Monday, April 21, 2008

WHY MANY OF OUR BRIGHTEST YOUNG LEADERS GET DOMESTICATED OR DROP OUT

I want to follow up on my last post. If one of the positive marks of our age is the emergence of a new generation of creative progressive young adults, what is the possibility that these visionaries will persist in their cultural idealism? The evidence is not clear. Certainly in the business world young idealists who come out of college ready to take on the world, are most often taken over by it.

When I talk to young seminarians, I find the same hopeful vision
I described in my last post. In seminary they have come face to face with a fresh understanding of the Bible, theology and the social dynamic which flows from them. They, therefore, tend to look with progressive eyes at war, gun control, capital punishment, the rights of Gay and Lesbian persons, economic justice and the host of issues seen from the perspective of enlightened Christian faith.

The longer they are in seminary the stronger this vision seems to be. They know they are called out of the world to reenter it as agents of the Prince of Peace. They intend to become vital advocates of what Jesus defined as The Commonwealth of God.

But talk to them five years later! While a few maintain their vision, far more have been domesticated. What has happened? They realize they have to survive in a congregation that is not only unconcerned about the issues that had excited their dreams, but is often hostile to them. They have become program managers of religious clubs of comfortable people, whose prejudices have been untouched by the gospel.

They tell me that since they have members on all sides of these critical issues, they cannot safely speak out. The dynamic of the gospel has been drained out of them. They cannot be prophets. They are institutional caretakers. "I can't afford to say anything about these matters, because I can't take the risk of losing one more family." Ever hear--or say that?

What is their support? The mainline denominations are so fragile, ecclesial leadership is also hesitant to take any risks. My church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), has been "discerning" the Gay Lesbian issue for a more than a decade and has concluded nothing. To this date we have not developed the leadership at the top ready to say, "Here is where we need to go." The attention has rather been on cheer-leading what is left of a once-thriving organization.

Many of our brightest most hopeful young leaders have dropped out of the church altogether, quit their pastorates and are trying to find their way otherwise. Others believe they can't quit--even thought they may like to--because what will they do then?

Some are domesticated even before leaving seminary. This may be particularly true among commuters, who already serve churches and get to classes one or two days a week. Missing the intellectual stimulation which goes on in a full-time academic community, they are already trapped in parishes that often are inflexible, if not hostile to any social dynamic.

My guess is that often ministers are too cautious, and that there are significant numbers of persons in their congregations hungry for some progressive word. It has often been my experience in guest shots that there are those who say, "Why haven't we heard this before?"

I love the church--as I have often said--but these days I wonder if we are finally at a point of being serious about insisting that new forms of religious life must replace a system which can no longer activate a radical call to social transformation. Maybe, among my own denominational crowd, Disciples Justice Action Network (DJAN) can provide us with some clues to the development of a few of these new forms.

But that's just my opinion. What about yours?
Charles Bayer