My initial off-the-cuff response is something like "right on."

So who exactly are the "ameteur sociologists" you're frustrated with, Ryan?

Moving from the particular to the general:
The ChattaCynics
Covenant college students
College students in general

You're argument sems to be experientially based, colored by your own personal background. To which I may then say, "Not necessarily," by offering my own experience. I grew up as an MK. During this time, we were actively involved in seven different communities along with their corresponding churches. The transitory nature of our lifestyle was of a piece with our commitment to the church. [Ironically, we didn't believe in the catholic church at the time; but that's beside the point.] I realize that our commitment to the life of the church existed by definition because we were a missionary family; but this does not mean that a transitory life cannot otherwise be conducive to such a commitment. Again, I turn to our own experience. After we left the mission field, we were involved in five more churches. I, personally, can add another five to that list.

You may wish to note that much of this commitment was defined by a single career. Point taken. However, the ability to make the necessary commitments to the church extended beyond the existence of a single career. I agree that for many people, their unwillingness to settle down in the temporal and secular arena translates into a lack of ecclesiological commitment. But this is the case, not because of a predilection toward temporal change, but because of a misunderstanding of the nature of the church. If we view the various local churches as arising from their surrounding communites, then your concerns follow. However (and I say this despite the irony of our own anti-universal church profession- we were saying one thing and acting out another), if we view the church as the church catholic, then there is no problem in entering into another local instantiation of that church and picking up with the same commitment given to the last one. [Final note to settle potential concerns: I am not condoning church hopping.]

I am perfectly aware that the demands of both modern life and even particular vocations (such as missionary work) almost necessarily entail a lot of moving around. That isn't the point I'm trying to make. It's a difference in mindset more than logistics. It's the difference between being willing to stay somewhere long-term even if you move around a lot, and always being about to leave even if you never actually do.

Moves happen. Job changes happen. Career changes happen. They may not be optimally healthy, but they're frequently necessary. The question is: do these things happen because we're unwilling to be tied down or because circumstances force us to change?

Then I misunderstood your point. I thought that you were talking about a mindset geared to the short term and temporary even when this was the result of necessity. But, since you're talking about the flat out unwillingness to be tied down, then I hereby usurp Nick's off-the-cuff response.

I guess I'm still confused by who you're targeting here. It seems massively unfair to me to accuse people like Lang, Andy, Brent or Isaac of having chosen inherently transitional lives, just because none of them have, say, gone to grad school yet. I can't think of a single one of my Chattanooga friends whose main reason for being here is wanting to "keep their options open." They have long-term goals and ambitions (ask them about it), and they're working toward them. In the meantime, they are passionate about engaging eath other as brothers in Christ. This does not strike me as mere sociological pontificating, or abstraction in the face of practical failure. In fact, the only person I know who could be described as "still in Chattanooga because he wanted a break to look at options" is, well, me. And you know you can always come talk to me.

And remember, though they aren't perfect, you shouldn't stick a finger in the eye of those who love you the most.