Evangelical Christians are fond of saying, “It’s not about religion, it’s about relationship,” meaning a relationship with God. That’s intended to sound liberating, and 
indeed a real relationship with God should be. The problem is, however, we usually go on to define relationship with God in terms of religious duties and practices — church attendance, Bible reading, prayer, the sacraments, etc. So how can a relationship with God not be about religion when religious practices are what shapes or characterizes such a relationship?
The parallel statement is the one adopted by Generation Y, “It’s not about being religious, it’s about being spiritual.” Apparently, that’s the distinction being made by many Millennials, the demographic contingent that follows Generation X. USA Today religion writer Cathy Lynn Grossman reports on this recent survey:
Most young adults today don’t pray, don’t worship and don’t read the Bible, a major survey by a Christian research firm shows.
If the trends continue, “the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships,” says Thom Rainer, president of LifeWay Christian Resources. In the group’s survey of 1,200 18- to 29-year-olds, 72% say they’re “really more spiritual than religious.”
Among the 65% who call themselves Christian, “many are either mushy Christians or Christians in name only,” Rainer says. “Most are just indifferent. The more precisely you try to measure their Christianity, the fewer you find committed to the faith.”
I’m not sure I share Ranier’s grim outlook about “churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships.” But his concern about “mushy Christians” is valid. According to the survey:
- 65% of Millennials rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.
- 65% rarely or never attend worship services.
- 67% don’t read the Bible or sacred texts.
But the kicker is this: “Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half 
say yes, half no,” leading Rainer to lament, “We have dumbed down what it means to be part of the church so much that it means almost nothing…”
Interestingly enough, Evangelicals and Millennials both seek to distance themselves from identification with “religion” and its trappings. Evangelicals do this by framing religion in terms of relationship. Millenials do this by framing religion in terms of spirituality. The real disparity, however, is between how Evangelicals and Millennials view spirituality. This disparity is at the root of our “mushiness.”
Here, Ranier defines genuine spirituality in terms of church attendance, Bible reading, and prayer, as well as adherence to specific Christian belief in the exclusivity of Christ. For him, and probably most Evangelicals, a genuine relationship with God cannot be maintained without a right relationship with the “real” Jesus and the accompanying “religious disciplines.” The person who claims to be “spiritual” but doubts that “Jesus is the only path to heaven” and does not attend church, study Scripture, or pray, will inevitably be “mushy.” In contrast, Millennials appear to define “spirituality” apart from dogma and traditional religious practices. Nowadays, a person can be deeply “spiritual” without believing in the exclusivity of Christ or ever attending a church, reading a Bible, or praying. Why? Because at the heart of these differences is a fundamental difference in how Evangelicals and Millennials view Truth.
Generation Y is the first generation that’s grown-up in a thoroughly postmodern American culture. The philosophical engine that drives postmodernism is relativism — the belief that Truth is not absolute. Relativism undermines most traditional religious beliefs and practices because it makes the individual the primary arbiter of truth, not a holy man, holy book, or church. In postmodern America, there is no objective way to corroborate faith other than personal preference, which in this case, is the mantra of Millennials.
“Spirituality” as defined by the Bible is markedly different than that defined by personal preference. One sees spiritual freedom as the adherence to spiritual laws, while the other sees spiritual freedom as the absence of spiritual laws. Which is why Evangelicals typically view Millennials as “spiritually mushy.” So while Evangelicals remain tethered to a belief in absolutes and the authority of Scripture, Millennials bail on both, leaving Generation Y free to define spirituality any old way they want.
So when someone tells you, “It’s not about being religious, it’s about being spiritual,” what they’re really saying is “Being ‘spiritual’ means whatever the heck I want it to mean.”
Good thought. Well said.
I think I’m going to disagree (without being disagreeable LOL). I’ve been working with guys and gals in the “Millennial” category for the last year and a half or so, and I’m finding something very different.
I’ve been seeing more of a deep emptiness, and a great desire for something to stand on, but they’re tired of the same old crap and “the business of church” that Evangelicals have been pushing. The Fuller Brush sales technique of pitching salvation doesn’t catch with them, and they’re tired of feeling judged, cut down, and walking out of church feeling more alone than they walked in. They want to have an experience with something divine, but they’re not seeing it in the current churches, or in their families that made them go to Sunday services.
They’re tired of empty promises and shallow sermons and things that just don’t make sense to them. A lot of this “next-gen” tribe DESPERATELY WANT somewhere to go, somewhere to belong, and something to believe in, but I think we’re in a “new wine in new wineskins” phase in this generational gap, and the tones and modality that have been established in prior generations doesn’t resonate.
But they’re also tired of the “secular” explanations, too. There’s nothing to land on in a materialistic mindset. A lifestyle of stuff and meaningless orgasms gets old fast. They’re figuring out that the Discovery channel was wrong–we’re not just animals who can talk and use tools.
As of yet, we haven’t seen this generation’s “Billy Graham” archetype to help put a description wrapper around their experiences, to provide that shared substance where people in this next generation can feel ownership and grounding.
But I think that rather than see some great evangelist rallying the troops, we might see a whole bunch of small tribes of new Christians popping up in living rooms and bars and completely random places, starting smaller movements and eddies around discussion and care and community that just can’t be found in a big “go-to-meetin'” environment where somebody they can’t relate to tells them what to do from a stage.
From there, the small tribes will pool together, think that they’re doing something new, and reorganize into churches with different names. It’s a cycle, not that different than the hippie Christian movements from the 60’s rebelling against the established church mentality of the 40’s and 50’s. Then in about two generations, we’ll see the same disillusionment that we’ve seen over and over, and then the established tone and modality of “church” will shift, and then go back again.
When I hear someone say they’re “spiritual but not religious,” I hear him/her saying, “I know there’s something out there, and I occasionally catch glimpses, but I have no idea Who or What it is, and I haven’t found anyone or anything to show me Who or What it is in a way that makes sense to me, and I don’t like church people because they’re annoying and like to condemn me to hell. Check in with me again in 5 years.”
I’ll stop typing now. I really should have adult supervision when given a keyboard.
Nice of you to visit, Coach! I hear what you’re saying. This generation needs to re-connect and we can’t force that connection to look the way we want. I also agree that these things are cyclical and before long the children of Gen Y’ers will need to find their own voice. The problem I have in all this is not the “new wineskin” idea, it’s the redefining of what Wine is (i.e., Truth). Either the Bible contains a timeless set of truths — truths which we are responsible to proclaim from one generation to the next — or those truths are negotiable and malleable. What Millennials are pining for is not their parents’ “religious experience.” I concur. Nevertheless, we cannot be so eager to “connect” that we compromise core doctrines. If we hedge on this I’m afraid we ultimately have nothing substantial to give them. Hey, it’s great to have you here, Coach!
You know it seems we usually get two types of responses for this. And I agree with yours, Mike, that any compromise of core doctrines offers nothing but an extended search and a trip to hell free of obligation, responsibility, and commitment to anything other than spiritual guesses.
There are churches just as Coach described, but there are just as many that provide deep sermons, people who are devoted to Jesus and the lost, and who don’t whack people with Biblical dos and don’ts, fire out judgment other than for real sin, and offer the absolutes of the love of Jesus and the contrasts that loving Him provides. Because the gospel in its real form isn’t “popular” and doesn’t fit in well with secular humanism, there are many who want to bend it to be able to absorb those who refuse to honor the Way, Truth, and Life that Jesus is, gave, and still gives to any who want to die to self.
And that’s the real problem, isn’t it? Dying to self.
SOME of the problem comes from having lost the word “Christian” long ago. CS Lewis commented on its uselessness as a descriptive word by 1952 (MERE CHRISTIANITY, preface of the 1960 Macmillan Paperbacks Edition, 21st printing 1976). We’ve been trying to use the word one way and it has no meaning any more in that way — it hasn’t since at least 1952.
It would be better to call ourselves Nicenes — at least then we could reference a concise document that explicitly states what we believe. If you agree with it, you’re a Nicene. If you don’t, you’re not. No value judgement. No personal insult meant. It would be a simple definition — whether we stick with the original (which is admittedly stark…which may be fine in this case) or the Constantinople “revision”, which is a bit more flowery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed)
I WAS surprised to find that Baptists, Evangelicals and others don’t necessarily agree with it…is this true? If it is, then maybe we need a “new” Council of Nicea to bring us back to the basic definition of what it means to be a Christian — or whatever we call ourselves. Because until we shed that useless word, we may not EVER be an instrument that God can use to draw people to Himself.