In many parts of the global community, ecclesias are in terminal decline. This article will not address the reasons why, but will instead address a key requirement to securing a healthy community for the next generation: empathy.

I was born in the UK in 1979. My teenage years in Christadelphia were fabulous. A large Sunday School, a healthy regional CYC, and more youth weekends than a paper round could afford me. It was this group of friends that kept me engaged during my ‘exploratory’ university years and many of the same group that collectively deconstructed our faith in our 30’s.

Unbeknown to me at the time, I spent the majority of my youth in a more Logos-aligned ecclesia. After university I found a home in a progressive ecclesial that opened my eyes and my mind. It was an ecclesia that was growing rapidly, when many around were declining as fast. In my mind, this ecclesia unlocked the hearts and minds of everyone who attended; young and old. Yes it was definitely more liberal stereotypical by any stretch. It had an incredibly rich mix of views, values, and expectations. It was inclusive and it was accepting, without compromising strongly held beliefs, because all was done in love.

This ecclesia was a place where differences could be openly and safely discussed, often embraced. It had a richness that came from an eclectic melting pot of spiritual people. It was a place you wanted to attend – for the people, for the stimulation, for the energy it gave.

I, my wife, and our family are no longer able to attend this ecclesia. We moved to the other side of the world in 2013 to build our family close to my wife’s. We have four children aged 4 to 11 and there is no better place (in my mind) to raise kids than New Zealand.

My worry is that my kids might not have the incredible community experience that I’ve had; both as a teenager, or into young adulthood. I know this is not a concern unique to New Zealand parents, I suspect it’s a concern to many parents throughout our global community.

Will my children want to be part of the Christadelphian community? This is the question that drives me to study, to discuss, to agitate, and to strive for a progress that I believe is needed to secure hearts for God.

For the last five years our ecclesia has been broken. Many members who have been here longer than I, will say it’s been broken for over 20 years – and for understandable reasons. There are wounds and scars that contribute to the current state, but are not the cause of it. I’m sure ecclesias all have baggage of various proportions from previous events, decisions, and personalities. If an ecclesia thinks it doesn’t, it should probably dig a little deeper into why some members are no longer attending.

Our ecclesia is broken because it cannot find a way to accommodate differences, let alone embrace them. These are differences that are surfacing in ecclesias around the world: worship styles, memorial service format, gender roles, attendance levels, engagement expectations, and a lost sense of belonging. It is broken because there is a disagreement whether unity can exist without uniformity. It is broken because we can’t find a way to harness the richness of diversity and convert it into energy to do the work of Jesus. It’s sad and it’s frustrating. It caused some to disengage and it caused health issues for others.

We have tried to convince each other of our different perspectives, opinions, and interpretations. We have tried to convince less dogmatic members to pick a side – left or right, status quo or change, traditional or liberal. It did not go well. It simply served to shine an even brighter light on the differences; highlighting the challenges of being under one roof, of fellowshipping, and loving each other.

After many months battling, an uneasy truce has been established.

Neither side is happy. Neither side understands the other.

I think this process and this outcome has been experienced across our community. It’s not a new challenge, but the intensity and density of the challenge has increased in the last five years. It seems without doubt that Covid triggered large swathes of our community to reflect on what is important in life and to strengthen bonds more with like-minded people and sadly to loose bonds with those who are actively different from us.

I believe that the world in general – and our community more specifically – has mistakenly created a scenario where we only see two sides. Traditional or progressive, left or right. Right or wrong. We neither see a spectrum or an alternative mental model. Dividing and defining people in this way usually leads to a small number of destructive outcomes for our community: an ecclesial split, unhappy members, or members leaving.

Why does it often seem to end up like this? Why are we not good at hard conversations? Why are we willing to accept an environment that puts our children at risk from disengaging from our faith? I believe the answer lies in our inability to empathise with each other.

Empathy is the key to communication. Empathy is the key to meaningful relationships. Empathy is the key to love. Love is all we need.

I believe that in order to have empathy, we need to understand each other a lot more. We need to know the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ – it’s a lot harder to judge someone if you have empathy for the reasons behind a behaviour, a value, an expectation, or a need.

Our ecclesias are now made up of four to five generations that really don’t understand each other. We don’t understand why we have differences and we don’t understand how those differences impact ecclesial life. Our ecclesias don’t have enough empathy to deal with the current challenges. I fear that our ecclesias don’t have enough empathy to help our children when they need it most.

In this article I delve into the rich tapestry of intergenerational relationships within our churches. Acknowledging that each generation carries its unique perspectives and experiences, this article aims to bridge divides of understanding. In many cases, there is an incomprehension that other generations’ lived experiences create a barrier to building healthy relationships. The article proposes that without empathy, most efforts to achieve unity in the face of these increasing challenges will fail.

I will draw on contemporary writers, prompted by the challenges of having these multiple generations living, working, and worshipping alongside each other. I also take insights from biblical precedents like the Council of Jerusalem and the inclusive teachings of Paul.¹ And I explore practical approaches to foster communication and mutual respect.

By embracing both tradition and modernity, we seek to create a cohesive community where every member – young and old – feels valued and heard. This journey invites us to reconsider our roles in mentoring, sharing, and learning from one another, reinforcing our shared mission and values as the cornerstone of our wonderful community.

Contextual overview of intergenerational dynamics

Developing empathy first requires a deep understanding of the intergenerational dynamics within the church and requires recognizing the distinct experiences, values, and challenges each generation brings to the faith community.

Let’s review the stereotypical descriptions of each generation, bearing in mind of course, there will always be exceptions to any classification and not everyone will exhibit all characteristics.

Let’s start with the Silent Generation, those born between 1928 and 1945. Having lived through significant global upheavals, they value stability and tradition in worship and governance above all. They expect the church to be a bastion of consistency, reverence, and respect for history. From their fellow members, they seek the same respect for tradition and experience they themselves uphold. Silent Generation are eager to contribute through leadership, mentorship, and the preservation of traditions that have stood the test of time.

Next, we have the Baby Boomers, born from 1946 to 1964, a generation shaped by the post-war era and significant social changes. Their focus is on community involvement and social justice, looking to the church for opportunities for activism and leadership. From others, they expect understanding and collaboration, aiming to provide guidance, support for social causes, and volunteerism.

Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1980, bring an independent and sceptical outlook. They value pragmatic approaches to faith and church life, expecting flexibility, transparency, and efficiency from the church. They seek respect for autonomy and practicality from their peers, and they contribute through strategic planning, problem-solving, and introducing tech solutions.

Millennials, born from 1981 to 1996, have grown up in a digital, interconnected world. They seek authenticity, inclusivity, and engagement with social issues in their faith journey. They desire modern worship styles and community service opportunities, expecting acceptance, diversity, and authentic engagement from both the church and its members. Their contributions lean towards utilising digital platforms for outreach and fostering inclusivity.

Lastly, Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012, are true digital natives. They value transparency, social activism, and innovative approaches to spirituality. They expect the church to integrate technology seamlessly and focus on social justice, looking for open-mindedness and action on social issues from their community. Gen Z is poised to lead technological initiatives and offer fresh perspectives on spirituality.

Each generation, with its unique set of values and expectations, enriches our church community, offering diverse ways to worship, engage, and contribute. Together, they weave a vibrant tapestry of faith that spans the ages, continuously evolving and adapting to the world around us.

Navigating intergenerational challenges

In the vibrant mosaic of church life, the blending of generations presents both a beautiful opportunity for growth and a series of challenges that require wisdom, patience, and a proactive approach to bridge-building.

As we delve into the complexities of intergenerational engagement within ecclesial settings, it’s crucial to recognize the unique perspectives and experiences that each age group brings to our community. From the steadfast traditions cherished by our eldest members to the innovative ideas of the youngest, every generation contributes to the rich tapestry of our shared faith journey.

However, this diversity also brings to light several key challenges that, if left unaddressed, can create rifts within our spiritual family. In an ecclesial setting, the intergenerational setup presents challenges that include:

Communication Gaps: Different generations often have varying preferences for communication, from face-to-face interactions to digital platforms, leading to misunderstandings or exclusion.

Diverse Worship Styles: Varied preferences in worship style, music, and talk delivery can create tension between traditional and contemporary approaches.

Technological Adaptation: Younger generations are more tech-savvy, while older ones may struggle with digital tools used in activities.

Differing Views on Roles: Each generation might have different expectations about involvement and leadership roles within the church; including gender participation.

Value Differences: Divergent perspectives on social issues and community teachings can lead to conflicts or disconnects across age groups.

I’m sure you will have experienced one, more, or all of these issues in your ecclesia or have heard of other ecclesias grappling with them. Without finding the right tools to overcome these differences, I see ecclesias dividing, shrinking, or in many instances closing, due to lack of numbers.

Empathy by generation

Empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of others – is crucial in addressing intergenerational challenges within our community. It allows members from diverse generational backgrounds to transcend mere tolerance, fostering genuine connections and mutual respect. By embracing empathy, our ecclesias can create environments where every generation feels heard, valued, and understood, facilitating effective communication and collaboration. This foundation of empathy not only enriches the communal worship experience but also strengthens the ecclesia’s mission by uniting members in their shared faith and goals, despite their age differences.

However, we need to address the reality that even empathy means different things to each generation.

Silent Generation: For them, empathy involves recognizing their rich experience and valuing their commitment to duty and work. Understanding their need for respect and more formal communication is crucial. This generation values stability and tradition, so empathetic approaches would involve respecting these preferences while gently introducing new ideas.

Baby Boomers: Empathy here means acknowledging their contributions and work ethic. They might feel overlooked as attention shifts to younger generations. Thus, empathising with Boomers involves validating their experiences and integrating their insights with newer approaches.

Generation X: This generation values independence and may feel caught between Boomers and Millennials. Empathising with Gen X means respecting their scepticism and desire for work-life balance, and valuing their role as a bridge between the older and younger generations.

Millennials: They seek purpose and flexibility in their roles. Empathy towards Millennials involves understanding their desire for meaningful work and their comfort with technology. It’s also about recognizing their need for feedback and opportunities for growth.

Generation Z: For Gen Z, empathy means acknowledging their pragmatic approach to life and understanding their stress about future uncertainties. They value authenticity and social justice, so empathetic approaches should involve open, honest dialogues and actions on social issues.

Biblical empathy for ecclesial health

The Council of Jerusalem and Paul’s letters to Ephesus and Rome underscore the critical role of empathy in Christian life, illustrating early Christianity’s efforts to reconcile diverse beliefs and practices. These Biblical events demonstrate the early church’s commitment to unity, understanding, and mutual respect across cultural and generational divides.

Bible scholars emphasise the Council of Jerusalem’s decision as pivotal for the early Christian church’s growth.² It marked a significant move towards inclusivity, allowing Gentile Christians to join the community without adhering to Jewish ceremonial laws. This inclusiveness facilitated the spread of Christianity beyond Jewish communities, contributing to its rapid growth across diverse cultures. Scholars speculate that a different decision – imposing Jewish laws on Gentile converts – could have significantly hindered Christianity’s appeal and expansion, potentially limiting it as a sect within Judaism.

Paul’s letters collectively stress the critical need for empathy in bridging cultural and generational gaps, timeless guidance for creating inclusive communities that honour and learn from each member’s unique perspective.

In his letter to the Ephesians, he calls for unity and reconciliation within the church, underscoring the importance of embracing diverse members, advocating for understanding across generations. He instructs believers to be patient and to bear with love.³

Romans further enriches this narrative by addressing a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile believers, emphasising the respect for different heritages and traditions. He urges acceptance and understanding, emphasising not to judge others’ faith but instead to bear with them.⁴

In Corinthians, he advocates for becoming all things to all people to spread the gospel, showing empathy. In Galatians, he instructs believers to carry each other’s burdens, again emphasising the importance of empathy. In Philippians, he encourages having the mindset of Christ, valuing others and looking to their interests with empathy. And in Colossians, he advises the church to practise compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.⁵

While modern scholars tend not to frame the issues of the early Church directly in terms of generational challenges as understood in contemporary sociology, their work reveals the complexities of the early Christian community. The complexity of negotiating between the traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and the new practices of the Gentile converts – a process that inherently involves reconciling different perspectives and practices within the community – can be viewed as intergenerational challenge.

The tension of modernisation is constant, as time inevitably passes. It would have been no different when Christianity was first being seeded. Whilst there are no verses that explicitly identify inter-generational challenges, it is safe to assume that they had the same kinds of tensions as we do. As Christianity spread, it encountered various cultures and philosophies, leading to challenges in maintaining a distinct Christian identity while also integrating into diverse societies. Different generations within the church might have had varying degrees of comfort and engagement with surrounding cultures, from those more conservative and resistant to change to those more open to assimilation and adaptation.

The early Christian communities included members from a wide range of economic and social backgrounds, from wealthy patrons to poor labourers. Managing the tensions and disparities between these groups, ensuring equitable sharing of resources, and addressing issues like the neglect of widows in the daily distribution of food would have involved navigating differences that could align with generational lines, as older members might have different needs and statuses than younger members.⁶

Establishing and maintaining leadership within the early churches often involved balancing respect for the authority and wisdom of elder members with the vitality of younger members. This is reflected in pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus, which give advice on selecting elders and leaders, and in interactions between figures like Paul and Timothy, highlighting mentorship and the transfer of leadership across generations.

It is very clear that the early church faced various doctrinal disputes and the emergence of heretical teachings. Addressing these issues required a delicate balance of adhering to apostolic teachings (considered more traditional and linked to the older generation of apostles) and engaging with new theological ideas and interpretations that appealed to different segments of the Christian population, likely including younger converts.

It should be noted that there are a number of passages that indicate the presence of multiple ages within the early Christian community, reflecting the intergenerational nature of the Church. These verses show the early Church’s recognition of different age groups and the roles, responsibilities, and respect accorded to each.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes,

Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity. (1Tim 5:1-2)

In his letter to Titus, he instructs different age groups on how to live. He advises older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, and self-controlled, among other things. Older women are to teach what is good and to guide younger women in living godly lives. Young men are encouraged to be self-controlled, providing a clear indication of the presence of various age groups and the expectation for each.⁷

In Acts, Peter quotes Joel’s prophecy about the last days, emphasising the inclusivity of God’s promise across generations, indicating the presence and importance of both young and old in the early Church:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. (Acts 2:17)

Later, John addresses children, fathers, and young men, acknowledging their different stages in life and faith. He speaks to the strengths and challenges unique to each group, showing an awareness of the diverse ages within the community.⁸

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul highlights the faith transmission across generations within a family, underscoring the intergenerational aspect of faith within the community:

I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. (2Tim 1:5)

And, finally, Peter addresses elders to shepherd the flock of God and also speaks to younger members to submit themselves to their elders.⁹ This passage is explicit in its recognition of age-based roles within the community, urging humility across all ages.

Contemporary advice

As we can see, organisational and community conflict is as old as Christianity itself. However, we are at a unique period in history where many churches and workplaces have four to five generations under one roof. Unfortunately as a community, we don’t seem to want to acknowledge the challenge right in front of us. Genuine dialogue at an ecclesial level is sparse and community writings on the topic are at a similar level.

In 2019, Brother Andrew Bramhill published “An Appeal to the Older Generation” and “An Appeal to the Younger Generation” in the Christadelphian magazine.¹⁰ His articles encourage a nuanced dialogue between generations within the Christadelphian community, recognizing the potential for generalisations to overlook the complexities of intergenerational challenges. By advocating for respect and understanding from both sides, he suggests that both older and younger members hold valuable perspectives that, when shared through open dialogue, can enrich the community’s spiritual life. His call to balance scriptural teachings with the appreciation of ecclesial traditions aims to bridge gaps, ensuring that the church remains a cohesive, supportive environment for all members.

In her Tidings article “Intergenerational Dialogue” Sister Sarah Hill wrote about Catherine Cornille, a prominent scholar in the field of interreligious dialogue and theology.¹¹ Cornille has extensively explored the complexities of engaging across diverse religious traditions, emphasising the necessary conditions for meaningful dialogue: humility, commitment, empathy, hospitality, and genuine dialogue.

I don’t know about you, but I have certainly been in too many conversations and discussion groups about challenging topics that descend into un-Christlike behaviour. We are not good at having hard conversations. We are not good at following through on the consequences of hard conversations. Whilst this article proposes that empathy is the key ingredient, when combined with the four others listed above, dialogue can turn into action.¹²

What should ecclesias do?

Our lay community does not have a lot of professionals in organisational conflict resolution. Some ecclesias have begun to tap into non-community experts to help forge new tools to support members’ learning, growth, and a pathway forward.

Starting a conversation about the topic is the first step in fostering intergenerational connections. Building connections within the ecclesia are crucial for creating a cohesive and supportive community. These connections are strengthened by recognizing and valuing the unique contributions, perspectives, and strengths of each generation.

At our recent ecclesial camp we discovered first-hand that these conversations are both hard and incredibly rewarding. We split the group of 50-60 into decades and distributed everyone as evenly as possible across 8 groups, trying to minimise the concentration of any one generation.

We then gave the groups three questions to answer:

Share a pivotal experience from your youth.

What personal value do you hold as a result of the experience?

How does it shape your views on ecclesial life?

Each group was asked to present some insights from their small group discussion back to the whole group. As the facilitator, I wandered from group to group; it was incredible to hear the stories being shared and how ‘pennies dropped’ as connections were made between the life experiences, the values, and observed behaviours of others. It was exactly what we wanted.

However, here are a few lessons that might be valuable to others planning to lean into the ecclesial challenges:

Provide sufficient pretext or context. Given that attempts to reconcile differences of ‘left’ and ‘right’ had failed, there were a number of members who were worried that highlighting even more differences would be harmful. Firstly, this reinforced the notion that many members view differences as solely a bad thing – and not something to be appreciated. This needs to be addressed in any discussion. Secondly, it is good to over-communicate on plans, intentions, and background information when dealing with challenging topics. Remove the opportunity for assumptions at all costs.

Ensure it is positioned appropriately. Before the small-group sessions, we gave an introduction on the importance of empathy: the desire to understand others in order to build deeper relationships. Minimal focus was given to the generational differences themselves. The group was directed to share experiences and values between generations.

Support the younger generations. Most below 25 years old struggled to come up with pivotal life experiences and many had not considered what values were important to them. One very useful tip from a group was to ask what quality someone didn’t like in another person and to then use the opposite of that quality as a desired value. I would highly recommend that the CYC have a values session before being expected to discuss with older generations.

One thing became very clear during the weekend: many people, not just the young, have not spent a lot of time in self-reflection. This type of reflection involves looking back on life to understand oneself better. What has shaped the clay that is the person who everyone else interacts with? Why do we seek certain values in others? How do our past experiences impact our expectations of others in ecclesial life?

A good degree of self-analysis is needed before holding others accountable for their opinions, behaviours, and expectations. Understand oneself before seeking to understand others. Love your neighbour as yourself.

In practical terms, the group agreed on a number of ecclesia activities that would create opportunities for building intergenerational connections. Drawing from the wisdom of the group, the teachings of Jesus, Paul’s letters, and modern perspectives on empathy and understanding, we propose some practical applications of biblical principles and contemporary insights to consider. These include:

Mentorship Programs: Pair younger members with older members for mentorship, allowing for the sharing of wisdom, encouragement, and spiritual guidance.

Intergenerational Activities: Plan events, service projects, and small group studies that involve all age groups, promoting collaboration and mutual understanding.

Empathy Workshops: Conduct workshops that focus on developing empathy, using scriptural examples and Jesus’ interactions with diverse individuals. These workshops can include role-playing exercises to help participants understand different generational viewpoints.

Conflict Resolution Training: Offer training sessions on biblical conflict resolution techniques, highlighting the importance of listening, forgiveness, and reconciliation.¹³

Intergenerational Bible Studies: Bible study groups that mix different generations, focusing on themes of unity, love, and service. This can include studying the early church’s approach to diversity and unity.¹⁴

The focus of eccelsial efforts should be to create an environment where intergenerational conflicts are addressed with empathy, understanding, and a commitment to unity in Christ. This approach not only resolves conflicts but also strengthens the church’s witness to the broader community, showcasing the love and harmony that can exist in challenging times.

Intergenerational harmony

In embracing the journey towards intergenerational harmony within our community, there is a profound necessity for empathy and understanding. A commitment to seeing through each other’s eyes, walking in one another’s shoes, and carrying each other’s burdens is not merely a call to action but necessary to build strength and resilience for our ecclesia across generations.

There is an indispensable value of sharing insights and perspectives, fostering a living faith that bridges generational divides. By grounding ourselves in the principles of empathy and understanding, we commit to a path of unity and growth in faith.

To ensure our community has a future, we need to commit to building a healthy, trusted environment, where every voice is heard, every experience valued, and every heart united in the enduring bond of community and faith.

It is my sincere hope that by leaning into the challenges of our ecclesias with empathy at the centre, our children will enjoy the same wonderful experiences and benefits of our community that we ourselves have enjoyed.

see Bonus Materials for lists of book titles and scriptural references↩︎
see Acts 15↩︎
Ephesians 4:1-6↩︎
Romans 14 and 15↩︎
1Corinthians 9:19-23, Galatians 6:2, Philippians 2:1-4, Colossians 3:12-14↩︎
Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35, 6:1-7↩︎
Titus 2:2-6↩︎
1John 2:12-14↩︎
1Peter 5:1-5↩︎
thechristadelphianlibrary.com/Andrew Bramhill ↩︎
tidings.org/intergenerational-dialogue/Sarah Hill; Conditions for Inter-Religious Dialogue by Catherine Cornille ↩︎
see Bonus Materials for other publications covering intergenerational conflict in church and non-church settings↩︎
as taught in Matthew 18:15-17 and Ephesians 4:1-6↩︎
as seen in Acts 15 and the epistles↩︎