This week, I interviewed a few Gen-Z friends about some of the things they love about church, some of the things they do not like about it, and some of the things they would change about it if they could.

One of the biggest concerns that came up was the lecture style of sermons. “I can never pay attention through the entire thing, even on YouTube videos,” one friend said. I asked them if they would feel better about a discussion-style sermon format. Two or three people at the front of the church, talking together about an issue. My friends responded really well to that. They said their only request on it would be that audience participation was not allowed. “You know the same two people in the congregation would ask the same type of questions constantly,” was their concern.

When I asked them if they could think of any format better than a discussion-style for sermons, they said the way they learn things best is to have one-on-one question and answer time with a person, but that they understand that would not be viable for sermons specifically. It does seem to validate the need for some sort of mentorship availability in the church. An “office hours” set-up perhaps.

Lastly,  all of my friends brought up concerns about the way preaching is done, or the way they personally have experienced it. Specifically, they made the point that they dislike how “pastors call it ‘conviction’ every time they make the congregation uncomfortable.”

This made sense to me because of how skeptical Gen-Z tends to be. They disliked that pastors had that kind of “way out” of being challenged on viewpoints. The feeling is, if you challenge me, it must be because you are uncomfortable, and if you are uncomfortable, it must be because you are feeling convicted. My friends really did not like this loop that, in the end, left no room for questioning or challenging words said by the people they are supposed to be learning from.