makes me wonder if doing good outside the church may be my future.

As I look at my life, I had an experience with God that had nothing to with sitting in a church service and feeling convicted or being at a low point in my life where I was seeking strength and hope. However, I truly believe that God still wants to move through his people and is using the local church to affect transformation in our cities. It’s time that the church woke up to the change in the next generations and take what is good and shed what is not so good. Catering to the whims of Gen Y Christians isn’t the answer though. If you look deeply at what the Barna study states and what I hear from people on the street every day is that they would find church relevant if they truly experienced an encounter with God as they gather together. If they could serve in ways that made a difference, without judgement and chose to answer questions rather than force what is deemed as truth on a disconnected audience, the local church could experience revival. The awesome thing about this would be that it isn’t just going to be relevant to young people. It could be a multi-generational movement of amazing proportions with God in the midst and evidenced through the church’s story.

Obviously, there is a place for ministries of all shapes and sizes and there is definitely a need for people/orgs that will focus on specific areas of need to do good. In the end, the most glaring question to me is this: If the church really did what it seems like it was called to do, would the need for so many organizations exist? If we weren’t bombarded with so many calls for compassion on tv/radio/print media/social media to commit our time and resources to a cause every few seconds each and every day, would we respond differently? Would the world be a different place? Could it be a better place?

My call to action is not a calling or a vision that mandates me to something… yet. I am feeling something is about to change, and this time I don’t think I’ll have the energy to fight against it. This time, I don’t think I’ll feel like I’m in it alone.

I’ve made many, many attempts to engage people in a continuing dialog about racial diversity and cultural diversity within the local church. There seems to be three camps within church circles these days:

1. The church should be racially diverse because heaven is diverse.
2. The church should be relevant to one’s own culture where people can explore the context of their culture relative to the context of Jesus’ culture.
3. We want to be a church to all people, where everyone feels welcome.

The problem with scenario number 1 is that diversity for the sake of coloring a room to give it the appearance of heaven, isn’t really heaven. Think about it. When you walk into a church gathering and see a lot of races represented, is it truly any different than if you walk into a room with only people that look like you? Is the music any different? Is the perspective of the message any different? What do you take away from a room filled with people of different races vs a room filled with only your own? Maybe pride that you’ve done a good thing?  Aside from that, you have gained--nor learned--nothing.

Scenario number 2 is most often used in the context of an ethnic church such as: Spanish, Chinese, Russian, etc. However, it does apply to the White American church as well. Growing up in Mexico, China, or Russia comes with a different set of cultures than growing up in America. Certain practices/customs/viewpoints/taboos are going to be different than here in the United States. As people migrate to our nation, should we force our culture on them from day one? Do we make them feel unwelcome in the land known as the melting pot of people? Not only do these issues conflict with culture, but they also conflict with faith. One’s faith as practiced in Korea is probably not going to look like ones faith as practiced in Tennessee. Gathering in this manner can lead to exclusion, which leads to inclusion. That’s he problem with this scenario.

Number 3 is like the Disneyland of churches. Most conversations I’ve had with pastors and church planters describes their ideal view of this scenario. A church of diversity, both in race and social/economic class. A church where the alcoholic can worship next to the millionaire and everyone can experience love and grace. I know churches like this do exist in some communities, but what can one learn from such an experience? Just because you enter a room with people that do not look like you, that can afford more or less than you, that speak different languages than you, what difference does it really make?

We’ll never escape any of these three scenarios. Each has some merit and will have those people drawn to gather within those contexts. As I continue this topic in my next blog post, I will argue that what we want to gain from each of these can only truly be found when we get past race and learn to embrace culture. It’s what the first century church did, and I believe it’s what the twenty-first century church must do.

Currently having a great conversation via twitter that started with this initial question:

How would you answer? Before you do, here are some snippets of additional dialog that you may consider as well:

So, should one tithe to the church? Is a tithe 10%? Should giving be considered a tithe? Can one--in a biblical sense--give to those in need outside of the church and consider that their tithe…thereby not giving to the church as well? Your thoughts are appreciated.

I saw a video that my friend Jon Reid posted on his blog here. It is a parody of the contemporary, attractional church. However, when you watch it, if you didn’t know better, you’d have no idea it’s a parody. Take a look for yourself:

Sound familiar? It should! Seriously, this is the message I hear far too frequently in the contemporary, attractional church. In fact, this may be what you hear when you get together to worship on Sunday’s. Is there anything wrong with it? Well, yes…and no.

I don’t want to bash the attractional, megachurch, but in reality it does come across kinda cookie cutter to me. While in seminary we always went out on Sundays and visited 3 different church services to discuss as a group. I’ve seen a lot of various megachurch services and somehow they all seemed the same. Is that a negative? Well, if it works, then not really. However, in trying to reach people outside of the church, I find it can be a negative. It seems like culture is changing. What is relevant isn’t contemporary Christian songs that everyone already knows. Programming songs by length and keeping a sermon to a finite amount of time may not attract newer generations.

The oddest thing about all of this to me is that in the church we still use the terms contemporary and relevant (that’s where the name “Contemporvant” came about in the video) when in fact, this model of church was established back in the late 80′s and early 90′s. Is something 10-15 years really considered contemporary and relevant? For me, it just isn’t.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of mocking church as was displayed in this video from North Point Ministries. We do enough in the church already to build resentment and fueling that with a parody video just doesn’t seem sensible for me. If this were shown to a strictly Christian audience of regular church attenders there could be humor in it, but again, do we really need another thing to point to what the church isn’t doing right?

As all followers of this blog will know, I am not a cookie cutter model person when it comes to ministry or the church. If it works for you, great…doesn’t mean it should work for me. I care more about deeper relationships, encouragement, and acts of service in growing our relationships together in Christ over programs, great worship musicians and commanding speakers trying to be relevant. For me, engaging in conversations--which can be done in the context of preaching--is the way to reach people that are exploring their faith or seeking to grow. Letting them know they matter rather than letting them wander in and out unnoticed is what I want to see. However, some will still be drawn to that contemporary, relevant 90′s model of church as was represented in the North Point video. That’s why I don’t want to speak against that model. It does work and is great at drawing in crowds of people to hear God’s Word. I just think it comes down to connecting with people on a deeper, more-intimate level and have chosen to expend my energies in a different direction. With that said, I still cringe a bit when I watch this video as I sense the humor in it, but don’t look forward to the thoughts it may instill in those currently outside of the church, that will view it.

What are your thoughts? I’d certainly appreciate learning your impressions and feedback once you’ve watched the video.

Closing out the weeklong series on 3 questions about the church is Brett Crimmel. Brett is the lead pastor of Forefront Church in Lakewood, Colorado and has some great insights to share on being the church and helping those in need. His perspective on the church and its future is an exciting one:

1) How would you define the (local) church?

The local church is a community of people gathered together with a unifying purpose: to Love God (great commandment), to Love Others (golden rule -- both inside and outside the church), and to Change the World (great commission). The church has a task to accomplish -- namely to help people find their way back to God.

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

Absolutely! The church has more work to do now than ever in the history of the world. People are spiritually hungry and the teachings of Jesus are what they’re looking for. Now, more than ever, we’ve got the answers to the chaos that everyday life and the meaning of life.

Now, there are plenty of churches that have lost sight of the great commission. They are certainly not relevant. They’ve become a hotel for all the perfect people instead of a hospital for all of us jacked up sinners saved by the grace Jesus alone can bring.

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

Yes. I think we’re moving past the culture of OR and moving into a culture of AND. While mainline denominations are struggling to define why they exist, the walls of separation are being torn down for the greater mission at hand. I’m seeing less division and more inclusion. Voices that are divisive are being marginalized by the social media and the back channel and those willing to work together on the mission are working together in ways never seen before.

But at the same time, the gospel is becoming clearer and clearer. And we’re preaching it with more boldness than ever before. And people are getting saved.Seems like the churches that are “getting it done” are moving from modality (a mode of operation … we’re one big happy family) to sodality (a task to complete … let’s do whatever we have to do to accomplish the task at hand)*. Maybe it’s just the people I’m listening to or maybe it’s reality, but it seems that even the establishment is adjusting to the new world order of multiple voices speaking. Someone has to filter & prioritize the noise. Churches that are about accomplishing a vision seem to be thriving in the new world order.John Ortberg said recently, “You can’t define spiritual maturity in a way that the pharisees win in the end.” Unfortunately, the pharisees have been winning for far too long. And I think the future church redefines that reality. Thank God.

Stay in touch with Brett Crimmel by folowing him on twitter: @brettcrimmel or the happenings at Forefront Church on their website: forefrontchurch.tv

David Park‘s twitter bio says it best: I dream about Asian-American culture and the church. David has a great insight into the next generation of church and how Asian-Americans can collectively influence the church culture in America. He hosts the Next Gener.Asian Church blog and is the most eloquent authority on Asian-American ministry. David has a love for--and is a student of--the greater church-at-large and lends a great perspective as he answers the three questions below:

1) How would you define the (local) church?

A disclaimer: I’m not particularly fond of my own definition of the local church, but I do think it is realistic and names how the church is viewed by non-Christians and is a good starting point for us to imagine change in the posture and future of the local church. I would define the local church is the organizational container or entity for Christian fellowship. I know we’re trying to stay away from defining the church as a building, but clearly, when we’re talking about a local church, we’re talking about an entity that (hopefully) exists with a particular objective of engaging people in the restorative, salvific, transformative, communal and missional aspects of the Christian faith. I say “hopefully” because not every local church fulfills all of these aspects well, and furthermore, they fail to take into account the strengths of other local churches. In other words, many local churches are limited in its true objective/mission because it is often preoccupied with its own perpetuation and survival.

In an increasingly pluralistic and competitive landscape then, the local church often resorts to diverse expressions and tactics akin to the business world in terms of approaching market segments and developing various products and services. While this might make sense for the survival of organizational entities, it recapitulates the problems we witness in society with perpetuating systemic injustices, tribalism, and consumerism. It is a rare church that can display to the world what reconciliation looks like, or radical generosity, or transformation at the collective level. We take ‘ekkesia’ seriously when we call people out of darkness, but we have difficulty converting this into the ‘apostolic’ dimension of the church in sending people out.

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

Relevance is difficult to achieve at a macro-scale when we tend to create industries and silos to protect ourselves. The world simply is not impressed when we mimic their culture-transforming developments, whether in the arts or in business. The local church has the capacity and potential to be relevant, but many close themselves off from others citing differences in doctrine, in zip code, in politics, in worship style, and a variety of matters that implicitly tell the world that we are not as full of grace as the gospel we proclaim. Choosing our tribe was a luxury in Christendom, but in a web 2.0, globalized, shifting America, we no longer have the space of distancing ourselves from “others”. The Mormon, the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu, the New Ager, the atheist, and the apathetic are all watching and we simply are playing a game (missiologically speaking) without any sense of gravity to our faith and our witness before the world at our doorstep.

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

Old habits die hard, but the circumstances and the consequences are dire, so I do hope that churches look different in the future with a greater emphasis on collaboration and reconciliation. The church needs to not gloss over problems of individuals or of the collective, but to invest deeply an embodied doctrine of incarnation. We must recover what it means to be a spectacle, to live a critique against the idols of political power and economic forces, and display healing, hospitality, and care to a greater extent across a wider spectrum of people than before. If the church doesn’t look different in the future, we effectively forfeit our role in shaping and informing the development of Christian witness in the global south and east and their churches.

Learn more of David’s thoughts at his blog: Next Gener.Asian Church or follow him on twitter: @dpark75.

Many of you may know Tyler Braun from his blog Man of Depravity. He’s the wild card in this blog series as he is not the lead pastor of a local church, but he brings the voice of a younger generation and is a seminary student and youth pastor in Portland, Oregon. Here is how this dynamic young man responded to the following three questions:

1) How would you define the (local) church?

A smaller and more specific expression of the church at large (church universal), designed to reach the world through discipleship and evangelism.

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

By “church” here I will move forward with the assumption that church means the combination of all local churches (though I do not think that is necessarily what the word church means, only that is helps frame the question in a way that I can answer). I say yes and no. I say yes because relevant is such an ambigous term that is often used when we think of “cutting edge,” even when cutting edge might not be what is truly relevant. Relevant means something different to each person in their own individuality. The many expressions of Christianity in churches around the world tell me that absolutely the church is relevant. I say no because my own experience says that culture is changing so fast that it is nearly impossible to stay relevant in the forefront of that change. And It isn’t only the church that struggles with this.

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

Based on my definition of what the church is I would say emphatically no. Granted, I used a pretty broad and basic definition, but even if I was more specific I don’t know that much would change. Even within my lifetime there will be the changes of moving to a more internet-based approach or anything other specific change you see happening even now and churches will change as they deem change is necessary to reach the people around them. But the basic tenets of what a church is and does will stay the same. We will still gather consistently in large and small groups to pray, worship, and hear God’s Word brought in a way that makes sense to us. In that way, I think the church will stay the same.

Tyler Braun lends his insights regularly at his blog: manofdepravity.com and you can follow him on twitter as well at: @tylerbraun.

You may be familiar with Charles Lee as a public speaker and creator of The Idea Camp, but Charles’ home base is as the lead pastor of New Hope South Bay in Torrance, California. Here is how Pastor Lee responded to the following three questions about the church:

1) How would you define the (local) church?

The local church is a local expression of God’s people gathered for a common mission.

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

I think “relevant” describes a reactive culture. It lacks the proactive nature of culture-making that the church should be embodying. Is the church relevant? Sure. Many churches are reacting to the cultural changes and adapting their ministries accordingly. Nevertheless, I believe we need more churches that proactively create the kind of Kingdom culture that God desires.

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

I think the church will most definitely look different in the future. I think more churches will choose multiple and viable networks over one central organization (e.g., traditional denominations). This is not to say that people will leave centralized organizations like denomination. Rather, churches will find themselves needing to connect with people outside of their tribe or family. I think more churches will start leveraging the strengths of the various streams within Christianity, especially with the growing access to networks online.

Also, I think the future church will re-integrate compassion and justice into their Gospel storytelling. It will become more central of what it means to express God’s love for the world. As the result, more in the world will come to know a God who practical cares for their deepest needs.

Learn more of Pastor Lee’s perspectives on his blog: charlestlee.com or by following him on twitter: @charlestlee. Find out more about New Hope South Bay at: newhopesb.newsong.net.

Today’s perspective comes from Pastor Joshua Roberts of Encounter Assembly in Burbank, California:

1) How would you define the (local) church

I would define the local church as a geographic gathering of Christ followers/Christian/etc. that come together on a regular basis to worship God the Father together, encourage each other, pray for others, and partake in ordinances/sacraments of the Church (i.e. the Lord’s Supper and Baptism).

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

I guess that depends on which manifestation of the Church you’re speaking about. Some local congregations are, and others are not. I believe the more important question is “Is the message and mission of the Church relevant?” To that question I answer a resounding yes! It’s up to each local congregation to use its gifts and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to relevantly live out and communicate the good news (gospel).

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, the Church should constantly be examining itself (through the study of the scriptures and the guidance of the Holy Spirit). We should examine all areas of our theology and practice and leave room for the Spirit’s correction. If we do this, we should always be maturing, thus looking different.

I also sense the Church is shifting away from the Western Culture focused ministry paradigm to a more Easter and Global focused model. We see evidence of this with some Roman Catholics and even Evangelicals migrating to the Eastern Orthodox church (article). I think we are many years away from the complete shift, but it is something we should continue to watch.

***Please note that I intentionally used both “church” and “Church” in my response. The use of “church” is to denote the local gathering of believers. The use of “Church” is for the church universal.***

Be sure to follow Pastor Robert’s blog at: joshinthe818.com or he can frequently be found on twitter at: @joshinthe818. Find more information on Encounter Assembly at: encounterassembly.com

I asked several pastors to share their perspectives on three questions regarding the church. Each respondent is in a different geographical area and/or operating under different styles of ministry. Therefore, each perspective is unique and worth learning from. As you read their responses, try and imagine how you would reply to these same three questions. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Today we kick off the series with Pastor Jason Salamun of Project Church in Rapid City, South Dakota:

1) How would you define the (local) church?In a nutshell, the local church is a community of sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who join God in his mission in the world.

Symbolically of course, the Church is referred to as the Body of Christ, Bride of Christ,and Family of God. Scripture gives us purposes, distinctions, and directions on how we are to function and organize but to answer your question, I’ll stick with my simple answer.

2) Is the church relevant? Why?

Five to ten years ago I would have said, “no.” The music is outdated, the dress code is too stuffy, the church buildings are on the cutting edge of 1890, etc. I’d refer to myself as a “Christ Follower” instead of a “Christian” because I didn’t want to be connected to THOSE people.

I was immature.

Many of us were.

Many of us still are.

A church is relevant because the gospel is (I’m assuming a genuine church is a gospel-centered church). The message is unchanging and relevant but communicating the message will depend on your culture. Speak the language but don’t change the message.

I’m all for contextualizing the gospel to our culture but it’s so much more than cool lights, killer environments, and pop worship. Frankly, a traditional church service full of liturgy can be just as (or more) “relevant” as a rock show worship experience. As I look out at the church planting landscape, I’m seeing a bunch of cookie-cutter “relevant” churches who somehow believe their graphic t-shirts and a coffee bars are the good news. Sad, so sad.

Throwing a pair of hipster jeans on the gospel doesn’t make it relevant.

The gospel is about a King and a Kingdom.

Every community is different but I do know this: love is relevant in any language. Jesus doesn’t need make-up to be attrative to our culture, he is to be lifted up and he said he would draw people to himself (John 12:32).

I’m not against creating environments, talking plainly, having modern music etc., (our church does that), but I think “relevance” as we know it is superficial at best. It’s so much more than style and preferences. I think our generation needs to understand the gospel better and learn how to diagnose idolatry in their culture and people’s hearts and treat it with the gospel. Show people how they fit into God’s epic story. That’s relevant to any people in any time, and any place.

P.S. Nothing is sadder than a middle-aged pastor wearing his teenage kids clothes and trying to talk Snoop in a sermon. That’s not relevant, that’s goofy.

3) Do you see the church looking different in the future? Please explain.

I believe in the church because I believe in Jesus.

This defeatist attitude we have about the church in the west is pathetic. We already know how this will all end! We are the Body of Christ! He said, “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The question is, do we believe it?
In the future, just as in the past, churches will gather in various expressions and models and forms, but we all have the same mission: Make disciples who love God and people. From house churches to mega-churches, from traditional churches to contemporary churches and everything in between, we need them all. The point isn’t to build the Church, the Lord will do that. The point is to point people to him.

I don’t know about tomorrow but I know about today. The future is a product of the present. We were born for such a time as this and the need for the gospel has never been greater. The time is now!

Imagine if churches followed Jesus and lived out passages like Luke 4:18-19,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

That’s a future I want to help create!!!

Follow more of Pastor Jason Salamun’s story at his blog: jasonsalamun.com or find out more about Project Church at their website: projectchurch.net. Jason is also on twitter as: @jasonsalamun.