Multicultural Preaching Across Generations: A Proposal for Effective Preaching to Young Generations in the Great Dechurching

Abstract

This study proposes multicultural preaching across generations as a means of effective preaching in the time of the Great Dechurching. Young generations, represented by Millennials and Generation Z, are the least religious of all age groups, showing the strongest intention to leave the church. The author argues that the failure to form a Christian identity, rather than the church’s failure to adapt culturally, is the main cause of the Great Dechurching among young generations and that preaching to a generation-segregated congregation, tailored to a target generation, contributes to the failure of forming a Christian identity, as it obstructs the sharing of faith experiences intergenerationally. Based on empirical evidence from multiple surveys, I demonstrate that preaching is influential in the dechurching of young generations, and that the faith gap across generations, rather than the cultural gap, contributes to the dechurching of young generations. Then, by analyzing preaching models in relation to generation, the author points out the problems in generation-blind and -separated preaching and suggests multicultural preaching across generations as a desirable homiletical model for overcoming the dechurching of young generations by formulating a Christian identity through intergenerational conversations around faith. I describe this as conversational preaching that seeks mutual listening and learning based on equal and reciprocal relationships across generations, as well as the recognition of cultural differences across generations.

1. Introduction

As Peter Forsyth said, “with its preaching Christianity stands or falls”; preaching has been a core ministry of the church throughout its history (Forsyth [1907] 1993, p. 1). Where the true gospel is preached, the church rises; where preaching withers, the church declines. Thus, whenever the church has faced a crisis, a renewal of preaching has been called for in response. This was the case with the Reformation, the Puritan movement, and the New Homiletics movement. It is, therefore, natural to look to preaching for solutions to the unprecedented phenomenon of dechurching that churches across the globe are experiencing today.

This study attempts to investigate how preaching affects the dechurching of young generations by focusing on the relationships between generational differences, dechurching, and preaching. It has been assumed that the cultural irrelevance of Christianity is the main cause of dechurching. However, I argue that the failure to form a Christian identity among young generations due to prevailing generational separation is a more important factor than the issue of cultural adaptation.

Following the assumption of cultural adaptation, some preachers regard cultural relevance as the most important factor in effective preaching for young generations and seek to preach sermons that fit generational characteristics in communication styles and culture. For instance, Ron Allen proposed tailoring preaching to each generation, designing preaching to appeal to different generations’ cultures, and delivering it in a way that reflects their communication styles because he believed that people of different generations listen to sermons in different ways and have different life issues, tastes, modes of expression, and worldviews (Jeter and Allen 2002, pp. 22–47). His model of tailoring preaching for each generation’s characteristics is valuable since it is a homiletical response to the emergence of new generations and is well informed about cultural differences across generations. It is an attempt to preach the gospel with consideration of generational differences so that each generation can hear the gospel effectively. However, it is doubtful that his model is still effective considering the rapid dechurching of young generations over the last few decades. In addition, it is problematic because it enlarges the generational gap rather than bridging it and hampers the sharing of faith across generations.

Then, what is the problem? Scholars of dechurching point out that the lack of transmission of faith from older generations to younger generations is the real problem in the ecclesial crisis. They argue that it is essential for young generations to hear the good news and formulate their Christian identity through the intergenerational communication of faith. Thus, I suggest multicultural preaching across generations, in which all generations share the gospel and experience faith through mutual listening and learning based on equal and reciprocal relationships. To substantiate the validity of this argument, I will take empirical evidence from a survey on preaching for young generations, particularly Millennials and Generation Z, that I recently conducted in South Korea, along with scholarly conversations about dechurching and intergenerational preaching.

2. Dechurching Young Generations

2.1. Dechurching Young Generations Across the Globe

In general, churches around the world, except for churches in the southern hemisphere, have been declining for the last several decades in tandem with increasing religious disaffiliation. This is especially serious in some regions, such as Western Europe, North America, and South Korea. As church attendance and church membership in those regions have been sharply declining over the last several decades, the number of “the nones”, a group of people who are not affiliated with any religion and do not attend religious services, has increased unprecedentedly.

The decline in Christianity in Western Europe is not new. However, it is notable that the share of Christians is rapidly declining, while that of the nones is increasing. This contrasts with the earlier religious landscape in Western Europe because, in the past, most Western Europeans identified as Christians, even though they were inactive in religious participation and practices. However, recently, many of those inactive Christians have become wholly unaffiliated, verifying the dechurching in Western Europe. For example, while 79% of Norwegians replied that they were raised Christian, only 51% of Norwegian respondents currently identify as Christian. Thus, it can be interpreted that 28% of Norwegians left the church, which matches the gap between those who were raised unaffiliated (15%) and the current unaffiliated share (43%) (Pew Research Center 2018, pp. 84–86).

The same applies in the United States. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), the nones have increased from 5% of Americans in 1972 to 29% in 2021, while the share of U.S. adults who identify as Christian has fallen from 90% in 1972 to 63% in 2021 (Pew Research Center 2022, pp. 19–21). Jim Davis and Michael Graham say that about forty million adults in America have left the church in the last twenty-five years, with most of them seeming to have become nones. They call this new religious trend in the United States the “Great Dechurching” (Jim Davis and Michael Graham, pp. xxii, 3).

The Great Dechurching is happening in a similar way in South Korea. According to the 2023 Survey on the Religious Life and Consciousness of Koreans, which was conducted by Gallup Korea with 9,182 adults over the age of 19 nationwide from February to November 2022, the share of religiously unaffiliated Koreans increased from 45% in 2012 to 63% in 2022, while the share of religiously affiliated Koreans fell from 55% in 2012 to 37% in 2022. In the meantime, the share of Protestant Christians decreased from 22.5% in 2012 to 15% in 2022 (Korea Christian Pastors Association 2023, p. 43). This is similar to the results of a survey in Koreans and Religion 1984–2021 published by Gallup Korea in 2021, which reported that the share of Protestant Christians in South Korea decreased from 21% in 2004 to 17% in 2021, while that of nones increased from 47% to 60% in the same period (Gallup Korea 2022). In short, the Great Dechurching occurs in tandem with religious disaffiliation in South Korea.

Meanwhile, one should note that the level of religious disaffiliation varies depending on the generation. The number of dechurched people is growing larger in younger generations than in the generations that precede them. According to the American National Family Life Survey, every younger generation is less religiously affiliated than the older generations. While the share of the religiously unaffiliated population in the Silent Generation is 9%, it increases to 18% among Baby Boomers, 25% in Generation X, 29% among Millennials, and 34% in Generation Z (Cox 2022). Ryan Burge demonstrated that, while the share of nones among Baby Boomers increased from 10% in the 1980s to 20% in 2021, the nones in Generation X doubled to 23% in 2021 in comparison with the statistics in 1998. While the share of religiously unaffiliated Millennials increased to 38% in 2021, the share of nones in Generation Z skyrocketed to 49% in 2021 (Davis et al. 2023, p. 35).

This generational dechurching is observed in Europe as well. According to the European Social Survey (ESS), which was conducted in 22 countries from 2014 to 2016, 64% of French young adults (16–29 years old in 2014–2016) and 70% of British young adults were identified as nones (Bullivant 2018). This result can be compared with a report by the Pew Research Center in which 23% of British adults, including those abovementioned generations, were identified as religiously unaffiliated (Sahgal 2018). This confirms that the decline in religious affiliation in successive European generations is observed in the same way as in the United States.

The same applies to South Korea. According to The 2023 Survey on the Religious Life and Consciousness of Koreans, the rate of the decrease in church affiliation is sharper among younger generations than among older generations. In 2022, the population of Protestant Christians in their 20s dropped by 9.8% in comparison with 2017, and the population of those in their 30s dropped by 5.5%, while the population of Protestant Christians over 50 years old decreased by 4.4%. Considering that the Buddhist population in their 20s decreased by 1.6% and the Catholic population in their 20s decreased by 0.1% in the same period, the dechurching among young Koreans is striking. It is also notable that the population of unchurched Christians, who identify as Christians while they are not affiliated with a church, has increased. It was reported that the number of unchurched Christians increased from 10.5% in 2012 to 29.3% in 2022 (Korea Christian Pastors Association 2023, pp. 43, 50, 105).

2.2. The Cause of Younger Generations’ Dechurching

These studies showing the amount of dechurching among younger generations lead to the assumption that generational differences affect the dechurching of younger generations. Scholars have taken sociocultural reasons or theological reasons, such as secularization, the spread of individualism, and moral scandals of religious leaders, into account when addressing the causes of dechurching. For instance, David Kinnemann and Gabe Lyons presented the following six themes among the reasons why young generations leave the church: being hypocritical, too focused on obtaining converts, anti-homosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental (Kinnemann and Lyons 2007, pp. 27–28). These reasons also seem to be involved in dechurching in recent years. Among the reasons for cultural Christians’ dechurching, Jim Davis and Michael Graham listed the following answers: “My friends were not attending” (18%); “Attending was inconvenient” (18%); “Suffering changed my view of God” (17%); “I wanted to express my gender identity” (17%); “I moved to another community” (17%); “Too restrictive of my sexual freedom” (16%); “Scandal involving clergy” (16%); “I chose to worship completely online” (16%) (Davis et al. 2023, p. 49).

Some of these answers seem to verify the idea that the church’s cultural delay or cultural irrelevance is the cause of dechurching among young generations. Thus, the solution seems to be to foster a culturally adapted Christianity. However, contrary to this assumption, the statistics of dechurching show that it is worse in the mainline denominations that have a positive outlook on cultural adaptation than in the conservative denominations that are generally negative toward it. According to a report on the American religious landscape by the Pew Research Center, while the share of mainline Protestants in the United States dropped by 3.4% from 18.1% in 2007 to 14.7% in 2014, the share of Evangelicals decreased by 0.9% from 26.3% in 2007 to 25.4% in 2014, and the share of religiously unaffiliated persons increased by 6.7% from 16.1% in 2007 to 22.8 in 2014 (Pew Research Center 2015). Thus, it turns out that cultural adaptation has not been very effective in stopping dechurching, thus contradicting this assumption.

This also applies to Korean dechurching. The main causes of dechurching in South Korea are Koreans’ secularization and loss of trust in the church rather than the church’s cultural irrelevance. In response to the question of “why did you leave church?”, Koreans gave answers in the following order: “lack of interest in religion” (34.5%), “mistrust and disappointment in religion” (29.1%), “lack of faith” (19.5%), and “not wanting to be bound” (10.6%) (Korea Christian Pastors Association 2023, p. 50). Among these answers, the second reflects the loss of trust in the church, while the others reflect secularization. Although one might say that cultural irrelevance contributes to the loss of trust in the church or secularization, I believe that the correlation between them is not considerable. Rather, it seems that the church’s over-embracing of culture is seen as secularizing the church and creating an anti-Christian sentiment, which, in turn, contributes to dechurching.

This does not mean that culture does not matter. Culture matters. However, it is necessary to focus more on the way in which one understands culture and how to respond to it rather than on the forced adaptation of culture. If one understands culture through thin descriptions, describing what culture looks like on a surface level without any interpretation or context, one would overlook the deeper dynamics of culture that work beneath cultural phenomena and fail to explain why something happened and what it means, which can be achieved through thick description. Those who understand culture only through thin descriptions seek to show Christianity’s compatibility with contemporary cultures to young generations and concentrate on developing Christian practices, including preaching, songs, styles of worship services, and others, and adapting them to the contemporary cultural trends with which they would feel comfortable. Meanwhile, they fail to recognize the cultural incompatibility of Christianity, thus creating a dissonance with the worldview, values, and cultural norms on which secular society is based and an inability to form a Christian cultural identity. However, since Christianity has both cultural compatibility and incompatibility, and Christian practices are not only influenced by cultures by adapting to them but also influence, formulate, and transform cultures, one should seek to transmit the distinctive cultural identity embedded in Christian culture from older generations to younger generations through various Christian practices, in addition to developing more culturally relevant Christian practices for young generations.

I believe that the main cause of the Great Dechurching among younger generations comes not from the failure of cultural adaptation but from the failure to form a Christian identity. As shown in emerging Christian practices that are adapted to contemporary cultures, including contemporary Christian music, storytelling/narrative preaching, the use of various cultural works, and the employment of various digital media for Christian ministry, churches have not been far behind cultural trends. Rather, some churches have been proactive in promptly adapting to cultural trends, as some have adopted contemporary music, such as rock-and-roll or hip-hop music, for their worship music, and some have adopted new media, such as audiovisual systems, online streaming services, social networking services (SNSs), and VR (virtual reality) technology, to develop highly culturally adapted churches and ministries; this even includes the use of wide broadcasting screens, online worship services, and metaverse churches. For a while, the strategy of churches’ prompt cultural adaptation worked well in slowing the pace of dechurching, as shown in the success of the churches that adopted contemporary cultural trends promptly, such as the Willow Creek Church in the U.S. and Onnuri Church in South Korea. However, the current situation of the Great Dechurching among younger generations casts doubts about the effectiveness of cultural adaptation, and it requires us to reflect more deeply and more keenly on whether we were right or wrong.

In reflection, I believe that prompt cultural adaptation can contribute to the loss of Christian identity and the enlargement of the generational gap in dechurching, despite its positive contributions. As cultural changes become more rapid, the generational gap becomes larger. So, even as churches have adopted cultural changes in step with societal cultural changes, the generational gap in churches has become larger, building barriers across generations that hamper the intergenerational transmission of faith or sharing of faith experiences. In addition, as methods of communication are different among generations, with rapid cultural changes and technical progress, intercommunication across generations becomes awkward and uncomfortable, resulting in a lack of intercommunication, which accelerates the loss of sharing of Christian faith across generations.

As a result, as churches have increasingly adapted to contemporary culture, they have become generation-segregated congregations where multiple generations are present but the transmission of faith among them rarely happens (Allen et al. 2023, pp. 29–41). Age segregation is often considered an important factor of a highly advanced church education system since younger generations are taught in a way that fits their cultures and intellectual abilities, in accordance with their developmental stages. However, this only makes generational segregation worse. Parents drop their children off in the Sunday school room, go to attend the adult worship service, and have no conversations about what they experienced there nor what they believe in because they believe that the pastor and teachers will teach their children better than them in a way that fits children’s culture. However, in reality, young people do not have enough opportunities to form their Christian identity through ongoing conversations with peers or older generations of the faith community simply because they do not spend enough time sharing faith with each other. As this continues for over a decade in young Christians’ developmental years, younger generations rarely have the chance to hear about faith from older generations. Younger generations who have not experienced faith through existential events and have not heard about faith from the reliable older generations become skeptical of the Christian faith without having an opportunity to develop their own faith through intergenerational conversations about it; then, when they are grown up, it is easy for them to choose to leave the church since they feel that attending is meaningless.

Similarly, a group of scholars argue that the dechurching of young generations is related to the loss of intergenerational transmission of faith. They argue that disbelief or nonbelief of parents is a cause of their children’s dechurching. During their research on the family backgrounds of nones, Vern L. Bengston and his colleagues argued that intergenerational transmission of religious non-affiliation is one of the factors of dechurching, which differs from the assumption that nones’ rejection of their parents’ religious faith is the cause of the rise in their number (Bengston et al. 2013, pp. 149–64). They explain that the increase in the number of nones among younger generations is due to the increase in the number thereof in the generation of their parents. As a result, religious disaffiliation is transmitted intergenerationally. Along the same lines, Ryan Burge also says that “half of the religious disaffiliation is caused by young people raised in nonreligious households, while the other half is teens and college-age students leaving religion behind as they move into their late twenties” (Davis et al. 2023, p. 151).

The lack of intergenerational faith transmission is also the cause of the younger generation’s dechurching. The authors of The Great Dechurching take the missed generational handoff into account as the cause of the rise in religious disaffiliation. They say that the generational handoff is most often missed during the three transitional periods of life that are most important for maintaining faith: the high school years, the four years after high school, and the early years of a new career. Many young people struggle to fit in or belong to the church during this time, and on top of this, their parents leave them with less support and interaction because they believe that it would be good for their children to seek social and psychological independence. However, contrary to these assumptions, young people still need support from their parents and older generations in developing their identity and faith. The authors claim that young people need the church as a faith community where older generations can help them follow Jesus together and walk with them to find the answers to hard questions about faith and life (Davis et al. 2023, pp. 148–63). In other words, young people need an intergenerational faith community where multiple generations interact with each other by sharing their faith experiences and confessions, not a multigenerational congregation where multiple generations simply get along without any significant interactions or mutual listening in relation to their faith experiences.

Then, what shall we do abour this problem? Simply put, it is necessary to restore and promote intergenerational interactions to formulate the Christian faith in congregations. This can be achieved through a variety of intergenerational Christian practices, such as intergenerational worship services, intergenerational Bible study groups, intergenerational Vacation Bible School (VBS), and intergenerational preaching. All generations can benefit from growing into more mature disciples of Christ through intergenerational worship, service, learning, and fellowship. Preaching is one of the most significant Christian practices that contributes to forming Christian identity through intergenerational communication of faith; it is not merely a means of church growth that attracts people by showing how Christianity is culturally relevant and attractive, nor is it a unilateral cohesion of Christian doctrines without any consideration of generational differences. Preaching is the key to resolving the problem of younger generations’ dechurching. In particular, intergenerational preaching is needed as a bridge for the generational gap in dechurching as it builds a co-foundation of faith through mutual listening and mutual learning.

3. Preaching for Dechurched Generations

3.1. Preaching’s Influence on the Dechurching of Young Generations

Before unfolding the discussion of intergenerational preaching for dechurched generations, it is necessary to delve into how preaching affects dechurching among young generations. To discuss this, I would like to look at the data from a survey of Effective Preaching for the MZ generations in South Korea that I conducted in 2024.

3.1.1. The Survey of Preaching and Dechurching Among Young Generations in South Korea

The survey was designed to examine how the Korean Millennial generation and Generation Z (those born between 1981 and 2012, hereafter MZ generation) experience preaching and how their experiences influence their motives for leaving the church. Therefore, the survey researched two groups of respondents: current church attendees who have been listening to sermons and those who attended churches before but have left the church. In addition, to study the preacher’s perspectives on the issue, preachers from the MZ generation were also included in the survey. This survey of church-attending audiences was conducted online by using Google Forms from 24 January to 19 April 2024, targeting those in the MZ generation aged between 12 and 42 (born between 1981 and 2012) nationwide. The valid sample size was 600, of which 239 (39.8%) were male and 361 (60.2%) were female.

Based on age, there were the following:

• 144 respondents (17.5%) aged 12–20, belonging to Generation Z;
• 342 respondents (57%) aged 20–29, belonging to the Young Millennials;
• 114 respondents (19%) aged 30–42, belonging to the Old Millennials.

Based on church attendance duration, there were the following:

• 11 respondents (1.8%) who attended for less than a year;
• 20 respondents (3.3%) who attended for 1–3 years;
• 14 respondents (2.3%) who attended for 3–5 years;
• 41 respondents (6.8%) who attended for 5–10 years;
• 514 respondents (85.7%) who attended for more than 11 years.

In terms of denomination, there were the following:

• 32 respondents (5.3%) who attended Presbyterian churches (the Presbyterian Church in Korea—Tonghap and Hapdong);
• 30 respondents (5%) who attended the Korean Methodist Church;
• 253 respondents (42.2%) who attended the Korean Evangelical Holiness Church;
• 277 respondents (34.6%) who attended the Korean Baptist Church;
• 8 respondents (1.3%) who attended churches of other denominations.

The survey of individuals in the MZ generation who left the church was carried out by the Pastoral Data Center/Ji&Com Research due to the difficulty of accessing this group. The Pastoral Data Center/Ji&Com Research conducted the survey from 19 March to 24 March 2024, targeting dechurched individuals in the MZ generation with ages between 12 and 42 years (those born between 1981 and 2012) nationwide. The valid sample size was 300, with 150 males (50%) and 150 females (50%). Based on age, there were 160 respondents (20%) aged 15–18 years, belonging to Generation Z, 120 respondents (40%) aged 19–29 years, belonging to the Young Millennials, and 120 respondents (40%) aged 30–43 years, belonging to the Old Millennials. Based on church attendance duration before leaving, there were 86 respondents (28.7%) who attended for less than a year, 69 respondents (23%) who attended for 1–3 years, 34 respondents (11.3%) who attended for 3–5 years, 48 respondents (16%) who attended for 5–10 years, and 63 respondents (21%) who attended for more than 11 years. The denomination before leaving the church was surveyed using general terms such as the Presbyterian Church, Methodist Church, and Holiness Church because many respondents who left the church did not know the official names of the denominations. The results showed 121 respondents (40.3%) who previously attended Presbyterian churches, 20 respondents (6.6%) who attended Methodist churches, 38 respondents (12.7%) who attended Full Gospel churches, 12 respondents (4%) who attended Holiness churches, 6 respondents (2%) who attended Baptist churches, and 103 respondents (34.3%) who attended other denominations or did not know the denomination.

3.1.2. Correlation Between Preaching and Dechurching

Looking at the results of the survey on how preaching affects dechurching, 68.0% of the dechurched respondents in the MZ generation answered that preaching had significant influences on their decision to leave (13.7% answered “very much so” and 54.3% answered “somewhat”). In response to the same question, 80.3% of the church-attending respondents in the MZ generation answered that preaching affects dechurching (19.0% “very much so”, 46.5% “somehow”, and 14.8% “yes”). This indicates that while both groups recognize that preaching plays a significant role in dechurching, church attendees are more concerned about this issue than dechurched respondents.

To analyze the specific relationship between preaching and dechurching, the researcher asked “What kind of preaching negatively affects dechurching?”, with the following examples: ① boring sermons, ② sermons that do not fit the contemporary world, ③ theologically/ethically inappropriate sermons, ④ sermons that are irrelevant to real life, and ⑤ authoritarian sermons. In response, church-attending respondents answered in the following order: theologically/ethically inappropriate sermons (36.7%), authoritarian sermons (26.2%), and sermons that do not fit the contemporary world (15.0%). Meanwhile, dechurched respondents answered in the following order: theologically/ethically inappropriate sermons (29.0%), boring sermons (25.3%), and sermons that do not fit the contemporary world (22.3%).

These results show that the content of the sermon (③) is the most important factor of dechurching, whereas the sermon’s cultural relevance (②) is the third most important factor. What should be noted is the difference in focus between church-attending respondents and dechurched respondents. While church-attending respondents consider the relationship between the preacher and the audience (⑤) and the content of the sermon (③) more important than cultural relevance (②) and effectiveness in delivery (④), for dechurched respondents, effectiveness in delivery (④) and cultural relevance (②) are more important. If one investigates this in more detail, one can find that dechurched individuals and church attendees who have been attending for less than 3 years commonly consider boring sermons the most important cause of dechurching.

The reasons why some listeners feel that a sermon is boring are several. It might be simply because the preacher’s delivery is limited. If the preacher speaks in monotone without any vocal variations, facial expressions, or gestures, such as reading a book, the listeners will feel bored. However, there could be other reasons, such as indifference, irrelevance, or unfamiliarity with biblical contents and Christian doctrines. Even if the preacher delivers a sermon very actively in an engaging and memorable manner, if the sermon is hardly connected to the lives of the listeners, and if the listeners are indifferent to the preaching itself and/or are unfamiliar with biblical language and contents, theological thoughts and logics, and church culture, the sermon could be boring for them.

The survey shows that the shorter a listener’s church attendance is, the more bored with preaching they feel. This can be interpreted as follows: at least for the dechurched or those who are in danger of dechurching, a listener’s lack of experience and knowledge of Christianity affects the effectiveness of preaching, as does the problem of the preacher’s ability to deliver sermons effectively. Thus, it is necessary to help listeners gain more and deeper knowledge of biblical teachings and faith experiences through preaching, while the preacher must make efforts to deliver sermons more effectively.

3.1.3. Effective Preaching for the Dechurched Younger Generations

Then, what characteristics does effective preaching for the dechurched younger generations have? This can be answered through the responses to the questions of “What preaching is the best?” and “What preaching is the most memorable?”. First, regarding the best preaching, church attendees answered in the following order: sermons offering solutions to life’s concerns (27.8%), sermons interpreting the Bible faithfully (26.8%), and sermons teaching the principles of Christian life in detail (22.8%). Meanwhile, the dechurched answered in the following order: sermons offering solutions to life’s concerns (43.3%), sermons telling biblical stories in an interesting way (30.3%), and sermons interpreting the Bible faithfully (15.0%).

Regarding the question about the most memorable sermons, church-attending respondents answered in the following order: sermons offering solutions to life’s concerns (44.2%), sermons interpreting the Bible faithfully (33.3%), and sermons mediating spiritual experiences (9.5%). Meanwhile, dechurched respondents answered in the following order: sermons offering solutions to life’s concerns (50.7%), sermons telling biblical stories (21.3%), and sermons interpreting the Bible faithfully (17.3%). This shows that both the church attendees and the dechurched commonly favor sermons that are relevant to their lives, and church attendees seek a deeper understanding of the Bible and a spiritual experience from preaching, while dechurched individuals prefer to hear interesting stories.

In addition, the use of audiovisual media in preaching seems to be a key factor. Regardless of whether they are church attendees or the dechurched, listeners are positive about the use of audiovisual media and pursue more active experiences of preaching involving the presentation of video clips, the performance of dramas, and the use of static images. Listeners stated that audiovisual media are helpful for hearing sermons (church attendees: “somewhat helpful” 53.2% + “very helpful” 28.0%; the dechurched: “somewhat helpful” 69.7% + “very helpful” 16.3%) and stated that audiovisual media help with understanding and prevent boredom (church attendees: “help with understanding” 56.2% + “prevent boredom” 35.0%; the dechurched: “helps with understanding” 50.0% + “prevent boredom” 39.3%). In addition, as for the audiovisual media that they hope will be used in preaching, church attendees answered in the following order: images (51.0%) and videos (40.2%). Meanwhile, the dechurched answered in the following order: videos (66.7%) and images (23.0%).

In response to the question of “What is the most necessary in preaching to prevent the MZ generation’s dechurching?”, church attendees answered in the following order: developing sermons that are relevant to real life (35.8%), using sermonic language that listeners can understand (21.3%), and resolving the preacher’s authoritarian attitude (16.0%). The dechurched answered in the following order: developing sermons that are relevant to real life (32.3%), resolving the preacher’s authoritarian attitude (22.0%), and developing various preaching methods (18.0%). In sum, both church attendees and the dechurched answered with “developing sermons that are relevant to real life” as the most necessary factor in preventing younger generations’ dechurching. This result echoes the answers to the previous questions about effective preaching, in which both church attendees and the dechurched expected sermons to be relevant to their lives. In other words, the most important characteristic of effective preaching for younger generations is the relevance of a sermon to real life.

It is clear that a sermon that is irrelevant to life, that only discusses the religious meaning of a couple of words from biblical verses, is far from the audience’s existential concerns brought about by societal absurdity and irony in human life, or forces listeners to follow religious decrees based on a narrow interpretation of a biblical text or Christian doctrine would not be welcomed by young generations. However, one should not understand a sermon that is relevant to real life as a culturally relevant sermon in a narrow sense, involving adapting to contemporary cultural trends on a surface level, dealing with cultural issues without deep theological reflections, or using advanced communication methods for the purpose of effective delivery only. Instead, it would be better to describe this as the sermon that answers the questions and concerns raised in and through theological conversations amid the existential struggles of life. The sermons that young generations favor would include answers to existential and/or theological questions, situational issues, relational conflicts, moral conflicts, and others. Younger generations expect to hear good news to help them resolve such troubles in their lives.

Then, how should we preach with this knowledge? I propose a solution through multicultural preaching across generations in which all generations in the congregation listen to each other and learn from each other. This is because multicultural preaching across generations is a culturally conditioned form of preaching that facilitates the sharing of faith experiences gained through struggles in life which each generation has gone through.

3.2. Multicultural Preaching Across Generations for Dechurched Generations

3.2.1. Multigenerational Congregations in a Multicultural Context

To develop multicultural preaching across generations, preachers should understand the relationship between preaching and culture. As stated by David M. Csinos in his book on intergenerational preaching, “preaching is culturally conditioned”; cultural norms affect how we preach, while cultural views affect how we interpret the Bible and what we preach (Csinos 2022, p. 63). Similarly, Andrew Carl Wisdom claims that “preachers must have a fundamental understanding of the significant effect culture, language and communication have in the construction of generation”. Claiming that the generation is the locus of culture, he argues that preaching in a multigenerational congregation should proclaim the gospel in a culturally relevant manner (Wisdom 2004, pp. xvii, 20). As shown in the survey, cultural relevance is a crucial element of effective preaching for dechurched younger generations. Thus, it is necessary for preachers to understand culture. The issue is that of understanding a culture, particularly generational culture, in relation to preaching and defining the cultural relevance of preaching. The following homiletical discussion will help understand culture in relation to preaching through an in-depth description.

Leonora Tisdale is a leading homiletician who approaches congregations in a cultural context. She posits that a congregation is a cultural community that possesses unique worldviews, values, and lifestyles and communicates through a distinct idiom, encompassing both verbal and nonverbal symbols. Sermons, undoubtedly, function as one of these distinctive idioms, contributing to the communication of a congregation’s subcultural identity alongside other symbolic languages (Tisdale 1997, pp. 15–16). While Tisdale’s contribution in viewing congregations as cultural communities rather than purely religious communities is valuable, and her proposal for culturally adapted preaching is insightful, it is important to acknowledge a limitation in her analysis. As Eunjoo Mary Kim rightly points out, although she acknowledges that diverse subcultures exist within a congregation, she concentrates on the congregation as a monolithic and homogenous group rather than a multicultural community (Kim 2010, pp. 7–8).

Unlike her sketch of a culturally homogenous congregation, congregations comprise culturally diverse subgroups, differentiated by age, gender, race, ethnicity, social status, education, and other factors, creating a multicultural context. Cultural diversity is observed not only in culturally heterogeneous congregations, such as multiethnic or multiracial congregations, but also within seemingly homogenous congregations. Therefore, a congregation is not only a distinctive subculture within broader society but also a multicultural microcosm where multiple subgroups interact. Generation should be noted as a factor in the construction of the multicultural context within a congregation. Generational differences contribute significantly to the multicultural context, as each generation carries distinct cultural identities and preferences, potentially leading to cultural differences. Consequently, recognizing the cultural diversity within a congregation, particularly across generations, is crucial for effective preaching.

In this sense, it is necessary to acknowledge how cultural diversity across generations is constructed. As a group of culture research experts says, “cross-temporal differences can be thought of as akin to crosscultural differences with the defining element being time rather than region”; generational differences are constructed through cultural changes over time (Gentile et al. 2014, p. 32). A generation refers to a cohort of people who are born within a similar timeframe and share common historical and cultural experiences during their formative years. The shared experiences of a generation facilitate building a common consciousness and common behavioral patterns, and finally, the creation of a generational identity that distinguishes them from other generations and a generational culture, which is a distinctive way of living.

While classic theorists of generation studies, including Karl Manheim, Neil Howes, and William Strauss, attribute the cause of generational differences mainly to major historical events, Jean Twenge takes cultural change into account as a cause of generational differences, with technological progress contributing to cultural changes over time (Twenge 2023, pp. 5–9). In particular, she argues that technological changes influence how humans think, feel, and behave—in other words, how we live. Technological progress, including progress in medical technology, communication technology, transportation, and other fields, has lengthened our lifespan, has expanded the realm of life from regions to the globe, and has changed our ways of communication, as well as facilitating other ways of living. These changes in how people live have changed our values, worldviews, and beliefs; they have changed cultures. In the course of these changes, generational differences are spawned as each generation interacts with technology in unique ways, and it shapes their worldview, communication styles, social interactions, and priorities.

Although it is undeniable that technological changes are a driving force behind generational differences in values and beliefs, contributing to cultural changes at least on the level of the external shapes of life, historical events still should be considered causes of generational differences. Technological changes occur in history, not in a void. Technological changes are intertwined with historical events and result in the construction of cultural shifts. Each generation gains cultural experiences through the interactions between historical events and technological changes. Therefore, it is necessary to consider what historical changes, including sociopolitical events, cultural shifts, and technological progress, make up generational experiences.

This can be exemplified by the difference in generational categorization between the United States and South Korea. US scholars of generation theory take World War II, the cultural revolution in the 1960s, the end of the Cold War, and the IT revolution in the 1990s into account as the causes of cultural changes that resulted in American generational differences, categorizing generations in the United States as Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), Generation X (born between 1965 and 1976), Generation Y or Millennials, (born between 1977 and 1997), and Generation Z (born after 1998). However, while Korean scholars follow the Western generational categorization, the birth span of each generation is different from that of the American generational categorization, as the Korean historical experience is different from the American experience. The Korean War (1950–1953), industrialization under the military dictatorship in the following period, democratization, globalization, and the IT revolution in the 1990s are the major historical events that impacted the formation of generations in South Korea. Since the historical experiences gained by each generation in the two countries are different, the characteristics of each generation are also different, even if they are labeled as the same generation.

After the Korean War, the government promoted industrialization to rebuild the country. To secure a high-quality workforce capable of adopting and handling new technologies, they implemented national education, which became the driving force behind cultivating middle-class intellectuals. Eventually, these individuals became the main agents of the democratization movement in the 1980s and created a new social order. Globalization after the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s was inevitable, as interaction with foreign countries was essential to foster new industries and export goods produced through them. This globalization further accelerated technological innovation and vitalized human exchange with foreign countries, achieving not only institutional democratization but also the democratization of consciousness or, in other words, lifestyle democratization.

As these processes occurred very rapidly, Koreans gained vastly different values, worldviews, and communication styles depending on their generation. The pre-industrialization generation, which is now elderly, holds values and worldviews based on traditional Confucian culture and communicates unilaterally in authoritarian ways. The industrialization generation (Korean Baby Boomers) grew up in a military culture that promoted modern education and applied a modern authoritarian system to Confucian culture to achieve the goal of efficient production. Therefore, they are accustomed to rational communication based on valid grounds and direct communication that clearly conveys arguments and delivers them clearly and effectively. Generation X is the bridge generation. They challenge the cultural norms that the older generations continue to uphold, despite their paradoxical embodiment thereof, and have created a new cultural space for the following generations. The younger generations, who are now in their 20s and 30s (Millennials and Gen Zers), were born and raised in a democratized and globalized world after industrialization and have grown up in an educational environment that respects individual opinions and encourages the expression of creative perspectives. Therefore, while they inherit and embody the culture of the previous generation, they also resist it and explore the thoughts and cultures of diverse people from around the world encountered through the internet. They freely express their own thoughts and pursue interactive communication based on an egalitarian mindset.

It is essential for preachers to recognize these generational differences that create different subcultures within a congregation. The more and deeper the preacher understands these cultural differences across generations, the more cultural intelligence they gain and the deeper it will be; they will develop “the capability to deal effectively with other people with whom the person does not share a common cultural background and understanding” (Kim 2017, p. 5). Instead of judging other generational cultures from one’s perspective, one is required to respect the cultures of other generations as equally valuable and be prepared to listen to the voices of other generations. This will be the foundation of their ability to bridge the generational gap and deliver good news across generations. This multicultural intelligence is required for multicultural preaching across generations.

3.2.2. Multicultural Preaching Across Generations

This study assumes a multigenerational preaching context in which multiple generations gather to hear a sermon. I refer to the following three models of preaching for multigenerational congregations: generation-blind preaching, generation-segregated preaching, and intergenerational preaching. First, generation-blind preaching is an act of preaching that lacks awareness or recognition of cultural differences across generations, regardless of the presence of multiple generations in the preaching context. The preacher focuses on providing instruction on Christian doctrines or expounding upon biblical texts without considering the generational gap in biblical literacy or theological thoughts, even if multiple generations hear the sermon together. The application of the preaching message is general and abstract, as the preacher does not pay close attention to connecting it with a concrete context. The listeners are informed about the contents of the Bible and Christian doctrines, but it will be hard to expect their existential transformation from hearing this since it is hard to make connections between knowledge and life.

Second, generation-segregated preaching involves proclaiming the gospel to a targeted generation within a congregation. Usually, it is performed in a generation-segregated congregation, such as with preaching in Sunday school. Generational segregation is preferred because it reduces parents’ responsibility for taking care of their children during worship, and it seems to be effective in responding to cultural trends by adjusting to children’s developmental stages. This model segregates the congregation according to age and seeks to preach a message to a targeted generation in a language that they can understand and in a manner that grabs their attention and echoes with their culture. There are certainly merits in communicating the gospel in a way that fits a certain generation, as cultural barriers can be removed and the effectiveness of preaching can be promoted. However, this model also has a weakness, as this can be a barrier against the intergenerational communication of faith.

For this reason, a group of scholars proposed intergenerational preaching as an effective preaching method for multigenerational congregations. Andrew Carl Wisdom defines intergenerational preaching as “preaching the Gospel message to the five to six generations comprising most weekend assemblies, through targeted generational images, metaphors and linguistic references” (Wisdom 2004, p. xvii). His model of intergenerational preaching balances cultural adaptation to targeted generations and the sharing of a common belief across generations. On the one hand, his homiletical model seems to be one of generation-targeted preaching since he underscores multicultural awareness and linguistic sensitivity in consideration of the truth that each generation in the congregation has different generational mindsets, feelings, and distinct values and characteristics. On the other hand, as a Roman Catholic priest, Wisdom finds common ground for intergenerational preaching in the Catholic sacramental imagination, which enables congregants to interpret reality through their common experience of partaking in the sacraments, and he takes this as a symbolic hub that bridges the generational gap (Wisdom 2004, pp. 8, 64–80). In short, Wisdom proposes intergenerational preaching that is aware of generational differences but seeks to overcome them by taking the sacramental imagination as a co-foundation of faith across generations.

David Csinos proposes another model of intergenerational preaching. Similar to Wisdom, Csinos admits the necessity of recognizing the diversity of generations within a congregation. Thus, he encourages preachers to pay close attention to the preaching language in consideration of different levels of linguistic knowledge, ability, and vocabulary depending on their ages. While older generations would not be informed about the younger generation’s idioms that are used for social networking service (SNS) communication or cell phone communication, younger generations would not understand theological jargon, such as pneumatology, justification, or ordinance, nor would they understand the deep theological meaning of Christian words, such as crucifixion, atonement, and redemption, due to the rise in illiteracy in Christian language (Csinos 2022, p. 77). Along the same lines, Darrell Hall argues that the preacher must become a generational polylingual or a generational polyglot (Hall 2022, p. 28).

Although the above discussion is valuable, Csinos’s more significant contribution is his emphasis on mutual formation in and through intergenerational preaching. He argues that people of all ages can teach one another and learn from one another, saying “[w]e learn from each other, and we teach each other. No one generation has all the answers and insights”. He believes that generational differences are potent, with much insight into growing one’s faith in God (Csinos 2022, pp. 78–79). In other words, he does not assume traditional preacher-oriented preaching in which the preacher gives a message unilaterally by fitting it to a targeted generation among the multiple generations in a congregation; rather, he assumes conversational preaching in which all generations, including the preacher and listeners of all ages, participate in mutual listening and learning. Instead of the preacher’s solo proclamation and the listener’s passive listening, he suggests preaching in which all of the participants—preacher and listeners—across generations listen to each other and learn from each other. Therefore, he underscores mutuality, equality, and reciprocity as the characteristics of an intergenerational church. He believes that intergenerational communities with such characteristics foster increasing openness to being changed through relationships with the other. Therefore, he seeks to form “a shared primary identity as Christians” in the congregants through the sharing of their experiences of God and the gospel across all generations in a preaching event.

I agree with Csinos in that mutual listening and learning are essential for the formation of Christian identity through intergenerational preaching. Mutual learning, regardless of age, is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the Christian community, as Jesus told disciples to learn from children about heaven (Matthew 18:1–10). Since God reveals Godself to all generations (Joel 2:28), we can learn about God and faith from all generations. Christian teaching not only includes teaching down but also teaching up on the basis of the honesty and humility that Christ has shown. One might describe this as “reverse mentoring” since one can learn from a younger person as well as an older person. In other words, the cultural distinctiveness of Christian communication lies in its conversational feature, which is communal, nonhierarchical, personal, inclusive, and scriptural, as Lucy Rose stated before (Rose 1997, p. 121). It is ideal for a Christian community that all generations engage in sharing the gospel by bringing their experience of God into their lives, even if they express it in the language and culture of their generation. In this sense, I believe that preaching across generations should be conversational and multicultural.

If one defines multiculturalism as a position that acknowledges cultural differences and cultural diversity as a valuable source for developing identity further through mutual interactions on the basis of equal and reciprocal relationships between different members, the true model of intergenerational preaching or preaching across generations is multicultural. This is because multicultural preaching across generations is based on mutual listening between generations to enhance cultural intelligence and mutual learning and find the grace shown by all generations. By listening to other generations, one can understand the cultural differences between them. By learning from other generations through the mutual sharing of their faith stories, one can identify and name the grace found in their experience of God in their lives. Through these ongoing intergenerational conversations, each generation can learn from one another and form a distinctive Christian identity whose paradigmatic model is found in the narrative of Christ in the Bible.

Intergenerational conversation is the key to multicultural preaching across generations since conversation is the way through which young generations formulate a Christian identity, as all generations share the gospel while recognizing cultural differences between generations. The loss of intergenerational conversation obstructs mutual understanding across generations through intergenerational sharing of their experience of God, as this hinders the intergenerational transmission of faith, in addition to enlarging the cultural gap across generations. Fortunately, some preachers have attempted intergenerational conversation in preaching. In 2020, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Rev. Anna Kendig, a young female pastor, had a dialogue while preaching with Jean Emmons, an old female elder, delivering a message to empower the congregants amid the global crisis of public health by juxtaposing the exposition of a text by Rev. Kendig and sharing Emmon’s experience of life (Anna Kendig 2020). I believe that this is a good example of intergenerational conversational preaching, as two preachers had a conversation about faith built on mutual respect, and they listened to each other throughout the conversation. Inspired by this or other sermons, preachers can develop various forms of intergenerational preaching. However, it seems to me that the most important aspect is intergenerational conversation, in which all generations listen to each other with no bias due to a hierarchical mindset but, rather, with mutual respect.

4. Conclusions

In this study, I propose multicultural preaching across generations as a way of effective preaching in the time of the Great Dechurching. Churches across the globe have been experiencing the unprecedented phenomenon of the Great Dechurching among younger generations. Although some consider the cultural irrelevance of Christianity to be the main cause of dechurching, I argue that missing the intergenerational handoff of faith is a more important factor in the dechurching of younger generations based on a survey that I recently conducted in South Korea. Thus, in response, I propose multicultural intergenerational preaching as a way of effectively preaching to bridge the generational gap and stop dechurching. As discussed above, multicultural preaching across generations seeks to facilitate intergenerational conversation about faith through mutual listening and mutual learning based on equal and reciprocal relationships between each generation in the congregation. I expect that this would be an alternative solution for the dechurching of younger generations by fostering the formation of a Christian identity through the sharing of faith stories across generations and finding the grace that God manifests for all generations.