Lock the front door - little Billy is trying to escape!

[Avonia]

The most recent “Adventist World” magazine has the following article title and subtitle (written by Jan Paulsen):

“Why Do They Walk Away?”
“Keeping youth and young adults engaged in the church must be one of our highest priorities.”

Several things came to mind:

1. Why must we do this?

2. The word “keep.” Why would we want to keep them inside of anything? We can help our children expand their domain instead of drawing a line around a small one.

3. The assumption that they have “gone” somewhere less desirable. We could ask them where they are, where they wish to go, and then help them get there.

4. The premise of “away.” Many of them are walking “toward” something. It only appears “away” because of the self-centric perspective of the viewer.

Thoughts?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The most recent “Adventist World” magazine has the following article title and subtitle (written by Jan Paulsen):

“Why Do They Walk Away?”
“Keeping youth and young adults engaged in the church must be one of our highest priorities.”

Several things came to mind:

1. Why must we do this?

2. The word “keep.” Why would we want to keep them inside of anything? We can help our children expand their domain instead of drawing a line around a small one.

3. The assumption that they have “gone” somewhere less desirable. We could ask them where they are, where they wish to go, and then help them get there.

4. The premise of “away.” Many of them are walking “toward” something. It only appears “away” because of the self-centric perspective of the viewer.

Thoughts?

Excellent post. Although I haven't seen the specific article you referenced, I have seen others circulating among SDA periodicals that address similar themes. The articles that I have read give rise to many of the same questions you've posed.

I am finding some similar themes outside of SDAism as well. In fact, I have a co-worker who does not attend church partly because she views Christians as being "predatory." That makes me sad. Among certain circles, there is certainly an "us versus them" mentality (outside of SDAism, this seems to commonly take the form of "Christians vs. non-Christians").

I suppose the main difference within SDAism is that they aren't solely trying to "keep" their youth within "Christianity" (as a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Lutheran might do). Rather, they are trying to "keep" their youth within a tiny subset of "Christianity" known as "Seventh-day Adventism" (most other Christians are far less concerned about denomination hopping, so long as the person remains "Christian").

Again, excellent post. Very thought provoking.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Excellent post. Although I haven't seen the specific article you referenced

For those inclined: Adventist World : Why Do They Walk Away?

I suppose the main difference within SDAism is that they aren't solely trying to "keep" their youth within "Christianity" (as a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or Lutheran might do). Rather, they are trying to "keep" their youth within a tiny subset of "Christianity" known as "Seventh-day Adventism"

That joining our subgroup is essential for salvation is the basis of our recruiting. Many people no longer buy into the basis. So they leave. We need a new basis.

Again, excellent post. Very thought provoking.

That's kind -thank you.

 

[AzA]

There were two other recent efforts on this topic. One was broadcast on the Hope Channel and a kind of 4-person roundtable with a token youth explaining how to "keep" young people active in local churches. The second was an edition of the Let's Talk! series, taped in (I think) NY, and also broadcast on Hope. I came across them on another forum.

I agre that the question of keeping another person anywhere begs questions about the quality of relationship. If I feel I have to entice you -- or tie you -- I should question why you don't choose to remain in our common space. It means tapping into your interests, your values, and getting out of my own mind.

Addressing you is much more useful than trying to set up a 10-ring circus to maintain whatever interest's only happening in my own head. In the Church's case, it's a bit like standing on the front porch and seeing people walk out the front door, climb out windows, and jump the back gate -- and saying "But I cooked beetroot for dinner!"

 

[JonMiller]

The problem is that there are a lot of people in our churches which seem intent at driving people away.

Additionally, some of it is that other cultures are enticing. A hedonistic/materialistic life is very enticing, it is meant to be, there are advertisers spending billions of dollars based on this. If it wasn't fact, they wouldn't be spending the money.

So yes, enticements happen. People get directed, very commonly by advertisements/social pressures. Those social pressures can change for many reasons... it is a culture.

You can't say, oh, the person doesn't belong because enticements are needed.

JM

 

[AzA]

You certainly can say so: it's the very premise of advertising: "You have a deficiency; we can fill it. You're not yet one of us. Join us by buying or buying into x."

The phrase "selling ice to Eskimos" comes to mind.

 

[Sophia7]

The most recent “Adventist World” magazine has the following article title and subtitle (written by Jan Paulsen):

“Why Do They Walk Away?”
“Keeping youth and young adults engaged in the church must be one of our highest priorities.”

Several things came to mind:

1. Why must we do this?

2. The word “keep.” Why would we want to keep them inside of anything? We can help our children expand their domain instead of drawing a line around a small one.

3. The assumption that they have “gone” somewhere less desirable. We could ask them where they are, where they wish to go, and then help them get there.

4. The premise of “away.” Many of them are walking “toward” something. It only appears “away” because of the self-centric perspective of the viewer.

Thoughts?

I read that article and am thankful that when I was growing up, I had the opportunity to expand my "domain" and not be isolated inside a closed Adventist-only world. At the same time, I never thought that the Adventist Church lacked relevance or community or opportunities for engagement. Perhaps I wasn't the typical Adventist young adult (and I was over 35 when I left), but those were not issues in my decision to officially withdraw my membership from the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Even though I have chosen to move on, though, Adventism will always be a part of my identity; that's not something that a person can just walk away from. I will probably always miss being a part of the Adventist community as well. It's not easy for me to find that same sense of belonging in other communities. However, my rejection of certain Adventist doctrines unfortunately has separated me from the fellowship of the Adventist community; it has made our relationships with many friends and even family members awkward. It makes me sad that the "remnant" mentality in Adventism still does that.

 

[Avonia]

I will probably always miss being a part of the Adventist community as well.

This is one of your more lovely qualities. Gentleness.

It makes me sad that the "remnant" mentality in Adventism still does that.

Me too.

Any religion that puts a focus of consciousness on their "special designation" runs a high risk of identity confusion among the followers. Many members of the Adventist church think they "are Adventists." And forget over time they are children of God.

You never were an Adventist. You were, and are, a daughter of God participating in a religious community. Your present religious community helps you express your identity better than your former religious community. That's a good thing.

 

[BigRedBus]

“Keeping youth and young adults engaged in the church must be one of our highest priorities.”

I wonder if there has been a realisation that the trend simply cannot be ignored any more -- well done to the leadership for noticing now, but where have you been for the past 50 years?!?

Possible answers to question 1 of your response, Avonia. "Why must we do this?"

I am going to state something that will probably appear cynical -- one of the answers to question 1 is "income". The church is not just a religion, it is also a business. If a business sees future customers walking away in droves, they should be trying to hook it back in, particularly if they beleive the custom is "theirs by right" (It isn't, of course, but it is very easy for a religion to think otherwise because business gets mixed up with notions of "The Truth").

Another possible answer to question 1 is "panic". The scale of the departures must be worrying the church hierarchy, and I suspect none of them have specific business experience that enables them to look at the trend with a clear head. "Keeping youth and young adults engaged in the church" may superficially seem to be a remedy to a problem, but deeper thought (as you so eloquently provided, Avonia and others) may suggest that the type of attitudes underlying the suggested remedy may actually be symbolic of the underlying problems.

Another possible answer to question 1 is "incomprehension" -- not really understanding why this is happening. You can almost hear the undertone "we have given you everything you ought to need... how DARE you leave?". But the situation is too far gone to be fixed by a rather piqued knee jerk reaction. It's a problem that's been building for years, but if nobody measures it, nobody takes the trouble to listen to all our ex-customers and nobody collates their views and then creates an action plan.... well nobody has much hope of turning the problem round.

Give the leadership their due, at least there has been some official high level recognition of a problem. But my take is that it's the church that is going to have to change, not the young people. I do hope the church can actually make this change, embedding it in everything they do and convincing the conservatives that they are simply going to have to tolerate it. This really has to be done if there is going to be any meaningful church presence in 50 years time.

 

[BigRedBus]

I've been thinking a little more. It really is helpful if everybody thinks of the church as a commercial product, and thinks of themselves as ambassadors for that product. It may feel a strange mindset, but it should not be thought of as at all demeaning. Instead, it should help people to better understand the real nature of the challenges being faced.

With that in mind, here are a few case studies. The church could certainly do with taking a leaf out of these particular books. (Brits, take a walk down Memory Lane with me and see if this rings any bells...)

Lucozade -- a bright orange fizzy drink, usually sold in chemists shops (drugstores to an American). Your Mum used to give you it when you weren't well. The brand was turned around and totally reinvented as an energy drink for active sports people, rather than a medicinal product. It is now a leading brand, yet the product is essentially unchanged. The image problem is no more, it's now cool to be seen drinking it.

Brylcreem -- your Grandad would have smeared this onto his hair once, but it was definitely not for the teenage generation back in the 1960s or 1970s. It looked as though the brand would die with the users, but no. Hairstyles began to need creams and gels, and Brylcreem is a popular brand again. This didn't happen on its own -- they needed to reinvent their packaging and image in order to move with the times.

Roberts Transistor Radios -- your Grandma may well have had one in her kitchen. But they were expensive, had a very staid image and listening habits were changing. Just as it looked as though the end was in sight, they became market leaders in the new digital radio technology. They moved with the times and took advantage of new opportunites.

Can you see the parallels? I don't know which marketing consulstant was used, but the Adventist Church could benefit a lot from talking to them for a few minutes, and then listening to them for a few hours. In the 3 case studies I quoted, the corporate leaders needed the right combination of desperation and humility in order to ensure their survival. I would like to see the same in the Adventist Church.

 

[Avonia]

Interesting thoughts BigRedBus. It's hard to develop the programs and services people are increasingly becoming interested in when local churches don't have any resources to invest in their own "brand." As you put it.

Younger Adventists who are more philanthropically minded are becoming less likely to give through church tithe because of the accountability they feel to make sure their resources are used wisely.

Another problem with our current model is the total disconnect between the donor and the use of the donor's money. There is a big difference between co-creating an interesting product/service and just sending your money away to some amorphous pool.

We need a less hierarchical, more interconnected, organization.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Interesting thoughts BigRedBus. It's hard to develop the programs and services people are increasingly becoming interested in when local churches don't have any resources to invest in their own "brand." As you put it.

Younger Adventists who are more philanthropically minded are becoming less likely to give through church tithe because of the accountability they feel to make sure their resources are used wisely.

Another problem with our current model is the total disconnect between the donor and the use of the donor's money. There is a big difference between co-creating an interesting product/service and just sending your money away to some amorphous pool.

We need a less hierarchical, more interconnected, organization.

Valid points. Greater transparency might also be a plus.

BFA

 

[Pythons]

Over the last week I watched the "Ellen White Summit" ( which can be found on google video ). The premise for the Summit was exactly Avonia's point and the speakers who participated in the summit explicitly stated as much.

It appeared that the reason the speakers gave for this departure was that the church, in general ( speaking about the part that's charged with doctrine, teaching, etc ) had not interpreted what Ellen wrote properly and false doctrines were generated not from Ellen but a poor interpretation of what Ellen said.

The video goes on to explicitly state that while a pastor or lower clergy must accept Ellen White as a prophet the Church now will allow prospective members to enter and be baptized within the SDA Church who reject, in total, Ellen White. A person who joins the SDA church who rejects Ellen White is instructed not to slander Ellen White on the Sabbath day "in Church" but is free to debate against the things Ellen said on other days of the week even in a Church setting - but not on the Sabbath day.

Here is part two of eight.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...S7ClIIrOqALkjpHrDw&q=ellen+white+summit&hl=en#

Part 6 of eight gets pretty interesting and lists some of the things that the Church has formally admitted Ellen was totally wrong on. It appears as if the SDA church is prepping the flock for an overhaul of belief and as the video openly say, the future changes will be rejoiced by some and cursed by others. Not sure if anyone is interested but wanted to post this in case people didn't know about what was going on.

 

[BigRedBus]

the Church now will allow prospective members to enter and be baptized within the SDA Church who reject, in total, Ellen White.

A step in the right direction, but they really haven't "got it" yet. Think commercially. You are a customer. You are doing them a favour by being there. They are not doing you the favour by graciously allowing you in to join them. They can't have it both ways. They can have a large membership, but they have to accept they can't tell you all exactly how to think. Or they can have the control but then they can't get too upset if customers decide they don't like it and go to a competitor.

Avonia, what an interesting take on tithing. Yes, why shouldn't you decide how and where your tithe is spent? I've never heard that suggested in church yet, I wonder why?!?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The video goes on to explicitly state that while a pastor or lower clergy must accept Ellen White as a prophet the Church now will allow prospective members to enter and be baptized within the SDA Church who reject, in total, Ellen White. A person who joins the SDA church who rejects Ellen White is instructed not to slander Ellen White on the Sabbath day "in Church" but is free to debate against the things Ellen said on other days of the week even in a Church setting - but not on the Sabbath day.

Is it OK to discuss the elephant in the room?

A person who joins the SDA denomination who openly rejects Ellen G. White is in direct conflict with the beliefs that the SDA denomination describes as "fundamental." According to the church manual, this puts the SDA member in a very delicate position. Will he be permitted to hold church offices? Will he be generally viewed as "less worthy of God's grace?" Will he be treated as a second class citizen in his own church?

I am sure that the answers to these questions may vary from place to place. However, I am also certain that there are still many places in which an SDA will remain a second class citizen until the denomination's official positions are revised.

I admit that this is merely my perspective. However, these "signs of change" feel a bit like a Band-Aid that is being used to repair a brain hemhorrage. I welcome your thoughts.

BFA

 

[OldStudent]

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" Acts 11:26.

Could some "reverse engineering" on this passage have relevance to this thread? Who coined the term? Why? To what demographic did many of the disciples belong? Yet the church then grew like a California wild fire. What makes the difference?

 

[Avonia]

A person who joins the SDA denomination who openly rejects Ellen G. White is in direct conflict with the beliefs that the SDA denomination describes as "fundamental."

Changes in policy often lag a change in consciousness.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Changes in policy often lag a change in consciousness.

Fair enough. However, if the perceived change in consciousness does not eventually lead to a change in policy, I have to wonder how much the consciousness has really changed. I am concerned for new SDA members who find themselves at odds with the SDA fundamentals.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" Acts 11:26.

Could some "reverse engineering" on this passage have relevance to this thread? Who coined the term? Why? To what demographic did many of the disciples belong? Yet the church then grew like a California wild fire. What makes the difference?

OldStudent,

How many of the believers at Antioch stayed by Paul after he was in chains in the capital at Rome?

Were you speaking concerning the thousands of the Pharisaical party that had joined with the believers at Jerusalem; to whom James referred when Paul made his last visit before being taken into custody by the Roman government? James told Paul that they were zealous after the law.

The wildfire died down to some localized smoldering and creeping as you read the Acts and the letters of Paul to the churches and Revelation 2 and 3.

Fire travels faster uphill than downhill. Water travels faster downhill than uphill.

Joe

 

[Pythons]

If I understand the content of the videos there will be a "change" in the FB's of the Church. This 'change' is what they said some SDA members would rejoice over while others would curse the change as babylon, fallen church or something to that effect.