Reaching Generation Z, Part One

By J. Matthew Pinson

As a college president (and father of young adults), I think a great deal about Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 6:4 about bringing young people to maturity in the training (paideia) and counsel (nouthesia) of the Lord. So, I was very interested in a First Things podcast shared with me recently by Dr. Barry Raper, the coordinator of ministry programs at Welch College and Welch Divinity School.

The podcast is entitled “The Loneliest Generation.” It’s about Generation Z, which most researchers say includes young people born between 1997 and 2012. Every pastor, youth leader, and teacher should listen to it. In it, Mark Bauerlein interviews sociologist Dr. Josh Packard of the Springtide Research Institute on the organization’s wide-ranging study, “The State of Religion and Young People 2020.”

Why Young People Leave the Church

The study reinforces things I’ve shared in several forums. Even though many evangelicals have been late to get on board, the consensus of research, whether by sociologists like Christian Smith and Melissa Lundquist Denton, or researchers such as Barna, Thom Rainer, Lifeway Research, Ken Ham, or the Fuller Youth Institute’s Growing Young project agree. The reasons young people leave the church—regardless of size, style, or geographical location—have little to do with programs, facilities, or worship style. These were the things 1990s seeker-driven evangelicalism said were the only things that would keep and draw young people.

Instead, the reasons young people leave the church have everything to do with lack of depth and transcendence, lack of serious teaching from the pulpit, emphasis on programs not people, lack of strong intergenerational relationships, and the dearth of intentional mentoring by one or more adults.

A Lack of Trust in Social Institutions

This First Things podcast and the study it references bear this out. The main two words of the research project are “relational authority.” This is what the study says Gen Z wants more than anything else. The concept is set against the backdrop of the eroding lack of trust young people have in social institutions.

The study reveals that, on a scale of one to ten, the members of Generation Z trust social institutions (e.g., government, corporate world, schools, churches, military) at a level no higher than 5.5. Yet “trust levels for relationships were at 90% or higher.”

Bauerlein and Packard say the temptation is to yield to this anti-institutional mindset by de-emphasizing institutions. But this would be a huge mistake. Driving a wedge between institutions and relationships is a false dichotomy. Institutions, they explain, are indispensable. What is needed is not to de-emphasize institutions, but to restore trust in institutions by re-emphasizing relationships.

The study describes this balance as “relational authority.” Young people not only need but want relational authority. They need and want institutions and authority structures. They just need and want them to be characterized by 1) deep integrity and 2) authentic personal relationships.

The importance of not driving a wedge between relationality and institutions has recently been underscored by social observers like Robert Putnam and Malcolm Gladwell. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam became famous for his book Bowling Alone. That volume used the decline of bowling leagues as an illustration of the decline in social and civic association in traditional social institutions and groups. In it, Putnam sounded the alarm about the harm that individualism brings—not only psychologically but also sociologically—and that such individualism is a threat to democracy.

A few years ago in The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell said social media is in danger of replacing real community, and that is a bad thing. Gladwell went on to say social media will never be effective at large-scale social reform. That’s because it’s oriented toward “weak ties” rather than “strong ties.”

Sustainable social change, Gladwell argued, is inherently institutional. It always presupposes what he calls “hierarchy” or organization. And such organization always arises from strong ties of friendship or embodied community. These strong ties are necessary for any movement to catch on. And the reason social media can’t make that happen is because it breeds the opposite: weak ties.

Gladwell is saying the time-honored practice of mentoring, in the context of thick, embodied relationships, is a necessary ingredient to any successful social movement. And eventually, such mentoring, such friendships, must take shape in organizational ways. This certainly goes against the grain of the anti-institutional mentality of some popular evangelical thought. Yet I believe Gladwell is right.

Relational Authority

These points Bauerlein and Packard discuss on their podcast are further underscored by the Springtide Research study: young people long for relational authority. Their distrust of institutions arises not from the fact that they are institutions but from the fact they are impersonal and untrustworthy. The answer is not de-institutionalization. Instead, the answer is reinvesting our social institutions with 1) deep, authentic, personal relationships with 2) adults who have integrity.

Relational authority requires tension between the two poles of relationship and authority. As I listened, I couldn’t help but think the 1990s seeker-driven, non-denominational mentality, which still holds sway in some quarters of evangelicalism, combined the worst of both worlds of institutionalism and anti-institutionalism—the two things Gen-Z dislikes most.

The seeker-driven, non-denominational movement emphasized programs, corporate management (imitating big box stores rather than the mom-and-pop boutiques Gen-Z prefers). Gen-Z perceives these churches as marketing or “selling” religion like big business sells products—a feature of contemporary life in the West that Gen-Z loathes.

Yet these marks of “institutionalism” were at the essence of much of the church growth movement. The “big box” mentality made young people feel lost in the shuffle, not receiving the personal attention and mentoring they craved.

Yet the “authority” side of “relational authority” members of Gen-Z crave—things that traditionally characterized social institutions—were carefully de-emphasized by the seeker-driven non-denominational movement. Things like depth and transcendence and solid teaching and preaching were replaced by cultural gimmicks, flashy event planning, and large-group fun activities.
What many thought the only answer to the problem of our youth losing their religion—stylistic tinkering, entertainment, fun, and dumbing things down—was not only the wrong answer, but it is also what young people identify as the heart of the problem. Instead, they want grown-ups with integrity forging personal relationships with them and teaching them the truth and how to be grown-ups.

In saying this—and I’m sure Bauerlein and Packard would agree—I’m all for getting kids together to have fun, cut up, and be goofy; just ask my kids! But I think you get my point. We’re talking about the lack of balance.

Lest we think the seeker movement is the only culprit guilty of not ministering to the real needs of today’s young people, it must be pointed out that some languishing evangelical congregations with a “we’ve always done it this way” mentality are equally guilty of not providing depth and transcendence, solid preaching and teaching, and rich, intentional, intergenerational mentoring.

Further, many times they put just as much emphasis on pragmatic, attractional, and entertainment-centered methods, just from an earlier era.

The Rise of the “Nones”

Another thing we need to bear in mind is that many of the “nones”—those who check the “no religious affiliation” box on societal surveys—are skeptical of hypocrisy in the church and have intellectual questions about Christianity being raised at their schools and colleges. However, they feel they’re being overlooked. These are the students leaving our churches fastest—the ones who want depth, transcendence, a sincere adult mentor calling them to maturity, and honest answers to tough questions and objections.

The irony is, when we target students who are likely to remain in the faith but are looking for the bigger, flashier youth group in town and adapt our ministries to them, it turns out we’re aiming right past the ones most apt to become “nones” in the first place.

Restoring Trust Is the Strategy

The big takeaway from Packard’s research is that restoring trust in religious institutions is the strategy for retaining and bringing young people into the church. The study examined the trust young people have for certain adults “who act in a particular way.” As Packard said, “If you can get the right qualities and characteristics in your interactions with young people, they express trust levels for relationships at 90% or higher. The implication is pretty clear for where we should be spending our time—building relationships as opposed to building programs.”

All this is good news for parents, pastors, youth leaders, and teachers, who often feel the only influences students pay attention to are their peers. Yet, as Packard notes, “Peers can often be a source of tension and anxiety as much as comfort.”

In the next issue, we will turn attention to the challenges and opportunities this understanding of Gen-Z presents the church.

About the Author: J. Matthew Pinson has been president of Welch College since 2004. Learn more: www.Welch.edu.