MULTI-GENERATIONAL MINISTRIES IN THE CONTEXT OF A LOCAL CHURCH

GRAEME TREVOR CODRINGTON

submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF DIACONOLOGY

(YOUTH WORK DIRECTION)

at the

University of South Africa

SUPERVISOR: REV. D. KITCHING

JOINT SUPERVISOR: DR. M. E. HESTENES

November 1999

SUMMARY

MULTI-GENERATIONAL MINISTRIES
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LOCAL CHURCH

Never before in living memory has the gap in mutual acceptance and understanding between generations been as large as it is now. Massive societal and cultural shifts, fuelled by changing technology, increasing rates of change, globilisation and disconnectedness, have caused a deep divide between those born in the first two-thirds of this century and those born in the latter decades. This dissertation aims to identify the causes of this divide, quantify the effects and suggest solutions. Although generally applicable to many different organisations in society, especially schools, parenting, businesses with young and old employees or those with generationally diverse target markets, this dissertation focuses specifically in application on the context of local churches. It aims to provide an understanding of the concept of a “generation gap” and practical guidelines for churches seeking to become truly multi-generational in their structures and ministries.

Key terms:

Generational studies; generation gap; postmodernism; youth work; church; young and old; generations; culture; children; teenager; young adult; senior; future.

Table of Contents

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2

1 The Context of the Discussion........................................................................................ 2

2 Identification of the Problem........................................................................................... 2

3 A Study within the Field of Practical Theological............................................................. 2

4 Hypothesis..................................................................................................................... 2

5 Research Methodology.................................................................................................. 2

6 Outline of Study............................................................................................................. 2

Generation Gaps as a Cause of Conflict at the end of the Twentieth Century................. 2

1 Inter-Cultural Tensions................................................................................................... 2

2 Living Generations......................................................................................................... 2

2.1 The “GI” Generation............................................................................................. 2

2.2 The “Silent” Generation........................................................................................ 2

2.2.1 The “Builders”................................................................................................ 2

2.3 The Boomers.......................................................................................................... 2

2.4 Generation X.......................................................................................................... 2

2.5 The Millennial Generation..................................................................................... 2

3 Biblical Generational Models.......................................................................................... 2

Culture Wars: The Post-Y2K Generations......................................................................... 2

1 The Generation “Constellation” at the start of Third Millennium........................................ 2

2 Generation Gaps............................................................................................................ 2

3 Worldview Gaps............................................................................................................ 2

4 The post-Y2K generations............................................................................................. 2

4.1 Post-Industrial....................................................................................................... 2

4.2 Post-Literate........................................................................................................... 2

4.3 Post-Modern.......................................................................................................... 2

4.4 Post-Colonial......................................................................................................... 2

4.5 Post-Christian........................................................................................................ 2

5 The Focus of the Gap: Boomers at the Core.................................................................. 2

5.1 Boomers and Xers.................................................................................................. 2

5.2 Boomers and Builders............................................................................................ 2

5.3 Builders and Xers................................................................................................... 2

5.4 Boomers as a transition generation........................................................................ 2

6 Towards a Resolution: The Millennials?......................................................................... 2

7 Biblical Culture Wars..................................................................................................... 2

Towards a Solution: Systems thinking, Contextualisation, and a Pilgrim Mentality....... 2

1 Systems Thinking........................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Viewing the Context as a System............................................................................ 2

1.2 Understanding Systems of Thinking....................................................................... 2

1.2.1 System 1: The Quest for Survival................................................................... 2

1.2.2 System 2: The Quest for Safety....................................................................... 2

1.2.3 System 3: The Quest for Power...................................................................... 2

1.2.4 System 4: The Quest for Truth........................................................................ 2

1.2.5 System 5: The Quest for Achievement............................................................ 2

1.2.6 System 6: The Quest for Intimacy................................................................... 2

1.2.7 System 7: The Quest for Flexible Solutions.................................................... 2

1.2.8 System 8: The Quest for Holistic Solutions..................................................... 2

1.2.9 Application: Which system is best?................................................................ 2

2 Missions thinking: Contextualisation............................................................................... 2

3 Pilgrim Mentality............................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Aliens and Strangers.............................................................................................. 2

3.2 Figurative Culture.................................................................................................. 2

3.2.1 Postfigurative................................................................................................. 2

3.2.2 Cofigurative.................................................................................................... 2

3.2.3 Prefigurative................................................................................................... 2

3.3 Explorers, Pioneers, Settlers, Inhabitants and Citizens.......................................... 2

Multi-generational ministries............................................................................................... 2

1 Family Ministry?............................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Weaknesses of the Family Ministry Model............................................................. 2

1.1.1 Loss of diversity.............................................................................................. 2

1.1.2 Integration...................................................................................................... 2

1.1.3 Pressure to attend........................................................................................... 2

1.1.4 Individuation................................................................................................... 2

1.1.5 Leadership...................................................................................................... 2

1.1.6 Desire to question and experiment is disallowed............................................ 2

1.1.7 Cultural Imperialism....................................................................................... 2

1.1.8 Too parent-focussed....................................................................................... 2

1.2 Multi-generational family ministry......................................................................... 2

2 Multi-generational Ministry: A Definition........................................................................ 2

2.1 Characteristics of true multi-generational ministry................................................ 2

2.1.1 Contact between the generations................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Mutual Benefit................................................................................................ 2

2.1.3 Youth/Adult Partnerships................................................................................ 2

2.1.4 More than just Family.................................................................................... 2

2.1.5 Involvement by all ages in decision making................................................... 2

2.1.6 Parallel lifestages........................................................................................... 2

2.1.7 Diversity.......................................................................................................... 2

2.1.8 Budget Allocations.......................................................................................... 2

2.1.9 Training.......................................................................................................... 2

2.1.10 Failure......................................................................................................... 2

3 Critical Areas of Potential Conflict.................................................................................. 2

3.1 Worship.................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Preaching (Communication)................................................................................... 2

3.3 Leadership and Governing Structures................................................................... 2

4 Ministry Considerations.................................................................................................. 2

4.1 Multi-generational age-based ministries................................................................ 2

4.1.1 Multi-generational children’s ministries......................................................... 2

4.1.2 Multi-generational teenage ministries............................................................ 2

4.1.3 Multi-generational young adult ministries...................................................... 2

4.1.4 Multi-generational adult ministries................................................................ 2

4.1.5 Multi-generational seniors ministries............................................................. 2

4.2 Spiritual Maturity................................................................................................... 2

4.3 Education and Learning Styles.............................................................................. 2

4.4 Mentoring.............................................................................................................. 2

5 Multi-generational Ministry Opportunities....................................................................... 2

5.1 Camps.................................................................................................................... 2

5.1.1 “Family” Camps............................................................................................ 2

5.1.2 Father-son / Mother-daughter camps............................................................. 2

5.2 Retreats.................................................................................................................. 2

5.3 Home Churches...................................................................................................... 2

5.4 “Family” evenings................................................................................................. 2

5.5 Meals and Entertainment....................................................................................... 2

5.6 All-age discipleship classes (“Sunday School”)..................................................... 2

5.7 Prayer Meetings..................................................................................................... 2

5.8 Evangelism............................................................................................................. 2

5.9 Mission Trips......................................................................................................... 2

5.10 Team Building Exercises..................................................................................... 2

6 Church Service Structure............................................................................................... 2

6.1 Welcoming.............................................................................................................. 2

6.2 Worship.................................................................................................................. 2

6.2.1 Music............................................................................................................... 2

6.2.2 Prayer............................................................................................................. 2

6.2.3 Reading........................................................................................................... 2

6.2.4 Drama............................................................................................................. 2

6.3 Sacraments............................................................................................................. 2

6.4 Testimonies............................................................................................................. 2

6.5 Preaching.............................................................................................................. 2

6.6 Follow up............................................................................................................... 2

6.7 Together and Apart................................................................................................ 2

Is it just about youth?........................................................................................................... 2

1 How to Know If Its Working......................................................................................... 2

1.1 Signals of Success.................................................................................................. 2

1.2 “Icebergs in Paradise” – Signals of Failure.......................................................... 2

2 A Final Warning............................................................................................................. 2

Appendices............................................................................................................................ 2

Appendix A: Peer Personalities by Generational Type........................................................... 2

Appendix B: Drie Paradigma’s Onder Wit Afrikaners............................................................ 2

Appendix C: Systems-Sensitive Leadership........................................................................... 2

Appendix D: A Summary of Erik Erikson’s 8 Stages of Psychosocial Development............... 2

Appendix E: Memos to the Generations............................................................................... 2

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................... 2

This trend towards the atomisation of youth is not only evident within Christian ministry, but also in many areas of contemporary society. Community-based youth clubs, restaurants with play areas for children, shopping malls with children’s entertainment areas, and satellite or cable television with programming aimed specifically at different age groups are examples of industries and institutions creating the divide between young and old. Fashion, entertainment, musical tastes, computers, magazines and a variety of other media and electronic equipment are also being specifically targeted at different age groups. In fact, it has got to the point where young people feel obliged to dislike anything their parents like. This reaction against parents is surely part of what it means to grow up, but it seems that in the last fifty years, this reaction has grown to new levels. The fact that most adults have not experienced anything other than this “generation gap” leads us all to believe that it is normal, acceptable and that nothing can be done about it.

In order to respond to this situation, the current trend in Christian ministry and community-based development work is to talk less of youth ministry and more about family ministry. Because of this, the focus is not exclusively on youth anymore, but more on families, attempting to take into account the context within which a young person spends a majority of their time. Simply shifting focus from youth to youth-in-family is not, however, a long-term solution to the problems that have been created by the atomisation of church and society along age-related lines. Additionally, in a world where families themselves are being split apart, if the church focuses almost exclusively on “families”, they may miss the opportunity to minister into the hurt and brokenness of what is left after families are split apart. For example, in a Johannesburg church, a survey of the church members’ family structures was undertaken, and it was discovered that single parent families accounted for less than 2% of all church families (Church Growth Committee, Honeyridge Baptist Church, 1997). While the majority of leaders reflected on this statistic with something akin to pride in the fact that the “family focus” of the church was “working”, a few leaders expressed the concern that possibly the statistic was telling them that the church was not accessible to people who did not have the “father, mother, 2.4 kids” stereotypical family. The fact that single parent households accounted for more than 25% of all families in the community seemed to indicate that this latter view was more accurate. Yet, no adequate response to this fact was given by the church leadership.

Churches are not the only institutions that are battling with new definitions of “family” and “youth” or are finding it increasingly difficult to relate to young people. Within schools, seasoned teachers, who for years and even decades have been teaching with great success, passion and personal fulfillment have recently found that nothing is working for them. They don’t seem to be able to connect with this new breed of young person. Being involved in consulting to schools, the author of this study has found that all over the country, in White, Black, Indian, Coloured, and all other communities, the teachers are saying the same thing: “its not working any more!”. In business, there is a whole new breed of employees joining companies. The middle-aged executives and supervisors who have to manage these new young employees are pulling their hair out in frustration and exasperation. The young people are perceived as arrogant, pushy, demanding and seem totally oblivious of the etiquette of business. In particular, they have no concept of “paying your dues” or “climbing the ladder” – they seem to want to start at the top and work up from there. Many well established brands are also finding it harder and harder to compete in this emerging market known as young people. Flashy, viby advertising just doesn’t seem to be getting through. And the market research results are confusing – there don’t seem to be trends, let alone “rules” that can be applied to today’s young people. Parents, too, are finding it increasingly difficult to know how to respond. Instinctively they know that they are going to battle to help their children grow up and be ready for this new world – which school to choose?, which course of study to pursue?, which career options to make available? – all these are questions many parents don’t even know how to start asking, let alone providing the answers for their children.

It is a well established fact that today’s youth are in crisis. Not so much a teenage “angst” so often portrayed in the popular movies and “rag mags”, but rather a deep-rooted, low-level anxiety that arises from not having any roadmaps on which to plot the route of life. Instinctively, young people are aware that their elders know less about the world in which they live than they themselves do, and so they cannot turn to their elders for help. If not, then to whom can they go? To whom can they turn to provide the “rules” for life – to show them how it all works, and to answer the questions about why it works that way? Human beings are essentially spiritual beings, instinctively knowing that there are some answers that must be found in a realm beyond the material world. Throughout history, religions have attempted to give frameworks for this search for the supernatural. Today, more than ever, young people see the spiritual side of life as their only hope. They are growing up in a spiritual and moral vacuum, left to drift perilously without a compass by elders whose maps do not include the world in which we are currently sailing. This provides the Christian church with a wonderful opportunity, since we believe that we have the map and know “The Way” (cf. John 14:6, Acts 24:14). But in order to communicate this, we must understand today’s young people, and be able to “translate” our map into their language. The author of this study attempted to explain this in an Honours thesis, A Model and Methods for Reaching Generation X from the Context of a Local Church (Codrington 1998). That thesis showed that the crisis facing the world’s youth is a crisis within church youth ministry as well. In a recent profile census of South African youth and families (Price and Codrington 1998), Bill Price and Associates found that there was no significant difference between churched and unchurched young people in terms of morality, attitudes and the ability to distinguish right from wrong. This echoes similar research done by Josh McDowell in America, and documented in his excellent book, Right from Wrong (1994). There can obviously be much debate as to what has gone wrong.

It is the argument of this dissertation that it is the responsibility of preceding generations to ensure that the Gospel, as well as morality and a love for God, is passed down to the successive generations. This responsibility is made clear in the Bible as early as Deut. 6. Yet, throughout Scripture, we see the older generations reneging on their responsibility, with dire consequences. The most obvious example is the generations of Joshua and the conquest (cf. Josh. 24:31 – those who “served the LORD” and “experienced” Him for themselves), followed by those who survived them and settled in the land (cf. Judg. 2:7 – those who also “served the LORD” but had only “seen” what He had done in their parents’ lives). These two generations were followed by those “who neither knew the Lord, nor what He had done for Israel” (Judg. 2:10). Whose fault was it that the younger generation did not know about what God had done for Israel? It was the adults’ fault, of course. Please note that by saying this, this study is not advocating a form of popular psychology that blames all sin and failure on a lack of decent parenting. Rather, it is concerned that the Bible does not so much lament the sinful deeds of this wayward generation, but rather the lack of knowledge of God. The responsibility for this lack of knowledge must rest with the preceding generation, who had a responsibility, commanded by God, to “teach these things to your children” (Deut. 6:7ff.).

It is the contention of this study that we are living in a similar time at the end of the twentieth century. For many reasons, and in many different ways, the older generations of parents and grandparents, have not taken their responsibility towards the younger generations seriously enough. This can be seen in parenting styles, church ministry and structures and even in community organisations and the schooling system. If today’s young people are “lost” it may not be entirely because they have wandered off as “prodigals” - it may be because they were “abandoned” as babies.

This concern for young people and the state of the church is not simply a local concern, in South Africa, but is evident internationally. The debate about generation gaps and generational responsibilities should therefore be undertaken within the context of a worldwide dialogue regarding youth ministry (cf. Dunn and Senter 1997). The focus of this debate internationally has been towards the role of family ministry in church life, as well as the place of youth church and the separating of youth into completely separate and often independent ministry structures. The core of concern rests in the fact that most evangelical churches are failing to successfully transfer young people from these youth ministries into adult ministry. There are a variety of reasons for this, including lack of spiritual maturity in youth, too large a gap in style between youth and adult ministries, lack of commitment by adults to adapt to new generations of young adults, lack of desire to leave comfort zones by young and old, lack of support of youth ministry structures by the church, and many other similar complaints.

At the heart of the trouble is a series of misunderstandings between young and old, based on the fact that the world in which young and old are growing up is encountered in fundamentally different ways, with different sets of assumptions and attitudes. So much has changed over the last twenty years in particular that this divide is perceived as almost insurmountable. Many organisations have tried to remove the divide and failed – and have therefore decided not to bother to continue trying. However, organisations should accept the divide, understand it as a basis for changing attitudes towards it, and then work on ways of dealing with it that will be beneficial to young and old alike. This does not mean that organisations should simply aim to do better what they are already doing. It does not mean that simply improving on current programs is going to help. In fact, “one of the realities of the emerging twenty-first century is that yesterday’s successes are no guarantee of tomorrow’s survival” (Anderson 1992:17).

Rather, it is an acceptance of the fact that there is a deep divide between the life experience of today’s middle-aged and older adults, and the world in which today’s young people are living. The world of today “is caught in the crack between what was and what is emerging. This crack began opening in 1960 and will close sometime around the year 2014. Trusted values held for centuries are falling into this crack, never to be seen again. Ideas and methodologies that once worked no longer achieve the desired results. This crack in our history is so enormous that it is causing a metamorphosis in every area of life…. Today, the fastest way to fail is to improve on yesterday’s successes” (Easum 1993:23).

2 Identification of the Problem

It is at this point that concern for their generation has proved to be problematic for today’s youth. Their concern, when expressed to the older generations, has been met, at best, with blank stares from the older generations, and at worst with outright rage and defensive counter-attacks, often ad hominem in nature. Most adults today see the future as simply an extension of the past. They view the current maladjustment of youth and adolescent rebellion as nothing more than an extreme form of the generation gap they know so well from their own youth, and not for what it really is: the repudiation of the present and the past by the dominant youth culture in virtually all societies and cultures around the world.

Theorists who emphasize the parallels between past and present in their interpretations of the generation gap ignore the irreversibility of the changes that have taken place since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is especially striking in their handling of modern technological development, which they treat as comparable in its effects to the changes that occurred as one civilisation in the past took over from another such techniques as agriculture, script, navigation, or the organization of labour and law.

Mead 1970:52

The above quotation, by Mead, was written before the pervasive World Wide Web portion of the Internet was birthed in the early 1990s. Her words have an even more profound ring now that the Internet has begun to revolutionise the way we live our lives. The Internet revolution is no less profound a revolution than the changes in society and culture that must have occurred with the invention of the wheel and of writing. Both of these inventions fuelled numerous and sweeping changes, including the ability for more information to be more accurately transferred, quicker and easier to more people at less cost. In recorded history (a phrase only made possible by the invention of writing), the printing press has been the only other invention to have an equally profound impact on society. Many historians, including church scholars, would agree that the printing press was one of the major catalysts of not only the Reformation, but also the entire Enlightenment. The printing press allowed more information to be more accurately transferred, quicker and easier to more people at less cost. Thus, these three inventions each changed the world profoundly. Taken together, their effect is incalculable.

And today, the Internet allows for more information to be more accurately transferred, quicker and easier to more people at less cost. In relation to the previous inventions that enhanced these factors, the Internet’s potential is vastly superior. The relative cost is miniscule, the effort incomparably small and the accessibility by people universal. Of course, the initial equipment costs are still high, and electricity and phone lines are required. Even so, these costs are small compared to other literacy costs, and computer facilities can be shared by communities. The Internet will change life more than any other invention ever has. And most of the generations alive today will live to see the effects of this change – we already are. We began to see the forewarnings of the change in the massive social upheavals of the 1950s and 60s, and the rise of new methods of thinking and interacting in the last two decades in particular. We are seeing the immediate effects at the close of the second millennium. We can only gasp at the potential that may be exploited within our own lifetimes. Although, as a currently qualifying Microsoft Certified Solution Developer (MCSD), and qualified Financial Accountant and Business Consultant, the field of computer communication and development, and its economic effects, is more than a hobby for the author, the concern of this work is not so much the awesome changes themselves, but rather it is concerned with the societal impact of the drastic changes of the last 50 years and the ways in which young and old interact in this unprecedented milieu.

Today, suddenly, because all the people of the world are part of one electronically based, intercommunicating network [NOTE: Mead was writing before e-mail and the Internet] young people everywhere share a kind of experience that none of the elders ever have had or will have. Conversely, the older generation will never see repeated in the lives of young people their own unprecedented experience of sequentially emerging change. This break between generations is wholly new: it is planetary and universal

Mead 1970:50

Today’s young people are like the first generation born in a new country. They have no memories of the “old” country and have no means by which to understand their parents’ stories about the past. As the children of settlers in a new land have no access to the memories which still move their parents to tears, the young today do not share their parents’ responses to events and memories that moved them in the past. As they watch their elders, the youth of today get the feeling that they are fumbling, that they are managing clumsily and most often unsuccessfully in an attempt to deal with the tasks and issues forced on them by the new conditions. The youth of today see that their elders using inappropriate means, with poor performance and limited results, and very uncertain effects. “The young do not know what must be done, but they feel that there must be a better way” (Mead 1970:60).

This dissertation is not so much about the “better way”, rather it is concerned with the transitional age. This dissertation will show that for the next three or four decades, we will be living in a “time between times”, as we transition from a world our parents knew and took for granted as “normal”, to a wholly new world, as yet unknown and only vaguely conceived in the minds of the most forward and bravest of thinkers. We will see that the best way to not only survive this transition, but also to thrive in it is to get the experience and wisdom of the old combining with the creativity and adventure of the young, as we together chart a course and draw the maps of this new world. The old cannot afford to fortress themselves in the safety of the “known”. The young cannot abandon the fort completely and head out unarmed and unprotected into the “unknown”. Somewhere in between lies the balance.

“The missing link is one that is virtually non-existent in the youth culture of today, including church youth ministries: the link of generations” (Haymond 1998:4). Youth ministry should form an integral part of the community of faith which is the church and should be holistically planned. Although this dissertation is being done in fulfillment of the requirements of a Youth Work subject, the contents should not be separated off into “youth ministry”, but should be seen as a challenge to the entire church. The problem of youth not being integrated into the church is the whole church’s problem. In fact, the problem could equally be identified as the church not being integrated into the world in which young people live. The solution for this transitional age (which will form the basis of any long-term solution for the new age to come) is to return to the Biblical mandate of multi-generational interaction.

The central focus of this dissertation is therefore to answer one profound question: What is the generation gap and how must the church practically and theologically respond to the challenge this gap presents it at the start of the third millennium?

3 A Study within the Field of Practical Theological

Theology is derived from the Greek word, theologia, a compound of two words meaning the discussion of or the account of the gods or God (cf. Wright 1988:680). Largely through the influence of the early scholastic writers, theology has become a field of study, even a disciplined science. Of course, we cannot study God directly or adequately discuss God in human language. Thus, as Heyns and Pieterse point out, theology is really the “scientific study of people’s faith in and their religious statements about God” (1990:3). The field of theology is divided into a number of major disciplines, such as Biblical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, pastoral theology and practical theology, to name a few. The discipline of Practical Theology specifically refers to that field of theology which is concerned with the “practice of ministry” (Tidball 1988:525), or more specifically with “people’s religious actions” (Heyns and Pieterse 1990:6). “Practical theology is that branch of theology that considers those actions designed to ensure that God’s word reaches people and is embodied in their lives. Its object is people’s religious actions. Thus it deals with questions concerning preaching, public worship, instruction and catechesis, pastoral care and ministering to people” (Heyns and Pieterse 1990:1).

Traditionally, practical theology has been linked closely, if not exclusively, with the role of the ordained minister. In recent times, however, as Tidball (1988:525) points out, the scope of this field of study has extended to concern the ministry of the whole church. Thus, it has an increasing focus on praxis, or action. However, it is evident that orthodoxy and theology cannot be separated from praxis – they are inextricably linked. Therefore, practical theology must stress both aspects of the title: practical, with an emphasis on action and ministry, and theology, with an emphasis on understanding and doctrine. Because of this dual emphasis, practical theology could be viewed as being at the heart of the local church’s expression. Indeed, Tidball states that “practical theology studies the means by which the community of faith preserves and protects its identity” (1995:42), and entails a “critical dialogue between theology and praxis. This new-style practical theology is concerned with the way in which the faith of the church works out in practice in the world and raises questions about what it sees, addressing them back to theology” (1995:42).

The focus of this study is the “generation gap” that exists between young and old in the world today. God’s plan for His Word is that it will be passed on from “generation to generation” (a phrase used 10 times in Scripture: Exo. 3:15, 17:16; Ps. 79:13; Isa. 34:10, 17; Jer. 50:39; Lam. 5:19; Dan. 4:3, 34; Luke 1:15; also, Ps. 145:4). This injunction was given in the preamble to the Law which follows immediately after the giving of the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5). In Deut. 6:4, we find the “Shama Israel” – the call to worship still used by Jews today, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One”. After entreating the listeners to impress the laws on their own hearts, the very next command is to “impress these things on your children” (Deut. 5:7). The intent is not simply a theological discourse or classroom setting, as the verse goes on to give the context for such teaching: “Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates” (Deut. 5:7-9, NIV). The problem is that in today’s world there seems to be very little dialogue and even less understanding between the generations. The task of passing on God’s decrees from one generation to the next is severely hampered, if not completely ignored. If this continues, we will see a repeat of the sad indictment on Judges 2:10, which highlights the failure of the older generations to tell their children of all that God had done for Israel. In many parts of Europe, the results are already devastating to see, with empty churches and lost youth. Something must be done. And more than simple theological analysis of the sinfulness of humankind is required.

This is the reason that the practical theology field of study was selected. The author of this study is professionally involved in business consulting and training, forecasting and consulting to schools and churches. It has already been pointed out that the issues addressed in this dissertation affect businesses, schools, families, community development agencies and by implication government as well. This work has resulted in a view that is much broader than simply the local church context. Thus, it is no obvious thing that this work should be done within a practical theological framework. Yet, as a Christian minister, the author is wholly committed to the efficacy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to speak not only into the religious affairs of society, but also in its power to transform and transcend society. In order for society to adequately chart these tricky, transitional decades, one sure hope is to do so with the power of the Christian Gospel as a rudder and compass. This is true in all areas of the transition – not only in the religious spheres of life. Having said this, there is a real danger that the church has so profoundly anchored itself to the sinking ship of scientific modernism, that it knows no other way of interacting with the world or of responding to it. This has seen the church retreat into a cocoon of defensiveness and reaction, which is not only unhealthy, but has also caused it to lose all credibility with a world plunging headlong down the rapids of change. Where scientific modernism is floundering, so the church is floundering too, and the waters are threatening to engulf it in the process. In their heart of hearts, pastors and church members alike know that things are no longer working. In the quiet moments when they can be completely honest with themselves, today’s adults do grudgingly and fearfully admit that something is not quite right. Yet, most, if not all, have no idea what has gone wrong. And they have no idea where to start in finding the solution.

Practical theology’s “focus is particularly on those religious actions designed to mediate God’s coming to humankind – in other words, actions that enable people to hear the gospel properly and to understand, accept and actualise it in their lives” (Heyns and Pieterse 1990:10). This is the intent of this study. This study does not profess to have all these answers, nor even to have a complete diagnosis of the problem. This is consistent with the nature of a practical theological study: “Unlike church workers, [practical theologians] are not themselves practitioners but are engaged in reflection on praxis” (Heyns and Pieterse 1990:21). Yet, the praxis proposed by the practical theologian must always be rooted and grounded in reality, tested in practice and refined by actual use. One thing this study holds fast to is that God has chosen the local church as His vehicle for bringing His Good News to the world and to future generations. Therefore, the issue of how the church passes on the truth from one generation to the next and how these generations interact with each other with the context of the local church is an absolutely vital study within the field of practical theology. As much as we may wish to give up on the church due to its inadequacies, and the pain and hurt it has already inflicted on many of today’s young people, we cannot give up! We are compelled to go “back to basics” in an attempt to understand how the changeless, matchless Yahweh, the eternal I AM, can steer us through the ever-changing, shifting waves of the transitional age in which we find ourselves. And hopefully, through this work, ongoing interaction and refining, and through works of a similar nature, the young, whose lives stretch mainly before them, can interact for mutual benefit with the old, whose lives mainly lie behind them, to provide some navigational tools for the church in the journey that will take at least the next three or four decades to complete.

This study will look at the effect of the generation gap on church ministry, and the implications for the spreading of God’s Word to the next generations. With this focus, there seems no better place for this study than in the field of practical theology. The church stands at a point of decision: to change, in the tradition of the Reformer’s semper reformandum, or to stagnate and continue the generally downward trends in all areas of church analysis. The insights that businesses have gained by facing the same choice in the past two decades will be brought to bear. The insights gained by progressive schools which have already begun to face the same choice in past five or so years will be taken into account. We would be foolish to ignore the path these institutions have already blazed for us. But ultimately, it is the focus of the local church to which this dissertation will return again and again in an attempt to discern God’s heart for His body, His bride, His family and His temple. In doing such a study, the practical theology, as a theological science, can do no other than investigate these factors within theoretical frameworks, but with the goal of using them to improve praxis. The underlying foundation of this study is the theological quest to discover what God is calling His church to. Since this calling is focused on the future, a natural bias is formed towards youth ministry. Framed in terms of practical theology, it is the unfolding of how the church should minister within the current world milieu at the beginning of the third millennium.

4 Hypothesis

This dissertation takes as its basic hypothesis that one of the major reasons that youth work is currently not working, whether that work with young people occurs in schools, families, businesses or churches, is that the adults involved in leading and directing young people have a fundamentally different worldview than the young people themselves. The “gap” that this produces is the cause of much tension and frustration for young and old alike. In churches, in particular, the “gap” is a major contributing factor to the alienation of youth ministries, and causes young people to lose faith in their elders’ ability to guide them into the future. For many young people, the easy solution to this problem is to equate the church with the attitude of the adults. When they do this, they often conclude that church is out-dated, irrelevant and “not for us”, and leave. When they do this, they do not only leave the institutionalised church, but very often also abandon their Christian faith, judging it to be equally irrelevant.

The underlying assumption in this dissertation is that young people will enter into the adult world more equipped for that world if they have significant involvement with adults who understand the world as it currently is, as opposed to the world as it was when they were young. This means that adults must recognise the tremendous changes that have taken place since they were young, and be prepared to adjust their value systems accordingly. Adults will be able to make this mental adjustment if they are prepared to view their world in a complete context, rather than in atomised parts. Once the focus has been shifted from personal comfort to generational responsibility, true multi-generational interaction can occur, where everyone, from the youngest to the oldest, gains some benefit. When adults show themselves capable of doing this, they will win back the respect of the young. This, in turn, will mean that today’s youth, who are desperately longing for someone to show them the way forward, will actually value the input of significant adults into their lives. Without such interaction between the generations, families, schools, businesses and churches will not be able to survive for very long in the third millennium. If this demise is not by the simple aging, and literal dying, of their current constituency, then it will be by a more conscious effort of young people to dismantle the organisation. Either way, there is no real option for organisations of all types – we must involve young and old alike in dynamic partnership.

5 Research Methodology

The primary research methodology employed for this dissertation was a qualitative study. Readings were taken from literature in many diverse fields, including the fields of management development, education, history, economics, future studies, generational theory, social development, family, systems theory, sociology, anthropology, theology and youth work. The vast scope of reading was completed in order to compare different theories of generational development and interaction. The purpose of this approach was to synthesize the various fields of study and develop a new approach that is particularly applicable to local churches. In addition, the author drew on a number of years of experience as a management consultant in the fields of business, development, education and religious organisations, as well as current interaction with individuals in South Africa and on the Internet.

Although the central issue of this dissertation has implications for people of all ages in the church, this dissertation will focus primarily on the effects and implications for youth ministry. Throughout the last four decades in particular, there has been tremendous development in research and programs for the people at the “edges” of the human age spectrum, i.e. the young and the old. These two age categories have accounted for more and more of the overall population. In the South African Census 96, those under age 20 accounted for 44%, and those over 60 for 7% of the population – both of these percentages are expected to grow considerably in the next few years. Gerontologists have focused on the elderly, and youth specialists on the young. But these two groups have hardly ever worked together. There is certainly a need for this to be done, but the content of this dissertation does not allow scope for such a broad investigation. This opens this work up to a criticism most clearly expressed by Margaret Mead: “In most discussions of the generation gap, the alienation of the young is emphasized, while the alienation of their elders may be wholly overlooked. What the commentators forget is that true communication is a dialogue and that both parties to the dialogue lack a vocabulary” (1970:62).

While this may be true, the aim of this study is to assist older generations to gain valuable insights into the generation gap by understanding it from the perspective of young eyes. In addition, although the generation gap is a phenomenon equally important to both young and old, it is the old who are currently incumbent authorities, who hold in their power the ability to promote or to hinder change. Although true multi-generational ministry involves people of all ages from all generations, many older people are well represented in different levels of church and organisational governance, and are prohibiting the youth from growing into the new world in which we live. By focussing on framing the situation primarily from the perspective of youth, it is hoped that adults will understand their role in the current world.

Once the fact of a deep, new, unprecedented world-wide generation gap is firmly established, in the minds of both the young and the old, communication can be established again. But as long as any adult thinks that he, like the parents and teachers of old, can become introspective, invoke his own youth to understand the youth before him, then he is lost. But this is what most elders are still doing…. In the deepest sense, now as in the past, the elders are still in control. And partly because they are in control, they do not realize that the conditions for beginning a new dialogue with the young do not yet exist.

Mead 1970:63

Thus, this dissertation needs to focus specifically on the involvement of youth in multi-generational ministries, and it is from the perspective of youth that it is written. Note that by “youth”, this dissertation refers to children, teens and young adults - roughly those aged 0 to 30 years old. The approach to this subject has been limited by the lack of current research and similar investigative work. It has also been limited by the fact that most churches are unaware of the issues raised in this dissertation, and therefore there are very few adequate case studies available. “The primary evidence that our present situation is unique, without any parallel in the past, is that the generation gap is world wide…. Concentration on particularities can only hinder the search for an explanatory principle. Instead, it is necessary to strip the occurrences in each country of their superficial, national, and immediately temporal aspects” (Mead 1970:54). With this in mind, this study aims to complete a thorough theoretical overview of the subject, supplemented by ongoing involvement in a wide variety of organisations through the author’s professional experience in the role of consultant to businesses, schools and churches. No specific case studies will been reported on, although experience gained through personal interaction with organisations, as well as numerous Internet-based interactions on a global scale, will inform and direct the study and its application.

6 Outline of Study

This dissertation is divided into four parts.

Chapter 2 looks into the causes of age-related division between people at the end of the twentieth century. By understanding the influences that were brought to bear on people, especially in their childhood years, one can make generalised statements about their value systems: that part of a human being which distinguishes between good and bad, right and wrong, normal and weird. These influences come in a predictable cycle, producing a predictable series of generational types. The chapter ends by looking at Biblical examples of the cycle of four generational types.

Chapter 3 continues the theme of chapter 1, by looking at other factors causing division between old and young at the end of the twentieth century. The argument is that there are massive sociological shifts occurring, which are radically altering the very state of the world. These changing foundations have fundamentally altered the world. The dividing line occurs during the late 1950s and 1960s. Anyway born and raised before then has lived in the “old world”. Anyone born and raised during that time lives a life of permanent transition. Anyone born after that time lives in the “new world”. The argument is that these additional factors have exacerbated the effects of the generation gap. Because we know of nothing else, they have also established the generation gap as a permanent feature of the world, whereas, in fact, we argue that this is not necessarily so.

Chapter 4 begins to look at solutions to the generation gap, realising that many of these solutions are temporary measures, aimed at dealing with a transitioning world. The solutions offered are not programs, nor are they “quick fixes”. In fact, all the solutions offered in chapter 3 require systemic changes. This chapter argues not only that change is needed, and drastic change at that, but also that such change must be adult-initiated.

Finally, chapter 5 takes a very practical look at solutions to multi-generational issues, by providing some suggestions as to multi-generational interaction, multi-generational activities and ministries, and finally, some suggested means of changing the current central focus of most church’s ministries, the Sunday service, to be multi-generational.

normal, right and good will be a very strong influence on the individual as he/she grows up.

It is very difficult to escape the family influence, even if that influence is almost totally bad the rest of life will very often be lived in rejection of and defiance and sadly, sometimes compliance, to that family situation.

The second strong influence as a young person grows up is the friends they have, and to a lesser extent, other significant peers. Often the teenage years are a time to “test” the worldview received from the family (cf. Olson 1984:27ff., DeMoss 1997:29ff.). This testing is often done in the context of a peer group. Other significant influences in the modern world include school, where young people spend the majority of their formative years, the textbooks that are used in schools -Massey (1976) gives an example of this by citing the early 1970s, successful court case against the California School Board which enabled the banning of the “chauvinistic” Dick, Jane and Spot reading books for first level readers - religion or even a rejection of religion which is still a religious choice, nuclear power, politics, the media, television and the entertainment industry, technology, especially telecommunications, and computers. All these things help to fashion our view of the world, and especially our view of what is “normal” in the world.

Even though we are all individuals, and have unique influences on our developing value systems as we grow up, we all still have grown up in the context of the world of the 20^th century. In this century, like never before, global forces have been at work. Such is the extent of these global forces that many people throughout the world have had similar experiences or have had to face similar situations at the same time. Because of this, it is possible to identify moments in the history of this century in different countries and cultures, where similar defining forces were brought to bear on families, communities and societies. We are also able to generalise to a certain extent with regard to the possible influence this may have had on the generation of young people growing up at the time.

It is thus possible to explain why many people who are similarly aged, and have been exposed to similar historical and cultural pressures, view the world in similar ways. Comparing the predicted influence with the actual way in which the older living generations have actually grown up serves to verify that these generalisations ring true, and provide some confidence levels in predicting the likely worldview of the currently emerging younger generations.

Strauss and Howe (1991) refer to the similarity in worldviews of those similarly aged as a “cohort generation” effect. A cohort generation is a group of similarly aged people that has similarities in attitude and worldview, mainly due to shared life experiences at comparable ages. Groups of people born within a few years of each other will experience defining events at similar ages. Of course, in the modern world of this century, as the world has grown progressively “smaller”, events on one side of the world have been experienced globally, thus making geographic location an increasingly irrelevant factor in defining a cohort generation. In fact, Sine (1999:49) goes so far as to say that the single biggest factor in the modern world is globalisation.

The greatest effect of these defining historical moments will be seen in the young people who experience them. Young people are much more impressionable than adults, and are obviously affected by defining moments in different ways to their parents and to their grandparents. In addition, certain forms of child care become fashionable at different times, and this has an effect on entire generations. Possibly the greatest single example of this was the early years of the American Boomer generation (1943-1964), following the release on July 14, 1946, of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s book The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care. Dr. Spock’s book is America’s second best-selling book after the Bible, and had a huge impact on how parents raised their children. However, there has been a recent backlash against what many perceive to be a too lenient approach to parenting, and most parents today (late Boomers and early Gen Xers) are taking a much more proactive approach to parenting.

History creates generations, and generations create history. The cycle draws forward energy from each generation’s need to redefine the social role of each new phase of life it enters. And it draws circular energy from each generation’s tendency to fill perceived gaps and to correct (indeed, overcorrect) the excesses of its elders. The powerful nurturing and ‘shadow’ relationships between two-apart generations are especially important. The alternation between underprotection and overprotection of children is also key.

Strauss and Howe, 2000:FAQ

Although Strauss and Howe are probably the best known recent exponents of generational theory, this is by no means a new field of study. In modern times, “this quest occupied a succession of nineteenth century European philosophers: Auguste Comte, Maximilien Littré, John Stuart Mill, Gustav Rümelin, Ottokar Lorenz, Wilhelm Dilthey and Emile Durkheim. These philosophers were confronted with the task of determining to what generation they themselves belonged…. The primary European contributors to generation theory in the twentieth century have been José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, Julius Peterson, Willhelm Pinder and Julían Marías” (Zimmerman 1995:43). But the work on generation theory goes back even further than this. Some would argue that the Bible first deals with generation theory in the family history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (see 3. below). A fourteenth century Bedouin, Ibn Khaldun, was the first philosopher to describe a four-generation cycle in detail (Marías 1970:198-207). Strauss and Howe (1997:53ff.) cite the works of Greek historian, Cicero, Greek writers, Heraclitus and Homer, Chinese philosopher, Lin Yü-t’ang, and the writers of the Old Testament Pentateuch, amongst others to show that this cyclical nature of history and generational development has not just been recently noticed and hyped.

It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to go into the detailed sociological and anthropological background to this approach to generational studies. The reader is directed to the theoretical works of Neil Howe and William Strauss, as well as the practical works of Margaret Mead. The former authors have jointly written a number of works dealing with “the history of America’s future” and are continuing their work in an international setting of a web-based discussion forum (http://www.fourthturning.com/). Strauss and Howe (1991), broke new ground with their book, Generations: The History of America’s Future, by suggesting that American history can be viewed through the framework of a repeating cycle of attitudes and approaches to life. The cycle, as they proposed, consists of four parts, each roughly twenty years in duration. They traced this cycle from the first American settlers from Europe to the present day, and then went further to make predictions for the future, right up to 2069.

Margaret Mead, on the other hand, was an anthropologist, explorer and teacher, who spent most of her life studying and documenting the tribes of New Guinea. She was fascinated to see these tribes in their ancient forms, and equally amazed to see the transformation of these tribes as they came into contact with “civilisation” for the first time. She was able to watch, over the course of nearly 5 decades of direct involvement, as these tribes changed rapidly through many different stages of development that other nations had taken a few centuries to do. Her work is widely regarded as foundational to modern theories of social development and inter-generational interaction (cf. especially Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap, 1970, which was based on a series of lectures she completed in 1969).

Further detail on the generational theory can also be found in the current author’s Honours thesis, A Model and Methods for Reaching Generation X from the Context of a Local Church (1998).

These and other authors have identified certain key defining generationally-linked trends in worldview and value system development. This chapter will consider all those people born after 1920, and briefly identify general characteristics definitive of each generation. Since most of the work on generational theory has been done in America, this chapter does have an American slant to it. However, there are many other researchers doing work in other countries around the world that is demonstrating that the generational theory is indeed universal, although only now beginning to converge, due to the global culture created by international media.

While America offers the world’s best example of cyclical history, other modern societies have beaten to similar rhythms - and since World War II, these rhythms are drawing closer together. Generational archetypes similar to America’s can be found, in roughly the same age brackets in Canada and Australia, throughout western Europe, Russia, Israel, and China.

Strauss and Howe, 2000:FAQ

This chapter will attempt to look at the generational theory through South African eyes in particular. This may be useful to non-South Africans, as it will provide an insight into a complex country full of cultural diversity – which we will see in the next chapter is at the heart of the generation gap.

2 Living Generations

Having seen the theoretical basis for the problem of generation gaps, we must now turn to look at each of the generations still alive at the end of the twentieth century, to determine whether, in fact, generation and cultural gaps have occurred. If so, we need to discover the causes for these gaps in order to create solutions. By understanding the cultural influences and forces that have been brought to bear on each of the living generations, especially those during their early, formative years, when their value systems were being shaped, we can begin to understand what has made people of different generations develop such different worldviews. We can also understand the nature of the clashes between these worldviews, or “cultures”, and begin to look for solutions. Much of what follows is based on the first chapter of A Model and Methods for Reaching Generation X from the Context of a Local Church (Codrington 1998).

2.1 The “GI” Generation

In America, these are the people born in 1901 - 1924 (Strauss and Howe, 1991:261). In South Africa, we find similar characteristics in those people born from 1910 - 1930. They are born and experience their early years during an “unraveling” period, as society slowly begins to disintegrate and a crisis looms. This is very similar to conditions we find pervasive at the end of the twentieth century – a fact that Strauss and Howe anticipate in their cyclical approach to generational theory. It means that today’s children, the Millennial Generation (see below) are very similar to the GIs. The GI’s are a civic minded generation, born during a time in society when people are inner-focussed. Their parents have begun to see the error of leaving children to their own devices, and so they are raised as increasingly protected youth. Despairing of the “lost” generation that preceded the GIs, society worked hard to ensure that this generation of youth grew up clever and cooperative. The major shaping event during their youth was World War I and its after-effects.

The cut-off birth date for this generation in America is 1924. This was at the height of the “roaring twenties” economic boom in America. “Following a postwar depression in 1920-21, the economy bounced back with a vengeance, growing a torrid 30% in the next two years. And money succeeded in holding its purchasing power as inflation averaged a less than 1% in the decade. The boom filled federal coffers. The 1920s was the last decade in this century when the federal budget ran a surplus every year. The national debt shrank from $24 billion to $16 billion. Taxes were reduced” (cf. TIME, July 28, 1997). Also in 1924: in Russia, Lenin died; in the United Kingdom: BBC Radio began public broadcasts; and in South Africa: Hertzog’s Nationalist Party was elected to government. In South Africa, the events that indicated a shift in society began with the election of Jan Smuts in 1919, and culminated in the National-Labour Party alliance winning the general election in 1924, with segregation as a major platform. The 1920s and 30s were characterised by widespread riots and unrest, within Black townships, as they protested the Laws being passed by the Union government, and also by poor white workers. These workers were almost all Afrikaans speaking.

The title, “G.I.” was used by Strauss and Howe (1991:264f.) because it indicates that the “general issue” or “government issue” clothes that became synonymous with the soldiers of both World Wars. It also refers to their attitude of community and regularity. They enjoy standardization and homogeneity.

In youth, they were the first “teenagers”. In fact, the term was coined for them. They were also the first boy scouts (1910) and girl guides (1912), and the beneficiaries of new playgrounds, processed “protective” foods, vitamins, and child-labor restrictions. “By 1914 almost every state in the nation had laws prohibiting the employment of youth below a certain age, usually fourteen. The removal of teenagers from the main labour force was a clear sign of their special estate” (Elkind 1984:20). Public schooling saw significant improvements, and for the first time in American history more teenagers were in school than out of it. The early years of this century were also the high point of “private”, missions schooling in South Africa. The ethos, which was encouraged at school, and in literature, such as Pollyanna and Little Orphan Annie, was that good kids “work hard, play by the rules, and everybody gets rewarded” (Strauss and Howe 1991:270). They also were drawn into greater standardisation than previous generations by listening to the same radio shows (started 1916 in USA), watching the same movies - “talking movies” in 1904, and television in 1928 - and attending the same sporting events at stadia like the Rose Bowl which was opened in 1923.

As discussed above, the formative influences experienced during youth often have the greatest effect on a generation’s characteristics as it grows up. Today, we can still see the effects of these things. This is a generation that believes in hard work. They believe that the harder they work, the more they will be rewarded – and great examples of people from the generation, like Nelson Mandela and Billy Graham, only go to prove their point. The GIs formed the manpower component of the engine that beat the combined crisis of World War II and the Great Depression. It was in doing so that they continued to learn to work and function as a unit and team, and reiterated by experience their belief that working together achieves the best results for everyone. This “corporateness” is a defining characteristic of this generation. They believe that it is “good” and “normal” for people to all agree, all work the same and even all look the same. This generation puts on suit and tie for everything - even to go down to the local corner shop to buy the Saturday paper. As leaders they invariably place public interest over personal gain, and inspire society to great acts. These are realised during the outer-directed era which they controlled as midlife leaders.

As young adults, their homogeneously uniformed corps patiently endured depression and heroically conquered foreign enemies in the double secular crisis of the Great Depression and World War II. As they moved towards midlife, Christian GIs created student organisations and paraChurch ministries that emphasized their togetherness and common goals (e.g. Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship 1923, Young Life 1941, Youth for Christ 1943, and Campus Crusade 1951). In South Africa, these young people formed themselves into political movements, such as the Ossewabrandwag (1939), Sofasonke, the squatter movement (1944), and the ANC Youth League which forced the issue of the “defiance campaign” (1952) and Umkhonto we Sizwe (1961). The characteristics of patriotism and unquestioning devotion to organisations is well illustrated in the 1939 initiation ceremony into the Ossewabrandwag, exceedingly popular among young GIs: “With his hand on a Bible, with a loaded revolver pointing at his chest and another at his back, the young man recited: ‘If I advance, follow me. If I retreat, shoot me. If I die, avenge me. So help me God…’” (Saunders 1994:349).

Obviously, each generation’s early experiences of “church” and religious life will be foundational to their view of what is right, good and “normal” for Christian expression and institution. The GIs were raised during an inner-directed era, when faith is largely expressed in experiences. They had just come off the back of revivals in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and the church had seen some declines. The rise of Pentecostal expressions of the Christian faith occurred during the GIs youth, and has geared them to be more comfortable within a religion that expressed faith emotionally and outwardly. For them, religion is largely about experiencing God and being in relationship. “In such periods, those traditions with the greatest emphasis on the personal life and religious experience of the ‘believer’ will thrive. It is also in these periods that new groups spin off from existing institutional structures” (Regele 1995:40). However, their emphasis on faithfulness and dependability has led to see these experiences as being governed by strict discipline – and it is not surprising that most mainline denominations have more than their fair share of GIs in them at the end of the twentieth century.

As they moved into midlife and began to take positions of influence, their civic mindedness came to the fore. Jefferson’s presidential office-taking speech is much the same as that of John F. Kennedy’s, two and half centuries later. In line with Howe and Strauss’ generational cycle, both these president’s belong to the same civic-minded generational type, although they are two “cycles” or “turnings” apart. Both called on their “fellow Americans” to “unite in common efforts for the common good…advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye” (Jefferson, 1801) and to “ask not what America can do for you, but what you can do for America” (Kennedy, 1960). In midlife the GIs created the biggest and best of their generational cycle (i.e. this century) during the outer-driven era, from business to engineering feats, they are a generation of winners and achievers. Throughout their lives, this generation has been heralded as that generation which achieves great things. “They always seemed to do it big, to do it together” (emphasis in original, Strauss and Howe 1991:261). Some of the biggest names in “big business” come from this generation. Many of this century’s most powerful politicians come from this generation, including Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher and Bishop Desmond Tutu. In his inaugural address, President Kennedy described his generation as “born in this century”. Kennedy was the first US president born in the 20^th century, and since him, Boomers have dominated the White House for most of it.

In midlife, subsidized by the G.I. Bill, which paid American veterans to go and study, and in the midst of the outer-driven era of the 1950s, they built gleaming suburbs, invented miracle vaccines, and launched moon rockets. In Christian churches, they were “responsible for building up the big denominations and their big agencies through the fifties and early sixties. [GI] pastors built big, “tall-steeple”, mainline churches” (Regele 1995:116). Politically, their unprecedented 32 year long grip on the American Presidency began with a “New Frontier”, a “Great Society”, and “Model Cities”, but wore down through Vietnam, Watergate, deficits, and problems with “the vision thing.” By late midlife, however, the wheels started to come off the optimism, and through tragic and shattering events, the public image of many of these people has been somewhat tainted. For example, there is currently much speculation regarding the role that F.W. de Klerk played in the South African government, even as he appeared to be working for change, and Lady Margaret Thatcher appears to currently be making herself very unpopular by seemingly undermining her former political allies (cf. “A Stirring in the Attic” The Economist, 9 October 1999, pg. 54). As elders they have come under attack by the midlife Boomers (see below). Most of this generation retreats quickly from public life, leaving only major leaders in place for a few more years. However, they do not stop being a powerful influence, working hard to create their dream society.

As those currently in the late years of their lives, GIs still exude confidence and energy. They stay busy in retirement, many not retiring at all. Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter are good examples. Many of them live long and fulfilled elderhoods. However, some die in despair as their lifelong dreams of unlimited progress seem to be dying in the hands of the younger generations. This despair is not personal, but rather directed towards the world which they leave. “I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons” (Thomas Jefferson, 1820, quoted in Strauss and Howe 1991:180) is a comment many GIs can relate to today.

As elder “senior citizens” - another term coined by this generation - they have safeguarded their own “entitlements” with 1970s and 80s legislation which essentially raided the future to pay for their current Social Security, Medicare, S&L bailout, senior saver and old-age tax cut expenses. In Christian ministry, many “want to preserve the old proven ways which prevailed before the experiments with new ‘superficial stuff’ were introduced in an attempt to please the audience” (Hendriks 1998a:online). Possibly because of this, but possibly also because of the rapidly changing world and the “cult of youth” at the end of the century, GIs seem to have lost the moral authority that the oldest generation has historically wielded in society. “Their economic well-being has come at the expense of the moral authority prior generations of American elders once wielded over the young” (Strauss and Howe 1993:37). In South Africa, this generation is attempting to reap the rewards now of a life they were never able to enjoy under apartheid. With seemingly little concern for the future, many of this generation are on the “gravy train”.

It is not coincidental that this generation gave birth to one of the most enduring comic strip heroes of all time: Superman. This “superhero” – yet another phrase in common use which was coined by Gis - is a parable for their generation, being a special child, with a corrupt next-elder, Lex Luther, formidable strength and manliness balanced by supreme blandness, and having invariable success for the good of the community. It is also not coincidental that Superman was “laid to rest” in the early 1990s, along with the public life of most of these great achievers. There can be little doubt that Regele is correct when he states that this generation has always received “the best a society has to offer at every stage of their life” (1995:115). And yet, even at the end of “their” century, many of these GIs are healthy and energetic, and rich enough to enjoy a wonderful lifestyle, even if they must do it alone, isolated from the younger generations.

2.2 The “Silent” Generation

The “Silent” generation’s first birth year in America is 1925, and their last is 1942 - an era which coincided with the lowest birthrate per decade this century. The 1930s saw the lowest decennial growth rate in American history (Strauss and Howe, 1991:279). These birth years correspond with what was happening in South Africa at the time. Due to most of the world coming off of the gold standard in the 1930s, there was a short-lived economic boom as the price of gold sky-rocketed. But that did not last long, and the benefits never really made their way back to the general population. By the end of the 1930s, South Africa was in the same position as many countries around the world, namely a “Great Depression” where times were tough, and children were expected to work. In South Africa, this generation consists of those born from 1931 - 1949.

The “Silent” Generation are those young people who grew up when children “should be seen and not heard”. “They got the tag ‘Silent’ back in the McCarthy-era 50s, when their leading edge came of age gliding compliantly into newly built suburban society… [that] was oversimple, conformist, and bland” (Strauss and Howe 1993:39). This kind of world has been parodied and questioned in movies such as The Truman Show and Pleasantville, and was excellently portrayed in the hit television series, The Wonder Years. They are an adaptive generation, raised by overprotective parents during the secular crisis of World War II and the Great Depression. Parents and the older generations did this to ensure the safety of their children during the crisis. The children had no choice but to accept this and toe the line. They tend to be withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative and unadventurous. In the midst of failed banks and businesses, they learnt not to trust others for their security, and to this day are self-reliant, and find it difficult to spend money, especially to take a “step of faith” in financing large projects. Self-reliance and not asking for help have been raised to the level of virtues. They have also grown to believe that it is “good” and “normal” to work hard. They believe that by sheer hard work one can achieve anything. They also learnt early that it is not good to complain or moan about one’s lot in life - the “right” thing to do is to knuckle down and get on and do the job. Their early life did not allow for many pleasures, but it did instill in them a deep romanticism, as stories of war and conflict often do. This romanticism, mixed with a feeling of duty to work, continues to define this generation. There is a sharp contrast between their outward complacency and sense of duty and their inner feelings of emotion, passion and desire for personal fulfillment. This creates in them a very accommodating, even compromising spirit which dominates their approach to life. They were too young to take any active part in the resolution of the crisis, even if they can remember it. They missed out on being heroes. However, they did learn from their elders that life is about winning or losing - there is no middle ground. The Nazi’s and their Axis allies were not simply beaten, they were crushed and humiliated. American troops are still stationed in Germany to this day, with the last American owned base being handed back only in late 1998. They have learnt from this to be tough-nosed opponents, although they tend to go about this in a stone-faced, quiet way. There is no middle ground, very little compromise, and even if you do “beat” them, you may end up feeling like you have lost.

In youth, this generation experienced the worldwide crisis of the Great Depression, which began on “Black Tuesday” 29 October 1929 in New York, precipitating a world-wide Depression that continued well into the 1930s, and was followed by the crippling World War, begun in Europe in 1939.

They grew up as the suffocated children of war and depression. Many left school early to work, or, like countless British children, were separated from their parents for their own safety and survival. Always overlooked and just missing out, however, this generation was too young to make any impact on World War II, and too old for Vietnam. The only war American Silents fought in was Korea, and it is only in the late 1990s that the veterans of that war have gained a memorial. They certainly have not received the kind of response that their next-younger Boomer veterans of Vietnam received, nor their next-elder GI veterans of World War II continue to receive. They came of age just too late to be World War II heroes and just too early to be youthful free spirits, and found themselves lost between the thirty-something returning war heroes, and the coddled post-war, Boomer babies (see below). Instead, in early young adulthood, this early-marrying Lonely Crowd became the risk-averse technicians and professionals - as well as the sensitive rock ‘n’ rollers and civil-rights advocates - of a post-crisis era in which conformity seemed to be a sure ticket to success (Strauss and Howe, 2000:FAQ). The outer-directed era of the 1960s led the Silent generation to strive for the rights of minority groups. But even in this, they adhered to a code of nonviolence and appeals to fairness, more than anything else appealing to the mind - a characteristic of the generation that also produced some of the greatest minds of this century.

Their experience of the church and faith was shaped by the institutions their next-elder young adult GIs created for them (e.g. Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship 1923, Young Life 1941, Youth for Christ 1943, and Campus Crusade 1951). Although these institutions were originally created by young GIs to be break-away spiritual movements from traditional churches, the Silent youth, towards whom these ministries were directed, did not pick up on the experiential spirituality, but rather the structures for spiritual growth. For the Silents, faith is expressed best in doing. The ministry focus is on building the institution and creating “programs” and “structures”. Because of this, the 1950s and 60s, as Silents grew into young adulthood, saw a decline in experiential expressions of the faith, and a rise of the mainline denominations. It was the height of evangelicalism, and had such leading figures as Francis Schaeffer, Billy Graham, John Stott and the writings of C.S. Lewis. Extension of the church was a primary goal, often achieved by collaboration and liberalization, in practice and theology. Regele shows that during this time of outer-directed societal emphasis, “the institutional life of the church is shaped, formed and solidified. Many of the larger churches in the mainline traditions were built during this era. This is the era of the large, program-based church whose activities focus around doing the Gospel as a community” (1995:41).

After the crisis, in the 1950s and 60s, the Silent young adults entered a world of rising prosperity, and enjoyed the benefits of new job opportunities. Not able to compare in grandeur to their next elders, they settled into a life of dutiful expertise, rather than heroism. The crisis averted, heroes are not required. The outer-driven era which follows requires hard and diligent workers, and this the Silent generation provided easily. Midlife, during the awakening of the 1960s and 70s, was an anxious “passage” for a generation torn between stolid elders (GIs) and passionate juniors (Boomers). Modern America has most often looked to the Silent generation for comment and mediation, including civil rights activists and public interest advocacy groups - often led by the “doing-faith” churches- but when it needed a lead, it “turned back to GIs for a steady hand, and forward to Boomers for new values…. In their hands, America has grown more accustomed to deferring or learning to live with problems than to taking aggressive steps to solve them” (Strauss and Howe 1991:283, 291). And yet, this is more because of their early reputation than their actual ability, since they seem to have grown less cautious and more willing to be radical the older they have grown. This trend was evident to some as early as 1968, when William Styron wrote: “I think that the best of my generation… have reversed the customary rules of the game and have grown more radical as they have gotten older - a disconcerting but healthy sign” (quoted in Strauss and Howe 1991:289). The tendencies to be “two-faced” and overly modest are characteristic of this generation.

In the 70s, this generation produced the Phil Donahue-type talk shows which allowed people to communicate with each other at an “ordinary” level, and it gave us a generation of therapists who counseled Boomer and Xer kids (see below) to “open up”, and they embraced the burgeoning telecommunications industry, encouraging its early introduction into modern life, so that people could be in touch with each other more easily. In Christian ministry, this emphasis led the Silent generation to start organisations that emphasized the relational side of life and faith (e.g. Faith at Work, Habitat for Humanity, World Vision). “Faith wasn’t just about doing, it was about relating! One of the direct results of this cause was the birth of the small-group movement” (Regele 1995:122), and just in time – for Generation X youth.

In later midlife, the Silent generation attempted to put off some of the caution of youth by taking greater risks. The older the Silent generation gets, the more they feel constrained and the more they attempt to break out of their confines. This has led to a great number of family break ups and the breaking down of social structures. “Outwardly fortune blessed them: …coddled in childhood, suffered little in war, came of age with quiet obedience, enjoyed a lifetime of rising prosperity, and managed to defer national crisis until most of them had died. But behind these outer blessings lay inner curses…. [namely] nonparticipation in the major events of their era…. History records little that is distinctly theirs” (Strauss and Howe 1991:181f.). Their role is to be the conflict-resolvers of history. A generation caught in the in-between times.

In elderhood, which the oldest of them are now entering, society is moving towards another crisis, and they see the protective family structure of their youth disintegrating around them - often it is their own families that are falling apart. They do not provide directive leadership, but prefer to be seen as friendly and accommodating, rather than moralising and dominating. “the distinctive trait of this adaptive generation is that they are facilitators” (Regele 1995:119). When they do take a tough stand, it is often not publicly demonstrated. Even the “A-type” personalities amongst them appear to prefer to defer to the opinions of respected experts, rather than take a dominating stand themselves. They are sensitive and sincere, “flexible, caring and open-minded but indecisive and guilt-ridden.” (Strauss and Howe, 2000:FAQ). Major problems are deferred or accommodated rather than dealt with. They are a generation that does not seem to provide personal or public direction. For example, South Africa’s new president, Thabo Mbeki, appears to be taking a very “Silent Generation” approach to leadership of this still volatile country. Where the GIs had Superman, the Silent generation had Alfred E. Neuman’s “What, me worry?” to get them through. William Gaines’ creation assumes many different forms, and wears “masks” just as the Silent generation does.

The Silents have produced three decades of top Presidential aides, from Kennedy’s era to Bush, but no American Presidents as yet. In jumping from Bush to Clinton, the Presidency has jumped from GI to Boomer, with no Silent President in between. Additionally, according to exit polls, as a generation they have voted for the losing candidate in every close modern American election (cf. Strauss and Howe 1991:285).

They are entering elderhood with unprecedented affluence, a “hip” style, and a reputation for indecision. However, they will shun the GI “old-boys club” collegiality approach to elderhood, and rather look for ways of staying connected with the younger generations. They will use their economic position to enhance younger generations, ushering in an age of philanthropy. The Silent generation has a unique intergenerational understanding, and often mediates in the clash between Boomers and Xers. Many of them will die in the first two decades of the next century, when the next crisis looms large and as it arrives - but only the smallest percentage will live to see the resolution of the dark clouds that hang over life today.

2.2.1 The “Builders”

Many demographers have grouped the GI and Silent generations together, often referred to as Builders. This can be helpful, as the “slower the pace of change, the more succeeding generations are alike” (McIntosh 1995:28). Additionally, GI and Silent generation both fall into the economic category of “retired” folk, where their current lifestage, at the end of the twentieth century is fairly similar. There are some common characteristics that are important to understand: they are hard workers – a trait stemming back to their roots in a rural lifestyle, early school-leavers or heavy industry - and they continue to work hard even in retirement. They are frugal and tend to save their money – this makes them the most affluent elderly in recorded history: In America, over 80% of them are home owners, they have 43% of all discretionary income, they have 75% of America’s wealth and they own 80% of savings and loan deposits and virtually all of the stocks (L.I.F.E. LINE newsletter no. 17, quoted by McIntosh 1995:43). They are patriotic: for many of them, being a good Christian is the same as being a good citizen. They are loyal and value commitment and teamwork. They do not see “grey”, but rather black and white, and will very often do things because “it’s the right thing to do”. They are private and “don’t air their dirty laundry in public” – when threatened they will back down publicly and redouble efforts behind the scenes. They are cautious, stable, dependable and they are respectful of others: “they go out of their way to help neighbours and support each other in times of need” (McIntosh 1995:40). They are intolerant of those who are different from themselves. In terms of Christian ministry, here are also some common characteristics: they believe that knowledge of the Bible is the key to living a good Christian life – “most believe that if anyone knew enough of the Bible, they would do the right thing. Bible study focussed almost exclusively on the content of the Bible” (McIntosh 1995:46); missions is seen as expanding the Christian church at the “edge of the Empire” in foreign missions (cf. Mead 1991:14ff); ministries are seen as being run most effectively by a “board of governors”; they are loyal to denominations and cannot understand how someone can change denominations easily; they prefer expository and explanatory preaching; worship is characterised by reverence and quietness; and duty is the underlying motivation for ministry.

These characteristics have paid off for them as they reach their retirement. They have seen it through many rough years, and now enjoy the benefits. As we will see in the second chapter, it is when these characteristics, which these generations view as “normal”, right and good, come into contact with very different characteristics in the other generations, that conflict arises and a gap is created.

2.3 The Boomers

The “Boomers” are possibly the most well-known and most analysed generation in history. Yet, it is surprising that it only started in 1970, when Landon Jones coined the word “Boomers” for his book Great Expectations (cf. Zimmerman 1995:42). The American Boomer generational cohort birth years are generally taken as starting in 1943 and ending in 1960 (Strauss and Howe 1991:299), although others have placed it as ending in 1964 (eg. Zimmerman 1995:42). In South Africa, the Boom years were extended due to the policy of apartheid which tried to socially engineer society. On either side of the political and racial divides, middle-aged people (from the Silent Generation, see above) attempted to create a worked out, peaceful settlement in South Africa, just as their peers, led primarily by Martin Luther King, were attempting to do in the United States. It was largely the Boomer generation who “woke up” during the 1960s and early 1970s and decided to work towards a more decisive solution. On the side of the oppressed, this meant violence and war. On the side of the government, it meant creating a large defence force, armed by conscripted young people from the Boom Generation; making the white South African 1970s history very similar to America’s Vietnam generation of draft and draft dodgers. For many other young people, from all racial groups, it meant outright defiance and rebellion. Thus, the Boom years in South Africa extend from about 1948, when the National Party came to power, to 1970 (see the next section for more details on the end date).

In youth, the Boomers were part of a euphoric society that had just beaten the seemingly endless double crisis of the Great Depression and World War II. The key events in 1942/3 were: the bombing of Sydney, Australia, by the Japanese, and the increased involvement of America in the War (in Europe), the first nuclear power station unveiled and the retaking of North Africa by Allied Troops. Although Boomers will not remember the war, these events caused a shift in attitude towards the war - a shift to one of teamwork and a sense of victory. After the War, “ex-soldiers got married, and their offspring, the baby-boom generation, swelled the population 18.4%, to 178 million. Everybody went shopping: consumer spending - adjusted for inflation - surged 38% in the decade. As families grew, demand for hospitals, schools and homes took off. All this activity lifted the average annual growth in real gross national product by 4.8% from 1947 to 1953, slowing to 2.5% for the rest of the decade. Globally, the U.S. economy ruled” (TIME International, July 28, 1997). In South Africa, there was a serious economic boom between 1954 and 1964, as the gold price surged and the South African Rand was stronger than many other currencies in the world, including the dollar and at times, the Pound Stirling. During these years, South Africa’s annual growth rate was around 14%, second only to Japan in the world. In every community and every suburb, people had more money than they had had before.

In addition to these economic realities, Boomer children were raised on Dr. Spock permissiveness, which, in conjunction with the advent of the Birth Control Pill, was one of the influences leading to the sexual revolution of the 60s. They were the children of Leave it to Beaver, and other TV shows depicting things such as in-charge children. As Grenz (1996:5) shows, they were the Captain Kirk generation, the rugged individualists, going where “no man has gone before” in Star Trek’s quest for the “final frontier”. As children they grew up in an optimistic era, characterised by altruistic feelings and a general sense of wellbeing and hope. They were spoilt and protected as children, being given more opportunities and safety than children in previous generations. This was most likely because their parents were largely the GI generation who were not well protected as children and therefore tried to make up for their own youth by almost smothering their children. Today, this generation remembers their youth as “the wonder years”, and are often heard lamenting today’s youth: “Why can’t they just be kids again?” It is noteworthy that Boomers are essentially the only generation to ever “just be kids”, as those before them either worked on farms, or left home early to work during the Depression.

In terms of their early experiences of faith and religious life, they were the young people who were the focus of the Silent generation’s move towards structure and institution. They have grown up with a high view of church, especially of how church should be “done”. They lived as children through the “membership and programmatic apex of historic mainline American denominations” (Regele 1995:41), when church was a central focal point in the community. They also grew up during the time when GI pastors were ensuring that churches were built big. They have grown up with a “bigger is better” view of the church. Many of today’s large churches, such as Bill Hybel’s Willowcreek and Rick Warren’s Saddleback, are run by Boomers. A similar trend of Boomer-led mega churches is evident in South Africa (cf. Hendriks 1996 and 1998a) “Seeker-sensitivity” as a means of drawing large crowds is a hallmark of their ministry. They are also very strong on strategy and visioneering. This stems from the fact that as young people they “were all captured by a grand vision, whether in the church or out” (Regele 1995:129).

They have grown up to be characterised by a moralistic view of the world, and an over-inflated self-opinion. They truly believe that they have all the answers for all the problems. They don’t necessarily believe that hard work is the ultimate virtue, as their next elders, the Silents do, but rather that good fortune, “luck” and innovation are the keys to success. The fact is that many of their generation, including Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and others involved in the computer revolution, have become the richest self-made men in history. Because of the great achievements of the GI generation during their youth, they have also grown up to believe that “bigger is better”. They can be perceived as loud, brash and show-offs by other generations. They are not shy in trumpeting their own achievements.

Their young adult years were spent in a time of cultural and spiritual awakening. As young adults they were caught up in an awakening. This led them from youthful revolution directed against the establishment to young adult internal revolution: a quest for self. This journey of self-discovery has had many different faces, but is generally characterised by a rejection of the “traditional” way of doing things, and a rebellion against all forms of authority. Boomers are therefore very experiential and tend to work more from emotion and intuition than objective reason, and are “better philosophers than scientists, better preachers than builders” (Strauss and Howe, 1991:303). The “cult” of motivational speakers is virtually completely dominated by this generation. All these things, such as preaching, motivational talking, etc, involve changing the way we live and think, something Boomers are always keen to do – and to help others to do as well. Maybe because of these factors, Boomers seem to want to talk. From therapists to focus groups, and endless committees and debates, they are a generation that sees communication, even repetitious communication, as important. But, although the cultural revolution is viewed as a collective experience, it was really experienced individually. Thus, Boomers tend to work in parallel to each other, but not really together. They are essentially individualists.

During the Boomers’ developing years of Youth and Young Adulthood, they lived through an economic boom and tremendous growth, as well as witnessing the ascendancy of America as a world super power. But the euphoria this produced was undermined by a series of events, including: the Cold War, Civil rights abuses and activists in many countries around the world, the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa (1960), the start of the Berlin Wall (1961), Bay of Pigs in Cuba (1961), the Great Train Robbery in England (1963), John F. Kennedy assassinated (1963), the Profumo Scandal (1964), Mandela sentenced for treason (1964), Vietnam (1965-1973), H.F. Verwoerd (the “architect of apartheid”) assassinated in Parliament (1966), Moon landing (1969), Apollo 13 disaster (1970), Watergate scandal (1973), invention of the PC (1976), Mars landing (1976), Soweto riots (1976), Biko killed in jail (1977), Margaret Thatcher elected PM (1979), the increase in international terrorism, shootings of major world leaders - e.g. Pope (1981), Reagan (1981)-the Iran hostage situation (1981), Falklands war (1982), and the like. This is mainly a long list of tragic occurrences, involving technological feats of wonder, followed by breakdowns of mammoth scale. It involves great politicians being killed or disgraced, civil rights problems and human rights abuses and wars. This produced a sense of failure and despair in the system, as institutional weaknesses began to show.

The 1960s and 70s were a turbulent time, as Young Adult Boomers went to College and into the workplace, rebelling against the institutions they found there. Their moralistic outlook spurred them on to activism against many of these institutions. Their rebellion was not so much aimed at toppling the system per se, but rather at removing the perceived corruption from within the system. In other words, Boomers were happy with the system of authority, but wanted to have that authority for themselves. This they quickly achieved, with one of the youngest ever American Presidents, Bill Clinton, and a similarly young British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. This has been followed by a young German Chancellor, Schröder and Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Many other countries around the world, as well as major corporations now have the “youngest ever” leaders.

As Boomers entered midlife they became very moralistic, principled and dominating. The 1980s saw the movement of these Boomers from being the rebellious flower-power generation to a solid, middle-class, materialistic, self-absorbed set of midlifers. Although the “yuppie” (young urban professional) may account for only about 5% of all Boomers, economically speaking, the attitude of self-immersion, an impatient desire for self satisfaction and a weak sense of community, are defining attitudes for Boomers of all economic means. No matter which side of the moral debates they stand (for they stand on all sides thereof), they take their stand resolutely and with force. There can be no compromise, and no room for grey in a world of black and white, especially with respect to the next generation of youngsters coming up quickly behind them. P J O’Rourke, an American satirist and journalist, has called this the “new seriousness” (Washington Post, 3/8/1988). Where once they rebelled against institutions they now see the value in directing these institutions, including government, towards their own moralistic goals. They have no difficulty legislating against the excesses of their own youth. Their rallying cry is a greater sense of morality and social standards, and towards this goal they strive with everything they have. This inner-directed era lends itself well to their style of leadership, which does not consult much with other generations.

This has occurred within the church as well, as Boomers have seen a different view of the church. They have fuelled the Charismatic and church growth movements, and have been attracted to images of the church “as an organic body instead of a hierarchical organisation” (Regele 1995:129). As midlifers, Boomers are on a spiritual quest. Many are returning to church, but are not staying. They prefer to create a potpourri of spirituality to get them through.

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.

Howe 1992

The Boomers superheroes include Ken and Barbie, those enduring icons of perfection, and the first dolls to be marketed to a world-wide audience. They also supported Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise, that rugged individual, “boldly going where no man has gone before”. The year 2000 will see them in late midlife and in definite control of national power in many countries, trumpeting values, touting a “politics of meaning,” and waging scorched-earth Culture Wars (see Chapter 2, below). They are legislating against the excesses of their own youth, giving federal organisations such as the Drug Enforcement Agency sweeping powers, legislating against smoking, and suing tobacco companies in the process, and taking moralistic and patronising stances in their foreign policies. Interestingly enough, “every phase-of-life has been fine, even terrific, when Boomers entered it - and a wasteland when they left…. Yes, the Boom is a generation of trends, but all those trends are negative” (emphasis in original, Strauss and Howe 1993:43). It is difficult to know whether it is the environment that shapes the generation or the generation that shapes the environment. As the Boomers head towards Elderhood, the specters of global economic collapse, international terrorism and ecological burnout all threaten to precipitate the next secular crisis. In each of these areas, Boomers are already making their influence felt and it is to them that younger generations will look for guidance in the next three decades. They will also wage war on a moral front, fighting against sex, profanity and violence in the entertainment industry. For this and other reasons, the culture war between Xers (see below) and Boomers will likely increase in temperature, as the principles of the values-focussed Boomers will lead them to make decisions that will appear moralistic, hypocritical and domineering to the Xers.

The defining characteristics of Boomers at the end of the twentieth century are: they have the highest average educational level of any generation in history; they are media-oriented and susceptible to media-hype; they are independent activists who are cause-oriented; they enjoy experimentation; they are extremely quality conscious and value “professionalism”; and, they question authority. In the church, these characteristics shine through. In addition we can identify specific characteristics very evident in “Boomer-led” churches: they are attracted to dynamic leaders; they want a sense of belonging and achievement; they seek after experiences of faith; worship is seen as celebration – it is loud, exciting and vibrant; and, they are tolerant of differences. It is very likely that the high profile, dominating style of the Boomers will continue for many more years, well into their later life.

In Elderhood, they will be “visionary, righteous, austere, principled and creative but sometimes selfish and arrogant” (Strauss and Howe, 2000:FAQ). They will be the leaders who are in control as society heads for a secular crisis. They remain cool-headed and authoritative in the midst of crisis, being good stewards and setting the agenda that will be the redemption of society from the crisis. They will become the revered old men and women who will lead their nations through grave danger to a better world beyond. Their optimism never wanes, and their principles should win out.

2.4 Generation X

As explained above, this generation’s first birth year is identified in America as 1961. This is fairly controversial amongst demographers and media - many would place the date as late as 1967, and as early as 1958. There are a number of reasons, however, why 1961 seems more accurate. “Annual polls of high school seniors show that those born just after 1960 came of age much more fearful of national catastrophe than those born just before” (Strauss and Howe 1991:317). It was also in 1960 that the Birth Control Pill was introduced (Snider 1990:online), and thus the birth boom ended as women began to take pills to stop having babies. A number of important international events happened in 1960/1: The first woman Prime Minister in the world (Ceylon), a massive anti-Soviet campaign at the United Nations, the election of John F. Kennedy (the first American president to be born in the 20th century), the Apartheid riots in Sharpeville (South Africa), the closing of the border between East and West Berlin, the rise of Castro in Cuba, the Bay of Pigs debacle, and Russia and America both put men into space in 1961/2. Additionally, “the strain [on America] of being both an economic and a military superpower started to show. The federal deficit in 1959 jumped to 2.6% of gross domestic product, the largest since 1946. By the 1960s, ambitious social programs and the widening war in Vietnam led to higher taxes, while economies in Europe and Asia began to make inroads against the U.S.” (TIME, July 28, 1997). Bret Ellis, in a New York Times article entitled, “The Twentysomethings: Adrift in a Pop Landscape” stated that “few of my generation were alive from, much less remember, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but the oldest of us, even at age 2, could sense something had gone wrong. For the rest of our childhood, things seemed to go that way” (quoted in Strauss and Howe 1993:50). Added to this is the growing anti-children mentality of this age, as older Silent generation parents saw the energy and freedom of the younger Boomers and viewed their children as a hindrance. The Xer youth, largely left to their own devices as the young adult Boomers were still in self-absorbed rebellion, grew up very quickly and remained street-smart. Their parents were largely from the Silent generation, and were reacting to their own over-protected and suffocating childhood memories, and therefore they were allowed a bit more latitude and freedom than their over-protected and spoilt next-Elders, the Boomers.

In America, their end birth year is largely agreed as 1981 (Strauss and Howe 1991:317). This is mainly due to the fact that 1982 marks the birth year of those young people who will graduate High School in the year 2000 or later. The ending of the X generation is marked by the start of the next, rather than anything significant of its own. This is, in fact, characteristic of this X generation: They are defined more by what they are not; that is that they are not like their next-elder nor the next-younger generations, than by what they are. They are an enigma to other generations.

In South Africa, Generation X can be loosely defined as all those young people old enough to remember apartheid and be judged by history to have been part of it, and yet not quite old enough to have been involved in any form of struggle on any side of apartheid. White Xers would have just missed out on national service, and black young Xers would not have been old enough to join the school children of 1976 who demanded “liberation before education”. Yet, they have all grown up in the shadow of these events, sensing, as Ellis said above, that “something had gone wrong”. They are now viewed as being culpable and “part of the problem”, even though this may not necessarily be the case. In July 1961, Nelson Mandela persuaded the ANC Executive to form their armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe. This was a turning point for the struggle, as it began the process of armed resistance. This led to the reign of terror - enacted by all sides - that was the defining atmosphere of the mid 1970s onwards. Black young people growing up in this time were much more exposed to the terror and difficulties of the time than their white counterparts. As noted above, the social engineering of apartheid extended the Boomer generation years for white South Africans until about 1970. Young people born after 1970 were forced to deal with the realities of apartheid regardless of their background. In fact, this was the whole purpose of Umkhonto we Sizwe, who wanted to “raise the stakes” in the resistance to apartheid. Thus, in South Africa, non-white young people would probably fall into the Generation X cohort if they were born between 1965 and 1990. White English speaking young people would probably be Generation Xers if born from 1970 to 1990. And white Afrikaans speaking people if born from 1975 to 1990. As always, and especially because of the diversity of South African culture, these are only very broad generalizations, and even then are only likely to apply more closely to urban, middle class communities of all racial groupings.

As young people Xers were expected to grow up quickly. In 1984, psychologist David Elkind wrote that “teenagers are now expected to confront life and its challenges with the maturity once expected only of the middle-aged.... High schools, which were once the setting for a unique teenage culture and language, have become miniatures of the adult community. Theft, violence, sex, and substance abuse are now as common in the high schools as they are on the streets” (1984:3ff.). It is true that in 1999 there are still murders and drugs in schools - the difference is that this is now international headline news, in a new era that is over-concerned for its children. In the Generation X era, it was simply accepted as a given. And worse still, parents do not seem interested in making any changes or providing any direction for their children. Walt Mueller, president of the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding, in his youthculture@2000 magazine (Winter 1995), gave one shocking example:

One of 1993’s most discouraging news stories reported the arrest of nine teenage boys from the middle-class community of Lakewood, California. They called themselves the “Spur Posse.” Described by authorities as “athletes and social climbers”, the boys were nabbed for raping and molesting girls as young as ten years old in a long running competition to amass points for sexual conquests. Some had tallied more than 60 encounters! Surprising and scary. . . but even more frightening are the comments of one father as he defended his son’s actions in court: “Nothing my boy did was anything that any red-blooded American boy wouldn’t do at his age!”

During the 60s and 7