Why the Attractional Model of Church is fading

 A leader from the "Seeker-sensitive" or "attractional" church movement discusses why this movement is fading, and how churches can pivot so as to be effective in the new situation we face. 

I am deeply critical of many aspects of the "seeker-sensitive church" movement, and so I was very interested to see someone "on the inside" saying some of the same things I've been saying.

I believe that what the church needs to do is 'return to the ancient paths': the Bible as traditionally understood, the Creeds, the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the spiritual heritage of the universal church.  We need to do this not because "that is what people want now" (which seems to be what many evangelicals are saying at the moment), but because this is what it is to be a true expression of the universal Church; these are the treasures God intended us to have and to share with the next generation.

Why the World Feels Dead

Here is an interesting video on the de-enchantment or de-sacralization that has taken place in Western Civilization and how to re-enchant or re-sacralize our collective imagination in order to save the soul of our Civilization.

Though an Anglican, he is perhaps a little too hard on the Reformation (it is worth noting that the collapse of religious observance has been quite profound in culturally Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries as well as Protestant ones), but I cannot deny that some of the factors he mentions (such as the dissolution, rather than the reform, of the British monasteries) probably did not help much.  

I do not see anything fundamentally contradictory between monasticism as a vocation and Protestantism's recovery of the great truths of grace and Biblical authority and "heart-religion," and I'm glad to see that today there are some Anglican, Lutheran, and ecumenical monasteries and convents and similar monastic communities devoted to prayer, study, and simple acts of service.

In any case, I share this video because I think he is quite right in describing some of the spiritual problems facing the West today, and some of the potential medicines, including the importance of recovering older and more nuanced approaches to Scripture, and to the importance of symbolic forms of communication, than what is often on offer among Protestants (conservative or revisionist) these days.  

The Book of Common Prayer: Devotional Masterpiece

 A history of the Book of Common Prayer using my own collection of Prayerbooks for reference.

Is Baptism Required for Holy Communion?

 This video is inviting Christians - especially Methodists and Episcopalians - to wrestle with that question and (I hope) see the value of the traditional requirement of baptism to receive the Eucharist.

Thoughts on Young Men becoming Eastern Orthodox

 Here is a video I posted back in December:

The Jesus Prayer

 

Morning Prayer for Anglicans and Methodists

A detailed look at the Daily Office of Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer, John Wesley's revision of the Prayerbook, and how it continues to influence United Methodist liturgy.

The Daily Office & John Wesley's Common Prayer Book Revision

 This video is an introduction to the spiritual discipline of "The Daily Office" or "The Divine Hours", with a focus on the Biblical foundations of the practice, the practice of the Church of England in Wesley's day, and how the Daily Office was revised and passed along to the Methodists by John Wesley.

Liturgical Colors and the Christian Year

 

"Real Presence" and the Prayer of Humble access in Methodist liturgies

Have the Methodists actually remained Wesleyan when it comes to how our prayers express our faith in the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in Holy Communion?

Well, yes...but...

In our official liturgies (and our informal acts of worship), I think there has sometimes been a tendency to downplay the real presence of Christ or any sense that we are really feeding (in a spiritual manner) on his body and blood, as is stated in our Articles of Religion (Article XVIII).

A great example of this tendency away from our original "high" sacramental theology is seen in the changes to the classic "Prayer of Humble Access." 

This prayer draws upon the very vivid - some disciples even thought TOO vivid, even scandalous - language that Jesus uses in John chapter 6.  This prayer is included in the various editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (BCP) beginning with the original BCP of 1549 compiled by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and John Wesley retained it (from the 1662 BCP) without any change at all when he prepared the original Sunday Service book of the Methodists: 

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies.  We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.  But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us.  Amen.

The theology here fits well with our Articles of Religion and such Charles Wesley hymns as "Come Sinners to the Gospel Feast," as well as other writings of John Wesley on Holy Communion. 

But the actual request (in italics) of this prayer was apparently TOO vivid for some Methodists as well (perhaps we'd spent too much time with the Baptists at the big tent revivals), for in The Book of Worship of 1944 we see this new version of the prayer, which represents a much "lower" sacramental theology: 

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies.  We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.  But thou art the same Lord, whose mercy is unfailing: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to partake of these memorials of thy Son Jesus Christ, that we may be filled with the fullness of his life, may grow into his likeness, and may evermore dwell in him, and he in us.  Amen.

This prayer represents a dramatic shift away from the "Real Presence" view of Holy Communion held by Wesley (and Anglicans more generally) toward a "Memorialism" view of the Supper, which is the view held by Baptists, that the signs of bread and wine merely remind us of Jesus' sacrifice and inspire our piety. 

However, during the 20th Century, United Methodists were influenced by the Liturgical Renewal, the Ecumenical movement, and also an attempt (led by Albert Outler and others) to recover a more authentically Wesleyan approach theology.  So the UMC's HYMNAL of 1989 gives us the new liturgies in modern English that much more clearly express a "Real Presence" theology, though they do not include The Prayer of Humble Access (or the accompanying Agnus Dei).  

At the same time, the "Traditional language" liturgy (on p.30) gives us a version of the Prayer of Humble Access that is a bit of a compromise, capable (at least at first glance) of being interpreted in either a more "Memorialist" OR a more "Real Presence" manner.  It is an improvement over the 1944 prayer, but does not return to the 'scandalous' language of Wesley's original Sunday Service book:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies.  We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.  But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to partake of this Sacrament of thy Son Jesus Christ, that we may walk in newness of life, may grow in his likeness, and may evermore dwell in him, and he in us.  Amen.

Basically, the word "memorials" has been replaced with "Sacrament" with a couple of other minor changes.  This opens up the possibility that the phrase could be interpreted as "the sacrament that reminds us of Jesus Christ" (Memorialism) or "the Sacrament that is filled with & conveys the presence of Jesus Christ" (Real Presence).  However, the use of the word "Sacrament" makes the Real Presence interpretation more natural, since a Sacrament is traditionally defined as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that conveys the grace that it signifies."

This is where the prayer stands in our official liturgy at present.

I propose adding one further change: adding the words "of the body and blood of" after the word "Sacrament".  So here is how it would read (in a bit more modernized English): 

We do not presume to come to this your table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your abundant and great mercies.  We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table, but you are the same Lord who always delights in showing mercy.  Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to partake of this Sacrament of the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ, that we may walk in newness of life, may grow into his likeness, and may evermore dwell in him and he in us.  Amen.

This is not a return to the full blown "eat the flesh" language of Wesley's original Prayerbook (and John chapter 6), but I believe that the petition "grant us...so to partake of this Sacrament of the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ..." is nevertheless a significant step in a more Wesleyan direction, and more clearly articulates a theology of Christ's "real presence" and of "spiritually feasting on his Body and Blood" as explained in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.

If there is a liturgical revision or a new Hymnal/Worship Book after the (apparently) looming schism, I hope that something like this prayer (along with the Agnus Dei) will be included in all of the Communion Services.  

It is the Wesleyan thing to do. 

The Book of Common Prayer and John Wesley

 

Why use Liturgical worship?

 

The faith and spirituality of the Creeds

Why the Liturgy is not a matter of personal preference

One "YouTube intellectual" that I've been watching for the last couple of years is a Roman Catholic layman named Brian Holdsworth.

He seeks to explain and defend basic Christian beliefs and practices, and is particularly geared toward "the internet generation."

Much of his content has to do with specifically Roman Catholic questions, but many of his points and arguments could just as easily be echoed by orthodox and Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants as well.

This excellent video covers some of the same ground as a blog post I wrote years ago called "The Liturgy questions us: What is 'relevant' anyways?"

The Liturgy means "the work of the people" or "the public service" and is used to describe what Christians classically have done when we gather together for worship.

The liturgy typically includes things like reading Scripture and celebrating Holy Communion with the Great Thanksgiving Prayer.  It typically includes things like the Creeds, the Doxology, the Lord's Prayer, and the closing blessing or Benediction.

Yet in recent years there has been a tendency in many historic denominations to downplay the importance of, or jettison altogether, some of these historic liturgical practices in order to produce a worship experience that is more "seeker-sensitive" and which feels more "relevant."

What this often results in is a truncated liturgy that consists of singing a few songs modeled on contemporary pop music, and then a very practical, sometimes "self-help" oriented" message, based upon a few sentences of Scripture, rather than a sustained reading of one or more longer passages.

Yet there are theological problems with reconstructing the liturgy based upon the cultural fads of the moment (which is usually what is meant by "relevant").  One of the problems with building the service around our own preferences, (as Holdsworth points out) is that, to the extent that what we do expresses only personal or local preferences (or the preferences of the current cultural moment), then our worship ceases to be something that we hold in common with other Christians; it ceases to be "catholic" in the sense of being something that we share in common with a world-wide community of believers.

I've thought about this in terms of music when doing nursing home services.  Christians in nursing homes, coming from all manner of different denominations, all nevertheless treasure many of the same old hymns.  These hymns represent a worship experience that was held in common across denominational lines.

Since many of our churches now follow a "top 40" style of music, where the songs we sing this year will be displaced by newer songs next year, and those in turn will be displaced by still others the year after that, I do wonder whether my generation will share many "songs of faith" in common when it comes time for us to be in the nursing homes.

All that is not to say that I oppose new music; I actually love new music, and every "old hymn" you can think of was once a brand new song that nobody knew; but I think new music and other worship practices should be integrated into a larger worship tradition that is held in common, and remains constantly recognizable across the generations, even as new elements are added in.

Those are a few thoughts and ideas to introduce this video:

Anglicans on the Wittenberg Trail

When I was in seminary one of the many books I read that greatly influenced me personally (most of which were, sadly, not part of the official curriculum) was a little book called Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, by Robert E. Webber.

Webber tells the stories of numerous Evangelical Christians - coming from Baptist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, and other churches - who made journeys into Anglican or Episcopal churches (and other liturgical churches) because of a longing for liturgy, mystery, history, and a sense of deeply-rooted, ancient, and authoritative community.

Indeed my own return to Methodism was a similar journey.  Having sojourned some years in non-liturgical evangelical communities (mostly Baptist and non-Denominational) I discovered the Episcopal Church and, through it, (re)discovered Methodism.  I was delighted to find that The United Methodist Church, of which I was already (technically) a member, had inherited and adapted the same liturgy and the same Articles of Religion and (in John Wesley's writings), the same sacramental spirituality that I had come to admire about The Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.

Another Evangelical who was influenced by Webber's book and who has personally "walked the Canterbury Trail" is Dr. Wesley Evans.  Dr. Evans has recently written a piece called "Anglicans on the Wittenberg Trail", which is a play on the same book title, and which I commend to you.
He refers not so much to Anglicans actually joining Lutheran churches, but a literal pilgrimage that he and several friends took to Wittenberg, Germany, where Martin Luther famously nailed his 95 Theses to the church door and (accidentally) launched the Protestant Reformation.

Why this Lutheran pilgrimage by Anglican theologians?

This year, October 31st of 2017, Halloween or "All Hallows Eve" marks the 500th Anniversary of the launch of the Reformation.

Church door at Wittenberg

Will you be doing anything special to mark the Reformation this year?  Reading Luther's works?  Holding special services or prayers for Christian unity?

How liturgy spoke to my evangelical soul

Here is a great post from an Anglican priest, Neal Michell, who has walked a similar journey to mine.

In my case I attended a Catholic school and was confirmed in a relatively traditional United Methodist church as a child, before sojourning in strongly evangelical Baptist and "Bible churches" (with just a dash of charismatic thrown in) before coming back to the liturgical and sacramental tradition by way of an Episcopal church.

For me this led full circle back to United Methodism with its historic blend of Spirit-filled and Bible-focused evangelicalism on the one hand and an Anglican liturgical and sacramental piety on the other going right back to Rev. Mr. Wesley himself.
Good, Wesleyan, Methodism embraces the best of both worlds.

The author, Fr. Neal Michell, says there were six aspects of the liturgical church that his soul was yearning for:

-Sacred Space
-Majestic hymns
-Liturgy as conversation with God
-A vision of God as Almighty
-The power of the ancient Creeds
-The absolution of sin (which is a practical application of John 20:21-23 and James 5:14-15)

You can read his whole piece HERE.

We strive to embody all of these in the church I pastor, Saint Francisville United Methodist Church.

The "Senses of Scripture"

One of the many things I did not learn much about in seminary was how virtually all Christian clergy were taught to interpret the Bible before about the year 1800.

My seminary education focused upon the approach to Scriptural interpretation called the Historical-Critical method, which attempts to reconstruct the original historical context, the purpose in writing, the original author and audience, and so on to give insight into the meaning of specific books of the Bible.

Historical-Critical method is, in fact, very valuable to understand the original meanings of a Scripture passage, and I still read good Historical-Critical Bible scholarship to this day.

However, this method does have significant shortcomings.  It is (sometimes) great for gaining insight into a single letter, or single book, or single piece of writing, but it does not usually give much attention to the place of these writings within the canon as a whole; and while it is good at treating Gospels as Gospels and Letters as Letters and Poetry as Poetry, it does not always give much attention to treating any of them as Scripture.  The focus is generally on the original purpose of these writings, without attention to their subsequent, canonical use within the life of the church.  The preacher is (hopefully) attuned to scholarship, but also more than a scholar, using the Bible for pastoral purposes.

Another short-coming of Historical-Critical method is that, like so many fields in the humanities, it purports to be a "scientific" endeavor in some respects, but where 2 or 3 Historical-Critical scholars are gathered, you can be sure there are multiple contradictory approaches and conclusions on nearly everything in the field of Scripture study.  There is a great deal of confusion within the field itself at the moment, which lends a degree of uncertainty to almost every assertion about what "modern scholarship has revealed."


I did, however, eventually discover that before the rise of this, distinctively Modern, approach there was another, richer, approach to interpreting Scripture.  Early Church Fathers and Medieval theologians happily spoke of the various different "senses" of Scripture: a single passage could, and did, have more than one meaning.  The most typical approach (but not the only one) spoke of 4 different "senses" of Scripture.

Consider these words of Saint Augustine (pictured):
"In all Sacred Books we should consider eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given." (from De Genesi Ad Litteram 1:1)

The different 'senses' of Scripture have been neglected in Protestant seminaries in part because of the Reformers' reactions to the abuse of non-literal interpretations and in part because of the desire by modern Biblical scholars to present themselves as "scientific" (read: "legitimate") within the modern academic guild.
In fact - despite not being formally taught in Protestant seminaries - these approaches to Bible interpretation have persisted in our churches because they are, for the serious Bible-reader, almost intuitive.  They have now been smuggled back into the seminaries through the Spiritual Formation movement and the rediscovery among Protestants of Lectio Divina.  These other, non-literal, approaches also allow passages of Scripture that would otherwise be obscure or irrelevant to continue to "speak to us" today.

To get a sense of how the different "senses" work, consider the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel.

Historical-Critical exegetes (interpreters) look at the story in historical terms of "the facts that are narrated": an Israelite boy entered into single combat with a Philistine warrior to defend the honor of YHWH.  The Historical-Critical exegete then asks historical questions: what do we know about single-combat in the warfare of the Ancient Near East?  Who were the Philistines and what historical evidence do we have about them or their culture?  What does this story say about the development of kingship in Israel's history?  Is the story we have the original form?  How does the author/editor(s) of this story want us to view David's dynasty, and why (that is, what is the "agenda" behind the text)?
And the always-popular among (modern) Historical-critical exegetes, "did this event actually happen as an historical event?"

In Early Church and Medieval terms, this approach comes closest to what is meant by the "literal" sense of Scripture: as Augustine says above, "the facts as they are narrated."

The literal sense is important, and is the first and most obvious starting point in understanding any passage of Scripture.  But there are other ways to read the story of David and Goliath, other "senses" of the Scripture.  There are, what might loosely be termed, "spiritual readings" of the text.

One is the allegorical sense.  Goliath represents temptation or opposition which we all, in our different ways, face.  David represents faith and reliance upon the God of Israel to bring us victory.  The story is now about "facing the giants" in our own lives.  There are eternal truths here.

Another, closely related, sense is the Typological reading.  Some classify this as a form of allegory, while others treat it separately.  Typology is frequently used and mentioned in the New Testament.  "Type" here is related to our concepts of "prototype" or "archetype."
David is a "type" or a "sign-post" pointing to Christ, who is the "antitype."  David defeats the pagan Goliath and becomes enthroned as king over Israel.  Jesus defeats Satan and Sin in "single combat" and becomes enthroned over Israel and, therefore, over all the world.  As with the allegorical reading above, this is not what the David and Goliath story is "literally and historically" about in the mind of the original audience, but it is one way that this story has been read as the Living and Active Word of God since the days of the Earliest Church (see, for example, 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the flood story of Noah is said to represent Holy Baptism).

Another approach to reading Scripture is the "moral" sense (called the "tropological" sense).  Look at the great virtues exhibited by David who is faithful, courageous, and humble.  Look at the vices of Saul and Goliath and the other characters, and learn from their examples, there is counsel here for how to live a good life, if we pay attention.

Yet another "sense" of Scripture approaches it in eschatological terms: What does this say about the final destiny of the world and humanity?  This approach is classically called the "anagogic sense."  In this reading, David's defeat of Goliath can symbolize and predict the final victory of God's Kingdom over the forces of idolatry that currently enslave so much of his good creation.

These various other "senses" of Scripture, alongside the historical/literal sense, are quite frequently of great importance for the work of a preacher or Bible-teacher as a spiritual shepherd within the living community of the Church, and deserve more attention than they currently get in our seminary training.

HERE is a nice article from a Roman Catholic theologian named Pauline Viviano examining the different "senses" (including the Historical-Critical sense) that have been applied to Bible-interpretation.  It serves as a great introduction to this topic.

Beyond 4 hymns and a sermon

I'd like to draw your attention to this blog post on moving (Protestant) worship services beyond '4 songs and a sermon'.  The article is about recovering and understanding the other classic and much-needed worship practices that have been held in common across the universal church (including among the early Protestants).

Thankfully many of these practices he mentions have been retained (if not always appreciated and understood) in most Methodist churches, though some newer 'contemporary' services have jettisoned them, as if there were a conflict between singing new songs with modern instruments and also saying the creed or the prayer that Jesus instructed us to say.  In fact I've been to plenty of up-beat services that used new music, guitars AND creeds and liturgy; there is no inherent conflict.  The evangelical Anglicans seem to be leading the way on bringing together classic liturgy and contemporary music, but it is quite consistent with Methodist identity to do likewise, after all, the Wesley's simultaneously insisted on the goodness and the use of the inherited Anglican liturgy while at the same time creating and introducing new music, new hymns, for the people to sing to enliven that inherited form of worship.

I might have added another spiritual practice this author did not discuss: the offertory, which allows us to respond immediately (and sacrificially) to the proclaimed word that we have heard.

Articles on young people seeking liturgical worship

I am one of THOSE young people (though a little less young with each passing day).  I love the liturgy, the creeds, and the sacraments of the church.  I love the "rootedness" and the beauty of historical patterns of worship.  I love that the liturgy doesn't try to be trendy but just is what it is, and always has been (mimicing as it does the patterns of eternal worship in heaven as they are glimpsed in Scripture - particularly in The Book of Isaiah and The Revelation to John).

As a pastor this means I find myself often seeking to ensure that our worship services follow the basic pattern and include the basic content that is handed down to us in our Book of Worship, which builds off of the more ancient liturgical heritage of Anglicanism.  For example, in Holy Week I re-worked a special Holy Thursday service that was inherited from a previous pastor who created it many years ago.  The basic idea of the service was a good one with precedents ancient and modern; in re-working his service I simply incorporated liturgical prayers, lectionary readings, and other elements that have historically been a part of the Holy Thursday experience of Christians and yet were missing.

I've been thinking about this as I've run across not one but two more good articles on young people being attracted to the liturgy, and why that trend is happening.  As far as I can see, it is still a pretty small trend; a minority report among young American Christians.  But I believe it is a genuine movement of the Spirit that is part of a larger "rebirth of orthodoxy" (to use Tom Oden's phrase).

SO, why might I (and maybe some others too) be interested in reconnecting with the "old-school" practices of faith and worship?  Check out these pieces:
5 Reasons Young People are Seeking Old Ways of Doing Church (which is a short and "spot-on" piece)
AND
Why Millennials Long for Liturgy (a longer, more in-depth, article with more personal stories)

Pyrotechnics versus tradition in growing the Church

Here is a nice piece from Rev. Sarah Puryear, a young Episcopal Priest, writing about the efforts of the churches - particularly the historic and liturgical churches that grew out of the Reformation - to reach Millennials.  She notes that many of the "silver bullet" and "quick fix" strategies are rather superficial, saying:

"If churches are looking for quick fixes that might ease their sense of panic and attract young people, they need only consider the suggestions of millennial Jordan Taylor, who suggests in his video “How to Get Millennials Back in Church” the following remedies: fog machines, light shows, aggressive worship leaders, and a beard for every staff member. Taylor’s sarcastic suggestions expose a central weakness in many churches’ thinking about how to draw millennials: young adults can tell when they are the target of marketing strategies, and they generally don’t appreciate it."

She goes on to underscore new research that demonstrates the importance that parents - mothers and fathers - play in passing the faith on to the next generation.  As a society, we love to outsource "problem solving" to properly accredited professionals - and so we try this same approach when it comes to trying to keep our children connected to Christ and his Church.  Instead we should look to the time-honored practices of families praying together, reading the Bible and talking about their faith together, and of parents living a dedicated Christian life for their children to see and learn from.  This is no silver bullet.  It is simply the organic and natural process whereby a Christian parent's faith can bear fruit in the life of a child.  I strongly suspect - in the entertainment age when the TV screen (rather than the family altar) is the dominant focal point of the home - that it is the collapse of the "home church" and the Christian training of the children by their parents that is really at the root of the decline of active Christian faith in our culture.

Finally, she believes that this organic/natural family model can inform the communal life of the church as well, as she writes: 

I believe there is a parallel here for the Church. Rather than luring young adults through flashy programs or outsourcing their formation to experts, we will contribute to the spiritual formation of the next generation best by being serious about our faith ourselves. We must be serious about our faith on two levels — first and foremost, demonstrating what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus; and second, modeling what it looks like to be a Christian in the Anglican tradition. Most Episcopal churches don’t stand a chance against nondenominational churches in a pyrotechnic competition, but we have a rich and beautiful tradition in our prayer book that goes beyond short-lived trends that will seem horribly dated within a few years’ time. Our tradition will not appeal to everyone, but it will draw young adults who long for something deeper in a superficial and distracted age.

I believe the same can be said about the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition.  We share in the same liturgical and doctrinal stream as do the Anglican churches (if only we'd remember it in practice); we share with many churches a special emphasis on the spiritual disciplines and practices that can deeply anchor one's life in the life of the Triune God: the Early Methodists teach us to live by a rule of life, to practice meditation on Scripture, prayer, fasting, sacraments, silence, covenant groups, corporate praise, and so on.  I am afraid that we Methodists currently seem to be buying into more of the "let's look to the entertainment industry to find a flashy, wizz-bang, silver bullet" mentality, rather than committing ourselves afresh to the deep doctrinal truths and spiritual practices of our own tradition as a key to connecting people with Life Himself. 

In an age of loud, superficial, and often mind-numbing (rather than intellect-sharpening) entertainment/distraction I believe there are many young adults looking for ways to connect more deeply to God and to Reality.  Christ has created his Church precisely to help people do just that!

Last week our local church led a retreat of 25 people to a Benedictine Monastery.  We had among us a handful of young adults who had a great experience.  No fog machine, but instead the Daily Office.  No light show, but instead Lectio Divina.  No celebrities, but instead some genuine Christian community - what we Methodists call "holy Conferencing."  And through it all, God was near...and that was enough to feed our souls.

"My flesh and heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever...for me it is good to be near to God; I have made the Lord God my refuge..."  Psalm 73:26-28