Issues With The Banner Part 2 - "8 Signs of a Healthy Intergenerational Church"

Wherein the Banner blithely dismisses the well-established structure of multigenerational churches and suggests the concept of "family" should be expanded beyond the nuclear family

We continue our slog through the March 2023 issue of the Banner showcasing articles that were published which were of dubious value and promoted questionable ideas. This is the second of 9 such articles published in that one issue alone. A bad article here or there may be expected from even the best of publications, but nine articles in one issue seems like a major concern, and I reiterate my two questions (a) why is this publication on CRCNA literature racks and (b) why are CRCNA churches funding a publication of this dubious quality with their ministry share dollars?

"8 Signs of a Healthy Intergenerational Church" by Robert and Laura Keeley

The premise of this article is that there are "multigenerational churches" which are old and busted and "intergenerational churches" which are the new hotness.

Per the article, multigenerational churches are churches that "not only had children, teens, parents, and grandparents sitting in the same sanctuary, but had programming for each of them: church school for kids, youth group for teens, and Bible studies for adults. This model for church was adapted from schools, where children and teens are separated by age."

Intergenerational churches, however are churches that "are intentional about bringing different generations together in a mutual, influential relationship so that they can achieve common goals. The key words are intentional and mutual. Those differences seem subtle, but they are important."

Quite honestly, the article does not do a good job of explaining what these "subtle" differences are, and the entire article mostly just seems to be an ad for a couple of books.

The article suggests that intergenerational churches:

• Provide a sense of belonging (as if run of the mill multi-generational churches do not).

• Provide support for people and families that need help (as if multi-generational churches do not).

• Expands "the concept of a family beyond the nuclear family". (That's a major statement that the article did not expand properly upon).

Boiled down, it sounds like the difference between multigenerational churches (bad) and intergenerational churches (good) is that intergenerational churches do not uphold the nuclear family structure as the ideal and instead focus on catering to children and unmarried members of the congregation, giving these people prominent leadership roles within worship and extra focus in terms of programming and attention from leadership.

The article focuses on the idea that church communities should not be "siloed by age" and seems to suggest that all groups should be equally served together by all aspects of the service and that it's not healthy if children find the sermon boring and aren't hanging out with adults.

It seems to reject the notion that people often and naturally sort themselves into affinity group. After church the kids naturally split off into different groups, mostly stratified by age and sex, so that they can socialize in ways they enjoy. It's not unhealthy for them to do that, nor is the fact that they're not hanging out with adults a sign that a church is not serving them well.

Why is the Banner publishing an article calling into doubt the structure of thousands of churches—a structure that is well established and has served them generally well for many years? It seems arrogant to dismiss that structure as outdated while not clearly explaining why and how it is deficient or clearly explaining why or how this new proposed model is different and better.

Beyond that, I cannot stress enough that when an article about church organization in an ostensibly religious publication talks about expanding “the concept of a family beyond the nuclear family,” that’s a red flag in and of itself regardless of anything else said in the article, and it certainly deserves much more attention than one or two sentences given that the nuclear family was created by God as essentially the first human institution. That is not the sort of statement that should be casually thrown out as if it were unremarkable, because it is incredibly remarkable, and the editor and staff of a serious religious publication ought to be expected to recognize the import of that sort of thing and treat it with the gravity it deserves.