25424 Aldine-Westfield, Spring, TX. 77373

Our congregation Various friends, relatives and co-workers

Our nation, military, and leaders Answered prayers

"’I have the right to do anything,’ you say -- but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ -- but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others" (1 Corinthians 10:23-24).

I am interested in how culture often influences us in all areas of life, but especially as it relates to Christians and the church. There is a view that the church was established in a cultural void and that today we can ignore culture, and for that matter history, and establish the church in some pure sense. Part of the problem with this is the definition of "church." Some seem to forget that the church is people, you and me, who have grown up in an American culture, not a Jewish, Greek or Roman culture. The "church" is not some mystical idea, though when I hear some speak, it appears this is what they are thinking. It is not an institution either, with a board of directors. Rather it is a family that shares joys and sorrows, that has its disagreements but remains together in the common bond found in Christ.

I’m glad to see that the more tradition paper, The Gospel Advocate, had an article on culture and the church. It is entitled "Change Agents,’ and subtitled "Forewarned is forearmed when it comes to those who want to change the church into something other than the New Testament church" by Jay Lockhart (1). The phrase, "change agents" is the new label for those who do not follow long held traditions. Keep in mind that traditions are not wrong in and of themselves but that they can hardened into legal codes and laws, and violating or changing them can be seen as "changing the New Testament church." I do not know Brother Lockhart, his background nor his age. I think he has opened an importance discussion as will be seen below.

Brother Lockhart divides his article into two parts. The first is the cultural influences that has brought us to where we are today and in my mind is an important discussion. He begins by looking at the various generations that still influence us today. The first group he identifies is the builders, those born before 1925 (2). He describes them as "heroes of the war years, uncompromising and self-reliant (which explains why they were more comfortable with human accomplishment than divine grace). The Builders were the backbone of the church during the greatest years of the 1950s and 1960s." There is no doubt that this is true. They also went through the depression years of the 1930s. They are owed a great deal of respect for their sacrifices and their commitment. The war opened up the view that the world is more than the United States and the gospel was for all. Missionaries began to spread out after the war to almost all parts of the world, from Germany and Europe to Japan and Asia (3). It was indeed an exciting time.

Today the Builders are fading away. They hare "ruled" the church since the 1960s and have had trouble passing along or letting go of that rule. There are several reasons for this that I will mention with other generations. Of note however, is that they have lived in the experience of those successful years and cannot accept the fact that culture has changed. As such, their views have hardened into laws. I preached for a congregation that had concern for attendance the entire eleven years I was there. Almost every year, the elders came and said that we needed a sermon or class or article on the importance of attendance. They had always attended every time the door was opened and everyone needs to do what they did. Someone once told me that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing in the same way expecting different results. Rather than asking themselves some tough questions about what was happening, they could only appeal to their own experiences and what they heard in the heyday of the Builder generation.

The next group mentioned is the Silent Generation, born between 1926 and 1945. We could also call this the missing generation. In the middle 1980s, I was in a discussion with some asking why there were no young leaders in this group to become elders. It appeared that an entire generation was missing. While a few would have fought in World War II, most would have been too young. Today, this group would be in retirement and passing along the torch to others as elders.

It is no doubt in my mind that this missing generation has left a gap that has caused problems for the church. When they should have been leaders taking the place of the Builders, they were not there. No one seems to understand why and there hasn’t been much study about this group. When we look at the time frame, they grew up during the depression and war years. Their fathers went off to war, some 12 million of them and their mothers went to work in the factories to support the war. It could be that this had a great impact on them to the point that they were not as involved in church as they should or could have been. Those who I have known in this generation have not been very active. Many have been discouraged by the Builders, turned off because of the control that they find with the Builders. There could be jealousy as well between the two groups.

Following the Silent Generation is the famous or infamous Boomers born between 1945 and 1965. Brother Lockhart describes them as "visionary and idealistic but are also self-centered and arrogant. Many Boomers dropped out of religion (at least 60 percent did), are success oriented, and believe they can change the world." I would agree with this and I think that they picked up some of this from the Builders. Keep in mind, it is the Builders who have been emphasizing attendance and contribution.

The Boomers have been both positive and negative on culture. Radio talk show host Dennis Prager often apologizes for what the Boomers have done to the country. I think there are at least two distinct groups of Boomers. I read a book about fifteen years ago called 1968. The writer examined this year, the year he and I graduated from high school. He grew up in New York and I grew up twenty miles west in New Jersey. Our experiences however were totally different. He saw the liberal, rebellious, anti-war side and I saw the conservative, obedient, and civil side of culture. A number of Boomers were of the drug and free love culture of the 60s, challenging all authority. Others were supportive of government, respectful of people, and willing to serve.

One of the ideas that came out of the boomer generation was to trust no one over thirty. Today these Boomers are now approaching sixty and are paying the price for that philosophy. I think that the Builders heard that and decided that the Boomer generation could not be trusted, hence have been unwilling to let Boomers into the role of elders and do not trust any preacher from that or succeeding generations. Ideas have consequences, especially if they are not carefully examined by all sides.

Today the Boomers continue to question and challenge authority, some of which can be good and some not so good. This has hardened all. The Builders see this as an attack on what they have done and on their beliefs. Their opinions have become "scripture" in their mind and the Boomers are questioning scripture. We will see this when we look at the second part of Brother Lockhart’s article.

The Boomers were followed by the Busters, those born between 1965 and 1981. They have also been called Generation X and the 13^th Generation. Brother Lockhart describes them as having "grown up in a Post-Christian America and are worse off economically than their Boomer parents. They do not believe in the American Dream, distrust politicians, and are cynical about religion." I do not know where he got this from but I do not see them this way. Yes, they did grow up in a Post-Christian America, a cultural shift that has been going on for half a century. When he says that they do not believe in the American dream, distrust politicians and are cynical about religion, we must ask what would cause this and what are we considering in these areas as important (4)? This generation has sought relationships and understand that life is more than money. They have rejected the idea that "greed is good." Modernism with its dependence on reason and science has been found to be lacking in important areas. Many of their parents divorced and they have seen the fragmenting of society. Many Busters have come to realize that fellow Busters died at the hands of abortionists. The feminist movement has degraded males. Politicians talk and promise but vote differently, to the point that one can easily become cynical.

It is in religion that we see where the cynicism is greatest. They do not want to belong to an organization governed by a board of directors. They do not want to attend an institution on Sundays. They want relationships. They are moved by emotions, something one can see when we are to love God with all our "hearts." They see too much hypocrisy in the church and are frustrated by it. They listen to what is preach, read the scriptures, and then see how people treat one another, and they wonder what is going on; and they do not like what they see from the older generations. They want something better and are willing to live on less to attain it. Money is not the answer to problems. What Brother Lockhart sees as a negative I see as a positive.

The last generation is called The Millennials, those born after 1981. Brother Lockhart states that they "belong to the electronic age. Therefore, they must be entertained, are spoiled by their guilt-ridden Boomer parents, and hold the key to the future." That is a rather broad generalization of a generation that is still forming its identity. By belonging to an electronic age doesn’t necessarily mean that they "must" be entertained. While guilt is a problem in some areas of Boomer philosophy, it is not in all. I think this generation holds great potential, again moving away from traditional views and attempting to be more Christ-like, especially in the areas of service. This remains to be seen.

There have been many books written about the generations and brief articles can only highlight certain aspects. It is good to see someone making an effort to explain changes that occurring by using the cultural influences we all live with.

This brings us to the second point of the article. Brother Lockhart moves to the prejudicial term of "change agent" to see what exactly they want to change. He states that "Change agents are calling for change in things that we have considered ‘matters of faith’ and make us a distinct group of people: leadership, authority, worship, women’s roles, biblical authority, the undenominational nature of the church, and the basis of fellowship." These are all challenging areas and many are taking a look at them again. Some are coming to different conclusions. He sees as their goal "to replace the elders and get men who agree with them appointed to the eldership." Strange because I see the same happening with the Builders attempting to find people who agree with them. Both sides play too much church politics and a lack of humility is a cause of concern.

Brother Lockhart lists eight terms that he is concerned about that "change agents" use. Each is a challenge that many are looking at today. The first is "authority." What is authority? Who has it? He claims that change agents deny the authority of both scripture and elders. On elders, most who might "lord it over the church" do not consider that they are doing so but rather that they are obeying God. They have gone so far as to state that we must be obeyed and if you don’t like it you can leave. They ignore concerns that other express as an example of rebellion. Nothing is done unless the elders approve of it. This has caused much harm and discouragement.

The authority of scripture has always been used as an argument against others. What I see is that people are reading scripture and are not seeing what our traditions have held. Jesus made that point a number of times against some of the religious leaders of His day (see Matthew 15). People accept the authority of scripture but read it differently, from a different cultural perspective as seen in the generations. This becomes a challenge. Many appeal to scripture but do not accept old arguments that no longer make sense, especially as the context is looked at. Nadab and Abihu died because they offered "strange fire" but what is not considered is that they were also drunk (see Leviticus 10) (5).

The second word is "pattern." He claims that change agents see no patterns but quoting Paul, we are to hold to the pattern of sound words (2 Timothy 1:13). The question however is what is the pattern that Paul speaks about. We in churches of Christ have attempted to find a pattern for a number of things such as a worship service, the organization of the church, and the plan of salvation. While there is truth in our search, we sometimes miss important aspects. The church isn’t an institution but a family. The plan of salvation should center on what God has done in Christ whereas many want to get to baptism as fast as possible.

Freedom is the third word. "Change agents speak of freedom yet enslave their followers to human reason." I find this interesting considering that our tradition has emphasized logic and the idea that God has given us a mind with which to reason. Now that some are doing it, it becomes "human reason." What is wrong however with freedom? This same argument is being used in other fields. We have academic freedom as long as it agrees with the party line (6). The use of the term "change agent" is a form of this type of attitude that does not want discussion on disputable matters. By contrast, when David Lipscomb was editor of the Gospel Advocate back in the second half of the 19^th Century, he allowed debate in the paper between two different views. That does not happen today.

Grace is the fourth word mentioned. How one defines grace and what role humans play in salvation has been a topic of discussion for many years. This is not a "change agent" thing but is something that we are attempting to come to terms with. If Jesus is the Savior, and we can do nothing to save ourselves, then we are going to have to look at our theology again because we have too often stated that we can play a part in our salvation, therefore Christ’s work on the cross was not final. In a works oriented fellowship, this has become a problem (7).

The fifth word he uses is The Cross. To say that we have always preached the cross is contradicted by the number of tracts I’ve read on the subject. We assumed the cross attempting to move on to other things. The cross indeed calls for commitment, as Brother Lockhart says, but to say that "change agents" forget that is a generalization that has little proof. A number of books in recent years by so-called change agents have called for a return to the preaching of the cross, and these books are not addressing change agents but all preachers.

Six is Jesus, or rather to preach Jesus. Brother Lockhart wants us to keep preaching the commands of Jesus as found in the epistles. What I find interesting is that we have preached the epistles over and over and have tended to ignore the gospels and the Hebrew scriptures. People know the epistles but do not know Christ so as to share in His sufferings (Philippians 3:10-11). That’s not to say that preachers haven’t preached from texts in the gospels but most end up preaching topically rather than contextually.

Number seven is the church. Who makes up the church and what is the extent of fellowship? This is a debate that is currently going on. The early preachers in churches of Christ taught that we were Christians only but not the only Christians. A number of brothers are returning to that idea, though not popular. We have been taught for years that we are the only true Christians and it is difficult for us to look at others differently. This might or might not be good. It will be an ongoing discussion. Our attitudes have not always been good in how we see others. We have seen "good gospel preaching" as baptism, the church, quoting a hundred scriptures in a sermon, and that we are the only right ones and everyone else is wrong. That has lead to misunderstandings and outright hatred by others. We should at least think again how we approach those we disagree with.

The last word is silence. This deals with how we interpret scripture. Silence has often been used to say that if the Bible doesn’t speak to a subject, then we should not do it. However, expediency is an exception to this. For instance, the Bible says nothing about song leaders but since they help us sing better, it is expedient. Yet praise teams are not acceptable for some because the Bible doesn’t say anything about them. Confusing? What has happened in the areas of silence is that if the powers that be do not like something, they appeal to the silence of the scriptures, but if they do like something, then it is expedient. The younger generations get upset because they make the same appeal yet are criticized; so all they see is hypocrisy.

He mentions a number of topics of discussion. Instrumental music has become an issue again. We have a tradition of acappella music, which I think is a valid and important tradition. Over the years we have argued that instrumental music is sinful. I wonder about this, not that I want it in our assemblies. When we realize that the Bible of the first century church was the Old Testament, our arguments against instruments might take a different perspective. That might not have been an issue in the first century because they might or might not have used them, depending on what part of the Roman Empire they were located at.

Another issue is that of the role of women. Again, looking at this and the cultural issues surrounding Corinth and Ephesus, we might come to different conclusions. There should be no fear in studying these issues again. It also doesn’t mean that we will all draw the same conclusion.

Much more could be said. I do appreciate Brother Lockhart’s article and his looking at various cultural issues from generations. Knowing and understanding these can go a long way in working through issues. What we all must understand is that culture is changing, and like it or not, the younger generations will be coming to different conclusions. Keep in mind that at one time the church met all day on Sunday, now we have one or two assemblies. There was probably debate about that. I heard of a church who bought new chairs to replace pews. One group organized them into a circle for the assembly. When the older members saw that they complained that it wasn’t Biblical. The chairs returned to the normal facing front and the younger members began leaving for more thoughtful congregations. Generational differences can and do affect us. An elder who did not like congregational meetings because women could speak complained when one sister stood up and walked along a pew to hand the bread and wine to another sister sitting at the other end. He saw this as usurping authority, though I have no idea what kind of authority that was except his. Generational differences will continue to cause debate. We all need more humility when dealing with them.

Finally, I think that there is a desire by many to go deeper into the Word of God. There are challenging ideas in scripture that many want to look into. There has been a fear, in my opinion, that if we move beyond first principles or the basics, that people will lose their way. But the Hebrew writer challenged Christians to move beyond. We have reasoned ourselves to the point that we have God all figured out rather than realizing that God does what He wants (Psalm 115:3). Many of us believe that God is active in His creation in any number of ways. But that would require us to study texts where God was active. The Gospels and the Old Testament need further study and many want the challenge, though preconceived and traditional ideas will be questioned. There is nothing wrong with that. A number of brothers are moving in that direction though some do not like it. They prefer the safety of the traditional. Hence, the labels that come to those who study and go beyond. This doesn’t mean we agree with them but we should be willing to study and look at things with renewed hope and understanding.

George B. Mearns

(1) Gospel Advocate, April 2008.

(2) Most who study generations will agree with both the terms and dates Brother Lockhart mentions.

(3) Several teachers of mine at the Sunset International Bible Institute were of this generation. The Paden brothers went to Italy, Richard Baggett to Japan, Tex Williams and Abe Lincoln to South Africa. Otis Gatewood lead the efforts in a war torn Germany. Many others could be included in this period of time.

(4) Why is the American dream important to Christianity? I am thankful for our nation and the freedoms we have but is this the good news we want to present? Here we see a cultural influence on Biblical thinking, something some deny.

(5) I think that some of our interpretation of scripture has been influenced by translations that have each verse of the Bible as a separate sentence with no paragraphs; this would include the King James, American Standard and New American Standard versions. As such, people have tended to ignore context and sought similar ideas of a verse to draw a conclusion.

(6) See Expelled: The Movie and last weeks bulletin article.

(7) Grace is God giving us what we need, not what we deserve.