Will the torch of faith, and thus simply the “light,” be passed on to the next generation, or should the runners also follow the same rules? Sometimes the hope or expectation hovers in the air that the next generation will believe “as we do.” Unfortunately, this is not possible. Each generation must ask its own questions in order to arrive at valid answers for its own life. This does not change the message, but the packaging around the gift.
Change and growth
The process of “growing up” is not always an easy road. Growing up is also a recurring theme in the Bible. It belongs to our humanity and therefore, of course, also to our faith. When you grow up, you take responsibility for your own experience, thoughts and actions and learn to consider the well-being of others.
Paul writes, for example:
“But if we are true, we should make everything grow in love, into Him who is the head, Christ.”
Eph 4:15
This is also the growth of the church, the community. Becoming an adult is a process that takes place not only within people, but also between people. For between us there is encouragement, grace, correction, almost identical as Paul describes here, that it takes place “in love.” We learn from each other. Even those who think “they can do it alone” will probably be “converted” from this view at some point. The active and loving intention to “grow” people toward Christ defines the adult attitude itself.
One might argue, is it always that simple? Hardly. Contrasts between the generations remain. By no means are the values of the previous generation perceived in the same way by subsequent generations. This has nothing to do with the values themselves, but with changes that are taking place. On the one hand, there are changes within ourselves – for example, in that we are all getting older. Such changes constantly reshape our view of the world and our current experience. On the other hand, there are changes in our society. The challenges in life change. Gone are the days when the world functioned “similarly” for centuries.
Things change. That’s a good thing. The question is: how do we deal with it?
A spiritual legacy
My grandfather left me a letter. He had written this letter before he died. I was still a child and received the letter much later. It was something of a legacy. He was at the end of his life, I was only at the beginning. He had a living faith, tested in a long (and yet far too short) life. What was important to him, he wrote to me – in terms of my life and how it could succeed, and in terms of my sister, for whom I should work.
For me, this certainty of faith only became tangible much later. It took time for me to ask myself my own personal questions. I was already an adult when I found a living faith. Today, I think we would have had many good conversations – my grandfather and me. But it never came to that. He was at home in one generation and I was two generations ahead.
What he experienced is foreign to me and my questions were not his questions. His world and my world are clearly different. Nevertheless, I can state: He lived his life consciously and full of curiosity. He was open-minded, committed and implemented his dreams as best he could. Clearly, his focus was on Christ. This is what his letter was talking about. He did not proceed dogmatically, but told wisely from his own experience. He suggests to me what was important to him.
Churches still had a meaning at that time. In this, our world has changed. Today, relevance has dwindled almost to irrelevance. Of course, however, he was a member of a church. I know lively debates after the service also from my other grandparents. There were discussions about society, culture, politics and the understanding of faith. Christian culture vividly shaped the entire society.
We, on the other hand, live in a post-Christian age in which many things are no longer taken for granted. Today, other themes play. The world became more complex, more multilayered, more colorful. This is neither good nor bad. It’s just “different.” Those who are Christians today face different challenges than they did 100 years ago.
Relevance of church and faith
Society has changed and so has the way community is formed. Faith today is no different at its core than it was 100, 2000 or 4000 years ago. The world in which we stand, however, is a different one. “What” we believe and “how” we believe has changed. Our lives are shaped by different things than were true for our ancestors. Not only is the self-evidence of some views no longer there, but unbelievable problems like climate change have to be brought to consciousness. This shapes the way of living together and therefore also the kind of community – in consequence as much the society, as the family, as the faith community.
We are in the midst of this change. What is still relevant today?
An expression like “relevance of the church” or “relevance of faith” is not a value in itself. Those who complain about a loss of relevance of faith in society or of a loss of relevance of the church have not yet grasped the essence of church/community or the meaning of faith. The word “relevance” is never derived from history, but only from the present. If this relevance is fading, it is only because it has missed the connection to the present. If she had not missed this connection, the churches would be full today. But they are not. It’s not the relevance that’s the problem, it’s the missed connection. However, neither relevance nor missed connection is important, only why it really goes – the core. You have to learn to peel this one out.
Just like the traditional churches, the free churches are also struggling. Here the problem is different. The idle time is not as noticeable, but some communities seem more like flow heaters – many come, many go. Two things can be deduced here: Quite positively, one can deduce from the influx that people are not less religious today. Faith is a theme. On the negative side, however, there is an outflow of people, often caused by rigid and dogmatic beliefs. Here, too, there is a need for debate.
If every generation needs its own engagement with faith, would it be presumptuous, after previous comments, to say that this engagement is probably no longer taking place in the church? Church has become a marginal phenomenon. However, people are no less religious. Everyone has questions about life. I assume, based on my own perception, that the argument is very much taking place, but it is no longer doing so in the same place. That is why there are more and more pastors, preachers and others who find tasks outside the institutional structures, no longer in the ivory tower, but often in direct dialogue with the people.
What can something like this look like?
- Interesting in this context is the following podcast (English), with Rev. Scotty Williams and Samantha Wanjiru. Here’s a discussion of how Millennials perceive church, “OK Boomer!” (English)
- “Public Theology” is an effort toward greater integration with society.
- “Emerging Church” is a movement – also much criticized – that seeks to reconceptualize and redefine Christian community outside of existing structures.
All these approaches belong to our time. Discourses take place. What all these approaches and feedbacks have in common is that church can only take place where the people are.
Church 1.0 and 2.0
The typical traditional church thrives on structure, is pastor-centric, and distinguishes between “professionals” and “laity.” This applies equally to traditional churches and to free churches. I call this “Church 1.0”. This form has largely had its day, because if it were still relevant today, the churches would be full.
The “Church 2.0,” if you want to call it that, will form differently. No longer will the institution, no longer will the worship service, no longer will the typical hierarchies and dependencies be central, but people will be central. It’s more about community than institution. It’s also about more than just “teaching the right doctrine.” This does not mean turning away from the Bible, but turning toward and recognizing processual development. The emphasis is on “turning to Christ” and “living community.” Attendance at church services is not the focus, but rather lived exchange.
Now some may object: This is exactly what is already taking place in our church! That may be. There is no black and white distinction. Church 1.0 and 2.0 are also in a process. The distinction is intended merely to outline development, to offer pointers. It’s about a paradigm shift that’s taking place. It’s not about whether we agree with it or not, because the changes have been playing out for a long time. Much more significant is the question of whether we, in our generation, can find an appropriate expression for our humanity and Christianity.
The Anglican Church, for example, which is thinking about founding 10,000 lay congregations(source), has attracted attention. These are concrete proposals for concrete changes. They are answers of today’s generation to the challenges of this world. Instead of looking backward, it would be a matter of credibly developing the core of our vocation and the essence of the community forward.
