The Origin of the Generation X Name Tag
Generation X: A 1960s English paperback about sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll in the London mod
scene.
Generation X: The 1970-1980s British band led by Billy Idol and Tony James, created after the
breakup of their previous band, Chelsea. The name was taken from the paperback novel (see
above). Generation X broke up in the early 80s. Billy Idol went to a successful solo career with
songs like "Your Generation", "Dancing with Myself", "White Wedding", "Eyes Without a
Face", and "Flesh Fantasy". Many people no longer take Billy Idol very seriously.
Generation X: The 1991 novel by Douglas Coupland, subtitled Tales for an Accelerated
Culture, that depicts the lives of young Americans with few options beyond "low-pay, lowprestige, low-dignity, no-future McJobs". When asked how he thought up the name for this
generation, Coupland replied, "I didn't come up with the name for a generation. I just came up
with a title for a novel". Even so, Coupland was pretty much on target in this book, especially his
perception of Generation X as one that resists being pigeon-holed by demographics and targetted
by advertisers.
Generation X: 1990s target-market term that alerted the media and advertisers that there was a
vast portion of the American populace that they were ignoring. Karen Ritchie, in her book
_Marketing to Generation X_, examined the possibilities of targetting this generation as an
untapped consumer group in extensive detail. (Ms. Ritchie is herself a Boomer) Media and
advertising now try their darndest to keep up with what's going on with this generation, although
sometimes the best they can do is fill their commercials with actors in flannel shirts and have
them drink lots of coffee.
Generation X: A handy term that cannot begin to describe the true diversity of a generation that
is, still, resistant to being manipulated by media, advertising, and politicians. "Generation X"
isn't about to sit still and let anyone on TV tell them who they are, what they think, or what they
should buy. Even so, it seems likely that this is the term history books will use to describe those
born between 1961 and 1983 (in America).
Jesus X?
In his must-have, essential book, Jesus for a New Generation, Kevin Ford says the following:
X is the twenty-fourth letter of the English alphabet. It comes from the Greek letter X
(chi or xi), which was the first letter in the Greek form of the word Christ. From the early
days of the Christian Church until today, the letter X has been a shorthand symbol for
Christ, as in the abbreviation Xmas in place of Christmas.
The use X as a symbol of Christ offends some people. They say, ‘"Xmas" takes the Christ
out of Christmas’. I understand that sentiment, but I don’t feel that way. I think X is a
fitting symbol for Christ. It looks like a cross - the cross of Christ - tilted on edge. It also
looks like a man with feet firmly planted and with arms outstretched in a welcoming
gesture. It was a symbol the early Christians cherished as an emblem of their Lord.
Graeme Codrington's thoughts (taken from elsewhere in Ford's book, and other readings):
In many senses, Jesus was more of an ‘Xer’ than we may think. He was an ‘illegitimate child’,
his birth a cause of disruption in his family; he never really got on with his brothers and sisters;
we don’t read much of his father - and without reading too much into the story, he may have had
an absent father; he didn’t have a job until he was nearly thirty years old ; he lived a short life, to
the full; he didn’t want to change the world - just those people to whom he felt an affinity (the
lost people of Israel, he called them); his influence was global; he bucked the system, and was
ostracised by the system; he wanted relationships, not programmes; he had a story to tell…
Back to Ford:
…I said there was something unpleasant and disturbing about the letter X as a label for
my generation - and I still think so. It sounds like ‘Brand X’ - like a blankness or
negation. You draw an X over something you want to eliminate. There is nothing
attractive in being labelled an ‘Xer’, a faceless member of ‘Generation X’. Though I’ve
used such labels throughout… for the sake of clarity and convenience, I have hated to do
so. I think ‘Generation X’ is an ugly label. I don’t like being tagged an ‘Xer’.
But you can call me an ‘Xian’ if you want. Paint a big red X on my back. That’s fine with
me. I will wear the X of Christ proudly. Jesus Christ has redeemed an ugly letter - a
symbol of negation and annihilation - and has turned it into something beautiful. With the
most evil intent imaginable, the system tried to negate and annihilate Jesus Christ by
nailing him to an X - a cross of wood. That system thought it could X out his life and X
out his message, and that would be the end of him. The system was wrong. More
powerful than the Terminator, Jesus promised, ‘I’ll be back’.
And he did come back!
He is X, the Christ. And we are Xians, followers, imitators and storytellers of the Christ.
My goal and my prayer is that all of us who are within arm’s length and speaking
distance of an ‘Xer’ will pray, love, reach out and become involved in the process of that
person’s life and tell the story of Jesus X, the man of the cross. My goal and prayer is that
you and I will see Xers become Xians and that this generationn will be won for God. My
goal and my prayer is that someday the ugly term ‘Generation X’ can be invested with a
new meaning: the Generation of Christ.
From: Jesus for a New Generation, Kevin Ford. Hodder & stoughton, 1996, pg. 272-273.
Generation X Defined
What is Generation X?
The Origin of the Generation X Name Tag
A doctor does not point to his patient and say, "Penicillin". He examines the patient before he
hands out the prescription. Youth ministry is cross-cultural missions. Youth are a mission field another culture and therefore we need to think like a missionary. Learn the language and the
culture before you start speaking to youth.
1. Relationships matter the most
Nothing is more important to today’s youth than relationships. Young people live in a
world that is increasingly devoid of solid, dependable relationships. They have grown up
as children of divorce, starved for closeness and intimacy as the family has deteriorated.
Abusive, neglectful, busy, absent, non-emotional and working parents have no time for
relationships. Because today’s young people have been deprived of intimacy they value it
more highly. They value relationships the most, even though they do not have the skills
and ability to have true and meaningful relationships.
Most Xers are the children of Boomers, parents who were so deeply involved with
their own "selves", working by day and raising consciousness by candlelight, that
they were unable to give us their full attention - leaving us alone much of the time.
And, like their own parents, our parents listened to Dr. Spock - they were permissive,
they gave us room to explore. While both parents got ready for work every morning,
Xers made cereal for breakfast and stared at photos of our peers on milk cartons, our
own MIAs.
Tulgan 1995:50
The concept of the "latchkey kid" is one that was defined for this generation. This is a
generation that has arrived home to an empty house, with both mom and dad working, or
a single parent home where the remaining parent is having to work to survive. Often,
especially in the latter situation, the young person has been forced to take on part-time
employment as well. "The international phenomenon of children and youths living on the
streets has also become an issue of concern in South Africa. A related phenomenon is
‘latchkey children’, i.e. children who are left to their own devices usually outside school
hours. It is alarming that studies indicate that nearly a third of Johannesburg’s children,
and nearly half of Soweto’s fall into this category" (van Zyl Slabbert 1994: 3.20, pg.
76f.). This is also the generation that has spent every other weekend at their other
parent’s home, and has seen a profusion of different family relationships, such as "dad’s
girlfriend", "mom’s previous ex-husband", "my second step-father", or "my stepbrother’s father’s ex-wife". This has caused young people to be skeptical of relationships,
yet still feel the need to fill the void with something else. Friends and peers become
surrogate families, as a small number of dependable relationships are valued highly.
Many of the characteristics below arise out of this one. They will do anything to get
loved, but they don’t know how to love properly. This affects how they behave, as they
will do anything to be loved. They have become more sexually active to get love and
closeness, but just end up getting used, and therefore lonelier than they were before. They
are a visual generation, with TV, video, computer games, etc., yet, although
sophisticated, do not know how to talk or communicate their feelings. They do not know
how to have the very thing the want the most: a relationship. This causes problems
resulting from a spiral of behaviour that leads to bad relationships that leads to bad
behaviour, and so on. Their best attempts leave them empty and lonely, and loneliness is
the thing they fear the most. They are desperate for relationship, even if they can only
have it for a little while.
2.
They will do anything to be loved
Although this could be an application point of the previous statement, it is so important as
a defining characteristic that it needs to be separately stated. Much of the behaviour of
Generation X is as a result of this, often subconscious, need to be loved. This generation
is starved of genuine love, and will do anything in their quest to find it.
For all the idealistic "free love" of their Boomer parents/elders, Xers have largely not
been the recipients of much genuine love, and have been brought up in a world that uses
people. "My generation inherited not free love, but AIDS, not peace but nuclear anxiety,
not cheap communal lifestyles but crushing costs of living, not free teach-ins but colleges
priced for the aristocracy" (Beaudoin 1998:10).
If relationships matter the most, then acceptance by a group of people who will validate
them is vital. They feel that they must fit in. This is only really possible within small
groups, so one of the characteristics of this generation is that they get together in small
groups, united by common interests and mutual acceptance. These small groups act as
surrogate families, and offer a sense of belonging that cannot be found elsewhere in a
world that is devoid of relationships and real love.
Today’s young people make decisions on the basis of what it will take to get people to
accept them. They do not bother with what is right or wrong, but what they can do to be
accepted. Therefore, today’s young people are not asking "what must I do to saved?".
They are asking "what must I do to be loved?". They are looking for a safe place, where
they can feel important and where they can be loved.
3.
Sex is expected
The message put out by the world is that love is found in sexual intimacy. This message
comes very powerfully from Hollywood. Sex is viewed as inevitable, and as condom
manufacturers and even government health authorities say there is no way to stop kids
having sex, we are urged to help them to do it safely. The concept of "safe sex" has been
invented for this generation.
The problem is that young people who try to use sex to get love end up getting used, and
feeling less loved than before. This becomes a vicious cycle. In addition, the birth control
pill and condoms have not brought on an era of "free" love as anticipated by the 1960
Boomers. AIDS has dealt a massive blow to that. But, where adults look at AIDS with
fear, it does not seem to be changing the attitudes of Generation X. In fact, and added
dimension has been added to sexual encounters, "turning orgasmic thrill into something
akin to Russian roulette. Forty years ago, young adults associated sex with procreation;
twenty years ago with free love [recreation]; today, with self-destruction" (Strauss and
Howe 1993:149).
Xers are marrying later, but having sex earlier than any previous generation this century.
There is also an unprecedented level of cohabitation before marriage, and of "open
marriages" after marriage. Sex is certainly no longer viewed with the puritan glasses of
the Christianized past. Xers expect sex, and hope that will fill the void they feel inside.
4.
Individualism is valued
Today’s young people are very individualistic. This is expressed not only in the fact that
as a generation they are comfortable with an unprecedented number of different music
styles, fashions, and self-expressions, but also in a fierce demand for individual freedom
and rights. This is not a rebellion against authority, but rather an expression of selfconfidence arising out of a lifetime of learning to fend for themselves. They want
personal empowerment to be a keen factor in their worlds.
It should also be noted that this is the first American generation to lack a common cause.
Previous generations rallied around Vietnam, World War 2, the Great Depression, and
World War 1. This generation has no such rallying point. It is just too young to have been
involved in the great historical moments of rebellion against apartheid (in South Africa)
or Vietnam, but just too old to view these as history. This generation lived through them,
and was shaped by their images and their futility, but never really connected with them.
5.
They are racially diverse
This generation is one of the most racially diverse generations to grow up in human
history. Because of the mobility of people, there is a major movement of groups of
families immigrating and emigrating from one country to another. America has become a
melting pot of cultures, with immigrant populations reaching new highs. In South Africa,
racial integration is not really happening among the adults, but the integration in schools
and clubs is enabling a new generation to grow up without the prejudices of the past.
Many of the institutions that today’s young people should be looking to for guidance are
showing blatant flaws with regard to racial harmony. This is seriously tarnishing their
image. For example, "racial segregation in South African churches is likely to persist for
two reasons: first, as a protective reaction to increased social diversity, and second,
because it has become deeply ingrained in local religious tradition" (Massie 1993:21).
This is just not acceptable to a new generation who are generally colour blind.
6.
They are self-sufficient and do not trust
We have already seen that divorce, having reached almost epidemic proportions in all
countries of the world, as well as abuse and neglect, have significantly impacted today’s
young people. It has forced them to grow up very quickly, and become adults before their
time. "Xers not only personally learned about the fragility of commitment but were also
forced into a premature - and untutored - adulthood" (Beaudoin 1998:8).
In addition, this generation has seen that those in charge really don’t seem to be able to
control the world. Having grown up in a world where it seemed to them that they were on
their own, and that they had to look out for themselves, they are carrying this selfsufficiency into later life. "We trust ourselves, and money - period…. A lot of this money
fixation can be attributed to this generation’s premature affluence and its poor economic
prospects down the road…. [They] trust hard green because their earliest life experiences
taught them that you can’t trust anything else" (Strauss and Howe 1993:114).
They have been denied the time normally given to young people to work out a fully
developed sense of self, and have what Elkind calls a "patchwork self" (1984:5). They do
not only distrust others, but also distrust themselves. "[They] are cursed with the lowest
collective self-esteem of any youth generation in living memory…. Lacking the egostrength to try setting agendas for others, they instead react to the world as they find it"
(Strauss and Howe 1993:85f.).
7.
They are skeptical of institutions
Because big government has let it down through scandals (e.g. Watergate), lies and halftruths (e.g. Iran-Contra) and personal failures (e.g. Clinton and Lewinksy), and because
big business has let it down, through massive job layoffs and unemployment, this
generation is skeptical of any organised institution. In business, they would prefer to be in
smaller business units, and not be seen as a cog in a machine. In government, the venture
in seldom, and then only as consultants. They hardly ever vote for candidates. They
assume that institutional relationships will be short-lived, and therefore avoid them, or
treat them as short-term. They are therefore often criticized for their lack of loyalty.
"Recent surveys have shown that only a small percentage of young people belong to
organisations specifically geared to the youth" (van Zyl Slabbert 1994:3.43, pg. 85).
In addition, the concept of "paying dues" is seen as outdated, as it was loyalty in
exchange for long-term security. Companies can no longer offer long-term security, so
Xers won’t pay their dues, either. Paying short term dividends is the key to their
motivation.
What Xers are not willing to do is to pay dues which, in any sense, are based on
protocols of hierarchy or rights of initiation. The reason is clear - the traditional rites
in the workplace have been part of an initiation to a club called job security, a club
which Xers are not invited to join. For that reason, Xers are not willing to embrace
the bottom rung of the ladder as a matter of course, despite the fact that those of
predecessor generations may have done so.
Tulgan 1995:108
Because of this, Xers have gained the unfair label of "slackers". Spurning traditional jobs,
and seeking quick money in short-term relationships with companies, they have been
seen as not having any commitment. This, too, is unfair. Older generations look on in
disbelief as young Internet moguls make enormous amounts of money out of nothing (or
so it seems). The same must have been true when the first service organisations opened,
and "white" collars began to be distinguished from "blue" collars.
8.
They are wary of commitment
Because they have been let down so many times, and because of what was said in the
previous point, this generation does not commit itself to anything, or, at best, commits
itself very slowly and warily. It favours short-term commitments to small-scale projects
with definable objectives and ending dates. "[They] get scolded for having no civic spirit;
for feeling no stake in the nation’s past crusades or future ideals; for seldom bothering to
read the newspapers, learn about public affairs, discuss big issues, or vote for candidates;
for just not caring" (emphasis in original, Strauss and Howe 1993:126). This apathy
works its way out in an unwillingness to commit.
Unlike the Boomer generation with its high hopes and idealistic notions of "making a
difference", Xers are more content to try to make a difference at a localised level, if at all.
They are much more interested in their close group of friends than in the "world out
there", and show little or no interest in causes, political power or status-based group
affiliations.
9.
They work so that they can have a life
This generation of young people is determined not to be caught in the economic treadmill
that they see Boomers on. They view their friendships as most important, and prioritize
their families. This means that their attitude to work is that it is a necessary evil, which is
a means to an end. The end is "having a life". The means is "earning money". Thus, they
are not attracted by office socials, after work meetings at pubs and weekends away with
the boss in order to score social points. They work so that they can enjoy a life outside of
work. This is in marked contrast to many of the older generations whose life is their
work.
10. They are pessimistic about the future
This generation grew up with the constant fear of annihilation. For the first time in
history, mankind has the ability to completely wipe itself out with nuclear warfare. The
height of this terror was reached during this generation’s formative years. In addition, this
generation was born into a world of terrorism and assassinations. In South Africa, as
elsewhere in the world, this generation grew up with bomb scares, and even had "bomb
squad" drills and duties as school pupils.
They are the first generation who will grow up to earn less than the generation before
them, and the current economic prospects for the world look bleak to say the least. Add to
this the global ecological meltdown, increasing over-population, decreasing world
resources, and the future is not a bright place. Of course, many of these problems may be
solved, and it is interesting that the biggest critique of this generation comes not from its
elders, but from its next juniors, the Millennial generation, who are optimistic that
today’s problems will be solved. But Xers are not so sure, and are not able to erase from
their minds the flickering images of the failures they have seen in their short lives, such
as Vietnam, the Challenger, the mini-recession of the late 1980s, the OJ Simpson trial
which brought racism to a boil again, and the Los Angeles riots.
When this generation thinks about the future at all, it normally does not feel good about
it. But they care more about today and this week than next year or eternity. They are
saying, in the words of a country song: "help me make it through the night". They are
looking for an anaesthetic to ease the pain, not a cure for their disease.
One particularly distressing outcome of this pessimism is the dramatic increase in teen
suicides over the past two decades. In America over 50,000 young people committed
suicide in the 1980s. In 1976, the teen suicide record was broken for the first time since
1908, which was the previous peak of Lost Generation angst. Virtually every single
person in this generation will consider suicide as an option. Those that live will do so
because they have chosen to do so, but this does not necessarily remove the pessimism.
11. Pain and anger are rising
Due to divorce, neglect, broken and bad relationships and abuse this generation carries
emotional pain. They feel like they are victims, and they act like it. This generation has a
reputation of being whiners and slackers. They have self-destructive deeds, but under the
deed there is a need – the need is a need to remove the pain. The deeds are worse than
previous generations, because the needs are much deeper. They will do anything for a
few minutes of relief: alcohol, drugs, sex, turning music up, smoking, and many other
things are being used as symptomatic relief agents. They don’t see a cure so they go for
the anaesthetic. The problem is that these "anesthetics" often bring a whole new set of
problems.
Because of their pain, this generation is characterised by anger which is simmering and
sitting very near the surface. It does not take today’s young people long to be pushed over
the edge, where they show meanness and verbal cruelty towards each other. Today’s
young people are exceptionally cutting and verbally cruel to each other. They are also
physically cruel, with the extreme cases leading to recent stories of guns at school, school
shootings and beatings and many more violent deaths at school than ever before. This is
often masked in terms of jokes and catch phrases, but an underlying anger can be
discerned.
Because of the pain and anger, hardness comes a lot sooner for today’s young people.
They are cynical and often express deep bitterness. This hardness often comes out in their
arrogant and dismissive manner of dealing with each other and with adults.
12. They live with change, and embrace it
A common cliché is: "The only constant is change". For this generation, change has been
a constant theme as it has grown up. Fashions and fads change very quickly, and today’s
young people are prone to perceive something as out-of-date very quickly. They do not
expect today to be the same as yesterday. In fact, anything that does not change is viewed
with suspicion.
They have not only accepted this high level of change, as Boomers before them have
done, they actually embrace it and enjoy it. They look for something different each day,
and get bored very quickly. They need innovation and are easily attracted by gimmics.
13. They are "Adrenaline Junky" risk takers
This is the generation that invented sports such as bungee jumping, and have made
outdoor pursuits, such as river rafting, free cliff climbing, downhill mountain biking,
rollerblading and the like, mainstream activities. This generation’s drugs of choice are not
the high-inducing, spiritual-based, hallucinogens of the 60s. Rather it is speed and
ecstasy, which are high energy-boosting drugs that allow rave dancers to sustain
unbelievably raised levels of energy and dancing throughout an entire night. Tom Cruise,
in the movie Top Gun, summed up this generation’s addiction to thrills and adrenaline
when he arrogantly boasted about flying air force jets: "I feel the need, the need for
speed". Christian Slater once said, "It’s better to burn out than fade away". He was
talking for his generation.
On a more sinister note, as we saw above, this need for a thrill is seen in the blatant
disregard for "safe sex", and the added kick that many teenagers find in having
unprotected sex with multiple partners. This risk propensity also finds itself worked out
in their approach to business and life in general. They are prepared to take many risks to
achieve a desired goal. Many of this generation are working as consultants, being paid
only for work done. They are prepared to accept the risk of financial instability in return
for the rewards of high-paying jobs.
14. "Truth" and reason don’t matter - pragmatism rules
Xers don’t ask "is it true?", but rather "does it work?". Something may be true, and even
accepted by them as such, but they don’t care, unless it really affects their lives. They
want real answers to their real-life issues. They don’t care about the truthfulness of the
answers, but rather about the workableness and applicability of the answers. They care
more about answers for their loneliness, for their relationship hassles. They care about
giving their lives meaning, and filling the holes in their hearts.
15. They are spiritual seekers
Young people today are interested in spiritual things. They are not religious by nature,
nor are they interested in institutional religion. They do not live spiritually (i.e. by any
spiritually controlled code), but are interested in the new-age, satanism, occult, crystals,
and the like. They seem to know that the answers they are looking for are to be found in
the spiritual part of life, but they have no idea of where to look. They are "shopping in the
right store, but they’re in the wrong aisle" (Ron Hutchcraft, at Motivate ‘98 in Cape
Town).
They believe that we, as a human race, have tried Christianity and Jesus, and it hasn’t
worked. They therefore do not even bother to investigate these as options. They have a
non-traditional approach to spirituality, which often comes across as very irreverent. This
notwithstanding, their search for real meaning beyond the visible is genuine. Research
has shown that "young South Africans are serious about religion" (van Zyl Slabbert
1994:3.46, pg. 86).
They believe in the supernatural, and have no difficulties in understanding the concepts
of transcendence and mystery. In fact, they thrive on mystery and enjoy being in
situations that seem to be beyond them, and that tug at their spiritual side. This is why so
many new age religions have gained new ground with these young people. They are not
searching for truth, rather they are searching for meaning.
16. There are no boundaries
There is no sense of things being right or wrong with modern young people. They do not
have moral boundaries, and many moral decisions that we take as self-evident, such as
the sanctity of life, the value of ownership, etc., are just not understood by this
generation. As far as they are concerned, they are never out of bounds. How can you be
out of bounds if there are no boundaries? This is a post-Christian era, where morality is
subjective. Nietzsche’s concept of the superman has taken root. The superman is able to
enjoy any action he undertakes, whether it is altruistically assisting an elderly lady across
the street or beating up the old lady to steal her handbag. As long as this is what the
superman wanted to do, he is truly "super" if he feels no feelings about either action
except self-fulfillment.
Sin is a non-issue to today’s young people. They are not looking for answers to their sin.
Of course, if sin is not an issue, then a Saviour is also a non-issue. And yet, as a surviving
member of the Heaven’s Gate who committed mass suicide said of the leaders of the cult,
"He was our saviour. He rescued us" (Rio DiAngelo, interviewed on CNN’s Larry King
Live, 14 April 1997). This world needs a saviour, but don’t know his name.
Because they do not have any boundaries, they often find themselves in a confused
situation, living with the paradoxes inherent in Nietzsche’s "superman" model. It is not
uncommon to discover that a young person will say and truly believe one thing in one
environment, and something completely contradictory in another. When this is pointed
out, no problem is seen. Today’s young people can live with internal and external
paradox very comfortably.
17. They want rules from the right authorities
As just described, these young people are growing up in a world with no road map. As
much as they live within this paradoxical world, they nevertheless are tired of a world of
total freedom which is characterised by chaos and confusion. Total freedom has turned
out to be total confusion and brokenness. They really do want someone to give them a
road to follow. But they don’t accept just anyone giving them direction.
People used to have positional authority: "I am your father, boss, pastor, and president therefore I demand your respect". The authority of someone was based on the position
they held, not on their own personal merits. The Boomer era changed this for us, by
rebelling against such authority structures. But Boomers rebelled when they saw these
authorities messing up, and their rebellion was simply to gain the authority for
themselves. As much as Boomers railed against "the establishment", they have done
nothing to change the establishment now that they are it. Boomers actually saw nothing
inherently wrong in the structures per se, but rather in how these structures were being
abused. Thus, once they had obtained the power, they began relying on positional
authority. Boomers see the position and the person as separate - so that they can respect
the position, but not the person. Bill Clinton’s latest polls (in 1998) show this trend in
Boomers - "a great president, a bad man!" is what people are saying.
Xers, by contrast, hold no truck with positional authority at all. Their rebellion against
authority is against the entire system itself. Xers are looking for personal authority, where
authority is derived from personhood, rather than position. Authority is always earned,
never inherited and can never be demanded. They respect people because of the way that
person treats them and because of who that person is. There is no such thing as positional
authority. Authority is granted to those who earn it by their character and relationships,
not because of their position or job title. Position and title are nothing! Person is
everything. They want someone to tell them what to do and how to live - but that person
must be someone they can respect.
Unlike previous generations, however, this negative view of authority structures does not
lead them to radical action. Rather, they are more apt to whine and moan, and yet do
nothing at all to change anything. This has earned them the titles of "slackers" and
"whiners". P J O’Rourke, in his inimitable style sums up the frustration many older
generations have with Xers when he says parenthetically at the end of the introduction to
All The Trouble In The World, "And memo to Generation X: Pull your pants up, turn
your hat around, and get a job" (1994:17). It is this kind of attitude that puts Xers off
totally. They want relationships and acceptance, and that basis will choose to grant
authority to people in their lives. Those who earn the right to speak into their lives will be
given the privilege of helping this generation to navigate the waters of confusion that they
are currently engaging.
The approach that is most needed is summed up in the title of Bob DeMoss’ book, Learn
to Discern (1997). This generation does not need to be taught the rules, it needs to be
helped to understand them, and then given the space to learn to apply them for
themselves.
18. They are stressed out and organised to death
Most of today’s young people carry diaries with them, and work to schedules and
timetables. And these are not social diaries, but detailed lists of things to be done just to
get through all their school work and extra-curricula activities. Most of them plan well in
advance for events, and are very used to organizing multiple activities into a busy
schedule. The carefree days of youth, so typified in 1950s caricatures are not part of this
generation’s experience. In addition to their over-organisation, they are also incredibly
stressed.
Teenagers today are subject to more stress than were teenagers in previous
generations. This stress is of three types. First, teenagers are confronted with many
more freedoms today than were available to past generations. Second, they are
experiencing losses, to their basic sense of security and expectations for the future,
that earlier generations did not encounter. And third, they must cope with the
frustrations of trying to prepare for their life’s work in school settings that hinder
rather than facilitate this goal
Elkind 1984:6.
19. They embrace technology
"In loco parentis, television provided daily entertainment…. My generation later reported
that we spent more time with the television than with our parents during childhood (Gross
and Scott, 1990)" (Beaudoin 1998:5). In addition to the growth of television, and cable,
personal computers and video games appeared in the middle of our primary school years,
the fax machine and photocopy machines have been part of the office environment as
long as we have, and portable video games, VCRs, the walkman, laptop computers and
"beat box" portable Hi-fi systems have allowed us to take our media wherever we want to
go.
The first e-mail program was invented in 1972, by Ray Tomlinson of BBN. In 1974, the
term Internet was first used for the first time by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn in paper on
Transmission Control Protocol. The personal computer, invented in 1976, has
revolutionised life and business. PCs, and the rate at which their prices fell, made it
possible for suburban individuals to have access to large amounts of computing power
and also, via the Internet, access to huge amounts of data and to other people. The World
Wide Web was launched by CERN in 1992, and Marc Andreessen of NCSA and the
University of Illinois developed a graphical user interface to the WWW, called "Mosaic
for X". This was the world’s first browser.
In its few years of history, the Internet connected to the PC has changed the way in which
we live. Nothing has been the same since they arrived on the scene, but we are only at the
beginning of the revolution. Xers embrace these changes and the technology driving
them. It may be Boomers who are gaining financially out of being the visionaries of the
computer age, but it Xers who are the wizards behind the scenes, making the thing work.
20. They have a new and unique style of learning and communicating
To older generations, "Xers seem impatient for answers, always demanding information,
asking questions, and pursuing multiple lines of enquiry simultaneously. What looks to
some [adults] like a lack of attention in Xers is, rather, a rapid-fire style of interacting
with information which comes naturally to us as children of the information revolution"
(Tulgan 1995:173).
This generation have embraced technology and modern telecommunications. This has
required them to learn entirely new languages (computer coding languages), and also
taught them to communicate in fundamentally new ways. Douglas Rushkoff has
brilliantly analysed this change in his book, Playing the Future (also known as Children
of Chaos, 1996), where he argues that they learn in a mosaic fashion rather than linearly.
They have a rapid-fire information consumption capability. Rushkoff argues that many of
the things for which this generation is maligned, such as short attention spans and lack of
ability to concentrate on a single task at once are not problems but actually brilliant
coping mechanisms for a world overloaded with information. "The skill to be valued in
the twenty-first century is not the length of attention span, but the ability to multitask - to
do many things at once, well…. [and] the ability to process visual information very
rapidly" (Rushkoff 1996:50).
Tulgan also points out this voracious appetite for information, and the ability to process it
at high speeds (cf. 1995:176, 186, 191). "It is not just changing technology which
characterizes the workplace of the future, but a changing atmosphere. Xers already know
hot to work in the virtual office where the only thing to grasp onto is your log-on
password…. We’re self-sufficient in the virtual marketplace where meaning is the
primary commodity" (Tulgan 1995:174).
21. They are media savvy
This generation knows the value of the media, and how powerful it is. Boomers say,
"Image is everything". Xers say "Everything is image". Reality can be distorted and
manipulated by the media, and Xer journalists and spin doctors are some of the best in
the business. Knowing this, Xers are very skeptical of what they see on TV, realising that
even the news is rated these days, and carries only stories that will increase that rating.
They prefer live broadcasting, which allows them to see things as they are happening,
with little time to manipulate it. They were the generation that made the Gulf War the
first armchair war spectacle in history.
While they have been called many things - stupid, apathetic, shallow, greedy, angry their most important quality as far as media is concerned is a sense of irony and
irreverence. The irony was developed through an emotional distance from the
subjects of the media. The irreverence for the sanctity of popular cultural ideology
came from this generation’s ability to change what was on the screen. They don’t just
receive and digest media. They manipulate it. They play with it. The media is not a
mirror - it is an ‘other’. They are in a living relationship with it.
Rushkoff 1996:31
22. They love stories
This generation loves stories, especially true stories of people’s lives. Douglas
Coupland’s book, which gave a name to this generation, Generation X (original in
1991), is about three friends who "left our lives behind us and came to the desert - to tell
stories and to make our own lives worthwhile tales in the process" (1992:8). Because they
have abandoned metanarratives, they are forced to create narratives of their own to define
meaning and to give expression to their selves.
"Stories are intensely important to Generation X. We’re not big on descriptions and
adjectives. We want the feelings, the action, the story… ‘Either our lives become stories’,
says one Coupland character, ‘or there’s just no way to get through them.’ Our stories
give us identity" (Ford 1996:238).
23. Music is huge
A survey in the United States, reported by Ron Hutchcraft, found that in dealing with
hassles, young people rated talking to mom number 48, talking to dad number 51 (out of
53) and music was number 1! Axel Rose said: "When I was in high school my best friend
was music". Music is their voice. They are listening to someone who is singing their
feelings. Music is one of the biggest way in which Xers tell out their stories. The music is
therefore as varied as the stories, from the soulful R&B, the heartbreaking sounds of new
Country and Western, through the search for love in pop and soul, the despair in grunge,
to the in-your-face sounds of inner city hip-hop and the killer-instinct of gangsta rap.
Young people are giving their lives meaning and expressing that meaning through the
story their music tells.
Much of their music reinforces their dark sides: for example, they are lonely so they
listen to lonely music, and this just makes them more lonely. They feed what they should
be staving, reinforcing their bad feelings. Music is more that a beat or a style it is the
language of this generation, it is their very soul and an expression of their feelings.
24. They are incredibly ambitious
Taken on their own terms, given freedom within reasonable boundaries, and provided
with enough information to succeed, Xers have the potential to be the most well equipped
workers in the new telecommunications dominated workplace of the next millennium.
They know it, but don't flaunt it.
Part of the paradox of Generation X is almost contradictory values that are displayed. On
the one hand they have grown up in environments, with parents who have given them
everything they wanted. They have grown up in homes fuelled by the materialistic 80s,
and have watched and listened to the "Material Girl", Madonna. They have come to
expect material things, and are thus seen as very materialistic. This comes out in their
desire to wear only designer clothes, for instance. Yet, on the other hand, they don't
believe that the world owes them anything, but everything that they have they have
earned and now own by right. They are not given to idealistic dreams of the future as the
Boomers were, but they certainly don't sit back and wallow in self-pity and despair. They
may believe that the world is going to the dogs, but they believe that they themselves will
be able to escape through hard work, right priorities and a bit of luck.
25. They are part of a Global Youth Culture
The trends discussed above are not specifically American. Although most demographers
quote mainly American statistics, this is mainly because of the availability thereof, not
because they are only American in nature. These trends above can be seen in many
countries around the world, as any brief trip onto the Internet will show. Today’s young
people are influenced by cultural trends from all over the world. Fads take off and spread
quickly around the globe, as does music and movies.
Even the Great Wall of China which succeeded in keeping out, for a while, the hordes
of Ghengis Khan, cannot keep out satellite TV and Internet. The price of
modernisation is the opening of one’s culture to global invasion in the form of
American popular culture. Not even the French, who are notorious for their efforts in
keeping their language and culture pure, can resist this culture invasion. The Euro
Disney management confessed that its clients rejected every bit of its attempts at
"Europeanisation" and demanded the "real" Disneyland. The good thing about
globalism is that it is predominantly a global youth culture which has given young
people a voice…. The bad thing about globalism is that everything seems to be much
the same all over the world.
Ooi (nd), http://www.jaring.my/just/ColDisney.html
The New Generation Gap
By Neil Howe and William Strauss
It isn't yet at a sixties boil, but the emerging conflict between forty somethings and twenty
somethings will help to define this decade
"Among democratic nations each generation is a new people." ---Alexis de Tocqueville
Two world views, reflecting fundementally different visions of society and serf, are moving into
conflict in the America of the 1990s. A new generation gap is emerging. In the late 1960s the
fight was mainly between twenty-year-olds and the fifty-plus crowd. Today it's mainly between
young people and the thirty- to-forty-year-olds. In these gaps, the old 1960s one and the
emerging 1990s facsimile, there have been two constants: Each time, the same conspicuous
generation has been involved. Each time, that generation has claimed the moral and cultural high
ground, casting itself as the apex of civilization and its age-bracket adversaries: as soul-dead,
progress-blocking philistines. The first time around, the members of that generation attacked
their eiders; now they're targeting their juniors.
We're talking about Baby Boomers. Born from 1943 to 1960, today's 69 million Boomers range
in age from thirty-two to forty-nine. Defined by its personality type, this generation is somewhat
different from the group defined simply by the well-known demographic fertility bulge (19461964). At the front end, the grown-up "victory babies" of 1943--peers of Janis Joplin and Bobby
Fischer, Joni Mitchell and Geraldo Rivera, Oliver North and Rap Brown, R. Crumb and Angela
Davis, Newt Gingrich and Bill Bradley--include the first Dr. Spock toddlers; the fiery college
class of 1965; the oldest Vietnam-era draft-card burners; the eldest among "Americans Under
25," whom Time magazine named its "1967 Man of the Year"; and the last twenty-nine-yearolds (in 1972) to hear the phrase "under-thirty generation" before its sudden disappearance. At
the back end, the grown-up Eisenhower babies of 1960 are the last-born of today's Americans to
feel any affinity with the hippie-cum-yuppie baggage that accompanies the Boomer label.
The younger antagonists are less well known: America's thirteenth generation, born from 1961 to
1981, ranging in age from eleven to thirty-one. Demographers call them Baby Busters, a name
that deserves a prompt and final burial. First, it's incorrect: The early-sixties birth cohorts are
among the biggest in U.S. history--and, at 80 million, this generation has numerically outgrown
the Boom. By the late 1990s it will even outvote the Boom. Second, the name is insulting-"Boom" followed by "Bust," as though wonder were followed by disappointment. The novelist
Doug Coupland, himself a 1961 baby, dubs his age-mates "Generation X" or "Xers," a name first
used by and about British Boomer-punkers. Shann Nix, a journalist at the San Francisco
Chronicle, suggests "postics" (as in "post-yuppies"), another name that, like Coupland's, leaves
the generation in the shadow of the great Boom. We give these young people a nonlabel label
that has nothing to do with Boomers. If we count back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin,
"Thirteeners" are, in point of fact, the thirteenth generation to know the U.S. flag and the
Constitution. More than a name, the number thirteen is a gauntlet, an obstacle to be overcome.
Maybe it's the floor where elevators don't stop, or the doughnut that bakers don't count. Then
again, maybe it's a suit's thirteenth card--the ace--that wins, face-down, in a game of high-stakes
blackjack. It's an understated number for an underestimated generation.
The old generation gap of the late 1960s and early 1970s featured an incendiary war between
college kids and the reigning leaders of great public institutions. Back then the moralizing
aggressors were on the younger side. And back then Americans in their thirties and early forties
(the "Silent Generation," born from 1925 to 1942) stood in between as mentors and mediators.
The new generation gap of the 1990s is different. It features a smoldering mutual disdain
between Americans now reaching midlife and those born just after them. This time the
moralizing aggressors are on the older side. And this time no generation stands in between. What
separates the collective personalities of Boomers and Thirteeners? First, look at today's mainline
media, a hotbed of forty-year-old thinking. Notice how, in Boomers' hands, 1990s America is
becoming a somber land obsessed with values, back-to-basics movements, ethical rectitude,
political correctness, harsh punishments, and a yearning for the simple life. Life's smallest acts
exalt (or diminish) one's personal virtue.
A generation weaned on great expectations and gifted in deciphering principle is now determined
to reinfuse the entire society with meaning. Now look again--and notice a countermood popping
up in college towns, in big cities, on Fox and cable TV, and in various ethnic side currents. It's a
tone of physical frenzy and spiritual numbness, a revelry of pop, a pursuit of high-tech, guiltless
fun. It's a carnival culture featuring the tangible bottom lines of life--money, bodies, and brains-and the wordless deals with which one can be traded for another. A generation weaned on
minimal expectations and gifted in the game of life is now avoiding meaning in a cumbersome
society that, as they see it, offers them little.
For evidence of this emerging generation gap, take a look at a Fortune magazine survey earlier
this year asking employed twentysomethings if they would ever "like to be like" Baby Boomers.
Four out of five say no. Peruse recent surveys asking college students what they think of various
Boomer-sanctioned moral crusades--everything from "family values" to the "New Age
movement." By overwhelming margins, they either disapprove or are remarkably indifferent.
Recall the furious Thirteener-penned responses that appeared just after the media's celebration of
the twentieth anniversary of Woodstock, or after the recent turn away from yuppie-style
consumption ("Let the self-satisfied, self-appointed, selfrighteous baby-boomers be the first to
practice the new austerity they have been preaching of late," Mark Featherman announced in a
New York Times essay titled "The 80's Party Is Over"). Notice the pointed anti-Boom references
in such Thirteener films as Running on Empty, Pump Up the Volume, Heathers, True Colors,
and Little Man Tate, or in the generation-defining prose of such emerging young writers as
Coupland, Nix, Brett Easton Ellis, Nancy Smith, Steven Gibb, Eric Liu, Gael Fashingbauer,
David Bernstein, Robert Lukefahr, and lan Williams.
Already Thirteeners blame Boomers for much that has gone wrong in their world, a tendency
that is sure to grow once Boomers move fully into positions of political leadership. Remember,
these are the young people who cast their first votes during the 1980s, for the party (Republican)
and the generation (of Reagan and Bush) that Boomers at like age loved to excoriate. More
recently the end of the Cold War and the "Bush recession" have persuaded Thirteeners to go
along with an all-Boomer Democratic ticket. But fortysomething politicians can hardly rest easy.
This latest turn in what Coupland calls the "microallegiances" of today's young people also
reflects a toxic reaction to what Boomers have done to the other party (even right-wing
Thirteeners shuddered to hear the Quayle and Quayle "values" preaching) and a vehement
backlash against the status quo (pre-election opinion polls showed Ross Perot's strongest support
coming from under-thirty voters).
Whatever economic and cultural alienation Thirteeners feel over the next decade--and they will
feel plenty--will inevitably get translated into hostility toward the new generation in power. If
being a resented older generation is a novel experience for Boomers, and if life on the short end
feels ruinous to Thirteeners, each group can take a measure of solace in the repeating
generational rhythms of American history. About every eighty or ninety years America has
experienced this kind of generation gap between selfrighteous neopuritans entering midlife and
nomadic survivalists just coming of age.
Boomers
"Something strange is going on in the hearts of baby boomers," announced American
Demographics magazine in a recent article heralding the 1990s. Around the same time, Good
Housekeeping took a full-page in The New York Times to run an ad inspired by the Boomer
marketing guru Faith Popcorn. The ad welcomed America to "the Decency Decade, the years
when the good guys finally win. . . . It will be a very good decade for the Earth, as New
Traditionalists lead an unstoppable environmental juggernaut that will change and inspire
corporate America, and let us all live healthier, more decent lives," when consumers will "look
for what is real, what is honest, what is quality, what is valued, what is important." All across
America, Americans in their thirties and forties are answering Rolling Stone's call to "muster the
will to remake ourselves into altruists and ascetics." If, a decade earlier, twentysomething hippies
evolved into thirtysomething yuppies, the new fortysomethings are now putting (according to the
demographer Brad Edmondson) "less emphasis on money and more on meaning." How can this
be? How can a generation that came of age amid the libidinous euphoria of People's Park now be
forming neighborhood associations to push "alcoholics, drug dealers, and wing nuts" out of
Berkeley parks and out of their lives? How can a generation that a decade ago went, as Todd
Gitlin put it, "from 'J'accuse' to Jacuzzi" now be leaving the Jacuzzi for a cold shower?
Over the past five decades, as Boomers have charted their life's voyage, they have consistently
aged in a manner unlike what anyone, themselves included, ever expected. They began as the
most indulged children of this century, basking in intensely child-focused households and
communities. Benjamin Spook mixed science with friendliness and instructed parents to produce
"idealistic children" through permissive feeding schedules. To most middle-class youths,
poverty, disease, and crime were invisible-or, at worst, temporary nuisances that would soon
succumb to the inexorable advance of affluence. With the outer world looking fine, the inner
world became the point of youthful focus. Their parents expected Boomers to be, in William
Manchester's words, "adorable as babies, cute as grade school pupils and striking as they entered
their teens," after which "their parents would be very, very proud of them." In 1965 Time
magazine declared that teenagers were "on the fringe of a golden era"--and, two years later,
described collegians as cheerful idealists who would "lay out blight-proof, smog-free cities,
enrich the underdeveloped world, and, no doubt, write finis to poverty and war." Hardly.
Over the next several years Boomers discovered that they were never meant to be doers and
builders like their parents. Instead, finding their parents' constructions in need of a major
spiritual overhaul, even creative destruction, they triggered a youth-focused "Consciousness
Revolution." Along the way, they became what Annie Gottlieb has described as "a tribe with its
roots in a time, rather than place or race." That time was the late sixties, when the term
"generation gap" gained currency. The term was coined (and used most frequently) by the hardcharging dads of the "GI Generation," born from 1901 to 1924, a cohort reaching from Walt
Disney to George Bush, whose 25 million surviving members today range in age from sixtyeight to ninety-one.
Back in the heady days of what the historian William O'Neill has dubbed "the American High,"
the GI peers of John F. Kennedy made much of "gaps"--missile gaps, science gaps, poverty gaps.
Gaps were something they thought themselves quite good at building bridges across. But not this
one. Beginning in the late 1960s the generation gap became a full-fledged age war. The youthful
Boom ethos was deliberately antithetical to everything GI: spiritualism over science, gratification
over patience, pessimism over optimism, fractiousness over conformity, rage over friendliness,
self over community. "STRIKE!" became the summons, the clenched fist the emblem, T-shirts
and jeans the uniform, and "corporate liberalism" the enemy. Screaming radicals and freaked-out
hippies represented just 10 to 15 percent of America's circa-1970 youth, but they set the tone.
Off campus and at the other end of the political spectrum, a similar depth of anti-establishment
rage welled up among blue-collar Boomers (who were twice as likely as their elders to vote for
George Wallace in the 1968 election). The GI-Boomer age war paralleled the Vietnam shooting
war. It crested in 1969, along with draft calls and casualties. A couple of years later--after Ohio's
National Guardsmen killed four Kent State students, after student opinion turned solidly against
the war, and after Congress amended the Constitution to allow eighteen-year-olds to vote-Boomers began heeding the Beatles' simple "words of wisdom: let it be." The generation gap
began to ease, in its outward forms at least, replaced by a grinding pessimism and a gray Boomer
drizzle of sex, drugs, unemployment, and a sour (if less confrontational) mood on campus.
In politics the Boomers settled in as more apathetic and more just plain illiberal than their
rebelled-against parents could ever have imagined. In the 1970s the GI-versus-Boom clash had a
quiet denouement that has proved over time to be at least as consequential as the Boomers' angry
demonstrations. No pact was signed, no speeches were made, but something of a deal was struck.
On the one hand, Boomers said nothing as GIs then on the brink of retirement proceeded to
channel a growing portion of the nation's public resources (over a period from the post-Vietnam
peace dividend to the post-Cold War peace dividend) toward their own "entitlements." On the
other hand, GIs did not object as Boomers asserted control of the culture. GI leaders (Gerald
Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush) continued to preside at the pinnacle of
government, while their retirement-bound peers became America's first old people to call
themselves "senior citizens." Millions of men and women who had come of age with the New
Deal abandoned America's increasingly Boom-oriented work life, separated into their own Sun
City peer societies, tuned in to their own "Music of Your Life" radio stations, and began
strengthening the clout of what was already the most powerful generational voting bloc in the
history of global democracy.
No generation in U.S. history--not even that of Jefferson and Madison--can match the GIs'
lifetime record of success at getting, holding, and using political power. At the same time,
Boomers--who in the first days of the eighteen-year-old vote were expected to be a political
powerhouse, sweeping candidates of their choice into the White House--played the role of
political siren, first tempting candidates, then luring them to their demise. It was not until 1992,
two decades after George McGovern first begged for their votes, that Boomers finally showed
more political clout than the aging GI peers of LBJ and Richard Nixon (and leapfrogged the
leaderless Silent Generation, which may become the first generation in American history never
to produce a President).
Along the way, the word "yuppie"--a term of derision among others, of self-mocking humor
among Boomers--labeled a generation of supposedly sold-out ex-hippies. Introduced in 1981, the
word referred to "young upwardly mobile professionals," a group that included only about one
out of every twenty Boomers. But a much larger proportion fit the subjective definition: selfimmerse & impatient for personal satisfaction, weak in civic instincts. Everything the yuppie
did--what he ate, drank, listened to, lived in, and invested for--sent a negative message about GIstyle culture and inst itutions. Notwithstanding their affluent reputation through the 1980s,
Boomers, especially those born in the middle to late 1950s, have not prospered. True, they are
roughly keeping pace with the (Silent) generation just before them, at each phase of life. But
were it not for the rising economic power of women (and the two-income household), they
would be falling behind. Debt is a big problem: U.S. News & World Report says that roughly
one fourth of all professional and managerial Boomers are "nebbies" (negative-equity Boomers)
teetering on the edge of personal bankruptcy. Yet amid these financial problems, polls show,
Boomers overwhelmingly consider their careers better, their personal freedoms greater, and their
lives more meaningful than those of their parents. They know they may not be America's
wealthiest generation, but the American Dream lives on for them in the form of a finely tuned
inner life--which is one reason why aging GIs feel so little guilt about their economic condition.
Although 1990s-edition Boomers are no throwback to the 1960s, they see themselves as they did
then (and always have): as the embodiment of moral wisdom. Their aging is taking on a
nonapologetic quality--prompting The New York Times to relabel them "grumpies" (for "grownup mature professionals"). The idea of telling other people what to do suits them just fine. They
do not inherently dislike government; they simply want to redirect public institutions toward
what they consider a socially redemptive purpose. Addressing America's unresolved social
issues, from crime and homelessness to health and education, Boomers are far more inclined than
other generations to believe, with Jeffrey Bell, that "the setting of society's standards is, in the
final analysis, what politics is all about"--and to share Karl Zinsmeister's view that "genuine
compassion demands that we forgo the comfortable, and ever so easier, responses of softness."
Whatever the problem, the Boomers' solution could not be more different from that of their
parents at a like age. Their call is not for the white-coated scientist but for the black-cloaked
preacher. Their prescription is not a sugar-coated elixir but a purgative tonic. Recent exit polls
show that the politicians who disproportionately ride Boomer votes are either reverends (Pat
Robertson and Jesse Jackson, who in the 1988 primaries did better among Boomers than among
others) or bearers of dark messages (Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, and Pat Buchanan, who did best
among Boomers in the 1992 primaries). To solve social problems Boomers don't look to
technology and big institutions (as did the GI peers of JFK and Nixon) or to expertise and
committees (as have the Silent peers of Michael Dukakis and James Baker). Rather, Boomers
look to values--the redemptive if painful resurrection of what Michael Lerner, the editor of the
progressive magazine Tikkun, calls a "Politics of Meaning." Material abundance is not
necessarily connected with such values, which is why even a severe recession could not dissuade
the younger orators at the 1992 political conventions from talking less about GNP and housing
starts than about moral standards and the state of America's soul (much to the bewilderment of
over-fifty columnists--and to the jeers of the under-thirty viewers of MTV's Like We Care).
In one jurisdiction after another, Boomers who once voted for Reaganomics are now engaging in
what David Blankenhorn, of the Institute for American Values, calls "a debate about causes and
cures," a debate about "what we are prepared to give up." They are pushing for the explicit
exercise of public authority--more taxes, zoning, schools, prisons--as long as this authority
moves America toward the lofty social standard that Boomers themselves have sanctified.
Boomers are stirring to defend values (monogamy, thrift, abstention from drugs) that other
generations do not associate with them. The leaders among Boomer blacks, once known for the
Afro cut and the black-power salute, are bypassing the rusty machinery of civil-rights legislation
pioneered by their eiders and are preaching a strict new standard of group pride, family integrity,
and community loyalty.
A generation that came of age in an era of "Is God Dead?" is immersing itself in spiritual
movements of all kinds, from evangelical fundamentalism to New Age humanism, from
transcendentalism to ESP. By a substantial margin, Boomers are America's most God-absorbed
living generation. Six out of ten report having experienced an extrasensory presence or power,
versus only four out of ten among older generations. Six times as many Boomers plan to spend
more time in religious activities in future years as plan to spend less.
Values-gripped Boomers are enlisting on one side or the other of what the family-policy guru
Gary Bauer has called America's "cultural civil war." Candice Bergen, Garry Trudeau, Hillary
Clinton, Paul Wellstone, communitarians, pro-choicers, over here. Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh,
"Decency Czar" Anne-Imelda Radice, Oliver North, evangelicals, pro-lifers, over there. Some
Boomers are joining eco-crusades, while others who don't mind "playing God" with endangered
species have opted for the Wise Use Movement. The hot new fads are "values marketing" and
"non-ism"--the art of advertising, and enjoying, whatever it is you're not consuming. On both
sides of the political spectrum Boomer politicians advocate stark, no-pain, no-gain "cures"---like
the Oregon Plan for Medicaid triage, or Dan Quayle's demand that limits be placed on jury
awards for "pain and suffering," or Al Gore's call for stiff energy taxes, or Massachusetts
Governor William Weld's notion that a ten year prison sentence should mean 10.0 years behind
bars, or Bill Clinton's proposal that "we ought to have boot camp for first-time nonviolent
offenders."
Boomer editorialists adamantly reject dickering with foreign tyrants, compromise on the deficit,
mercy for S&L violators, welfare for anybody who doesn't work for it. Critics can and do call
Boomers smug, narcissistic, selfrighteous, intolerant, puritanical. But one commonly heard
charge, that of hypocrisy, ill fits a generation that came of age resacralizing America and has
kept at it. Always the distracted perfectionists, they apply first a light hand, then (once they start
paying attention) a crushingly heavy one. They graze on munchics until they figure it's time to
diet, and then they cover themselves with ashes and sackcloth. From Jonathan Schell to Jeremy
Rifkin, Charles Murray to Shelby Steele, Steven Jobs to Steven Spielberg, Bill Bennett to Al
Gore, Boomers are still doing what they have done for decades: giving America its leading
visionaries and wise men--or, depending on your point of view, its preachy didacts. It is in the
shadow of such a generation that Thirteeners are having to come of age.
Thirteeners
As they sheild their eyes with Ray-Ban Wayfarer sunglasses, and their ears with Model TCD-D3
Sony Walkmen, today's teens and twenty-somethings present to Boomer eyes a splintered image
of brassy looks and smooth manner, of kids growing up too tough to be cute, of kids more
comfortable shopping or playing than working or studying. Ads target them as beasts of pleasure
and pain who have trouble understanding words longer than one syllable, sentences longer than
three words. Pop music on their Top 40 stations--heavy metal, alternative rock, rap--strikes many
a Boomer ear as a rock-and-roll end game of harsh sounds, goin'-nowhere melodies, and clumsy
poetry.
News clips document a young-adult wasteland of academic nonperformance, political apathy,
suicide pacts, date-rape trials, wilding, and hate crimes. Who are they, and what are they up to?
On the job, Thirteeners are the reckless bicycle messengers, pizza drivers, yard workers, WalMart shelf-stockers, health-care trainees, and miscellaneous scavengers, hustlers, and McJobbers
in the low-wage/low-benefit service economy. They're the wandering nomads of the temp world,
directionless slackers, habitual nonvoters. In school they're a group of staggering diversity--not
just in ethnicity but also in attitude, performance, and rewards. After graduation they're the ones
with big loans who were supposed to graduate into jobs and move out of the house but didn't,
and who seem to get poorer the longer they've been away from home--unlike their parents at that
age, who seemed to get richer.
In inner cities Thirteeners are the unmarried teen mothers and unconcerned teen fathers, the
Crips and Bloods, the innocent hip-hoppers grown weary of watching white Boomers cross the
street to avoid them. In suburbs they're the kids at the mail, kids buying family groceries for busy
moms and dads, kids in mutual-protection circles of friends, girding against an adolescent world
far more dangerous than anything their parents knew, kids struggling to unlink sex from disease
and death. In them lies much of the doubt, distress, and endangered dream of late-twentiethcentury America. As a group they aren't what older people ever wanted but rather what they
themselves know they need to be: pragmatic, quick, sharp-eyed, able to step outside themselves
and understand how the world really works.
From the Thirteener vantage point, America's greatest need these days is to clear out the
underbrush of name-calling and ideology so that simple things can work again. Others don't yet
see it, but today's young people are beginning to realize that their upbringing has endowed them
with a street sense and pragmatism their eiders lack. Many admit they are a bad generation-but
so, too, do they suspect that they are a necessary generation for a society in dire need of survival
lessons.. When they look into the future, they see a much bleaker vision than any of today's older
generations ever saw in their own youth. Polls show that Thirteeners believe it will be much
harder for them to get ahead than it was for their parents--and that they are overwhelmingly
pessimistic about the long-term fate of their generation and nation. They sense that they're the
clean-up crew, that their role in history will be sacrificial--that whatever comeuppance America
has to face, they'll bear more than their share of the burden. It's a new twist, and not a happy one,
on the American Dream.
Trace the life cycle to date of Americans born in 1961. They were among the first babies people
took pills not to have. During the 1967 Summer of Love they were the kindergartners who paid
the price for America's new divorce epidemic. In 1970 they were fourth-graders trying to learn
arithmetic amid the chaos of open classrooms and New Math curricula. In 1973 they were the
bell-bottomed sixth-graders who got their first real-life civics lesson watching the Watergate
hearings on TV. Through the late 1970s they were the teenage mail-hoppers who spawned the
Valley Girls and other flagrantly nonBoomer youth trends. In 1979 they were the graduating
seniors of Carter-era malaise who registered record-low SAT scores and record-high crime and
drug-abuse rates. In 1980 they cast their first votes, mostly for Reagan, became the high-quality
nineteen-year-old enlistees who began surging into the military, and arrived on campus as the
smooth, get-it-done freshmen who evidenced a sudden turnaround from the intellectual
arrogance and social immaturity of Boomer students. They were the college class of 1983, whose
graduation coincided with the ballyhooed A Nation at Risk report, which warned that education
was beset by "a rising tide of mediocrity." In 1985 they were the MBA grads who launched the
meteoric rise in job applications to Wall Street. And in 1991 they hit age thirty just when turning
"thirtysomething" (a big deal for yuppies in the 1980s) became a tired subject--and when the
pretentious TV serial with that title was yanked off the air.
Like any generation, Thirteeners grew up with parents who are distributed in roughly equal
measure between the two prior generations (Silent and Boom). But also like any generation, they
were decisively influenced by the senior parental cohort. Much as GIs shaped the Sputnik 1950s
for Boomers, the Silent Generation provided the media producers, community leaders, influential
educators, and rising politicians during the R-rated 1970s, the decade that most Thirteeners still
regard as their childhood home. And what did Thirteeners absorb from that generation and that
era? Mostly they learned to be cynical about adults whom they perceived to be sensitive yet
powerless, better at talking about issues than solving problems. For the Silent Generation, then
hitting midlife, the cultural upheaval of the 1970s meant liberation from youthful conformism, a
now-or-never passage away from marriages made too young and careers chosen too early. But
for Thirteeners just growing up, the 1970s meant something very different: an adult world that
expressed moral ambivalence where children sought clear answers, that expected children to
cope with real-world problems, that hesitated to impose structure on children's behavior, and that
demonstrated an amazing (even stupefying) tolerance for the rising torrent of pathology and
negativism that engulfed children's daily life. When they were small, the nation was riding high.
When they reached adolescence, national confidence weakened, and community and family life
splintered. Older people focused less on the future, planned less for it, and invested less in it. A
Consciousness Revolution that seemed euphoric to young adults was to Thirteeners the
beginning of a ride on a down escalator. The public debacles of their youth fostered the view that
adults were not especially virtuous or competent--that kids couldn't count on adults to protect
them from danger.
From Boom to Thirteenth, America's children went from a family culture of My Three Sons to
one of My Two Dads. As millions of mothers flocked into the work force, the proportion of
preschoolers cared for in their own homes fell by half. For the first time, adults ranked
automobiles ahead of children as necessary for "the good life." The cost of raising a child, never
very worrisome when Boomers were little, suddenly became a fraught issue. Adults of fertile age
doubled their rate of surgical sterilization. The legal-abortion rate grew to the point where one
out of every three pregnancies was terminated. Back in 1962 half of all adults agreed that parents
in bad marriages should stay together for the sake of the children. By 1980 less than a fifth
agreed. America's divorce rate doubled from 1965 to 1975, just as first-born Thirteeners passed
through middle childhood. The pop culture conveyed to little kids and (by 1980) teenagers a
recurring message from the adult world: that they weren't wanted, and weren't even liked, by the
grown-ups around them.
Polls and social statistics showed a sharp shift in public attitudes toward (and treatment of)
children. Taxpayers revolted against school funding, and landlords and neighborhoods that had
once smiled on young Boomers started banning children. The Zero Population Growth
movement declared the creation of each additional infant to be a bad thing, and the moviegoing
public showed an unquenchable thirst for a new cinematic genre: the devil-child horror film. The
same year Boomers were blissing out at Woodstock, the baby that riveted America's attention
had a mother named Rosemary (Please don't have this baby, millions of viewers whispered to
themselves). From the late 1960s until the early 1980s America's pre-adolescents grasped what
nurture they could through the most virulently anti-child period in modern American history.
Ugly new phrases ("latchkey child," "throwaway child," and later "boomerang child") joined the
sad new lexicon of youth. America's priorities lay elsewhere, as millions of kids sank into
poverty, schools deteriorated, and a congeries of elected politicians set a new and distinctly
child-hostile course of national overconsumption. Then, when Thirteeners were ready to enter
the adult labor force, the politicians pushed every policy lever conceivable-tax codes,
entitlements, public debt, unfunded liabilities, labor laws, hiring practices--to tilt the economic
playing field away from the young and toward the old.
The results were predictable. Since the early 1970s the overall stagnation in American economic
progress has masked some vastly unequal changes in living standards by phase of life. Older
people have prospered, Boomers have barely held their own, and Thirteeners have fallen off a
cliff. The columnist Robert Kuttner describes Thirteeners as victims of a "remarkable
generational economic distress . . . a depression of the young," which makes them feel "uniquely
thirsty in a sea of affluence." Ever since the first Thirteeners reached their teens, the inflationadjusted income of all adult men under age thirty-five has sunk--dropping by more than 20
percent since as recently as 1979. Twenty years ago a typical thirty-year-old male made six
percent more than a typical sixty-year-old male; today he makes 14 percent less. The same
widening age gap can be observed in poverty rates, public benefits, home ownership, union
membership, health insurance, and pension participation. Along the way, this is becoming a
generation of betrayed expectations.
Polls show that most teenagers (of both sexes) expect to be earning $ 30,000 or more by age
thirty, but in 1990 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that among Americans aged twenty-five to
twenty-nine there were eight with total annual incomes of under $30,000 for every one making
more than $30,000. Welcome, Thirteeners, to contemporary American life: While older age
brackets are getting richer, yours is getting poorer. Where earlier twentieth-century generations
could comfortably look forward to outpacing Mom and Dad, you probably won't even be able to
keep up. If, when you leave home, you have a high school degree or better, there's a 40 percent
chance you'll "boomerang" back to live with your parents at least once. (Today more young
adults are living with their parents than at any other time since the Great Depression.) When you
marry, you and your spouse will both work--not for Boomerish self-fulfillment but because you
need to just to make ends meet. If you want children, you'll have to defy statistics showing that
since 1973 the median real income has fallen by 30 percent for families with children which are
headed by persons under thirty. And you'd better not slip up. Over the past twenty years the
poverty rate among under-thirty families has more than doubled. Your generation, in fact, has a
weaker middle class than any other generation born in this century--which means that the
distance is widening between those of you who are beating the average and those who are
sinking beneath it.
Everywhere they look, Thirteeners see the workplace system rigged against them. As they view
it, the families, schools, and training programs that could have prepared them for worthwhile
careers have been allowed to rot, but the institutions that safeguard the occupational livelihood of
mature workers have been maintained with full vigor. Trade quotas protect decaying industries.
Immigration quotas protect dinosaur unions. Two-tier wage scales discriminate against young
workers. Federal labor regulations protect outmoded skills. State credential laws protect
overpriced professions. Huge FICA taxes take away Thirteener money that, polls show, most
Thirteeners expect never to see again. And every year another incomprehensible twelve-digit
number gets added to the national debt, which Thirteeners know will someday get dumped on
them. Whatever may happen to the meek, they know it's not their generation that's about to
inherit the earth. Like warriors on the eve of battle, Thirteeners face their future with a mixture
of bravado and fatalism.
Squared off competitively against one another, this melange of scared city kids, suburban
slackers, hungry immigrants, desperate grads, and shameless hustlers is collectively coming to
realize that America rewards only a select set of winners with its Dream--and that America cares
little about its anonymous losers. Sizing up the odds, each Thirteener finds himself or herself
essentially alone, to an extent that most elders would have difficulty comprehending. Between
his own relative poverty and the affluence he desires, the Thirteener sees no intermediary
signposts, no sure, step-by-step path along which society will help him, urge him, congratulate
him. Instead, all he sees is an enormous obstacle, with him on one side and everything he wants
on the other. And what's that obstacle? Those damn Boomers.
The New Generation Gap
A quarter centry ago kids called older people names. These days, the reverse is true. For the past
decade Thirteeners have been bombarded with study after story after column about how dumb,
greedy, and just plain bad they supposedly are. They can't find Chicago on a map. They don't
know when the Civil War was fought. They watch too much TV, spend too much time shopping,
seldom vote (and vote for shallow reasons when they do), cheat on tests, don't read newspapers,
and care way too much about cars, clothes, shoes, and money. Twenty years ago Boomers
cautioned one another not to trust anyone over thirty; now the quip is "Don't ask anyone under
thirty." "How can kids today be so dumb?" Tony Kornheiser, of The Washington Post, recently
wondered. "They can't even make change unless the cash register tells them exactly how much to
remit. Have you seen their faces when your cheeseburger and fries comes to $1.73, and you give
them $2.03? They freeze, thunderstruck. They have absolutely no comprehension of what to do
next."
Amidst this barrage, Thirteeners have become (in elders' eyes) a symbol of an America in
decline. Back in the 1970s social scientists looked at the American experience over the preceding
half century and observed that each new generation, compared with the last, traveled another step
upward on the Maslovian scale of human purpose, away from concrete needs and toward higher,
more spiritual aspirations. Those due to arrive after the Boomers, they expected, would be even
more cerebral, more learned, more idealistic, than any who came before. No chance--especially
once Boomers started to sit in judgment and churn out condemnatory reports on the fitness of
their generational successor. To fathom this Boom-defined Thirteener, this creature of pleasure
and pain--this "Last Man" of history, driven only by appetites and no longer by ideas or beliefs-you can wade through Francis Fukuyama's commentary on Nietzche. Or you can just imagine a
TV-glued Thirteener audience nodding in response to Jay Leno's line about why teenagers eat
Doritos: "Hey, kids! We're not talkin' brain cells here. We're talkin' taste buds."
Over the past decade Boomers have begun acting on the assumption that Thirteeners are "lost"-reachable by pleasure-pain conditioning perhaps, but closed to reason or sentiment. In the
classroom Boomers instruct the young in "emotional literacy"; in the military they delouse the
young with "core values" training; on campus they drill the young in the vocabulary of "political
correctness." The object is not to get them to understand--that would be asking too much---but to
get them to behave. Back in the era of Boomers' youth, when young people did things that
displeased older people--when they drank beer, drove fast, didn't study, had sex, took drugs--the
nation had an intergenerational dialogue, which, if nasty, at least led to a fairly articulate
discourse about values and social philosophy. Today the tone has shifted to monosyllables ("Just
say no"). The lexicon has been stripped of sentiment ("workfare" and "wedfare" in place of
"welfare"). And the method has shifted to brute survival tools: prophylaxis or punishment.
This generation--more accurately, this generation's reputation--has become a Boomer metaphor
for America's loss of purpose, disappointment with institutions, despair over the culture, and fear
for the future. Many Boomers are by now of the settled opinion that Thirteeners are--front to
back--a disappointing bunch. This attitude is rooted partly in observation, partly in blurry
nostalgia, partly in self-serving sermonizing, but the very fact that it is becoming a consensus is a
major problem for today's young people. No one can blame them if they feel like a demographic
black hole whose only elder-anointed mission is somehow to pass through the next three quarters
of a century without causing too much damage to the nation during their time.
To date Thirteeners have seldom either rebutted their elders' accusations or pressed their own
countercharges. Polls show them mostly agreeing that, yes, Boomer kids probably were a better
lot, listened to better music, pursued better causes, and generally had better times on campus. So,
they figure, why fight a rap they can't beat? And besides, why waste time and energy arguing?
Their usual strategy, in recent years at least, has been to keep their thoughts to themselves. On
campus Thirteeners chat pleasantly in P.C. lingo with their "multiculti" prof or dean and then
think nothing of spoofing the faculty behind their backs (they can't be totally serious, right?) or
playfully relaxing with head-phones to the racist lyrics of Ice Cube or Guns N' Roses. But among
friends they talk frankly about how to maneuver in a world full of self-righteous ideologues.
Every phase and arena of life has been fine, even terrific, when Boomers entered it--and a
wasteland when they left. A child's world was endlessly sunny in the 1950s, scarred by family
chaos in the 1970s. Most movies and TV shows were fine for adolescents in the 1960s, unfit in
the 1980s. Young-adult sex meant free love in the 1970s, AIDS in the 1990s.
Boomers might prefer to think of their generation as the leaders of social progress, but the facts
show otherwise. Yes, the Boom is a generation of trends, but all those trends are negative. The
eldest Boomers (those born in the middle 1940s) have had relatively low rates of social
pathology and high rates of academic achievement. The youngest Boomers (born in the late
1950s) have had precisely the opposite: high pathology, low achievement. Again and again
America has gotten fed up with Boom-inspired transgressions. But after taking aim at the giant
collective Boomer ego and winding up with a club to bash Boomers for all the damage they did,
America has swung late, missed, and (pow!) hit the next bunch of saps to come walking by.
Constantly stepping into post-Boom desertscapes and suffering because of it, Thirteeners see
Boomers as a generation that was given everything--from a Happy Days present to a
Tomorrowland future--and then threw it all away. Many a Thirteener would be delighted never
to read another commemorative article about Woodstock, Kent State, or the Free Speech
Movement. Or to suffer through what Coupland calls "legislated nostalgia"--the celebration of
supposedly great events in the life cycle of people one doesn't especially like.
Thirteeners fume when they hear Boomers taking credit for things they didn't do (starting the
civil-rights movement, inventing rock-and-roll, stopping the Vietnam War) and for supposedly
having been the most creative, idealistic, morally conscious youth in the history of America, if
not the world. Even among Thirteeners who admire what young people did back in the sixties,
workaholic, values-fixated Boomers are an object lesson in what not to become in their thirties
and forties. Put yourself in Thirteener shoes. Watching those crusaders gray in place just ahead
of you--ensconced in college faculties, public-radio stations, policy foundations, and trendy rural
retreats--you notice how Boomers keep redefining every test of idealism in ways guaranteed to
make you fail. You're expected to muster passions against political authority you've never felt, to
search for truth in places you've never found useful, to solve world problems through gestures
you find absurd. As you gaze at the seamy underside of grand Boomer causes gone bust, you
turn cynical. Maybe you stop caring. And the slightest lack of interest on your part is interpreted
as proof of your moral blight. No matter that it was the crusaders' own self-indulgence that let
the system fail apart. The "decade of greed" is your fault. "Compassion fatigue" is your fault.
The "age of apathy" has your monosyllabic graffiti splattered all ove r it. What
Thirteeners want from Boomers is an apology mixed in with a little generational humility.
Something like: "Hey, guys, we're sorry we ruined everything for you. Maybe we're not such a
super-duper generation, and maybe we can learn something from you." Good luck. A more
modest Thirteener hope is that Boomers will lighten up, look at their positive side. and find a
little virtue in the "Just do it" motto written on their sneaker pumps. Like two neighbors
separated by a spite fence, Boomers and Thirteeners have grown accustomed to an uneasy
adjacence.
Another Tale of Two Generations
Some time ago the fortyish writer Cornelia A. P. Comer published a "Letter to the Rising
Generation" in this magazine, accusing people in their twenties of "mental rickets and curvature
of the soul." of a "culte du moi," of growing up "painfully commercialized even in their school
days." Blaming this on "a good many haphazard educational experiments" that had "run amuck"
and ignored "the education of the soul," Comer asked, "What excuse have you, anyhow, for
turning out flimsy, shallow, amusement-seeking creatures?" She went on. tossing insults like
mortar shells: The rising generation cannot spell . . . ; its English is slipshod and commonplace . .
. Veteran teachers are saying that never in their experience were young people so thirstily avid of
pleasure as now . . . so selfish, and so hard! . . . Of your chosen pleasures, some are obviously
corroding to the taste; to be frank, they are vulgarizing . . . the bulk of the programme is almost
inevitably drivel, common, stupid, or inane.
Responding to Comer, also in this magazine, the twenty-five-year-old Randolph Bourne
defended his generation as a logical reaction to the "helplessness" of parents and other adults.
"The modern child from the age of ten is almost his own 'boss,"' he observed, adding that "the
complexity of the world we face only makes more necessary our bracing up for the fray." His
defense went on: We of the rising generation have to work this problem out all alone . . . I doubt
if any generation was ever thrown quite so completely on its own resources as ours is . . . The
rising generation has a very real feeling of coming straight up against a wail of diminishing
opportunity. I do not see how it can be denied that practical opportunity is less for this generation
than it has been for those preceding it.
Bourne did not waste the chance to express a growing twenty something bitterness at the prim
hypocrisy of people in their forties. We have retained from childhood the propensity to see
through things, and to tell the truth with startling frankness . . . It is true that we do not fuss and
fume about our souls, or tend our characters like a hot-house plant. . . . We cannot be blamed for
acquiring a suspicion of ideals . . . We are more than half confident that the elder generation does
not itself really believe all the conventional ideals which it seeks to force upon us . . . You have
been trying so long to reform the world by making men "good," and with such little success, that
we may be pardoned if we turn our attention to the machinery of society, and give up for a time
the attempt to make the operators of that machinery strictly moral. We are disgusted with
sentimentality.
It sounds like a typical Boomer-versus-Thirteener spat of the 1990s--like some argument you
might imagine reading between William Bennett and Brett Easton Ellis. But the Comer-Bourne
letters were published eight decades ago, in 1911. Comer's "Missionary Generation," born from
1860 to 1882, had a life cycle that foreshadowed the Boomer experience. Comer's peers were
raised in the aftermath of national cataclysm (the Civil War), indulged as children, spectacular as
students, furious with soul-dead fathers, absorbed with the "inner life," unyielding as reformers,
and slow to form families--but, once they did, they were determined to protect their tots from the
wildness of kids then in their teens and twenties. Likewise, Bourne's "Lost Generation," born
from 1883 to 1900, began life in a most Thirteener like way: born in a time of social and spiritual
turmoil, neglected as children, disappointing as students, pushed very young into a cash economy
of throwaway urchins, and constantly bossed around and criticized as a "bad kid" generation.
Whatever age bracket the young Lost entered, they felt it had been somehow ruined by those
who preceded them. In 1911 the generational clash between Missionary and Lost was just getting
started--that is, it was about where we see the relationship between Boomers and Thirteeners
today. But within a decade the clash grew far more strident, became a major defining element of
the national mood (putting much of the "roar" into the 1920s), and triggered wide-ranging
moralistic policy responses, from Prohibition to a sudden crackdown on immigration. No one
can say for sure where the Boomer-Thirteener generation gap is heading. But by looking closely
at the experience of these antecedent generations, we have at least some basis for predicting what
could happen in the decades ahead.
The Missionary Generation
Let's start with the missionaries -- a generation that today's GI seniors remember as the aging
"wise men" who presided over the Second World War, as elders who possessed a social respect
and cultural influence vastly exceeding what GIs themselves have at the same age. Yet the
generation of Franklin Roosevelt, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Henry Stimson, Harold
Ickes, and Bernard Baruch was far more recognizable as Boomer like when young. They had
enormous egos and an undying fixation on selfdiscovery, values, and moral confrontation. This
was also the generation of Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan, of Margaret Sanger and
Emma Goldman, of W.E.B. DuBois and Upton Sinclair, of angry muckrakers and violent
Wobblies. Missionaries grew up in a world of orderly families and accelerating prosperity, and
among adults who were more enthusiastic about science and industry than about faith. Older
generations felt themselves to be living in a rapidly modernizing era whose main shortcomings
were ethical and could someday be remedied by the young.
From the first modern image of a gift-toting Santa Claus to the first amusement parks, from
lavishly funded public schools to new women's colleges, the world was, for Missionaries, a
hothouse of adult attention. W.E.B. DuBois remembered his boyhood home town as a "child's
paradise," Jane Addams how her girlfriends had been "sickened with advantages." Likening this
Little Lord Fauntleroy style of child nurture to the Dr. Spock 1950s, the family historian Mary
Cable has described this "long children's picnic" as "a controlled but pleasantly free atmosphere."
Thunder struck when these kids came of age. Armed with self-discovered principles, they
rebelled against the very Santa Claus complacency and Horatio Alger materialism in which they
had been raised. In the workplace they triggered anarchist violence and labor radicalism. In the
countryside they enlisted in populist crusades. In the cities they indulged in food-faddism and
raged against elider-built political machines, horrified by what George Cabot Lodge found to be
"a world of machine-guns and machine-everything-else." On college campuses tens of thousands
of affluent students joined Jane Addams's settlement-house crusade. "As for questions," Lincoln
Steffens recalled, "the professors asked them, not the students; and the students, not the teachers,
answered them." Overseas they spread the Gospel worldwide under the banner of the motto "The
Evangelization of the World in This Generation." They saw themselves as having reached an
apex of human consciousness, a zenith of civilization.
Maybe they were right--but their arrogance did not go unnoticed by people of other ages. During
Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, as they entered what might be called their yuppie phase,
Missionaries shrugged off a weakening economy and tried to get on with their personal lives and
careers. Pioneering the invention of autos and airplanes, they joined technology to their
individual inner aspirations. By that decade's end the bombs and riots they had triggered in their
twenties had become something of an embarrassment to forty-year-olds showing an increasingly
prudish bent. Having perfected their inner lives, Missionaries zealously began taking on the outer
world. During and after the First World War they rose to positions of power over the very
institutions they had attacked in their youth. They pushed a vacillating elder President into a
"war to end all wars," and then used their growing political clout to turn the brief emergency to
moral purposes.
The constitutional agendas of the drys and the feminists (both of which quickly triumphed) were
just part of a generational crusade against a flood tide of decadence and injustice, which the
Missionaries saw pouring into the cities, splintering society, and threatening the nation's small
children. While Senator Andrew Volstead led the legislative crackdown on alcohol, Senator
Francis Harrison led the crackdown on drugs, and a Missionary-led Congress put a virtual halt to
immigration. Federal movie censor William Harrison Hayes pushed a Code of Decency against
torrid love scenes on camera; Ku Klux Klan leaders tried to "Americanize" the heartland; Henry
Ford encouraged workers toward "thrift, honesty, sobriety, better housing, and better living
generally"; and the nation's first vice squads started hunting down younger bootleggers.
In Confessions of a Reformer, Frederic Howe explained that early assumptions as to virtue and
vice, goodness and evil remained in my mind long after I had tried to discard them. This is, I
think, the most characteristic influence of my generation. It explains the nature of our reforms,
the regulatory legislation in morals and economics, our belief in men rather than institutions and
our messages to other people. Missionaries and battleships, anti-saloon leagues and Ku Klux
Klans . . . are all a part of that evangelistic psychology . . . that seeks a moralistic explanation of
social problems and a religious solution to most of them. Only later on, entering old age, did
Missionaries mature into the craggy personas best known to history--those whom H.L. Mencken
called the "New Deal Isaiahs," those white-haired champions of social regimentation amid
economic collapse and a global war against fascism. But that was just the last act in a series of
crusades that commenced as soon as Missionaries reached midlife and were able to join their
preachiness to political clout. And what was the first and most obvious target for their crusades?
None other than the young Lost Generation at which Cornelia Comer had aimed her letter.
The Lost Generation
Today's Thirteeners have only the dimmest personal memory of this Lost Generation, the exflappers and vetran doughboys whom they vaguely recall from childhood as the burned-out old
codgers of the 1960s and 1970s. But when they see old movies and newsreels, they know the
label fits: Kinetic Lost, as in Jimmy Cagney and Charlie Chaplin. Evil Lost, as in Boris Karloff
and Edward G. Robinson. Adventuresome Lost, as in Humphrey Bogart and Douglas Fairbanks.
Mischievous Lost, as in Mac West and the Marx Brothers. Tough Lost, as in "Give 'Em Hell"
Harry Truman and "Blood and Guts" George Patton.
However you slice it, this was a generation short on preachers--but long on battle-scarred
survivors. The last time the word "lost" was attached to American youth was in the aftermath of
the First World War; it certainly never was applied to Boomers--who, if anything, grew up a
little too "found" for most people's taste. But today the word is staging a comeback in
descriptions of today's youth. Does the parallel fit? For a start, take a look at the social mood in
which the Lost Generation grew up. Can we find any similarities between 1890-1910 and, say,
1965-1985?
Turn-of-the-century America's mood was euphoric for the coming-of-age Missionary prophets
but terrifying and disorienting to children. It was an era of widespread substance abuse, when
alcohol consumption rose rapidly and newly popular drugs like cannabis (sometimes sold in
candy and drinks), heroin (praised by many doctors), and cocaine (back when Coke contained
the real thing) went entirely unregulated. It was an era of rising immigration, a trend that reached
its peak during precisely the decades (1900-1919) when the young Lost were entering the labor
market. And it was an era of prosperity mixed with a crisis of confidence--when America
suddenly became aware of long-standing institutional failures, when "good government" became
synonymous with committees and process, when urban wickedness was blamed for destroying
the family, and when Deweyesque educational reforms were in vogue. All this might sound
familiar. And what about the kids themselves? Were they, perhaps, just a wee bit "bad"?
Like Thirreeners, Lost kids grew up with a nasty reputation for crime and violence (popular
magazines featured stories like "Bad Boy of the Street" and "Making Good Citizens Out of Bad
Boys"). From the decade just before to the decade just after 1900, the number of magazine
articles on "juvenile delinquency" skyrocketed. Were they considered a little dumb? Like
Thirteeners, the Lost showed little or no improvement in academic prowess from first birth
cohort to last. When young Lost men took the first IQ tests, during the First World War, the
results shocked the nation by showing that half the draftees had a "mental age" under twelve.
During the 1920s the so-called "threat of the feeble-minded" turned many older voters against
foreign immigrants (then a code phrase for stammering young workers) and prompted a
Missionary psychologist, Henry Goddard, to apply "moron," "idiot," and "imbecile" as technical
terms in identifying gradations of youthful stupidity. When the Lost came to fill America's elder
age brackets, in the mid-1960s, the gap in educational achievement between Americans over and
under age sixty-five was the largest ever measured. Did they show a bent for self-destruction?
Like Thirteeners, the Lost had unusually high suicide rates during their youth, higher than for
any other child generation ever measured--until Thirteeners themselves came along. One cause
of their low collective self-esteem was an inability to excuse their own failures in the marketplace (something that came easily to the generation born just before them). They were, according
to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "a new generation dedicated more than the last to the fear of poverty and
the worship of success." Did they have a passion for making and spending money? Like
Thirteeners, these kids grew up glorifying self-sufficiency. The word "sweatshop" was coined for
them, and the motto "It's up to you" was coined by them. They entered the cash labor market as
children at a higher rate than any American generation before or since. Unsupervised by parents
or government, they liked to work for themselves (as newsies, bootblacks, scavengers,
messengers, cashboys, piece-rate homeworkers). With work came money: the Lost built
America's first big children's cash economy around candy stores and nickelodeons. Politically
retrograde? Other people called them that. Coming of age, new-breed Lost women disappointed
middle-aged suffragettes (who were furious at reports that young women voted for Warren
Harding because he was handsome), and their men turned a deaf ear to such older campustouring radicals as Jack London and Upton Sinclair. Fitzgerald afterward observed that it was
"characteristic of the Jazz Age that it had no interest at all in politics." Starting in the 1920s, the
Lost blossomed early into this century's most Republican-leaning generation. Like Thirteeners,
the Lost learned early that you have to be tough to survive, to flaunt the physical, to avoid
showing fear. Like Thirteeners, they had to grow up fast. "At seventeen we were disillusioned
and weary," Malcolm Cowley recalled. Like Thirteeners, they came of age with a reputation for
shamelessness ("This Flapper of 1915," the older H.L. Mencken commented, "has forgotten how
to simper; she seldom blushes; and it is impossible to shock her"). Like Thirteeners, they were
nomadic as young men and women, drawn to cities, to markets, to risk, to the dizzying glamour
of new technologies. Like Thirteeners, they expected and received little assistance from
government. And like Thirteeners, they constantly heard older people tell them that their chapter
of history was likely to close the book on human progress. The "Lost Generation" tag (invented
by Gertrude Stein and used by Ernest Hemingway) became popular during the age wars that
escalated after the First World War and during Prohibition.
The newfound Missionary emphasis on values and decency found its natural target in the "bad"
Lost youths--their lust, drunkenness, violence, and "Black Sox" corruptibility. General "Black
Jack" Pershing took brutal action against doughboy deserters. Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis
sentenced hundreds of younger (and no longer inspirational) Wobblies to hard time, and then
turned his attention to cleaning up baseball. The taint followed young adults through what
Frederick Lewis Allen later called "the Decade of Bad Manners," an era of gangsters, flappers,
expatriates, and real-estate swindlers. The Lost fought back with just the sort of sarcasm,
ridicule, and cynicism that was bound to rile their eiders.
Through the 1920s embittered thirty-year-olds fought ideology with desperate hedonism,
babbittry with endless binges, moral crusades with bathtub gin and opulent sex. "America was
going on the greatest, gaudiest spree in history," Fitzgerald bubbled--and John Dos Passos cried,
"Down with the middle-aged!" In his 1920 Atlantic Monthly article "'These Wild Young People,'
By One of Them," John Carter observed that "magazines have been crowded with pessimistic
descriptions of the younger generation"--but added, "the older generation had certainly pretty
well ruined this world before passing it on to us." Almost everything young adults went in for in
the twenties--heavy drinking, loud jazz, flashy clothes, brassy marketing, kinetic dancing,
extravagant gambling, sleek cars, tough talk--sent a defiant message to pompous "tired radicals"
(as young writers tauntingly called them) about the futility of searching for deeper meaning.
Later on, after the Lost entered midlife with a crash (the Great Depression), they changed
character completely.
In families they joined their elders in protecting children almost to the point of suffocation. In the
media they were the Irving Berlins and Frank Capras who pushed the culture back to practicality
and community. In politics they turned isolationist and conservative, becoming the Liberty
Leaguers and Martin, Barton, and Fish types whom FDR and his white-haired Cabinet blamed
for impeding many New Deal crusades. Their two Presidents (Ike and Truman) were get-it-done
old warriors, known more for personality than candlepower. At the peak of their earning years
they tolerated a crushing 91 percent marginal income-tax rate to support the Marshall Plan for
world peace and the GI Bill for a younger generation of veterans. As elders, they took pride in
having ushered in the prosperous "American High," even while younger people accused them of
being cynical, rock-ribbed reactionaries. Back in the 1950s and 1960s America's old people were
extremely poor relative to the young, yet repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to cut
their benefits.
The Consolations of History
Prior to the Missionaries and the Lost, America was home to three earlier pairs of generations
matching the Boomer and Thirteener types, dating back to the very first Old World colonists.
The experiences of these ancestral pairs give us important clues into how the attitudes and
behavior of today's Boomers and Thirteeners could change over the decades ahead. The lessons
to be learned from earlier Boomerlike generations are these: Once they fully occupied midlife,
they turned darkly spiritual, seeking the cerebral and the enduring over the faddishly popular.
Once in control of public institutions, they stressed character and serenity of soul over process
and programs. They approved of social punishments for violators of deeply held values,
preaching morality and principle (which, as they grew older, became increasingly associated
with age) over fun and materialism (which became increasingly associated with youth).
Entering old age, they used their reputation for moral leadership to bring final closure to
whatever problem America faced at the time, even at the risk of catastrophe. Whether the peers
of Abraham Lincoln or of Sam Adams or of John Winthrop, they had all come of age during eras
of spiritual awakening--nothing like the eras of history-bending cataclysm they all presided over
as elderly priest-wa rriors. History suggests that the Thirteener life-cycle experience is something
else altogether. Every time, the Thirteener like generations started out life as risk-taking
opportunists, picking their way through the social detritus left behind by their Boomerlike
predecessors. And every time, reaching midlife at a time of national crisis and personal burnout,
they underwent a profound personality transformation. Their risk-taking gave way to caution,
their wildness and alienation turned into exhaustion and conservatism, and their nomadic
individualism matured into a preference for strong community life.
The same unruly rebels and adventurers who alarmed the Colonies during the 1760s later became
the crusty old Patrick Henrys and George Washingtons who warned younger statesmen against
gambling with the future. The same gold-chasing forty-niners and Civil War brigands whom
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a generation whose "hearts were touched with fire" became the
stodgy "Old Guard" Victorians of the Gilded Era. The same gin-fizz "Flaming Youth" who
electrified America during the 1920s became the Norman Rockwells and Dwight Eisenhowers
who calmed America during the 1950s.
All these generations repeatedly found themselves in situations that are becoming familiar to
Thirteeners. When something went right, they always got less than their share of the credit; when
something went wrong, they always got more than their share of the blame. In contrast, the
Boomerlike generations always found a way to claim more than their share of the credit and
accept less than their share of blame. Small wonder, then, that the Boom types kept stepping in
and out of generational arguments. If history tells us that the Boom-Thirteenth quarrel will
worsen over the coming decade, it also suggests when and how this new generation gap could
resolve itself. The experience of their like-minded ancestors suggests that once Boomers start
entering old age, they will ease their attacks on Thirteeners. Once they see their values focus
taking firm root in American institutions-and once their hopes are fixed on a new and more
optimistic (post-Thirteenth) generation--Boomers will lose interest in the quarrel.
As they enter midlife, Thirteeners will likewise tire of goading Boomers. As they change their
life tack from risk to caution, they will quit trying to argue about Boomer goals and will focus
their attention on how to achieve their own goals practically, with no more hurt than is absolutely
necessary. The key to a favorable resolution of the Boom-Thirteenth clash may lie in one of its
inherent causes. To find this cause, visit America's hospital nurseries or day-care centers or
primary-school classrooms, grades K through 5. It's the fledgling "Millennial Generation" of
Jessica McClure and Baby M, of Jebbie Bush and AI Gore III, whose birth years will ultimately
reach from 1982 or so to sometime around 2000. Recall that one big reason Boomers are so
intent on policing Thirteener behavior is to clear and clean the path for these Babies on Board to
grow up as the smartest, best-behaved, most civic-minded kids in the history of humankind--or,
at a minimum, a whole lot better than Thirteeners. And while Thirteeners would hardly put it the
same way, they, too, are eager to reseed the desert that was their youth and help the nation treat
the next round of kids to a happier start in life.
Has this happened before? Yes--most recently when today's GI seniors were children. Midlife
Missionaries fussed mightily over these kids, praying that they would turn out as good as the
Lost had been bad. And by all accounts that's just what the GIs became: from the sunny
optimism of Pollyanna to the team spirit of the Rooney-Garland teen films, from the good deeds
performed by the uniformed CCC to the globe-conquering accomplishments of soldiers whom
the Missionary General George Marshall lauded as "the best damned kids in the world." GIs
responded to the sacrifices of their parents with respectful deference. America still does not treat
children very well. Older generations still burden them with mounting debt and decaying public
works, and tolerate an economic order that condemns many more children than older people to
poverty and unmet health-care needs.
But look around. From bipartisan proposals to increase Headstart and Medicaid funding for
toddlers to surging popular interest in elementary schools, from the crack-down on deadbeat dads
to the call for infant safety seats on airplanes, a national consensus is emerging that the
childhood world must and will be repaired. It won't happen in time to save today's inner-city
teens and $7-an-hour twentysomethings, but maybe it will in time to save the wanted, Scoutlike
kids coming up just behind Bart Simpson. If, slowly but surely, Millennials receive the kind of
family protection and public generosity that GIs enjoyed as children, then they could come of
age early in the next century as a group much like the GIs of the 1920s and 1930s--as a stellar (if
bland) generation of rationalists, team players, and can-do civic builders.
Two decades from now Boomers entering old age may well see in their grown Millennial
children an effective instrument for saving the world, while Thirteeners entering midlife will
shower kindnesses on a younger generation that is getting a better deal out of life (though maybe
a bit less fun) than they ever got at a like age. Study after story after column will laud these "best
damn kids in the world" as heralding a resurgent American greatness. And, for a while at least,
no one will talk about a genera tion gap. Constantly stepping into post-Broom desert-scapes and
suffering because of it, Thirteeners see Boomers as a generation that was given everything--from a Happy Days present to a Tommorrowland future---and then threw it way.
PERSONAL VISION
and the
COMMITMENT LEVEL MODEL
While vision is the latest management buzz word and a term used frequently in New Age
material, it is also a biblical concept. Isaiah in His encounter with God saw a vision of the Holy
God, a vision of his own sinfulness and then received a vision for his nation. This led him to
reorientate his life and priorities towards fulfilling what he saw as his purpose in life.
“The number one crisis facing the church today is a crisis of vision. When I use the term
vision...I simply mean the image of the preferred future we want for ourselves, those we care
about, and the larger world” (Tom Sine, Wild Hope, Page 208). No people, society or
organisation can exist without some compelling vision of the future that calls them forward into
tomorrow. The Bible insists that “without a vision the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). A well
crafted and correctly articulated vision is one of the most inspiring motivational tools known to
man. Youth pastors must spend time each year rethinking their vision.
Duffy Robbins says, “Vision is the absolute essential for someone who wants to stay fresh and
enthusiastic about youth ministry over the long haul. It is the chief prevention for burn-out. I
suspect that, most of the time, what we hear prescribed as ‘burn-out’ - when people run out of
steam - is more likely ‘blur-out’ - when people are without a vision in ministry and simply don’t
have anything to get steamed up about!” (Youth Ministry That Works, Page 27).
1. DEFINING VISION
Vision has been defined as “a positive picture of a preferable future”; “a realistic, credible,
attractive future for an organisation”; “the result of dreams in action” and “the launching pad for
the future.” George Barna defines visions as “a clear mental picture of a preferable future
imparted by God to His chosen servants based upon an accurate understanding of God, self and
circumstances” (The Power of Vision, Page 28). Each aspect of this definition deserves further
attention:A. Mental Picture
Vision is a mental picture of the way things could or should be in the future. It involves a visual
reality, a picture of conditions that do currently exist, that is internalised and personal. It is not
somebody else’s view of the future, but one that is unique to the individual.
B. Preferable Future
Vision involves change - stretching reality to extend beyond what presently exists. To create a
better situation in which to minister leaders cannot simply hope that the future will be better, but
must take control over their environment and with God’s empowerment and direction create a
better future. Vision focuses on thinking ahead rather than on dwelling upon, or seeking to
replicate, the past. So the way to success in ministry is to focus on God and to be fully
committed to His vision for ministry.
C. God Imparted
Vision for ministry is a reflection of what God wants to accomplish through people in building
His kingdom. While God allows leaders latitude and creativity to articulate, disseminate and
implement the vision, they receive their vision for ministry from God.
D. Chosen Servants
Leadership is crucial within the church, and God has gifted certain individuals to serve as
leaders. It is to these people that He entrusts the precious gift of vision. Only a leader can gather
the resources necessary to bring life to the vision. God chooses these leaders carefully and
provides each of them with a vision tailored to their circumstances.
In the definition, vision for ministry depends on the following sources of insight:
A. Understanding God
Firstly, the more accurately leaders know and understand God’s character and purposes, the
more accurately they will know and understand His will for their lives.
B. Understanding Self
Secondly, leaders must know their abilities, gifts, limitations and desires to accurately discover
God’s perspective on their ministry. Vision is not an exercise in promoting self, personal dreams
or needs, but an integration of personal abilities and limitations with God’s plan to accomplish
what needs to be done.
C. Understanding Circumstances
Thirdly, God’s vision for ministry is sensitive to the environment in which ministry takes place.
Leaders need a firm grasp of existing and potential needs, conditions, competition, opportunities
and barriers to discern God’s will for ministry.
2. UNDERSTANDING VISION
A. Synonyms of Vision
One writer suggests there is a difference between mission and vision: A mission statement is a
broad, general statement that includes a definition of life objectives, whereas a vision statement
is a specific, detailed, customized, distinctive and unique statement of specific direction and
activities to pursue. However, it is best to consider the words: mission, purpose and vision as
synonyms, and then talk about the creation of specific goals that will help to accomplish the
mission, purpose or vision.
B. Examples of Vision
The Bible contains many examples of people who had a clearly defined mission or vision:
(1) Adam and Eve
They were to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over the earth.
(2) Moses
He was to get the Hebrews out of Egypt, teach them the law of God and guide them to Canaan.
(3) Ezra
His mission was to study, obey and teach: “for Ezra had devoted himself to the study and
observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel” (Ezra 7:10).
(4) John the Baptist
John was a voice calling in the desert: “Make straight the way for the Lord” (John 1:23).
(5) Jesus
He said of himself that: “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10).
(6) Disciples
“He sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick” (Luke 9:2).
(7) Paul
“We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present
everyone perfect in Christ” (Colossians 1:28). Paul was in the people-development business!
(8) Christians
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
C. Benefits of Vision
The benefits of discovering a personal vision are numerous: it allows leaders to be guided by
principles and beliefs; it allows them to participate in something greater than themselves; it gives
them hope for the future; it attracts and inspires others; and it makes things happen.
3. DEVELOPING VISION
A. Develop a Mission Statement
Stephen Covey’s second habit of highly effective people is to ‘begin with the end in mind’. He
says that the most effective way to do this is to develop a personal mission statement. It focuses
on what we want to be (character) and do (contributions) (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective
People, Page 106). The following process for developing a mission statement has been
developed from different sources:
(1) Pray
Developing a mission statement is a supernatural process, so leaders should ask God to reveal to
them His purpose for their life and ministry. This should be done during a day or weekend
retreat.
(2) Study the Scriptures
Leaders should search the Scriptures for examples of people who had a sense of mission.
(3) Reflect on the Past with an Eye on the Future
Leaders should reflect on past priorities and discover what they want to be in the future. They
should then summarise their thoughts into short statements of purpose. Victor Frankl says that
people detect rather than invent their mission in life.
(4) Evaluate God’s Guidance Objectively
Leaders should check their understanding of God’s will for their lives with friends or mentors
who will give an objective evaluation of their thinking.
(5) Brainstorm Words and Ideas
Leaders should let thoughts flow and then check for common words or phrases. Two tools are
presented to guide with this phase of creating a mission statement:
(a) An exercise by Stephen Covey to discover life purpose (The Seven Habits, Page 96):
Picture yourself going to the funeral of a loved one. As you walk inside the building you notice
the flowers, the soft organ music. You see the faces of friends and family you pass along the
way. You feel the shared sorrow of losing, the joy of having known, that radiates from the hearts
of the people there. As you walk down to the front of the room and look inside the casket, you
suddenly come face to face with yourself. This is your funeral, three years from today. All these
people have come to honour you, to express feelings of love and appreciation for your life.
As you take a seat and wait for the service to begin, you look at the program in your hand. There
are four speakers. The first is from your family. The second is one of your friends. The third is
from your work. And the fourth is from your church.
Now think deeply. What would you like each of these speakers to say about you and your life?
What kind of husband, wife, father, or mother would you like their words to reflect? What kind
of son or daughter or cousin? What kind of friend? What kind of working associate? What
character would you like them to have seen in you? What contributions or achievements would
you want them to remember? Look carefully at the people around you. What difference would
you like to have made in their lives? Record your impressions.
(b) A set of questions by George Barna to get to know self (The Power of Vision, Page 81):
Questions about Emotions: What turns you on in life? What turns you off emotionally? During
what situations do you feel most alive or exuberant? Which Bible figures capture your
imagination? Why? What makes life worth living? Who are the three most important people in
your life? Who are the three people you most respect? Why?
Questions about Abilities: What are your spiritual gifts? What goals have you set and reached
during the past five years? What goals have you set and failed to achieve during that period?
What hindered you? What goals are you afraid to set because you feel incapable of reaching
them? In what ways did God make you different from others? What unique talents do you
possess?
Questions about Intellect and Perspectives: How would you describe a ‘successful’ youth
group? What would it take for your group to a success? How would you describe a ‘successful’
youth pastor? What would it take for you to be a success? How would you define a godly
Christian leader? How well do you fit that description? What differentiates a Christian leader
from a non-Christian leader?
Questions about Heart: What makes you cry? Why? If you could accomplish only one task in
life, what would it be? If your friends remembered only one thing about you after you died, what
would you want it to be? Which passages of the Bible speak most loudly and consistently to
you? How deep is your relationship with God right now? What has the growth curve of your
relationship with Him being over the past year? What activities do you get totally absorbed in?
Which are you unlikely to grow out of as you mature? What are the five values of human
character to which you feel you must at all times, at all cost, be true? What values are you
committed to perfect in your life?
Questions about Mentors and Models: Who are five spiritual leaders you have known
personally whom you would most like to imitate? Why? Who have been the five most influential
spiritual leaders in your life other than Jesus? Why? Other than spiritual mentors, who has
influenced your life the most? How did they influence you? How do you differ from other youth
pastors that you know? What are the characteristics of an ideal youth pastor? Which do or don’t
you possess?
Questions about Ministry: Are you currently ministering on the basis of vision? If so, whose
vision is it? How did you acquire it? What is your toughest duty or responsibility as youth
pastor? Which ministry activities make you depressed, ambivalent or turn you off? What is your
vision for your personal ministry, apart from what you do as a youth pastor? Which groups of
people do you feel naturally drawn to in ministry? What ministry experiences have provided you
with the greatest fulfilment or disappointments? What is the role of your family in light of your
ministry obligations?
(6) Begin Writing
Complete the following sentence: “My mission is to ...”, or “I exist to ...”. The main purpose in
putting the mission down on paper is to focus and finish thinking. The statement should be
written in plain language, that is vivid, active, compelling and appealing. It may take weeks or
even months before a leader feels comfortable with their mission statement, before they feel that
it is a compete and concise expression of their deepest values and purposes. Even then they will
need to review it regularly and make minor changes as they gain new insights or as
circumstances change.
The second part of the mission statement involves completing the sentence: “In order to fulfil
this mission...” or “This mission will only be achieved by...”. This part of the mission statement
mentions a few keys to the fulfilment of the mission.
Regarding the content of the mission statement, Gordon MacDonald says it might contain a
desire for a holy life that reflects the honour and character of God; a mandate to be committed to
justice and to serve one’s generation; a testimony to the character and redemptive work of Jesus
and His power to rescue people from the captivities of evil; a concern for the harmony of
creation; and something about my devotion to God (The Life God Blesses, Page 122).
(7) Test the Mission
Ask: Is it consistent with scripture? Does it glorify God? Does it fit my talents and abilities?
Does it fit the needs of those who depend on me? Do I have peace of mind about it?
(8) Believe and Live the Mission
Leaders should remind themselves that it is God’s desire for them; pray daily for God to bless
the vision and their efforts to fulfill it; use it as a decision-making filter to help them determine
which opportunities to pursue and which to reject; and use it as a moral and ethical compass to
examine the broad range of behaviours they could pursue in the course of their daily activities.
B. Identify Roles
The second step in creating a mission statement is to relate the mission to roles. The leader
should list all their life roles, ie. husband/wife, father/mother, brother/sister, neighbour, scholar,
Christian, teacher. They can put the various roles into a number of categories, such as:
individual, family member, work, church and community. After writing their mission statement
they should write: “The following roles take priority in achieving my mission...” and list the
roles they have identified.
C. Create Goals
The leader should then write two or three important results under each role. An effective goal
focuses on results rather than activities; it gives important information on how to reach a
destination and how to know when one has arrived; and it translates itself into daily activities so
leaders can be proactive (Stephen Covey’s first habit of highly effective people is “be
proactive”). Goals can also be created that relate to different dimension of life: physical,
relational, intellectual, vocational, financial, recreational and spiritual.
An Example of a Mission Statement:
My life’s mission is ... to reflect and honour the character of my Creator by developing a deep
and meaningful relationship with God, by a commitment to justice, to serving my generation and
to rescuing people from the devil’s clutches.
My mission will only be achieved by ... pursuing holiness, cultivating spiritual disciplines and
living and speaking Christianly in society.
The following roles take priority in achieving my mission ... husband, father, son, brother,
Christian, individual, neighbour, lecturer, youth leader and student.
The following goals reflect the results I will seek in each role ...
* As a husband and Father I will make home and family a priority, spend time with family,
involve family in ministry, support my wife in her roles and tasks, watch how I communicate
with her, cultivating romance in our relationship, show my children that I love them and they are
precious to me and therefore I must teach them to obey me.
* As a son and brother I will respect and appreciate my parents and keep contact with family
members.
* As a Christian I will practise spiritual disciplines, develop accountability relationships,
cultivate a disciplined devotional life and practise the presence of God.
* As an individual I will seek to gain mastery over personal weaknesses, develop transparency in
relationships, learn to rest and put work aside, avoid over-indulgence in eating, meet regularly
with mentors, keep contact with students and friends, practise discipline in spending, avoid
compulsive buying and give to those in need.
* As a neighbour I will seek to develop meaningful relationships, seek to offer support and
assistance where necessary and influence people for Christ by the way I live.
* As a lecturer I will continually seek to implement what I have learnt about education and
training, stay in touch with trends in education, develop intimacy with students, implement new
models of teaching and continually update and revise material.
* As a youth leader I will seek to build meaningful relationships with youth, implement and
oversee models of youth ministry that will reach and nurture youth in Christ and help them to
have an impact on their community through the local church.
* As a student I will seek to continually have the attitude of a learner, always be open to new
truths and methodologies, read as widely as possible, but read a bit less and think a bit more
about what I read.
Proposal of the NADYET Sub-Committee on Seeker Sensitivity
by Stefan Bruggemann, A. Allan Martin, Deirdre Martin, Randal Wisbey
North American Division Youth Evangelism Taskforce
This report comes in response to the January 1993 North American Division Youth Evangelism
Taskforce (NADYET) meeting in Denver, Colorado, in which the sub-committee on Seeker
Sensitivity was asked to formulate plans that would enable churches throughout the North
American Division to develop ministries and worship services in which youth and young adults
would be more specifically ministered to. Among areas of concern that were to be considered are
the following: needs assessment ministry, worship environment, wholistic evangelism, youthfriendly churches and Giraffe churches. The NADYET overall statement of purpose for the
taskforce seemed especially fitting to the mission of the sub-committee on seeker sensitivity:
"Our Taskforce will grapple with the "how" of the commission of Jesus to confront every person
with a clear, complete and compelling invitation to become a part of its saving ministry to the
whole world. We accept the challenge of discovering new ways to speak to new generations."
Statement of Purpose
Youth and young adult evangelism, at its core, must intentionally create a community of
believers in which the spiritual journey of the seeker is communicated, allowed for, and
legitimized; to empower this, Seeker Sensitive Churches will be developed in every union of the
North American Division.
Vision and Rationale
For creative methods of evangelism-aimed at youth and young adults-to be effective, churches
must be in place to welcome and nurture the young believers that will come as a result of the
evangelistic effort. We need a fundamental re-thinking of the church and of the way it formulates
its worship experiences and services.
Our subcommittee believes that we must do all that we can to support and meet Need #5 of the
President's Youth Cabinet recommendations, "Worship services need to be planned to meet the
needs of young adults. Update the music, inspirational congregational singing. . . messages of
hope and forgiveness filled with Christ's love."
We begin with an overt belief that:
1. All people matter to God; therefore, they matter to us. Non-believing, unchurched people need
to be reached with the Gospel.
2. Every believer, without exception, is called to ministry.
3. The needs of believers and non-believers differ greatly; We need to create worship
experiences that touch those specific needs.
4. Respect for the spiritual journey of the seeker must be communicated, allowed for, and
legitimized. Each seeker processes the Christian message at his or her own pace.
5. Excellence reflects the glory of God and has a positive effect on people.
6. In order to reach this current generation of youth and young adults, the central truth of
salvation through Jesus Christ, seen in the context of a thoughtful Adventist faith, must be
communicated in a contemporary manner in order to ensure that it is relevant to the life of our
target audience. Creativity is critical if the unchurched, as well as inactive SDA members, are
going to be ministered to effectively.
7. Evangelism is a process, not an event.
An intentional plan for evangelism must take a serious look at the church community. If the
church community is hostile or passive-hostile towards non-Adventists and non-Christians (who
we call "seekers") by nature, any "evangelistic effort" will be in vain. This seems to be a major
point in sparking a paradigm shift from evangelism as church event to evangelism as church
attribute. Recognizing this point gives strong impetus to the identification and development of
"seeker sensitive" congregations.
Implementation Strategy
Phase 1: Nurture and/or Develop one Seeker-Sensitive Congregation in each Union of the North
American Division.
Worship renewal and seeker sensitivity is best learned in a context of active modeling. For this
reason, plans to develop and recognize seeker-sensitive congregations throughout the NAD must
be given priority if an agenda of creative youth and young adult evangelism is to succeed. When
we think of creative seeker-sensitive ministries, we are thinking of congregations like the Florida
Hospital SDA Church and Downtown Community, its new seeker worship experience for young
adults (see Appendix A). This phase can best be accomplished by implementing the following
steps:
1. Congregational Self-Study and Diagnosis
We are committed to identifying as well as developing congregations in each NAD union. We
affirm that it will be necessary to help these congregations recognize their strengths and
weaknesses, as well as alerting them to possible links with the wider community. For this reason,
internal evaluations of the church and external surveys of the surrounding community will be
necessary.
2. Developing a Shared Vision for Mission
Once a commitment has been made to develop a seeker-sensitive worship experience, it will be
imperative for the congregation to unite around a central vision. We suggest that the document, A
Shared Vision for the Local Church, prepared by the Department of Church Ministries, NAD, be
used during this phase of the preparation. This will enable a congregation toA. Unite people around a shared vision and shared goals;
B. Create enthusiasm for achieving the mission of the congregation;
C. Enable the congregation to solve problems;
D. Build people's capacity for responsible planning;
E. Involve more people in the life of the congregation.
3. Sensitizing the Congregation
It is necessary to help each member recognize the need for sensitivity to the various differences
and needs of those who will attend their church. Small groups will be formed during this phase to
enable bonding and accountability. It is during this phase that congregational and leadership
training will take place, as well as educating the congregation to the needs of youth and young
adult seekers.
4. ReThinking Worship: Developing a Seeker Service
Respect for the spiritual journey of the seeker must be communicated, allowed for, and
legitimized. Each seeker processes the Christian message at his or her own pace. Therefore, there
is tremendous need for a service that is contemporary and creative-one which provides a relevant
connection between Christianity and the seeker's daily life.
Phase 2: Subsidize Church Leadership Training
Parallel to phase one, we believe that local churches who have a vision for developing a seeker
sensitive model need support in training their leadership. We highly recommend that funds be
made available to subsidize local church leadership participation in the Church Leadership
Conference held biannually at Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, IL.
Phase 3: Nurturing/Studying an Adventist Model and Developing a Training Center
We propose that the pilot model of Downtown Community, the seeker sensitive Adventist
service being done by the Florida Hospital Church of Seventh-day Adventists, Orlando, FL.,
come under close study and observation as it continues to grow and develop. We recommend
that funds be allocated towards this research.
In hopes of developing an Adventist training center, we recommend that funds be invested in
nurturing the Downtown Community pilot as a seeker sensitive model training site.
Budget
We recognize that for this proposal to succeed, a financial commitment must be made by the
North American Division. While the church has not been hesitant to provide funding for event
evangelism in the past, we believe that similar funds must be made available to the development
of seeker sensitive congregations if youth and young adults are to be evangelized.
Utilizing a matching fund/proposal method, the budget process would provide funding to
designated congregations for the areas of initiation support, leadership training, and Adventist
training site development.
It is our recommendation that each Union utilize a proposal/application process in which
interested congregations, with a seeker sensitive vision, can apply to become the Union's
designated pilot congregation.
We believe that monies for the following areas need to be provided:
· Funding to be designated for one congregation in each of the NAD's nine unions. These funds
would be allocated to the designated local Adventist congregation over three years to support the
initiation of a seeker sensitive model. We propose that $18,000 be given to the designated
congregation in each union, on a three year schedule of $11,000; $5,000; and $2,000 each
respective year.
· Funding needs to be made available for local church leaders to attend the Church Leadership
Conference at Willow Creek Community Church. We recommend a matching fund system
which allows the NAD/Union, local conference, and local church to subsidize seminar
expenditures. We propose that the NAD set aside $10,000 for each Union as leadership training
subsidy.
· We propose that a research grant and initiation funds for a training center be invested in the
Downtown Community pilot model. We propose that the grant approximate $8,000 and the
training center budget be $20,000. Until we have further consultation with Florida Hospital
Church of Seventh-day Adventists, these proposed figures are speculative.
· This total cost of $280,000 would result in nine new seeker sensitive congregations throughout
the NAD, monies invested in local, grass-roots leadership training thereby cultivating a vision to
reach out to youth and young adults, as well as the development of a training center for seeker
sensitivity in Orlando, Florida.
Philosophical Strategy
An Adventist congregation committed to creating a seeker sensitive model could base, but not
limit, their evangelistic strategy on the principles of:
Bridge Building
A relationship based on honesty, integrity, and authentic concern for the non-believer must be
established between the believer and the seeker before the seeker will be open and willing to
respond to the believer's modelling of the gospel. If our evangelism is perceived by nonAdventists and non-Christians to be manipulative and lacking respect for the individual's unique
journey to spiritual maturity, our seeds in many cases will not bear the fruits that they should.
Sharing Testimony Verbally
Once the bridge has been built, the seeker is now able to receive and profit from the believer's
testimony. The believers are encouraged and taught to be sensitive to recognizing when a bridge
has been effectively built and to give the seeker "time and space" to process the verbal witness.
Non-believers will rarely respond immediately with a decision to emulate the lifestyle or take on
the beliefs of the mature Christian. It is at this point that believers need a place to bring their
seeking friends where they will continue to be challenged in a relevant, creative, and
contemporary way.
Providing a Service for Seekers
If the service for seekers is to be effective, it is important that those elements that prevented them
from attending previously be absent. The whole worship experience, which begins with the
arrival of the seeker on church property must reflect a dedication to excellence whose motivation
is bringing glory and honor to God. Services are creative and unpredictable delights to the senses
while at the same time low-key and sensitive to the fact that seekers do not want to be
embarrassed, singled out, pressured, or identified. For example, seekers are encouraged not to
give an offering.
Attending the Service for Believers
At some time between the third and fourth step, conversion has taken place. Unchurched Harry
and Mary become believing Larry and Sherry. The believers who formed a relationship of
integrity with them were sensitive to their unique time frame for making a decision and were
careful not to apply pressure to gain that decision. Believing Larry and Sherry now attend the
"New Community of Believers" service in which more "meaty" teaching and worship takes
place.
Participating in a Small Group
Believers are encouraged to participate in small group ministry. Members with similar interests
are teamed together. These small groups provide accountability, instruction, encouragement, and
support for each member.
Every Member has a Ministry
Believers are trained how to identify the ministry to which God has called them and to recognize
the "gifts" and temperaments He has given them that will empower them. Individuals match their
talents, spiritual maturity level, and time schedule with potential ministries. The church does not
begin ministries for which there is no leader suited or qualified to lead capably.
Renewal the Watchword
While it might be tempting to speak of revolutionary change, it is the belief of our group that
RENEWAL must become the watchword for our efforts to develop and introduce Seeker
Sensitive Worship Experiences. With the same fervor and vision of our founding fathers and
mothers, our sub-committee looks to re-ignite the gospel fire in the hearts of today's youth and
young adults.
Generations X, Y, & Z
by A. Allan Martin
"CRUISE CATASTROPHE: 38 PASSENGERS MYSTERIOUSLY LOST IN BERMUDA
TRIANGLE!" sounds like a headline from the grocery tabloid rack. But if there was any
credibility to the story, no doubt the coast guard would be out in full force and the TV networks
would have their crews giving us daily updates. All kinds of efforts and resources would be
expended to find the lost and prevent this tragedy from ever happening again.
"CHURCH CATASTROPHE: 38% OF ADVENTIST YOUTH HAVE JUMPED SHIP!" Some
SDA youth/young adult culture experts cite as high as a 50% attrition rate among our youth in
the last three decades(1). Nicknamed Generation X by their baby booming predecessors(2), these
Xers are doing a mass exodus from church life. So now that the research is in and a simple scan
of church attendance on any Sabbath verifies these facts, what is our reaction? Unless some
action is taken, we could very well see an entire generation vanish before our eyes, like an XAdventist "Bermuda Triangle."
Over the past several years, the North American Division Youth Department (NADYD) has kept
its ear close to the ground trying to sense the pulse of Adventist youth culture, listening to youth,
young adults, and their leaders as they articulate what needs to be done to stop the "X-flow" out
of the church. Admirable steps have been taken to articulate NADYD imperatives and some
division leadership see this "X-odus" as a priority concern. January 1995, NADYD convened
with its youth/young adult ministry directors from throughout the division, confirming and
committing to "empower those in each local setting who minister directly to youth and young
adults(3)." Unprecedented efforts are being made by the NADYD to implement an evangelistic
process where Xers may discover the grace and acceptance of Jesus, but furthermore be
empowered to worship and serve Him in inclusive Christian community. So it appears the
Adventist Church, as an organization, sees the X-odus as a crisis point, and is making efforts to
address it from the top.
But there is a fear that looms over our church, especially locally on the front lines of youth and
young adult ministry: Help may arrive too late for the Baby Busters. Given the track record of
most church bureaucracies (any bureaucracy for that matter), Generations Y and Z will be
headed out the backdoor by the time "the organized church" is set to impact Xers. We dare not
wait for "someone else" to minister. In this time of spiritual crisis the call to action goes out to all
who are Christian disciples. The real question here is what am I, personally, going to do in the
effort to impact the lives of young people for Christ? Reacting to the crisis point for Xers and
becoming a proactive agent for Generations Y and Z, I am called to change the X-tide from
going out, to coming in.
With spiritual discernment and Christian compassion, I can be a catalyst for change if I begin
with ABC: (A) Activate Xer Assets, (B) Build Relational Bridges and (C) Cultivating
Communities of Character.
Activate Xer Assets
In A Generation Alone: Xers Making a Place in the World, Janet Bernardi articulates the plight
of this labeled and snubbed group of young people:
"My generation has been called various things by our elders, not many of them positive. We
have been described as lazy, useless, ill-educated and shallow. We are considered a Peter Pan
generation, unwilling to grow up, slow to start careers and launch families. We are defined in
contrast to the generation that immediately preceded us--and that likes us least--the Baby
Boomers. In their eyes they are the world's boom and we its bust. Thus we are called the "Baby
Busters." We have also been called "Generation X" because it was thought that we stand for
nothing and believe in nothing(4)."
Xers, from the onset, have found themselves in the spotlight for negative attributes which earlier
generations are quick to identify. Especially with the generational rivalry between Boomers and
Busters, the latter seems to lack the numbers to refute Boomer views of Xers as "impertinent,
manipulative, aloof, passionless, and lacking in marketable skills and insights(5)."
But underneath the mud-slung stereotypes, Xers perceive themselves as being full of limitless
possibilities, like the x variable in those algebra equations. They are not content to be observers,
but seek to be active participants. Raised on video games with joystick in hand, Xers are not
satisfied with merely watching life images go by, they are looking to be "active participators
rather than passive recipients(6)." They have an activitist-type feel, but unlike the '60s activistic
idealism of the Boomers, Xers are pragmatic activists looking to be involved in solving practical,
immediate problems. With skills in negotiation, autonomy from authority figures, and ability in
interacting with adults on an equitable basis, Xers are capable of using their social, interpersonal
know-how to get done what needs to get done(7).
Turning the X-tide back into the church requires us, on the organizational and personal level, to
activate Xers by involving their assets in church life. Xers are not content to be the church of
tomorrow. Given the environmental, societal, and moral devastation inflicted by past
generations, Xers understand that tomorrow may never come. If I make authentic efforts today to
identify and implement Xer talents, skills, and, most importantly, their passions, our church will
not only find itself retaining a generation, but moreover mending the spiritual leaks that have
crippled our ability to live and share the gospel in the contemporary youth setting. If I would take
a Christocentric view of Xers, I would find a positive and present resource underneath the smear
of stigmas.
Like Peter in Acts 2:14-21, I can and must assert God's intention to pour God's Spirit out on "on
all people." This includes calling Xers to give our church Divine counsel and acknowledge their
role to "envision the visions." But I must do more than talk about young people as empowered
servant-leaders and active participants in church life. Well acquainted with the shallow rhetoric
of the fallen leaders and flawed role-models of our world, Xers are looking for me to go beyond
words. They are challenging me to take personal action, investing myself, hand in hand with
them, to make a change; Together.
Build Relational Bridges
Recently we took a serious look at the needs of Xers in our community through surveys and
dialogue with our youth and young adults. It surprised me that the primary need they expressed
was the desire to have significant adults more relationally involved in their lives. Being the first
generation of "latch-key kids," Xers understand growing up alone(8). Given the abandonment,
abuse, and alienation they have experienced being raised by the "Me Generation," Xers have
opted for aloneness as a basic survival technique. Bernardi asserts that aloneness differs from
loneliness in that the former is much more a function of basic distrust of people and fear of being
hurt. It is not that they don't desire authentic relationships with adults they can look up to, for
Xers it's just that the risk of being hurt or disappointed is too high.
George Barna, in The Invisible Generation: "Baby Busters, notes that Boomers value a network
of relationships and find the transient, utilitarian nature of their associations as completely
acceptable." Barna goes further to say:
"Busters have outright rejected the impersonal, short-term, fluid relational character of their
parents. They have veered more toward traditional, longer-term relationships. However, given
their cynicism and pessimism, they have lowered their expectations vis-a-vis relationships: their
potential duration, the number of significant bonds, and their fervor to create a wide pool of
contacts. Boomers sought relational breadth; Busters seek relational depth...What emerges are
two generations bonded by blood, but separated by emotion and expectation [emphasis added]."
For both Boomers and Busters, the thought of authentic intergenerational relationships is risky.
Beyond the differences in expectations, these generations are in the midst of a culturally diverse
nation with shrinking resources. As the American dream continues to fade and the opportunities
become more limited, a regression towards self-segregation is emerging. There is a
contemporary rise in ageism, sexism, racism, elitism, and a host of new "-isms" that are burning
relational bridges, leaving the hopes of integration smoldering in the ruins. Xers see the flames
and know all to well that "fire burns." Barna notes, "Deep down, a majority of Busters struggle
with feelings of alienation. They feel estranged from family, from community, from God, and
often from self(9)."
The first century Christian church was very aware of alienation through "-isms," and were
inspired by Christ to transform their culture. Christians followed His lead and sought deep,
authentic relationships of integrity, irrespective of age, sex, race, class, or language. "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female..." First century Christians sought to hold
Galatians 3:26-29 as a value. I, as a 20th century Christian, must also follow Christ's lead,
building relational bridges, especially to Xers who are seeking relationships of depth.
In order to keep our youth/young adults in and welcome new Xers to the church, the relational
environment of the church must change. The Valuegenesis research clearly indicates a problem
Xers see in the church is the perceived lack of warmth, acceptance, and grace(10). At the very
least, lack of relationships is partially responsible for this perception. I must develop authentic
relationships with Xers to generate warmth, acceptance, and grace between the church and Xers.
Christ calls me, as His disciple, to relationship with Xers, bonding us together as His body.
Cultivate Communities of Character
Xers live in a world that lacks character. Xer skepticism and pessimism are fueled by the reality
they see in their communities. They have been deceived by so-called community role-models
and cringe at the superficiality that surrounds them. They feel forgotten by their parents and
older generations. They know the gluttonous lifestyles of previous generations will leave them
with very little resources, wealth, and security. The bumper sticker: "I am spending my children's
inheritance!" depicts the insult added to injury. Xers struggle to escape the pejorative labels
given by the community of elders. Xers want to believe they have purpose and meaning. The
unfortunate reality for Xers is that the communities they have experienced, including family,
church, and school, perpetuate their feelings of alienation and fail to provide a sense of Christ's
community.
Stanley Hauerwas, author of A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social
Ethic, makes powerful comment on Christ's community:
"To be a disciple is to be part of a new community, a new polity, which is formed on Jesus'
obedience to the cross. The constitutions of this new polity are the Gospels. The Gospels are not
just the depiction of a man, but they are manuals for the training necessary to be part of the new
community. To be a disciple means to share Christ's story, to participate in the reality of God's
rule...Because of a community formed by the story of Christ the world can know what it means
to be a society committed to the growth of individual gifts and differences. In a community that
has no fear of the truth, the otherness of the other can be welcomed as a gift rather than a
threat...The most striking social ethical fact about the church is that the story of Jesus provides
the basis to break down arbitrary and false boundaries between people...The universality of the
church is based on the particularity of Jesus' story and on the fact that His story trains us to see
one another as God's people. Because we have been so trained we can see and condemn the
narrow loyalties that create "the world(11).""
As part of the church, I have a responsibility to restore character in Christian community by
calling myself and my church back to the story of Christ. For too long we have been a
community of behavior instead of belief. We worship structure and standards, overlooking the
Savior. In a recent Group magazine survey, Xers noted their dislike of the church stems from
their distaste for hypocrites, limited thinking, conformity, lack of realism, and cliques(12). The
survey captured some revealing comments: "I know there is a God, but I don't feel I belong in
church. The idea is very good, but the church is too political. The actual outcome in today's
society isn't practical." "Sometimes people worship the form of a religion--this is not God!"
Hauerwas captured the imperative for a Christian community wanting to have Xers at the core of
church life:
"The social ethical task of the church, therefore, is to be the kind of community that tells rightly
the story of Jesus...We, no less than the first Christians, are the continuation of the truth made
possible by God's rule. We continue this truth when we see that the struggle of each to be faithful
to the Gospel is essential to our own lives. I understand my own story through seeing the
different ways in which others are called to be His disciples. If we so help one another, perhaps,
like the early Christians when challenged about the viability of their faith, we can say, "But see
how we love one another(13).""
Creating communities of character in the church, the home, and the school, where we tell rightly
the story of Jesus, will draw an alienated generation of Xers into the very core Christian
community. Christ, who valued people more than power, relationship more than regulations, and
sinners more than self, must be personified not only in individual piety, but also in communal
piety(14). Each of us must live with responsibility and regard for each other, only then will
community be safe enough for Xers. Only then will it make sense for them to stay and not leave.
Communities of character living out the story of Jesus, bring Xers in from the cold, letting them
know the spiritual reality that they "need not be alone."
The Hope for Generations X, Y, & Z
"CHURCH CELEBRATES: GENERATION X BACK ON BOARD!" By personal action to do
the ABC's of ministry to Xers, I could see a vanishing generation come back home. I have
opportunity to draw Xers back into the core of Christian community and empower Xers to "set
an example for believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity (1Timothy 4:12b,
NIV)." That's good news! The greater news is the potential impact that my efforts will have on
generations to come.
Neil Howe and Bill Strauss, authors of 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, have already
labeled the next generation of youth, the "Millennial Kids," since they will be graduating from
high school as we enter the 21st century(15). Howe and Strauss predict that parents of Millennial
Kids will "raise their children protectively and encourage cooperative behavior, lest America
splinter further into narcissism and special-interest chaos." They forecast that millennials will get
better grades, use positive peer pressure, be less cynical, and be praised for their positive
contributions to society.
Although it is delightful to see such an optimistic secular prediction, what Howe and Strauss fail
to see, is the hope that is intrinsic to our all-out Christian effort to reach Xers and proclaim the
Good News. ALL BELIEVERS ARE MILLENNIAL KIDS! Christ has promised to honor all
who serve Him as, "Millennial Kids of Christ's Kingdom," taking all believers for an extended
cruise on the Gospel-ship. My personal and our corporate Christian actions to empower, endear,
and encircle Generation X expresses clearly that "We don't want them to miss the boat!" My
actions convey that Xers belong, not only to the Christian community, but most importantly to
Jesus Christ. By living out value, respect, and love to Xers through relationship, we as a church
send a clear compelling message for Xers and the generations to come, "We will not leave you
behind!"
Will Generation X be a generation lost? Will the spiritual headlines denote the tragedy of young
hearts neglected, abandoned, and alienated? Will the current continue to carry Xers into the
abyss? How will the headline read for Generation X?
May you and I resolve to have the headline read celebration not catastrophe for Xers. May you
and I act now in personal and corporate ways to turn the tide. May our actions reflect our resolve,
and one day soon we will celebrate with Christ because the lost have been found (Luke 15)!
Generation X Papers
Evangelism and Youth Ministry
There's much talk in the ELCA these days about "Evangelism." That's a healthy sign, especially
if it is followed by action. The Good News of God's extravagant love in Jesus Christ needs better
and bolder telling and doing.
Usually evangelism conjures up images of outreach, of sharing the Gospel with the unchurched.
That, too, is healthy and needs doing, particularly in this "post-Christian" age, when the
percentage of those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus has steadily shrunk. We must
be careful, however, lest we forget "evangelism" among the "churched" who are marginally
involved, inactive, "at risk," or in danger of wandering away from the fold.
Among this group, the greatest potential for "evangelism" is with young people. "Doorknocking"
or street-corner theatrics are not required. Rather, however, than leaving the sheepfold to look for
lost lambs with heroic measures, this first kind of youth evangelism simply requires greater care
for those youth who are still around. Before turning to an "outreach" kind of evangelism implied
by Jesus' command to "Go into the world and make disciples of all nations..." (Matthew 28:19),
Lutheran Christians need a renewed kind of "home-mission" emphasis with their own young
people.
Consider these facts:
Forty-two percent of the ELCA is under the age of thirty; over one-half million are high
school-age youth.
CONCLUSION: Although we are an aging nation, we are a very youthful church. These young
people deserve the church's immediate attention and best efforts.
Seventy-five percent of church membership losses occur between the ages of fifteen and
twenty. By the year 2000 there will be 27 million l5-20 year olds as the "baby-boomlet"
blasts into adolescence.
CONCLUSION: The bucket's got a hole in it that needs fixing. If we do everything possible for
our children age 0-l5 to care for, involve, bond, nurture, and "hold" the young people of our
churches, our churches will experience explosive growth.
Years ago, the motto of the old Luther League was "Win and Hold for Christ." Youth evangelism
today needs a renewed effort at "holding." How are we to do this? To borrow a phrase from Dr.
Roland Martinson, author of _Effective Youth Ministry, A Congregational Approach_
(Augsburg-Fortress), we must create "youth-friendly churches." Consider the following
suggestions as some practical steps toward youth-friendliness.
1.Broaden your definition of Youth Ministry. Youth Ministry must begin with [dedication]. It
requires solid counseling with parents and sponsors before [dedication], and continuing training
to equip parents so that they may faithfully fulfill their promises to "faithfully bring [the
children] to the services of God's house, and teach them the Lord's prayer, the Creed, and the Ten
Commandments....As they grow in years...place in their hands the Holy Scriptures and provide
for their instruction in the Christian faith" (LBW, page 121).
Faithful youth ministry must also be a ministry of the whole congregation.[snip]
2.Make youth (and family) ministry a high and real priority in program, budget, and staff time.
Do an audit of your congregation to see how much time and money are invested in young people.
Youth and family ministry requires competence. It is not "beginning work." Staff and volunteers
need strong support for their efforts and the best of training for this challenging work. The
number of kids in our society is growing; churches must invest time and dollars in young people.
As one wise woman said, "It's better to grow a healthy child than to heal a broken one."
3.Pay close attention to developing age-appropriate programs for different age levels. In recent
years, young people have become the most "studied" of age groups, yielding a wealth of very
useful information on the specific needs and gifts of each age category. Youth ministry is more
than "the youth group." It is a carefully planned progression of learning opportunities for kids,
tailor-made to age-group clusters. This early learning needs to include healthy doses of activity,
play, and intergenerational community building. An observant person noted after seeing kids in
Sunday School and little adult education, "We've got it backwards: the kids need to play while
the parents study."
4.Pastors need to develop a warm relationship with kids early on. If children sense that the
"shepherd" doesn't care for them or has "graduated" from working with kids, the first step has
been taken by that young person toward "graduating" after confirmation. The affiliative or
"friendship" factor for all kids is their number one need. The pastor sets the care-tone in a
congregation and demonstrates if "welcoming the children" is at the heart of the kingdom. Youth
ministry is, above all, "relational."
[snip]
6.Make worship youth-friendly through music, preaching. and involvement which respects and
honors the tastes, concerns, and needs of young people. For most young people, Lutheran
worship is "boring." In a world of multi-modal and polyphonic sensory stimulation, church often
is monotonous. Remember Luther's dictum, "Semper Reformanda," which revolutionized
worship in his day with popular music, congregational participation, and the language of the
people. Our Creator God certainly has given us the creative gifts to craft stimulating, interesting,
dramatic, and sensate worship which will communicate with young and old alike.
7.Affirm young people as the church of TODAY, not the church of tomorrow. The church is the
one institution with no minimum age and no retirement, yet it often practices waiting until "after
confirmation." This delay is like refusing a lifeline to a beginning swimmer in stormy seas.
"Involvement" is the single consistent factor in "holding" members, whether young or old.
8.Move from an emphasis on "ministry to" to a greater encouragement of "ministry with" and the
"ministry of" young people. Youth ministry which respects young gifts walks alongside of young
people and helps them become responsible participants in the life of faith by involvement in
every aspect of the church's life and mission. Young people need to have opportunities to put
into action their faith. They learn best by DOING. A growing number of youth want to share
their gifts and not just "go to church." Rather, they want to "be the church."
9.Put yourself in a young person's "sneakers." Even better, get down on your hands and knees
and see life through a little one's eyes. Listen to and explore with young people their needs, and
shape your congregation's ministry to meet those needs. It's a vastly different world than that
remembered by parents and grandparents. Churches whose ministries are based on the real needs
of young people will grow because kids will see this is a place for them.
[snip]
Consider these facts:
Ninety percent of Americans say they believe in God. Seventy-five percent of those people
say that if they were invited to church they would come.
CONCLUSION: We Lutherans simply do not reach out to the unchurched with an invitation to
come to our churches. If we did we would be a growing church and a church more likely to
reflect the wide variety of the general population.
By the year 2000, there will be l0 million "new kids" under the age of ten. In a day when
both the abuse and neglect of kids is creating a whole "at-risk" generation, churches which
provide a "safe place" and assist parents in caring for children will embrace and involve, as
Jesus did, those with the greatest needs.
Here are some proven ways to reach out to kids beyond the doors of your congregations:
1. Encourage kids to bring their friends. Youthful enthusiasm is the most powerful and authentic
form of evangelism. If the program is needs-based, the worship is lively, and if the
community/congregation is safe and friendly, young people will want their friends to become a
part of the family of God.
2. Train kids to be peer ministers. Young people turn first to their peers for help. Therefore,
develop solid training to equip your young leaders to help their friends deal with their hurts and
hopes from the perspective of faith. Much of this ministry will take place outside the church, but
the training starts at home. A network of caring kids provides a healing ministry of service and a
welcoming haven which draws youth to church.
3. Develop ministries that assist parents and strengthen families. Many parents who have
dropped out of church in their younger years "return" when they have children. They are most
likely to return to a church that provides resources for them and their children. Parent training
needs to address all the kinds of families we see today (single-parent, blended, adoptive, mixed
racial, nuclear etc). Faithful parenting (Deuteronomy 6) is the best kind of Youth Ministry.
4. Practice a real ministry of hospitality to strangers. Many churches have numerous visitors
throughout the year. Most do not come back because they are not warmly welcomed. Children
and youth often feel doubly unwelcome in this strange and adult place. Architecture, worship,
and fellowship need to be intentionally youth and child-friendly if a ministry of hospitality with
children and families is to occur.
5. Address the needs of "at risk" youth. Studies indicate that the presence of one "caring adult" is
the most important factor in helping reduce major problems with kids (pregnancy, addiction,
etc). Providing "after-school" programs for neighborhood kids and providing space for "youth
support groups" are two excellent ways to both reduce "risky" behaviors and involve kids in the
church's ministries. Congregations who undertake such outreach need to be ready for a steady
infusion of kids and families who are "different," and must be prepared to serve their unique
needs as well as utilize their special gifts.
6. Go into the worlds of young people--their schools, homes, hangouts, and playing fields, and
bring the good news of love in Jesus Christ in today's "youth culture." Rollie Martinson says,
"Visitation is a non-negotiable part of a minister's call." When young people see that their turf is
important enough for adults to respect and visit, they will come to know through us the One who
enters all parts of our world to love and redeem.
[snip]
People of faith have a tremendous opportunity in the years ahead as we approach the millenium.
Both in numbers an needs, the challenges posed by "the class of 2000" are huge. But what better
place to start than with a God who first comes to us as a child. In our faithful response to receive
that child and all children, we become the family of God, the church.
MANAGING CONFLICT
and the
COMMITMENT LEVEL MODEL
A previous link dealt with the need to manage change when implementing the commitment level
model of ministry. It may come as a surprise to some, but it is also possible, or maybe even
probably, that there may be conflict that needs to be managed as well.
The following material on managing conflict has been taken from the Youth 2 course taught at
the Baptist Theological College in Randburg, South Africa.
A dictionary gives the following semantic range for the word conflict: Conflict n. (‘Konflikt) 1.
a struggle between opposing forces; battle. 2. opposition between ideas, interests, etc.
controversy. 3. Psychol. opposition between two simultaneous but incompatible wishes or
impulses, sometimes leading to emotional tension. ~vb. (Kon’flikt). 4. to come into opposition;
clash. 5. to fight.
Struggle...battle...tension...are words the Collins English Dictionary uses to define conflict. But
what are the feelings that define it? People experiencing conflict would refer to shock, betrayal,
confusion, hopelessness, doubt, anger and uncertainty. Conflict is one of the major reason why
youth leaders pack up and leave. It is a major ministry hazard!
1. Causes of Conflict
Most psychology books suggest that conflicts come from two tendencies: approach and
avoidance. To approach is to have a tendency to do something or to move in a direction that will
be pleasurable and satisfying. To avoid is to resist doing something, perhaps because it will not
be pleasurable or satisfying.
These two categories produce three kinds of conflicts:
* Approach-Approach Conflict - this is due to the pursuit of desirable but incompatible goals.
* Approach-Avoidance Conflict - here is a desire both to do something and not to do it.
* Avoidance-Avoidance Conflict - here there are two alternatives, both of which may be
unpleasant.
Duffy Robbins in Youth Ministry Nuts and Bolts lists some of the causes of conflict: a lack of
communication, a lack of understanding, ambiguous lines of authority, conflict of interest,
disagreement on issues, the need for agreement, generational differences, theological
disagreements, diversity in perspective, majoring in minors, environment and a lack of
relationships.
2. Myths about Conflict
Myth #1: Conflict can never lead to anything positive
While confrontation is a risk, it is often a learning experience for those involved.
Myth #2: Conflicts are the result of clashing personalities
Personalities do not conflict, behaviours do! Different people can work together for years
without having conflict - until their behaviour conflicts. Differentiating personality from
behaviour makes conflict manageable because if conflict is based on personalities, we can do
little else but bear it.
Myth #3: Conflict and anger go together
Conflict with people does not mean that there is anger involved. There are a whole range of
emotions that surface in conflict situations.
3. Defining Conflict Levels
Speed Leas and Paul Kittlaus, in Church Fights, distinguish three ways in which conflict is
experienced: (1) Intrapersonal conflict (when a person has internal conflict); (2) Interpersonal
conflict (when personalities clash); and (3) Substantive conflict (disputes over facts, values, goals
and beliefs).
Duffy Robbins, Youth Ministry Nuts & Bolts, Page 237f, mentions four levels of conflict, that are
actually four levels of substantive conflict:
Level 1: Facts or Data - This level of conflict occurs when two parties simply have different
information. This is the easiest kind of conflict to resolve. To resolve this conflict leaders simply
ensure that both parties have the same information.
Level 2: Processes or Methods - This level occurs when there is a difference of opinion over how
things should be done. Because the issue here is “how do we get there?” rather than “where
should we go?” compromise is usually a realistic option.
Level 3: Goals or Purpose - On this level parties cannot agree on a common goal. Negotiations
at this level take patience and skill. Often youth leaders withdraw from this kind of conflict
because they are not of the temperament to work through the hard issues and avoid the
uncomfortable dialogues that accompany the resolution of conflict at this level.
Level 4: Values - The deepest and most serious conflict relates to values - the parties disagree
about basic meanings. Any resolution at this level is almost impossible.
Defining the level of conflict can lead to the selection of appropriate responses to conflict
resolution. But often what leaders think is the level is just a screen for a deeper level of conflict.
One situation may include several different levels of conflict.
4. Conflict Handling Styles
As with leadership styles, different writers present models of conflict handling styles and it
seems that there is not a best conflict handling styles but a best style for a given situation. A few
models will be considered, together with an indication of when the style is most appropriate:
A. McSwain and Treadwell, in Handbook of Practical Theology, Page 194f, suggest five styles:
(1) The Problem Solver - refuses to deny or flee the conflict, presses for conversation and
negotiation of the conflict until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. Most effective with groups
that share common goals and whose conflict stems from miscommunication.
(2) The Super Helper - they constantly work to help others and give little though to self. This is
the ‘Messiah’ who is often passive in their own conflicts but always assists others to solve their
conflicts. This style is to be avoided as one must deal with personal conflicts to effectively help
others.
(3) The Power Broker - For this person, solutions are more important than relationships. Even if
a person leaves the group, as long as a solution was achieved, they are satisfied. It can be used
when substantive differences are so contradictory that mutually inclusive goals are not possible.
(4) The Facilitator - they adapt to a variety of situations and styles in order to achieve a
compromise between competing factions. It is effective for conflicts where differences are
attitudinal or emotional.
(5) The Fearful Loser - this person runs from conflict probably because they are personally
insecure. This tends to produce hostility and a weakening of leadership in the church.
B. Speed Leas in Discover Your Conflict Management Style, mentions six styles:
(1) Persuading - trying to change another’s point of view, way of thinking, feelings or ideas.
Techniques used include: rational approaches; deductive and inductive arguments; and other
verbal means. Persuade when there is great trust; when one party is admired; when goals are
compatible; and when one party does not have strong opinions on the subject.
(2) Compelling - the use of physical or emotional force, authority or pressure to oblige or
constrain someone to act in a desired way. Use compelling infrequently; when you are threatened
or under attack; when rights are being violated; when you have authority to demand compliance;
when there is inadequate time to work through differences; and when all other means have failed.
(3) Avoiding - This is actually a category that combines four styles: avoidance (to evade or stay
away from conflict); ignoring (act as if the conflict is not going on); fleeing (actively remove
oneself from the arena in which conflict might take place); and accommodation (going along
with an opposition to keep the relationship). Strategies include: procrastination; saying yes to
requests but not acting on them; showing concern for the other without responding to the
problem; resigning; and studying the problem with no intention of doing anything about it.
Avoid this style when people are fragile or insecure; when they need space to cool down; when
there is conflict on many fronts simultaneously; when differences are trivial; when parties are
unable to reconcile differences; and when the relationship is unimportant.
(4) Collaborating - This is a process of co-labouring with others to resolve difficulties that are
being experienced. It is also called joint or mutual problem solving. Collaborate when people are
willing to play by collaboration rules; when there is plenty time for discussion; when the issue
lends itself to collaboration; where resources are limited and negotiation would be better; and
when conflict and trust levels are not too high.
(5) Negotiating - Also called bargaining, this involves collaborating with lower expectations. It is
a process where both sides try to get as much as they can, realising there must be give and take.
Where collaboration is a “win/win” strategy, negotiation is a “sorta-win/sorta-lose” strategy.
Negotiate when there is something that can be divided or traded; when compelling is not
acceptable and collaboration has been tried and failed; when all parties are willing to bargain;
when the different parties have equal power; and when trust is high.
(6) Supporting - Here one person will provide a support to the person who is experiencing
conflict. It involves strengthening, encouraging or empowering one party so they can handle
their difficulties. Support when the problem is the responsibility of someone else; when a party
brings problems outside of your relationship with them; and when one party in the conflict is
unwilling to deal with issues.
A third model focuses on the tension between relationships and goals in conflict handling. When
a leader becomes engaged in a conflict there are two major concerns to deal with: (a) achieving
personal goals and (b) preserving the relationship. The importance of goals and relationships
affect how leaders act in a conflict situation. Given these two concerns the following five styles
of managing conflict are found:
(1) Withdrawing - people with this style tend to withdraw in order to avoid conflicts. They give
up their personal goals and relationships; stay away from the issues over which the conflict is
taking place and from the people they are in conflict with; and believe it is hopeless to try to
resolve conflicts. They believe it is easier to withdraw (physically and psychologically) from a
conflict than to face it.
(2) Forcing - people in this category try to overpower opponents by forcing them to accept their
solution to the conflict. Their goals are highly important but the relationship is of minor
importance. They seek to achieve their goals at all costs; are not concerned with the needs of
other people and do not care if other people like or accept them. They assume that conflicts are
settled by one person winning and the other losing. While winning gives them a sense of pride
and achievement, losing gives them a sense of weakness, inadequacy, and failure. They try to
win by attacking, overpowering, overwhelming, and intimidating other people.
(3) Smoothing - for those who fall into this category, the relationship is of great importance,
while their own goals are of little importance. They want to be accepted and liked by other
people; they think that conflict should be avoided in favour of harmony and believe that conflicts
cannot be discussed without damaging relationships. They are afraid that if the conflict
continues, someone will get hurt and that would ruin the relationship. They give up their goals to
preserve the relationship. They try to smooth over the conflict in fear of harming the relationship.
(4) Compromising - people with this style are moderately concerned with their own goals and
about their relationships with other people. They seek a compromise. They give up part of their
goals and persuade the other person in a conflict to give up part of their goals. They seek a
solution to conflicts where both sides gain something.
(5) Confronting - people in this category highly value their own goals and relationships. They
view conflicts as problems to be solved and seek a solution that achieves both their own goals
and the goals of the other person in the conflict. They believe conflict improves relationships by
reducing tension between people. By seeking solutions that satisfy both themselves and the other
person they maintain the relationship. They are not satisfied until a solution is found that
achieves their own goals and the other person’s goals and they want all tensions and negative
feelings to be fully resolved.
5. Conflict Handling
There are two dimensions to handling conflict: prevention and management.
A. Prevent Conflict
Applying good management principles in ministry and building quality relationships with people
will help to prevent or at least lessen conflict.
B. Manage Conflict
In spite of the best efforts at prevention, conflict does arise. The secret is to learn to cope
positively with conflict, and not to see it as an enemy to peace, but an opportunity for growth in
relationships. Jesus gave an example of how to manage conflict. In John 2:13-17 he drives the
money changes out of the Temple. The point here is not that leaders should take a whip to people
they have conflict with, but that there are a number of ways in which leaders could deal with
conflict and one that they should follow as they handle problem situations. In (1) - (3) the
problem is left intact, while the leader’s course of activity is changed. They adapt to the problem,
ie. the problem changes them! In (4) the problem is dealt with - problems need to be solved and
not adapted to!
6. The Conflict Resolution Process
Parties should be asked to describe recent disagreements. What were the issues, who was
involved, and how was the conflict handled? What are the differences between conflicts that
were handled efficiently and those that were not? Can you see conflict styles evolving? With
answers to questions like these the parties will be ready to work on clarifying goals, reconciling
differences, and finding ways to resolve conflicts.
A. Clarify Goals
When people are in conflict they usually share many of the same goals in spite of their
differences. Both sides usually want to see the conflict resolved in a way that will be mutually
agreeable, beneficial to both, and inclined to enhance the relationship so that future
communication will improve. The youth leader should try to discourage bargaining over
positions and work from the basis of the common goals that people are striving for. People
should first be reminded of the goals that they share, and then their differences discussed.
B. Reconcile Differences
In talking to his disciples, Jesus outlined a process for restoring relationships between Christians
who are at odds with each other (Matthew 18:15-20). The guidelines for reconciling differences
are:
Step 1: Take the initiative and go to the person who has wronged you
This should be done in person and in private. In making this move, it is best if the person goes
with a spirit of humility, with a willingness to listen, with a determination to be non-defensive
and to forgive.
Step 2: Take witnesses
If the person will not listen or change, a return visit with one or two witnesses becomes
necessary. These people are to listen, evaluate, determine facts and try to arbitrate and bring a
resolution to the dispute.
Step 3: Tell it to the church
If the other person who has been visited still refuses to listen, change, or cooperate in resolving
the dispute, they may be excommunicated from the congregation.
C. Resolve Conflicts
When individuals or groups are in conflict, they have four main choices about the direction they
will take. They may avoid conflict, maintain, escalate, or reduce it. Sometimes people do not
want conflict resolution and may decide to go in different directions. Conflict resolution will
involve the youth leader in negotiation and mediation. It is not always wise for leaders to get
involved in someone else’s conflict even when they are asked to do so, as they will feel
pressurised to take sides; be required to make quick analytical decisions; and be responsible for
keeping communication open. When youth leaders do choose to get involved they should try to:
show respect for both parties; understand both positions without taking sides; reassure people
and give them hope; encourage open communication and mutual listening; focus on things that
can be changed; try to keep the conflict from escalating; summarise the situation and positions
frequently; and help the parties find additional help if the mediation is not effective.
A local team of negotiators use the following four-step method in conflict resolution:
Step 1: Separate the people from the problem
This means treating one another with respect, avoiding defensive statements, name calling, or
character judgments, and giving attention instead to the issues. Each side should be encouraged
and helped to understand the other’s fears, perceptions, insecurities and desires. Parties should
think of themselves as partners in a side-by-side search for a fair agreement which is
advantageous to each side.
Step 2: Focus on the issues, not the positions
When people identify the real issues and stop trying to defend rigid positions they are on their
way to resolve their conflict.
Step 3: Think of various options that might solve the problem
In the beginning there is no attempt to evaluate the options or to arrive at a single solution. Each
side makes suggestions in a brainstorming session. After a number of creative and perhaps new
alternatives have been proposed, each option can be evaluated.
Step 4: Insist on objective criteria
Conflict is less likely to occur if both sides agree beforehand on an objective way to reach a
solution. If both sides agree to abide by the results of a coin toss, a judge’s ruling, or an
appraiser’s evaluation, the end results may not be equally satisfying to both parties but
everybody agrees on the solution because it was determined by objective, fair and mutually
accepted methods.
William Willimon, in Handbook of Practical Theology, Page 190f, suggests the following
guidelines for the early stages of resolving conflict:
(1) Assess Potential Conflict
(a) Obtain as much information as possible - many conflicts are the result of misinformation.
(b) Buy as much time as possible - delay as a means of creative avoidance to gain time to act
wisely.
(c) Assess individuals involved in the conflict - what are their motives?
(d) Take the emotional temperature of the conflict - humour or distraction may lower anger
levels.
(2) Diffuse Public Conflict
(a) Inform the whole group of the facts of the situation to help with later decision making.
(b) Find out ask about the history of the conflict from those concerned.
(c) Engage those in conflict with people who can help them reach a constructive engagement.
(d) Delay action until there has been time to attempt to manage the conflict.
(3) Solve Conflict Problems
(a) Consider all the gathered facts, feelings and opinions about the conflict.
(b) List options to the problem, considering possible positive and negative consequences of each.
(c) List the options in the order of priority.
(d) Depersonalise the options to avoid focus on the personalities of those involved.
(e) Develop a consensus for the option that most resolves the conflict, even if it involves
compromise.