FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Millennials Turned Off by Trendy Church Buildings, Prefer Classic Sanctuary
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

From The Christian Post, my emphasis:

Study Shows Millennials Turned Off by Trendy Church Buildings, Prefer a Classic Sanctuary
By Stephanie Samuel , Christian Post Reporter
November 14, 2014|7:14 am

Millennials gravitate toward classic, quiet church spaces that feel authentic and provide a break from the busyness of a fast-paced, technological world, revealed a study commissioned by church architectural firms.

Online surveys administered to 843 young adults ages 18 to 29 by Christian research firm Barna Group and Cornerstone Knowledge Network, the market research organization created by church design firms Aspen Group and Cogun, found 67 percent chose the word "classic" to describe their ideal church. By contrast, 33 percent prefer a trendy church as their ideal.

"They don't want something created artificially for them; they don't want a bait and switch. What they want is something deeper and more authentic," Aspen Group AIA Architect Derek Degroot said of the survey results.

That search for authenticity translates into the look and sound Millennials prefer for their ideal church.

When asked to choose their preference between a church sanctuary and a church auditorium, 77 percent chose sanctuary. When shown four different kinds of church windows ranging from modern and least "churchy" to traditionally ornate, over a third of all respondents chose the most ornate stain glass window common to chapels. When shown four styles of church altars, the study showed that a majority of respondents chose altars that "are unambiguously Christian and are more traditional."

"Millennials are a very visual group," explained Barna Vice President of Publishing Roxanne Stone. "If they go into your church and they don't know where to go or it's ambiguous or they don't understand what something is for, they will move on."

Additionally, 78 percent of millennial respondents selected a quiet church as the ideal over a loud church.

The results seem to buck against the trends of the typical megachurch where the sanctuary is a vast space broken into several seating sections, congregants are treated to concert-like worship services, and the pastor preaches from a stage.

Stone said the same result proved true in a field test where another group of Millennials visited a downtown cathedral, a suburban megachurch, a city park and a coffee shop and were told to react to the space.

She recalled "Many of the Millennials when we asked them point blank where would you go to church, they said probably at the suburban megachurch but they didn't have the same kind of appreciation for the megachurches as they did for the cathedrals; they didn't walk in and have the same sense of awe."

Vox Wrote:
If the TLM instead of the NO were offered in that cathedral, and if the priest were to give sermons that speak right to them and make something in their minds go "click!" so they finally "get" and "buy" the Church's take on the big topics of the day, like sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, abortion, etc., I bet they'd choose to attend the cathedral instead of just admiring the architecture. We simply have to do a better job of explaining WHY the Church's teachings are good and right even on a purely natural psychological or sociological level.  IOW, we have to do better at teaching how the Church's teachings benefit them not just in the hereafter, but now in terms of quality of life.

Traditional settings featuring decorative depictions of the crucifixion and glass windows were particularly popular among young adults who identified as either marginally churched or unchurched.

"These sort [sic] of suburban megachurches," Stone explained, "they don't feel like church, so when they enter these spaces and, they haven't had a religious background, they don't know where they are. Instead of feeling what they were coming for which is [the] desire to connect with the sacred, instead they're sort of asking questions of what they're supposed to do in this space."

While millennials in the study showed a flair for the traditional, 60 percent of respondents still preferred the descriptor "modern" over "traditional" for their ideal church, 64 percent chose "casual" over "dignified" and 56 percent selected performance over ritual.

Vox Wrote:Interesting that even though they like the traditional, they don't like calling it "traditional." Maybe we need a slangy way of referring to traditional Catholicism in order to pique curiosity -- maybe "the Olde Path," with the extra E on "Old" being all cool, man, and like seriously vintage LOL

In creating the perfect church space for young adults, Stone said church leaders need to keep in mind that for Millennials growing up in the information age and church is just one of many places where they can experience a spiritual feeling or connection. Therefore Millennials want a church that gives them a unique experience.

"What we need to create," said Degroot, "[are] respites that get us away from the busy world, that allow us to connect with one another and to connect with God."

That's great. Interesting counter-trend, though, in our low-church Protestant culture, where the country's biggest church is Joel Osteen's former sports arena, which in Baptist tradition doesn't even have a plain cross. Maybe that's a passing "boomer" phenomenon like liberal Catholicism.

Also, many "millennials" are secular. Unlike the boomers and older people, if they don't believe, and again a lot of them don't, they just stop going to church when they're grown, or sooner.

But yes, I can see young believers wanting this tradition back. Been seeing it among Catholics for 25 years.
Go to any parish that has a Latin Mass with a larger attendance rate. What do you see when you look around? Lots of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s. From what I see, the ratio of people in those age ranges at a EF Mass is much much higher than compared to an OF Mass. When you go to an EF Mass, you see many younger individuals who aren't being dragged there by their parents. You see lots of people who bring along large families. All stuff you see very little of at a NO Mass. I personally can't see a younger Catholic who decides to really go out of their way to learn about Catholicism; about its traditions and the EF (because they certainly will) and then proceeds to prefer the NO and the modern looking churches.
As the culture gets more militantly secular there is going to be a pruning within the Church. The Vatican II era was secular but not really all that hostile to religion,the current and future secularism despises it and sees it as something to be eradicated. As the late great Jesuit Father John Hardon said at the dawn of the millennium, only serious Catholics will survive this century.

Pope Benedict XVI once said that the future Church will be small but fervent. I tend to believe both him and Father Hardon. so called " hard identity" Catholicism is the stuff of the future. While I do not think Vatican II or the Novus Ordo are going anywhere any time soon the ultra liberalism that came in the wake of the Council will simply die out. In a culture that will sooner or later persecute believers out of jobs, homes and maybe even lives the only type of Catholicis that will survive are those that adhere to Tradition, and includes the tradition of incense,chant and reverent beautiful architecture that reaches vertically towards Heaven and not horizontally towards the secular city.
Very interesting article, and quite different from your usual “Millenials prefer the traditional stuff, beauty, etc.”, because it kinda shows the contradiction at the heart of this generation.

I was thinking about this when that report about Latin America was released. I already knew the decline of Catholicism in Latin America, and the rise of pentecostalism, but I never connected the two things in a meaningful way.
Yes, its true that people who attend a TLM are younger than the norm, but I suspect these young folks are of a different sort. The fact still is, many young people are joining charismatic groups within the Church or leaving the Church altogether to join some loud protestant sect.

I thought this was a phenomenon restricted to Latin America, where most people are still religious and not thoroughly secular like in Europe, but where they don't really take religion that serious, so they tend to drift to not that serious churches (by the way, I don't buy that argument that they are apostatizing into a sect because the sect is more moral. It might be true that they are more rigid with ethics [and this is something of a shame to lukewarm Catholics, really], but they only like this rigidness either because they see the destruction vice produces [which, at the start, is not a bad motive] or out of jealousy: because they are not in in the corruption schemes, the easy women, etc.; so much so that most when see a beautiful soul they just feel jealous and try to find defect or minimize its virtues, instead of delighting in its beauty. So, yes, they [most of them, anyway] don't necessarily love virtue so much but just are not powerful enough to secure pleasure—a true slave revolt).

But with this article that might be true also for the USA. The most revealing thing is when Stone says to church leaders that must produce something that will give Millennials a unique experience, because the church for them is just one among many other places where they can get religious feelings. This show how these Millennials can turn even Christ into product for consumption in the greater market of feelings and ideas. This is definitely not Christianity. And this is an important realization, because now we know the work of evangelization is much more difficult than what Fr. Barron's strategy of first drawing people into the Church by its beauty would suggest. Beauty, admittedly, is the thing that attracts us, being basically the thing that in which being beheld pleases by itself, but expressed in liturgical acts it might be presented to Millennials as something apart from the beauty of the Form of Christ (thus apart from the beauty of the saintly life, of virtues) or even apart from the beauty of God, and it might be taken, as the article proves, as a mere pleasing technique, a mere religious tickling, as Benedict XVI said somewhere.

So the problem is really more hairy than just restoring the TLM (though, it goes without saying, that I think this is the condition of possibility of the solution). I haven't found a more better or more shorter diagnosis of the problem than what Hart writes in Christ and Nothing, and I tend to agree that, in the end, we will need a thorough conversion away from modernism in all its aspects and regain a sincere fear of the Lord.
In a way, there is a need to not to simply destroy the NO and modernized churches, it's not going to happen any time soon. Instead, the need should be to make Catholic the NO and modern looking churches. This of course would start with some sort of issuance from the top defining actual rubrics from beginning to end with the NO (more traditional elements) and how Catholic churches may look (e.g., location of tabernacle, need for a crucifix). It would be the first building block of the restoration.
There is some deep seated iconoclasm that caused all of this to begin with. I don't know where it came from but until that is crushed there won't even be a desire to change.