Here are the six categories that Smith records:

1. Committed Traditionalists embrace a strong religious faith, whose beliefs they can reasonably well articulate and which they activiely practice. . . . They also seem to focus more on inner piety and personal moral integrity than, say, social justice or political witness, and can keep their faith quite privatized in a way that does not violate American society's broader 'culture of civility' that requires tolerance and acceptance of difference. . . . In size, Committed Traditionalistis are a fairly small minority, probably no more thant 15 percent of the total emerging adult population. (pp. 166-7)

2. Selective Adherents believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others. They are less serious and consistent about their religion than Committed Traditionalists, but more grounded and convinced about what they believe, or at least know they should believe, than the Spiritually Open (the third type). Selective Adherents often have had fairly solid religious upbringings but as emerging adults are more discriminating than committed Traditionalists about what they are willing to adopt of their religious traditoni's beliefs and practices, some of which they think are 'outdated.' . . . In size theya re a significant minority, perhaps 30 percent of all emerging adults. (p. 167)

3. Spiritually Open emerging adults are not personally very committed to a religious faith but are nonetheless receptive to and at least mildly interested in some spiritual or religious matters.. . . . They probably believe in some kind of higher power but are not sure what that is or means. Typically, the Spiritually Open are heretofore nonreligious or are nominal or former believers in some faith in which they were raised but may have since abandoned, perhaps especially Catholicism and mainline Protestantism. . . . The number of Spiritually Open emerging adults is fairly small, most likely about 15 percent of the emerging adult population. (p. 167)

4. Religiously Indifferent emerging adults neither care to practice religion nor oppose it. They are simply not invested in religion either way; it really doesn't count for much. . . .
Indifferent emergind adtuls appear to be one of ht elarger types, representing at least 25 percent of that population. (p. 168)

5. Religiously Disconnected emerging adults have little to no exposure or connection to religious people, ideas, or organizations. . . . They lack religious language competency--if you ask themanything about religion, they simply don't know. The Religiously Disconnected normally come from nonreligious backgrounds.. . . The size of the Religiously Disconnected is inevitably small, no more than 5 percent of all emerging adults. (p. 168)

6. Irreligious emerging adults hold skeptical attitudes about and make critical arguments against religion generally, rejecting the idea of personal faith. They may conced that religion is functionally good for some people, but their general attitude is incredulous, derogatory, and antagonistic. Many Irreligious have paid some attention to intellectual and existential questions about religion and have already decided against religion and faith in favor of some version of secularism. . . . Irreligious emerging adults are small in number, comprising no more than 10 percent of the whole. (p. 168)

I'd like to add some short commentary here. I think the key issue is one of revelation -- it is what divides the first "traditionalists" from all others. For these revelation is genuinely transcendent, that to which human life must be conformed through participation in the group in which passes on the revelation. For #2 and 3, revelation is a possibility always present within a person, if a person decides to access it or not. Humans are self-transcendent, but without any genuine transcendence. For #4-6 revelation is not relevant in any way.

To stay involved over time Mid-City requires that one adheres in faith to the traditionalist position. At times we look different from some other types of "traditionalists" -- and therefore may seem "non-traditional", but without faith in Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh, the personal union of God and humanity as witnessed to the Scriptures and participated in through the sacraments and the works of mercy, one cannot sustain life within the congregation.

Because we are more traditional than evangelical and mainline Protestant churches, some #2-3 find their way to us because our political commitments are not Republican as many conservative American evangelical churches have become (nor Democratic or Socialist, for that matter). If these persist, often disillusionment can follow. At the same time such persons are welcomed, and we hope that they will move to the "traditionalist" category as the Spirit draws them into the practices of the congregation and deepens and thickens their faith.

Finally, we hope that our witness together reaches to #4-6, not because we are unique, but because we are Christian. We hope that there is an authenticity of witness that leads to holiness that attracts in its truth, beauty, and goodness, often amid the chaos of our practices -- ordered chaos or chaotic order, even as we repent of our sins individually and as a congregation. We hope that we can only be intelligible in light of our faith in God through Christ in the historic life of the church through the ages. We hope that we can embody a witness to show the adventure of following Christ by participation in a local congregation, that one finds "a life that really is life."

Smith's typology rings helpful to my experience, not only merely for emergent adults but also for "baby boomers" and younger.