“Ok Boomer.”
It’s certainly not a compliment and there’s more anger behind it than you’d think. “Ok boomer” is a growing fad—now on memes, t-shirts, etc.—among teens who are starting to push back against a certain type of older person. As one teen explained, “A boomer is really more of a type of personality, someone who is intolerant to new ideas and who is ignorant to new ideas.”[1] Again, it’s more “a type of personality” and may or may not apply to Boomers (1946-1964) or members of “the Silent Generation” (1928-1945). It’s hard to believe that members of The Who, once young hell-raisers, are now in their mid-70’s!
I’m a Gen X-er (1965-1980) and although I’m listening to organizations like Axis to better understand and appreciate Gen Z (1997-present), I’m more focused on Gen Y, better known as the millennials (1980-1996). This is the demographic my kids are in and I have a special heart and urgency to better understand, support, and equip them.
What’s more, by 2025, millennials will comprise 75% of our workforce. That’s only six years from now and has huge implications for the church. These are the questions I’ve been wrestling with:
- Do Boomers and Gen X-ers really know and appreciate how millennials view the world?
- Do we feel an urgency and are we building into and discipling them?
- Why are many apostatizing from the Christian faith, and how can we empathize or help change that?
On this last question, I’ve come up with a list of ten reasons but one of them (again, the issues are complex and I don’t want to be reductionistic) is related to a “Halt vs. Help” perspective that Bryan Chapell, pastor and former president of Covenant Theological Seminary, wisely addressed four years ago:
“To help the different [generational] strands understand one another, I want to repeat previous observations about common (not universal) differences in the generations of our church:
The generation that is 50-plus years old was raised in a time of perceived Christian-majority culture; according to Francis Schaeffer it was the time of ‘Christian consensus.’
The priority of many evangelical Christians who matured in that cultural context was to mobilize this ‘silent majority’ in order to control the religious and political processes of the nation to halt cultural erosion… These dynamics created a ‘Halt’ mission for Christians of that generation. The goals: Halt abortion, pornography, drugs, promiscuity, tree huggers, socialism, liberalism, and illegal immigration.
By contrast, Christians in the generation that is 40-minus years old have never perceived themselves as a majority but always as a minority in a pluralistic culture. As a consequence, this generation’s calling is perceived not as gaining control, but as gaining credibility to deal with an already eroded culture.
The need to win a hearing for a credible faith has resulted in a ‘Help’ mission for this generation’s church leaders. The goals: Help orphans (to counter abortion through adoption), AIDS sufferers (to win a Gospel hearing from gays and a gay-sympathetic culture), sex-trafficking victims, addicts (enslaved by chemical, gambling, gaming, body-image, or sexual brokenness), the environment (to teach the world that we are stewards of God’s creation), and poor and oppressed foreigners within our borders.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates these generational differences than the way many Christian leaders feel about major figures in prior conservative Christian movements. To mention Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, James Kennedy, and Chuck Colson is to identify the heroes of the 50-plus generation. Church leaders of that generation are shocked to discover that younger leaders consider these figures exemplars of failure, representing attitudes and approaches that have led to the church’s cultural ineffectiveness.
As a consequence:
Those older feel that younger leaders won’t “put on the uniform” of evangelical courage to protect our children in the ‘culture wars.’
Those younger feel that those older leaders will not humble themselves enough to understand either their children or their ‘cultural realities.’
The reality is, despite the concern each group has about the other’s priorities, both are seeking to bring the Bible’s truth to the cultural moment that dominates their own life experience. But they differ in terms of whether the ‘biblical’ priorities that dominate the church’s culture should be directed toward gaining control (the mission of ‘halt’) or gaining credibility (the mission of ‘help’)…
Those whose main concern is cultural erosion [the ‘Halt’ folks] perceive their dominant mission to be protecting the church culture they love and believe is biblical. These genuinely feel the need to combat those inside and outside their immediate church culture who threaten its continuity.
In contrast, there are those whose main concern is cultural impotence [the ‘Help’ folks]; these are also divided into two major subgroups whose main concern is either spiritual conversion or cultural transformation. Despite these differences, both subgroups share the concern that the world has changed, left the church on its own minority island, and death to the church will not come by doctrinal or societal erosion but by sectarian introspection and intramural controversy.
It is important that both main groups understand that the other’s concern is biblical and genuine. We must learn to work for common ends across relational boundaries, loving one another in Christ, believing that the biblical concerns each expresses are genuine..”
https://byfaithonline.com/the-state-of-the-pca/
Application:
- How does this “halt vs. help” analysis apply to your family, church, or Christian ministry? How do you see it playing out?
- How could you use it to strengthen your areas of influence?
I’d love to hear your thoughts and next week I’ll talk more about our halt vs. help differences, as well as the changing definition of the “enemy” Chapell says should unite all of us: pluralism (see here).
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/teens-use-ok-boomer-fire-back-older-generations-criticisms-n1073331