Boomer Boom and Bust

Boomer Boom And Bust

Churches now “service” the consumer generation, but the challenge is to convert it.

It has been nearly eight years since the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation turned forty. Time magazine noted that event with a cover story, and books continue to explore the collective psyche of the 76 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964. By force of numbers, the Baby Boom has reshaped virtually every social institution and view that it has chosen to touch or ignore. Its demographic weight has imposed Boomer values on everything from Levis (once skin-tight, now “a looser fitting copy of the original” to accommodate aging anatomies) to elections.

The church also awakened to this “Generation on the Doorstep,” as one article put it, and began looking for ways to minister to them. It has not been easy. Despite Boomers’ obvious interest in religion (prompted, no doubt, by their desire to give their kids the best of everything), they are not exactly First Baptist material. If we built them a church, would they come?

Some have, but many haven’t. According to a survey by Wade Clark Roof, professor of religion and society at the University of California at Santa Barbara, 58 percent of Boomers with religious backgrounds dropped out for at least two years during adolescence and young adulthood. That is far more than previous generations. Only about one-third of those who rejected organized religion have come back, at least for now, he says. The largest group of Boomers—more than 40 percent—is still looking for spiritual answers “in its own highly individualistic way,” he wrote in American Demographics.

Megachurch to the rescue

Those somber numbers have not stopped the evangelical church from trying. Led by “seeker” models such as Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago and Saddleback Community Church in Southern California, hundreds of churches across the country have redesigned their programs to meet the wants and needs of Boomers. By offering a mix of contemporary music, drama, practical messages, and networks of support groups and social services, they have coaxed Boomers into the sanctuary—which is now called anything but a sanctuary. Denominational tags have been dropped (Saddleback is really a Southern Baptist church in disguise), hymnals have been tossed, and steeples have been replaced with atriums.

So now that Baby Boomers have their very own customized churches, what is to be done with this upscale, sophisticated group of worshipers as they begin filling the cushioned theater seats?

We might begin by changing the Boomers’ schedule. Most Boomers who go to church go infrequently. Three years ago the church at which I serve as an elder moved to a seeker approach on Sunday mornings. Our attendance rose significantly. What grew even more dramatically, however, was our “potential congregation.” We have discovered that on any given Sunday, only about 40 percent of those who call our church “home” are in the services. An “average” congregant attends only about twice a month. At the same time, he or she gives little and serves even less, yet expects a high level of service and support from the church. Apparently, that comes with the territory. Other Boomer-oriented seeker churches we have compared notes with face similar situations.

The challenge for churches like ours is to transform these occasional attenders who take a “consumer approach” to religion into “fully devoted followers of Christ,” as Willow Creek states as its goal. Without a doubt, the church must continue to develop new approaches to ministry that will appeal to the 40 percent who are still looking for spiritual answers; the church must adapt to the cultures of new generations as well as geography. But we must also remember that part of our calling is to make disciples. Issues such as accountability, commitment, loyalty, and service belong alongside such other sermon and curricula topics as healthy living, interpersonal relationships, and self-esteem.

Whose church is it?

At the same time, Baby Boomers need to grow up. I speak as a thoroughgoing Boomer myself when I say that many of the character traits this generation is bringing into church—and that churches are accommodating for the sake of outreach—are in direct conflict with the kingdom of God.

The typical Boomer says, “I’ll pick what meets my needs and stay with it only as long as it does so.” Jesus says, “Take up your cross and follow me.” The Boomer looks out for himself. Jesus teaches “love your neighbor as yourself.” The Boomer says there are no absolute truths, only personal choices. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

We Boomers are used to having things our way. But part of the process of growing up is learning that some things are more important than our expectations. No social institution has taught us that lesson yet. Perhaps none can, except for the kingdom of God. It is the one institution we cannot mold in our own image. If we ever hope to become spiritually mature, no matter what our age, we must be remade in its form.

By Kenneth H. Sidey.

Why Trust Tv Execs?

In 1990 the U.S. Senate passed a bill sponsored by Paul Simon (D-Ill.) to provide the major television networks with a narrow exemption from possible antitrust prosecution. The purpose was to allow them to talk together about reducing the amount of televised violence.

Great idea, we thought. After all, television violence is no longer a simple matter of free speech protected by the First Amendment. In study after study, it has been shown to be a public health issue. Conclusion: Attractively packaged violent entertainment results in seriously increased social violence (CT, Nov. 9, 1992, p. 12). Thus, violent entertainment may indeed be a slow and insidious version of yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, which Justice Holmes long ago recognized as the clear exception to protected speech.

We also liked Senator Simon’s idea because it allowed the entertainment industry to take the initiative through self-regulation. Big government has a generally poor track record in curing social ills. And logic suggests that if those who produce the entertainment provide their own solution, they will more happily live by it.

Unfortunately, last month’s announcement by the four major television networks was a serious disappointment. They stated they would begin to label certain violent programs (violent children’s cartoon programs, for example, would be exempted) so that parental discretion could be exercised. This labeling effort, in newspaper program listings and on the air, is predicated on two false assumptions: First, that in most homes parents are actually around to monitor what their children watch (from 1965 to 1985, there was a 40 percent drop in the amount of time American parents spent with their kids); and second, that the labels will make the programming less attractive to youth (any parent of teenagers knows that such a warning functions as a not-too-subtle “Watch me!” message). One might say that FOX is guarding the henhouse.

A parental role

What to do? We recoil from the idea of government regulation of speech. We find more appealing a suggestion being floated by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to require new television sets to carry electronic devices that will allow parents to block specific programming in advance. The device is, in essence, a kind of remote control that can be operated from the parental workplace.

Markey’s plan, however, is a poor, hi-tech substitute for the richer, more relational lo-tech solutions: watching and discussing television programming (and advertising) together as families; not subscribing to cable services that offer a high level of sex and violence; helping children just say no to what is truly offensive; occasionally declaring Tubeless Week and engaging in fun and games instead; and (almost unthinkable!) not even owning a television.

We do not expect the mass distraction industry to be pleased with any suggested restrictions on what they broadcast. They cry, “Censorship!” at the slightest provocation. Though government should not engage in prior restraint of free expression, censorship is a key part of every parent’s job description. Let’s go beyond warning labels and encourage parental discretion in every way possible.

By David Neff.

Promisekeepers

Fifty-three years ago, Ruth Bell told God that if he would let her marry fellow Wheaton College student Billy Graham it would be the greatest honor she could have. This month Billy and Ruth Graham celebrate 50 years of marriage. She has not changed her mind.

Golden wedding anniversaries are, for public figures, almost an exotic rarity. The famous, including the Grahams, have special kinds of stress. Separation, criticism, lack of privacy—all take their toll.

Despite the stresses, the Grahams have been models of commitment. Well known as people of prayer, they have lived out their commitment in the presence of God. Nothing preserves a wedding vow like a vibrant sense of the presence of the Great Promisekeeper.

Congratulations. And thanks for the inspiring example.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.