Chubby Bunny, Taco Bell, and Jenga

There is much being made of Generations X & Y, the earliest children of the Electronic Age and the first products of all that is labeled “postmodern.” Society – especially in the Global West – is keeping a close eye on X & Y, partly out of curiosity (Will they ever resign themselves to the cubicle and 401k?) and a degree of apprehension (Will they foot the bill on Social Security?).

That same buzz and curiosity exists in the pulse of the Western Church (especially in the United States), as previous generations of Christians (especially their conservative Evangelical component) wonder if X & Y Christians will “grow up” and inherit their spiritual practice (Will they conduct church in mega-plexes with bookstores and ATMs?) and theology (Will they remember to end all 17 items of their church’s Statement of Faith with a proof-text reference to a Pauline Epistle?).

Christians of the best intentions are sincerely interested in ensuring that X & Y Christians encounter God, and that they are fed by, and into, the global Church. What needs to be determined are the ways in which ministry to X & Y is similar to generational or demographic ministry of the past, and the ways in which it is an entirely different venture – not generational so much as epistemic in a changing world.

The emergent movement began as something that was considered a demographic ministry, as alternative worship services in the UK created time and space for a new generation’s spiritual demonstration. Many of these ministries in the UK were weekly demographic services conducted by a larger church, or a church-within-a-church system, with the planting church functioning in a parenting, authoritative role. (Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs have documented the struggles of the church-within-a-church model in their book Emerging Churches). 

Creating such a ministry is a very calculated risk on the part of the parenting church. The young adult service becomes a side dish in the church’s rhythm – a glorified youth group. Come to “big church” at 9:00AM and the “special” service at 6:00PM – but if you can only make it to one, go to the “main” service, the “big church” service. And it’s easy for the “big church” leaders to view the ministry in such a vain, treating people who have careers, marriages and children as if they’re all getting together to play Chubby Bunny.

For as unattractive as that sounds, it’s no wonder the church-within-a-church model is so popular. Isn’t it true that many pastors and ministry leaders struggle with control issues? Pastors will support ministry to a largely unchurched generation (X & Y, for instance) so long as the vision for that ministry coincides with that of the larger church. Any sharing of resources is conditional on the subservient role of the planted ministry. To be harsh about it, it’s not so much about ministry for the people’s sake as much as the strengthening of one church’s braun, the expansion of their product.

Planting and developing a ministry costs money – even when done through “organic” ministry models – and many members of X & Y have little to give to the church in terms of the Benjamins. Pastors who are interested in reaching X & Y with any form of structured ecclessia are then inclined to do so through an established church. But the leadership of an established church might only partner if they sense that this new ministry will eventually feed into theirs; the aim is to recoup on the investment – financially and otherwise.

So for the ministry that intends to be the “mini me” of its governing/planting church, this equation works out just fine. Start up a new ministry. Play music that younger adults respect. Toss up a hip website. You’re good to go. One “mini me” church coming right up.

It’s the same doctrine and worldview as the overseeing ministry, and probably many other established ministries in the area. But now the church band is playing indie pop and the pastor is wearing a hipster cowboy shirt. Same message with a new method. The previous product in a new container.

But, in these instances, why can’t younger generations just swallow their pride and relent on their need for all-things-hip, and simply attend the parenting church? If the only differences between the two communities are aesthetic, is church planting – or at least that type of planting (demographic-based, or container-oriented) – really a noble priority?  

Every generation has its own musical preferences and aesthetic appeal. It is understandable that ministry leaders would wish to put the message in the language of the people, even if it is a stretch to create a new ministry with the product’s wrapper as the sole motivation for change.  

But it is evident that X & Y have been accompanied by a special hype that is not merely generational, a hype centered around the biggest transition in technology and communication in 500 years and the first batch of people to be reared in the seismic shift.

The term “psychographic” has become increasingly popular, as true generational lines are much blurrier than the rigid delineation of a birth certificate. There are different ways to live in the Electronic Age; different ways to respond to all-things-”postmodern.” Some people ask new questions and pursue new lines of thinking, while others are completely satisfied with previous questions and answers. So surely a 45-year-old could ask be raising the same questions as the majority of 27-year-olds, while a pocket of 23-year-olds could be assured in the conclusions of their 56-year-old predecessors. Beyond generational division to the current shift in culture: there have been individuals over the past 500 years who have raised the type of questions many are asking today, while there are some today who are secure in the questions and conclusions of previous centuries. 

It comes down to questions. Not website design or guitar styles. Not the pastor’s get-up. Questions. The type of questions people raise have a huge impact on what it takes for church involvement to seem worthwhile to them.

Churches are no exception to this principle. There are members of X & Y who noddingly adhere to the theological conclusions of generations past, raising few questions that challenge the inherited assumptions. There are 26-year-olds who are convinced that John Piper and Mark Driscoll are accurately framing the Christian story and prescribing the Church’s future. Once and for all Reformed, never to reform again. Certainly there is a sect of X & Y subscribing to Piper and Driscoll at wholesale.

For these types, the message never changes. It is possible to change ministry methods – to put a different wrapping on what they’re selling – but the product itself is what it always will be. The non-negotiable never-adjusted nature of their product has almost become their product’s essence – the product itself! Assumptions, questions and conclusions based on the information that was available during the Reformation, but now in a new container.

For those who have found the questions, assumptions, and conclusions of Piper and Driscoll to be disproved or dissatisfying, this is sort of like putting a Taco Bell burrito inside of a Gucci bag and calling it fancy. The presentation might be have new appeal, but when everything is swallowed and digested, people are still getting sick.

So the divide in ministry methodology has everything to do with the assessment of past conclusions. It is this distinction that separates the “mini me” ministry plants from those new ministries that not only have a new look but are also rallying people around new questions, encouraging them to put their fingers into Jesus’ wounded hands and to prod against the Jenga towers of systematic theology.

These two sets of ministry methods are anticipating far different things to develop with X & Y in terms of epistemology and theology. The “mini me” method expects that X & Y Christians, though maybe never growing into the ATM and bookstore mega-plex types, will certainly grow into Luther’s solas and Calvin’s TULIP, a Fundamentalist view of biblical inspiration, and allegorical (rather than narrative, literary, socio-rhetorical, and sitz im leben) ways of interpreting Scripture. After all, it’s happened with every generation of Christians for 500 years. What makes X & Y so different? Give them some time and they’ll be suitable to inherit the church buildings and denominational legacies.

The new message model says that X & Y are quite different, actually. And if churches create “mini me” ministries to give X & Y some time to assimilate, they’ll eventually need to stop calling it “college ministry” or “young adult ministry” and refer to it as “peculiar parents ministry” or “rebellious senior citizen ministry.”

Proponents of a new message model insist that theirs is not a generational ministry, even if members of X & Y are the majority in their church bodies. Yes, the music might be trendy and the pastor might look hip. But these people are rallying around a new set of questions, the freedom to push against outdated assumptions, the liberty to push into Jesus’ hands and the Jenga tower of systematic theology. Are these people faithless or without reverence? No, most of them feel sure in the hands of Jesus. Their reverence is for those hands and not the Jenga tower.

For those who wish to minister to X & Y, determining the model and mindset for a ministry vision begins and ends with some introspection. Those who are truly convinced by Piper and Driscoll’s theology cannot (and shouldn’t) convince themselves to be dissatisfied with their theological assumptions and conclusions. In these situations, creating a “mini me” ministry as an extension of a parent ministry makes a lot of sense – become the “college group” of such and such church, wear a cool shirt and preach the solas.  

As for those ministry pioneers who are not convinced by that theology, it’s important to not simply partner with a parent church that desires to put Taco Bell in a Gucci bag. It’s just not a sustainable relationship. No amount of financial and structural support from an established church should compromise the commitment to raise new questions and to poke the Jenga tower. That’s not to say it’s impossible to work with a denomination or existing church – there are plenty of churches that are aware of the need to question and evolve theologically, communities in which the very essence of doctrine is not in its “case closed” nature. A suitable partner might be out there. But date cautiously before you hook up. 

What will come of X & Y and these two very different models for sharing the gospel with them? Is Christianity in for a dramatic split (as was the case during the last major shift in technology and communication)? Will a group of Christians raising new questions find new answers (or answers that are even more historic than the solutions celebrated by today’s Christians)? Will Taco Bell come to taste better or worse? 

For now, curiosity will have to abound.