A Chosen Generation

“Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we’ve ever known.” – Ronald Reagan

How much do we really understand about our times? What about the times of our fathers, or our grandfathers? You might be a history enthusiast who can analyze and articulate the era of Lincoln, the War to End all Wars, the intricacies of the Reformation, or the distinctions between the American and French Revolutions. Perhaps you have clear insights and experiences from the last 50 years, including knowledge of the political landscape, the church’s successes and failures, and the economy’s rise and fall, along with insights into what should have happened.

By examining what has happened in each generation, in its context, we come to understand perspectives unique to that era. It helps us understand where we have been and what direction to pursue. Ultimately, when we examine our culture, we need to develop an understanding of our world grounded in values and truth. Culturally, there is a push to influence society, but in a self-centered culture, we are often inundated with opinions, exaggeration, and information overload rather than insight, wisdom, or truth. One of the central questions before us is how to engage people of different generations amidst a polarized society and the relativism that dominates our age.

As we begin this endeavor, it is good to comprehend the basis of knowledge that exists today. As we seek truth, we have to be realistic about what is objective and what subjective perspectives our culture clings to. As a point of engagement, this is often where the discussion begins with those who do not have a worldview that incorporates a Biblical perspective. There is purpose in engaging across generations, but it is not solely to build bridges, motivate discussion, or plan for legacy within society, an organization, or a family. For many, the path of purpose does not always lead to the conclusion they were looking for; it frequently opens up a variety of rabbit trails to follow, and they find themselves more distracted and confused than when they started.

As people in a particular time and culture, we often look to the future, what it will be, and how we will live in it. We look at the structures, the nations, the economies, and the social fabric. As believers in Christ, we also look at what God is doing, where His purpose lies, and the call to go and make disciples. This is the question of all generations, in the hope of the Kingdom of God. How do we reach the next generation, discipling others who will make disciples, should the Lord tarry in his return beyond our own time on Earth? Rather than chasing the rabbit trails, it is a worthy endeavor to see to understand more than be understood. But, as we will see with generational differences, that can be a complicated undertaking.

To begin the discussion, let’s talk about distinctions in generations and how some of those differences are playing out in the 21^stcentury. Generational theory is a distinctive approach to understanding the transition that underlies cultural movements. Many efforts at historical insight take philosophical, economic, or political approaches as primary influences. When we use sociology and anthropology as our framework, we often move away from the ideological leaders of movements and examine actual transitions among people. As with the truth within a Biblical worldview (which is foundational to understanding reality), we need a basis for understanding to create “truth-oriented” moorings for these discussions. While philosophy and psychology can offer insight into abstractions and critical theories, sociology and anthropology can provide a foundation of evidence-based research that can be compared and contrasted to yield more concrete results. Their strengths lie in their ability to isolate inside of a time and place, speaking to a people, a cultural moment, or a specific perspective within the context of societal values. This makes for a more objective discussion, where we can engage with ideas through historical research that informs many of the cultivated feelings, values, and thoughts that exist.

One complication of using philosophical or psychological historical approaches is that contemporary bias can be infused into historical reality and used as “interpretation.” An example of this is from Howard Zinn, who undertook a complete reframing of history in his postmodern critique of patriarchal history. He ultimately applied ethnocentric psychology to philosophy and politics, to tell a fictitious story of “oppressed people,” and deconstructed views of historical personas and events. What we learn from his work is that bias in critique operates in the same way as bias in scientific endeavor. Like Robert Jastrow (who concluded that the scientific efforts of his astronomer counterparts had ceased seeking the culmination of evidence and had begun trying to prove their preconceived bias), we must approach understanding humanity and the transition across generations through reality rather than illusion. We must see what is and validate truth rather than see what is possible, and fabricate impetus.

In the 21^st century, metamodernism is coming of age. To avoid the same mistakes of postmodern criticism (extreme relativism, nuanced semantics, and self-centered interpretations of reality), we must preserve the moorings of truth that have been absolute, particularly those rooted in a Biblical worldview. Rather than applying critical theories that ethnocentrically judge people by current modes of thinking, we must understand cause and effect across time and culture, ultimately acknowledging an authoritative truth that stands independent of relativism. This is particularly important as we endeavor to validate (or name) current moments in our experience and address the potential crises ahead. It is what distinguishes banal talking points for the sake of perspective from authoritative discourse that can foster unity through understanding rather than partisan division based on subjective realities.

As we look at generational theory, the works of William Strauss and Neil Howe are essential sources for understanding the cyclical elements of cultural change and the distinctive patterns of thought that trickle down to contemporary consensus. Strauss’ theory involves four “turnings”: a high, an awakening, an unraveling, and a crisis. The high is a time of idealism, a period of confident expansion, that is fully revealed in the awakening. The awakening is a reactive period in which autonomy and rebellion develop values that mature in the unraveling. The unraveling gives rise to individualism, fragmentation, and despair within societal structures, culminating in crisis. The crisis becomes a highly adaptable (or destructive) period where moorings are reestablished or rebuilt to usher in a new high time (which is often seen as utopianism when reality does not meet the vision). While this theory of turnings has been observed cyclically across four generational increments (particularly in American Western Generational Markers), it has also had periods of overlap in which multiple turnings could be interpreted as occurring simultaneously.

When Strauss published his work on The Fourth Turning, he stated that “America feels like it is unraveling.” While some may take this as emblematic of reality, there is a truth to that interpretation. It comes from the idea that many approach Western ideas through their own personal truth constructs, and that a felt reality of stark change characterizes today’s America compared with 30 years ago. To reframe Strauss’s comment about the unraveling of America in the correct sense, he stated that America is actually experiencing cultural tension stemming from the rise of individualism. America is indeed unraveling (in the description of turnings), but we have been in that era several times over the last 75 years, depending on your age, stage, and generation (well before he articulated the theory). Regardless of perspective, examining generational theory through the Strauss-Howe method reveals consistent patterns in sociological values across the American landscape. We observe a rise of ideas, an awakening of opportunity, a reaction to change, a dismissal of reality, and an effort to redefine purpose at a rinse, wash, repeat level across differing groups within the culture.

While there has been consistency in patterns of change, the ideas of Western Christian Paideia and Judeo-Christian morality have remained at the forefront of societal influence, particularly in the American West, and across generational shifts. While some have embraced secular humanism in an effort to replace it, a faith-based moral and ethical compass persists, even among people who hold only a nominal or cultural commitment to Christian values. The metamodern reality, as a result, is less combative with modernity than with postmodernism. It sees the values of religion as acceptable as a personal truth, as long as it does not infringe upon another’s personal truth. Prior to the elevation of metamodernism, secular humanism was being uplifted as the new priesthood of global progressivism. Social commentary promoting a societal condition of “post-Christian” or “post-authoritative truth” was elevated (even by Christians) as a cultural reality and a basis of interaction. Unfortunately for those efforts, over sixty percent of Americans still identify as “Christian,” even only at a nominal level. It makes for cultural discussions that leave the power of transformative truth in order to architect an influence or interaction point over the subjective illusion that holds sway in the world. Functionally, this effort often keeps much of the discussion of generational transition within the bounds of relativism, adherence to philosophical thought movements, or engagement with self-centric identity constructs, rather than presenting the reality of absolute truth amid the age’s illusion.

When we consider what defines a generation, we examine the ideas and key events that shape it. It requires us to be more specific about each stage of generation, rather than apply blanket assertions. This can be complicated when more people assert their views on the history of the movement rather than the actual summary of it. This is the place where 21st-century metamodernism can get a little lost in the postmodern critique and in the application of critical theories that have defined movements of cultural behavior. When we look downstream from this effort, we see an educated populace that parrots the relativism produced by the education system, rather than the engagement with truth that the Western Christian Paideia has upheld for over a millennium. In response, we see an explosion of information, largely fueled by opinion, communicated as essential for our existence in contemporary culture.

Take the onset of a 24-hour news channel as a perfect example of a cultural influence. We went from only needing an hour at 6 o’clock for news (along with a morning paper) to feel informed about the world around us, to multiple 24-hour news networks (broadcasting 365 days a year) to engage all the needed content. The amount of superfluous information needed to do that is astounding. It is a clear picture of information oversaturation that has not made us closer, wiser, more informed, more united, or better equipped to face the challenges of our time, culture, or the global community. What it did do was emphasize that assertion was more important than truth.

As a result, we have become a society of armchair intellectuals, engaged with hot-topic media rather than the underlying structures of what is truly happening. It is fertile soil for sowing seeds of disinformation and ethnocentric perspectives about others, outside any objective reality. In a generational context, we blur the lines of influence rather than understanding social movements in situ. Understanding reality helps us avoid becoming lost in the relativism of personal experience or propaganda. Context is essential, particularly as we incorporate the influence of modernity, postmodernism, and metamodernism, along with the transition periods between them, into our cultural assessments.

This complicates believers’ efforts to speak the truth as it interacts with contemporary culture, but it is also why generational understanding can be so helpful. We know that clear influences have been at play in different time periods, but we also know that the principalities and powers that the Apostle Paul spoke of have been at work throughout all generations. After all, generational influence isn’t the power that supports a Biblical worldview; the truth known only in the God of the Universe is. Generational influence has had religious people arguing over apostolic authority since Peter and Paul disagreed about the influence of the Judaizers. If we are going to engage with the truth and have it set us free, we need to be forthright about reality as it truly is and assess generational transitions according to the values of the culture in which they exist.

Before we go any further, let’s get practical about the designations of generations and their transitions. We can see both traditional generational markers and subculture markers in the chart below: