WHO YOU CALLING TRADITIONAL?

After commenting on Rick Davis’ excellent post called Heroes: I Try One More Time last week, I thought I would like to expand on my comment. I would encourage you to read Rick’s post before reading this one.

Rick spoke of the greatest generation being those who were born during the Great Depression and are usually referred to as “Traditionals” by the trend plotters and demographers.

Generally speaking, attempts to classify people according to their age and biases rings somewhat hollow to me. We live in a time when three great generations are in confluence (really probably four), and the resulting conflicts are numerous. It is tempting to want to chalk up all conflict to this confluence of generations and their differing priorities.

However, many of us who are older are a bit tired of being lumped in generalized categories and assuming that just because we are of a certain generation that we can be expected to always think and act a certain way.

The term “Greatest Generation” was coined by Tom Brokaw in a book by that same name. These people were not born during the depression, but during the twenties. Brokaw’s premise was that these folks who fought WW II were the greatest generation. I certainly do not argue with that premise, but do argue that they were born during the depression. We did not enter WW II until 1941, and to have fought in that war in that year a person would have had to have been born in 1923 or earlier.

So, what are we who actually were born in the Great Depression? Some have called us “Builders”, others have called us troublemakers. Rick referred to us as “Traditionals”. To quote him, “The Traditionals fear that conformity will be lost is deeper than the old songs in the church. Traditionals fear that the end of conformity to their standards will render their cultural contribution less meaningful.”

There are many of us out here, born in the thirties, but more than willing to move into the twenty-first century with the best of them. I don't think the way I think because of the year I was born, but because of years of learning and seeking to apply what I have learned. I am always going to resist doing things I have seen fail numerous times before.

A lot of younger ministers would do well to listen to those who have seen and done many of the things some want to do today, and seen them fail. Continuing to try to do failing things is insanity. Likewise, refusing to do things that have been successful through the years because “the times are different” seems a bit of folly. That is why I resist, not because I was born in 1934. We need to be very careful that we don't take at face value what demographers continue to say and write. We should be very careful trying to explain church dynamics according to the year people are born. We don't all fit into those molds.

I have been in churches with large numbers of these so-called traditionals”, although not a majority. While some of them seem a bit stuck in their way of doing things, I have found most of them to be more than willing to change and to allow changes.

Frankly, I have seen a lot of conflict in churches where a majority of members fit in the gen-x mold, but they argue continually over how best to do church.

People will always find reason to disagree and generational differences will certainly account for some of these. However, it would be foolish to assume that every church with a confluence of generations will continually fight just because of this confluence.

Generalizations are dangerous.