Back in August I sat down with Mike Harland, Director for Lifeway Worship, to talk through the issues of relevance and reverence in the gathered church's worship. Because I love the church, and hate it when we get distracted from what matters most to God, I decided to share more of my thoughts here on the blog concerning the perennial war over worship.

The reason worship wars exist is because the church thinks it is fighting for something permanent when it is actually temporary. Musical styles and service preferences are like a jacket that can be taken on or off depending upon the temperature. It is used only when needed. Worship as a theological reality is not fit for such pedestrian arguments. It is to exist in the heart of all people-- and it does. When we think we're debating styles and techniques and forms, we are really defending our own affections and deeply felt preferences. Most often we defend what is nostalgic rather than what is helpful. It's no wonder then that even attempts at ceasefires result in more fuel for the blaze.

I will lay my cards on the table: I was not raised in the church or in the subculture of the Bible Belt. I came to Christ at a later age and when I began my ministry it was with the urban poor in Buffalo, New York. I have been called by some "a son of the contemporary church movement." I don't know if that's necessarily true, but I know what it means. I do not have the traditional church DNA in me like so many others I've known, pastored, and appreciated.

So, it could be that it is hard for me to get inside the shoes of the traditional worship advocate. (Though ancient church music has now become a favorite on my iPod.) Or it could be that having come from an irreligious home in addition to my travels observing the worship practices of global Christians that I have a different perspective.

I won't deny I have personal preferences. For instance, it is clear that country and western music is not of God. (That's another joke; don't tell my friend Ricky Skaggs I said that.) Nevertheless, what I try to do is what we all should do in matters of preference and praise-- commit to the reality that worship is not ultimately about us.

And because worship is not about us, I don't think we end the worship wars in our local congregations merely by compromise. Compromise is noble; consensus is better. A truce just gets 100% of our church worshiping at 50%. It is not compromise we want, but unity. So how do we get to that ever-elusive goal, that aim Jesus laid out for us in His High Priestly Prayer in John 17? Here are five ideas.

1. Rally around Truth, Not a Truce

In the same prayer Jesus prayed that His church would be one (John 17:21-22), He prayed that they would be sanctified by the truth of God's word (John 17:17).

When we come at the worship discussion we have to back up a bit and adopt a good theological framework for our conversations, because the church too often leaps to the assumption that "music = worship." Or perhaps we frame it a bit more broadly and think in terms of a "worship service." But the truth is that worship occurs in the whole of life. We are never not worshiping; our affections are always oriented somewhere or to someone. Minimizing worship to a one hour experience on Sunday monrings, or further down to merely the time of music in that experience, means many of us only dedicate thirty minutes of each week to worship of Christ. When we practice this minimization, it means that the rest of the time we're worshiping someone else (usually ourselves).

It is a harsh accusation to make, but as our music and production skills have increased, our worship has suffered because we have engaged in them as the outpouring of self-worship. So we must remember that worship is for every hour of every day of every week. Our lives are to be oriented to the worship of God. And the chances are, if we thought of worship that way, we would not put so much personal stake in hearing our favorite style of music on Sunday mornings. The entirety of our worship would not be loaded into that slice of time.

Holding personal preferences loosely allows for greater unity in the body and advancement of God's mission. The truth God seeks is that we rally to the cause of His glory among the nations rather than deciding is we will have two hymns and three choruses or three hymns and two choruses this Sunday.

2. Acknowledge that Preferences are Personal

I have witnessed the angst around worship music firsthand. I think that in some churches, a pastor could get away with preaching heresy so long as he's cool, funny, and has a good video clip. But if a pastor tries to alter the worship style, it is time to start looking for a new job.

This works both ways, for the favorers of so-called "contemporary praise" and the adherents to more traditional worship music. Neither appears willing to give up ground, and they have planted their flags in either Relevance (for the contemporary folks) or Reverence (for the traditionalists). (Hence, the name of the dialog in the video at the top of this post.)

In many churches where a worship war is brewing or is in outright conflict, one group perceives themselves to be pushing forward toward the next generation (relevance) while another is trying to pull back to a once-honored method (reverence). One group thinks contemporary music or a more casual style will suit the modern generation and appeal more to the lost. Meanwhile the other group thinks all of that is just worldly compromise and, furthermore, arrogant to casually dismiss the styles that have served the church well, in some cases, for hundreds of years.

When either of these scenarios occurs it is usually because we have elevated our preferences to the level of principles. We are "taking a stand" for something important: our own comfort, convenience, and concerns. And all the while we're trying to give God his due or the lost people in the pew it turns out we're really just making worship about us.

3. Realize that Relevance and Reverence Are Not at War with Each Other

What those who push forward should realize is that relevance is not a goal; it is a tool. It is not the end, but one (of many) means to the end. Relevance for relevance's sake never helped anybody. Playing a shocking song at the front of your Easter service may get headlines and upset religious people, but that's about all it does. Having rock music fans think you're a cool church is not the "win" you're really looking for. A smart church will be culturally discerning, but always biblically-driven first.

On the other hand, the traditionalists' placement of reverence on external styles is also wrongheaded. Reverence is not first and foremost an outward expression. It is a quality of the heart. Of course, it results in outward expressions, but take the story of David dancing before the Ark, for example. His free mode of worship was a scandal to Saul's daughter Michal, who was watching from afar. David's heart was turned reverently to the Lord, and this provoked a physical celebration from him. It sure looked irreverent to another. Many times today shouting, clapping, and dancing are seen as disorderly or irreverent or self-indulgent, but all three of those modes of worship are seen in Scripture though curiously absent from "reverent" worship services.

At the heart of many of our worship wars is, sad to say, idolatry. Our worship of things other than God drives the way we contend for ways to worship God. When reverence is equated with austerity, it can reveal an idolization of familiarity and comfort and control. When relevance is equated with a production carte blanche or "freedom of expression," it can reveal an idolization of trendiness and self and showmanship. Both relevance and reverence can cloak idolatry of cultural forms and expressions.

In both cases, what is revealed is an idolatry of music. And music is just... well, music. As my colleague Mike Harland, president of LifeWay Worship has said, "You will never achieve spiritual goals with a musical means." We see music as important in Scripture but never a particular form or function as necessary for discipleship. And never does God dictate a particular style, rhyme pattern, or lyrical format.

4. Embrace Humility

The evangelical church needs a ceasefire on fighting over cultural forms. A focus on biblical meanings will add a healthy dose of humility to our churches.

When I was young in the ministry, I was charged with ministry to both youth and seniors (go figure). One day I was going to lead worship at a nursing home. So, I took my guitar. I'll never forget this 92 year old woman, Miss Langley, who put her hand on my arm and said "Don't worry about the guitar, young man, we're just gonna sing and you can sing with us." I was bringing a relevance they didn't need, and I had to be mature enough to see the hindrance I was about to become.

Imagine would what happen if worship warriors actually took on the attitude of Jesus (per Phillipians 2) and did not regard their agendas as something to be grasped but instead took on the posture of servanthood. What if we (per Romans 12:10) actually tried to outdo one another showing honor? Humility is a "win" for every worshiper.

5. Cultivate Consensus, Not Compromise

We have to be mature enough to worship in different ways, even in someone else's ways. The so-called "blended service" has a typical formula of two songs for me and two songs for you and one song for that other guy. I think it is a sign of carnality and a lack of community in worship. Many times the blended worship service doesn't please anybody but maybe the pastor who has given up trying to cultivate consensus. The blended service is an equal opportunity to anger everyone. It can be a sad compromise.

I also believe we need to be careful about multiple services with specialized genres. What is the motivation? Is the division a compromise? We need to be cautious about pandering to the consumeristic side of Western Christianity. We need to ask ourselves what our motivation is, and be honest with our answer. If we're being mission-focused, that's a good and worthy goal. But if we're market-focused (and Christians are the market), we are off track.

If you go the blended or alternative service route, please do so not because you made a truce, but because you stuffed your egos and decided to glorify God for the sake of reaching your community in a language they understand; Spanish, biker, redneck, liturgical, or whatever.

Do the traditionalists appreciate the contemporary songs? Do the relevantists appreciate the hymns? Do they love each other? Do they see these differing forms as acceptable forms of worship?

Pastored well, a healthy congregation will seek consensus on the positives of God's glory and mission rather than settle for compromise on the negatives of personal preferences and styles. A church in consensus would rather have Jesus than the hymn "I'd Rather Have Jesus." A church in consensus will sing of God's greatness rather than need "How Great is Our God" as their anthem. Music will not bring unity in of itself. Worship brings unity. So long as it is the worship of Jesus.

The Pew Forum provides a helpful service and aggregates religion news stories. They recently pointed to story by the Religion News Service covering research done by a team from Trinity College. It is part of the American Religion Identification Survey, mentioned earlier here at the blog, that provided a "Profile of the No Religion Population." The study essentially showed that people who profess no religion ("Nones") are similar to the general public in marital status, education, racial and ethnic makeup and income, and are increasing in number. According to the study, because this "silent minority" is so similar to the general public it's growth in the 90's went largely unnoticed.

"The number of American adults who do not identify with a particular religion is growing and may comprise more than 20 percent of the population in two decades.... According to the study, it is possible that one in five Americans will put themselves in the 'None' category by 2030." Now, keep in mind that "it is possible" does not mean"it will be," but the trend is still important to consider.

Don't misunderstand the label. "Nones" are not necessarily atheists, rather they simply do not affirm a particular religious category. In fact, "most Nones would not consider themselves atheists. More than 50 percent believe in either a higher being or a personal God, while only 7 percent are self-proclaimed atheists. One in three say they 'definitely' believe that humans developed from earlier species of animals."

Politically, many Nones will not identify with a particular party. Over 40 percent are independents; 34 percent are Democrats; and 13 percent Republican.

The most notable difference between Nones and the religious population is the gender gap. Only 12 percent of American women are Nones while 19 percent of American men claim no religion. According to the study, women who grew up in non-religious homes are less likely to stay non-religious. Women are also less likely to switch out of religion. (source)

You can download the the actual report by Trinity College here. Check it out and then come back to the blog to to discuss. What does a growing percentage of "Nones" mean for the church? Will people not identifying with a particular religion make connecting between individuals and the gospel more difficult, or easier?

I have tended to think that the fact the large majority consider themselves Christians actually is unhelpful in some ways-- it confuses what a Christian really is.

What do you think?

Here are two interviews with some Western workers serving the church in Taiwan and other nearby settings.

Phil Nicolson, with OMF, describes "Shopkeeper Churches" and their ministry among the underclass. Few of us have to worry about doing ministry among people who are not available at normal respectable church times. Listen to how they work through these issues:

"Garth," who works with my "company," explains his work and why he is there. The video is intentionally dark and "Garth" is filmed from behind because he goes to some other areas in the region.

"Garth" and I have known each other for a long time. He has planted in more than one place and his story is worth hearing.

If you or your church wanted to partner in planing churches in the area, "Garth" is the person who can help make the connections.

I was humbled and burdened to talk to these men-- and it made me wonder, am I doing enough?

I will have one more post on Taiwan... so stay tuned.

I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I would share them with you.

First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)

Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.

Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my hosts-- one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the author explained, "I'm particularly interested in attracting young missional church planters here."

Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself "missional" that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help their people "be missionaries right here."

All this provokes me to ask, "Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God's global mission?" As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?

There are five reasons I think this has happened:

1) In rediscovering God's mission, many have only discovered its personal dimensions.

I don't mean they have somehow localized mission into their interior, "private" life-- that would make little sense. Rather, the encouragement for each person to be on mission (to be "missional") has trended toward a personal obligation to personal settings, rather than toward a global obligation to advance God's kingdom among all the nations.

"Missional" has merged with privatized Christianity to serve as the reason for personal projects carried out in personal spheres. This is not bad, necessarily. But when the missional impulse is not expanded to include God's global mission, it results in believers moved only to minister in their own Jerusalems with no mind toward their Judeas, Samarias, and uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8).

2) In responding to God's mission, many have wanted to be more mission-shaped and have therefore made everything "mission."

Missions historian Stephen Neil, responding to a similar surge in mission interest (the missio dei movement of the 1950s and following), explained it this way: "If everything is mission then nothing is mission." Neil's fear was that the focus would shift from global evangelization (often called "missions") to societal transformation (often called "mission"). He was right.

Recently John Piper echoed these same concerns, differentiating between evangelism and missions. He reminded us that when "Every Christian is a missionary" equals "missional," then we have diluted the need for and specialness of missionaries to foreign lands. (Although I would want to nuance John's language a bit, I agree with his point.)

One American church's website recently identified their ministry as missional, which they proceeded to define as "reaching out to the community to invite them to come" see what is happening in the church. Another's young adult community service project consisted of landscaping the church grounds. Inviting people to church and cleaning up the church are noble endeavors, but passing them for "missional" and "service" is ministerial naïveté at best. It demonstrates the fuzziness that creeps in when labels become catch-alls. And as the outer edges of the missional label gets fuzzy so does mission to the outer edges of the world.

3) In relating God's mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost.

One only needs to watch the videos to see the emphases: global orphan projects, eradicating AIDS, Christmas shoeboxes, etc. All of these causes now have advocacy groups, and rightly so, as they are important. However, their vocabulary and frames of reference do not frequently make room for evangelizing the very people they touch. The message of world evangelism, actually, seems more common in legacy/traditional churches than in missional churches. Missional churches seem to speak more of unserved peoples rather than unreached peoples. As we engage to deliver justice, we must also deliver the gospel regardless of anyone's status in a culture.

4) In refocusing on God's mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news.

St. Francis allegedly said,"Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." Interestingly enough, Francis never actually said this, nor would he have done so due to his membership in a preaching order. But it is a pithy quote tossed into mission statements and vision sermons in missional churches all around my country. Why? It seems that many in the missional conversation place a higher value on serving the global hurting rather than evangelizing the global lost. Or perhaps it is just easier.

I am not urging a dichotomy here, only noting that one already exists. It is ironic, though, that as many missional Christians have sought to "embody" the gospel, they have chosen to forsake one member of Christ's body; the mouth.

5) In reiterating God's mission, many lose the context of the church's global mission and needed global presence.

For whatever reason-- the admirable one of commitment to the local church or the ignoble one of commitment to personalized consumeristic Christianity-- we have lost the grand scope of the entire family of God. While Christ calls people from all tongues, tribes, and nations, we have become content with our own tongue, tribe, and nation. Many churches are wonderfully embracing the missional imperative, but as they seek to "own" the mission by adapting their church into a missional movement in their local community, some inadvertently localize God's mission itself and lose the vital connection all believers share together. A hyper-focus on our own community results in a, have lost vision for the communion of the saints.

So how do we fully embrace missional without losing the mission? The Mission Exchange (formerly the Evangelical Foreign Mission Society) asked me to talk to their global leaders on the topic "How to Put 'Missions' Back into Missional." In my talk, I proposed four principles we needed to consider:

First, recognize it is God's mission, and we need to be passionate about the mission as He describes it. We don't own mission and it is not ours to define. A church vision statement is fine, but God's mission is better and bigger. Our first task is to submit to God's mission.

Secondly, evangelicals have understated the call to serve the poor and the hurting and need a stronger engagement in social justice. This sounds counterintuitive if we are seeking to remedy the loss of concern for articulated evangelism. But social engagement entails relational engagement, and relational engagement entails opportunities to share the gospel. The successes and experiences in our communities should awaken hearts and minds to global needs. We just need to maintain the reason for social justice: the glory of God in the worship of Jesus.

Third, share God's deep concern about His mission to the nations-- that His name be praised from the lips of men and women from every corner of the globe. Feel the Great Commission in your bones. Ask God to turn your heart to those you cannot see. As Paul did, develop ways to "struggle personally" (Colossians 2:1) for those far away.

Fourthly, churches that are serious about joining God on his mission will obey his commands to disciple the nations. The end product of missional endeavors should be a thriving Christian ready to produce more thriving Christians.

It appears to me that many missional churches are missing the Great Commission in the name of being missional. That makes zero sense. It is a huge (but historically common) mistake.

If we are truly interested in being missional-- in joining God on His mission-- our efforts should actually reflect His stated mission. We are bound to the Great Commandment as the fullest human expression of God's love. But the Commandment is not hermetically sealed off from the Great Commission. Rather, the Great Commission provides the what of mission, while the Great Commandment provides part of the how. Answering the age-old question of "Who is my neighbor?" should result in the desire to "make disciples of all nations."

A couple of weeks ago, I was able to visit Java Joe's / Matthew's Table in Lebanon, TN. (The church gathers for worship in a coffee shop they own and operate.)

Part of the design is that they are trying to create a "third place" community. From Wikipedia:

The third place is a term used in the concept of community building to refer to social surroundings separate from the two usual social environments of home and the workplace. In his influential book The Great Good Place, Ray Oldenburg (1989, 1991) argues that third places are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement, and establishing feelings of a sense of place.

Oldenburg calls one's "first place" the home and those that one lives with. The "second place" is the workplace -- where people may actually spend most of their time. Third places, then, are "anchors" of community life and facilitate and foster broader, more creative interaction. All societies already have informal meeting places; what is new in modern times is the intentionality of seeking them out as vital to current societal needs. Oldenburg suggests these hallmarks of a true "third place": free or inexpensive; food and drink, while not essential, are important; highly accessible: proximate for many (walking distance); involve regulars - those who habitually congregate there; welcoming and comfortable; both new friends and old should be found there.

They describe their church on their website.

Matthew's Table is a church stripped of its formality. At every Sunday gathering we prepare food and all eat freely. During the meal we engage in a simple liturgy that we call a Weekly Rhythm:

BLESSING - The word "blessing" means "to empower to strength." We seek God's blessing and pass that blessing on to others. As we gather we intentionally speak words of blessing and affirmation over each other.

EATING - Sharing food has always been central to a shared life of community. We want to place worship and communion back where it began: as a delight in the middle of the shared table. We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ - looking back to the cross and forward to his return.

LISTENING - We believe that God is capable of speaking to us. We do not confine him to any particular medium, but we try to be attentive to his voice, wherever and whenever it speaks. We provide a period for reflection, meditation and listening to the voice of God.

LEARNING - We desire to take on the image of God and to participate in his plan. We seek out knowledge about God to help us to do this. We gather around the Scriptures and learn together, discussing issues that confront our world.

SENDING - We are ambassadors who bear God's image in the world. We remind ourselves regularly that we are sent to participate in God's activity in both our local and global cultures.

I thought is might be helpful to share some of the setting with you. Instead of a church starting a coffee shop, this is a coffee shop with a church.

It looks like a regular coffee shop from the outside:

My friend Michal Carperter looks like your average emerging church pastor (grin):

But, when you look up close you can see the church info:

The signs around the church speak to what happens on the weekend:

The place has an open feel that invites fellowship and community:

During church, the kids go in the back:

There are few places where you will find Rolling Stone and Christianity Today on the same table:

Michael is planning to open more coffee shops and, with them, more churches. As they grow, they plan to multiply, and not enlarge-- creating more spaces for coffee, community, and churches.

Since church planters are often entrepreneurs, this is a way to create business-as-mission opportunities.

This seems to me to be a reproducible model that creates new way to plan churches and do mission in many different settings.

What do you think?

This past weekend, I spoke at Freedom Church in Gallatin, TN. As I like to do, I thought I would give a rundown of the service and share some of my observations.

First, a little about the church. The church was planted by Terrell Sommerville about seven years ago. Although it has a "non-denominational feel," the church is pretty upfront about their affiliation. They are part of a group called "The General Baptist Association of General Baptist Churches." In other words, they like the "general" nature of the atonement so much it is in their name twice! So, they are Arminian Baptists, a sister fellowship to groups like Free Will Baptists. (If you are interested, I have written about them on the blog last year.)

I met Terrell when I was preaching for their denominational annual meeting-- which I will do again this summer. Terrell is president for the GBAGBC.

Anyway, on to my observations.

One of the things I immediately noticed about the church was its focus on the unchurched. Though no one used the term, I think it would be fair to say that this was a seeker-focused church. And, the congregation was passionate about reaching people far from God.

Over 500 people attend the church each week in three services-- one Saturday night and two on Sunday morning. (Their goal is to have over 800 people attend this weekend-- with the majority of guests being unchurched people.)

I first attended the volunteer meeting before the Sunday night service. Lance Johnson led the meeting and exhorted everyone to serve with excellence and welcome newcomers. And, my favorite line was at the end when he said, "Alright, let's man our 'battle stations.'" And, they did.

There were volunteers everywhere and they were focused on connecting people to Christ and his church.

When you drive in, they are there. And, there is a "volunteer parking" section away from the main building so that the close-up parking is for new guests.

People are serving coffee and greeting one another in a small foyer-- 5 people shake your hands before you get very far:

And you can't go far without seeing their core values:

Volunteers are registering and serving children:

And, one of my personal favorite "little things" is that they use "movie theater" style ropes to block off the back rows. The back 5 rows were blocked off and then "first impressions director" (the guy in the picture) moves back the ropes on row at a time so that people fill in the front first. If you ask him why, he explains, "because guests come in late" and they don't want to embarrass them by having them walk to the front.

They are in a series right now called "Groovy," about "getting into the groove." Since I am about as cool as a 42-year-old with braces, I did not groove much, but instead preached my "Compelled by Love" message to help support their "Bring a Friend" weekend.

You can spot the "groovy" on the top of the stage:

I left reminded that there are some churches that really care about the unchurched. This is one of them.

Some of these churches are raw and gritty. Several people at Freedom told me how they just came to Christ. And, one man gave his testimony-- live. He had just become a Christ-follower and he got up and explained that this church was just edgy enough that he wanted to see more. He came to Sunday morning and then trusted Christ.

Here is a video from Terrell inviting folks to church.

One final (and long) thought. Freedom Church reminded me of a poem by Sam Shoemaker called, "I Stand by the Door." Freedom Church, and other churches like it, are passionate to reach the unchurched and "stand by the door."

You (and I) might not do everything like Freedom Church, but I think every church can learn much from their passion to reach those far from God and to plan so much of what they do to reach people in need of the gospel.

As Sam Shoemaker said, they stand by the door:

I stand by the door.

I neither go too far in, nor stay too far out,
The door is the most important door in the world-
It is the door through which people walk when they find God.
There's no use my going way inside, and staying there,
When so many are still outside and they, as much as I,
Crave to know where the door is.
And all that so many ever find
Is only the wall where a door ought to be.
They creep along the wall like blind people,
With outstretched, groping hands.
Feeling for a door, knowing there must be a door,
Yet they never find it ...
So I stand by the door.

The most tremendous thing in the world
Is for people to find that door--the door to God.
The most important thing any person can do
Is to take hold of one of those blind, groping hands,
And put it on the latch--the latch that only clicks
And opens to the person's own touch.
People die outside that door, as starving beggars die
On cold nights in cruel cities in the dead of winter--
Die for want of what is within their grasp.
They live, on the other side of it--live because they have not found it.
Nothing else matters compared to helping them find it,
And open it, and walk in, and find Him ...
So I stand by the door.

Go in, great saints, go all the way in--
Go way down into the cavernous cellars,
And way up into the spacious attics--
It is a vast roomy house, this house where God is.
Go into the deepest of hidden casements,
Of withdrawal, of silence, of sainthood.
Some must inhabit those inner rooms.
And know the depths and heights of God,
And call outside to the rest of us how wonderful it is.
Sometimes I take a deeper look in,
Sometimes venture in a little farther;
But my place seems closer to the opening ...
So I stand by the door.

There is another reason why I stand there.
Some people get part way in and become afraid
Lest God and the zeal of His house devour them
For God is so very great, and asks all of us.
And these people feel a cosmic claustrophobia,
And want to get out. "Let me out!" they cry,
And the people way inside only terrify, them more.
Somebody must be by the door to tell them that they are spoiled
For the old life, they have seen too much:
Once taste God, and nothing but God will do any more.
Somebody must be watching for the frightened
Who seek to sneak out just where they came in,
To tell them how much better it is inside.
The people too far in do not see how near these are
To leaving--preoccupied with the wonder of it all.
Somebody must watch for those who have entered the door,
But would like to run away. So for them, too,
I stand by the door.

I admire the people who go way in.
But I wish they would not forget how it was
Before they got in. Then they would be able to help
The people who have not, yet even found the door,
Or the people who want to run away again from God,
You can go in too deeply, and stay in too long,
And forget the people outside the door.
As for me, I shall take my old accustomed place,
Near enough to God to hear Him, and know He is there,
But not so far from people as not to hear them,
And remember they are there, too.
Where? Outside the door--
Thousands of them, millions of them.
But--more important for me--
One of them, two of them, ten of them,
Whose hands I am intended to put on the latch.
So I shall stand by the door and wait
For those who seek it.
"I had rather be a door-keeper ..."
So I stand by the door.

The FACT 2008 study shows signs of what many expected-- mainline churches are in decline, but also upward signs of growth and vitality among certain kinds of congregations.

What is FACT? "Faith Communities Today is the public dissemination effort of a group of researchers and religious leaders who were responsible for, in 2000, the largest survey ever of congregations." A press release released on Sept. 9th explained,

According to FACT surveys, between 2005 and 2008 fewer congregations report that they are spiritually vital and alive, that they have seen worship attendance growth of 2 percent or more, or that they have a clear mission and purpose. Just 19 percent say their current financial health is excellent, down from 31 percent in 2000 (note the FACT2008 survey predates the market collapse that began late in 2008). The down tick in vitality holds across faith families.

Keep in mind that these are all kinds of congregations and that impacts the research.

The 2008 study also showed some growth trends as well. Congregations that have a strong sense of identity and a shared mission, making them distinct from the congregations around them, reported greater growth and spiritual vitality than congregations and less conflict than other congregations.

Most discussions of congregational identity focus on content. But what most organizational theorists say is that strength of identity or distinctiveness of identity is equally, if not more, important.

To test this insight, FACT 2008 asked congregations whether or not they were different than other congregations in their community. Just under a quarter felt they were very different than other congregations in their community (i.e., had a very distinct sense of self), another quarter felt they were somewhat different, just under a third felt they were somewhat or very much the same and nearly 20 percent were not sure.

More importantly, as shown in Figure 6, having a very distinct sense of self is dramatically related to spiritual vitality, this being true within each of FACT 2008' s faith
families. Similarly, although not quite as strong, there is also a significant positive relationship between strong FACT 2008 sense of self and other measures of congregational vitality like financial health, worship attendance growth and lack of conflict.

This relationship between vitality and sense of self is consistent with other FACT findings that show a similar relationship between identity items and vitality. Perhaps most notable of these are the strong relationship between clarity of mission and purpose and vitality, and the fact that vitality peaks at both the conservative and the liberal extreme of theological orientation.

Head over to the FACT website and download the Fact 2008 preliminary report for free, and then head back here to talk about it. Why do you think a strong sense of identity has a connection to congregations that experience greater vitality and growth?

Occasionally, I list things of interest inside my denomination that may be helpful to readers of this blog. I will continue to do that (as I am today), but I will be moving my denomination-specific blogging to a new blog. My blog has become a place to discuss mission, culture, and research. So, I have decided that, with a few exceptions, I will move my denominational content to Between the Times.

A few weeks ago, Richard Harris and I sent out an email indicating that the North American Mission Board (NAMB) task force, of which I was a co-facilitator, had been disbanded with the resignation of NAMB's president. We mentioned in the email that we would be releasing the "list" we made at that meeting since it had been reported in the news.

I think the list might be helpful to people both inside and outside of my denomination. But, before we get to the "list," let me tell you a little about the group. Here is a picture of the meeting. If you follow on Twitter, you have already seen this pic.

The group had a mix of people:
• Four state execs (staff leader of the state convention from where they came-- the closest is Terry Robertson, from NY, up close and on the right)

• The president of the Woman's Missionary Union, Kaye Miller (way back on the left side)

• Seminary professors (you can see Chuck Lawless from SBTS on the right and Gus Suarez from MWBTS with a big smile and also on the right)

• Directors of missions (George Dean is in a stylish green on the left, you can't miss it)

• Several pastors and church leaders from diverse contexts, races, and church sizes (you can see Charles Roesel, who always wears a suit, on the near left-- the other pastors were suit-less!)

And, yes, that is my Mac in the front, right next to former co-facilitator Steve Reid. My Mac is (predictably) open to Twitter, which is where I originally posted this picture.

Let me say how thankful I am that these men and women took the time to come to Atlanta and talk about North America. Why?

Well, I believe that my denomination is at a crucial point: will we recapture the evangelistic passion and missional impulse we have seen in the past? As I have written about over the past several years, if the 50-year membership change trend continues, we will enter a protracted period of decline.

The task NAMB has been given is both big and essential: if our churches are not effective here, none of the other agencies (including the IMB) will have much of a future.

Initially, the members of the group were asked, "What are the big issues we need to address?"

We talked for over an hour about the things that needed to be studied and discussed. As we talked, Rich Carnie wrote them all on a big whiteboard. We wanted to narrow them down to a group of issues we might be able to address.

Here is an actual picture of the board (sorry about the erased section on the top left, but you can still see it all). I snapped a quick picture just as they were erasing it.

Here is the list in text form:
1- Understanding/engaging ethnics

2- Church planting/effectiveness (methodology)

3- Discipleship - fill church with more robust passionate disciples

4- Urbanization/cities

5- Next generation issues

6- See and engage NA as a mission field 

7- NAMB funding issues

8- Partnerships

9- How we do church

10- Prayer/spiritual awakening
 


Tammi Ledbetter, who was part of the committee and also an excellent journalist, sent me the list. Thanks, Tammi.

Note: Although they are in a numbered list, they are not in order of priority. We just put numbers on the list to focus in on ten.

We discussed how to release these items after I mentioned to the members of the task force that we would be doing so. We considered a release from NAMB, but it seemed odd to release something from a dissolved task force. So, after talking it over with the NAMB communications team, we agreed for me to blog about it here.

Tammi suggested, and NAMB communications agreed, that I should try to explain what a few of these mean since they are not self-evident. Keep in mind that these are my descriptions, not those of the entire group, though I think they are reflective of such. But, I just don't feel authorized to speak for a group of people that no longer exists. (Well, the individuals still exist, just not in group form--you know what I mean.) The list is in the picture; my descriptions are my own.

I think that numbers 1-5 seem self-evident, so I'll keep my explanations to the latter five.

6. See and engage NA as a mission field 

Number 6 specifically addresses the issue of the need to think and live in mission-focused ways in North America. There was some discussion about the word mission/missional. Mine and Tammi's notes both say "mission," but what was on the board was "missional." Either way, the point was we need to help our churches see and engage our immediate contexts like we do the rest of the world-- like a mission field. The mission is now "from everywhere and to everywhere."

Now, let me make a personal comment: I think it is encouraging to see the shift in thinking about North America as a mission field. Ten years ago, this was considered controversial. Some of the voices talking about "thinking missiologically" and talking "missional" today were actually opposed to the idea a decade earlier. I'm glad that this idea has now become mainstream, but I will be "gladder" when the idea becomes a mainstream practice.


7. NAMB funding issues

Number 7 addressed issues of funding. The main question here seemed to be: are we directing NAMB funds to the appropriate locations for the best strategy?

We specifically discussed NAMB and the "Cooperative Agreements." Though most of you have never heard of these, it is these agreements that are the basis for the partnerships NAMB has with state conventions. NAMB only works in and through these "Cooperative Agreements." (More info about that in the next point.)


8. Partnerships

Number 8 addressed how partnership works. Why? Well, here is something most people in the denomination do not know: NAMB has the convention assignment for planting churches but does not plant churches. Ever. Anywhere.

Most church planters NAMB helps don't receive checks from NAMB, but NAMB helps out with their paychecks through funds sent to state conventions and to sponsoring churches. More assistance comes from NAMB for outreach and other planting startup costs. And NAMB funds pay church planter strategist missionaries who help multiple church planters in an area. Training, research and other resources are also made available to church planters through NAMB. But it's all done through partnerships that sometimes mask NAMB's involvement by the time money and resources reach the front lines. 

It's an approach that values local churches and local state conventions. You cannot talk about church planting and NAMB without talking about partnerships.

9. How we do church
Number 9 addressed the issue of HOW we do church. There seemed to be several issues at work here as I listened.

First, there was the ecclesiology question: what is a biblical church in our confessional understanding?

Second, there was the missiological question: what is the best way to plant churches that leads to a church planting movement?

Again, a personal comment. NAMB addressed the ecclesiology question years ago and has a statement on ecclesiology. Richard Harris, who is acting interim president at NAMB right now, commissioned the project.

My friend Stan Norman wrote the statement. I had the privilege of being the "editor" and argued with Stan on many occasions (something for which Stan thanked me in his ecclesiology book, so I felt good about our arguments!). I think by always asking, "what is biblical?," not just our tradition, helped shape the document.

10. Prayer/spiritual awakening
Although this was last on the list, it was not last in priority. The group was passionate about the fact that what we really needed was God's people praying for (and receiving) a fresh outpouring.

Conclusion

I emailed the (former) task force about releasing this list and how we might share it with others. I also forwarded the list to Ronnie Floyd, chair of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force. I let him know that these were the issues we considered important as we move toward the future.

Again, thanks to the members of this task force. Although we only had one meeting, I believe that our time was not wasted--this can help inform conversations about the future and even some of the research we are doing at present.

The broadcast has ended, but you can still read through the comments.

I have written about the upcoming broadcast of "The NINES." The event has generated significant interest, prompting the Christian Post to headline, "Church Leaders Abuzz About Virtual Conference." I am one of the 75 presenters, but the mix of speakers should make for some interesting dialogue and, I am guessing, some debate.

Here is the promo video:

I will be streaming the event live at the blog. I (and others at other blogs) will be dialoging about what we see and hear-- so watch the comments.

I am guessing that there will be much with which you/we agree, but there will be open conversation here about what we disagree as well. in other words, the blog will be an "open mike" around the ideas presented. And, I would love to hear your voice.

So, here's what to do:

1. Register.
2. Come by tomorrow at 9/9/09 9a.m. central time to watch the live webcast.
3. Let's talk about it in the comment stream. I'll be here.

See you tomorrow.

This fall, I will be again presenting research at the Catalyst Conference main stage. The theme of Catalyst this year is built around the idea of "making a mark" and is tied in to the 10-year anniversary of Catalyst.

I would like to get your feedback about the questions we should ask in a survey of 1000 Protestant pastors. Here are some ideas we have-- help us to think of more or to make these questions better. If you could ask 5-10 questions of 1000 pastors that would help understand their views of leadership, the future, and making their mark, what would they be?

Here are some of our thoughts. As you can tell from the numbering they are part of a larger survey.

According to a variety of sources, "house churches" appear to be increasing in number as some people move away from traditional forms of church. However, how many "house churches" are out there and how many people are involved? A new study by the Barna Group says it really depends on how you define "house church" and ask the questions in the survey. And, they are right.

From Barna:

When a question asks whether the survey respondent has "attended a worship service in someone's home, known as a house church," the results generally find about 10% of the adult population claims to have done so in the past month...

A different approach is to ask people how often, if ever, they attend a religious service - not a "worship service" - in someone's home or even in some other place that is independent of a congregational-form church. This more inclusive question typically finds that 22% to 24% of all adults claim to have had such an experience during a given month.

Continue reading Counting People Who Attend House Churches.

The circles that I run in often do not create space for young leaders. And, as a father of three daughters, I am particularly concerned that we create such space for young and emerging women.

As I did with Sharon Hodde Miller, let me introduce you to another talented emerging leader. This is only my second musical digression here on the blog (the first being for my friends at Sojourn). But, I wanted to tell you a little about Cassie Curtis.

The Barna Group released the findings of a new study that showed "congregational size is related to the nature of a congregation's religious beliefs, religious behavior and demographic profile."

Specifically the study showed "statistically significant differences between churches of 100 or fewer adult attenders and churches of 1000 or more adult attenders." In fact, the only issue covered where no real difference existed was whether the person had prayed during the previous week. Here is some of the information from the article at Barna.org.

On all 9 of the belief statements tested, attenders of large churches were more likely than those engaged in a small or mid-sized congregation to give an orthodox biblical response - e.g., the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches, Satan is not merely symbolic but exists, Jesus led a sinless life, God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe, etc.

On seven of the eight behavioral measures, attenders of large churches were substantially more likely than those of small churches to be active. (These included behaviors such as attending church in the past week, reading the Bible in the past week, volunteering at their church in the past week, etc.) The average difference related to these seven behaviors was 17 percentage points.

It was also shown that larger churches were more likely to have college graduates, wealthy attenders, and attenders/members with children under 18. Adults in these Protestant mega-churches were also more likely to vote Republican.

Another interesting point was that House Churches were not following the trend of other small congregations.

The religious beliefs and behaviors of people who attend house churches, which average about 20 adults in attendance, are more similar to the results for large conventional churches (i.e., more than 500 adults) than they are to the outcomes among those who attend small conventional churches (i.e., less than 50 adults).

So head over to the Barna Group, read the report and come back here to discuss.

Yesterday, we finished up a meeting in Nashville with denominational leaders from over 20 denominations. More than half of the churches planted in the U.S. each year were affiliated with the denominations represented in the room.

You might find my opening words of some interest. In some ways, they relate to comments I made at the Advance09 panel.

It is a bad idea theologically, with bad results historically, for us to partner and jointly plant churches. But, it is a bad stewardship and irresponsible missiology for us not to find ways to learn from each other.

When it comes to church planting, it is not really the same as evangelism. In church planting, we need to plant our own gardens. But, we will consider this an agricultural co-op where we learn to do it better by learning from one another.

So, that is why we are here: to learn and share best practices with other Christian denominational leaders committed to plant churches.

We had a great meeting with much helpful interaction.

Here are the presentations that each of the speakers shared:

Ed Stetzer (LifeWay Research), The State of Church Multiplication and the Causes that Hinder It (no PowerPoint)
Thom Rainer (LifeWay Christian Resources), Twelve Axioms for Leading a Christian Organization
Ron Sylvia (Next Coaching Networks), Church Planting Coaching Networks
Larry McCrary (The Upstream Collective), Creating Church Planting Recruitment Systems for Denominations
Steve Pike (Assemblies of God), Influencing Your Denomination for Church Planting
Bob Harrington (Church Coaching Solutions), Understanding and Harnessing Networks: Part 1, Part 2
Chris Conrad (Wesleyan), Church Planting Assessment (no PowerPoint)

We are also undertaking two research projects with different denominations participating in each. One will focus on urban church planting and the other is on church planting assessment. Drop a comment below if you are interested in being a part of either one.

This meeting is the beginning of our leaders fellowship that will meet three times a year: November 18-19 is the next meeting. This is not an open meeting, but if you are the denominational head of church planting, you can leave a comment here and we will send you a network application. (Feel free to email this page to others who you think might be interested.)

Here is a pic from our first meeting (courtesy of Ron Sylvia).

We look forward to more to come.

Yesterday, I posted the video from my training in Oklahoma. I neglected to add the outline and notes, so I am posting them here. You can see the video here and the notes are below.

At the One Day web page, you can find those outlines, with "blanks" if you want to use them as training notes. Bob Mayfield tells me that 16 of the 273 churches have done their "One Day," but they have already trained over 2000 leaders. I am encouraged!

Missional Leadership

1) Reconsideration of Leadership

a) From superman to everyone
b) From church to kingdom
c) From me to we
d) From personal power to people empowerment

2) Rejection of Clergification

a) From three tiers to one mission
b) From "called to the ministry" to "called to ministry"
c) From "called to missions" to "sent on mission"
d) From exceptional to ordinary
e) From "priests" to a "priesthood of believers" codependence

3) Renewed focus on mission

a) From "full service" to "simple mission"
b) From "pay, pray, and get out of the way" to "join God on His mission"
c) From decisionism to disciple making
d) From "mission statement" to "Jesus mission"
Luke 4
Luke 19:10

4) Realignment of priorities

a) God is a missionary god
b) I personally join Him on mission - modeling
c) I lead others to join Him on mission - leadership
d) I equip others - multiplication

I hope that is helpful. Be sure to watch the video to get the context.

In May, I put together three videos with my friends from the Oklahoma convention on the topic of missional communities. The convention is using these videos as part of a training strategy for small group leaders. It's called the "One Day Initiative." For most churches, the health of small groups determines the health of the church as a whole.

Here is the video the churches are using for this initiative:

Missional Small Communities from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.

So far 273 churches in Oklahoma signed on. Bob Mayfield developed Oklahoma's plan to de-centralize the training process for small group leaders and put missional leadership materials directly into the hands of the local church. They believe that a church can equip more of its members locally than by taking them to big events that are long distances away. Bob sent me some comments they are already receiving, even though the initiative is less than a week old. Here's one example:

The general session began with hearing Ed Stetzer on video sharing about Missional Leadership. It really fired-up our people in attendance and for some I believe it was a life-changing message... Ed brought a fresh perspective about what a class could be and our folks loved it. The support materials that you (Bob) and your team put together are great, and we needed the breakout times after the video to digest what we heard and explore the materials. Scott Badgett, Associate Pastor at Chisholm Heights Church in Mustang, OK

Badgett also noted that they typically take about 6 people to an annual regional training event, but had 93 attend the One Day seminar in their church. Check here for some blogs that have been made about One Day.

That BGCO has made all three of the One Day videos available at their cost on a two disc DVD set (which also includes 3 music videos and 4 promo videos) for only $10.00. You can order them at www.bgco.org/oneday.

This morning, I am meeting with some leaders from The Anglican Mission in the Americas. I have a great appreciation of the AMiA folks and am glad they have come in so we could spend the morning talking about church planting and evangelism.

I had the opportunity to keynote one of the early Anglican Mission in America meetings. It was an amazing thing to see hundreds of Anglicans, gathered under the Bishop of Rwanda, worshiping together and talking about God's global mission. And, it has been good to keep in touch with a few of the bishops and pastors.

Today, we are talking about the new Anglican organization in North America, called The Anglican Church in North America, and their plan to start 1000 new churches in the next five years. That is a VERY robust goal for such a new (and relatively small) denomination.

For those of you who do not follow the drama of "all things Anglican," the Anglican journey has been a challenging one over the last few decades.

Wikipedia has a helpful article on the Anglican realignment. Be sure to visit the Wikipedia article for much more information, but here is an introduction:

Anglican realignment is a movement among some Anglicans to align themselves under different oversight within the Anglican Communion. The movement is primarily active in provinces traditionally part of The Episcopal Church (United States) and the Anglican Church of Canada. The conventions of four dioceses of the Episcopal Church voted in 2007 and 2008 to leave the Episcopal Church and join Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America. Twelve other jurisdictions with approximately one hundred thousand members formed the Anglican Church in North America on December 3-4, 2008, which was set up to create a separate ecclesiastical structure within the United States. The Anglican Church of Nigeria declared itself in communion with the new church in March 2009 and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans has recognized it as well.

Two major events which contributed to this movement were the 2002 decision of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada to authorise a rite of blessing same-sex unions; and the ratification by the general convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA of the election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay non-celibate man, as Bishop of New Hampshire the following year.

The movement differs from previous ones in that Anglicans are seeking to establish different ecclesiastical arrangements within the Anglican Communion rather than separating themselves from it. Some Anglican Communion churches, particularly in Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda and the Southern Cone, are seeking to accommodate them.

A number of parishes that are part of the Anglican realignment have severed ties with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and associated themselves with bishops from other national Anglican churches or provinces. Some other American dioceses and parishes (approximately 800 out of some 7,000 Episcopal Church parishes) still officially remain within those two provinces of the Anglican Communion whilst exploring their future options.

Please be praying for these meetings today as we talk about how to advance the mission of God through the planting of new churches.

The most recent issue of Outreach Magazine is out. If you are a subscriber, you have already seen it... but if not, let's get that going!

In this issue, my column asks a simple question, "Should We Really Listen to the Unchurched?"

I am always fascinated by the blog comments I receive from people who say, "We don't need to do research, just read the Bible." Now, I am one who wants people to read the Bible a lot more, but it seems that when you read that Bible you find examples of people like Paul: seeking to understand the culture as they reach it.

I do think that sometimes people listen too much to the culture and have written about that on many occasions. Sometimes people over-contextualize. But, usually the ones who object to listening to the culture and contextualization are, well, the ones who often need to do both.

So, here is my column in the most recent issue.

Should We Really Listen to the Unchurched?

Everybody listens to someone. As parents, we teach our children to listen and comply with what we tell them. As employees, we follow the guidance of those in authority over us.

However, as ministry leaders, we may wonder from whom we should take our instruction. Our theology tells us to look to God, but can we also find any insight listening to people outside the Church?

In our latest LifeWay Research book, Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches That Reach Them (B&H), we studied young adults' views of religion, spirituality and the Church. We used those findings to provide instruction and examples of how best to connect this generation to God and church.

As good as research can be, some question the idea of doing this type of analysis, saying we're surveying the wrong crowd. Let's agree on this: God, through His Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, is the unequivocal authority on ministry and church. But the next questions are: "Do the beliefs of the unchurched really have value? Should their ideas and perspectives inform our evangelistic strategy?" Here is my answer to both: YES.

A Hopeful Response

I believe that God is honored when we listen to the longings of the unchurched because it is mercy and mission that compel us to listen. We pay attention to the longings of the lost because we care for them (mercy) and desire to make the Gospel known to them as clearly as possible (mission). Knowing the people we hope to reach allows us to better address their concerns, articulate the truth and apply the Gospel.

Some believe this generation is disinterested in the things of God and thus, demand the Church alter its beliefs and mission. Our research indicates quite the opposite.

A Spiritual Generation

Spiritual interest is high among the younger generation. Although being spiritual does not always equate with being religious, only 18 percent said they were neither spiritual nor religious.

A majority (81 percent) of younger unchurched adults in America believe that God or a higher supreme being exists. Research also shows, that the theological beliefs of unchurched people in their 20s are closer to historic Christianity than the beliefs of older unchurched generations.

Young adults certainly are more interested in Christianity than many think. Almost 90 per- cent of the unchurched in their 20s would be willing to listen
if someone wanted to tell them about Christianity. Three out of 5 would be willing to study the Bible if a friend asked them.

Asking the Church to Be the Church

Our data showed that the younger unchurched see Christianity as relevant and viable, but more about organized religion than loving God and people. They believe the Church is full of hypocrites and is unnecessary for spiritual development.

However, much of what they are looking for can be found in God and His Church. Our churches should be embodying authentic community, a life of depth, a responsibility to serve others and the desire to connect with other generations. Our research revealed these are the very things that the younger unchurched deemed important.

The younger unchurched don't need us to re-create our message to accommodate their needs. Rather, what they are often seeking is what we need to be doing for the Church to actually be the Church.

Ed Stetzer is president of LifeWay Research (LifeWayResearch.com) and co-author (with Richie Stanley and Jason Hayes) of Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches That Reach Them (B&H). You'll find Ed's research blog at OutreachMagazine.com.

The folks at Beloit Collete have released their annual list. It is always interesting to read.

And, yes, you (and I) are old.

Here is their actual release:

(The Beloit College Mindset Lists for previous years are available at http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/ . The current list and a webcast interview with the authors will be posted there at 12:01 a.m.on August 18.)

BELOIT COLLEGE RELEASES MINDSET LIST FOR THE CLASS OF 2013

Beloit, Wis. -- If the entering college class of 2013 had been more alert back in 1991 when most of them were born, they would now be experiencing a severe case of déjà vu. The headlines that year railed about government interventions, bailouts, bad loans, unemployment and greater regulation of the finance industry. The Tonight Show changed hosts for the first time in decades, and the nation asked "was Iraq worth a war?"

Each August since 1998, Beloit College has released the Beloit College Mindset List. It provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college. It is the creation of Beloit's Keefer Professor of the Humanities Tom McBride and Emeritus Public Affairs Director Ron Nief. It is used around the world as the school year begins, as a reminder of the rapidly changing frame of reference for this new generation. It is widely reprinted and the Mindset List website at http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/ receives more than 300,000 hits annually.

As millions of students head off to college this fall, most will continue to experience the economic anxiety that marked their first two years of life just as it has marked their last two years of high school. Fears of the middle class--including their parents--about retirement and health care have been a part of their lives. Now however, they can turn to technology and text a friend: "Momdad still worried bout stocks. urs 2? PAW PCM".

Members of the class of 2013 won't be surprised when they can charge a latté on their cell phone and curl up in the corner to read a textbook on an electronic screen. The migration of once independent media--radio, TV, videos and CDs--to the computer has never amazed them. They have grown up in a politically correct universe in which multi-culturalism has been a given. It is a world organized around globalization, with McDonald's everywhere on the planet. Carter and Reagan are as distant to them as Truman and Eisenhower were to their parents. Tattoos, once thought "lower class," are, to them, quite chic. Everybody knows the news before the evening news comes on.

Thus the class of 2013 heads off to college as tolerant, global, and technologically hip...and with another new host of The Tonight Show.

###

The Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2013

Most students entering college for the first time this fall were born in 1991.

1. For these students, Martha Graham, Pan American Airways, Michael Landon, Dr. Seuss, Miles Davis, The Dallas Times Herald, Gene Roddenberry, and Freddie Mercury have always been dead.

2. Dan Rostenkowski, Jack Kevorkian, and Mike Tyson have always been felons.

3. The Green Giant has always been Shrek, not the big guy picking vegetables.

Continue reading The Class of 2013.