Should the Church Pander to Millennials?

Anyone has comments on this article?

Is there a logical and analogous point to what we have been discussing here in other posts? What is the danger for the Church if it would buckle to the pressures of millennials? I love the term “irreparable harm”. So, what it would be the irreparable harm by giving in to the clamors of the millennial crowd?

The reverse may be also truth: Is there any irreparable harm to the millennials if the Church simply ignores their accommodation needs? Will the changeable be harmed by the unchangeable?


You Might Also Like

16 Replies to “Should the Church Pander to Millennials?”

  1. This article is written by a neo-Calvinist, pseudo-Methodist clown. He’s worked for the CIA and the IRD. His resume includes nothing from service in the local church – let alone successful service. I read this article the other day, and it’s the same crap people like him have been spouting since the 1960’s.

    The irreperable harm being done is by the church, to the church and the Millennials. The church is going to have to acknowledge a certain amount of “it’s not you, it’s me.” We have done too much harm, apologized too little and been unwilling to change.

    It’s not about changing the message, but changing our hearts.

  2. Okay the guy who wrote the article is Satan himself, let’s suppose… Also, apparently working for the CIA is bad, especially after all the lies they’re telling about Benghazi to protect the guilty, as late as… today. I have to admit that I know very little of the IRD and I am opposed to neo-Calvinism, being a “hard-nose, hard-shell one”. It is also the same crap as 1960, which actually is an evidence, at least an argument, that 54 years is pretty good in terms of survival… so, there is no harm done, if that is any valid method of evaluation.
    Now, I do agree that the message is to change our hearts, but to what? May I beg you for some examples where “our” hearts would be changed?
    Now, as a young guy in Brazil (more closer to the day before yesterday than yesterday, I guarantee you), I started the craziest congregation with three other guys, that anyone could create… that was early 70’s. We took everyone, with any idea of anything, with all kinds of different views, drug addicts, hippies, bums, girls who came to use our bathrooms to abort, and other types of good people, so, I am very comfortable that I can make accommodations in my heart to receive the millennials who want change, but, do you really think that they want the Church to change her heart? Don’t you think by all that is demonstrated by the culture today that they actually want us to change our methods and “who cares” about changing the heart? Or better, do you think it is possible to change one’s heart without affecting the message? “…Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks”.

  3. Well, the piece was pure crap, but is a great example of how not to attract or deal with any of the millennial population. Just another ‘us verse them’ example of current thinking and the truth is that us and them are the same. Meanwhile, the ancient enemy of God sits back and laughs saying to himself, “this was way to easy”.

  4. Word Scott! But the question in the paragraph of the article, just before the last one us a valid one!
    Also I would really, really turn myself into a cool guy accepted by his own time, and have some enlightenment as to what I can do to “please” the millennials without compromising my message. I don’t want to suggest possible answers; that burden is upon those who imply that somehow not “wiggling” herself into the culture, or by not letting the culture to creep itself within its boundaries, the church is being “bad” to millennials, they’re the ones who should answer “what to do and how”. I had my experiences as a young 21 to 25 year old preacher in Brazil of receiving the culture without changing the message, but, that was then and now is now… What should the Church do, such as in point one, point two, and so on? Don’t you think that if this issue is so serious, so important today that we should have a real practical user manual, and clear definitions in order to please the millennials? BTW, wasn’t there millennials two thousand years ago as well? What examples of change we have from the church of those days?

    In a side note:

    The evangelicalist, even the fundamentalist, say that if we don’t preach the old fashion way the millennials will not get saved and will not join the “real” church;
    The cool, modern, accepting of the times Christian says that we should receive the millennials one way or another so they can be part of the community, and hopefully, to be saved and not part of a club;
    Jesus says “All whom the Father have given me SHALL come to me;”
    Acts says that “all that were ordained for salvation were saved”
    Paul says that God saves whom He wills…
    Calvin agree with the latter three ones; the first two ones often, and sadly, have an incorrect view of salvation (if any…). I think we are overstating the role of the churches, ministers, methods and outreaches… Is it our method? Really? Somebody help me!

  5. I don’t think that this is the correct question. The correct question is should the Church listen to Millennials? Why? Because pandering means compromising beliefs and standards whereas listening does not imply any compromising. But at the same time, listening allows us to learn things about the person speaking and ourselves. And in learning about ourselves, we could learn what corrections need to be made.

  6. We should defiantly listen to anyone who has something to say in a polite and respectful manner. As for what we should do? We should do the same thing that Jesus, and the church in its success has done over the years. We can change the medium, we can make the message relevant (Jesus talked to fisherman about fishing, to farmers about farming etc. The bible teaches us “The Lord is my shepherd, to a stripper I teach the Lord is my bouncer because the message is the same to them.), and we can change our style. The one thing we can not change is the message. We get stuck in style over substance, when we need to focus on substance and then adopt a style to it.

  7. Good Scott! Actually we can start by saying that God, to save men, became a man, lived among men, suffered thirst and hunger as a man, was tempted as a man… If God came down to my level of humanity when He gave me the gift of faith, isn’t this a good example for me to follow?
    I know many traditional people will say that “clapping” and being “lively” in the service, “making a joyful noise” unto the Lord in celebration of Him is akin to the old covenant… I’ve seen and heard many Apologists of the Regulative Principle of Worship to repeat these things, and call any other type of style “strange fire”. However if you turn to the N.T. it talks a lot about rejoicing, people receiving blessings and going away “leaping for joy” and Jesus did not condemn them for violating the “Regulative Principle”… (lol). In Ephesians 5 in commanding us to be “filled with the Spirit” Paul describes what I believe to be a “not so orderly” church service in the Ephesians Church… (singing Psalms and hymns, but also “making melody unto the Lord” which is related to voluntary expressions of praise) Paul, then gives them some instructions as to how to organize the chaos, but does not condemn it with a stern command to “be quiet, reverent and near death” before the Lord. However, Paul did rebuke the Church in Corinth, but for other reasons So, you are correct that often style is not necessarily what is to be pursued, but substance!

  8. Pander is not a good word to use. Going to church is voluntary. No one will voluntarily go to a church if they do not feel welcomed. If you ignore a generation, eventually you and all your old friends will be the only ones in church. Then when do die, your church will die.

  9. Predictions about the demise of the church based on the same current arguments are as old as the church itself! Predictors have slightly missed.
    Predictions that the Body of Christ will die is identical to predicting the death of God. I am not ready to accept that yet.
    Predictions of the death of “churchianity” will cause me to say “not one moment too soon.”

    1. I meant your “church”. Not The Church. Maybe in 40 years, the “Good Samaritan Church” of the left leaning millennials will make you feel uncomfortable, like an old turtle lying on its back, with no one to turn you right-side up.

    2. BTW, to my original point.
      gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.).

      Not exactly the word to use, unless you want to alienate someone right from the start.

  10. It’s time to cut to the chase. It matters little whether the current crop of Christians cater to Millennials or not. In time, the older generation lose their grip on the levers of power as they pass on to either their eternal reward or perpetual rot. By the time that happens, Millennials will have already made up their minds.

    As Millennials assume control, they will be positioned to change the faith to suit their tastes or else they will have abandoned it. Whatever happens, there is NOTHING those who’ve died can do about it! That’s just the way this world works.

      1. Unfortunately, I can think of more than merely a few nationally prominent individuals who’ve outlived their usefulness as merely being historical fodder!

  11. Until another generation comes and does the same to the previous as they did to their previous… So, there is no rule, no link, civilization is a constant renewal and man has no identity with anything including his past? Oh, no wonder the number of suicides is reaching record highs!

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.