How Millennial Are You - Survey

In case you have not seen this over your coming and goings but Pew Research Center has this little survey you can take to "determine" how millennial you are.

Like all surveys this can be taken with a grain of salt as well as speak to some generalities about current culture.  

If you find yourself at odds with these 'young whipper snappers' or do not understand those who were born after 1981, then this might be something to consider looking at.

Additionally, this might be great to take (there are only 14 questions) and see just how much you align with millennial thought/culture.

I was born in 1982 and thus find myself a little bit in both the Gen X and Millennial groups.  My score of an 88 however reflects a much stronger leaning toward Millennial culture.  Below is a screen shot of my answers and results so that I can reference them in the future.  (Note this screenshot is modified so to fit better.)

"You can sit and watch it"

"You can sit and watch it."

This is what my 3 year old son said in response to the question we asked him about what I am to do when he plays "church".


"You can sit and watch it."

My son attends worship regularly, and while only being 3 years old, I think that he has and understanding of worship that is similar to what many people might consider worship to be.  If is something that one can sit and watch.  

 Currently, I am reading "Preaching in the Inventive Age" in which Pagitt addresses that the sermon is, which is dominated by monologue delivery, is something that contributes to the understanding that church is that place where you can "sit and watch".  

Pagitt argues for a "progressional dialogue" with clergy and laity in the preaching moment.  I cannot tell you how great this book is.  If you preach, you ought to consider Pagitt's book.  

Here is a link to all my highlights so far.  And for those of you who are like me and would just like a sampling, here you go!

• "This dependence on preaching as speech making has become a form of communication I call "speaching""
• "Speaching is not defined by the style of the presentation but by the relationship of the presenter to both the listeners and the content: the pastor uses a lecture-like format, often standing while the listeners are sitting. The speacher decides the content ahead of time, usually in a removed setting, and then offers it in such a way that the speacher is in control of the content, speed, and conclusion of the presentation"
• "Preaching has so uniformly been equated with speech making that any other means of sermonizing is thought to be trivial and less authoritative."
• "There are those who assume that if more people are allowed to share their understanding of teaching, theology, and faith, then there's a greater risk of the church losing truth. But the history of heresy shows that it's most often the abuse of power-not an openness of power-that creates environments ripe with heresy. The church is at a greater risk of losing its message when we limit those who can tell the story rather than invite the community to know and refine it"
• "I have come to believe that there's a kind of dehumanizing effect when, week after week, competent people aren't allowed to share their ideas and understanding; when, week after week, one person is set apart from the rest as the only one who is allowed to speak about God; when, week after week, people willingly, or by some sort of social or spiritual pressure, just sit and take it; when, week after week, they're taught that the only way to be good learners is to be better listeners."
• "It's simply untrue that people need their information in small, bite-sized or even "pre-chewed" pieces. The issue may not be that we have too much information or that we aren't presenting it in compelling ways but, perhaps, the information we've chosen is not all that interesting. New methods and exciting delivery will do little to solve that problem. A better or more tech-savvy speach is still a speach."
• "What I know to be true is not negated by others knowing more or other things. Truth is progressive, not regressive or zero sum. When someone knows something to be true, it doesn't remove the legitimacy of other truths but adds to it. We may not agree with the conclusions people draw, but we're better when we're moved to additional ways of seeing the world."

Reading a book like I follow a recipe

I am not a very good chef.  I tend to rely heavily on recipes.  You may be the same.

The thing about the way I cook is that I read the recipe and then do what it tells me to do.  Usually it turns out well, but there is a problem with that process.  When I do this, I do not pay attention to what I am reading.  I am reading "one cup of oil" and then I measure one cup of oil.  I do not, however, consider how much one cup of oil looks like in the pan.  I do not assess if I ought to add more/less oil because of my diet.  I just measure and pour.

So the next time I cook, either that recipe or another, I still have to measure out one cup of oil each time.  This slows my cooking process down, uses more dishes to measure and ensures that I will spend more time and resources cleaning up the mess that I have made.  Rather, if I could integrate the one cup of oil into my mind, then I would not need to measure each time and I could focus on experimenting with other ingredients in the future.

But since I don't integrate that into my mind, I am limited to sticking to the recipe.

When all the cooking is over I then evaluate if I like the results.  I decide if I "like" or "dislike" the meal.  The focus is on the end results.  If I like it, then I will cook it again.  If not then that recipe is out the window.

I find that many times I read a book in the same way I read a recipe.

I read the information, I do not integrate it into my mind (so I constantly have to keep referring back to the recipe/book each time I want to recall it) and I am limited on what I can do with that information.  I cannot experiment with the content of the book because I am too busy evaluating if I like what the author said or disliked it.

I read a recipe and then I evaluate it.
I read a book and then I evaluate it.

I miss the critical step of integration!  I am quick to judge the content (or the end result) that I forget to integrate what I read into my mind for future experimentation.

If we read the Bible in such a way that we read for information then we evaluate it right away, we do not even give another voice the chance to influence our thoughts/actions.  We judge it as good/bad without considering if it actually has something to add to our lives.

Might we learn as a Church to move beyond reading just for information and evaluation and learn to read also for integration.

That is when we are really cooking.